As a teacher, though, my first thought is that Lucas should have immediately told the other teachers / director of the kindergarten what happened with her kissing him and the heart. It's *so* important to protect yourself as a teacher by making sure that everyone is on the same page, and keeping conversation open so that if allegations come up they're squashed.
I do think that after the US preschool witchhunt of the '90s, and the actual case this was based on (also in the 90's) that teachers are more aware of how quickly rumors can turn to being fired and worse.
With the idiocy of Grethe (sp?) I don't know if it would have helped in this case, but I'm curious as to others' thoughts!
Great film. *beep* painful to watch (I so badly wanted to turn it off) but man.
Lucas is shown as borderline retarded when confronted by the director. His behaviour is worth of Charlie Babbit from Rain Man.
All he had to do was stand up for himself and demand the problem be revealed and solved immediately. Instead, he goes back home with his tail between his legs, completely in the dark as to what he's even accused of.
Ruined an otherwise excellent film for me and my lady. Too bad, as we were really enjoyin it.
If a mere ACCUSATION or SUSPICION of something like this is able to destroy a person and their reputation so much, how on Earth do ACTUAL offenders in THIS day and age able to carry out their deeds and get away with it?
(Beyond the very OBVIOUS fact that the difference is we hate the person in such scenario if he's guilty and emphasize with him if he is innocent.)
Come to really think of it, with it often being hard to prove, how can we tell in which case someone is guilty and in which one isn't?
In famous cases - was Michael Jackson guilty or innocent of the deed that he was accused of doing?
Was Roman Polanski? OK - there seems to be far more evidence these days that really does suggest Polanski is guilty. Jackson on the other hand was proven innocent at least once in court.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
The guilty ones have to confess. Only then can the defendant be considered guilty in my eye. Jailing a man who continuously professes his innocence, based on flimsy evidence, is not the way to go. Of course, that happens in the real world, and it sickens me when I see stories in the news like the one depicted in the documentary Un Coupable Ideal (a.k.a. Murder On A Sunday Morning). In an ideal world, one should need a non coerced confession, like Polanski freely admitted to have had sex with the underage girl (although, in that case, I thought she was as culpable as he was because she stripped naked and drank alcohol and nobody forced her to do so).
Michael Jackson confessed to at least having slept in the same bed with the kid that accused him, and more. In those cases, I think that the judge should pass a sentence. Not without a confession. Unless of course there's undeniable evidence like photos or tapes or a 100% reliable witness.
Back to Jagten, here lies the problem with Lucas: his reaction to the accusation is inhuman. He takes the accusation of paedophilia like I would take being accused of staling candy from the grocery store. Not even! I would be far more outraged than Lucas if I was accused and knew inside my heart that I did not steal the candy. It would probably end up in a fight and with me spending a few hours in jail for assault, if I was repeatedly accused of stealing candy that I never stole.
Lucas just sits back passively and takes the town's venom blow by blow since day one, and all he does is walk around looking victimized. Watch Capturing The Friedmans. A real-life account on how a true sexual predator will continue to fight for his freedom, and with his family's help try to lessen his sentence, even after the whole nation has heard his confession to being a paedophile. See the difference? It's called self preservation, we all have it in us. But Lucas has not an ounce of it. That deters from the film's final achievements, and quite a lot, because it twists human behaviour and plays with it, fleshes out characters that don't behave naturally and don't seem sincere, all for the sake of jerking a tear.
Acting outraged would not help your case. You thinking that acting outraged would make your case better is asinine. I more often heard from others, that they would believe a calm person more than the ones who act outraged under accusations, because the guilty ones are the ones that panic more easily.
Also, you didn't take into account that the culture and norm in Sweden are different than in your country. Especially in small towns. I think this is a big flaw in your logic. I, for one, wouldn't make such presumptions on what would or wouldn't work in such situation.
Personally, I think Lucas held his character really well. As a mature person, and a teacher, he acts calmly to such accusation. At times, he showed courage and dignity as well. Just like the scene in the supermarket.
If a mere accusation or suspicion of something like this is able to destroy a person and their reputation so much, how on Earth do actual offenders in THIS day and age able to carry out their deeds and get away with it?
Because child abuse isn't the only crime that they'll commit. They'll commit murder, conspiracy, extortion, tyranny, treason and terrorism to cover their tracks. Often very powerful people protect them. It's all about power, and people in general go after easy targets (easy victims or easy perpetrators), whilst cowering before tyrants. Once in a while, the good guys pursue a hard target.
Come to really think of it, with it often being hard to prove, how can we tell in which case someone is guilty and in which one isn't?
We could set a trap, but there are context in which that would be abusive toward whomever is used as bait. Usually there is more than one victim.
In famous cases - was Michael Jackson guilty or innocent of the deed that he was accused of doing?
Well, it's rather clear that he exposed his privates, whether deliberately or accidentally (or unknowingly), to underage minors. The idea that he had inappropriate physical contact with any of the suspected victims was counteracted by testimonies in his favor, on top of there being no hard evidence against him. We're talking about a very influential man, though. It was well within his ability to compromise the testifiers, but to the United States' credit, there is no or almost no other country in which the corruption is harder to carry out. And then look at his death. He is so popular that everybody was looking for somebody to put on the hook for his death. Talk about being influential.
Was Roman Polanski?
It would seem that he sodomized that underage girl, possibly having gotten her tipsy beforehand. The thing is, there are no strong indications that he exhibited a pattern of this behavior toward underage minors, so it's fine for to be handled in civil court. Nevertheless punishable offenses were committed, the justice system snubbed.
reply share
Lucas is shown as borderline retarded when confronted by the director. His behaviour is worth of Charlie Babbit from Rain Man.
All he had to do was stand up for himself and demand the problem be revealed and solved immediately. Instead, he goes back home with his tail between his legs, completely in the dark as to what he's even accused of.
Ruined an otherwise excellent film for me and my lady. Too bad, as we were really enjoyin it.
You have no idea how you'd react if such an accusation is made.
I don't see how him reacting differently would have mattered. The school lady shut every attempt he made at inquiry down. At that point his options were limited. You say he could have demanded the problem be revealed, but he had already asked that question and been rebuffed. Sure he could continue to demand it and the school lady would continue to say no. All that's accomplished in that scenario is he's shown his unwillingness to take no for an answer, which is obviously not a good look.
If the girl had told her parents what she told the school lady perhaps he had a shot to get out of it mostly unscathed. Since it was a 3rd party (and a moronic one at that), who immediately brought in another moron, who also believed only the lies, it was over for him.
What, you're afraid my reply will kill your last remaining neuron? Shut up and never even think again of telling me what I can and cannot do on these boards, you pompous idiot. I bet in real life you're living under everyone's thumb. How sad.
Last time I forgot to say that he could have called the police himself, explaining the situation and waiting in the school, simply refusing to leave. The other people present have no authority over a police matter, and couldn't force him out, or remove him from the premises. Again, the outcome of the dispute would remain uncertain, but this would show a man standing up for himself, which is way more relatable to me than anyone acting all submissive like Lucas.
When you are accused of such a heinous crime the last people you want to get 'wind of' the situation is the police. In fact you are probably just hoping the truth comes out naturally and it all goes away.
As a man who has spine and will stand up for himself when needed, I can somewhat relate to Lucas. I was once brought into a group of counselors at a summer camp where I was accused of dunking a child underwater for an extended period of time while playing water sports. I was speechless. I did not do it. However, I did ask who saw me do it and the counselor admitted that it was her. I told her I didn't do it, but for the most part I was speechless. Thinking back on it, had I been thinking logically, I would have asked more questions and told them all straight up that it wasn't me and that they shouldn't believe this. But instead, I was heartbroken that someone could accuse me of this and that just from this accusation, my whole reputation destroyed at the camp. I couldn't do anything. I felt powerless. After this, most of the staff looked at me differently and some wouldn't even acknowledge my presence. This film brought back real emotions that I felt. Even though Lucas may have seemed like a pussy from the beginning, you can't imagine what it is like when you are being accused of something and nothing will change that person's choice on their thoughts of your guilt.
The problem this criticism is it ignores his character as presented in the film.
It's all well and good to say he should've been more assertive and stood up for himself but look at his personality!
The film goes to some length to show he is somewhat reclusive, quiet, shy, doesn't stand up to his wife for custody of his son, has to be wooed by Nadje because he's not going to make the first move and apparently gets along better with kids than adults.
The reality is that this could happen to anyone but only if people allow suspicion, mistrust and accusations to cloud their judgement. In a small community life isn't possible without trust...
As a teacher, though, my first thought is that Lucas should have immediately told the other teachers / director of the kindergarten what happened with her kissing him and the heart.
He wasn't privy to the identity of his accuser. For all he knew, it could have been one of the boys. By telling the director about the heart, he would only seem like he knew there's something going on between him and Klara. Which would only strengthen Grethe's prejudice against him.
It's not easy to dismiss people's prejudice. It's always much harder than you think.
reply share
I was saying that on the day it happened he should have immediately talked to the other teacher. If a student were to kiss me and give me a heart I would immediately tell the other teachers to be proactive.
You and the various responders seem to be missing the point of the movie. It wasn't made to show how one might avoid what Lukas experienced, it was made to show how easily a good person can be damaged by others who react rather than seek the truth. How the combination of two or more seemingly unrelated events can crush a person.
..*.. TxMike ..*.. Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes not.
Klara is a child, his best friend daughter at that, do you think he would tell the teacher about his best friend daughter kisses him, on the mouth or what not?
Children are innocent, and they can misunderstand rather easily. It's logical to think that the teacher would dismissed the action as another innocent misunderstand by a child.
Since everyone has the preconscious thought that child is innocent, do you think Tyree teacher could do anything to defend himself? No, especially since the accuser is a child, there would be mass of mob with their mob mentally seeking to burn him at stake, as depicted in the movie.
As for another poster, how shallow and ignorance can you be to not being able to acknowledged the perspective of some other person? This is even more true if the other lives in another state, country, region etc. Cultural difference, geographical difference, upbringing difference.
Not so sure it's preventable in todays society. Either way I'm not risking it so I tend to ignore children completely and stay away from them as much as possible. I wouldn't be able to go through what this character went through.
As a teacher, though, my first thought is that Lucas should have immediately told the other teachers / director of the kindergarten what happened with her kissing him and the heart. It's *so* important to protect yourself as a teacher by making sure that everyone is on the same page, and keeping conversation open so that if allegations come up they're squashed.
It's dependent on the culture, and how said culture is able to accept change. Lucas seeked and followed a profession traditionally reserved for women, making him a minority member, especially among kindergarten teachers. Although the film carries an universal message, it is also very much about Danish life. Many of us do look up to how progressive Northern Europe is in terms of childcare, it's also true, all of them have strong conservative roots too, like, not having a separation of church and state, and as recently as a few months back, one Danish minister (who is also a priest) advocated for the public doubt of evolution. So, the town's microcosm exists within such boundaries.
I do think that after the US preschool witchhunt of the '90s, and the actual case this was based on (also in the 90's) that teachers are more aware of how quickly rumors can turn to being fired and worse.
I'm glad you mentioned the precursor, as many of the commenters seem to view Klara's statement as a lie, instead of a confabulation, which is very common in children of that age. Technically she hasn't lied about not understanding, why Lucas rejected the kiss on the mouth, a common practice in their family, and she hasn't lied about seeing an erect... only the combination coupled with leading questions led to the results. This is where we enter minefield territory. Very recently, Eurobarometer did a research on how sexual assault is being viewed, how people condemn or condone it, and I'll be diplomatic here, it was, to me at least, not surprising. People asked in the culture I grew up in think, that inappropriately touching a coworker is bad, but shouldn't be persecuted. They also think, the majority of sexual assault happens in a public place, perpetrated by someone we don't know. In contrast, most Western and Northern Europeans have correctly identified (in correlation with actual criminal data), that sexual assault happens in a familiar place by someone we know familiarly.
Even if Grethe had told him it was Klara, any action trying her to retract it would fall in line with actual abusers intimidating their victims, especially if they're at a young and impressionable age. The ugly truth is, very often the public view is condemnation of the victim, and ways to justify how they themselves are responsible, instead of punishing the abuser. As a consequence, when men fall victim of it, they're being seen as losers, wimps, or if it's statutory rape by an older woman, "you're the man!" Grethe is of a previous generation, who is driven by the same conservative sentiment of strict gender roles, and at best stood neutral on having a man employed with kindergartners.
However, since it wouldn't have flown with the message of story, to answer your question, yes it is preventable, namely at the very beginning. Pedophiles and child molesters are psychopaths, who are, unlike sociopaths, unable to keep a long composure of decency, and several markers in deep interviews reveal their actual nature, preventing them from getting jobs, as a teacher to young children. The problem is, that people tasked with menial jobs do not go through such thorough grill, and can get a job as a janitor, if they had not been found out yet as sexual predators. Instead of wild accusations, we can build actual judgment on the fact, that such predators do not evolve sexually on a mental level past the age of 13, so in their minds, they're not creepy adults seeking out innocence, but fellow preadolescent teenagers looking for love. Yes, writing that down made me threw up, like Grethe, but that's how they exist, and I'm not compassionate with them, but I also wouldn't turn vigilante and kill a dog.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.
reply share
2 debre - although your post is thought provoking and well written indeed, some of the stuff said in it makes me at times personally wonder if we as human beings even have a right to live anymore if in a civilized society such ordinary people REALLY think and act that way.
It makes me wonder why such sick society cannot just be CURED so that we could get done with stereotypes and mass flaws of individuals just like that easily - or maybe its sadly natural animal human instincts and no law, civilized society and the amounts of positive messages it sends can change it?
I wonder if it all really is unique to sexually violent issues though - many say yes.
But then again, people all over the world are murdered everyday too, often for absolutely NO justifiable reason whatsoever.
Then again, if so many ACTUAL abusers in such cases get away with it and live with it easily on their conscience, besides the fact that they SHOULDN'T, how come when a mere ACCUSATION as such is made against someone who is totally INNOCENT, it not ONLY doesn't mean they have "nothing to worry about" but are destroyed thoroughly?
I mean, I know we don't live in a perfect world (sadly) and scratch that - our world has always been full of evil, trouble, despair, pain, misery and death - that's just the way it is no doubt about it.
But based on a lot of stuff you wrote - it often seems that there may not really be any REAL good people either and no REAL solution to our constant serious problems? And sometimes, like here, innocent people end up suffering by mistake.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
Then again, isn't it true that sadly, human nature is as such that, no matter how liberal and tolerant the state and society may be, humans will ALWAYS find something to conflict about and fight over - and that a lack of conservatism would never mean that all of a sudden, human beings will start to live in harmony?
And on a different and possible other side as well - what if we actually FOUND a cure for pedophilia and perpetuation of ANY kind of sexual violence and employed it in the society with a degree far more effective than anyone in "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) ever DREAMED of?
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
2 debris - would you also or INSTEAD, say, NOT turn vigilante and kill the ACTUAL suspect/person even if you KNEW he was guilty of something like this or was REALLY certain?
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
To make matters worse, the very recent Norwegian police sting, that caught teachers and politicians in its dragnet (and much of the discussion alone, what they had among themselves is stomach turning), but I still don't view the world as such a downer.
Most of us doesn't have such desires, and when we are able to overcome our subjective moral judgment, we can run this place as it is intended. It's a returning question, why guilty people are let off the hook, it's because we must err on the side of caution, if we have to err.
The community depicted in the movie was very close to each other, and lacked the patience to see beyond protect the children at all costs. The perfect cautionary tale, where the evil isn't a person, but our own shortcomings. Still, we have changed compared to 2 centuries ago, where abuse, assault and discrimination was commonplace, and as ridiculous as it may sound, we all learn from fairy tales or young adult novels, take for example how Harry Potter has reduced learned racism in readers, or how Katniss' decision was justified, as they could choose between a fascist and a Marxist dictator, so she killed directly and indirectly both.
What we civilians can do, no matter, who the victim is, is not to blame them. Both Lucas and Klara fell victim to circumstances beyond their control while the others played the Telephone Game.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.
I'm not too sure what the recent Norwegian thing was all about, but I will look into it.
You say that after all that both you and I have described the world is still not such a downer, that life is worth living and that humanity overall is worth saving rather than destroying?
I think there is MORE to the fact that guilty perpetrators, in THESE cases AND others, get away with it, sometimes they can be clever, manipulative and calculating enough, heck, I've seen it happen in cases that even include murder as well. And how, and woud it REALLY even PREVENT guilty people getting away if we "erred" on the side of caution much more often?
By the way, as bad and wrong as it was, would it be CORRECT to say that the main reason WHY abuse, violence, torture etc was far more common centuries ago is because humans were not DEVELOPED morally enough yet and were just like animals and hunter gatherers but with opposable thumbs and brain but without any feel for need to use it wisely save for self preservation here and there?
With regards to community and it going too far in their "protect their children at all costs" - mode, that is in itself NOT a bad thing in any way, but one of the flaws here made us ask - isn't it just as important as to how these matters are HANDLED so that no MISTAKES are made and that no innocent people suffer either? Which meant that - wouldn't it be better if the matter was handled, however legitimate, with competence and APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES so as to BOTH protect the innocent AND punish the REAL offenders if necessary when APPROPRIATE?
Sort of how, to defend one's self against an invading force BUT not kill any wrong people EITHER. Isn't THAT partially why, regardless of how often they are ineffective, we GENERALLY have police, courts and laws that also don't allow us to turn vigilantes and punish offenders as we see fit - not to mention, we may end up hurting those who haven't done anything too horrible IN THE FIRST PLACE?
And this whole "victim blaming" thing, especially when it is said that it is so common and ordinary people do it rather than mere sociopaths and psychopaths with violent tendencies, unpleasant faces and that cold and distant look in their eyes cause they are nothing but evil who enjoy hurting people for their own sadistic sake, often doesn't make too much sense and we never really say WHY it happens besides identifying that IT happens and that it is WRONG but people apparently do it all the time.
And of course I would NEVER blame ANY victim in any case scenario if I knew completely that in certain situations they were either hurt of falsely accused but were innocent.
But it seems apparently it is in our veins and blood and animal instincts and that in reality, we can't all "do" that EITHER.
Having said that, I don't think that even if I KNEW for the life of me someone around me has done something so unforgiveable and terrible, that I could hurt or kill a person like that - I don't think I have it in me.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
I'm not too sure what the recent Norwegian thing was all about
This case is just horrible and I can't imagine how people can be like that.
It was a large group of men from every educational level, craftsmen, lawyers, bankers, digerati, etc who talked in the dark net about molesting kids, shared kid porn and one even fantasized about molesting his own child as soon as it would be born. Makes me sick to think about it.
I'm not supporting death penalty but those people belong behind bars for life and I don't care if it is in jail or an asylum as long as they never get free. Because they should never get the opportunity to come near kids again. Ever.
… sometimes one life… If it’s the right life… That’s enough. Goodbye, Harold." John Reese reply share
From the standpoint of criminal psychology, one contributing factor to a criminal's success is the ignorance or feigned interest of the community, and after the fact, they describe shock and surprise, as they would have never thought about the person. Sure, keeping to yourself in itself is never a bad trait, me being an example of it, but sometimes it goes as far as not knowing anything about the person. Unlike psychopaths, sociopaths are perfectly capable to slip into a human role, and can trick very good experts, however, among the sexual abusers, child molesters don't form a majority, nor do all of them form rings like the one I linked, for one simple reason: most of the abuse, like the one they feared in this movie (though it did not happen) centers around a familiar subject over an extended time period. Much depends on the internal dynamic of a marriage, as we do retain some of our heightened danger receptors from the stone age, so the mothers are especially the ones who sense the ones not to be trusted.
Parents form a family, a family forms a tribe we now call community. Could we have technology, that highlights abnormal brain activity, and thus single out possible perpetrators? Yes, it's a scientific fact, that sexual and violent criminals have abnormal brain activity. We just have 2 major problems.
The first one is technical, medical imaging can sometimes malfunction, so such a procedure, much like the confirmation of cancer would need a 2-step verification.
The bigger problem is the second one: human societal morality trails behind technological advancement, is a fragile concept (just throw populism into the mix to see how fragile it is), and as such, we are past the point of the Tuskegee Experiments or the Nuremberg Laws. If we were to erect a system where people with abnormal brain activity (like a shrunken morality center) would be placed in preemptive protective custody, the moral implications are a plenty. First, simply violent staff would abuse people, second, the enormous strength of checks and balances it would need, third, it could slump into foregoing verification and just plain throw people in there whom we suspect. As they say, the worst things come from the best intentions.
Yes, we should care about each other more, but the best we can do is hope a community forms that way. I would like to dream, miscarriages of justice only happen with lack of education, except that's sadly untrue. People coming close to the thin red line separating the genius from the mad are more prone to be both very logical, but also prone to fringe ideas, sometimes only because they don't want to accept reality.
The methods we do have in place are sufficient, the failures come with a bang, as those people either weren't subjected to deep psychological interviews or could game the system. Yet, it is our own attention that places high importance on it, which is vital, just not up to a point, where it falls victim to the just or unjust world fallacy. It is no life to be lived, if we constantly think about what could harm us, we would dig a hole, and stay there.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Esher.
The ugly truth is, very often the public view is condemnation of the victim, and ways to justify how they themselves are responsible, instead of punishing the abuser
This is so true and it worries me to no end. There was recently a public opinion poll and 10% of the respondents think it's the victim's fault if for example a woman is on her own at night/ dresses sexy or is drunk. It's alarming. I can't remember what was said about children.
… sometimes one life… If it’s the right life… That’s enough. Goodbye, Harold." John Reese reply share
Does anyone know WHY it happens though and why do people do NOTHING about it in our world besides acknolwledging its existence?
Oh man - its like we will NEVER ever live in harmony with ourselves and each other.
But is vigilante justice, like you see in SOME movies by the way from a justifiable perspective like "Death Wish" and all really the answer in OUR world?
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
Then again, there were plenty of ordinary people who actually thought Hitler was doing the right thing or that Napoleon was a hero - having killed plenty and even millions of people, so as shocked as I am at all that, I'm not really that surprised.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
And 2 debris - what you described recently in your technological ideas sound indeed a lot like a fascinating rerun of the "Ludovico treatment" techniques seen in Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) - cause even there, with the best intentions, not all went to plan.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
Yes, if you are a male teacher the first thing to do is cover your own ass otherwise you WILL end up like Lucas. This is the culture we got from believing every accusation without proof.
If teachers are more aware of it now, its only to make use of it to get rid of unwanted colleagues. The situation actually got worse since the 90s.