Peoples Faces Lie
Hard Candy – The only thing for which I am certain about this film is that I am not certain about anything. It can be easy to make judgments about the two lead characters in the film (magnificently played by Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page), but the assumptions underlying those judgments are almost entirely speculative. Arguments, I feel, could be made in any and all directions. Insinuations abound, but real evidence is lacking. Perhaps Hard Candy is just a cinematic Rorschach test. It also invokes the role and effectiveness of torture. You may only get the answers you want, not necessarily any truth. At any rate, its ambiguity is a real strength for which writer Brian Nelson and director David Slade deserve full credit. Additionally, the lighting and coloring effects were a nice touch. I think I’d have to watch through the movie a few more time before I could ascertain whether or not those effects revealed any “truth” or simply belied it.
The more I think about this movie, the more I like it.
You may think this is a stretch, but after having seen this film now about 3-4 times with different people, Jared’s/Tyler’s/Wes’/my interpretation is that Hayley is actually an angel of vengeance/justice. Seriously.
You never know her name. You never know who she really is. Her character’s real identity is vague as can be. She is sent to do justice by tormenting and ultimately leading this guy to kill himself (she repeatedly says that she’s “not going to do that” in reference to killing him). She makes him kill himself. Free will. Even though she takes him all of the way there and lies to him to get him to do it.
Thus, her being an angel of vengeance or justice. She is extremely brutal to him, but does she ever really cross the line? She even says something like “you think this is torture? You should read the human rights violations. This is NOTHING.” This is all consistent with her being an angel.
Also, “I am every little girl you ever watched, touched, hurt, screwed, killed.” Who is she? That’s the fascinating question for me… not whether or not he did the things he is accused of… to me, it seemed very clear that he did in fact do almost everything he is accused of, especially upon multiple viewings.
Ooh, I certainly like a movie that opens itself up to multiple and conflicting interpretations. I like, I like.
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*
That being said, I’m not yet convinced that the guy is guilty of anything, aside from simply being a man–perhaps only a stand-in for her personal demons. Sure, it’s creepy that upon him learning that she was 14 (although we can’t even be sure of her real age) he allowed her over to his apartment and offered her drinks. But maturity and consent are arbitrary things.
For me, it all teeters on his unknowable (I think) guilt/innocence of a crime worse than allowing a 14-year-old over to his apartment and offering her drinks (that is, direct involvement in rape or murder). She may be what some call an angel or she may just be a homicidal psychopath. I would say she’s either an avenger (because “angel” isn’t really in my personal vocabulary) or a psychopath. But, I can’t say for sure.
Random observation, apropos of nothing: I liked that they threw in a Roman Polanski reference. After recently watching Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the similarities were running through my mind from the second I found out Jeff photographed teenage models.
Then again, most models are teenagers, so there’s nothing that unusual about the fact they were teenagers. The fact that they were being photographed in his home seems a bit strange, though…
I think it’s rather commonplace for photographers to have studios in their homes.
I think there is an unavoidable gender component here too. There is the notion of the “vulnerable female,” who by virtue of her burgeoning sexuality, emits a weakness that is likely to be preyed upon and who needs extra protection from predatory men. Fathers everywhere are more protective of their daughters. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is sexist. I’ll admit that on the face of it, a middle-aged guy giving a pretty teenage girl piano lessons just seems more creepy than a middle-aged woman giving a handsome teenage boy piano lessons. Maybe I’m going off-track here, but I guess I’m trying to get at the possible prejudices that we bring to a movie like this–an assumption of female (or even youthful) vulnerability and of male predatoriness. I’m not saying that those assumptions are necessarily wrong, because they are probably a valuable shorthand in a lot of instances.
Dwight: “That being said, I’m not yet convinced that the guy is guilty of anything, aside from simply being a man–perhaps only a stand-in for her personal demons.”
So then what have you to say about Jeff’s specific confession at the end that he was physically present at the murder of the other girl, and that he wanted to take pictures, but the other guy (Aaron I think) wouldn’t let him? How is he not guilty of anything if he was actually present at the murder of a girl and did nothing? He ADMITTED to being present at her murder.
Also, what is ambiguous about this?:
Hayley Stark: “This is what they make those federal laws for, Jeff. This is officially sick.”
Your interpretation is certainly valid. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no absolutist.
As for the confession, I think it can be viewed as coerced testimony. That is, if you accept what has happened up to that point in the film as torture, then I think his confession may be unreliable. His previous story about Aunt Denise strains credibility (either it is some sort of rationalization for his actions or it is a desperate attempt to escape). I think the confession may act as a similar desperate attempt. Torture someone long enough and they’ll tell you they wear ladies underwear (or whatever it is you want to hear). His other “admissions” can be viewed as unreliable, too.
As for the “federal laws…officially sick” dialogue, I simply rely on the fact that the only picture we see is of the (presumably) missing girl in front of the coffee shop. That photo only shows possible association, not guilt. We can’t be sure of the content of any other photos. The filmmakers made a conscious decision to not show us the photos. They could have, but they didn’t. That’s why I’m left with the feeling of ambiguity.
Plus, “4 out of 5 doctors agree that [she's] actually insane.” Perhaps Hayley is no more reliable than Ed Norton’s character in Fight Club, though I do think this movie works better than Fight Club in that respect.