what do others think about this one. Could it not be that the baby had some medical internal problems. if so why make it look as though the father had done it. incest with an 18 year old girl that is your own daughter is very wrong but having sex with a small baby is something else!
shareReally, I didn't get the feeling the dad was sexually molesting the baby in any way. The strange injuries were most likely just a plot device to create conflict between the dad and Tom, and have him finally stand up against him.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
Of course the father was molesting Alice. The baby had rectal bleeding, as clearly shown in the hospital. And Tom thought so too. He was watching his father with the baby like a hawk. Also, Jess knew it too, and that's why she stood by her brother and confronted her father finally.
Just because it's horrific, and people don't want to believe it (and as some have said, can't wrap their head around it), doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And it's called grooming. The father was doing something to the baby's rear end, perhaps to start the process all over again. Remember, Jess mentioned going to London to see about college, so the father was probably starting the cycle all over again to replace Jess.
Sorry for responding to a post this old, but I know others might wander into the forums with similar questions, so here goes...
I think the implication is that he did do something with the baby, something that has caused significant, physical damage to the baby. Unless he just started doing this, how could he have done this with his other children (or Jessie alone) without being caught? It seems unlikely and this makes the piece somewhat unrealistic. The story has immense power without the implication of abuse of the infant. To me it drains tension from his betrayal of Jessie (and Tom). The abuse he carries out against Jessie is the kind that can go unnoticed for many years, whereas the abuse (of that kind) of an infant is usually caught. It seems unlikely that he would have just started with the infant, and if he did that with Jessie as an infant how was it not caught? That kind of damage doesn't go unnoticed.
To me, adding in the infant abuse turns the dad into a mentally unstable psychopath. No one could do that to an infant without being insane. Whereas his abuse of Jessie requires no mental illness, it is a willful, selfish act wrought by a man who simply wants to satisfy his own sexual desires. His abuse of Jessie alone makes him far more evil, because he could do those things without being insane, he could do that and be normal in all other respects. The film is fantastic and powerful, but the infant abuse should have been removed (IMHO).
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
BladerunnerA, you are correct when you said that "that kind of damage doesn't go unnoticed." But that doesn't mean that the one who notices always says or does something. Take a look at the film "Shattered Trust" (also based on a true story; it's available in installments in YouTube) to see what I'm talking about.
I concur with the person who said thie was about the most vile, disturbing film ever. And so much more so because it involves a family. It is so well-directed and -acted. Each actor's disgust/discomfort with the subject matter comes right up off the screen to touch you. Not a film I'll soon forget (as much as I'd maybe like to).
If that actually was the case, then I wonder, when and how did he actually find the time to sexually interfere with a baby in a public hospital, since it is a place where for about 90% of the time the doctors and nurses were around, as was his wife and possibly other relatives, not to mention there were probably security guards and cameras all around, so how did he manage to do it in a hospital completely undetected??
shareI simply cannot comprehend this movie. What is truly disturbing about this movie is that the father looked and acted like a regular person. The daughter didn't even seem to be having a problem at the start of the movie. AND, the father even reacted like a horrified INNOCENT person when he was accused of it, EVEN THOUGH he was guilty of committing the worst things a human being is capable of. I really cannot comprehend how someone could do these things, and masking it so well so they blend in with society too.
share[deleted]
i "like" how you assume someone doing this must be a mentally unstable psychopath. i dont doubt that people doing something like this have strong mental problems, but it isnt only the conspicuous psychopath.
yes, it happens that men or yes also women molest little babies, to the point of newborns being born 9 days ago are molested (there was just a case in austria this year). and no this isnt a one in a million case. it happens more often as people like to admit to themselves. also not everyone who abuses children is a pedophile. in fact only the minority (research states from 10 to 20 %) is.
what is true, is that when babies are penetrated with big objects (including penis) at this age it most definitely causes severe physic damage. the "problem" is that the damage decreases the older the child gets, making it harder to be recognised as abuse or recognised at all. a lot of injuries heal without medical attention and are never caught by authorities leaving the children scarred.
coming back to the movie: i guess the father started to abuse jess at a young age like 5-10 or latest 12, it went creeping and ended with frequent rape. once he crossed the line, the inhibition threshold was not as high anymore so even molesting the baby seemed normal. i think he started doing so because he started to lose control over jess and she was about to leave home so he went to the next victim.
i consider it most likely that the father did something, because after tom said to his mother she shouldnt let his father alone with his baby sister the nurse didnt let the father talk to his wife anymore and his wife stated that he should leave the house immediately.
I don't think it's a stretch to believe this person was a psychopath or a sociopath. A "psychopath" (lets use Wikipedia) is described a person "with a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior". A person who could sexually abuse an infant would not necessarily have to be a psychopath, but it seems likely that they would be. The father in this film exemplifies that definition on every point. He is definitely exhibiting "enduring antisocial behavior" by sexually abusing his teenage daughter time and time again. He has "diminished empathy", bordering on no empathy at all for the pain and suffering he is inflicting on his daughter.
As to the second criteria ("diminished empathy and remorse") when confronted by his children, he exhibits no remorse whatsoever. Instead, he indicts his (very brave) son, beating on him, accusing him of being mentally unstable and then threatening to "put him in a home". In the final confrontation, when his daughter accuses him and asks how he could the things he does to her, sobbing and broken beyond belief, he remains calm and coldly denies everything.
As to the last diagnostic criteria, that being "disinhibited or bold behavior", could he be any more disinhibited or bold in his abuse of his daughter? While she is crying to the point of wailing, he continues to abuse her in the most monstrous manner. She pleads with him, asking "why don't you do it like you do it with Mum?" He says, "I mustn't do that" and continues to cajole her to "turn over" succeeding in getting her to do what he wants. He is utterly "disinhibited", totally devoid of any of the normal, natural inhibitions a father should have. He commits acts that the grand majority of all peoples on this planet would find even the thought of doing such a thing utterly heinous and repugnant beyond all understanding. In fact, Ray Winstone (the actor who portrayed the father, who is known for being a tough and fearless actor) had such a difficult time during the bunker scene (where he abuses his daughter) that he almost quit the entire production (understandably so). Yet, this father does such things continually, displaying no inhibition, no remorse and absolutely no empathy for his broken and devastated daughter.
I would say there is very good evidence that he is either a psychopath or sociopath. In fact, given the limited information we have in the film, I would suggest it is the most plausible explanation for his repellent and unspeakable behavior. So, I'm not really "assuming" anything. Instead, I am simply suggesting the most credible explanation for this man's actions. Could the reason be that he is absolutely evil? I suppose, but (once again) given the information we are in this film, it seems most likely that he is mentally ill (and evil). He would definitely satisfy all diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5 for a psychopath or sociopath. Even your own comments suggest this is the most plausible explanation:
the inhibition threshold was not as high anymore so even molesting the baby seemed normal