the movie ended just like that, if you know what I mean.
what were the sentences? Had Peter Lavin assaulted his own kids?
i know, it was mad how it ended. when the credits started rolling i thought is that it?. i wanted to know what happened to him etc, it wudnt of been so bad if they had wrote something at the end. im not sure weather he touched his kids or not. my guess is no.
share[deleted]
David Traversa. the ending is PERFECT. Open endings for this kind of films are
the most logical since they showed us a story to a pivotal point and from there on... that would be the making of another movie.
This story was based on a real case, so one must assume that his wife left him taking the kids with her and he was so tied up, so repressed within his own tragic childhood and closet-case adulthood that obviously he would continue to be a very unhappy fellow probably with suicidal tendencies and incapable to unwind.
If he molested or not his own children I think it's material for another film, in this one that's beside the point. We are looking at a tormented individual with a totally ruined social and professional life whose only choice would be to move to another country and start all over from scratch.
As we have learned after 2002 from the thousands of pedophile cases among the church members, when one of them is discovered, very conveniently the church has ITS OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM and in those cases it consists in removing the faulty priest from this parish-church and send him far away to another parish-church... so he can continue with his "hobby" until he is discovered again (or not) and so they continue the scheme.
Within the Vatican City, the age of consent for sexual relations is TWELVE, so that can give you an idea about their sexual preferences...