MovieChat Forums > Running Scared (2006) Discussion > Ignorance of Paedo Scene (Cinematic Brai...

Ignorance of Paedo Scene (Cinematic Brainwashing)

posted 16 years ago by recebedou
132 replies | jump to latest

This analysis is refering to the paedophile scene of this film running scared. My complaint with this scene is that it perpetuates the demonisation that paedophiles receive in media and culture. Not to say that i agree with what they do at all, or have any paeodphilic tendencies myself. But the degree to which people who even have the remotest accusations of paedophilia are painted as in-human, maniac, killer, psychos is unfair. when in fact the actions are usually the result of mental sicknesses which they may not be able to help.

The way this film condones the wholesale murder of the paedophiles, while portraying the killer as a "hero" is extremely warped justice to me. If you reduce the scene away, looking at NOT the specific situation or circumstances of it, but the main themes, it insinuates that paedophiles are such sub-human creatures, that they deserve no right to due-process and should be murdered in cold blood. This creates a feeling in the viewers mind that this sort of behaviour is not only acceptable, but would be praised by society. It breeds the sort of ignorance illustrated in Wales in 2000 when some uneducated people drove a paediatrician out of her home, because they thought her profession meant "paedophile". Here is the link to the news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm ...and from reading some of the posts on this board about what some people say they would do to those paedos in the movies is on the same level or worse than what they seem to have done.

People in this society who are paroled murderers are looked at more favourably than people who are paroled paedophiles. Illustrated in the fact that they have the whole sex offender registry in the US and UK, restricting your ability to live in certain parts of a town that might be near children. While murderers or theives or drug dealers have no resrictions on where they can live. It appears to me from this that most people would rather than their child murdered than sexually molested. My point of view has always been that society condems the crimes which they most fear in themselves. Again, i want to reiterate, I dont condone paedophilia at all, anymore than i condone murder or any violent crime. But, what i dont understand is, why is it when someone has sex with a minor, even if its consentual, it brings out a bloodlust, torture and desire for vigalante justice hidden deep within society, that they dont seem to see expressed as often for worse crimes like murder or other violent crimes.

[–] thefatguyabouttostealyou 16 years ago

I didn't think that they were paedophiles, just f ucked in the head, and that they were killing kids, not raping them

[–] NateWatchesCoolMovies 16 years ago

OP, did you even watch the movie?? They were not just pedophiles, they were twisted,
serial killers who psychologically tortured kids, raped them and sliced them up...
and you really don't agree with the fact that they were shot??

[–] maturity 15 years ago

I'm not sure they raped the kids. They kidnapped kids and forced them to perform sex acts on each other while filming them. They were doing kiddie porn more than pedophilia, although it's hard to say which is worse. Presumably they would kill the children and dispose of them when they got too old or refused to perform any more. They were probably selling porn on the internet. It was a business to them and that's what made them so disturbing and twisted.

I think the OP makes a good point, that people are more worried about pedophiles than rapists, thieves, drug addicts, murderers, etc. Even convicted killers look down on pedophiles, as if they're somehow better. Like it's OK because they only killed police or security guards or innocent civilians.

[–] mojorecords 15 years ago

It wasn't a business, they kept all the videos they made and even put star ratings on them.

[–] maturity 14 years ago

"It wasn't a business, they kept all the videos they made and even put star ratings on them."

They could have copied the originals and sold those. You are assuming they sold the originals without making copies. This is a bad assumption.

[–] BulletToothTonyBSN 15 years ago

Convicted killers look down on pedophiles because children are in most case case basically helpless against an attacker. No one condones what they did, but hurting a child if worse than hurting an adult. It's like how a lot of guy believe that no one should lay a hand on a woman.

[–] maturity 15 years ago

"Convicted killers look down on pedophiles because children are in most case case basically helpless against an attacker. No one condones what they did, but hurting a child if worse than hurting an adult. It's like how a lot of guy believe that no one should lay a hand on a woman."

Most killers are still preying on weaker people. They're not killing someone in a fair fight who is equally matched with them. They're every bit as cowardly as the big strong man beating up his wife or girlfriend or kids. They are hypocrities to think they are better than rapists, pedophiles, wife-beaters, etc. They would not beat their wife if she was built like Cory Everson probably.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/cory%20everson/nadianardi/Cory-Ever son-268.jpg

[–] WiiD_nugz420 13 years ago

ok first off, they were definitely pedophiles. the lady comes out off that creepy room to answer the door and she is putting on her robe and im pretty sure one of the kids bites the man...and even if they weren't actually participating in any sort of sexual acts, just the fact that they get off to that kind of stuff justifies blowin their brains out. secondly, people most definitely are more worried about pedophiles compared to any other criminal. maybe you don't have kids but if you do then maybe you would see it in a whole different light.

well, you don't spell it son, you eat it

[–] OfficialAcademyAwards 11 years ago

Another dumbass OP that didn't even watch the movie

[–] jammyjamie13 16 years ago

pedo's shoot all be burnt alive

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seany_boy_22 13 years ago

The original poster's rant about the skewed view of pedophilia is incredibly flawed. However, if the subject was solely on pedophilia and we didn't look at the implication of numerous murders in the movie. I might agree, pedophilia is viewed almost as a crime worse than murder.

Which is insane, it might seem sick and twisted to you. But why can't we look past it and try to understand these people. Try to find out why they might do such things, give them a chance to redeem themselves. There is logic in keeping these people far away from children, but don't banish them from society. It could be our negative actions towards these individuals that is causing the problem to begin with.

[–] lukn4frnz 9 years ago

I wasn't getting the sense that sex was a part of it either.

Torture and murder in about as sick and twisted as possible? Yes.

But I just wasn't getting any sexual vibes. Though they did encourage the boy to start touching the girl in a friendly way when they first started, which I guess could have been a prelude to inappropriate touch?

[–] roxalien 16 years ago

Your analysis is flawed if you do not take into consideration all the facts.
You cannot make the points you want to make over a scene where the pedophiles killed and cut into pieces a great number of children. And you mention consensual sex when the children were so young??
How dare you mention fair and unfair? Is it fair for those children? For the ones who will live a ruined life, or for the ones that dont get to live at all??
Mental sickness damn right. The one that makes such people dangerous and worthy of death.

[–] millionaire_moneymaker 16 years ago

pedophiles should be exacuted withing 30 days of conviction...AND DON'T DARE DEFEND ONE...YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ITS LIKE UNLESS ITS BEEN DONE TO YOU....THE PEDOPHILES WHERE DONE IN RIGHT...Pedophiles are monsters who feed on small childeren and have no buissness living in our society today...Mental illness...yes....do they know it is aginst the law...yes....Just cause you can do something dosen't mean you have to...They no its wrong and still do it anyway...they know its aginst the law....SO *beep* THEM...KILL EM...EXACUTION STYLE AND DON'T DEFEND THEM...

"[email protected]"

[–] pmdawn 16 years ago

yeah pedophiles are scum. even bad-ass homicidal prisoners despise them.

[–] Timmyboy312 16 years ago

To the OP- did you really not think that was fair. It's been said over and over, but they definitely deserved it. I literally cheered in the theater when they were shot. The whole time I was waiting for her to kill them. They were murderers for crying out loud! They couple are like in their 40's. They are already crazy...I don't think there is much rehabilation that can be done for them. I say instead of wasting money on getting them help, the 9mm (or whatever gun that was) was a lot more effective!

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them. I don't give a *beep* how crazy they are!"

[–] keiser_shoese 14 years ago

pedophiles should be exacuted withing 30 days of conviction...

I beg to differ, mil. IMO they should be handed to the family of the victim, who would have the right to do as they please with them, go Medieval on their @$$ (with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, perhaps?), take their time etc.

It's me, Gloria, I left my driver's licence on the table, next to the fruit!

[–] WiiD_nugz420 13 years ago

yo, for real! why should they be entitled to an instant death? they need to be treated to some nazi/medieval/crazy a ss water boarding type stuff.

well, you don't spell it son, you eat it

[–] Jnbfwc 13 years ago

The problem with this discussion is that there are actually two arguments occurring simultaneously:

1. Are pedophiles evil, sadistic, heartless, sociopathic savages, and

2. Are people who rape children, murder them, and cut them into tiny pieces evil, sadistic, heartless, savage sociopaths?

A "pedophile" can be someone who is twenty having consensual sex with someone who is sixteen. I know a lot of people (and you probably know a lot of people, too) who would say that, except for the whole "unlawful" thing, there is nothing inherently immoral about it.

What if two sixteen-year-olds have sex? No longer immoral? So what does the one being twenty have to do with it? If it's wrong at sixteen, then it's wrong. If it's not, it's not.
You can't say that, because someone is twenty, he's automatically evil and out to manipulate sixteen-year-old teenagers.

So there is another problem: People are retarded, and will alter their own beliefs to convince themselves that their irrational perceptions are accurate.

[–] Vicky_and_Dre 11 years ago

I don't agree that a twenty year old sleeping with a sixteen year old is a paedophile. A paedophile is a person that is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children usually 14 and under.

That is the argument, since being sexually attracted to a child is not natural. The child cannot ask for sex, and cannot say no alot of the time either. So, not only is this person capable of rape, (immune to/excited by human suffering, and lacking in empathy) but that of a defenceless child - a non-sexual being. Sexual preference/attraction is not a switch that can be turned on and off and it's a very hard thing to change in a person, which brings about the tagging of these people as 'monsters', or 'evil' and questions how human they are.

being attracted to a sexually developed teenager, even habitually, is immoral, illegal, but not unnatural. Acting on it, (because of the deception coercion and 'grooming' involved,) even 'consentually' is worse, and rape is rape, but Paedophilia is different

[–] bitplane 15 years ago

[that they are] painted as in-human, maniac, killer, psychos is unfair

The OP's argument was that the only type of paedophiles in mainstream movies such as this one are inhuman maniac psychos, leading people such as yourself to be brainwashed into believing that everyone who is sexually attracted to children is dangerous and worthy of death, regardless of whether they are rapists or not.

[–] TheDiesel 15 years ago

" everyone who is sexually attracted to children is dangerous and worthy of death, regardless of whether they are rapists or not."

Yes.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kokain711 16 years ago

wht the hell kinda analysis have ya done??
they tried to kill oleg..she had to resuscitate him and get him back..didnt ya see all the VDO tapes with all the kids names on it...its f(king kiddie porn..even if they arent paedophilles themselves , the shoot kiddie porn..thts horrible..
and they had kidnapped two other kids too..
wht tht *beep* more reasons do ya need to kill them?? yu may not agree with vigilante justice but there are loopholes in our justice system which may not be able to keep freaks like this away frm the society...
and dont think tht paedophile thing is some condition like anoxeria or sme *beep* a criminal offense, some mental illness causes it ..then they belong to a asylum..

BUT THE MAIN POINT HERE BEING...
the movie RUNNING SCARED wasn't made to show the society , the good side of paedos nor depict them in a proper way politically correct way..

there are activist for animals,environment and wht not...but one for paedos..never heard of it until today..

Don’t judge me based on your ignorance

[–] SHaGGGz 16 years ago

actually, there ARE pedophile activists. they are called NAMBLA, the north american man/boy love association.
to the OP: you are making a very perverse comparison to compare these psychopaths who have repeatedly and without remorse abducted, sodomized and killed prepubescent children, to a hypothetical instance of pedophilia which is consensual.
as for those of you who thought they were simply killing them and not raping, watch the scene again. it is made very clear whats going on.

---
AIM/MSN: SHaGGGz

[–] maturity 15 years ago

"as for those of you who thought they were simply killing them and not raping, watch the scene again. it is made very clear whats going on."

I don't think there's any indication that they raped the kids. They filmed them performing sexual acts on each other. It was probably a business for them. They were selling kiddie porn on the internet to sickos. You can't say for sure that they were raping the kids, although kiddie porn is certainly looked down on the same as pedophilia, if not worse, because it's a business.

[–] dajmibuzi 11 years ago

If they weren't raping the children, why was she in the room naked and had to be handed her robe to go open the door?

[–] maturity 11 years ago

Maybe she's a nudist and likes to be naked at home. Was the husband nude? If you don't see him or her raping the kids, or fondling them, why assume something has happened that wasn't shown or clearly implied? Different people can fill in the blanks differently, but the movie does not clearly show it.

[–] dajmibuzi 11 years ago

There are tons of scenes in movies where characters kill someone off-screen. We don't see it but there is no mistaking that hearing screaming, pleading,and a gun-shot followed by silence means that they are dead. If later in the movie they are found to be alive, it is considered a "movie twist" and people marvel at how they didn't see it coming. Either way, the director meant for you to believe the character was dead.

I believe that the director clearly implied that these characters were raping the children, filming it, and then murdering them. I think most would agree. Yes, people can fill in the blanks differently. Maybe we will never know without asking the director. But I would bet money I know the answer ;]

[–] maturity 11 years ago

There is not as much evidence as seeing someone holding a gun, somebody pleading for their life, then hearing a gun-shot followed by silence. People survive from gun-shots to the head frequently and people can be mistaken for being dead while alive. Unless you put a mirror by their nose and mouth, listen with stethoscope, stick a needle in them and so forth, they may be alive for all you know. (People were buried alive in the past or found to be alive on closer examination, I have read at various times.) People can easily make mistakes unless they have special tools and training. I agree it seems clear they were filming and murdering kids, but the husband showed remorse and the wife seemed like the sicker one - who was initiating it and turned on by it. What they did is ambiguous because you cannot show that type of stuff in a movie legally and they didn't confess.

[–] lllflypaperlll 11 years ago

OP is a NAMBLA member

[–] maturity 11 years ago

I think the OP raised a lot of good points, like why is there a sex offender database, but not a database of thieves, con artists, pickpockets, murderers, kidnappers, whores, pimps, drug dealers and users, and other criminals? Or at least any violence or theft? Read it again.

All movies have ambiguity if you don't see something happen. Maybe it didn't happen or it's different than you imagine. Don't make assumptions. What do we see? In some movies you can't even rely on what you see, because the narrator isn't reliable or is dead and thinks they're alive, or is in kind of limbo or purgatory, not the real world. (I won't give examples to avoid spoilers.)

[–] ShizaMinelli 11 years ago

The husband didn't show remorse, he was upset that they got caught.

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?

[–] chilone 8 years ago

but the husband showed remorse

No. He most surely wasn't showing remorse!! He was looking for a way out!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] maturity 11 years ago

Also, there are tons of scenes in movies where you THINK someone killed someone off-screen, but they later turn out to be alive. Or they seem to be alive, when they're really ghosts. Two common tropes. The fact something occurs off-screen makes it ambiguous, based on the logic of movies.

[–] Greyhazes 16 years ago

Excuse me?

"accusations of paedophilia are painted as in-human, maniac, killer, psychos is unfair"

Did you skip over the part where they had the kid tied up and seconds away from death in a closet, next to a body bag and a slew of surgical tools?
Sorry dude but there's just something way too *beep* up about feeling as much pity as you do for paedophiles.

[–] cid_s 16 years ago

I think the probly here is the original poster is a sex offender themselves and are trying to find ways for society to "understand" and not hate them. I on the other hand agree with the kind of justice shown in this film anyone who prays on children should have there life taken from them. Saying it's a "mental condition" is an excuse to do what they do even more of a reason to end there sad excuse for hurting children and the families of those children

[–] degolyer44 16 years ago

pedaphiles are pieces of *beep* this scene was great. mental illness or not get rid of em

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trac283 16 years ago

are frigging kidding they got what they deserved. i myself would have taken my time with those sick #$@#%

[–] fockingfock 16 years ago

i dont see y she didnt get themm arrested they would have suffered alot more in prison

[–] jinu-1 15 years ago

Stop spelling it Paedophile. It's more commonly spelt, Pedohile. Thanks.

[–] InfernalVortex 16 years ago

If you look at the horror some of these molested children deal with mentally the rest of their lives and the mental anguish that comes with it, Im not sure murder wouldn't be more humane. I'm not saying that because I advocate murdering children, but I think it says more about how much damage pedophiles do to children at a time in their lives where they're very, very vulnerable. The myriad of mental problems and issues that can crop up are nearly infinite and the personal torture that apparently goes along with it is more than I'd wish on anyone - except the pedophiles themselves.

Of all criminals, the only ones that I truly believe cannot be rehabilitated under any circumstances are pedophiles and serial killers. There are many small time criminals who are just inherently wicked also, but everyone who commits small time crimes doesn't fit that description. But I think every pedophile and every serial killer are just truly evil. Even if they have problems and either don't understand the consequences of their actions or just can't help it, that just tells me even more that these kinds of people should at least be permanently removed from society somehow, whether that means death or separation doesn't matter.

And when you look at serial murder and pedophilia, given what I said in the first paragraph, I think a good argument can perhaps be made that pedophilia does more damage than serial murder does. I would say it's a lot more common and I'd also say that ruining a young life before it has a chance to live is far crueler that taking a life of an adult. Most adults here, myself included, would in a pinch likely sacrifice their own lives for a child for that very reason.

Your defense of pedophilia is a mental problem taht they "cant help" is simply asinine. I will say that pedophilia is clearly a mental illness, and given the rate for repeat crimes among those that "suffer" from that "illness", it's apparent that they cannot help it. So in that regard, you are right. But what difference does that make? Do you think we should coddle them and allow them back into the population to violate and murder more children? They obviously can't help themselves and it's been demonstrated that they can't be rehabilitated. THIS is why no one is going to cry over a murdered pedophile. Even if they're just tortured souls who can't help it, they just can't be allowed to exist within the general population given the extensive, tragic consequences of their actions.

Have you read Of Mice and Men? Lennie wasn't aware of the consequences of his actions due to his mental conditions, but he kept accidentally killing animals, until one day he killed a woman and just didnt understand what happened, much less why it was bad. People like that just can't exist within society, just because they have good intentions doesn't mean they should be allowed to perpetrate their damage. Do you understand that at all? Or do you still feel like we should be coddling people who take adantage of children and give them deep-seated mental issues that stay with them teh rest of their lives?

[–] radiotheatre-1 16 years ago

Good post Vortex, I totally agree. Intentions only matter in a small way to a judge determining sentence, but never in the issue of guilt or innocence. Well, unless we are talking about self-defence vs murder.