hey!
what did u guys think?
at first i was really hesistant to watch it, i thought it was going to ruin pride and prejudice for me
personally it was morbid, really depressing really uncomfortable to watch
props to matthew he actually made me feel sorry for the paedophile
it was alot better than i expected, i thought they did it really well. I found it pretty uncomfortable to watch too, mostly cos my dad kept coming in the room, and i was thinking pleeeease don't let anything weird happen now lol. yeah i felt really sorry for him too, especially in the police station. I found it really worrying at the fair, because he was being so nice to her and you just kept thinking how horrible it would be if anything happened.
shareI thought it was an amazing program. Of course it was very uncomfortable, upsetting and disturbing to watch, but if the program is well made and thought provoking I dont mind watching it even though I cant physically 'enjoy' it. I thought Charlie was wonderfully acted, my heart was personally breaking for him because the way he was acted just commanded your sympathy so well (I even liked him quite a few times, or at least felt compassion for him). You could see he was so desperate to change, he wanted to get better, and he didnt deserve some of the stuff he got, e.g. 3 men running after him with baseball bats! I felt sick that he was threatened in such a way and that he eventually didnt have anything to live for or even much help. It was very sad, but it was interesting. I also liked how the character went against the stereotypical idea of a pedo, e.g. apperance wise, as when most people think of a pedo they dont often immediately think of a young attractive and kind looking man.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v140/DeppAndMeaningful/ for a dam good Depp bucket.
I didn't find Charlie very likeable at all. Not because of the peadophilia, but just because he was aggressive, self-pitying and lay the blame of his actions onto others. However, he did have a vulnerable side too which made you empathise with the character and I think that's down to the guy who played him who was brilliant IMO.
it would be hard to say that i liked it or enjoyed watching it but theres no way that it made me angry, like other people have become simply by hearing about it let alone watching it.
i actually thought it was brilliantly done and incredibly brave. its a subject people are so decided on, that paedophiles are evil, should be shot, etc.. and im not saying theyre good people. but this made me realise that its not as simple as people think, just to make a choice to abuse a child or not. he was seriously destroyed by his childhood and i think that in itself deserves some sort of sympathy. yes he did awful things, theres no denying it. but at least he recognised that and the way he was portrayed as a genuinely remorseful, kind yet destroyed man actually made me consider what it must be like for these people.
it was uncomfortable and gruelling to watch but sometimes the only way to learn or gain anything is to tough it out, because it will open your eyes. and this really really did.
i thought the acting, directing and writing was remarkable in an area that is so difficult to find a different perspective on.
I watched this expecting to be force fed morals but was surprised to find that it didn't go down this road, in fact some scenes even parodied the public's reaction to peadophiles. I didn't find Charlie as likeable as say Humbert in Lolita but this all changed in the final scenes as he approached the girl in the playground. I found this very interesting. He could immediately turn on the charm to attract her and this bit of McFayden's performance was particularly impressive.
Not blind drunk...just sparkled
I loved it... I genuinely thought that Matthew's performance in it was astounding.
It was heart-breaking, poignant and beautiful... and I think it showed the other side to paedophilia... like, you were able to feel sympathy. I think in our sort of 'Sun'-reading, quick-to-jump-to-conclusions generation, "nonces" are never given the chance to repent. In this film, you know, his background was explained-- it was not as black and white as what we are usually told in the newspapers.
**Thumbs up**
Saw this on More4 last night. It was... interesting. MacFadyen was good in the lead role and I was surprised by the complexity of his character. I suppose with stories like this, there is the temptation to be a little too liberal. What I mean is, they could have made Charley too sympathetic, and many lesser writers would, if only to provide a counterpoint to the stereotypical "monstrous nonce who deserves to be castrated and killed" that The Daily Mail and their pitchfork-wielding readers perpetrate. This film didn't seem to have a particularly overt agenda. It simply portrayed a very flawed man trying to live in a society that will forever despise him.
I was pleasantly surprised that Charley wasn't *that* likable. Not because he is a paedophile, but because he was rather rude and aggressive at times, and seemed a little too willing to blame others. I consider myself pretty liberal in my politics, and I certainly don't see paedophiles as "monsters", but I wouldn't appreciate a piece of liberal propaganda. That would be just as bad as the ultra-right-wing "string 'em up" nonsense satirised by the likes of Brass Eye.
It really reminded me of two similar films. The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon also tackled the same sybject matter as this, showing a paedophile recently released from prison and trying to readjust to the world around him, dealing with his past and looking to the future. There is also another Channel 4 film called Boy A, inspired by the James Bulger killings. A 24-year old man who committed a "disgusting and evil" murder at the age of ten is released and given a new identity (which happened to the Bulger killers a few years back). It's a great character study, and even works as a thriller (will he be discovered?) I really recommend it. In fact it's probably still on 4OD if you fancy it.
I don't think that any screenwriter in this day and age could be tempted into being "too liberal" on the subject of paedophilia. At least, not without going to a lot of trouble to disguise what they are really saying. Anyone who explicitly said something as straightforward as, "Hey, maybe some paedophiles are really nice people," would be attacked with the aforementioned pitchforks. But it would be good to see someone try, once in a while. I wonder how you, as a "very liberal" person, would feel if every black person in every television drama was portrayed as "very flawed", or every gay person, for example...
I think you're partly right about the programme not having a particularly overt agenda, in the sense that it didn't seem to be pushing a message of moral judgement towards child sex offenders. It's funny to see, from reading the posts on this board, that I, as a person who refuses to judge others by their sexuality, and "maisiebird", who seems the polar opposite, were both impressed by Matthew Macfadyen's portrayal. Perhaps the film wasn't supposed to change our views on that front.
One agenda was clear, though. The drama was criticising the lack of support given to offenders who have been released from prison. Regardless of whether you "like" them or not, it is in everyone's best interests that they be reintegrated into society after being released. Driving them into hiding doesn't help anyone.
It would be good to see some more comparisons between this film and The Woodsman, which was indeed very similar in its themes. I might do a more detailed comparison, later on. For now, I will just note that I found The Woodsman to be more of a work of art - and I liked it more - but Secret Life seemed more grounded in reality. Although I have never knowingly met a sex offender in "real life", and am therefore not very well qualified to express an opinion on how their lives would go, I found Secret Life generally more believable.
As for Boy A, now that was something else. I think that anyone who isn't completely asexual could empathise with a paedophile, if they made the effort. Simply think of someone that you've really fancied, and then imagine what it would be like to feel that way about a child. But I doubt that many people could realistically empathise with a murderer. I've fancied people, but I've never fancied killing them. Of the three films, Boy A was the least believable, for me. It gave no insight into the young man's character that explained why he might once have wanted to kill someone. His character seemed to have no discernible flaws, and thus nothing on which to base any understanding. I might almost say that it was "too liberal", to borrow a phrase...
I don't have that much time at the moment to go into the meat of your post, but rest assured, I will! Also, thank you almost completely disagreeing with me (with a hint of mockery) in a civil manner, which is rare around these parts it seems...
It seems our reactions to Boy A were completely different. You're right that it is possible to empathise with a paedophile, but I can also empathise with Jack from Boy A, much more so in fact. Just as I can empathise with Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (not with the act they committed as children, but in their lives as adults now). I think it's best not to see Jack as just a "murderer" (even though he is, but in the context of Boy A, it is not 100% confirmed), but as a young man trying to atone for something he did as a child. Most children are capable of extraordinary cruelty and violence, although admittedly the majority do not commit murder. Most people can't remember what a child's mind is, and I personally nurture plays just as much a role in their psychological makeup as nature, if not more ('cos I'm liberal, y'see?). Essentially, what I'm getting (rambling) at is that Jack is no longer that child.
I find it rather odd that you are more willing to empathise with the serial paedophile in Secret Life than Jack in Boy A. Charley was an adult when he did what he did, Jack was an easily-led, emotionally-immature child who did something extremely stupid. I'm pretty sure that Charley had a much tighter grasp on morality than Jack did at 10 years old.
Ahh there's much more I want to say about this, but alas, I am out of time.
I must confess that my post was not as well thought out as I thought it was at the time...
I conflated the issue of being a paedophile (by which I mean a person who is sexually attracted predominantly to prepubescent children) with the issue of being a child sex offender (by which I mean a person who has been convicted of one of a particular class of sexual offences). The conflation of these issues is something that I frequently complain about, and yet I seem to have just done it myself. I must apologise profusely.
When I said that "anyone who isn't completely asexual could empathise with a paedophile", I meant with the feelings, since they are the same sorts of feelings that any sexual person experiences, albeit with a different set of "triggers" from usual. So when I contrasted this with empathy for a murderer, I wasn't comparing like with like. I shouldn't have been comparing paedophiles with murderers, but rather comparing child sex offenders with murderers. The question of whether the average person could empathise more with a child sex offender - at least of the kind that Matthew Macfadyen was portraying - than with a murderer is a trickier one, and not one that I can dismiss as readily as I tried to do in my post above. I will therefore have to rethink what I said in that paragraph.
I think the source of my confusion was a difference between Secret Life and Boy A that was somewhere at the back of my mind when I made that post, just out of reach of being articulated, but nevertheless influencing what I wrote. Boy A was about a man trying to deal with the consequences of his past, while Secret Life was, to a larger extent, about a man trying to deal with the consequences of his present. Because although Charlie, like Jack, was living in constant fear of his past being found out by those around him, he was also, more significantly, still experiencing the feelings that motivated his past behaviour in the first place. As far as I could tell, Jack, in Boy A, was not.
In Boy A, we were constantly taken back in time to see formative aspects of Jack's life as a child, seemingly in order for us to come to understand it and to see how his actions came about. In Secret Life, Charlie's past was described only briefly. Throughout the film, we stayed with him, in his present.
So, although the issues were intertwined, I think that the drama in Secret Life was driven more by Charlie's present feelings than by his past actions. A drama about a paedophile trying to fight their sexual feelings for children despite not having been convicted of any offence could have played out in a similar way. Replace the spiel that Charlie recited from his "treatment programme" (or whatever that was) with any pop psychology statement about paedophiles from a radio commentator. Replace Holly Aird's character with a well-meaning but interfering friend to whom the main character confides their feelings. Although it would lack the political message that the closure of rehabilitation centres leads to child sex offenders re-offending, the resulting film could be made to be, dramatically, fairly similar.
So actually, I think I've come full circle, and decided that I wasn't too far off the mark with my last post. I think that empathising with Charlie's present feelings was more important to appreciating Secret Life than was understanding his past actions. Whereas in Boy A, understanding Jack's upbringing, his childhood friendship, and the circumstances of the incident were presented as crucial to appreciating the film as a whole. And, since I failed to find the childhood vignettes in Boy A particularly convincing as explanations for Jack's behaviour, I didn't appreciate the film as much as I was clearly supposed to.
Oh, but one more thing. I have to take issue with your statement that you believe nurture plays just as much a role in a person's psychological make-up as nature, if not more, because you're liberal. The contributing factors to human psychological development are matters of fact, not of political standpoint. They are, at least to a certain extent, amenable to scientific study. Hopefully, as science progresses, studies will tell us more and more about the causes of all sorts of interesting and disturbing psychological traits and behaviour patterns. If the results of these studies stand up after rigorous testing, then we should all take them seriously, regardless of our political positions. And conversely, we need hardly fear that the validity of liberal politics hangs on questions of scientific fact. Politics isn't about how things are; it's about how things should be.
Heh, I knew that that "liberal" bit I put in there was a mistake. I meant it as a joke. I do believe that nurture plays just as much as a role in development as nature, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with my political leanings. It was a poor attempt at humour. Basically, it seems that when one takes a more compassionate or empathetic view towards an offender, they are branded a "liberal". That's clearly bullsh*t, and that's why I joked about it. In fact, last month in a pub I was branded a "liberal scumbag" by some overly right-wing twat because I disagreed with him regarding "the Muslim problem" (his words) in Britain. So yeah, disregard the "liberal" guff I was spewing, it was not intended to be serious.
Thinking more about it now, the flaws in Boy A are more apparent to me. If I had written/directed it, I would have completely scrapped the flashbacks to the murder and its preceding events. A little more ambiguity would have improved it greatly. It was very telling that the murder depicted in Boy A was considerably "softened" from what happened to Bulger. Some viewers even believe that the murdered girl was "asking for it"! It suggests that perhaps the makers tried a little too hard to make Jack more sympathetic. We don't even see the murder take place, so it is very easy to absolve Jack of any blame whatsoever and say that it was all the other kid's doing. This was Boy A's chief weakness, in my view. A study of a young man who undoubtedly did something heinous as a boy, his struggle to atone for that, his guilt, his secrets, trying to start a new life, the constant danger surrounding him, etc, etc; would have been fascinating viewing. It could have made some interesting statements about juvenile rehabilitation in Britain and its effectiveness (or otherwise). Actually one of Boy A's strongest elements was its portrayal of a young man who spent his formative years locked up, away from society and the issues surrounding his re-entry into it. The actor who played Jack really nailed that aspect of his character.
Annoyingly, I have to go again. I know I'm not articulating my thoughts on this particularly well, but I hope I'm being at least semi-clear. I'll write the rest of it when I get back, hopefully later on tonight.
Here's something else from your post that I meant to address:
I can also empathise with Jack from Boy A [...] Just as I can empathise with Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (not with the act they committed as children, but in their lives as adults now).
Oi! Chobar, you were very rude about "Maisiebird", I do not judge people by their sexuality (well not unless they are paedophiles which I abhor), that was not the point of my argument. I didn't want people to sympathise with paedophiles, for heavens sake doesn't every right minded person feel the same? And two grotesquely overweight British men were arrested today in Thailand for offences against children. Can you honestly defend them? Oh, I suppose they had a bad childhood, etc etc etc.
Regards Torrgran aka Maisiebird
Hello, Torrgran. I'm sorry that my post caused you offence. However, your reply only confirms what I was saying. To say that you don't judge people by their sexuality "unless they are paedophiles" is to say that you do judge people by their sexuality, because paedophilia is itself a sexuality. To be quite frank, you might as well be saying that you don't judge people by their ethnicity "unless they are Jews".
Yes, I'm sure I've caused you offence again, but I find the whole idea of prejudice based on sexuality to be as offensive as prejudice based on race. A person's sexuality is as much an intrinsic and (as yet) unchangeable part of their nature as is their ethnicity, regardless of whether they find themselves attracted to men, women, boys, girls, non-human animals, or inanimate objects. More to the point, sexual attraction is, in itself, harmless. Indeed, sexual attraction is very often the initial basis for a loving relationship. Most people have no desire to hurt the one they love; I see no reason to think that paedophiles are, as a general rule, any different in that respect.
What if this had been a drama about a man who falls in love with a little girl, vows to protect her from harm - and does so - and yet is still hounded and persecuted, because his love is, by the rest of society, considered "wrong"? How would that make you feel? Would you be rooting for the paedophile, on the grounds that he is protecting the child from harm? Or would you side with his attackers, simply because you don't like his sexuality?
Chobar, I am now seriously frightened to have any discussion with you. Sorry but I have to put you on ignore, I have a horrible feeling I am encouraging you to post these views which I find alarming. Your last paragraph really scared me.
shareI am very sorry to hear that. I hope that you will reconsider the part about putting me on "Ignore". You should not be afraid of honest discourse, no matter how much you disagree with the views being expressed.
sharechorbar,
almost two years after your last post, i want to tell you, if you ever should come back and read it, that there is somebody who thinks your posts in this thread well thought and kind in a very humane way. i wish i would encounter here and elsewhere more of your sort of calm adult thinking. it is truly comforting. thank you.
skruseq-1,
Several months after your last post, I want to thank you very much for your kind words. :)
My posts are not always calm and well thought-out, but I do try... Well, most of the time!
And I do wish that other people would show more rational thought and humane consideration towards others, especially in subjects such as this, which raise strong, visceral reactions from people. If only they would think with their brains, rather than their guts!
I hope to see you posting again. These sorts of discussions need more people like you. :)
After another two years I want to be another one to let you know how much your words are appreciated. They're shocking in their simplicity. Most people have no desire to hurt the one they love... So obvious and yet so scarey to some people.
A superhero never reveals their true identityshare
Thank you, PimpSmackersGOM. :)
shareThank you for expressing my feeling about this film. I'm just crying when I think of Charlie. What can he do? Grown-ups don't like him, and he probably doesn't like them, given what his father did to him. So he's attracted to kids, and they like him, in return. He is condemned to a total loneliness. People hate him for what he is, he hates himself, too. No help from anywhere. I'm totally heartbroken. Maybe... "dreams" if he found a girl who behaves childishly, and who could accept him, just to appreciate his struggles to change, appreciate his kindness to other people. Well yes he is agressive, very flawed. But there are some good things about him, too. I just cannot accept that there is no hope, no future, no help for him (and people like him).
share