The big white elephant? Paedophilia?

I felt quite nauseated at the thought of a young girl having sex with a man in his thirties. I think that none of the characters seemed too shocked by it simply because it took place in the 60s, when girls "grew up" a little bit faster. Still, I know that if I were that little girl's mother or father, I would never let her anywhere near an older man. EVER!

I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...

MuchToBeGratefulFor,
The problem I have is that none of the characters think that it is weird that this 30 year old man is sniffing round a 16 year old girl. David approached her at the bus stop when she is in her school uniform. Whilst she may be 16 at this point and coming out of puberty... David does not know how old she is or at what stage she is at in her physical development. In fact, it is only down to judgement as to where she is at with her puberty stage.

I therefore find david's actions similar to that of a paedophile. I wouldn't mind it in a film if at least one other character thinks this is odd, but what I found offensive in the film is that neither Jenny's father, jenny's mother, Jenny's friends, her school teachers, david's friends ... NO-ONE !! talks of it, which is why the subject of this thread refers to the elephant in the room that no-one mentions. The film makers / script writer deliberately chose to not have a character in the film that finds the relationship weird. (it is only david's wife who refers to Jenny being a child at the end - a 'child' by the way, not 'young' or anything else but a 'child'. - but by this point in the film, it was too late for me) Also by this point in the film, the bad side of David's character seemed to be more about him being a thief or a cheater regardless of the age difference.

I agree that anyone thinking the film is anti-semitic is misinterpreting a character viewpoint. But at least this prejudiced point of view is argued against by the protagonist.

whilst David may not technically be a 'paedophile'... he still grooms the girl from 16 to have sex with him, and it is not a one off for him ... he has done it before ... (think honestly about your reaction to someone like this in your town ... maybe approaching 16 year old girls you know etc) Whilst it may stay inside the law ... i find it weird creepy, and sick ... and I think at least one character in the build up of their 'relationship' could have at least expressed caution about this. Then the film would have felt balanced in its expression.... but all I read about this film was how wonderful it is and its a 'coming of age' story and how romantic it is. That's why I felt the need to speak.

Well, I know exactly what Snowboy meant, and I think you are the one splitting hairs. SnowBoy is correct. It is not the attraction to children that is the crime, it is the acting on it.

As for the characters in the movie which again I stress are NOT children so it's not about pedophilia: I know women who got married to much older men when they were 16 and are happy, do you think that is creepy? If not, I think the difference is that David turned out to be a married creep who does this serially. That's what made it wrong, not the age difference per se.

As for your post above that nobody commented about her dating an older man, I still say that is not about condoning it. Her parents were naive and easily fooled by this con artist. Remember, they were not agreeing to a sexual relationship for their daughter, but a trip to Paris allegedly chaperoned by his aunt (yeah right). Her schoolgirl friends were impressed that an older man would be interested in her, but I hardly look to teen peers to be the one to put the brakes on. The head of the school did disapprove, if you recall.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

Minor point, but childhood (as in pre-puberty) finishes round about age 12. At 17 you're not "barely out of childhood", you're practically an adult.

"and we should question a mature man who finds a girl, barely out of childhood, sexually attractive".

It's always men never women
You better not be buying any pin-up calenders then or turning to page three.
Putting aside the film if we can.
What age is a "mature man" what age is "barely out of childhood" sixteen, seventeen, eighteen? Does it make that much difference if a lad of sixteen finds a girl his own age sexually attractive and a man of thirty? Why on earth shouldn't a man of thirty find a teenager sexually attractive? The truth is, it's unusual not to and perfectly natural. At what age difference does sexual attraction become dirty? There is no sound answer only someone's ideas.
Many teenage females today look older than they are, that is why they have to prove that they are old enough to by alcohol and cigarettes. If you are male do you feel guilt if you find yourself attracted to a young lady when you find out she is younger than she looks? There lays one route to sexual repression, with all it's consequences.
These concerns above of what is right and proper are not even cultural more to do with what peers might say. Our culture is completely fragmented, unlike some cultures which are not in a state of flux and where the age of consent is lower than ours. These beliefs are spurious to say the least, they have no rock.

My father was frowned on by gossips etc, but he proved his worth to his family and as I said my mother loved him to his old age and end.

Hugh Heffner's got issues, but I should think 99% of the male population would like his issues.

As long as it's not with someone considerably older and more experienced and able to take you for a ride or corrupt you.

no ... but i believe there is something wrong with a 30 year old man approaching a 16 year old girl IN HER SCHOOL UNIFORM for a date

I think in a way the saddest thing about this thread is that so many people want to be told what to think by a film. As someone said earlier, this is a nuanced account. We are presented with the facts and to an extent we are left to make up our own minds as to what we think about them.

Personally I prefer to be treated as a grown-up when watching a film. Perhaps DVD's should come with optional "author's message" subtitles for the benefit of those who like their entertainment to come with a moral attached.

David was certainly presented as an immature and sleazy person, but Jenny felt at the end that the experience, though painful, had been of some value to her. Things are not presented in black and white terms, much to the film's credit.

One of the most interesting things to note is that there was very little concept at the time that a woman could live an independent life. This is why Jenny's parents regarded marriage as a suitable substitute for university. Her teachers felt education was important but were unable to articulate why. The rise of the women's liberation movement a few years later would put what could only be groped at here into words. Another example of the level of nuance in the film and the way it is true to its period.


I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.