MovieChat Forums > An Education (2010) Discussion > The big white elephant? Paedophilia?

The big white elephant? Paedophilia?


I am disturbed that there are loads of postings here saying how wonderful this film is etc. The film condones a thirty year old man picking up a school girl from a bus stop. I don't care much for anyone who says that the age of 16 is legal. David does not know how old she is at this point. He is basically grooming her and dazzling her into bed. It's sick. I am 30 years old and the notion to me of approaching a 16 year old girl for a relationship (legal or not) is disgusting.

Also, If 16 is old enough, why did the film makers cast a 24 year old in the part. The film would have had a very different feel if jenny's character was played by a 16 year old.

I feel this film condones a 30 year old man relationship with a 16 year old girl. It's not right. Let's face, with a relationship between a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl, it would be illegal and paedophilic. A relationship between a 30 year old man and a 16 year old girl might be legal but is still very sleazy , especially if she is still at school and they meet because he approaches her in her school uniform ......

reply

[deleted]

You only spoke of women physically

reply

Don't bother with skekurc; they have no notion what pedophilia really is, and have it all mixed up with their obsessive and irrational hatred of age differences in relationships. I wouldn't be surprised if skekurc saw a 60-year-old man with a 30-year-old woman and would immediately dub him a "pedophile." Skekurc believes that people should only date those who are the exact same age, and that any difference at all, even a few hours' worth, is pedophilia.

Y'see, if skekurc did any research at all, they would understand (as the rest of us do) that pedophilia is about being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Skekurc either can't see the difference between a 16-year-old girl and a 3-year-old toddler, or else is making the same stupid mistake I've seen others make, of assuming that because Jenny was under 21 that automatically makes it pedophilia. Of course, you and I and everyone else knows that's an enormously stupid thing to assume, but skekurc assumes it nonetheless. Or else they go on about something on a psychological level, which only shows that skekurc didn't see the movie or understand it, as Jenny is presented as being very mature for her age, and not some mentally-disabled child-in-an-adult's-body, still playing with dolls and all that. Anyone who saw the movie would know that.

Of course, we all believe that David was wrong anyway; he was a thief and a liar and a cheat and a con artist. He manipulated and deceived Jenny and her family. He was a contemptible little snot. But skekurc's irrational obsessions can't handle people saying he's not a pedophile, and in the past accused me of thinking everything was OK. I made it clear that I felt David was a bad person and that simply saying he wasn't a pedophile wasn't saying he was an angel. Skekurc never apologized; I suppose they're just too childish and full of anger and hatred at anyone who disagrees to own up to doing something wrong.

Ignore skekurc; they are an irrational, immature person, whoever they are, afraid of apologizing to those they've wronged, afraid of admitting they misunderstood the concept of pedophilia, afraid of backing down at all. Why? I don't know, it's common to immature people, they're afraid the world will end if they admit they goofed up and keep doubling down, insisting they're right when everyone else in the world knows they're wrong.




Facts need to come before certainty.

reply


You didn't actually WATCH the film, did you? It in no way condones David and Jenny's relationship.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

""You didn't actually WATCH the film, did you? It in no way condones David and Jenny's relationship. ""
(I will try and ignore that you are rude to me and remind you that opinions are not fact.)



I did watch the film. The film condones the relationship until she realises he's a liar. This is my opinion.

reply

Newsflash - this movie is based on the real life experience of British author Lynn Barber. So take that however you may wish, but there's nothing being condoned since it depicts almost word for word what the author actually went through:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jun/07/lynn-barber-virginity-re lationships

reply

I agree, and I almost gave up on this film in disgust. I was thinking, "Is this some sort of older male fantasy?" (I'm a woman). I'm so glad I read the comments here and decided to give it another try. I thought it was excellent -- the performances, Alfred Molina's monologue outside the bedroom door, the message about education for women and how much of a turning point young adulthood can be.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

ban this movie

reply