Did he sexually abuse her? - Lamb (2016) Discussion

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

I'm just telling you ahead of time, I did not read the book.

However, I did not get that feeling at all. I took it he lied to her about being asleep for 2 days because they had a bad night, and she started screaming and crying that she wanted to go home. After driving all that way, and how little there was left to go, I felt that if he could just get her there, she would see how beautiful it was and she'd begin having the fun he promised her.

I think towards the end, she noticed they were staying in the same room as one on their way towards the cabin.

As for why he took her? I think it's complicated. Part of it has to do with David's brother who went missing. I agree with you though, it felt almost like a lot of scenes were cut down for time, or something.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] shaylahc 8 years ago

I read the book today, and I'm more convinced than ever that he was molesting her. In the book he kisses her on the mouth a number of times, and even bathes her.

The book, however, does not really provide any more insight into David's motive, except that he liked it that he could manipulate and control Tommie.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

Okay, well I'm just going by the film, which to me is separate from the book. I can't really comment on the book, but I understand from what you've mentioned why you would feel that way. I've watched the movie a couple times and I don't feel he molested her at all.

In interviews Ross Partridge stated the film wasn't exactly like the book. He was also asked if Lamb was attracted to Tommie and he said "no." I'm no expert on sexual abuse and I've never sexually abused anyone, so I don't know if people only abuse others they are attracted to.

A couple of things bother me about it. Like I feel the film is somewhat playing things a bit safer by making the leading man better looking than your average 47-year-old male. I can't help but conclude audiences would not be as accepting(as much as they have been) if David Lamb were played by someone unattractive.

And second, of all the reviews and comments I've read of people ewwing and wincing whenever Lamb brushes hair out of Tommie's face, compliments her, hugs her (the few times he actually did), I didn't really feel to startled by these things. What I have a huge problem with, and I can't believe of all the moments I listed above - I've never seen this brought up once - is when Lamb's girlfriend shows up and he tells Tommie to hide away in a room with nothing for her to do but sit on a bed, and he just expects her to do this for 2 days. All the while she is getting sick, throwing up...I just found this to be extremely cruel, but I guess maybe I don't understand other people.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] shaylahc 8 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but how do you explain some of his behavior...like pretending to kidnap her? He emotionally manipulates her at every turn. I guess watching the movie first (before I read the book) I didn't really get enough information about his motivations. Without the pedophilia aspect, the movie really makes no sense. WHY DID HE DO IT?

In the book the man is older (54) and it's a very obvious "romance" (mostly from his perspective), with her being heavily manipulated by him. In the book he even says that he loves how much he can control her. And there is kissing, and inappropriate behavior, etc. In the book it's very clear he's a pedophile (even though we still don't get enough backstory about whether he'd done this before).

I dunno. The book was way cringier than the movie. There is still a lot of unexplained stuff. I actually thought from the trailer that the movie was more of a "older lonely guy strikes up an innocent friendship with a young girl and it inspires them both" blah blah blah (if you've ever seen the french movie The Butterfly (or Le Papillon), that is a good example of a clean relationship between an older man and a young girl. Lamb was made to be less clear about the nature of the relationship. And the book is much much worse. Ugh.

I guess the point of the movie is to make people uncomfortable. It just leaves out enough detail to make a lot of the relationship/travel, well, pointless.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

Yes, from what you’ve been posting about the book, it seems that way. This unfortunately bothers me, because I was really interested in buying and reading the novel, but I’m kinda having second thoughts now. I was hoping it was more like the film, but expanding on it.

I was kind of glad there was no pedophilia to it. The first time I saw Lamb I was just constantly nervous for Tommie, all the while questioning this older guy and his motives. The deeper into the film, the more anxious I was that even if he didn't do anything to Tommie, something might happen between them, or an outsider might misinterpret or assume their relationship was something else. So eventually I was terrified for both of them.

I felt seeing her walking up to him like a broken doll in high heels, dressed in a makeshift cheap outfit and bumming a cigarette, looking younger than her age, with her so-called friends snickering in the background, it was just sad. I think Lamb summed her up really quick, and genuinely thought he was teaching her a lesson. That with the trauma of the disappearance of his brother, Lamb felt he was teaching Tommie to avoid the same fate.

We’re supposed to assume during the week or 2 that they hang out, that Lamb learns more about Tommie and her bleak existence. I felt in his mind, he was giving Tommie an experience and trying to show her something more than what she was living. I think Lamb witnessed a change in her due to all the attention he was giving her and that he genuinely believed he could make a difference. I wondered if Lamb had fond memories of the cabin when he was young, only he was never able to feel that way again and somehow felt he was passing that on to Tommie. This, the trauma of his brother going missing, everything just kind of came together, however, other posters and reviews have mentioned this all fell apart because Tommie possibly realized her feelings for Lamb were stronger. Having put her through this, however, may not have helped because by dumping her the way he did, it’s potentially traumatizing to her. And what is left for her now? I can’t say for sure that I interpret the ending precisely the same way, but I also cannot say that I don’t see it that way either.

Ross Partridge has said people have problems with the film because they want to definitely say their relationship is either this or that, and that he left it deliberately ambiguous. I don’t have a problem with the relationship being open for viewers to experience their own way, I think the problem audiences are having is that so many elements were left ambiguous...not just the relationship.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] jack_216 8 years ago

Why you keep insisting with negative interpretation?

Obviously adult has more control over young person, does not mean there is rape, molestation etc.
If you think sexual act is _by_definition_ a rape then movies like this are not for you.

Romantic relationship can exist between the characters without abuse i suspect, to a degree.

Jack

reply

[–] japonaliya 8 years ago

I agree that he did not sexually abuse her, but in the end, he did worse..emotional abuse...
No one can be sure what David's ultimate intentions were...maybe he himself was not sure.. In a way, he was a kid running a way from home and wanted a companion.

The scene where he looks at her when Tommie catches him making love, and being alone in the shed for a few days, was signs of obvious manipulation on his part..However, it was not motivate by depravity, at least not at this point.

The reason he looked at here without saying anything or interrupting the sex act with his girlfriend was solely because he did not want to have his GF find out, not because he was sick and enjoyed Tommie watching the act.

Likewise, he would do anything to keep the farce of this illusional relationship going at all costs, so keeping Tommie hidden was justification for that desire, and Tommie too was complicit until she actually got jealous when she realizes that he still (in her mind) thought of her as a kid.

While I am sure Tommie, as an innocent 11 year old did not actually want a sexual relationship with David, unconsciously and in her budding sexuality, she wanted him to want her as a woman.

This can also be established by the unusual scene (shown twice) of her shaving her legs. This was sort of a "Lolita" moment, but unconvincing unless she was experimenting the way a boy would do with his dad's razor.

Without getting too graphic, underarm hair, and leg hair in pubescent girls is the last manifestation of puberty, well after menstruation. Tommie (AT LEAST IN THE FILM) did not have the signs of even breast budding, usually the first sign of the onset of puberty. (I am married with 3 girls so I know...) or as far as we know, having her period.

I also have a different interpretation of the movie and the ending but I'd rather say that in either a review or another post that is more about that subject.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@japonaliya
It sounds like you are responding to me by your post, so forgive me if I am wrong, but I never said David was enjoying Tommie watching him have sex or anything like that. In fact, I was actually planning on starting a new thread based on that scene, because I've read others view the sex scene that way, or that David was getting off more because he was attracted to Tommie and there she was in front of him, increasing his enjoyment...only using Linn's body.

My view of the sex scene is nearly the same as yours. Lamb didn't want Linn to find out about Tommie, but I also get the feeling, as Tommie just stands there watching, if he's beginning to question, as you stated also, perhaps she is becoming jealous...either consciously or not. When she walks in on them the next morning laying together on the floor, Tommie's eyes full of fire, then yells "I hate you! I'm just a kid to you!"

I don't know, this film really brought back something I experienced as a young adult that I had completely forgotten about.

Is your interpretation of the ending completely what you posted in the thread titled "Romanticized abuse?"

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] japonaliya 8 years ago

"Is your interpretation of the ending completely what you posted in the thread titled "Romanticized abuse?"

Yes, I see 3 possible ending scenarios:

(1) Tommie runs until David speeds away.

(2) Tommie Actually catches up to the car (or David stops) and he relents and they go off into a Utopian sunset (symbolized by Tommie's bag left behind on the sidewalk as a last image of the film)

(3) David was already a mixed up soul with obvious sociopathic, and delusional tendencies as demonstrated by his manipulation, lying, impulsiveness, and his possible homicidal tendencies (when he creeps up on his nosy neighbor with a rifle, at least contemplating shooting him until he sees the neighbor attending to his dying wife, much as David had just done for his father)

The fact that he broke down in the end, realizing that this relationship not only was heading in a dangerous direction, and not the way he originally intended, he tells Tommie not to get up hopes of ever seeing him again, and "wills" his cabin to her as a safe haven which is the only thing he has to give her.

A finality further embellished by his parting remarks about he will always be there for her, in nature, the wind, etc. Something a man about to end his life would say.

Considering that props in films are there for a purpose, the rifle was not just there for decoration. Yes, he did (possibly) want to use it to kill his neighbor who was the main threat to his delusions, but now, he was about to take away the one thing Tommie needed, his love an affection albeit momentarily platonic.

Additionally the fact that his girlfriend dumped him, and along with Tommie's parents, possibly reporting him to the authorities, with his lies catching up, and his life further disintegrating, he has but one choice..to end it.

Another thought might be that he too was caught up in the inappropriate romance and felt that he could not live without Tommie, but to seek further contact would only reinforce their attachment to each other leading to serious consequences.

In order to keep this from happening as he couldn't trust himself and go on living without her, his choice of suicide was the only obvious way to ultimately protect Tommie....

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

In order to keep this from happening as he couldn't trust himself and go on living without her, his choice of suicide was the only obvious way to ultimately protect Tommie....

The only real problem I see with the suicide theory is this. There was no question that Tommie had fallen hard for David. If suicide was the ultimate ending, would this more or less push Tommie over the edge emotionally also? Also, with my crush theory, her emotions would be in hyperdrive and extremely fragile, much stronger than just regular love.

One thing that I've been mulling over since the suicide theory has been brought up, and I will give you this, it's really good (suicide theory). The problem is that David's personality and psychology makeup might not allow it. The basis is on the manipulation and deceit. Generally, these type of people are too conceited to commit suicide if that makes sense. A true Psychopath won't commit suicide. The gun plot MIGHT be a response to earlier, happier times.

Another thought might be that he too was caught up in the inappropriate romance and felt that he could not live without Tommie, but to seek further contact would only reinforce their attachment to each other leading to serious consequences.

The ironic thing is that there was a slight possibility that Tommie probably COULD have had at least some sort of relationship with David after their return to Chicago if she was able to keep their secret and after everything calmed down. But this also depends on the girlfriend.

reply

[–] japonaliya 8 years ago

Even if David doesn't commit suicide, he could never have a longer relationship with Tommie. Sexual contact aside, how long could the two elude police, or keep the sham up?
It is delusional to think that David would do this, even if he did desire her and/or love her.

The reason I don't think David saw the relationship the same as Tommie, or was planning to commit suicide was that he never said that when she got older, if she still wanted a relationaship he could come back into her life.

Though he may not be thinking of suicide, he did reralise in the end how the relationahip could only end in disaster for Tommie.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

After reading the book and understanding David more, there's no way in hell he would commit suicide.

However, the book version of David, to be honest, took ahole to a whole new dimension, he barely cared for Tommie.He was essentially trying to protect himself.

reply

[–] jonathonwisnoski-856-217430 8 years ago

"In interviews Ross Partridge ... was also asked if Lamb was attracted to Tommie and he said "no." I'm no expert on sexual abuse and I've never sexually abused anyone, so I don't know if people only abuse others they are attracted to."

That is a really weird way to put it. To me this is implying that the director himself does not even know if he abused her or not.

reply

[–] jonathonwisnoski-856-217430 8 years ago

Where is all this manipulation and control coming from? While many of the things said can be interpreted that way, he seemed fairly open and honest. The things he said could of been said in all honesty, none of them were lies or bad advice. If they were about manipulation and control, then he was not a particularly good or inventive manipulator.

Furthermore, overall the movie seems to be portraying him as broken, confused, and scared. Not as a cunning manipulator. Also, it seemed to imply caring; I think he realised how dangerous it was for him to bring her back, and yet he did. And he got her to stop dressing like a prostitute, he got her to stop smoking. Not with manipulation, but with honesty and support.

The more I think about it, the more I think the director did everything he could to try to balance it. He is not amazingly nice to her, or amazingly bad to her. He does not put her first, completely, be he also does not seem to be portrayed as putting himself first. He very well might of saved her from a horrible life, and as per her very first scene, he might of saved her from a murdering paedophile; But he did so in the most unheroic way possible. In some ways you might feel sorry for him, but not really in any large amount.

I think the director went to a great amount of trouble to make him ambiguous, to make him real, to defy stereotypes and easy black and white descriptions. I don't think we can say he is anyone one thing, he is everything: saviour and villain, damaged and damager, victim and criminal, loving and selfish, bad and good.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Agreed Jonathan, the movie version was far more balanced and he, really at least cared for Tommie. He truly felt he was doing the best thing for her, but it got derailed. In the end, he left Tommie confused and hurt. In the DVD commentary, Oona stated that she felt that the true turning point for the relationship was the scene with the beer and the neighbor. She felt that Tommie lost a little bit of trust in Gary after that.

The book version was a completely different ballgame. He called her a "little pig" to her face, he wanted to punch her face at one point (to make her feel something), and the bath scene was a jaw dropper and that's putting it mildly. He reveled in his ability to control her, and manipulated her every step of the way.

I agree with you that Gary had in his heart in the right place in the movie but fear and desperation, and his desire to stay out of jail, was his driving motive.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@jonathonwisnoski-856-217430

I agree with your entire post. That was pretty much my interpretation.

"In interviews Ross Partridge ... was also asked if Lamb was attracted to Tommie and he said "no." I'm no expert on sexual abuse and I've never sexually abused anyone, so I don't know if people only abuse others they are attracted to."

That is a really weird way to put it. To me this is implying that the director himself does not even know if he abused her or not.

You may have misunderstood me. I was replying to a poster above, that when the director was asked if David was attracted to Tommie, he said "no" and that was why I had the quotations around the word NO only. The last sentence about sexual abuse was not the director Ross Partridge's quote. I was just trying to answer a post above, and explain that I personally haven't sexually abused anyone, nor do I have any level of expertise on the subject, and therefore I don't know if abusers are attracted to their victims or not.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

No he didn't, but the story is very convoluted and not well told. The idea behind it was these were two souls, one was headed for disaster and a very bleak future (Tommie)and one that essentially was like a boat without an anchor. He saw a chance to try to make a difference but the problem was that it didn't quite work. Lamb didn't realize that Tommie had fallen hard for him in the form of a first, massive crush. Because of that, the proper relationship (father/daughter) couldn't be clearly defined.

The movie needed to be about 30 minutes longer, with some scenes from Tommie's POV with interactions with her family, this would have given a much clearer picture of why Tommie did what she did. The ironic thing was they had done that, it would have strengthened the idea that Tommie ran away. The cabin should have been nicer, with rideable horses, he should have taught her how to drive, that kind of thing.

reply

[–] indieke 8 years ago

I think it is the purpose not to give a way everything.

All time you are scared for the girl, that she was going to be sexually abused.
It did not happen, but can you be relieved?

She was not loved at home, not got attention that this stranger gives her. She thought now somebody cared, that she had something special going on. David 's wife had left him, but he had all the attention from the mistress. Yet as his father died, he drove to that cabin, he would have maybe gone alone. He not expect his gf would come, so he needed somebody :

- To go with him there as company;
- He surely LOVES to be loved, someone that looks up to him. That is so much easier with a much younger mistress, a child, then somebody of his own age, how would rather stand up to him and call him a loser, instead of admiring him.

In the end, the girl WAS abused. Not sexually, but very deep emotionally. She thought she was special, to him that he cared. It is clear he did not, he used her for his own good. That is why, he says that she will hate him when she grows up. Because then she would understand she has been used and he not cared about her at all.

This impression is enforced as the girl, who shows all this emotion towards him, is left on the pavement in tears, and running after the car only enforces, how bad she been emotionally abused and how little he cares, he just drives on....

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@indieke
Are you asking me? Well, yes I was relieved nothing of that nature happened between them. Nevertheless, I was so deeply saddened by the ending, so no, I was not relieved entirely. I agree with you there.

Although I do not see the whole film exactly the same way as you. There have been several different opinions regarding various aspects, not just surrounding Tommie and Lamb's relationship.

I don't believe there is any evidence that David became friends with Tommie just so he wouldn't be alone at his cabin. That's what I'm getting from your post, but correct me if I'm wrong. If anything, Lamb is the one who constantly keeps Linn at bay. At the same time, he also does the same to Tommie. I think it's terrible how he made Tommie stay closed up in that room for 2 days, sick with a fever, stomach aching and vomiting, while he tries to have a good time with his girlfriend. I also can not comprehend why no one brings this up.

Despite that, I also feel that Lamb does care for Tommie (as much as HE possibly can), and I felt he tried to treat her the best he could, as broken down of a soul as he was. There did seem to be a positive effect on Tommie after her and Lamb began spending time together. Unfortunately, while I think the trip changed Tommie, I think David sincerely thought she would somehow be magically transformed by the end. And when she returned, her mother and her boyfriend would realize how much they missed her, and would no longer take her for granted. This is not what happened.

Also, Lamb breaks down in the last hotel room and when saying goodbye to Tommie, so I did not feel he showed no emotion at all. He had a huge breakdown on the bed in the hotel. Lamb probably expected this to go differently, like I posted in the above paragraph, and now realizing this experience may hurt Tommie, I felt was partly at least why he told her she might hate him later.

Another thing I haven't seen brought up, Tommie seemed to believe very early on that this was not really going to be just a 7-day trip. It appeared that in her mind, judging by some of her comments, that she didn't believe him about the duration of the trip or if this even was just a trip. When David begins talking about them returning, Tommie says before they even go back that she does not want to go home. I felt she sounded taken aback by this, as if she still maybe thought they were going to stay together, adding to her pain at the end.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

I completely agree with in your response to the other poster.

I think it's terrible how he made Tommie stay closed up in that room for 2 days, sick with a fever, stomach aching and vomiting, while he tries to have a good time with his girlfriend. I also can not comprehend why no one brings this up.

About this, I feel that David was between a rock and a hard place, no pun intended, and had no other choice about Tommie and leaving her in the garage. The ironic thing thing was that he could have lied, saying that she was a neighbor's child was escaping a bad situation at home, which would have fixed it and been closer to the truth. The ironic thing was even if Tommie's disappearance created an Amber alert, there's a good to excellent chance that Linn ignored it or didn't pay much attention to it, and Tommie's secret still would have been more or less safe.

I've watched this twice. I'm not entirely sure that David was having fun with Linn, in fact, I think he was desperate to get rid of her. Linn sensed something was wrong.

I really feel that the heart of the whole problem was Tommie's crush, especially if it was her first major crush. These can be beyond painful, and because of the situation, it destroyed her emotionally and clouded her thinking.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@artcurus-1
Yes, I agree that Linn sensed something was wrong. I've seen this film 4 times now, and I become more inflamed at this point of the story the more I see it. Almost every review I read, cries out disgust for David when brushing hair out of Tommie's face, or when they hug, etc. Yet there is no mention of him convincing her she has to stay put in this little room with nothing to do but wait. You can feel Tommie growing impatient, as she quickly gets up and runs around the grounds looking to see where she can possibly get away. And David knows she is sick because he says so when Tommie makes her presence known. I mean, is this crazy on my part?

I never feel that David is desperate to get rid of Linn though, and I keep watching for this. I can understand what you're saying, but even better IMO, why not just use the excuse he used: it's his niece who has been sick and he didn't want Linn to catch it.

I've read elsewhere and can understand the audiences disappointment with the cabin and lack of magic, so to speak. However, this film is not the typical American movie where average people live in mansions that are spotless and no dishes in the sink. This seems more grounded, and I feel Tommie isn't the kind of girl who needs a fancy wooded cabin. Her existence was so lacking that the experience itself and almost constant attention were enough for her.

You're probably correct about Tommie's crush careening the events of the trip, or at least partly anyway. How did you view the sex scene? I've read a few different interpretations, most that I don't agree with. I can't remember now if you posted anything about this.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Almost every review I read, cries out disgust for David when brushing hair out of Tommie's face, or when they hug, etc.

But why? That a sign of affection between fathers/daughters, which for all practical purposes, that's what it was, messed up as it was.

And David knows she is sick because he says so when Tommie makes her presence known. I mean, is this crazy on my part?

I truly think that David panicked and had to think fast. Tommie panicked when she saw the police car going next door.

I feel that scene would have been far more powerful if Tommie had called him by his real name ie: David.

it's his niece who has been sick and he didn't want Linn to catch it.

Okay I'll you have that one ;-)

The whole sex scene was just so bizarre, along with Tommie's reaction, and I get why David did it, it was his way to break her heart. However, this is where the crush caused some serious problems, and Tommie didn't have the defenses/maturity/experience to fight back nor understand what was happening. David really screwed, no pun intended, that up. He didn't handle it properly.

In another post, I stated that Tommie should have gotten somehow gotten David's real name and address. I'm about 90% she would shown up on his doorstep at one point in the very near future after they were back in Chicago. This would actually "fixed" to some extent, the ending.

Your thoughts?

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@artcurus-1

But why? That a sign of affection between fathers/daughters, which for all practical purposes, that's what it was, messed up as it was.

The world has become hypersensitive to adults and children together in any kind of situation it seems. Scratch that - to men and children. I'm a guy and I've been in some situations that, in my mind, were entirely innocent, when I discovered that was not the view of bystanders...even friends and people who knew me.

The whole sex scene was just so bizarre, along with Tommie's reaction, and I get why David did it, it was his way to break her heart. However, this is where the crush caused some serious problems, and Tommie didn't have the defenses/maturity/experience to fight back nor understand what was happening. David really screwed, no pun intended, that up. He didn't handle it properly.

After reading various explanations and interpretations on the sex scene, yet I just don't seem to be getting what others are getting out of it. The last time I saw the film, I stopped and re-watched the scene with others ideas in mind to consider. While there are some I disagree with 100%, others ideas I feel are closer, like yours, I still don't feel satisfied that anyone has gotten it right.

Regarding your thoughts about the scene, Tommie was supposed to be tucked away in the garage. How would David know, that when having sex with Linn, Tommie's going to get out and look in on them at the same time they're in the middle of having sex? This also risks Tommie being seen by Linn. David deliberately trying to break Tommie's heart, doesn't seem consistent with his ideas of helping and trying to better her existence.

My thoughts are, David all along keeps selling Tommie they're equal partners. She's getting sick and made to feel she cannot leave the garage and it's been 2 days. I think he was surprised to see her awake and lurking around, felt partly bad a child witnessed this adult situation, and also caught giving his attention (and more) to this woman he says he doesn't love and wasn't part of their whole thing to begin with. Their equal 50/50 garbage, yet there are more and more examples of her being treated as less, in Tommie's eyes as just a kid. And last, the way she glares in and stands there and David's reaction, may indicate he's just realized Tommie feels something more, and on top is becoming jealous. If Linn's presence hasn't started ruining what this trip was planned to accomplish, it's all going to hell now.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Regarding your thoughts about the scene, Tommie was supposed to be tucked away in the garage. How would David know, that when having sex with Linn, Tommie's going to get out and look in on them at the same time they're in the middle of having sex? This also risks Tommie being seen by Linn. David deliberately trying to break Tommie's heart, doesn't seem consistent with his ideas of helping and trying to better her existence.

Tommie was sick, but still bored. Remember that she spied on them while they were swimming. Plus she was going outside to care of her stomach issues. I don't feel the viewing of the sex scene was intentional, BUT, considering that he was manipulating her the entire time, he used to his advantage. The idea that he was trying to show her that life is not perfect, and to learn to rise above heartbreak. Again, it was just a messed up way to show it.

The problem? David really screwed it up and didn't handle it right and he missed the crush. As inappropriate as it is, think of Tommie as the jilted lover. Yes, for all practical purposes, she was in love with him, BUT, as Tommie was operating under a massive crush, her emotions are off the scale. Whereas if things had been more stable, I think she would been able to say "okay, I know that getting busy is out, (rather crude but you get the picture), but what you did was not fair either." And it was really wasn't fair. The balance of power was too far off in David's favor between Tommie and David. Even more so in this because David was so manipulative.

Simply put, David created a monster and had no idea how to handle it.

Their equal 50/50 garbage, yet there are more and more examples of her being treated as less, in Tommie's eyes as just a kid.

First, see my response above.

Second, What other options were there? Tommie WAS still a child, and David wasn't interested in her in "that" way if you get my drift. While the relationship was platonic, there's only so far an adult can go with a child, unless David plans to marry Tommie when she's 16 or whatever the hell the AOC is. (I've had a LONG day and evening and coherent thought is a stretch at the moment)

I've got the book coming, I'm really hoping that it gives more insight.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@artcurus-1
I think I'm following what you're saying for the most part. Everything else aside, the way I am reading your line of reasoning is that David knew Tommie had a crush on him. During the sex scene, he stares at her through the window to break her heart, even though he's trying to help her in his own mind, he doesn't want her to expect life to be perfect? For me, if anything, I felt this was the moment David realized Tommie might have more than normal feelings for him.

Yet, you also mention that David missed the crush, which I don't doubt. One thing I'm trying to understand is, at what moment do you believe David became fully aware of Tommie's true emotions? I felt that the look on David's face during the sex scene and upon noticing Tommie was recognition/guilt/shame. However, after all the reading I've done, I feel that I'm alone here.

I was planning on reading the book myself, but after reading opinions above in this thread I feel a bit disenchanted. Even if we don't get back to each other for some time, would you let me know what you think of the book?

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

I think I'm following what you're saying for the most part. Everything else aside, the way I am reading your line of reasoning is that David knew Tommie had a crush on him.

Actually no. Because he was so self centered, he would not be intuitive enough to pick up on it at least until the very end. I think it was the last motel scene when he finally realized what had happened with Tommie.

During the sex scene, he stares at her through the window to break her heart, even though he's trying to help her in his own mind, he doesn't want her to expect life to be perfect? For me, if anything, I felt this was the moment David realized Tommie might have more than normal feelings for him.

Yes most definitely on both counts, but with the crush, things were very off balance. As I said before, I think he started realizing there could be a problem during the sex scene aftermath, but he didn't know the true extent of it, until the last motel scene.

Yet, you also mention that David missed the crush, which I don't doubt. One thing I'm trying to understand is, at what moment do you believe David became fully aware of Tommie's true emotions? I felt that the look on David's face during the sex scene and upon noticing Tommie was recognition/guilt/shame. However, after all the reading I've done, I feel that I'm alone here.

It was the sex scene, and I agree with you here. That was the real turning point when everything came to a head. The problem was how he handled it. Tommie was pissed off and jealous, her actions verify this. David should have explained there are boundaries in a relationship between a child and adult.

I was planning on reading the book myself, but after reading opinions above in this thread I feel a bit disenchanted. Even if we don't get back to each other for some time, would you let me know what you think of the book?

Yes, I'll post a separate thread about it.

reply

[–] Medinensis 8 years ago

The film made it very clear and obvious that he was molesting the girl.

Very, very obvious.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

actually no it didn't. The film version was very toned down compared to book.

reply

[–] Medinensis 8 years ago

@artcurus

So "toned down" means it didn't happen and he was a good guy in the film?

The guy was a pedophile from the beginning. Nothing in his behavior suggested otherwise.

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@Medinensis

Can you specify where at what points you believe this occurred?

I suppose the film is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, I believe it’s all in the mind of the beholder, and we view and interpret various things, as movies, based on our own experiences and reality. Not once have I ever felt that Lamb molested Tommie, and no one has convinced me otherwise. Yet it could be due only to certain experiences of my own that I feel this way.

In a post above, Art states he believes David did not pick up on Tommie’s crush because “he was so self centered, he would not be intuitive enough to pick up on it at least until the very end.” I never felt this observation was incorrect; even so I did not view it this way, I imagine because of a situation I experienced of a crush a girl even younger than Tommie had on me, and I did not pick up on it either until things got...I don’t know, out of hand? Yet, I just saw her as a child and wasn’t thinking with that frame of mind, so to me, I felt that’s how David viewed Tommie.

I’ve read a few different reviews that proclaim with all certainty that there was sexual abuse. That just wasn’t how I experienced the film.

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] Medinensis 8 years ago

There is nothing about his actions or behavior that would suggest he was anything but a pervert and child molesting opportunist.

His actions were criminal. No normal human being whisks a child away like that and strives to constantly protect himself and at the same time keep the child hid from everyone else.

But, back to the original questions that began this thread, the fact that he referenced her two day sleep is important. Because that scene, in tandem with his meltdown at the end of the film, is meant to inform us that he did indeed drug her and molest her. You will recall he tried to get her to take a drink at one point, even though that drink was brushed aside, we can well assume he stayed persistent and kept at her to do his bidding as he did throughout the film. (e.g., she wants to phone her mother, he agrees in order to keep her calm, then slyly talks her out of it).

Hey, I'm not here to make converts, you can dress the guy up in your mind anyway you like.

I offered a opinion because an opinion was requested by the op.

He was a pedophile, clear as day to me.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

You really need to read the book to get the full idea of what David was really like. He was a real ahole but not in the way you think. it was all about the "game" to him, the power he had over Tommie.

There is nothing about his actions or behavior that would suggest he was anything but a pervert and child molesting opportunist.

Here's the thing though, if he really was into little girls, he would'nt have been able to perform with Linn.

But, back to the original questions that began this thread, the fact that he referenced her two day sleep is important. Because that scene, in tandem with his meltdown at the end of the film, is meant to inform us that he did indeed drug her and molest her.

The two day sleep was metaphorical, he lied about the amount of time. In the book, it was the same way, the two day sleep thing happened after the bath but she never drank anything. The problem is that drugging a child to that extent is tricky,well beyond what's available OTC, he stood a good chance of actually killing her if he used too much of the wrong thing. Also, trust me, the bath scene in the book was a real jaw dropper, and I still believe it really didn't have anything to do with sex. However, she still hadn't had anything to drink.

The time frame in the book was around 6 weeks from the time he picked her up to the time he brought her back.

strives to constantly protect himself and at the same time keep the child hid from everyone else.

I'll give you this one, but what other options did he have? He essentially kidnapped a child?

reply

[–] cloudslovestarscolors 8 years ago

@Medinensis
Well, yes...I never said he was normal or that his actions were not criminal. It's not like I suggested anyone should hire him to run a daycare.

It can be hard to detect someone’s tone online, but are you dead set against discussing it? Although I’ve read the drugging theory once before, for me it’s clear this did not happen. When I read this viewpoint, it seems an awfully huge detail involving the 2 main characters and the events of the story, to base all on conjecture.

Especially when you consider, there are no shots or indication David drugged the coffee or anything else throughout the movie, Tommie never takes a sip of the drink...which is immediately spilled, we never see David do drugs, with drugs or buying drugs.

While in the car, David does say Tommie slept for 2 days, an obvious lie which she calls him on, which seems easy to recognize given the trip was said to be 2 days drive back and forth, they arrive at the cabin later that day and they’d already been driving 2 days.

She was visibly upset about the bath, wanted to go home and as you said, David slyly talks her out of it. Though don’t you think if David started abusing her at this point, it’s hard to believe there wouldn’t be a drastic change in Tommie’s demeanor? Wouldn’t she also be in pain and display it through certain actions and behaviours. The bath scene was uncomfortable of course, but it just seems a huge leap to assume the coffee she never drinks was drugged, he doesn’t even look at her in the bath, and David makes no attempts at and hardly even touches Tommie throughout their stay in hotels, the cabin or the car. I can’t imagine Tommie would refer to David as acting “like an uncle or even like a dad” if such an enormous violation of trust was occurring.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, nor do I feel anyone else is. The film is evidently open to different interpretations, as everything isn't laid out and force fed to the audience. Clearly some of us view details more closely in common than others, yet no one in this thread agrees on everything 100%. We've still managed to discuss our conflicting opinions without arguing though.

Off topic - Do you have a favourite David Lynch film?

A list of My Favourite 100 Films
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076253329/

reply

[–] Medinensis 8 years ago

Although I’ve read the drugging theory once before, for me it’s clear this did not happen

It's not as clear to me, I think there is a subtext to suggest that it did indeed happen, perhaps an act as simple as a couple of sleeping pills mixed in with food or drink. I'm not an expert on drugging people, but I'd think knocking out a child wouldn't take much.

The bath scene was uncomfortable of course, but it just seems a huge leap to assume the coffee she never drinks was drugged, . . .

Again, I think it's sub textual and we are to connect the dots amidst his criminal behavior. The scene at the end, where she questions having been in the room before, along with his meltdown, bring us back to the scene where he insists she take a drink, to the next scene where he informs her she slept for two days, etc.

" . . . he doesn't even look at her in the bath, and David makes no attempts at and hardly even touches Tommie throughout their stay in hotels, the cabin or the car."

None that we are shown anyway, it's his peripheral behavior in the settings you mention that is the indication. He tries his best not to upset her because then his entire purpose is a lost cause. He's constantly fearful of people discovering that he took the child from her parents (as well he should be) and to have Tommie upset or angry would only jeopardize him further. Everything he does is calculated to assure he gets away with his little foray.

The film is evidently open to different interpretations. . . . We've still managed to discuss our conflicting opinions without arguing though.

And it's always refreshing to find civil discussions on these boards (though all too rare) and much appreciated.

Off topic - Do you have a favourite David Lynch film?

I'll go one better.

My favorite film of all time happens to be a Lynch film: Mulholland Drive.

Cheers!

reply

[–] jeremyroute807 8 years ago

Ok so instead of making a whole new thread for it since this is kind of a tie in, I got really raked over the coals by youtube A-holes who claimed this was a "pro pedophile" movie and that I must be a pedophile for thinking the film was good. Obviously I know the last part isn't true but what does everybody think about the first part? Did anybody think this was a pro pedophile movie? I didn't see that but maybe I'm a dummy.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

while the story is not well told, I don't think so. We tend to scream "pervert" when ANY adult shows any interest in working with children.

Also, here's the thing, I don't think Gary was attracted to her in that way. It was all about the control he had over her.

reply

[–] jjparish 8 years ago

I never read the book and dont care what happens in the book. Ive not read any comments above either. I just want to comment on whether, from the film, i took it as he did rape the girl. And for me the film is telling us he drugged and raped the girl. He was sorry about it. He was kinda distraught about what he had done. And yes he let the girl go in the end. But he did certainly abuse the girl. A very unsettling film to watch.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

jjparish,

He did not. Tommie never drank anything in the movie as it's presented, without her watching as it was prepared or actually helping, as other posters have also pointed out. The two day sleep was metaphorical. Plus I'm pretty sure if he had raped her, she would most definitely sense something was wrong "down there" for lack of better terminology.

It would have destroyed any trust that Tommie had in Gary if something like that had happened.

reply

[–] jeremyroute807 8 years ago

I can't comment on the book so I'm just going off what the movie gave to us. I think people might be drawing too much out of the "2 days" line meaning she was without a doubt drugged and raped by the guy. I don't think there is enough there to say that. However with that said, it's fairly obvious David is a pedophile. To me he is grooming this girl through his manipulation to be a future victim but at the same time I think he's wrestling with it. He knows it's wrong but he can't help himself. In the end it's too ambiguous to say one way or the other if he did or didn't molest the girl even though I do believe his end game was that it would fall into that. The man is a piece of scum no matter how you slice it and used nearly every line and method in the child molester hand book to trick the poor girl.

It's a very haunting film though all things considered. Most movies you forget about them the minute they end but it's been 5 hours since seeing this and I've just been researching the heck out of it. It's a hard subject to tackle but I feel the movie tackled it in a pretty realistic way.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Jeremy,

As the scene played out in the movie, Tommie never took anything, never drank anything before the two day statement. It was this way in the book also. The two day statement was metaphorical.

I don't think Gary was into little girls. It was all about the power he had over her, the control. This was made quite clear in the book. In the book, he basically called Tommie a little pig, and one point, wanted to smash her face in, to make her feel something. There's no question he was a high toned son of a bitch, especially after that bath scene in the book.

The problem is that Gary so was narcissistic and so intent on keeping himself out of jail, that completely missed a massive crush on Tommie's part. For all practical purposes, the girl was in love with him. She understood more or less what going on, and that's the reason why she was so pissed and hurt after the sex scene. Because of the crush, the proper setup for the relationship father/daughter, couldn't be established, which in the end, would have set boundaries.

Gary finally realized what had happened with Tommie (crush) in the final motel room scene, and how badly he screwed up.

The movie relationship was quite a bit more balanced.

reply

[–] rpressley 8 years ago

He gave her a Slab

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

explain?

reply

[–] masuka-fan 8 years ago

I knew if I came here somebody would be looking for something dirty in this beautiful film. As someone else said, his brother's disappearance might have had something to do with it, but I think he just wanted someone to care for and connect with (he didn't really like Linn that much), and maybe to renew him after what he'd been through recently as well.

He says why he lied about his name, to protect both of them (well more him I suppose.) Even if his intents were pure, no one else would understand that, and it would still be a crime anyway.

reply

[–] writejulia 8 years ago

I just finished it and I think he came very, very close. I think he definitely wanted to. He was in love with her and repulsed by his urges. It reminded me of Humbert Humbert, only a more self-aware and perhaps empathetic Humbert Humbert. I still maintain that Lamb is likely a narcissist, definitely a master manipulator and a dangerous man, but I do think he has empathy.

The scene in which she was watching him have sex was a strong hint (followed by "I'm just a kid to you!") that his feelings for her went beyond paternal. He had a very creepy, odd relationship with her, and I believe that was intentional. I think if she were older, he would have acted on it, but he wanted to protect her as much as he wanted her for selfish reasons.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Go back and read my post on this subject. No, he was not attracted to her in that way, but there's a caveat, and I explain it here- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3908598/board/thread/253533418

reply

[–] SilverGameDog 8 years ago

Seriously?
Just watch it again. Only this time actually pay attention.
And that means not watching while you're on the computer or your phone. Actually WATCH.
You shouldn't have to come to the films message board to have the plot explained to you.

reply

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

danno,

I've watched it twice and read the book.

reply