MovieChat Forums > Lamb (2016) Discussion > What a truly hateful story

What a truly hateful story

posted 8 years ago by sc_taylor
16 replies | jump to latest

This film made me so angry. The sheer emotional manipulation this selfish man meeted out to an innocent child was utterly appalling. He took her from her family and acted out the romantic figure to her, then shut her up in the barn while he lied to his girlfriend and finally dumped her back on the street in a truly heartbreaking scene after melting the poor kid's heart. His behaviour was completely reprehensible and utterly self-serving as he wallowed in his own self pity. In the process, he upset his girlfriend (who clearly loved him and cared about him) - God knows what she thought was going on! But worst of all, he picked up a very young child, made her love him too in her innocent way and then dropped her, after filling her full of philosophical crap no child of that age could properly process. What a complete bastard! Then, the closing credits are over some indie, wailing vocal as if we are to think of the film as in some way tender and emotional! Jesus!! The whole thing was sick.
--------------------------------
My God, it's full of stars!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sc_taylor 8 years ago

That is an outrageous thing to say! To suggest that Tommy has part of the responsibility for what happened, because she "had a crush" is quite inappropriate. A) she is a child and he is an adult B) she didn't ask to be picked up!

However you attemp to justify or explain away his actions, they were completely reprehensible. What he did is quite simply incapable of justification, no matter how you attempt to spin it. Even before she developed a crush, he was entirely in the wrong (as he'd kidnapped her).

You use the phrase "derailed things" as if the situation before that was entirely fine!

This is a situation involving an adult in his 40s and a very young child. I don't see how you can even begin to imagine they "share" responsibility for what happens. The responsibility is all his and he grossly abused her trust.

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

I should have worded that more clearly.

I have better insight because I've actually read the book.

A) she is a child and he is an adult B) she didn't ask to be picked up!

But she went with him willingly after they had become friends and he gave her several opportunities to back out at first.

The whole point is that Tommie was already heading for a really bad future. This was established even more so in the book because we were introduced to Tommie's family and was the point of the scene where she first met Gary. She had an idea of what to do, but no idea about how to go about it. Gary saw the chance to possibly make a difference but caught up in a game of deceit and manipulation.

I never condoned what Gary did, even more so after the reading the book, if you think the bath scene was bad in the movie, it was a whole different ballgame in the book.

Because of the crush, the true base for the relationship, father/daughter, couldn't be established, which would have set boundaries otherwise. Tommie, for all practical purposes, was in love with him, however misplaced that love was. If Tommie hadn't fallen for him, then she more than likely told him to get lost and take her home a little over halfway through the movie.

SC, we are on the same page here, remember in my first response I thought Gary was a son of a bitch. It's just that I understand his reasoning and the "why" more clearly. He thought at first he was doing the right thing, but essentially completely blew it.

Make sense now?

[–] sc_taylor 8 years ago

Ok, I think I understand better where you are coming from.

Sorry.

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain.
--------------------------------
My God, it's full of stars!

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

Not a problem.

[–] SilverGameDog 8 years ago

Please don't let your own personal experiences cloud your judgement.
Clearly you were molested by a man when you were younger. Ok, that's horrible and unfortunate. Now, sadly, you spend the rest of your life hating on and suspecting ALL men of being pedophiles and of having bad motives.
Watch the film again without letting all your personal baggage get in the way. You're dead wrong.

[–] QueenCandie 8 years ago

You are a lunatic pedophile too. This board is infested with them

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

I seem really to have misread David in the movie. I thought his intentions were good, all the way, but you seem to be saying he just wasn't as much of an SOB as he was in the book. What were his "book" motivations for taking her on this trip? You mention the bath scene; was he sexually attracted to Tommie, and did he reveal, hint at, or demonstrate any such feelings toward her? I kept hoping the movie wouldn't go down that path, and I don't believe it did, in any way. I did feel that he was more aware of what Tommie's (dismal) future was likely to be than the audience was let in on.

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

The book version of David was more about the control he had over her. The basic premise was still there and he still felt like he was trying to do the right thing, but he got caught up in a game of real manipulation. The bath scene in the book was jaw dropping to say the least, but it wasn't about sex, he was testing to see how far he could go, and what Tommie's reaction would be. The ironic thing was that if David had done to the movie Tommie what he had done to the book Tommie. The movie Tommie would have told what exactly where he could shove it and take her home if that makes sense.

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

Well! That went from zero to waaay out there in no time flat, and for no reason I can ascertain; however, I see that your post was not removed, so it seems common sense prevailed.

My interest in the following is neither puerile nor pedophilic, but merely that of an - ahem - mature adult. I'm simply trying to understand the comments I've read here and elsewhere about the bathtub scene in the book vs the movie, as they all describe it as being much more - something? I'm confused by your saying it wasn't sexual, yet also that Lamb was testing "how far he could go." I'm *not* asking for details, but is it fair to say that his actions in the book *bordered* on being sexual, or could/were meant to be perceived by the reader as such?

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

In the book, he called her Little Piggy through out the first half of it, it was extremely derogatory, and at one point, wanted to punch her in the face to make her feel "something." David/Gary a real high toned son of a bitch, he got caught up in a game on manipulation and control. He reveled in it.

Yes, he did go way over the line in the bathtub scene in the book, but he wanted to "test" her. He wanted to see if she would tell or tell him to take her home. While she told him to take her home, he talked her out of it. He then knew, by then, that he had full control over her. The movie version of Tommy was more developed as a character, and yes, she would have told Gary to go to hell and take her home if what happened in the book would have happened in the movie.

There were no other scenes that hinted he was attracted to her, and was actually able to perform with Linn.

Make sense now?

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

Yup, it does - unlike many posts all over this board. It seems that a lot of viewers cemented their opinions of David within the first few scenes, per preconceived, "acceptable" societal standards. I shudder to think of the reaction had the movie (more) closely paralleled the book.

But, in truth, I should climb down off my high horse, as I tried and failed to give David the benefit of the doubt. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop - not that a first did . . . I'm hopelessly tangled in a glib cliché. This is how the movie made me feel in the end; hopeless, for both characters.

You make an excellent point re David and Linny, one that hadn't occurred to me. I don't mean that I needed it as proof of David's sexual proclivity, as I never got to this point, but as a clear demonstration of it. Which is what, though, if not proof? Proof to be held up, in his "defense," to disputers and doubters, I suppose. (And now I'm rambling, so sorry!)

[–] artcurus-1 8 years ago

But, in truth, I should climb down off my high horse, as I tried and failed to give David the benefit of the doubt. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop - not that a first did . . . I'm hopelessly tangled in a glib cliché. This is how the movie made me feel in the end; hopeless, for both characters.

Then you completely and totally got the story. The whole thing was basically a circle. David tried to make a difference in Tommy's life, and in the end, his own, but he failed miserably. Part of it was his own personality, he was narcissistic and self serving,and in the end,it was his downfall, and one of the worst ways ever to deal with another human being, let alone a child. He also completely missed a massive crush on Tommie's part.

The thing is though if the bath scene in the book had happened in the movie, the movie David probably would have taken her home after she demanded it. The movie David DID truly care for Tommie to some extent.

[–] QueenCandie 8 years ago

You are a sick, repulsive and depraved person. I'm reporting your post. You are a pedophile 100%

[–] SilverGameDog 8 years ago

Looks like someone completely missed the point of the film...
Or maybe you're confused. Did you watch Slience of the LAMBs maybe? Lol

[–] japonaliya 8 years ago

Even if everything you said in your critique was true (and I do personally disagree) Maybe that is what the director (and actor) wanted to portray.

Just because a movie has a "bad" character in it who does "bad" things is no reason to hate the film. That might be exactly what the purpose was all about.

Should we discount every movie that has abuse, emotional and/or sexual, violence etc. and say the film was bad just because it was not your typical G rated fairy-tale happy?

By your account, Schindler's List should be one of the worst films every made as the inhumanity was true, but overwhelming, albeit, it did have more or less a "happy ending"

You are like a child who cannot handle adult themes..If the director was condoning the behavior that would be something else, but clearly he has let the viewer make up their own minds.. Not about the worth of the film, but its message.