Mrebo said:
Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:
Whether this is “abuse” is debatable – there are those who think that any sex between an adult and a minor is abuse, whether consensual or not, and regardless of who was the pursuer. There are those who think it is a grey area (probably most think that, including me). And, there are those who think the law should be a lot more permissive.
However, I found the movie’s dealing with this issue to be manipulative (to the viewer). By making the characters seem SO different in age, and by making the parents SO approving and hands off - while being portrayed as highly educated and enlightened, it made me wonder exactly what the movie’s message was supposed to be. The guy was a guest in the parents’ home, and was pretty rude and aggressive. And he was doing their son. It is very, very strange that they didn’t even question whether it was “ok”, or whether their son was even ok with it. Is the message that this is how parents should be? Is that really good?
Other similarly-themed stories include the parents being livid - or at the very least worrying, regardless of whether or not the story sympathizes with the protagonists.
Concern about the messaging of the movie sounds reasonable.
I think we all have a sense that it could be more inappropriate if the ages were farther apart, and especially if the protagonist were younger. Kevin Spacey was accused of abuse of a 14 year old when he was 24. I saw him routinely called a pedophile. His “I’m a gay American” statement outraged many people, not only for trying to deflect from what he did, but for playing into a stereotype of gay men being especially interested in minors.
Even if the relationship in the movie were portrayed in such a way that there was not a scintilla of taking advantage, the concern about parental approval/encouragement seems valid. It would be weird to see a father delighted about a 24 year old man being involved with his 17 year old daughter.
This debate touches on something bigger, I think. And that’s to what extent a movie is serving as some sort of propaganda (for lack of a better word) or merely telling a story where we can judge the characters and actions but still enjoy the movie for what it is. It’s difficult because movies push a certain point of view. If you think a behavior (such as approving parent, or adults involved with minors) is entirely wrong but in the context of the movie you’re supposed to find it wonderful, how do you not have a problem with the film itself?
I have no views on this movie except I haven’t seen it and probably won’t.
I’ll just state outright my argument and be done with it, this has gone on too long and I fear people aren’t really getting what I’m saying.
To begin, I think the legal age of consent should be 18 (with some exceptions like close in age or preexisting relationship). I don’t think that all relationships outside of these boundaries are inherently unhealthy and creepy, but a line needs be drawn somewhere, and this is the place. None of this really has much to do with the film and what it’s portraying.
My first post on this topic mentioned that the 17/24 age difference was on the sketchy line, but not egregious (if you can’t see the difference between a 14 and a 17 year old, and an unwanted advance vs a wanted relationship, I don’t know what to tell you). I also said that this might be a casting issue (Armie Hammer doesn’t look 24, although he’s great in the part). I also considered the fact that maybe they should have made Chalamet’s character 18. All this to say, these are things that got in the way of the point, which is to say, an adult having a sexual relationship with a minor was not the point.
Nowhere in the film is the age difference even mentioned. The movie is not about statutory rape and how it’s great. The idea that this is some sort of NAMBLA propaganda film is ridiculous, and the suggestion that most of its fans are pedophiles is absurd and offensive. Whatever the impression some people get when they see the film, it is quite obvous that promoting sexual relationships with minors was not at all the intent from the filmmakers.
As for the parents not caring, that’s just not what the movie is about. It’s Elio’s story from his perspective. Throughout the film he pulls himself away from the relationship precisely because he thinks his parents wouldn’t approve. It isn’t until the end when it’s revealed that the parents decided to just let it happen (and we don’t see this decision making process, only the end result). In the context of the film itself, they do this because they ultimately know it will be a powerful and transformative experience in Elio’s life, and they know that as a person with homosexual tendencies living in the 80s, he may never be allowed an opportunity like this again.
If there’s a “propaganda” point that the film is trying to get across, I guess you could say it’s promoting that rascally gay agenda that everyone is so worried about. Now obviously a film’s effect and meaning are more than simply the filmmakers intention, and I’ve argued this before. So yes, there is a fair argument to make that this film is inadvertently promoting ephebophilia or whatever. But that’s basically like when I argue that the Phantom Menace has racist caricatures and everyone yells at me. Thing is, just because it does doesn’t mean George Lucas was a racist or TPM is racist propaganda or the people who like it are racist. It doesn’t make the film disgusting or despicable or not worth watching. It’s not even really that big a problem with the movie. You just sorta have to roll with it, just like I said about CMBYN a few pages back.
Anyway, I’m not really interested in explaining a movie to people who mostly haven’t seen it again, so don’t expect me to jump into this Shape of Water debate.
