My reference to an essay on the subject resulted in an interesting Slate thread on victim impact statements. The suggestion that one particular case led to my stance, however, annoys me -- not for the first time, people accused me of arbitrariness based on particularized concerns. This is understandable, but still pisses me off.
Anyway, in honor of JPS' birthday yesterday, here is a good introduction why I worry about the practice across the board. In fact, though frayster Degme has a point, it sometimes can have problems even in a civil trial. Still, compensatory damages -- unlike criminal liability -- do have some strict liability aspects. And, victim impact -- even with its emotional over reason aspects -- is appropriate in that context.
[Spoilers alert!]
Talking about victim impact, Hard Candy is currently getting a lot of attention. In fact, I noticed that one theater that was playing another movie I wanted to see this weekend (one that just was released to boot) decided to have two showings of Hard Candy instead. Clearly, I should have waited, and watched the other movie first. What is the attraction? Well, the movie concerns a fourteen year old girl (actually played by an actress about that age -- as with Degrassi -- I find this often quite useful; cf. a current television show about a mature teen playing detective that is hurt since the actress is in her mid-20s and it shows) turning the tables on a thirty-two year old man who she met on the Internet.
The reviewer at NYT and a few others made remarks that they were concerned about their privates when watching the film ... well, don't pick up teenagers. In fact, it was noted that Japanese girls have been known to lure such guys into meetings and then beat them up. Notably, porn is an obsession in Japan too, including nudity in their anime and comic books (though pubic hair is a no no -- ironically, giving the porn an additional child porn aura at times). Also, of course, there still is some concern there for women not abandoning their proper roles. This gives the turn about an additional flavor -- though I reckon this also would suggest S&M sort of things (see recent episode of House) would also be prevalent in the country as well. The taboo is often fleshed out in role playing.
Anyway, as to the movie. It starts with the actual online conversation (all text) and the teen suggesting a meeting. The first visual of the characters is the girl -- baby faced/not the stereotype nymphet sort -- enjoying a piece of chocolate cake with clear sexual overtones. We soon find out she was the one doing the luring -- which might cause some predators to nod (you know, they are asking for it ... they tempted me, etc.) -- though only so she can turn the tables. And, the movie ultimately is worth seeing for the young actress' performance (she has other credits, and will be in the next X-Men movie, but this is clearly a star turn). Quite impressive, even as the plot becomes a bit dubious. The guy is good as well ... the movie basically a two person show with three cameos, including Sandra Oh (friend of moviemaker?).
The movie turns out to be a revenge flick. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre in various respects. My annoyance though tends to be when the movie simplistically twists our blood thirst and lead us not to care about the mindlessness of the vengeance. Consider Mystic River, an Oscar winner that I personally thought overrated. But, the movie suggests revenge is a dubious transaction. The actual revenge motif by itself seems to me a legitimate question to examine in cinema. This includes those that have exploitative aspects -- we actually see the victims being harmed in graphic fashion, often women -- perhaps most infamously shown in I Spit On Your Grave.
In this film -- hated by Roger Ebert, who nonetheless praises more "tasteful" revenge flicks -- we see the gang rape in disgusting detail, but the movie has some sense of artistic complexity, the actual victim gets revenge (not her agent, like in Death Wish), and the actual victimizers are targeted (again, Death Wish etc. ultimately attacks an open-ended criminal class). In fact, like Mystic River, the whole matter leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Unlike there, questions of liability are not at issue -- no, we clearly saw what happened to her -- but the effect on the victim is not too gratifying. Not only does she pray in church before doing her task, the last shot is her catatonically riding the boat down a river.
[Hard Candy references child porn he photographed (and clothed shots of his teen models) and shows a picture of a past victim -- though how much the guy hurt her is unclear for most of the film -- but nothing more. So, the teen here is actually an agent too, though in effect a potential victim too. Charles Bronson similarly set himself as a "victim" to lure criminals, but this is given additional bite when we are talking about a fourteen year old girl.]
Various films however seems to abuse innocents so we can cheer the hero's use of revenge and violence and honor his (as it usually is) sense of justice. Man On Fire - at least from the reviews that were mixed -- was of this sort. A young girl was put in jeopardy, thus Denzel Washington can justly torture various lowlifes along the way. Other films just kill people off, perhaps after we have a nice little view of them. This is also a theme in action movies generally. On some level, this sort of thing is necessary for the plot. Even Slither, surely not intended to be taken seriously, involves a lot of loss of life. Ditto crime procedurals etc.
So, there has to be some sort of middle path taken, though revenge flicks often cross the line in my eyes. At least, to the extent I would like to watch the films. The films do sometimes have enough serious aspects, including dramatic weight that I find them worth seeing. Positive ID, for instance, turns out to be a revenge flick. But, it is a little gem, largely because of the lead character. And, yes, a few sort of are forbidden pleasures sort of things. Overall, Hard Candy is recommended for all these reasons. Now, some might not wish to get as close of a taste of castration ... in the movie's eyes not too difficult of a procedure really ... but the two character dramatics here is overall very good.
Ultimately, one complaint I had was that the movie made it a bit too easy for the viewer.* This was surely unnecessary to some extent given the plot -- an adult predator of this sort is not liable to have too much sympathy, even if the extent of his guilt was a bit more hazy. This is not shown to the very end, which does help explain some of the teen's earlier actions, including her assurance ... but a fourteen year old person in her position would by nature have such assurance, one that might be taken "too far."
[OTOH, again, for other teens, the assurance factor might not have been there without the clarity provided in the movie -- the movie ultimately does leave questions as to exactly why she did it. Something seems left out.]
Also, though there were a few trouble spots, the teen really turned the tables and controlled the situation a bit too assuredly. In other words, it was a bit unbelievable in that respect. But, this would not be the first time, right? Likewise, the movie started off playing with the viewer -- though it turned out the teen was just luring her prey, she did so in a sexual way that must have left many (male) viewers uncomfortable. This was a good touch ... once she became avenger, the complexity (including her youth and immaturity ... though again her appearance alone suggested this throughout, even if her actions did not) was less present. Again, the guy was not just a run of the mill predator. In fact, he photographed teen models for a living. OTOH, early on, he does come off as a decent guy.
Overall, however, I would recommend the movie. In fact, the quality of the lead performance and movie itself probably would have been worth seeing even if the film did not have one particularly painful scene and the child abuse theme.
---
* I have long thought that Shawshank Redemption did this as well. Andy is clearly innocent of his crime, though he does undergo a psychological change in jail. But, he could have done this even if he was guilty -- the crime, after all, was allegedly shooting his wife and her lover in the act. This would -- surely in the 1940s -- probably not even be a crime in a few states.
Surely, we would not think too much less of him if he actually shot them, plus still think homosexual rape and about twenty years in jail for the crimes would have been excessive punishment. Likewise, it would add complexity to the character. After all, Red was guilty of a heinous crime, but was a sympathetic character that also changed in prison. And, not only because Morgan Freeman played him.