Written by James MacDowell.
We can surely agree with Hard Candy’s filmmakers and fans when they proudly tell us that this film is not a horror - as if making a genre film were something to be ashamed of. No: it has central aspirations to high moral drama (both writer and director have claimed that it is ultimately about “personal responsibility”) that nominally act to remove it from the horror bracket. What it does have at its core, however, is a sensational issue (paedophilia), as well as a crowd-pulling act of extreme violent cruelty (the DIY castration). As I hinted at in my short review, both these elements link it in my mind to another ‘low’ American genre, the ‘exploitation’ picture (both in the 40s/50s B-movie controversial flick sense, and the 70s/80s video nasty sense). The whole fun of this type of film essentially comes from the transgressive thrill you get from watching something so seemingly amoral - how well can this sit with the kind of moral investigation Hard Candy is apparently aiming for?
Let’s look at the moral dilemmas. Most of the ethical posers this film can throw at you are related to the basic question of whether or not we can justify Haley’s actions. I was initially disappointed when the script abandoned one major possibility for moral ambiguity when, in its final moments, it confirmed that Jeff was indeed involved with the murder of the missing girl. If that basic question had been left unanswered, I thought, the film would be infinitely more troubling since we wouldn’t even know if Haley’s moral crusade had any justification whatsoever. Having thought about it more, however, I have come to think that it actually makes us have to ask ourselves even more interesting questions if we know Jeff is guilty.
If we didn’t finally know the truth it would certainly be pleasing in the sense that it would be a teasing and original way to end a film, but psychologically it would in fact give us something of a get-out clause. If we don’t know whether he’s guilty or not, we aren’t forced to judge him. Knowing that he is in fact a paedophile and and a co-conspirator in child-murder means that Haley is at least justified in her rage towards him- the question then comes down to her violent channelling of it. Personally I believe that, since she essentially tries him without judge or jury and sentences him to death, her actions simply cannot be defended. Others may feel differently - that is the freedom the film allows you.
Another broader way that the film makes itself less complex than it considers itself to be is by focussing not just on paedophilia, but muddying that issue and casually coupling it with murder. Clearly paedophilia is wrong, but it is a crime that encompasses far more moral shades of grey than does murder. Early on, when we are focussing on Jeff’s job as a photographer and the fashion shots he has done of underage girls, we are made to ponder the commodification of children and women, and the power and various potential usages of images in popular culture (Britney? The Olsen Twins?). There is also the morally troubling fact that it is Haley who has initiated this entire scenario (very arguably making Jeff seem less clearly responsible), as well as her troubling line: “Just because a girl can act like a woman, it doesn’t mean she’s ready to do what a woman does.” We can find ourselves agreeing with this statement whilst also questioning what it means when it comes from the mouth of a 14-year-old who doesn’t consider herself ready for sex, but does believe she is ready to torture and drive a man to suicide - does it take more maturity to sleep with someone than to end their life? All these questions buzz around the film until they are superseded by the infinitely more black-and-white issue of murder, at which point they cease to be its central focus and can basically be dismissed.
This moment, however, is a rare instance of brief insight into Haley’s character, who is otherwise merely a steely, determined, blank force. Indeed, the main thing that stops the film from being the moral investigation it is striving to be is the human emptiness of Haley: how can we possibly see her as a moral/ethical being if we know less than nothing about her? We are permitted to see no chinks in her armour, no doubt or slippage of her mask; when she says sadistically at the end, “Maybe not even called Haley,” we realise just how little we have come to know her, especially when compared to how much we have learnt about Jeff. In order to truly convince us that this is not jus a paedo-bashing exploitation flick we badly need some sense of humanity or weakness from the torturer and we are categorically not given this. When we see her walking away in the final shot, her ironic Little Red Riding Hood jacket hiding her eyes, she seems so unknowable, so inhuman - essentially, so like the simple plot compulsion she ultimately is.
This Alternate Take was published on July 01, 2006.
Post your views
Article comments powered by Disqus
Share this article
- Jump to the comments
- Print friendly format
- Email article to a friend
More from this writer
- Before Sunrise after Before Midnight: genre and gender in the Before series
- Before Midnight
- Against 'Ambiguity': On the Ending of The Dark Knight Rises
- John Cazale: Stepped Over
- Moonrise Kingdom