Films on subjects that make us sick to the stomach aren’t easy to watch, but then spinach doesn’t taste like sorbet either.
I was asked, recently, to view two films – David Schwimmer’s Trust and Nicole Kassell’s The Woodsman – that dealt, in their own ways, with the very troubling reality of child sexual abuse, troubling to watch, definitely, but also to screen for an audience. The authorities that govern these matters, those gods of small things, needed letters from critics and other people associated with the movie industry stating that these films carried no objectionable content and could therefore be screened before a public weaned on movies where the sisters of heroes were regularly raped, where the heroines routinely wore white saris thin as tissue paper and positioned themselves under drooling rain machines, and where even heroes, those paragons of white virtue, harassed the women they loved in a sexist sport that now bears the name eve teasing. In contrast, Trust and The Woodsman only sound horrifying. We don’t actually see anything objectionable except in the mind’s eye, which is actually worse because the many individually imagined horrors twine into a stout whiplash. That, of course, is the point.

But this queasiness on the part of the authorities isn’t surprising, perhaps even understandable – there are children involved, and even our most perverse filmmakers haven’t ventured into that minefield. It’s one thing to sneak sex into wholesome family films, and entirely another to make a film about sex, the worst kind of sex. This is the other troubling reality – who’d want to watch these films? Why would anyone, even the kind of popcorn-averse viewer inclined towards difficult dramas about homosexual priests or Jews under Hitler, propel himself to the theatre to experience, in Trust, a teenaged girl’s loss of innocence at the bear-hands of a married, middle-aged man, and her father’s subsequent anguish, his helplessness, at not being able to protect his little girl? The performances are so transparent, so revelatory, especially by the girl and the father (Liana Liberato and Clive Owen) that the screen – the small screen, in my case – seems to melt away. We’re inside these lives, and that’s a terrible place to be.
The Woodsman pulls off the not-insignificant feat of being far more troubling. At least in Trust, the targets of our love-hate responses are clearly aligned – we want the girl to return to normalcy, to the extent she can, and we want the molester to time-travel back to a certain period in France so that his private parts can come under the guillotine. Victim and victimiser couldn’t be more explicitly demarcated if the director, the former Ross Geller from Friends, gave the girl wings and a halo and the man a pitchfork and a pair of horns. But in The Woodsman, the molester is the victim, and he’s played by Kevin Bacon, an actor we’ve had a long relationship with, an actor we like seeing on screen. The film, therefore, divides us into the half that hates what the character has done (sitting on a park bench eyeing little girls with bad intent, like in the Jethro Tull song) and the half that wants good things to happen to him, nevertheless, because he’s played by this good actor.
The Woodsman isn’t all that it could have been – the eponymous metaphor, as explained, is especially clumsy, harking back to Red Riding Hood, and a love affair that redeems the protagonist is a little too convenient – but by complicating our emotions, the film reflects the complications of life. Trust, too, refuses to take the easy way out by making the victim a sacred lamb. Like any adolescent, the girl is curious about sex to an extent that shocks her father. It’s no surprise, then, that neither film made a dent at the box office, despite decent reviews. But perhaps those who did not want to subject themselves to this unpleasantness in theatres, at the end of a workday’s toil, will discover these films in private screenings or in the privacy of their homes, and expose themselves to the dangers that lurk around their young children. They need to. You can choose not to look at something dirty and ugly, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that you can wish it away, like in a fairy tale, and live happily ever after.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2011 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Niranjan
December 9, 2011
Have these movies had a theatrical release in India? Or was this some special screening that might make you go, “Being me, has its privileges” ?
brangan
December 9, 2011
Niranjan: I was given the DVDs (by Tulir) so that I can give a letter stating that there’s no objectionable content, etc. Saw the films and thought I’d write about them so that the people who can’t see it on screen (whenever it’s screened) will at least know about it.
rameshram
December 9, 2011
Although I think trust is an awesome film for as long as it lasted(I got the feeling David Schiwimmer had more to say but it focus grouped so badly that he stopped where he did) and also think that the middle aged loser is described as the villain, I also think the film is the first film about “pedophilia” (its about a 12 year old girl exploring her growing sexuality) that I thought had some actual respect for(in the sense that it might have been the kind of film I might have written/made). often films about child sex take a “children are the victim” attitude without exploring precisely how they are the victim.
In trust , we don’t see an ultra glammed child paying the price for her “hypersophistication.(well, we do, but she does not pay the price because she’s clueless. she does from feeling an urge to grow up to cope with her inner needs,something the film treats without minimizing or trivializing in a “law enforcement” way.
The price she pays is never confused with her “loss of bride price to her parents” either. While they do see her father suffering from the “violation” of her “innocence” , schwimmer is also careful to note that the parents are as clueless after the act of child sex as they are before(and to the very end), making it even more poingnant that the true victim will probably be psychologically scarred more by everyone who professes to be on her side, than the forgettable incident that resulted in her loss of virginity.
Schwimmer is thus making points, in my opinion about the “victimless crime” nature of this kind of “child rape” – something I believe NOBODY has the guts to market as is, because of the very incindiery nature of his opinions. (Of COURSE the child is a victim , Of Course the Adult is a bad guy! hwat do you even MEAN by even suggesting othervice….etc).
All in all, one of the few 2011 films that made me think(probably because it could hold my attention for an hour and a half until it petered out , weakly)
rameshram
December 9, 2011
(in all
#$$##SPOILERS#$#$%
I thought this film was a less turgid, more realistic version of “sila nerangalil sila manithargal”
@#$%end spoiler#%$%
Hari
December 9, 2011
“But perhaps those who did not want to subject themselves to this unpleasantness in theatres, at the end of a workday’s toil, will discover these films in private screenings or in the privacy of their homes, and expose themselves to the dangers that lurk around their young children. They need to. You can choose not to look at something dirty and ugly, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that you can wish it away, like in a fairy tale, and live happily ever after.”
Having the “M” angle to it, this one sounds a little un-BR-ish
Speaking of movies that make you feel uneasy, I am curious to know about your take on David Lynch’s debut movie “eraserhead?”
brangan
December 10, 2011
rameshram: I think Schwimmer’s bravest choice — or most controversial, depending on how you look at it — was to show that the girl was into this guy. He fulfilled certain sexual and emotional needs at a time she was beginning to have sexual and emotional feelings. Even when she returns to school after the deed, she’s not “oh I’m broken.” It’s like she tried out a new cuisine or went to a new country that scared her at first but now she’s accepted that it happened. I wonder how panel-discussion people will take to this.
Actually, I didn’t mind the soft end. I had more trouble with the dad-becoming-vigilante aspect, stealing the chat transcript and stuff. That didn’t belong in this film.
But that said, I thought that the film did make us feel that he was a bad guy. He’s very clearly shown as a predator. Why do you think otherwise?
rameshram
December 10, 2011
Oh He was quite clearly a predator but he wasn’t (IMO) the villain of the story.(and I never indicated otherwise in my write up above) . I think Schwimmer was presenting without comment the fact that EVERYBODY in her life felt entitled to write their own narratives on to her . The social worker was projecting HER bad relationships on her, her father was writing a powerful revenge for woman in family dishonored narrative, and was wanting her to play victim, the FBI and law enforcement (and the school) were imposing a “one size fits all” crime straightjacket onto the “child” , and her friends were victimizing her in the way high school girls victimize one another, which is pretty ruthlessly.
The lesson from the story seems to be “don’t let a sexual predator give you a bloody nick, because you live in a shark pit, and all the OTHER sharks will get you”.
rameshram
December 10, 2011
now you are going to go to a panel discussion where you’ll likely find the discussion has NO relevance to what actually was in the movie.
rameshram
December 10, 2011
I did say that the “child rape” in this film was a victimless crime though, and people can disagree on this.
Rangashree
December 10, 2011
Can we recommend these films for parents through our parenting community and magazine https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002486814711? Adolescent & teen sexuality is hard to understand for most parents even from the perspective of their own youthful experiences and feelings; because times are changing and so are sensory inputs. I know that modern parents are having a hard time dealing with these issues sensibly. do you think watching such films will open up their minds and equip them better?
brangan
December 10, 2011
Rangashree: As with anything, I’d recommend that you see it first and then make up your mind. Because you know best what’s likely to interest/offend your readers. But if you want my opinion, I think these are disturbing films but no more than films that disturb us on other issues (like rape or untouchability, say). And these are certainly not exploitative films.
rameshram
December 10, 2011
Rangashree,
no. it’ll freak the hell out of them and offer them no easy solutions(and make life hell for their teenage daughters all anew, because they saw this in a film. In india this can extend well into the twenties for the girl)
Rangashree
December 10, 2011
Ok. Guess I will see them first! Tulir is planning a screening. Will try to catch them then.
Nimmi Rangswamy
December 11, 2011
“….this can extend well into the twenties for the girl…” are you kidding Remeshram. I agree about the parents but they too will not freak out!!!
Did you follow the Arushi case in Noida? Its ‘untold’ stories are plastered all over the digital and print space.
Now I wonder if that is gonna be understood in the US…
rameshram
December 11, 2011
Oh Im not talking about cases where parents DO have something to be concerned abut. The problem with india is OVERPARENTING not underparenting.
rameshram
December 11, 2011
after all, for every woman who has sufferred abuse or worse normal sex at a stranger’s hand, there are about a million women repressed and denied all through their teen and tea(twenties) age….
Nimmi Rangswamy
December 11, 2011
@Rameshram Well I get you. But this is not India of the 80s or even 90s… some freakin changes are happening especially the young urbanites and I wonder if we want to understand this at all… That’s why I cited the Arushi case, not the actual crime itself, but all the background noise dug up about lifestyles of 14 year old/s and what’s going on with them The parents here come across woefully ill-equipped to handle teens and their hyper-real world!!!
I think Rangashree has a big point of wanting to screen these films and I believe they do connect…
rameshram
December 11, 2011
listen to you! you sound 80! haha, no im talking also about today’s teenager in india, and for precisely the reasons you stated, i would NOT like to “arm” parents with more ammo against their kids.
Nothing substitutes for the oldfashioned technique of being your child’s friend(not “best” friend, not “only” friend,but A friend), genuinely and taking pleasure in their being happy, even if you don’t understand their world sometimes.
Whatever they are going through, it can be TERRIBLY worse in our imaginations.
rameshram
December 11, 2011
Rahul
December 11, 2011
I watched Mysterious Skin yesterday..it will be a simplification to say its about child abuse..but in any case its a mind blowing movie. Do watch it if you get the chance.
Nimmi Rangswamy
December 12, 2011
@Rameshram Give it to you… agree with most… Becoming ‘the friend’ is much clichéd and difficult slogan out there!!
Nimmi Rangswamy
December 12, 2011
btw SNSM is one of a kind of tamil commercial movie. It’s also one of those that worked with a Midland theatre-going audience [ + a national award]
http://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2005/03/27/sila-nerangalil-sila-manidhargal/
karthi
December 12, 2011
BR , you do read tamil !?
vijay
December 12, 2011
“I think Schwimmer’s bravest choice — or most controversial, depending on how you look at it — was to show that the girl was into this guy.”
I wonder whether you have seen Lolita(the color one, with Jeremy Irons in it, not the old B&W film). I am not sure whether it came before Trust or not, but the young girl character there(I forget her name, some Swain) was brilliant switching between a typical playful pre-teen and a self-aware opportunistic seductress constantly throughout the course of the film. Irons had some balls to play that role. Another difficult one to watch. I wonder how difficult it must have been for the director and the actors.
brangan
December 13, 2011
karthi: Yes, I do. Why do you ask?
vijay: Seen the Kubrick version and read the book but not seen this version. The girl was Dominique Swain, the one who played Travolta’s daughter in the ultra-awesome Face/Off, which may be the only John Woo movie (in his Hollywood phase) that I enjoyed.
The book, by the way, is dazzling. You know how we hear of a lot of older books (that are categorised as “classics”) that they’re so great, and when we pick them up, it’s like “I wonder what the fuss is all about.” But this – OMG! Kept re-reading the paras endlessly.
rameshram
December 13, 2011
” was into this guy..”
I was struck by Schwimmer’s vision on how normal she thought this was….to the end. That felt pretty…..natural….and very rare for films of this nature.(There’s a part late in the movie where her brother comes home to be updated of events. her reaction to the fact that he knows about her episode is very telling. it’s “so how was sex with your girlfriend? was she good? Oh come on guys if you can discuss MY sex life so openly why can’t we discuss his….”
Lolita…avanga sister peru padmini.
karthi
December 13, 2011
I meant tamil literature..if yes..i asked because you are in hindu! thats why….