And not just for Carey Mulligan. It shows a sohisticated understanding of the fact that being young doesn't mean being hopelesly naive as well. Jenny knows full well what David is up to right from the start. He's picking her up - and you should never accept rides from strangers. But he's a very nice patient roue. He doesn't jump her bones the first chance he gets. He's a full-bore seducer. He gets her family on board first, and with the help of his pals introduces her to the world she longs to be a part of. So she can hardly object when it's time to seal the deal. Best of all, it doesn't "ruin" her. That's be cause she's not really in love with him. What she loves is the promise of the world he offers. So she ends not "sadder but wiser," but wiser indeed.

In short it's a bracing bit of sanity in a world where denouncing Roman Polanski supposedly puts one on the fast-track to sainthood.

1) In the movie, Mulligan's character is 17 when she has sex for the first time; her waiting until her 17th birthday is one of the plot points.

2) The movie is marvelously acted and mostly engrossing, but loses some momentum near the end; the denoument of the central 'mystery' seemed implausible in light of what came before, and raised a lot more questions than it answered.

3) art guerilla, could you please go spew word salad somewhere else? Maybe by yourself? Thanks.

from what i understand that is presented so far, we have a one-sided, uncrossexamined, grand jury/prosecutor account of the night that was signed off on by That Vile Monster solely to obtain a deal for time-served, etc... said deal was apparently going to be reneged upon by a fine, upstanding, morally impeccable specimen of the judicial system, and so That Vile Monster fled... in those circumstances, and with the means to do so, you probably would too...

Your understanding is lacking. I recommend you consult a competent lawyer. When a defendant makes a plea deal with a prosecutor, the deal is a recommendation to the court. The judge is under no obligation to accept it. Even if a judge verbally approves of the deal, the judge can ignore it during sentencing. This is explained to the defendant by their lawyer and is in the fine print of the written deal with the prosecutor. A defendant knows that by accepting the deal, the judge may sentence them to the maximum allowed by law. If the defendant or their lawyer thought there was misconduct, motions can be raised to the court or appealed. That process is equally available.

A pedophile is somebody that is attracted and has a preference for prepubescent children. Also, one can be a pedophile and not engage in any sexual acts.

Just a suggestion for those extrapolating beyond the film review:

When presented with narratives like this, it's often useful to 'gender flip' the main characters and reflect on if (and if so, how) that changes your feelings and assessments.

Here, what seems different to you (if anything) if the elder character was female and the younger one, male?

I saw Mulligan and Sarsgaard play opposite one another in 'The Seagull' and was very impressed. Can't wait to see what they make of this together.

1. sorry my half a brain cell was incompetent in conveying the deadpan, dead-on sarcasm your half a brain cell was incapable of deciphering... my points -however obtuse- remain unanswered (hint: they don't have much to do with That Vile Monster, and a lot to do with the rabid response team of broadsheet broads who out-scold, out-prude, out-moralize any reichwing chapter of the moral majority...)

2. i don't think you -or much of anyone who posts on saloon about That Vile Monster- meta-physically *knows* what happened on that occasion... i'm *GUESSING* that what he did *WAS* vile and slim(e)y, and -at the very least- technically illegal...

(which is one of MANY an issue i have observed that the condemners of That Vile Monster do NOT want to discuss in any rational manner that has meaning to society: what IS the 'age of consent' ? why does it change over time ? why does it change from state to state ? (why not county to county?) what constitutes 'consent' ? the uber-fems you are reflexively side with would contend that there is NO consent in ANY 'uneven' 'power relationsthip' period... that is obvious nonsense on so many levels and so many ways, as to make me dismiss people who make such arguments...

3. from what i understand that is presented so far, we have a one-sided, uncrossexamined, grand jury/prosecutor account of the night that was signed off on by That Vile Monster solely to obtain a deal for time-served, etc... said deal was apparently going to be reneged upon by a fine, upstanding, morally impeccable specimen of the judicial system, and so That Vile Monster fled... in those circumstances, and with the means to do so, you probably would too...

(oh, as an aside, like reichwing hypocrites whose kids get caught in drug busts and such, they IMMEDIATELY do a 180 and clamor for EVERY lib'rul (*ptui*) legalism, protection, and exceptional treatment for *THEIR* special snowflake; YOU gals WILL clamor for EVERY extenuating circumstance, every legal protection, every right to privacy when it is some man/woman YOU know/love or are related to who is That Vile Monster in some fashion... *then* your tolerance, understanding, and forgiveness will know no bounds... funny how that works, right and left...)

4. did i miss how there was ONE TENTH the 'outrage' by these righteous tormentors of That Vile Monster over the story of private green who raped, killed, mutilated, burned the eye-rackee young woman ? ? ? i may have even heard about this story on broadsheet, but i don't recall any boycotts called for private green, his cohorts, and everyone else involved who 'defended' or 'excused' or covered up their behavior...

no, let's pile on That Vile Monster...

similarly, broadsheet?/saloon -MUCH to their credit- have been fairly consistent in running stories of the DISGUSTING and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE rates of rape of soldier-on-soldier... (talk about your unequal 'power relationships'...) and while i'm certain there was much tsk-tsking in the comments, etc, WHO STEPPED UP and sparked a 'boycott' against the military ? ? ?

WHO ? ? ?

right, NO ONE: weak-willed pwogs DARE NOT breathe one contrary word about the military, or be labeled as commies or whatever...

the military BREEDS and CONDONES these 'random' acts...

(newsflash: The Military's Purpose is to Kill our enemies and Destroy their countries, um, that is what they are trained to do: to be VIOLENT.)

and ultimately they don't care: they view woman in the military as 'comfort woman' anyway...

but, no, let's all nail That Vile Monster to a cross, seems much more popular than taking on The War Machine that perpetrates one million times the horrific effects as a sad satyr...

not much cost in calling for the scourging of the unpopular, but lots of cost in defending them...

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

art guerrilla@windstream.net

eof