After diving into the problematic elements of Student/Teacher relationships in teen shows, I thought to myself, "That was absolutely depressing and rage inducing, probably won't do that again." but then I had another thought. How are we presenting these types of relationships to adults? Are we doing any better there? The answer is kinda? Maybe? Not really.
I notice that when the relationship is presented in media geared towards adults, a disturbing trend happens where the young person is not just the instigator of the relationship with an adult but the predator. They are trying to seduce the adult with their young Lolita ways only to snap dangerously when the adult refuses. The roles are swapped so that the young person is the predator and the adult is the prey. I like to call this trope the "Evil Lolita".
There are loads of examples of movies and shows that utilize the Evil Lolita, The Crush is probably the top tier example in movies where in Alicia Silverstone's character becomes dangerously obsessed with Carey Elwes' sexy writer character and bad things ensue. I'll save this for a bit later though because I really want to get into it with this one. Other examples include the show Ringer, which featured young high school girls having a sexual relationship with their teacher in order to black mail him but also swindle money for/with him? I don't remember too much of it, suffice to say it was troubling. There's the Poison Ivy series (the first one starred Drew Barrymore as the Poison Ivy in question). Of course, there's Wild Things which Ringer's Evil Lolita plot pretty much ripped off. Glee even presented the young girls crushing on Will Schuester as predatory, though not to the extent of these other examples. My point is, it's been done a lot and there are others I might not even know about.
Just a side note here to point out that this trope is very explicitly different from the "Evil Child" trope often used in horror which I don't really have an issue with. The "Evil Lolita" is different and more problematic as it is 100% about sexualizing and fetishizing young girls. I have not actually come across much media where the roles are reversed and it's a young boy pursuing and ruining an older woman but I want to go on record saying that would be equally gross and damaging. The onus is always on the adult in these situations, I don't care which genders are involved.
My big problem with this trope is the fact that we are putting the onus, the blame, on an underaged person and it's largely young girls that are vilified. Let's be real here, there is a reason for that and a big part of it is the fetishization of Lolita. I mean, Dolores "Lolita" Haze, the actual character from the book Lolita. The book itself is an indictment of Humbert Humbert's attraction to a 12 year old child. I've heard it touted as a romance but it's actually a tragedy as told by an unreliable narrator. You know what happens to Dolores (Lolita)? She ends up rescued from Humbert by a man who tries to put her in a pornographic play and then ends up married and pregnant at 17. She dies in child birth. It does not end well for her and she was abused and exploited by Humbert.
Why do people romanticize it then? Well, I think that's in large part to adapting it to the movie screen. In Stanley Kubrick's Lolita, he ages her up and casts 14 year old Sue Lyon in the role. The marketing basically revolved around the shock factor "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" and the ads featured her prominently. She was made to look alluring, she was made to look like she wanted your attention. Interestingly enough, they removed any reference to Humbert having previous attractions to young girls which removes even more culpability from him and puts her more in the role of temptress.
The heart-shaped shades, in particular became a kind of symbol of youthful sexiness which is just a little bit disturbing. Also note the made up lips, she's designed to look "adult", she's made to look like a fantasy. The idea that a young girl is actively pursuing relationships with older men (while sometimes true and often stemming from childhood trauma) is a dangerous seed to plant in people's minds because I think it makes people forget that while teens and young children might like to play act as adults, they really aren't. They need our guidance more than to be used as some form of youthful validation or worse, sexual gratification. Let's not forget that while in Humbert's mind, he was completely infatuated with Dolores and he assumed she wanted the same, his actions completely destroyed her life. He was not a victim of her youthful attractiveness or siren's call, he was a monster that molded a young child into his sexual fantasy, completely stripping her of her youth, her home, her family, and ultimately her future.
It wasn't long before the idea came to twist this concept into more of a thriller. Interestingly, not to make the Humbert character more explicitly evil but to make him more sympathetic while Lolita is made the villain.
Don't tell me that cover isn't meant to evoke thoughts of Lolita. In this iteration, the Lolita is Adrien and she is 14. A writer comes to town and rooms in her parents' guest house. Already strikingly similar to the original story except it's hinted that she has a crush on him. Now, if you just read the synopsis, it says that Adrien likes Nick but he is not interested and she kisses him which sparks her crush and he tries harder to back off which causes her to fuck up his life.
In a charitable reading, this is trying in a way to be a morality tale, warning men away from relationships with younger girls but that is still a really garbage take if that's what they were going for. I think this was trying to be nothing more than a risque, titillating thriller ala Fatal Attraction but with a Lolita angle. But here's the thing, it paints the adult as even more of a victim and the girl as even more eager, evil even. Could it warn men away from relationships with younger girls? Maybe but probably only the ones who wouldn't be inclined to that in the first place. Could it give men who already have a predilection towards young girls the excuse they need to pursue them more (hey, they seem to really want it and this guy's an idiot for rejecting that) I don't know. It's definitely not a one to one but let's just say some interesting seeds are planted here.
You want to know something even more fucked? Nick's not even completely innocent like the synopsis and the movie itself implies. For starters, he is absolutely, 100% into Adrien. Sure, there is always some type of ominous music playing when she's chatting with him (to further drive in the point that she's evil and trying to lure him in so he should stay away!) but let's take a look at their interactions before she starts acting "crazy" shall we?
I'm going to remind you that she's 14 (almost 15 according to her) and he's 28. He's been staring moonily at her prior to this. I think the film wants us to believe she's cast some sort of harlot spell over him but she's literally a 14 year old playing piano. Let's continue:
Clearly showing an interest, clearly flirting, clearly wishing she were "legal" so he'd be in the clear for moving in on her. I love that he's baiting her to like give him the ok. "I can't possibly be interested but I am so you must not be the age you say you are!" Gee, how ever did she get the idea that you liked her and wanted to be with her? Girls be crazy, right? It gets worse.
Let me remind you, he is kissing someone 14 years his junior. He was already 14 when she was a baby, a full grown adult when she was just a child. It doesn't look like he doesn't want her affections. This is the tipping point, by the way, he does pull away and offer to drive her home but like, why did an almost 30 year old man drive his landlords' 14 year old child away from their party to hang out alone in a make out spot in the first place? It was like, he got what he wanted and then finally clued in to his fuck up and then got shocked that the girl was confused.
Am I scandalized by this movie? Fuck no. It's campy, cheesy thrillers at their best and I watched it every time it was on tv because of my crush on Carey Elwes. But my feelings towards it have changed a bit. You see, when I discovered it, I was a teen. This was edgy, kind of wish fulfillment-y. As a teen, I sympathized with Nick. I disliked Adrien for being "one of those girls" I was basically her friend, Cheyenne.
Side note: This movie is a nostalgia blast what with the dad being played by That 70's Show Dad (Kurtwood Smith) , Alicia Silverstone from Clueless, Carey Elwes from Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and Amber Benson from Buffy but it's a bit troubling to watch today. Back on topic to the purpose of Cheyenne:
Cheyenne's role is to assure us that Adrien is in fact, the evil Lolita Nick and the audience thinks she is. Nick's a good guy, she assures us. He would never! Except...he did. He completely did. He flirted with Adrien, he bemoaned her not being old enough (to be legal), he let her kiss him and kissed her back before finally realizing it was maybe not great. I didn't even mention when he went snooping in her room for evidence of her crazy and then hid in the closet because she came back. She then "evilly" undresses for him, showing him everything but like...he didn't look away. Sure she knew he was there and was trying to seduce him but if he were such a great guy, wouldn't he have looked away? You know, because she's 14??
And you know, I bought these lines. I bought that he was just a good guy and Adrien was the crazy one but watching it now? I don't know. I'm not saying Adrien as a character isn't guilty. She absolutely goes apeshit and destroys his career and also tries to murder Nick's new girlfriend (who he pursues after his indiscretion with Adrien to probably distract himself from how awful he is) with bees. I'm just saying that Nick's not as innocent as the movie would like us to believe. He's our protagonist though and so we root for him to win all while he makes passes at a 14 year old, drives her out in the middle of no where and reciprocates a kiss with her for an uncomfortably long while before telling her it's a bad idea. I don't know how good that is.
This concept was taken to its extreme with Hard Candy in which a young girl (played by Elliot Page) lures a man out on a date and then ends up at his house. Her stated age is 14 and his is 32. They had been flirting online and agreed to meet up and then took things back to his place, all the while the guy is claiming he "doesn't sleep with minors".
What I like about this film is that it clearly paints the girl as the victim but it flips that on its head when the girl ends up taking charge and putting the man through gruelling torture for his crimes. So, it's an "Evil Lolita" where in the girl is kind of a vengeance demon of sorts. The movie is pretty good and it leaves you with a lot of complicated emotions to consider. Did she go too far or did she save a bunch of future victims from a monster? It's good stuff and I liked that this took the trope but bent it so that the "Evil Lolita" is completely justified in her actions towards the "hero". He's a predator, she wanted him to pay. The lines were clearly drawn. I wanted to end on this note because where The Crush handles the premise extremely lazily and leaves room for some gross oversexualization and demonizing of an underaged girl, Hard Candy took that trope, made her look like a child, and made her violence towards the guy not about a willing crush but about the fact that he's a 32 year old man going on chat sites to meet 14-year-olds, meeting with them in person, and taking them back to his place. Cut and dry, right? It was going to be my one shining example of how to do the trope sort of right but then I checked IMDb.
Well...fuck. Of course the poor man is innocent again. Except, the fuck?? Was he paying attention when he made or previewed the damn thing? Did, did he forget about the opening. He's innocent? My ass he is. Let me remind you, he (32m) went on a chatline with Hayley (14f) and agreed to meet with her in person and take her back to his place where absolutely he was planning to have sex with her. And we're supposed to believe he's innocent??? Maybe of the other crimes she accused him of and the reason she purposefully sought him out (although she miraculously got the wrong guy who just happened to "innocently" want to meet up with a 14 year old also?) but uh he was totally intending on having sex with her. It should also be noted that the producers wanted to add a line into the movie where she says she's actually 18 which Elliot Page was super against since it undermined the whole premise and I wholeheartedly agree. If she's 18 then in many people's minds, she's then legal and makes Jeff the 32 year old seem more innocent. BUT HE'S NOT.
Add on top of that the line the director gave about him not being guilty of the other crimes and I get this uncomfortable feeling about the whole movie, worse than I had before because instead of the message of the movie being about a hunter becoming the hunted/getting a taste of his own medicine, it becomes just another crazy, delusional Evil Lolita movie and now I'm kind of sad because I was supposed to leave you with a bit of hope that the trope was turning around. Crap! Shoot! No wait, I can bring this back around, I know I can. Uhhh, ok:
Suggestion time! With all the remakes and stuff going around, can we get a remake of Lolita but as told from her perspective? She's not the sexualized object of male desire, but her own person going through actual tough shit and this creepy guy is oozing his way into her life. Don't tell the same old story from the awful person's perspective. Tell the story that's still untold. Give her a voice. Give her name back to her and her humanity. Make people understand what a monster Humbert was. Make people understand that Nick and Jeff were not as innocent as they themselves desperately want to believe. Come on, predators all try to let themselves off the hook one way or another, so let's stop giving them excuses. Let's stop wondering if the girl really did want it because even if she did, she's most likely not in the best frame of mind or old enough to consent and the guy is still absolutely taking advantage. Let's confront this fetishization of our youths and ask the offending adults,
And let's just try to do a little better and be a little more mindful of the messages we send out. It's ok to do fun trashy thrillers but maybe don't try to make the bad guy in the situation the hero.
Let's give Dolores Haze a voice.
I notice that when the relationship is presented in media geared towards adults, a disturbing trend happens where the young person is not just the instigator of the relationship with an adult but the predator. They are trying to seduce the adult with their young Lolita ways only to snap dangerously when the adult refuses. The roles are swapped so that the young person is the predator and the adult is the prey. I like to call this trope the "Evil Lolita".
There are loads of examples of movies and shows that utilize the Evil Lolita, The Crush is probably the top tier example in movies where in Alicia Silverstone's character becomes dangerously obsessed with Carey Elwes' sexy writer character and bad things ensue. I'll save this for a bit later though because I really want to get into it with this one. Other examples include the show Ringer, which featured young high school girls having a sexual relationship with their teacher in order to black mail him but also swindle money for/with him? I don't remember too much of it, suffice to say it was troubling. There's the Poison Ivy series (the first one starred Drew Barrymore as the Poison Ivy in question). Of course, there's Wild Things which Ringer's Evil Lolita plot pretty much ripped off. Glee even presented the young girls crushing on Will Schuester as predatory, though not to the extent of these other examples. My point is, it's been done a lot and there are others I might not even know about.
Just a side note here to point out that this trope is very explicitly different from the "Evil Child" trope often used in horror which I don't really have an issue with. The "Evil Lolita" is different and more problematic as it is 100% about sexualizing and fetishizing young girls. I have not actually come across much media where the roles are reversed and it's a young boy pursuing and ruining an older woman but I want to go on record saying that would be equally gross and damaging. The onus is always on the adult in these situations, I don't care which genders are involved.
My big problem with this trope is the fact that we are putting the onus, the blame, on an underaged person and it's largely young girls that are vilified. Let's be real here, there is a reason for that and a big part of it is the fetishization of Lolita. I mean, Dolores "Lolita" Haze, the actual character from the book Lolita. The book itself is an indictment of Humbert Humbert's attraction to a 12 year old child. I've heard it touted as a romance but it's actually a tragedy as told by an unreliable narrator. You know what happens to Dolores (Lolita)? She ends up rescued from Humbert by a man who tries to put her in a pornographic play and then ends up married and pregnant at 17. She dies in child birth. It does not end well for her and she was abused and exploited by Humbert.
Why do people romanticize it then? Well, I think that's in large part to adapting it to the movie screen. In Stanley Kubrick's Lolita, he ages her up and casts 14 year old Sue Lyon in the role. The marketing basically revolved around the shock factor "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" and the ads featured her prominently. She was made to look alluring, she was made to look like she wanted your attention. Interestingly enough, they removed any reference to Humbert having previous attractions to young girls which removes even more culpability from him and puts her more in the role of temptress.
The heart-shaped shades, in particular became a kind of symbol of youthful sexiness which is just a little bit disturbing. Also note the made up lips, she's designed to look "adult", she's made to look like a fantasy. The idea that a young girl is actively pursuing relationships with older men (while sometimes true and often stemming from childhood trauma) is a dangerous seed to plant in people's minds because I think it makes people forget that while teens and young children might like to play act as adults, they really aren't. They need our guidance more than to be used as some form of youthful validation or worse, sexual gratification. Let's not forget that while in Humbert's mind, he was completely infatuated with Dolores and he assumed she wanted the same, his actions completely destroyed her life. He was not a victim of her youthful attractiveness or siren's call, he was a monster that molded a young child into his sexual fantasy, completely stripping her of her youth, her home, her family, and ultimately her future.
It wasn't long before the idea came to twist this concept into more of a thriller. Interestingly, not to make the Humbert character more explicitly evil but to make him more sympathetic while Lolita is made the villain.
 |
| Enter The Crush |
Don't tell me that cover isn't meant to evoke thoughts of Lolita. In this iteration, the Lolita is Adrien and she is 14. A writer comes to town and rooms in her parents' guest house. Already strikingly similar to the original story except it's hinted that she has a crush on him. Now, if you just read the synopsis, it says that Adrien likes Nick but he is not interested and she kisses him which sparks her crush and he tries harder to back off which causes her to fuck up his life.
In a charitable reading, this is trying in a way to be a morality tale, warning men away from relationships with younger girls but that is still a really garbage take if that's what they were going for. I think this was trying to be nothing more than a risque, titillating thriller ala Fatal Attraction but with a Lolita angle. But here's the thing, it paints the adult as even more of a victim and the girl as even more eager, evil even. Could it warn men away from relationships with younger girls? Maybe but probably only the ones who wouldn't be inclined to that in the first place. Could it give men who already have a predilection towards young girls the excuse they need to pursue them more (hey, they seem to really want it and this guy's an idiot for rejecting that) I don't know. It's definitely not a one to one but let's just say some interesting seeds are planted here.
You want to know something even more fucked? Nick's not even completely innocent like the synopsis and the movie itself implies. For starters, he is absolutely, 100% into Adrien. Sure, there is always some type of ominous music playing when she's chatting with him (to further drive in the point that she's evil and trying to lure him in so he should stay away!) but let's take a look at their interactions before she starts acting "crazy" shall we?
 |
| Gross |
I'm going to remind you that she's 14 (almost 15 according to her) and he's 28. He's been staring moonily at her prior to this. I think the film wants us to believe she's cast some sort of harlot spell over him but she's literally a 14 year old playing piano. Let's continue:
 |
| Even Grosser |
Clearly showing an interest, clearly flirting, clearly wishing she were "legal" so he'd be in the clear for moving in on her. I love that he's baiting her to like give him the ok. "I can't possibly be interested but I am so you must not be the age you say you are!" Gee, how ever did she get the idea that you liked her and wanted to be with her? Girls be crazy, right? It gets worse.
 |
| Super. Fucking. Gross. |
Let me remind you, he is kissing someone 14 years his junior. He was already 14 when she was a baby, a full grown adult when she was just a child. It doesn't look like he doesn't want her affections. This is the tipping point, by the way, he does pull away and offer to drive her home but like, why did an almost 30 year old man drive his landlords' 14 year old child away from their party to hang out alone in a make out spot in the first place? It was like, he got what he wanted and then finally clued in to his fuck up and then got shocked that the girl was confused.
Am I scandalized by this movie? Fuck no. It's campy, cheesy thrillers at their best and I watched it every time it was on tv because of my crush on Carey Elwes. But my feelings towards it have changed a bit. You see, when I discovered it, I was a teen. This was edgy, kind of wish fulfillment-y. As a teen, I sympathized with Nick. I disliked Adrien for being "one of those girls" I was basically her friend, Cheyenne.
 |
| Let me just say that I squealed in excitement when I realized that for all my watching of this movie, I only just now realized Cheyenne was played by baby Tara from Buffy (Amber Benson) |
Side note: This movie is a nostalgia blast what with the dad being played by That 70's Show Dad (Kurtwood Smith) , Alicia Silverstone from Clueless, Carey Elwes from Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and Amber Benson from Buffy but it's a bit troubling to watch today. Back on topic to the purpose of Cheyenne:
Cheyenne's role is to assure us that Adrien is in fact, the evil Lolita Nick and the audience thinks she is. Nick's a good guy, she assures us. He would never! Except...he did. He completely did. He flirted with Adrien, he bemoaned her not being old enough (to be legal), he let her kiss him and kissed her back before finally realizing it was maybe not great. I didn't even mention when he went snooping in her room for evidence of her crazy and then hid in the closet because she came back. She then "evilly" undresses for him, showing him everything but like...he didn't look away. Sure she knew he was there and was trying to seduce him but if he were such a great guy, wouldn't he have looked away? You know, because she's 14??
And you know, I bought these lines. I bought that he was just a good guy and Adrien was the crazy one but watching it now? I don't know. I'm not saying Adrien as a character isn't guilty. She absolutely goes apeshit and destroys his career and also tries to murder Nick's new girlfriend (who he pursues after his indiscretion with Adrien to probably distract himself from how awful he is) with bees. I'm just saying that Nick's not as innocent as the movie would like us to believe. He's our protagonist though and so we root for him to win all while he makes passes at a 14 year old, drives her out in the middle of no where and reciprocates a kiss with her for an uncomfortably long while before telling her it's a bad idea. I don't know how good that is.
This concept was taken to its extreme with Hard Candy in which a young girl (played by Elliot Page) lures a man out on a date and then ends up at his house. Her stated age is 14 and his is 32. They had been flirting online and agreed to meet up and then took things back to his place, all the while the guy is claiming he "doesn't sleep with minors".
 |
| We believe you |
What I like about this film is that it clearly paints the girl as the victim but it flips that on its head when the girl ends up taking charge and putting the man through gruelling torture for his crimes. So, it's an "Evil Lolita" where in the girl is kind of a vengeance demon of sorts. The movie is pretty good and it leaves you with a lot of complicated emotions to consider. Did she go too far or did she save a bunch of future victims from a monster? It's good stuff and I liked that this took the trope but bent it so that the "Evil Lolita" is completely justified in her actions towards the "hero". He's a predator, she wanted him to pay. The lines were clearly drawn. I wanted to end on this note because where The Crush handles the premise extremely lazily and leaves room for some gross oversexualization and demonizing of an underaged girl, Hard Candy took that trope, made her look like a child, and made her violence towards the guy not about a willing crush but about the fact that he's a 32 year old man going on chat sites to meet 14-year-olds, meeting with them in person, and taking them back to his place. Cut and dry, right? It was going to be my one shining example of how to do the trope sort of right but then I checked IMDb.
During an interview panel for the film the director revealed that Jeff ( Patrick Wilson) was telling the truth he did not commit the crime Hayley accused him of.
Well...fuck. Of course the poor man is innocent again. Except, the fuck?? Was he paying attention when he made or previewed the damn thing? Did, did he forget about the opening. He's innocent? My ass he is. Let me remind you, he (32m) went on a chatline with Hayley (14f) and agreed to meet with her in person and take her back to his place where absolutely he was planning to have sex with her. And we're supposed to believe he's innocent??? Maybe of the other crimes she accused him of and the reason she purposefully sought him out (although she miraculously got the wrong guy who just happened to "innocently" want to meet up with a 14 year old also?) but uh he was totally intending on having sex with her. It should also be noted that the producers wanted to add a line into the movie where she says she's actually 18 which Elliot Page was super against since it undermined the whole premise and I wholeheartedly agree. If she's 18 then in many people's minds, she's then legal and makes Jeff the 32 year old seem more innocent. BUT HE'S NOT.
Add on top of that the line the director gave about him not being guilty of the other crimes and I get this uncomfortable feeling about the whole movie, worse than I had before because instead of the message of the movie being about a hunter becoming the hunted/getting a taste of his own medicine, it becomes just another crazy, delusional Evil Lolita movie and now I'm kind of sad because I was supposed to leave you with a bit of hope that the trope was turning around. Crap! Shoot! No wait, I can bring this back around, I know I can. Uhhh, ok:
Suggestion time! With all the remakes and stuff going around, can we get a remake of Lolita but as told from her perspective? She's not the sexualized object of male desire, but her own person going through actual tough shit and this creepy guy is oozing his way into her life. Don't tell the same old story from the awful person's perspective. Tell the story that's still untold. Give her a voice. Give her name back to her and her humanity. Make people understand what a monster Humbert was. Make people understand that Nick and Jeff were not as innocent as they themselves desperately want to believe. Come on, predators all try to let themselves off the hook one way or another, so let's stop giving them excuses. Let's stop wondering if the girl really did want it because even if she did, she's most likely not in the best frame of mind or old enough to consent and the guy is still absolutely taking advantage. Let's confront this fetishization of our youths and ask the offending adults,
And let's just try to do a little better and be a little more mindful of the messages we send out. It's ok to do fun trashy thrillers but maybe don't try to make the bad guy in the situation the hero.
Let's give Dolores Haze a voice.
wtf to the producers and director of Hard Candy.
ReplyDeletealso there's no evidence of that statement so that can be the director's headcanon all he damn wants. Patrick Wilson's character was a bad dude and Ellen Page took him off the board, like a true hero.
Death of the author! I love it. Hard Candy is ours now, Jeff is guilty and Hayley is the hero that stopped him from harming other youths.
DeleteThis is an excellent take and it deserves more attention
ReplyDelete