Brilliant or utter filth?

Why can't people let a film be what it (or its makers) want it to be?
It is so shallow for people to try to sum up and categorize films: Brilliant!, bizarre, a rip-off, filthy, a '7' out of 10, etc.

Brilliant or utter filth? If 1 hour and 41 minutes boils down to one word, I think the viewer has walled up himself/herself to where nothing gets through. It is why filmmakers have to frequently resort to practically "hammering" there points through to the audience. (A point someone earlier made.)

Hasn't it occurred to so many that maybe the filmmaker was toying with your own uneasiness with the suggestion of pedophilia? Maybe presenting it in this way was simply a way to expose those who can only see the perversion in relationships rather than the beauty without perversion. (And vice versa.)

Someone listed all sorts of metaphorical scenes. You could probably invent a perversion in everything if you try. People - and film critics - have been lauding filmmakers for years for lofty things they never intended.

Did having Sam Rockwell strip down and dive off a bridge do it for you? It did for some of the bystanders. The uneasy sexual tension in every character of this film was clearly provoking questions of the viewer.
But if the term "filth" was directed toward this sexual tension, I don't understand it. A "filthy" film is a broad adjective to use without qualification. It might be a word someone would use when they are disgusted at what they see. And when people are disgusted, they tend to ignore everything else and define it under that alone.

I think some of the best films are those that can be perceived in many ways by many people. Like music, some of the best melodies can be remade in entirely different genres and still be wonderful.

Spare us the foolish attempts at wrapping it all up in a nice little package so you can box it up in your whatever category. None of us are brilliant enough to judge how another perceives a film.

Vive le difference!

(And I really enjoyed the film too.)

"You do have a point,but i do think this movie had quasi-pedo content.
Another thing to consider, is when he was oiling his chainsaw,he was pouring oil all over it, on the sides and everything.
I thought that people usually only oil the actual chain area."

I didn't know that. My knowledge about chainsaws is marginal. Probably the people involved in the scene didn't knew either. This might sound unlikely, but there've been greater mistakes than this.

"Could it have been intentionally symbolic?"

IF this was the case, the only reason I could imagine would be to provocate (don't know if that's the right word) those people who like to dissect each and every scene for symbolism. In order to underline this message.

There wasn't anyone around. They were on an empty field and he would've seen anyone coming miles away.

out of all the things i've lost i miss my mind the least

God forbid a child be anything but fully clothed in an artform!

I'll not deny, there is something (quite obvious) about this film that attracts paedophiles, it was one of my girllover friends that introduced me to the film, but is there a problem with that? Topless Mischa in a relatively pointless scene does not make the movie bad - that aside, you do not actually see anything unless you're actively seeking it out.

Whether you can see any depth in it or not, this is a beautiful, very emotional film. I feel it carries a very important message about our society, and your reaction to the movie only validates it.

ok hold on, because society DOES have a point in having negative views toward those relationships.

1. it is unusual, in general, for an adult to have a relationship with a child that has no relation to them. why? because the maturity of a developing child is less than...a 30 year old man. therefore, the child would seem very boring. so there must be an alterior motive for that person to continue to stay around.

2. "a women can befriend kids.."? i have never seen that. a teacher may be interested in the child if, let's say, he-she has a problem in her class, but it is rarely seen of a woman and a child that is not hers to be close friends.

3. people are less afraid of women being child molesters because, its less common, and women pychologically are less sexually driven than men. women commit less crimes, do drugs, and become alcholics.

so before you get all emotional about things not being "fair", "fair" has been a option for women for thousands of years. so i think you should stop and think before you rant about something you never thought through.

To this movie *beep* would be demeaning to *beep*