i read somewhere that it was obvious in the movie that susie was raped by harvey before he murdered her, and that he raped all of his victims.
where can we see clues about it in the movie?
"Oh lord, give me health and strength, we'll steal the rest."
Spoiler. In the scene where the victims are being described, when referring to one of the girls she said "he only wanted to touch her" which I took as: He only wanted to touch her, but the others he wanted to do much more.
shareexactly.
male murderers raping little girls is a big cliché.
everybody knows about Albert Fish.
what is the sense of creating another Albert Fish?
find a better reason for a mature guy to kill a little girl, if you are making a movie.
this is a poor concept, and that's one of the reasons why the whole movie sucks.
I'll give you a good example, in the movie "Legally Blonde" in which Reese Witherspoon shined, her university professor tries to molest her by groping her inner thighs. And up until that moment, this university professor was introduced as a good guy.
President Bill Clinton was among the most favorite US presidents of all time, and everybody loved him, but he molested his secretary "the girl friday".
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -Phillip K. Dick
[deleted]
Did you see those pedo glasses? Dead give away
share^Absolute pedo-glasses. Totally creepy performance. Well done Tucci.
There are many, many signs in the film that he was a rapist. Susie's description of him: "feeling a familiar itch" and how his attack on her sustained him for a long time. His hungry gaze at her (watching her unseen most of the time). His question (before murdering her) about whether she had a boyfriend (and being pleased she didn't). One of the previous victims "he only wanted to touch her". Even the fact that he set up candles for frick sake in his rape-hutt under the cornfield.
In the book it's absolutely explicit.
Yes, I bothered to post here just to remark on how stupid and irrelevant this thread is.
The guy was a sick serial killer. That's all that mattered. The movie intentionally stayed away from the rape for obvious reasons.
Well he had the movie child rapist look. Plus the pedophile love nest he built underground for little girls made self explanatory to me. I do not know why everything has to spelled out on screen. Years ago you look at a movie and you used your imagination about what happened after the camera faded from a love scene between two people.
shareExcept that "fade away from a [love] scene" didn't happen in this film.
shareEither this is some kind of joke which I don't get or you've gone into your own very dark dream world here. Jackson was making a film where his lead actress was in her early teens. He'd have had to be seriously twisted to contemplate going anywhere near a rape scene - but judging by the obsession with rape shown by most of the posters here, they fall into that category. Instead, he made a film about a girl who was murdered, leaving his audience (if they so desired) to exercise their own fevered imaginations on what happened to her before she died.
shareIs it still rape if he murdered her *before* the act?
Makes you wonder - If someone were to do both, would they potentially avoid an additional charge just by choosing their order carefully?
As I said before, how strangely you people's minds work. I've no idea and if anybody comes on this message board claiming to know the answer, you can bet they don't really know because qualified lawyers don't give advice for free.
shareWho knows, they could be a rapist that's been defended.
shareHaving sex with a corpse in Pennsylvania is a second degree misdemeanor. Shockingly necrophilia isnt illegal in all states.
share[deleted]
They would just get a different charge. Abuse of corpse. Not very many states have a law against necrophilia.
shareWhile some posters on this board over the years take it trolling lengths, there is a serious point here that has irked people since this movie was made.
The Lovely Bones always was a story about acceptance after death, but as it was written sex was always a major theme throughout the entire story. As a general rule of thumb if a book achieves success for themes and then the movie omits those themes it's going to be controversial.
As the reverse question is if you wanted to make a movie on this subject without some of those elements, why in the world did you pick to adapt a book that's first chapter features the in-detail rape and murder of a teenager? One could probably make a whole new story for the screen instead of neutering a book of a lot of it's themes and character development.
The Lovely Bones without it's sex themes just doesn't work as well to some people. And if this is the only shot at being a film it's going to get, that can be pretty much a bummer. As if you didn't want to do a story like that, why was this book chosen? It would be like having someone who thinks kids are always innocent helming a version of Lord of the Flies or The Bad Seed. Or having someone who doesn't want killing in their movie doing Titus Andronicus or Hamlet. Or someone who won't do incest tackle Blue Lagoon or Flowers in the Attic....(wait).....
We don't need to see clues. read between the lines. when he takes her down into the trap, and after several seconds of him being so creepy he eventually tells her she's pretty then asks if she had a boyfriend and looks relieved when she says no and he says oh you're not like the "other girls'... it's pretty self explanatory where it's going.
shareI had read the book before the film came out so i knew what had happened to susie....i know the book was based on a story the writer had heard of a young woman who had been attacked and murdered in a similar way to what she had wrote of Susie....
Even today the subject of Rape is a very difficult subject to approuch especially with one so young as the charcater of susie....so in the film it was subtly suggested....
I would say from a viewers point of view who had not read the book may come to the conclusion of a sexual assalt by the flash backs Susie imagined Mr Harvey to of been having.....what i rememeber mr harvey was re imagining the event leading up to susies murder while down in the underground trap...the veiwer had visions of him looking at susie in places that wasnt very settling....he also remarked at how pretty show was and pictured this memorie over and over again....
they're was also suggestions that this was applied by the journey of the victims....one mention that he only wanted to touch her but she screamed...suggesting a sexual nature.....also he would watch in the corn fields young lovers late at night....
I highly recommend the book to anybody who have not read it....i could not put it down....its a harrowing story but also a very beautiful one
I had read the book before the film came out so i knew what had happened to susie....i know the book was based on a story the writer had heard of a young woman who had been attacked and murdered in a similar way to what she had wrote of Susie....
Even today the subject of Rape is a very difficult subject to approuch especially with one so young as the charcater of susie....so in the film it was subtly suggested....
I would say from a viewers point of view who had not read the book may come to the conclusion of a sexual assalt by the flash backs Susie imagined Mr Harvey to of been having.....what i rememeber mr harvey was re imagining the event leading up to susies murder while down in the underground trap...the veiwer had visions of him looking at susie in places that wasnt very UN settling....he also remarked at how pretty show was and pictured this memorie over and over again....
they're was also suggestions that this was applied by the journey of the victims....one mention that he only wanted to touch her but she screamed...suggesting a sexual nature.....also he would watch in the corn fields young lovers late at night....
I highly recommend the book to anybody who have not read it....i could not put it down....its a harrowing story but also a very beautiful one