I know that he was a completely twisted person, but it seemed like he truly was disgusted with who he was, but could do little to control himself. It seems that his mom was the only one who could make him see this and it really bothered him that he couldn't change his nature.
shareI do. A friend once told me to imagine a world where having sex was kids was normal and you were one of the few who'd still be sexually interested in women, which would be considered morally condemnable. Helps to understand what pedophiles are going through in our world. They can't help themselves.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
That's the biggest piece of *beep* I ever heard. Poor little child predators, boohoohoo.
shareNope, it didn't bother him at all until his mother died. He was quite deliberate in swimming around those kids and screwing up his date by hurting that woman with his filth.
shareYeah but at the same time, it's implied that he's mentally unstable and struggled with his urges before his mother died. I could be wrong. I guess this is debateable on whether or not he didn't care until that happened or not.
shareThat's a tough one. I didn't feel any empathy for him but that is not to say I don't understand that being attracted to children is not necessarily a choice. Of course, that doesn't man that people should be forgiven for acting out their urges.
[deleted]
Lol yep
shareem·pa·thy [em-puh-thee]
noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2.
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
Stubbornly close-minded, lol. Because we don't identify with monstrosity.
shareStubbornly close-minded, lol. Because we don't identify with monstrosity.
You don't get that Ronnie was a pedophile? I spoke to the author, and he said this was the film's clear portrayal. And gosh, you're right, let's let it all hang out just because God made it.
shareYou don't get that Ronnie was a pedophile?
The author and I WERE discussing the movie, and he said this was the film's intent. Ronnie was a pedo; that's why he deserved no empathy. Besides, I still think empathy's not the right word to use; empathy means identify, whereas sympathy just means feeling bad for someone in a respectful way. So, even if he's a pedo, you could still say you sympathized with him. Now, if he'd just been an exhibitionist (like I hoped he was), I would have felt big empathy; he didn't seem at first to be an unlikeable character. But the pool scene combined with the date scene brings it all too clearly.
shareThe author and I WERE discussing the movie
Malickfan86 I thought your statement was very insightful and true, but if you're looking for people who can understand the depths of which your talking about, then you'll only find a dry river here. I personally thought it was great.
shareSure pseudo, only shallow people can't sympathize with child-predators. Good Lord, the liberal moronic ideas of humanity and art.
shareHaving empathy doesn't mean you're justifying the actions. His statement was insightful in recognizing that. You on the other hand are hilarious. You make this a "liberals" ideolgy all of the sudden and yet go by the name of "white spirit". Is your name in reference to clear hard liquor? Or should your name be having a "fairy" in the middle of it?
shareYes, it's hilarious to disagree with your calling people who, God forbid, can't relate to a freak a "dry river". I've seen this crap all over the board. And how does "white spirit" have anything to do with liberal theology embracing perverts, sexual looseness, and partial birth among other things? A white spirit is just the opposite, in fact, and I don't know what the heck you mean by having a "fairy" in the middle of it. White Spirit is the meaning of my real name.
shareI haven't seen this film in a while... But from what I remember...
Didn't this guy just expose himself to a minor?
I am NOT saying that's ok or anything...
But my take on the Ronnie Plot vs Sarah and Brad Plot is that
Ronnie made a minor infraction that threatened the community
while
Sarah and Brad where both involved in a highly destructive and selfish sexual affair and NO ONE was pressuring them at all (it was a secret I know)
I just got the impression Ronnie's storyline was supposed to CONTRAST with Sarah and Brad's storyline... To show the irony of everyone vilifying Ronnie while Sarah and Brad were left untouched...
Kinda like leaving everyone to wonder who the REAL predators are in the neighborhood...
Maybe my take on this is wrong...
I don't think the two of them compare and contrast; among other things, no one knew of Brad and Sarah and the one time they WERE seen kissing, they were hugely reviled. I think it shows a lot of subtle things about judgement, personal choices, and secrets of lives. Ronnie was likable to me before things got really bad, if I chose to forget about what he was, but the lesson there was mainly that the jerk who kept harassing his house was hurting his MOM, rather than him, and was way too trigger-happy. Plus, there was the castration comment by one of the moms before it was ever revealed that Ronnie was capable of anything more than indecent exposure.
share
I don't think the two of them compare and contrast;
"With Brad and Sarah you have something far more offensive going on in suburbia than what Ronnie is doing... which is pretty much nothing.."
Um, wrong; he was checking out the kids, and the author said he'd be amazed if no one saw Ronnie as dangerous. There are several characters, not just Ronnie and the couple, and they're all contrasted in some way. And once again, it's ridiculous to say no one was terrorizing Sarah and Brad, because NO ONE KNEW. To say that's some point of hypocrisy would be ridiculous.
First off, this forum is for FILMS, not novels. lol
So, let him check kids out, he didn't hurt anyone... You can't lock someone up for THINKING dude...
And who cares what someone thinks of Ronnie or suspects he might be dangerous... in the FILM he did NOTHING to the kids at ALL.
And yes I know Brad and Sarah kept their affair a secret.. My point stands.. they were not being terrorized and Ronnie was.. it's a clear irony the screenwriter is trying to make there...
lol nothing, the author was commenting on the FILM, which proved Ronnie to be a pedo, sadly. Let him check kids out..my Lord.
shareUnfortunately WhiteSpirit there's no law against it... So ya, you gotta back off...
And again it was certainly less offensive than what Brad and Sarah were up to...
Less offensive to fantasize about children. Wow.
shareThan actually HAVING SEX with someone else's wife or husband OVER and OVER and OVER again while LYING to your spouse OVER and OVER and OVER again?
Ya, i consider sexual infidelity that's actually HAPPENING to be worse than someone FANTASIZING about children yes...
And the law backs me up on that.. we don't arrest people for THINKING.. we arrest them for DOING.
You really need to get your priorities straight... DOING is a LOT worse than simply THINKING about it... lol
My priorities are fine, hon. Pedo's indulgent thinking almost always leads to more, and is evidence of a monster.
shareOK, and its the MORE that's the problem.
That MORE is where Brad and Sarah already ARE AT.
Acting on an impulse is a thousand times WORSE than just THINKING about it... When did the thought police get instituted here anyhow???
Sorry, but there's just NO comparison to be made there.
END of STORY.
Then don't say that they were supposed to be compared as a point in the story.
share
Then don't say that they were supposed to be compared as a point in the story.
Ironic, my as*. The film made it very clear that the general attitude of the neighborhood would be VERY judgemental and aggressive if anyone knew what Sarah and Brad were doing, so the belief that "well THEY'RE not punished and judged" is groundless.
sharelol
Laugh all you want. And btw, Ronnie WAS breaking a law: the conditions of his parole.
sharelol
he didn't touch any kids dude..
you should apply for a position in the thought police academy lol
He wasn't allowed within 100 feet, or yards, of places like playgrounds where children would be, dude. So unless he sat home and just IMAGINED he was going near children, it's not a thought crime.
shareYou are a legitimate fool. Congrats, you win "IMDb Idiot of the Day".
shareYour views are pretty wacked. I don't condone acting on pedophilia, but the ideals and morals this world has filled your head with has got you twisted.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well said.
shareNo matter what, calling someone who exposed themselves in front of a child, "a monster" is ridiculous. I've seen parents, men and women in a bath, naked with their children, washing them. All of a sudden, all of those parents are deemed, "twisted and evil" by society, because they were trying to give their 3-year-old children a bath.
Okay. So, where do you draw the line between right and wrong? Oh, I know. Imprison and persecute ANYONE who exposes their privates in front of a child, no matter what the reasons for it are. Those kids that saw their parents, nude, they weren't scarred for life. They didn't feel mistreated. This was back in the day when it wasn't getting around that the sight of an adult, naked body is twisted and evil for children.
I'm one of those kids. I've got photos of me and my father, together in a bathtub, nude. I'm not SCARRED. Who ever came up with the concept that children are scarred for life because they a penis should be.... BUT, it's ok for a mom to expose her breast to feed her baby? Wait. Maybe, I shouldn't give anyone anymore ideas.
The movie was trying to show how twisted Ronnie was. He was sick. That doesn't speak for everyone. And, when you put so many restrictions on sex offenders, where they have to register to any city and state and neighbor where they take up residence, they're gonna have a perminent reminder that they are sick. They won't have a chance to redeem themselves and get well. They won't be able to see any other way, but the way that got them there in the first place.
I want to see a movie where the innocent man, who was actually just caught, naked in his own home, by some peeping tom of a child... gets his story told. The prohibitions of life today is like watching a balloon, being squeezed in a vice, tightening more and more. Guess what happens when you tighten that vice too much.
Oh for cripe's sake, showing someone your genitalia is different from being a parent with a child too small to understand anything. Yeah, lots of similarity between flashing a child and feeding your baby. And in case you missed most of the discussion, that's NOT why I called him a monster; he was a pedo.
"And, when you put so many restrictions on sex offenders, where they have to register to any city and state and neighbor where they take up residence, they're gonna have a perminent reminder that they are sick"
If they actually molested children, tough. Parents have a right to know where they are.
That again misreads the previous poster.
Clearly, Ronnie has a messed up sex dysfunctional sex drive and I think everyone here agrees that this is a bad thing and he shouldn't be allowed to express that sex drive.
However, the previous poster is right that the crime portrayed in the film isn't necessarily that serious. A young child merely seeing an adult's penis or even an adult masturbating is unlikely to be scarred for life; it's likely to be all the less traumatic because the child lacks the context to understand what is going on (although it would be a really hard conversation for a parent to have with a child)
The main cause for concern in terms of child welfare would be how he did it. We got a glimpse of how his sexual dysfunction works when he was in the car with his date; there were definite signs of power play there. Although we have -zero- evidence of (film) Ronnie ever doing anything physical to children, it does suggest that mere exhibitionism wasn't enough.
Still short of being a rapist mind.
Zero evidence? Really? You think that woman was the first one he'd ever said, "Better not tellll on me, or I'm going to get you" to? I swear, people. The author told me the movie clearly included those kinds of scenes for a reason.
shareMy statement: "we have -zero- evidence of (film) Ronnie ever doing anything physical to children,"
Your question: "Zero evidence? Really? You think that woman was the first one he'd ever said, "Better not tellll on me, or I'm going to get you" to?"
I do actually think that it was atypical for him to say that to a woman because it seems implied by the film that his normal prey are children.
However, the biggest incongruence here is how you took my comment about there being zero evidence for -physical abuse- and tried to challenge it by how the film depicts verbal abuse and indecent exposure.
The author told me
LOL The author was ALSO talking about what was actually in the film, buddy; he said the pool scenes and the threatening scene to the woman were done to depict Ronnie's dangerous nature.
"However, the biggest incongruence here is how you took my comment about there being zero evidence for -physical abuse- and tried to challenge it by how the film depicts verbal abuse and indecent exposure"
You don't understand, I'm saying that child molesters have used Ronnie's threatening words-after physically abusing children. It's my fear and sickened suspicion that he had done the same.
The author was ALSO talking about what was actually in the film
You don't understand, I'm saying that child molesters have used Ronnie's threatening words-after physically abusing children. It's my fear and sickened suspicion that he had done the same.
So basically, you're deciding that your view is superior to both mine and the author's, who helped write the film's screenplay. Thanks for showing your uninformed arrogance so vividly.
shareI didn't want to make it personal but, if you still can't understand what I've written previously, I'm pretty confident that my view is superior to yours, yes. I can understand that this is an emotionally charged topic but that's not excuse for not being able to think straight.
As I said before, the supposed views of the author are pretty irrelevant to an evaluation of the end product, yes. That's ignoring the fact that I have no reason to take your testimony on faith anyway. The fact that you can't justify your comments by reference to material -actually in the film- and instead have to rely on an appeal to authority, which is a textbook logical fallacy, is telling.
You want to make it personal and talk about thinking straight? I DID focus on what I saw in the film, on the pretty darn strong signs that he was a pedophile who was very capable of harming a child: his threat to that woman, worded like a child would word it and with a high voice, was pretty clear, as was his stalkish nature in the pool. Then I emailed the author, who co-wrote the SCREENPLAY, months ago to double-check, and he confirmed it. If you have a problem accepting this, the logical fault lies with you, not me.
share[quoute]I didn't want to make it personal[/quote]
You want to make it personal and talk about thinking straight?
his threat to that woman, worded like a child would word it and with a high voice, was pretty clear, as was his stalkish nature in the pool.
hen I emailed the author, who co-wrote the SCREENPLAY, months ago to double-check, and he confirmed it. If you have a problem accepting this, the logical fault lies with you, not me.
You really are an arrogant ass. The author had authority in the screenplay, was a co-WRITER of it. You're fishing in practical double-talk now, all with the same superior tone, to push your opinion. New entry on the ignore list, jackass.
shareAgain, authorial intent does not change what was actually in the film.
Again, I have no reason to accept your testimony regarding authorial intent anyway.
Absolutely true, because it's the screenwriter that dictates the direction of the story.
shareYes, and the author was a co-writer of it.
sharewhitespirit, where and when did you speak to the author? I'm not jumping into the debate (Ronnie was sick and twisted, though), just wondering.
"Oh, Britta's in this?"
Some months ago, shortly after my first post here.
shareHow?
"Oh, Britta's in this?"
Email.
sharePardon me, but I am a cynical person and my default setting is disbelief. Especially on IMDb, where posters claim all kinds of things. You're not talking about Brad Pitt or anything, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
"Oh, Britta's in this?"
No problem, you can visit his site and ask him about the film yourself. No, lol, I wouldn't claim to be emailing Brad Pitt, he prefers to call me personally.
Heh
"Oh, Britta's in this?"
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rojer, the killing was an accident and more easily sympathized with by most than a predator, even if they were presumptious to decide he was one.
share[deleted]
I did feel sorry for him, considering the fact that you can't choose to be attracted to children or not and from what it seems, he was trying to stop the urges by moving on.
----------------------------
Last seen films:
Dredd. 8.5/10
Django Unchained. 9.5/10
Zero Dark Thirty. 9.5/10
I felt little empathy for him. It's sad that his mother died, but as he said himself, he wasn't a very nice man. The way he treated the woman who took him on a date was contemptible.
Oh yeah, all the stuff he did was despicable, but he couldn't control himself. I felt sorry for him because I could see was trying very hard to stop himself from doing all those horrible things.
---------------------------
Last seen films:
The Descendants. 9.5/10
End of Watch. 10/10
Win Win. 9/10
Sorry Wunder, but I saw little evidence of him trying to control himself. How long did he wait before abusing the womnan he'd just met? An hour?
Fair enough. But I still believe that he tried to resist the urges. Of course, as you said, it took him not long at all to terrorize his date, so obviously he has little control.
I think the pieces of evidence that make me believe he was not a bad guy deep down was his relationship with his mother and also the sadness he feels seeing the note his mother wrote saying 'be a good boy.' (I think). I think the fact he gets upset over that note tells me that he's trying to be a 'good boy' but his urges are to strong and it's frustrating him. He wants to be good but he doesn't have control over that.
------------------------
Last seen films:
The Descendants. 9.5/10
End of Watch. 10/10
Win Win. 9/10
" He wants to be good but he doesn't have control over that."
With all respect I'm not so sure of that. If sex offenders truly had no/little control over their "urges", sex attacks in public places would be commonplace. The streets would be unsafe to walk. Ronnie's able to control himself in the restaurant; in my view this means he's quite capable of controlling himself in the car afterward... he just doesn't want to.
How sick are people here? If you like Ronnie than have any sexual predator babysit your kids and date one.
History is written by the victors.
You're take on it is excellent. The movies shows how a sex offender (and this one seems a pretty mild one as things go) is a scapegoat for people to conveniently forget about all their own trangressions and inadequacies.