Unfair and One Sided Portrayal of Carr
I went into this movie not knowing much of anything about the characters involved. Obviously I knew they were all members of the beat generation and I'd read their books in high school, but I didn't know much about their personal lives and certainly not anything about the murder of David Kammerer, so I honestly went into watching this movie with no expectations and an open mind. Honestly, I was watching because I'm a fan of Radcliffe and was impressed with Dahaan in Spiderman.
At the end of the movie, I was left feeling a little bit confused, if not uncomfortable, with how Carr was portrayed. In the end, Ginsberg seemed to think of him as evil, a user and manipulator, and ultimately, did not think the murder of Kammerer was justified, which was revealed when he said, "You loved him too," as if that excused Kammerer's actions. Ginsberg seemed to sympathize with Kammerer - like Carr was some manipulative mastermind.
Ginsberg thought Kammarer was a pest, but then he found the picture of Carr with Kammerer in Mexico and his whole outlook changed. Why would a picture of Kammerer and Carr sitting together in Mexico change the fact that Kammerer was a stalker? Why does the fact that Kammerer was the one that checked Carr into the mental institution change that?
It left me feeling confused because to me, through the entire film, Carr and Kammarer's relationship was an abusive one. Whether it was psychologically or sexually was unclear, but it was clearly abusive. All the facts in the movie pointed to that being the case, but Ginsberg's reactions to the facts were confusing to me. He seemed to be conflicted about whether or not he should defend Carr, when to me it was pretty clear Carr was a victim of abuse who had finally snapped on his predator.
I mean, I was sitting there looking at that picture thinking to myself how sad it was that Kammerer had groomed Carr to a point that while detesting him, he also still needed him in a messed up way. But Ginsberg seemed to see it as a sort of betrayal. Like Carr had lead Kammerer on or something and that him falling out of "love" with him was unfair to Kammerer in some way.
It just made me feel so uncomfortable. But the movie wasn't exactly clear about all the facts - so I came here to maybe get some clarity from other IMDB users only to find that most questions were about whether Carr was gay or a homophobe. To me, it was clear Carr was a heterosexual boy that was confused about his sexuality because of the abusive relationship he had with Kammerer. And the murder was not a hate crime, but a desperate attempt of a victim to rid himself of his stalker. But maybe I'd missed something?
I decided to do some research into the murder so that I could understand it further. Because maybe the age difference wasn't as large as I was imagining it to be? Maybe there were some things that I missed that would elude to why Ginsberg felt so betrayed or conflicted or why other viewers were confused about Carr's sexuality?
But it only got worse once I started looking into it. Carr met Kammerer through boy scouts. He was 12 and Kammerer was his 26 year old troop leader. Carr's father had left him and his mother very early on in his life and Kammerer was his only father figure. Kammerer inserted himself into Carr's life and up and relocated four times to follow Carr around the country starting when Carr went to high school in Massachusetts.
In what world can this be seen as anything other than a sexual predator grooming a child? In what world is Carr's seemingly manipulative behavior not a result of years of emotional abuse? In what world is "You loved him once," some source of conflict? Of course he loved him once. He didn't know any better. To him, Kammerer's love was normal and he appreciated it because he never got it from his father. But he wasn't a boy anymore. He was becoming a man and no longer needed Kammerer - especially not in the way Kammerer wanted him to need him. In what world is a young man trying to rid himself of a grown man stalking him unfair?
The movie had this heavy handed, ambiguous sort of mood that left the viewer questioning what the nature of the murder of Kammerer was, and the only conflict I felt at the end was that the producers of the movie wanted me to feel confused about the situation when, in fact, I was not. The nature of the murder didn't seem ambiguous at all - so Ginsberg's conflict just felt odd. They wanted us to question whether Carr was evil or manipulative when to me it seemed the only manipulator was Kammerer.
In what world is a grown man following a child around the country romantic? And why are we questioning whether Kammerer's love was reciprocated when any affection Carr might have given Kammarer was clearly the result of being groomed since the age of 12?
Finally, it seemed they wanted us to question Carr's sexuality. It portrayed Carr as a self-hating gay man. And maybe he was. But that doesn't ring true to me. As it turns out, Carr had a steady girlfriend at Columbia named Celine whom Kammerer would often threaten to kill when he was drunk. She was left out of the movie. Included, instead, was the highly disputed relationship between Carr and Ginsberg. The only reason I could think of to justify that was to leave the audience more confused about Carr's sexuality.
Even the language of the closing "epilogue" incinuated that Carr was manipulative. "Portraying David Kammarer as a homosexual preditor, Lucien Carr plead guilty." Portrayed him as a preditor? He WAS a predator. The movie wants us to question whether he was or not, but all the facts of the situation says he was one.
And in the end, the biggest manipulator was not Carr, or even Kammarer, but the producers of this movie.
[b]I guess, in the end, I felt the movie tried to make a very clear case of sexual abuse ambiguous. It was far too generous to Kammarer and villianized Carr in a way that struck me as odd and ludicrous (especially now that I've looked further into the murder).
So I was wondering what your thoughts were on this IMDB users?