Anyway, it sure is a parable of our times. We all long for Lolita and can’t keep our hands off the archetype in some way or another, obviously including this feminist film crew, but they can only put a faint shadow of the real story on screen these days, with an adult actress of course. I have never been one for roleplay, but I don’t have anything against it either, so it might be an OK film unless it is ruined by too much sanctimonious preaching about how immoral it would be to do the real thing, which is what my prejudice tells me it will be.
Here is the trailer:
Here is the page for Cute at the San Sebastian Film Festival which contains a synopsis of the plot:
Troubled by forbidden feelings for his seven-year-old stepdaughter, Richard decides to leave his girlfriend. He retreats to his childhood home to renovate ahead of its sale, but his self-imposed exile is disrupted by the childlike presence of his mother's caregiver, Stella. He soon discovers her double life as a Lolita camgirl, and the two develop a transgressive surrogate father-daughter relationship. Their constructed reality begins to unravel when the stepdaughter he left behind reaches out.
Okay, he prefers a seven-year-old and is thus a literal pedophile rather than a hebe- or ephebophile, and I guess it is a little bit ballsy to make a movie about that. But I don’t like this obsession with pedophiles being “troubled.” In the trailer he is shown asking a doctor for some sort of libido depressant. This is so lame because unless you subscribe to the self-hate of the VirPeds or the pathologizing from the psychiatric profession, why in heaven’s name should a pedophile be more “troubled” and less able to control himself than other men who also can’t get the vast majority of females they desire? Why are ephebophiles (that is, normal men) not troubled by our jailbait attraction? Why are Catholic priests not troubled by their chastity vows? Why are not even the incels said to be troubled? It is assumed that pedos have a demon inside their head who is competing with their free will, in other words that they are necessarily ego-dystonic, which I suppose is exactly what the normies think and all the cruel attempts to “treat” them assume.
I don’t think there is any reason to assume pedophiles have less self-control than anyone else. We don’t have to assume you want to break the law either to dismiss this nonsense; there is a middle ground between sex offender and “virtuous” where you are just like anyone else in unrequited or impossible love rather than especially “troubled.” Perhaps someone with a prepubescent age of attraction can put it better than me and say exactly what is wrong with the view that you must be disordered while the rest of us are not, in a similar situation. I think either we are all “troubled” if we can’t have sex with anyone we like, or nobody is unless they have a problem with impulse control that is unrelated to age of attraction.
Judging by her answers when interviewed by her film school, Marlene does not have high hopes for her film herself either. She knows how feeble her take is next to Nabokov’s potent archetype. And I can’t blame her because even if she had deviated from political correctness and wanted to make a pedo-friendly or at least morally ambiguous film, our civilization cycle is now in the age of performance rather than innovation. It is impossible to supplant the archetypes that dominate our cultural imagination with new works of art. We can only perform Lolita now, and the other classics, not come up with new ones. This is yet another performance which isn’t even trying to be different than the now usual hate and is therefore no challenge to the real thing either, the one where Humbert HAD HIS FILL of Lolita (yes, so delectably put!) with no ageplay required; the one we shall revert to thinking about once this film is forgotten after the festivals no matter how many prizes it wins for being the most politically correct in the midst of the ongoing CSA moral panic.
No comments:
Post a Comment