Talk:Hard Candy (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Hard Candy (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 20, 2007
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Plot Summary

The plot summary is badly incomplete, but I don't remember the movie well enough to finish it.

[edit] Odessa Rae??

On the officiell site of the film they say that Janelle Roberts was played by Jennifer Holmes. Does anybody know why? because after I googled pictures of both actresses it seems to be clear that the film does not star Jennifer Holmes but Odessa Rae. Has anyone an explanation for this?90.128.73.29 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hayley's Details

I made some comments here about a week ago, they are now gone. What's up with that? Comments are wiped periodically? Raymm 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

She says she's 14, but near the end says how Jeff knows nothing about her; she may not even be called Hayley, her Father might not be a professor. Should it be ammended saying she's posing as a 14 year old? And, actually, everything about her. Maybe we should say "about a girl and Jeff", and then have a section on the girl and what she poses as?(Cipher Destiny 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Actually, the commentary of Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson from the DVD release indicates that the filmakers were apparently worried that the studio would require exactly such a change. They were glad that it did not occur, and they point out that much of the point of the film would be ruined if Hayley was an adult posing as a child. Caelarch 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Although it's not neccessarily about her being an adult... I was talking more about the fact that her name might not be Hayley, and that she may not be 14, etc. The article could be misleading as it states that she IS 14. Many of the other things that might not be true (e.g. her being the daughter of a med school professor) aren't in the article, so the main gripe is the seemingly-final comment that she is 14. (Cipher Destiny 11:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

She says in this interview[1] that she plays a "character who's 14 and intelligent and passionate." Considering her any other age than 14 for me takes the shock value out of her actions. I doubt it was the director's intentions to portray her any other age, otherwise they'd have let subtle hints that she may not be the age she seems. (NinjaJew 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Jeff says he'll have to wait four years for her (Hayley). I think he implies he will have to wait until she is 18 so he can have his way with her. But this is not conclusive as some jurisdictions (i.e., Canada) allow consent for sex at 14, unless you are in a position of trust regarding the minor. Raymm 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The means of travel do imply that she is not yet employed or driving and thus likely less than 18. But keep in mind Jeff doesn't really KNOW anything about his online prey. The ultimate irony being that she is in fact EXACTLY like him or worse in some ways -- assuming the hangings are real. Yes if you take the movie at face value both Haley and Jeff are adreneline junkies that get off on sex torture connected death. Haley differs merely in being younger, female, smarter, and selecting victims based on a twisted sense of vigilant justice.
We can be pretty sure Haley goes into her crime knowing her objective is Jeff's death and that she is already a serial killer. We don't know if Jeff knew his crime would end in death from the start or not. Of course criminologists would say that her victim selective would likely decay as she got older. But then we can fantasize that she is like Hannibal Lector and maintains "standards" through out her criminal career. 69.23.120.164 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The actress who played Hayley, Ellen Page, was actually 18 or 19 years old at the time the movie was shot. Tavilis 13:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The film was first shown in January 2005 (at Sundance), and shot in the summer of 2004. Ellen Page was born 21 February 1987, making her 17 during filming and the debut showing. —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff's age

In the movie, Jeff says to Hayley "When you're 80 I'll be 94." Would this not make Jeff twenty-eight years old?

I cannot remember the exact lines, but I did in fact work it out when I was watching it than he is 32 years old. Schizmatic 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Says it in this review as well. Sierra 1 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the film and he says he'd be 98, so yeah, 32 is right. Driller thriller 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

The article about the Japanese girls in fact leads to something totally different. --211.29.198.229 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


What Japanese girls?

There was a case in Japan wherein some Japanese teenagers tricked a pedophile they met on the internet in to coming to a bus station (i think) and beat his ass Echud123456 08:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ending

Template:Spoiler
The article says Jeff hangs himself in the end. The way I understand it,

the rope was too long and he simply fell off the roof, forced to face Janelle (and later the police, justice, prison etc.) gbrandt 08:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The viewer is left unsure of whether he died by hanging or just landed with a thud in the backyard. The original script has Janelle discovering his feet hanging mid-air but the movie ending is ambiguous.

I just watched the movie. To me, it sounded like the thud was him hitting the side of the house. Chaotic nipple 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
On The Director’s Commentary David Slade Points Out That He Had To Have Patrick Wilson's Hand Digitally Painted Out Because He Pulled The Rope To Make Sure It Was Tight When He Jumped, Also, On The Actors Commentary Wilson Confirms This, And Ellen Page’s Character Says That If He Commits Suicide She'll Dispose Of The Evidence Then After He Jumps Leans Over The Edge And Says: 'Or Not' (As I Recall Correct Me If I'm Wrong) Why Would She Even Say That If The Rope Was To Long And He, Therefore Didn't Keep His End Of The Deal? That Would Lead Me To Believe He Dies But It Could Just As Well Be The Other Way Around I Suppose, I Like The Idea That He Gets Caught. X) -Echud123456
God damn that is one annoying way to type. Gtfo, troll. 72.192.62.77 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


The above comments aside, I think the fact that the rope pulls visibly tight suggests that he completed hanging himself. Doubly so if the screenplay called for him to be found clearly hanging. When we see Hayley leaving his house, rolling down the hill etc., there is no police cars heading up to his house. Although this is by no means conclusive there would have been lots of ways to suggest that Jeff was arrested and not killed that were not taken. Also, recall what Hayley said on the roof about Aaron, and what he said "before he killed himself". Clearly this implies that Hayley did the same to Aaron as she did to Jeff. If Aaron had survived he'd have turned Jeff in to win points with the law, and the movie wouldn't have happened. I think we can conclude that in the absence of any evidence that Jeff was not hanged, that he did in fact die, just like Aaron. Caelarch 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless of course her friend was handling Aaron at nearly the same time. That is supported rather strongly by her friend knowing where to meet her and apparently what she was doing. You'd think that if Aaron died and any evidence showed up then Jeff would have been lying low. And if she had all this evidence on Aaron - why all the run up with torture? She just needed the gun and taser on a stick to get him to hang himself by that logic.

So the way the dialogue went there is still a tiny bit of "did she break an 'innocent man' to the point he'd confess to anything to escape public accusation and some aspect of private torture? Was her interruption with a unknown name, Aaron, the point he realized there was no point in further confessing to things he didn't do and he might as well just hang himself? Probably what most people would do if in the hands of a crazy, but one who the public might believe". Note some states don't require conviction to be in sex registry.

True the weight of the story goes against that - but then so did the evidence in Salem witch trials. There are certain crimes where public suspicion is worse than private execution. But then should we care? Its not like the world has a shortage of potentially guilty adults. 69.23.120.164 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A Conclusive Argument Could Be Made For Both Points, By The Rationale That Was Stated By Caelarch, She Wouldn't Need To Kill Jeff Because He Couldn't Incriminate Aaron To Butter Up The Cops, She Stated Earlier On That It Wasn't Her Intention To Kill Him, And The Worse Of The Two Endings For Jeff Could Presumably Be Being Caught, The Ending I Guess Will Forever Be A Mystery, Evidence Suggest He Gets Offed, But Who Knows? Aside From The Writer.... ;) -Echud123456

She doesn't kill Jeff. He kills himself. Raymm 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mkayy.... well i dont get it guys. did Jeff Die or not???

For f*** sake, does the person above know how to write? Capitalising every word makes it near-impossible to read - please don't do it.

You're retarded if you can't read things cause its capitolized. It's just as much a sentence if someone TyPEs lIKE THis or any other way. Idiot. Tobias1 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.205.218 (talk)

Only one problem with Hayley not killing him he then has the ability to tell the cops about her. Given the rest of her plan it seems odd she miss that point. Mind you notice at the end when she falls down the hill, maybe she was planning to claim she was a victim and escaped the guy? Tobias1 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The story is somewhat compromised by the successful hanging. The original trend was somewhat of a recruitment drive for young people to take the law into their own hands Batman style -- in that everything she did would be considered a misdemeanor and dismissed if she was ever caught. For a minor the fact he never left his house would be interpreted as not being kidnapping but merely unlawful restraint (the opposite of the legal argument if an adult did it).
Also the fact that she tracked down the other specific person with dead <grin> certainty was also somewhat of a cop out and unsupported. The original direction of the plot was somewhat along the lines of the Spanish Inquistion -- that Jeff's being a perv and thus having the potential for the ultimate crime was sufficient reason.
A more realistic and chilling explanation would be to explain all the inconsistencies as Hayley being a "La Femme Nikita" for Homeland Security acting under the Patriot Act to clean up the domestic child molesting terrorists (not by jury, not but tribunal, but assisted self-trial). That would probably be legal as long as adults didn't direct or monitor what she did with the info - and as long as they limited her immunity to misdemeanors. I mean not only did she "solve" the missing child case but she had all that info on neighbors and access to castration videos with limited distribution.
I think either the original direction of the plot or La Femme Nikita direction would be supported by most religious child advocates - but they would find the teen psychic detective hard to swallow. They will point out that even if not physically killed (actually pretty rare), such children are believed to become spiritually dead to family -- often as prostitutes, molesters or otherwise disturbed people unlikely to reunite with family. 69.23.120.164 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Batman style"? "'La Femme Nikita' for Homeland Security"??? I'm sorry, but was this post intended to be taken seriously? Somnabot 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I resorted to "emotionally laden cultural references" in lieu of a tedious explanation. In total the girl really knew too much and had too much access to materials to be acting alone -- even as an adult. Keep in mind there are tens of thousand of chat rooms and millions of chatters and even thousands of predators. How did she know specific people? Neighbors schedules? Thus we have entered the realm of comic book logic and/or conspiracy with an unseen resource organization that can do all that CSI stuff with computers etc. The only way to avoid that would have been to make her a witness/participant to the original crime, which the film did not. The materials are a bit easier but still not trivial...the castration surgical VHS tape being pretty hard for a kid. And in most places tasers are more rare and more quickly missed than a gun (cause its in a pocketbook). 69.23.120.164 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castration

Watching the movie I got the clear idea that Hayley tricked Jeff into believing she had castrated him. To my mind he wouldn't have been able to jump around so much if she had really done so. However the current version of the plot summary seems to treat the castration scene as factual. I haven't seen the shooting script or anything from the director or writer on this scene. Is it made clear either way? Are there any strong opinions on whether he is or is not castrated? --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't castrated. Jeff says "I'm all here" when he breaks free of the ropes. In the commentary, the director also says straight up that he was not casterated, apoligizing to people confused on this point when watching the film. I'm currently working on rewriting the plot section btw, which I so hate doing. Writing a summary that covers all major points and isn't too detailed/long sucks and is hard to do.--SeizureDog 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it's hard work. I much appreciate your making the effort. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's been a while since I've tried to get an article to GA status so this is my current pet project. I just really hate working on plot and reception sections. Ugh.--SeizureDog 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tag.

The spoiler notice was removed, so I have returned it to the article and adding my rationale here. Per Wikipedia:Spoiler:

  • The plot twists are not widely known. Hell, I never had even heard of the film until I rented it.
  • Spoilers are present in other sections aside from the "Plot" section, and the guideline states that it's ok to warn people if spoilers are present in "an unexpected place".
  • "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending...a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. " The creators were especially careful to not give away even the basic premise of the film, as the trailer leads the viewer into thinking the film has a different plot entirely.

--SeizureDog 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I watched this movie on its British release in 2006, precisely because of what I had heard about the treatment of the themes of crime, transgression, victimization and punishment. On this occasion my memory is clear: I read nor heard very little about the film except this review by Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian and this review by Mark Kermode in its Sunday sister paper, The Observer.
Perhaps The Guardian and the Observer are unusually graphic in their reviews, but I certainly knew to expect an intellectually challenging and interesting film, and in the circumstances the precise details of the plot, with its twists, were secondary to the act of storytelling, which is about communication of ideas. The important thing about a film (and I'm sure I'm not hanging out on some wild limb in saying this) is not what happens to the protagonist, the antagonist, etc, but what happens to the audience. This notwithstanding, the reviews gave the reader a good feel for what would happen and there were no plot surprises in the film as far as I was concerned.
I've no idea what the film's creators intended, but what actually happened, at least in Britain, seems to have been an audience well aware that the film owed rather more to Audition than to Lolita.
So I can sort-of see that you probably had a very different expectation of the film. The trouble is that I don't know, having seen the reviews and then the film itself, what your expectation was, and on what grounds it was based. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps British marketing was treated differently. Information I saw on the film (I'm American) focused on making the film look to be a modern-day Lolita, so the complete shift to Audition-style fifteen minutes into the film took me by surprise. For instance, the only clue on Netflix (from where I rented the film) to Hayley being the instigator was a cryptic "Of course, Hayley may have underlying motives of her own..." Granted, I'm sure that a lot of people will have heard what it's actually about beforehand, there are still a good number of people that have no clue.--SeizureDog 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the film really is relentlessly and singlemindedly about Hayley's mission, and it has won plaudits (in the real world!) for that fact, I suggest that the problem here is that we simply don't come out and state that fact in the lead section where it belongs. Once we've done so there will be no need for spoiler tags because, as an encyclopedia, we will have done our duty: to dispel misconceptions and spread knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was marketed much differently in the U.S. Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYBnm1xhM7I . Before I saw it, I knew the basic gist of the film just from the promotion and was not at all surprised that Hayley is seeking vengeance. --YellowTapedR 22:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the trailer linked above, the line "The film is about the confrontation of a sexual predator by a fourteen-year-old girl whom he attempts to ensnare." seems quite reasonable in the lede. It's clear from the trailer that there is some sort of confrontation ("Now it's time to wake up" for example).
The spoiler tag itself isn't needed. The only plot details that aren't clearly marked by section titles are the ones in the "production"section, which should be split out to an "inspiration" section instead, since the inspiration of a film isn't really it's production. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, I tried that. Let me know what you think. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

The picture is clearly an allusion to Little Red Riding Hood, and the trap is obviously intended to catch a man (there are no bears in the film). I've changed the caption accordingly. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording "as" to "resembling". As mentioned in the "thematic elements" section, the relation to Little Red Riding Hood was not intentional. I'm uncertain as to if the connection was caught early enough for US marketing purposes, so it is debatable as to if the poster was made that way on purpose. --SeizureDog 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

you people are missing everything. I just saw it AGAiN last night, and I saw a bear. Right where it always is. I mean, DUH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.186.14 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  1. "Hayley wears a red hoody that often seen as an allusion to "Little Red Riding Hood". " by whom?, this is WP:NOR. The whole thing is very ambiguously told, after they shot the film they thought about the whole red hood/wolf concept? that sounds unlikely, do they really say that in the DVD?. By the way, notice the typo in that sentence (hoody THAT'S often seen), i have to say there are quite a few in the article, i corrected a couple but please pay more attention before you renominate.
  2. The article is mostly written in short phrases, it should be more fluent. Take the second paragraph in the production section, the whole soundstage thing could be changed for one well-written sentence. Same thing with "reception" and "release history" sections, they look like lists when they should be paragraphs. The last paragraph in thematic elements can easily be one sentence, anyway this problem is in practically every section.
  3. The lead could also be one paragraph, it should be added something about what kind of reception the film had. The phrase mentioning the directors past as a music video director should be removed, or mentioned in the article. Leads shouldn't mention anything that's not in the main article. Also, there's no ref in the lead.
  4. The sources are not good enough, i don't have the DVD and my Japanease is terrible, how am i supposed to check all this? If the film/actors won al those awards there should be some references on the internet, some interviews maybe.
  5. Critics?, you mention USA today, no one else had anything to say about a film like this one?. This doesn't seem neutral and if there really was NO negative reviews or comments about this film, well then it should be mentioned (with references) that it was globally acclaimed.
  6. The caption of the poster doesn't need to describe what's on it.
  7. The creative team actively tried to eschew the Hollywood traditions of performance, avoiding cliché beats when they could. I have no idea what this means, please expand.
  8. Extra comment: about that spoiler tag, i saw the rational, but there's really no need, film articles are expected to have the whole plot summarised. I checked out FA and GA about films and couldn't find one with that tag.
  9. Extra comment2: One more screenshot would be nice, it looks like this film has some powerfull scenes, an image would help ilustrate that.

I am failing this article, i don't think it can be fixed in a week, there's just too many things missing and too much copy-editing needed. Yamanbaiia 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re#1: In the DVD they talk about how people see the red hoody as an allusion to Little Red Riding Hood but say that this happened by accident. Ellen Page liked the color red and hoodies, so that outfit was choosen. I don't see how it's WP:NOR when two lines sentences later an exmaple of given of the allusion in foreign marketing.
Re#3: There's nothing that needs referencing in the lead.
Re#4: Wait, you want me to cite less reliable sources and more convenient ones? I don't understand this logic and there's nothing in Wiki policy that says I need to cite the Internet for ease of use. I cite what my actual references were, nothing more.
Re#7: It reads as it was phrased. Basically, they were trying to be original.
Re#8: It doesn't hurt. --SeizureDog 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 1: Who is they? it's too ambiguos, you could say "writer Bla Blabla has said ..." .It looks like OR because you are not saying who claims that the whole concept was mere chance.
  • 3: Oh yes there is. The lead needs to make a comment to what kind of reception the film had, and that comment needs to have a reference. There's not even a lead section now.
  • 4: I never said LESS i said MORE. And i'm going to quote you WP:PROVEIT: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You can also referr to magazines and books if you don't want to use the internet as a source.
  • 7: Actually no, it means that they went and use a special technique when developing the interactions the two characters would have in the film. The whole directorial beat thing could be very interesting if developed.
  • 8: You are a stubbern fella i give you that. Fine, whatever, i'm sure someone will find a rule for this soon enough.
  • You seem to disagree with my review, if after this explanation you are still not happy feel free to seek a reassessment. Yamanbaiia 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, Yamanbaiia, but your comments are full of run-on sentences. Are those the kind of sentences you want when you say the sentences in the article should be longer? --YellowTapedR 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)