Bad Education

[Ghostboy]

But a lot of great noirs are based on rather lusty melodrama...it's just usually straight. What Almodovar does so brilliantly in this is take all these cliches and remove all trappings of gender or sexual orientation. Think about Gael's character -- he's essentially filling the same role dozens of film fatales have played in the past -- he's the Barbara Stanwyk charcater.. Sexuality in Almodovar films is completely amorphous, and it's both daring and, in my opinion, refreshing.

[modage]

When is the pedophilia excused?

he goes to great lengths to give the audience a sympathetic view of the priest and his 'forbidden love'.  but turning him into a hero by giving him the last laugh with blackmailing in the epilogue titles was too much.

[Jeremy Blackman]

SPOILERS

but turning him into a hero by giving him the last laugh with blackmailing in the epilogue titles was too much.

Honestly, I was so horrified by the epilogue titles that I didn't really read them. What exactly happened?

[modage]

the priest ends up blackmailing juan after he becomes a famous actor when the film is released.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Okay. I don't see how that makes him a hero. It just makes him seem petty. And at that point isn't the focus shifted completely to his relationship with Juan and away from pedophilia?

[modage]

Okay. I don't see how that makes him a hero. It just makes him seem petty. And at that point isn't the focus shifted completely to his relationship with Juan and away from pedophilia?

becuase he gets the last laugh.  the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution.  his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong.  almodovar is basically saying that forbidden love is forbidden love.  as in, romeo and juliet are no different than the priest and this little boy.  its just societies inability to recognize this as a valid/acceptable love to have and no less real than any other kind of love.

[Jeremy Blackman]

becuase he gets the last laugh.  the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution.  his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong.

Why must the good people always win in a movie? Do you really think that if the good people don't win, the filmmaker must be making a statement against them?

I'm sure Almodóvar understands that pedophilia is a bad thing (especially if this is a personal story). Didn't you think the pedophilia scenes were a little dark and frightening? Do you expect absolutely clear moral affirmation?

His style is not to judge. He also doesn't judge Juan, which is why it confuses me that you think the audience is "meant to" cheer for the priest against Juan. Just because the audience you saw it with laughed doesn't mean Almodóvar intended that to be some kind of sweet revenge heroic moment. And if you think Almodóvar has an obligation to judge the pedophile, well, I can understand that, but I disagree.

[Ghostboy]

Honestly, I was so horrified by the epilogue titles that I didn't really read them.

Huh? Those title were pure Almodovar! I loved 'em.

And he's not justifying pedophilia -- he's just going way out of his way to create sympathy for the priest for the melodrama's sake. In this movie's vocabulary, pedophilia is not a perverted desire, but a forbidden love. Almodovar isnt' condoning it, mind you, but using it for dramatic purposes in the same way he used, say, the rape of an invalid in Talk To Her (although he rightly presents the priest's desires in a much less ambiguous manner than the rape).

[modage]

becuase he gets the last laugh.  the audience is meant to side with the priest, atleast in the screening i was at the audience laughed and practically applauded the priests resolution.  his character isnt punished becaues almodovar doesnt think he's done anything wrong.

Why must the good people always win in a movie? Do you really think that if the good people don't win, the filmmaker must be making a statement against them?

I'm sure Almodóvar understands that pedophilia is a bad thing (especially if this is a personal story). Didn't you think the pedophilia scenes were a little dark and frightening? Do you expect absolutely clear moral affirmation?

His style is not to judge. He also doesn't judge Juan, which is why it confuses me that you think the audience is "meant to" cheer for the priest against Juan. Just because the audience you saw it with laughed doesn't mean Almodóvar intended that to be some kind of sweet revenge heroic moment. And if you think Almodóvar has an obligation to judge the pedophile, well, I can understand that, but I disagree.

the good people dont have to win.  but in 'noir', if thats what this is trying to be, evildoers are always punished.  they ALWAYS get whats coming to them.  but like i said earlier, he doesnt think theres anything wrong with the priests actions so he doesnt feel the need to punish his character.  i think the quote i used on the last page goes to support my statement that he wants us to side with the priest because thats the character he treats the most sympathetically.  like i said in noir, those who do wrong get whats coming to them, its just the rule of the genre, if that is in fact the genre he supposes to be working in.  juan, for lying and scheming his way to stardom gets his dream, but the catch is that now he must pay the blackmail.  the priest receives no such punishment for his character is absolved of any wrongdoing.  i think the subtitle at the end really goes to hammer home this point.  

And he's not justifying pedophilia -- he's just going way out of his way to create sympathy for the priest for the melodrama's sake. In this movie's vocabulary, pedophilia is not a perverted desire, but a forbidden love. Almodovar isnt' condoning it, mind you, but using it for dramatic purposes in the same way he used, say, the rape of an invalid in Talk To Her (although he rightly presents the priest's desires in a much less ambiguous manner than the rape).

yes and i understand the comparison but i still dont see quite the reason for doing it.  other than 'he's almodovar'.  or maybe, like i said its just not for me.  it just seems like something like pedophilia should be treated as more of a serious subject and not something treated so lightly, but maybe i'm just a square.

[modage]

Title: Bad Education
Released: 12th April 2005
SRP: $26.96

Further Details
Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment has officially announced Bad Education which stars Gael García Bernal (The Motorcycle Diaries), one of the most dynamic young actors in the Latin film scene today. The film, from the Academy Award®-winning director of Talk to Her and All About My Mother, Pedro Almodóvar, will be available to own from the 12th April this year, and should retail at around $26.96. The film itself will be presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen along with a Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include an audio commentary with the director, an American Film Institute Tribute, a Poster Exploration Gallery, deleted scenes and some red carpet footage From AFI. English subtitles will also be provided. pretty crappy artwork here: http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=5724&n=1&burl=

[ono]

And it's just started playing here this weekend, too.  Sometimes I love the arthouses here.  Others, I wonder why they bother.  There's $5 I may not have to spend.  Thanks, Geritol Netflix.

[Thrindle]

Firstly, this did not deserve an NC17 rating.  The blowjob at the beginning was mildly explicit, and the gay sex was filmed similarly to hetero sex, in other movies.  I think of the film Sleepers (which dealt with pedophilia in a more graphic manner) and all it got was an R rating.  Truth is, the NC17 was a censorship issue due to the homosexual nature of the film.  Get over it, a penis is still a penis regardless of where it goes.

Now... what I love about Almodóvar films... is that he takes the ambiguous nature of human sexuality and morphs it into portrayals of truth.  I do not excuse rape (as in Talk to Her), nor do I excuse pedophilia, but I do believe in adolescent sexuality.  I was not offended by the two young boys in the movie theatre.  I'm sure there are a lot of 12 year olds out there that experimented with friends.  Homosexual or not, childhood experimentation is normal, not offensive.  

Long and short of it, sexuality is largely animalistic, we just like to pretend that we are above instinctual impulse.  This movie wasn't about young boys being groped, or about pseudo gay twentysomethings.  Rather, this movie was about getting what one wants, and using their charms to do so.  I guess men in movies can use sexuality to get what they want as well...  (the Closer thread comes to mind).

Great movie.

[Alexandro]

It has also a subtext concerning the effects of the Franco dictatorship in Spain. During a repressive era, there's hardly any red, blue or yellow. Then in the eighties, everything is free and colorful. Juan has the freedom to achieve his dream but his bad education under a repressive system does not exactly serves him in the perfect way.

I don't think almodovar is condoning pedophilia, or condemning it. That's simplistic. Father Manolo es pathetic. Even if he blackmails at the end, he's way too pathetic to be considered a hero.

[Stefen]

Almodovar shows the CHARACTER of manolo as a sympathetic character, but only in movie within movie form. The real father manolo (Berenguer) is shown has a very bad person, Almodovar even has him very sick (coughing and weezing) All it shows is that Enrique was trying to make an emotional film, and he never really knew the whole story, he was just showing what HE knew. The whole thing isn't layed out for him until Berenguer shows up, and even then the film is pretty much wrapped.

[Pubrick]

es

u rule.