As well made as the film is, it has bad intentions. We are presented with paedophiles telling their own life stories. They dwell massively on their own misfortunes and when compelled to divulge their heinous crimes, portray them as the result of, in 5 individual cases, entrapment, Lolita-esque provocation, one's own incestuous abuse, the stresses of being secretly homosexual, and work stress in general.
It goes without saying that none of these are even slightly mitigating factors. Entrapment might be morally dubious, but when offered to have sex with a young girl by an anonymous chatroom member, a normal person refuses. A normal person would not respond to the perceived "provocation" of a young girl. Being a closeted homosexual does not win any "oppression points" that can be discounted against the rape of young boys. Must I continue?
The real point is that none of these people are shown to have faced their true culpability: they indulge in victimhood narratives, and the filmmakers indulge them too. They still identify with the demons inside them, rather than being willing to cast them out. They attempt to win sympathy and to glom onto a liberal narrative that protects the outcasts.
Those who judge this film "thought provoking" have to tell the rest of society just how much sympathy, built into them by this film, they can have left once the damage these people have done is plainly accounted for. Under the presumption that we should take a philosophical mode of thought on this issue, why don't we ask ourselves what magnitude of evil could then not be forgiven, so long as the perpetrator was sufficiently downtrodden himself?
