It is controversial because it challenges the traditional "victim" standard and whether it is moral to repay evil for evil. The male protagonist said that I did not kill, but the girl thought that bystanders were indifferent = indirect killing. This alone is enough for many people to discuss for a long time. I only know that, for example, in the face of an extremely sinful war, even choosing to become a neutral country is guilty. .
When I watched it, I felt that my nerves were split. On the one hand, I was angry at the sins of the male protagonist but succumbed to the contradiction of his survival instinct, not to mention the way she chose to make men worse than death - castration.
It doesn't matter what the girl's name is. In the film, she is just the endorsement of a typical group, maybe it's the young, red, innocent girls who are hurt by those "grown people". Her appearance means the voice of resistance.
The director is angry, but making a movie is not to vent his anger. The way of depicting the human side of the villain in the novel and increasing the complexity with the fullness of the characters has been widely accepted, but it seems contradictory to introduce the evil side to the victim. So when the film entangles these two contradictions, it becomes a terrible collision, which is powerful enough to go straight to the final death in one go.
The treatment of some movies will end the whole film at the moment when the male protagonist falls, but it adds the scene of the little girl leaving resolutely, without a trace of sadness, rendering the cruel atmosphere to the extreme.
View more about Hard Candy reviews
