 As
technology advances, so does society. It used to be that if
you wanted to meet your soul mate, you had to leave the house
once in a while. Go dancing, head to a library, chat up the
teller at the bank, etc. This was the popular method of dating
ever since men decided clubbing women was a less classy approach
to getting laid than going clubbing. But, in just
the past fifty years, there has been more and more implementation
of technology into love matching. In the sixties and seventies,
computer dating started catching on, and party lines developed;
in the eighties, video dating became more popular. All of
this has pretty much become non-existent in the eHarmony/match.com
society we live in today, where you can go online to meet
people with whom you share common interests. Now, all you
need to get more ass than a toilet seat is a MySpace account
and you’re good to go. High school hipsters rejoice!
Of course, with all this unsecured Internet chatting going
on, what’s to stop minors from being victimized? It
has never been easier for sexual predators to sink their claws
into potential victims. “Don’t go into chat rooms”
has become this generation’s “Don’t accept
candy from strangers,” and there has probably never
been a greater need for that advice. Today’s pedophiles
have gone hi-tech, and they’re exploiting every opportunity
it provides them.
Hard Candy is a new thriller that uses Internet
predators as its framework: An older man named Jeff chats
up a younger girl named Hayley online. Jeff convinces her
to meet him at a coffee shop. Jeff takes her back to his place.
Shit goes bad.
The big twist here is that shit goes bad for the party you
might not expect. Because the film hinges on this twist as
though it has little else to hinge itself upon (which it doesn’t),
I am going to spend some time going into detail. If you haven’t
seen Hard Candy yet, rent it and come back.
If you have, read on or skip to the next bold-faced section.
MASSIVE SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT.
DON’T WHINE LIKE A LITTLE BITCH IF YOU READ THIS AND
HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!
 Let’s
get this out of the way: there is lots of talk and hype surrounding Hard Candy and its ability to get the viewer
to side with either Jeff (Patrick Wilson) or Hayley (Ellen
Page). Either way you side would be valid, and it’s
obvious that the intent of the filmmakers wasn’t to
stop at making you choose a side, but to also make you question why you chose it. Events are staged, and information
is revealed, in such a way that could cause your opinion of
each character to dance. The problem, I find, is that I simply
didn’t care.
We’ll start off with Jeff, who is the most explored
character of the two, and arguably the most sympathetic. Jeff
is, in fact, a pedophile. This is explained to us about half-way
through the film, when Hayley finds his stash of kiddie porn.
Now, that helps the audience who isn’t paying a damn
bit of attention otherwise, but in actuality this is first
revealed in the fact that he’s meeting alone with Hayley
to begin with. Doesn’t that strike anyone as odd? Like
there is any other feasible reason for these two to hook up.
Sympathy lost. Any backstory that is revealed about him later
is practically moot because, well, he’s a goddamned
pedophile! Excuse me if I don’t tear up during the “castration
scene” or as he gets emotional over his ex-girlfriend
Janelle (Odessa Rae). Sorry, not much to listen to here. When
the finale does come around, and the final revelation is made,
Jeff loses any likeability, even as a screwed up villain.
 Hayley
must be the great strong gimmicky twist then, right? Well,
the gimmick part is accurate. The rest I’m not so sure
about. First off, role-reversals, such as the prey becoming
the predator, don’t do much for me, because I’ve
seen it all before. However, since this was kind of the whole
point of the story, it is easy to let it slide. Less easy
to get over is the fact that she is made out to be vigilante
supreme. I enjoyed the comeuppance that she was able to get
over on her pursuer, but they stretch her character to the
point where’s she’s no longer believable; she
is able to both set Jeff up for a fall and get herself out
of jams an almost equal number of times. James Bond himself
would be put to task going up against Hayley. In fact, he
would probably just throw in the towel so as not be bothered.
My biggest complaint about either character, though, is likely
what other people may consider the film’s smartest bit:
we know absolutely nothing (or close to nothing) about Hayley
by the film’s end. While she unquestionably has a goal,
we never truly understand her motivations behind that goal.
Is she related somehow to Donna Mauer, the missing girl? If
so, did she really get vengeance? The evidence left in Jeff’s
home would undoubtedly solidify him to the outside world as
a pedophile, but any evidence would be circumstantial in relation
to Donna. Knowing that, it seems that forcing the ending this
way wouldn’t truly fulfill her mission. It’s hard
to sympathize with a character that is obviously incredibly
smart, yet has such unclear motives.
YOU MAY SAFELY RESUME READING
HERE, YOU HARD CANDY VIRGINS!!!
While I was unsatisfied with the ending of Hard Candy,
seeing as how it wraps up too conveniently, there is still
tons of enjoyment to get out of this film, both in its fiction
as well as its technique. The film has a grand total of five
actors, allowing the viewer to focus their attention on the
main characters, Jeff and Haley. Nearly all of the film is
simply conversation, and it is almost completely scoreless,
so every little sound effect - from footsteps, to a crumpled
bag of ice, to a ladies razor cutting hair - becomes all the
more effective. The viewer’s attention is forced on
each of the leads, which is fantastic, considering they are
both so very unlikable.
 The
unsung technical heroes of Hard Candy had
to have been the art director and the editor. There was only
one set for the entire film: Jeff’s house doubled for
the coffee shop with just some clever rearranging of furniture.
Not only did this no doubt keep costs low for the producers,
but it also helped establish the films look. The entire film
is framed beautifully with awesome long shots of the roomy
house. When characters are talking or important moments are
coming, the camera will either be intentionally in the actors’
faces or held back to an extreme distance, or blurred, or
filled with a flurry of quick cuts. This may sound like “MTV
editing” that has been used uncountable times in the
past, but the quick cuts aren’t used nearly to that
degree. Director David Slade knew exactly where and when to
draw the line, and went with a voyeuristic, lingering viewpoint
for much of the film instead of cheapening the experience.
It’s a shame really. This film is an A+ on a technical
level, but never excels past any random C-grade thriller when
it comes to the story. With such an intriguing and timely
premise, a strong cast, and a look that any other independent
film released this year would die for, there is only one place
I can put the blame – the script. But don’t let
that stop you from seeing what is unquestionably one of the
most controversial films of the year. People’s reaction
really runs the gamut from love to hate and everything in
between. Everyone should at least see Hard Candy.
The DVD Presentation
There are few films where the shots are as calculated as they are in Hard Candy. A strong visual presentation is vital for a film of this nature and, thankfully, this DVD is phenomenal in that regard. The anamorphic widescreen transfer is extremely detailed, and the print is the closest to HD that I have seen on a standard DVD. The sound mix is strong, too. There is hardly any score (the commentary mentions that only 8-9 minutes of the whole film is scored), so the audio is dependent on dialog and sound effects. All of it comes across perfectly, and every sound comes across with a true intensity.
And the Extras Are?
Commentary with Director David Slade and Writer Brian Nelson –
This is a highly informative track. Neither participant is short of words. They fire off information with a great conversational flow. Hearing the writer discuss his inspiration for the story and its characters helps provide great insight into the film. I was also impressed with the technical depth that this track provided. I thought for sure that the movie was shot on HD, but in fact it is all done on film with extensive coloration done after the fact. Fans will definitely want to check out this track.
Commentary with Actors Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page –
There is good banter on the actors’ commentary track, and it’s interesting to hear both of them speak about their roles, how they were selected, and what not. Much of this is covered on the other commentary, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t insights here as well. I especially liked all the details revealed in the “ice pack” scene and what it was like acting in a film that is almost entirely dialog. As worthy of your time as the first commentary is.
“Creating Hard Candy” – Making-Of Documentary – (51:46)
Need something visual in order to get your Hard Candy background? For running just shy of an hour, this feature has a TON of information covering every aspect of the film from conception to post-production. Much of it is available in the two commentaries, but if you are not a fan of them or just don’t have the time, this will do you nicely. It’s well edited, never boring, and is divided into seven chapters for ease. If you only want to hear about post-production, you can jump to it. Awesome.
“Controversial Confection” – Featurette – (9:21)
For a feature with a disclaimer saying that it is intended to be watched only after seeing Hard Candy, it was surprising to see something that doesn’t seem much more than promo fluff. Even the good points that are made from the various cast and crew are overwhelmed by the feelings of self-importance that they all seem to have about the film. Spoilers are discussed, though, so it’s best you heed the warning.
 Deleted
and Extended Scenes –
There are six extra scenes included here, all presented in
non-anamorphic widescreen. “First E-mail”
(1:43) is an extended (and alternate)
version of the conversation seen at the beginning of the film. “Hayley reads Janelle’s letter” (1:59) is just that, with additional
comments from Jeff afterwards. “Hayley calls home”
(1:49) shows why Hayley’s parents never worry about
her or look for her – it should have been left in. “Jeff
tied to table, Haley questions him about Donna Mauer” (2:26) This scene explains a little bit more about
what was on the photos that Haley found. Having this in the
film might make certain aspects seem more obvious. That’s
the only reason I could see it being removed. “Numb
nuts” (1:23) is another
segment that reveals too much for the film to have the impact
that it does. Finally, we have, “Shaving” (1:36) which must have been cut
for time, because it’s only slightly longer than the
scene in the final cut.
It is great that all of these are included, but it would have been nice to have them anamorphically enhanced, and a commentary could have provided some reasons for their absence.
Script and Director’s Notebook (DVD-ROM) – This DVD-ROM feature for PCs is a semi-interactive presentation. The script is on one side of the screen while notes and storyboards are shown on the left. The flash presentation I found difficult to read, but maybe I just don't have a large enough screen. Great idea, though.
Theatrical Trailer – (2:24)
Regardless of whether or not you like Hard Candy, chances are you really dug the trailer. It was extremely well made and is great at selling the feature without giving important bits away.
Lionsgate Trailer Gallery –
Trailers for See No Evil, An American Haunting (both in non-anamorphic widescreen), Stephen King’s Desperation and Are You Scared? (both full-frame). These are also forcibly played when the DVD is first inserted.
Fans of Hard Candy looking for behind-the-scenes and further production information will want to spend time with all the features. For a single-disc release, there is an exceptional amount of content, and all of it is worthwhile for those interested.
 The
Bottom Line
These days there are few films that are unique, and fewer
still that are both unique and good. Hard Candy tries really hard to be that film. At times it succeeds,
too. It has an exceptionally strong first half, but I feel
that, with the exception of the ultimate ending, the second-half
pushes the realm of believability. It loses me for a while.
While probably not as good as it could have been, the acting
by both leads is extremely well done, and the art direction
and set design is in a class of its own. Hard Candy is worth watching for its interesting concept, but with such
unsympathetic characters, I really doubt it will make you
question yourself the way it begs you to. I suggest that you
rent Hard Candy if you haven’t seen
it, but if you do decide to purchase, this is an excellent
DVD.
|
