I feel like this movie isn't so much of a statement as much as it is an exploration.
Although the titular Character is John, there is sort of a secondary protagonist who appears at different moments thoughout the film. We aren't told directly what the relationship is between 13 year old John and this 12 year old girl, but it is implied that she is John's mother (in flashbacks).
The film explores and contrasts two different scenarios:
Being a child who feels completely oppressed by childhood, and is completely unable to alter the fixed way adults see him even as inside his own mind he is convinced of his own maturity. The desire to escape his childhood is so powerful it causes him to invent pathological schemes to seize control on his own terms. Because adults will not readily concede power and control to children, children usually submit and take their place until the reach a certain age and begin to question this hierarchy.
John seems to want more than anything not to be alone, but to be heard. Scenes throughout the film depict adults cutting him off or discounting what he has to say, and it only when John takes control by force that his family will actually sit and listen to him.
The female protagonist on the other hand is forced unwillingly out of the comforts that childhood affords and is thrust into the frightening world of adulthood when her single parent makes the sudden announcement that she is leaving. Faced with the fact that she will no longer have protection and advocacy from a fully grown adult, the terror of having to contend with the world on her own is the last thing she wants.
There is a bit of "the grass is always greener" effect, and while John seems to have gained control and liberty by displacing the other members of his family, he begins to feel the burden of responsibility and self sufficiency that adulthood eventually thrusts on all of us.
I think in effect the film was a reminder that children really do at heart desire to be children, protected and loved and heard, but not at the expense of being treated as a possession. There are times when John reveals himself to be exceptionally intelligent and adults continually refuse to acknowledge him, driving him further into isolation and resentment of the world around him.
While it is fortunate that MOST children never enact such elaborate and dangerous schemes to feel a sense of control, I'd be lying if I said no child ever fantasizes about things like this. I'm in my thirties but can still remember the awful fantasies I had to have as a child in order to soothe my way out of familial anxiety.
What some viewers might not realize is the movie is not so much to be taken literally. At least I don't think so. Viewers might wonder what did the family do that was SOOOOOO bad to deserve what John does to them? Is John simply a sociopath? I think the implication is that childhood can be like a death by a thousand cuts and even though it's usually not enough to push us over the edge, this film dares to depict the brutal fantasies that even the most innocent children can have when they feel powerless.
Although the titular Character is John, there is sort of a secondary protagonist who appears at different moments thoughout the film. We aren't told directly what the relationship is between 13 year old John and this 12 year old girl, but it is implied that she is John's mother (in flashbacks).
The film explores and contrasts two different scenarios:
Being a child who feels completely oppressed by childhood, and is completely unable to alter the fixed way adults see him even as inside his own mind he is convinced of his own maturity. The desire to escape his childhood is so powerful it causes him to invent pathological schemes to seize control on his own terms. Because adults will not readily concede power and control to children, children usually submit and take their place until the reach a certain age and begin to question this hierarchy.
John seems to want more than anything not to be alone, but to be heard. Scenes throughout the film depict adults cutting him off or discounting what he has to say, and it only when John takes control by force that his family will actually sit and listen to him.
The female protagonist on the other hand is forced unwillingly out of the comforts that childhood affords and is thrust into the frightening world of adulthood when her single parent makes the sudden announcement that she is leaving. Faced with the fact that she will no longer have protection and advocacy from a fully grown adult, the terror of having to contend with the world on her own is the last thing she wants.
There is a bit of "the grass is always greener" effect, and while John seems to have gained control and liberty by displacing the other members of his family, he begins to feel the burden of responsibility and self sufficiency that adulthood eventually thrusts on all of us.
I think in effect the film was a reminder that children really do at heart desire to be children, protected and loved and heard, but not at the expense of being treated as a possession. There are times when John reveals himself to be exceptionally intelligent and adults continually refuse to acknowledge him, driving him further into isolation and resentment of the world around him.
While it is fortunate that MOST children never enact such elaborate and dangerous schemes to feel a sense of control, I'd be lying if I said no child ever fantasizes about things like this. I'm in my thirties but can still remember the awful fantasies I had to have as a child in order to soothe my way out of familial anxiety.
What some viewers might not realize is the movie is not so much to be taken literally. At least I don't think so. Viewers might wonder what did the family do that was SOOOOOO bad to deserve what John does to them? Is John simply a sociopath? I think the implication is that childhood can be like a death by a thousand cuts and even though it's usually not enough to push us over the edge, this film dares to depict the brutal fantasies that even the most innocent children can have when they feel powerless.