It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
Yes, the difference is a diagnosis. And confronting them. My issues are not my fault, but they are mine to deal with. But let’s not forget we’re talking about literal child predation. Alleged, yes; but that can’t be dismissed as a “struggle” without it being a slap in the face to victims…
Not sure if I can add anything to the rest of your comment worth discussing, but I don’t think a diagnosis is the end-all be-all of how to treat someone’s mental state. Similarly to how laws are a (bad) approximation of morals, diagnoses are only an approximation of someone’s mental state.