The movie was told from the point of view of the teenage girls who all get pregnant all around the same time (Camille is the first, and it focuses on her). If in the end the girls said "Wow were we dumb!" It wouldn't work. Thats not the mindset of the girls. And it purposely ended like that to show that without Camille, their dream of creating a community quickly slipped away.The movie wasn't meant to show how illogical the girls were. It was to just show, from the girls perspective, why they wanted to do it. And the fact that they never really grasped what that meant for the rest of their lives adds to why they all made this pregnancy pact. I think this was refreshing, because in other film adaptations of what happened (Yes, this is a real event), they try to show how the girls were wrong in the end. But I think this movie offered both sides, and left you to decide if their decision was right or wrong. I think this movie could have gone a little more in-depth with their characters, like Camille, or maybe Clem, but overall I think it was a good representation of mob-mentality and rebellion among teenagers.

17 Girls (2011)Lots of mid-teen girl stuff on French beaches. And yet supposedly a social issue movie about a rash of intentional pregnancies at a high school. There are scenes between the girls that pry into contemporary youth culture but only get the lid off. This is a sensational idea with the depth of a single gasp.Even stranger, once you get into it, is how the movie makers, the writer/director pair Delphine and Muriel Coulin (both did both), took an American high school news story and adapted it to this small industrial coastal city in France. It doesn't right true. The utter rebellion of the kids to reason, their various trajectories around peer pressure and media hype, and the general glibness of some of the school reactions all seem a bit callous, and without nuance. There is an attempt at depth (and some of the best acting) though the main character, Camille, played by Louise Grinberg. Here the need for such rebellion seems to have roots in her psyche and her family situation. How this effect "spreads" and becomes an easy viral sense of irresponsibility is not given much thought, however. There are three or four other girls who are given some complexity, but not enough to quite explain their motiviations.Maybe the project was doomed when the writers faced the central problem—this is both about a large effect (over a dozen girls, en masse) and an individual problem (one by one). How to do both? Especially when it happens pretty much simultaneously.There is a low budget documentary on the real deal—"The Gloucester 18" which is apparently (from their press kit) a kind of public service piece against teen pregnancy— and there is a TV series in Spanish called "El Pacto" that supposedly expands on the sensational aspects of the story. I'm not sure any of it is worth the trouble more than just reading a new article about the phenomenon. The movie here is curious at first, slow to get going, and has a few interesting moments, but it hardly holds up over an hour and a half.

Instantaneously, 17 Girls reminds me of the American film The Bling Ring, which centered around a group of spoiled adolescents growing up in Hollywood that would venture out at night and rob celebrity's homes, stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of values. Their plans were more than just rob whomever whenever but sporadic, carefully-planned that would take place when the celebrity was out of town, judging by their Twitter feed and social networking activity.The film was immediately criticized for being empty, somewhat superficial, and lacking any real depth, and brief searches for the Coulin sisters' (Delphine and Muriel) 17 Girls has warranted similar criticism. Let me reiterate the reason for the emptiness one more time. 17 Girls is based off another unfathomably true story, revolving around a group of teen girls who made a pact to get pregnant around the same time so they could all deliver at he same time and raise their babies together. This kind of act is empty and stupid, and the Coulin sisters make not attempt to disguise the true stupidity of what these girls did. However, they do make an attempt to justify it, and that is when we have a film.This pact begins when seventeen-year-old Camille (Louise Grinberg) discovers she is pregnant after the condom breaks during sex with her partner. By making the choice to keep the child, despite abortion and adoption being available options, she manages to encourage her friends to also have children and get pregnant. One even resorts to getting impregnated by a twenty-four-year old homeless man.The reason the girls give to justify their pact is their desire to be loved unconditionally and their hunger for companionship. If one were to look closely at the homelives of these girls, one would see nothing but emptiness and sadness, with no real parental guidance or dependency whatsoever. Their parents are barely around to cook and care for them let alone give them moral guidance or help them along in school or in life. The girls resort to getting pregnant as a means of being the parent they never adequately had growing up.Make no mistake, these are shallow and narrow-minded girls and the Coulin sisters dually make note of that. The girls choose to go through with a process that is supposed to be wonderful and quite an emotionally-enriching experience and cheapen it to a spur-of-the-moment impulse that effectively robs it of any and all humanity. However, the Coulin sisters bravely try and justify why the girls did, which is the real uphill battle. Out of all the tabloid stories, the Coulin sisters picked one of the toughest to justify and humanize and the result with 17 Girls is remarkable.I'm somewhat optimistic that one day we'll get a version of "the pregnancy pact" that tries to give an even deeper humanization of the girls involved with the pact. With 17 Girls, we're kind of at arm's length away from the story, never closing in on even one of the girls involved with this pact. However, as stated, the lack of character development only further gives these characters the vapidness they accentuated in real life by doing such an unthinkable act and cheapening what is supposed to be an intimate and massively rewarding experience. I constantly see people (myself included) complaining that movies shortchange their heroes and don't give proper justice to their own character. Here's a film that does perfect justice to its characters and their real-life personalities.Starring: Louise Grinberg. Directed by: Delphine and Muriel Coulin.

The first thing of note here is the quality of the acting and direction. The way everything is natural and believable here is mind boggling. These are very young girls and yet they're caught on film doing things we've all seen young girls do as if the camera were invisible. How is that possible? Because if they're only acting they are incredibly convincing.If I were a director filming a competing film about female adolescents I would shoot myself out of sheer envy. And I'm afraid I can only attribute the poor reviews this film got to something similar. I much prefer a different more masculine kind of film, but I was riveted by this film's persuasiveness. That's quite a trick. This director is ingenious. If he or she is not given some meaty project after this masterful accomplishment then I'm quite sure the movie industry is dooming itself to deliberate mediocrity.The only caveat I have is that the story itself, in the end, is not very satisfying. However, as I understand it, the true story behind this fanciful embellishment was even less satisfying. In other words this movie is a flight of imagination on pretty slim facts. But don't let that stop you from seeing it, it's unforgettable.