American version had entire scenes removed because they felt audiences would immediately reject the protagonist as a possible pedophile due to the dialogue he has with a 12 year old girl.
Tangent time...
I'm curious as to whether these discussions are still had behind the scenes today with ALL studios. It's 20 years later and movies have gotten far more racy and a great deal of subject matter that may not have been acceptable in the past is considered so now. I wonder if a mainstream audience could accept a character that they'd perceive as flawed in regard to the pedophilia taboo. I doubt it, and I don't think that they should. But for the purposes of movies, it's always interesting to see the envelope pushed.
The reality is that pedophilia is unacceptable in our country and the majority of the world so it makes sense that an audience would shrink from an otherwise acceptable character, even today. There are lots of taboos in the world (a LOT of them in the US), many of which don't come from a practical standpoint as much as a societal pressure (not wanting to eat the innards of animals, distant relative incest, the Euro-style cheek kissing that men will do, etc). Hell...even cannibalism of a dead human doesn't have much wrong with it from a practical standpoint. But pedophilia is a taboo from a very practical standpoint in that it is very traumatic for children even before they know that that what's going on is considered unacceptable in the eyes of adults. I also don't think that the large majority of human beings are instinctively attracted to pre-pubescent children anyways. As in...I don't think that this takes any hiding, because I think it largely doesn't exist as an attraction. As to whether men have an attraction to post-pubescent girls (15-17)...they do regardless of what anyone says.
Part of what made the book Lolita so great was that the relationship between the reader and the writer was very complex. As in...the guy was definitely molesting the young girl, but he was lying about it...to the reader...which is different to say the least. I love unreliable storytellers because it adds a wrinkle to the story that makes it both more realistic and more absurd at the same time.
I'm also fascinated by characters or hell...real people...that are just flat out fucked up and evil in ways that aren't acceptable. Any prolific serial killers and people who committed mass quantities of torture (Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory) are of particular interest to me. I don't even consider my interest to be sick or taboo in that I want to replicate their actions...it's just interesting that somebody could think so differently from me. Much the same reason that abnormal psychology is interesting to me.
A character like Leon commits some horrible actions obviously, don't even need taboos to tell you that his professional life is objectively wrong. But his relationship with the girl showed a sensitive, very appealing side that even a flawed character could have. So is he fucked up...yes. But characters that murder are without a doubt, acceptable, and even appealing to audiences on a VERY mainstream level. If you think about it, murder's absolutely the worst thing you can do to someone. We accept and glamorize many, many murderers in movies...torturers...men that hit women, people that commit burglaries...etc, etc. People don't really think anything of it when they're watching it, like there's no mental connection between their real lives and what they're watching in a movie.
I'm just curious as to exactly how much a movie character could pull off and seem appealing and principled to an audience. Could they cannibalize living human beings, be a pedophile, a rapist, into coprophagia, bestiality, etc? And can these actions be hinted at as part of their past or can we actually see them happening and still accept the character?