Eggers confirmed in interview that Ellen wasn't a child, she was teenager at the start of the film. You can probably say there's case of ephebophilia. But there is no CSA there. Also Eggers absolutely saw it as Dark romance and ships it himself. He wouldn't be doing it if there was CSA.
And that's fine, but not everyone accepts Word of God as canon
My thoughts on Eggers' interview statements are that he should have made his intentions clearer if that's what he was going for, because a huge portion of the audience came away with the impression that it was about someone's stalker/rapist coming back to jeopardize the life she'd made for herself out from under his thumb. And like...if he wanted people to not think that, he should have made directing choices that made the onscreen story match his vision better.
You're free to interpret it however you want. What I take issue with is people saying that there's One True Interpretation and no viable way to see it in any other light. There's one interpretation that the director intended, but the movie he actually made leaves holes to interpret it a different way. He shouldn't have made it that way if he had a very specific story to tell.
How can I see it as CSA? Simple. She said she was "a child" when it started and even if she was a young teenager, it being the early 1830s (assuming she's like 20-23 at time of canon, based on statistical age at first marriage for women back then) doesn't magically make 15-year-olds adults. 15 back then was about like 17 now- not a Tiny Baby, but decidedly not a Full Grown-Up either. "Child" CAN be a euphemistic term for a naive or inexperienced adult, but it's not always
And maybe if he wanted people to not interpret her as a literal child...he shouldn't have had her characterize herself that way in the dialogue, talking about when all of this started? "I was so young," "I didn't know better," "I was a fool," "I was naive," etc. SO MANY clearer wordings there. They already didn't get a child actress to play her in the opening scene; without that line, I'd assume it had been like. A few years before her marriage, when she was maybe 17-18, and just seen it as abuse rather than arguable CSA. It's a weird dialogue choice if he wanted to convey "the vampire sex started when she was young but not unacceptably young," like many other weird choices that I felt were counterproductive to his stated narrative aims.
Doesn't mean my interpretation is objectively correct either! But you don't see me going around saying that there's No Way Anyone Could See It As Consensual And That's Wrong And Bad.
I have both been there and done that before, coming from a fandom (Crimson Peak) where there's no way to interpret a central relationship as peer CSA/COCSA if you go by Word of God, but there's absolutely space for that based on what ended up in the actual movie. And I've had to make peace with it, even though I ship that couple to the moon and back.
You like these fake people kissing in this way, and other people don't. And that's fine! You don't need a big moral justification for it, or to have the Single Correct Interpretation!
