rape scene - River of No Return (1954) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mick_jagger_as_alex 19 years ago

I agree. . . I was a little disturbed whilst watching, but I knew nothing bad would've happened because of the MPAA censors.

I was gonna get a flat bottom but the girl at the boat house didn't have one.

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 19 years ago

I just watched this movie on AMC and the way it was dismissed was interesting, but you got to remember, this was the 1800s, not after 1920, when women got the right to vote.

What right did she have out there in the wilderness? Where was the nearest policeman? She didn't have her cellular with her to call her lawyer. She had worked as a chorus girl. I'm sure it wasn't the first time she had been handled like that.

He overpowered her, never got her pants off, never grabbed a breast, got his tongue (you know they didn't have toothpaste and mouthwash out there) down her throat, so she had to shrug it off.

She cared for the boy, didn't want any harm to come to him, so when the child was threatened, it would have been selfish of her to go "don't you EVER touch me like that again!"

With mountain lions and then our other two guys who showed up as well out there, and don't forget the indians, she probably decided her best chances would be with the much more attractive neanderthal father, Mitchum.

But it was 1954 as well. Clearly this was the era of women emerging from the pristine Victorian way of thinking and courting in the parlor, and they were entertaining the notion how this turned women on too; that women in the audience would just love to be overpowered by that handsome Robert Mitchum.

Now how likely that was, I don't know.

But clearly there was some thinking still going on that women were weak and defenseless as there were numerous times that Mitchum could have used her on his side to clobber somebody or shoot something to his advantage and she never did.

These portrayals of weak woman would go well into the seventies that I know of and may even go on into the eighties and nineties as well. I remember they were still around in the 1970s tho. Weak helpless women.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard.fuller1 19 years ago

Wranglerette:""Women in the audience would just love to be overpowered by that handsome Robert Mitchum."
Oh yeah!!!!!!! Ol' Mitch didn't rape her, he just really, really REALLY loved Kay. And he didn't realize any other way to express that to her. Gee, I sure would love to be kissed by Mitch like that, hoooooooooooooeeeee!!!!
God Bless America!"

----------------------------------------------------

Yea, sarcasm eludes you.

All the way back to Valentino has the brooding, overpowering neanderthal man in films found its female audience and they still do it today. Is it sexist? Does it demean the feelings of women? I'm not the target audience, so I'll stay mute in regard to those who do like these depictions.

The movie was from the 1950s, which isn't known for the era of women's rights, and again, the movie took place in the 19th century, which also isn't known for women's rights.

Nor is the 19th century an era when men were in touch with their feelings and crying while they were hugging trees.

reply

[–] noll-1 19 years ago

I was born in the 1940s. This is one of my favorite movies except for that scene, which didn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie. Even though women's rights were different in the 1950s than today, I always recognized that scene for what it is.

I also never cared for the way John Wayne liked to spank Maureen O'Hara. That was supposed to turn people on? Give me a break.

In spite of it, I still love "River of No Return."

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 19 years ago

Even by today's standards, a woman can spend 80 minutes of a movie being terrorized by a stalker, fight back for 15 minutes, and it is supposed to "show the woman taking a stand and defending herself" but it still seems to be showing the woman as a victim, just that she fights back in the end.

I've not paid enough attention to the Ohara-Wayne movies, I've only seen about two of them, but I always took it that Maureen held her own against Wayne, not that she really wanted it.

The dragging scene in Quiet Man says this. Wayne is just pulling on her, clearly that must have been his instructions, but Maureen never seens to weaken to it.

Perhaps had that been the case with Monroe and Mitchum, that she didn't look humiliated and helpless after he struggled with her, the depiction would have been much more stronger.

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

Mitchum's behavior is a bit violent and it's certainly aggressive (almost startlingly so), but it's not quite a rape scene and it actually follows certain cinematic conventions of the era (man madly tries to kiss woman, woman desperately resists before giving in). For a real rape scene in a Western, see High Plains Drifter (Clint Eastwood, 1973).

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 19 years ago

WEll, I really don't go looking for forced sex in movies, then or now.

Depictions before my time are interesting to see for how they are handled; for instance, I just watched "Peyton Place" and "Return To Peyton Place"

In the first movie, Selena Cross is raped by her step-father and then she kills him when he tries to attack her again. The town doctor performs an abortion on Selena so she mustn't bear her step-father's child, yet when he refers to it in the movie, he says he assisted her in a miscarriage.

In the second movie, Selena Cross says she was raped, which no one did in the first movie.

And from what we know of a very popular daytime soap opera couple, who were a rapist and a rape victim when they first appeared on the show, Tony Geary (Luke) and Genie Francis (Laura) on General Hospital, the man generally takes into some consideration that the woman wants it.

The portrayal with Mitchum and Monroe, tho he didnt penetrate her or get her pants off, still she had to stand with him when they were confronted with two strangers, quite honestly, because he was her best bet, may stand as the best example to study such a belief; that the woman wanted it, according to the man.

Had the two strangers not appeared, would Monroe have clung to him as she did? Or would she have been standoffish?

Would she have asked "why did you stop? I just wasnt sure of my feelings." in a playful, kittenish way?

Obviously she didn't look upon him as a bestial attacker, with or without the strangers in their midst.

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

I don't think that Mitchum's intent was even to rape her. He wanted to kiss Monroe, but even after he brings her down, his pelvis isn't on top of her pelvis.

It was sort of a sexual assault, but not an attempted rape.

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 19 years ago

They were interrupted, but it seems unlikely he would have stopped with a kiss on her lips.

the only reason they weren't positioned correctly is because she wasn't cooperating, but also the movie makers probably werent going to offer demonstrations on how to be positioned, much the same way there will always be some of the sheet tucked between people nowadays when we see them lying in bed together.

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

also the movie makers probably werent going to offer demonstrations on how to be positioned, much the same way there will always be some of the sheet tucked between people nowadays when we see them lying in bed together.

That's true, the cinematic conventions of the day weren't going to place them in too explicit a position. That said, I do think that given the nature of Mitchum's character, he didn't actually want to rape her. He did assault her, but I don't believe that his intent was penetration.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sirclancelot 18 years ago

I agree that this scene was quite disturbing. Okay, in those days no one in hollywood was going to show anything too graphic and it is palusible that Kay (Marilyn Monroe) would stick with Mitchum's character but why would she go to live with him (as we're meant to assume she does) at the end? Okay, he practically abducts her then, too, but she's not as bothered by it as one would expect her to be. I can only assume this was a mostly man-made film.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krp-7 18 years ago

I think that the kid had more to do with it than anything. When he put her in the wagon and she saw Mark, she stopped squirming.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18388) 6 years ago

"given the nature of Mitchum's character, he didn't actually want to rape her."

I tend to agree. I'm usually not one to be oversensitive to stuff like this in movies, but this violent scene made me uncomfortable. However, given the consistently chivalrous nature he had displayed throughout the film up to that point, I don't think his intent was to rape her. I think her persistent BS finally pissed him off and he blew his stack momentarily and got rough. He didn't make any move for her belt, or her blouse, and he didn't hit her. He overreacted and let his anger get the best of him, but I really don't think he would have raped her.

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 12 years ago

lol @ the woman power posts. not trying to sound sexist but cmon, women are women. they can try to act tough but in the end they are WOMEN. not men. they are not meant to be the tough sex. that is meant for men. not saying there arent tough women out there, but most of the time women need a man to protect them. thats why they love men, and need them. DUH.

reply

[–] Harvee_Keitel 12 years ago

I wonder who protects you......

reply

[–] stjjj-1 17 years ago

Hmm...I don't think the intent of Robert Mitchum's character (a devoted father and family-man-farmer before prison)was rape at all-I think the overpowerment was actually his form of discipline across Kate. From the leg-rubbing scene in the cave onward, it is obvious that Kate can not come to terms with the reality that she means nothing to this man. "How can you see me nude and rub my leg and be uneffected? Is your heart made of stone? I'm falling in love with you and you could care less, you ape!"
This is where Robert Mitchum does an spectacular performance! Does he realize he's with an attractive woman-ofcourse he does-but that's not the priority of the expedition, is it? He is the man and in charge because he does not let himself be 'overthrown' by romantic frufru when there's hostile injun and Puma's jumping everywhere. Kate is also fishing in a way that will not feed their Yukon raft family, and, thus-what seemed like a violent reponse. (He knows what Kate wants better than she knows herself.) Perhaps in 1954, after 'Rosie the Riveter' forgot about her drill-the definition of roles, why things are done the way they are, began to illustrate itself in cinema. Seems to me, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
However quaint in retrospect,it was heartwarming to see Kate being 'carried off to the cave..."
And this was the right way to remember Marylin Monroe; my husband argued with me that it was even her!
(But I recognized her singing voice)
Like the spectacular parks it was filmed in, this film should be visited again and again!

reply

[–] liscarkat (18388) 6 years ago

"I don't think the intent of Robert Mitchum's character was rape at all-I think the overpowerment was actually his form of discipline across Kate."

An insightful assessment from a married woman. I think you are correct, ma'am.

reply

[–] twob_ornot 18 years ago

There are a lot of scenes like that in older movies. Often the woman resists at first, then yields, and finally gets into it, which by our more recent standards is probably even more disturbing.

But note that in this case a mountain lion attacks Mitchum's Matt Calder. Is this retribution for his violence? or a symbol of his raging testosterone?

...and what about what the kid does to Rory Calhoun's Harry Weston?

...or how Mitchum's Matt Calder treats Monroe's Kay Weston like a sack of potatoes at the end?

Is that OK?

reply

[–] texas1 18 years ago

The scene didn't bother me. I thought it fit in well in the script.
Mitchum's character had been feeling a strong attraction to Monroe's character.
He was a rough outdoorsman unschooled in the romance department. He just kind of snapped and jumped her. She, being a beautiful saloon singer, no doubt had had men behave this way before. She felt something for him and the boy, plus knowing she had to stick with them, so she just blew it off.
She did seem to be responding a bit at the end, so if not interrupted, things might have progressed pretty far. I doubt if she would have given in completely, though. She was not really a bad sort, just a victim of circumstances. I, too, found nothing wrong with this scene.

reply

[–] RainAndTangerines 18 years ago

The scene did bother me as well.
he basically jumped on her and tried to kiss her. yes she was attracted to him, but she was trying to get away from him when they were wrestling. if the boy hadn't come I'll bet you it would have gone farther then Kay would have wanted it to go.

reply

[–] topaz-27 17 years ago

No, there was nothing wrong with it. A man tried to kiss a woman while out in the woods. Big deal. I would be insulted if he didn't at least try!!

reply

[–] NSurone 17 years ago

I can compare this scene with the one in GWTW where a frustrated Rhett carries Scarlett upstairs for a night of "forced passion". In both movies, a man is in love with a woman who is besotted with an inferior male. And in both movies, the man reacts in the only way he can--with violence. In fact, RIVER OF NO RETURN was daring in showing more than would have been allowed in 1939.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stephenstiles2 16 years ago

It was a disturbing scene. Moments earlier she was almost offering herself to him to save Weston. Trying to use him. He treated her as an object in return ... and worse. I did NOT like the scene. His actions were unforgivable. Yet she did. She said as much when speaking to Colby (the prospector) later. But she clarified things with Calder later.

Calder (speaking of the coffee) "Careful. That's the last of it ..."
Kay "Is that all it's the last of?"

That said, I don't think he'd have gone beyond the kiss. Without her being willing.

reply

[–] awdude 16 years ago

What a lot of people are forgetting is the context of the "rape scene." Just beforehand, MM had returned from taking a bath and was nice and fresh. As she and Mitchum walked from the camp area, MM is trying to engage him in a flirting way. She suggests that he go take a bath, and she tries to divert topics to "he and she" stuff. Then when they round a bend..the physical action begins albeit crudely. By the time the cougar and the visitors come by, they get back to their more usual "distance."

reply

[–] denis-38 16 years ago

Yes, scenes like this were a "cinematic convention" of the time. Either the hero gets too amourous, or bad guys do, but it almost always ends with a torn bodice, messed up hair, a slap from the lady, or rescue. In this case, Monroe's
character is still trying desperately to save her no-good boyfriend whom Mitchum intends to kill. She is behaving very seductively.

"You'd do anything to save him, even...be friends, with me?"

"I could be that without him."

"Why?"

Why not?"

Monroe's "why not" sounds like an open invitation, and Mitchum takes it. The surprise of the scene is her rejecting him. As soon as he makes his move, wouldn't it be reasonable for Monroe to feel she has Mitchum where she wants him, and indeed she will persuade him--by allowing him to make love to her--that he should give up seeking revenge? It's an uncomfortable bait n'switch. It would have been more believable for the couple to have embraced, no maidenly struggle from Monroe, and THEN be interrupted by the gunshots and the stangers.

In any case, I think the real shock of the scene is that we so rarely see Monroe in anything that resembles a "real" moment on-screen. It's too bad that her performance is so iffy--hampered by her coached over-enunciation. But it is still interesting to see her tough, not dumb, and expressing normal feelings. (Check out her small role in "Clash by Night" in which is similarly rough n' tumble. And that one contains a more relaxed MM, not paying strict attention to her diction.)

reply

[–] Jessica_Rabbit69 14 years ago

Rape Scene? What rape scene? I think I must have been watching a different film.

The outrage about this scene is laughable. It's good old-fashioned rough sex, complete with invitation. Does everybody have the last bit of passion bred out of them nowadays?

There are a lot of films with stomach-turning rape scenes. This is not one of them.

Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."

reply

[–] Miss-Cellaneous 14 years ago

I really like this movie, but I have always found this scene very stressful! As a woman; when a man in a movie overpowers a woman against her will, I find it very unnerving, so this scene makes me anxious!

Part of me feels that it is jarringly out of character for 'Matt', but at the same time, he's been in close proximity with a beautiful woman for a long time (and been a widower for a long time) and this is a stressful situation. I personally think he simply lost his self-control and acted on his strong attraction for her. I also feel that she reacted strongly because, up to this point, she had respected and cared for him and now he was acting like all the men she was used to putting up with in the saloon.

Even though he was wrong to attack her, she realized that he was her best bet for safety in the long run, compared to her other options (especially in such a situation and environment). Deep down she cares for him as well as his son and is thus willing to forgive his actions - that’s not the same as approving of what he did, as I definitely do not.

Just my opinion, of course!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jemaniac 13 years ago

It was sexual assault, and probably would have become rape.

reply

[–] bole79 13 years ago

Also, her remarks to a man were out of line for a woman at that time, weren't they, and what's more to a man who wouldn't take any, and Mitchum wanted to sort of tame her I think.

But it disturbed me too. I wish he showed his affection in a more gentle way.

reply

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

I would not class the scene as rape but I did find it distrubing. It was a sudden shift in Matt's character from the protector to forcing himself upon Kay, although it can be argued there had been underlining sexual tension. Yet Kay was uncomfortable by his actions even if she forgave him afterwards.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply