did they rape her? - Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion

[–] kaneforgov 15 years ago

The dialog infers that they didn’t rape her and were trying to scare her without doing any real harm. They also mention giving her Sodium Pentothal instead of heroin because it’s less harmful.

reply

[–] mala_education 15 years ago

Yeah I thought they raped her but only wanted her to think they did so she'd be destroyed. I think that's ballsy of the film to even insinuate gang rape in the 50s, go Orson!

http://malaeducation.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] thepooles-1 15 years ago

Even "ballsier" - have the leader be a lesbian! I'm still unclear about what the audience was led to believe regarding the motel assault. I have deep admiration for Welles putting himself into the movie in such an unsavory role. To die belly up in brackish drainage pond is pretty self lacerating-not an image most of us would want to go out on for posterity's sake. There is an expression on Welles's face when asking why Dietrich has no interest in reading his cards that haunts me. Welles is suddenly a scared, confused child. Maybe the point was: take away the adult swagger and we're all clueless and nervous children trying to make some sense of life.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chas77 15 years ago

I seem to recall an interview with Janet Leigh in which she states that the character was gang-raped. That butch chick surely looked like she was drooling and about to pounce on her before the scene cut to the next.

In those days that's probably as close as they could get...maybe to imply more would not have gotten the film past the censors or the studio heads?

reply

[–] m-j-mooney 15 years ago

They strip her and one of them says to hold her legs.

The butch lesbian says "I want to watch".

I think there are enough clues.

reply

[–] ScarletPimpernel64 15 years ago

Things that I've read have said Susie was raped.

Yet afterwards, the gang leader says they didn't hurt her.

I'm seeing this on the big screen tonight. I'll double check this part.

"Be sure you're right, then go ahead."
Davy Crockett

reply

[–] ScarletPimpernel64 15 years ago

No. True, there was the "Hold her legs," line, but afterwards, when they had her at the fleabag in town, the women who've undressed her have told her that nothing was done to her. Grandi have wanted het to *think* that things were done to her, and this is expressed in the film.

"Be sure you're right, then go ahead."
Davy Crockett

reply

[–] EdenTrask 15 years ago

yeah I was a little unsure about this too. But in the following scene with Janet Leigh, where she has been drugged it seems to be suggested to the Orson Welles character that every thing that happened was just to make Leigh's character think something had happened to her but it hadn't really. Either way I still found it shocking to see all those men barging into her Motel Room and knowing that there was no escape and they could have done anything to her.

reply

[–] ridge-m-1 10 years ago

Later in the movie it is clearly explained that it was not the gang's intention to hurt her but to scare her.

I sure hope she didn't get "hooked" on weed after she smelled so much of it.

The movie is a masterpiece, just as entertaining to watch today as it was in '59. Believe it or not, the Blu-ray version is so good that Heston actually looks "Mexican". The DVD is like listening to a cassette as opposed to the master tape.

This picture is the last of the classic film noirs.

reply

[–] dep1353 15 years ago

....Maybe what "Pancho" said right before the assault could provide more clues.

....Anyone here speak Mexican?

reply

[–] TCM (2) 5 years ago

The scary butch lesbian was played by Academy Award winning actress Mercedes McCambridge, probably best known today for her unforgettable voice performance as the vile, foul-mouthed Arch-Demon Pazuzu in "The Exorcist" (1973). She also played the older sister to Texas ranch lord Rock Hudson's character in "Giant" (1956) with Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean, and a young Dennis Hopper...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

What's "abundantly clear" to you is not so to me. The Mercedes McCambridge character wanted to stay and watch something that the boys were going to do to Susan, something she was expected not to want to stay for. If not rape, then what was it? If all they were going to do was inject her with drugs, why would the character need to ask to stay and watch.

There is the girl who later tells Uncle Joe that all they did was scare her, but she also says that all they did was blow marijuana smoke in her clothes and leave some marijuana butts lying around. We know that there was a lot more than drug use, since the room at the motel reeked of marijuana smoke when Vargas got there, and the night clerk talked of a wild party in the room.

Rather than the movie making it "abundantly clear" that she was not raped, I thought there was a pretty strong implication that she was.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarthBill 14 years ago

They claimed they didn't hurt her, but they could have been lying for all we know.

reply

[–] Crystal (534) 6 years ago

She wanted to see them inject fake drugs into her. What weirdo wouldn't want to see that?

reply

[–] TCM (2) 5 years ago

Orson Welles probably, this is my best guess, was so shrewd about the scene he wrote, shit, and cut it and left it perfectly ambiguous enough to get it past the censors, and vague enough that either conclusion is plausible. Leaves it up to the audience member to draw their own conclusion so no one can conclusively offer proof in the story of this 1958 dark crime noir if what was implied happened to the famous 50's sexpot but goody-goody screen princess Janet Leigh. Welles probably had a definite explanation but wisely wouldn't share it. Hitchcock did the same thing two years later with the same damsel star Janet Leigh in "Psycho".Hitchcock , using the source material from author Robert Bloch's grim novel but changing many details in his movie version, showed everything and nothing as it were, or as much as he could get away with. Thete is extra footage they had to snip slightly from the theatrical release of Janet's Marion Crane getting undressed more as Norman Bates soies on her through the hidden peephole. More footage of the infamousky busty Jamet in the black bra and actually taking it off and throwing the bra on the bed, although still Hitchcock never actually showed nudity or any actual knife penetratiing Janet's torso. Only the lucky electricians/set lighting guys way up in the studio ceiling of the shower scene set got tk accidentally see Janet's famous breasts when by the actresse's own admission, in between one of the countless takes ofwhen her character's dead body is slumped over on the bathroom floor tbe flesh-colored adhesive moleskin became loose from the constant hot steam of the fully functioning shower, and the moleskin meant to cover the A-list star's breasts for dignity in front of this movie set full of crew members while almost totally nude for hours on end, completely gave way and Janet's ample bosoms were displayed au natural right there. She could have yelled "cut", and stopped the shot mid-scene, but that would ruin the take,bur she didnt

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brandos_Bitch 14 years ago

Joeyjoejoes,you are very wrong,rape was potrayed in alot of movies prior to 1970s,it just wasnt shown explicitly,That being said,no,she wasnt raped,people need to start paying more attention to the script,because it makes it pretty clear.
And the "I wanna watch" comment by Mercedes Mcambridge was just to freak Leigh´s character out,nothing more.

reply

[–] mf_boom 14 years ago

I second Brandos_Bitch

reply

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

no, she wasnt raped, people need to start paying more attention to the script, because it makes it pretty clear. And the "I wanna watch" comment by Mercedes Mcambridge was just to freak Leigh´s character out, nothing more.

I disagree with you on this -- first there's McCambridge's recollection of Welles's instructions from her autobiography (www.wellesnet.com/?p=285):

They brought a black leather jacket from somewhere, and I was "ready." Orson said he wanted a heavy, coarse Mexican accent. I said, "You've got it!" He asked me to walk across the studio like a tough, masculine, hood-type broad. I said, "You've got it," and I did it. He said, in a statement terse and unadorned, that he wanted me to burst into Janet Leigh's motel room with all the other hoodlums. As their ringleader I was to give them the go-ahead to have their "group pleasure" with her, and I was to say in gruff accent that I would hang around and watch.

Then there's this in a review, following the description of that scene (http://deepfocusreview.com/reviews/touchofevil.asp):

That the censor board left this scene in believing it to be, perhaps, just a forced drugging as the plot later suggests confirms Welles was ambiguous enough to fool them. But there is no mistake about what happens, as Welles would later specify

They don't give a source regarding what Welles said later.

I understand that the girls give a different story to Uncle Joe, but what they told him doesn't jibe with the night man's description of a "party" that involved a "brawl" -- not a fight though, not "that kind of a brawl." The implication is clear that the "brawl" is exactly what the scene in Susie's room appeared to be leading up to, a sustained attack on her.

reply

[–] taxidriver8989 12 years ago

One them tried to trow acid on the Mexican cop and acted out of his own free will. Later when caught his asked him in charge of gang. His openly rebellious when he answers his father is. He did not Iron Grip over the gang he thought he did.

They Clearly could of done rape. Then threatened the women who dressed her that if they told their Uncle they would do them bodily harm

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LarrupinLou 10 years ago

Probably what happened was Welles presented it as a gang rape during the filming of that particular scene, but couldn't get it pass the censors that way later on. We then got the added scene where we find out it didn't go that far. Therefore, while both sides of this debate can claim they are right, I'm going with the non-rape interpretation based on the released film. Personally, I prefer it that way myself, anyway.

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

[–] rc-108 9 years ago

this makes sense to me.
it did seem during the scene that she would get raped..
but afterwards....
the talk was nothing like that at all.

Orson Welles was great in this movie.
Heston was very good.. accent or no...
Janet Leigh was great..
boy... different times.

reply

[–] deescodeesco 10 years ago

Pretty sure she was raped. I was watching TCM and Jamie Leigh Curtis was talking about her mom's role in the movie (Janet Leigh). She talks about how it was such an interesting role and how Janet Leigh's character had to deal with so much... she specifically mentions the character being raped and drugged. As for the later scene where the gang says they didn't harm her.. well, I always just assumed that they were saying that so they wouldn't get into trouble with their boss.

reply

[–] corriganville 10 years ago

I'm voting for no rape. Besides the arguments already given, the reason for terrorizing Susie is to intimidate Vargas into not testifying against Grandi, who has at least one son in the gang. "Pancho" didn't seem to be a dummy. I think he was smart enough to realize that if they did rape Susie, that would be going too far and Grandi's goose was cooked. In addition, the gang would never dare cross back into Mexico (or even stray too close to the border) and risk being grabbed by Vargas' police.

reply

[–] LarrupinLou 10 years ago

I'm voting for no rape. Besides the arguments already given, the reason for terrorizing Susie is to intimidate Vargas into not testifying against Grandi, who has at least one son in the gang. "Pancho" didn't seem to be a dummy. I think he was smart enough to realize that if they did rape Susie, that would be going too far and Grandi's goose was cooked. In addition, the gang would never dare cross back into Mexico (or even stray too close to the border) and risk being grabbed by Vargas' police.

Whatever Welles' intentions (and I think his intention was to have her raped, but was, fortunately, overruled at some point), your reasoning makes the most sense from the perspective of the characters involved.

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

[–] sage2112 9 years ago

No. Just shot her up with the truth serum.

reply