...that it is alright for a man to blackmail and rape a woman as long as she is personally troubled and in need of psychological help because that man can always force her to confront her personal demons and get her to fall in love with him.
shareOkay---take it as an odd-ball romance . . .
shareI have to agree. I thought it was just terrible when Connery rapes her. I don't know if they had this 1960s type value system where a husband can't rape his wife or what but it just makes you hate Connery!
On the other hand, I guess you do start to feel for Marnie. Up til that point I really didn't like her and was glad when she was caught.
I thought she had epilepsy for the first 2/3s of this film too btw.
According to the Trivia section, the first screenwriter pleaded with Hitchcock to remove that scene because it would make the audience hate Connery, but Hitchcock fired him instead.
Hedren and Hitchcock figured that it was up to Connery's charisma to get the audience to like him in spite of that scene.
Back in the day, rape was treated pretty cavalierly, especially in sci fi/fantasy for some reason.
I bet the rape scenes in this movie must have hit too close to home for a lot of women who suffered through rape at that time.
'I bet the rape scenes in this movie must have hit too close to home for a lot of women who suffered through rape at that time'.
-----------------
How do you know how women felt at that time about that vague scene? People (audiences) didn't dissect everything like people do today as some kind of superiority-thinking. There isn't always a moral to the story (unless you insist there must be one)
Isn't it part of human nature?
share'I have to agree. I thought it was just terrible when Connery rapes her. I don't know if they had this 1960s type value system where a husband can't rape his wife or what but it just makes you hate Connery! '
---------------
People toss the word rape around these days. Women were not morons back then; they know if they were raped or not. Everything has to be ruined by new age-feminists (and others)who look for the worst. IS that all you think about?
[deleted]
It's funny how at the end, when Connery is relieved to be the "hero", the rape scene is forgotten. Somehow, now that we're supposed to know he's the good guy, the fact that he raped her is no longer reverent. This movie treats rape the way 'The Room' treats cancer.
shareActually the moral (not morale) of the movie is that if you are a beautiful enough woman you can steal $150,000 from people and a rich, handsome man will come along and take care of everything for you, just because you're beautiful.
Neither gender comes out of this film looking good.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
Interesting thread. I came to this film rather recently, and saw it again quite recently. That of course means in seeing it multiple times you know the rape scene is already there, and to some extent can focus more on its intended role than in the shock of it.
I am personally quite familiar with the attraction of moral certainties, and ftr I do believe that rape is very damaging to experience, and live with afterwards,and in too many cases is extremely damaging and traumatizing. I strongly believe that.
But... however much or little Hitchcock thought about the role of this scene in the film (I merely raise that as a question altough I expect he thought about it a great deal, but cannot rule out that he might have been too cavalier about it, at least to my point of view), there are several aspects that make it more complex than would be the "usual" case of simple violent and sexual assault. Where this ends up leaving the analysis is open to debate, but I don't think these aspects can be ignored in such analysis.
First of all, while there certainly is an element of threatened violence if Marnie does not submit, there is no actual violence (unless one counts the rather direct way Mark removes Marnie's nightgown). This is no small matter, since while it is true that Marnie verbalizes an opposition to sex, she does not struggle in a way that would force Mark to either stop or actually become violent. Yes, as we all know saying no should be enough, but at the same time this is not literally a violent assault.
Second, the overall context of the situation has been made clear to Mark, or clear enough, anyway. By that I mean it has become apparent to him that the source of Marnie's lack of interest is literally a psychological disorder. Her lack of consent has nothing to do with the way the concept is generally conceived. I do not of course mean by this that it is somehow open season on people who have sexual mental disorders. But let's add the next several aspects to this mix.
The next consideration is that the complexity of Marnie's character does not mean she is uniformly deranged or anything of the sort. While she lives a life that has many "unreal" elements, irrational perceptions and fears, she is not uniformly and literally irrational in every respect. Far from it. The deal she makes with Mark, I think it is intended to be clear, is one she rationally chooses over the distasteful alternatives. Perhaps when she agrees to marry Mark, in addition to it being under duress, threatened with the alternatives, she also does not accurately anticipate how much she will recoil at sex with him when it occurs. But still she made the deal she did, chose it over the alternatives, and without any explicit caveat that she would not engage in sex with him. In fact Mark is accurate in saying that she did not seem to mind being "handled" by him in more than one encounter before. In ohter words, as a strict matter of if you will a transaction between Mark and Marnie, Mark at the very least had no reason to expect that his marriage would be completely sexless. However perverse his end of the deal was (which I will return to), there was in fact a deal, and Marnie was changing the terms of it without Mark's agreement.
After all, this was a husband and wife, on their literal honeymoon. Yes, the law acknowledges today that there can be a rape for legal purposes between husband and wife. But it wasn't always that way, and while I do not intend or wish to defend the "old" view of that, one must acknowledge that it does recognize a difference in context as compared to a sexual assault between strangers, or even people moving on the spectrum of acquaintance.
The final major consideration is really explored as the film progresses after the honeymoon. but in hindsight we are at least given the opportunity to backfill, if we so choose, in better understanding Mark's motives. In no sense are they supposed to be morally pure, but in fact it is I think wrong to see Mark as purely motivated by sexual lust. I think Mark also thinks that literally leaving Marnie alone was not going to be the best for her, either. I realize to be sure this is tricky ground, and borders very much on a simpleminded "pop" psychology. But neither is it without merit to think that sex is good for people, given the appropriate context, and in fact there is far more than that in the situation.
The sexless Marnie has been shown to also be a pathological thief and liar, living a life of unreality. The notion that her mother puts forth, that being sexless in effect makes one "decent" even while everything else in Marnie's life is a mess, and morally obnoxious at that, is of course absurd. In other words Marnie's sexlessness and perceived benefit from being so is patently shown to be ridiculous and untrue. The supposed decency she achieves by being so is nothing of the sort.
Now that does not mean that Mark forcing Marnie to have sex with him in and of itself "cures" her, or makes her happy. But the sequence of events that at the end seem to have brought her to at least the possibility of happiness following the catharsis of her realization of the source of her psychopathology is one that includes Mark's sexual interest in her. While the immediate effect of their having sex is a suicide attempt, it also is true that Mark's own motivation and understanding of what ails his wife is as a practical matter aided by his experience of how she reacted to their having sex.
Does that leave us on balance approving what Mark did? I am not making that argument, and perhaps the answer must remain no. But do we have some better understanding not only of his motivation, but also of how seeing Marnie's own psychology as something other than what we usually understand when considering the concept of consent? And does that make at the least for an understanding of the particulars here that make it different from what we normally think of when the word "rape" is use? I think in fact there is enough here to force us to see it as something other than the clear case that we would otherwise be tempted to address.
'perhaps the answer must remain no' are you insane?
share[deleted]
Kenny, even though you are not wrong about the time, perception, and the context of the film under which this extremely distasteful scene takes place, one thing overrules everything you have said in your post.
Mark gave his *word* that he would not force Marnie. It's not completely verbalized since it's a 60's film and the code hadn't been entirely abandoned up until this point. But, it is understood between Mark and Marnie what is being said and agreed upon.
Whatever benefit of a doubt we could've given Mark (only b/c of the time period & and before acknowledgment & existence marital rape as a legal concept) is dispelled by the above point. Mark gave his word, then callously *breaks* it.
On top of that, Mark apologizes after pulling off Marnie's nightgown, so he *knows* what he is doing isn't right. But, *still* proceeds to have his way with Marnie even seeing how still, expressionless, shocked & traumatized Marnie. Does he prefer unresponsive, motionless women for a sex partner? Boy, has *he* got issues!
Too long to read.
shareyou are comparing stealing to rape wow
shareNeither gender comes out of this film looking good.
Hitchcock was one for simplicity of story structure even as he developed great complexity in his character development.
What's "simple" -- but terrible -- in Marnie is how Mark basically forces Marnie to marry him -- and then commits the rape as an expression of "the husband's right to the pleasures of his wife." In short, Mark "raped" Marnie as soon as he threatened her with jail time if she did NOT marry him.
The "twisted love affair" in Marnie is actually very much a Hitchcock "thing" -- the love affairs in his movies are often love-hate affairs between emotionally damaged people. Just watch Vertigo, Notorious, The Paradine Case, and Under Capricorn especially and you will see this clearly expressed, and it is also there in Spellbound(which shares a plot line of "trying to uncover the childhood incident that warped this person"), Rebecca, and Suspicion.
But 1964 was a little late for Hitchcock to be doing this kind of movie again, and his health and Universal's cheap budgets made for a poorly made movie(if an interesting one.)
You're really dying to play doctor, aren't you?
OK, I'm a big movie fan, I know the games. Come on, let's play...
Oh doctor, I'll just bet you're dying to free-associate...
Air. Stare. That's what you do. Stare and blare and say you care, but you're unfair, you want a pair.
Interesting thoughts everyone, thanks. It occurred to me once, that the moral of this film might be: "Money can't buy you happiness, but it sure can try, and it's better than being poor...!". Mark Rutland is spending a fortune trying to rehabilitate his new wife, including an expensive ring, south seas vacation, her horse Forio, a big party for her, paying off Sidney Strutt, and maybe her other ex-employers losses later as well.
If that isn't trying to "buy happiness"...what is..?? More thoughts anyone...?
RSGRE
P.S. I did not feel that Mark was raping Marnie, just satisfying his sexual needs, which he thought he deserved as her new husband, and after rescuing her from disaster. Might have more on that...
Moral of the story for me is that a childhood trama associated with any human behavior, lying, sex, hate, etc. will present itself in adulthood if left unchecked.
I believe Mark did rape his wife. She gave no consent, appeared catatonic, and then tried to kill herself.
Don't wake up giving yourself a pass. Challenge yourself to be better
Came here to find out if people thought she had been raped or not (it was ambiguous to me), but am now seriously disturbed that previous posters are trying to justify rape.
...nitwit...oddment...blubber...tweak...
The moral of this movie for me is that it is possible to see how attitudes have changed and that it is now obvious to all that rape is not an option no matter what the situation might be.
shareMoral
shareThere is a "dark irony" to that "marital rape."
Marnie never wanted to be married to Mark in the first place. He forced her into the marriage with the threat of turning her over to the police and jail time., if she did not relent.
So Marnie marries Mark and goes on that honeymoon cruise, but is in no way interested in the wedding night that Mark wants.
And so, double dastardly ness on Mark's part: He demands his marital right to sex with a woman who never wanted to marry him in the first place. He forces her to marry him, and then he forces her to have sex with him BECAUSE she's his wife, now.