I wouldn't be offended if he did and it wouldn't really hurt my appreciation for this film, it would just confuse me a little. Mark leans over Marnie on top of the bed and she's looking sort of afraid... then fade in, fade out, and onto the next scene?
If Mark really raped Marnie, then why did she want to stay with him at the end of the film?
************************************
"This is no mine. It's a tomb."
Yes. Marnie is raped by Mark, though it is shot in a less forward way than Hitchcock reportedly envisioned at first. Hitchcock's insistance on having a rape scene at all involving his two main characters led to one scriptwriter (Evan Hunter) leaving the project. The sex is not shown, but implied by Marnie being lowered slowly onto the bed, her face registering animal fear, with the camera taking the view of Mark until the scene fades, presumably before the real act/assault/honeymoon begins. (This would be a more impressive image if she didn't look like she was being lowered like a drawbridge.)
Marnie's initial reaction isn't to stay with Mark, but to commit suicide by drowning herself in the ship's pool, where Mark finds her and saves her. It's clear that over time, she sees the rape as a positively-meant act, and warms to Mark (though it is not clear they have any further sexual relations, which may also earn Mark Marnie's trust - he forced himself on her only once, in a moment of rage and weakness.)
It's a hard scene to swallow on a few levels, and clouds a lot of people's enjoyment of the film. You could say Marnie is a sick woman and needs shock therapy, but I doubt even Nurse Ratched would prescribe that kind of cure.
In the book, Marnie isn't raped as much as she decides to just put up with it. She decides to have no emotion and to not move - but it is her choice. However I agree with Slokes. In the film she is raped. Hitchcock got off on that. He told screenplay writer Evan Hunter "When Mark sticks it in, I want a tight close up of her face!" Pretty graphic. And yes, that would explain why she tries to commit suicide the next day. Although I have no idea why someone would try to drown themselves in a pool (essentially you would just be holding your breath, at any moment you could flip over and take a breath) and not jump over the side of the boat. Ridiculous, yes, but I still love this movie.
shareThis is one of the really fascinating things about this film - Mark is the person who wants the best for Marnie, albeit for somewhat selfish reasons, but in trying to psychoanalyse her and 'fix' her he is incapable of maintaining the kind of detachment a professional would have. So when he is thwarted as Marnie's husband, he stops being her counsellor and instead assaults her. But the way the scene is done, he violently tears her clothes off and then seeing her face, immediately regrets it and realises how horrible it is for her. He then lays her down on the bed and assaults her. Even though it IS rape and a terrible thing to do to anyone, let alone someone as messed up as Marnie, he doesn't do it violently or aggressively. It's clear from the shot of Marnie's face that she has mentally removed herself - she simply isn't there in her body any more, whereas on other occasions she was perfectly capable of resisting and repulsing Mark. So it could be argued that even though Mark does rape Marnie, he does not intend to rape her at the time that he is doing it. She isn't saying no, she isn't pushing him away and she isn't fighting him off - as she has done on other occasions. She doesn't even seem to be panicking. So even though as dispassionate viewers, it is clear that Marnie is not consenting, from Mark's point-of-view, it may seem as though Marnie has given in - that she is letting him make love to her.
It is obvious that Mark does not to merely have his way with Marnie, regardless of her wishes - most of the time, he is quite respectful of her desire and need to be left alone. I think part of Marnie's attraction for Mark is that she is the classic ice-maiden with fire underneath. He knew that underneath her quiet good manners and calm, she was actually a liar and a thief. I think he liked the idea of experiencing Marnie's wild side. Mark doesn't want a weak woman he can dominate - even though he is a very controlling man, he is also controlled and dominated by Marnie. He doesn't want to make her submit to him - he wants her to reach for him, for him to be the one person who gets Marnie excited. That's why he keeps pushing to find out why she is frigid.
As for the suicide attempt in the pool - there are two reasons why she could have chosen the pool over the sea. One is that it was a deliberate ATTEMPT - that she hoped to be stopped and saved. I don't think that stands up terribly well to analysis - there was no real way Marnie could have known Mark would find her on time. She had already breathed in water by the time he found her. If she didn't intend to do it, she could have just hung out by the pool until someone turned up and then pretended to try to drown herself. The other reason why I think she chose the pool is that if she went over the side, her body might never be found. Mark would never be sure that she had done it and also there could be no body to bury. Even people who want to die can often be concerned about having a proper funeral, being buried rather than eaten by fish! Marnie said that she didn't believe in anything so perhaps what happened to her body would have meant more to her than if she believed in a soul and an afterlife.
So the assumption that any sex takes place comes from the content of the book, and Hitchcock's instructions for the screenplay?
Because I did NOT get the impression that anything went further from the final cut of the film.
It's a possibility, in my mind anyway, that he is doing something to here without penetration. He may be trying to pleasure her... if you catch my drift.
Just a thought. I like the ambiguity of the scene.
Foo
After watching the movie for the first time I'm convinced that Mark rapes Marnie. The morale of the 60's however does require Hitchcock to be quite subtle about a lot of things which, however, does leave room for quite clear interpretations for the modern and more experienced viewer.
I'm also quite convinced that Marnie, as a little girl, was raped/molested, possibly on several occations. The whole traumatized-and-frigid-theme points in that direction. And as far as I interpret the flashback scene it's in the narrative of the mother and/or Marnie, meaning it's is still quite possible that some of what really happened is still repressed. It does kind of destroy that awful "now everything is out in the open and we can live happily ever after"-ending, though. But to me it makes for a more convincing psychological observation and consequently a better movie.
First of all, the entire film is very Freudian and psychoanalytical. And though the "therapy" is too strong and uncertain one no professional psychiatrist would actually practice that, nevertheless theoretically it can work fine, and it DID work fine. You can say perhaps it's the power of love that had made that slim chance a success.
> And yes, that would explain why she tries to commit suicide the next day. Although I have no idea why someone would try to drown themselves in a pool (essentially you would just be holding your breath, at any moment you could flip over and take a breath) and not jump over the side of the boat. Ridiculous, yes, but I still love this movie.
Well, you have to see it in more or less a psychoanalytical manner; if she really wanted to die, she would have jumped off the ship. But do you think she really wanted to die? I don't think so. Human psychology is very complex and multi-layered, but to simplify the matter she had to destroy herself first so that she can start a new life, by facing the source of her problems.
Being "raped" is part of the process, so is the near-suicide. Actually, she getting married with Mark is already a near-suicide, an expression of her subconscious desire to renew herself.
Maybe it looks rather unrealistic that Mark reading a book on psychoanalysis and quickly understanding what she really needed, but hey this is a movie, and Mark is a smart and really compassionate guy.
I seem to recal him asking her why she didn't just jump over the side and she said she wanted to kill herself - not feed the fish!
"Well, make something up!"/RG
Oh, I'm surprised.
Maybe this is the time of the over-correct sexual behaviour? I for one see no rape being done. They surely have sex, and Marnie isn't all too happy - and this fits in with 'sticks it in'. But 'sticks it in' is not always rape. I don't know the gender of many of the posters in here, but this would be an overdone assumption.
True, she says repeatedly that she can't have a man touch her. True, she looks not all too keen on what is going to happen. But is 'Close your eyes and think of England' rape? I am convinced it is not. It turns to rape easily when the woman clearly says 'no!'; but when she just lies down, closed her eyes?
And for the rest, you didn't watch carefully: She clearly stated that she desired to kill herself, yes, but didn't want to feed the fish.
Personally I think the scene is the movie's biggest flaw, a lot of time is spent trying to build Mark up as someone rather misguided but an overall well meaning person, only to for that moment turn him into a common predator whom should be thrown in jail. Mark is NOT a stupid man and there would have been no way he could not have known that taking advantage of Marnie in such a way would have been injurious on all levels, from the standpoint of general morality, to the idea of gaining and keeping her trust and bringing her out of her shell. Obviously she is a very disturbed person and violating her in such a way would probably do irrepairable harm to her recovery and their relationship in general, but I think Hitchcock's insistance upon having the scene has far more to do with his obsession with Hedren than anything to do with good story telling.
shareMostly I agree with you. You caught what many fans of this film miss; would the Mark we know up to this point, do that?
However, flawed in it's presentation - or not - the 'rape' is crucial to the film.
Interestingly, in film circles and in general, many more women than men I've known and talked to about this, disagree that Mark actually raped Marnie. Perhaps on a legal basis, maybe - but in the personal dynamic unique to these two characters, it was mutual consent - if only by relational politics.
When Mark suddenly disrobes Marnie in a fit: he is just as quickly ashamed by the act. Mark places the robe back over Marnie and he apologizes with a humbled humanity that we are seeing from him for the first time. It is here that Marnie, without trying, is suddenly the powerful one. Mark's sudden respect for Marnie has just defeated him - and she has what he wants. Marnie has won a round.
In this scenario, as previous posters have said; Mark is now at his most gentle and understanding. The 'rape' becomes genuine lovemaking on Mark's part; and Marnie, in a state of total detatchment, is allowing him his reward. Mark knows this and for the moment, feels safe following through - unaware that Marnie has perhaps, already resigned herself to suicide when it's over.
Just throwing that out there.
I like your assessment!
I would also like to offer that the "Rape" scene sets the stage for what is really driving Mark, which is a need to understand why Marnie is the way she is. He has tried various ways to identify this and the "rape" is in keeping with his need to understand how she works...this scene tells the audience how she detaches and is thus capable of being the criminal she had become. Also, the only way Mark is able to give love to Marnie has been by some level of "forced entry". I mean the marriage was forced and at the end he forced her to face her past and realize that her mother did love her, so the rape was in keeping with this forcing Marnie to face and ultimately accept love, in my humble opinion.
I agree with you, cassfox-1. But I have a question. What do you think about the film?
I think the author of the book and Alfred's interpretation were ahead of their time. Which may explain the lack of acceptance. I think looking back at it now, if you don't have the right perspective of this being a pioneer film for the kind of character development that has been copied so often that it is now commonplace, you might miss the magnitude of what "Marnie" meant to dramatic film making.
From a purely entertainment standpoint, it was good, but in this new world of "instant gratification" it lost my attention for just a little bit.
But the ending brought me back.
Overall, I did enjoy the movie quite thoroughly.
Its sad that the movie was a flop when it was released. But I love the film. My favorite scene was horse riding scene in the end.
I would agree with this assessment. I was surprised at the answers to this question. I didn't see a rape in this scene.
shareI am female and I agree completely with rickmeister. Marnie just gives in in the "rape" scene because she feels it's inevitable. She just decides to stop resisting, even though she doesn't really want to have sex.
shareShe is in a trauma flashback and unable to move (like later when she tries to grab for the money and can't). Therefore, it is not consentual from her side and yes of course it is rape. Mark sees that she is inert. She doesn't recover and he takes advantage. Why do you think he looks for her off board in the water and everywhere, when he thinks she was ok?
shareAnd a man is never supposed to have what he wants when his wife clearly doesn't care. When a man is aloof and a woman is horny as hell, he better get on the ball and put out.
share[deleted]
> Mostly I agree with you. You caught what many fans of this film miss; would the Mark we know up to this point, do that?
Precisely because he knows, though more instinctively and maybe not on that consicous logical level, that he would do that.
Please. This is a very mature adult film. Superficial morality cannot mean anything here since it's not a preachy film talking against sex--and that preachy morality is, in a mental health point of view, awfully wrong. That would only make people sick instead of helping people to live a better life, especially women. After all, most pseudo-morality regarding sex are invented in favor of men to conveniently put women in cages.
> However, flawed in it's presentation - or not - the 'rape' is crucial to the film.
Flawed? It's very direct and shocking, which is the purpose of it. It MUST be a shock to the audience, as it is a shock to Marnie herself.
And though such shock therapy is generally too dangerous to practice, theoretically it must work. How to liberate a woman traumatized by some awfully misguided moral notions about sex? Well of course, sex is the most effective cure, in Freudian term literally BREAKING the rigidness that entraps her. The way Mark does it is too aggressive, but it can work since he genuinely loves her.
(Though in reality I certainly won't recommend that...).
By raping a victim of trauma (e.g. sexual abuse in childhood) you are retraumatizing them, not helping them. Retraumatizing is the most harmful thing to happen to an already traumatized person. It manifests the trauma.
shareI couldn't understand how he proceed to have sex with her seeing how traumatized she was, I get he was attracted to her but if you love someone how could you terrify them in a such a personal way? I would think she would have hated him after that..
No chance of falling in love with him.
I loved the movie in general, except that rape scene...
Rape is Rape!!! He knew she was mentally ill. Even if he didn't know why, he knew there was something wrong with her mentally. I don't care if he was her husband, her father or her priest, he forced himself on her. And here is why the scene could not have played out (they never showed you aferwards do they?? they just cut from him on top of her looking at her with those eyes of Sean Connery's, to the visual of the port hole (I know because I just finished watching the movie), and it cuts to him waking up and trying to find her and he finds her floating face down in the Ship's swimming pool. Now, in actuality (and I don't mean to sound graphic but this is the first thing I thought of when watching the "rape scene". When a man and a woman are going to make love, the woman has to be (for want of a better word), lubricated. Sean Connery and her had no fore-play. No nothing. He rips off her robe, she screams, he puts his robe (or whatever he wrapped her in), she goes into her blank stare thing. And then the music plays and he looks at her, and she falls backward on the bed, and he's on top of her and we are supposed to believe that he is either forcing himself into her, or she is just laying there with a blank stare on her face????? If a man forces himself on a woman (who is not ready for him), you better believe that woman would be screaming bloody murder because it's painful. Did Marnie look "ready" to you? She looked like she just zoned out. But believe me, if this happened in real life, I don't think the man would be able to penetrate the woman. She would just "tighten up". At least this is my take on it. Sorry to be so graphic, but the subject called for it. Again, just my opinion (and I'm quite surprised that no one mentioned this line of thought before).
shareYou make a good argument "eliz7212-1". Graphic yes, but valid.
In the reality of the film however, the physical science of actual rape vs. consent is an unimportant detail. It's something of an "anti-detail". All we need to know is that Marnie does not want the sex and she will not enjoy the sex.
Marnie has spent much of film in varying catatonic states. In the so-called rape scene, it has finally and suddenly escalated into total resignation. That is where the question of rape comes in. The anatomical factors are beside the point. IMO.
Sean's character was probably forced to serve in WW2. He like so many other men in that horrible war was courting death every goddamn minute he was over there. But, the death of one man or a thousand men mean sh!t to people like you when it comes to the will and the sanctity of a woman's body.
shareThat still doesn't justify it in any way Luke.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah, I agree. Mark goes from being a feeling, sympathetic person to a rapist--in about 1 minute. That didn't make sense in an otherwise good story. I've heard Hitchcock insisted on the scene.
shareHe gave in to his worst side and forced himself on her after she had made clear that she couldn't stand the touch of a man, and yes that does amount to rape. In the process, he almost lost her.
"Doesn't that make you misty? Chalk up another victory for the Human spirit!"
[deleted]
I agree. Furthermore, he gave her his word that he wouldn't try to touch her in that way, and then, within a few days, he's tearing off her clothes and raping her while she's practically catatonic. Why did they bother to write the scene where he's explicitly promising NOT to touch her, and then have him break his word? That was what actually bothered me the most.
Did Mark Rape Marnie, I would say Yes and No. Yes, he gently forced himself on her, No he was not brutal but trying to express he loved her and needed her this was only way he knew how.
This was the 1960's this was not even asked by movie goings was this rape? I think it was viewed as possession, ownership, romance, love conquers all by Mark. 1960's this is how wives were treated so no one questioned it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, I can't believe all of you think that Mark raped Marnie in that scene. I absolutely didn't think that. 1) He immediately showed that he felt terrible for disrobing her. 2) To me it looked like he simply laid her down on the bed to comfort her. 3) When a female has intercourse for the first time it is usually, if not always, extremely painful. Her face was too frozen but the pain would have been too great for her to not have at least winced.
And in the sailor scene, they only show him trying to kiss Marnie before her mother attacks him with the fireplace iron. I think the film was pretty clear that she was a virgin.
Actually my post was ambiguous. I wouldn't have called it rape either.
shareI'm with you on this one, itsmyisland. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING that gives us the impression she is raped by Mark. I watched this film tonight (and watched that particular scene again just now) and I don't understand where the idea of rape is coming from???? He gently apologizes for pulling her nightgown off then holds and kisses her. He's obviously sexually, mentally and emotionally frustrated at this point. But hey, he can only blame himself for getting into this mess, right? Hahahahaha!
I feel Hitchcock shot this scene in a different manner (her "falling" into bed) to demonstrate the act of sex. It was purely a creative way to get across to the audience that the two were finally intimate. Of course she was expressionless....the woman is completely dead inside; a total nutcase!
And lastly, I must agree with you again, itsmyisland....it is never implied directly or indirectly that the sailor raped or fondled Marnie. He began kissing her and, in fact, crossed the line considering her young age.
Mark ranks her bath robe off, feels sorrow, and, absurdly, in the next minute he's on top of her--noboby has mentioned the look in Mark's eyes--it's definitely not a loving look, but mean and overpowering. That's rape.
shareI definitely think they had sex in that scene - it is heavily implied - but what we see hardly characterizes it as rape. She screams "no" when he first comes in, but as soon as he starts to kiss her, she merely goes limp and blank, and appears to simply allow it to happen. From what we're shown, she doesn't say "no" and doesn't fight back. She certainly doesn't appear to be enjoying it, but that doesn't make it rape. I've no doubt that she was traumatized by it, since she is so repulsed by the notion of sex, but she didn't assert herself and try to stop it, so I don't think it was technically a sexual assault.
"'Cause I'm going domey-doeing in my domey doe duds!"
I'm surprised by how many posters have stated that it wasn't really rape because she didn't "assert herself and try to stop it."
She went limp, froze up, detached herself or whatever you want to call it as a means of self-defense. She did not want to have sex - he had sex with her anyway - that is rape. Rape is not always a stranger jumping out of the bushes, nor is it always violent to the point where the victim suffers serious physical injuries.
Saying that "She certainly doesn't appear to be enjoying it, but that doesn't make it rape" is one of the most assholish things I've heard today.
I definitely think they had sex in that scene - it is heavily implied - but what we see hardly characterizes it as rape. She screams "no" when he first comes in, but as soon as he starts to kiss her, she merely goes limp and blank, and appears to simply allow it to happen. From what we're shown, she doesn't say "no" and doesn't fight back. She certainly doesn't appear to be enjoying it, but that doesn't make it rape. I've no doubt that she was traumatized by it, since she is so repulsed by the notion of sex, but she didn't assert herself and try to stop it, so I don't think it was technically a sexual assault.
**SPOILER ALERT**
I don't personally believe this is rape.
Marnie is a person who is ill - she's a person who has responded with a "sane" response to an "insane" situation. She is responding to the abuse of sexuality & power that was forced on her in childhood. She has responded not by hating her mother (whom she depended on) but all men - she's going to stay away from her own sexuality. Her mother's repressive upbringing (post-murder) also means she's going to despise her own sexuality.
But all that means for Marnie is a deep conflict: she's made a decision to repress sexuality for herself (with a lot of help from her upbringing by her mother) but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I read this scene as a response to someone who really does love her: like a numb zombie her own sexual instincts respond to him. Her nakedness stripped bare is a symbol of the person underneath the illness. Afterward she wants to kill herself because she's still conflicted, she can't live with her sexuality. However, the question Mark asks is right - why didn't she jump in the ocean? The answer is quite obvious, using the pool was a cry for help. The human being with an illness wants the help offered underneath it all. I don't think this is strange or unusual but rather classic.
I think Mark really loves her. I don't find it strange at all that people fall in love wanting to help a hurting person. It happens all the time.
Good points blissfilm! Frankly, I never viewed the scene as an actual rape so much as Marnie simply not experiencing a psychologically sound "thrill" from coupling. There was never a moment for me during the film when I doubted Mark truly loved Marnie and wanted to help her.
shareI agree, LadyVader, but this world (and this movie, sort of) is complicated enough for rape to be practiced even by lovers. In fact those in love are often moved to rape as a fulfillment of their obsession. We sometimes call them stalkers, and we sometimes hurt the ones we love, and sometimes even when we mean to hurt we don't.
But of course this brings us to the central semantic questions: what's rape? What's love? Could not Mark rape Marnie if he loved her? Could he not love her if he were capable of raping her?
These horrible questions are interesting enough for half a movie to have been made about them - the weird and unsettling case of Susan George in STRAW DOGS. Actually that's rather a different scenario, but it was my first cinematic experience of the is-rape-always-non-consensual question... a question that life as a teenager had brought up a few times, and answered soundly "no". Not always.
As if sexual relations weren't confusing enough, an intelligent person must acknowledge that "no" sometimes means "yes". Europeans know this instinctively, and appreciate that while true rape exists, romance is Byzantine and may allow any number of messy permutations. Americans, mired in simplistic puritan brimstone, must say out loud that any sexual act not sanctioned by a mutual statement of intent is at best unregenerate.
Boy, am I gonna get some abuse for this one.
[deleted]
"It's about power, about obtaining control over another human being." I think this sums it up pretty well, considering I think this was a main motive of Mark's interest in her in general! He wanted to catch her in her lies...one up her. That's how it started, plus she was attractive which made it even more intriguing for him. As it developed, I do believe he developed genuine feelings for her as well, and compassion, etc. But he clearly was enjoying getting the upper hand with her from the start, so rape wouldn't be a huge leap if he was really into the control/upper hand thing/sticking it to her thing.
Although I can't say though that when I first saw it, that I understood it as rape...although indeed she seemed to not want to do it. I definitely thought he was being WAY to pushy with her, considering how emotionally unstable and repressed she was. I think a part of him was pissed off, too, at how cold and weird she was...and don't forget she did basically try to steal from him too. So it was that "gimme what I'm owed!" kind of crappy attitude he was having. And so I thought she just detached herself and gave in because she felt obligated. So...hm. When he ripped off her clothes after she screamed "NO!" that seemed to be a clear assault/violation. But after that he felt bad, and was comforting her. And at that point it seemed she decided to relent and "let" him do it.
I dunno. He did creep me out at that part haha. But if she had screamed "NO" again, I don't think he would have done it. However, the only reason why she let him do it is because she felt bullied into it and felt it was inevitable eventually, since he was her husband now (also by force and not her choice).
I saw it more as Marnie reluctantly agreeing to consummate the marriage without her active participation. Couldn't see Mark being convicted of rape then, or now.
shareYou basically just described every feminist I've ever encountered.
You don't see men having massive nervous breakdowns or panic attacks years after some war they live through anymore. The majority of men out there - good men won't allow their issues to effect the way they treat their loved ones. And the irony is that those loved ones want these men to open up more about these horrible things they've seen or done. Hell, most people today think of helping out veterans financially as some horrible burden. That's because women now completely control the victim or Get-Out-of-Jail free card.