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."
Just watched this again. It wouldn't have been called rape back then, not between a man and wife and she didn't fully resist as in screaming and fighting. But, it was force against her will and would be viewed as rape in the present time. She had made it clear her revulsion of sex and men and was catatonic when he had sex with her after screaming NO. Of coarse it wasn't rape and she enjoyed it that much she immediately tried to top herself.
shareDoc, that's an interesting interpretation. Disturbing yes. Mark evil? No.
How exactly is Mark supposed to be evil, when the movie clearly sympathizes with him all the time? Do you mean that it's disturbing that Mark does a bad thing and gets away with it? I might meet you halfway there. But as far as getting away with it, he doesn't; it makes his life worse, when she tries to drown herself immediately afterward.
??
[deleted]
I would think that Marnie knows that the sound of the door closing is going to awaken Mark, who will follow her. When he rescues her and asks her why she didn't simply jump overboard, she says, in a surprisingly calm manner, "The idea was to kill myself~not feed the damn fish!" She does not strike out at him for saving her; she does not act angry that he did. In movies and in books, most people rescued from a suicide attempt respond with frustration that it did not work or anger at the rescuer. I think that Marnie knows that Mark will follow her and that, in the aftermath, with barriers broken down, she will begin opening up her life to him. Mark has seen her in extremely vulnerable states that no one else has witnessed, including the lightning storm. I believe Marnie, though resistant, truly wants Mark to help her.
Hmmm... Marnie calls him "Daddy dear", which could lead back to the idea that she was molested. She says her father left them, but did they leave him? Also, Marnie seems very familiar with psychoanalysis' terms and tests. I'm watching this right now, and Marnie is allowing herself to be held by Mark and begins tearfully begging, "Help me! Oh God! Somebody help me!"
I truly believe that Marnie understands that Mark wants to help her lead a life free of lies, deception, and compulsions. Every time she reveals something to him, he accepts it, never rejecting her, and their relationship continues to advance~in the right direction.
Maybe I'm rambling, but I've always understood and identified with this character in many ways.
~~MystMoonstruck~~
While the visual clues are enough for me conclude there was a sex act of some sort, Mr.Bernard Herrmann's score seems to scream it, at least to my ears. I just watched the film on TCM and the music ABSOLUTELY suggest something violently, primitavely carnal is taking place as the camera pans to the moonlit sea. Did I take this musical clue wrong?
shareI'm not sure if he did or didn't.
He riped her clothes of her, saw how scared she was and imediatly regreted it, covered her with his robe and lowered her onto the bed. I don't think he did. Somthing tells me that after seeing how scared he made her, he wouldn't assalt her. I thought the close up of there faces was how she saw it. Her fear and what he looked like to her.
I may be wrong but thats what it looked like to me.
Just look at his eyes when he lowers her - they are completely dark and savage. Nothing regretting there anymore - of course he's raping her.
**********
- Who's the lady with the log?
- We call her the Log Lady.
yup, he deffinitely raped her
on the dvd extras there's an interview with the writer who was apparently fired because he didn't think the scene could be justified
amazingly, the woman who took over from him said in the interview that she never even saw it as an issue and was embarrassed to admit only years later that it should have made her pause for thought
i'm not sure why hitch wanted it in (even after others had pointed out that it would make it hard to like connery's character afterwards)
I think the ´more-or-less rape´ as depicted is one of the (relatively few) fortes & moral ambiguities of Marnie. At the very least it sure left something to chew on long after the film´s ended.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Franzkabuki: there is nothing that can be sonsidered a "more-or-less"-rape. She clearly said she didn't want to do it, yet he forced himself on her. That she didn't make any physical resistance, means nothing, as she was too terrified at that point.
*******
They blew up Congress!
My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com
I've always been confused about this scene too. I think it was rape in the emotional sense instead of the physical sense. Mark knew that Marnie didn't want to have sex and he knew that it terrified her, yet he still did it anyway, even though she showed no signs of struggle or resistance.
What's interesting is whether or not Mark considered it rape. I don't know if this was elaborated on in the book, but maybe he was able to rationalize that he was only doing what a husband was allowed to do. Maybe he thought that she should have known sex would be required of her in a marriage and that by marrying him, even if by blackmail, she agreed to it even if it wasn't verbalized. It would have been interesting to see this explored in the film.
My theory as to why she stayed with him is that she also rationalized her situation. Maybe she thought that his helping her outweighed how much he hurt her. A theme in this film is obviously animal behavior and instinct. Since animals will remain loyal to humans even when they cause them physical harm, and since horses are an anthromorphic represenation of Marnie (or vice versa), it makes sense that she would have this animalistic attribute.
They were married right? So in 1964 would it be seen as Rape?
[deleted]
The screenplay was written by Jay Presson Allen...a female.
shareShe was raped.
At that point in the film, I believe Hitchcock already had a falling out with his leading lady, Hedren. Was it some kind of revenge then? I don't know. A lot of people argued against it's inclusion. I think even Connery expressed disagreements with the characterization of Mark being a rapist.
If you notice in the film, it starts with Hedren's beauty being celebrated. But midway that ends and Hitchcock begins to film Connery in the same way he filmed his heroines. Interesting. I don't believe any other Hitchcock film objectifies the male lead's beauty in the way Marnie did with Connery.
Perhaps Hitchcock wanted Mark's interest and blackmail of Marnie to be ironic. Mark keeps telling Marnie she would eventually have been caught and by someone who would abuse her. But he fails to see that he is that person.
Question is - how intentional on Hitchcock's part was it to leave it as open ended and (relatively) ambiguous as it is
share[deleted]