"She clearly starts to enjoy it half way through. This makes the scene much more disturbing to me and made the rest of the film distasteful to me. She's clearly being raped in the beginning but somewhere in the middle suddenly starts to like it. Same with the other woman. She threatens him with a knife but then when he grabs her and kisses her suddenly she likes it. Because, you know, secretly all women want a man to take her forcefully."
I suppose the facts will almost bear such an interpretation, but frankly I find it cliched, heavy-handed, and unnecessary. If that's how you're interpreting the scene ie., that its some retrograde portrayal of how woman secretly like being raped, well, let's just say that I suspect you have an axe to grind that leads to your desire to interpret the scene in that rather simplistic and oh-so-earnest manner. I think a much more insightful, dynamic, and accurate (as it were) interpretation would be that human sexual relationships are often not so cut-and-dry as moralists & Feminists alike are inclined to instruct as that they are, and that far from being the perpetual victims your somewhat hamfisted interpretation invites us to see them as, yet again (for like the five-zillionth boring time in literary-cinematic history), that perhaps what we're seeing in this scene is an example of women attempting to use their sexuality to manipulate Easrtwood's character...and his character winning the ensuing power struggle. Which is, of couse, very politically incorrect, but not at all a bad thing. Unless you think every time there is a conflict between a man and a woman, its shomehow bad if the man doesn't lose. Many contemporary Americans do seem to think much like that, alas.
But you think these are rape scenes, made more horrific by the fact the female characters seem to like getting raped, so leaving aside how ridiculous it would be to assume a modern film-maker would choose to construct such vile scenes (I mean, this movie was made in the 1970s, not during Tudor England, or ancient Roman times, for the love of Ned), your conveniently oh-so-safe-and-conventionally-dull interpetation doesn't require any further thought on the matter. Please do us both a favor, and don't reply with some reiteration of your plodding, tiresome little scold of an interpretation.
reply
share
MatBrewster
13 years ago
Wow! You are so astute. You are amazing! I bow to your superior intellect. I feel like a better person now that you've insulted me repeatedly. My god you are the greatest film critic to ever exist. Thank you for replying to me. I feel blessed.
I actually wasn't very clear in my first response. I meant to argue against others saying that it wasn't a rape because she starts to pull his pants down and is enjoying it at the end. This is true, by the end of the scene it is clearly not a rape, but at the beginning it most certainly is. She screams, claws, and kicks against Eastwood, telling him no, yet he proceeds. They had not worked it out beforehand so there is no way he could no she was just kidding. Thus he is raping her. The fact that she actually likes it at the end does not absolve Eastwood's character from the beginning.
"I suppose the facts will almost bear such an interpretation, but frankly I find it cliched, heavy-handed, and unnecessary."
Let me get this straight, the facts support my interpretation, but I am wrong and you are right even though you don't use any facts to support your interpretation. Who needs facts anyway when you've got smuggish intellect.
"let's just say that I suspect you have an axe to grind that leads to your desire to interpret the scene in that rather simplistic and oh-so-earnest manner"
And lets just say that I find you intensely dull.
"so leaving aside how ridiculous it would be to assume a modern film-maker would choose to construct such vile scenes (I mean, this movie was made in the 1970s, not during Tudor England, or ancient Roman times, for the love of Ned)"
Right. Because no filmmaker in the last 40 years has created such vile scenes. Have you watched a movie since the 70s? I'll accept the argument that Eastwood is a great director and that he would not construct such a scene, but that's not really what you said.
Honestly, I think the facts support that she was using her sexuality to manipulate Clint. Its later found out that she slept with the villain, and then when he got sent up she took up with another powerful man. When Clint shows up killing people its likely she saw him as the next leader and so she assaulted him so that she would be taken and could be on his side.
So mostly I'm gonna agree with you. Still, that scene is difficult. And your reply was jerkish.
reply
share