oh so its not rape? then why would she try to shoot him the next day!
explain that?!
shareIt is clear that some people understand this film and others dont have a clue......
but that's usual for IMDB......
MovieChat Forums > High Plains Drifter (1973) Discussion > oh so its not rape? then why would she t...
[deleted]
She was obviously pissed off because he just laid there like a corpse.
shareBecause the character was portrayed as a loose woman of the west with no morals or self control who was subject to sweeping emotions so extreme that her first effort was to bump into the new stranger in town that had already killed, even potentially murdered 3 men only seconds earlier.
In real life why would such a character have done it? Because the stranger then departed from her company instead of staying by her side, that he used her then cast her aside. Realizing that this new man wasn't going to support her, she had to act as if it was retribution for rape so as to suggest she was taking back her dignity in doing so.
It might also be considered that this was Clint directing his own "Spaghetti Western" type Western, which could be VERY violent and mean-spirited Westerns. I think "Hang 'Em High" was an attempt, but it got far too tamed down to the point of being "TV Western-ified."
Now back to Callie shooting in the tub... How come nobody heard her four shots??? The shooting was in the same building (barber shop) that the Stranger shot Billy Borders, Ike Sharp and Fred Morris, and most of the townspeople were right across the street in the miner's hall.
The most important thing to take away from the scene is that Miss Peekins does a right clean boiled wash.
Like most of the things in this film, that whole issue is morally ambiguous. There are no clearly good people or clearly bad people in the whole movie. The townsfolk make themselves out to be victims, but are in fact awful people themselves. The three bad guys are bad guys, but they have a legitimate grudge.
One of the reasons I like this film is the moral ambiguity in nearly everyone involved.
"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."
poor writing
shareIt was a rape - plain and simple. She even complains with the town officials about it. They don't take action against him because they need him.
shareEnough already. It was the old, violent west. Can we please stop judging a movie that takes place in the 1800s by current day standards?
If any man in that town had intentionally crashed into Eastwood's character, called him out as a piece of trash, blocked his path and knocked the cigar out of his mouth, Eastwood would either have shot him dead or beaten him to a pulp to put him in his place and the audience would probably have cheered and applauded him.
You can't do that to a woman, so instead he put her in her place by the only alternative available - he assaulted her. Was that OK? No - but neither was her behaviour. Yes, it was bad, but that's how things were back then, so why is everyone so upset about it being portrayed with a degree of accuracy?
She went looking for trouble and she got it. End of story.
It's rape by the time period the movie is set in and by the movie's own dialogues. Period.
shareWhat's your point?
Where in my posting did I claim it wasn't a rape?
Your entire post justifies it. But this is the cherry on top. "You can't do that to a woman, so instead he put her in her place by the only alternative available - he assaulted her." What a twisted POS!
shareSo in others words you're all knowing and the final authority? What incredible arrogance.
I suggest you read my post again without the narrow, self-righteous mindset. I didn't "justify" what he did, I merely stated his actions and lack of consequences for his actions are a fairly accurate reflection of the era in which the story takes place.
The people of the town stood by and watched a man, their sheriff, get bull-whipped to death and didn't even try to stop it - yet you're furious they took no action because he raped a woman, who was possibly the town whore, after she foolishly initiated a confrontation with him?
Then you cherry pick a small segment of my post to twist my meaning to condemn me and justify your position - that's the real cherry on top. Get over yourself, seriously.
How come you are always defending Rape? How do you know she was the town whore? He took her into the barn to teach her a lesson about manners as he put it. I think the stranger is the Devil and that why he paints the town Red.
shareHow do you know she was the town whore?I don't - my exact words were: ...who was possibly the town whore.... It's a theory. I swear, you really have the reading comprehension of an infant.
How come you are always defending Rape?I have never defended rape - why do you keep lying and claim that I do? Did you actually read my posting? Did you even try to understand the point I was trying to make? Does stating the fact that slavery existed at one time mean I support slavery? Does saying the fact that the Holocaust occured mean that I support the Holocaust?
Reading is more than knowing words - it also requires that you understand what the words are saying. Try it. share
my exact words were: ...who was possibly the town whore....
If not the town whore, then definitely the local "loose woman."
And those accusations of you somehow "defending rape" are bullshît.
You can be shocked by what the Stranger did to Callie, even if you despise her. No one is "condoning" what he did.
I swear, nobody in this country knows how to see things in historical context anymore. People in previous centuries did not exist in a "politically correct" atmosphere -- far from it, especially in the Old West.
Love & Mercy: 9
It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9 share
The people of the town stood by and watched a man, their sheriff, get bull-whipped to death and didn't even try to stop it - yet you're furious they took no action because he raped a woman, who was possibly the town whore, after she foolishly initiated a confrontation with him?
Excellent point, sfmar.
Love & Mercy: 9
It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9 share
She went looking for trouble and she got it
Agreed.
She was a vicious, foul-mouthed slut and I have never felt any sympathy for her. As several posters have pointed out, she would jump into bed with any man who had political power in that town. She didn't do anything productive like Sarah Belding did, she just wanted to be maintained by any "protector" who was rich and powerful enough to "afford" her. In other words, she was a professional "kept woman." She just went from man to man -- whatever man happened to be the top dog at any particular time. She was not really much different from a prostitute.
Her aggressive baiting of the Stranger was a narcissistic display of ego. I think what she really wanted was to insult the Man With No Name so badly that he would do something that would provoke a duel with Morgan Allen, her current lover. She wanted to show off her "power" and see them fight because of her. She was a manipulative bitch.
But she didn't count on Morgan Allen being such a cowardly wuss when it came to dealing with the Stranger. I don't think she counted on being raped either, but it was the violent Old West.
P.S.: How she could have missed the Man With No Name at point-blank range -- she fired at least three shots and he was confined within the small space of a bathtub -- is beyond me.
Love & Mercy: 9
It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9 share
P.S.: How she could have missed the Man With No Name at point-blank range -- she fired at least three shots and he was confined within the small space of a bathtub -- is beyond me.In my opinion she didn't miss him at all - it's just that you can't kill a ghost. The bullets didn't miss him, they just had no effect on him.
According to Eastwood, the original screenplay indicated that the stranger was the dead marshall's brother, but he decided to leave that out of the movie and leave the stranger's identity ambiguous and open to interpretation. I think that was a good decision.
I always believed the stranger was a ghost, or an avenging angel, and he was there to punish the town for their sin of murdering the marshall. After all, how would any mortal man know of their crime? Why would the stranger have nightmare visions of the matshall's murder if no one ever reported the crime?
Not all angels wear white gowns and halos.
share
That's true. I had never even heard until now about The Stranger originally being written as the marshall's brother, come back for revenge.
I always figured he was probably something supernatural. If not a post-death incarnation of the marshall himself (physically unrecognizable, of course), then simply an Avenging Angel.
Phoenix: 8.5
Diary of a Teenage Girl: 7
Suffragette: 8
But even with that form of violence against woman being perhaps the most common, women can get shot and beaten too, so why didn't he do that instead but sexually violated her instead? Not that I advocate either, all would've been wrong too.
And men can be victims of it too, but he didn't go as far as to do that to a man, but he did it to a woman and it is wrong and terrible no doubt.
[deleted]
"Enough already. It was the old, violent west. Can we please stop judging a movie that takes place in the 1800s by current day standards?
If any man in that town had intentionally crashed into Eastwood's character, called him out as a piece of trash, blocked his path and knocked the cigar out of his mouth, Eastwood would either have shot him dead or beaten him to a pulp to put him in his place and the audience would probably have cheered and applauded him.
You can't do that to a woman, so instead he put her in her place by the only alternative available - he assaulted her. Was that OK? No - but neither was her behaviour. Yes, it was bad, but that's how things were back then, so why is everyone so upset about it being portrayed with a degree of accuracy?
She went looking for trouble and she got it. End of story."
Actually, not that it is justifiable either, but there have been cases, in real life and in films, where women have been assaulted, attacked physically and beaten, and even killed, without either being raped or sexually assaulted first or otherwise. That isn't acceptable either, but it has happened and been depicted in movies before and after.
For instance, in the controversial Belgian black comedy film "Ex Drummer" (2007), even though various incidents and themes of sexual violence there were also shown and dealt with, there is one character who mainly beats up women and some scenes also show it.
In the Quentin Tarantino film "Jackie Brown" (1997), Robert De Niro's character shoots and kills Bridget Fonda's.
There have been many action, drama, thriller etc etc etc films that dealt with women being kidnapped, beaten, killed etc, loads in fact. And in many if not all of such films, the women were victims usually at the hands of men who didn't deserve it.
"Nil by Mouth" (1997) British film by Gary Oldman had harrowing scenes of a woman physically beaten etc etc etc, so your argument of how "it is not possible in other ways to do it to a woman" is incorrect.
Again, not saying its right either.
HAVING SAID THAT - rape and sexual assault in theory and practice is undeniably considered WORSE and on another level.