MovieChat Forums > Working Girl (1988) Discussion > So...

So...

posted 8 years ago by bjamzilla
16 replies | jump to latest

Did he rape her? Because I can't even get over that. I was all excited for Harrison Ford as her love interest. But implied rape isn't romantic. It's so weird that so many people like this movie in spite of that scene. The world has really changed since then.

Wildcattin'...Wildcattin'. Pow! I'm gonna go.

[–] hovc68 8 years ago

He just put her to bed to sleep it off. clearly

[–] bjamzilla 8 years ago

I mean, in my opinion it wasn't clear. Especially when she said she woke up with no clothes on. I just think it was a weird thing to put in a romcom because I couldn't even finish it since the whole thing was very vague and speculative whether he did mess with her and I wasn't feeling the movie anymore after that(not that I was that engaged before then). If you found it to be clear, that's fine. I'm just saying how I feel as a millennial who doesn't think even the slightest suspicion of rape belongs in a romantic comedy. I'm sure Working Girl has its other merits but they're for some other person, maybe my mom's age to enjoy. Happy fourth.

Wildcattin'...Wildcattin'. Pow! I'm gonna go.

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago



"Why couldn't the monkey arrange this from INSIDE the garbage can?"

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago

If you found it to be clear, that's fine. I'm just saying how I feel as a millennial who doesn't think even the slightest suspicion of rape belongs in a romantic comedy.

It was clear right off that he didn't rape her. But even if someone seriously doesn't get that then their fears should be laid to rest as they get to know the character throughout the film. We KNOW Jack is not a rapist.

Additionally she wasn't naked--if you had actually been watching then you would have seen that she was in her underwear which included a garter belt, fully attached to her stockings which means that her underwear couldn't even have been pulled off unless someone fully disengaged all that stuff and then put it all back on again. Hardly something a rapist would bother doing. They had an entire discussion about the situation and he told her what happened.

I'm sure Working Girl has its other merits but they're for some other person, maybe my mom's age to enjoy.

If you mean someone who is mature and has actual life experience and the ability to stop and think before jumping to conclusions, then yes, maybe so.

You sound like the type of person who assumes all men are dangerous rapists and liars who cannot be trusted--another great trait among females of your generation. You also seem to jump to huge conclusions and assume the absolute worst in people even when the evidence doesn't support it.

It's fine if you didn't like the movie but it sounds more like your own lack of life experience and negative assumptions about men (guilty until proven innocent) are the reasons you "couldn't" finish watching it.

"Why couldn't the monkey arrange this from INSIDE the garbage can?"

[–] northsouth1 8 years ago

They really are special snowflakes, aren't they?

[–] DextroCardia-XX 8 years ago

I mean, in my opinion it wasn't clear. Especially when she said she woke up with no clothes on. I just think it was a weird thing to put in a romcom because I couldn't even finish it since the whole thing was very vague and speculative whether he did mess with her and I wasn't feeling the movie anymore after that(not that I was that engaged before then).

Well, that's a shame, that you didn't see the whole movie, because it's one of Griffith's best, loved it myself.

Of course it was clear, it was crystal clear that he didn't rape her. It's not even the least hinted, and he was very careful about how he treated her when she had passed out. This is a movie made in the 80s and the climate and talk about rape was totally different.

You really should give it another try, and put aside your millennium glasses, and enjoy.

[–] phoebe723 8 years ago

Dear God. The world sure has changed. People are just looking for offensive things that aren't even there. Clearly he did not do anything to her. Did we watch the same movie?

[–] subscriptions-67427 8 years ago

yeah she woke up with her underwear intact, there is no implied rape at all!

However this is still not ok in my view, I would have just put her to bed in her dress.

[–] MysticGoddess327 8 years ago

I wasn't crazy about that either, but he must have realized that $6000 dress shouldn't be slept in.

[–] DrWhen 8 years ago

But it wasn't even leather!

[–] angeles3394 8 years ago

Hahaha! That got a good chuckle out of me. Thanks :)

[–] lollipop15 8 years ago



[–] erikriveros 8 years ago

a millenial huh? never would've guessed it

it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

[–] Southern-Blues 8 years ago

Did we watch the same movie? There was no rape, implied or otherwise. He put her to bed to sleep it off. This is not a complicated movie. Goodness.

[–] oliviajones-77211 8 years ago

Good lord... I was 14 the first time I saw this and knew even at that age there was no suggestion of rape!

He even says to her "nothing happened", and when she implies that he's lying because she "woke up in her underwear" he goes on to explain he took off her shoes, her dress, and put her to bed with his eyes closed the entire time.

The guy in the limo was more likely to try to rape her than Jack. ?

[–] Beau_Buffet (340) a year ago

But implied rape isn't romantic. It's so weird that so many people like this movie in spite of that scene. The world has really changed since then.

No he did not rape her, it's so obvious.

Also, rape was NEVER okay at any time in history.