MovieChat Forums > Scarlett (1994) Discussion > Disturbed. {some spoilers}

Disturbed. {some spoilers}

posted 18 years ago by raiseyourvoicemovie
16 replies | jump to latest

All in all, I have to say I was somewhat happy with the adaptation besides a couple of the cast members {The lady who played Anne Hampton..ugh.} UP UNTIL the second half which particularly got to me. Basically if I wanted to rent an almost-porn-graphic movie then I would have, I was expecting something a LOT milder. More PG, and yes, I have read the book. But this was on the borderlines of R-rated, and certainly did not have the ending that was in the book.

Also, I absolutely was BOTHERED, {anyone else agree?} in general with Sean Bean's role considering that he raped Mary AND Scarlett. It was way too much to be shown, it would be enough just to SEE the bruises and get the implication in all fairness. Anybody have any advice to get those PARTICULARLY disturbing scenes out of my head?

I was also bothered by the ending, when Colum ended up being killed by Richard, which is not how I believe was written in the book.

My rating of the book: 6/10.
This particularly mini-series: 2/10
The only thing that I was really fond of was a few of the cast members, including the guy that played Ashley.

[–] devmonbar 18 years ago

My God, who are you, Mary Poppins, I don't think the movie was that disturbing, consider the stuff that comes on television now. I would understand if you were a raped victim, but the scenes were not that graphic.

[–] ctraini 18 years ago

devmonbar,
the world could use A LOT more of "Mary Poppins", and a lot less of the otherwise.
I agree with the original post. The book was twisted A LOT to meet the interests of idiots who cannot live without the trash. In the book Lord Fenton doesn't come close to being like he is in the movie, so WHY put that junk in?

BTW,the idea of the multiple rapes was graphic enough. The book got by without adding the trash so why couldn't the movie?

The answer: money, despite movies with less such content sell more, and attract a wider audience.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hey_teacher 17 years ago

I agree with you. The the whole Sean Bean sub-plot was stupid. We were all howling in the seats when we watched it on T.V. No wonder it got such crappy reviews...and did so poorly in the ratings the second night it was shown.

What a total waste of time. I would have been much happier if they would have devoted that time to Scarlett and Rhett in Charleston. Or, they could have stuck to the original story, and focused on the Irish uprising. That would have made more sense.

Scarlett would never have had a sexual relationship after Rhett, and if she had any thoughts about doing so, he would have stopped her...just like he did in the book. Clearly, the mini-series crew had no understanding of the central characters.

[–] CMaddict07 17 years ago

OMG! you read my mind. I thought that I was the only one who actually felt like that about the series. it was really badly done. I completely agree with what the original post said. It was very disturbing.

Insanity is not a gift, it's a privilege.

[–] paiges-daughter 17 years ago

I didn't find it disturbing at all and I was 10 when I saw it

"Yes, but Angel can't bang, bang, bang." -Me to Meghan.

[–] real-beauty03 17 years ago

It wasnt disturbing to me either and I was about the same age. I remember I watched it when I was in fourth grade and thats all I talked about at school for almost the week it was on. I think my teacher was surprised that my parents were letting me watch it but HEY I was watching it with my three older sisters. We all totally bonded over this movie. I was seriously crushin on Timothy Dalton back in the day even at such a young age...still am for that matter!

[–] paiges-daughter 17 years ago

Omg...I watched it with my older sister too.

"Yes, but Angel can't bang, bang, bang." -Me to Meghan.

[–] Jsilcox09 17 years ago

I watched this w/my mom when I was about 13, I had seen Gone with the Wind when I was about 10, read GWTW before I went into 6th grade, I was about 12. I love GWTW but Scarlett does not compare to GWTW, if you watch the movie w/o thinking about GWTW it's a good movie, but if you expect to be nething like Mitchell's GWTW, you'll be sadly disappointed. I read the book and I was disappointed in it because I was expecting a story true to the greatness of GWTW but to me Ripley didn't follow that true story Scarlett wouldn't give up Tara after fighting so hard, and not just give up Tara but give up Tara to Suellen, the sister she couldn't stand.

Just how close can I get Lord to my surrender without losing all control.

[–] TLTROI 17 years ago

Paiges-daughter said:

I didn't find it disturbing at all and I was 10 when I saw it

I was also about 11 when I saw this and I didn't find any of it disturbing, I rather enjoyed it!

real-beauty03 said:

I was seriously crushin on Timothy Dalton back in the day even at such a young age...still am for that matter!

I had/have that same issue just with Sean Bean! So therefore, I really liked this movie!

[–] real-beauty03 17 years ago

I had/have that same issue just with Sean Bean!

I admit it....I crush on him in everything else except for Scarlett...He was just such a creep in it.

[–] TheShinkette 17 years ago

That is just another example of why society is going downhill. You were desensitized to a rape. Think about that. You should've been bothered by that. Regardless whether this particular incident was fiction, it still happens. Watching a man slap and punch a woman, rip her clothes off, and then see the end result of that pig lying there satisfied and smug in only his shirt PISSES me off. It should never have been added to this movie. Nothing like that happened in the book. Granted, he was arrogant, a little frightening, and ready to use Scarlett to get his heir, but he didn't force himself on anyone. I really disappoints me when I hear people gloss over something like this.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greenenvyes 17 years ago

I actually thought the first half was really good. But the second part was awful.
Someone else on here said that 'Scarlett' is better as a singular story rather than as a sequel and I totally agree with that, neither the book or the tv series make a convincing carry on to GWTW.
As to the rape scene(s), I kinda thought they were stupid. Didn't really need to see them and it wasn't even in the book.

[–] syaeger14218 16 years ago

I believe someone else said this.

I have been a fan of GWTW since I was young. I read the book in grade school (it was funny , we had to read during study hall and the teacher would ask what page we started on and at the end of the period what page we ended on all the other kids were reading easy stuff and would say "Page 10, page 20" and she came to me and I said "Page 856" or some such...lol) Well I think I know something of Scarlett (the character) She would NOT have had sex outside of marriage...period! (before anyone says anything, yes I know she has sex with the man in the book.) She may have been many things, but a loose woman she was not. I hated the Sean Bean character and they way they changed so much of the Ireland part of the story. The whole on trial for murder thing was stupid. It just could have been made better all around.

Have you accepted Jason Isaacs as your personal Saviour?

[–] lucmann-1 16 years ago

I am guessing that most of you who saw this made for tv movie as children never read the book, and for those of you who are objecting to the rape scenes and the Sean Bean character, what planet do you live on? I guess women don't get raped on your planet and men never take advantage of superior physical strength where you live? This is not meant to be a fairy tale, folks, but a drama. I personally don't think it was all that well made, and agree that the deviations from the second half of the book were pretty dumb, but this wasn't a Pulitzer Prize winning novel to begin with.

Send in another victim of Industrial Disease!