MovieChat Forums > À ma soeur ! (2001) Discussion > Let's Get Real (SPOILERS)

Let's Get Real (SPOILERS)

posted 17 years ago by mzladymoon-1
53 replies | jump to latest

I'm getting off the fence about this movie. I viewed it after it was recommended in a documentary on the IFC about sexuality in movies.

The director ruined what might have been a fine treatment on adolescent sexuality, sibling rivalry and the politics of beauty in the female community by tacking on one of the most ridiculous, out in left field, absurd endings ever put in a movie.

Talk about pretentious and heavy-handed. But Catherine Breillat's heavy hand was evident throughout. Some of the dialogue from the precocious mouths of both sisters, even the older one, was more the director than what each of those characters might have known to say. The problem with many adults is that they view precociousness in children through rose-colored glasses. They are charmed by the idea of 'out of the mouths of babes.' And when writing such a character, the writer, if too in love with this idea, forgets that children, even precocious ones ARE children and bound by the limitations of their own immediate experience. No doubt, some kids have keen minds, but part of their wise-beyond-their years ability is having learned to listen and retain information and apply it in the right situations. Their alleged wisdom is virtual wisdom. This dazzles adults to such an extent that it blinds them to the reality that these same children, when confronted with a life of experience of profound proportions, respond like most children because they simply do not have the life experience and perspective to be wise.

Some of the things that came of the mouth of the fat younger sister were simply defied credibility. I don't care if it was France and she was supposed to be precocious. Experience is the teacher that makes us wise. It's what forms perspective. Without it, you are just a kid.

But Breillat has this idea in her head of creating this girl who is so deep and so much more special than her beautiful sister that she manipulates the character in such specious ways that her specialness never comes forth. She is not the 'crystal' (Breillat's word) that shines in comparison to the bitch of a vain, cruel, exhibitionist sister. She simply looks like a greedy little, sullen, adolescent fat girl that when her mother slaps her you almost wish she'd slap her a few more times. I watched the interview at the end and there were a number of shots of the actress who played Anais getting fitted for costumes where she smiled the most enchanting smile. Breillat never captured even a single frame of that. Even sullen, moody adolescent girls have a moment of pure fun because they are, afterall still children capable of such abandon. It's the reason that that period of life is so difficult. It's the tedious transition into adulthood. And it's painful.

The ending. WTF????

What we're supposed to accept is simply the old adage that 'Sh_t happens.!' And yes it does. The rampant random violence in the world today is undisputable. And yes, it could happen this way. A family on the way home from vacation, coming from a life-changing revelation such as the loss of innocence of the older daughter, is brutally murdered by some nut on the side of the road. But really? Why choose that ending for a film whose principle discussion was of such validity?

If the point was to connect the end to theme of sexuality, all I can say to Breillat is SHAME ON YOU! If a male director had done that, this film would have been burned. Of course, the last scene was probably why she got the funding.

Too cynical? Not if you understand that men never tire of watching rape scenes in film. To men, such scenes titillate, stimulate and arouse. Rape is a sex act to men. If it wasn't, then the nut would have simply killed all 3 of them. No, he chose to get his rocks off with a little girl and an obvious virgin. For a woman director to fall into that trap is beneath contempt. RAPE IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A SEX ACT FOR WOMEN!

These 2 points are irreconcilable between the genders, which is why I gave up. If I never see a re-enactment of a rape in a movien again in life, it will be too soon. I refuse to watch. You've seen one, you've seen them all. If you're a woman, what's the point? To relive some other female's violation? (Actually, if Breillat had really wanted to make a point, she would have had the nut KILL Anais after he raped her. Showing how ugly rape/murder is and how little such men value a woman as a human being.)

There is no way to spin this ending. PERIOD! Anais says she wasn't raped. Is that supposed to be her way of coping? Excuse me, but the rape wasn't the only traumatic event happening at the end. A 12/13 year old girl witnessed her mother and sister being brutally murdered and her response is this? HELLO.... her mother and sister are DEAD!!!! The only rational thing you should draw from her response is that the kid has to be in SHOCK!!!

I'm not going to even go where someone on another board suggested, that the girl was glad he chose her instead of her sister. Sorry, but if that's true... then she has to be the most despicable character ever created in film. Not only is she an ugly fat girl, she's a miserable, contemptible, hateful little witch. (Wrong consonant)

If you want to see a few naturalistic scenes approaching the theme of adolescent sexuality, watch the film, then turn it off when they stop at the rest stop. The film is over. Breillat's 'ending,' is strictly for the boys.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I must warn you that I am male. Therefore, you'll probably stop reading it because you have such opinion about male gender that you'll find reading some man's post a simple waste of time.

If you by any chance decided to keep on reading, I'll tell you that I agree with most of your points. I am among those who were posting on other boards (another reason to despise me besides being male), and I was usually defending Breillat and the movie. However, I did it because those attacks were ridiculous, dogmatic, full of demagogy, often written by people who didn't even watch the movie but found their holy mission to attack it because of what they'd heard about it.

Here you make a great analyze and there is so little to object. But being such a worthless creature as a man, I am expected to disagree with your opinion, so I'll try to find a few things that bothered me. Just a little.

There is nothing to add about children mouths saying adult words. It seems that only Scandinavians really understand childhood and children ("as if they have invented them", I wrote once before). But don't underestimate Anais. She doesn't have long life experiences, but they are very different from usual teenagers. She doesn't seem to have friends of her (or any) age, and she seems to be a lot among adults. She can't understand everything (without all necessary experiences that you mention) but she doesn't know and understand her generation either (having no experiences with them as well). So, when she talks, you can't expect her to talk the way 13 year olds usually do. Maybe Breillat went a bit too far making her words sound a bit too mature, but it makes sense. In fact, her sister's words sometimes seem to be too adult for her personality.

"you almost wish she'd slap her a few more times" - well, as this is the most expressive way her mother had to offer her emotions, maybe Anais would feel less ignored if her mother did it. After all, there was a lack of communication among all members of the family, they simply had nothing mutual to talk about.

"Even sullen, moody adolescent girls have a moment of pure fun". Maybe. But we don't cope with ordinary sullen, moody adolescent (why only girl? Oh, yes, boys are rapists and monsters, no-good burden that exist only to make female's life difficult and unbearable, so there is no way that they could have any problems during adolescence) but a seriously troubled girl, not only neglected but ignored and even humiliated by her parents and bullied by her sister. Try it and have fun.

"If a male director had done that, this film would have been burned." Well, here is a place where we completely agree. Females would burn not only the movie but him as well. I wonder if he would ever leave a prison if a male director made this movie in USA. Check on other boards.

"Rape is a sex act to men." To which men? Oh, sorry, I forgot that none of has anything in our head, we simply don't exist above our trousers.

This radical feminist attitude might hide your clever point: if this man is aroused by violence and killing, it is most likely that he would kill Anais too, either immediately, or after raping her. But just few days ago I wrote that Breillat shows clearly that rape is not an act of sex but violence (OMG, if I have written it, maybe I am not male at all!), and the rapist was in fact primarily a psychopathic killer who got sexual stimulation from murdering, and used Anais just for finalization of sexual pleasure (like pyromaniacs masturbating while watching the fire they've started). So it is Anaises blunder when she thinks he had chosen her (and her wishes were fulfilled) - it was definitively not an act of sex at all. She might equally had her hymen destroyed by bike accident, as much as she considers losing her virginity.

(If)"the girl was glad he chose her instead of her sister" (then) "she has to be the most despicable character ever created in film. Not only is she an ugly fat girl, she's a miserable, contemptible, hateful little witch." I didn't go that far analyzing her reaction after the event, but I wouldn't exclude this possibility either. The way she had been treated by her family and most likely the rest of the world too can make a young person miserable, hateful, and if you want that word, contemptible too. Contemptible in the eyes of those who had luck not to be bullied and humiliated since leaving diapers (or maybe even earlier). Breillat was brave enough to show what can happen to a young person (yes, I wrote person, because I still do believe that male creatures also have feelings and problems and all what we are talking about can relate to them too) when world treats her or him as Anais was treated... and how will this person respond to the world.

"Breillat's 'ending,' is strictly for the boys." What do you mean? That it was meant as an instruction because all the boys are pathological rapists and killers anyway, and all they need is a handbook like this to start their natural activities? Sorry, if Breillat went over the top at the end, so did you.

[–] mzladymoon-1 17 years ago

"Sorry, if Breillat went over the top at the end, so did you. "

And you didn't?

Nothing in my comments should have stunned and wounded your masculinity to the point where you felt you had to walk on eggshells when responding to my comments. In fact, we agree on many points. Of course, adolescent boys have feelings and go through puberty painfully. Hello... this movie was about girls, so I was talking about them. If you want to discuss male puberty, meet me over by the Stand By Me Message Board or My Life as a Dog. We're talking about Fat Girl here, lets leave the little boys out of it.

I am irresolute in my opinion regarding Breillat's heavy-handedness. You read way more into Anais' backstory than I did. Really, she had no friends? How do you know that? It wasn't addressed in the movie I saw. The family was on vacation and as I remember from my own family vacations, which I despised, too, because I was stuck only with my little brother for company as all my friends were back home. (He felt the same way too.) That's part of the pain of childhood. But unless the story evolves showing us scenes from Anais' whole life, I'm not going to read into her backstory that she didn't have any friends. And by your own admission, you say, she can't understand everything. Thank you for proving my point for me. Children, even precocious ones with sharp minds, can't understand everything. And thanks for pointing out that the older sister sounds overly mature, too. Again, Breillat was heavy-handed to prove her own point of view.

Where you seem to be overly sensitive is regarding my comments about rape. There we disagree. It is my opinion that for men, rape is a sexual act. Rape is not for women. It's violence. Pure and simple. It's also my opinion that the relentless ad nauseum scenes in movies of rape are titillating and arousing for men because it is a sexual act for them. If it's not for you, accept my apology. But, I think it is for a great many men. Doesn't mean that most men are civilized and understand that rape is wrong. I didn't say that. Thank God most men are, otherwise women would be tortured from sun-up-to-sundown. But for the few that aren't, it makes for a nightmarish situation for us women. This is why, I refuse to watch rape scenes in movies and why I was so angry that Breillat tied the rape scene into Anais' sexual confusion. As if most adolescents aren't confused about sexuality at that age.

The end had no place in the movie. I stand firm on this opinion.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

If you read carefully the beginning of my post, I've said that I agree with you in almost everything, and there are little differences that I'll try to develop. So I did; and the post is long due to detailed analyzes and not due to my opposite attitudes. If you found that word "little" sarcastic (because you expected a male person could only have huge differences) I'm sorry, but I've really meant that.

As for Mitt liv som hund, it is among my top 10 movies, and I took part in discussions on several threads of that board. But it is not a typical male coming-to-age movie, because Saga is important character with her problems in growing up, though not placed in first place as Ingmar's. However, I find it impressive how Hallström managed to show the problems girls can have on the very beginning of puberty: up till then they were asexual, equal to boys in (almost) everything, and now when they have to cope with body changes, hormones, new (organic) functions, suddenly they have to seek for new place in society because they are expelled from male groups where they had belonged so far. It is the point where they can become insecure, and if not led and supported properly by their families they can easily become Anais.

It has never been easy to be female. There are so many examples in literature that show how girls tried to avoid accepting their growing up into female adults. But compared to other periods in history women have changed a lot in only a couple of generations. Why then do they still raise girls the same way they did centuries ago, when they enter the world so different and - though not a rose garden - sure more suitable for women then ever before. If all those feminists, successful career women, scientists, managers etc. recognize that their daughters are in situation with more opportunities (even compared to their own generation), they could make adolescence a bit happier, less traumatic and troublesome period of life. And both Saga and Anais could handle their body changes and developing sexuality with less conflicts (I won't say simple, because it will take millenniums till girls and boys would be able to pass through the adolescence without fears and problems).

You are right, there is no verbal confirmation for my conclusion that Anais had no friends. But look at her. You surely couldn't have ever been a fat boy, but obviously you haven't been a fat girl either. You haven't experienced years of being a victim of bullying. You haven't been rejected by peers and therefore forced to stay closer to family than it is usual (I'd avoid word "normal" because it is so misused and misunderstood), even if the family don't look like Breillat's characters. If you tried that in your adolescence, you would know how many friends could a girl like Anais manage to gain.

As for rape, we seem to disagree because of terminology. I was talking about a rape itself - it is almost never an act of sexuality. Certainly it can't be a sex experience for a victim, but the basic motifs that push rapist are also not sexual, it is pure violence and Breillat did show it even better than most other directors that handled this subject. The rapist first kills, either this is a main act (and rape is just completing his satisfaction) or he killed two persons so he could be free to take the girl (less likely, I'll explain later) he did the ultimate crime, ultimate act of violence - he took lives, so any share of sexual motifs (if any at all) is almost not worth mentioning. Rapes on dates, done by more or less familiar persons (She Fought Alone, Accused) or rapes inside a family including incests can have more sexual share, but still are more the expression of power over the victim, and sex is just an instrument, a method (pleasure included is only welcome but not crucial).

And most of men, I believe, share this attitude. But in your post you are talking about watching a simulated rape, something that actors do. And yes, it is possible that quite a big percentage of men can enjoy such movie scenes. But they do not condone rape, they understand it is a movie (though many feminists would object, adult men usually are above the level of four year old kid, and they know the difference between a movie and reality. So what they like is an actress performing a scene. It is same as many men like watching Steven Segal in his fight number 542 or Stallone with several dozen of weapons using them all in the same time (while dead people fall even quicker than he can shoot). Do you think they all like people get killed in reality?

The controversial moment in Breillat's rape scene is not the rape itself, because as I've said she clearly separates sex and violence. The reaction when Anais hugs the rapist is the potentially objectionable one. Yet it can fit into her personality the way I wrote about her. (On another thread I wrote that, knowing her life, family and social relations, this rape is probably the closest experience of any emotion and the closest contact that she had or will have in a long period of time.) If you take it out of the context, this scene would be a disaster, as if a woman director confirms very old and (by most people) abandoned and rejected idea that women enjoy being raped. Knowing Anais, however, it can make sense.

I owe an explanation why I don't think the man killed mother and sister only to rape Anais: if he did it so he could easily rape her, and rape was his planned activity, he would got rid of Anais after he did it, because he wouldn't need any witnesses. But if his main motif was killing, he fulfilled it in the start, and he felt no need to kill anybody anymore after he raped Anais (what was just a bonus pleasure).

Finally, don't think my "masculinity" has anything to do with my post. It was your feminist-poignant tone that made me reply that way. Otherwise I had many female friends during all periods of my life, with no sexual substance in these friendships. By far more friendships than love/sex relations (in spite of all those people who are assured this is not possible). And I am not homosexual though in modern world it is becoming a disadvantage. But I'm telling you this just to explain how can a member of the enemy gender agree with you so much.

[–] grrrdevin 16 years ago

Fact: women are capable of rape.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] Troy-Boy1971 17 years ago

mzladymoon-1:

The film is a drama, It's a good movie, overall, but I do agree with you that the film is over exaterated. What 15 year-old girl kisses a guy after she meets him in 5 minutes?

One thing is for sure, this is one of Breillat's better films. It does have an interesting theme (The relationshp between the two sisters) in it, I'll admit that.

It would have been much better if the film topic focused on the struggles of young teenage girls living in enviroment that demands their visual beauty, rather than turning it into a ridiculous sex fest.

The young actors were superb in their roles in this film, however.

[–] mzladymoon-1 17 years ago

Troyboy,

I agree, this could have been a superior film if it had focused on these relationships. Again, Breillat had a very heavy-hand, like many writer/directors. She put in the movie what SHE wanted to see. Not necessarily what is real or what would follow a logical dramatic course according to the characterizations.

My other friend.

I'm not budging on my position regarding rape. We simply have to agree to disagree. Rape is an act of violence for women. For men, it is a sexual act. Simulation for dramatic purpose on film is often sexually stimulating to many men, whether they will admit or not. I'm sure they're conflicted about it because of the way modern society has imposed the politically correct feminist agenda down their throats on this subject. Of course, most people understand the difference between film fantasy and reality, but there are people who don't. Let's not forget that. And I still don't get what Breillat's objective was with that scene. Two images that should never be side-by-side in a movie: a rape, and a woman/girl hugging the rapist afterwards. How many rapists (especially date-rapists) insist that the victim 'wanted it.' And they REALLY believe that. As a woman, (thankfully I've never been raped), I can tell you that a man who is attracted to you often is irrationally predisposed to believing that you are attracted to him as well. They simply won't accept that you are not. This makes for a lot of the conflicts that happen between young men and women. Don't know if this is an ego thing or the belief that women are silly and don't know their own minds, therefore that's why they are subject to change them. Whatever the reason, it just sucks when women have to deal with that attitude.

Regarding the pain of adolescence, I simply don't think there is a way to avoid this phase. It's part of the whole process of life. Aging is painful too. Spend some time in a nursing home. This is where I think you and Breillat are hopelessly idealistic. Life transitions are difficult. Passing from childhood to puberty is but one. Coping with death is another difficult experience. We'd all like to find a way to ease the pain of these life experiences, but the truth is that as human beings WE must go through them and let time heal the wound. Live and learn.

No, I was not fat. But if you think only fat people get tormented as kids, you weren't paying attention during childhood. Childhood cruelty spares NO ONE! Even the pretty girls have to take punishment. Kids are just cruel to each other. Again, it's a growth experience. It's how you learn to navigate the boundaries of human nature. How much you can get away with. I had fat friends, male and female. I also had a male gay friend who was tormented the most as a kid. I say with some degree of pride, that I was a decent/compassionate kid and didn't participate in such cruelty, mostly because I didn't like it when it was done to me and it was. There's no avoiding the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune', in this case: childhood cruelty. Often, people like Anais, are so self-absorbed that they think stuff is ONLY happening to them. If parents can be of help, it would be to point this out to kids. Childhood is a time of self-absorption, which is why it's so painful. Adults would do more good to direct kids away from themselves by involving them in activities that divert their attention. I absolutely despise this modern day notion that won't explain to kids that 'this too will pass.' There is no other explanation. And those are not my rules. Them's the rules of nature, the natural order of things. If modern man/woman wasn't so obsessed with controlling everything around him/her, we would all be a lot happier.

Life is beautiful. We learn as much from the good times as we do the bad. I just have a problem with a director needing to help a miserable unhappy girl pass through the pain of puberty by having her encounter such an ugly act of random violence. Again, I point out: there was MORE happening in the end. She had just witnessed her mother and sister being killed. They are DEAD. Maybe I would have bought into her being raped if it had been something that happened to Anais and and Anais alone, without a nutjob appearing from out of nowhere and killing her mother and sister. Once again, the ending was just too much.

(This is my last post on the subject. I really have nothing more to add.)

[–] Troy-Boy1971 17 years ago

[B] by mzladymoon-1[B] (Fri Aug 31 2007 06:43:56)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
UPDATED Fri Aug 31 2007 21:48:45
Troyboy,

I agree, this could have been a superior film if it had focused on these relationships. Again, Breillat had a very heavy-hand, like many writer/directors. She put in the movie what SHE wanted to see. Not necessarily what is real or what would follow a logical dramatic course according to the characterizations.

The director's intent was to shock viewers, which she succeeded when the Ontario Film Review Board banned her film in 2001. Funny thing about that was a TV station in Quebec decided to air the film a few months later, where Ontario residents could still watch the film (on cable). So banning the film in one province didn't make much sense. The Nova Scotia Film Board was criticized as well- when they pulled a simular stunt in 1996 over an HBO TV movie on the same subject.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Now when you said that it was your last post, it might look as if I'm taking advantage to write the last post. But you are always welcome to reply if you find a reason to change your mind, and in fact I am going to agree with most of your statements. My post was induced more because of the way you write.

“the way modern society has imposed the politically correct feminist agenda down their throats on this subject “ - it sounds as if women have been raped whole life long throughout history before feminists appeared and only modern P.C. (created by them) made some men stop raping, though deep in their souls it is still all they want to do. However, it doesn't seem to be more rapes during history (except those that happened during wars) than in modern times. Only thing that has changed is that ordinary men, who would never do it, today have a mark on their foreheads as possible rapists, because of being men; the real rapist still act the same way ignoring feminists and PC as they ignored law and morality so far.

“most people understand the difference between film fantasy and reality, but there are people who don't “ - that's true, but what has this to do with the subject? If people can't tell this difference, it means that they don't know that jumping from the cliff or skyscraper is dangerous (because they don't understand movie editing) so there is a danger some people will jump from Empire States Building or El Capitan just for fun after some James Bond or Indiana Jones movie?

“How many rapists (especially date-rapists) insist that the victim 'wanted it.' And they REALLY believe that” - I thought I was clear about this two kind of rapists. But those “irresistible” creatures which are sure that every girl and woman just waits in line for them believe that ONLY THEY have unique charms, so they won't care for losers who have to rape when they REALLY believe they have no need for it, and word “No” is just a part of game in their minds. But only when THEY play the game; however, in most other cases of rape they would be on women side (because it is normal that girl rejects anybody else). So, this is answer to a question you made: yes, it is only their ego.

“Spend some time in a nursing home” - I have been there many times for different reasons, including professionally, but I didn't see clearly the connection. There are so many kinds of pain in human life, and I don't see that pain of adolescent crises and pain of approaching death have that much common (comparing to other pains).

“I absolutely despise this modern day notion that won't explain to kids that 'this too will pass” - I simply adore this whole paragraph, and I emphasize this sentence as its highpoint. And the comment about controlling is next to this one. This is one of the best analyzes of what induces the crises of our modern civilization. However (and I know I'll be cursed for what I'm going to write) this obsession with control seems to appear in this period of history when females, especially feminists, took leading role in creating public opinion. Before that females were controlling their families – though it seemed that men did it, their wifes had real, hidden power. They are intelligent and smart enough to do it and still leave men the feeling they have the power. It is like church says about devil: his best trick is that he made people believe he doesn't exist. (Now every feminist in the world will accuse me for implying that women are equal to devil. I truly believe that after reading all my posts you'll understand me and won't be among them.)

“the ending was just too much” - I also had several objections to the end, but from different angle. You simply don't look at world through eyes of bullied child. You would be surprised what are they capable of doing, sometimes even after a long delay, often totally irrational. I was and I am fat, but I've never said – and neither has Breillat – that these cruelties are limited to fat. The only thing why I mentioned it was because this was the case in the movie we are discussing. No other reasons.

And I'd really like this discussion to live on. With both of us and even more people participating.

[–] loumanpro 17 years ago

"As a woman, (thankfully I've never been raped), I can tell you that a man who is attracted to you often is irrationally predisposed to believing that you are attracted to him as well."

As a man, (thankfully I've never raped anyone), I can tell you that a man who is attracted to you is often irrationally predisposed to believing that you aren't attracted to him at all.

Seriously, chances are you haven't spoken more than two sentences with most of the men who are attracted to you (as you so nonchalantly made evident), unless we're only counting the low-brow, rapist-type men.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Men who know their victims usually assume their victims are attracted to them, and don't consider it rape.

Men who don't know their victims usually assume their victim are not attracted to them, and they can't have them except by rape.

And both have reasons to believe it. First group are usually handsome, attractive men, irresistible to most women, they have good position in society (often popular people like entertainers, or attractive professions, directors etc), and they are used that (almost) all women fall under their feet (and not only feet); so they simply can't imagine that certain woman can mean no when she says it.

The second group are losers, they are used to being rejected, they simply don't have look, money, position, anything that a female person could find interesting, let alone attractive. And after so many failed attempts when they approach a female person they already know the result.

These are no excuses. These are facts. They can't excuse rape, it is a crime that can never be condoned, but we have to keep in mind these completely different reasons why rape usually happens. Either being those who could have, but thankfully haven't been raped, or being those who could, but hopefully never will do it.

[–] loumanpro 17 years ago

When did I say "rape should be condoned" ?

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Never.

I was only explaining in advance, because if not so somebody might think that I, if not condone, but at least don't find problem serious enough. So I wanted to avoid possible attacks and further explanations, nothing to do with you.

[–] glennser 16 years ago

I know I'm coming to this 2 years late but I'm so offended by the original post that I had to say something.
mzlady-1, I have no idea what happened to you to result in such a horrible view of men but to come out with such outrageous, blanket statements is not ok. The fact is all people are capable of acts of violence, I know it's rare but there are cases of women committing sexual violence on children, you'll probably say that that's because they were abused by men themselves and you're probably right but that's not the point, you could say the same about rapists.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything but I am personally offended and disgusted by your statements.
Apart from that I actually agree with most of what you say although I do think Troy has a point about abuse and humiliation turning people into "monsters".
glennser

[–] greenwolf777 15 years ago

First of all, I didn't think it was a horrible movie. My wife said it reminded her of her and her sister when they were teens. Fernando said a lot of things I've said to girls and women just to get laid. Afterwards you move on to the next sexual encounter. Some girls got it, some didn't.

The director/writer didn't know how to end the film so she murdered everyone and had the sister raped. Watching it I thought it was a dream sequence, but when the credits rolled I knew that it wasn't. There were so many more realistic ways to end the film.

5/10

Admire those that are seeking the truth, and run from those that claim they have found it!

[–] grrrdevin 12 years ago

Rape is an act of violence for women. For men, it is a sexual act.

Biggest and most offensive generalization I've ever read.

"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"

[–] pracad 17 years ago

you are a freaking idiot.

First of all, calm the hell down.
Who are you shouting at? What brought on this ridiculous over reaction?
If you have any personal experience with rape which I am pretty sure you do, then I suggest you come back when you've had (sucessful) therapy.

Second, you do not know all women, or men, so stop acting like you do. AND stop speaking for me and my gender. I will speak for myself.

Third, you are not the person who knows what the director meant (only she knows that) or how people percieve it or anything lke that.
What you know is ONLY YOUR OPINION, so I suggest you start using words and phrases like "in my opinion" or "i think that" "it seems"
Instead of ranting like your OPINION of it is the ONLY one, and the right one.

I'm not sure if I should disregard everything you said as you sound like a lunatic with some sort of bias or agenda.
I will probably go and read the whole post properly but I seriously hope it's not as ridiculous as the bits that I caught while skimming it..
I had to stop reading because of the sheer stupidity in some parts, but maybe you have a point in there somewhere.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

If you have any personal experience with rape which I am pretty sure you do, then I suggest you come back when you've had (sucessful) therapy.

Talking about it might be a (good, useful) part of therapy. Also, finding other people with similar experiences, but also with other attitudes, can help such a person to return into (as much as possible) normal life, and most of all answer to the most important and over and over again asked question: why me.

Otherwise, I (as usually) agree with your post, but just in case - in fact, especially in case - if you think the opening poster was a victim of rape, there is no need to demand the poster to quit participating in discussions.

[–] pracad 17 years ago

All quotes by przgzr in response to my comment to the OP:
I suggest you come back when you've had (sucessful) therapy.

Talking about it might be a (good, useful) part of therapy. Also, finding other people with similar experiences, but also with other attitudes, can help such a person to return into (as much as possible) normal life

Yeah, I totally agree, but a film message board is not the place.
Like I said, therapy.

Otherwise, I (as usually) agree with your post,....

Me:

....if you think the opening poster was a victim of rape, there is no need to demand the poster to quit participating in discussions.

I would say there is a great need to tell them.
They aren't contributing anything useful by ranting emotional stuff in the wrong place, and there is a great chance they will end up even more angry and upset when people try to talk to them about the subject.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

(responding just on last paragraph)

A victim has to go through phases of recovery, including being angry and upset, and has to confront other people, other opinions, even denying, insulting etc. As long as a person is not able to do it, there is no success in healing process. So we shouldn't feel pity for them, protect them, give them shelter - this is what they might need at first moment; later they have to be able to respond to all the challenges. However, they must have space, must have someone to contact with, who will do all those positive or negative influences, and we who gather on such a forum are a bunch of people different enough to make these people gain emotions from sympathy to disdain, from support to rejection. And if they sometimes annoy us, remember that this is still less evil than the one that happened to them.

[–] vanityfairwmt 17 years ago

You haven't been raped. It's a strange experience. I have. I guess I can relate to the hug Anais gave the rapist. You're bound to the rapist forever.

[–] mzladymoon-1 17 years ago

przgzr,

The core problem for me with this movie is NOT the rape. It's the BRUTAL, sudden and shocking murder of Anais' mother and sister, which is followed by her being raped. In the end, she didn't merely hug the man who raped her, she hugged the man who murdered her mother and sister. To me, that fact alone is an 'all bets are off' situation. It no longer is just about Anais being a fat girl going through a difficult adolescence and having low self-esteem. It's not even about her being raped. Her life has been irrevocably changed forever.

This is the problem I have with the film. What is the point? It came out of nowhere and I just can't digest this without questions about everything that has happened in the movie and my response to it.

For example, why didn't the nutjob murder Anais after he raped her? It's not like this isn't a common occurence in these kinds of crimes? If Breillat was going for the reality of random acts of violence, then why was Anais spared? And this is why it is my opinion that the director was heavy-handed. The way this nut savagely murdered her mother and sister, there is no reason for him
to not murder Anais as well, unless it is for the purpose of the director making a point vis a vis Anais' adolescent sexuality.

By ending the film this way, it left the door open for me to examine Breillat's artistic intentions and put the various themes of the movie under my personal scrutiny. I don't see the world the way you do. I also never said or implied that all men are rapists. (Take the time to re-read what I said.) But I will say that men and women definitely see the world through different eyes.(Our posts alone verify this point.) And perhaps, that is the reason why words often don't have the same meaning. Hence, conflict.

As far as the pain of adolescence, I stand by my comments that it is a painful transition for all kids. There's no argument that each individual experiences emotional/psychological pain through the prism of their individual emotions. Nonetheless, pain is pain. And when people start jockeying for the honor of whose pain is worse, something gets lost in the translation. That's where maturity and perpspective comes into play. The ability to step outside and recognize that others have pain in their lives, too, goes a long way towards helping someone to cope with their own. To me, this is what is known as 'growth-process.' AKA ADULTHOOD.

Perhaps my personal love and regard for my own mother and sister keeps me from being able to isolate the film's rape as something I can view with deeper understanding. There's just too much stuff happening at the end of this film. To each his/her own on the parts that they care to deal with/can deal with or even want to deal with.

crumbling,

Try reading the WHOLE comment instead of skimming.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

We've been writing long replies, but I think it was more than worth efforts. Because now I can make a short reply: I agree with every single comma in your post. I have sent some explanations (on other threads) about some issues that you find doubtful, but they were more possibilities than what I really believed, and about that man not killing Anais is also my biggest problem I had with this movie. (I don't remember where, but I once wrote that if Anais, after first irrational reaction to killing, kept the same attitude towards murder of her family, she isn't a troubled teenager but a serious psychopath.)

It is impossible for men and women to look at the world with same eyes, it is impossible for anybody, even twins, so these differences always have to be respected. Therefore it might seem that I tried to make some competition whose adolescent pain is bigger, but that was certainly not my intention. Sorry if I expressed myself not clear enough.

I have also probably got the wrong impression about your feelings to movie. To many people here throw dogmatic and demagogic phrases and most of them haven't even bothered to watch the movie, they only "know everything" by the rumors. So I thought that your comments were based more on some general ideas and prejudices, but as time and posts went by I understood that you have concrete objections with arguments, and this is what I adore when being included in some serious discussion. Finally, it appeared that majority of them are the same as mine.

Maybe the only difference between us is that - for me - this objections are not big enough to say this movie isn't good, let alone worth watching. It is nothing new for Breillat to make sudden and shocking endings, but this one is making more confusion than deep effect.

[–] jadedressesbetterthanyou 17 years ago

she was one *beep* up little girl.

[–] Monkeyfist251 17 years ago

Dear Mzladymoon,

I must weigh in here as a cinema studies prof. 'Fat Girl as I have stated on many other boards is one of my all time favorite films and in my mind a complete masterpiece. Of course you disagree, and you're entitled to that opinion, but what I sense from your posts is more visceral, clouded emotion than cognitive thought or cinematic/aesthetic criticism. I don't see clarity in your arguments, but rather willful, massive gender generalizations (yes I read what you stated) and despite your obvious skill with a pen, a startlingly close-minded dogmatic, myopic, and uncurious mind-set. Essentially zealotry masquerading as indignant morality.

Your bafflement at the gist of the ending implies that you've failed to grasp the entire philosophical thesis of the film. Which is, as I've stated before, the JUXTAPOZITION between the seduction scene and the final scene. By holding both scenes up in the same film, Breillat is attempting to compare the 'consensual' and ‘societaly accepted’ seduction of the older sister to the eventual rape of the younger. She want to examine how, as the boy states, what should be natural and healthy between two people in love is, well... sinister. And it is in this examination of the initial, 'consensual' seduction that the real thesis flowers. The seduction has the aura of rape, and the rape, auras of the former. Why? Because Breillat wants to blur the lines in order to make everyone re-examine the chaotic and nebulous aspects of accepted, ‘normal’ human sexuality. The quiet, hidden brutality that a 'so called' consensual sexual congress creates. If anything her thesis is far more politically intense then your xeroxed high-horse indignation; she means to say that normal accepted consensual seduction is a form of rape and manipulation too… or is it? That’s what she is examining.

Your impotent rage implying that this film glorifies rape to gratify male sexuality is so juvenile and pedestrian it makes me question both your education, your cognitive abilities and your frame of reference. Has it escaped you that the director is considered one of the most important "Feminist" filmmakers of our day? Do you honestly think that Breillat who critic Elli Ungar refers to in her review with this phrase: "Breillat the feminist is Breillat the filmmaker." sat down at the writing desk and decided to make a film to gratify male rape enthusiasts? To use the colloquial phrase... "What on earth are you smoking?" Without the final and in my mind, amazing Flannery 'O Connor esque scene not only is imperative to the plot, without it the film's core thesis would loose all it's teeth. The most revealing segment of your woefully reactionary posts are when you rail against Anais as a worthless peon. Excuse me? Her character is unbelievably sympathetic, and your hatred of her smacks more of personal prejudice than anything else.

I think you need to take a long close personal look at why you had this reaction to a brilliant film that the criterion collection recognized as one of the most important feminist films of our day.

[–] conductress 16 years ago

I agree with you entirely, regarding the purpose of the film's ending. Breillat is, dare I say, Dworkian. However, I take issue with your statement, "The seduction has the aura of rape..." Just an aura? If you're going to make the point, make it forcefully. The seduction is rape.

One last thing: You're a cinema studies professor? With a name like 'monkeyfist'? Please, stop throwing around fake credentials on the internet.

[–] skay_baltimore 12 years ago

@monkeyfist251

"impotent rage"?

You're a professor? You're a joke. And your failure to even begin to address the intelligent point made by Mzladymoon as to the inconsistency of the murderer/rapist not killing Anais undermines any so-called credibility you might have established with your self-professed "credentials". Judging by your post on its own, you have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

[–] loumanpro 17 years ago

I sort of saw the ending as a sick joke not unlike "Clockwork Orange," where we're left to question ourselves for sympathizing for a rather evil person... there's no easy answer.

I can see why you're upset though, the point in question (if any) is unsettling at best. I suppose one shouldn't equate it to condoning murder, but instead see it as an expose of the darkness of a tormented mind, particularly of those in situations like Anais. Sure, it was extreme, even hyperbolic, but it's a _film_. Threads such as these -- although they may sometimes be misguided -- prove that at the very least, being bold is usually a good thing.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I would be very worried for myself if I had sympathized Alex in Clockwork Orange (except for being played by a great actor). Whatever had made him the creature he became is not clearly visible, and whatever it was can't be understood, let alone excusable regarding his actions. But Anais is different, she is the one that things happen to (she didn't kill anyone, she didn't ask for being raped, even before she wasn't hurting, teasing, insulting anyone), so all she has done was a response to events. We might not find them proper, adequate, we can say (guess rather than be certain!) that we wouldn't react the way she did, but I can see no real comparisons to Alex. Tormented mind? Maybe, but what mind could she develop in family, in society she lived in?

[–] loumanpro 17 years ago

Are we assuming here that people can be born rapists/murderers? Alex wasn't.
We weren't there to see the source of his demons, but we saw how society "treated" them.
In the end, he wasn't helped, and *that* was the message.

In Anais' case, it's certainly different: we instead see the source. I'm not saying she'll grow up to be a murderer or a Beethoven fan, I'm just saying that both films have rather shocking ways of putting ourselves in peculiar shoes and come with a hearty helping of social commentary.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

The way you present it now is completely O.K. with me. If this is the main junction that you want to emphasize, I can only say that I agree. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Maybe it was because I was trying to write in English and not in your (u'r or whatever) language, but it seems that I was misunderstood.

I don't recall (it was a long time ago, so I had checked several posts but maybe not all of them) when did I say that an average man would or should enjoy raping a child. The man in the movie (remember?) only few minutes before rape killed two females and obviously enjoyed it. So raping a child isn't something that a normal man could enjoy, but you, being allegedly a normal man, don't object killing as something to enjoy?

And I am not sure is it your attitude or is it just because of the language you use, but it seems that you are very upset about the age of the raped girl. Alex, that we had been discussing in former discussion, had really never (as much as we have been revealed) raped a child. So, therefore is Alex a hero and not a villain. Now would you please explain what is the age limit for the female that a normal man would enjoy raping her?

[–] vorm 17 years ago

I agree with most of your analysis. This has some very strong moments and interestingly navigates those sticky sexual moments of our youths. For me, the ending only REALLY loses it in the very last few seconds when we realize that this isn't simply a dream sequence but has supposedly actually happened. Firstly, because the killer smashes the window and the women in the front barely react. Wouldn't the mother have immediately attempted to escape the car. Instead she sleeps until she is strangled. Also, she is somehow strangled TO DEATH in just seconds. This whole sequence is so unrealistic that it has no impact on the viewer (since we assume it is a dream sequence). Left as metaphor, this is powerful. The girl sees men and women in stereotypical roles. The man is the attacker, the women are overly passive. She embraces her rapist almost tenderly. This becomes her wish fulfillment. At different points in the film, she says she wishes her mother was dead. The older sister says she will die with her. To which the younger replies, "I want to live." She also earlier states that she wants her first time to be with someone she doesn't care about so this becomes the fulfillment of her personal beliefs. So, when it turns out to be real, it just seems silly. The film should have ended before the cops showed up to leave things ambiguous. I also agree that a male director would not have been allowed to have the rape victim acquiescing to the rape in our politically correct times (although Peckingpah has a troublingly ambiguous rape scene in the excellent Straw Dogs).

As for the CRAZY part of your review in which you state that men consider rape a sex act, I'll just assume that you were REALLY worked up after watching the movie (and it is pretty upsetting). But only a small percentage of men are aroused by watching rape. Most men are upset by images of rape and movies depicting rape are rarely even marginally popular. If what you say was correct, movies depicting rape would be far more frequent. Furthermore (although far less common) women are rapists, as well (of other women and of men, in some cases). Rapists are aroused by rape, not men, in general.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

The way you offer the ending (without a last cop scene) would be open, but too open. Not only that people wouldn't be sure if that was a dream - and unless someone reads this explanation there would be no other reason to believe it is or it is not a dream; also, as I wrote once, all recent Breillat movies are very firm in real world (the only one that doesn't fit is a very old one, "Une vraie jeune fille") so why would we think that it was a dream. Also, movies, except rarely for some special reasons, don't end with dreams. Even those where most of the plot is a dream (from "Wizard of Oz" to "Jacob's Ladder") explain it in the realistic end.

And your Peckinpah example was completely inadequate. Remember the year when it was made? 1971! Nobody ever dreamed that some "political correctness" would appear as a term, let alone as 11th commandment (in fact 11 going on 1). I don't know your age, but I am old enough to remember the 70's. Do you have any idea what kind of movies have been made then without any problem (regardless if made by man or women)? Packinpah didn't need much courage to make his movies, all he needed was talent, and he had a lot of it (and this is on the bottom of things necessary for modern movies).

[–] vorm 17 years ago

Breillat's movie Romance (just 2 years earlier) ended with a fantasy sequence (the orgy scene followed by the domestic scene in the wild followed by the murder of the boyfriend). I can't possibly imagine that any of that was supposed to be considered "real world". I would argue that most of her recent films delve into fantasy, too, but in subtler ways. I agree that Breillat intends the ending to be literal. My point was that it was so ineptly executed (as I stated, how would 2 real people simply lay there and allow themselves to be killed without moving a muscle) that it left itself open to interpretation as being fantasy and it would have been more potent as such.

I think my Peckipah example was apropos, by the way. If you look at the archived reviews from 1971 on IMDB (Ebert, Variety, and NY Times are just a few examples) you will find the critics nearly universally reviled the film at the time (it's considered a bit of a masterpiece, now) and in no small part due to the rape scene.

Straw Dogs Review Page: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0067800/externalreviews

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

how would 2 real people simply lay there and allow themselves to be killed without moving a muscle

This has been discussed on several boards and most of us agree that this is the biggest flaw of the movie. Some other posters mentioned that this might be a dream or a wish, but the opinion hasn't been accepted by most of us. Also, some expressed the idea that the older sister arranged this attack and her own and mother's death, allegedly to compensate her sister for what she had been through so far. (Among some other ridiculous theories this one is my favorite for being totally out of any sense.) Not very far from it is guessing that Anais met the man while going to toilette and arranged this attack.

There are many ways to show if something is a dream, or at least to hint that it might be. It doesn't have to be a slow-motion or soft lens (sfumato) as too obvious and too often used method, but I can see no evidence of any change between reality and dream, nor for its beginning, and definitely not for the end.

As for Peckinpah... I don't live in USA; also I don't need to read old reviews, I've been reading some when the movie was made and still remember them, but in my country (like most European ones) it was violence in general that shocked critics and audience, and I don't remember any critic extracting or even mentioning rape - it was just a part of violence, as it is in reality. Only some cultures that condone a great deal of violence, and consider mobs, terrorists and vigilantes to be heroes, emphasize rape for being sexual act, because (unlike most of Europe) they are more horrified by sex than by violence.

[–] ehr-1 17 years ago

You must be VERY,VERY young. I say that because you believe that rape or the portrayal of rape on film is only attractive for male viewers. That is untrue. As a woman I can say that it is not. Your hatred of men is really sad, don't try to deny it. Again, I say that you must be very young or completely sucked in by the left wing so called feminists( who are in NO WAY feminine or real women). Grow up and get some experience before you spout off again. GHEESH!

[–] adamedea1 17 years ago

I agree with all your points. Every single one. Here's my take, nevertheless:

The ending - I didn't even feel like trying to analyse it or give it credibility, because it COMPLETELY ruined an otherwise quality, thought-provoking film. It seemed like it was thrown in purely for shock value, and that is something when present in any artform that I absolutely detest.

I agree with the dialogue being a bit wise for people of the character's ages -especially regarding perspective. Sisters at that age simply do not have the perspective required to understand the logistics of sibling rivalry. One of the reasons I enjoyed the film (up until the ridiculous ending), is being an older sister by two years myself, I found I could relate, as a competition aspect has always been present in my relationship with my own sister, and at times we felt pitted against one another. HOWEVER, that perspective comes with being an adult. Under no circumstances would we have been able to articulate that sentiment at ages 13 and 15.

The ending again - it isn't for the boys, it's for the effing birds. It was completely out of nowhere, and turned what could have been the equivalent of literary fiction into puerile, gothic trash.

[–] oldmotem 17 years ago

Couldn't you people FEEL something bad coming their way? That car trip was harrowing. I expected a horrid car crash to end the film, but the director took us a bit further down the road, so to speak, and crept up a bit more on it.

I guess you're not horror genre fans...watch a few more and you might get that "feeling" that something is terribly wrong.

I agree it's a Shock Flock (my expression) rather than a Chick Flick (not my expression). Hey it's all in the title sometimes. Somehow being the Fat Girl saved her life. She had to face a huge tragedy in her life rather than just having the tragedy of being a fat girl as the tragedy of her life.

[–] skay_baltimore 12 years ago

@ oldmotem

The tension and sense of impending doom during the drive home was palpable. In a sense, it was one of the most horrifying scenes I'd ever witnessed in a film that wasn't a horror film. It just seems to me that, as the OP pointed out, the film went off the deep end in the final sequences. What I expected to see, and what would have been more consistent with the rest of the film, was to see Anais sneak out and go to the trucker who'd passed by when Elena had gone to the bathroom. To my way of thinking, that ending, while disturbing, would have fit. The ending as it played out in the film did not fit. In particular, as mzladymoon already stated, the fact that the guy had just killed two people, and raped Anais, and didn't kill her -- the only witness -- makes no sense whatsoever.

I also found the mother's (over)reaction to be heavy handed. Up until that point, she seemed pretty cool. And her explosion after the woman came to tell her about the ring just seemed to be way over the top. From that point on, the movie just steamrolled downhill. But that's just my opinion.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

[–] athamar 17 years ago

Good analysis. This was a pointless film. Pretentious, unrealistic, and with an ending that was nonsensical, especially the reaction of the girl. The film is indefensible and I'm surprised it won awards. It just goes to show that some artists are defined by the shock in their films rather than the truth.

A much better film could have been made out of the elements present. This was just a bad, unrealistic, untruthful film with an ending that doesn't even begin to make sense.

Oh well, I watched it once. Now I know what the hoopla was about. I don't see the reason for it.