Evil Movie! - North Country (2005) Discussion

[–] lisa-leezer 18 years ago

I can kind of see where you're coming from... I thought it was a pretty good movie, but I kind of got the feeling that people felt she actually deserved all the bad things that happenend to her because she was portrayed as being a whore (which is equivalent to what, being with more than one man? Don't whine people, you know this double standard exists...) And how her father suddenly felt so guilty for being a jerk because he didn't realize she was raped...come on now! Everyone suddenly changes. It was horrible how her son also started to believe all the nasty things people said about her, but we can't really hold him accountable because he was just a kid. Still it pissed be off how people encouraged him to think and even let his mother know she was nothing but a dumb ho. Grrr... but in the end the nasty ass teacher gets what he deserves... please! Not to say I didn't like the movie, and I don't think Josie was a strong person, it's just that the same stuff is still happening today when it comes to rape and blaming the woman, and the story made it seem like it is so easy to solve such problems.

reply

[–] kay_es 18 years ago

uh the movie was based on a true event. the first class action sexual harassment lawsuit. the case was jenson vs. taconite mining co. it was not a movie to show how easy it is to get out of a situation. it is quite the opposite. if you do any research you will find out that it took ten! years for the real case to finally be settled. that is not an easy process.
anyway, the movie is quite clearly expressing how difficult it is for women to believed and taken seriously. the fact that it went on for so long and that other women were afraid to stand up for themselves says something. it says that this was a hard situation to be in and no one wanted to risk their jobs. they were willing to put up with what they did because they needed that paycheck. in no way at all does this movie say that it is easy to get out of those situations. it clearly expresses that it is amazingly difficult. it is showing that when a woman accuses a man of mis conduct that her whole life will be picked apart, she will be humiliated on front of a court, and her side of her past will be ignored. it is not showing that it is easy, it is showing that it is hard.
the whole thing with anita hill on tv goes along with what im saying. if you look into that story you will find out that anita hill was asked to say anythng about clarence thomas, who was nominated for supreme court justice. well she said that he had sexually harassed her and guess what? her claims were disregarded and he was appointed a justice anyway.
i know the movie takes place eighteen years ago, and that is why some people believe it is showing how it is easy now. well i believe it was made at this point in time to express how seriously hard it still is to solve these sort of problems and how courts and just other people will still disregard complaints about harassment.

actually when i was a freshman in high school a boy was always harassing me and other girls too. i know i said things to teachers, and people knew that he was a bad kid. still, he was expelled for drug possesion. he wasnt expelled for sexual harassment, which makes me feel like people dont think sexual harassment is as important as drugs. well to me it is. i hope you can see my point and understand where i am coming from. i know from personal experience how difficult those situations get and how most people you tell will ignore the complaints. it really sucks.

reply

[–] lisa-leezer 18 years ago

Um... thanks for the history lesson... I had to write a paper on it once upon a time. I was just responding to the post, but thanks anyway. I know what sexual harassment feels like, and yes, it is hard to get people in trouble for it because it is hard to prove the harassment has occured. Some people think it's just a case of women being pissy at that time of the month and getting mad at anyone who says anything, or that women are just emotional and can't take compliments. So yeah.

reply

[–] kat_savage 18 years ago

I understand what you are both saying. But it's not really my point. Sexual harrasment and degredation exists. That's not even up for debate. A few years ago a math teacher said I was good at math... for a girl, and suggested I try and think more practically about future goals. Something involved increasing skills that would be valuble to a husband. I'm in my 2nd year of computer science studies, and when I graduate I may take the time to go shove my masters degree down his throat.

My point was though, that the movie sort of made it seem okay in some respects to be misogynistic. That if you were a kid who slept with a teacher, that it was alright to call you a whore for the rest of your life and treat you like excrement.

A few years ago, if a woman was raped, then not only was her sexual history completely open, but also her clothing. "You wore a skirt? Oh, well that explains it". Yes, this is the way people thought. Heckles, this was the way the court thought.

But I can't believe a movie would be made today, where a woman was raped, and everyone thinks she diserved it because she wore a skirt. But, when it was later found out she wasn't wearing a skirt, but slacks, OH well... Sorry. We were wrong. And everyone suddenly does an about face.

Yeah, they had to compress 10 years of vicious court battles into a week of virtual movie time. But come on. It took people a long time to come around. Many still haven't.

Imagine the life of a black person instead of Josie. Getting whipped and beaten and strung up and crosses burned on his lawn and having to drink from the blacks only fountain. And suddenly, one guy on the stand admits the truth after being badgered by a defense attourney. Suddenly he admits "black people are equal to white". I'm supposed to believe that all the redneck racists in town suddenly switch? And stand up and applaud and stand with this person they had vehimately hated like 5 minutes earlier?

That's why I hated the flick. It was too easy to shift everyone's views. It was too easy because everyone thought she deserved a life of torment, but FLIP oh, I guess she doesn't. Oops my bad.

Just such a weak portrayal of a really important story.

reply

[–] jayne-ann 18 years ago

I'm in my 2nd year of computer science studies, and when I graduate I may take the time to go shove my masters degree down his throat.

Surely with your math skills you can figure out a better place to fit it? <grin>

reply

[–] z01 18 years ago

I think you've misunderstood the points of the movie.

The filmmakers were not carelessly implying that it was "OK" to call a woman a slut, or treat her like that because she slept with the teacher, or what she was wearing, UNTIL finding out she was raped--

The filmmakers were REFLECTING these attitudes to the audience--because they still exist...

The "nuts & sluts defense" woody's character spoke of.

Most people would agree that it is an unfair judgement--but there are still attitudes like that around, and in a cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault--the defense attorneys play on that.

This is what the movie was trying to show. Its intention was to raise awareness through what was really a rather recent case (it just settled in late 1998).

And that is exactly what the plantiff's had to go through, and often still go through, in courts to this day.

So far as your masters degree--do what the founder of Federal Express did to his college professor, who was highly critical of his paper--a business plan for a freight company using his idea of a "hub & spoke" system--something that all major transportation companies use today as a basic.

He received a C on the paper.

Now he mails a copy of the companies financial report, along with his personal earnings for the year, to this old professor.

Every single year.

Now that's a payback.

reply

[–] e-a-milliken 18 years ago

Yes-- a movie is portraying something does not mean that the movie is endorsing it. This seems to be a common perceptual problem with many movie viewers.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] engprof 18 years ago

ultimatefighter187: I have no idea where you received your law degree or how much you have practiced, but as a retired attorney, I do not know of any state in this country that places a 17 year old under the protection of statutory rape. If a male teacher has a sexual relationship with a student over 16, the particular charge may be rape if his actions were against the student's will (or non-consensual, which is the legal term of art) and/or accompanied by aggravated battery. Under that condition, if convicted, he will be sentenced to jail time. If the sex is consensual and the student admits it, the teacher will doubtless lose his teaching position, but he probably will not serve any time in jail since there was no particular crime committed. Now, in the case of Mary Kay LeTourneau, the 33 year old school teacher who was sexually involved with a 12 year old and wound up getting pregnant, she is decidedly guilty of statutory rape and perhaps even some sort of child endangerment. She lost her teaching license, did time (6 months), was put on probation (3 years with mandatory sex counselling), and made subject to a Restraining Order to stay away from the young man. Within a week of her release from jail, she was found in a car with him, thus violating the Restraining Order and the requirements of her probation, got pregnant again (she has two children with him now), had her probation revoked, and served 7 more years in prison before being released. Now you may think 7 years is a "slap on the wrist" but until you hear the clanging of the jailhouse doors locking you in, you have no real idea of how hard any time in jail truly is. You need to keep quiet when you have no idea what you are talking about. No need to display your ignorance here.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motivatemex3 18 years ago

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about, ultimatefighter. :)
The more you speak (or type, rather), the less intelligent you seem!

I know that a life without love is no life at all.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motivatemex3 18 years ago

Oh, did he? Could you cite your sources?

I know that a life without love is no life at all.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motivatemex3 18 years ago

The first link wouldn't work..
But did you read the second? =\

White, 39, faces up to 40 years in prison and a $20,000 fine if convicted.

Pamela Turner, 27, was charged Monday with 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape for acts between November and January.

Conviction on all counts could be punished by up to 100 years in prison. But Potter said it was more likely that a conviction would mean a minimum of a year to several years in prison.

Turner is free on $50,000 bond. She's been placed on leave by the school system.

^ That's how the case turned out. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not as if they told her "don't do it again" from the start, and that was the end.

----

Debra Lafave, from Florida.. well.. that was because of the boy's parents.
"It was a change of heart by the boy's parents that made the plea deal possible. At first, they had insisted that Lafave serve at least three years in prison, but they recently relented, allowing prosecutors to strike the deal before the trial began."

Stupid, I agree. But because she is a woman? Come on now..

"Mary Kay Fualaau, then Mary Kay Letourneau, was convicted of child rape for having sex with her student in 1996. He was 13 at the time and later fathered two of her children. She served more than seven years in prison and was released in 2004."

She served time in prison too.. Seven years is not a long time, but certainly more than a slap on the wrist..

A man: "Jason Miller, a Colerain graduate himself, was sentenced to four years in prison for having sex with two students."

Four years.. TWO students. Two. And four is less than seven..

I hope you enjoy your night..

I know that a life without love is no life at all.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motivatemex3 18 years ago

The problem is you can't prove your argument. So let's forget about this, no?

I know that a life without love is no life at all.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mister_Magoo 18 years ago

"I can't prove my point about the HUGE double standard? "

I agree that there's a somewhat different 'response' to female teachers who have sex with underage kids and male teachers who do.....

but let's think about WHY that is, shall we?

When a woman has sex with a minor boy, what do the MAJORITY of men say? "lucky little bugger". It's almost always the very first response you hear from guys, not "that's reprehensible!"

In that way, many men are responsible for contributing to the idea that it's 'not as bad' when it's an adult woman and a minor boy.

So if you want to help change that, maybe you should reprimand any men doing the 'wink wink nudge nudge' thing when one of these cases happens.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mister_Magoo 18 years ago

"It does not matter what the men have to say about it."

Of course it matters.

It makes it a lot harder to reinforce the seriousness of the offense when people of the same gender of the victims (in this case, male) JOKE about it and treat it like something 'cool'.

Imagine being a boy who ended up being really *beep* up emotionally after being molested by a female teacher and most of his buddies (and some ADULT males) are saying (in essence) "what are you upset about? you GOT some!:)"

"So you can't have it both ways"

Huh? who are you addressing that non sequitur to? I'm guessing not me, since I sure as hell didn't suggest anything of the kind.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mister_Magoo 18 years ago

"Either male/female teachers should both be punished equally or not punished at all."

I totally agree.

My point was that for the general population to be more inclined to view both situations more equally, it would be extremely HELPFUL if men stopped winking and making jokes every time a boy/female teacher case happens.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mister_Magoo 18 years ago

"But you fell to mention that many females are more than happy when a young female student seduces a "Hot" male teacher."

Sorry, but you and I both know that the male 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge'/way to go boy!' attitude towards boy/adult female situations is FAAAAAAAAR more prevalent and common than what you just described.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tramky 18 years ago

Well, this must be one of the longest threads for any film on imdb. Some of this is certainly repetitive, but it's fairly interesting.

It's my view that this country--this society--should not be throwing so many people into PRISON as a result of SEX. But this distinction between adult teachers having sex with their students--and the different treatment between how men & women are treated under the law does call for more explanation.

Sex is an intimate and physical activity or behavior. Normally, it is the woman who determines whether she will engage in sexual behavior or not. It is the woman who says 'yes' or 'no'. Much of this is due to the anatomy of men and women.

There is the general understanding that it is the woman who controls sex by giving permission to a man--or denying it. This is the thing that causes people to characterize a woman as promiscuous, because what is termed a 'promiscuous' woman has given permission for sex to a number of men.

By the way, it is also presumed, rightly or wrongly, that when it comes to sex, men have only one signal: 'yes'.

Certainly we see examples of a double standard quite often in court cases. I'm not at all sure there should be a double standard, but I'm quite sure that regardless of who is involved--a man or a woman--prison sentences for sexual 'crimes' are often too long. In fact, I'm not sure that prison sentences are at all appropriate for such crimes.

I don't mean to be offensively blunt, but there is, I think, a significant difference between sticking a penis in someone as opposed to sticking a knife into a person.

reply

[–] bite_me_loser_86 13 years ago

But you fell to mention that many females are more than happy when a young female student seduces a "Hot" male teacher.

What? That is not true, definitely not the norm.
I'm a female. In high school there were several male teachers me and my friends thought were cute or hot and that we would talk and joke about among each other, but for the love of God, I can assure you, had any of us actually SEDUCED a teacher, we would all be horrified and probably exclude her from our group of friends. I'm not saying it would have been the right thing to do, but back when I was 15-17, I probably would have reacted that way, I would have been repulsed and upset and definitely not cheer something like that on.
Most likely rumours would start to go around and that female student would soon be gossipped about and her reputation destroyed. She would end up having to transfer schools. NO ONE ever gives a young girl any kudos for having sex with her teacher. You are living in a fantasy world.

reply

[–] brenda_hankins 18 years ago

I have seen COUNTLESS male teachers, COPS, church youth ministers, head preachers, psychologists (it's illegal to sleep with a patient because they are a figure of power over the patient) sleep with clients who were minors under 16 and simply get transferred to a different location of employment rather than get their lisence removed and/or get jail time etc. Now, I've seen less females actually commit a crime like this in this first place (it's a known fact that older males date younger females WAY more common than older females date younger males). Of those females I have seen, do a lot of them get away with it? By law, yes. But not any more than the males do.

Do they "get away with it" by culture, no. Culturally, people are more shocked when an older female sleeps with a younger male. Haven't you ever heard that men "are just sowing their wild oats," but women "are mothers so they should never endanger children?"

You said "which is more rare" about male teachers having consensual sex with young female students. Did you mean it's rare that it is consensual or did you mean it is simply rare that a male teacher has sex with a young female student? Both are untrue. I see a lot of it as consensual but that doesn't make it right by law.

Now let's keep in mind that if a parent feels the accuser PREYED on their daughter/son for sex (had selfish sex with the child had a vulnerable time when they were weak or sad or lonely and seeking love), rather than just fell in love with their son/daughter, this parent may act more harshly. Perhaps in the cases that YOU are referring to, the parents saw this teacher as a danger/threat rather than someone who fell in love with their child.

In the case of "the woman too beautiful for jail," I know that she had been raped when she was about 16 herself and had a past of abuse in general, so maybe the parents sympathized with that - versus - the other case you mentioned with the male accuser who MAY have had no troubled past to sympathize with and simply wanted to prey on little girls and thus was given a harsher jail sentence. I'm not saying that any of this is right - I'm simply saying it's not just because she was female.

reply

[–] brenda_hankins 18 years ago

Haha I love it. People make statements on here with no facts to back it up. So we need more professionals to come in and say, Uh no here are the facts! I can give facts about health/medical issues and give my personal experience as a female victim of severe sexual assault in the work place - but not law.

reply

[–] softenthesilence 17 years ago

engprof -
man, you're just an *beep* on every message board you're on! Dude, did Daddy not love you enough? You're ability to detest someone by a one paragraph opinion is simply amazing. Do you wish we lived in a world where everyone was a lemming to you? It sounds like it.

reply

[–] jennifermw 17 years ago

"I do not know of any state in this country that places a 17 year old under the protection of statutory rape"

I do:

2007 Minnesota Statutes
609.344 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual penetration with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if any of the following circumstances exists:

(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(f) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and the complainant was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual penetration.

reply

[–] hodie 18 years ago

<<My point was though, that the movie sort of made it seem okay in some respects to be misogynistic. That if you were a kid who slept with a teacher, that it was alright to call you a whore for the rest of your life and treat you like excrement.>>

I don't know if I'd look to the film community for thoughtful commentary on ethics and morals.

But I have to give North Country a pass on this one. The notion that young girls who had sex early were somehow undeserving of good lives later on is far older than that film. It's an ignorant, hateful, wrongheaded notion but NC didn't "make it OK."

It's an interesting psychological phenomenon.

reply

[–] brenda_hankins 18 years ago

Ohh now that you explain your point more, I understand and completely agree. I thought of that as well in the part where one of the guys bursts out crying like, "What was I supposed to do?" I don't think he would switch that easy, nor would the rest of the town. However, I still think it's good for people to see what actually has happened within the last decade. And I hope people know that this harrassment still happens today just as severe in certain towns of the US, trust me.

reply

[–] CCRider01 13 years ago

"That's why I hated the flick. It was too easy to shift everyone's views. It was too easy because everyone thought she deserved a life of torment, but FLIP oh, I guess she doesn't. Oops my bad."

Its a Hollywood movie not a documentary, meaning radical character arcs are commonly used for dramatic effect. If reality was more followed, many a film would not only be more boring, they would end up being 10 hours long to cover all the details that some people just love to nit pick over, or be 10 minutes long because there is not much of a story to begin with.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spyretto 18 years ago

yeah one dimensional it was, especially in the portrayal of men.
Bt had a fantstic performance by Charlice Theron so that makes it up for the film's inconsistencies.

reply

[–] johngalt-1 18 years ago

I would like to know why the matter of Josie's character having been assaulted by her teacher was included in the movie. To my knowledge, nothing of the sort was involved in the events the film is based on and to my mind, it's an issue which deserves a movie in its own right.

"North Country" was supposed to be about the very real and utterly loathsome sexual harassment suffered by the first women who took jobs in Northern Minnesota iron mines. Had the script stuck to one issue, the film would have been much stronger for it.

"To be great is to be misunderstood"--Ralph Waldo Emerson.

reply

[–] evan_harvey 18 years ago

"Guess which rating you get.... "

Probably about the same rating I give you...

reply

[–] brenda_hankins 18 years ago

I think the movie was trying to show that it was actually unfortunate that people only sympathized with her abuse if she didn't sleep with her teacher. So wouldn't the movie be good then? Exposing the truth about some towns and cultures.

reply

[–] TheManInOil 16 years ago

Then you didn't understand it.

"He married her six weeks after the... previous sequence."

reply

[–] tigudik 16 years ago

I have to say, I kind of agree. I mean, I gave this movie a 6, since it tells an important story and it isn't boring, but for god's sake, it was like stereotypes galore.
I was incredibly annoyed by the way they kept bringing up her sexual history at her court case. What have her children got to do with sexual harassment at the mines? One the one hand I realize that it's just realism - these kinds of things tend to get unfairly and unnecessarily brought up at any situation where ignorant people try to undermine a woman by making her out to be some kind of a "brazen hussy". But it really irks me when films choose the path that North Country did to handle this disgusting real-life situation - instead of sayin that a woman's sexual history or (alleged) promiscuity has nothing to do with her credibility and it's actually nobody's business but her own, they take the same old road of "oh wait, she isn't a sl*t after all, she was raped. See! She didn't have shameful and enjoyable premarital sex, which, as we all know, is the worst sin anyone can ever commit (anyone with a vagina, that is). She's a VICTIM, which, of course, is the natural and rightful state of a woman. i guess that means we can start treating her like a human being again and actually listening to what she has to say." Argh!

reply

[–] bite_me_loser_86 13 years ago

You took the words right out of my mouth! While I liked this movie and thought it had all the good intentions, I agree completely what you said. That is the exact same thing I was thinking. Before Josie can gain sympathy and credibility she has to PROVE that she's not a 'slut'. Breaking Bobby down into confirming that she was raped is the turning point. Up until then she was just a piece of trash that deserved everything coming to her. Sadly, this is the way the world still works, women with tarnished reputations are viewed as worthless, or simply 'sluts' that are asking to be abused.

I didn't think the movie was that one-dimensional though. Yes, a lot of the men at the mine were scumbags of the worst kind, but I thought it was fully believable. Let's not forget there have been several similar cases where women working jobs dominated by me, have been treated in a very similar way. It's impossible for US to understand how these men could be so cruel and piggish, but let's not forget what her father said. These men never treated their friends wives and daughters like this at BBQs or get-togethers. And his speech seemed to make them stop and think and even feel a bit ashamed.

reply

[–] CCRider01 13 years ago

"Here's is the message that I got loud and clear from this movie.

If you are a 16 year old girl, and you have a sexual tryst with a teacher than you deserve to be punished for the rest of your life. You deserve to have excrement dumped on you and your body is now up for grabs for any tom, dick or harry who wants it.

Oh but if we find out later that your teacher actually raped you, well we're sorry about making your life a living hell."

The story was told from the perspective of Charlize Theron's character and back in the 1970's small town America, a 16 year old girl that had a sexual tryst with her adult teacher would have been viewed as extremely "loose" or lacking in morals by most people. That is obviously not right but to use revisionism in order to not upset modern audiences is not the way to make a period piece movie. Heck even today, some small towns in the US are full of narrow minded judgmental people that have a strict in-bendable moral code.

Some people (mostly younger) seem to use today's societal sensitivities and beliefs as a reason to dislike a film that takes place in the past, that has characters and actions that they disapprove of. Personally I find that very odd and limiting.

Also not everyone in the film believed she deserved to be punished for her past "discretion's", some used her supposed past as a reason to not believe her story. Again not right, but this kind of crap did sometimes happen (and probably still does. Some people can be very judgmental and self righteous.

Did this film have an agenda? Yes. Was it an accurate portrayal of the real characters and story? No, the film was loosely based on real events. Was this film evil? No, to call it that is silly and being overly sensitive.

North Country is just a Hollywood movie that was at times very good and other times not so good. Overall I would give it 7/10, for good acting and decent entertainment.

reply