MovieChat Forums > North Country (2005) Discussion > people only outraged because she was rap...

people only outraged because she was raped

posted 18 years ago by terripav
11 replies | jump to latest

The lawyer for the defence tried to weaken the credibilty of Josey's case by bringing up her sexual history. She asked at what age she had her first baby. I thought this interesting but typical of cases around that era. What upset me was the way the discovery of the rape was the main reason people then decided to stand up for her. Suddenly everyone was on her side because of that. What if it had been concentual sex, would the harrasment then have been excusable because she was promiscuous and therefore deserving of the harassment? It shouldn't have even been brought into it, I wish the people had come to realise how disgusting her treatment was just as a result of listening to what the women endured.

[–] Yinky 18 years ago

EXACTLY. All of a sudden she is a rape victim, so she really WAS harrassed. I did like this movie, but the sentimentality ruined any real credibility it could have had.

[–] chaas4747 18 years ago

I think you guys are missing the point. In a case like this, and at this time, you have a huge "He said, She said" delimea. You have the men from the factory saying she is exagerating the treatment she recived and you have the women saying that they were harrassed. At the end of the day you have to prove who was more creidable. This is what the attorney was trying to do. They were trying to prove that she was "poor moral fiber" (which I do not agree that having a child out of wedlock makes you this) by saying she did not know who the father was of her child. It sucks but it is the reality of our court system. The rape only proved that she did know who the father was, she was not sleeping around, and that she did not tell the court because of the shame she felt for the rape.

[–] Yinky 18 years ago

I understand what the point of the court-room interaction was and I do understand that at the time this took place, this blaming-the-victim strategy was used rapes cases all the time. BUT! This was supposed to be based on a true story, but this rape part NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Therefore it turns the story into sentimental, Lifetime-quality schlock.

AND! The idea that the rape pretty much PROVES the sexual harrassment at the plant really happened is ridiculous. What, she couldn't be a LIAR because she'd been raped in high school? Come ON! I'm not saying she was a liar--I am saying that the rape suddenly turns her into a virtuous person who couldn't possibly be lying or exaggerating, or any of the things the defense was trying to prove--now that everyone knows she's been raped, well, of course all of the harrassment is real.

See what I mean?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dark_lord2 17 years ago

Rape is not cool all rapist should have their weeners choped off burned then the ashes be flushed down the toilet. The part where she gets raped is the most difficult part of the movie to watch totally nerve racking.

[–] ScorceseOnCoke 17 years ago

not by the teacher? whaaa? explain please.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 17 years ago

In real life, she was not raped by a teacher. They made it a teacher for the movie. That is what I understand. But she WAS raped, and it resulted in the birth of her son.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] BennyEggs7 16 years ago

True, but she Josey did warn the Prosecutor to keep her son out of this but she kept pushing and brought the Teacher in as her witness, and it all backfired.

"Fuggedabout Joe the Plumber, what about Don the Jeweler?".

[–] chrcoluk 16 years ago

I disagree with how it works but its basically like this.

When in a court case and there is a lack of clear evidence, then cases often will get won/lost on credibility, credibility can be even used to get certian witness statements which provide evidence disregarded. So the background gets brought up for the person in the stand, in this case the victim. If she was sleeping around whilst younger I agree it should have no relevance to the case but the way courts work is it does become relevant as it allows people to judge the person in the stand and if sleeping around she would have been seen as irresponsible and possibly flirting with the men in the workplace. As it turns out it was revealed she was raped, the guy hassling her turned out to be one of her best allies in the courtroom and because of this she was seen as a responsible and a innocent decent woman. It also obviously made a bunch of people feel sorry for her which led to people standing up to stand by her at the end. So yes if the prosecutor didnt try to persue her past she likely would have lost the case.

[–] empty-xj 15 years ago

This is exactly why I was screaming at my TV, "OBJECTION! IRRELEVANT!", when the defense attorney asked her about her sexual history. Aren't women who have sex still subject to the same sexual harassment and abuse as other women?

However, I don't think they suddenly came on her side because of that. I thought they changed their minds because Frances McDormand (forgot her name) decided to back her up. I figured Frances came on her side because she had cooled down and realized that what Josie was doing was really important and worth fighting for.

In unrelated news: By going back on their word and their affadavits, weren't they essentially committing perjury? Doesn't that carry a prison sentence? or are we supposed to assume that they eventually convinced the court that they were forced into signing them by their superiors?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]