Amy is upset during the entire rape and when she is looking at the photos of her childhood at the ending of the rape, the tone is emotionally sad. She is not thinking "ah, memories of my childhood, I feel guilty about experiencing pleasure and conflicting emotions while Charlie raped me."
"There was a meaning and significance behind her doing so, imo. Even though she was forced, part of her was into it." Amy is upset during the entire rape and when she is looking at the photos of her childhood while she is raped (the ending), her face and the tone is emotionally sad. There is sadness after the assault as she looks at the child she was, the happy child who hadn't been assaulted. A person sadly looking at photos of their childhood in the ending of being raped does not signify feeling guilty or having feelings for their assaulter, that is absolutely crazy, they are focusing solely on them-self as a young, happy, innocent child; how they use to be as a child, safe, happy, innocent and not hurt. She is in mourning for herself, she is not involving anyone but herself.
Shooting the deer and Charlie raping Amy signified a predator/assaulter and the prey/victim - the shots mirror each other as predator and prey and catching/destroying the prey.: when Charlie first advances and forces to kiss Amy while she tries pushing him away the scene intersperses to David finding the deer; the scene intersperses to Charlie who pins Amy on the couch, disrobing her while she is pleading with him to stop; the scene intersperses to David raising his gun and considers whether to kill it; the scene intersperses to Charlie unbuckling his belt and Amy screaming, Charlie tries to calm her questioning if she thinks of him while having sex with David; the scene intersperses to David lowering his gun until lifting it, shooting the deer and it falls to the ground; the scene intersperses to Charlie raping Amy, Amy eventually stops physically fighting but she remains frozen/still, refusing to kiss, talk or look at Charlie, Charlie finishes, laying on top of Amy and the record player begins playing startling Amy and Charlie. Norman walks into view, Charlie gets of Amy and does not intervene with Norman grabbing and dragging Amy towards him; the scene intersperses to David walking towards the deer and crouching by it in awe; the scene intersperses to Amy bent over the couch being raped by Norman while Charlie watches in a haze. Norman runs his hands over Amy's body; the scene intersperses to David running his hands over the deer.
"As I see it, both Amy and her husband were in situations they did not want to be I but a part of them gave in. Her husband clearly had more control over his own situation than she did, but it was more about how they both felt conflicted by the situation and guilty following it. Her guilt demonstrated by her looking at photos from her past and his by his interaction with the now dead deer." Literally no. Predator and prey mirrored, read what I wrote over and over again or re-watch the movie and understand Amy is the prey/victim of Charlie and Norman mirroring the deer being the prey/victim of David. There are shots of Norman running his hands over Amy's body while she is his victim which intersperses to shots of David running his hands over the deer's body, it being his victim. This is not Amy having no control over a situation she did not want to be in and enjoying it, or David having more control over the situation he did not want to be in. The shots mirror each other as predator and prey and catching/destroying the prey.
The scene was not left open for the audiences own personal interpretation, it is to be interpreted correctly, this isn't a book that allows you to "choose your own ending, plot". There was no missing key elements as I spoke of why it was rape and why she did not enjoy it, I didn't analyse the camera effects because it wasn't needed. Do you want me to analyse the scene more, as I did with the interspersing shots and Amy's sadness viewing pictures of her childhood? There is no "guilt demonstrated by her looking at photos from her past" - it is sadness; there is no "guilt in David's interaction with the now dead deer" he looks at it with awe and runs his hands over it, which occurs while Norman is "interacting" with Amy, running his hands over Amy's body while he rapes her. Amy is not feeling guilty when Norman is running his hands over her body and raping her while in the mirroring scene David is not feeling guilty as he runs his hands over the dead deer in awe. If you think I have misinterpreted the scene you need to re-enroll yourself into high school English and learn how to analyse texts.
reply
share
jayscott27
10 years ago
Out of all the issues within your post, your inability to accept that... YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS SCENE MAY BE WRONG is the most frustrating. Your unnecessary insults are certainly a close second.
Your reading of that scene is utter nonsense. As stated prior, you clearly missed (or ignored) key elements. But, your take must be right because...it's yours(sarcasm).
There are few who know less than those who believe they know it all.
reply
share
duckie_bb
10 years ago
You criticize me and vaguely mention "key elements" that you "stated prior" (you do not state any) that you claim I ignore or miss, instead of offering a rebuttal to my interpretations? If you offer a rebuttal to my interpretations that you say are wrong maybe I'll humor you and question what "key elements" that you "stated prior" I missed or ignored in Amy's rape?
And I insulted you once, there were not numerous insults, unlike your short reply.
reply
share
jayscott27
10 years ago
"Out of all the issues within your post, your inability to accept that... YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS SCENE MAY BE WRONG is the most frustrating. Your unnecessary insults are certainly a close second.
Your reading of that scene is utter nonsense. As stated prior, you clearly missed (or ignored) key elements. But, your take must be right because...it's yours(sarcasm).
There are few who know less than those who believe they know it all. "
Where did I say "numerous"? I did use the plural form. I suppose the condescending tone of your entire post may have led me to feel there were more than just the one direct insult, but I still didn't say "numerous insults".
As for a rebuttal, what point would there be in offering one? If this were a conversation with someone open to the possibility that they were wrong, it might make sense. You are not. You word your responses as if you wrote the screenplay, directed the movie and played the role. You somehow feel it is impossible for a movie to be made with aspects left open to interpretation. You also seem to feel your "superior intellect" has allowed you to perfectly decipher every feeling, emotion and thought of each of the characters. Any opposing view must be wrong because it's a movie and, therefor, all elements within it are completely black and white. We should all just see it as you do or piss off.
As far as the key elements, you certainly touched on most of them. However, your interpretation of a very complex, emotional scene is rather simple. Personally, I'm going to follow your lead here and say..you're wrong. That said, I won't waste anymore of my time trying to reason with you. You've made it abundantly clear you aren't interested in what anyone else has to say.
Lastly, if your ability to properly analyze text is so superior, how is it that you interpreted my numerous posts as stating this wasn't rape? I clearly stated it was, numerous times and in multiple responses.
Doesn't matter, really. I'll consider the source and laugh it off. Thanks
reply
share
duckie_bb
10 years ago
Where did I say "numerous"? - here: "Your unnecessary insults." I have no idea why you think I am under the impression that you used the word "numerous" as I was not quoting you and I did not use quotation marks. I'm not insulting you but reading quotations where there is none demonstrates improved English is needed.
Again you offer no rebuttal and only more insults (I am not quoting you on the word 'more' as I have offered no quotation marks). You only insult me, even when I ask for a rebuttal you defend your lack of a rebuttal with insulting me; asking for a rebuttal demonstrates my willingness to hear you present your evidence to contradict and invalidate my evidence.
"As far as the key elements, you certainly touched on most of them. However, your interpretation of a very complex, emotional scene is rather simple. Personally, I'm going to follow your lead here and say..you're wrong." Again you offer no key elements and vaguely say I "certainly touched on most of them", failing to discuss how I "touched on most of them." You contradict yourself, saying I "touched on most of them" when you previously said I "missed or ignored key elements."
I find it interesting that while you refuse and insult me instead of offering a requested rebuttal, you gave an unsolicited rebuttal for my interpretation of your posts; to reply you a rebuttal: I never said you stated it wasn't rape, I argued against Amy partly enjoying Charlie raping her and feeling guilty about it. In my first post I stated that it was 100% rape similar to your first post where you stated she was raped - there was never an argument on whether or not she was raped.
reply
share
jayscott27
10 years ago
"You criticize me and vaguely mention "key elements" that you "stated prior" (you do not state any) that you claim I ignore or miss, instead of offering a rebuttal to my interpretations? If you offer a rebuttal to my interpretations that you say are wrong maybe I'll humor you and question what "key elements" that you "stated prior" I missed or ignored in Amy's rape?
And I insulted you once, there were not numerous insults, unlike your short reply."
While you're right, you did not use quotation marks, it certainly implies that I accused you of "numerous insults". I don't see how anyone reading your comment (quoted above) would not have drawn that conclusion, with or without quotation marks. This is a thread on IMDB. I find it sad when people choose to insult one's spelling/grammar, (especially when done without merit), in order to deflect from the substance and content of what was actually written. You've done so twice. You may say once more that I've offerred no rebuttal. excuse the hypocrisy, please. I'll state why I "refuse" to offer a rebuttal in even more detail:
This is a discussion, not a debate. I do not wish to have a (one sided) debate with you or anyone.
Even if I did feel the desire to debate, you are not one I would choose to debate with. Not because I find the thought of it intimidating but, because I find it useless. You have posted in such a manner as if what we are discussing is fact and claim there is no room for Interpretation. It's a film. It's an acted out copy of a screenplay/script with influence given by the author, the director, the producer and the individual actors. Saying there's no room for interpretation on a piece which deals with such an emotionaly complex situation is, imo, as ignorant a statement as one can make. Therefor, arguing with you is not worth my time.
Your responses simply contradict everything I've stated based on how I interpreted the movie. Further rebuttal would simply be as juvenile as us sayig "Nuh-uh" and responding "Uh-huh", until one of us gets too damn tired to bother any further. There is no productive outcome. I will learn nothing from what you're offering and you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong.
My take on the scene is peppered throughout this thread. I don't agree with yours, which is obvious by my many posts stating the opposite of what you have, other than us agreeing that it was rape in both instances.
What point is there in debating this further? It's a complete waste of time. Though, I did find humor in how amazingly full of yourself you are, I'm now bored of it.
Here's my interpretation of your post:
' I saw the movie and (in my extremely closed-minded opinion) this is what happened and what was being felt and you can't argue with me because it's a movie and everyone knows only books and art are open to interpretation so my opinion is fact and you are wrong"
Not even trying to be insulting. That's exactly how your post comes off to me. So, continue with any further rebuttal? Thanks but, no thanks.
By the way, the run-on sentence was purposeful, in case you were ready to pounce on that, too.
reply
share
duckie_bb
10 years ago
"it certainly implies that I accused you of "numerous insults"." It doesn't imply, It does say. You wrote "Your unnecessary insults are certainly a close second" which I responded "I insulted you once, there were not numerous insults."
Next you reply "Where did I say "numerous"?" and I answer "here: "Your unnecessary insults."". Your lack of understanding with sentence structure displays how much you don't care about grammar, you don't even understand what a sentence communicates. If you knew basic grammar you would understand that your wording "your unnecessary insults" literally refers to more than one insult. There is merit in informing a person that they misunderstand what their or other peoples texts communicates - what is the point of writing to one another if no one can understand what the other is communicating. I never insulted your spelling/grammar to deflect "from the substance and content of what was actually written", but I have criticized your lack of understanding what you are communicating with your wording (insults = more than once insult, which you cannot grasp) after you accused me of "insults" and then claimed you didn't; I am 100% going to call someone out on accusing me of things I didn't do.
Your understanding of words is devastatingly appalling. A discussion is a play-it-nice debate in which people advocate their opinions and challenge the opinions of others. The dictionary meaning of discussion: a conversation or debate about a specific topic. I think you are looking for the word 'dialogue', no challenging the opinions of others what so ever. Dialogue is used to build a collective point of view, listening to others for further understanding of the topic.
As I said before there is no room for interpretation in the following scene: where the director uses intersperses to communicate the predator and prey scenario, he doesn't offer you to interpret it differently:
"Shooting the deer and Charlie raping Amy signified a predator/assaulter and the prey/victim - the shots mirror each other as predator and prey and catching/destroying the prey.: when Charlie first advances and forces to kiss Amy while she tries pushing him away the scene intersperses to David finding the deer; the scene intersperses to Charlie who pins Amy on the couch, disrobing her while she is pleading with him to stop; the scene intersperses to David raising his gun and considers whether to kill it; the scene intersperses to Charlie unbuckling his belt and Amy screaming, Charlie tries to calm her questioning if she thinks of him while having sex with David; the scene intersperses to David lowering his gun until lifting it, shooting the deer and it falls to the ground; the scene intersperses to Charlie raping Amy, Amy eventually stops physically fighting but she remains frozen/still, refusing to kiss, talk or look at Charlie, Charlie finishes, laying on top of Amy and the record player begins playing startling Amy and Charlie. Norman walks into view, Charlie gets of Amy and does not intervene with Norman grabbing and dragging Amy towards him; the scene intersperses to David walking towards the deer and crouching by it in awe; the scene intersperses to Amy bent over the couch being raped by Norman while Charlie watches in a haze. Norman runs his hands over Amy's body; the scene intersperses to David running his hands over the deer."
Understanding what a scene communicates is the opposite of ignorant.
"Your responses simply contradict everything I've stated based on how I interpreted the movie." And then you do not discuss my contradictions, in basic English you do not say you will speak of something and then not. Introducing a point/evidence requires an example as evidence, not giving an example means you have not spoken of it - you've only given the introduction. You're offering introductions to arguments (dictionary: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.) and then offer nothing further to support your idea. Your understanding of written English could not be worse.
I'm glad you find humor in my arrogance in challenging your ideas with my own (the definition of a discussion) so I will add the following arrogantly: the use of the words "in my opinion" is improper and pointless in a discussion. I couldn't imagine a reason for it past self-consciousness or modesty. Everything I write is "in my opinion", everything you write is "in your opinion" - not mentioning those words do not make you arrogant and those words do not protect you from a person challanging your views.
Don't bother replying if you can't answer my request for a rebuttal - your opinion/ideas and your reasons that support them. There is no discussion if a person fails to challenge your views (which requires reasoning to support them, not claims with no support) and instead insults you and attacks you for having an opinion "full of yourself" instead of attacking your opinions.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
duckie_bb
10 years ago
Amy continuously says "no" to charlie and tries to physically fight back. Charlie rapes her through physical force and intimidation and Amy is distressed during the rape. Charlie actually punishes Amy for not enjoying it by allowing his friend to rape her. "It's not rape if you enjoy it" is a dangerous, frightening mentality which rape laws strongly disagree with; I bet you thought Amy was "asking for it" as well. Newspapers all over the world when reviewing the movie call Charlie's actions rape - you think The New York times is wrong and you're right?
Straw Dogs is one of the worst films I have seen when it comes to titillating sexual violence (Charlie's rape). Making the rape scene erotic, sexualizing Charlie by having Skarsgard play Charlie similar to a romantic lead (he's chivalrous, stood up to a bully and respectfully calls people 'sir'), close ups of Charlie's naked torso throughout the movie similar to naked torso shots featured in romance movies.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
duckie_bb
10 years ago
WOW two different movies with different rape scenes, that's why you think she wasn't raped, you're treating them as the same film! You're actually reasoning why it wasn't rape with a different film from 1971!
This is not the same movie: the original films Amy is like a teenager - incredibly childish and immature, she's demanding, needy, flirtatious, very sexual. Amy in this film is strong, intelligent and self-aware; she is too strong for David to handle unlike the original film were she is weak and David see's her as stupid and subservient.
It is common knowledge that in the original film Amy adapts to Charlie raping her and it becomes something more complex - the ending doesn't resemble rape at all.
The same can be said for this remake
You can't make a claim lacking reasoning/evidence for the claim. You've given your reasoning for the 1971 film but this is a different film and you've supplied none.
reply
share
sukhjinderdeol
9 years ago
Hey! jayscott27
I just finished watching this movie. And I totally agree with you and your interpretation of the scenes. Everyone else trying to wrong you is either plain dumb or acting smart. You Sir, described exactly what the scene implied. 👊👨
||| CoMMOn SeNSe iS nOt sO cOMMoN aMOnG cOMMon pEOpLe |||
reply
share