MovieChat Forums > True Grit (2010) Discussion > The Whipping Scene

The Whipping Scene

posted 13 years ago by XxXThePhantomsRoseXxX
68 replies | jump to latest

Where Damon is hitting her was really disturbing to me. I don't care if this was a scene in the original, it was just odd feeling and I don't think it needed to be included. This isn't the 50s. Hitting a child is becoming a big tabboo and I don't think it was appropriate. Especially given that she was - what - a teenager or preteen girl. 30 year old men don't go spanking girls in their teens/pre-teens. It's just flat out weird.

I don't write for fun - I write to LIVE!

[–] micirisi 12 years ago

Rooster Cogburn would agree with you. He was about to shoot the Texas brushpopper for spanking Mattie.

[–] owenrcarpenter 12 years ago

Does the OP know nothing about Texas?

In September 2012, Taylor Santos, a 15-year old Parker County girl and student at Springtown High School was caught cheating during an exam. In accordance with the school rules, she was given a choice between a two day suspension or a paddling from a member of staff. Taylor had previously been an exemplary student and - with her mother's agreement - opted to take the spanking rather than miss the school time. The district's education board have a policy that all such punishments should be carried out by staff members of the same gender, but in this particular case no female staff member was available, and so the paddling was carried out by the school's male vice-principle.

Taylor's mother, Anna Jorgensen, made a formal complaint upon hearing this, and said that is was inappropriate for a grown man to spank a 95-pound girl. She also claimed that her daughter's bottom had been 'bright red and blistered' as a result of the paddling and that she had been forced to sleep on her tummy that night. Anna went on to say that she had photographic evidence of the severity of the spanking that she intended to submit to the authorities.

The district's education board had an emergency meeting to address the situation, and to determine what action should be taken over the breach in policy at Springtown High. After much discussion, they decided to ammend the disciplinary policy to allow paddlings to be carried out by staff of either gender, thereby eliminating the grounds for any further complaints.

If you want confirmation of this story, check out:

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-mom-outraged-teen-daughter-paddled-bright-red-male-vice-principle-for cheating.

and

www.huffingtonpost.com//texas-district-expands-co.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] actionmanozzie 11 years ago

*shrug* I was spanked, and I can tell you for a fact that my parents did OTHER things that hurt me spiritually, emotionally, physically, and in my self esteem FAR MORE than any thing spanking related.

I almost don't recall the spanking minus one or two.

Spanking is SUPPOSED to humiliate a child a bit, it's to make the child not want to do the thing again, ever.

All punishment humiliates to some degree.

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

Well that is according to TODAY'S standards. Remember, this movie takes place over a hundred years ago in a time where people weren't so "sensitive" about everything. In the context of the movie it made perfect sense with the time period.

[–] owenrcarpenter 12 years ago

I agree with Rickystickyman on this issue. Come on people, let's be realistic here. In the 1870's Wild West a Texas lawman would think nothing of turning a sassy teenage girl over his knee, regardless of who was right or wrong in the argument. To be frank, I think it highly doubtful that Mattie would have been allowed to retain her britches and bloomers during her switching. Even today, I believe that most American parents who employ spanking as a disciplinary sanction prefer to administer the punishment to the bare skin. Still, the book was written a long time ago, and most readers of the day would probably not have have accepted a bare-bottomed switching regardless of historical accuracy.

It would doubtless have made both the 1969 and 2010 movies a damn sight more problematic too!

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 10 years ago

Well that is according to TODAY'S standards. Remember, this movie takes place over a hundred years ago in a time where people weren't so "sensitive" about everything. In the context of the movie it made perfect sense with the time period.

I agree with Rickystickyman on this issue. Come on people, let's be realistic here. In the 1870's Wild West a Texas lawman would think nothing of turning a sassy teenage girl over his knee, regardless of who was right or wrong in the argument. To be frank, I think it highly doubtful that Mattie would have been allowed to retain her britches and bloomers during her switching. Even today, I believe that most American parents who employ spanking as a disciplinary sanction prefer to administer the punishment to the bare skin. Still, the book was written a long time ago, and most readers of the day would probably not have have accepted a bare-bottomed switching regardless of historical accuracy.

It would doubtless have made both the 1969 and 2010 movies a damn sight more problematic too!

^^This. Agreed with both of you. 

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

[–] owenrcarpenter 10 years ago

Thanks Koffeenkreame41-1, what people seem to be forgetting was that in the 19th century (and indeed, most of the 20th Century) any minor who got into an argument with an adult was AUTOMATICALLY in the wrong - simply by virtue of being a minor. This was especially true if the minor was female and the adult was male. This may or not be regrettable, but it is also an undisputed fact.

So what if LeBeauf was in breach of his contract by doing what he did? It was not up to Mattie to lecture him on his professional responsibilities. He was a grown-up and she was a kid. It was - by the standards of the day - outrageous for her to speak to him in such a manner. From that moment on, Mattie was - de facto - a 'spoiled brat', and anyone watching would have firmly believed that LeBeauf was well within his rights to put her across his knee and redden her behind.

The only reason that Rooster 'broke ranks' and eventually told him to stop the spanking was that he believed (correctly, in my opinion) that he had a more than professional interest in young Mattie, and was punishing her in that way for his own reasons. In Rooster's own words "That's enough, LeBeauf. You're enjoying it too much!"

For the record, I believe that LeBeauf was absolutely WRONG to spank Mattie's bottom!

But the Coen brother were absolutely RIGHT to include the scene in their film!

[–] EdmundOG 12 years ago

To all those on this thread who are in favor of hitting kids - and yes, spanking is hitting them - I quote Louis CK:

I really think it's crazy that we hit our kids. It really is--here's the crazy part about it. Kids are the only people in the world that you're allowed to hit. Do you realize that? They're the most vulnerable, and they're the most destroyed by being hit. But it's totally okay to hit them. And they're the only ones! If you hit a dog they fXXking will put you in jail for that shXt. You can't hit a person unless you can prove that they were trying to kill you. But a little tiny person with a head this big who trusts you implicitly, fXXk 'em. Who gives a shXt? Just fXXking hit--let's all hit them! People want you to hit your kid. If your kid's making noise in public, "Hit him, hit him! Hit him! Grrr, hit him!" We're proud of it! "I hit my kids. You're damn right I hit my kids." Why did you hit them? "'Cause they were doing a thing I didn't like at the moment. And so I hit them, and guess what? They didn't do it after that." Well, that wouldn't be taking the fXXkin' easy way out would it? How 'bout talking to them for a second, you fXXking retard!? What are you an idiot? What are you a fXXking ape? "Well, I know it's a pain in the ass!" Well you fXXked a woman and a fXXking baby came out of her vagina! Now, you be patient. It's not their fault.

[–] FairlyAnonymous 12 years ago

No, Louis was talking about abuse. He was not talking about spanking. There is a huge difference between hitting and spanking. If he meant spanking then he would've said it.

Hitting causes physical damage to the body, leaves bruises, causes emotional damage, and can HURT the kid. Spanking doesn't leave a bruise (a welt at the most), it doesn't cause emotional damage, and any damage done heals within about... oh 10 minutes or so.

I was a deceptive and bad kid. I got spanked a lot. Now I'm a good, well behaved kid. I'm glad my parents taught me to get into trouble by enforcing their rules. No emotional damage, not hate against my parents.

[–] AndyRyan 12 years ago

You complain about the spanking because people don't do that now? Why not complain about the hanging then?

[–] boatlandmore 12 years ago

I think the point was to set up a turn of events where Rooster starts to defend her & a rift begins between him & Lebouf. It shows the audience the good side of the Rooster character that exists under the gruff exterior & it allows Lebouf's character to grow by the end of the film where eventually he has respect for Mattie by the end & no longer views her as a petulant child.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bohemian_Ash87 11 years ago

I laughed SO hard during this scene in the cinema