The Whipping Scene

Okay I don't support hitting children, and the facts are clear on what consequences it can (this is important, just because you were hit as a child and didn't have any problems doesn't mean it's harmless. Some people smoke and live to be 90. Doesn't make smoking good for your health) have on a child. So obviously in this day and age we need to be civilized and treat children as fellow human beings, not our personal belongings who we can hit if we so please.

So having cleared that up, the scene is perfectly okay because it shows the attitude towards hitting children at the time. That's why it's also okay to show the Native American being hooded before he could say his last words. It simply shows the degree of racism that existed at the time, it doesn't condone it.

In a sense it's a good thing that you were disturbed by it, imagine you thought hitting children was okay, like some of the posters above. ;)

Tempting as it is to take your comments seriously (particularly considering that some people who've responded agree with you), I'll just make the amusing observation that it was the depiction of spanking that you found so "disturbing" and not the later scene of Chaney wantonly attempting to slit the girl's throat.

Seriously, get a *beep* grip.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

This isn't the 50s.

No, it was the 1880s.

The church may shout but Darwin roars

Apparently Rooster agreed. He told LaBoeuf to stop. When LaBoeuf refused to stop, Rooster pulled a gun on him. That's taking things pretty darned seriously. To commit such an act without justification is to commit the crime of "assault with a deadly weapon". And against a lawman, no less. That LaBoeuf lets it slide, suggests that, on some level, he understands Rooster's justification.

Of course it was an unusual situation. If we try to see things from LaBoeuf's POV from "the standards of the time" we can understand why he managed to convince himself that he was justified in acting as he did. After all, she was little more than a child, her own actions were putting herself in SERIOUS danger, and there was no-one else around to discipline her. If spanking her was wrong, the alternative (allowing her to accompany them) was (arguably) worse.

But "the standards of the time" were not so simple or one-sided, in this instance. The standards of the time were that one was supposed to respect women. Perhaps one could get away with abusing one's own wife or daughter, but hardly someone else's. A man laying his hands on a young woman not related to him was a big no-no.

That's why LaBoeuf (whatever his justifications) found himself with a gun pointed at his head.

And it is, actually, necessary, or at least helpful, to the plot. LaBoeuf "going too far" is what causes Rooster to take Mattie's side, when before the two were allied against her. This helps explain what any rational adult would consider an extreme error in judgment ... his decision to allow Mattie to come with them. And without that, there is no movie.

Alot of the things shown would now be considered morally or leagally wrong from todays standpoint. It's just a film. Plus the spanking wasn't shown in a positive light. Cogburn threatened to kill LaBoeuf if he didn't stop.

Please consider me as an alternative to suicide

[deleted]

You don't have any issues with a 14 year old girl going on adventures to seek blood vengeance and either committing murder herself or instigating it at the hands of a journey financed by her own wits and means but spanking is wrong and shouldn't be included because its not acceptable today?

I just... I just don't get it.

The films set quite sometime ago. people were getting publicly hanged, everyone had a gun and was shooting each other I doubt a few lashings of a whip was out of the ordinary for that day and age, it was funny to watch as its acting in a film, a little uncomfortable I suppose but keep it real hey.