MovieChat Forums > Trust (2011) Discussion > rape scene... gone too far?

rape scene... gone too far?

posted 13 years ago by pacodurazo
63 replies | jump to latest

I know that you have to go far in scenes to create an impact. I love shocking scenes & shocking movies, but...

I was just wandering if the scene went too far by showing a 13 y/o girl (or 15y/o girl in real life) in her underwear in a sexual situation?

There could have been other ways the scene was shot, without making her appear like that on-screen.

First, I have to think what kind of parents would let their daughter appear like that.

Then, I believe that this scene will be a delight to pedophiles.

Finally, I know that another way to create impact is that the pedophile isn't apprehended at the end, but that just sends a WRONG WRONG message to pedophiles watching this movie... he didn't get caught and many other pedophile crimes that the FBI was on didn't get solved....

I liked the movie and find it a little shocking, just thing it goes 'too easy' on pedophiles!

[–] FeistyCadavr 12 years ago

What rape that was consensual sex.

[–] gluiz 12 years ago

Oh, COME ON!

No, they didn't go too far. If anything, they didn't go far enough, like someone else has said.

And it's hard to think of sex when you're watching a tense scene like that. It wasn't a sexual situation at all.

This politically correct bullcrap is really getting on my nerves. If people would only loosen up.....

[–] nobodies666 12 years ago

she was raped. dad visually thinking about it is too far

I hugged Twiggy/Manson, MM slapped my butt, I sat on Twiggys lap! I got 3 pics with both!

[–] ThoseLittleRabbits 11 years ago

shut up. ''too easy'' on pedophiles? that's how the real world works. movie or no movie, pedos would commit or not commit crimes against children. stop blaming a person's actions on movies. ugh!

www.youtube.com/bernardpumpkin
them haterz cant tell me nothin

[–] Jaye_57 11 years ago

IMO the restriction/modesty of the rape scene was out balanced by the impact we are shown it has on the family. If that makes sense. The effect it had on their lives... was harrowing enough. And like Annie's dad, all we can do is picture what happened in our heads, which as other posters have said, can be even worse. x

Every Jack has his Jill.

[–] xakanis 11 years ago

To have scenes shot with only her face and maybe just a voice over would take away from the film's realistic hard hitting angle.

[–] sammarie87 11 years ago

I am beginning to belive that based on the diversity of the replies to the OP that there's different versions or edited cuts of this film being viewed. I watched this film on Lifetime Movie Network with my husband this evening, and the film was edited for TV and by Lifetime. It didn't show the rape scene as anything that I found, as a mother of a little girl, too difficult to endure. Other than the already controversial and emotional feeling the film and scene delivers by its content. I also noticed that many of the previews shown during the commercial were not in be film at all... Which I found to be very strange and somewhat disappointing. Not due to the nature of the contents being downplayed for television, just for the false impression of the movie I planned to view that was given.

I also noticed that they never showed whatever was posted online that the young girl found deeply upsetting... I was hoping eventually they would imply what was shown if not choosing to show the material at all, but it was never mentioned. So I cannot comment on alot of the controversial material due to my lack of knowledge on the full extent of the films nature.

[–] jnorgle 10 years ago

When I watched it on Lifetime for the first time, it cut from them sitting on the bed (his hand had been on her hair) and then it cut to some non-sexual stuff. I am watching this again today and it'll be interesting to see if I get your edit. Which is making ME think "This rape scene must really be bad"

[–] Daffy_George 10 years ago

DVD shows everything.

[–] aoa8212 11 years ago

I know that you have to go far in scenes to create an impact. I love shocking scenes & shocking movies, but...

You don't say...

I was just wandering if the scene went too far by showing a 13 y/o girl (or 15y/o girl in real life) in her underwear in a sexual situation?

Well, considering in real life people are typically naked when such things occur, I'd say they showed some restraint. Fully clothed would be completely unrealistic, but bra and panties allows the young actress some modesty while still being believable for the audience. I'd say it was a happy medium between two extremes.

There could have been other ways the scene was shot, without making her appear like that on-screen.

The scene really wasn't all that graphic. No nudity, no simulated sex, it was more implied than anything else. All that was shown beforehand was bra and panties which really isn't any more revealing than a two piece swimsuit that she would wear to the beach.

First, I have to think what kind of parents would let their daughter appear like that.

Parents who understand that their daughter is a talented actress and that some roles are more challenging than others. She's a professional working with other professionals. It's their job to make you think that something is going on when it actually isn't. This is all in your head.

Then, I believe that this scene will be a delight to pedophiles.

Pedophiles are people who are primarily or exclusively attracted to prepubescent children of either sex. The actress was not prepubescent at the time, she was several years into puberty and had secondary sexual characteristics. She would be more of a "delight" to hebephiles or ephebophiles who find adolescents attractive, though.

Finally, I know that another way to create impact is that the pedophile isn't apprehended at the end, but that just sends a WRONG WRONG message to pedophiles watching this movie... he didn't get caught and many other pedophile crimes that the FBI was on didn't get solved....

I credit them for their touch of realism there. The bad guy doesn't always get caught and even if he does it often takes a long time to bring him to justice. It's pretty unrealistic to think that whether the bad guy gets caught or not in the movie will have any bearing on what people watching the movie will do or not do. One of the internet predators in the movie got caught anyway, and the sex offender got beat up at the volleyball game. It was realistic how they showed that some get caught and face the consequences and some don't. That's life and life isn't fair.

I liked the movie and find it a little shocking, just thing it goes 'too easy' on pedophiles!

I disagree. They showed the negative effects of Charlie's actions and they showed sex offenders who had been caught and how they still paid the price even after they were released by being on the sex offender registry and being targeted by vigilantes. The girl came to believe that she had been raped and that it ruined her life. They certainly made Charlie out to be the bad guy and others like him as well. Don't get it twisted just because they didn't give you the cliched "we got him!" moment where the good guy wins and the bad guy loses. It wasn't about winning or losing, it was about coming to terms with what happened and moving on with your life. It's a better and more realistic message than the typical black/white BS.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

It didn't go too far in the sense that you can see more skin on a beach, and the actual sexual encounter takes place off screen.

The bigger problem though is a typical Hollywood one. However old she actually was, the definitely mature-for-her-age actress they cast looked like an attractive 17 or 18 year old. It's the nature of Hollywood to make everything more glamorous and everybody more attractive than they are in real life. But do you really want to do that with a grubby near-pedophilic sexual encounter?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grinch031 11 years ago

No it didn't go too far. Its a work of fiction, not reality TV. This is what happens when you take on the profession of acting, you sometimes have to choose roles that may be a little uncomfortable.

Also I do not think pedophiles would be interested in her, because she is closer to being a mature woman than a young child. Besides, online sexual predators are not learning anything new they didn't already know by watching this movie. They have a powerful impulsive drive that makes them do what they do, and it make sense they would use the internet in order to facilitate acting on these impulses.

[–] koolanorth 10 years ago

There are a lot of scenes in movies that could be a delight for pedophiles, murderers or such, but I don't think is a good enough reason to censor movie makers. Truth may be harsh.

[–] thirdeye55 10 years ago

wrong message to pedophiles? Who gives a *beep* how pedophiles see this movie? It's meant to show the REALITY of things... which is far and away disgusting and horrifying, and yes, the FBI don't catch nearly enough of these *beep* In fact the statistics are really frightening. The end was a brilliant touch, showing Charlie as a "normal family man" as many of these pigs are exactly that, live normal lives and get away with horrible things while nobody knows any better.

What is a crime is for movies to portrait pedos as always sick, creepy *beep* who always get caught. That's what the public "needs" to see, apparently, so we can believe the world is a-ok and the police always get their man and blah blah, moral yadda-yadda. But what is this really? It's a damned lie, and I was thoroughly impressed this movie had the balls to TRULY shine a light on what is an incredibly serious, and increasing problem in our world of online anonymous social media.

Anyway, I thought this movie was amazing and should be shown in high schools. This is to sex-ed as Requiem for a Dream is to anti-drug education.