How violent is the sexual assault? - No Escape (2015) Discussion

[–] CHplanb 9 years ago

The victim is Owen Wilson's wife, and the scene isn't very long. It could have been worse than it actually was

reply

[–] MyNamesParadise 9 years ago

I saw it earlier today and my interpretation was that she actually wasn't raped b/c Pierce Bronson showed up in the nick of time. considering how traumatic the scene was up until that point I wish they hadn't bothered including the scene considering it ended up not happening.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shannons-blackberry 9 years ago

It was very triggering for me, having been a survivor of multiple sexual assaults myself, and I wish it hadn't been there either. I might have actually enjoyed that movie that way.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justredi 9 years ago

well what do you expect. it's a riot/revolution, so people can see how bad it really is, when this kind of thing happen.

it happen in real life, everywhere even in my country, hundred if not thousand chinese women are raped in their own home in front of their own family when 1998 riot occurred here and more than thousand people killed.

and the one that get run over by truck also happen here a year ago. there even a cctv video in youtube, recorded how a motorcycle gang beat a single man multiple time and dragging him around on their motorcycle and left him in the middle of the street just so they can run over him using a car multiple time.

it's a sad truth

reply

[–] tallard 9 years ago

I sure can empathise with you, but your request about the film makes no sense. All violence is senseless. It would be like someone saying they'd rather not have had all the gratuitous murders throughout the film because it was triggering.
War is triggering.
Everything that was shown is part of that package.
The only way to reduce war on this planet (because ending war will never happen) is to let the human population drop to more reasonable numbers, say less than a half billion, where all humans can have decent access to land and resources, and that no powers dominated over such vast empires.
Otherwise, the future is filled with more of all this stuff.
We females have ONE overwhelming game changing power, we can NOT make the future soldiers.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] waldomarek-12533 9 years ago

really? so... character x got a gun pointed at his head as well in the movie, he ended up not dying, so was it pointless to point the gun at him as well? o_O weird kind of logic here.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

People were killed in the movie during battle and also executed - surely that's worse? Not quite sure what your point is. I'd rather be 'almost raped' any time than executed.

reply

[–] unholy-53358 9 years ago

I don't think its the fact the "almost rape" is in there. I think its the fact it didn't happen.

If you're going for realistic - rather than a cheap shock value - then the rape should have played out. In real life, there are no knights in shining armour with impeccable timing just waiting till the last possible moment to save you. In comparison, cheap shock values are only added for entertainment purposes - and imo rape should never be added for entertainment value, its demeaning to how brutal rape is.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

Well you have about a billion movies to write that same comment about. Any time anyone gets saved from being killed is also BS by your logic since there are no knights in shining armour in real life. No idea why you think knights in shining armour only save people from being raped and not from being killed.

reply

[–] unholy-53358 9 years ago

But this isn't the board for a billion movies, its the board for No Escape. This particular movie that chose to have many graphic killings (that no knights rode to the rescue for) but downplayed the rape.

So, sorry - but your argument is invalid.

And btw, unless you've been raped you have absolutely no idea whats worse - many rape victims often wish they had been killed so they don't have to live with what happened to them. Again, just goes to show how rape and its effects are not realised by society - usually due to portrayals such as this rather than showing it for how horrific it actually is.

Although usually when they actually portray it as it is, theres a huge backlash from the public about how brutal and vile it was - now if only they could bother their backsides about rapes that actually happen, it might serve some purpose.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

They were also rescued from death in the movie by your shining knights in armour. Maybe you should watch it again.

reply

[–] unholy-53358 9 years ago

Were they? Really? Did the bad guys have them on their knees with a gun to their head ready to pull the trigger at which point bond shows up out of retirement just in the nick of time to stop the awful act that would have happened had he been just 2-3 seconds later? Or was it more of a "well every other foreigner has been killed, they have been chasing and shooting at them for hours so they're probably going to kill them once they're done"?

I mean the whole film is about them being on the run from certain death. You could argue the bad guys were also white knighting them with bad aim.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

The point is you're just singling out the rape when the same should apply to the death scenes. We're just so used to deaths in movies we become blind to it but see rape differently since it's not often seen in movies. I believe death and rape are both terrible things. Also showing the rape would not give whatever message across you think it would, it would just give people the opportunity to see Lake Bell nude.

In any case, there are plenty of movies where rape scenes ARE played out. It doesn't mean it needs to in every movie. Plus, you say rape can be worse than death, so if she did get raped then they effectively didn't survive even though the idea is that they're the only ones that survive.

reply

[–] unholy-53358 9 years ago

My problem isn't with the rape scene. I was trying to explain to you why people might have preferred the rape scene not to be there.

And yes you're right, it doesn't need to play out in every movie (doesn't always play out like that in real life either), but look at HOW it played out in this one. He got right to the point of actually raping her and heres 007 saving the day with not a moment to spare.

Whats the point of putting it in in that particular fashion other than to add cheap entertainment/shock value? Oh right, they can't actually go through with it because heaven forbid we should realise the horror that is rape because apparently, even the fake acted ones are too brutal for our sensibility.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

Yeah that's hollywood for you. My favourite (or should I say most hated) hollywood cliche is when the bad guy is just about to kill the hero when you hear another gun shot and the bad guy dies, falls to the ground out of camera shot to reveal the unsuspected hero standing behind holding a gun.

reply

[–] hasen-07476 9 years ago

They were also rescued from death in the movie by your shining knights in armour. Maybe you should watch it again.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

so they don't have to live with what happened to them

That is because these rape victims are liars. Shame on them for lying.

reply

[–] Shamoth 8 years ago

@MyNamesParadise

Of course she wasn't raped. He didn't even drop his pants. Pierce showed up as he was unbuckling his belt.

All he did was holding her leg up.

reply

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

Got this from a review from a preview showing:

When Annie is nabbed, she’s beaten mercilessly — and I mean mercilessly. The leader of the group outright pins her to the ground and punches her in the face until blood is pouring from her mouth. It’s a terrible scene — but the filmmakers aren’t through. Annie is thrown on top of a stone column, a couple rebels holding her there. The leader spreads her legs and begins to unbuckle his pants, intent on raping her in front of her husband. All Jack can do is scream as the rebel leader just smirks at Jack. A belt is unbuckled. We hear a zipper. Moments later, they tear her dress off. The music grows more and more shrill, leading to some sort of crescendo. It’s not suspenseful. It’s sick.

http://www.theworkprint.com/no-escape-review-escape-from-the-theater/123

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spyder_2172 9 years ago

I'm glad OP asked this, because this has been holding me up from seeing the movie. Personally, I don't think this adds anything to the overall story and therefore really doesn't need to be in the story. Also, I'm really surprised they left this in the movie because right now in Detroit, there is a group of teens going around looking for couples and gang raping the women while forcing the boyfriends to watch.

reply

[–] tallard 9 years ago

Sexual violence is as essential to war as is the killing. In war terms it achieves two things, it breaks the spirit, and it breeds new soldiers, insuring the blood lines of the two peoples are intertwined, imposed multiculturalism. Throughout history, wars have been won just as much by rape as by weaponry.
As a female, I can know how to resist this, either die fighting, or ensure there are no new baby soldiers that come out of it. This is what Kurdish women are doing in Northern Syria. No holds barred, you live or you die, fleeing only hands over the victory. Unfortunately, women in patriarchal societies are brainwashed into thinking we can not resist til death, we are taught to flee, to fear, for that is the power of patriarchy over us.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[–] Niceguy 9 years ago

That review is so exaggerated. The scene is short and not that graphic. Guess that reviewer is pretty thin-skinned toward violence in movies. This is a film about violent rebels killing people in the streets. All things considered, it could have been much, much more graphic than it is. And the almost-rape scene was pretty tame compared to other similar scenes in similar films.

reply

[–] imafaik 9 years ago

Maybe this was the scene that was re-edited to get the R-rating?
Could be the original version was stronger?

reply

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

re-edited

Could be. As I said, that article was based on a preview showing. I didn't write it. It is disappointing to see others so desensetized that terms like "thin-skinned" and "almost rape" enter the discussion.

reply

[–] lilwith 9 years ago

It is disappointing to see others so desensetized that terms like "thin-skinned" and "almost rape" enter the discussion.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lilwith 9 years ago

I was agreeing lol

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Niceguy 9 years ago

The version I saw was an early screening, the same one the critics saw, so doubt they changed it. And I'm not desensitized as you put it, just pointing out the "almost rape" (not sure how else to put it) in this movie is nowhere near as bad as similar scenes in other films. I doubt many people enjoy seeing the idea of rape in a movie, but at least consider the movie you're watching - it's a story about an American family being chased by hostile rebels with no cops to help them... stands to reason that sort of thing is a definite possibility for them, right? Should the movie make their journey easy and harmless? Not really the point of the film. And just read the majority of the comments on that critic's review. Apparently a lot of others think he's a little "thin-skinned" too.

reply

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

"almost rape" (not sure how else to put it)

Someone else did lower in the thread - "sexual assault, with intent to commit rape." "Attempted rape" would be another.

nowhere near as bad as similar scenes in other films

So it isn't I Spit On Your Grave bad? Need to know which films you are using as a comparison.

I doubt many people enjoy seeing the idea of rape in a movie

One would hope...

but at least consider the movie you're watching

A movie which substitutes constant woman and child peril for a plot.

stands to reason that sort of thing is a definite possibility for them, right?

No. Nothing about stopping to rape a foreigner in front of her husband does anything to advance the cause of political takeover. The rebels' character motivation is government change - it does not logically follow that all terrorist rebels are rapists, especially not of people irrelevant to their goal.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

It does not logically follow that rioters in any country might try to sexually assault an attractive woman?

Quote tags - they exist for a reason. Stripping my words of context and then adding your own ("rioters" "any country" "might" "try" "attractive") defeats any point you are aiming to make.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

stands to reason that (rape) is a definite possibility for them, right?

led to:

The rebels' character motivation is government change - it does not logically follow that all terrorist rebels are rapists

which you managed to turn into:

angry mobs of foreigners would not rape.

I'm not sure which is the worse argument - the OP's oxymoron "definite possibility" or your total exaggeration of my analysis of motive into an absolute denial.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drgreenthumb1001 9 years ago

Thats why its best to not even post a reply to some of these posts

Some people are just looking for an argument, which I get, but I prefer to aruge socio-political ideas on political sites, not IMDB where a scene is put in a riot movie to move the story along and show the dangers the characters are in...

reply

[–] dgordon-9 9 years ago

I guess you've forgotten about the female US reporter stripped and sexually assaulted during a riot in Cairo last year, or maybe the numerous cases in India recently. Yes it does happen, but only gets reported when it happens to a Westerner.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

I guess you've forgotten about the female US reporter stripped and sexually assaulted during a riot in Cairo last year

Lara Logan, born and educated in South Africa. College there and further in France. She has a name, you know.

the numerous cases in India

Numerous REPORTED cases. India is one of the few countries getting it right by following up and creating a system where rape is stigmatized rather than sold as entertainment. Getting back to Lara Logan, she spoke out after the Egypt incident "to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs."

Sexual assault happens everywhere. Committed by all kinds of people, including those nice, clean, employed, white, married fathers being presented as the hero archetype. Restating my argument - attempting to tie rape to political uprising, or a specific nationality, is a logical fallacy. They are not connected.

only gets reported when it happens to a Westerner.

Very few rapes of "Westerners" that occur in America by other "Westerners" get reported on the news. If the news reported every rape that happened it would take up the entire newscast and then some. "It only gets reported" when there is shocking video to give the viewers something to gawk at.

reply

[–] tallard 9 years ago

There is no such thing as war without rape. Rape is just as much a weapon as guns and machetes. Rape in war serves two purposes, to achieve subservience through fear, and to breed the next generation of multicultural soldiers.
But we as females CAN combat this. We can fight to death, instead of fleeing, we can ensure that no baby soldiers see the light of day. We are not powerless, but we must turn our backs to patriarchal values, and fight our own fight. For when we fight alongside patriarchy, we are but objects.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[–] theshareminator 8 years ago

No. Nothing about stopping to rape a foreigner in front of her husband does anything to advance the cause of political takeover. The rebels' character motivation is government change - it does not logically follow that all terrorist rebels are rapists, especially not of people irrelevant to their goal.

The opening scene with the assassination of the leader suggests the rebels motive is political change but that is set 17 hours before the events of the film proper take place. As the film continues it becomes clear the violence that erupts is directly linked to Jack's new company and it's monopoly over the natural resources in the area. The people are angry about this and revolt. They target the hotel foreigners reside. Jacks face is plastered all over the posters which the rebels use as victory scarves draped around them and as Hammond later explains they have good reason to be angry at the foreigners. Law and order has broken down at this point so I don't believe logic comes into it however we can assume the rebels are driven by hate of Western Corporations and therefore foreign people. The rebel characters are simply killing any foreigners they find, they are not exactly thinking of the consequences when they blow up the American Embassy. One can only imagine what actions they took inside the building but as previous people have mentioned rape is entirely plausible. Let's face it, they are not robots, they are violent, psychotic, pumped-up, murderous and have left all rational thinking behind. This group who find Jack and his wife probably don't know his face from the posters true enough but they are acting with impunity. The rebels are not motivated by anything other than hate and violence. This scene perfectly illustrates the struggles innocent civilians must face in times of uprisings, including that of rape and whilst it was a relief to see it not play out, it left an image in my mind of people less fortunate to endure rape. This is not out of entertainment value in my view but rather as a stark reminder of what happens in times of anarchy.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 9 years ago

Your hidden review is ridiculously exaggerated! She is not shown being beaten mercilessly and she shows no signs of injury afterward(i.e. swollen eyes, lips, etc)

Moments later, they tear off her dress

and this part is a bold-faced lie! Her clothing isn't removed, except her shirt is pulled open to reveal a big, well padded bra.

Yea, Tho I Walk Thru The Valley Of The Shadow Of Political Correctness...🇺🇸

reply

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

not shown being beaten mercilessly... shows no signs of injury afterward (i.e. swollen eyes, lips, etc)

Moments later, they tear off her dress

and this part is a bold-faced lie! Her clothing isn't removed, except... is

Sooooo... no harm, no foul? Need to know your personal opinion on what qualifies as sexual assault. Need to know if you are promoting that holding someone hostage at gunpoint and partially removing their clothing should be legalized.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 9 years ago

Sooooo... no harm, no foul? Need to know your personal opinion on what qualifies as sexual assault. Need to know if you are promoting that holding someone hostage at gunpoint and partially removing their clothing should be legalized.

It's ridiculous for you to arrive at this, based on what I said. I never implied, in any way, that it was okay! It's just that your quoted play-by-play was written by a drama queen. It was exaggerated at best and some of it was actually fabricated.

I know people that embellish personally, and it's disgusting.

Yea, Tho I Walk Thru The Valley Of The Shadow Of Political Correctness...🇺🇸

reply

[–] mjblack0508 9 years ago

Well in the version I'm watching right now, she wasnt raped.

reply

[–] jellyree 9 years ago

This would be a fine addition to the Parents Guide.

Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthewadiotomre 9 years ago

I saw the movie today. When the scene started a man took his daughter who was about 10 or 11 out and just left. He didn't come back. Part of me understands why he left, but another part of me is still trying to figure out why he'd even bring his young daughter to see a violent rated R movie like this in the first place. I assumed a scene like this would be in the movie. I've seen worst on television. The rape scene on the pilot episode of Bates Motel bothered me more than the rape attempt in this. If anything it'll just bother people that the rebels were going to force Owen's character to watch the rape. The thought alone is a bit disturbing, but the scene itself isn't really bad.

reply

[–] MyNamesParadise 9 years ago

As much as I love Bates Motel, I can never watch the first episode all the way through again because it's so bad.

As a woman, I'm leery of when MPAA ratings make a point to point out a rape and/or sexual assault. Considering how intense the scene was as bad as this sounds it's almost as if the scene should've ended realistically. Either they complete the scene and therefore it has a purpose or they not bother it in the first place since it ends up being a cop out with Pierce Bronson saving the day. I'm glad penetration didn't happen but surely the build up would have had a traumatic impact on her as well.

And for people that say someone who doesn't want to watch a RAPE scene is thin skinned has no compassion.

Men always joke about not wanting to go to prison because they're scared they'll get raped, well guess what for a female that thought is always present. Should i go out after dark alone? Etc.

reply

[–] FullyOperationalSamaritan 9 years ago

Oh my god, this is a movie not real life.

well guess what for a female that thought is always present. Should i go out after dark alone? Etc.

Buy yourself a gun and learn how to use it. Don't go anywhere in the dark, I sure as hell don't. I'm afraid I'll get killed. Even with my gun I won't take that risk.

reply

[–] cambridgejohnny 9 years ago

I guess you'd have to say that the woman was assaulted, and I believe that if there was an encounter like this in the USA, and the perps were caught, you'd
have them charges of sexual assault, with intent to commit rape. In this case
the woman is saved from any actual penetration, or anything like that, but it's extremely obvious at one point what the perps were about to do. She's rescued just in the nick of time. Which gives the viewer a feeling of extreme relief.

reply

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

I saw the film last Friday and just before the lights went down, I saw a couple walk in with a little girl between them. She appeared to be a toddler. I couldn't understand why anyone would bring a child that young to what promised to be a violent outing. During the attempted rape scene, the girl started crying loudly; I guess the intensity was too much for her. I should hope she didn't comprehend what was going on. Finally, the mother took her out and I'm not sure if they returned or not.

May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eimpson 9 years ago

saved from any actual penetration

We want to rape you. We are about to rape you. Oh, you got "saved." Everything is cool.

Which gives the viewer a feeling of extreme relief.

That's the important part. /sarcasm

reply

[–] scottstvshop 9 years ago

It got to the point of rape and then Brosnan started shooting, kind of stopped the guys in their tracks.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shibez 9 years ago

If it disturbed you..that is a good thing. that means the director did his job.
Personally i think it is amazing that a film these days can make people feel that uncomfortable/disturbed by just leading or building up to a disgusting/heinous act like rape. Usually films these days just go for shock value, rather than working hard to film a scene in a way, that puts the audiences emotions through a roller coaster without showing the act.

Watching Owen screaming as he was about to watch his wife get raped...the angles of the cam getting a close up of his wifes torn off shirt...The look in her eyes as she is screaming for them to stop..because THEY HAVE NO RIGHT!..Only to get cold cocked right in the face closed fisted by one of the savages...It was done perfect. I fully expected them to rape her..but they didn't...and they took my emotions on a total 360 as the hero saves the day(Peirce). It was done perfect! And that is why that scene had to take place. If it didn't..It would have been just another cookie cutter film.

Once you start drawing lines on what should be in a film like this...what is left of a story to tell? Should they have not included the countless scenes of child murder? Actually shooting little innocent kids and hacking them to death with machetes? Or lining up 5 children in the road on their knees..with their hands tied behind their backs..Only to run them all over with a huge dump truck seconds later...Where do you cross the line?

👽

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dangerousdogs 9 years ago

There was no rape! No nudity, nothing. Yes-it was what the rebel wanted to do, but it never got to that point. The little girls were in hiding when the whole thing happened. I wasn't even a full minute. Don't even get me started on the posts about "they ate a dog", it was implied it was a dog, but there was no real dog seen being eaten. People go on sensationalizing things that did not happen simply to argue a worthless point. If you don't like violent movies, stick with Disney.