MovieChat Forums > Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2014) Discussion > A provocative and cinematic question abo...

A provocative and cinematic question about the much-discussed train scene in this movie.

posted 3 years ago by TheMan18 (13183)
8 replies | jump to latest

EVEN IF it wasn't err "female on male sexual assault" in any way, or the r word at all, and even IF it "was", may I ask, do you think...

The director of this movie, no doubt the far from unknown Lars Von Trier, and here comes the provocative part, has INTENTIONALLY filmed that scene in that way in order to deliberately shock and provoke the audience albeit in perhaps a slightly less than usual way?

People online including elsewhere have seriously de-facto debated, and no offense to anyone, much less real life people who experienced related matters, that the filmmakers may simply NOT have been aware that it was it. But then knowing that they are all intelligent adults, with Mr on Trier also being an acclaimed filmmaker, could this be not the case at all? And that they actually set it up like that deliberately. But was it to shock the audience?

Granted, Mr Von Trier is indeed no stranger to shock value in cinema. Heck, his Antichrist (2009) film, which was even a partial inspiration to this two-part movie and of course also starred Charlotte Gainsbourg, was filled with some really gross and over the top shock value in the form of torture, bloody violence, sexual violence also and other matters. And some of his other work be it Breaking the Waves (1996) and "The Idiots" (1998) show that he is not afraid to take risks, whether its explicit sex or certain difficult topics.

So with that in mind, was the train scene meant to be in a way an attempt to provoke the audience in that sense? Including also the fact that apparently a 17 year old female has managed to, or did she, take a fully grown man sexually when he didn't exactly want it, even if it wasn't violently forced or anything but he was clearly shown saying "please don't do it" and she jumped on him still. Was it done for shock value?

And the fact that even HERE audiences have been seriously debating it and whatnot, does it prove he has succeeded, thanks.

P.S. Many audiences actually WERE divided on this scene. Some say yeah it was "it" others didn't think so, and even made fun of others who thought that way. But what is the RIGHT position here, if at all? And again, for what purpose was it filmed in the way it was? Does the deed make Joe in any way a "bad person" or just a flawed character who made a mistake perhaps, and did the man really not want it and only reluctantly agreed because he was somehow not given a choice, or did he not mind it but his ultimate decision was simply NOT SPELLED OUT clearly on screen? Cheers.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

"Yeah, he filmed that scene intentionally that way in order to deliberately provoke the audience albeit in a slightly unusual, also sexually explicit, surreal and ambiguous sort of way." OK thanks, who was it that said that, God?

P.S. To be honest, not to sound either this and that, but I sometimes can't help but wonder, if that type of encounter happened to me that way, I don't think I will report the young lady to the police for it (even if there was a potential that the matter will go smoothly, I won't be myself ridiculed etc) and I won't hold a grudge on her or consider myself a victim.

"Darling" (say I tearfully and hold my heart out - "You are FORGIVEN." "May your life honestly bring out the best in you." "And let nothing ever truly bad happen to you, honestly." (Crying in ecstatic emotional pain.) But moving on. :)

So I will just move on with my life normally. Yet people seriously assumed it was "you know what". And I myself years ago fell victim to a desire both to analyze that scene and also question life including our various rules and laws on sexuality. Oh well. Art is REALLY taking its toll these days on the audience I tell thee. :)

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13144) 2 years ago

No male can be "raped" by a female if he doesn't give consent, albeit hesitantly. What, she literally forced his penis inside her?

Sorry, I don't buy this man's denial that he committed statutory rape. He deserves a stiff term in prison. He's the rapist! Not the girl. It's absurd here that blame is shifted from the rapist to his victim. Even if she "consented", he still raped her.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

Have you actually seen the film Onan? Also, OK, fair enough, in your view, the scene was THAT to you. In any case though, with the debate and some controversy that it did generate, do you think its director intentionally filmed it that way though?

Well, he did say he doesn't want it and she went on him any ways which some interpreted it at least as sexual assault, but it may be more complex than that.

Also, are there universal laws for this, and not say in other matters? Maybe NEITHER is "the rapist" here but still...

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13144) 2 years ago

Well according to law he raped her as at 17 she is unable to consent. Jumping on a man and kissing him is not rape. It may be sexual assault. But you have a conundrum here. A 17-year-old can't sexually assault anyone if they can't consentin the first place.

The law is slanted to favor children for good reason.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

I think having sex with a 17 year old isn't quite "rape" if the act may have been somewhat consensual and no force was used, it is at best "statutory rape".

So in a nutshell, in this scene, basically, legally AND morally, you don't think she sexually assaulted him like that, and that she isn't the perpetrator and he isn't a victim from her in this scene, this is what I am getting at.

But also - what about in terms of how this scene was filmed and portrayed. Was it done INTENTIONALLY to stir controversy, ambiguity and shock value? And given how director Lars Von Trier with his previous work is no stranger to either, could he have specifically filmed the scene like that then?

Besides, given how as civilized people, in the general sense beyond law we do tend to think very negatively (although sadly not all, but that matter is also often referred to as a TRAGIC REALITY and it DOES get called out on!) of sex offenders especially male ones. But in a situation like portrayed here, even if guilty, how does Joe come across? As in, even IF she happens to be punished and whatnot, not just legally and morally, can we leave her be and not judge her say too much, but just think of her as a flawed character?

Then again, we might all be reading way too much into it.

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

I wonder if Lars Von Trier or anyone ever commented on that scene and probably said "No, it wasn't that at all, it was a consensual sexual encounter."

[–] TheMan18 (13183) 2 years ago

Part 2 of the movie ALSO has a similar scene but this time with Joe grown up as a woman and it is also somewhat ambiguous and not spelled out but does somewhat comes across as it.

Not to also mention, that scene has at least TWO MORE other controversial aspects. One being that a guy victim there had a particular "sick" type of fantasy in him so he wasn't portrayed as a good guy even if maybe he didn't deserve it either, and the other was the statement made by the character.

But it seems and feels as if both scenes were filmed this way in order to both boost controversy and provoke thoughts.

Maybe Lars Von Trier was addressing to the audience questions about what DO they know, BEYOND typical stereotypes, about sex, about sex laws, about consent, about thin lines if at all between it and not it, about violations of such issues, if we are to look at them differently than other forms of violence, if we are to look at them differently then cases involving traditional or TYPICAL well known examples (with mostly male perpetrators) and why, if such deeds alone make a person BAD, if a person may even be judged and should they for certain even CONSENSUAL acts of sexual activity and if its all alright or sometimes not, if good and evil are even SIMPLE concepts or if boundaries can be blurred, if even BAD people deserve to suffer and good to always be blessed etc.

Watch both parts, yeah with those scenes if you will, and see if you also feel this way.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13144) 2 years ago

Bottom line, I don't think a woman can rape a man. She can't force penetration. And most every man can overpower most every woman. I'm not sure what you call it. A plea for attention? But it's nothing like a man forcing himself on a female.