After watching Anomalisa, I went to IMDB like I always do after watching any film. I was surprised to see that some contributors were claiming that Michael raped Lisa. With the film fresh on my mind, I strongly feel that the sex was consensual and not rape. She didn't tell him to stop nor express to him to stop his sexual advances. But maybe I'm wrong and totally missed something. What do you all think?
shareWell, he certainly took advantage of her. Okay she is above the age of consent but ... she is a very naive, childlike woman with low self-esteem. In an emotional, psychological sense it is a bit like paedophilia. The whole 'romantic' seduction scene came across like one of those guys who groom the innocent and inexperienced for their own use.
Technically not rape - he'd get away with it legally. But morally and in a true psychological sense what he does to a child-woman like Lisa can certainly be compared to rape. And what is particularly nasty is that the writer seems to be trying to say that Michael's 'condition' somehow excuses him - at least a bit - for his conduct. Sorry it doesn't. No excuses.
And what is particularly nasty is that the writer seems to be trying to say that Michael's 'condition' somehow excuses him - at least a bit - for his conduct.I honestly thought Kaufman left the script open enough to where you can have your own thoughts on him yet still be able to understand his position. No it doesn't, but I don't necessarily think that Kaufman tried to make Micheal look like a good man at any point in the movie.
Agreed - he doesn't try to make Michael look like a good man. He does worse than that. He shows Michael as a 'bad' person but tries to make a partial excuse for him. By showing us his pain etc and claiming a mental health condition for him, we are meant to view him less harshly. No sale. By asking us to 'understand his position' he is asking us to (partly) excuse his horrendous treatment of the child-woman Lisa.
shareWe're not meant to view him less harshly. Kaufman's whole shtick is about trying to convey people honestly. Some people will relate, some will feel sympathetic, some will think he's an *beep* Kaufman does not "ask the audience to understand Michael's position." He just presents it as it is.
share"Kaufman's whole shtick is about trying to convey people honestly." Okay - and he does a good job in showing us what a *beep* Stone is and what a dim, klutzy child-woman Lisa is. However, putting that little speech into Lisa's mouth at the end is the giveaway. How convenient that she neatly philosophises the whole episode into something palatable for us. Would you believe it - she is not horribly damaged by the experience! She is conveniently 'okay' more or less. She 'walks in the sun' - oh pleez. So we are taught that using and manipulating naive, child-women like Lisa isn't really so bad, after all. And we're thinking poor old Michael Stone. What a sad jerk - but awww, what a shame for the poor guy too.
Sorry - not buying it. No sale : )
I'm loling at your choice of words. Child woman? What a horrible sentiment to accuse Michael of rape. It was completely consensual. Thinking otherwise is crazy. I'm genuinely offended.
You know what the Queen said? If I had balls, I'd be King.
Funny. I'm lolling at your choice of words. Michael hasn't been accused of rape per se - as you well know. He's been 'accused' of being a sad jerk and a lot of other stuff besides. By many people. Including the film-makers themselves. And he does have a lot in common with sociopathic types who take advantage of weak-willed people. Read the critics ....
Sorry you're offended kid : (
It seems you missed, but the socially accepted, good looking and "princess" Em, was also into Michael.
She was clearly hinting at it all the time and was kinda of surprised to be let down. She doesn't look like any imagined childlike figure who doesn't have experience and couldn't tell what was his intentions, since she had her own.
I think the people from this topic are missing many good topics to discuss a non-existent, or even worse definition, a mental or psychological rape.
It is not that he was taking advantage of her, I think one of the missed points is that people, genuinely, lose themselves into others and it doesn't mean it was a lie, trick or rape. It is just the way it is. They were both letting it lose.
Of course we all intend to have deep and meaningful relationships, but it is not what we all are capable to achieve. Sometimes we are in the wrong place at the right time and vice-versa and we have to make the best of it.
We seldom find ourselves both at the right time, place and with the person we would like to be. When we are, we tend to prolong it at the best of our abilities. Some have the traits to prolong it as long as they are trying to, some don't and have to witness the dying of a once idealistic relationship.
You have to step down from your belly button syndrome and try to understand that this movie is not strictly about abusive men or abused women, it is about how we relate to each other.
English not first language, I apologize.
“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove
How convenient that she neatly philosophises the whole episode into something palatable for us. Would you believe it - she is not horribly damaged by the experience! She is conveniently 'okay' more or less.
I thought having that last scene was important because it showed that Lisa existed as a person outside of Michael's perception of her. And why should she only be defined as a victim? The fact that she's going to move on from that experience shows that she's not nearly as damaged or insecure as everyone else here is making her out to be.
There's something I know when I'm with you that I forget when I'm away
I thought having that last scene was important because it showed that Lisa existed as a person outside of Michael's perception of her. And why should she only be defined as a victim? The fact that she's going to move on from that experience shows that she's not nearly as damaged or insecure as everyone else here is making her out to be.
Because the writer conveniently places those words in her mouth. It goes against everything we have been told about Lisa beforehand. The psychology doesn't add up. It's like the.old cliche of 'with one bound Jack was free' or having someone wake up to find it was all a dream.
Terms of service: one reply per customer. then finito
It's like you need her to suffer...
share[deleted]
I understand your take on this having read some of your posts, and why the way it spoke to you left a very sour taste, but I have to say I had a different take and disagree that it went against everything we had been told about her.
As you point out she was quite a childlike naive character, and the way she dealt with his departure was in keeping with this for me. She focused on the warm glow she felt to be wanted and to be that close to someone for a night after so many years of self-doubt, instead of investigating what manipulation and dishonesty took place.
She also always found Stone to be weird and erratic. The last thing she saw of him was a complete breakdown during his speech and we see her confused/alarmed reaction. This is on top of the crazily impulsive way he acted with her in person. He was inexplicable to her throughout, so the fact she accepts his departure despite not understanding his broken promises and proclamations follows well enough.
It doesn't take away from the fact that someone wanted her, which she had come to believe was not possible, and that this was an overall positive for her despite the obvious sadness in her letter, and despite us knowing how desperately messed up he was and how it was all far from the true love he presented it as.
I have to say that I've seen friends in almost identical situations react in very similar ways, with their self esteem raised, despite the situation itself being toxic and the other party's intentions being morally lacking. I've seen others around them try to tell them they were used and should be angry and it fall on deaf ears. I've been that person myself in some ways, especially after periods of loneliness. Life is messy like that.
The other important point to make is that if you find that ending to let Stone off the hook and in doing so made an overarching moral point, I can totally see why it would anger you, especially if you found her reaction to be forced on us. Personally, it didn't leave me feeling that at all. The guy remained a miserable mess of a human and not someone I would want anyone to get involved with, nor wish to be. We've seen the trail of destruction he left on the other people, especially women, in his life, and none of that is taken away by the fact that one woman dealt with it in her own, more childlike and positive way, due to her particular situation and personality. Lucky for her perhaps, but not a let off for Michael, and I certainly didn't feel the film was telling me that.
As I say, I do understand your take on it and was interested to read it. Just wanted to offer my reading of it too :)
zuleika: I think you missed an important aspect of Lisa and her behavior in concluding that she is simply imagining the episode as something more acceptable to the audience. I think the filmmakers present Lisa's reaction as a contrast to Michael's outlook and behavior.
Michael reacts to the relationship as another example of the uselessness and hopelessness of his relationships, and as yet more fuel for his frustration. Lisa, in contrast, chooses to take something positive out of it, and grow from it as a person. She succeeds in doing that, as evidenced by her words.
As for Michael's behavior in the movie, nobody is making excuses for his actions and words. However, one would have to be completely self-absorbed to imagine that one has never acted selfishly, as Michael has, or has never acted cruelly toward another human being. We all have acted in ways we regret, at one time or another. So, without excusing Michael's actions one can have empathy for his problems.
I think it was clear in the movie that Michael was acting inappropriately - he was very manipulative of Lisa, as he was of his former girlfriend when he invited her to the hotel for drinks. He was in a position of power in the relationship with Lisa and her friend - they admired him greatly and were star-struck when they met him. However, that doesn't mean that Lisa was entirely helpless and could not avoid being involved with him.
My real name is Jeff
What's with you westerners and the scare of the EVIL PENIIIS? Are you completely insane? What damage? And what scars? You are bigoted than the fokkin spanish inquisition.
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
Wow. So one thing that's abundantly clear here is just how hard you'll work to get to the "rape, sexual assault, male dominance, advantage taken, victimization" thing.
Got it.
How insulting to women.
However, putting that little speech into Lisa's mouth at the end is the giveaway. How convenient that she neatly philosophises the whole episode into something palatable for us. Would you believe it - she is not horribly damaged by the experience! She is conveniently 'okay' more or less.
I think you misread the final monologue/letter. I took it a representation of everything that Michael Stone is not. He cannot see the good in anything. He sees these people that like him for his mind and for his work, and he doesn't appreciate it. They are just a faceless horde that doesn't satisfy. Lisa, on the other hand, looks for the good in everyone. She tries to learn and appreciate the world she inhabits. The final speech seemed, to me, like she had been slightly liberated by the experience. She knows that it didn't work out, she doesn't know why, but she knows Michael *beep* her over a bit. Yet she also sees the good that she experienced. She cherishes the emotions she glimpsed with him because she wants to have good in the world. Instead of writing it off or expecting anything more of it, she values what is and was. And when she says they may meet again one day when everything has been worked out, it's not vindictive OR sentimental, it's a genuine appreciation of the transient moments and a desire to have more of them. She is the antithesis of Michael, and that's why she is beautiful to him.
TL;DR: Michael is selfish and doesn't want to find good in the world and Lisa is giving and appreciative of the good that exists all around us. This is entirely highlighted in that final letter.
"Lord have mercy, father help us all"
"How convenient that she neatly philosophises the whole episode into something palatable for us."
i saw that as a narrative of hers that's palatable for her, above all. Isn't that all that's left for us after a hugely tragic episode?
Agreed. He doesn't portray him either way and I think that comes across. I personally didn't think Michael was a bad guy nor did I feel all that sympathetic for him. He was what he was if that makes sense.
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Criedshare
I like how you constantly belittle Lisa as a child-woman. She was insecure because she was not experienced with sex and had a scar she thought made her look ugly.
Maybe you noticed that she wanted to have sex with Michael. Maybe you noticed that even in the moment she said - this is just for now, but that's okay. Maybe you noticed in the letter she wrote at the end that she was very happy about what happened.
So can you give one reason why what Michael did was rapey? Other than to call a fully-grown woman with a job and an existent, if brief, sexual history - a child incapable of consenting to sex.
Seriously, your belittling of Lisa's character stinks of sexism.
My smile is stuck, I cannot go back to your frownland.
Maybe you noticed that she wanted to have sex with Michael. Maybe you noticed that even in the moment she said - this is just for now, but that's okay. Maybe you noticed in the letter she wrote at the end that she was very happy about what happened.
because he targeted this particular easy-lay who he could plainly see was in awe of him and a kind of a groupie (apart from everything else). He had been looking for just such an easy-lay from the moment he arrived at the hotel.
the only sexism involved here is that of trying to make out that taking advantage of a person who is emotionally damaged, less intelligent, less experienced, easily manipulated and a total pushover, is somehow acceptable.
If Michael is looking for an easy lay, why doesn't he have sex with Lisa's friend? She clearly wanted to bang and was conventionally more attractive.
The movie tells us that Michael finds Lisa extremely special - she is the only person he meets who has their own face and voice.
"Why then does he cry when she sings? Why does he profess his love and say he's going to leave his wife and marry her?
Are you saying those were ploys to convince her to have sex with them?
He already had sex with her when he said he wanted to marry her, so why did do that?
he...had extremely gentle sex with her - which she wanted and enjoyed...
Telling her he loves her could also be seen as a way of keeping her happy and quiescent. He needs to keep her quiet right through until the next morning.
He preferred Lisa to her friend becasue Lisa was more delightful - this happens. The friend, she seemed older, was more chasing after him. I got the impression she would be the easier lay, at least that's how it was presented in the movie.
i saw it differently. i think he preffered lisa exactly because Em was into him. She showed her ability to desire, and THAT is what frightens him across the movie. It's when Lisa starts to show herself as a person, and not as an object he can play with anymore, that she starts sound as a man and he starts to suffer.
shareI'm confused when you say the scriptwriter put words in her mouth. She is completely a creation of the scriptwriter. Her qualities of naivety and low self-esteem come from the same mind that put words in her (and everyone else's) mouth. Could you clarify this for me? Are you saying the writer intended the sex to be inappropriate? Or that the writer is inappropriate?
I am not young enough to know everything.
-Oscar Wilde
Exactly what I thought!
shareshe is a very naive, childlike woman with low self-esteem. In an emotional, psychological sense it is a bit like paedophilia.
"Are you saying that emotionally immature people should remain virgins all their lives?"
No. And Lisa isn't a virgin. But emotionally immature/naive/childlike/low-self-esteem people are not really ideal candidates for older male seduction to a drunken one-night stand (however you dress it up) in a hotel, and to be discarded the next morning. Phone the Happy Hooker Agency for that, or proposition the kind woman who knows the score.
Btw name-calling only ever undermines your position. It reeks of desperation and emotionalism.
"And I don't think the movie excuses his actions. I'm pretty sure he imagines the last letter in an attempt to make himself feel better about the whole thing, which, if anything, makes him look like even more of a selfish prick than the rest of the film does.
Well, good for you : ) No real disagreement then.
[deleted]
On the contrary. I have been most careful to clarify that these are not dictionary or legal definitions of the terms. They have clearly been used in analogous contexts where parallels have been drawn. You are inferring what you wish to infer. Or perhaps you are just cerebrally challenged.
However when you say ... "So take your feelings and thoughts and shove them, they have no place in a debate." ... you clearly show yourself to have the mentality of a troglodyte and thus you have 'no place in a debate'.
Enjoy your evening : )
[deleted]
"your real agenda is to try to dissuade people from having sex."
Thanks for making me laugh, SuperBruce, that's the funniest thing I've read all week : )
As for the rest - I don't respond to trolls (apart from this). From now on you're blocked, soz.
Wishing you peace, happiness and much joy. Over and out.
But emotionally immature/naive/childlike/low-self-esteem people are not really ideal candidates for older male seduction to a drunken one-night stand (however you dress it up) in a hotel, and to be discarded the next morning.
brilliant answer
"Anyone who claims to be a feminist instead of a humanist is a tap dancing monkey."
In an emotional, psychological sense it is a bit like paedophilia. The whole 'romantic' seduction scene came across like one of those guys who groom the innocent and inexperienced for their own use.
Your logic belongs on Tumblr. Comparing consensual sex to paedophilia is so ridiculous. I'd bet $1000000 that you're an internet-educated feminist because no one else in their right mind would be upset over the things that you're upset about with this film. I suggest you run off to another corner of the internet where you can feel the comfort of confirmation bias.
shareYour logic belongs on Tumblr. Comparing consensual sex to paedophilia is so ridiculous. I'd bet $1000000 that you're an internet-educated feminist because no one else in their right mind would be upset over the things that you're upset about with this film. I suggest you run off to another corner of the internet where you can feel the comfort of confirmation bias.
the essential spirit and ambience of the 'seduction' is paedophilic. Lisa's "yes" doesn't mean much.You really are a complete nutcase, and more than that, as dumb as a rock. Your insistence on using words like pedophilia and rape to describe what happens in this film is not only mind-bendingly stupid, but downright misogynistic. Your only point seems to be that Lisa is some kind of retard who should never have sex nor make her own decisions because she hasn't reached some arbitrary level of emotional maturity you'd consider appropriate. You would deny this adult woman any and all agency; the right to make her own choices and live her own life. I suppose she should be locked up in a convent to save her from herself, right?
Your only point seems to be that Lisa is some kind of retard who should never have sex nor make her own decisions because she hasn't reached some arbitrary level of emotional maturity you'd consider appropriate.
I suppose she should be locked up in a convent to save her from herself, right?
Rational arguments have repeatedly been offered to you in this very thread. Numerous people have tried to explain why equating Michael's behavior with 'rape' and 'pedophilia' is wrong and insulting to real rape victims. You rejected all of these rational arguments in a ludicrously condescending manner, mostly dismissing the people making them as trolls or 'teenage male virgins'. It is now patently clear that arguing with you in a calm and constructive manner is a fool's errand.
shareRational arguments have repeatedly been offered to you in this very thread.
The reason they can't let it go is that it was total horseshìt. Letting it go would legitimise it. Obviously, you're in dire need of a good shafting yourself.
zuleika-44325 , why are you so nasty about Lisa? She is not a child in a body of a 49-year old frump. I could see her the way Michael saw her. I could see past the insecurity and saw a beautiful woman. Scarred, literally and figuratively but beautiful. She was not like a lot of other people showing off and pretending. She was modest and shy but that doesn't make her a child. She was a grown woman with hidden talents. She had such a lovely voice that I didn't care she was rambling. Her rendition of Girls Just Wanna Have Fun was the best I ever heard. It nearly made me cry. She could even sing it in Italian! Wich together with French are also my 2 favorite languages. She was sweet, funny and had a gorgeous sexy body. A frump? Get out of here!
I feel like I saw a different film than most people here. Michael wasn't perfect but who is. He was depressed, mentally instable, probably going through a mid-life crisis. But when he met Lisa something happened. He fell for this odd, insecure woman. Totally fell for her. Head over heels. He took all her quirky character traits for granted. He could see past that and saw a beautiful, interesting character. His love and admiration made her blossom. It made her less insecure. Michael himself also became a better person. He was sweet and gentle with her. It was an evening that enriched them both. It couldn't last, but hey, you can't always have everything.
why are you so nasty about Lisa?
in the future, i suggest you stay away from movies with mature themes or sex.
shareThis is beyond ignorant. So people with low self-esteem shouldn't have sex because they are incontrovertibly being taken advantage of at best and raped at worst?
share"In an emotional, psychological sense it is a bit like paedophilia."
I'm sorry, this is frankly a ridiculous statement. Just because she had some childlike aspects to her personality does not mean she is unable to make informed decisions about consent as the film clearly sets up that she can. So are you saying that certain personality traits should preclude some people from ever having sex. Does every woman have to meet your ridiculously high standard of maturity to be able to have sex with a man or the man is deemed a rapist? I would not want to live in that world if that is the case.
"But morally and in a true psychological sense what he does to a child-woman like Lisa can certainly be compared to rape"
This idea that she somehow is a child woman for having certain mannerisms ignores so much of the film it is unbelievable to me. Did you just ignore the final speech from her, it showed incredible maturity and she is more able to process the event then he is. Also that just does not matter. She clearly was set up as, in the scene, having the ability to consent and actively wanted to have sex with Michael, he even asks her multiple times if it is OK for him to continue and she is the one to actually initiate the sex by saying 'come up here'.
"And what is particularly nasty is that the writer seems to be trying to say that Michael's 'condition' somehow excuses him - at least a bit - for his conduct"
Well frankly his conduct was not bad at all (as far as the actual sex is concerned) unless you have incredibly unrealistic expectations of sexuality and think that having immature tendencies means you can't consent (Like you clearly do). However his conduct is never expressed as being good throughout the film, ignoring the idea that he supposedly raped Lisa (which he didn't), he cheated on his wife and blamed his son (and others) for his problems. He isn't set up as being a good man in any way throughout the film, a deeply lonely and broken man, but Kaufman never aims to excuse his actions (honestly I'd go as far to argue he does the opposite).
I am a rape victim. As in, real rape. This scene features consensual sex, not rape. You need to leave this alternate reality you live in and join us in the real world.
Your explanation as to why this is rape according to you caused me to actually facepalm.
Contact me privately and I will explain to you in details what real rape is.
What it is not is what's in this scene.
So she is a "Child-Woman"??? does she also have a legal guardian preventing her from being "taken advantage of" by old men she deeply admires and obviously wants to *beep* with?? maybe she is soooo "naive" that it abuts on a mental disability???
*beep*
C'mon you're ridiculously putting a label on a grown woman who, after many years of involuntary abstinence, was happy to get laid by a man she felt comfortable with.
He treated her very gently and with respect and they even fell in love with each other, he doesn't need to be excused.
If you call that "rape", you do a disgrace to all real victims of rape!
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
"I ignore pathetic trolls"
This is absurd. He turns out to be a jerk, but that is not remotely similar to pedophilia or rape. Jesus.
--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250
So basically it's rape if you have consensual sex with an adult woman with low confidence. That's basically half of the female population.
shareWelcome to 2016...where total consensual sex is now rape.
share"...total consensual sex..." - a technicality in this instance. Lisa is hardly an adult in the psychological and emotional sense. Stone knows that. And nobody said it was 'rape' - did they ?
share"...total consensual sex..." - a technicality in this instance. Lisa is hardly an adult in the psychological and emotional sense. Stone knows that. And nobody said it was 'rape' - did they ?'
" Lisa wanted the sex, and it happened on her terms." It's scary that someone can come away from this film and believe that.
Do remember that Lisa is a fictional creation of a male screenwriter and as such reacts in whatever way he chooses.
However -
"She's an adult capable of having a job, drinking, traveling and capable of having consensual sex. She even states she had been in at least one past relationship."
She may be over the age of consent but that does not mean she is psychologically mature. Most decent men would not have treated a 'Lisa' - at any point - as Stone did. They'd have stayed away. Maybe had a drink with her etc, but that would be it. Michael and Lisa's 'relationship' has an air of paedophilia to it. Having a job etc has nothing to do with her sexual or emotional maturity. The one relationship she refers to was over 8 years previously and she has fended off sexual attention since then (N.B. No woman, however ugly, is unable to find a sexual partner if she wants one).
"...that moment, when they were connecting," Oh pleez. Connecting? There was zero connection between them. At no point did Kaufman manage to make it seem that they were really into each other. But I don't think he knows how to portray connection between people. He's good at abnormality, but not normality, love, etc. I feel sorry for people whose lives have been so impoverished that they could see that barren landscape as exhibiting 'connection'. I honestly do.
"At least he didn't think he was using her." Oh that's okay then.
"Sex is much more than the pathetically robotic act today's ultra-PC crowd wants it to be. There is a give and take with sex. There is body language, non-verbal cues, flirting and game playing." Well it didn't show up in this film, did it? But 'game-playing' - no. There is absolutely no room for playing games with a naive, unintelligent, low self-esteem, starstruck creature like Lisa. They don't know each other well-enough for what they do to be 'sex'. It's a pretty crummy transaction.
""...that moment, when they were connecting," Oh pleez. Connecting? There was zero connection between them."
I agree with this. The only connection during the sex scene was between Michael and himself, and his narcissistic desire of creating perfect love without actually building up to it. Michael is one of those people who confuse lust for love.
It's a brilliantly deceptive sex scene on so many levels. I love the fact that people are finding it so realistic and intimate when in reality it's a false "love" no matter what angle you look at it.
Could this possibly have been intentional on Kaufman's part? It's like he's purposely getting out of people how false their own sense of admiration can be.
"Could this possibly have been intentional on Kaufman's part? It's like he's purposely getting out of people how false their own sense of admiration can be."
I feel you could well be right. That theory still jars with the ending though (Lisa's closing speech) but if everything is taking place in Michael's imagination - as you suggested in an earlier post - then it would make artistic sense. And yes, the sex scene is wonderfully deceptive. Isn't everything given away in the earlier episode when one is caught reflected in the other's eyes? A superb visual pun on the psychology of what was actually taking place.
I love the fact that people are finding it so realistic and intimate when in reality it's a false "love" no matter what angle you look at it.
Yep - everything you said. I have met so many men like Michael who confuse lust for love.... they search so damned hard, jump in too quick and quickly lose their glowing beautiful feeling they are experiencing.
shareI'm not saying either of them are mentally capable of handling what it is either of them think they want. But as far as the sex was concerned, it was completely consensual. There you people go again, waving a moral flag around when in reality you're grossly insulting the characters agency.
share"the characters agency" T-eschberger - you are too much, lol.
Ain't got no 'moral flag' - but you seem to have one. To state categorically that the sex 'was completely consensual' is a moral declaration. As is any standpoint that anyone takes.
Have a good night : )
Michael and Lisa's 'relationship' has an air of paedophilia to it
don't feed the troll, brah
shareAnd welcome to the internet, where opinions are put forth as facts, and the dumbest interpretations are shouted most loudly.
Trying to convince others that you are the one who has figured out Kaufman's intent isn't brave, it's futile.
Keep up the good fight, T.
ha, thanks for posting that before me.
~I see a little silhouette of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.
[deleted]
I think calling this "rape" is damaging to what rape actually is. For sure, it appears he is manipulating her, using her to fill some void. There should a clear distinction between "rape" and manipulation. Otherwise you risk going into different degrees of rape and the entire word becomes this nebulous concept without a proper meaning, like the world "racism" today.
shareIs anyone actually calling it 'rape' in the legal sense? As far as I can see the OP suggests there were parallels - and there are. However, the moral and psychological consequences of his actions are totally up for discussion. He has the mentality of a rapist, a user and abuser. I think the very fact that people are trying to play down the way Lisa is made use of is indicative of how this little film makes us soften our attitude towards people like Michael Stone (they exist in real life).
shareOP here. I just wanted to start a conversation about this topic. It seems that the ethics of sex is becoming a more prominent issue in society and wanted to hear other people's input.
Personally, I didn't find Michael as a sympathetic character because he was trying to cheat. Let's not forget that early in the film he called his ex-girlfriend and invited her to his room. Cheating is bad, cheating on your spouse is worse, and cheating when you're raising a child with your spouse is even more worse. I feel this way because my dad cheated on my mom and it caused years of heartache in my family. Even before Michael met Lisa, I thought he was a scum bag and extremely selfish.
Back the topic at hand, do you think Michael should receive criminal punishment for his actions? Maybe just mandatory classes? Or should it be no business of the government to reprimand Michael for his actions?
Rape is a legal term, though. You're rewriting it to support your own agenda about what you think rape should constitute.
She was a mature adult who said yes to something. Lisa is grown enough that she can make a decision she feels is right, and she did. Rape doesn't have informal variations; it was either done or it wasn't, and in this case, it wasn't.
You mean like that movie, Juwanna Mann?
Mature? Um ...I don't think so. I would't trust poor old downtrodden Lisa to take a dog for a walk and bring it back safely.
Not sure what agenda you are seeing. Michael did not rape Lisa. He could never be legally prosecuted. However, there have been comments on certain parallels with being used, manipulated, groomed, etc. 'Rape' is not merely a legal term - it refers also to emotional fallout, psychological effects. In this sense it can be experienced by both men and women.
I would't trust poor old downtrodden Lisa to take a dog for a walk and bring it back safely.
You say "...to suggest that he just wanted to damage her and was well-aware of how he came off."
No - where is the suggestion that he intended to cause damage? I think that most viewers of this film can see that he is only thinking of his own needs/desires and that he simply has no thought of how this might hurt or damage someone else. Most people can see Stone for the selfish individual he is. Kaufman certainly can and does not exactly describe him as a nice guy.
Lisa as unstable? Instability is quite different to immaturity. She's a 'grown adult'? She's grown - yes - but hardly an adult in terms of maturity and being able to watch out for herself.
"And your informal usage of such terms is indication that you're not an expert on the subject on what you're speaking of."
(I won't go into your grammar here). Which subject? The film 'Anomalisa'? None of us are experts. Not on that nor on any other topic. But, as far as I can see, no-one is claiming to be an expert. Quite simply, different insights and interpretations are being offered. You seem personally offended by this. I cannot know what personal resonance the film might have for you but you do seem to be very emotionally involved.
Gotta love how you selectively replied to the parts that were more convenient for you. I think your argument is beyond asinine (And I think you do too), which is why I'm responding. And seeing as how you're backpedaling on nearly all of what you're saying, I think this movie offended you more than I'm "offended" right now.
You mean like that movie, Juwanna Mann?
"Gotta love how you selectively replied to the parts that were more convenient for you. "
Which parts were more 'convenient'? Should I be copying the whole of your post into my response? It is easy to make assertions like yours when you do not provide any example(s).
Likewise on 'backpedaling" Where and in regard to what?
It is also sad, but quite amusing, when someone sinks to troll-like name-calling. It's called scraping-the-barrel.
Clearly this has got under your skin. As I said before, I'm sorry if any part of the film had a personal resonance for you.
It is also sad, but quite amusing, when someone sinks to troll-like name-calling. It's called scraping-the-barrel.
Clearly this has got under your skin.
Is anyone actually calling it 'rape' in the legal sense?
"It's either rape or it's not."
In legal terms - yes. Actually - on reflection- there are a lot of grey areas in legal cases too and often cases are dropped due to lack of evidence rather than any clear decision that it didn't happen. But that's a whole other issue ...
It's interesting to see how a few people are determined not to hear what is actually being said re 'rape' or 'assault'. As far as I can see it has been said that there are parallels with rape. Parallels with 'grooming' someone for sex. Perhaps it seems so obvious that this is so ... and this is fuelling the faux statements about rape? That would certainly explain it.
I can think of lots of situations where you might describe certain situation as having parallels with rape. Schoolboys (over the age of consent) who are seduced by their teachers. Those boys can feel wretched and used later - some describe it as feeling 'raped'. I can understand that. The word is used in an emotional and psychological sense as well as in legal terms. You can dislike that if you want but people will continue to use the word that way. Lisa ma be in her 30s or 40s but - don't deny it - she's a big kid and starstruck with Stone, just like a schoolgirl with her teacher.
In legal terms - yes. Actually - on reflection- there are a lot of grey areas in legal cases too and often cases are dropped due to lack of evidence rather than any clear decision that it didn't happen. But that's a whole other issue ...
It's interesting to see how a few people are determined not to hear what is actually being said re 'rape' or 'assault'. As far as I can see it has been said that there are parallels with rape. Parallels with 'grooming' someone for sex. Perhaps it seems so obvious that this is so ... and this is fuelling the faux statements about rape? That would certainly explain it.
I can think of lots of situations where you might describe certain situation as having parallels with rape. Schoolboys (over the age of consent) who are seduced by their teachers
Lisa ma be in her 30s or 40s but - don't deny it - she's a big kid and starstruck with Stone, just like a schoolgirl with her teacher.
I just noticed your surname - any relation? Probably not, but no harm in asking.
I see you have gone off on several tangents here rather than keep to the questions you apparently wanted to discuss earlier. Okay - I'll play - but this is my last for tonight. I seem to have acquired a particular kind of weird fanbase on this strange little message board (which is like no other forum I've encountered in my life before - and I get around) but I need to get back to normality and normal people soon. Or I'll feel that I'm permanently stuck in Kaufman's universe of pathology and abnormality.
1) "- ...which has absolutely nothing to do with the film."
That's why I said 'But that's a whole other issue.' Also (pot-kettle-black), you'd have to say the same of same of your own comments.
2) "It's irrelevant if there are "parallels" to rape if the act itself was not committed." Irrelevant to what or to whom? It's a valid topic for discussion. People are open to make whatever interpretations they wish. Who are you to say what is relevant or not? Why are you so afraid of this topic being discussed ...?
3) "Teachers having sex with students isn't covered by the age of consent. I think this is proof enough that you have no idea what you're talking about."
I think this is proof that you haven't understood what's been said - or perhaps are pretending to misunderstand? If one of the relevant factors here is that Lisa is a 'grown-up' (i.e. over the age of consent) then it is also relevant that the school kids I cite are technically over-the-age-of-consent. In neither case does that excuse the behaviour of those who took advantage of their vulnerability.
4) "She's meeting Michael for the first time at whatever age she is, so the notion that she's comparable to a student has no weight. A student in his or her teens is going through puberty and wouldn't have the same reaction to a teacher that Lisa—a fan of a public figure—did."
So? That makes her even more vulnerable. She has no prior knowledge of how this businessman - much more clever and worldly-wise than her - operates. Students of 16 and 17 (who in the UK can be married, have children etc) are past the big rush of puberty - though how this would excuse/condemn their teacher in any case, I can't see. Lisa is - psychologically and emotionally- little more than a big school kid. Michael should have played with someone more his equal (but they were all wise to him).
Now - disagree with me all you like (again - yawn) but if you want to continue this nonsense why not respond to the OP who raised this topic in the first place.
Good night : )
I just noticed your surname - any relation? Probably not, but no harm in asking.
Irrelevant to what or to whom? It's a valid topic for discussion. People are open to make whatever interpretations they wish. Who are you to say what is relevant or not? Why are you so afraid of this topic being discussed ...?
I think this is proof that you haven't understood what's been said - or perhaps are pretending to misunderstand? If one of the relevant factors here is that Lisa is a 'grown-up' (i.e. over the age of consent) then it is also relevant that the school kids I cite are technically over-the-age-of-consent. In neither case does that excuse the behaviour of those who took advantage of their vulnerability.
Lisa is - psychologically and emotionally- little more than a big school kid.
Now - disagree with me all you like (again - yawn) but if you want to continue this nonsense why not respond to the OP who raised this topic in the first place.
Okay, a few closers to wind this nonsense up. Then I don't want any more trolling from you . Further responses will be ignored.
1) " Because you're the one who keeps replying."
Eric, you originally contacted me - and kept on and on and on. I'm pretty polite and I respond to everyone who contacts me. But this is the last time I intend to be 'polite'. Find someone else to stalk.
2) "That doesn't mean anything because she's a mentally competent adult (Which is fine because she's not a victim of anything).
Lisa would apologise if someone knocked her over in the street. Her self-esteem is in the gutter. The fact that she can understand speech and take part in a conversation means zilch. So can my 12-year old nephew. Lisa's competence is on a par with his. In fact, I'd say his is stronger.
3) "Moreover, we only know Lisa from the angle of this specific incident, so you don't even have enough material to judge her stability. "
And that's enough in any film or play or similar creative work for us to make an assessment on character and competence.
Kaufman has given us pretty thorough character portraits of these two people.
4) "We're not talking about the plot, or whether the movie is good or bad; we're talking about the issue of harassment (or, whatever you're fixated on calling it at the moment). Your opinions are full of false equivalencies."
Aren't we? And who says that we (you and me? people on this thread?) are talking about 'harassment'? It is actually you, Eric, who continues to bring up the topic of 'actual rape' - though if you're now changing it to harassment to muddy the waters or backtrack, please feel free.
As you know, I have commented on certain parallels with rape/grooming. You don't like it. Tough. Your personal issues are your own. I haven't made any 'equivalencies' - only comparisons and parallels. You however have tried to make an equivalence of competence and stability (amongst several other things) when they are in fact quite different characteristics.
5) "That's not my actual surname."
Fine. Now have a good night and why not try directing any future broadsides to the OP who started the thread?
Over and out.
Why don't you pm me as I offered before, so that I can describe to you what rape is, since I was raped myself?
You're completely delusional.
wow. this didnt even cross my mind. seriously. not sure why this would even be a topic. if people think like that; then i guess at least 75% of people are rapists and conversely victims of rape at some time or another; the other 25% are virgins and/or inexperienced...
shareMichael Stone certainly took advantage of Lisa's vulnerable nature; happens all the time in society. I'm failing to see where Kaufman made any excuses for Michael's behavior or deemed it acceptable for society. I admit I felt a bit sad for Michael Stone in the beginning but grew to loathe his character and continued to loathe him until the film's end.
shareI think it's a moot point as I'm quite convinced after stewing on this movie for the evening that Lisa didn't even exist. I'm quite sure he was dreaming from some time just before he took a shower.
A few things...
When he got out of the shower his face started twitching, similar to how it would later when he was dreaming and his face fell off. Right after this is when he was banging on the doors and came across Lisa.
When he and Lisa were having sex, I'm pretty sure he was just having sex with the Japanese sex doll he'd just purchased. Remember at the end when he gifted it to his son and they remarked there was semen coming out of it. Also, this sex doll had similar facial deformities similar to those of Lisa's.
Also, when Lisa and he were eating breakfast, her mouth was flapping open and closed the same as how the sex doll's mouth moved and he also commented that her fork kept clanging against her teeth which sounded metallic.
When Lisa was singing Cindy Lauper it sounded like a similar sort of tune the sex doll sang.
....having said all this, I'm not sure if him visiting the girls' room in the morning was real, and if it was, that would make Lisa a real person. Also, was the speech he gave at the presentation real?
I'm sure repeated viewings will answer a few more questions, or perhaps open some more up. While not a great 'enjoyable' viewing experience, it was definitely an experience and certainly left me thinking about it much more than 99% of the tripe I end up sitting through.
Excellent points!
shareNo Micael did not rape her, henst why she liked it when he was eating her out. Did he take advantage of a stupid, desperate, woman... Yes. There is a big difference between rape. And everyone who is saying lisa was a child like woman and it was close to pedophilia etc... THAT IS RIDICULOUS. For all we really know Lisa was like 40 years old, def in her 30's....She wasn't mentally retarded, she was just weird, immature stupid. *beep* stupid 30 year olds is now going to be compared to rape and pedophilia?
shareCalm down. I can't see a single post that says 'Michael raped Lisa'. The OP on this thread claims that s/he read this somewhere onsite but doesn't say where. HOWEVER - it is perfectly legitimate to analyse the psychology and emotional 'truth' of this film (as with any film) and come to conclusions about the characters' intentions and motivations.
You agree that Lisa was 'immature, stupid' etc. In that case there was a definite power gap - psychologically, emotionally, experientially - between Michael and Lisa. His ability to control, seduce, manipulate this naive child-woman renders the story pretty parallel to what happens in paedophilia - grooming a victim. Does it make any difference if she was 25 or 45? People can be immature, child-like, etc at any age.
As for the 'eating her out' - well, it's Kaufman who writes the script to show that she 'likes it', lol. I don't think she would have protested at anything Michael tried to do - she felt so inferior and he played on that. A big, definite parallel with paedophile grooming.
And why get so worked up about the fact the Michael Stone is an utterly horrible person? Kaufman isn't trying to write about 'nice' people.
This is precisely the kind of moronic discussion that gives feminism a bad name. Of course Michael did not rape Lisa; that is never even remotely implied. The more you push the issue, however, the more you're depriving Lisa of agency--and the power to make *her own* decisions. Which is an ironically misogynistic position to take.
Michael is NOT an "utterly horrible" person. He's not a saint. As an earlier commenter observed, Michael is just Michael. [And if you insist on the armchair moralizing, fact is that most of the other characters in the movie are equally vacuous and assholish. Think about the bellboy guy who keeps saying "After you."] The point is not to judge him but to try to get a sense of what his world is, this world he inhabits, this world that we see through his eyes. Which is to say that these other questions--about whether Lisa actually exists, whether Michael is insane, whether he's dreaming, and so forth--are rather beside the point.
This is part of what makes it such a brilliant movie. It doesn't give in to standard Hollywood realism, with its gimmicks and magic tricks (e.g., It turns out in the end the whole thing is in his head!).
You have completely misunderstood some of the most basic aspects of the film. The customer service people that Stone meets (e.g. the bellboy) are shown as being trapped in their own existence as Stone feels in his. They respond in a robotic, automatic, customer-service-speak because it is their job. They have to. It is expected of them. They lose their identity in this. This hardly makes them 'vacuous and assholish'. They are victims to their need to earn a living. And Michael treats them like *beep*.
And re 'armchair moralising' - what is it you think you're doing? Your PoV is a terribly moralistic one. However, films are meant to engage us on all levels. Interpretation of character, theme etc, cannot help but engage the moral sense as well as (potentially) everything else.
As for feminism - where on earth does that come in here? People take advantage of each other all the time. Men over men, women over women, men and women - each over the other. The story could well have been about a woman seducing Stone - let's imagine him as a decent man desperately looking for love - then after a night in the hotel room she drugs him and steals all his money and credit cards. A distinct case of Stone being taken advantage of. But would we put a speech in his mouth the next day and have him philosophising about the experience - saying that at least he was glad of his 'brief encounter' with the woman because these small moments are sometimes really all that we have in life? If the writer did that, would we buy it?
It seems that it is only when the discussion is about sex - and how sexual manipulation might impact on a woman rather than a man (which it could have) that we bring in the big F-word. I wonder why? Usually the accusation of 'feminism" is hurled when too much truth seems to be entering a situation.
Lisa has little agency. She is psychologically pretty much a young teenager. Michael is a habitual liar, cheat, misanthrope. That gets my vote for 'utterly horrible person'. Kaufman appears to think so too. Films are not meant to always be about nice people, you know.
However, I think you are correct about the whole thing very possibly taking place in his head. There are some excellent posts elsewhere on the message board about this.
You have completely misunderstood some of the most basic aspects of the film. The customer service people that Stone meets (e.g. the bellboy) are shown as being trapped in their own existence as Stone feels in his. They respond in a robotic, automatic, customer-service-speak because it is their job. They have to. It is expected of them. They lose their identity in this. This hardly makes them 'vacuous and assholish'.
You're all over the place with your crap.
In another thread, you stated.
I'm afraid that claiming to have a psychological problem does not excuse anyone (even a fictional character) from using people.
I have posted on two threads. In both cases they have been replies to posts made by others. I haven't initiated any thread myself. If you think I have made a number of posts, do bear in mind that the people I am responding to must have made an equal number of posts. Have you told them that they are 'all over the place' with their 'crap'? I thought not.
And someone should tell you that schoolboy name-calling doesn't really help your case.
"So, he's not excused, but a grown woman who has self-esteem issues is excused? "
What is she to be excused from?
Not "All over the place" as in you posting in threads, genius. All over the place with the points you are making, especially with your character and pseudo-psych evals.
What is she to be excused from?
It is clear now that you are simply trolling.
My interpretations and comments have been clear, well-expressed and consistent. But it is evident that English is not your first language so I make some allowances for your comprehension skills, grammar, etc.
"I'm not the one stating either of them need to be excused or lack excuses for their actions."
You made a bizarre comment about it not being okay for Stone to have any excuse made for him and you implied I was saying that Lisa should have excuses made for her. Therefore I asked 'What is she to be excused from?' However, I am sure you will misunderstand this too. Either by sheer lack of comprehension or by design. (Go back and read your own posts).
"You are viewing this film as very black and white, and it wasn't"
On the contrary, I feel it is you, and a few others, who view the film as black-and-white, and can simply not entertain any other interpretations.
Wao, I love your point about the film! Maybe I need to watch it second time now!
shareThe scene was somewhat uncomfortable to me yet witty and I could relate to it. Labeling Michael's actions as rape would mean that I have therefore been raped on a few occassions. Few drinks at bar - go to room, randy, bit lonely, one thing leads to another...
That ol devil ALCOHOL did not help on either side though -
Michael had cheered up by meeting Lisa but surely MORE so because he had one too many ---- I also got a distinct impression he wanted a little more than just company on the bed talking about life experience. He wanted intimacy.
In my opinion Lisa was not raped - although after not being with another man for a few years she could have gone about it differently.
Ok to sum up my opinion Michael did take advantage and although was very polite I felt he manipulated Lisa to a degree. But calling this rape? Hell no!
Michael was a bit of a self indulgent *beep* but if Lisa had said no (and we will never know) he would not have gone any further. So rape it was not.
"Ok to sum up my opinion Michael did take advantage and although was very polite I felt he manipulated Lisa to a degree. But calling this rape? Hell no! "
Has anyone here actually called it rape? Please direct me to the post. It has parallels and a decent man would not have manipulated Lisa as Stone did - but, of course, he would never have been convicted of rape. The fundamental point is that Lisa's character is much more naive and child-like than that of the manipulative businessman Stone. That inequality gives it all a nasty edge.
Amazing how the OP on this has stirred up such a flurry on this thread, isn't it? I cant quite believe it.
The question to this very thread is this, "Did Michael rape Lisa?"
Unless you have some weird definition of rape, what do you expect people to address?
I can't believe you're struggling with this.
Yes - the OP refers to 'rape'. So why don't you respond to the OP instead of stalking me?
"Unless you have some weird definition of rape, what do you expect people to address?"
If they are replying to a particular post then I expect them to reply to the exact contents of that particular post.
So why not go and write something to the OP.
Good luck : )
Zuleika, Okay, excellent point. Well-put. You've taken on an army of cave dwellers here and held your ground admirably.
Recall the scene where he's coming out of the shower, there's that bizarre scene where his face (mask?) appears to be cracking, and suddenly he hears Lisa's voice: "Someone else!" he says. A key moment, maybe THE key moment, of the film. It's here that I think he wakes up--or falls into a fantasy/reverie/wet dream, depending on your interpretation--and sprints out of his room. At that moment he's not looking for sex, not for a one-night stand, but for a human connection. It's like he and everyone else he sees is dead, and she resurrects him, breathes life back into him. But, alas, for only a night.
NO HE DID NOT RAPE LISA
JUST PSYCHOLOGICALLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HER.... SLIGHTLY!!!!
Yes, I agree that the face/mask moment is key. I think it was crazyllamathing who made a few posts related to this. The movie does make more sense (in a Kaufman-esque way, of course) if you consider that what follows is a fantasy/delusion.
shareJesus H. Christ.
She gave him his consent. She came. She stayed with him after. She was in love with him. Psychologically troubled or not, she wasn't a retard, she was of legal age.
Rape? I think this question insults real rape victims.
----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/
No, he did not. That is consensual sex between a lustful, seasoned male and an insecure, less experienced female.
Whoever says it's rape is just plain dumb, child of these overreactive, hyper-sensationalist times we live in.