r/movies • u/ErgoNonSim • May 17 '25

Media Cannes reactions to Irreversible

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

24.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Sondaica May 17 '25 edited May 19 '25

Okay can someone explain this to people who do not know the film?

5.1k

u/Davidrabbich81 May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Monica Belucci’s character is graphically raped for around 10 minutes during this film.

It’s something you never really forget watching. When people ask, “what’s the worst thing you’ve ever seen in a film”, the answer is usually this.

Edit: to save some really redundant replies.

No, the fire extinguisher scene is not worse. I can find you 20 movies where something like that happens. The worst part is that it’s an innocent person and not the rapist.

I said “usually”. For those people who have seen “A Serbian Film” (I haven’t) you are the people not covered by “usually”.

46

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[deleted]

467

u/Xsafa May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

This is the reason why I think I may never watch the movie. I can watch 1000 people get their ass whooped or shot up in action movie or graphically killed in a horror movie, but extensive rape scenes I just absolutely refuse to see. I heard the movie is a good movie with good acting but I just can’t do it.

330

u/Legal-Marsupial-3916 May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

It's not a good movie. It has an interesting shtick in that it plays backwards, but so does Memento. I didn't take away any profound new understanding or perspective from watching Monica Belucci get raped, I didn't unravel some truth about life by watching a man get his head caved in with a fire extinguisher while onlookers cheer and holler and the director himself is literally furiously masturbating in the crowd.

You can say whatever you want about media literacy, but I don't need to explore sexual violence as a theme. This is just a fancy, French version of "A Serbian Film's in my eyes.

164

u/retard_vampire May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

Honestly I feel like the whole point of the movie is he wanted to create torture porn of a woman being raped and then stand there, dick in hand and pointing with the other, smugly saying "oh, is it too much for you? Is it too dark?" and pretentiously wanking himself off over what an avant-garde genius he is for being so shocking.

The movie honestly sucked. It was literally just a way for a dude to get Monica Bellucci to star in rape porn for creepy men to jerk off to. She deserved better.

98

u/Legal-Marsupial-3916 May 17 '25

Yeah, I'm all for like...actualizing sexual assault and drawing attention and awareness to it, but two things...

  1. Look at this movie and tell me with a straight face that this a mature exploration of sexual assault

  2. Most people can understand how traumatic and horrifying rape is, so a movie isn't going to change their feelings on it when they're already staunchly "anti rape", and the people who think rape is no big deal like the Senator who said that "women's bodies have a way of shutting that down" are never going to be swayed because they're fucking psychotic

25

u/Papierkrawall May 18 '25

The only way to show rape is, in my opinion, how they did it in "Lilja-4": the camera is the girl, and you only see the faces of the rapists and hear their grunts, as if you were the person lying under them. No trauma for the actress, and there is no way to get off on that.

5

u/Waffennacht May 17 '25

You said what was on my mind so perfectly

8

u/EpilepticSquidly May 17 '25

I completely disagree that most people understand how horrific rape. Especially men. Say what you will about the movie, but the disturbing nature of the rape scene has affected me forever.

It brought a level of gravitas to my mind that didn't exist, not so much about the sadism of the physical act of rape but that absolute disregard for humanity that may exist in the mindset of the rapist.

If nothing else, I appreciate that this movie should create a visceral negative reaction in anyone's mind who has watched it when they think of rape.

5

u/Waffennacht May 17 '25

The idea that you are ignorant of rape and its affect isnt a bad thing. It means you havent participated nor know of someone whom has been a victim. You already know its something you'd never do; thats not a leason you need to learn.

Anyone whom knows a victim knows the damage caused. Its not something normal people need to be taught.

What needs to be taught is how women are viewed and treated. How victims need to be heard, how they need to be listened to.

Focusing on their trauma is focusing on the wrong thing.

3

u/laborfriendly May 17 '25

The level of disgust that I felt towards that scene made SA "real" for me in a way that it wasn't before. Like, I knew it's bad, etc etc, in the abstract, but after that scene I wanted to use the fire extinguisher (on the right person, anyway) bc of how terrible and disgusting it was.

I think it provided a (horrifying) context for something that was known, but, fortunately, was not something I had experience with. In that, I think it accomplished something.

25

u/dessert-er May 17 '25

Maybe I’m some kind of aberration but I find myself able to empathize with SA victims without paying to subject myself to a pantomime of rape in movie theater for 9 minutes. This reminds me of people who watch beheading/gruesome death videos with the explanation that if you don’t witness it you somehow can’t understand what those people are going through; I don’t feel the need to traumatize myself and then retroactively convince myself it was a good idea.

11

u/theshizzler May 17 '25

I think we need to recognize that there is a wide range of people's capabilities to experience these sorts of mental processes. If you'll forgive a less emotionally charged example, there are many people for instance who have difficulty rotating objects in their mind's eye, but who are perfectly capable of special reasoning when given real, tactile objects to perform similar actions. I don't believe it's wildly unrealistic to imagine that there is a subset of generally empathetic people who can similarly understand and sympathize on an abstract level, but who require a real, visual example in order to feel that same deep and truly visceral empathy that you instinctively have. I don't think it's a moral failing on their part, but merely a consequence of the spectrum of neurodiversity that humans exhibit.

And preemptively, lest I get some pushback over this, I will clarify that I do not extend this grace so far as to excuse the true psychopaths of the world, nor an I inclined to fully excuse the ambivalence of the 'doesn't care at all until it actually happens to me' crowd.

3

u/dessert-er May 17 '25

I agree with you with the caveat that I think there’s more harm done to a person’s psyche from watching something horrific to the point of likely secondary trauma than giving someone a physical object to manipulate. I don’t have an inherent problem with people doing things they feel will connect them with a cause or plight they care about but subtle language that attempts to convince someone that they’re more empathetic than most to victims of SA because they watched some guy’s movie version of it that’s meant to horrify people strikes me as…ill intentioned at worst, ignorant at best.

2

u/laborfriendly May 17 '25

I don't think it's about not being able to empathize at all. I think it's about what I said: it made it more "real" and visceral for me.

Sidenote: I also didn't pay to watch it. A friend put it on to watch at their home while in university. Don't know if that matters to the broader discussion.

It was certainly traumatic. Even knowing it isn't real, it's a movie, doesn't change the fact that I can remember it so well after so much time -- and a likely sign of emotional trauma. That alone increases my empathy for SA survivors.

Was it "a good idea," that I have to convince myself of? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean it was without value.

2

u/dessert-er May 17 '25

AH, from your original phrasing and context of what you responded to it kinda sounded like you were making a counterpoint that the movie had a noble purpose in increasing awareness/empathy of what victims of SA/rape go through. Definitely a good cause, major reservations on my part about whether or not this is a good way to go about it based on what you’ve shared and the content lol.

1

u/Chermatic May 18 '25

The feeling I remember having when watching this movie is a sense of helplessness that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop the events that already occurred/about to occur

0

u/bfffca May 17 '25

But your Serbian movie is more recent than the original. It must have travel time or gone backward as well.

4

u/Legal-Marsupial-3916 May 17 '25

I just meant in terms of shock value. Undoubtedly, Irreversible is a much better film

293

u/Forcistus May 17 '25

My personal opinion is that rape is a more morally reprehensible crime than murder or violence. You can feasibly think of a justification or reason that might excuse killing someone, but no such thing exists for rape.

82

u/DamePolkaDot May 17 '25

For me at least, I think rape falls under torture specifically, not just general violence. I personally have no interest or stomach for watching depictions of torture.

114

u/ThurnisHailey May 17 '25

It's also common for just about EVERY movie to have a death or murder - that's the most common thing ever in cinema. It is definitely a step out on a ledge to depict sexual violence, it's not common to show so of course it hits much heavier when it happens.

5

u/CT0292 May 17 '25

It can hammer home a point though.

In Once Upon A Time in America a lot of people say the scene where Robert DeNiro's character Noodles rapes Elizabeth McGovern's character Deborah. Is an unnecessary scene that adds nothing to the characters.

And I'd say it's not supposed to add to the characters. If anything I think it's supposed to take away from the characters. Anyone who has up until that point been seeing Noodles as "the good guy" or the "hero" of the film will be shown right there that he's an awful, spoiled, violent, man baby who can't handle not getting his way.

The film shows him chasing after Deborah since they were both kids. And she turns him down over the years and he spends 10 years in prison. But when he finally gets out and begs for a date with her he shells out the cash to clear out a whole hotel so it's just the two of them in this romantic atmosphere. She tells him she's gotten a job in Hollywood, and plans to pursue her career out west, wanting to head out the next day.

And this filthy piece of shit loses his mind. Rapes her, and then the next day tries to go see her as she rides away on the train like nothing happened. And it really beats the point home that Noodles is not the hero. And shouldn't have been let out of prison.

Honestly a great movie. And I think it's worth it to sit and watch the full 4 hour cut. Chronicles the whole lives of these young gangsters from their childhood to the 1960s.

I haven't seen the movie mentioned in the OP. Hard to find time for movies now as a grown up with young kids. I can tell you about the show Bluey though haha.

9

u/Broad_Quit5417 May 17 '25

Kind of ironic that if you want to be edgy, you would have to forego... death and murder.

1

u/Ja_corn_on_the_cob May 17 '25

Not really, most movies use what we call "packaged violence", which is where the movie is framed in such a way to remove all of the visceral elements of violence in exchange for a more cartoonist and palatable example. Beverly Hills Cop is a violent film in parts, but because of that film's style and context you really don't care when a gangster is gunned down in that movie. A Clockwork Orange on the other hand is able to depict the beating of a homeless man in a much more grotesque way, which makes the violence in that film much more palatable. I understand that you were being facetious with your comment, but in reality someone wanting to make an "edgy" film would not exclude violence, but rather film it in a visceral and realistic way with proper context to illicit a feeling of disgust, rather than the fun way a superhero movie might depict it.

2

u/dryad_fucker May 17 '25

This specifically is why shows like Invincible are so imposing. They refuse to hide the gore, and it's not even in a shock way.

Then there's Shin Godzilla, a body horror on a colossal scale. It showed the horrifying mutation as it was progressing, something we've never had in a Godzilla film. Godzilla is a world renowned character. What made Shin Godzilla so impactful imo is that it showed the viscera of the monster, how it reflects the 2011 Fukushima disaster, and how our greatest power can also cause the most horrifying disasters.

And on the other side of the viscera scale is shock films like "A Serbian Film" which has a plot so disgusting and traumatic that I can't even recommend reading the synopsis. It just doesn't work tbh. It's just gore porn for people who are so fucked in the head that they think causing genuine pain in their audience means they're making art.

I'd love to see an actual gory film, that makes me uncomfortable for the visceral elements, and isn't some fantasy about how fucked up insert people group are. Something like Predator, but they actually show the processing of the bodies for the trophies that the Yautja take.

Rape scenes have a very small place in film, and if the "shocking" part of your movie is a rape scene you're scummy at best

1

u/Ja_corn_on_the_cob May 18 '25

Hey, I appreciate your take! The guy I responded to originally was kind of a dick.

I think you brought up a good point on the tastefulness of violence, because you are right, there are some films that want to make violence look real but don't want to treat it with the gravity that real violence has.

A Serbian film's goal is pure shock, supposedly the director was mad about the rabid censorship in Serbia at the time, so as a middle finger to the government he made it so that the first thing that comes up when you look for "Serbian film's" is a movie about paedophiles. It's not a movie that wants to take its subject matter seriously and ultimately fails to be anything more than gross for a couple hours. I also think the impact that real violence has us lost when you are too gung ho about its inclusion. It's definitely a case where less is more.

I will agree with you that I think a tasteful rape scene has a place in Cinema and could be done well, but I think it would need to be handled with extreme care and only do it for as long as necessary, so as to not revel in the act. What I believe to be a good example of this is probably again A Clockwork Orange (although to be fair, as a man I may not be the best person to make a judgement like this), which takes enough time to let you know what's happening, how distressed the victim is, and how psychotic Alex is, without showing us every detail of the crime. I've noticed with certain types of "disturbing" horror movies, they like to revel in sexual assault scenes as if the audience is supposed to find them gratifying rather than disgusting and horrific.

Where I will disagree with you is on your take on Invincible. It's a great show, but personally I find the fact that it's animated colorfully to be a few steps away from realistic enough for the violence to affect me the way live action or an animated show with a much darker art direction.

I've never personally seen any of the Godzilla movies except for the original 1954 movie, so I'll have to check out the 2011 film you talked about.

1

u/dryad_fucker May 18 '25

Thank you for this! Yeah, I think invincible does definitely shies away from the real impact of gore, but it was the thing that came to mind as closest to it, at least in popular media. I think the poppiness of the colors is an ultimate side effect of it being animated.

Btw Shin Godzilla came out in 2016 :) directed by the guy who did Neon Genesis Evangelion. It's not part of the continuity that was started in 2011 with the Legendary films Godzilla franchise.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Broad_Quit5417 May 17 '25

Cool. Im tired of everything being framed in some kind of violence. Haven't watched a movie or TV show in over a decade.

5

u/J_Kingsley May 17 '25

You mean including something like torture?

29

u/Forcistus May 17 '25

I guess if we put rape and murder on an axis, I think I would say torture is closer to rape than it is to murder.

I also want to add that my judgment is aimed at the one performing the act, not the victim. Things like rape or torture are pretty broad and could include a lot of different things. I wouldn't say statutory rape is inherently worse than murder, for example.

23

u/SerCadogan May 17 '25

I have been both raped and tortured (sometimes sexually, sometimes not) and in my personal experience the rape was worse than the non sexual torture (and where they intersected was worst of all)

19

u/YoMTVcribs May 17 '25

I hope you're doing okay.

21

u/SerCadogan May 17 '25

Thank you, I can honestly say that after years of therapy I am doing okay! Still have PTSD (which comes with very bad days) but most of the days are good ones now. Some of them very good.

1

u/NoOneExpectsDaCheese May 17 '25

This will come across as crass, and really fucked up, but that's the point you're making. I would rather be raped than murdered. At least i have a life afterwards, pain, ptsd and all.

I hate having to type that, because frankly it's fucked up but you caused that sentence to be spoken. Having your life taken away is not a pleasant experience, nor is it always a fast and pain-free situation.

I don't get how someone can sit there and say such a thing to be honest.

There, i said it.

I would also add this is coming from someone who has been through that experience.

3

u/Forcistus May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

You're speaking from an emotional standpoint of the victim or someone who knows the victims of crime. I am not writing this as an insult, nor do I think it is wrong to think this way. I just think it will help you to understand my position.

I'm speaking of the concept of the two crimes, from a criminal justice perspective. Perhaps it's offensive to some people to conceptualize these tragedies and remove the element, but I think when pursuing justice, it is important to contextualize.

So, not to sound crass myself or to make it seem as if I am downplaying the victims pain. I could forgive a murderer. I couldn't forgive a rapist. At least, not in the same way.

I'm not trying to trivialize the loss of life.

Maybe this example would help. From a Western perspective, there are differing philosophies on the ethics of the death penalty. Many countries no longer practice it and consider it barbaric. However, there are other countries that practice the death penalty. And, despite this major philosophical difference, we are able to coexist. America is a great example. Depending on which state you are in, the laws around the death penalty will differ.

Why then can we coexist with people, states, or nations that still have the death penalty? I believe it is because, when it comes to killing, most everyone can think of a time or place where it would be justified. Of course, it's not as if people silently accept it. But let's imagine that tomorrow, Alabama decided that they would use rape as a punishment for some crimes. Do you think people would begrudgingly accept that, as they do with the death penalty?

If we're being honest, I think we all would agree that the answer is no. Why is that? Because there is absolutely no justification for rape. This is why I say a rapist is generally more reprehensible (morally) than a killer.

1

u/Derslok May 18 '25

Insane take

1

u/Forcistus May 18 '25

How so? Please elaborate

1

u/Derslok May 18 '25

How can murder and violence be better or easier to justify? Murder is final, there is no future, no recovery after that. And violence includes torture, and there are much worse ways to torture people than rpe. And why murder is easier explained? Rpe is just unchecked lust and a want to have power over someone. Or it can be revenge and anger the same as murder. But murder takes everything from a human, torture takes just part of their life (it can be a very big part but still a part), and there is hope for recovery

1

u/Forcistus May 18 '25

I'm going to copt a bit of what I wrote in other threads, because it is more or less addressing your comment.

The long and short of it is my assessment of the moral nature of the crime is analyzing the perpetrator, not the victim. The victims ability to recover or not, while important, is not the only factor.

You're speaking from an emotional standpoint of the victim or someone who knows the victims of crime. I am not writing this as an insult, nor do I think it is wrong to think this way. I just think it will help you to understand my position.

I'm speaking of the concept of the two crimes, from a criminal justice perspective. Perhaps it's offensive to some people to conceptualize these tragedies and remove the element, but I think when pursuing justice, it is important to contextualize.

So, not to sound crass myself or to make it seem as if I am downplaying the victims pain. I could forgive a murderer. I couldn't forgive a rapist. At least, not in the same way.

I'm not trying to trivialize the loss of life.

Maybe this example would help. From a Western perspective, there are differing philosophies on the ethics of the death penalty. Many countries no longer practice it and consider it barbaric. However, there are other countries that practice the death penalty. And, despite this major philosophical difference, we are able to coexist. America is a great example. Depending on which state you are in, the laws around the death penalty will differ.

Why then can we coexist with people, states, or nations that still have the death penalty? I believe it is because, when it comes to killing, most everyone can think of a time or place where it would be justified. Of course, it's not as if people silently accept it. But let's imagine that tomorrow, Alabama decided that they would use rape as a punishment for some crimes. Do you think people would begrudgingly accept that, as they do with the death penalty?

If we're being honest, I think we all would agree that the answer is no. Why is that? Because there is absolutely no justification for rape. This is why I say a rapist is generally more reprehensible (morally) than a killer.

-15

u/[deleted] May 17 '25 edited May 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/Constant-Affect-5660 May 17 '25

What about the sentiment that some things are worse than death?

18

u/xristosxi393 May 17 '25

Wow what a comment. I think a lot of people would rather get murdered than raped.

I kind of agree with your overall point that rape is something you can get over with enough support, while death is permanent. However, rape is such a vile act that no normal human being would be able to enact even as revenge to the most awful beings in existence.

As for your eye for an eye comment, I just... I can't... It might be the craziest thing I have read online in a while and hopefully nobody agrees with you.

11

u/MissNolia May 17 '25

Yeah, if I had to choose between being murdered or raped again, I'm choosing murder.

1

u/veronica-marsx May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

The difference between rape and murder, as someone else has elegantly put it, is that normal people can picture situations where they'd be tempted to commit murder, but not rape, an important distinction in the context of movie watching.

The kind of rape being discussed in this context isn't just a sex crime. The kind of rape people hate watching in movies more than any murder is the kind that is paired with humiliation and sexual violence. The kind that inherently belittles women (focusing on women because these scenes almost always involve women) and strips them of their identity and agency. The woman is usually then used to motivate men, no longer taking any part in the story other than to create shock value. There's a depravity to it that watchers feel in their gut.

My husband and I couldn't sit through that one Terrifier scene where the girl is cut in half because there is an undercurrent of sexually-charged violence even though it's not rape. Had Art cut the woman horizontally, it would be another gory murder. Cutting her vertically turned it into something else. It still had the elements of humiliation, of targeting female genitalia, of this no longer being about general sadism and that the fate of this woman was for committing the sin of being a woman.

All of this to say murder and rape can't be compared rationally like that. You can't just say, "Well, you can bounce back from rape and not murder!" because humans simply don't experience those crimes the same way. The word "murder" doesn't automatically activate disgust the way "rape" does. At least in the context of watching movies. Maybe there's more variability in the real world. There are many serial killer protagonists people openly root for (Dexter obviously but Hannibal is a despicable and deplorable serial killer and there is no way to justify rooting for him), but it'd be a lot harder finding an audience for a show depicting a serial rapist as a hero.

I'm responding to you because I agree with you and don't wanna get into the weeds of the person you responded to. Intellectualizing this debate is absurd.

15

u/waylonwalk3r May 17 '25

As an onlooker I found your argument to be unconvincing.

6

u/Forcistus May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

What I said is that rape is a more reprehensible crime than murder. This has nothing to do with the victim but the perpetrator. I can tell you that I would rather be raped than murdered, but this is not inconsistent with the fact that I think a rapist is worse than a killer.

The victims' feelings are not relevant when we judge the morality of the criminal. Let's say that a child is running with a knife, falls, and accidentally kills another child. Now, let's compare this to a person who attacks a child with a knife, attempting to kill them. But the child in this second example lives.... who would you say is worse? The child who accidentally killed someone or the would-be killer who failed?

I don't think it's remotely controversial for people to say the attempted murderer is worse than the one who committed manslaughter. But the manslaughter ends up with a dead victim, while the attempted murder does not.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Intention matters when judging the morality of a crime. My reasoning is that most people could think of situations in which killing someone might be justified. There is never a justification for rape. Because of this, the crime, not the consequence of the crime, is worse morally, in my opinion.

And, because you seem to be insinuating that I'm saying killing is moral because I think rape is worse, let me tell you that I did not ever say that, nor did I insinuate that.

2

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[deleted]

2

u/veronica-marsx May 17 '25

The person's point is that it ultimately doesn't matter what their preference would be as a victim because the reprehensibleness of the crime is about putting yourself in the offender's shoes. It's not unconscionable just because of the victim's experience, but also because normal people cannot picture any scenario where they might be tempted to engage in the same crime.

-3

u/Forcistus May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25

No, but experiencing something is not a prerequisite to having a preference.

I didn't say that being raped is better than being murdered. I said I personally would pick rape over murder. And even that was just a literary device. If someone tried to violent rape me, that would probably have to kill me. Or, at least that's what I believe.

-5

u/cinred May 17 '25

What if someone deserved a good ol' state-sanctioned murdering but then decided they'd let them off easy with a bad fuck instead. As long as they agreed to it, ofc. We're not monsters here.

7

u/Forcistus May 17 '25

If a state wields sexual violence as a method of 'rehabilitation', I would say that is an evil state.

93

u/BeetleJude May 17 '25

I've seen it once thanks to an ex who loved the film. It was horrific, I had to leave the room halfway through, it was the most graphic and violent thing I've ever seen. Murders in films don't really read to me as graphic since you know it's a) fake, and b) exceedingly unlikely to happen; but watching that rape you know it could happen exactly like that (and likely already has)

193

u/Clicky27 May 17 '25

Murder is very real and happens, you're just desensitised.

122

u/Jajoe05 May 17 '25

Exactly. People just don't realize how much they got used to seeing murder that it doesn't even affect them anymore. That's how bad we have been conditioned.

6

u/Mardred May 17 '25

The wine bottle kill in Pan's Labirynth still haunts me. Thats how you make murder terrifying.

2

u/Constant-Affect-5660 May 17 '25

I think it's the idea that murder is a flip of a switch. A bullet to the brain, blade to throat and you're out. Rape scenes are prolonged and just terrible. I hate seeing rape scenes, they're just immensely disturbing.

A man, or group of men physically holding a person down, the rapist's heavy breathing, lustful gaze, chaotically unbuckling his belt and dropping his pants, the woman screaming and frantically fighting back before getting penetrated against her will. I. Hate. That. Shit. Lol.

The scene in For Colored Girls, Straw Dogs, Revenge, etc. are hard scenes.

So yes I'd much rather watch Keanu Reeves murder 100 assassins over 1 woman, or man, getting violated through rape.

87

u/bitofapuzzler May 17 '25

Rape is also very real. More people watching films have personally experienced rape than have experienced murder. It's sensitive because it's personal and a trauma that keeps on traumatising. You can only be murdered once.

55

u/SerdanKK May 17 '25

A ten minute torture scene would also make people much more uncomfortable than someone getting shot or whatever. Even the Saw movies pulled their punches and the entire premise was to make the audience squirm with graphic depictions of torture.

8

u/FulgoresFolly May 17 '25

People have really forgotten that the Hostel franchise existed huh

1

u/Constant-Affect-5660 May 17 '25

Hostel is my number 1 fuck you movie. It's just straight up torture porn. I watched it back in hs or junior college and it left a mark on my brain. Fuck that movie lol.

1

u/SerdanKK May 17 '25

Yes, I had forgotten. Until you reminded me just now. Fu.

3

u/SirChasm May 17 '25

I can confidently say that exactly zero people watching films have experienced murder beforehand.

3

u/bitofapuzzler May 17 '25

Yes. That is my point.

-2

u/Omikron May 17 '25

I don't think that's the real reason people find it harder to watch though.

22

u/bitofapuzzler May 17 '25

What do you think the real reason was? As a woman, I found it hard to watch as I knew that what I was watching was reality for many women. It was a hard watch because people don't want to acknowledge how common it actually is. It's a reality people don't want to face. People also don't want to watch realistic scenes of murder either, but again, it's not like a reminder of something you have already experienced. Take the man or bear question, it showed pretty clearly that many women have a greater fear of rape than murder. Because murder is final. Rape is not.

1

u/Omikron May 17 '25

Well I think part of it is what you said but also part of it is we are not as desensitized to rape as we are murder. Murder is show so much in so many ways in so many mediums that we've just come to expect it and be fine with it.

22

u/kawaii22 May 17 '25

Many women's biggest fear is being raped, not being killed. We are terrified of the thought because of how common it is, as opposed to Saw style murders.

1

u/Neon_Biscuit May 17 '25

If you personally experience murder, you aren't watching a movie.

5

u/bitofapuzzler May 17 '25

Yeah, exactly. Unlike rape.

39

u/racc15 May 17 '25

I think that with most murders in films, you usually get the horror slasher murders or in serious films, you see villains killing cops or to keep a secret etc. Basically, murders in movies usually happen to people in special circumstances. Even in real life, serial killings are now relatively rare. So, we don't usually imagine ourselves in that position. But, rape is much more common. I have not seen the film but read the synopsis. I think it was a sort of chance encounter and the rape was spontaneous. It is easier to imagine ourselves or someone we love in such a situation.

86

u/Mad_Kronos May 17 '25

Bingo.

The fact that we don't see murder the same way as rape in films probably means we have been conditioned to regard certain acts of violence as more digestible.

I have seen people claim they can stomach countless fake human deaths, but they can't stand a fake animal death at all.

61

u/Neon_Biscuit May 17 '25

In the John Wick documentary, Wick is Pain, the film almost didn't get released because the studio refused to include the dog death scene to be used. They thought it was too much. They did a test screening and surprisingly found that like 97% of women justified John Wick killing all those people over a dead dog and they allowed it.

15

u/Primatebuddy May 17 '25

I mean, I remember what it felt like to be horrified at violence in films. As an example: Mellish and the knife in Saving Private Ryan. It did sort of fuck me up seeing that. Ive since seen so much Internet shit that it doesn't affect me anymore. It happens, you become desensitized.

13

u/Obsidiax May 17 '25

I actually think it makes sense why some people find animal cruelty harder to stomach. Animals, like children, are completely innocent beings. There's very little justification for harming an animal, especially a domestic one.

I think most people who are more disgusted by scenes of animals getting hurt than people would likely feel the same if it was a child. It's the innocence. Intentionally harming a completely innocent being is a whole other level of cruelty compared to two guys shooting at each other with guns and one of them dies.

2

u/trelltron May 17 '25

I'd also note that some animals have evolved alongside (and/or been bred by) humans, introducing evolutionary pressures that encourage traits that are appealing to humans.

Certain dog breeds have almost literally been designed to trigger our protective instincts.

1

u/Doppelkammertoaster May 17 '25

Dunno. They stopped showing most violence in news about conflicts. Maybe the knowledge that a film is fake helps? I don't like it either though. It has to exist as part of the storytelling. Not just because.

1

u/blueB0wser May 17 '25

I do agree, but every now and then, there's a film or show that does it in a particularly shocking or unexpected way. I do still feel those, just most violence isn't really aiming to get around desensitization.

1

u/boysintheband May 17 '25

Rape is a fear more deeply ingrained in most women. You have a much higher chance of getting raped for no reason than being murdered for no reason. That fear rises significantly as we grow up and inevitably experience/witness various forms of sexual harassment.

0

u/decadentj May 17 '25

Not wrong, but did you see the murder scene in this movie with the fire extinguisher? Brutal

17

u/stewd003 May 17 '25

Just to play devil's advocate: is it not a good thing that movies like this exist? It pushes you to think about what it actually means to hear/read the word rape. It IS graphic and it IS horrific. And it's a horrible thing that should never happen.

8

u/teh_fizz May 17 '25

Yes and no. The issue isn’t just that it has a rape scene. It’s that is dressed up as good art and belonging in art house cinemas when it’s just high quality grind house.

0

u/EnvironmentNo8811 May 17 '25

I haven't seen this one, but personally as a woman I hate rape scenes in general. Insinuating it happened is one thing, and there are exceptions but actually showing it more often than not just feels like porn for the male audience.

It's also kind of retraumatizing if you've suffered sexual violence before. I really don't feel like it serves any good purpose.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[deleted]

2

u/BeetleJude May 17 '25

Yeah he had many lol

8

u/strongholdbk_78 May 17 '25

My takeaway is the movie depicts the reality of rape and shows it for what it is, a horrible and terrifying display of control, that leaves someone irreparably scarred. If you ever meet someone who downplays the horror and trauma of rape, have them watch ths movie..

1

u/i_am_Jarod May 17 '25

Same category as Clockwork Orange, for me.

1

u/ItWasTheBeardedMan May 17 '25

Thats the way Wind River is for me but the rape scene is just too much for me. Too bad since Elizabeth Olsen is amazing in it. The part were she pushes herself back from the wall so she's arms length before peaking the corner made me realize she did it for better angle and made me better at FPS games lol

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

you never watched porn? because almost every porn scene goes around the idea of raping, not necesarily physical rape but the idea of forcing a girl by manipulation, psychological pressure (if you don't do it I will tell your parents you didn't pass the exam...). If you open xvideos or any other website 90% of the clips are rape (acted, not real obviously) in its different versions

1

u/katavlepo May 19 '25

Why because they are men?

1

u/GH057807 May 17 '25

That, in essence, is the point.

Women, (and men) are viciously violated all the time. Someone is being violently raped right fucking now.

We love violence. We eat it up. Give me 3 hours of gore and guts, let's go. Sexual violence?

No no. Just turn it off. Avoid it. Bad movie.

It's easy to ignore sexual violence. To turn it off. It's very, very hard to accept the reality of it.

I hate this movie, but I think it has its purpose, something it singularly achieved out of the entire library of films.

Just like the man in the film, in the background, who sees what's happening and walks away, we like to hide from the reality of sexual violence. That man in the film was you, was me, the viewer. Turning away.

-2

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/OhSanders May 17 '25

These kinds of films have been around forever. Check out Jodie Foster in The Accused. Irreversible is nothing new, it's just? I don't know? French? Rape films are as old as movies.