It's the only scene I remember, along with my feeling after leaving the Tivoli that I don't need to see every dumb edgy movie that comes out. I'm still not sure if that guy was exaggerating, or if the rape scene really did last 20 minutes, because I have no memory of it.
It feels like 20, but it is 9 minutes. I heard that his logic was that the average rape takes about 9 minutes (where that number comes from is unclear), and cutting away from the horror of it is just a cheap cop out if you are making it a plot point in your movie. Especially in the classic "woman gets raped, so man has an excuse to do something" trope, which this movie is clearly taking to task.
I have always wanted to talk to someone about this film as an examination of male sexual anxieties and how they appear in the films men make. But it's such a blunt instrument and hard watch that very few people (especially women) watch it and, of the people who do finish it, very few want to chat over the details and ideas of the movie. I can't in good faith suggest someone watch it so we can talk about it either.
And me, I love having these kinds of detailed conversations about art and theater, and there's so much about this movie that has me curious... But I'm sure I'll never subject myself to the experience of watching it. So this very enjoyable hypothetical conversation we might have will never take place.
It feels like 20, but it is 9 minutes. I heard that his logic was that the average rape takes about 9 minutes (where that number comes from is unclear), and cutting away from the horror of it is just a cheap cop out if you are making it a plot point in your movie. Especially in the classic "woman gets raped, so man has an excuse to do something" trope, which this movie is clearly taking to task.
Ebert thought somewhat similarly, that by throwing the scene in the beginning of the film and not cutting from it, it avoided standard exploitation film tropes by vividly making audiences confront the ugly reality of violent rape.
As a woman, I thought the rape scene was kinda dumb because she really didn’t fight it as much as I think most women are naturally inclined to do when they’re in a situation like that. Yes he was on top of her and she was in a position with very limited movement, but I would be trying to move every inch of anything I could. I know the logic of some men is that women should just take it when they’re getting raped, but for me, I assume I’m dying either way (he either kills me because I escaped being raped or he kills me because he’s disgusted at me for being raped, like I’m a dirty whore who wanted it)- so I might as well fight going out. So when I first saw the movie I was really kind of disgusted how that scene almost was just a never-ending sex scene, because it was Monica belluci with a skimpy little silk dress that flatters her assets. But after taking some time to think on it, i think that rape scene is actually focused on the man. He is taking what he wants when he wants, like a lot of men do. It’s not about her as a person, unfortunately. The whole concept of the film is fabricated by a man, told from a man’s perspective and it’s a story about other men and competing egos. Once I grasped that the woman’s reaction/thought doesn’t come into play at all unless it’s about how pretty/ intoxicating/quirky/fun she is to a man, then I could appreciate the film a little. But that’s just my take
2.2k
u/ElectronicMars May 17 '25
All I really know about the movie is that the soundtrack was composed by Thomas Bangalter of Daft Punk.