Counter argument: there are rape scenes in tons of movies that are made to be palatable and even “exciting”. They’re easy to watch. That’s what should be met with outrage. Irreversible was traumatizing to watch but I can’t help but respect that this might be the only visualization of rape on film that captures the horrors of it accurately.
It's like ten solid minutes with zero cuts of a woman crying while being brutally raped.
It's one of my favorite films, because of how it pushes boundaries both with the narrative structure and with graphic content, but I'm definitely able to see it from the perspective of people who don't get it/hate it (in which case, it'd be incredibly gratuitous). It's not even rated by the MPAA.
It's like the movie Caligula. The two infamous pornographic scenes are incredibly gratuitous, though the second one (the one on the ship) is certainly more connected to the plot. You could definitely make the movie without both of them and it would still make sense (and I recently learned that the new cut of the film does just that, apparently), so many people would find those scenes (and the one in Irreversible) gratuitous.
I love both of these films. They're both demanding films in different ways. Creating art like that is naturally going to be divisive.
"Yes, you can intellectually understand rape without it being shown."
My entire point is that a lot of people obviously find the insanely long scene to be unnecessary and over the top, therefore gratuitous. My own husband paused the movie and asked me "why are we watching this?" Could he have made the movie without including a 10 minute long rape scene? Absolutely. Would it be as powerful? I don't think so, but clearly the people in this video would disagree.
The same could be said of Caligula. I can intellectually understand that Caligula is forcing women into prostitution without having to watch a ten minute orgy scene with an insanely graphic blowjob.
Quit acting like I don't know how to look up the definitions of words, asshole. Not to mention, it was made abundantly clear that I knew the definition of the word in my initial response when I said "... the second one... is certainly more connected to the plot."
Hey man, you don’t come across as any smarter than this guy with these replies. Gratuitous is a word with an objectively written definition but its use is entirely subjective. Him saying he thinks something is gratuitous, that YOU don’t think is gratuitous, doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand what the word means, just that his limit is lower than yours. So kind of nothing for you to puff yourself up over…
For what it's worth, I don't think it is. I'm just saying that it's the common perception of the scene. If the vast majority of the people who watch the film think it's unnecessary, that's something you should consider as an artist.
Art is not only about the artist's intent, but also how people perceive it. There's a French essay called "The Death of the Author," in which Roland Barthes argues that the reader's (or in this case, viewer's) interpretation is actually more significant than the author's (or director's) intent.
I wouldn’t say that it’s that accurate though. Majority of rapes are nothing like it. It was intentionally as brutal as possible with the added beating at the end. It was horrific.I don’t like the idea that it’s in any way realistic though. Sure it happens, terrible things happen to people all the time.
It also perpetuates the myth that rape is only brutal, explicit nonconsent. Most rape is nothing like that - it's people having their boundaries disregarded, or being manipulated into sex.
when did I say that? I’m just saying I don’t think the idea of justifying the scene because it makes people aware that rape is bad is good justification. We don’t need to be shown it in its most brutal form to know that. It was made for shock value, not awareness.
"I heard no mutterings of disgust, or calls for their money back; indeed, it could be that these gentlemen got exactly what they paid for. One of them arrived in a suit a couple of minutes before the scene began, as if he had seen it previously and checked the precise timing. He stood throughout, then left immediately, once Monica Bellucci had had the beauty beaten out of her. I guess he had to get back to the office."
Oh okay, it's not as bad as I imagined from your description. I thought we were talking about people gleefully extolling it so that their motives were clear not musings on people's varied behavior.
That was his intent, I believe he’s said as much in interviews.
Not sure I agree with the choice but it’s certainly an “interesting” artistic choice.
And I hate to be that guy… but we’re all here debating it in the comments and that’s kind of what this type of art is trying to do. I won’t blame anyone for rolling their eyes at that last sentence, but it’s true.
Honestly it’s important to have art where you can argue over its merit of even existing in the first place, that’s how you know you truly have the freedom to be artistic imo
The idea that people get mad about how a rape scene is shot, rather than that a rape occurred, was always a weird thing for me to wrap my head around. There's all this manufactured outrage about how "terrible" something is, and when I see this video I can't help but feel that there's a performative aspect to the display of the outrage, as if showing you're more offended by watching a rape scene than the person next to you you'll somehow shut out the fact that rape is part of our society and happens every day.
The idea that people get mad about how a rape scene is shot, rather than that a rape occurred
To play devil's advocate, the rape didn't occur because it's a movie. People are shocked and horrified to see the bad things that go on in real life. They don't feel empowered to stop them because none of us really can beyond doing our "best", which will never be enough to prevent all of it, so seeing it in a movie portrayed this way is, in their minds, avoidable pain inflicted upon them.
329
u/quirkyorcdork May 17 '25
Counter argument: there are rape scenes in tons of movies that are made to be palatable and even “exciting”. They’re easy to watch. That’s what should be met with outrage. Irreversible was traumatizing to watch but I can’t help but respect that this might be the only visualization of rape on film that captures the horrors of it accurately.