RAPE, this movie has RAPE.
It might be considered a spoiler, but being warned of rape before seeing a movie is a fair warning in my eyes.
"Blame is for God and small children." - Papillon
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Last Summer (1969) Discussion > RAPE, this movie has RAPE.
GROW UP.
shareGrow up your damn self. Some people have kids, and some of this film is viewable by adolescents of a certain age. Not only viewable, but valuable. I think anybody has the right to know whether a rape scene is in a film, and to alert other people if he/she wants to. If you don't care one way or the other, then stay off the board.
shareGrow up your damn self. Some people have kids, and some of this film is viewable by adolescents of a certain age. Not only viewable, but valuable. I think anybody has the right to know whether a rape scene is in a film, and to alert other people if he/she wants to. If you don't care one way or the other, then stay off the board.
That's why we have MPAA rating system, genius. If the movie is rated R, you shouldn't be letting your children watch the movie whether it has rape or not. Rated R is not the same thing as PG-13. Do people not know this? Is this why there are so many people who take their kids to R Rated movies? Or are people just idiots?
Before letting your kids view something, look it up. This movie was originally rated X. Why are there idiots dumb enough to let their kids watch an R rated movie is beyond me, especially one that was previously X RateD?
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread? share
"That's why we have MPAA rating system, genius. If the movie is rated R, you shouldn't be letting your children watch the movie whether it has rape or not. Rated R is not the same thing as PG-13. Do people not know this? Is this why there are so many people who take their kids to R Rated movies? Or are people just idiots?
"Before letting your kids view something, look it up. This movie was originally rated X. Why are there idiots dumb enough to let their kids watch an R rated movie is beyond me, especially one that was previously X RateD?"
>> SPOILER ALERT (entire message) <<
First of all, genius, I'm not sure TCM includes ratings when it broadcasts a film like this, and the general "this film may have offensive content" warning doesn't tell you specifically that there is a rape scene in a film. This thread, whether you've noticed it or not, isn't about the MPAA ratings or whether a film generally may have offensive content in it; it's specifically about a very disturbing rape scene in a film about adolescents.
There are also rape scenes in films rated PG-13 and even PG. You want me to name them? I mean, if your point is that any parent ought to know just from the fact of an MPAA rating that there's a rape scene in a film.
Here's what we agree on: 1) People are wrong to take their kids to R-rated movies, with very rare exceptions, IMO. 2) Before letting your kids view something, look up potentially offensive material on sites that give specifics about that material (such as IMDB), rather than depending on an MPAA rating.
As for this film being previously rated X, the point is whether a parent who tuned in to TCM when the film is on could reasonably be expected to know that it was rated X originally. I don't think most people would know that, nor would most people think TCM would broadcast a film with a fairly graphic rape scene in it. They're wrong on both counts, of course. So if your complaint is that parents ought to be more vigilant and more savvy about which channels show what, and where the resources are to check out potentially offensive material in specific detail, I couldn't agree more. But if your point is that they should know something as specific as "there's a rape scene" (which is what this thread is about, not about generally offensive material) from the mere fact of an MPAA rating, of course you're wrong. And one very big reason you're wrong is that the MPAA rating is not specific enough (in the scientific sense of that word) to _eliminate_ the possibility of a rape scene, because there are also rape scenes in PG and PG-13 films.
First of all, genius, I'm not sure TCM includes ratings when it broadcasts a film like this, and the general "this film may have offensive content" warning doesn't tell you specifically that there is a rape scene in a film. This thread, whether you've noticed it or not, isn't about the MPAA ratings or whether a film generally may have offensive content in it; it's specifically about a very disturbing rape scene in a film about adolescents.
There are also rape scenes in films rated PG-13 and even PG. You want me to name them? I mean, if your point is that any parent ought to know just from the fact of an MPAA rating that there's a rape scene in a film.
Here's what we agree on: 1) People are wrong to take their kids to R-rated movies, with very rare exceptions, IMO. 2) Before letting your kids view something, look up potentially offensive material on sites that give specifics about that material (such as IMDB), rather than depending on an MPAA rating.
As for this film being previously rated X, the point is whether a parent who tuned in to TCM when the film is on could reasonably be expected to know that it was rated X originally. I don't think most people would know that, nor would most people think TCM would broadcast a film with a fairly graphic rape scene in it. They're wrong on both counts, of course. So if your complaint is that parents ought to be more vigilant and more savvy about which channels show what, and where the resources are to check out potentially offensive material in specific detail, I couldn't agree more. But if your point is that they should know something as specific as "there's a rape scene" (which is what this thread is about, not about generally offensive material) from the mere fact of an MPAA rating, of course you're wrong. And one very big reason you're wrong is that the MPAA rating is not specific enough (in the scientific sense of that word) to _eliminate_ the possibility of a rape scene, because there are also rape scenes in PG and PG-13 films.
Ok. I was a little to harsh on my last posts. Folks on imdb can get me riled up. So I'm tensed up sometimes on here. My apologies.
Essentially, it looks like we agree on the same things. I never said the MPAA system was the only thing people should look at when deciding whether it is safe for kids or not. In my second paragraph, I said, "Before letting your kids view something, look it up." So I'm basically saying check out the rating system and look online for the specific content in the movie.
I personally don't know how someone could not know there's rape in this flick. It's in the synopsis. Rape is what this movie is centered on. So a thread saying, "Warning Rape" is as dumb as a thread for George A. Romero movie saying, "Warning zombies in this movie."
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread? share
Well, crap. Now I have to retract too. OK, alright...I think I was a bit harsh too, and I shouldn't have come back at you with the "genius" thing.
In fact, I don't think I was clear enough in the first post(s), so I actually kind of understand your reaction. If you're aggravated at parents who seem to think there is no need to use available resources to find out what's going on in a film before letting kids watch it, and also at the people who seem to want to make the entire world of film, art, music, etc., completely "safe" (thus limiting it for all the rest of us) so that nobody has to take the responsibility to find out what's out there, keep their kids away from whatever they feel they need to, etc...then we're totally in agreement. And I understand your aggravation. Really. I'm aggravated at that kind of attitude too.
As for the specific rape content being discernible from the MPAA rating even as a possibility, I was only making the point that if parents think they're safe with a PG film, they're wrong. (Check out Billy Jack sometime, if you haven't already seen it.) Even TV versions of films, or TV shows, will depict rape or forced/coerced "sex" (I'm using the quotation marks because if it's forced or coerced, it's not sex, IMHO). All the more reason to know specifically what kind of content is going on. I see way too many parents depending on the MPAA rating, as if a board composed of unnamed people a thousand miles away is going to be reliably on center with whatever one's own moral and ethical code is. (I don't even want to get into how stupid it is to give a film an R rating for lots of even innocuous nudity--I'm not talking about casual sex, forced sex, etc., just nudity alone--but a film with a thousand heads being lopped off, blood spewing everywhere, and mass impalings can get a PG-13. Rrrrr.)
Actually, I'd bet five bucks (because the odds are really good) that the problem here is much more prosaic: The OP saw this on TCM and, like many other people, didn't realize that TCM doesn't show "cut" films. So there you are, in the middle of all the Fred Astaire and Spencer Tracy films, maybe the silents on the weekends, or the occasional Truffaut or Bresson, and here you have John-Boy as one of the stars in this clearly older, dated-looking film...and then the rape scene just absolutely flattens you. Totally unexpected, to somebody who doesn't already know TCM's content cannot be assumed to be squeaky-clean or OK for all ages.
I'll bet that's exactly what happened. My main complaint is how completely kneejerk-vicious so many posters are in responding to a parent who doesn't want his/her kids seeing this kind of thing, as if such parents are automatically some kind of artistic retards. The initial responses to the OP's post could've been something other than "GROW UP" and so forth. I think it's mostly just a problem with the OP not realizing that you've got to check out TCM's stuff, or you can get blindsided like that.
As for the specific rape content being discernible from the MPAA rating even as a possibility, I was only making the point that if parents think they're safe with a PG film, they're wrong. (Check out Billy Jack sometime, if you haven't already seen it.) Even TV versions of films, or TV shows, will depict rape or forced/coerced "sex" (I'm using the quotation marks because if it's forced or coerced, it's not sex, IMHO). All the more reason to know specifically what kind of content is going on. I see way too many parents depending on the MPAA rating, as if a board composed of unnamed people a thousand miles away is going to be reliably on center with whatever one's own moral and ethical code is. (I don't even want to get into how stupid it is to give a film an R rating for lots of even innocuous nudity--I'm not talking about casual sex, forced sex, etc., just nudity alone--but a film with a thousand heads being lopped off, blood spewing everywhere, and mass impalings can get a PG-13. Rrrrr.)
Yeah, but TCM shows R-Rated movies at night, like 9pm and later. Most kids should be asleep by them. By the way, you're going to have to tell me what PG and PG-13 movies you're talking about that have graphic depictions of rape. I'm having a difficult time believing they are out there.
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread? share
>> Yeah, but TCM shows R-Rated movies at night, like 9pm and later. Most kids should be asleep by them. <<
True, but you can't assume so. Lots of 13- and 14-year-olds are up at midnight on a Friday or Saturday. Point is still the same, and really the same as yours: If you're a parent, you ought to pay attention, and you need to know TCM does show this stuff. You're not "safe" just because it's part of the basic cable package. But then, that's true for LOTS of stuff now on basic cable, at nearly any hour of the day.
>> By the way, you're going to have to tell me what PG and PG-13 movies you're talking about that have graphic depictions of rape. I'm having a difficult time believing they are out there. <<
I'm saying, not as graphic as in this film (mostly), but even going back to 1971 and Billy Jack, you have depictions (in that film, it's almost as graphic as in Last Summer, if memory serves). Roots (the TV series) had at least one, I believe. One episode of Mad Men (along with nongraphic or truncated rape scenes in pretty much every cop-or-legal series). Tess (every version, really, but I'm thinking of the '79 Polanski). The Color Purple (PG-13).
Then there are R-rated films where people (again, inexplicably uninformed, in the IMDB age) don't even think about a rape scene occurring, like Rob Roy.
Also, you can point to unrated foreign films like Rashomon, or Bandit Queen, or others.
I would include also R-rated films that are edited for TV, where nudity and most graphic elements are removed, but the clear fact (and much of the action) of the rape is depicted onscreen. I just don't think a rape scene has to be completely explicit to be profoundly disturbing, especially to a kid.
Point is, the R rating is not nearly specific (exclusionary) enough to mean that if you're watching anything other than an R-rated film in its original theatrical version, it's guaranteed to be free of disturbing depictions of rape. When you think about it, this only makes _stronger_ your original point of the absolute necessity of parents paying attention and doing their homework.
I'm saying, not as graphic as in this film (mostly), but even going back to 1971 and Billy Jack, you have depictions (in that film, it's almost as graphic as in Last Summer, if memory serves). Roots (the TV series) had at least one, I believe. One episode of Mad Men (along with nongraphic or truncated rape scenes in pretty much every cop-or-legal series). Tess (every version, really, but I'm thinking of the '79 Polanski). The Color Purple (PG-13).
Then there are R-rated films where people (again, inexplicably uninformed, in the IMDB age) don't even think about a rape scene occurring, like Rob Roy.
Also, you can point to unrated foreign films like Rashomon, or Bandit Queen, or others.
I would include also R-rated films that are edited for TV, where nudity and most graphic elements are removed, but the clear fact (and much of the action) of the rape is depicted onscreen. I just don't think a rape scene has to be completely explicit to be profoundly disturbing, especially to a kid.
Point is, the R rating is not nearly specific (exclusionary) enough to mean that if you're watching anything other than an R-rated film in its original theatrical version, it's guaranteed to be free of disturbing depictions of rape. When you think about it, this only makes _stronger_ your original point of the absolute necessity of parents paying attention and doing their homework.
Okay. I see your point. And I was just trying to understand where you were coming from. Nice talking to you.
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread? share
Same here.
(Your sig line is SO true, too. And that thread is always so valuable. "Worst movie ever. Sucked." "No it didn't, it was great!" "No it wasn't." "Yes it was!" Just shoot me.)
Holy crap!
I definitely agree with you on that. Finally, someone gets it. The vast majority of "worst movie ever" threads have posts with one or two sentences. That means its obviously a troll. Yet people will respond to these threads, making troll threads stay at the top while good threads get pushed back. It's annoying beyond belief.
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?
And substance-free, too. Just worthless back-and-forthizing, just the offering of opinion because (like a @#$hole) they have one, just because there's such a thing as the Internet. Ffffffft.
shareAlso, FWIW, I really HATE films that depict forced or coerced "sex" as something good, liberating, unfrigidating, whatever. You can excuse something like Coal Miner's Daughter, I guess, on the basis that it's supposed to be factual (Doo essentially rapes Loretta their "first time," then they go on to a sort-of-happy-at-times marriage). But there are so many others, like Body Heat, that play this game of "woman resists, but really wants it; guy forces it, she relents, and she's orgasmically glad she did." I really wonder how many generations of acquaintance rape have been fueled by such crap. And that's not to mention the rest of the mass media--TV, rap, etc. Sick. I understand it's "entertaining" and it sells tickets or pumps ratings. Still sick.
shareOddly enough, thanks for posting that.
I've seen dozens of nasty exploitation movies, everything under the sun really, and my tolerance is pretty high, but, in a very general sense, I just really don't want to see women getting raped in movies anymore, regardless of the context, it's just my thing. This was on TCM last night and looked intriguing, and I almost stayed up to watch the ending and I'm sort of glad I didn't. It's not a condemnation of free speech/views in cinema, there are just some things I'd rather not see at this point.
I felt the same way when they showed "Babes In Arms" recently, with Judy and Mickey in blackface. I don't think it should be banned, but I'm really sorry I saw it and chose to turn it off before it kept going, because it was making me really uncomfortable, personally.
I'm not religious or particularly conservative, I hate censorship and selective editing and it's not the end of the world. However I appreciate having a little advance warning, somehow.
Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!
I disagree....
The rape is the point of the movie and is the shock of that act that sells the previous hour and a half.
Warning someone before hand is like telling them Bruce Willis is really dead in the Sixth Sense.
Fair enough, but not a great comparison--I've never personally met anyone who was offended by the surprise ending of 6th Sense or would choose not to see it if they knew what the ending involved.
Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!
It does pose a really tough dilemma. A rape scene in a film is an especially brutal and degrading thing, and many people would want to know that it's there. On the other hand, if you know it's there going in, then you spend the whole film wondering when it's going to show up, trying to match the plot events to what you know is coming, etc.
I sort of agree with Roger Ebert who, although he gave the film four stars and was a big fan of it, also said that the extremity of that scene probably wasn't necessary for the thematic elements to be followed through. But yeah...it's not like it was random, and it's not like it was played for titillation. It's actually horrifying and brutal, and as sudden and unexpected--and yet, as predictable in retrospect--as it would happen in real life, and it certainly is one logical end for where the substantive thematic material was going (the idiocy and desperation of teenage social life, the shallowness and stupidity and potential for brutality).
"I'm not religious or particularly conservative, I hate censorship and selective editing and it's not the end of the world. However I appreciate having a little advance warning, somehow."
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read here on these boards..... and believe me.... I have read some wowzers!
Fine. So you aren't religious or particularly conservative....
So why do you need a little advanced warning when it comes to certain unpleasant moments in a film? What do you expect? Should there be some flashing sign that says,"TonyDood! GO TO ANOTHER ROOM!!!!" when something distasteful comes on????
Forgive me but I am not following you. What did you mean by an "advance warning"?
You say you hate censorship and "selective editing". You seem to be doing the very thing you "hate".
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!
If you had stayed up to see the actual ending of this film you would not have seen the actual rape.
Yes. It was disturbing. We know where this was going. We know what happened in the end.
We know that kids can be cruel and under certain circumstances they can become savages.
There were plenty of "advance warning(s)" here.
"Please excuse me for overhearing. I had my ear pressed to the door."
There's a big difference between my feeling that "I think it's fair to hope for information enough to make an educated decision about what I want to see," and your insinuation that I want to have everything tailored to my own needs, an insinuation that reeks of hyperbole and slander (look 'em up).
I said I didn't see the scene in question, but merely might have preferred not to have if I'd gotten some suggestion of the possible content, so it's pointless to talk about whether the content would've matched my particular tastes or not. Had I watched it in context I might have had opinions about it pro or con, that's not really what I'm suggesting.
Perhaps you'd think it would be perfectly OK to have a TCM movie marathon with Disney's Bambi, Caligula, Faces Of Death, Brown Bunny, Babe, Cannibal Holocaust, Salo, Guinea Pig and Judy Moody And The Not So Bummer Summer all playing back to back at any time of day or night and everyone, no matter what their age or personal value systems, should be able to flip channels and catch any parts of them at any point and just take their chances with the content (and no I'm not being outrageous, my mom caught a peek of one of the nastier bits of "Pink Flamingos" this way a few years ago).
Maybe people need to get over their personal views and just accept accidentally seeing things like real blowjobs and animal killings in a random channel flip too, particularly if they're "important" films and there's a context to the scenes that is artistically essential, even if you missed that part because it was earlier in the narrative.
Fair enough, you have a right to your opinions, as do I.
Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!
>> Fine. So you aren't religious or particularly conservative....
So why do you need a little advanced warning when it comes to certain unpleasant moments in a film? What do you expect? Should there be some flashing sign... <<
Because some people have kids, is why. That's one reason.
Also, some people have been through this. I have a close female relative who has.
That is a terrible spoiler. The final violent act retains its power because it is unexpected. This is not cheap exploitation; you should ruin the film for those who haven't seen it.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]
>> I'm wondering if the movie would have been memorable w/o that scene, whether there was any alternative ending that would have made the movie stick in people's minds. <<
The answer is "yes," although the answer to almost any alternative posed in a film plot is likewise "yes." There is no doubt, however, that the scene as it was done was devastatingly effective and on-point, and not even close to exploitative or titillating.
I do understand the OP's point, though. If you have kids, or if you've been a victim (or "survivor," that is) of this yourself or know somebody who has...it's tough. Rape is a particularly brutal and degrading act that, to me, may carry some extra problems when you depict it in a film. I don't know that there is a good solution, because it really is also true that if you know it's coming in this film, it does change your experience and lessen the impact.
I do understand the OP's point, though. If you have kids, or if you've been a victim (or "survivor," that is) of this yourself or know somebody who has...it's tough. Rape is a particularly brutal and degrading act that, to me, may carry some extra problems when you depict it in a film. I don't know that there is a good solution, because it really is also true that if you know it's coming in this film, it does change your experience and lessen the impact.
Will you shut up with the stupid, "I have kids" thing? All you have to do is look at the movie's rating and synopsis prior to watching it. You don't blindly let your kids watch anything that comes on TV. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If your kids end up watching this, it's your fault. Not the fault of the TV channel or the movie. You are to blame.
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread? share
"Will you shut up with the stupid, "I have kids" thing? All you have to do is look at the movie's rating and synopsis prior to watching it. You don't blindly let your kids watch anything that comes on TV. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If your kids end up watching this, it's your fault. Not the fault of the TV channel or the movie. You are to blame. "
>> SPOILER ALERT (entire message) <<
Other than your pointless "will you shut up with the stupid 'I have kids' thing" comment, you're preaching to the choir. One of the best things about the Internet age, IMO, is the ability to find out in one minute or less all of the potentially offensive things in any film you can name (at IMDB or at other sites), and then make your own decisions about it according to your own moral and ethical code.
What I'm objecting to is, for one thing, the typical raft of responses here of the "kids shouldn't be sheltered" type. Some people--actually, a _lot_ of people, probably a clear majority, but certainly many millions--don't want their kids seeing depictions of rape, just like they don't want their kids hearing "f#$k" every third word. Go onto any discussion board here or anywhere else, and you'll see it--the first time a parent says "Yeesh, there's a lot of really serious cussing in this movie for a PG," the predictable series of "you're just a Puritan idiot" responses flood in. Now, it _is_ a legitimate response to say, hey, if you know how to get to IMDB to post a complaint, here's where the parental advisory is, and here you can find more detailed plot summaries, etc.
Further, specific to _this_ movie, another point had to do with whether knowing the rape scene was coming up would change the viewing experience. I think it does. But I don't know what can be done about that, if you're going to check it out for kids.
Which leads us to the "'I have kids' thing," as you call it. If I'm watching this film as an adult, I'm probably not worried about running into a scene like that. It has the effect on me that I'm sure the filmmakers intended to have. But if my 11-year-old daughter is in the room, that's a different question. You either understand that or you don't. And if I go check it out, it's going to change things about the way I see it and understand it. No way around that. Not the filmmakers' fault. Just how it is.
This gets back to the point I was making about rape being a particularly brutal and cruel thing to depict onscreen. Not only the nature of the scene itself, but the placement of the scene in relation to the rest of the plot in this film, makes this film a very rare case, IMHO. If you're watching something like The General's Daughter, for instance, you can't read a plot synopsis without knowing that rape is primary to the plot. But in this film, the unexpectedness of the rape scene is about 80% of what gives the scene its power, and if you knew what was coming it would color your viewing of the rest of the film. So as far as I'm concerned, it's probably an unsolvable problem. If you're going to check this film out for your kids, and you find out about the rape scene, it's going to make the viewing of the film different, and I think less powerful.