Was the "rape scene" rape or consenaul drunken sex. If it were drunken sex it would make more sense in the context of the film. I feel that most of this film was about the main character's own self destruction. It would be better if Bond's character made the regretful decision of having sex with doc, if he had the choice to go with it.
Careful, Tweedy. The Mort's Frenchified. - Bill The Butcher, Gangs of New York
[deleted]
[deleted]
I thought it was a bit of both. Clearly they are both very drunk and hyper after the kangaroo hunt but I think the Doc takes it a step too far and Grant is too far gone to stop it. You spot it in the look on his face just before the scene cuts to the morning after. I think he probably felt guilty and shaken afterward because possibly he'd found another facet to his character he was previously unaware of. After all the whole film is about submerged parts of the teacher's personality. That's why when he pulls the trigger he turns the gun on himself.
shareIt was initiated by Doc while Grant was clearly unable to give consent due to his inebriation.
sharecnwb's comment about inebriation and consent raises a really disturbing question for me, as someone who's consumed very little alcohol (I'm 46 and the grand total of all the alcohol I've ever consumed wouldn't reach five gallons -- I doubt it would even reach three): the idea that Bond's character was raped because he was too drunk to give consent basically states that anyone who has ever had sex while that drunk was raped. As an alchy-dilletante at best, I just don't know the reality of such a situation. Don't people who are really drunk sometimes have sex?
But, cnwb says that Pleasence intitiated it. Not in the pre-sex-or-rape scene I saw. Yes, he's on top at the very, last, split-second end of that sequence, and, yes, at that micro-second, there is something like doubt on Bond's face, as another poster here points out. But doubt (doubt -- not saying "no" -- which, of course, means NO) for a single split-second doesn't mean you don't "consent" the very next moment* -- and we are not shown that very next moment or any of the several crucial moments that follow. But the whole scene had very, very much been a completely homoerotic sexual-tension-sublimated-into-male-drinking-and-roughhousing scene in which BOTH characters very much took part. Bond pours his alcohol over Pleasance's head, to much mutual drunken joy, for Christ's sake.
Not only does the actual narrative of that scene not support the idea that Bond was raped, but, as the original poster on this thread correctly pointed out, rape wouldn't really make sense here, because rape isn't an example of what everything else in the whole damn movie is about. The movie isn't about a guy being victimized. It's not about him being beaten, or kidnapped -- it's not about other men doing bad things to him. The whole movie is about Bond giving in to a truly perverse kind of machismo peer pressure and allowing himself to do and become horrible things both he and the viewer believe had previously been beyond him. The film is about a person's corruption, not his victimization.
And having him raped would be one mighty big digression in the film's theme. Why do that? Why -- in a film that, as it's very reason for existing, questions the line of responsibility between individual and culture/society -- suddenly throw in such a charged narrative element when that element ERASES that very line by removing, as cnwb suggests, the individual's very ABILITY to consent??? The film, tho very disturbing, had not been a cheap shock-fest until that point -- indeed, it had been a very thoughtful and carefully made exploration of a theme. Why would it suddenly lose its self-control and throw that theme out the window in the name of including such a counter-productive shock?
(I can see how such a narrative point would serve many VIEWERS, but not how it would serve this film. As upsetting as having a male character raped by another male character in a film would be for many in the audience, for many more viewers, I think, it would be much more *unacceptable*, it would be something that would be more automatically just rejected, shoved out of consideration mentally, to have a male character -- who had previously presented as heterosexual -- be drawn into a homoerotic scenario and then have sex with another man. But, again, that serves the needs of some of the audience; that wouldn't serve the needs of this film.)
No, having Bond be raped by a man isn't an example of what the rest of the whole film has been about. But, Bond having sex with another man, that's definitely an example of what the whole film has been exploring. And it happens late in the film, it's the climax, really -- it's what finally moves Bond to do something to get himself out of the Yabba [sp?]. And then, upon returning to the town, to attempt both murder and suicide. Because, of course, in film language -- particularly in the film language of the early late sixties and early seventies -- what could be more degrading for a man than actually having sex with a man? Film, especially in the era in question, might have seen something like male-on-male rape as a sign of the victim's weakness, and definitely as a source of degredation -- but certainly it saw the act of 'giving up' heterosexual privilege to actually engage in sex, without being raped, even if drunk at the time, as real degredation of character.
And, again, *that's* what the whole film is about -- personal and cultural degredation (and the responsibilities for degredation), not victimization.
Matthew
*If that were the case, then Patricia Charbonneau most definitely raped Helen Shaver in Desert Hearts AND Ally Sheedy most definitely raped Radha Mitchell in High Art, but I certainly don't think that either of those films is, at the very least, CHOOSING to represent what happened in either as rape.
Good comment Matthew! The important thing I think about the alcohol is loss of inhibitions. As far as I've understood it sexual research suggests hetero- and homosexuality is very gradual and not black and white, so Grant could well have a degree of homosexuality in him. Society and friends, however, would throughout Grant's entire life have reinforced the idea that homosexuality is wrong. What happens in Doc's cabin is simply the massive amount of alcohol peeling away all the cultural inhibitions.
So when he wakes up, he has discovered a part of himself that he society has made him believe he didn't and shouldn't have, and he feels ashamed, disgusted etc. The society bit is what we can see now, of course. From the movie-maker's perspective he would have simply committed a "bad" act as a part of his self-destruction.
And on a side note, in real life, alcohol certainly can blur the ability of consent.
If dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos
To me that looked like buddy-buddy revelry and rough housing as they came in. It got weird when Doc pretended to be cutting John's throat and got sexual immediately after.
Male rape in 1971, especially in rural Australia, didn't really exist in the public consciousness nor did the idea of being too drunk to consent. It doesn't make sense to frame what happened in a present day rape/consent dichotomy. What happened, I think, is they got plastered and John, who thought they were friends, was surprised and perhaps confused to find Doc expressing interest in him. Whatever followed it wasn't what John would have preferred to remember when he woke up.
Remember earlier when Doc said that sex is something you do because you have to and John wasn't willing to listen. I don't suppose either changed their mind much over the course of the day.
John previously and subsequently is an active participant in his decline but he's not in control of it nor does he want it. He might have done better by himself when he lost all his money, when he puked kissing Janette, when he fought the kangaroo, when he got a ride from the truck driver or even when he shot himself. Things don't go how he wants them too. I don't consider his friendship with Doc, which I think he'd have wanted to be platonic, to be any different.
That's not to say, of course, that he doesn't bear responsibility.
channa,
"Whatever followed it wasn't what John would have preferred to remember when he woke up."
Interesting, good points. But note that not prefering something later isn't the same as not wanting something at the time. I think the evening unlocked some part of him that he might not want to recognize but which is still a real part of him.
When you say that things don't go how he wants them to, I think you're approaching the heart of the film, but the whole question of how much he did and didn't want any of these things -- how much pressure does it take to change a person's direction (and how much of this is due to the unleashing of one's insides rather than the diversion of someone from their 'true' self) is what the whole film is about.
Matthew
Bond was clearly in pain when he was slaughtering a young kengaroo and Doc was watching him with predatorial satisfaction, probably realizing that he'd have his way with the teacher later, which he did.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
I remember Kotcheff himself describing it as rape in a DVD commentary.
And I remember still stubbornly disagreeing with him.
To me, it seems that Gary Bond's character tries to kill himself due to a serious case of homophobic self-loathing. The Doc was clearly a lot less neurotic about his innate urges. Hence him living like a castaway in some macho corner of civilization.
Gary Bond being gay in real life does add a little to this hypothesis.
Only reading the novel can help me now.
There are scenes in the film that establish Bond's character as heterosexual. I remember at least two such scenes. What I find ironic is how this film shows possible ties between machismo and latent homosexuality. Was it the first such film? If so, it's a groundbreaking work.
On the other hand, one can argue that Doc's not homosexual either, he's just a degenerate that could do a smelly slutty female, a kangaroo or a suffering weakened male like Bond, a man victimized against his will. Pay attention to that every character Bond encounters in one way or another bosses Bond around in their own silly way. Everyone's an authority except him. Maybe this flick's an allegoric commentary on the nature of the English colonial system.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
very insightful, think you hit the nail on the head with machismo latent homosexuality. English colonial system interesting as well, but it feels more like straight bullying by all others against Bond. Just like the insistent guy who gives him a ride and is insulted that he won't drink.
shareThat tends to be the way I see it. I think Grants self loathing wasn't only caused by homophobia though. He found out a lot about himself that he didn't really like during his vacation.
Grant wasn't so drunk that he didn't know what was going on, and he was laughing and participating, though Doc was the "aggressor". I wouldn't call Doc a rapist simply because he initiated things.
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed -- strange days indeed - John Lennon
Without reading more information about the film, it's hard to say that they actually had sex. Much less that John was raped. It looks like drunken fighting to me, more than anything.
---------------------------------------
Giggidy! Giggidy!
I would define it as consensual drunken sex. With a lot of morning after regret.
Nobody told me there'd be days like these
Strange days indeed -- strange days indeed - John Lennon