MovieChat Forums > Frenzy (1972) Discussion > Question about the rape scene

Question about the rape scene

posted 17 years ago by Don1980
24 replies | jump to latest

How to put this appropriately...

During the rape scene, one thing that struck me as odd was that both people hardly moved at all. (I'm talking about the actual physical rape, of course, not the attack leading up to it -- the whole time, basically, the rapist kept repeating "lovely".) They were practically stock still! You would never guess from their movements that intercourse was happening at all.

Why would this be? Why would Hitchcock keep his actors so unnaturally still during this scene? In a different movie I would have assumed it was a matter of taste or censorship, but as we know, "Frenzy" does not shy away from graphic violence or sexuality.

Any thoughts? Hope this isn't an inappropriate question; it just seemed so odd to me that I had to ask.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

She doesn't move at all (understandable), but he does (understandable.) Look at it again. His moving shadow over her body while she prays.

As we're on this delicate subject, note: he isn't successful at attaining...you know. That's why he's moved to killing her in a rage. Hitchcock studied such cases from real life.

[–] Don1980 17 years ago

I remember seeing his shadow moving very slightly, but other than that nothing. I'll look again when I get a chance (I've already returned the DVD).

As for the second part, why don't you think he wasn't successful? Is that definitely implied in the movie, or are you assuming it based on knowledge of similar cases?

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

It's based on actual cases that Hitchcock researched, particularly two separate British psycho killers named Neville Heath and John Christie.

Inspector Oxford discusses this with his assistant while eating bacon and eggs at his office desk. Of this particular kind of psychotic, Oxford says, "They're all impotent...its the strangling,not the sex that brings them on."

And Rusk always fails, and that always triggers his murderous rage. That's why he tells Brenda before killing her: "Women! You're all the same. I'll show you."

"Frenzy" was a very adult horror film. I'm frankly a little queasy getting into these details, but then Hitchcock wanted to bring this particular kind of killer ot the screen.

[–] Don1980 17 years ago

Thanks for the information -- and for the mature responses. I was a little unsure how to address these topics on a family message board, but you answered well. Thanks again.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Sure.

And now as penance, we will go post on "Pollyanna."

[–] citruspunch 17 years ago

LOL- "Pollyanna"

Anyhow, about your orginal post, why she doesn't move? My guess would be she is in shock. I want to see this movie, but after all the talk about this rape scene, Im not sure I could handle it or not.

"Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit"
"What Nourishes Me Also Destroys Me"

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

She doesn't move because she's petrified...and then rebellious. After this extremely shocking exchange for 1972:

Her: I won't struggle.
Him: But I like you to struggle. A lot of women LIKE to struggle...

Hitchcock was breaking creepy new ground with "Frenzy." It was "Psycho" for the R-rated era, and even all the new filmmakers couldn't quite beat Hitchcock for hitting the nastiest of notes.

[–] Old_Fashioned_Sense 17 years ago

The answer to this is fairly obvious, you can't have a shot of Rusk pumping away thrusting into her in this film or any other for that time period, it's far too sexual and pornographic for that era and would never in a million years of passed the censors in any country at that time.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Well,as some documentarians have attested, the number of thrusts is the difference between an R and an NC-17 and no release at all.

Thing is, MORE thrusts were allowed in the anything-goes early 70's.

But I don't think Hitchcock was interested in such "detail" for his film. The key to this sequence is the close-up on Brenda's face, reciting the prayer as Rusk's shadow moves back and forth. Artful.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle 16 years ago

Good points, dolemite.

Such an adult film this was. Tricky material. Rusk's problems may well have been part of his...stillness?

I'm not sure how "good" his relationship is with his briefly-seen, rather goofy-looking "mum." He keeps her photograph -- solely -- on his mantle. We know nothing about his childhood. For all we know, she may have done horrible things to and/or with him when he was a little boy.

Almost makes you wish that a British psychiatrist would have come out at the end of "Frenzy" and told us all about Rusk's childhood...like that shrink did for Norman in "Psycho."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BarryFrom 15 years ago

I found the scene incredibly odd. I couldn't make my mind up whether he was raping her or not. Having not seen a rape I can't be certain but I'm sure there's more movement involved than that. It just looks really poorly done.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HenryCW 15 years ago

Rusk did not actually succeed in raping her. When Rusk stood up after the murder we saw that he was still fully dressed. As the detective suggested, Rusk proved to be impotent and so in his anger he strangled her. Also, another reason why Rusk showed so little "movement" was probably because Hitchcock wanted to avoid any problem with the censor.

[–] socaldawgs 16 years ago

Rusk was either a Eunich or had such a small schlong that she couldn't feel it. Either way, she didn't move.

[–] BKinzeys 16 years ago

While the psychology arguably makes sense so does bowing to the censors. Look at other mainstream films of the era and you find similar sex scenes. Remember this is a "violent rape" and the boobies of 3 women are clearly shown in this movie. So fear of rating censors is quite likely.

Also Hitchcock is famous for not showing actual violence. You don't see anybody actually strike anyone else in this movie. In "Psycho" there are 47 shots in the shower scene yet you never see her stabbed. Hitchcock could have considered his thrusts as showing actual violence.

[–] JosephASpadaro 16 years ago

As most professionals state, the act of rape is all about the power/control (psychological) and not about the sex (physical). I think that Hitchcock was placing the focus on the psychological power/control and minimizing the physical sexual component. Remember that the woman is praying in this scene. Also, the woman (rape victim) states "I will not struggle", knowing that the rapist enjoys the struggle, not the intercourse per se.

[–] jtyroler 16 years ago

The early 70s was a time when movies for general release did show more adult situations. "Midnight Cowboy" had an X-rating and was the Best Picture of 1969. Movies like "Oh, Calcutta" were also in more general release than a NC-17 rated movie would get today. Around the same time was "Deliverance" (anal rape of a male) with an R-rating. I grew up in a small town that only had a couple of theaters and "Oh, Calcutta" played there.

I'm not sure what caused X-rated or NC-17 rated movies to be considered box office poison.

[–] Devans00 15 years ago

jtyroler

I'm not sure what caused X-rated or NC-17 rated movies to be considered box office poison.

There were many "holier than thou" groups that decided that it's up to them to decide what entertainment is appropriate for other adults. They picketed, boycotted and kicked up a lot of dust against any entertainment with human nudity or with non-child friendly topics. The protesters did not consider the context of the nudity or whether adult actors made the choice to make such films. Sex, nudity and adult topics were all bad in their eyes.

Luckily, the influence of such religious groups and segments of feminism has gone down since the 1970s. Today, it's easier for adults to access materials they want without "nanny groups" looking over their shoulders or hassling them.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] galluslass 15 years ago

I tuned in during this scene last night and wasn't actually sure if it was forced sex as I missed the start of the scene. I thought the 'lovely' repetition was Hitchcock's way of symbolising the 'thrusts' of Rusk raping or at least atempting to enter Brenda without being too visually graphic. Very disturbing scene and umcomfortable to watch.

[–] itsalltears 15 years ago

i just assumed he was getting the point across without going into a full-fledged humping scene. hitchcock wasn't that kind of guy.
clockwork orange came out right around this same time, and includes much more violent and graphic rape in that film. i think kubrick and hitchcock were just very different directors, and maybe it was less of a question of censorship.
when rusk makes that face at her, it looked to me like he was ejaculating subtly. you can't really tell what's going on, but there's definitely some sort of thrusting, you can tell by the shadow on her body. i kept wondering why she never clawed him in the face while he strangled her.

[–] victorsuk 15 years ago

Im so relieved ive discovered the title to this film. I remember watchin it years and years ago but couldnt remember the name of the film. But liked the film a lot. All i could remember was Barry fosters face and that at some point in the film he rapes a woman and he also puts a dead body in a sack of potatoes or something. But i didnt know his name. But i was just watching the sweeney and Barry foster was on it playing Elliot Mcqueen. I always hoped i would stumble across him again. So i checked SWeeney imdb and found out he is Barry foster and the film i remember watching is called Frenzy.
I hope it comes on tv again someday so i can see if the film is how i remembered it.

Quote
"To tell the truth, i could beat anybody in the world"

-Bruce Lee

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]