MovieChat Forums > Ultimo tango a Parigi (1973) Discussion > The real truth about the infamous butter...

The real truth about the infamous butter scene


The word "rape" is being abused when regarding what Maria Schneider experienced on the set of LAST TANGO IN PARIS.

She came to the set one morning and director Bernardo Bertolucci explained to her that she and Marlon Brando would be filming a scene in which his character (Paul) would be sodomizing her character (Jeanne), using butter as lubricant. Schneider claimed later, in a 2007 interview, that she wasn't crazy about the idea but consented to take part.

What Bertolucci and Brando didn't tell her was that they planned to have Brando smear his butter-covered fingers on her posterior on-screen prior to simulating the sex act. This meant Brando would have to actually touch Schneider's anus with buttery fingers, and Bertolucci wanted to catch her facial reaction on camera. He did so and the scene went on, with Brando simulating the act without penetration. Schneider's subsequent tears and protest in the scene were part of Bertolucci's direction, which all three parties agreed upon prior to embarking on the scene.

The key thing to remember here is that LAST TANGO IN PARIS was not the type of production in which a scene involving sodomy would seem out of place. It was always intended to be a sexually graphic film that was undoubtedly going to garner an X rating (which it did), and which would require Schneider to appear fully naked throughout the majority of the feature's run time. She was prepared for all of that, as she read the script prior to signing on to the project.

My post is designed to clear the air about what really took place. People (including the hyper-reactionary Jessica Chastain, who apparently ignited this current controversy by tweeting that the filmmakers "raped" Schneider) seem to be under the wrong-headed assumption that Schneider was the victim of actual rape for the sake of moviemaking. Some believe that the act of Paul (Brando) violating Jeanne (Schneider) anally was the real deal, and that she had no idea it was going to happen. Again, it was simulated and she discussed the scene with Brando and Bertolucci beforehand. The only thing she didn't consent to was the act of butter being smeared on her rear by Brando just before he climbed on top of her. That's the reaction that Bertolucci was intent on capturing.

You can certainly make your own mind up about whether the impromptu butter smearing is deserving of all this hullabaloo, but be aware that the smearing of Brando's buttery fingers is the extent of sexual violation that Schneider experienced... and please remember that she was a grown woman who signed on to make an X-rated sex film in which she would be fully naked throughout.

P.S.: Here's the article that Chastain pointed to in her Twitter rant:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/last-tango-in-paris-director-bernardo-bertolucci-admits-butter-rape-scene-was-nonconsensual-20161203-gt3gsj.html

Notice that Schneider had this to say about the incident:

"They only told me about it [the butter scene] before we had to film the scene and I was so angry," she said.

Proof that she knew about what was going to take place, yet agreed to do it.

One last thing: I'm pleased that the film is being discussed and revisited with such fervor, even if it is for all the wrong reasons. It's one of the finest films ever made.

reply

So glad to read your post. There wants to be a growing crescendo of hysteria. Give outrage to an on screen faux violation and they won't take seriously sexual violation in the real world.

This movie is 40 plus years old. It is what it is: a movie. It's make believe.

reply

This is an absolute joke. Hollywood is upset over this. Someone regrets doing a scene in a mivie written like 40 years later and actors reply their disgusted. Lofl. Hollywood actors do worse stuff everyday. There would have been 30 other women who would have done the same thing. Regrets, welcome to life you morons.

reply

Hollywood actors do worse stuff everyday.


ikr... but they are such hypocrites they will rage over this somehow.
It's important for them to seem outraged so they will be seen as saints. I'm sure they never abuse hookers among probably worse thingsin their private lives, tbh the list of their deeds must be pretty scary I wouldn't want to know everything they do.

reply

[deleted]

Talk about being 'hyper reactionary'. This apologist justification of a pretty messed up incident is a text book example of exactly that attitude.

Firstly, two points to clear up...

1.) What you said:

'Schneider's subsequent tears and protest in the scene were part of Bertolucci's direction
- Here's what Bertolucci said:
"But I’ve been, in a way, horrible to Maria, because I didn’t tell her what was going on. Because I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress. I wanted her to react humiliated. To make movies sometimes, to obtain something, I think that you have to be completely free. I didn’t want Maria to act her humiliation, her rage. I wanted Maria to feel, not to act, the rage and humiliation."
If we take Bertolucci's at his own word, it is 100% not the case that he directed her performance, in fact he wanted her reaction not to be a performance at all, but a real visceral reaction to what was happening. So it's entirely a different dynamic and the ethics of what Bertolucci is saying should at least be a red light to a reasonable person. This also opens up a much larger debate about what an artist should be allowed to do for the sake of art... but let's leave that highly spurious claim aside for now.

2.)
please remember that she was a grown woman
- She was 19. Brando was 48, and Bertolucci was around 32 at the time. Schneider did not have her agent or other adviser/guardians on set. And, as quoted above, was not aware of the full extent of what the scene involved.

Also, you quote Schneider here and add your observation:

"They only told me about it [the butter scene] before we had to film the scene and I was so angry," she said.

Proof that she knew about what was going to take place, yet agreed to do it.

From what you post here it appears as though she was informed about the groping/ inappropriate touching, this is quite evidently not what Bertolucci admitted to himself. In short you cherry pick her words, and also place a false meaning on what she said by inserting the bracketed '[the butter scene]' into her sentence. What exactly 'it' is in the interview this was taken from is not entirely clear. It seems to me that it refers to the scene in general and not specifically to how, where, when the butter was used, or for that matter about the inappropriate touching/groping. If you are going to quote someone do so accurately. Her quote, in fact is this:
That scene wasn’t in the original script. The truth is it was Marlon who came up with the idea. … They only told me about it before we had to film the scene and I was so angry. I should have called my agent or had my lawyer come to the set because you can’t force someone to do something that isn’t in the script, but at the time, I didn’t know that. Marlon said to me, “Maria, don’t worry, it’s just a movie,” but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn’t real, I was crying real tears. I felt humiliated and to be honest, I felt a little raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci. After the scene, Marlon didn’t console me or apologize. Thankfully, there was just one take.


I think it's pretty clear that this is not a cut and dried situation where we have an actor cry foul merely because they are now embarrassed by an earlier role. Brando and Bertolucci are clearly open for intense criticism for the way they handled this shoot, and rightly so.

There's a lot of egos involved in any creative undertaking and very often misbehaviour by those in positions of power are allowed to continue for a variety of reasons. When these events surface those who acted in a morally dubious way must surely be held accountable or at least expect to be criticised.

And lastly, read your own words:
What Bertolucci and Brando didn't tell her was that they planned to have Brando smear his butter-covered fingers on her posterior on-screen prior to simulating the sex act. This meant Brando would have to actually touch Schneider's anus with buttery fingers
Everything in that passage seems to be acceptable to you. You seem to be perfectly fine with what I can only describe as a highly dubious situation at best, or more accurately a form of physical assault.

And lets remember that Schneider didn't claim to have been raped, what she said was 'I felt raped', a very important distinction there. When rape enters the discussion it's not merely the act of physical penetration that is central to the issue, it's also the overt disregard for the persons self worth and basic rights that must be considered. What Schneider described is not entirely unlike that.




As a last incidental thought, let me ask you this: Would you be okay with this situation and take the same stance if a female friend, sister, mother, daughter was in Schneider's position? I doubt it.






reply

I knew one of you white-knuckled types would address this with a point-by-point rebuttal. Okay, we'll try it.

"Talk about being 'hyper reactionary'. This apologist justification of a pretty messed up incident is a text book example of exactly that attitude."

I'm not justifying anything. I'm not condemning anything either, but that's due to the fact that Bertolucci made a number of films that I hold in the highest regard (e.g. THE CONFORMIST, 1900, BEFORE THE REVOLUTION and, yes, LAST TANGO IN PARIS, etc.) and I don't believe the level of artistry and daring present in his work can be accomplished by making sure everyone involved is emotionally content with what he's about to do. He was at his peak when filmmaking was about the end result and not the means to achieve it. Ever hear of Stanley Kubrick or John Cassavetes? If you like their films, you'd better not read about their methods.

"...you cherry pick her words, and so put a false spin on what she said."
[in response to the following quote from Maria Schneider:]
"They only told me about it [the butter scene] before we had to film the scene and I was so angry."

You re-posted my quote but added the bit where she wished she had representation on set to consult about the scene in question. How does that constitute the accusation of "cherry picking" and word twisting? It doesn't. Did... did you have some kind of argument here?

"She was 19. Brando was 48, and Bertolucci was around 32 at the time."
[in response to:]
"she was a grown woman"

Sorry, but I don't see this as being much of a problem. Maria wasn't a babe-in-the-woods type, having modeled and traveled and taken lovers for several years by that point, and besides, she was 19 years of age. Maybe I'm looking at this differently since at 19 I had a pretty firm grasp on decision-making. Regardless, she was an adult, legally speaking. She could have told them they couldn't do that sort of thing and thrown a fit, like many actresses and starlets have done since the dawn of entertainment. She already loved attention, hence the onslaught of full body nudity in the film, so why not?

"Everything in that passage seems to be acceptable to you. You seem to be perfectly fine with what I can only describe as a highly dubious situation at best, or more accurately a form of physical assault."
[in response to:]
"What Bertolucci and Brando didn't tell her was that they planned to have Brando smear his butter-covered fingers on her posterior on-screen prior to simulating the sex act. This meant Brando would have to actually touch Schneider's anus with buttery fingers..."

I'm not "perfectly fine" with non-consensual molestation of any kind, either in an alleyway or on a movie set. However, this situation was very different, and I personally don't think anything that took place on the day being discussed is worthy of any real anger. Here are my reasons:

For one thing, we're talking about a very sexually liberated period in history, when the X rating was still very new and people were rushing to the cinema to see the latest and most risque movies about raw sexuality.

Bertolucci had just established himself as a filmmaker who was willing to shock the audience (the taboo-breaking THE CONFORMIST was a major international hit), and word was out that Brando was now a wild card who would go off the map (script) at any moment.

They cast Maria Schneider, a 19-year-old actress who is eager to join a production about a middle-aged man who has a purely sexual relationship with a young woman. She's informed that a great deal of nudity and simulated sex will be required. She signed on... to do an X-rated sex film that will be groundbreaking in its graphic depictions of intense sexuality.

Then, after having enacted these graphic and intense simulated sex acts time and again with Marlon, while Bernardo and his crew were filming, she's approached with the news that they want her to participate in a scene in which Paul (Marlon) sodomizes Jeanne (Maria) with butter as lube. There was no mention of anal sex in the script (except the bit where Jeanne jams her fingers up Paul's posterior, at Paul's request), but Maria decides to go along with it.

Suddenly, Marlon applies a glob of butter to Maria's anus.

Imagine you're a woman in that situation. Would it be shocking to experience as an actress? Sure, but you're in a sex film that requires extremely graphic sex and full, unflinching nudity, and you already know that Brando has been doing a lot of improv, so wouldn't you go along? You might say: "No, I would have raised holy hell!". That's probably because you wouldn't consent to be in an X-rated movie in which your 19-year-old, bare female figure would be on view while undulating on the pelvis of a 48-year-old actor. She, however, was the type to sign on for such a thing.

The fallout of her career and personal life may have something to do with the fact that she was in the film, but it is also likely because she suffered from several psychological maladies (not the fault of the movie) and fell in with a bunch of radical feminists who were always rallying against Hollywood movies and TV. Soon after she was hooked on a slew of drugs, which can get one unofficially blacklisted in Hollywood very quickly.

"And lets remember that when rape enters the discussion it's not merely the act of physical penetration that is central to the point, it's also the overt disregard for the persons self worth and basic rights that must be considered."

From dictionary.com:
Rape -
noun
Unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

I suggest using the word "molestation", if you have to continue on with this crusade, but I'm sure you won't because the word "rape" gets more attention and subsequent fellow crusaders yelling along with you. I'm only saying that you're using the wrong word, technically speaking, and yes, there is a big difference between rape and what took place on the LAST TANGO set. Big, big difference.

"...let me ask you this: Would you be okay with this situation and take the same stance if a female friend, sister, mother, daughter was in Schneider's position? I doubt it."

If a friend, sister, mother or daughter of mine were legally adults and willingly signed on to an X-rated movie like LAST TANGO IN PARIS, consenting to do full frontal nudity and days upon days of simulated sex acts with a considerably older man, I'd be their shoulder to cry on about the butter smearing (if they'd actually be that sensitive about it)... but I wouldn't seek the blood of the perpetrators. Why? Well, you see, they signed on to do LAST TANGO IN PARIS.






reply

White knuckle types? Really? A ad hominem to kick things off. Pfff, okay then.

I am not going to respond to your entire post, since my earlier comments stand as refutation to those claims you made.

'but added the bit'
That's just it, I didn't add anything... I simply quote her in full. Something you opted not to do. Nor did I insert the bracketed weasel phrase '[the butter scene]' as you did. Not citing a relevant quote in it's entirety is the definition of cherry picking. It's also very close to a straw man argument to boot, especially in this context.


Sorry, but I don't see this as being much of a problem.
blh blah blah... I don't buy it. As another source put it '“Maria, don’t worry, it’s just a movie,” said the 48-year-old megastar to the 19-year-old newcomer, because if there’s one coup de grâce that never fails to subdue the victim of gross exploitation, it’s to tell them that they’re being ridiculous. This has the dual effect of both summarily invalidating one’s pain while simultaneously sowing doubts about their own strength and sanity. It’s very popular.' pretty well sums it up.

I'm not "perfectly fine" with non-consensual molestation of any kind, either in an alleyway or on a movie set. However, this situation was very different, and I personally don't think anything that took place on the day being discussed is worthy of any real anger. Here are my reasons
Believe it or not I am not very interested in your reasons. You commented on Schneider's anger, and the ensuing public response and how you wanted to put in into context to 'clear the air about what really took place'. I am more interested in the context of events as described by the people who were actually on set on the day these things happened. Bertolucci admitted his failure as a director/human being... or are we to take it that the reasons you to proffer are more relevant than his own mea culpa? Bluntly put, your reasons about this is a irrelevant side argument with no bearing on the discussion.

'but I wouldn't seek the blood of the perpetrators. Why? Well, you see, they signed on to do LAST TANGO IN PARIS. ' - She did, but she did not sign on to be manhandled in a scene that was not in the original script that she agreed to do. It was added on the fly, and that is the point... there's a very big difference. If you can't see -or is unwilling to admit- the difference and complexity of the situation as it developed, fine, go your merry relativist way.






reply

BTW, what the hell is

non-consensual molestation
???

Molestation is by definition non consensual, that is why it's molestation.

reply

I'm shocked at how little consideration you're giving to the notion that the result has power, and - artistically speaking - merit. Have you seen the film? Do you really know whereof you speak, or are you just jumping on the most recent "Hey! They can't do that!" bandwagon?

Here's a summation of the facts, as they stand (since you're interested solely in the facts, which you tend to distort to suit your feminist agenda): Maria Schneider, a grown woman, consented to act in a scene concerning nudity and sodomy after being told about it, and after experiencing shooting day after shooting day of being documented by Bertolucci and company while fully naked and grinding on Marlon Brando. She felt some butter being smeared on her and felt they finally went a bit too far, largely because they didn't ask her for permission to do that. Decades later, the now-elderly filmmaker remarked in an interview that maybe he and Marlon went too far that day with the butter smearing. Jessica Chastain heard it and tweeted about how disgusting she thinks it all is, using words like "rape" with reckless abandon, and that triggered a series of events that made LAST TANGO IN PARIS the most talked about and sought after movie on home video (much the way it was talked about upon release, but for different reasons). Is that better?

The last thing I'll say to you, as I'm sure you have anti-Bertolucci protest signs to make, is that I sincerely hope that you cease with your misuse of the word "rape" in this matter. It frankly trivializes the true meaning of the word by way of unwarranted sensationalism. Additionally, it would behoove you to take a long, unbiased look at Mr. Bertolucci's filmography and make your way through those films, starting with his first feature. He really is a tremendous artist of the highest order. But, I'm sure that the very notion of watching anything directed by the man is laughable (if not disgusting) to you, much the way the thought of watching a Woody Allen or Roman Polanski movie makes you want to get on your poorly assembled and generally shabby soap box.

reply

Haha... that is really funny how you weasel your own views into that account. It's simply not descriptive of what occurred, as proof read what the people involved had to say. Specifically Bertolucci's mea culpa.

And your wild rambling about my film knowledge or views on feminism are howlers.

But that is the issue here, what seems to be important for you is not the facts, it more your feels that is the main thing here.

reply

Nah, you're the one using the word "rape" to describe what is categorically not rape. In fact, what transpired during the filming of the scene cannot, in any way, legitimately be termed "rape". You have yet to acknowledge this, and therefore continue to indirectly present yourself as a misinformed, hyperbole-prone gossip worshiper with a severe tendency toward sensationalism.

Also, I used the term "nonconsensual molestation" to further remind you that they were filming a graphic sex film. You seem to need to be reminded constantly. Didn't you ask me how I'd feel if someone smeared butter on the anus of a female I care about? I'm certain that during that hypothetical scenario you envisioned a man doing that to a woman on a crowded bus or something to that effect. They were making an X-rated movie. Get it.

Now, since you're cowardly dodging my queries, I'm going back to one of my "howlers" that tickled you so: Have you or have you not seen LAST TANGO IN PARIS? The whole thing, from start to finish. YES or NO.

reply

Wow, now your tenuous grip on reality seems to have completely failed and you are just making stuff up. Show me where I used the word rape to describe what happened to this very young woman? What I wrote was this

And lets remember that Schneider didn't claim to have been raped, what she said was 'I felt raped', a very important distinction there. When rape enters the discussion it's not merely the act of physical penetration that is central to the issue, it's also the overt disregard for the persons self worth and basic rights that must be considered. What Schneider described is not entirely unlike that.
IF you cant navigate that simple premise I can't help you.

Then this bit of kindergarten level guff: 'misinformed, hyperbole-prone gossip worshiper with a severe tendency toward sensationalism.' Why bother to attack me in a way that leaves you wide open to the simple irrefutable retort that you don't know the first thing about me -and even if I conformed to all these characteristics-, it is utterly irrelevant to the issue here. it's merely puerile insults that says more about your inept ability to stay on topic than anything about me. Huge fail.

Yes, I saw the movie a couple of times. I thought it was self indulgent and pretentious. So what? Even if I loved it it has no relevance to the on set issues we are talking about here. Even -as it happens- your moist love for this movie is redundant and irrelevant to our chat.

And anyway merely to illustrate the point by way of Reductio ad absurdum, if we take Bertolucci's logic to it's absurd conclusion we can argue that it's better to not have actors act but merely have them experience whatever is the script requires... like being stabbed or flung through a windsscreen, whatever... obviously that is nutty and unacceptable, much like what Brando and Bertolucci did here.

reply

Ah, so you have assumed the argumentative stance that any point I make is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That self-serving mode of crossing one's arms and yelling "No!" has rendered any semblance of an exchange with you impossible. It's fine, however, as it has finally boiled down to the simple fact that you are clearly someone who places no value on art and the (sometimes questionable) process of achieving one's artistic goals - not to mention the merits of LAST TANGO IN PARIS itself, disregarding the film as "self indulgent and pretentious" (a common means by which to shrug off something you were incapable of grasping, e.g. a thematically and emotionally complex film).

You claim that I know nothing about you. Now there's a "howler", as you have revealed far more about yourself than you obviously want to admit, and getting a grasp on your personality was a cinch as it's unsurprisingly one-dimensional. Your tendency toward melodrama is rivaled only by your unjustified arrogance, and it's deeply sickening. It's clear that you could keep this "debate" (such as it is) going forever, but you've all but waved your proverbial white flag already when you dismissed all of my points as "irrelevant" while showering the thread with your own opinions. Apparently the only thing relevant regarding the subject at hand is your view of it all, so we're done here.

Besides, I can't talk at length with anyone who uses phrases like "huge fail". I'm a grown up, see.

One last thing: You really need to get laid. That's not an insult, it's a legitimate suggestion. You seem to be under the wrong-headed notion that women are frail, brittle creatures whose lives can be shattered by the touch of a buttery finger. Schneider was under attack from her own many demons, which were already driving her into a life of excess, and her inevitable self-destruction is something that Bertolucci - sensitive artist that he actually is - is concerned that he may have had a hand in. Are some women likely to be scarred and haunted by such an event? Sure, but it's highly unlikely that they're the type of woman who would sign on to make a movie like LAST TANGO IN PARIS (yeah, that movie whose meaning you apparently couldn't begin to grasp after multiple viewings).

reply

Hahha... Thank you, thank you, thank you... that's the most epic meltdown I have ever seen on this board and there have been duzys! Talk about melodrama, you are a true master. Not only that, but you seem positively omnipotent in your assessment of not only Schneider's demons but the motivations, intentions and even deep psychosis of all concerned. Including -somehow- me. Constructing a FBI level profile of me out of nothing more than the few lines we exchanged. It was clear your thinking has been running on the rims for a while, but now you have simply disappeared into a solipsism.Thank you so much for sharing your meltdown -and yes, HUGE FAIL- so publicly. It was great fun to behold. This last post of yours is a keeper!

Your obsession with the Buttery Finger has me worried. Maybe you should seek help with that.



reply

cinesicko get some butter for youe own ass you just got served big time dude :D You are trying to defend the film because you like it i get it, but the it was the director himself that said he was wrong and basicly was a piece of *beep* so nothing you can argue will take that and saying: I'm shocked at how little consideration you're giving to the notion that the result has power, and - artistically speaking - meritt what merit dude? what powerful art comes from buttering an *beep* (without telling the person involved) just to get a reaction lol - that my friend is crossing the limits and if you think thats aceptable for "art" i really feel sorry for you

reply

If you haven't seen the movie, you can't really speak on the movie's artistic merits. You really can't.

reply

Cinesicko,

Did you really use "You really need to get laid" in an argument?

Wow. Not only overly personal, but Neanderthal. And a sure indicator you are losing the debate.

reply

Cinesicko,

Producing good art (let others argue if this is "good") does not justify hurting someone. You seem to think otherwise.

reply

Excellent response Cinesicko. Very well thought out and written.

~It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: The music is nothing if the audience is deaf.~

reply

I absolutely agree with you! I knew about this since I have read that interview she gave years ago, in 2007, and have felt compassion for her, disgust for Brando and Bertolucci ever since. What is worse, nobody reacted to her words until the great Bertolucci himself confessed, only then were her words given credit for. These 2 men in the name of their selfish ''artistic'' strike, have ruined a 19 year old teenagers life. She never recovered. Some men still defend their heroes? Bravo!

reply

> - She was 19. Brando was 48, and Bertolucci was around 32 at the time. Schneider did not have her agent or other adviser/guardians
> on set. And, as quoted above, was not aware of the full extent of what the scene involved.

I don't know what the age of consent was at the time and place the scene was filmed, but I've never heard of anywhere in the world setting it over 18. She was an adult. It doesn't matter if Brando and Bertolucci were 48, 32, 25, 64, 79, 101 or whatever. They were all consenting adults. Including her. You don't need a "guardian" when you're 19, you get to make your own decisions in life at that point, because you're a grown up.

Note, I'm not saying she consented to the butter and that everything is OK because being 19 means Brando and Bertolucci were entitled to do anything they want. I'm only saying that "OMG SHE WAS ONLY 19 WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is complete bullshit. What they did to her was no more wrong and gross than if she was 49 at the time.

reply

19-YEARS OLD IS NOT EMOTIONALLY A GROWN WOMAN.

We didn't know our heads from our asses at 19. She was just at the cusp of experiencing life. She was only 19!!

reply

[deleted]

I've never heard of any place in the world, at any time in history, setting the age of consent limit anything higher than 18. It used to be much lower on average. It became more and more common to bump it up to 18 to account for "late bloomers."

18 is the highest age of consent anywhere in the western world. Once you're 18, you're an adult, and you get to make your own decisions in life. If you want to be in an X-rated movie where you get paid to act out sex scenes with a 48 year old guy, you're entitled to. If you have a problem with it, that's your hang up. If she was wronged by Brando and Bertolucci, it would have been no less wrong if she was 49.

reply

Well by that theory women shouldn't be allowed to vote at 19... when exactly should society accept them as being old enough to vote, drink, think for themselves so to speak.

reply

[deleted]

Did you not read anything? He butter her ass he didn't fuck her ass. She was well paid for that, and agreed to the script which had it in it. So tired of actors complaining as if they were some how forced to be in a movie. They fucking decided to do it. They also could have said, "I quit" at any time.

reply

and please remember that she was a grown woman who signed on to make an X-rated sex film in which she would be fully naked throughout. ...


So the amount of clothes you agree to wear on camera means that your colleagues or whomever are invited to commit, not simulate, acts for which specific consent is a prerequisite in the eyes of the law?

The whole point of agreeing to certain things in that context is that it is necessary to understand that anything outwith those arrangements requires prior agreement and consent. Otherwise, what's the point of discussing consent beforehand?

This is like saying that entering into a game where there are rules means that you have waived any protection or recourse from someone who has decided not to observe the rules.

"They only told me about it [the butter scene] before we had to film the scene and I was so angry," she said.


So they only told her that a scene which involved sodomy using butter was in the film before they shot it. That does not prove anything about the conduct and consent of the participants in the scene.

That's like saying that someone who acknowledged that they turned up on set and learned that their character was going to be shot in the scene about the filmed has tacitly consented to being actually physically injured by someone else.

My post is designed to clear the air about what really took place.


How do you know what "really took place"?


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

Good points GorchBrother.

From what Cinesicko is floundering to say, I glean that he/she is implying that because this scene is in a film of great artistic merit (dismissing all dissenting opinion contrary to that view, of course.) the means by which Bertolucci and Brando achieved that supposed greatness is not only excusable, but even admirable. We must assume if the critics didn't like the film and agreed it was devoid of artistic merit, we could be allowed to make more critical moral judgements about their actions.

Cinesick seems to suggest in his vehement arguments that the film's artistic merit somehow pivots on that one scene, or despite it... I am not sure. That somehow great art must be made without any thought to ethical considerations or even morally defensible behaviour.

That is pretty sick.

reply

I think the OP is simply clutching at several different but equally irrelevant straws.

They think they are providing mitigating circumstances but they are actually just describing and absence of consent.



"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

How do you know what "really took place"?

Because I have actually read accounts of the day's events from both Schneider and Bertolucci. That's plenty of research, particularly since both gave highly detailed accounts, especially Schneider. Meanwhile, here you are, clearly uninformed about all of it. You probably came here under the assumption that she was actually raped on camera, didn't you? Priceless.

Oh, and it's wise of you to partner up with the equally arrogant and bone-headed MARITZ in your blind crusade to crucify Bertolucci. He also came here with no real understanding of the events in question, and had to be educated by the very person with whom he continues to try to clash over the subject. You two definitely need each other if you plan to maintain your dimwitted course.

Take the time to look into what you're ranting about. It will often save you a great deal of time and emotional energy.

reply

Because I have actually read accounts of the day's events from both Schneider and Bertolucci. That's plenty of research, particularly since both gave highly detailed accounts, especially Schneider. Meanwhile, here you are, clearly uninformed about all of it. You probably came here under the assumption that she was actually raped on camera, didn't you? Priceless.


Haven't made any assumptions about the film. Or about whether anyone's version of events should be trusted or otherwise.

And neither have I made any perverse interpretations about what things mean in order to make your conclusions. I have challenged those points but you've just ignored, as I expected, them and accused me of ranting and crusading.

Nice work.


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

I didn't address your prior comments because they were weak in nature and best left ignored, but I'll respond to them since you're convinced they justify your stance here.

"So the amount of clothes you agree to wear on camera means that your colleagues or whomever are invited to commit, not stimulate, acts for which specific consent is a prerequisite in the eyes of the law?"

Maybe you don't understand what everyone (including Schneider and Bertolucci) is talking about here, but there was no rape of any kind taking place that day. The action in question is Brando smearing butter on Schneider's rear before simulating sexual intercourse. We're talking about one second in which fingers touched what would soon be touched by Brando's bulging crotch, and she consented to having Brando's crotch pressed against her for not only that scene but every other sex scene in the movie (and there are many). The fact that Brando and Bertolucci secretly agreed to have Brando touch her rear briefly with his fingers is what all the controversy is about. You seem to be under the impression that actual sodomy took place. There was no penetration. Now, if you really think that the simple (and narratively essential) act of smearing a bit of butter on an area of Schneider's person prior to pressing a crotch against that very area is worth ranting about at length, please have at it. I'm merely trying to deflate the rage by informing the uninformed about the nature of what they're yelling about, as people like Jessica Chastain have incorrectly cried "rape" about the whole thing.

"The whole point of agreeing to certain things in that context is that it is necessary to understand that outwith those arrangements requires prior agreement and consent. Otherwise, what's the point of discussing consent beforehand?"

I get that, but they got her consent to film the simulated sodomy prior to embarking on the filming of it. They discussed it at length, but didn't inform her that Brando would actually be applying butter to her body on camera (and not in a particularly revealing fashion). Bertolucci wanted that brief look of surprise on her face, and he got it. She went on with the production for weeks without contest, and only regretted that scene when it became the core of feminists' arguments as to why the movie went too far. In short, she consented to do all of the X-rated things the movie contains well before filming (Bertolucci made very sure that she wouldn't take issue with any of what he wanted from her before production began), so all of this fuss is really for nothing.

"So they only told her that a scene which involved sodomy using butter was in the film before they shot it. That does not prove anything about the conduct and consent of the participants in the scene."

We can go back and forth forever about whether the butter smearing was a far cry from what Schneider consented to take part in when she agreed to do the sodomy scene, but I'm of the school of thought that great art requires some level of sacrifice, and I personally don't view the unexpected smearing of some butter on the posterior of an X-rated movie actress a violation worthy of discussion. Bertolucci manipulated her mood quite often during production because she was such an inexperienced actress, so this wasn't much of a stretch for him. That said, your comment seems that you really think actual intercourse took place that day. Again, no penetration of any kind transpired during the whole of the production. That's important to remember.

"That's like saying that someone who acknowledged that they turned up on set and learned that their character was going to be shot in the scene about the filmed has tacitly consented to being actually physically injured by someone else."

Yeah. Same exact thing, guy. Please tell me that you're kidding with that analogy.

reply

Nobody gives unspoken, tacit approval to have someone else's fingers on their anus, in any context.

By their own admission, consent was not sought by the director because he wanted the actress to respond to non-consensual contact in an authentic way.

Really straight-forward. Thanks.






"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

So an actress in an X-rated movie had her anus touched without warning. Sounds like the end of the world, no? This whole thing is ridiculous, and frankly so is your take on it. Why do you care exactly? I see you're a fan of THE WILD BUNCH. You should read up on how Peckinpah treated his actresses, e.g. Susan George and Isela Vega.

Oh, and the incident being discussed transpired 44 years ago. Just a reminder.

reply

What you seem incapable of grasping is that in citing other examples of directors mistreating their cast does not strengthen your claim, it's a lame Tu Toque argument that does not address the main issue. There are numerous examples of directors going ape *beep* and acting completely unprofessionally... Kubrick did it to Shelly on the The Shining, Russell was a dick to Tomlin, and has been a regular prick to lots of his cast members, the list goes on and on. In fact there have been even more directors who were dickish louts who made terrible movies (John Milius, to name one). The quality of the film is irrelevant to the morally acceptable/unacceptable behaviour of the person in charge. The fundamental issue here is not that these people acted in ways that are frankly reprehensible while some of them have reached a high artistic achievement that does not mean we should let them off the hook for their failures.

To take the Kubrick/Shelly event as an example, The Shining is a film I admire greatly and have watched countless times (as opposed to Last Tango, which I thought was tripe), however the fact that Kubrick was a absolute jerk cannot be denied. He was acting in a horrible manner toward Shelly and it is morally inexcusable. I wince everytime I get the famous scene where I know Kubrick went all out idiot on Shelly. Does the knowledge mar the film? Yes it most certainly does. It is an uncomfortable reality one has to face if you are a mature person (which you so moistly insist you are). And it is this aspect of Last Tango that you seem utterly oblivious to, and seem hell bent on denying in such a puerile fashion, despite evidence to the contrary. You fav movie will forever be tainted by this failure of it's star and director to act in a professional and morally decent way. The sad fact is they could have reached the same level of supposed excellence you ascribe to the film had they only handled this scene in a more responsible manner. As it stands there is amply legitimate reasons why Tango will now forever be associated with this crass and needless humiliation of a perfectly capable actor who was seemingly able to deliver a performance that worked for the film. Why this needless provocation was perpetrated on this young woman is frankly a mystery. And inexcusable.

There are very many great directors who created films of great artistic merit in a professional and by simply being -for want of a better word- decent people, without belittling their cast and crew. Reaching artistic heights through a cohesive collaborative effort is a much more admirable way of achieving greatness than to wilfully deceive and likely harm your collaborators. Especially so if you have a 19 year old in your cast who is not emotionally mature enough to simply handle anything you choose to throw at her.


'Oh, and the incident being discussed transpired 44 years ago. Just a reminder.' - again irrelevant nonsense.

Now you can respond with your usual ad homimen tolling and hysterical denials... wait for it....




reply

I thought I made it clear that I was quite done with you and your inane prattle.

reply

And there it is... you don't disappoint.

reply

Not the end of the world, no.

But the truth is, nobody is permitted to finger your anus without consentin any context .

The director has admitted deliberately not getting consent because he wanted to see the actresses reaction.

That's what really happened.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

“Several years ago at the Cinemathèque Francaise someone asked me for details on the famous butter scene. I specified, but perhaps I was not clear, that I decided with Marlon Brando not to inform Maria that we would have used butter. We wanted her spontaneous reaction to that improper use [of the butter]. That is where the misunderstanding lies. Somebody thought, and thinks, that Maria had not been informed about the violence on her. That is false! Maria knew everything because she had read the script, where it was all described. The only novelty was the idea of the butter.” - Bernardo Bertolucci

reply

Bertolucci has this to add to this controversy:

Several years ago at the Cinemathèque Francaise someone asked me for details on the famous butter scene. I specified, but perhaps I was not clear, that I decided with Marlon Brando not to inform Maria that we would have used butter. We wanted her spontaneous reaction to that improper use [of the butter]. That is where the misunderstanding lies. Somebody thought, and thinks, that Maria had not been informed about the violence on her. That is false! Maria knew everything because she had read the script, where it was all described. The only novelty was the idea of the butter.- Bernardo Bertolucci


Unpacking this more nuanced explanation we are left with pretty much the same situation as before, Schneider was not told about exactly what the scene required and her reaction is not acting, it's real emotion. Exactly what Bertolucci wanted. This in not any different that what he has said before... just a little more carefully worded. The moral issue of Brando and Bertolucci's actions/intentions remain deeply questionable and deserves the outrage and criticism it is currently receiving.

reply

When actors act they want to be both experiencing and displaying for the audience/cameras the real emotions of their characters. When watching an actor act it should not be discernible if their tears are real tears or acting tears. Crying should look like crying and not look like fake crying. From good actors we should be seeing real emotion.

So, no there is no "situation" other than an actor being "in the moment" in a scene she was asked to and agreed to do. That's it. This is different than what he said before because he had to say it because people were responding idiotically to something he said 3 years ago. She knew what was coming in the scene, she knew it was a simulated anal sex scene. She did not know about the butter until perhaps the day shot because Brando came up with that at breakfast that morning.

There is not a "moral" issue because Brando was not actually raping her nor was there any sexual contact. She got upset during the scene but she was supposed to get upset during the scene.

Anybody watching the scene would have no way to know if she was acting or actually crying. Not Brando, not Bertolucci, and certainly not anybody in the crew...who knew they were shooting a simulated sex scene...it was in the script. So, if she says later that "Oh I was not acting I was really crying." that's really an issue for somebody that signed up to do a film that included scenes like this. This makes it seem that any actor can claim later after they have done a rough emotional scene that they were NOT ACTING but instead they were being assaulted and so that was why we saw the emotion we saw.

reply

Seems to me you are attempting to have it both ways on two issues and getting strung up in circular logic.

Firstly: you are arguing both for and against acting as a method of conveying emotion, while at the same time arguing that real emotion (not acted) is far superior than deeply emotive acting. Admittedly it's a fine line. It is in navigating the difference between providing a competent actor the opportunity to craft a scene as truthfully/realistically through their method/process, as possible and taking that control out of their hands to elicit not the best possible performance but a real visceral reaction from the actor, this is where Brando and Bertolucci decided on a dubious course of action. I have written a more detailed explanation of my views about this using The Shining (Kurbick/Shelly clash) as a example elsewhere on this board (post dated: (Mon Dec 5 2016 16:50:12), if you are interested I suggest you read it. I don't believe artistic endeavour trumps moral or ethical considerations.

And then , more importantly you are saying that there was no rape (Schneider never claimed there was) and I agree with that, and therefore no moral question about these events because 'She got upset during the scene but she was supposed to get upset during the scene' and that no-one on set could know the difference of whether her reaction was real or not, which I don't agree with. Brando and Bertolucci planned this in a way as to elicit a real reaction from Schneider, (Bertolucci admits as much in both his statements). How you can argue that they didn't know when their explicit intent was to get that result is a contradiction that does not stand up to scrutiny.

reply

I am not arguing both for and against acting being about conveying emotion...it is about conveying emotion, particularly in a film like Last Tango...which is deeply about human emotions and interaction.

“I was there. We were doing a movie. You don’t do it for real. I was there with two cameras and nothing happened. … Nobody was raping anybody. I think the journalists are making an issue that is not really an issue. I read that there was a kind of violence made on her but that’s not true. That’s not true at all. Probably Bernardo felt that maybe he didn’t explain it completely to Maria from the beginning and that’s why he felt a little guilty and nothing more than that. What Bernardo said later was he would like to apologise to Maria, only because he probably didn’t explain to her at the beginning what was discussed with Brando. Nothing happened during the shooting. Maria knew perfectly well what she was doing. She knew pretty well what was happening in every scene. She was an actress and had no problems with this. It was an acting job, not something else. Brando wanted to add his own opinion. Everything was written down, but every morning Bernardo loved to add something … We knew the script and we knew what we wanted to do, but every morning you come up with different ideas." -Vittorio Storaro

Describing the shoot as a “fantastic period”, Storaro also said that “like everybody in this wonderful atmosphere, [Schneider] was so sorry that the movie was ending.”


It was later that Ms. Schneider changed her tune about the film...once she saw and felt the controversy it created and how it turned her into a sex symbol...something she did not want she claimed. So, there was no assault on her, no actual rape as Jessica Chastain stupidly claimed and even more idiotically Chris Evans called for Marlon Brando to be jailed.

What we have here is a giant pile of rubbish trumpeted by morons.

reply

Violence in a story does not permit the violence simply to be enacted without checks and balances that exist in the law.

If you are acting in a movie where your character is shot, you are not consenting to be shot yourself when the director feels like recording your reaction to receiving a bullet.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

So when an actor is doing a rough scene...say a rape scene...and the actor is crying in the scene, how do you know if it is a good actor acting or the person is really crying?

If the crew were to bust in on a scene every time an actor was crying and stop the production to check to see if the actor was really crying this would totally be a disaster and destroy the scene and flush all the actors preparation down the toilet.

Can you imagine someone bursting into a scene Christian Bale was doing when he was crying and asking "Mr. Bale are you OK? Are you just acting?"

Bale would fly into a rage and attempt to kill that person.

So, I guess every time that Jessica Chastain is doing a scene where she is crying the crew should stop the scene to check if she is OK. Great.

There was no actual violence being perpetrated on Maria in the scene with Brando. It was all fake. No attack, no actual sex. It was all simulated. Even Maria admits that.

It was not what Brando did that she complained about it was that he was not nice enough and did not apologize after that she was upset with.

She was angry with Bertolucci for turning her into a "sex symbol" and for becoming more known for that than with being an actress. She also felt he was not nice enough to her during the making of the film. And she was angry that Bertolucci and Brando got most of the money from the picture.

reply

The only thing she didn't consent to was the act of butter being smeared on her rear


Guess what? That's classified as sexual assault.

reply

Oh Jesus. What a world you must live in. Little girl.

reply

Ol' Butter-fingers Brando must have had a good time....






Fabio Testi is GOD

reply