Why do they say it was rape?
He didn't actually rape her?
shareExactly. I have no idea why Jessica Chastain and others are complaining. It seems like they reacted before they got all the information.
share
MovieChat Forums > Ultimo tango a Parigi (1973) Discussion > Why do they say it was rape?
Because people don't understand the difference between rape and sexual assault.
shareBecause people don't understand the difference between rape and sexual assault.
But it was neither of them. Some people are unable to grasp this. From Bertolucci himself:
“I specified, but perhaps I was not clear, that I decided with Marlon Brando not to inform Maria that we would have used butter,” he noted. “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!”
share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=021jNOEVytQ
Out of his own mouth, Bertolucci admitted he didn't tell Schneider about what Brando was going to do with the butter. That is sexual assault. There's no justifying it.
It was all simulated. Improvisation is normal in movies. Sure this is a little bit on the edge, but it is neither sexual assault nor is it rape. Calling it that is an insult to real victims. This is a movie, not reality.
shareNo. The more this is talked about the more it feels like a story of a young actress who was neither prepared for such a caliber of a film (and that certain emotional demands come with it, including making wise decisions) nor fame. I am pretty sure that Bertolucci took advantage of an emotionally distressed Schneider, who struggled with depression even before making the film, and her willingness to follow his direction which is also why Schneider sais she FELT a little raped, not that she actually WAS raped.
However, there was no rape, no sexual assault or anything alike. Schneider just didn't like the and felt uncomfotable about the butter, but still went through with it. I see that she was pressured to do it, but as ann actress she still could have said no and not done the scene.
I also don't get why no one speaks about all the other instances when actresses cried over sexual scenes they had to do, e.g. Rosie Perez in Do The right Thing or Debra Winger in An Officer and A Gentlemen, and this becomes such a huge thing, just because ELLE wrote a dishonest and misguided article and Chastain, Evans and Fischer jumped to wrong conclusions and a lot of people believed them without doing proper research. I hate media and stupid people for stuff like that. All of the above mentioned examples are actresses who made decisions early on in their careers about nudity on screen, and later regretted them.
Well said. I think the hyperbole expressed by some people (Chastain in particular) is so overdone.
No. The more this is talked about the more it feels like a story of a young actress who was neither prepared for such a caliber of a film (and that certain emotional demands come with it, including making wise decisions) nor fame. I am pretty sure that Bertolucci took advantage of an emotionally distressed Schneider, who struggled with depression even before making the film, and her willingness to follow his direction which is also why Schneider sais she FELT a little raped, not that she actually WAS raped.
Good interpretation. I also think this might be one of the reasons why she expressed dislike in later years. share
I agree. She was crying due to what he was saying to her. There was no rape that I saw.
shareExactly. I was surprised at how outraged people were getting. No sex actually took place so it wasn't rape nor was it sexual assault.
If you can't dazzle them with you wits, wow them with your tits
pff, the rape scene was not that horrible as those from other movies. The rape scene from Irreversible with Monica Bellucci is one of the worst ones to watch and you dont hear people including Bellucci complaining about it.
shareThe story is Maria Schneider knew everything about the scene except the butter. There was no penetration that I know of. I don't know if marlon Brando touched her anus or not, but it seems that she was aware he would or would not touch it. Her complaint is that they used butter.
All the people getting worked up over this do not fully understand the facts. They jump to conclusions because they want to be champions of sexual assault victims - perceived or actual.
On the other hand, does it really make sense that she was so upset about...butter? Like everything would have been cool if it was KY? Something about that doesn't add up. So I can't blame people for trying to read between the lines.
And I say that as a skeptic of the whole "me too" movement. Hollywood insiders have long circled the wagons & even lied to defend this kind of garbage. Those complicit in it have projected their guilt on to others, which I think explains the ferocity behind the effort to get Edelstein fired.
Lots of directors have pulled this "surprise the actors" stuff, like on "Alien" where the director didn't tell the rest of the cast that an alien was about to punch its way out of John Hurt's bloody chest. Directors do it when they aren't satisfied with an actor's performance, when they're feeling sadistic, or just to do some improv, it's a common enough method.
However, surprising an actor with Marlon Brando's buttery fingers up the ass is beyond the limit.
Obviously Maria Schneider was entitled to feel any way she wanted about the sudden unannounced use of butter in the scene. But none of us are obligated to validate her feelings.
share