Anyone uncomfortable with the 'rape' and 'beat the * out of' comments?

I think that line is brilliant, and it makes the differential from the book ... if it was not in the book, it makes the movie separate and independent ... not to mention edgey and truthful. This movie was as in your face as they come, it toed no line, cut no corners and pulled no punches, it was perfect. There is so much to see and think about and talk about, and the movie does not takes sides, it just lays it out there.

I wonder if there are any interviews that exist online of the directory or author talking about this movie, and where it came from, and why they thought of making it. I remember when it came out and I probably would never have heard of it if Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had not both given it thumbs up. I would never take Roger Ebert's advice now, but he was 100% right on this.

Now he is just a tool of Hollywood playing the game.

Your comments are vivid, and they reminded me of many, many other characters Anne Beattie created. I was reminded of one of her other novels, that would have been a challenge to make into a screen play, let alone a movie, Falling In Place.
Then I found an article about it, AND her chracters.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/06/28/specials/beattie-falling.html

Falling in Place was different than Chilly Scenes Of Winter, I didn't care about the characters as people as much as I did Charles, Sam, and Laura etc.
But still a good read.

I have a long history with this movie.
I saw it in the theater when it came out, as recommended by Siskel and Ebert.
Back in prehistoric times when they projected movie by lantern light.
I saw a lot of myself in the Charles character and it really woke me up.
I was breaking up with a girlfriend at the time, and it kind of slapped me in the face and woke me up.

I think Charles was obsessed with Laura because he is just one of those people who is picky, more than he should be, very lonely, possibly - maybe more than possibly, depressed, and got caught in the image of himself being who he wanted to be in his "meet cute" with Laura in the document room, or whatever that was. I think something came over him and he was alone with a beautiful woman that he found attractive with nothing to lose, so he winged it, and won ... "well, then, we'll have to disregard it". That was a great scene, and anyone who in their life improvised that creates a bond. Charles was the best of himself in that moment and derived a great deal of confidence ... but it was dependent on Laura. So when Laura "stroked" him, i.e. they had a good memory he was pumped up. When she was not dependable he got pissy demanding.

This also explains why Laura had a completely different take on the situation. Obviously she liked Charles because he was a fun distraction from her own problems and depression, but her obsession was with family life, and kind of shrinking into the woodwork, and Charles was not a big enough figure to disappear behind.

Charles was wrong when he said "it's not a race, it doesn't matter who got there first". He could not catch up with a family, and even though he had a house, he was a mess and not strong enough male to attract Laura really.

The genius of this movie is evident by its solid foundation in a very logical and human story told perfectly, if a bit uncomfortably.

Also, notice in the movie we never really see passionate sex between the two. It is glanced over. I usually criticize movies for being gratuitous in the sex scenes, but there was a point in the absense in this movie.

This movie was incredibly literary. If I ever run across the book I think I might take a look at it.