Rape scene

I completely agree with you. I saw that particular scene when I was like 12 or 13 and then it just went on with the humour...reall twisted and made me feel really bad...it's a horrid movie, not avantgarde as it tries to - just plain twisted and morally despicable.

If you think that there should be separate, or more specific warnings when dealing with rape in films, then you're going to have to be incredibly specific for all films. Making exceptions for rape when warning about violence, or incest when warning about sexual content, just doesn't make any sense to me. I do think that the ratings usually have a lot to do with the kind of violence you're going to see, or how explicit the violence will be, and the same goes for sexual content. I mean, if you're watching a movie rated PG-13 for sexual content, I'll bet you it's going to be much less graphic or intense than a movie rated R for sexual content.

I just don't think films based on John Irving books should ever be marketed as family films or comedies. I watched a couple of clips from Simon Birch (based on A Prayer for Owen Meany), and I thought it pretty ridiculous that they made it a family film. In my experience, with John Irving, you're going to get a lot of crazy sexual stuff going on, as well as tragedy. I'm not implying that film-goers should already know what to expect. I don't like how these films are even being marketed. I don't even think of his characters as "quirky" as I do "messed up."

Anyway, my main thought here is that in order to be more specific about violence when rape is involved, ratings have got to be more specific about any forms of violence ("Rated R for rape, torture, and incest" as opposed to "Rated R for violence and sexual content").

Ooh, cookie.

Two points which may seem to contradict each other:

1. Unlike The Accused or (arguably) Boys Don't Cry, the point and focus of the film is not on the rape. It is not a film 'about' rape, but a film in which a character is raped, and survives, and is not defined by that one event. Which is why the publicity material for the film is not at all like that for the other movies.

2. In Australia, our rating explanations are a little more detailed. Rather than 'violence', this would probably now be described in the rating as 'sexual violence', probably with either 'implied' or 'strong' added as a qualifier (its been decades since I saw the film so I can't really judge which term would be more suitable). I think this is a good way to indicate gradiations within categories e.g. we have things like 'fantasy violence' or 'science fiction violence' which indicates a film is not something on a par with 'Saw' just because it has 'violence'.

The only reason I even thought to watch this movie was BECAUSE I had read the book. So I knew what to expect. In general, I tend to watch movies based on books after reading the book. I am usually disappointed, might I add, but this film did a pretty good job of being true to the book.

THANK YOU! I completely agree. I also support 100% the users who have mentioned that there should be a seperate rating for "sexual violence." A sex scene, I can handle. A violent scene, eh, I can probably handle. But a rape scene...whew. No thanks. I did not read the book before watching the movie and was very caught off guard by the rape and the incest. Yep, I've read Irving before, but I didn't think I had to "expect" to see a gang rape.

I would agree with you that there should be more detailed classifications in film descriptions of things like violence (especially Saw/Hostel style gorenography) and sexual violence.

Having said that, I'm not sure you're right about rape scenes in general. The comparison with The Accused and Boys Don't Cry, for example: the rape in those films, especially the Accused, is pivotal. In Hotel New Hampshire it is not the core focus of the film.
Although you imply that this is flippant, or too casual an attitude to rape, maybe it's actually valuable in offering a dfferent view. Most rape is carried out by boyfriends/people who know the victim, and rape is a shockingly common crime (especially considering the low conviction rates).

People prefer to distance themselves from rape by ascribing it to sadistic strangers with an axe to geind, as in The Accused and Boys Don't Cry, when in fact the scenarios in those films, while more sensational and shocking than "typical" rape, are very unlikely.


You're god damn right I did!

I agree with this. What the hell, imdb. Update your warnings.

Sexual violence is a more difficult viewing subject for so many people than just violence, and so being ambushed by a rather graphic gang rape in what's listed as "a comedy" is to say the least, unsettling.

Rape sucks, but it's funny how people get so outraged when it's in a movie, yet have watched probably hundreds of movies where people are shot, stabbed, blown up or otherwise brutally killed in countless creative ways, without minding a bit.