MovieChat Forums > Hollow Man (2000) Discussion > Rape scene was underplayed

Rape scene was underplayed

posted 5 years ago by Heisenberg (6285)
58 replies | jump to latest

I think most viewers are unfortunately missing a big point of the rape scene:
that it's not perceived as rape.
I wish the movie spent more time on this aspect, because if you think about it, this act shows how his actions were even WORSE than just a regular rape.
His victim infact doesn't really understand what happened to her.
Is she going crazy? Was there really an invisible man that raped her? What can she do about it? Can she report this invisible man to the police? Would somebody ever believe her? Is he going to come back in the future? What can she ever do to prevent this from happening again?

This is an act of violence that goes beyond any other seen in this movie, and it's one of the worse in movie history. I've seen many guys here comparing it to A Clockwork Orange, but it's not even close to that sort of "playful gang rape". This is pure evil at its darkest.
I wish Verhoeven explored it more and exposed how terrible it truly was.
I'm thinking he didn't realize it himself, he probably thought "let's show how Sebastian is pushing his morals, becoming a dangerous psycopath", while in fact, this is such an extreme step into evil that immediately sends Sebastian out of scale of any possible chart of villainy.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 4 years ago

You're over exaggerating it big time. It's evil sure, but not to the extent you're making out. Yeah the woman will have major psychological issues for life now, but from Sebastians point of view it was just rape. It's no worse than any other rape, he just happened to be invisible. He's not thinking beyond his sexual desire being fulfilled. Pure evil is someone like Ted Bundy, who not only rapes his victims but horrifically mutilates them and then has sex with the corpse.

[–] Lord Rake (3754) 4 years ago

In fairness to Ted, having sex with the corpse was the least horrible thing he did in that line up.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 4 years ago

Still, you gotta be a special kind of f-d up to screw a rotting corpse. And some of his victims were children too. But according to the OP, Sebastian was off the charts evil because of a standard rape.

[–] GotWood84 (384) 4 years ago

It isn't standard rape. For all she knows, it was some kind of evil entity that just soiled her body with the intent to impregnate her and bring in some horrible foul demon into our realm. She probably killed herself the next day.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Exactly this, thanks GotWood84
LiquidOcelot, what are you 15? Who cares about Ted Bundy. So there's someone worse than Sebastian...no shit! It's clear you fall into that large part of viewers that didn't understand the horror of such an act. That's exactly what I addressed with my OP: it's horror handled lightly and doesn't explore any of its tragic implications, including how truly evil Sebastian has become.

It's a huge mistake by Verhoeven (who's usually brilliant and keen to such subtlelties), it's shallow and irresponsible filmmaking, and a missed opportunity narratively to get deeper in the matter of what being invisible does to your soul.

[–] Lord Rake (3754) 4 years ago

So an invisible rapist is worse than a normal rapist because he knows there will be an extra level of confusion to his crime and he rapes anyway?

GotWood84 is over looking the possibility that the woman is an atheist.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Yes he definitely is worse than a "normal" rapist.
Like an armed robber is definitely worse than a cat burglar.
Atheist? She could have been Nietzsche and after such an otherworldly experience she'd believe in spirits and demons and gods.
It's impossible to frame such a trauma in a logically acceptable way.
And even in the event of such impossibility, the movie should have exposed more of its implications (like show her the next day think it was just a bad dream).

[–] Lord Rake (3754) 4 years ago

He is more dangerous than a normal rapist but I think a normal rapist would still rape if he/she became invisible.

I don't know how much of a tangent the filmmakers wanted to go on with the lady in the adjacent apartment building character.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

ok I m just saying that up to that point he was a cool genius asshole.
Out of the blue, just for fun because a bit bored, annoyed n horny, he becomes worse than a rapist.
The movie spends zero to explain and explore this terrible act, as if it is ok or understandable.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 4 years ago

He's not worse than a rapist, he's a rapist. Stop looking for depth when it isn't there.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

You stop not looking for depth where it should have been.

I think your attitude shows that you don't understand much about moviemaking or art in general.

I expect an artist to handle his material in a responsible way, especially if he deals with such sensitive topics.
This is clearly a case where Verhoeven handled it in a superficial way. I'm pointing his recklessness out and complaining about it.

[–] Lord Rake (3754) 4 years ago

I agree that he is no worse than a rapist, because I believe any rapist given the power of invisibility would still rape.

[–] Lord Rake (3754) 4 years ago

Still don't think he is worse than a rapist but I agree with you that the devolution was haphazardly handled. He could have kicked a cat or stole a wallet before brutally raping somebody.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

You're forgetting the bit when he fondles his colleague’s boob as she sleeps - that was his first step toward molestation.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

That's exactly the problem here: touching a tit like that, consideringshe never even noticed, is almost innocent.
That rape was played on the same level of "let's see what other otherwise impossible action you can do if invisible (and horny)".
The movie doesn't make a difference between these moments. But they are not on the same level, not even in the same ballpark, and that rape is worse than torture, but it's described like a guy exploring his superpowers like it's Spiderman punching Flash in highschool.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Well, let’s just say Verhoeven has a more ‘European’ attitude to rape.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

What the hell are you implying?
Europeans condemn rape to the highest degree.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Outwardly, sure.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Inwardly too.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

One or two, maybe.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

I have no clue what u mean, but it feels like u r trolling.
Can you be clear?

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Well, Europeans are a little more ‘open minded’.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Well, that does mean nothing if you are talking about rape, it's as horrible as in Usa. Infact the American rape rate is way higher, so what are you talking about?

If anything, him being Dutch should have made him more horrified.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

It’s quite telling that Verhoeven’s hero instantly starts molesting and raping women the second he gains the power of invisibility.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Telling of what? You keep making innuendos but never say anything that means anything.
CAN YOU BE CLEAR ONCE OR DO YOU WANNA KEEP TEASING LIKE A TROLL?

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Just relax into it. It’s telling about Verhoeven’s own fantasies and lusts.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

He didn't write nor produce this movie, why do you think he is the source of this? Or Europeans? It's an American film.

[–] Drooch (5333) a year ago

It’s no surprise that Verhoeven’s films are filled with smut, sexual perversion, and rape. No surprise.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

Yes, no surprise sincehe is directing an American movie. He must have been inspired by world famous rapists Weinstein, Cosby and Trump.

[–] Drooch (5333) a year ago

Verhoeven was smutting it up well before Cosby and Weinstein started diddling. If anything they were inspired by him.

Who did Trump rape?

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/13/trump-deposition-in-e-jean-carroll-rape-defamation-case-ordered-unsealed.html

[–] Drooch (5333) a year ago

You link to a CNBC article in which some skank launches yet another false accusation against Trump, while the Left are doing everything in their power to keep him from running again, and expect to be taken seriously? 🤣

Oh well, you were right about Cosby at least, he’s a rapist. Weinstein isn’t, he’s just a molester.

Either way, Verhoeven was smutting it up well before those two got active, even before he started making Hollywood movies. So if anything, he inspired them.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

No, you SHOW ME how now.

[–] Drooch (5333) a year ago

Verhoeven will show you EVERYTHING.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Heisenberg (6285) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Scape (504) 4 years ago

Verhoeven probably decided that story has already been told, so if you’re looking for/interested in that angle - sounds like you should watch the 1982 movie “The Entity”.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 4 years ago

The point remains. It's not some off the charts level of evil that you claim, you're reading into the scene way too much. Rape is a pretty standard crime.

'Evil' implies intent, his intent was simply to get his rocks off. Ted Bundy was just an example, there are endless examples of notably evil crimes. Again, stop exaggerating. It was a rape scene with a science fiction element. That's it.

[–] LiquidOcelot (2300) 4 years ago

Or...she may convince herself that it was just a dream and get on with her life. We can both come up with hypotheticals. The OP is still exaggerating the evilness of the act.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

Invisible or not, the DNA test still works.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Yea but try telling a cop I think something happened to me by an invisible entity.

[–] sonans (1209) 4 years ago

This movie already rated R, if they go that far, it will get NC-17.

There are no way movie studio will let that happen.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

It should not be graphic, just rapresentative.
To give you an idea, Hitchcock decided to emphasize the stabbing in Psycho as cold, unstoppable, appalling. He was graphic but not literal.
This movie doesn't do anything with such a despicable and horrible action, it almost looks ok.

[–] sonans (1209) 4 years ago

The big reason Hitchcock got away with Psycho is shots in black and white.

Beside, your suggestion kind of in 2020 The Invisible Man.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

That impossibly awful piece of shit should not ever be mentioned in the same board as Hollow Man (or any other movie ever made).

You don't understand at all what I'm arguing for. I'm not talking about visuals AT ALL, I'm talking about themes.

[–] sonans (1209) 4 years ago

I know you are talking about theme, but you mention Psycho, I just inform you that scene got away has a reason.

Even not visual, just theme can get you higher rate. In movie Hancock there are one scene got trouble in MPAA, Will Smith use his muscle strength to pin down Charlie Theron, he just want her to "calm down", but MPAA thinks that looks like a man trying to rape a woman, they gave that movie a R for that "hey I want you to calm down" scene.

Beside if they really dive that deep, Hollow Man will too long. You said rape is horrible, I know that is pure evil, but he later commit worse crime: kill.

(Sorry my english, I am not native speaker.)

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Your english is great, don't apologize for it.

I don't think this movie risked a higher rate for more depth in the rape scene, if anything it would have achieved more maturity and a better perspective on the act itself and the evil reached by the main character.
The way it is now, it's just immature and superficial, almost glorifying violence.

But it's true that the mpaa is crap and they have their brains in their ass, so I wouldn't expect them to agree with any of that.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

I dont think the focus was that he raped her. More like what he can get away with. With this great power. He could get girls he couldnt before.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Exactly the big problem here: rape is not fun.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

Have you seen the director’s cut? You can buy it on blu-Ray - the rape scene is longer and we see her traumatised, sobbing and bunched up on her bed as Sebastian walks away. You can see bits of it here, accompanied by Verhoeven’s explanation: https://youtu.be/DB6LvJjbuwQ

[–] ExTechOp (2737) 4 years ago

Was she raped?

I thought we only see her get grabbed, and then she screams from what looks like Sebastian's perspective

I thought it's only in a deleted scene that we see an actual rape and his invisible footsteps from her bruised, sobbing form

Now, it's fricken' Verhoeven, so we know he didn't delete the rape because it didn't happen - he did it to get past the censors. Were it up to him, he' have definitely kept it in - that's just how he rolls.

Nonetheless, it's not in the finished product.

Is it?

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

I have the DC, I don't remember the theatrical. But I think you are right, the scene is less graphic but I think the rape was still there. Anybody has the regular cut?

[–] ExTechOp (2737) 4 years ago

Yeah I've got the theatrical - we never see Rhona Mitra again after she's seen close-up and screaming.

I've seen the deleted scene, however, where he's clearly raping her AND we're shown his footprints in her carpet after he's done.

If it were any director other than Verhoeven, I'd assume it was deleted because the director didn't want to show Sebastian had fallen that far that quickly.

But it's Verhoeven ... the same guy who referred to Bob Morton's floozies as "bitches" off-camera, as if that were their names:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31rrZeTH9HI

To put it bluntly, Ferrer (Bob Morton) didn't think Verhoeven knew "bitches" was a pejorative term. Kurtwood Smith (Boddicker) actually busts out laughing at the memory - which is a sight in and of itself.

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

Thanks for clarifying it.
Ok so from your own take, the director meant it to be understood as a rape, only removed some more graphic images for censorship's sake. So, it still was underplayed in its ethical implications, even if the scene was depicted as a bit less horrible than in the DC.
It's more interesting if it was less clear, like we don't know what happened.
But then, what would he be doing there? Just peeping her naked? I could go with that, it fits the character and the movie better than the dark DC, which jumps from fondling boobs to rape in 24 hours.

As for the bitches:
1- Clarence would probably call his mom bitch, let alone those two bits whores.
2- They were bitches, so what's the problem with calling them that?
3- Nowadays it's kinda slang to call a girl "bitch", I agree that in 87 it was a straight insult but again, Clarence meant to insult them.
Funny that Verhoeven didn't perceive bitch as an insult!

[–] ExTechOp (2737) 4 years ago

Nah you've gotta watch the video ... Verhoeven was calling the actresses "bitches" while giving stage direction. E.g., "okay bitches, come this way first yah? Oh wait, no start here, bitches, then come this way. Good!"

He's just that crass

But I think the movie's better without the obvious rape - we shouldn't know that Sebastian's fallen that far ... yet.

I just suspect Verhoeven didn't think the rape was "that far"

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 4 years ago

I did watch the video, it's hilarious!
"Very good bitches, it's a wrap on the bitches." That's comedy gold!
Infact, it's such pure genius, that if I were one of the actresses, I would want my credit to be either bitch number 1 or bitch number 2.

I think he wanted the character to rape her, but that's what I'm arguing against in the OP, that he didn't realize how horrid that action is.
But then again, maybe he did realize it and that's why the theatrical version is a bit more ambiguous, and Sebastian is maybe just taking a good look of her naked and is only there to spook her.

[–] Truthtalker (1868) 3 years ago

agreed

[–] Heisenberg (6285) 3 years ago

Cheers! And Bacon is such a cool bad guy it's all the more important to comment on how evil this rape is.

[–] yvesyves (630) 22 days ago

i loved that sweet love making scene , pity it was so short