MovieChat Forums > À ma soeur! (2001) Discussion > disturbing: violence or nudity?

disturbing: violence or nudity?

posted 19 years ago by defrost79
12 replies | jump to latest

the violence in the final scenes were by far the most disturbing. that beautiful girl with her head all bloody from getting hit in the head with a hatchet really bothered me. because of the ambiguity of the character anais, i wasn't as terribly horrified by the sex act with the murderer at the end. it was disturbing but not as horrific as the girl getting her head caved in or the mother being strangled to death. was anyone else affected by the violence, or is everyone hung up on the nudity?

[–] lunx_27 19 years ago

The violence also disturbed me; it really shocked the heck out of me as I wasn't expecting it...Terrible.

[–] nancie-3 19 years ago

I found the sexuality thought provoking, but the violence truly disturbing. Then again, violence *should* be disturbing. It's kinda twisted that so much violence is played for entertainment. While I don't ever enjoy violent scenes, I can respect filmmakers that make them appropriately shocking and disturbing. (Another example is the final scene in Heavenly Creatures.)

I hope I don't have nightmares after watching this! I loved the movie but the ending upset me a great deal. I'd still consider it a well-made film.

[–] Dollhouse_89 18 years ago

i was completely shocked.

it came out of no where. i saw the figure coming towards the car, then all of a sudden he broke the window. i was still kind of in a daze, and then he suddenly bashed her head in. it was kind of surreal for me.

the murders and the rape disturbed me more than any other scene in the film. the murders (especially elena's) were most shocking because they came so suddenly. i had time, though, to get my thoughts together and assume anais would be raped or abused in some way or another.

"Now I know I'm always right; that's a thought that never even crossed my mind..."

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marrnatalie 18 years ago

I found the events of the last part of the movie extremely disturbing because not only does the violence just materialise out of nowhere and it has nothing to do with the characters (as in the murderer has no link to the characters other than he kills them) but also because these last scenes are so real and it really could happen to just anyone. I was completely terrified afterwards and i know myself that i could never stop overnight in a place now.

I'm not really sure why this scene was in the film, on another post somebody had said that it would have been more effective is Anais had gone to the toilet and then been raped (as obviously her rape is important for the theme of the film) but who knows what the director is thinking. Either way the ending is very very effective, brutal and shocking and makes for a powerful end to a powerful film

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Answer to original question: it depends where do you come from. The majority of Americans are not only used to watch but adore violence, yet they would scream against any nudity, and the age of the girl would increase the loudness to 150 dB. Just read boards of other movies dealing with similar topics. (And, yes, there are also Americans that don't fit in this generalization, so I appologize to them.)

But violence is something that should be disturbing, regardless if it were street violence, sexual assaults, bullying, vigilantes, terrorism, marital violence... This scene happened suddenly, but it was a perfect timing, we - audience - got prepared for the expected end of the movie, becoming as careless as the family on the screen... and then it happened out of nowhere, as most violence does. That fact is more disturbing than any smashed head. And, yes, we could be the people out there, too.

Rape of any person, regardless of sex and age, is a violent act, and should be considered and prosecuted that way. It has nothing to do with sex, only with power vs humiliation.

I am still surprised that this original question still appears, and that many people might have second thoughts about it, many (we know from where) wouldn't however have to think, but would say that they have no problem with violence.

How can people who watched TV on 9/11 or maybe saw it walking the streets of NYC, people who heard news from Beslan, people who still remember Manson, who were informed day after day about pointlss shooting in D.C. that could kill any adult or child, people who know what happened to children as well as adults in Vietnam and Dresden and Auschwitz and Palestina... still see the only trouble and feel offended only by seing a human body. Alive. Some skin with no blood on it. No injuries, no suffering, no humiliation.

Sorry for taking your time by such a long post... but I just can't get it.

[–] lykeafallenangel-1 17 years ago

I completely agree with Przgzr.

I happen to be one of the Americans that doesn't fit the generalization... I had nightmares from all the violence in this movie, definitely not from the nudity.

______________________________
Your mother is an aardvark!

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I have been, I am now, and I will surely be again appologizing to all those Americans who, as you say, do not fit in generalization. Yes, generalizations are wrong and dangerous, but sometimes are the only way to point something.

Not several, but many Americans do not agree with things their politicians and/or filmmakers do. I met them on IMDb, on other sites or even know them personaly.

But when (some of them) say "Hey, we Americans are not like that", that is another generalization. And, if I may notice, someone is there demanding to abandon Darwin. Someone is on the streets burning books and destroying bookshops selling them. Someone is voting for those who permit or even approve it (and the number of voters is so big that they win the elections). Someone is watching all those movies, and the number is also respectable or they wouldn't make money (and Hollywood producers would quickly make a conclusion).

So I agree, it is not fair to make generalizations, but we can clearly see what the majority thinks, feels and likes.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBullo 10 years ago

I suspect that the Americans (and others) who are desensitised to violence and enjoy watching violent movies would probably not view this movie in the first place anyway.

Therefore, most replies to your original question would be vastly more shocked by the violence at the film's end than by the nudity.

[–] pracad 17 years ago

Can I just point out to people that being disturbed by something isn't the same as being shocked by something.

I would say (imo) only the rape had the potential to disturb since it goes on for a fair amount of time. (plus other reasons, the girls age etc)
The violence, while a bit brutal, is over really quickly. It came out of nowhere yes, but that doesn't make it disturbing imo. That makes it a shock. Is it perhaps because it was graphic? You see the weapon actually stiking her head?

I peronally, found neither disturbing.

And that's all i have to say about that. For now.

[–] mikebourkefan 9 years ago

it was disturbing yes but not graphic. the machete to her head was not showen in some extreme close up. liked the shock ending. the car ride scenes were dragging on to long

Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today