About the rape of the girl
Who raped the girl at the end of the movie?
We can see his hand holding a knife, so is it the same knife of the marginalised boy? Is he the raper?
It is hard to believe it but it would be so a Haneke film if it is.
I know the scene you are talking about but can't answer your question. Instead I have my own. The scene was so dark, I couldn't tell exactly what was happening except that there was sex involved. Who was the girl? I know in that scene, the daughter wakes up and hides her bother's face from seeing so the girl in question is not the daughter, correct?
It's not Eva, but the daughter of the old guy, the small one with grey hair and a beard, I think the rapist was that Koslowski guy, it seemed the jacket during that scene was black and he was wearing black jacket and pull-over during the entire film.
But I think that it could also just been someone we never saw in the film.
I'm pretty sure it was the girl that killed herself later in the film. As far as who the rape-er was, Koslowski sounds like a reasonable answer to me...not sure...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It was definitely meant to be ambiguous. You can't tell it was Koslowski, the marginalized boy, or whoever. It was just another man we weren't introduced to.
In fact that scene is VERY hard to see if you rent the DVD. You practically have to pause and study the image. I think this was also intentional.
Mm, I agree. it was an extremely dark film, literally, and this was great; however, it also makes it very hard to tell whats going on in some parts.
made me realise the haneke would be a great horror director :D
--
"hey look, two women *beep* a polar bear!"
my bloody valentine's loveless = pure bliss.
Nope.
If you zoom in on the picture you can clearly see the knife to her throat. And it is definately not the mother, whom I believe you see sleeping next to the children (not her face, but it's her, I don't know why else they would show it).
If you see the film in the cinema it's quite clear that the girl, who is prone, is being held by the hair by a man out of shot who is lying on her back. The rapist has his other arm wrapped round her neck and is holding a knife to the side of her neck closest to the viewer - the blade catches the light. The girl is the daughter of the middle-aged man with greying curly hair. It is this girl who (we are told) commits suicide.
I think it's deliberate that the audience's glimpse of the scene occupies only a couple of seconds and takes place in almost complete silence. The audience shares Eva's point of view - she can't see who it is, either. The fact that the rapist is never identified implies that it might be any of the men, which is particularly unsettling. It might, for example, have been the man who comforts the boy Benny at the end. There is no black-and-white morality in the film. I think it's too easy to assume that it's Koslowski, who after all seems to be getting all the sex he needs in return for trade items without needing to resort to violence.
Doesn't Eva see who the girl is? Because she realises that the dead girl was the one who was raped.
share[deleted]
I agree with paul_bowes, it wasn't Koslowski. He gets plenty of sex by negotiation for small trade items, and uses a gun only when the person is brand new, a wild card, and he needs to establish dominance. Nowhere in the film is he portrayed as using a knife.
I also agree that the rape victim was probably the grey-haired man's daughter, as that makes sense of her suicide. And the fact that the rapist is unidentified is extra unsettling, because it could happen again anytime and you can't feel safe even in a crowded room.
the sphynx: "I agree with paul_bowes, it wasn't Koslowski. He gets plenty of sex by negotiation for small trade items"
Sorry, but that is where you are both wrong... rape isn't about sex, it's about control and power
Yes, I know rape is about control and power. But Koslowski already has all the control and power he needs in that little splinter of society. I say it was someone else.
shareErm, maybe a dumb question… is the rape scene violent and loud or quiet? I've just watched the film and can't recall that scene. Plus my version is 108 minutes and not 113.
The scene where the dead girl is dressed seemed very out of place. If my version is cut that would explain it.
As I recall, the rape sequence is relatively quiet and subtle, as one would expect when it's set in a large room full of sleeping refugees.
shareI'm sorry, but the film does not promote the idea that rape (the girl) and murder (the husband) are gray moral areas. Both acts are morally reprehensible and revolting and I think the film portrays that clearly.
My interpretation is that, in the situation, these acts don't get the proper reaction because all sense of society and normalcy are shattered. The morality is the same as it has always been, but people can't process it properly. Essentially, everyone is in shock.
When I saw that scene I thought "why doesn't Eva just scream or yell?" But her reaction is to protect her brother. She's acting in her own family's interest and she disregards the girl's interests or the interests of the group. She know that her reaction is wrong in a moral sense. This is why she's so distraught later. When asked why the girl killed herself, Eva can't even answer, because she feels partly to blame. She had the power to stop it and she didn't.
[deleted]
"I'm pretty sure it was the girl that killed herself later in the film. As far as who the rape-er was, Koslowski sounds like a reasonable answer to me...not sure..." That is what we are led to think, indeed.
I also thought "Please let the raper not be the father..." and I wondered if it was very courageous or not from the girl protecting (hiding his eyes) her brother, or any other witnesses for that matter.
with [cheese]