Rape scene


I think that FLANDRES is probably not as good as Dumonts masterpiece L'HUMANITÉ... but way better than 99.9% of all films out there, anyway! Upon my first viewing, I didn't quite catch all of these little enigmatic moments (e. g. the girls superstitious knowledge of what went on in Algier, some of the symbolism around André, and so forth), and I also had some trouble distinguishing between the guys during the war scenes. They all pretty much looked alike with their soldier outfits and shaven heads.

However, I would like to make a point upon a discussion that took place in previous postings. Remember what happens after the rape scene. When the soldiers are caught and the female rebel officer demands Leclercq to be castrated and finally shoots him in the head, I very much doubt that we are supposed to think she was confused about whom was her true rapist. In fact, everyone - expect for Leclercq - raped her; even Demester did so, after hestitating at first (and than being reminded of his sexual encounters with Barbe back home in Flandres; it might have aroused him or he might just have joined in without emotional effect, which is exactly how he has sex with Barbe – but the final scence tells a different story). Back to the rape: If she wasn’t sure who of the three prisoners raped her, the female officer actually ought to have killed two men the least (since only one didn’t rape her, only one should survive); but instead she opted for killing one person only, and that is the one who looked, but didn't help; or probably the one who refused to participate in what she considered a fate that war (and fight against the French) will inevitably lead to, sooner or later. There's no doubt she hated being raped, but then again, in a society were the male attitude is so much more dominant, soldiers who DO NOT engage in raping might not count as men at all. Leclercq watched, but didn't join in, so was a man after all? His own fellow comrades make their jokes about it. The female officer, while being sure than the other two would die anyway (after being tortured, probably; Blondel, who was caught before Demester, had lots of wounds already), chose to kill the one that was the least "soldier". At first I thought Leclercq was brought into the cabin (upon her request) to be himself raped by a male Algerian soldier; but that would not have made sense, since he didn't do anything “sexual” to her. In fact, he did nothing to her. So how can be a “worthy enemy”? Castrating him is like saying: you don't deserve to be here, you don't deserve to be fought against, you're no real warrior, and least of all are you any better than the others. You don't deserve the genital you have, because you didn't do what French soldiers usually do and what we can cope with, because we expect it. If the female officer knew what was going to happen to her as soon as she is caught by a French platoon, than DENYING to rape her is almost an insult. How can you hate someone that doesn’t treat you like you are told he would? That person just can’t be manly enough. And maybe there's even a bit of disgust on her side that he didn't "appreciate" her beauty; she might even think he rejected her because she's so "low" she doesn't even deserve to be raped. Anyway, taking his genital is a symbolic act, since he’s shot anyway. Is is interesting to note that she did not castrate him by herself, but she shot him. It could as well have been a mercy shot (like is earlier given to the horse by one of the soldiers), as if to say: Well, you don’t deserve to die, but you will die of loss of blood anyway; so I’ll end you agony right now. I think it was quite clear from that scene that Demester and Blondel were supposed to see this all happen, but were not supposed to suffer the same fate from the hands of the Algerians.

reply

This ridiculous movie isn't worth any extra thought. Idiotic piece of cinema with feeble minded politics at the forefront.

reply

man, I've to tell you I never thought that by this way, your analytical opinion is so brilliant, and has a little bit sense of humor....loooool. really I enjoyed this mess.

reply

Just to clarify something (that I've already said in another thread some months ago), the "rebels" are not Algerian, they're Tunisian.

reply

I've been sceptical in the past when I heard people lump Dumont with Gaspar Noé. However, seeing the bystander singled out for gelding really reminded me of the famous scene in "Irreversible" in which a lowlife gets his head bashed in while the rapist looks on.

reply

With all due respect, this is actually a stupid explanation of what happened. An Arab woman soldier was being raped, who is considering rape as insult that causes her shame and that will hunt her for the rest of her life, she won't accept to cope with it as you said, even a whore won't accept being raped. You could see the amount of anger and the desire for revenge that she had in her eyes when she was looking at them later. She was looking at them to make sure they watch how their friend died and realize that they will end up the same way and maybe worse. she wanted to see the fear in their eyes and that they see the consequences of what they did to her. She wasn't going to let them go, she just wanted them to suffer longer as they made her suffer. Then, the helicopter came to rescue them and they escaped, otherwise they would have been killed by her.

reply

I agree with the gist of your interpretation. I don't think there's any reason to doubt that she knew Leclerq didn't rape her though. I'd also caution against making rash generalisations/'psychologisations' on her part though, it'd disappoint me if I were to discover that explanations such as 'he wasn't a real warrior' were what Dumont intended.

reply

There could be a thousand reasons why she picked Leclercq and that's what Dumont intended. The inability to reason much of what people do. It could be everything you wrote in your own explanation and it could be none of it. It could be that he's "innocent" the same way she was when she was chosen to be raped, or not. I think that's what was interesting about that scene in particular. Haneke is a huge fan of Dumont and he himself has tackled similar if not same themes.

Here's a quote from him.

"I always want to leave open the answer to the question, 'Why did someone do something?' In this case, [any] answer is only there to reassure and to calm the viewer. To say, 'His mommy didn't love her little boy enough,' is ridiculous. That's not it. I think the reason for a crime or an accident is always much more complex than what you can describe in seventy minutes."


:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::

reply

[deleted]