MovieChat Forums > Straw Dogs (2011) Discussion > flashing and rape scene

flashing and rape scene

posted 11 years ago by jayscott27
69 replies | jump to latest

So, just to comment on the 2 scenes which have received the most attention, I think some obvious points were missed.

The Flashing:
Her husband acted like an irrational jerk regarding her being stared at. He was right that men will look at a woman dressed as she was when they look as she does...but, staring and eye-screwing is different than looking. He should have man upped and said something...not blamed his wife and then claimed he didn't get turned on by her because he's already seen her naked. Women..and men, want to be desired...he left her feeling as if he'd seen everythingher and it didn't do anything for him to see her dress sexy. It was well written as this is something that would occur in a relationship...and, men are screwed because saying something makes us jealous fools..not means we don't care...but, he still acted like a jackass. She flashed for herself, to spite her husband and them....to show them it didn't get to her.."you wanna see...here I am" type deal...and to feel desired..since her husband did not act as if he desired her.

On the Rape:
While it was rape, and she did not deserve it, there was a part of her that enjoyed it with Charlie. She wrapped her leg around his and grabbed his hand during it. She was as disgusted with herself as she was with him, IMO. You could see the contrast in her reaction when the second man came in and raped her. Initially she snapped out of it and told Charlie to get off her...she didnt act as a victim...then..she acted as a woman who realized what she'd done. Then, when raped by the friend, she screamed no and stop the whole time and crying, unlike what she did with Charlie.

Both were rape...but the first was wanted by a part if her, IMO. I wouldn't call it cheating...she lusted for him...used self control to prevent it as best she could..but, once it happened, she didn't hate it. IMO.

[–] illyrianX 11 years ago

Um...no. Just no. She was yelling and crying until he threatened her, at which point she just kind of let him do his thing, but did NOT reciprocate at all. When he kisses her, she turns her face away. When he's "lovingly" telling her to look at him afterwards, she doesn't, and he only then seems to understand that she really didn't want him.

It kind of scares me how many men seem to be debating whether or not it was actually a rape scene when, to most if not all women, there's no question. I'm pretty athletic and if a guy my size or slightly bigger got fresh with me the way Charlie did with Amy, I would kick his ass. But if the guy was over a foot taller than me, completely okay with the screaming and crying, and I felt he had the potential to get violent, I'd just try not to get hurt, which is what Amy did. At NO point did she encourage him at all. In fact, the entire way through, she demonstrated through both words and body language that she was miserable. Anyone who interpreted that scene as anything but rape needs to get their head checked. The second guy coming in just made the whole situation worse (raped twice in a row, this guy wasn't her ex), thus the more dramatic reaction. But both instances were rape and at no point did she "not hate it."

[–] jayscott27 11 years ago

I'm sorry but, I believe you need to watch it again. The flashing was partially to make him jealous. She didn't ask for rape, by any means. What he did was disgusting and abhorrent. But,watch it again. She wraps her leg around his. That's more than "letting him do his thing". She gasps in enjoyment. She turns once in the kissing but another time let's him.

She was conflicted because she didn't want to have sex with him for morale reasons, because she loved her husband..but she was attracted to him...she'd not have chosen it...but wanted him on some small, instinctual level, and on that level she didn't hate it.

As I understand it, that's more obvious in the original...though I haven't seen it. That part of her enjoyed it...and, again as I've heard secondhand, the writer wrote it that way.

Please watch it again. What he did is disgusting. I'm not saying he was right at all or that she deserved it in any way, shape or form. ...but what I stated is made fairly clear...she gets into it...then stops herself. While it's somewhat open to interpretation, I am not sure how it could be interpreted differently.

[–] illyrianX 11 years ago

I've watched and analyzed it a number of times due to the ongoing debate and it's not at all open to interpretation. She flashed the entire crew because she was angry at her husband, not because of Charlie. And no, at no point did she "gasp in enjoyment" or wrap her leg around his in a way that indicated she was enjoying it. Her reactions during the scene were purely physical. The grabbing of his chain/hand, leg motions, etc. were probably due more to pain considering he flat out dry entered her and she was fighting him. There was no conflict of emotions there at all and if you really believe there was, I again question your understanding of rape and/or women.

There are plenty of films and TV series where such scenes are definitely open to interpretation. For example, there's a rape scene in a British film I recently watched that I would be inclined to categorize more as "extremely reluctant incest." Technically it's rape because she's saying no and trying to push him away the whole time, but she was the one who instigated it by trying to seduce him and then only started backing out because it was her half-brother and she suddenly decided that it was wrong. She probably could have fought him off if she'd really wanted to, but she didn't, and then she didn't seem too upset about it afterwards, even going so far as to cover for one of his other crimes so that he wouldn't get into trouble. So scenes like that I absolutely understand debating. But Straw Dogs did NOT leave it open for questioning. Amy was shoving Charlie, yelling at him, crying, saying "no" the whole time and not once did she reciprocate or show anything other than negative emotions throughout the scene. Anyone who thinks that a scene like this was ambiguous really needs to evaluate their perspective of sexual assault, because honestly these types of responses are disturbing.

[–] jayscott27 11 years ago

I did not even read your entire response as it was mostly irrelevant. My interpretation is disturbing?

First your wrong. They zoom in on her leg wrapping around his. Second, there was a relation being made between her and her husband's conflict in the situation they were in. His was to kill the deer or not. He was conflicted but did it...walked up to the deer and was proud and guilty all at the same time.

Her's was feeling violated yet ashamed of the part of her that let go and got into it. It was quite brilliant. Her reaction to the second rape was entirely different. Both were rape. Both disgusting...but her feelings about them were not the same...not during. After maybe but not during. We won't agree. And I am not a disturbing person for having interpreted it this way. It didn't make me feel less for her or condone his actions anymore. I just read what the WRITER'S intent was in that scene much differently.

I still challenge you to watch it again. Remember it's a movie and to look at my points during the scene objectively. You'll agree or you won't ...but, you'll see it knowing the other perspective.

We agree rape, regardless of the points I've made, is disgusting and any man who does it should be castrated. If my point was to defend the rape I'd understand you being dusturbed. I think I made it crystal clear I wasn't doing so.

[–] Defenseman13 11 years ago

why respond to a response you didn't read?

And have any of you seen the original?

Dolts.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] zvezdana-oteri 10 years ago

You're an idiot. I'm shocked and repulsed at the "sexy not really rape" interpretation your offering. Yuck. It was soooo NOT that.

She was physically overpowered and after realising that the rape was inevitable, she goes with it, miserably. There is some familiarity there because he's her ex, but she doesn't want it. She's not ambiguous at all. She's just completely physically overpowered.

The second rape there is more screaming and horror, because it's someone that she has never had sex with before and would almost certainly never, ever want to, combined with the horror of what just happened, and now its happening again, BUT WORSE.

Your reading of this scene is totally off. Stop insisting she wanted any bar of "Charlie". She didn't.

[–] jayscott27 10 years ago

Actually, you're an idiot.

Again, watch the damn seen. My read:

There was a conflict between her and her being forced and feelings towards it, as there was a conflict between her husband and killing the deer. The back and forth between the 2 scenes was very telling. Both were conflicted.

I did not say or imply it wasn't rape. I clearly stated it was. I didn't defend Charlie's actions. I agree what he did was disgusting. But, regardless of what you may say, there was a level of desire for Charlie because he displayed the assertiveness that her husband lacked and there was a past there.

It doesn't matter as, she made it clear she didn't want to have sex with him. She stated "no" repeatedly, making it rape. But, the alternating between her husband killing a deer, for which he didn't want to on a large level, and her with Charlie having forced sex, which she didn't want to on a large level, was very telling. The small part of them won over for a short time . She met Charlie's lips for one second, and grabbed his necklace and wrapped her leg around him at one point, pulling him towards her. He got the deer in his sights, looked for a moment indecisively, and eventually pulled the trigger. Both had remorse after for that small part of them.

I didn't and do not condone or excuse Charlie's actions, nor do I feel it wasn't rape. I read the scene differently than you. And, I only accuse of being an idiot for accusing me of being one and for your misreading of my posts. Your "Sexy not really rape" misquote is rather troubling, as I never said that, did not imply it and noted numerous times it was not my intention to imply it.

Save your b.s. for the people who truly felt it wasn't rape. I am not one of them. Good day.

[–] naja12168-7 10 years ago

You're an idiot. I'm shocked and repulsed at the "sexy not really rape" interpretation your offering. Yuck. It was soooo NOT that.

She was physically overpowered and after realising that the rape was inevitable, she goes with it, miserably. There is some familiarity there because he's her ex, but she doesn't want it. She's not ambiguous at all. She's just completely physically overpowered.

The second rape there is more screaming and horror, because it's someone that she has never had sex with before and would almost certainly never, ever want to, combined with the horror of what just happened, and now its happening again, BUT WORSE.

Your reading of this scene is totally off. Stop insisting she wanted any bar of "Charlie". She didn't.

Thank you for being one of only two or three rational people in this thread. The other comments are highly, highly disturbing.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cat_fitz 10 years ago

I did not even read your entire response

Then why did you even bother with the discussion? Oh right, you wanted to defend your twisted inclinations.

[–] jayscott27 10 years ago

While this was a year ago, I'll explain. I began to read it and it was obvious that she drew assumptions on what I posted that were completely inaccurate. I never claimed it wasn't rape. She insisted I had. I also will not be called sick and twisted for my interpretation. I don't condone what Charlie did by any means and made that abundantly clear. I still consider it rape, and clarified that.

I just feel the scene was delving deeper into the emotional turmoil between both her and David in the situations they found themselves in and explained that. There was reason for me to respond without reading it in full. Her response was an attack which made false claims as to what my post had stated and I did not feel the need to read it in its entirety to see that, nor do I feel the attack was warranted.

I should Not have to deal with verbal attacks because of differing opinions when mine was stated respectfully. Finally, you and others should learn reading comprehension as, I had a greater grasp on what she had posted and the meaning behind it, reading only bits and pieces of hers, than she and you seem to have reading all of my original post. That is, if you even read that...and, if not,what's the point in responding.

[–] jayscott27 11 years ago

I also want to clarify...and you should reread my posts as well, that I never implied it wasn't rape. It was, plain and simple. She said no a number of times. She pushed him away. He raped her. I only stated there was part of her that wanted him but it was trumped by the much larger part of her that didn't which was why she attempted to deflect his advances. He raped her. Any man or woman who thinks otherwise is disturbing.

[–] fo221 11 years ago

I have to agree with jayscott on the part of the leg.
You have to remember this is a REMAKE - the original film was highly contraversial film when it came out in 1971 - mainly because it clearly showed charlie forcing himself on amy, and where initially she rejects him she eventually accepts him.
My perception of the new version was that she didn't want to him but when it began found herself in an inner conflict between wanting and not- and the fact she was screaming for charlie to stop her second more violent rape where screamed through the whole thing, says to me that she hoped the man she had intercourse with (rape or not) would come to her aid. He was her ex, and she could tell he still wanted her- and thats why she was torn as to whether she wanted sex with him or not- the other guy, was a stranger to her.
I think its wrong to suggest that men don't know the meaning of rape just because we a talking about a contraversial piece of filmaking. Rape is wrong plain and simple, whether it happens to women OR men.

[–] muvifrks 11 years ago

nicely put, jayscott

[–] zvezdana-oteri 10 years ago

She really didn't want him at any point. The leg implies nothing about desire.

[–] fo221 10 years ago

but if she didn't really want him at any point why does is she so quiet through the rape by her ex then screaming through the rape by the random man? If as you say it is both rape, she didn't want either of them yet two completely different reactions

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

What British film did you see? I'm curious now.

[–] daughterofolaf 11 years ago

I am a woman and I do not feel this was rape (with Charlie anyway) with zero acceptance or reciprocation even if it started that way--I do feel there was some ambiguity there at a certain point. How is hooking her leg around his and PULLING HIM IN by doing so NOT reciprocating? That shot was key and her struggling and fighting was not consistent and she completely stopped doing anything when he was whipping it out, which if anything would have been the best time to fight back. She also has her hand on his face cupping it or holding it--NOT scratching it or pushing it away, she is holding on to his necklace, she puts her hand on his chest and runs it down his abdomen to his hand--seriously, did you not see any of this? To me it really seems at that point like she is struggling with herself.

You're saying her grabbing his hand and hooking her legs was a physical reaction? Like what, a blink relfex? That does not make sense--and further her legs were NOT hooked around him at first. She gives in.

In addition he never once threatened her, which I'm pointing out because you stated she only stopped struggling after he threatened her but that never happened.

I guess I should "get my head checked" since I am a woman and feel this is not cut-and-dry but if I were being raped I sure as *&%# would not be hooking my legs around him and pulling him in and putting my hands all over him unless it was to fight back.

[–] herbstzeitlose 7 years ago

As a woman myself I couldn't agree more, daughterofolaf. Thank you!

[–] Tracey73 10 years ago

She was yelling and crying until he threatened her, at which point she just kind of let him do his thing, but did NOT reciprocate at all. When he kisses her, she turns her face away. When he's "lovingly" telling her to look at him afterwards, she doesn't, and he only then seems to understand that she really didn't want him.

Thank you .. I was wondering if maybe I watched a different movie. She was clearly trying to resist and fight him off of her until at some point she quit so he would not physically hurt her even more than he had up to that point. I watched this movie off Lifetime, so the rape scene was edited from the original. But she was clearly being raped.

It kind of scares me how many men seem to be debating whether or not it was actually a rape scene when, to most if not all women, there's no question.

You are not the only one disturbed by some of these posts. I am just hoping that the large part are posted by trolls.

Some hurt, some love, some shout. I fought the world and I lost that bout. ~ Blue October

[–] cat_fitz 10 years ago

Exactly. She gave up fighting in hopes he'd just finish and leave. She cried through the entire thing and even stared at pictures to take her mind out of the moment. HE saw it too, hence the look of dejection when she wouldn't look at him.

[–] jayscott27 10 years ago

Wrong. What's the point in commenting on a scene you clearly haven't watched in any detail. She wraps her leg around his, leans her head back and gasps, grabs his necklace, kisses him briefly before turning away, pits her hand on his while it's on her rear end and...when it's over, turns to look at pictures while he's asking her to look at him.

And, before you go off on me "not calling it rape", I stated in my original post it was rape and was disgusting. Her being conflicted does not make it welcomed by her. She said no, a number of times. I'm not defending his actions by stating what I feel they were trying to display with hers, in terms of the emotional turmoil she felt with Charlie.

[–] DavidCrow 10 years ago

But both instances were rape...

I agree 100%.

[–] cat_fitz 10 years ago

It kind of scares me how many men seem to be debating whether or not it was actually a rape scene

Quite the litmus test here, huh? Yikes!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cat_fitz 10 years ago

And I'm amazed you're not in prison yet.

[–] terryperring104 8 years ago

I think you should consider one possible aspect of rape not considered here: and that is the natural physical response. Which really takes the violation to a different level. I'm fairly sure that many women who have been raped (and a few men at gunpoint too)have been naturally stimulated during it. Of course it doesn't mean they 'want' it or 'like' it. Its just a natural copulation instinct that, if in not too much pain or peril, can kick in.

Of course this is just a movie but-I'm sure this was in the (original) writers and directors intentions to convey.

[–] pelegirl5284 11 years ago

It's VERY much open to interpretation, just like the original is, and FOR A REASON.

The scene shows her struggling against absolute disgust and yet, there are aspects about the guy which she wishes her husband would embrace---the more stereotypical masculine aspects. Those are the moments when she wraps her legs around him, and touches his hand as he squeezes her.

It's an extremely poignant moment for BOTH her and her husband.

While it is indeed rape, she falls prey being seduced by aspects of her ex that she has tried to have her husband embrace, but constantly turns away from--being less of a pacifist and more of a "take action" guy, which is the EPITOME of what her ex is.

If it was just a scene about getting raped, it wouldn't be in the movie. You can see her constant mental struggle.

[–] Flywiththeowl 10 years ago

Agree with 'daughterorolaf & "Pelegirl". (guy here)

I *definitely* saw her struggling with herself during that scene.
If *I* were a woman, once I had the 1st *inkling* that I was being mentally stripped & molested, The Last idea I would come up with to get back at my husband would be flashing a buncha sweaty, horny & half drunk good ol' boys.

Plus, she was from the area, knew the culture, etc. Charlie gave off a-hole vibes very early in the movie. I get wanting to get back at her husband, but knowing what she likely would've known, that really was a stupid move on her part. She certainly did Not deserve getting assaulted & raped but if she wanted to get back at her hubby, other options might be the silent treatment, lashing out in anger, denying sex, whatever...but flashing those apes? No.

Let's be happy it's only a movie. I'd like to think *Most* women wouldn't react the way she did.

[–] Jerry-137 11 years ago

It's a fact that a large number of women who were raped also experienced an orgasm. It doesn't mean that they enjoyed the brutality.

A lady researcher wrote a book about it her research but I can't think of her name. Rape is rape and when a woman says "NO!", any point past that is rape. Surely you've heard of rape cases where the perp says that she enjoyed it? It's not uncommon but it still is rape.

Back to the movie. I've watched both of them and I do agree that the first one was better. Not because it the "first" but because it just was a better story (script), better location, and better acting. Not many actors "have it" like Dustin Hoffman. The emotion during the final scenes were much better in the '71 film.

[–] lemystere 11 years ago

I don't think her husband acted like an irrational jerk. He spoke to her in a calm manner, didn't yell at her to put some effin clothes on, and didn't give in to her childish disdain. He told her the freakin truth. If you don't want men to stare at you like that, put some effin clothes on, and some shoes while you're at it.

I'm a married woman and figure if I'll feel uncomfortable dressed like that around my male relatives, then it's probably not a good idea to dress like that in public, unless I want men to "stare at me like they're practically licking my body." Amy is a child, constantly trying to provoke someone.

[–] lemystere 11 years ago

BTW: I noticed how she started dressing more modestly after she got raped. Hmm, I wonder what brought that on.

[–] Laamy 10 years ago

Thank you!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. AND flashing the men after your husband tried to explain that you should dress a little more modestly. I honestly didn't feel bad whn she got "raped" call me crazy but I thought she even enjoyed it with Charlie. I'm also marries woman

[–] zvezdana-oteri 10 years ago

Wow, you are really out of your mind. You didn't feel bad watching a woman get raped just because she didn't dress modestly? That's one of the most *beep* up comments I've ever read on the internet. Glad its about a work of fiction. I sure hope no one you love ever gets raped. Will you care then about how they were dressed or whether they acted flirty or even slutty beforehand? What a disgusting comment.

[–] magicalbra 10 years ago

Agreed! She's a complete failure of a woman.

It's disgusting that ANYONE would blame a female rape victim based on what she was wearing, let alone another female.

___
I'm doing good in the game so I'm doing good in life!

[–] jpeg00 11 years ago

I'm a woman but I have to agree with Jayscott27.

She was definitely conflicted, she didn't want it, mentally, but I think once it started she had a few moments but overall she didn't enjoy it or want it and yes, definitely rape. It was not consensual.

[–] jpeg00 11 years ago

[–] tjdem327 10 years ago

I completely agree with you jpeg00 (and Jayscott).

I am sorry, but people who do not see the conflict in Amy when Charlie assaults her, are not paying attention or simply can't read people! Not to mention the fact that it was written that way!

And anyone who accuses someone, who sees the conflict in Amy, of being a future rapist or condoning rape, is one disturbed individual! Learn body language people! Not for nothing, but some of the sex scenes in Unfaithful were more aggressive (even violent) than Charlie and Amy...and those were all consensual!

My point for those who are gonna say "so, what's your point", is that sexual aggression or dominance turns a lot of people on. So again for the lunatics, YES AMY WAS ASSAULTED...that is not the argument some of us are making!

[–] jayscott27 10 years ago

Thank you. Their comments were quite offensive but, I stand behind mine.

[–] kassandrael 10 years ago

Thank you , these people on this boards are SICK.
cLEARLY future rapist or at least condoners of it.No she was not asking for it , she was trying to prove a point.
She made me do it.....

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

You dress like white trash, you act like white trash you get treated like white trash. Like the husband said. She didn't tell him she was raped because she IS white trash and wouldn't admit that he was right and she was wrong.