Where Damon is hitting her was really disturbing to me. I don't care if this was a scene in the original, it was just odd feeling and I don't think it needed to be included. This isn't the 50s. Hitting a child is becoming a big tabboo and I don't think it was appropriate. Especially given that she was - what - a teenager or preteen girl. 30 year old men don't go spanking girls in their teens/pre-teens. It's just flat out weird.
I don't write for fun - I write to LIVE!
Okay I don't support hitting children, and the facts are clear on what consequences it can (this is important, just because you were hit as a child and didn't have any problems doesn't mean it's harmless. Some people smoke and live to be 90. Doesn't make smoking good for your health) have on a child. So obviously in this day and age we need to be civilized and treat children as fellow human beings, not our personal belongings who we can hit if we so please.
So having cleared that up, the scene is perfectly okay because it shows the attitude towards hitting children at the time. That's why it's also okay to show the Native American being hooded before he could say his last words. It simply shows the degree of racism that existed at the time, it doesn't condone it.
In a sense it's a good thing that you were disturbed by it, imagine you thought hitting children was okay, like some of the posters above. ;)
Tempting as it is to take your comments seriously (particularly considering that some people who've responded agree with you), I'll just make the amusing observation that it was the depiction of spanking that you found so "disturbing" and not the later scene of Chaney wantonly attempting to slit the girl's throat.
Seriously, get a *beep* grip.
~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
This isn't the 50s.
No, it was the 1880s.
The church may shout but Darwin roars
Apparently Rooster agreed. He told LaBoeuf to stop. When LaBoeuf refused to stop, Rooster pulled a gun on him. That's taking things pretty darned seriously. To commit such an act without justification is to commit the crime of "assault with a deadly weapon". And against a lawman, no less. That LaBoeuf lets it slide, suggests that, on some level, he understands Rooster's justification.
Of course it was an unusual situation. If we try to see things from LaBoeuf's POV from "the standards of the time" we can understand why he managed to convince himself that he was justified in acting as he did. After all, she was little more than a child, her own actions were putting herself in SERIOUS danger, and there was no-one else around to discipline her. If spanking her was wrong, the alternative (allowing her to accompany them) was (arguably) worse.
But "the standards of the time" were not so simple or one-sided, in this instance. The standards of the time were that one was supposed to respect women. Perhaps one could get away with abusing one's own wife or daughter, but hardly someone else's. A man laying his hands on a young woman not related to him was a big no-no.
That's why LaBoeuf (whatever his justifications) found himself with a gun pointed at his head.
And it is, actually, necessary, or at least helpful, to the plot. LaBoeuf "going too far" is what causes Rooster to take Mattie's side, when before the two were allied against her. This helps explain what any rational adult would consider an extreme error in judgment ... his decision to allow Mattie to come with them. And without that, there is no movie.
Alot of the things shown would now be considered morally or leagally wrong from todays standpoint. It's just a film. Plus the spanking wasn't shown in a positive light. Cogburn threatened to kill LaBoeuf if he didn't stop.
Please consider me as an alternative to suicide
I'd like to add that the entire thread is ridiculous. I am a black person. I take offense to the "N" word being used to debase black people but I don't expect to watch a movie or read a book set in the 1800's and not be exposed to it. I expect to see that type of behavior and would view the book or movie as unrealistic if every character was polite and respectful to blacks. The same applies to the topic of this thread. You don't have to approve of it nor like the character doing it. But you do need to recognize this is just the way it was. The next step is judging whether the character should use his own sense of right and wrong in the situation regardless of what is acceptable to society.
For example, the issue of rape during ancient societies where it was accepted that men raped and pillaged. I am not offended at it being depicted in a sword and sandals or medieval film; however, I will judge the character based on "he wouldn't want to be on the receiving end so it tells me the character has no kindness/empathy for a fellow human being".
As to spanking in this movie - given its time period, most people thought spanking was acceptable and were grateful their parents spanked them. The character should be judged on that standard. If the spanking had been prolonged or done in a manner considered abusive BACK THEN (such as punch to face with a closed fist), that character would not want to be treated that way when he was growing up and then we should judge him accordingly to that behavior.
most people thought spanking was acceptable and were grateful their parents spanked them.
@TheChiffonRetreat, respectfully, you were not born in the 1800's -early 1900's either.
shareYou associate yourself with those born in the 19th century?
share[deleted]
You don't have any issues with a 14 year old girl going on adventures to seek blood vengeance and either committing murder herself or instigating it at the hands of a journey financed by her own wits and means but spanking is wrong and shouldn't be included because its not acceptable today?
I just... I just don't get it.
I was going through my old posts and came across this thread and thought I'd comment on it to clarify some things.
I personally believe spanking a child or someone significantly younger than yourself in a non-consentual manner is not okay for any reason. I think it's wrong. And I think there's other ways to parent.
This was not about parenting or discipline. This was about a man who was twice this girl's age and virtually a stranger to her, spanking her. And that was what made it uncomfortable to me. I've seen movies set in the past or made in the past that included spanking scenes and while it does bother me (because I think spanking is wrong) THIS particular scene bothered me especially because he was a strange man twice her age. That's what left a bad taste in my mouth.
This was about him being a stranger, twice her age, and an adult male. She wasn't a little kid and he didn't pop her on the bottom for doing something bad. He put a teenage girl over his knee. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY THIS.
---
"Chaos is what killed the dinosaurs, darling."
Justify what? Again, we're talking about a film where a youth seeks blood vengeance and commits murder. By the standards of today's value system its murder. Is spanking worse than murder?
You're not going on about the numerous cases of immoral activity in the film, the killings, the threatening, the outlaws and the use of a girl's life as a bargaining chip. You are hung up however on the spanking. Why? Well the answer is in our hysterical culture no doubt.
Many posters here have repeatedly justified the depiction of a spanking in context of the time period and source material, what is your justification for this post?
shareThe films set quite sometime ago. people were getting publicly hanged, everyone had a gun and was shooting each other I doubt a few lashings of a whip was out of the ordinary for that day and age, it was funny to watch as its acting in a film, a little uncomfortable I suppose but keep it real hey.
share