ghostly_host -
Okay, now I understand your POV... thanks for clarifying. :)
It looks like you misunderstood when you said this:
I just think that if you're going to go after a film for portraying rape in a glamorous way then there are a lot more better examples.
because I began this thread and in my OP, I said this:
Really, best war film ever because it did not shy away from the normalcy of rape, the encouragement and praise of rape and the horror of how too many women spend their last day alive. A ~must see~ film.
I am sincerely applauding the filmmakers for showing these kinds of rapes on film. I think it is reprehensible, to the point of being propaganda, to tell any war story without also including the rapes. "Fury" didn't cower from reality so kudos to them! :)
Also in my OP is this (which addresses the rest of your post):
ETA on 2/27/15 There appears to be a need for this information. I suggest taking a minute to look at this page which identifies different types of rapists and how best to survive victimization at their hands. This is good for anyone to know, but it's also the bare minimum a poster would need to know to "hold their own" on this thread. Here's the link:
http://faculty.csbsju.edu/uspp/crimpsych/CPSG-5.htm
The female characters were captives of armed, enemy soldiers. There is no lawful possibility of consent under those conditions.
There are over 150 posts on this thread, so it's likely you just jumped in without reading all of that, but the whole thing is chock-full of not only the superficial stuff: "Yes, it was. No, it wasn't.," but many people contributed supporting facts which are quoted and referenced.
About 6 weeks after starting the thread... last year, I could see how many were confused about recognizing what constitutes rape, so I added that link in hopes of a better-informed discussion.
I did not think the film "glamorized" the rape. I thought it showed a different version of rape in war. What is usually shown is stuff like femicide in the DRC and the use of bayonette rape to stop the reproductive capability of those whom survived. The government issues viagra to the soldiers for rape campaigns. These true horrors allow the viewer to make these rapists seem like they are very, very different from everyone else.
This film, Fury, shows the kind of rapists whom display manners and chivalry and an "aren't we all civilized here, just having a good time... so long as you do everything I say while I have you held captive under threat of your injury and demise, or that of your loved one." These were soldier/rapists.
Rape is about a lack of consent. There was no consent.
Norman was coerced, as well, but it is unclear whether he would have been at risk to his life, or if he'd just be teased a lot and excluded from the rapist/soldier version of manhood like some warped gang initiation. Still, he had a weapon and she did not. All is not equal there.
The piano and such BS is about the soldier/rapists' pleasure. It's a way to deny just how horrific they are which adds to the evil. It's about them telling themselves they are civilized while committing a crime against humanity - rape. What the women wanted and needed and what would have pleased them... would be if the armed, enemy soldiers left them alone!
So, they adapted to the situation in ways which would allow them to survive until their captors set them free. To save her life and the life of the other woman (her Mom?), she submitted to a rape. She is acting like she is interested in him because it's a survival technique.
IF, there had been any genuine connection between this armed captor and her, then he would have asked if he could see her again. You know, when she wasn't his captive. And, he surely would have made WarDaddy back the heck down and let him know that nothing was going to happen to her. IF he'd had any respect, empathy or concern then he would have made choices which honored her right to control what happens to her own body. "You'll be saving me from a gang rape if you rape me yourself" is NOT consent. It's defeat, terror, desperation and hope. She is bargaining for her life.
That is very different from having a sexual encounter with a free woman whom has chosen to express her desire. It's different in the way that makes it rape... consent.
So, I applaud this film for having the courage to show that soldiers rape during war. Even soldiers whom "appear" to be familiar with manners. It's a "must-see" film. :)
Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
nickm2
8 years ago
WW2 was different because the amount of crimes, rapes, murders done by the Germans, Japanese and even the Soviets overshadowed things done by the Anglo-Americans (at least in mainstream history. Perhaps history has been sugarcoated somewhat?)
About the only thing The British & American military did that was unlike Germany Japan (& the USSR but only early on-they established a fairly draconian discipline after it got to be too much)was punish the acts when they had the chance.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
reply
share
Lyndhen
8 years ago
It was only the Japanese and the Germans who had the idea to enslave women and force them into brothels. The axis racial theories regarding occupied populations led to a permanent policy of treating them like commodities.
reply
share