MovieChat Forums > Fury (2014) Discussion > It's the Gentleman's Guide to Chivalrous...

It's the Gentleman's Guide to Chivalrous Rape During Wartime movie.


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.

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


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Debate. Not hate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reply

It is really off-putting the way Brad Pitt's Sargent says: "Either you take her into the bedroom or I will." Like WTF?! It made me hate his character, tbh. Who did this guy think he was?! Makes me glad he was sniped.

I think Emma was scared at first but then I think she could tell Norman had a soft heart and was the nice one in his squad so that probably made her feel safe enough to consent to him. If any of the other guys (including Brad Pitt) had tried anything I'd think she would have been terrified, tried to resist and then it would have been rape. That's how I saw the scene, anyway.

reply

kclaura2003

I'm going to clarify facts here. Don't take it personally, (I wouldn't bother if I didn't sense a good heart in your post) however, your perception reveals a need to become educated on the matter. Try reading RAINN.org victim stories. None of us knows everything and there is a lot of mythology and propaganda around the subject of rape. Rapists themselves, use your language to excuse themselves. So, before you hurt someone with your ignorance on the topic, put some time into learning.

It is really off-putting the way Brad Pitt's Sargent says: "Either you take her into the bedroom or I will." Like WTF?! It made me hate his character, tbh. Who did this guy think he was?! Makes me glad he was sniped.


It's not "off-putting," it's a crime. That's a direct threat, it's terrifying, it's coercion and it's traumatizing. Just those words. Add to that

I think Emma was scared at first but then I think she could tell Norman had a soft heart and was the nice one in his squad so that probably made her feel safe enough to consent to him.


1 - Consent is not possible during a home invasion nor a military occupation. That is not one of the options available.

2 - Emma didn't stop being scared. If you go back and listen to her words, she is being compliant, resigned, and is acting out of a survival instinct. She literally tells Norman she wants to do it because she wants to live. And, she's certainly worried about the other woman there, too, and what her causing any fuss at all might cost them. She's terrified.

It's obvious you have no experience with an occupying military force. When they invade your home, armed and threatening, you make nice to survive. What doesn't happen is that suddenly, you think of them as "nice." That's the soldier/rapist's view.

If any of the other guys (including Brad Pitt) had tried anything I'd think she would have been terrified, tried to resist and then it would have been rape.


They more than "tried anything" - they invaded their home, ordered them around, kept their weapons within reach, threatened to gang-rape them, ignored their pleas that they leave their home and then Norman raped her.

As for resistance - there was no consent. I have to wonder what kind of sex lives some posters on this thread have that they don't know that when a woman wants someone sexually, she's all over them and panting and maybe begging. There's no mistaking desire.

That's how I saw the scene, anyway.


It's a very long thread... I started it two years ago, I think... so maybe you didn't read it. I'll re-write this part because I think it helps those whom haven't been in a war zone and threatened like this to have some semblance of empathy for the victims.

Imagine you are at home with your family. Armed men come in and threaten you. They want something from you. So, you sit compliantly at your table with your family. You want to fight and to kick them out but they are armed and they outnumber you and they already let you know they are your enemy. You tried to get them to go, but they won't.

They want to play a game with you. You won't like it but it makes them happy. Your goal is to survive and to ensure that your family survives, too. One of them takes a soup bowl, goes to the bathroom and returns with it full of hot feces and puts it in front of you. You are told to eat it.

They tell you that this gives them pleasure and that after you do it, they will let you and your family live and they will leave. They make a point of giving you the best silver spoon to use and say they want you to enjoy it. You eat the feces - in whatever way pleases them.

Now, was that consent? No, it's compliance and you do it because you don't want to die and because you are protecting your family. People get confused because they don't understand that rape is not about sex... it's about violation, power and control and hatred.

https://www.rainn.org/

~~~ "Thinking" involves a lot more work than simply "having a thought"! ~~~

reply

Tbh I can understand why you view it as rape; I can equally well understand why me of the people who've been arguing with you across the thread view it as clearly not being. The line of consent/ duress is hazy at the best of times - think of all the teenage girls being pressured into sex by their first boyfriends - so imagine what it must've been like during the *beep* that was the closing stages of the Second World War in Europe. Legally, the young lady in the film would not have even been considered to have a case in 1945 - just like anyone trying to charge the infantrymen with war crimes for murdering POWs would have-; ethically-speaking, it's up to individual members of the audience to view the scene in their own way. Which - giving credit to the filmmakers I hope is due - is probably what the film intended: make up your own mind.

reply

Sorry but in no way was this rape. She obviously liked him (who could blame her? He's gorgeous) and after hung around him the whole time, she kept smiling too. Who the *beep* would act like that with their rapist?? I'd be far away from the dude if he forced me. Hell she didn't even want him to leave!

Stockholm syndrome does not act that quick.

reply

Oh please. If he'd just dragged her back to the bed, threw her down, and fucked her without any kind of communication, sure, it would be rape. But the movie bent over backwards to show her approving every step of the way. As some users have pointed out, she may have known some English and understood what they were talking about when she gave him or hand and even if she didn't it's not like she was unfamiliar with the concept of soldiers having sex with women and on top of that leads him to the bedroom of all places, so I find it hard to believe she didn't know what was going to happen. He doesn't just jump her once they get in bed either. He holds her hand and kisses her, both of which she responds positively to, and then she wraps her arms around him before the scene cuts out. No coercion whatsoever.

Just because he could have coerced her doesn't mean he did. Taken to its logical conclusion the OP's "power imbalance" argument could be used to condemn all sex as rape. A man of sufficient physical strength could probably physically force most women to have sex with him. Does that mean that any sex he has is rape because the women know he could just force them if they said no? No, because the capacity to coerce someone into sex doesn't make something rape, only actually coercing someone.

The other soldiers and to a lesser extent Pitt's behavior was inappropriate, but the other characters were all supposed to be bastards so I don't think the movie was really endorsing how they acted.

reply

Surprised how nobody realizes the obvious:

OP is saying "the movie is rapist and anyone who doesn´t agree with me is a rapist too", but what OP really meant is "I´m a better person than everyone else".

reply

Jesus I like rape.

reply