Rape scene in 'Last Tango in Paris' was actually non-consensual

[mikeymikec]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...us_584339a4e4b0c68e04813517?1p8zwpjbkaq44e7b9

"After starting an anonymous sexual relationship earlier in the film, Paul (Marlon Brando) sodomizes Jeanne (Maria Schneider) using a stick of butter. (The entire disturbing scene is available on YouTube, but we’re not going to link to it.)

Brando and Bertolucci both went on to receive nominations for the film, while Schneider, who was only 19 years old at the time she filmed the scene with a 48-year-old Brando, was traumatized by the experience.

In a recently surfaced video, Bertolucci indicates the film is even more disturbing than previously thought. The director admits that he and Brando planned to film the rape scene without telling Schneider the full details of it.

“The sequence of the butter is an idea that I had with Marlon in the morning before shooting it,” Bertolucci said during the 2013 interview at La Cinémathèque Française in Paris.

“I’d been, in a way, horrible to Maria, because I didn’t tell her what was going on,” he said, because he “I wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress.”"

WTF...

 

[MixMasterTang]

Well, technically they didn't physically perform the act unless I am interrupting this wrong: She continued, "Marlon said to me: 'Maria, don't worry, it's just a movie,' but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn't real, I was crying real tears. ... I felt very sad because I was treated like a sex symbol

 

[mikeymikec]

Well, technically they didn't physically perform the act unless I am interrupting this wrong: She continued, "Marlon said to me: 'Maria, don't worry, it's just a movie,' but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn't real, I was crying real tears. ... I felt very sad because I was treated like a sex symbol

Even though the director said things like "I wanted her to react humiliated", and "I wanted her reaction as a girl, not an actress"? To be completely fair, I would need to see the scene, but frankly I don't have any interest to see something like that.

Also, if it was a scene whereby one shot is shown with a guy holding a stick of butter, and the next showing a vaguely grindy sort of movement that allows for a lot of covering up (which is typically the case in a heck of a lot of non-sex movies), then I don't think there would be any talk of not feeling the need to tell her, wanting her reaction as a girl, or humiliation, or her hating him for the rest of her life. I would say that it's extremely likely that the scene is going to be pretty explicit. Wikipedia lists the film as "erotic drama", and how else would you portray sodomy in a film (it's reasonable to assume that they mean anal sex rather as it was from the seventies, rather than some older meaning), except graphically? The only other film I can think of that I've seen that has anal sex in it is 'The Omen 3', IIRC, and that wasn't very explicit, and I'm pretty sure it would have been filmed in the way I initially described (starting 'also, if...').

 

[KMFJD]

nvm could not verify source

 

[mikeymikec]

When I google this quote all I get is a forum post. Where did you get it from?

 

[KMFJD]

When I google this quote all I get is a forum post. Where did you get it from?

from that forum, and i can't find anything to back that up either, i don't believe it's authenticity now. Shitty thing to do by both of them.

 

[Imp]

Don't know all the details... don't think I want to know.

 

[Cappuccino]

disgusting.

 

[foghorn67]

This is entertainment? WTF.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If you go back through the production notes and stuff, torturing a young female actress to get an "authentic" performance was a pretty common tactic for untouchable "artsy" directors. Of course, blacklisting was still a thing, so she'd have no recourse.

Hitchcock did it, so did any director with a beard. (Kubrick, that pedo guy, also the one who slept with the 13 year old... Not him, the other one.)

Honestly it's amazing we still have a movie industry.

 

[Miramonti]

Stunned. Marlon Brando said he loathed the "primitive brute" type of person that he played as Stanley Kowalski in Streetcar Named Desire. Yet he chooses to be one filming Last Tango.

I've considered certain performances of his as some of the greatest ever (including Streetcar), yet am disgusted.

 

[Miramonti]

non-youtube link to scene?

 

[fenrir]

The actress mentioned all this in a 2007 interview. The director interview was in 2013. The movie was released in Jan 1973. Why is there outrage now other than to find something new to be outraged about?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The actress mentioned all this in a 2007 interview. The director interview was in 2013. The movie was released in Jan 1973. Why is there outrage now other than to find something new to be outraged about?

Because we're only now going back through the last 100 years of history, which is mostly video or tape recorded, holding things up to modern standards, and finding things offensive out of context or otherwise missing the point?

(Hollywood was pretty fucked up though.)

 

[Commodus]

I've seen the movie. That scene isn't super-graphic or traumatic, but knowing that Schneider didn't really consent to it hurts. It's like anything Bill Cosby has done in the context of all those rape/sexual assault allegations -- you can't go back to see it without feeling like you're doing an injustice.

 

[KMFJD]

The actress mentioned all this in a 2007 interview. The director interview was in 2013. The movie was released in Jan 1973. Why is there outrage now other than to find something new to be outraged about?

He has a movie coming out?

 

[NetWareHead]

But, she wasnt actually raped is my understanding... I am not seeing the outrage here. It was a simulated scene that while it was not in the script and she was purposely "surprised" by the director to generate an authentic rape humiliation reaction from the actress.

I mean she could have chosen to not participate in the scene especially considering the intentional omittance by the director.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm wondering whether some people simply need to be subjected to some non-consensual sexual behaviour that they find humiliating and inclined to perpetually hate the perpetrator, in order not to ask dumbass questions like "why the outrage" of why a person who has barely reached adulthood, who doesn't fully know the rules of their profession yet, and likely thinks that their career hinges on unquestioning obedience, could be a victim to such behaviour. Frankly all of this was in the news article so I doubt that stating it a second time is likely to make any difference, but I thought I'd spell it out, just in case you somehow missed those details the first time.

 

[Brainonska511]

But, she wasnt actually raped is my understanding... I am not seeing the outrage here. It was a simulated scene that while it was not in the script and she was purposely "surprised" by the director to generate an authentic rape humiliation reaction from the actress.

I mean she could have chosen to not participate in the scene especially considering the intentional omittance by the director.

It sounds like an incidence of sexual assault (you know, the non-consensual touching described) - and that alone is outrageous - that a director would think that's okay to "get a shot".

 

[Mayne]

19 year old girl...hmmm. I knew a lot younger ones who would blow your fucking mind. I don't think she was that innocent.

 

[fenrir]

I'm wondering whether some people simply need to be subjected to some non-consensual sexual behaviour that they find humiliating and inclined to perpetually hate the perpetrator, in order not to ask dumbass questions like "why the outrage" of why a person who has barely reached adulthood, who doesn't fully know the rules of their profession yet, and likely thinks that their career hinges on unquestioning obedience, could be a victim to such behaviour. Frankly all of this was in the news article so I doubt that stating it a second time is likely to make any difference, but I thought I'd spell it out, just in case you somehow missed those details the first time.

Again, why NOW?? Where was the outrage when it was mentioned in 2007 and 2013?

 

[SaltyNuts]

So I don't get it. She knew that she was going to a rape scene right? She just didn't know EXACTLY what it would entail, and it turned out it involved some butter? I'd hardly call that non-consensual...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Again, why NOW?? Where was the outrage when it was mentioned in 2007 and 2013?

There was. It lasted a few days and then something else happened. Now this blogger found out about it while reading wikipedia and we'll have some more outrage for another week.

 

[NetWareHead]

I'm wondering whether some people simply need to be subjected to some non-consensual sexual behaviour that they find humiliating and inclined to perpetually hate the perpetrator, in order not to ask dumbass questions like "why the outrage" of why a person who has barely reached adulthood, who doesn't fully know the rules of their profession yet, and likely thinks that their career hinges on unquestioning obedience, could be a victim to such behaviour.

She was an adult woman, not a child and as noted was represented by a lawyer and agent. She made her choice and she knew the script that it was going to be a sex filled movie. It's a big stretch to label her as a doe eyed youngster who was taken advantage of. Nobody held a knife to her throat and made her do this. She consented plain and simple to doing the scene and this news story is just a story of an actress's regret.

Frankly all of this was in the news article so I doubt that stating it a second time is likely to make any difference, but I thought I'd spell it out, just in case you somehow missed those details the first time.

And she was not actually raped so there is no parallel to non-consensual sexual behavior. I refuse to put her in the same category or grant her the same recognition or sympathy as a real rape victim. That might be just a bit insulting to actual rape victims.

It was deceitful of the director to mislead her by omitting from the script. That's about the only outrage I can find here. But at least she was warned, albeit at the last minute. Furthermore, this is hardly a new trick that other directors have employed in countless other films to elicit a true response from actors. Some without warning and electing to surprise the actors while cameras are rolling with a deviation from the script. She had all the pre warning so what's the big deal here?

 

[rommelrommel]

If you go back through the production notes and stuff, torturing a young female actress to get an "authentic" performance was a pretty common tactic for untouchable "artsy" directors. Of course, blacklisting was still a thing, so she'd have no recourse.

Hitchcock did it, so did any director with a beard. (Kubrick, that pedo guy, also the one who slept with the 13 year old... Not him, the other one.)

Honestly it's amazing we still have a movie industry.

Polanski