1964
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
I generally hate any film that has rape in it. It always leaves me shaken up and so horrified that I can't really enjoy the rest of the movie. Now, this statement might lean on the annoying side, but I feel like men can't really understand. I have watched men watch rape scenes, and although they are of course disgusted, it doesn't seem to affect them in the visceral way that it does with women. They can look past it and focus on the movie as a whole or think about the context but all I can think, and this is true for all the women that I know, is "I hate this, I hate this, I hate this". Now, I could of course be wrong but that is what I have observed. Unfortunately, as soon as I saw the rape in this movie (and yes, that was rape, even if it wasn't as violent as the act usually is) I checked out, especially considering Sean Connery's attitude toward women in real life.
Marnie is a thief who steals from Mark Rutland, who tells her that she has to marry him or he will go to the police. This could be an intriguing premise, but it is told in a rather inappropriately silly manner so any promised effect that the story presented was lost.
As frequent readers know, I try to be a spoiler free site, so I won't say why I thought the explanation at the end about why Marnie fears the color red is preposterous. I would say find out yourself, but I would highly recommend skipping this film, lest it ruin your opinion of both Sean Connery and Alfred Hitchcock.
RATING: **---
Interesting Facts:
Evan Hunter, the screenwriter, was fired by Hitchcock for wanting to take out the rape scene.
Grace Kelly was originally supposed to star in this film but the citizens of Monaco did not want their princess to portray a thief.
HITCHCOCK RADAR: Around the five minute mark, he passes Marnie in the hotel.
I think you just about steered away from being too contentious in your remark about men and rape scenes in films...I was starting to think you were being just a tad judgmental with us.. but ...
ReplyDeleteI like almost all Hitchcock's stuff, but this one, with .. and yes, I think it is a rape... I cannot / will not like because of that.. and Mark's general attitude towards Marnie. The bad taste infects the entire film for me.
I've heard about the row between the script writer and Hitch on this subject...
Haha yes this is just about how controversial I will go on this blog. I was just trying to make my reason for not liking this movie less petty sounding (is that the right word; i.e. I didn't like the movie because it wasn't all unicorns and rainbows). I didn't mean to say men care less about rape; I have just noticed that men can enjoy films with rape while most of the women I know, including me, cannot. I don't think this says anything about individual characters. Now, of course, those statements have a generally tacked on to them for me, and you say that you didn't like the film for the sole reason of rape. I think we would be good viewing partners then!
DeleteAmanda, I totally agree with you on the rape thing. I know that can ruin a movie for me, but my husband, though it upsets him, can continue viewing without a problem. (I knew what was coming in Rob Roy and left the room while he fast forwarded.Not sure why I was even watching it.) Anyway, I saw this movie when very young and was freaked out by the mother and the "red" but don't think I understood anything else. Seeing it a few years ago, i realized it wasn't that good and not that scary. And of course, didn't like the rape.
ReplyDeleteI agree Diana. I remember watching Last House on The Left in a film class and actually feeling nauseous. The guys did not have nearly the same reaction as the women.
DeleteI don't think any man can really have the same appalled reaction to rape as a woman (unless they had some kind of personal phobic reaction) and that's fair enough. Men can only ever be logically and sympathetically shocked by what's happening on the screen whereas a woman's reaction to it can be emotional and empathetic.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I wouldn't say that anything is out of bounds for a film (that would be censorship which I would be strongly opposed to), you could surely make a strong case saying that a male-dominated industry has too often used rape as a soft-shock tool in ways it wasn't appropriate to do so. EG: "We need to emphasise to the audience how nasty the bad guy is, let's have him do a rape or shoot someone early on so they'll be cheering for the hero as the film progresses."
Yeah I agree! It's arguably the worst thing you can do to someone and should be treated with more care than it is.
DeleteI suppose your issue with rape in movies are comparable to my issue with the hurting of children. That is something that consistently makes me zone out.
ReplyDeleteIn Marnie I knew about the rape and was actually a bit disappointed when it finally showed up. We see nothing and and it is not empasized in any way. Instead it is a part of the portrayal of the Mark Rutland character as a guy who is just about as disturbed as Marnie. It is not a very good movie, really. The phychobabble is jarring, the plotholes are abyss-deep (fear of the color red would make you incalpable of doing anything at all ever) and the characters are just freaky weird, with a disappointing end.
Ugh I actually just rewatched this. Yeah and Marnie's reversion to her childlike voice was just bizarre. But I don't even think we are supposed to be that disturbed by Mark's character. I think he is supposed to be the hero who saves her and gets past her frigidity when no man could!
DeleteStrangely, I saw an Hungarian film 'Strangled' at the Keswick Film Club last night, and that included two or three very unpleasant male on female rapes.. with one added mutilation. It also included a prison male on male rape of the (innocent, wrongly convicted) main character. Plus police torture of him. So there followed a twenty - thirty mins drive back discussing brutal portrayal of violence, especially sexual violence.
ReplyDeleteWe were two men, two women.
Amanda, you will know I occasionally defend realistic portrayals - my reason being that we cannot hide from unpleasant things. Showing them makes them real to people who have never been in such positions. OK, I'm mostly talking about war films, but domestic violence, and yes, perhaps rape fall into such categories.
The issue (to me), where it becomes problematic, is when such things start to become 'entertainment'.
I defend realistic, unpleasant depictions as a .. warning (Don't let society allow such people into power), educational (look you shitheads, this is what it does to people), shocking (so don't beeping behave like that).
In my opinion .. films such as 'Come see' fall into this.
Again, to me, Marnie falls into the entertainment category.
And, you know, I think most of these comments apply as well, if not stronger to the recently discussed depictions of sex slavery in Mad Max Furry road.
(the typo is deliberate as a way of showing disdain for that film!)
Yeah I think women were supposed to watch this and be like "I wish Sean Connery would pursue me like this!" Gross.
DeleteOh I agree, totally, ... but, you know, I have a .. reluctance .. about telling other people what to do in their minds / bedrooms that is consensual. (I refer us back to scorpio rising.. and did you see 'The Secretary'?
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't, should I? And my problem was that it wasn't consensual between Mark and Marnie.
DeleteWell, I'm not sure. I was trying to make a comparison about consent. 'Secretary' is decidedly about a submissive / dominant sexual relationship .. but it is within a caring, consensual, respectful relationship. The sub/dom sex aspect is pretty much (well not quite, but mostly) kept in the bedroom (or whichever room you care to indulge) . It's the type of sexual behaviour that many may not care to involve themselves in .. but some may. For example .. 'Scorpio rising' .. and 'The Secretary'.
ReplyDeleteJust watched it again as it came up in the list sequence and I didn't entirely remember it from first time around, way back when.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the phobia of red is bad, recall the really absurd phobia of parallel lines in Spellbound.
I'm not sure what to make of this. I think we expect subject matter like this to be handled in a very realistic film-making manner, both for cinema goers at the time and even more so now. But gritty, kitchen-sink realism never was Hitchcock's style and dare I say that this might even be a bit dated? For example, the painted background of her mother's street might have passed muster in the black & white era but look amateurish in colour when we're used to mobile cameras.
The same might also be said for the template of the characters. Some of the classic Hitchcock techniques feel like a band playing their greatest hits rather than grabbing the zeitgeist with their new album. But I wouldn't say that the overall was bad, maybe just involving a few pieces from the wrong puzzle.
It's a little curious to me that the rape scene garners so much attention here and elsewhere, but such scenes from other movies, which are sadly very common, do not. Especially as, as you say, it's hardly at the most grizzly end of the scale. I'm still not sure what it was supposed to achieve though, other than fulfilling Hitchcock's personal fantasies. I agree that we're not supposed to dislike Mark for it, although the complexity it adds to their relationship is arguably, erm, interesting? Is it supposed to underline the distance between them in their relationship? To differentiate between their frostiness and the happy non-sexual relationship of characters like Noddy and Big Ears who share a bed together?