Rape? *spoiler*
-
-
angel-white — 16 years ago(June 28, 2009 01:17 AM)
WARNING: SPOILERS
It wasn't rape. They should have established a "safe word" to verify this. When such people engage in such "deviant behaviour" they need a safe word, because no really doesn't mean no, at this point. All he was doing was interpreting her letter, IMO. He knew what she wanted, and if he scripted it, it would have been too fake, so he interpreted it. Then, what he did was actually less obscene than her letter, but because it wasn't directly word-for-word from the letter, it gets labeled as rape.
I think it's a little sad, and I couldn't have done what he did, myself, but if you haven't been there, I think it's hard to realize that what seems to be giving someone what they want is actually hurting them (like giving drugs to an addict).
I don't know what I would have done in his situation, but at the very least I woudl have established a safe word. But you should take note that several times he quoted her letter directly, and asked her to verify that his quote is what she said. Presumably, at any point, she could have clarified "that's not what I meant" but she did not, because she needed to be abused.
The abuse may have been a little different than she depicted, but that made it much more real, which is what she needed (wanted?). Whatever it was, I cannot with any conscience in me, conclude that it was rape. This was what she wanted, it was what she needed. It killed her (one of many possible interpretations of the ending), but it was her decision. -
mikpii — 18 years ago(September 07, 2007 10:25 AM)
Yes the scene of him trying to fulfill her fetishes turned into a rape. I think it was highly ironic because he had expressed his disgust at her sick mind and fantasies and then there he was raping her.
The author of the book said the story is about authoritarianism in Austria; then the irony makes perfect sense: authoritarians stigmatize people who don't conform to their ideology and yet they themselves make horrible things in the name of their ideology. -
anna-glen — 18 years ago(September 09, 2007 02:41 AM)
I might just be the only one in the entire world who doesn't think Walter raped Erika. She detailed in the letter exactly what she wanted (which was far creepier than the actual "rape" scene). Anyway - Walter confessed his love for Erika a few times, and love doesn't just dissappear. Even though he knew it was wrong, he beat Erika because that's exactly what she asked for. During that entire scene you could see many times when he was reluctant, and when he was 'raping' her, he was affectionate and thought about stopping and leaving a few times. Erika was not unconscious and she didn't tell Walter to stop, she just lay there. How are we to know that wasn't how she wanted it? -The way i see it, Walter was just fulfilling her wishes. And later on when she said she wanted a normal relationship, I believe she was just saying that because that's all Walter wanted, and realising she might lose him - was desperate to be loved by someone other than her mother.
And the final scene when Walter briefly acknowledges her just as if she was anybody else, it says to me the ole saying "Indifference is worse than hate" and she just snaps. I really don't believe she was even considering stabbing Walter. I think she was just near breaking point.
I haven't read the book so forgive me if I'm wrong. -
the_playboy_bunny69 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 10:53 AM)
You can't be wrong, afterall lief is about perception.
I'd just like to make a point though, you said that she never asked Walter to stop, but she did. When he is 'raping' her or whatever anybody see's it as,he kisses her and looks at her and she then whispers something along the lines of 'please stop'. I think you can see it with the subtitles.
Although I agree in that I dont think she was going to stb Walter either. I don't think she was entirely sure herself what to do with the knife.
x -
dh_dh_3 — 18 years ago(October 14, 2007 12:46 AM)
Slovoj Zizek offers a very plausible interpretation of the rape scene in "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema": despite being the exact realisation of what Erika asked Walter to do with her (it was, actually, the perfect manifestation of her desires and fantasies), she wanted him to stop, as soon as she realised that reality can never catch up with fantasy and imagination: reality is never as good as imagination and in reality things never work out like you have imagined them. In fact, she BETRAYED her dreams and imagination, which left her deeply shattered and shocked. She lost something (maybe the very elixir that kept her alive) when Walter had sex with her. Was it rape? If she really wanted Walter to stop, it was. But we cannot be sure, because in the letter to Walter, Erika asked him not to stop when she would beg him of stopping (Why didn't they call the police anyway?).
Said that, I think the key sentence of the whole movie was Erika's utterance after Walter had started reading her letter. Obivously, Walter was somehow confused and Erika responded (in an excusatory manner): "Well, the essence of love is always very banal." That means: That what remains of love after transposing it from the realm of imagination to the realm of reality may seem odd, strange, childish -
chicandcheerful — 18 years ago(October 23, 2007 06:07 AM)
I think all of the interpretations on this post are really interesting. I watched this film for the first time last night, and found so many layers that I wasn't sure which interpretation was 'correct', but obviously that's what keeps you thinking about the movie long after the credits roll.
My own view overall was that Walter was unable to act out Erika's desires until his internal rage overcame his superego, but then he couldn't control the rage. Although he was now able to comply with the letter, he was past the point of responding to the fact that she no longer sought this abuse. The way that he kept pausing to look at her showed that he was aware that she was no longer consenting, but was too full of loathing (and self-loathing) to stop. -
kasparhauser44 — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 05:44 PM)
i think way too many people are interpreting whether or not the scene was a rape in the framework of a very legalistic and modern p.c. view, not in terms of the nature of the massive sexual ambivalence that conflicts isabel huppert's character.
-
bwfcmichelle — 18 years ago(January 12, 2008 05:59 PM)
After watching the film and reading the book, the word 'rape' is never actually mentioned, and as we probably all know, in the legal context it is rape as she tells him to stop and he carries on.
Erika lies there unfeeling, she doesn't try to fight him, she doesn't scream for help. However, is this because that would be very stereotypical? It would be easy for us to say 'okay he raped her' if she was kicking and screaming and fighting against him.
I think ultimately it comes down to the difference between fantasy and reality. Erika has never had a 'normal' sexual relationship. She only sees sex when she goes peeping in the cinema in the film or in the Prater in the book, or when she watched hardcore porn. Her mother has constantly repressed her, Erika resents young women in mini skirts as she was never allowed to wear them herself.
I don't think Klemmer is particularly following her letter, I feel he is making it an excuse so it becomes acceptable for him to do what he did. I believe Klemmer only wanted a conquest, a fling with a teacher, whom he sees as naive. He had no idea what he had let himself in for. I would like to know why he actually did do it, was it revenge for the scene in the toilets? Was it to regain control of the relationship? As Erika pretty much called the shots with her commands and letter. Lots of ideas really, plenty for my dissertation!
I just had a thought, what if she had written the letter in hope Klemmer would 'rescue' her from her feelings. Maybe she wanted him to instead show her that she doesn't really want to be treated like that. Also, how much does Klemmer know of Erika's experience, to me, she doesn't exactly seem like she is familiar with the experience of being tied up and abused in the way she described, surely it's clear to him that it is just a fantasy? If she wanted to be rescued from herself or her past, maybe the letter was a cry for help, a 'come and rescue me' cry to Klemmer? I would like to understand Klemmer a little more, his real motive, was it purely to show her that she shouldn't treat a man as she did? -
bravo1975 — 18 years ago(January 15, 2008 08:32 PM)
Good film..
My basic take on the film in her non-emotion in the last 'sex/rape' scene, was to show that even if Erika got her way and had the type of 'sex' she wanted in the letter, she wasn't able to drop her 'stiffnes' and become the affectionate person that she hoped that kind of sex would allow her to become. I believe in her fantasies, only the most extream sexual acts she thinks would 'free' her from her authoritarian nature. But then once that scene starts and they start having sex/rape, (i still can't make up my mind which), she realises even this extream degree wont release her.. Even as he is having sex he says somthing like "i'm doing what u asked, now give me a little back", sort of asking her to show him some affection. He then continues to kiss her, but even now she can't allow herself to get wrapped up in the emotion of the moment.
The knife scene, hmm, i think she was so gutted that her fantasies didnt turn out as she planned, it was a lose lose situation. If he had acknowledged her and stopped to talk, i believe she would of stabbed herself infront of him. And as in the film he gave her just a fleeting word and she still stabbed herself.
All interesting views from everyone, and even as i'm writing this i'm changing my mind again, which is why this is a excellent film -
bwfcmichelle — 18 years ago(January 17, 2008 02:07 PM)
I hate Klemmer more and more when I watch this film. He has this whole Mr Nice-Guy thing going on, that hides his true cruel nature, which is really seen when he rejects her in the changing room. I think the camera almost degrades Erika, she looks so pathetic, weak and we almost lose all respect for her. I think Erika definitely wants to enjoy sex and have a normal relationship, but then I also wonder whether or not Erika knows what she wants. The letter could well be saying that by letting Klemmer control her, she loses herself and can enjoy a normal relationship, though it all went so badly wrong. I'll change my mind in a few minutes!
-
ichbinsisyphos — 18 years ago(January 25, 2008 02:45 AM)
erika doesnt want to enjoy a "normal" sexual relationship. she has no clue what that is.
you could say that (deep inside) she wants to let herself go, emotionally and sexually. but thats completely impossible.
i think the letter and her games are not simply an expression of a "sick" sexuality but they show the lack of any sexuality.
she doesnt watch porn to get aroused, but to study the mechanics of sex.
i dont blame klemmer in the least. his feelings for her were true in the beginning. whether he wanted her for a day or life isnt important. but this feelings are betrayed by her, she drags him down to her lifeless perversion, to which he reacts with disgust and anger. -
bwfcmichelle — 18 years ago(January 26, 2008 05:00 PM)
There's also the idea that Erika watches porn to understand what gives people pleasure, she never has pleasre or emotions herself so she simply watches to see what makes others tick, if you like, which is similar to what you said.
I still don't like Klemmer though, he's a manipulator and womaniser. However, I am sure he didn't go to Erika knowing of her vulnerabilities, ie he would have used her regardless of her mental state.
Haven't you noticed the cruelty in his thoughts about Erika in the book? The book does a lot to explain some parts of the film.
I still hate Klemmer the more I watch this though, but not as much as the real villain in her hideous mother. -
ichbinsisyphos — 18 years ago(February 02, 2008 02:21 PM)
i didnt read the book, maybe hes portrayed more negatively there.
i dont think klemmer a bad person. hes a little egotistical, but not exploitive. he cares for others. yes maybe hes a womanizer, but im not sure if that is bad in itself.
i think klemmer was as nice to erika as he could be, but hes not the doctor. not knowing what he is letting himself in he didnt protect himself. he changed his behaviour only after he suffered because of her.
he could have reacted better, he could have been more mature