The awkward and inappropriate rape discussion…
-
banders46 — 13 years ago(December 12, 2012 08:03 AM)
Well said. I think the conversation also just reveals, in a funny way, Allan's fear about doing something wrong ("I was nowhere near Oakland!"), as if it were on the same level as rape, and Linda's general goofiness while drinking champagne. Anyway, I think Woody writes women well in some ways, but sometimes their lines sound more like Woody talking through them (I mean, come on, what woman would say the thing about possibly enjoying rape?). This also works well in a way, because all of his movies have that quality of taking place in the Woody persona's head. We're not really getting reality, just his perception of reality.
-
Howlin Wolf — 13 years ago(May 30, 2012 05:07 AM)
I can't defend the viewpoint, but at the same time, it was interesting to hear people who think like that so, I would take a movie with a provocative and memorable discussion like that in it any time, over one where the characters simply spout bland platitudes.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me -
banders46 — 13 years ago(December 20, 2012 06:07 PM)
I thought of this thread the other day when I watching an old "Simpsons" episode in which Homer almost hits Ned Flanders over the head with a wrench to get his football tickets. Yes, that's right, Homer Simpson, beloved by America, contemplates murder (or attempted murder) in order to score some football tickets. Now, surely if the Simpsons can make a joke about murder
-
global_global — 13 years ago(December 29, 2012 01:21 PM)
I wonder if people actually comprehended this film.
Woody Allen had the hots for his friend's wife. Neurotic and paranoid, he went through all the ins and outs as to whether he could make a move. She mentions rape and he jumps.
He's so nervous and insecure that he places his situation (having the hots for a girl and not know if/how to make a move) with being an actual rapist. -
banders46 — 13 years ago(January 03, 2013 10:21 AM)
Right, there was also a "fantasy" scenario right before this where he attacks her in front of the fireplace and she yells "rape," whereas in the previous fantasies she had given in to his advances. This film is also about what's going in Alan's (the character's) head.
-
forthesafetyofpuppies — 13 years ago(March 18, 2013 08:19 AM)
Now, surely if the Simpsons can make a joke about murder ..
In this wacky world in which we live, rape is deemed a much more heinous crime than murder, for some unfathomable reason. Personally, I think it's insane; a product of pure propaganda.
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow
-
doctorcrimedog — 10 years ago(August 18, 2015 02:12 PM)
Everyone's going to die someday, but not everyone is going to be raped, and most men will never even have to think about it. Also, most of us can imagine a scenario where we might be willing to kill (self defense, or even revenge), whereas most of us could not imagine a scenario where we would deem rape acceptable. Imagine if, in The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya's father was killed by a woman, and his famous line was "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. I'm going to rape you." No one would like that character, and no one would cheer his revenge. Killing her would be more acceptable, because it would be seen as basic justice, a life for a life. Rape, on the other hand, is pretty much just expressing a contempt for women. I personally hate PC language police, but I understand why rape is a touchier subject than many.
-There is no such word as "alot." -
patmss — 13 years ago(February 14, 2013 06:46 AM)
Whenever I watch older comedies, I always put myself in the context of that generation culturally. Certain types of humor were definitely more acceptable during particular eras and so I generally come out unscathed in terms of being offended (if not a tiny bit uncomfortable).
It's pretty necessary to overlook these things and see them through a more objective eye if we're to enjoy the movie right? I got through the physical humour of Cary Grant knocking Katherine Hepburn down to the ground in The Philadelphia Story and the child molestation joke in Airplane. I think this rape conversation ranks higher on the comfort meter for me. -
lisajohn-4 — 11 years ago(April 25, 2014 10:09 PM)
I have to agree with patmss. Movie viewers frequently observe a film through their own cultural lenstypically a view influenced by modern political ideas (whether it be an addiction to FOX news or the latest liberal PC trend). I've observed people posit that Ken Kesey's "Sometimes a Great Notion" was about a conservative, anti-union, anti-Hollywood ideology (they clearly had no idea who Ken Kesey was!) and another guy who was appalled that Robert Redford starred in "Jeremiah Johnson" because it was such an "anti-Native American" film .YIKES! Yet another reason I'm glad that I am old..I won't have to suffer such fools much longer!
-
mail-2217 — 11 years ago(June 13, 2014 11:29 PM)
I'm a middle-aged white guy so
- MAN, people are so PC these days. It's a JOKE. And an old-fashioned joke. When I was a kid girls and boys (I mean like 10 year olds) would shout 'rape' as a joke if someone got too close for any reason. It was good natured for the simple reason that the idea of rape was just so over the top. Mothers might say, "I'm gonna kill that boy when I get home." It was just an -expression-.
- OTOH, I see movies that are supposed to appeal to teens/Millenials and the casualness about 'sex' and relationships in general just astounds me. There's absolutely no sense of sex as having any sacredness (I don't mean that in a religious context). They make all interactions so 'casual' and meaningless.
It just strikes me as odd that there is so much sensitivity about these old-fashioned jokes while there is such a tsunami of constant hyper-sexualised culture -now-.
It just seems like people worry over the wrong things.
-
feodoric — 11 years ago(July 12, 2014 07:12 PM)
For many reasons, our modern society (at least in North America) seems to have undergone an erosion of its sense of humor. The latter is an individual attribute, of course, and it varies enormously as a function of people's intelligence, religious beliefs, body of ethics, etc. Unfortunately for those of us who can transcend first-degree language and distil condemnable behavior to put some absurdity in evidence,
no matter the subject matter
, a neo-puritanical school of thought appears to have made more and more adepts - as well as damage. Basically, for people endorsing such views on what is off-limits for laughter (generally in an unconscious, non-deliberate manner), there is an arbitrary decision that is made on what constitutes (or not) humor.
A good litmus test to detect whether one has already adhered at least in part- to that neo-puritanism of modern humor is to subject oneself to typical episodes of extreme adult cartoons such as
Family Guy, South Park
or
Robot Chicken
, just to name these few. Each of these shows uses just about any topic to generate hilarity, generally right on target for a sizable audience (which is somewhat reassuring). It might be a drastic test as a matter of fact, but I found that I could ROFLMAO with just about any subject covered in these shows, except when I was very tired and could simply not see beyond the immediate repulsiveness of the topic itself (incest, extreme violence as a tool to accentuate a comical line, child masturbation, you name it, as anything goes with these cartoons as you know well). It must be emphasized, though, that these cartoons have one thing in common: they are generally playing the absurd chord, and absurdity is ubiquitous. Meaning: the irony does not bear on the subject matter, but rather on the collision of two ideas that make no sense when juxtaposed. It is virtually independent of any moral judgement on the topic in question, and humor lies strictly in the clash between two or more concepts. It's the
idea
brought by these juxtapositions that is funny, not the topic per se. In fact, the same type of absurdity could be found using almost any other "bad" behavior as a trigger for creating some absurd scenario.
And please dont try to label me as a snob or an elitist if I mention that I count myself among those who can laugh at about anything: this is not a proof of a superior mind, but more of a freer one. Free-minded people are often perceived as spoiled brats who have never experienced any of these delicate topics which can lead to a good laughter provided that the script or writing or conception is good. In my case, at least, let me say that acquiring a truly free mind was a long, difficult process and a costly affair. It is a life choice that means sacrificing a lot of opportunities simply to preserve ones freedom, and often means making enemies. On the other hand, the inner feeling that one gains is more than just a liberty of thinking: its also a sense of inner peace and spiritual strength, which means a lot in the face of adversity. And I encountered more than my lot of it!
Naturally, all roads lead to Rome, and there is more than one way to remain able to find humor with even the most immoral, disgusting topics imaginable, provided that there is, like I said above, some process of distillation. It is in the quintessence that humor lies, and it can be found everywhere, anywhere. As Rabelais wrote: Laughter is a purely human attribute. Are the offended virgins who are multiplying in the early 21st century losing it? And since Im in a mood for citations, Ill let Pascal finish: Man is neither beast nor angel, and trouble is: who wants to play the angel, plays the beast.
The cartoons mentioned above specifically target adults, because the capacity for abstraction fully develops when reaching maturity with the help of a proper education, of course, and by there I dont equate education with academic training. Common sense can develop even in people who never studied Plato or Descartes: a full, uninhibited sense of humor needs only the flame of intelligence.
Thats a-a-a-a-ll folks, and Viva PIAS and all the politically incorrect comics of the world! -
mail-2217 — 11 years ago(July 12, 2014 09:24 PM)
There's a term paper in there somewhere.
I am not as extreme as yerself. I find much 'modern' humour (Family Guy, Borat, South Park) either derivative or just plain soul destroying. The irony for me is that some of the very same people who might -love- Family Guy would find Play It Again Sam 'offensive'
I think that some of this bias is generational. Younger people are far more willing to assume that their peers 'know what I mean', whereas older people were all 'racists' in the same way that young people of every era tend to think they invented profanity, sex, etc. -
feodoric — 11 years ago(July 18, 2014 06:27 PM)
As a professor at 59, I give term papers rather than do them
And you're partly right with your apt observation that extreme humor cartoons
la
South Park
or
Family Guy
may reflect a certain tendency to soul destroying. I can't help but notice that clever Seth MacFarlane's universe seems to have now reached its limits and that the now famous and multimillionaire animator/cartoonist/multi-impersonator blatantly reflects a major corollary of the Peter's Principle. As he's climbing the ladder of worldwide fame and financial success,not only his current-day creations tend to be mere rehashing of original material from his early years, but their cleverness appears to follow an unfortunate downward trajectory, with a bizarre fixation on poop, farting and ano-rectal variations thereabout.
Don't get me wrong: my complaint is not at all about the fact that I resent farting/pooping jokes per se, and they have been a welcome healthy, Rabelaisian complement to the assortment of clever and absurd socio-historical comments on conservative, Caucasian-dominated and God-fearing segments of the American (mostly) society, but I can't help but notice that scatological humor appears to represent a growing portion of humor in MacFarlane's most recent creations. Not that I'm very much concerned about the future success of what appears to have become, if not an empire, at least a big kingdom of his (haven't they announced a
Ted 2
for 2015?). Moreover, every time
Family Guy
's cancellation is announced, the show makes a huge comeback due to fans' outrage.
We're nowhere the end of that type of humor, thank God. However, despite the fact that like millions of huge fans out there, I can't have enough of it and will definitely buy Season 50 of
Family Guy
when it's out :-), I can't help but have a feeling of emptiness after watching whether it's
Family Guy
,
South Park
,
American Dad
,
Robot Chicken
and the like (the selection is growing, for the better methinks!). Yes, thrashing everything and demonstrating that nothing is sacred is funny and a sign of sanity, but at the same time, it's a liberating more than an enriching process. Thus, after a
Play It Again Sam
or a
Bananas
, I'll need perhaps a
Match Point
or a
Crimes and Misdemeanors
to regain some perspective on reality, despite the fact that we're always talking about fiction here. That's what Woody Allen's humor and fantasies are capable of: to either make you forget about the miseries of our human existences, or reflect upon it. Hey! Allen might have attempted to imitate his master Bergman more than once, but Bergman's attempts at humor (or levity, more exactly) have been few, charming, but never cracking up.
One can thus try to minimize the merits of Woody's
Interiors
, for instance, by calling it Bergman-derivative, but the Swedish genius did not leave us any
Play It Again Sam
. Thinking about it, I have little doubt that people who can't dig Allen's
Interiors
or
Match Point
because they can't imagine someone as funny as Woody Allen capable of profundity are probably the same who deny humorists the right to make us laugh when the topic is something as condemnable as rape -
ireone3 — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 02:51 AM)
it's good for me to see your fairly long, thoughtful replies on movies/tv and our society.
My opinion is - "largely immaterial/And if the President replies mind your own Goddamn business Tucker" - that society is degenerating, peoples lives (in the countries I know) are too combined and mixed up between indoctrination and freedom for the majority to do anything but be trapped in low common denominators of thought and behaviour.
I have always tried to live according to my own rules as much as I can so I am probably not a good judge however, or I am biased due to a natural criticism of a society degenerating ever since the Industrial Revolution tore people off the land or since the Ancient Greeks for that matter. And if I had lived then I would have probably disliked it too.
As Samuel Buckett's character said "People are bloody ignorant apes"- it was ever thus. I shouldn't expect any different. As there are more and more of this strange self-indulgent species on this planet it could hardly be anything but getting worse until we eventually destroy ourselves or our environment
(I seem to be doing a personal version of the scene in the art gallery)
At least Woody makes me laugh, and he does it IMO without resorting to the lowest common denominator. He looks for meaning in life in his movies, even the early funny ones have serious aspects to their plots.
Bananas for example looks at the foreign policy and legal system in the US for example, and is partly influenced by the great social protests of the time. Sure he only goes to San Marcos to get a girl, but that's why it's a comedy.
- it was ever thus. I shouldn't expect any different. As there are more and more of this strange self-indulgent species on this planet it could hardly be anything but getting worse until we eventually destroy ourselves or our environment
-
ireone3 — 11 years ago(September 27, 2014 01:38 PM)
From virtually the start the film has "Bogart" saying to WA: "Dames are simple, I never met one that didn't understand a slap in the mouth or a Colt 45" and "Relationship? Where did you learn that word"
If you don't like the "rape" scene you wouldn't like these "jokes" either if you really thought about it. Allens films are irreverent he doesn't worry so much about what topics he is allowed to be funny about. Sooner or later he goes too far for one person or another. But funny is funny whatever the topic and Allen is funny whether it offends someone sensibilities or not. -
ireone3 — 11 years ago(September 30, 2014 07:27 PM)
Allan: Let's not get carried away. I'm not an appealing guy.
The thought that a girl like Linda could fall for me!
I'm kidding myself.
Where the hell is she anyhow? By now she could have had her Goddamn steak and been out of here.
(Door Buzzes)
Linda: I feel so light, that lithium I took today is really beginning to work.
Allan: Look. Maybe you'd better not have any champagne.
Linda: Oh, no, Allan, if I get a little carried away, you can always call the police.
Allan: How long did you say Dick was going to be out of town for?
Linda: Oh he'll be back tomorrow.
Allan: There's a new Truffaut film over at the Regency, I think maybe we should go out and see it.
Linda: Come on you're kidding! We're all set for here.
Besides, it's starting to rain, and you know I just remembered, that great lda Lupino movie's on Channel 4. You know the one where she's happily married and suddenly becomes involved with her husband's best friend.
Allan: How does it end?
Linda: She kills them and herself.
Allan: Let's go out!
Linda: Oh no Allan, I really want to see the Ida Lupino movie.
It's a fascinating theme. Do you think it
is possible to love two people at once?
Allan: What do you mean?
Linda: Um, well, a wife, happily married, suddenly finds she out loves another man. Not that she doesn't love her husband, just that, she loves somebody else. Do you think that's very possible?
Allan: Do you?
Linda: Very. Very possible; and possibly very common.
Love is such a strange phenomenon. Strange and exquisite.
Bogart: Go ahead, make your move.
Allan (to Bogart) No, I can't.
Bogart: Go ahead. Take her and kiss her.
Linda: Is anything wrong Allan?
Bogart: Go ahead. She wants it. Hurry
before she moves out of position.
Bogart: Kiss her, kid.
Linda: I guess I'd better be getting on with those potatoes.
Bogart: Well, kid, you blew it.
Allan: I can't do it. How's it look I invite her over
and come on like a sex degenerate. What do you think I am a rapist?
Bogart: You're getting carried away. You think too much, just do it.
Allan: We're platonic friends. I can't spoil that by coming on. She'll slap my face!
Bogart: Oh, I've had my face slapped plenty of times.
Allan: But your glasses don't go flying across the room.
Bogart: You're going to disappoint her kid.
Allan: I can't
The more I think of this scene, the more I think it is central to the plot.
Is it awkward yes - it's supposed to be. Is it inappropriate? Absolutely not, the movie hinges on it. Yes, the scene goes on, and he breaks the lamp etc. But I can't type it all out! I like the whole scene.