i don't think he doesn't not love her in that scene, on the contrary, I think he rejects her because he does. He doesn't actually reject her until she uses the word "games" and then he thinks about it, and rejects her, because that is what she asked for. I think he is trying to compromise, in a sick way, to her idea of love because she came and did the same for him.

Nun, das ist ziemlich offensichtlich
L'enfer, c'est les autres

Nein, ich bin keine Schlampe, schon allein weil ich ein Mnnchen bin.

what exactly did he do? what is it you are defending? (I guess I need to watch this again lol)
well the term is not really positive is what I'm trying to tell you. du bist also eine 'schlampe'?
L'enfer, c'est les autres

I didn't remember this promiscuity business in the film.
bwfcmichelle just said she thinks "Klemmer is a womanizer", to which I responded "I'm not sure if that's a bad thing", because he wasn't dishonest with her.
That's were you jumped in and everything got blown out of proportion
.
No, English isn't my first language. The word might have a predatory connotation, but I didn't see it in Klemmer's behavior.

I may resemble that comment lol but they can't compete I'm afraid. ever heard of a healthy medium?
I didn't remember this promiscuity business in the film.
Is english your first language? because that term most definitely has a predatory connotation.
L'enfer, c'est les autres

I know a lot of people who have many problems because of an undersexed lifestyle.
(I must have missed some of this film or it's been too long because I don't remember any of this)
You don't remember what?

I think that's a slut, but actually oversexed lifestyle in general is the cause of many problems in society.
(I must have missed some of this film or it's been too long because I don't remember any of this)
L'enfer, c'est les autres

To my knowledge, "Womanizer" doesn't mean anything more than a man having sexual relations with multiple or frequently changing women.

to quote inigo montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
L'enfer, c'est les autres

It's none of my business what people are or do.
What I don't like is my feelings to be toyed with. If you can make a point that he was exploiting, manipulating her and that she wanted more than an affair, or that he made it look to her that he wanted more than an affair, then we can talk.
Otherwise no, he's not a bad guy and "womanizer"/"manizer" is not a bad thing per se.

would a "manizer" be a good thing to you?
L'enfer, c'est les autres

What are you trying to say, buddy?

"but im not sure if that is bad in itself."
L'enfer, c'est les autres

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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?

This message has been deleted.

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.

This message has been deleted.

That what remains of love after transposing it from the realm of imagination to the realm of reality may seem odd, strange, childish
An astute if somewhat bleak observation
S
O
C
H
I
Y