It's been a couple of months since I've watched this film, but from what I remember, you may be right, jediknight. It does seem that he took advantage of her vulnerability. But, on the other hand, maybe he knew that that's what she wanted and needed. Sex without an emotional attachment can be a wonderful stress reliever; and a way to "escape".

She was just desparate for attention. But to me, Crane was kind of a dog to just jump on her like that. Typical male. Who knows how many bodies he's had in the back of that suv.

Jean reminded me A LOT of my mom. She was abused by several men in her life, including my dad, though the ones after him were far worse. My mom used to do things like what Jean did.
When a woman is abused, not only does she feel she doesn't deserve better, but their self-worth is not very high. Some figure that since they get treated like crap, they must be crap and are worth crap. Thankfully, my mom learned that she's worth a lot more than what men let her believe.
The scene in the movie made perfect sense to me. I'd say it's very realistic. If she hadn't been living in her father-in-law's house, she'd probably would have brought the guy home.
Just my opinion and observation.

If you get a chance and are that interested, listen to the director's commentary track. He explains how they shot the scene, removed it, put it back in, while trying to establish just what sort of person Jean was. Flawed, weak, etc. Did you think she was a selfish whore who wasn't good enough to get into a healthy relationship or be friends with a man? Good, because that's what she thought of herself. She was still punishing herself for her guilt over her husband's death at that point, and loathing herself as much as the audience does.
What I found unfortunate in the commentary was the mention that Lopez' unsought negative publicity at the time nearly made them change the film to soften her. In 10 or 15 years, I suspect people will view this performance in a much more positive light. I don't get why people are so down on her anyway. She is talented, multifaceted and charismatic, and plain fun to watch (and no, I'm not a slavering teenage boy). Is it jealousy?

"Maybe we should use our precious little minds and give the director some leeway."
Actually, directors, like authors, have very little leeway once their characters are established. I've heard many book authors write about this. They say their readers are incredibly sensitive to the characters doing things that the characters wouldn't do. When I first heard this, I thought it was nuts. You think the author creates the characters, and therefore can make them do whatever they want the characters do. You'd think if the character does something that the character wouldn't do, well, then the reader should understand they may have misunderstood the character. But this thread is a perfect example. I agree with the others that Jean simply would not have done it, and it grates on many viewers. Characters doing things they wouldn't do is the biggest error an author can make, and apparently it applies to screenwriters and directors as well.

i know, i liked the movie up to that point.
but i couldnt take it seriously after that,
and they didnt even show anything, just a car bouncing from yards away.
otherwise it would atleast have had a hot scene with j-lo, so?

You have a good point but I just think that scene was totally randome! It was just out of no where! If the director wanted that to happen he could have made it fit alittle better.
~Everyone is born right handedonly the BEST overcome it!~

The majority of what I heard in this thread was out of place, out of place, unecessary, and blah blah blah. Guess what guys, we all have our own interpretations of what happens in a movie and should never make generalizations like that. A director is an artist and he paints his canvas as he damn well pleases. The scene didn't bother me and not because I'm a guy who enjoys seeing something like that on screen either. But because maybe she made a mistake, maybe she is insecure, maybe this is how all her relationships began, maybe she feels the only way she can connect with men is on a physical level. Maybe we should use our precious little minds and give the director some leeway. I'm sure if anything the scene was originally a lot more graphic but the studios said no way. This is a foreign director who is not at all uptight with human sexuality, just see My Life As a Dog as an example.
By the way, I can't stand when people compare movies with books, they are two totally different things and should be kept seperate when evaluating. It's like trying to compare a painting with a poem. When you read a book, you create your own, personal visual interpretation of what you are reading. A film version of a book is the filmmakers' interpretation and not yours, get it?

easy. She needed some. big deal, prude.
You can take my body and dry it in the sun. Seeing the vultures circle up ahead. -Phil

Shannon
I totally agree. It just seemed out of place and strange. Just a director's (editor's) mistake I guess.

This scene completely threw me when I saw the movie. It just seemed out of place and out of context and seem to come out of nowhere. IMO, this was the only thing I didn't care for in this movie (simply because it didn't really make sense (I mean sure they obviously were interested in each other, but it seemed to me they hardly knew each other)). I think the whole Jean/Crane relationship could've used a little bit more work.

Because she's a slut.

Thank you jspost!!! You took the words right out of my head.

I thought the scene a bit odd, out of place, unnecessary.but so short that it didn't really do any harm to the whole picture.

This message has been deleted.

I don't see what the bid deal is either. The woman got to have sex with Josh Lucas for crap sake! You can't knock her for that! I'd give her a virtual high-five.
"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!"

I don't see what the big deal is. The scene is not explicit. In fact, you don't see anything. I watched the DVD last night for the first time, but did not check out the extra features, so are there deleted scenes? Perhaps there was an extended sequence, but J-Lo has been trying to move away from the sexpot image, and Josh Lucas, despite his "womanizing ways" in real life, tends to not expose himself in explicit sex scenes, so maybe between the two of them they convinced the director to scale it back. Plus, it would've changed the rating.

thanks for the affirmation

This message has been deleted.

I think the scene belongs in the film but it was just played wrong. I think Jean having sex with Crane is believable because she was vulnerable and needing comfort (which could be why she kept finding herself in bad relationships) but, as ThomasEdison alluded to, Jennifer Lopez's portrayal of Jean was off. She was more JLo than Jean. The way she asked for a ride home and the way she talked in his jeep about not being able to make it through the next 3 weeksdidn't sound like a battered and insecure woman. She made Jean seem very sure of herself and of what she wants and clearly, that is not who Jean was. I think the scene was necessary because it was a segway to the other sceneswhen her daughter met Crane, when Jean and Einer had the argument and when Griff left Jean to go back to her grandfather. I just think the scenes leading up to the sex scene in the jeep could have been played better.
Also, did anyone else notice that Jean had a New York accent?
No disrespect to Jennifer Lopez, I just think a more dramatic actress could have done Jean more justice.

This message has been deleted.

The whole idea was that it was supposed to have a skank factor and was indicative of the place that Jean was emotionally - not having a lot of self-respect and not making good choices.
Shooting it as you have Spooly, would have entirely changed the tone and made it more about making love than having sex.
Those who think that this scene was unneeded just plain didn't get it!

Imagine a more artful way to make the scene.
*She says that to Crane, they pull off the road.
*Then the camera goes into the jeep, where they are laying. With a coat covering them? Or something from the jeep? And you will get the feeling that they had sex, but not the crudeness of the sounds in the dirt pit coming from Crane's jeep.
*Then Crane looks up at the ceiling of the jeep, thinking about the responsibility he has in sleeping with her, and her past.
*She just has her eyes closed, laying on his chest.
Cut to next scene
that would be so much better!
That would not have put off those of us who have not read the book, maybe never will, and have that as an impression of her characterization in the film
GOOD FILM THOUGH!

Ok, my first reaction when I started watching this movie was that of totaly relating to the character. Would she have had a quickie? YES, she probably would have. A few years ago, I might have done the same thing, just getting out of a couple of abusive relationships.
If you have walked in the same shoes as I have or as the character was persumed to have, then the scene makes sense.
I agree that it was probably not needed, that perhaps if they were going to leave it in, they could have done a lead up to it.
I am picking the book up tomorrow, I will read it and see if maybe there was some way that it could have been embelished more to be a scene that was pertinent to the movie.
But, I DO SEE WHERE THEY WERE COMING FROM.