It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:06 am 

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
Well considering Storaro also echoed Bertolucci's claims maybe they are telling the truth? I guess we will never really know but maybe, everything except the butter was written in the script?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
I'm seeing some people claim that she was actually penetrated, but I'm having trouble finding where this has been stated or accurately suggested by Schneider or anyone else who was actually there. I was always under the impression that what she went through was terrible enough, but there's a grapevine effect going on here that's distorting what actually happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Having your anus touched and penetrated are not too far off from one another when you didn't consent to it happening


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:57 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
Well I'm vehemently against it, but there is indeed a difference. But no one ever said, including Schneider, that she was penetrated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
mfunk9786 wrote:
Having your anus touched and penetrated are not too far off from one another when you didn't consent to it happening

I didn't see a reliable account that mentioned that kind of touching either - did this come from Schneider? Where was this? There was another post that mentioned that Brando actually applied the butter to Schneider's behind, but I can find no reliable source for this either.

Honestly, I have no interest in digging up what could be pornographic details of how a woman was abused, but imaginations are running out of control, in a way that makes a very significant difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
The fact remains that someone employed to do a job should be told what is going to happen to their body before they happen - not some of the time, all of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
That's for damn sure, would never dispute that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
I don't think anyone else is disputing it either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:11 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
mfunk9786 wrote:
The fact remains that someone employed to do a job should be told what is going to happen to their body before they happen - not some of the time, all of the time.

No one here has come close to saying otherwise.

Countering rumour and hysteria with facts and information is precisely how to respond to this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Brian C wrote:
I don't think anyone else is disputing it either.

Obviously, but now my original question's been buried.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Whether actual penetration took place - listen, I get it - I just think it's a very similar situation being discussed whether or not it's the case. Didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought you were saying it was suddenly made acceptable if penetration didn't occur, but continues to seem beside the point to me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm 
Not PETA approved
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada
mfunk9786 wrote:
Whether actual penetration took place - listen, I get it - I just think it's a very similar situation being discussed whether or not it's the case. Didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought you were saying it was suddenly made acceptable if penetration didn't occur, but continues to seem beside the point to me

It's not beside the point if the point is to determine precisely what happened. It may or may not be beside the point if the point is to feel negatively about it.

Considering that people seem to be getting the impression that Maria Schneider was forcibly sodomized against her will on camera, and are broadcasting that impression to a wide audience, it's important to look closely at what those involved actually said, especially Ms. Schneider herself. And I think doing that is important, because we've already had too much these days of people allowing their strong emotional reactions to justify all kinds of abuses to truth and common sense. Saying 'in the end it hardly matters what precisely happened to Ms. Schneider so long as we agree it's bad' is doing her a disservice. I imagine the reason she came out publicly was to set the facts straight about what happened to her and how she felt about that. I don't imagine that she'd be happy if what got around was different from what she said--whether that difference made it sound better or worse.

All of us have already agreed that this is a disturbing and deplorable thing. There's no point in confining discussion to endless reiterations of that. That just turns into hollow purity tests. Discussion has to be opened up elsewhere: to what we are able to know about this situation, to the reaction this is causing and the implications of that, to what this says about the power dynamics of movie-making, or power dynamics in general, etc. We can have positive, valuable discussions there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
Agreed with the above. There are most certainly gradations of sexual assault. A court of law would recognise that, so there's no reason why we shouldn't.

I'm surprised no-one (here or in general) has dealt with the question I posted on the previous page of whether the film should be censored or banned in light of this. It's hardly a radical proposal and I suspect some jurisdictions (such as the Australian classification system) might well consider it in future. I think that's a fascinating and troubling line of discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
I would respond that we not only have to preserve the film itself and make it available to the public, but we also need to document and preserve the context carefully and thoroughly, enforcing and clarifying the circumstances surrounding the event. So no: don't ban or censor it. It will serve society in the future as a vivid example of what reprehensible garbage could occur on the male-dominated sacrosanct film set in the name of art. To suppress that would be to deny its existence, which is precisely why we preserve racist content in older films. I think preservation, availability, and careful documentation would also serve as an act of respect towards a woman who has had the courage to accuse these powerful men of behaving criminally, with nothing to gain but ridicule, equivocation, and pshaws from a lot of people--a woman who has died without anyone involved admitting to the accuracy or severity of her accusations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL
I think any new releases of the film should have text crawling along the bottom of the screen during the butter scene that says "In her later years, Ms. Schneider expressed feelings of pain and humiliation in regards to the methods used by her director and co-star during the filming of this scene. If you are enjoying this scene, it means you are an asshole. Go die in a fire, asshole."

That should make everyone happy - people still get to see the movie, but are properly shamed in the process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:48 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am
Perhaps that was the director's implied intent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am
Brian C wrote:
I think any new releases of the film should have text crawling along the bottom of the screen during the butter scene that says "In her later years, Ms. Schneider expressed feelings of pain and humiliation in regards to the methods used by her director and co-star during the filming of this scene. If you are enjoying this scene, it means you are an asshole. Go die in a fire, asshole."

That should make everyone happy - people still get to see the movie, but are properly shamed in the process.
I think that's too severe and wouldn't make anyone happy, if I can take what you're saying seriously for a moment. Making sure that people have access to the fact that a sexual crime was committed on a film set is not the same thing as ordering them to feel ashamed about it (or making them feel partially responsible simply because they enjoy the movie).

The production of art is complicated and fraught; sometimes shitty things are done in order to create it. Given that, certainly the least we can do is remember those shitty things in perpetuity and honor the people who were treated like garbage by protecting an accurate account. I realize a non-consensual butter assault isn't the Rwandan genocide, and probably not even a legally defined rape, but the denial by key players in this case is strong enough that it risks being forgotten over time without a certain level of exacting precision with regard to the details and conflicting claims. The fact that this is a conspicuously public example of the epidemic tendency to trivialize sexual assault claims makes it all the more important to remember Schneider's accusations beyond her death.

calculus entrophy wrote:
Perhaps that was the director's implied intent?
He certainly intended it to be a deeply disturbing scene; "enjoying" it as a viewer would be a remarkable feat of disassociation. The art is successful even if the means to achieve it are cruel and criminal.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection