criterionforum.org

I don't think you're being confrontational. Actually, I wrote and then deleted something from my reply that I thought was too confrontational but now feel is necessary: I don't understand why anyone would expend so much effort on a film as repellent as this. This is a narrow view, obviously, and completely unfair. It doesn't really contribute to healthy discourse and it places those who enjoyed the picture on the defensive. But when I think back to this film, it makes me ill. We all have our Achilles heels and this sort of treatment of women on film is mine. So how do I answer your questions fairly? I can't. Obviously something intangible about the film has stuck with you and you're trying to suss out why. I can certainly respect and relate with that in the general. But I don't think any possible message, critique, or commentary to be gained from this particular picture is validated via the methods employed by the filmmaker.

Fair enough, and I thought that's how you might feel. I also completely understand why you would question my investigation into this film (which I have confessed to not liking much, even if misogyny were not an issue). I'm not even sure why. It's a tendency I have in general. I staunchly defended Antichrist after viewing it with some friends a few weeks ago, even though I was pretty indifferent about the film. But looking back, it's clear that my defense enriched my view of the film (I still wouldn't say that I like it, exactly, but it has its moments and now I have a deeper understanding of it). Maybe that's what I'm trying to do with this film.
Now whether it will come to anything, I don't know. I rather doubt it. Still, these questions nag at me, so I ask them. We'll see.

Thanks for the response. I don't think you could have been any more fair or honest.

I also think that Leone had a view of women that's not exactly in common with what is now held as acceptable... It doesn't seem to be saying anything compelling with these problematic scenes (another reason why I don't hold it in much regard)... the abhorrent nature of the film and its attitudes towards women... I am not concerned with whether the film is misogynistic: YES. Obviously. You would have to be blind not to notice these problems...

Judging a work of art by superficial and transient culture-specific moral attitudes at a particular moment in time = so so boring.

domino harvey wrote:Men have always been in a position of power, women have not.

Not necessarily true, would suggest you read Engels on this.

p.s. For anyone who didn't notice, OUATIA is a wide-sweeping and scathing dissection / inditement of American Capitalism and the American Dream (not exactly hard to spot, as the same can be said of Leone's preceeding five films, albeit to a lesser extent; he even quotes Mao at the beginning of Gui La Testa), Noodles the rapist being a product of that system - not a hero, not a role model. What do you think the repeated use of the Irving Berlin is about, ffs? We're certainly not meant to cheer on the rape. Stone's script for Scarface takes a similar kind of approach, the difference being that Noodles is actually a fully rounded character with some sympathetic characteristics - this being one of the massive strengths of Leone's film, even if it is also the thing that presently upsets provincial feminists, who demand that cinematic rapists be depicted as one-dimensional monsters (the reason why Noe's ludicrous gay Turkish rapist antagonist in Irreversible is presently considered 'acceptable', whilst Noodles is not).

I had a reaction similar to domino's when going back to this one a year or two ago. I didn't even make it through the first hour of the film. The wistful nostalgia of those early scenes involving voyeurism and sexual exploitation of minors is too repugnant, never mind the obviously problematic rape scene. Leone has nothing constructive to say about women in his films, the awkward attempts of Bertolucci to interject some sort of commentary in OUATiW notwithstanding. Its pure exploitation and misogyny, and the intensity of it actually goes a long way toward ruining this film, whatever other merits it may or may not have.

But why is the rape 'problematic', let alone obviously so?

The 'voyeurism' that you refer to is directly connected to the rape - think about what this youthful game will turn into, the tragedy of it.

Spoiler

As the final confontation with Woods makes coldly clear, Noodles is someone who choses nostalghia over reality, lost in the sepia-tinted memories of his youth, unable to face what it all turned into. The destruction of his relationship with Deborah, the betrayal by his best friend, the hard, underlying capitalist structures that have ultimately governed their lives. Instead, he retreats into himself in the opium den, into a haze of oblivion.

It is interesting how many Americans are keen to latch on to this 'misogyny' charge. A defense against the insightful criticisms Leone makes of your country and culture, perhaps?

It's not just us Americans who level the misogyny charge. Sir Christopher Frayling, author of two books devoted to Leone and several others that discuss him extensively, says this:

The thing which was difficult for me was the sexual politics of the movie, the treatment of women. Something to do with the difference between a Western and a more modern day movie. The things you show in a Western don't affect people because it's in the wild west and we accept certain conventions of the 19th century and so on. But then in the 1930s and 1960s, it's too real. The rape scene in the car is horrible, it's a really nasty piece of film making. And it lasts too long. It's a rare example of Leone losing his control. He normally knew just when to finish a scene. It (the rape scene) goes on much too long. It's a very upsetting scene. OK, it tells you a lot about the movie, the character. This intuitive, romantic gangster, who is obsessed with the girl of his dreams, so he rapes her in the back of the car. But there's something wrong with that scene in my view. It's particularly brutal because it's supposed to be a romantic rape. The whole film is very dark, and melancholy.

Nothing wrote:It is interesting how many Americans are keen to latch on to this 'misogyny' charge. A defense against the insightful criticisms Leone makes of your country and culture, perhaps?

That's about the flimsiest ad hominem remark I've ever encountered.

I'll be brief, since I can tell that engaging with you would be entirely unproductive. I have no problems with Leone's criticism of capitalism or the US, although I don't really think he reaches the level of polemical Marxism that you claim he does (there's a reason he made a film called Duck You Sucker). The problem is simply that he was unable to portray any female characters that weren't objects of abuse. And yes, the rape is problematic for just the reasons you stated: its significance is entirely owned by the male character. Bottom line, I do not buy that Leone had any interest in women, nor do I think he made any coherent or constructive criticism in the arena of gender politics.

The sheer gratuitousness of that shot early on, when a gangster hurriedly looking for Noodles suddenly stops and lingers simply to jam a woman's nipple into the barrel of his gun (in extreme close-up), actually bothers me more than any of the rapes. To quote Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown: Can't you just make your point by hitting her?

Caged Horse wrote:The sheer gratuitousness of that shot early on, when a gangster hurriedly looking for Noodles suddenly stops and lingers simply to jam a woman's nipple into the barrel of his gun (in extreme close-up), actually bothers me more than any of the rapes. To quote Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown: Can't you just make your point by hitting her?

Only if she could have been presented as enjoying it. The point of the scene as we have it is to show that the woman found the encounter, erm, titillating. There is an analog at the beginning of Duck, You Sucker, when the bandit, played by Rod Steiger, rapes an aristocratic woman. She ends up enjoying it.

Bottom line, I do not buy that Leone had any interest in women, nor do I think he made any coherent or constructive criticism in the arena of gender politics.

I agree, but I would never think of looking for such a thing in Leone. Instead, quite consistently, we find there an honest depiction of misogyny as practiced by misogynists. I have no way of knowing if this was an aspect of SL's personality or merely a consequence of the subject matter he chose to explore.

But misogyny, in the case at hand, certainly serves the material: the gangster characters therein remain unredeemed and are, certainly, irredeemable. It's good to be reminded, from time to time, that gangsters are not characters we should sympathize with. Whether this "alienation effect" is intentional or not is neither here nor there. I for one appreciate a film that doesn't try to sell me on the idea that gangsters are cool. Of course, spending nearly 4 hours in the company of such characters will not be to everyone's taste.

Jack Phillips wrote:But misogyny, in the case at hand, certainly serves the material: the gangster characters therein remain unredeemed and are, certainly, irredeemable. It's good to be reminded, from time to time, that gangsters are not characters we should sympathize with. Whether this "alienation effect" is intentional or not is neither here nor there.

You make a good point: these characters are not meant to be sympathetic. They are wretched people, and we shouldn't be surprised by their criminal and antisocial behavior. And there's certainly nothing wrong with portraying misogyny as a facet of the characters and the culture or subculture they inhabit. With the right voice, that might even be laudable for the honesty of the approach and the awareness. I think you've answered your own question, however, about what Leone, or Tarantino for that matter, feels about women when you mentioned how the victims enjoy their abuse. This is, of course, an abhorrent fallacy that I don't need to elaborate on.

The Christopher Frayling quote above also points out not only the abuse that is shown, but the excessive and indulgent interest Leone has in it. There are no convincing or dimensional women in his films -- it says a lot that the closest he ever came was the Cardinale character penciled in by Bertolucci for Once Upon a Time in the West. That's setting the bar about as low as possible. The comment about it being a "romantic rape" is spot on. The woman is secondary in this rape, an object or a plot device at best. The fact that the viewer is supposed to watch the repulsive scene, sit back and try to identify with Noodles's character, his motivations and feelings shows an incredible disconnect between Leone and his audience. He is demanding the impossible, and a reasonable viewer may call him out on that and turn the damn movie off.

tartarlamb wrote:the rape is problematic for just the reasons you stated: its significance is entirely owned by the male character.

But Noodles is the main character... Not that Deborah responds or acts in a way that is unbelievable or inconsistent for a woman of that period and mileu.

You know, it's funny but I don't see anyone complaining about the significance of the restaurant hit in The Godfather being owned entirely by Michael Corleone... Why might that be?

tartarlamb wrote:The Christopher Frayling quote above also points out not only the abuse that is shown, but the excessive and indulgent interest Leone has in it.

I think we should recall that this is THE key sequence in a four hour film, everything else leads to / flows from this scene, so it's pretty silly to start complaining that the scene goes on too long (it lasts, what, two or three minutes?).

As for the notion that the scene is 'romantic'... What empirical evidence are you basing this on?

tartarlamb wrote:The fact that the viewer is supposed to watch the repulsive scene, sit back and try to identify with Noodles's character, his motivations and feelings shows an incredible disconnect between Leone and his audience.

Or, alternatively, a lack of empathy on your own part.

Just watched the film today for the first time. For the first 10 minutes I thought I was going to love it. The settings and the use of sound and music. But in the end I didn't. Not only for how it portays women, but I'll get back to that. A lot of scenes just feel too silly to me. Take the two scenes before the rape in the car. First we have a scene where Noodles first rape victim has become a prostitute, and likes it. Noodles and his friends display their penisis, so she can try to identify the rapist. She admiringly recognises Noodles, and suggest some group sex. Ehhh... Say what? Next scene has Noodles inviting his girlfriend to a big fancy restaurant that he has rented all for himself. Everything is in white, she orders food in french, and the balalaika looking orchestra plays the film score so Noodles and girl can have a dance.

These two scenes felt like school boy fantasy to me. Sorry, but this wasn't my cup of tea.

Now about the rape in the car. Does it really just show that Noodles is a creap? I don't think so. See what happens with Noodles and the girl afterwards. He becomes a coward and goes into hiding, she becomes a succesful actress. He becomes old, she stays young. To me it sounds like a variation of the idea that when having sex the men give (sperm) and the women receive. Making the man empty and less powerful. Make this the result of rape and it just becomes nauseating I think. A stupid idea turned worse. Implying the rape wasn't that bad, as she in the end was the winner.

it's all an opium fantasy anyway...

aox wrote:it's all an opium fantasy anyway...

It's funny how this interpretation has actually managed to gain a measure of critical respect, whereas if one suggests, say, that the closing minutes of Taxi Driver represent the protagonist's dying fantasy of fulfillment, people still look on you like you've just suggested Coppola's best film was Jack.

(But, I digress... :-" )

I certainly understand that upset feeling one might feel watching the rape scenes in this film (also the one at the beginning in Duck, You Sucker), and am not completely out of sympathy with the points raised here. For a long time I had an especially harsh reaction to seeing things like this or domestic violence on film, given some personal insight into the latter and because my life has been blessed by having more influential women in it than men.

But with that said, I agree with what RobertB said about the scene in the car. My own interpretation of it was that he was simply trying to emulate what Max had done to the Tuesday Weld character because in his mind maybe the result would end up the same. As it turns out, it doesn't produce the desired effect and he's left on the street (which by the way, is IMHO probably the single best shot in the film from a visual standpoint) maybe seeing that not only his actions didn't work, but in his reserved way being horrified at what he'd done.

As for the gratuity of both rape scenes, it's something even I can't really defend. It could be out of some misplaced sense of sexism or misogyny on Sergio's part, or maybe a statement by him about sex in film. I personally was more horrified during the hospital scenes, specifically when the baby's genitals are shown. Something certainly I wished I could have un-seen.

A really great discussion over at Kenny's blog, following up much of the above.

Blu-Ray coming from Warners January 11th 2011

That's fucking glorious. Now we just need Paramount and MGM to step up with "...in the West" and "Duck You", and the Leone Blu run will be mihnt.

PLEEEEEASE let the film be all on one disc, a la "Doctor Zhivago"! [-o<

Easily on of my top 10 films of all time. Very underrated masterpiece...

Only days away 'til the Blu-Ray release, I just preordered mine... this might be my favorite film of all time, and words can't express how exited I am to finally get to see it in HD.

Must have been his favorite part.

You always complain that these things never capture the essence of the film. Maybe this is Gary's response.

I'm just thanking my lucky stars it's all on one disc. :-"