Last Tango in Paris rape scene not simulated, says director

[Bad Ambassador]

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/last-tango-in-paris-rape-scene-consensual-bernardo-bertolucci-1201933117/

You know how Johnny Depp always tries to emulate Brando...

[thraxx]

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/last-tango-in-paris-rape-scene-consensual-bernardo-bertolucci-1201933117/

You know how Johnny Depp always tries to emulate Brando...

You know, when you've been Tangoed...

[Monsieur Verdoux]

The article doesn't say that the act wasn't simulated but merely that they didn't ask her permission to stage the scene beforehand, leading to her feeling exploited and betrayed. Saying it was 'not simulated' suggests that a penetrative sex act was performed without her consent, which is absolutely not what happened.

Edit: Ah, fuck. I've just realised that he stuck his fingers up her arse didn't he? That's definitely crossing a line.

[Dex Sawash]

What happened with the butter?

[Mr Eggs]

What happened with the butter?

Unsalted or salted?

[up_the_hampipe]

Good lord. Can there be charges pressed against the director for that? Although I'm sure he would be able to wriggle out of it with some sort of legal loophole mumbo jumbo.

[Noodle Lizard]

The article doesn't say that the act wasn't simulated but merely that they didn't ask her permission to stage the scene beforehand, leading to her feeling exploited and betrayed. Saying it was 'not simulated' suggests that a penetrative sex act was performed without her consent, which is absolutely not what happened.

Edit: Ah, fuck. I've just realised that he stuck his fingers up her arse didn't he? That's definitely crossing a line.

To go even further, they did tell her the day of, it just wasn't in the script and she didn't refuse (according to her, because she didn't know she should've called her agent).  Very important omission almost every outlet seems to be happy with.  The scene is still simulated, as well.

[Dex Sawash]

Unsalted or salted?

before or after?

[Mr Eggs]

before or after?

Bake off Sponge Finger challenge on C4

[Monsieur Verdoux]

To go even further, they did tell her the day of, it just wasn't in the script and she didn't refuse (according to her, because she didn't know she should've called her agent).  Very important omission almost every outlet seems to be happy with.  The scene is still simulated, as well.

Yes, I've read that somewhere too. This is really old news, and the controversy about it has gone round in circles ever since Schneider first spoke of how she thinks the film ruined her life. Bertolucci has not just admitted any new details about how the scene came about, 'the newly emerged footage' (which I first saw over a month before this story was warmed over) shows him telling the same version of events he's given countless times before in the 44 years since the film was made. Yes, Schneider is justified in feeling exploited if she wasn't comfortable with what she was doing, but it feels like the press is trying to make more out of this than is there. It was consensual and it was simulated but she didn't feel that she could speak up, which is a problem in itself which should be addressed as it is.

[Glebe]

Just discovered this via Facebook. I've never actually seen LTIP, but of course 'that' scene is pretty notorious. Pretty awful way to treat someone, I imagine the likes of Hitchcock and Peckinpah got away with murder back in less enlightened times.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

The full article from 2007 with Maria Schneider's thoughts on the matter is here at the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-469646/I-felt-raped-Brando.html

If you don't want to click on a Mail link, here's her statement.

"That scene wasn't in the original script. The truth is it was Marlon who came up with the idea," she says.
"They only told me about it before we had to film the scene and I was so angry.
"I should have called my agent or had my lawyer come to the set because you can't force someone to do something that isn't in the script, but at the time, I didn't know that.
"Marlon said to me: 'Maria, don't worry, it's just a movie,' but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn't real, I was crying real tears.
"I felt humiliated and to be honest, I felt a little raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci. After the scene, Marlon didn't console me or apologise. Thankfully, there was just one take."

[garbed_attic]

Without making light of the grim situation (cause obviously I think comedy shows/ comics often contain salient points well expressed!) the division between two ways of thinking about rape is expressed here between Owl and Megg:



There has been a shift in the definition of rape in the last 10 years - the problem is that it is not universal in either the public imagination or - indeed - state and national law. So, for instance, while the majority of headlines referred to, say, Brock Turner or Owen Labrie as rapists, under their respective state laws they were prosecuted for rape. With regards to Turner, Californian state law defines rape as penetration by the penis. Labrie was charged for 'luring a minor for the purposes of sex by computer'.

The question is - are these legal technicalities of any moral or, indeed, semantic importance?

Would Turner be any more substantially evil if he has raped Jane Doe with his penis rather than his fingers? Would Labrie be any more of a rapist had he used force rather than the coercive power of his age and experience over an underage girl?

Under the FBI's progressive changing to their definition of rape the answer is categorically no. The FBI define rape as any kind of penetrative sex without consent. This is the definition that most people on the left of centre would also agree with, I believe.

To get back to Last Tango in Paris, we don't know whether there was penetration or not. Is Monsieur Verdoux correct in saying that Brando actually penetrated Schneider with his finger(s)? I think for many people posting about this on Twitter the fact that Schneider felt raped is enough. Morally tbh I think it's enough... though it likely wouldn't be legally. It's certainly enough to label Bertolucci a loathsome creep, but I already had little doubt about that.

Really, in this case, I'd like there to be a shift in conversation not just about sexual assault, but in the way abuse by directors is justified by the "artistic genius" label. I think the emotional abuse Von Trier submitted Bjork to is just as worthy of condemnation as Bertolucci's actions, though we may not regard them as being so morally heinous.

I think we often stand back in awe and let the directors in question define the terms of discourse. I genuinely believe Herzog is a genius, but it also troubles and pisses me off that his representation of people who took issue with his treatment of the Aguaruna people during the filming of Fitzcarraldo (building on tribal land; hiring the services of a local militia; a lot of unpaid, extremely dangerous labour - there were a lot of serious injuries of cast and crew, including locals) as "doctrinaire left-wing ideologues" is just accepted because who the Hell would have the guts to challenge Herzog on this.

So the (already well known) revelations about Last Tango are appalling, but it would be a mistake to consider the abuse of actors by a director as an isolated incident, even though the fact that the abuse was sexual is leading people to do that. At the very least it would be good to see the conversation opened up to include the also still living Jodorowsky, who wrote in his book about the making of El Topo:

Yes, the first woman, the blond, came to my home one day. She was in bad shape. At one time in her life she had taken LSD in great quantities, and had suffered. She had been in a hospital for mental illness. I said, "I will make a film with you. You will have the starring role." And she believed me. She didn't know who I was. And I didn't know her name...One day she said, "My name is Mara." After we filmed the movie, she left. I don't know where she is [...]

When I wanted to do the rape scene, I explained to [Mara Lorenzio] that I was going to hit her and rape her. There was no emotional relationship between us, because I had put a clause in all the women's contracts stating that they would not make love with the director. We had never talked to each other. I knew nothing about her. We went to the desert with two other people: the photographer and a technician. No one else. I said, 'I'm not going to rehearse. There will be only one take because it will be impossible to repeat. Roll the cameras only when I signal you to.' Then I told her, 'Pain does not hurt. Hit me.' And she hit me. I said, 'Harder.' And she started to hit me very hard, hard enough to break a rib...I ached for a week. After she had hit me long enough and hard enough to tire her, I said, 'Now it's my turn. Roll the cameras.' And I really...I really...I really raped her. And she screamed.

[Shit Good Nose]

I've never actually seen LTIP, but of course 'that' scene is pretty notorious.

Remove that scene (which is actually fairly important to the story as a whole) and you're left with a very very mediocre Euro-drama.  It's a bit like Michael Winterbottom's Nine Songs - watching Gruey have real sex with a girl.  But it's a really bad film. 

...LTIP isn't as bad as Nine Songs, but the principle is similar.

[greenman]

Seems more like very unprofessional coercion than "rape" to me.

[Noodle Lizard]

Seems more like very unprofessional coercion than "rape" to me.

Aye, it's nothing out of the ordinary really, withholding information until the last minute is actually a pretty common technique in directing actors to get genuine reactions[nb]In this one, the rape scene was in the script, the only detail they withheld was using butter as lubricant http://deadline.com/2016/12/bernardo-bertolucci-marlon-brando-maria-schneider-rape-scene-backlash-ridiculous-misunderstanding-1201864551/[/nb].  I imagine this one's seen as more dodgy because: 1) Sex involved, rape scene 2) Schneider said the film destroyed her life (but more because of the subsequent fame).  Why it's suddenly become a big news story after someone dug up a three year old interview where he talks about stuff he's talked about since the movie's release is beyond me.

[Glebe]

Bernardo Bertolucci Responds to 'Last Tango in Paris' Backlash Over Rape Scene.

Still sounds a bit dodgy.

[kidsick5000]

Just discovered this via Facebook. I've never actually seen LTIP, but of course 'that' scene is pretty notorious.

For years it was a joke like it was some fun sex thing. And it happily existed as such because in the 20+ years since it was made to the time i saw it on TV (bbc2 or channel 4) in the 90s, it can't have been shown terrestrially more than 5 times. ie nobody had seen it, all anyone knew was the butter scene.

So when I did see it, it was shocking that "that" had been made a joke of for so many years.

[thenoise]

Why it's suddenly become a big news story after someone dug up a three year old interview where he talks about stuff he's talked about since the movie's release is beyond me.

Because it fits in with the currently fashionable narrative of 'rape culture', I presume.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Withholding information is fine but when the information is 'buggering you with butter' that basically isn't fine.

I accept that there was some knowledge of what the scene could entail but when you look at the shot there was no need to actually do it.

What they were basically saying was they couldn't get her to act it well enough so did it for real cos of convenience and power. That's not fine.

[Bad Ambassador]

Because it fits in with the currently fashionable narrative of 'rape culture', I presume.

By 'currently fashionable', I assume you mean 'now acknowledged as something that exists, rather than being dismissed as stupid women crying rape after sex they regret or sleeping with someone to get ahead and definately not being pressured into it'.

Yours is a lot snappier, I'll admit.

[thenoise]

By 'currently fashionable', I assume you mean 'now acknowledged as something that exists, rather than being dismissed as stupid women crying rape after sex they regret or sleeping with someone to get ahead and definately not being pressured into it'.

Yours is a lot snappier, I'll admit.

I think that an issue can be very important and still be treated in a hysterical and overblown way by certain sections of the media.  The Paedogedon of the late nineties, for example.

[thenoise]

My understanding was that she was coerced into doing an uncomfortable, simulated scene which she had not prepared herself for, that she found upsetting and later regretted agreeing to.  If Brando 'did it for real', then he deserves to be in prison.  Is that what is being suggested?  I got a bit confused, and I don't think I'm the only one.

[Feta Yeldman]

imagine trying to defend this incident

[Noodle Lizard]

Withholding information is fine but when the information is 'buggering you with butter' that basically isn't fine.

I accept that there was some knowledge of what the scene could entail but when you look at the shot there was no need to actually do it.

What they were basically saying was they couldn't get her to act it well enough so did it for real cos of convenience and power. That's not fine.

They didn't exactly "withhold information", they told her on the day, before shooting.  It'd be pretty hard to completely spring it on her, surely she'd go "hang on what the fuck are you doing?" and ruin the take if she wasn't expecting it.  Watch the scene, it's clear she knows what's going to happen.

When Bertolucci says he did it "for the genuine reaction", he clearly means that he knew it would be an unpleasant experience and didn't want to give her too much time to prepare with rehearsals etc. lest he not get that reaction.  That's presumably partly why they did it in one take as well.

So that's my take on it.  Ethically dodgy directing, yes, but not criminal.  Kubrick arguably did far worse things to his actors to get the right reaction, to the point where at least two of them suffered breakdowns, it just didn't involve sexual scenes in those cases so instead it's "genius" rather than "rapist".  Whether it's justifiable to mistreat actors in order to make the scene better is a good question, and I'm conflicted on that matter.

[Steven]

Whether it's justifiable to mistreat actors in order to make the scene better is a good question, and I'm conflicted on that matter.

Speaking of basting actors.

[weekender]

Whether it's justifiable to mistreat actors in order to make the scene better is a good question, and I'm conflicted on that matter.

It's a political hot potato.

[garbed_attic]

So that's my take on it.  Ethically dodgy directing, yes, but not criminal.  Kubrick arguably did far worse things to his actors to get the right reaction, to the point where at least two of them suffered breakdowns, it just didn't involve sexual scenes in those cases so instead it's "genius" rather than "rapist".

That's because there's a massively chasm between sexual abuse and other kinds of abuse. Whether there should be, I don't know, but there is. Perhaps emotional and physical abuse can never be quite as violating. Maybe it's because for most people sexual abuse crosses some kind of fundamental human limit. IDK.

Interestingly, the only person on my Twitter who is very dismissive of the incident is Joyce Carol Oates, which surprised me since she's generally seen as a feminist writer. That said, the fictional incidents of rape in all her books that I've read involve force rather than coercion so she might have quite an old-fashioned internal definition.

[garbed_attic]

Personally I think there's moderately too much emphasis on whether Brando was a rapist or not and whether rape requires penetration. Vital in a legal context, but since the man is dead it's a little odd. It's like people's math is either "What he did was rape so Brando was a rapist and thus his legacy is irrevocably tainted and should be culturally dismissed" or "What he did was sexually violating and inappropriate but technically not rape so he is a human being whose works should continue to be respected".

As far as I understand it, there was no penetration but it was still colossally fucked up and led to the actress in question feeling "a little raped" and had a long-term traumatic effect on her. Why can't people just honor Schneider own account and phrasing esp. as it seems to reflect the legal reality anyway>

[Noodle Lizard]

Well, she credits her subsequent troubles to the fame and attention she received afterwards, so it's not entirely because of this (she seemingly didn't even make mention of it until pushed by the Daily Mail).  I dunno, without being there it's pretty hard to say whether it was pure coercion or not, but she did agree to it and knew what was happening, which is not what people are making it sound like (and, again, simulated).  Whether or not she retroactively regretted agreeing to it is another story, the broad definition of "rape" yet another.

I think worse examples might be Sharon Stone and (believe it or not) Robert Webb and Olivia Coleman, both of whom had graphic nudity included in films when they were apparently told it wouldn't be shown on screen.  If true, there's no defending that[nb]regardless of my opinions on whether or nudity should be cause for shame in a perfect society[/nb].