web
counter
 

Can You Use Kidnapping, Rape, And Torture To Make A Statement? The Trailer For Lucky McKee's The Woman

By TK | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (39)



the_woman_movie_image_05.jpg

Earlier today, I received an email from Dustin with a link to the trailer for Lucky McKee’s The Woman, with a message that simply said, “I’m not touching it. Not fucking touching it. But if you want to, have at it.” Never one to back down from a challenge, I watched it, and while it’s not the horrible monstrosity I was expecting, it’s still pretty unpleasant.

Dustin’s made his thoughts on the film pretty clear here and here. It’s unlikely that I’ll see The Woman — Dustin’s lurid description of the film, wherein a suburban father finds a wild, feral woman in the woods, kidnaps her and attempts to “civilize” her through repeated torture and rape, in the midst of casually abusing his wife and family, is more than enough to keep me away. Not necessarily because it’s a bad movie, though he clearly felt that way (but God knows we disagree often enough), but because onscreen rape and sexual violence for pretty much any reason, are triggers for me, and I simply lack the fortitude to sit through the scenes. I’ve seen Irreversible, and I’m simply not going back. That’s just me. Perhaps it’s a weakness as a critic and a writer, and if that’s the case then it’s a weakness I shan’t apologize for.

As for McKee’s film, it’s probably an interesting case study. From what I can tell, it’s a bit satirical, and some of the dialogue seems gruesomely tongue-in-cheek. Some have called it empowering, some have called it grossly misogynistic, some have called it biting satire or a piercing examination of gender inequalities. All I know is that whatever statement McKee is trying to make, it can often get lost amidst the overwhelming torture-porniness of it. And frankly, I simply can’t work within that sensibility. I can understand using human baseness and viciousness as a narrative tool, but films like The Woman and I Spit On Your Grave take far too much time focusing on the act itself, on vulgar and intense concentration on the suffering and pain and horror of the actual occurring, than on the ramifications of it. And to simply turn it into a revenge flick and call it a day doesn’t justify the time spent filming a helpless human suffering. For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about Hostel and other torture films. It’s suffering without purpose, and I simply can’t get behind that.

Anyway, that was a long and indignantly self-righteous introduction, for which I do apologize. I normally would have turned Dustin down on this one, but unlike I Spit On Your Grave, McKee and his films have some thoughtful, well-reasoned defenders, and as such it seems like it’s worth posting if for no reason other than to spark a conversation.

So here’s the trailer. Watch it, and feel free to post your thoughts below. I’m quite curious.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Wherein Two Of My Favorite, Lesser-Known Characters Approach Redemption: New Ghost Rider & Judge Dredd Images | Can Kevin Smith Host A Daily TV SMalk Show?









Comments

To me, it's the same as Mel Gibson claiming that The Passion was about Jesus. No, it wasn't, Mel. It was about watching some poor guy get tortured and bloodied for two and a half hours, and it was about making people feel sick to their stomachs. If that's what you want to do, then fine, whatever. But don't try to tell me it's something it isn't, because I'm not buying that shit.

Posted by: Figgy at July 27, 2011 12:33 AM

Aww...but it seems like they make with the funny so that the rapey-rape is less not ok, right?

In all seriousness, after reading the review for this film I remember being filled with a sense of absolute disgust and speechless disbelief. Not only did this flaming pile get made, but the actresses in the film actually defended the director and apparently, the film's content. And while the topic of censorship was broached, I know my limits to what I can be ok with and what I want to punch repeatedly.

Even though I am a huuuge fan of the revenge genre, I stay away from films that use rape and/or torture of a sexual nature, because I just...can't. As much as I loved Girl With the Dragon Tatoo, I had to physically leave the room during her rape scene, because the graphic nature was too fucking much for me not to cry or scream or punch the tv til it flew out of the window. These feelings are always dismissed by "Ugh it's just a film! Just chill!" but I simply can not fathom sitting through a graphic reproduction of that particular form of violence, because the comeuppance never seems to be a sliver of the pain caused by the initial catalyst.

I will admit to a gender bias, as I do so love to see them asshole mens get the shit kicked out of them, but again no with the rape and no with mutilation of the genitalia. And I'm not saying I want some kind of censorship, but I'd be lying if I said that reproducing behavior of that nature doesn't scare the fucking piss out of me.

Posted by: beet salad at July 27, 2011 12:54 AM

Made it to about :45 mark before I said "Fuck this!"

Posted by: Fredo at July 27, 2011 1:19 AM

So, unlike the comments so far, I'll give the movie a shot so far AND REVIEW IT ON SEEING IT, since this is Lucky McKee and Angela Bettis. So far they've steered me pretty right, so they've earned some trust.

"In all seriousness, after reading the review for this film I remember being filled with a sense of absolute disgust and speechless disbelief. Not only did this flaming pile get made, but the actresses in the film actually defended the director and apparently, the film's content."

So condemning a movie you've never seen based simply on a review. OK then.

Posted by: Joseph Finn at July 27, 2011 1:20 AM

This movie has been available online for months. SO I think people should at least illegally download it, watch it, and then condemn it.

Actually, I can sort of see the value in the movie, even if many scenes made me ill. The mental aspects are worse then the physical. And the physical is pretty bad. The movie makes you feel icky. Which was it's intent.

Posted by: Sean at July 27, 2011 1:39 AM

It's a surprisingly upbeat trailer for a movie that has rape in it.
I never would have guessed that there's rape in it from the trailer and even if I had no idea that there was rape in it, it looks like a shitty movie.

Posted by: Faye at July 27, 2011 3:03 AM

TK, that was a very intelligent and measured analysis of the objections that many people have to this film. I know, I'm surprised as well! (Are you sober? Is that it?)

Posted by: Uriah Creep at July 27, 2011 4:04 AM

I'm with you on Irréversible. I was angry for weeks after that one. (Also because I thought the director told the story very very wrong).

But I agree with Faye, this is a surprisingly upbeat trailer for a rape movie. And it looks like a pretty bad B movie.

Posted by: Magiel at July 27, 2011 5:11 AM

Using violance against women to sell films has become the latest marketing trick. I couldn't get through GWTDT because of the rape scene.

I wonder if men who defend this film would have the same opinion if a man was raped and tortured.

Posted by: sage at July 27, 2011 5:32 AM

I'm seeing this film next week as part of a film festival. Not sure what to expect, really. The balancing act between the violence and the point of it is a delicate one. But I do think it's ridiculous to decide a film sucks based on what you've heard is in it, because there's every possibility that they find the right balance, or shoot it in a non-glorifying way, or many other things that would make the film a lot less worth demonising.

To me, something like Martyrs completely ruined a great, violent-as-fuck revenge film by getting ridiculously torture porny for the last third. But on the other hand, I can reel off a dozen films which feature rape or pedophilia and achieve greater results with that content. Hell, Antichrist featured perhaps the single most deliberately confrontational sexual violence, and it's great.

PS. I don't mean to say "you should watch it". If it's not for you, don't. I have no plans to see A Serbian Film to determine if it has artistic merit. But I won't tell you with certainty that it doesn't, either.

Posted by: Steve at July 27, 2011 5:55 AM

sounds like the kind of movie I'm going to watch at home, with the fast forward button at the ready. I skipped parts of Shawshank and Deliverence, too...

Posted by: Leroy Grey at July 27, 2011 6:22 AM

Joseph:

Clearly you didn't bother to read what I said, but that doesn't surprise me since you seem to be a fan of Lucky McKee.

The synopsis of any film depicting "civilizing" someone "through torture and rape," where a "husband also casually beats his wife (for laughs)," and contains a "scene where the woman is power washed. Power washed" is not anything I want to see depicted, or reenacted for the supposed "entertainment," of people who get off on torture porn. I understand my limitations well enough to AVOID watching someone get raped and tortured repeatedly. But what sold me was that Dustin fucking hit it when he said "I just don’t understand why the need to depict brutal, agonizing misogyny to make a point about misogyny, especially when that point is largely missed by most of the people who would watch such a movie," because I related entirely, and respected him for including that.

And frankly, I've been reading his reviews for long enough to fucking know that I respect his judgment even if I disagree with him.

I refuse to apologize for avoiding cinema that fills me full of stabby anger.

Posted by: beet salad at July 27, 2011 7:10 AM

This reminds me of "Deadgirl," one of the most disgusting and disturbing pieces of shit that masqueraded itself at "film."

Posted by: Brent at July 27, 2011 7:10 AM

I find it interesting that Dustin Rowles has no problem objectifying Mila Kunis and drooling over her side boob like a mentally arrested thirteen-year-old, and that half of Pajiba's lists are lists full of photos where readers (and, presumably, Dustin) can ogle, drool over, and probably fap to scantily clad hot chicks, yet he doesn't want to touch Lucky McKee.

Posted by: God When He's Drunk at July 27, 2011 7:19 AM

God When He's Drunk: if you don't understand the difference between looking at pictures of attractive women and talking about them, and watching a film where a woman is raped and tortured, then you've got a serious problem.

Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at July 27, 2011 7:42 AM

As Brent stated, this trailer also reminded me of Deadgirl (although I don't share Brent's hate of the film) but I was also reminded of Ketchum's The Girl Next Door. Seems like he is treading similar waters with this one.

Posted by: Rob at July 27, 2011 8:55 AM

i thought the purpose behind movies like these is to show us how disgusting the world can be and what we should or should not be doing when it comes to navigating through it.

That being said, a movie has to make enough sense to sell its message to the audience.

Dragon Tatoo did that brilliantly. i don't know what to say about this seeing as how even the trailer is not taking the movie seriously.

and if the upbeat tune is suppose to go with a movie where the husband also casually beats his wife (for laughs) then I'd be pissed.

Maybe the movie is about an emotionally abused wife who was afraid to go against her sadistic husband all this time and she finally exacts her revenge by releasing the wild woman ala 28 Days Later? No?

Posted by: haplo at July 27, 2011 9:00 AM

It's all part of the same culture of rape, Other Agent Johnson. Objectification leads to impersonalization leads to dehumanization leads to rape. The only difference between me and you, OAJ, is that I'm not blinkered about it. But enjoy your side boob and your position of privilege in the patriarchy, and have fun contributing to the dehumanization and rape of women.

Posted by: God When He's Drunk at July 27, 2011 9:45 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I trust Lucky McKee. The man has made a career out of creating well-rounded female characters in dark comedy/horror films. He is praised to the heavens by his cast and crew on a regular basis. He was forced to walk away from a studio thriller because he refused to compromise his vision for a very tricky film. And now people who never saw a McKee film before (I'm not saying that's you or Dustin, I'm talking about the nutjobs at Sundance who decried it in an instant and labeled McKee a torture porn director without knowing who he was) are calling him a sadistic asshole.

I don't get how anyone can dismiss a director's entire career because they heard something bad about one film. I don't understand how people think they're experts on a writer/director after learning about one controversial picture and I don't understand people who think any film they don't like with violence is torture porn. If you really think there are people out there getting off to violence onscreen, you have issues. What else do you mean when you say a film is "torture porn?" It might be common shorthand, but that doesn't mean it's accurate or appropriate.

Posted by: Robert at July 27, 2011 9:58 AM

And to beet salad: clearly you haven't seen any of Lucky McKee's films. If you think he's just a sicko using rape to sell tickets, you're clueless. Watch May and get back to me on whether or not the man is a sadistic jerk who hates women and has a fanbase of blind idiots who feel the same.

Posted by: Robert at July 27, 2011 10:01 AM

"I wonder if men who defend this film would have the same opinion if a man was raped and tortured."

not that i'm defending THIS film, as i haven't seen it, but i personally would give that statement a "yes".

The Prince of Tides, Mysterious Skin, Deliverance: all movies with depicted rape of a male character, made no less horrible because it happened to a male. (see also: HBO's Oz)

the gender of the victim (while usually female) doesn't make a horrific act more or less traumatic.

while THIS movie just looks dumb (a feral woman with gorgeous betty page bangs?), i stand by my rather-frowned-upon opinion that the I Spit remake actually showed some restraint in the portrayal of what jennifer went through.

i'm not suggesting that The Woman isn't capitalizing on shock, gore, whatever. that may very well be the sole intent.

but while rape is both a touchy subject and a terrible thing, i can't honestly say that it never needs to be addressed or even depicted.

Posted by: gp at July 27, 2011 10:24 AM

If you really think there are people out there getting off to violence onscreen, you have issues.

There ARE, though. With any onscreen depiction of rape there will be guys who get off on it, and people who say that the only purpose of it is to get those guys off. I don't happen to agree with the latter group; I think some depictions of rape are genuinely meant to show the woman's suffering in a way that is supposed to be unappealing to the audience, and to portray rape as something that should not happen. But there will always be some guy who likes it.

(And I'm not venturing an opinion on this particular movie, having not seen it.)

Posted by: Todd at July 27, 2011 10:42 AM

Aaaaaaaaaand here we go 'round again. Same subject, different movie presenting it.

I get that this is just a movie and therefore an illusion. But part of the side effect of a movie is the audience empathizing with both the characters and events depicted. Sometimes it isn't necessarily good filmmaking so much as it's a subject matter that already hits a raw nerve to begin with. And in this forum, due to past movies already covering this subject, that nerve has been hit more often than Dustin Hoffman's in The Marathon Man.

I believe the purpose of a movie's trailer is to entice someone to watch more. But it also has a function to show a sample of what you're going to be in for. I'll accept the possibility this movie (or any other movie) might have qualities that the trailer fails to show. But I also feel if the trailer makes one uncomfortable to the point you ask "Do I want to feel like this for two hours...and possibly long after?" you should considering avoiding it if the answer is "No". I watch movies to be entertained and to be honest I don't find entertainment potential here. Hence why I will be passing on this film.

Posted by: bleujayone at July 27, 2011 10:44 AM

I'm with the other "Rob/erts" here, Lucky McKee has made some excellent films in the past, especially May and his "Masters of Horror" contribution Sick Girl. But, no, he doesn't have the slickest style and he does tend to force his audience to watch the horrific parts just as closely as the non-. And, no, this doesn't look exactly like Deadgirl which was the worst movie I've ever seen (technically, it's a well-made film, it just has no other redeeming values whatsoever) -- it's worse than Garbage Pale Kids, you guys. I highly doubt McKee would go that route. But I may steer clear from this anyway, just because like you, TK, I was also ruined by Irreversible and the torture porn craze.

In any case, I'll gladly volunteer for future Lucky McKee news. Just sayin'!

Posted by: RobP at July 27, 2011 10:45 AM

I think there's a HUGE difference between opting not to see a film based on reviews, and opting not so see a film graphically depicting rape and torture based on reviews which discuss the films graphic depiction of rape and torture.

I had an EPIC Pajibafight with uuuuuuurbody up in here once. I was annoyed everyone was deciding not to see a film based on review, a film I found to be flawed but watchable.

HOW EVER, I do bend and break my own rule with films like this. If someone knows their limits, knows what they can stand and can not, regardless of what political point the film may or may not be making, condemning them for not watching a film that will make them uncomfortable is bull shit. Yes, it annoys the piss out of me when a film is dismissed based on reviews, like, how bad can say, Green Lantern REALLY be? Most people could probably allow them selves to enjoy it, even knowing it has flaws, right?

But most people WILL NOT FIND THE ENJOYABLE. They'll find it sickening, troubling, even for a few, triggering. SO...yeah, if she doesn't want to watch what sounds like a fucked up pile of perversion masquerading as 'meaningful' then she can do what she likes.

Also, just about the actress defending her own film? Doesn't mean the film is okay. It means she wants to get paid. Simples.

Posted by: Nadine at July 27, 2011 11:07 AM

gp, you're very right, rape as a subject does need to be addressed and ocassionally portrayed. But not like this.
I guess that's the core of my whole argument right there, not in this way.

There are ways to show rape scenes that depict the brutality and awfulness of it without resorting to shit like this. SPOILER(maybe? It finished like, ages ago) when Melfi was attacked it was hard to watch but a well depicted rape scene. Stranger rapes are rare stastistics blah yes BUT the fact was it was short, dirty, awful, brutal, dehumanising. It was over in seconds and was sickening. This? Is crap for the perv crowd.

Posted by: Nadine at July 27, 2011 11:13 AM

Am I to understand this whole kerfuffle is over a production that no one here has seen in its entirety?
Have you people lost your minds? Has anyone at least read the script? Have somebody see the thing and present an honest to goodness review, this is not fair, at all.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 27, 2011 11:35 AM

Well I don't know about you guys, but there are just some things I won't even give a half a chance to. If I'm iffy on a movie, I'll read reviews by people I trust. If the reviews are generally horrible, or if the very subject bothers me, I just won't see it. And don't tell me you don't make snap judgments like that either, because that'll just be bullshit. Did you read the reviews for Zookeeper and still decided to watch it, just to give it a fair chance? I knew from the trailer, from the subject matter, from everything I heard about it before had, that it would be a shitty movie that I'd never, ever bother watching. Same with Saw, same with whatever the hell you want. Same here.

And that's not even getting into the idea that watching this (even without paying for it) would just encourage more movies like this to be made, and I don't want to do that. Watching some things just makes you feel dirty. And if that's unfair to the director or whatever, I don't give a damn.

Posted by: Figgy at July 27, 2011 12:31 PM

I find it disturbing that rape/sexual violence against women is being held up as some unwatchable taboo. No problem with violence (particularly the violence in genre films), but rather with the specific sexual violence? This seems inconsistent and suggests that... the argument about how we got here/where we are in media depiction of women is not really being understood or inculcated in a broader way. So the overt discussion of objectification/ dehumanization otherness and their role in perpetuating violence and subjugation... doesn't seem to have much impact on the broader discussion. Except that people would rather not see this cycle depicted? Or, if depicted, it must be done in a way that removes all of the sexuality/ambiguity of the behavior? Rape an attractive middle aged doctor in a car park (? right) quickly but not a beautiful young woman in a tunnel (agonizingly slowly). This is the new set of rules that sensitivity begets?

Posted by: hattie at July 27, 2011 1:00 PM

Actually, I neglected to say that I read why...Irreversible dude, name escapes me...well any way, okay, back story; For my third year dissertation, I studied this phenomena, the depiction of rape in the media and how depiction can skew perception. I shot two rape scenes myself using actors, the idea being to portray a blackout/date rape against a rape at knife point and point out that both are rape but people don't always percieve date rape to be.

Any way, when filming the scenes I made the creative choice to shoot them from one single angle so as to briefly but fully capture the brutality of what was happening.

Noe!Noe said that with his rape scene in Irrversible, he filmed it as one long unbroken shot to avoid the rape scene looking like a sex scene, with lots of cuts to different angles etc.

I actually did believe that to be true and while Irreversible is a film I have seen once and will gladly never watch again, I was surprised to see he'd had the same intention I had when shooting his scene(I'd intentionally stayed away from researching too much so as not to be too influenced come shooting) and to me, it came across, it was brutal and unrelenting but incredibly real and graphic. I personally put it up alongside Melfie's rape as being a true and graphical representation of rape. It's length mad it hard to bare, yes, but Noe was trying to convey what it would be like for the woman. He didn't put the viewer in the cheering crowd like in The Accused(which prompted more than a few male audience members to cheer and jeer with the on screen rapists and audience) he put them right in front of her, watching her eyes, her shame, pain, heartbreak, etc. It's hard to watch and some will argue too long but you don't get to fastforward through a real assault so...

So I think what I'm saying is...yes, rape can and should be conveyed on screen to educate, inform, etc. How ever, this is a film that mixes gratuitous rape with torture and black comedy. It isn't a serious comment on rape culture, it's a black comedy horror centering around the rape of a vulnerable young woman. Melfi's assault and the scene in Irreversible where so true to life as to be discomfiting, hard to see and for many maybe even impossible to watch, but agonisingly realistic. This? This will just be needless and gratuitous and awful.

Posted by: Nadine at July 27, 2011 1:14 PM

"Am I to understand this whole kerfuffle is over a production that no one here has seen in its entirety?"

It is online. Has been for months. I am sure lots of people have seen it by now. I do think that people should watch the thing. It does have some merit. But as I said, it just wasn't something pleasant to watch. The rape scenes actually bugged me far less than other parts.

Posted by: Sean at July 27, 2011 2:57 PM

"If you really think there are people out there getting off to violence onscreen...".
Back when the original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was released, I read a review by a writer who saw it in a bad neighborhood in a big city (might have been Times Square, not positive). He wrote that people were cheering for the rapists, shouting things like "Give it to that bitch!".
He also suspected that this particlar audience may had have a good share of real-life rapists and murderers.

Posted by: Pat C. at July 27, 2011 6:02 PM

Eh, needs more pooper.

Posted by: Salad_Is_Murder at July 27, 2011 8:56 PM

Can someone help me out? I have no idea what "power washing" is in this context. I asked the Urban Dictionary, but there were several different definitions so I'm still confused.

Posted by: Amanda6 at July 27, 2011 9:12 PM

Can you watch a film before you judge it solely from it's trailer? No?That's why no one will trust you as a serious journalist or film reviewer, TK.

Posted by: Brad at July 27, 2011 10:45 PM

"Clearly you didn't bother to read what I said, but that doesn't surprise me since you seem to be a fan of Lucky McKee."

Beet Salad, what exactly "doesn't surprise [you]" about Lucky McKee fans? Several people here are fans of Lucky McKee. This does not make us mentally defective or morally bankrupt; his past works are all very well done and generally well-received critically. It also does not mean that we are all going to march in formation to see The Woman and proclaim it the Best Thing Ever. I, for one, am uncomfortable with the subject matter and will not be seeing this film. That doesn't invalidate his entire body of work.

Posted by: Craig at July 28, 2011 2:34 AM

I saw it in its entirety and I don't think it has much merit other than convicing performances. It's absolute BS that this is anything other than an exploitation film. It's not going to open up any dialogue around rape and abuse (as the director suggested it does). I adored May, but this movie was just brutality for brutality's sake. And the director himself doesn't seem to even know what he wanted to make - listening to him talk he couldn't seem to decide if it was straight horror, or some grand sociological analysis. If it's the former, then fine - then admit that you made an exploitation film, I watch lots of those and I can deal with that. But don't try and masquerade it as something else to justify the abuse.

Posted by: Gillian at August 3, 2011 10:50 AM

And can i just add that the woman who plays the teacher is one of the worst actresses I've seen in a while? Not to mention the major plot wholes that no teacher goes to someone's parents on a 'hunch' like she does. And where did the feral woman get her bangs done so nicely in the wild?

Posted by: Gillian at August 3, 2011 10:53 AM

Powerwashing means using an actual power washer - it was horrible.

I also had the unfortunate experience of hearing someone cheer at the showing when the husband beats the shit out of his wife...very unpleasant.

Posted by: Gillian at August 3, 2011 12:10 PM