Misogynistic/sexist/p ro-rape
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Dangerous Liaisons
mattfg — 15 years ago(May 04, 2010 12:38 PM)
The men in this movie are all ugly including John Malkovich. The ladies are pretty and three of them go nude. That is sexist. Furthermore, the guy's fantasties are indulged including raping Uma Thurman as her first sexual experience. Later, she's tricked into believing it's good for her by a woman, and then later served up nude to Malkovich for more. I'm sure there hasn't been a better money shot for misogynists looking for a great moment to masturbate to then seeing Uma Thurman naked in this asking, 'Would he be pleased?' to Malkovich. Thurman's rape is depicted as humorous, not the grotesque manipulation it would be in real life.
Pfeiffer gets tricked and humiliated and made a fool of over and over, then gets dumped and mysteriously becomes ill to the point of death. Why? Well the story is sexist and misogynist, that's why.
In the end, Malkovich dies with a clear conscious, but not before sending the strongest female character, Glenn Close, to smithereens. He gets the last laugh, the most sex and no regrets. Unlike every woman in this movie.
Typical 1980s pro-male, anti-female selfishness. For this, it wins Best Adapted Screenplay. Shameful! -
mattfg — 15 years ago(June 01, 2010 12:45 PM)
The movie was made in the 20th century, the 80s to be specific. They specifically chose to be sexist in its depiction of nudity and manipulation, sparing men all the humiliations the story heaped on its female characters. The tone of this movie was very deliberately sexist and misogynist.
Contrast that to the 1989 film Valmont based on the very same book. That film seemed to give the female characters much more sympathy and dignity and in no way depicted rape as something humorous or the deflowering of a virgin as something sexy. -
Uh_Oh_You_Too — 15 years ago(June 01, 2010 02:12 PM)
I've never seen Valmont. If that movie gave a more sympathetic slant to the women in the novel, as you're saying, then it wasn't a very accurate depiction of 18th century France on the cusp of the French Revolution. Dangerous Liaisons depicted it as a misogynistic world, because it
was
a misogynistic world they lived in. Ugly, but true. Rape was considered a low form of seduction, but was still seduction. High-born women were coveted for their virginity, breeding, and money. Aristocrats were bored, world-weary and could do anything they wanted, with little fear of legal reprecussions. Their money and family names made it easier for them to indulge in their proclivities. Doesn't make it right, it's just the way it was.
I don't get why you're upset about it thoughthere's the darker, more realistic version, and the version that apparently is more palatable to modern sensibilities. -
fidelio1980 — 15 years ago(September 05, 2010 11:02 PM)
I've seen Valmont, and I love it. I find it impossible to choose between Dangerous Liaisons and Valmont - they each have different strengths and flaws.
But, that said, anyone who says that Dangerous Liaisons glorified the rape of a young girl, while Valmont didn't, is either confusing the two movies, or is a troll.
In Valmont, an actual pubescent girl was cast as Cecile, as opposed to Uma Thurman, who was all woman, physically. (Cecile is supposed to be pubescent, so the casting of an actress in her early teens in Valmont made sense.) And when Cecile loses her virginity to Valmont, it's played for laughs. Valmont never asks for her consent, and he basically bullies and blackmails her into not yelling for help.
She enjoys the experience (she says so, explicitly, later), but Valmont pays no attention to whether she's enjoying it or not. And, like I said, the whole thing is played for laughs. Valmont orders her to write a letter while he takes her virginity, and he keeps telling her to focus on the letter and her penmanship, as if he isn't doing anything to her that concerns her. It's funny and horribly disturbing at the same time. Much, much, much more disturbing than the scene in Dangerous Liaisons.
Which is exactly how it's supposed to be. Valmont is simultaneously charming and a monster. If he was played as someone who respects women's boundaries, it would be a pointless adapation of the book, because it would be so far removed from what the book is actually about. -
fuzzybeasty — 15 years ago(October 08, 2010 06:45 AM)
Mattfg if it comes over as sexist or misogynistic it's because it's set in a time and place that was hugely both of these things. I actually prefer Valmont as a film, but I think this complaint is of this film is way out there.
"Typical 1980s pro-male, anti-female selfishness" - typical 18th century attitudes is more the correct phrasing -
hkronin — 14 years ago(September 01, 2011 10:17 AM)
I just saw Schindler's List, and was horrified. It was a movie about anti-semitism, murder, and violence. It was horrible.
I much prefer the TV series Hogan's Heroes. While it covered the same material it did so in a much more pleasant way. -
furienna — 11 years ago(January 27, 2015 10:58 PM)
I have to admit that I largely agree with the OP on this one. There are many things to like about this movie. The actors were great, and it
looked
great. But I so hate the story! Yeah, I guess that we're
supposed
to be disgusted by these selfish perverts, who will destroy other people's lives just out of their boredom. But still, yuck I will never understand how Cecile could be seduced by Valmost, or how Danceny could be seduced by the Marquise de Merteuil!
Intelligence and purity.
