Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Friday, October 02, 2015
'A Sweet Little Story' About Rape and Revenge
As I have observed here several times, my mother was a fan of Alfred Hitchcock's work, and it was through her that I was introduced to many of his movies; they remain among my favorites today as do Hitchcock movies I discovered on my own. That's the thing about awakening someone's interest in something. Once that genie is out of the bottle, you can't control it.
I also discovered the Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV series, which made its debut on this date in 1955, through her — which is rather odd, I suppose, since, as I have also mentioned here before, my family didn't have a TV until I was in elementary school — and that was many years after this date in 1955!
And it was actually several years after we got our first TV — when we were visiting my grandparents in Dallas — that my mother noticed in the paper that reruns of episodes from that series were being shown on one of the local channels after the late news. She suggested that we watch, and I have vivid memories of popping some popcorn and sitting on the couch with Mom to watch Alfred Hitchcock Presents every evening while we were in Dallas. It became a regular ritual every time we were in town — until the channel stopped showing the reruns, for whatever reason.
I have watched the series since that time, of course — sometimes with Mom, most of the time not — and I know I saw the debut episode, "Revenge," but I can't recall if it was one I saw with Mom or not. One of the things I miss the most about Mom is how we would discuss movies and TV episodes that we had seen; if we watched "Revenge" together, I'm sure we would have discussed it, if only because its theme was so unusual for the mid–1950s.
The story was about a man who sought revenge for the rape of his emotionally fragile wife, played by 26–year–old Vera Miles. Miles went on to appear in some Hitchcock movies, most notably "Psycho," and was often said to be Hitchcock's next Grace Kelly, but I'm not sure that ever happened.
Anyway, in his droll manner, Hitchcock appeared at the beginning of each TV episode to briefly give the viewer an idea — albeit a sarcastic one — what to expect. In his intro to his new series, Hitchcock called the episode a "sweet little story." I'm sure that would be regarded as terribly politically incorrect today because it suggests an insensitivity to women even though that was just Hitchcock's manner — to treat violent subject matter as a "sweet little story."
Was Hitchcock a sexist? I don't know. I do know that he always managed to have beautiful women in his movies, and his movies sometimes featured sexual overtones. When you get right down to it, I think you have to take the things he said as tongue in cheek — inside jokes, if you will. I don't think he intended to be flippant about violent acts like rape.
Frances Bavier, in her pre–Andy Griffith Show days, played a neighbor in the trailer park where the newlyweds lived who promised to look in on Miles while her young husband was at work — and she did. Miles had suffered a breakdown, and the couple had moved to California for her health. When Bavier left her, she was about to do some sun bathing.
When the husband returned with bags of groceries, he found their trailer filled with smoke from a cake in the oven that had burned, then he found his wife virtually catatonic on the bedroom floor. Haltingly, she told her story. A man had come to the door and demanded money. When she refused, he overpowered her and choked her. "And then he killed me," she said. She never said she was raped. I suppose that was too graphic for network TV in the '50s.
And her husband only ever said she had been beaten.
But it was about rape. And as time passed and the investigators took no one into custody, the husband persuaded his wife to help him find the man who had assaulted her, never telling her what he intended to do — and she never asked. But she went along with him and pointed out a man to her husband. "It's him," she insisted.
So the husband bludgeoned the man with a wrench. The audience never actually saw the assault, only the shadow of the husband raising his arm, truly a Hitchcockian technique, but it struck me as odd when I saw the episode for the first time that, even though the husband had to be up close to the man when he hit him with the wrench, and blood must surely have been flowing from the repeated blows, the husband's clothes showed no traces of blood, not even the spatter you would expect to see from being close to such a wound when it happened.
The husband returned to the car and suggested they drive to a nearby town along the coast. When they did, as they were driving along, Miles suddenly saw someone on the sidewalk and exclaimed, "That's him!"
It was the kind of twist ending that Hitchcock loved — although it seemed to me at the time and still seems to me that it's a rather obvious one that needs the buildup only a movie can provide. In the shorter space of half an hour, a twist ending has to really be a gut punch to be effective. I didn't think the ending was a gut punch. I thought it was predictable, given what the audience had seen.
But I thought the performances were good, and, as always, a Hitchcock tale delivered for the viewer. Sometimes, though, the viewer had to be a truly devoted Hitchcock fan — like my mother — to appreciate what was delivered.
Labels:
1955,
Alfred Hitchcock Presents,
debut,
episode,
Frances Bavier,
rape,
Revenge,
TV,
Vera Miles
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
A Flawless Dramatization of a Murder Trial
"Twelve people go off into a room: 12 different minds, 12 different hearts, from 12 different walks of life; 12 sets of eyes, ears, shapes and sizes. And these 12 people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind — unanimous. It's one of the miracles of man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries."
Parnell (Arthur O'Connell)
Jimmy Stewart is one of my favorite actors, and he gave many astonishing performances in his career.
One of my favorites was in Otto Preminger's "Anatomy of a Murder," which premiered on this date in 1959. My personal opinion is that it was flawless.
In the movie, Ben Gazzara played a young soldier who killed a man for allegedly raping and beating his wife (Lee Remick). One small problem, though. No evidence of a rape could be found. Stewart, a small–town lawyer, was retained to defend him in court, and Stewart discovered via interviews and his own observations that the defendant was jealous and possessive and his wife apparently had been promiscuous.
That would be a hard sell in court.
The alternative theory of what happened went something like this: Remick and the man were lovers. Gazzara found out about it, killed the man and beat up Remick, then coerced her into backing up his version of events. That would sound more logical to a small–town jury, especially given Gazzara's defense.
Gazzara said he was not guilty because he had been in the grip of an irresistible impulse, a rather complicated mostly legal concept that seemed to offer a plausible explanation for what happened — but was seen as hard for juries to get their minds around.
And I speak from experience.
At one time, I covered the police beat in a rather modestly sized county in Arkansas, which also meant covering local trials from time to time. In that capacity, I observed the usual courtroom procedures, from selecting a jury to examining and cross–examining witnesses.
I witnessed attempts to explain complicated legal concepts to largely rural juries, and I have a great deal of respect for any lawyer who tries to do it. It's a lot more difficult than a casual observer might think.
I also got to observe judicial sidebars, in which the attorneys for both sides would approach the bench and confer on issues, usually out of earshot of those in the courtroom.
Such a conference in "Anatomy of a Murder" never fails to amuse me. It concerned the alleged rape of the defendant's wife and the panties she had worn that night, which were unaccounted for.
The rape had been mentioned in a witness' testimony, and the judge felt it was necessary, at that point, to fully address the subject of rape, and that meant introducing the topic of the panties.
"There's a certain light connotation attached to the word 'panties,'" the judge said. "Can we find another name for them?"
"I never heard my wife call 'em anything else," the local prosecuting attorney said.
The judge looked at Stewart. "Mr. Biegler?"
"I'm a bachelor, your honor," Stewart replied.
"That's a great help," the judge said and turned to the prosecuting attorney from the state capitol (George C. Scott). "Mr. Dancer?"
"When I was overseas during the war," he said, "I learned a French word. I'm afraid that might be slightly suggestive."
"Most French words are," said the judge.
Always makes me laugh. Never fails.
Then the judge announced to the court, "For the benefit of the jury, but more especially for the spectators, the garment mentioned in the testimony was, to be exact, Mrs. Manion's panties."
As one might expect, hoots of laughter greeted this announcement, and the judge continued.
"I wanted to get your snickering over and done with. This pair of panties will be mentioned again over the course of this trial, and when it is, there will not be one laughter, one snicker, one giggle or even one smirk in my courtroom. There is nothing comic about a pair of panties that resulted in the violent death of one man and the possible incarceration of another."
That is precisely the sort of thing that the judges I covered would have said, too.
The conclusion of a courtroom drama, like that of a murder mystery, should never be revealed to someone who has not yet seen (or read) it — so, to be on the safe side, I won't tell you what happened.
I will tell you it was a very realistic depiction of a trial. It even took on some legal subjects about which I often wondered when I was covering the police beat.
In particular, I wondered the same thing that Gazzara's character wondered when the judge instructed the jury to disregard a certain piece of testimony.
Gazzara leaned over to Stewart and whispered, "How can a jury disregard what it's already heard?"
And, in perhaps the most honest line in the movie, Stewart replied, "They can't, lieutenant. They can't."
"Anatomy of a Murder" received seven Oscar nominations, including two for Best Supporting Actor (Scott and O'Connell), but not one for the Duke Ellington jazz music that gave the movie such a distinctive flavor.
It probably wouldn't have mattered if the music had been nominated, though. It was the year of "Ben–Hur," and "Anatomy of a Murder" lost four Oscars to that movie alone.
Monday, October 14, 2013
When Hollywood Acknowledged Rape
Sarah Tobias (Jodie Foster): You don't understand how I feel! I'm standing there with my pants down and my crotch hung out for the world to see, and three guys are sticking it to me, a bunch of other guys are yelling and clapping, and you're standing there telling me that that's the best you can do. Well, if that's the best you could do, then your best sucks!
Thirty years ago, in 1983, the story of a woman who was raped repeatedly by a group of men while others looked on and cheered in a Massachusetts bar made national headlines.
I guess it was around that time that the pendulum on attitudes about rape in this country began to swing in a different direction. Before 1983, the prevailing attitude held that a woman brought such an attack on herself through her behavior and/or what she was wearing. (Actually, that continued to be the prevailing attitude after 1983, too — and, in some places, it remains the prevailing attitude, but not as many.)
It took five years, but the Massachusetts case forced Hollywood to deal with rape in a more direct manner than it ever really had before. Hence, "The Accused" premiered on this day in 1988. It wasn't a literal history of the 1983 case. Rather, it was a fictionalized account — and it was a story that, by 1988, movie audiences were ready to see.
Jodie Foster starred as the victim of a gang rape. The story that emerged was one of a young woman who had argued with her boyfriend, dressed provocatively, took some drugs and danced and flirted in a bar. This was the justification for three men raping her on a pinball machine (in real life, as I recall, it was a pool table).
The attorney who was assigned to the case (Kelly McGillis) wasn't happy about the assignment and wanted to drop it. Eventually, she entered a plea bargain that called for the rapists to serve some jail time for "reckless endangerment" — her thinking was that a defense attorney could use Foster's history against her and wind up getting all the attackers acquitted of a rape charge — but it wasn't enough for Foster's character, who felt cheated of the opportunity to tell her story in court.
At that point, Foster's character began to really engage in some reckless behavior. She plowed into a pickup truck — turned out the driver was one of the witnesses to the rape, and he propositioned her. She wound up in the hospital because of the collision, but she came out of it determined to bring charges against her rapists and those who had encouraged them.
And she persuaded McGillis' character to pursue justice with her.
"Mr. Paulsen has told you that the testimony of Sarah Tobias is nothing. Sarah Tobias was raped, but that is nothing. She was cut and bruised and terrorized, but that is nothing. All of it happened in front of a howling crowd, and that is nothing. Well, it may be nothing to Mr. Paulsen, but it is not nothing to Sarah Tobias, and I don't believe it is nothing to you. Next, Mr. Paulsen tried to convince you that Kenneth Joyce was the only one in that room who knew that Sarah Tobias was being raped — the only one!
"Now you watched Kenneth Joyce. How did he strike you? Did he seem especially sensitive, especially observant? Did he seem so remarkable that you said to yourselves, 'Of course! This man would notice things other people wouldn't.' Do you believe that Kenneth Joyce saw something in that room that those three men didn't see?"
Kathryn Murphy (Kelly McGillis)
So McGillis brought charges of "criminal solicitation" against the witnesses who had cheered and encouraged the assault. It was a clever ploy, reminiscent of cases in the 1960s when murder charges weren't likely to succeed in most Deep South jurisdictions, and the best strategy for federal litigators was to charge participants with civil rights violations.
Kathryn Murphy: Listen again ... "A person is guilty of criminal solicitation if he commands, induces, entreats or otherwise persuades another person to commit a felony ..."
Paul Rudolph (Carmen Argenziano): You can read it to me until you're blue in the face, I am not gonna let you prosecute a bunch of spectators ...
Kathryn Murphy: They're not spectators. They solicited the rape.
Paul Rudolph: Do you really want to ask a jury to lock up a bunch of people for clapping and cheering?
Kathryn Murphy: Clapping? Cheering? Pushing? Goading? Getting the rape going and keeping it going!
Nearly two years ago, I wrote about a 1982 movie called "The Seduction," and the marketing of that movie tells you everything you really need to know about attitudes toward sexual assault and stalking roughly six years before "The Accused" hit the theaters.
I don't think anyone was killed in "The Seduction," but stalking was a prominent theme — even though I don't think the term was in use at that time — and implied in it was the threat of violence, even death. It was billed as an "erotic thriller," which is ironic, given that most women who have been stalked would say there was nothing erotic about it.
The same thinking has been applied to rape for generations. Truly awful behavior by men has been enabled by others who said the victim asked for it, or something similar. That attitude clearly influenced the initial treatment of Sarah Tobias' case in "The Accused." She had a checkered past, and the prosecution chose to pursue reckless endangerment instead of sexual assault in large part because of concern that the defense would pick away at her history, resulting, as I say, in acquittals.
Unfortunately, that probably was a realistic treatment of the deals that lawyers made all the time in those days. I covered the police and court beats for awhile, and I saw my share of deals being made. I knew what motivated lawyers then, and I am sure it motivates them now — the desire to win or, at least, to not lose or be perceived as having lost.
I could understand when I covered the police and the courts how ordinary people, unaccustomed to dealing with the legal system, could be confused, angry and frustrated by the routine maneuverings. And Sarah Tobias was frustrated when McGillis struck a deal to make sure the defendants would get some jail time. To McGillis, it was a victory to get something instead of nothing.
But it was obviously more than that to Sarah Tobias. She had been violated multiple times in front of a room full of strangers. She wanted a jury to hear her story, to know what she had suffered and to impose what she believed was an appropriate sentence.
I thought the movie was well done, and Foster won a much–deserved Best Actress Oscar for her performance. More than that, I thought "The Accused" was one of those significant movies that actually has an influence on cultural attitudes.
It made an important contribution to our growth as a nation.
Labels:
1988,
courtroom drama,
drama,
Jodie Foster,
Kelly McGillis,
movie,
rape,
The Accused
Sunday, March 17, 2013
The Evolution of Rape on TV
Edith (Jean Stapleton): There were two things that my father taught me: One, don't ever order a hamburger from the drugstore, and the other thing had something to do with knees.
Television has come a long way in 40 years.
An excellent example of that is the episode of All in the Family that aired on this date in 1973 — "Gloria the Victim."
It was about rape, a topic that was seldom mentioned on TV in those days, and the writers for All in the Family deserved credit for being willing to accept the challenge, but they chickened out when it came to the actual sexual assault.
So it was a near rape. No penetration. Remember, this was network television in the early 1970s. Norman Lear, the developer of the series, took on a lot of subjects in those days that TV had never really taken on, but network TV really wasn't ready for something like rape in 1973 so it was necessary for Gloria not to be violated.
With that kind of a history, is it any wonder that the subject of rape is still a bit ticklish for many Americans? Was it really any surprise that some candidates for political office ran into problems last year when they tried to articulate their thoughts on the topic?
Gloria (Sally Struthers) told her family that she had fainted, and she assumed that had frightened her attacker because he left. And everyone was relieved.
But I knew a young woman in college who watched a rerun of that episode with me, and we started talking about it afterward. Somehow, the topic of Gloria not being penetrated came up, and this woman observed, "Well, she told them that she wasn't penetrated. She might not have told the truth."
That thought had never occurred to me, and I asked her about it. Gloria might have wanted to avoid any number of things, this woman replied. She might not have wanted to go through the kind of physical exam that is required of rape victims. She might not have wanted to endure the kind of questioning to which rape victims are subjected in open court.
She might have wanted to avoid the kind of reactions she was sure an admission of violation would elicit from the men in her life.
And, too, it was still a time when too many women were discouraged from telling the authorities everything because society tended to blame the rape victim. She was asking for it, society said, by dressing too provocatively or behaving in a way that was interpreted as flirtatious.
(That never really made a lot of sense to me. I couldn't see how blaming the victim of a crime furthered the cause of truth and justice.)
OK, it is still that way in places, but I believe things really began to change on that night 40 years ago.

Attitudes certainly seemed to be changing the following year when Elizabeth Montgomery starred in a made–for–TV movie called "A Case of Rape."
Montgomery's character was raped twice by the same man, and she had to navigate a minefield of legal traps to take her attacker to court. It was all handled very realistically, but I have often doubted it would have been made at all if All in the Family had not done the episode it did 40 years ago.
Also in 1974, Linda Blair (who was not far removed from her attention–grabbing role in "The Exorcist") starred in another TV movie that dealt with a different kind of sexual assault. In "Born Innocent," Blair played a frequent runaway who was sent to a girls' juvenile detention center and was savagely raped in the shower by a group of girls using a plunger handle.

The scene was not explicit, but it was powerful — and very controversial, in large part because Americans were still squeamish about confronting the subject of rape. Not as squeamish as they were before Gloria's assault, but still squeamish.
All in the Family revisited the rape theme a few years later when Edith (Jean Stapleton) was attacked, and the show's writers proved that they had grown. Like her daughter, Edith wasn't sexually violated, but viewers saw her fight back against her attacker. In that respect, Edith was a strong role model for the girls and young women who watched that night.
But however admirable her character was in that episode, she had her problems. Long after she escaped from her attacker, she still suffered from the trauma of the experience.
Edith was fearful and suspicious, withdrawing from everything. That episode had a much harder edge than the one that aired in 1973 — although I'm sure the episode in which Gloria was the victim shocked a lot of people.
Rape just wasn't something that polite people talked about in 1973. It was something, as Gloria learned from conversations with a detective, that was frequently used against the victim, and that knowledge often discouraged victims from pursuing justice.
To an extent, that had changed when Edith was attacked.
But it took Gloria's special brand of tough love to bring Edith out of hiding.
Edith had been refusing to identify her attacker, and Gloria called her "selfish."
"You're not my mother!" Gloria yelled at a visibly stunned and speechless Edith. Her mother, Gloria continued, never refused to help others, and, by identifying her attacker, she would keep him from hurting others. But Edith wouldn't do that.
And Edith slapped her — and then burst into tears and embraced her daughter in a way that only a repentant parent can, apologizing over and over.
"It's all right, Ma," Gloria said with a knowing, been–there kind of expression on her face, and Edith left to go to the police station. She had mustered the courage to overcome her fears.
In a wonderful example of comic relief, Gloria smiled at her mother as she walked out the door, then turned and looked at her husband, touched her hand to the cheek her mother had slapped and began her trademark wailing cry. (I guess that was inspired by Lucille Ball. Whenever Gloria began to wail, I was always reminded, however fleetingly, of Lucy.)
That was so typical of All in the Family. Viewers often found it hard to determine which had been bigger, the laughs or the lumps in the throat.
Within the life of the All in the Family series, the writers had matured. That could be seen in their initial handling of the issue of rape and their revisiting of it a few years later.
Gloria had matured, too, from the girl who was nearly raped to a strong young woman. Her transformation began 40 years ago tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









