Shocked By Sean Connery! ...and Other Retro Upsets
Filed under: Classics, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom
I constantly worry that I'm becoming desensitized to violence and horror thanks to watching so many damn movies, and having a penchant for those that are riddled with explosions and coarse language. (If Scott Weinberg has his way, I will have a healthy appreciation for the slasher flick as well. Speaking of which, have you read Horror Virgin yet?) As a kid, I was always sternly brought up to know that movies were fiction, and that violence was very real, and to know that guns, knives, grenades, etc. were no cheering or laughing matter unless Mel Gibson was using or running away from them.
Like much of the civilized world, I've been following the protests in Iran, and while I empathized with what was going on, I felt curiously detached from seeing images of real violence. I read comments from people who said they were shaking and vomiting from seeing people die on camera, and I wondered if I was a terrible person because I wasn't. Is it because I watch so much of it onscreen? Or am I saturated by it thanks to the real world -- I watched Columbine happen on television while living a few blocks away from it, to say nothing of the trauma of 9/11, and documentaries about Darfur and the Holocaust.
Like much of the civilized world, I've been following the protests in Iran, and while I empathized with what was going on, I felt curiously detached from seeing images of real violence. I read comments from people who said they were shaking and vomiting from seeing people die on camera, and I wondered if I was a terrible person because I wasn't. Is it because I watch so much of it onscreen? Or am I saturated by it thanks to the real world -- I watched Columbine happen on television while living a few blocks away from it, to say nothing of the trauma of 9/11, and documentaries about Darfur and the Holocaust.
Now, all of the above is certainly a topic of its own merit, but I discovered a very curious effect this weekend. For some reason my thirst for noir and Hitchcock went on a "troubled heroine" path, which led to my watching and GildaMarnie, and a realization of how casually old thrillers are peppered with abused women. While you can usually see it coming (heroine is babbling hysterically, man must slap her), sometimes it still has the power to shock. The backhand Glenn Ford delivers on Rita Hayworth actually made me jump. Why? Maybe I was just edgy, or maybe so many movies of careless smacks piled up into a "Damn, they really didn't think anything of that!" moment.
Marnie shocked me even more with it's uncharacteristic '60s frankness. It's with some shame that I confess I hadn't seen this particular Hitchcock, and when Sean Connery actually ripped Tippi Hendren's pajamas off, my jaw dropped like a cartoon character. Just as I felt rather bemused at my reaction, that creepy overhead shot (you know the one) of Connery for the "rape" scene left me gobsmacked all over again. In truth, I think I was unprepared for such a blatant "There's sex going on" moment, especially with prominent twin beds in view.
I've been trying to puzzle out my strong reactions all weekend. I've seen violence and sex (to say nothing of rape) scenes far more shocking in modern films, so why did these two films actually startle me, especially when I saw it coming in Gilda from a mile away? It can't be the retro setting -- if anything, I'm shocked because I'm seeing it from a 21st century perspective that doesn't condone that. Yet I know that's what startled me about the scenes in Marnie. Perhaps it's all about the context of any given moment, and not the thick shell of two decades of moviewatching. Maybe I go into old movies with a careless attitude, but I turn on the world news with my armor on. Perhaps I'm just overthinking it all. Who knows? But I thought I'd put the topic to you readers, and see if you'd experienced anything similar, especially in regards to old cinema.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-29-2009 @ 6:01PM
Coralie said...
I can honestly say that I've never watched any 'old' cinema. I can relate, however, to what you're saying in regard to not being so shocked by modern cinema. For me, perhaps when I'm ready for the gore, or the violence, I can deal with it, but it's more shocking when it's not so 'hollywood' and is presented in a manner that's more 'real life'.
One example that comes to mind is the scene of the aeroplane crash in 'Alive'. The plane seats coming loose and smashing together was presented in such a real manner that it really freaked me out. However, in movies where similar things are shown (I'm thinking of 'Final Destination'), it didn't hit me quite as hard. I suppose because all the special effects, etc, were intended to present it in as dramatic a way as possible.
Real life violence and blood isn't dramatic. It's far more scary without all the drama.
Reply
6-29-2009 @ 6:41PM
villageidjut said...
Leslie Caron deserved her slap in Father Goose, but that's a comedy,and she wins the next round.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRKOJV1lg_w#
The rape scene from your man Clint's High Plains Drifter comes to mind. It's both disturbing and ambiguous.
Oh,and are you ready to be shocked by Sean Connery again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szgO6pUJHVA#
Reply
6-30-2009 @ 8:52AM
Commodorius said...
I don't think the rape scene in Marnie was "condoned" at the time of its filming. In fact, the movie nearly fell apart because Hitchcock was so bizarrely adamant about having that scene in there. In the book it is much less drastic and not really presented as straight rape, and the story is written from Marnie's point of view to boot.
The film itself, as a whole, is a failure and much of that can be traced back to Hitchcock's reworking of the narrative to focus on that particular event in the story.
Reply