Question:
Taken from a Kermode article here (http://www.filmfour.com/ff/ff_channel_kermode_archive_display_item.jsp?id=225)
I wondered if FilmFour did actually show it after, and did anyone see it and would they share their thoughts on it?
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
Taken from a Kermode article here (http://www.filmfour.com/ff/ff_channel_kermode_archive_display_item.jsp?id=225)
I wondered if FilmFour did actually show it after, and did anyone see it and would they share their thoughts on it?
Yep I did see this and they showed most of the tape, if not all of it (i can't honestly remember though some parts where censored -penetration shots etc).
It wasn't exactly titillating stuff but it was interesting. As to whether or not she was actually raped I am not too sure. She never screamed out or begged for them to stop, unless of course she was drugged or just plain scared ********. (I do not know the facts of the case and I cannot remember the documentary too well - been a while since I seen it)
She was very badly humiliated though and treated like **** by the human scum filming/participating in it who loved to shout degrading things etc.
Overall I would say that if you get a chance to see it do so. It is not a pleasant thing to sit through but as Kermode says you should see it for yourself and make your own mind up.
It was shown on Channel 4.
Shouting degrading things at a whore, and actually raping her are two different things. Her 'attempts' at saying 'no' were no more than playful pushing away and she never at any point deemed it worthy to remove her crotch from the man's own permanently.
The main guy involved was a total scumbag but that doesn't make him a rapist. And why does the accuser tell us all about her daughters??? They are 100% irrelevant to her actions on the night and a plea for sympathy that has no place in the argument.
It isn't 100% black and white in this case, despite all being on tape - although the woman's testimony that the 'rape' got even worse when the tape ran out (and the males were all half asleep by then) seems like a total lie.
If you were to call it a rape, then the sad thing is you still have to give most of the blame to the woman for just not doing anything to stop it. And that includes giving oral (which they didn't ask for) to the rapist's friends after they have allegedly encouraged such a serious crime to happen!
I saw this in Edinburgh last year where it was shown without a certificate (uncut). It was the most horrific thing I have ever seen on the big/small screen.
The people responsible for making the film are not trained documentary makers, but made the film while in post production on an unreleased feature film.
In my opinion the documentary has been deliberately structured / edited so that it is almost impossible to form any real opinion as to whether she was or wasn't raped. This problem probably arises because we are seeing edited footage and dont know what has been left out or how the footage has been reordered (no clear time line discernable from the footage shown). I would also agree with some of the comments on the post above about the people involved.
In particular after building up credibility/sympathy for the main interview subjects the film makers then destroy that credibility/sympathy by placing parts of previous or subsequent interviews that show they are lying (this reminded me in some ways of the scenes towards the end of Running Man where Arnies mates sieze control of the satellite up-link and run sub-titles on the TV broadcast - although Raw Deal lacked this subtelty).
In the QA following the presentation of the film there was talk by the director of a SE DVD with the unedited video footage although it doesn't appear to have been released yet - thank god.
The director also tried to justify the film, mainly in the way it exposes how the law operates in sexual assualt/rape cases and how it is ludricous that video tapes of this nature *must* be made available to the public under the US freedom of information act. Apparently if you send a cheque for a small amount of money to the relevant court house in the States then they will send you a copy of the raw footage on VHS.
IMHO all of thats is a crock of BS. The reason this film was made (reflected in the rather cynical way it has been edited) was to bring a couple of young film makers with an unsold feature film project to the attention of the film industry.
However, if you have the opportunity to see Raw Deal, it does raise some rather interesting questions about sexual consent - but dissapointingly fails to address them in any meaningful way.
Perhaps not the worlds best date movie ;) .
Scott
i saw this and it was an excellent documentary.
whether or not it was rape is extremely ambiguous, there are points on the tape where she was very actively involved in things but there are others when she really looks like she doesn't want it to happen. things are made worse by the fact that everyone is wasted. if you'd been having sex with a woman all night and then she suddenly turned round and decided she wanted to stop, when you'd been drinking for 12 hours, might not be a clear message to understand. could it be rape if you didn't understand you were supposed to stop?
and calling her a whore is out of order, she was a stripper not a prostitute. if t hey had paid her for sex things would have been a bit more clear cut.
It has been a long time since I saw this film so I couldn't properly enter an arguement about it but I remember being of the opinion that she was raped but I am racking my brains as to exactly why I thought that. Not just what you have read in the Kermode article but specfic things that i picked up from seeing the film I'm sure we found out more details about the 2 guys that helped give an insight into what they were like that helped sway me but i can't remember:(
I wondered if FilmFour did actually show it after, and did anyone see it and would they share their thoughts on it?
Answers:
Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
Taken from a Kermode article here (http://www.filmfour.com/ff/ff_channel_kermode_archive_display_item.jsp?id=225)
I wondered if FilmFour did actually show it after, and did anyone see it and would they share their thoughts on it?
Yep I did see this and they showed most of the tape, if not all of it (i can't honestly remember though some parts where censored -penetration shots etc).
It wasn't exactly titillating stuff but it was interesting. As to whether or not she was actually raped I am not too sure. She never screamed out or begged for them to stop, unless of course she was drugged or just plain scared ********. (I do not know the facts of the case and I cannot remember the documentary too well - been a while since I seen it)
She was very badly humiliated though and treated like **** by the human scum filming/participating in it who loved to shout degrading things etc.
Overall I would say that if you get a chance to see it do so. It is not a pleasant thing to sit through but as Kermode says you should see it for yourself and make your own mind up.
Answers:
It was shown on Channel 4.
Shouting degrading things at a whore, and actually raping her are two different things. Her 'attempts' at saying 'no' were no more than playful pushing away and she never at any point deemed it worthy to remove her crotch from the man's own permanently.
The main guy involved was a total scumbag but that doesn't make him a rapist. And why does the accuser tell us all about her daughters??? They are 100% irrelevant to her actions on the night and a plea for sympathy that has no place in the argument.
It isn't 100% black and white in this case, despite all being on tape - although the woman's testimony that the 'rape' got even worse when the tape ran out (and the males were all half asleep by then) seems like a total lie.
If you were to call it a rape, then the sad thing is you still have to give most of the blame to the woman for just not doing anything to stop it. And that includes giving oral (which they didn't ask for) to the rapist's friends after they have allegedly encouraged such a serious crime to happen!
Answers:
I saw this in Edinburgh last year where it was shown without a certificate (uncut). It was the most horrific thing I have ever seen on the big/small screen.
The people responsible for making the film are not trained documentary makers, but made the film while in post production on an unreleased feature film.
In my opinion the documentary has been deliberately structured / edited so that it is almost impossible to form any real opinion as to whether she was or wasn't raped. This problem probably arises because we are seeing edited footage and dont know what has been left out or how the footage has been reordered (no clear time line discernable from the footage shown). I would also agree with some of the comments on the post above about the people involved.
In particular after building up credibility/sympathy for the main interview subjects the film makers then destroy that credibility/sympathy by placing parts of previous or subsequent interviews that show they are lying (this reminded me in some ways of the scenes towards the end of Running Man where Arnies mates sieze control of the satellite up-link and run sub-titles on the TV broadcast - although Raw Deal lacked this subtelty).
In the QA following the presentation of the film there was talk by the director of a SE DVD with the unedited video footage although it doesn't appear to have been released yet - thank god.
The director also tried to justify the film, mainly in the way it exposes how the law operates in sexual assualt/rape cases and how it is ludricous that video tapes of this nature *must* be made available to the public under the US freedom of information act. Apparently if you send a cheque for a small amount of money to the relevant court house in the States then they will send you a copy of the raw footage on VHS.
IMHO all of thats is a crock of BS. The reason this film was made (reflected in the rather cynical way it has been edited) was to bring a couple of young film makers with an unsold feature film project to the attention of the film industry.
However, if you have the opportunity to see Raw Deal, it does raise some rather interesting questions about sexual consent - but dissapointingly fails to address them in any meaningful way.
Perhaps not the worlds best date movie ;) .
Scott
Answers:
i saw this and it was an excellent documentary.
whether or not it was rape is extremely ambiguous, there are points on the tape where she was very actively involved in things but there are others when she really looks like she doesn't want it to happen. things are made worse by the fact that everyone is wasted. if you'd been having sex with a woman all night and then she suddenly turned round and decided she wanted to stop, when you'd been drinking for 12 hours, might not be a clear message to understand. could it be rape if you didn't understand you were supposed to stop?
and calling her a whore is out of order, she was a stripper not a prostitute. if t hey had paid her for sex things would have been a bit more clear cut.
Answers:
It has been a long time since I saw this film so I couldn't properly enter an arguement about it but I remember being of the opinion that she was raped but I am racking my brains as to exactly why I thought that. Not just what you have read in the Kermode article but specfic things that i picked up from seeing the film I'm sure we found out more details about the 2 guys that helped give an insight into what they were like that helped sway me but i can't remember:(
1 2