Search

Why scenes of sexual violence should be the exception, not the rule

Content warning: This article discusses sexual assault and rape. Portraying traumatic events in films and television shows, whether it is a grisly death or extreme violence, can be difficult to pull off in a way that sends its intended message and doesn’t spark outrage among viewers. With director Del Kathryn Barton’s Blaze confronting audiences during its showing at the 2022 Sydney Film Festival, depicting a graphic rape and murder scene witnessed by 12-year-old titular protagonist Blaze (Julia Savage), questions of when these scenes are needed and whether “very graphic” equals “very impactul” emerge. Refinery29’s Zahra Campbell-Avenell <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/blaze-2022-del-kathryn-barton-film-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener">describes</a> being on the verge of tears for the film’s entirety, while Variety’s Peter Debruge <a href="https://variety.com/2022/film/reviews/blaze-review-1235290438/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">questions</a> whether Barton has “earned” the use of such a graphic scene, suggesting she treats it “as a device” to make a point about a child losing their innocence and navigating trauma. In a talk after Blaze’s premiere at the festival, Barton said it was important for the scene to be authentic, but being authentic to the realities of witnessing sexual assault doesn’t necessarily mean extreme depictions are needed – especially when the film works to address the issue of femicide and abuse. Representing the issues of sexual assualt, gendered violence and the trauma that follows is important, particularly given that, on average, <a href="https://www.ourwatch.org.au/quick-facts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one woman is killed by a current or former partner every week in Australia</a>, but the way that we achieve that might not be through depicting the event itself, but what comes after. Amanda Spallaci, an assistant lecturer at the University of Alberta, Canada, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/1/8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writes</a> that portraying the event itself, usually in a way that evokes disgust or empathy, might last while audiences are watching the show or film but “fail to shift popular discourses” by neglecting to focus on effects, such as traumatic memory. She argues that making audiences witness these events fails to challenge common ideas about sexual assault and rape, particularly when it comes to the expectation that the truth of a victim’s story relies on their ability to provide coherent accounts and evidence. In reality, evidence is hard to find, witnesses are uncommon, and cases often come down to testimony from the victim and perpetrator – where beliefs that victims who are emotional during their testimony are more credible, <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/ti611_misconceptions_of_sexual_crimes_against_adult_victims.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">false allegations are common</a>, and that their recollections of the event should be detailed, specific and coherent make it even more difficult for victims to be believed. In comparison, Spallaci says that graphic film depictions mean “the viewer knows that the rape occurred not because they believe the survivor’s testimony, but because they bore witness to the event, adhering to the imperative of truth of the traumatic event and its relationship to the iconic veracity of the (rape scene)”. It’s important to recognise that film and TV shows are shifting towards depicting traumatic events with a focus on memory and what comes afterwards, with I May Destroy You and Sharp Objects being good examples. Both shows rely on flashbacks and characters <a href="https://www.lofficielusa.com/film-tv/violence-against-women-on-tv-euphoria-game-of-thrones-unbelievable-cassie-howard-sydney-sweeney-nudity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piecing together</a> what happened to them in fragments, though they still show scenes of sexual assuault as well. Blaze also deserves praise for its presentation of the struggles that victims (or, in this case, witnesses) face when giving testimony about sexual assault and murder. It also shows that, in the wake of the #MeToo era, changes to how we tackle sexual assault are sinking through, with depictions moving away from the gratuitous scenes used for shock value in Game of Thrones, but that there’s plenty more work to be done to do right by victims. Image: Getty Images

Caring

Could the Depp v. Heard case make other abuse survivors too scared to speak up?

Johnny Depp has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/verdict-delivered-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/101115246" target="_blank" rel="noopener">won his defamation suit</a> against his ex-wife Amber Heard for her Washington Post op-ed article published in 2018, which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/01/arts/johnny-depp-amber-heard-verdict">stated</a> she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse”. The facts in every case are unique, and the jury is always in a better position to judge these facts than commentators relying on media reports. Nevertheless in such a high profile case as this, the verdict has a ripple effect that can go beyond the facts. The unfortunate reality is the Depp Heard case is likely to reinforce the fear that women who come forward with claims of sexual and domestic abuse will encounter a system in which they are unlikely to be believed. Reform is needed to better balance the protection of men’s individual reputations with the rights of women to speak about their experiences. Defamation a tool of elite men Depp was awarded more than US$10 million in damages after convincing the jury Heard was a malicious liar. This is despite the fact a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UK judge determined</a> in 2020 that it was “substantially true” Depp had assaulted Heard repeatedly during their relationship. After the verdict, Heard commented she was “heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway” of her famous ex-husband. Historically, the common law of defamation was built to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612025.2021.1949822" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protect public men in their professions and trades</a>. It worked to both defend their reputations individually and shut down speech about them as a group. <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/comulp2&div=6&g_sent=1&casa_token=fybEy5Ip_goAAAAA:mZwcFssrx7DMteRZh-2VpbadOiPG52vukVjaL_zAG2Rr-r9-GIbN1HpUADIArNrKIooONYOmpoKf&collection=journals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Data from the United States in the late 20th century</a> shows women comprise only 11% of plaintiffs bringing defamation suits. As legal scholar Diane Borden <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/comulp2&div=6&id=&page=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has noted</a>, the majority of libel plaintiffs are “men engaged in corporate or public life who boast relatively elite standing in their communities”. Defamation trials – which run according to complex and idiosyncratic rules – are often lengthy and expensive, thus favouring those with the resources to instigate and pursue them. Various defences exist, including arguing that the comments are factually true, or that they were made on occasions of “qualified privilege”, where a person has a duty to communicate information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it. But in one way or another, disputes concerning allegations of sexual and domestic abuse usually come down to matters of credibility and believability that play on gendered stereotypes. It becomes another version of “he said, she said”, and as we’ve seen from the social media response to Amber Heard, women making these types of allegations are often positioned as vengeful or malicious liars before their cases even reach the courts. This is despite the fact <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sexual assault</a> and <a href="https://www.safesteps.org.au/understanding-family-violence/who-experiences-family-violence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">intimate partner violence</a> are common, and <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-09/apo-nid107216_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">false reporting</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26679304/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">is rare</a>. In fact, most victims don’t tell the police, their employer or others what happened to them due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/almost-90-of-sexual-assault-victims-do-not-go-to-police-this-is-how-we-can-achieve-justice-for-survivors-157601" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fears</a> of not being believed, facing professional consequences, or being subject to <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-online-hate-for-amber-heard" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shaming and further abuse</a>. Heard has received thousands of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amber-heard-says-she-receives-death-threats-every-day-over-depp-claims-2022-05-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">death threats</a> and suffered relentless mockery on social media. Time for reform The global #MeToo movement and recent Australian campaigns, such as those instigated by Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, encourage survivors to speak out and push collectively for change. But now, ruinous and humiliating defamation suits could further coerce and convince women to keeping their experiences quiet and private. Measures must be taken to better protect public speech on such matters. One potential way forward is for defamation trials involving imputations of gendered abuse to incorporate expert evidence about the nature of sexual and domestic violence in our society. For decades, <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hwlj19&div=8&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">feminist legal scholars</a> fought for the inclusion of such evidence in criminal trials, especially those relating to matters of self-defence in domestic homicides and issues of consent in rape proceedings. Expert sociological and psychological evidence can combat and discredit ingrained patriarchal assumptions and myths – comments and questions such as “what was she wearing?”; “why didn’t she fight back?”; “why didn’t she just leave him?”; “why was she nice to him afterwards?” or “why didn’t she tell people at the time?” Otherwise, pervasive gender bias – often held by both men and women, judge and jury – can undermine the voices and accounts of women before they even set foot in court, before they even open their mouths. Defamation trials have not traditionally included such expert evidence. But now that they have become a powerful forum for silencing speech about gendered harm, perhaps it’s time they did so.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184324/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-lake-126813" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jessica Lake</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-catholic-university-747" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Catholic University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-depp-v-heard-case-make-other-abuse-survivors-too-scared-to-speak-up-184324" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Tarantino has a questionable record in the #MeToo context – so should we boycott his new film?

This story contains spoilers for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. While promoting Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at the Cannes Film Festival, filmmaker Quentin Tarantino was asked why Margot Robbie’s character – murdered actress Sharon Tate – was given so few lines. An “angry-looking Tarantino”, as reported the ABC, curtly replied: “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-23/tarantino-snaps-at-reporter-over-question-about-margot-robbie/11141352">Well, I just reject your hypothesis</a>.” Tate’s implied lack of voice and Tarantino’s refusal to address the extreme violence against women in the film has renewed discussions about his representations and treatment of women on screen. The #MeToo movement and cancel culture have shifted the way we consume media. So what does this mean for Tarantino and his depictions of violence? 25 bloody years on the big screen Tarantino found instant acclaim with his debut Reservoir Dogs in 1992. Two years later, Pulp Fiction solidified his cult status. Over his 25-year career, he has directed nine films spanning western to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/11/blaxploitation-shaft-foxy-brown-film">blaxploitation</a> to samurai. Across genres, his films are united by the protagonist’s quest for justice and bloody vengeance. Tarantino is notorious for his stylised and hyperreal violence: macabre, shocking, and comical. When Pulp Fiction first came out, I was a first-year undergraduate studying and making films. I revelled in Tarantino’s approach to storytelling and the film’s originality. Tarantino was the new King of Cool, and Pulp Fiction heralded a new era of filmmaking. Discussions about the violence mainly revolved around the subject of style and Tarantino’s brand of humour. 25 years later I’m analysing Tarantino again. But now it’s in the context of one of the largest social activist movements in contemporary history. Contemporary controversies Tarantino has come under the #MeToo spotlight mainly because of his close partnership with Miramax and The Weinstein Company, both co-founded by Harvey Weinstein (currently facing multiple counts of rape and sexual assault), and the distributors of most of Tarantino’s films. The controversy, however, goes deeper than guilt by Weinstein-association: Tarantino has admitted being a knowing bystander. In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/movies/tarantino-weinstein.html">a 2017 interview</a>, Tarantino said: “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew [Weinstein] did a couple of these things.” Tarantino also faced allegations of misconduct by Uma Thurman, who rose to fame in Pulp Fiction and starred in Kill Bill: Volumes 1 & 2. In 2018, Thurman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/this-is-why-uma-thurman-is-angry.html">spoke about a car crash</a> during the filming of Kill Bill: Volume 1 which caused long-term neck and knee injuries. Despite airing her concerns about safety, Tarantino convinced her to perform the stunt. Tarantino has <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-uma-thurman-regrets">since admitted</a> his wrongdoing. This is an example of the hypocrisy in Hollywood: Kill Bill was about female empowerment, but its star was being coerced by the director and pressured by the studio. Days after Thurman’s interview, an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/quentin-tarantino-roman-polanski-rape-young-girl-sex-minor-uma-thurman-director-a8197811.html">audio recording</a> resurfaced from 2003 where Tarantino defended director Roman Polanski’s sexual abuse of a 13-year-old victim in 1977. Polanski was 43 at the time. Tarantino can be heard saying: “she was down with it. [ … ] I don’t believe it’s rape. I mean not at 13. Not – not for these 13-year-old party girls.” Alongside the era of #MeToo we have seen a rise in “<a href="https://oracle.newpaltz.edu/culture-critique-the-power-of-cancel-culture/">cancel culture</a>”, where questionable views and actions of influential figures are called out, and audiences are encouraged to withdraw support. Calls for “cancelling” Tarantino <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/23/cancel-quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood">are growing</a>. He may be a groundbreaking filmmaker still breaking records at the box office – but is this enough for us to overlook his indiscretions? What happens in the cinema, stays in the cinema? Should we stop watching films connected with problematic individuals? What do we gain from cancelling the works of Tarantino, Polanski, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/13/ronan-farrow-interview-woody-allen-harvey-weinstein-me-too">Woody Allen</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2019/01/23/bohemian-rhapsody-director-bryan-singer-faces-new-sexual-abuse-allegations_a_23651119/">Bryan Singer</a> from our collective consciousness? Should judgement of a movie be separate to our judgement of the people who create them? Can we judge a movie separate to our judgement of the people who create them? During a screening of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood my mind drifted to these matters. I wondered if Tarantino still had the same admiration for Polanski as he did in 2003; whether he still holds those skewed ideas about rape. I was irritated that Emile Hirsch was cast as Jay Sebring - Tate’s close friend and former lover. Hirsch <a href="https://variety.com/2015/film/news/emile-hirsch-guilty-assault-15-days-jail-1201571705/">plead guilty</a> to assaulting a female studio executive in 2015. At a time when abusers are being publicly denounced on social media, did Tarantino have any reservations about this casting choice? Was it even an issue for him? Despite these questions, I could not suppress my laughter and gasps of gleeful shock at the spectacle of violence in the film’s climax. And it is violent. The most striking death is when one of the female members of the Manson Family is maimed in the face by a can of dog food, before being fried with a flamethrower. Over the course of the film, my thoughts continually wandered between the story on screen to the story off screen. Real world politics kept intruding into my viewing experience. To boycott, or not to boycott I left the cinema ruminating on the confusing range of emotions and responses I had, ready to unpack how the baggage of Tarantino’s opinions and treatment of female characters and cast members have influenced the way I read Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Boycotting a film can send a strong message – not least of all to the studio’s bottom line. But there is also benefit to viewing these films, and using them as talking points for why we find them problematic. Watching Tarantino now, I still have immense respect for the artistry of his films and their aura of detached coolness. They captured the zeitgeist of a Generation X that was desperate for something different. But knowing some of the troubling issues surrounding a production and the filmmaker has added another layer of awareness and critique. It has given the films a different sort of relevance for the times. The questions I ask don’t look the same as those I asked before. Tarantino isn’t making cinema in the same world as he once was – but then again, I’m not watching it in the same world, either. Written by Christina Lee. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/tarantino-has-a-questionable-record-in-the-metoo-context-so-should-we-boycott-his-new-film-121985">The Conversation</a>.

Movies

Meet Dolly Parton's sister – and why she thinks it's time the music star spoke out

Dolly Parton has been criticised by her younger sister for not speaking up more about sexual abuse and the #MeToo movement in the country music scene. The criticism from Stella Parton came after Dolly told the <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/24/dolly-parton-on-sexual-politics-ive-probably-hit-on-some-people-myself" target="_blank">Guardian</a> in a recent interview that she did not identify as a feminist or an active supporter of women’s rights. Speaking on the podcast Our Stories, the 69-year-old urged her older sibling to "speak up" and advocate for women in the country and western music world. "I'm ashamed of my sister for keeping her mouth shut," said Stella. "She can run it when it is about something else, but speak up about injustice, Dolly Parton. Speak up. And speak out. Defend women, and don’t just do it in a little song. Speak up." Stella, who released the popular song I Want to Hold You In My Dreams Tonight in 1975, said many female country singers have "all gone through all kinds of abuse in this industry". "This is the first time I've really publicly called my sister out," she said. "But it's high time that some of these older women speak up and speak out." <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"> It is not an easy decision I have made but I find it is my purpose. I kept quiet for a very long time. Partially because of my sister, I did not speak up, so I would not be a distraction to her career. I have decided not to be quiet any longer! <a href="https://t.co/zKLhg1EfNg">https://t.co/zKLhg1EfNg</a> — Stella Parton (@StellaParton) <a href="https://twitter.com/StellaParton/status/1102359608226705408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">4 March 2019</a></blockquote> In the Guardian interview, Dolly admitted harassment against women is a long-standing issue. "I'm pretty sure it’s always been bad. It’s just that with the #MeToo movement women are bolder to speak out against it." However, the 9 to 5 star said of her own personal experience throughout her career: "I have [experienced sexual harassment], but I have always been able to manoeuvre because I come from a family of six brothers, so I understand men and I've known more good men than bad men. "I think people now see that we’re here, and women are very important, and they need us, just as we need the men. "But if someone was getting real aggressive with me, I'd scream or throw something at them. "But, of course, I've been hit on – I've probably hit on some people myself!" She also said she did not see herself as a feminist. "I think the way I have conducted my life and my business and myself speaks for itself," the 73-year-old said. "I don't think of it as being feminist. It's not a label I have to put on myself." In an interview with <a rel="noopener" href="https://news.sky.com/story/dolly-parton-talks-9-to-5-the-musical-metoo-and-being-a-strong-woman-in-the-workplace-11640387?DCMP=afc-293071&awc=11005_1550483197_91eb388f9dc0c57aa0f69bbe372dfef2&dclid=CjkKEQiAzKnjBRDH7oilnfv70PMBEiQANNAOLMnZD2TqwAUNJlmL5u1mxM8SbOXz3uC2XRTBfYEAWELw_wcB" target="_blank">Sky News</a> last month, Dolly also said she has worked with "a lot of bad women … It's just about the person, about how we treat each other with respect."

Music

Barbara Streisand opens up: "I wasn't pretty enough to be harassed"

Barbara Streisand has revealed she’s never suffered sexual harassment in Hollywood, but has felt abused by the media. In a wide-ranging interview with director, product and long-time admirer Ryan Murphy, Streisand spoke candidly about her career, the #MeToo movement and her aversion to interviews. When asked if she had ever been sexually harassed or mistreated, Streisand replied: “Never”. “I wasn’t like those pretty girls with those nice little noses. Maybe that’s why,” she added. Of the #MeToo movement sweeping the entertainment industry, she said, “We’re in a strange time now in terms of men and women and the pendulum swinging this way and that way, and it’s going to have to come to the centre.” She also opened up about her reluctance to speak to the media, which is based on years of what she labelled “inaccurate reporting”. One particularly persistent story that Streisand labelled as false is that she has an “awards room” at home dedicated to her Oscars, Emmys and other trophies. She also criticised the late American TV journalist Mike Wallace, recalling how when she was a young star (and before Wallace joined 60 Minutes) he asked her a series of hurtful questions during a TV interview and she had complained to him afterwards. However, on a subsequent show Wallace told viewers who’d objected to his line questioning of Streisand that she “loved” the interview. “I thought, I don’t know what date rape is, it’s terrible … but it was such a violation,” she said. “Why lie?” The interview, which was part of a tribute to Streisand for the 35th annual PaleyFest LA television festival at the Dolby Theatre, ended with Murphy’s own personal tribute to the Funny Girl star. “People talk about Barbra as the greatest female star. I say, no, that’s not enough,” Murphy said, adding, “She was a touchstone, a beacon I followed my entire life.”

Music

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property