Essay: Actually, it's a rant
when will movies stop exploiting sexual violence to "tell" a woman's story?
I wanted to write something this weekend about hidden throughlines—in fashion, in history, in language, in policies—and of how this reifies society’s ideas of gender. But honestly, I’m feeling too pent up with a rant after watching The Last Duel.
It’s a movie that came out this week written by Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Nicole Holofcener. It’s directed by Ridley Scott. It’s based on the true story of the—you guessed it—last judicial duel to take place in medieval France, in the late 14th century. It centers around the story of Marguerite de Carrouges, who is raped by her husband’s rival, and instead of remaining silent about it as women often did and still do—she asked her husband’s support in pursuing a type of justice. The story is told from three different viewpoints—first her husband’s, then her attacker’s, then finally (finally!) hers. The duel was one of the biggest events in the region and had wide attention. It was believed that whoever won was channeling God’s will and thereby, the truth. And—if it is found that the accused attacker wins, Marguerite’s husband would be killed and she would be stripped, placed in an iron cuff, and burned at the stake. So great, great stuff.
I knew the story going in—and I love medieval history, I love women’s history. But I am particularly exhausted by the misogyny and racism that continues to be a part of medieval story-telling, with people like George R. R. Martin arguing that the verisimilitude would be lost if the reality of medieval eras—the rape, the violence, the lily-white heroes—was not accurately reflected. The reality of history is far more complex and many are rightly writing and publishing about it. That a movie touted in the press as a “medieval epic in the era of #metoo” has this much sexual violence and barely focuses on the trauma and difficulties of seeking justice without repeated scenes that humiliate the woman—I don’t know why I’m surprised. I don’t believe I am—I’m more just angry all over again.
Of course, it was no great time for women in medieval Europe, but the judgment that things are SO much better now…well, in the past few years we’ve seen that perhaps the gains that have been made towards equality are not as ironclad as we had been led to believe. After all, the idea of women as a man’s property, whose identity is subsumed by her husband, wasn’t effectively revoked in the United States until 1981 in a Supreme Court ruling (Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 US 455).
I went to see the film because I love movies, and the escapism that period pieces especially offer—closest we can get to time travel. But in this film, I had to sit through two hours of men telling their story, and of ridiculous posturing—including, unexplainably, a blonde pineapple Ben Affleck doing his best wooden, princely asshole impression, a mulleted and scarred Matt Damon perpetually grumpy and indignant, and a brooding, hair-flowing Adam Driver doing a Kylo Ren reprise without any hint of derivative redemption. When we finally get to the woman’s version of the events—the actual, truth of her experience (honestly I nearly walked out but wanted to finally see how the film portrayed her story)—we’re treated to not just the one, but a second rape scene, recreating the first from her eyes to show in detail the pain and horror she experienced. It’s repugnant.
Marguerite is pregnant soon after the assault, so we also get to see several scenes of patrician doctors and officials asking about her sex life with her husband—to indicate that the reason she has not conceived in five years of marriage because she experiences no pleasure with her husband (i.e., her fault). And, as rape can never result in conception, Marguerite must have experienced pleasure during the rape (i.e., her fault). We’re also treated to an allegorical bludgeon of a horse rape, as if it wasn’t already clear that the role Marguerite (read: all women) was expected to fulfill was one of broodmare. They had to literally show that too.
I went because after reading about the history, I actually sort of assumed that a current film might choose to focus on the realities of the woman’s experience and the courage of this woman—that it might focus on the courage it still takes for women to be believed, to maybe say in a slightly subtle way (hell, I’d even take non-subtle) that what Christine Blasey Ford and Anita Hill had to endure was medieval and belongs in another century. I had assumed that the film would focus on the legalities of medieval Europe, of the strains of justice available to women in medieval times, and how women’s experiences now still parallel, even if the movie is leading up to the final gladiator-style duel match. No such luck. It was so, so awful—unbelievably gratuitous in its repeated storytelling and depictions, as well as slow, tedious, and obvious. And then I remembered who wrote it: Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon. Along with Nicole Holfcener who wrote the woman’s story. I thought that perhaps she would have more influence over the telling, but it felt like her addition was an afterthought.
Why are we allowing men to make these movies still? Where can we authentically talk about trauma without asking women actors, crew members, and creative staff to replay and act out sexual violence? With so many numbers of women who have endured sexual assault or harassment of some kind, what does all of this gratuitous storytelling do to all the women—half the population—who watch these scenes? How is it ethical to still have this kind of enactment of sexual violence in a big-budget, big-production, big-hollywood film? (I know I shouldn’t be surprised but honestly, I still am. I’m stubborn about hope and that the world might not always be as bad as it can seem, so I continuously find myself outraged). Can we focus on women and their experience as humans, on their justice rather than their trauma, without some horrific scene—scenes!—to ensure that we get it? Um, we get it. We all get it. We got it before having to watch it be played out and repeated in needless detail.
Honestly, I’m confounded. And perhaps tomorrow I’ll try and write something about the history of women, of women who found ways to still write in times when they were told they didn’t have claims to identity or a public life, who still made history, justice, and art. But right now, I’m angry that women actors and creators are being asked to be a part of these scenes, and I’m angry that women and men are still being shown such scenes, billed as a creative interest in telling a history. Try herstory.
IT S MY TASK TO CORRECT SOMETHING...in my comment, I wrote It in my smartphone.!!!as it s a topic I care about I posted fast..and now I REALIZE that
Bene stands for BEEN
WHO stands for WHICH....
SO..SORRY PLEASE..
Another kind of false and distorted comprehension of women's position in society and privately..in the Middle Age or recently much of these abuses have bene shown on the screen..few the movies really close to the PROBLEM in TRUTH AND PATH TOWARDS VIOLENCE..i think It s all movies..built on the very story of a many women to TURN into "are men Always wrong in this sense??"trying to give reality another aspect!...Things have not changed, the film making seizes to correct the vision of the VIOLENT FACT, as It Is Just a form of acting ,performing another reality.,the One Who absolutely wants to give a chance to VIOLENCE justifying in a subtle WAY even the abuser..EXCELLENT MOVIES ON THIS , with unknown actors ,don t earn Money and are put in that part of filmography called "élite" or films for few"..