Prompted by the shocking revelation in the news today that Bernardo Bertolucci, in a recently surfaced interview, admitted that the notorious "fetch the butter" scene was, in fact, a non-consensual rape of actress Maria Schneider, I find myself wondering what Pauline Kael would have to say about the film on this day were she still alive. Especially since she virtually swooned over the film in her 1972 review in THE NEW YORKER. (The review can be read in it's entirety on the Criterion website--https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/834-last-tango-in-paris)
This story is truly disturbing. Ms. Schneider's troubled history following this film is now explained and I await the revised bio on various sites taking this episode into account.
Might this cause Criterion to drop it from their catalogue?
This story is a bunch of over-reaction bull. She wasn't raped, she had agreed to appear nude and simulate sex, it was all simulated, and the onlything that happened is that she wasn't told completely what was going to be simulated and afterward it made her feel humiliated.
My attitude is that that is the kind of thing you risk when you agree to do such things, that you may not like how it went down. At any time this grown woman could have said "I'm not doing that," but for whatever reason she didn't. Should she have been treated with more respect and sensitivity, were these guys kind of cads for how they went about things? Sure.
But was a crime or a great moral wrong done? No.
And by the way, I don't like LAST TANGO IN PARIS. I've seen it once and once was enough.
Kael was a deeply awful person. She hid lot of her self-loathing behind her typing, and it was a happy day when she passed on.
Now that's a terrible thing to say. I think Keal was one of the best film critics we've ever had and I miss her writing. As to who she was in private, I have no idea and couldn't care less.
All I know is we could use a film critic like her today, because modern film critics are mostly a joke!
The film is NOT a porno. There's nudity, but any actor knows ahead of time if a role requires it.
Neither are nude in that scene, either. Yes, what transpires is degrading, but I think that's supposed to be the gist of it. Otherwise, why are the actors' ages 48 and 19, respectively?
I'm gonna take the middle ground. The actress certainly wasn't raped, and it's really unfortunate how loosely that terminology is used nowadays. Rape is a disgusting violent thing, and shouldn't be trivialized.
However acting was her job, and the set was her place of work. No one should be made to feel uncomfortable or violated (physically or emotionally) while doing their job. Withholding information from her and forcing her to do something without her knowledge or consent is abuse, and possibly a criminal or civil offense.
I don't really recall the film. I think I saw parts of it on cable some 20 years ago.
No one should be made to feel uncomfortable or violated (physically or emotionally) while doing their job. Withholding information from her and forcing her to do something without her knowledge or consent is abuse, and possibly a criminal or civil offense.
No one should be made to feel uncomfortable or violated (physically or emotionally) while doing their job. Withholding information from her and forcing her to do something without her knowledge or consent is abuse, and possibly a criminal or civil offense.
Tell that to the owners of Walmart.
While Walmart deserves nothing but scorn (for reasons remarkably relevant, if not exactly analogous, to this thread), I'm curious: Why did you invoke the company in your comment? I'd actually really like to know--and can subsequently explain why (if you're interested).
It sucks to be so right about something, though actually corporate greed and the emptiness of materialism was more on my mind.
But returning to the topic, Walmart has been taking the butter stick to most everything for a long time now.
Sure, I figured that you were referring to its business practices. I'm a capitalist through and through, but I don't think Walmart actually is--considering that it is guilty of the worst kind of cronyism. (As alluded to in the link, the accused individual, with Walmart's complicity, has been subject to horrible legal consequences--and as bad as the woman herself and Walmart are, they ain't got shit on the U.S. Government as currently constituted.)
I also think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. It often happens that a director neglects to tell the actors the specifics of a brutal scene, to get a more "real" reaction. I'm reminded of the chestburster scene in ALIEN, where Scott neglected to tell the actors (beyond Hurt) what the scene actually entailed, and it was a shocking revelation for the rest of the cast, especially Cartwright. Her reaction in the scene is more real than acted.
So it's not an unusual tool. But it's a borderline strategy if it leads to some kind of trauma for the actor or actress. The infamous rape scene in IRREVERSIBLE was also no easy-piecy for Monica Belluci, even if she was presumably told more than Schneider was in TANGO.
In either case, TANGO remains a great film in my eyes:
I also think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. It often happens that a director neglects to tell the actors the specifics of a brutal scene, to get a more "real" reaction. I'm reminded of the chestburster scene in ALIEN, where Scott neglected to tell the actors (beyond Hurt) what the scene actually entailed, and it was a shocking revelation for the rest of the cast, especially Cartwright. Her reaction in the scene is more real than acted.
William Friedkein also experimented with the reaction of his movie stars in THE EXORCIST. Ellen Burstyn had reportedly suffered back injury for one of the sequences and even one of the Priests being slapped near the end had a non acting reaction. Sometimes you dont have to cross the line.
I also remember reading that Steven Spielberg told the Asian housemaid to smack young Christian Bale across the face with quite some (unexpected) force, to elicit greater shock from him, during the filming of EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Maybe that's why he grew up to be such a dick in real life!!
Ah, the fun they had on those film sets! The big surprise to me is that Brando made Last Tango after he made The Godfather...& I couldn't give a monkeys what Kael thought about anything.
"She hid lot of her self-loathing behind her typing..."
Kael did not type. She left The New Yorker when word processors were installed. She submitted all of her reviews written in longhand with a pencil, and refused to type.
"She hid lot of her self-loathing behind her typing..."
Kael did not type. She left The New Yorker when word processors were installed. She submitted all of her reviews written in longhand with a pencil, and refused to type.
True, Kael didn’t learn to type, or drive, and was afraid of computers. But Kael’s daughter Gina transcribed most of the yellow-pad long-handed pieces. When Gina wasn’t around, there were other typists available. Anyone who ever got a handwritten note from Kael, and I received several, had a difficult time with some of her cursive.
I also think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. It often happens that a director neglects to tell the actors the specifics of a brutal scene, to get a more "real" reaction. I'm reminded of the chestburster scene in ALIEN, where Scott neglected to tell the actors (beyond Hurt) what the scene actually entailed, and it was a shocking revelation for the rest of the cast, especially Cartwright. Her reaction in the scene is more real than acted.
So it's not an unusual tool. But it's a borderline strategy if it leads to some kind of trauma for the actor or actress. The infamous rape scene in IRREVERSIBLE was also no easy-piecy for Monica Belluci, even if she was presumably told more than Schneider was in TANGO.
I don't think it's borderline at all. You can't consent to something when your left in the dark, and didn't agree to it. Even porn stars have standards and it's known up front what they are willing to do while the camera is rolling. In my opinion Maria Schneider was sexually harassed on set.
I don't think it's borderline at all. You can't consent to something when your left in the dark, and didn't agree to it. Even porn stars have standards and it's known up front what they are willing to do while the camera is rolling. In my opinion Maria Schneider was sexually harassed on set.
Because the butter part was improv'd? Maybe, but it's debatable till the next autumnal equinox. Again, look at the kind of movie we're talking about. It's about a guy pushing 50 who wants to have a purely sexual relationship with a girl who is 19. Maria's role called for (lots of) (full frontal) nudity, and she took it. It's neither the first nor last movie she appeared nude in. She also posed for Playboy. She didn't have a problem with nudity.
