MovieChat Forums > La pianiste (2001) Discussion > Rape? *spoiler*

Rape? spoiler

posted 18 years ago by the_playboy_bunny69
68 replies | jump to latest

I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and although at times it was a difficult watch, i absolutely loved it. Isabelle Huppert is just mesmerising in it and has such a beautful face so i was pleased with the lengthy facial shots.

Anyway, there is something niggling at me, for i cant make my mind up about the 'rape' scene.
My very initial and instinctive reaction was that it was rape.End of.
I watched it again a few days later and changed my mind. Perhaps Walter was doing precisely as the letter requested of him. Perhaps he simply wanted to please Erika who in turn was playing their game.

I then bought the novel and again felt that he was raping her to punish her. She apologises to Walter for the letter and tells him to ignore it. She wanted them to have a "normal" version of love, one without pain as she realises it was not what she wanted or needed.She instead asks for "love and affection".
When Walter is raping her she wants to desire him as she "hopes" that she does infact love him, but ends up feeling nothing so asks him to stop as he is hurting her. Obviously he does not.

What confuses me though is the last scene at the Conservatory Erika is waiting for Walter, eager for him to acknowledge her but when he does so just for a bried second, she is clearly dejected and heartbroken. I understand and empathise with her need for love and to an extent have an idea of her mentality but I'm still not sure what happened!
It's really very frustrating.lol

I was just wondering if anybody else had any opinions or views on this.

Thanks
xx

[–] kvetinka23 18 years ago

I think the interpretation you made after reading the book is closer to director´s idea than the first one. But it is possible that it was a combination of motives of his acting like a revenge (this is what you wanted and here I am fullfilling your dreams!) and his own inability to understand her situation.
Walter is absolutely frustrated and upset about the fact how the whole relatinship went wrong just like Erika who unfortunately is not able to show any emotion the way she feels deep inside towards Walter and so he "finishes" with her like that.

In the evening of concert he is not showing anything else than formal respect of Erika as a professor (maybe with some irony included) and this makes her desperate because she knows she lost him forever. So hard for her because he was the only person to whom she dared to reveal her desperate need for love folded in perversion and lack of self-esteem.

[–] lacqua86-1 18 years ago

For me, the ending was definitely rape.

While the letter detailed what she wanted done, Walter threw all that out. He wasn't doing that FOR her. He was doing it for himself. Remember, he was frustrated by the letter because she was directing him, telling him what to do as a man. So he storms in to reclaim his position of power which the letter has taken away (remember he was shocked at himself that he was standing outsider her window masturbating).

I think part of the director's intentions, too, was to show the difference (or maybe not so much a difference) between ritualized violence like S&M and real violence. This puts the viewer in a strange position as well because we're watching "real" violence take place in a "fake" scenario (i.e. no actors were really harmed in the making of this film).

as for the ending, i just see Erika as a pot boiling over. she had to let the steam out somehow.

[–] chris_vienna_austria 17 years ago

@lacqua86-1

I like your explanation. For me it was rape, it was'nt the kind of "consensual SM-violence" she was dreaming of. Walter lost the respect for her, and misused her.
I think she took the knife to the concert in order to take revenge on him.
But she couldn't find an oppurtunity to stab him, so she punished herself.

[–] trampled_blue 17 years ago

She was so messed up and asked for it.

[–] ohdearreginald 17 years ago

He also makes a comment about how she was asking for it because she teased him. Uh, victim blame much?

[–] lyndsay_lane 13 years ago

You make a very good point. I agree with his intentions at the time, but I wouldn't call it rape simply because everything he did she told him she wanted. She even said "When I say no or stop keep going even worse". So she really opened the door for rape, or at least for rape to be an extremely gray area. I mean, that is the most confusing thing ever to anyone. If I were a guy receiving that letter, I wouldn't know what was right and wrong with her anymore, you know? He may have had a rapist mind set, but I don't think he believed he was committing rape. No woman is ever "asking for it" but she almost did....Do you think he would have done that had she not written the letter?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lyndsay_lane 13 years ago

That's why books are usually better than movies! They offer more insight. The actress did an amazing job portraying Erika, and I could tell she didn't want it, however I felt that her statements and actions prior could confuse Walter. I couldn't read his intentions well. Miscommunication is the perfect explanation for this. In the film, I kind of sympathized with Walter, which is exactly what you said was a big difference in the film, simply because she seemed to be playing so many games with him and her behavior was very confusing and he seemed to genuinely love her, or have an infatuation for her. But like you said, the book clarifies the actual intentions and motivations more than a film could do, no matter how great the actors or directors. Did you think the book was much better than the film? I am interested in reading it now. Your analysis of the book made a lot more sense than the movie. I don't think the movie was done poorly, it just left things somewhat unclear. I completely agree with what you said, and it really does make the film much clearer for me! Thank you.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lyndsay_lane 13 years ago

That makes sense. Movies have limited time to tell a book's story, so they are often forced to leave a lot of character development out. I would like to read the book because books usually provide a better glimpse into a character's life and mindset than the movies based on them. However, I don't know if I want to if the disturbing scenes are more graphic in the book. I'll try it. I'm sure any book I read is going to be more tame than the half of American Psycho I managed to get through. That was just disgusting.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blacknyellowsquid 10 years ago

I tend to agree with you.

[–] I_Created_U 8 years ago

I've just finished the movie and think this is the most off base interpretation i've read until now. Completely wrong in my book anyway. I should add that i've never read anything upon the movie or director and that i have seen the movie only once. Here's my take:

So he storms in to reclaim his position of power which the letter has taken away

That letter didn't take his power away, it gave him all the power imaginable over another person. He storms into her place to precisely realize her fantasy according to the letter. He was masturbating under her window, he mistreated the mom, he locked her in, took the key, slapped her in the face even though she was begging, treated her like sh!t, everything in order to please her and respect her wishes. He even doesn't hit her when she screams "not on the hands!" when she was trying to free her mom.

The reason he was frustrated is because this role playing wasn't really his thing and he was forced to do the kind of stuff to a person that would have otherwise never occurred to him. He was distraught after reading the letter because he finally acknowledged that the woman he loves was a nut case.

He didn't "throw out" anything, i don't see how you can think that after having seen the movie. He is trying to respect her twisted wishes to the letter.

I think part of the director's intentions, too, was to show the difference (or maybe not so much a difference) between ritualized violence like S&M and real violence. This puts the viewer in a strange position as well because we're watching "real" violence take place in a "fake" scenario

That's wrong too in my view. That was not his aim and what we saw at the end in her flat was nothing but ritualized violence. As to why she suddenly stopped enjoying it mid act, i have no real explanation. I would hazard that the realization of her fantasy wasn't up to her expectations, maybe he wasn't hard/mean enough? Maybe the constant apologizing and talk put her out of it? I think she realized that the fantasy wasn't painful/humiliating enough which is why she went back to something more powerful i.e raw pain, which is why she stabs herself at the end of the movie.

At last, and this is probably the first time in my life that i say such a thing, but in this specific scene, in my humble opinion, it wasn't rape. How can it be rape when the person clearly told you several times that you can do whatever you want with her and that even if she begged, he shouldn't care the least and just keep going. She literally wrote him a letter explicitly detailing what she liked and how she liked it and how she wants to be treated. She shouted several times "I want what you want!" and wrote "Shove me my own stockings down the throat until i can't breathe" or something to that effect. It just can't be rape. It's the only time i have and probably will say this, but this was, as twisted and perverse as it looked, consensual sex. Every time in the movie when she asks him to stop, he did indeed stop. Every time. Why would he rape her this time? From his POV and mine, she was willing and if he had felt otherwise, he would have stopped.

Now am I saying that one can't rape a masochistic person in a role play? Not at all. What i am saying is that you can't rape a person when the rapist is respecting to the letter the instructions he has been given by the victim. If the sex happens outside the limits described by the letter or if the safe word has been used and the role player doesn't stop, then it's absolutely 100% rape and there's no excuse for it. However, if everything unfolds according to the plan and the plan is rape, then it simply can't be genuine rape but a game.

She jumping on her mom and looking at her pubes and kissing her was more rape than anything the guy ever did to her...

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] ohdearreginald 17 years ago

It was rape. It made me feel sick because on the back of the movie it said it was a 'weird sex scene'. Yeah, no. That was rape.

[–] ethan-pack 17 years ago

The "weird sex scene" (I think it was "strangest sex scene in the history of movies" actually) mentioned on the back was in reference to the bathroom scene after the glass coat pocket incident took place.

[–] ohdearreginald 17 years ago

Oooooh! Well that is relieving.

[–] angel-white 15 years ago

WARNING: SPOILERS

It wasn't rape. They _should_ have established a "safe word" to verify this. When such people engage in such "deviant behaviour" they need a safe word, because no really doesn't mean no, at this point. All he was doing was interpreting her letter, IMO. He knew what she wanted, and if he scripted it, it would have been too fake, so he interpreted it. Then, what he did was actually less obscene than her letter, but because it wasn't directly word-for-word from the letter, it gets labeled as rape.

I think it's a little sad, and I couldn't have done what he did, myself, but if you haven't been there, I think it's hard to realize that what seems to be giving someone what they want is actually hurting them (like giving drugs to an addict).

I don't know what I would have done in his situation, but at the very least I woudl have established a safe word. But you should take note that several times he quoted her letter directly, and asked her to verify that his quote is what she said. Presumably, at any point, she could have clarified "that's not what I meant" but she did not, because she needed to be abused.

The abuse may have been a little different than she depicted, but that made it much more real, which is what she needed (wanted?). Whatever it was, I cannot with any conscience in me, conclude that it was rape. This was what she wanted, it was what she needed. It killed her (one of many possible interpretations of the ending), but it was her decision.

[–] mikpii 17 years ago

Yes the scene of him trying to fulfill her fetishes turned into a rape. I think it was highly ironic because he had expressed his disgust at her sick mind and fantasies and then there he was raping her.

The author of the book said the story is about authoritarianism in Austria; then the irony makes perfect sense: authoritarians stigmatize people who don't conform to their ideology and yet they themselves make horrible things in the name of their ideology.

[–] anna-glen 17 years ago

I might just be the only one in the entire world who doesn't think Walter raped Erika. She detailed in the letter exactly what she wanted (which was far creepier than the actual "rape" scene). Anyway - Walter confessed his love for Erika a few times, and love doesn't just dissappear. Even though he knew it was wrong, he beat Erika because that's exactly what she asked for. During that entire scene you could see many times when he was reluctant, and when he was 'raping' her, he was affectionate and thought about stopping and leaving a few times. Erika was not unconscious and she didn't tell Walter to stop, she just lay there. How are we to know that wasn't how she wanted it? -The way i see it, Walter was just fulfilling her wishes. And later on when she said she wanted a normal relationship, I believe she was just saying that because that's all Walter wanted, and realising she might lose him - was desperate to be loved by someone other than her mother.

And the final scene when Walter briefly acknowledges her just as if she was anybody else, it says to me the ole saying "Indifference is worse than hate" and she just snaps. I really don't believe she was even considering stabbing Walter. I think she was just near breaking point.

I haven't read the book so forgive me if I'm wrong.

[–] the_playboy_bunny69 17 years ago

You can't be wrong, afterall lief is about perception.

I'd just like to make a point though, you said that she never asked Walter to stop, but she did. When he is 'raping' her or whatever anybody see's it as,he kisses her and looks at her and she then whispers something along the lines of 'please stop'. I think you can see it with the subtitles.

Although I agree in that I dont think she was going to stb Walter either. I don't think she was entirely sure herself what to do with the knife.

x

[–] mikpii 17 years ago

Yes she repeatedly asks him stop and she is serious about it; she's not playing like one would in an SM scene.

[–] JR2002 17 years ago

But if I'm not mistaken, she had written in the letter that, if she ever said "stop" he should continue the instructions...

[–] dh_dh_3 17 years ago

Slovoj Zizek offers a very plausible interpretation of the rape scene in "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema": despite being the exact realisation of what Erika asked Walter to do with her (it was, actually, the perfect manifestation of her desires and fantasies), she wanted him to stop, as soon as she realised that reality can never catch up with fantasy and imagination: reality is never as good as imagination and in reality things never work out like you have imagined them. In fact, she BETRAYED her dreams and imagination, which left her deeply shattered and shocked. She lost something (maybe the very elixir that kept her alive) when Walter had sex with her. Was it rape? If she really wanted Walter to stop, it was. But we cannot be sure, because in the letter to Walter, Erika asked him not to stop when she would beg him of stopping (Why didn't they call the police anyway?).

Said that, I think the key sentence of the whole movie was Erika's utterance after Walter had started reading her letter. Obivously, Walter was somehow confused and Erika responded (in an excusatory manner): "Well, the essence of love is always very banal." That means: That what remains of love after transposing it from the realm of imagination to the realm of reality may seem odd, strange, childish ...

[–] chicandcheerful 17 years ago

I think all of the interpretations on this post are really interesting. I watched this film for the first time last night, and found so many layers that I wasn't sure which interpretation was 'correct', but obviously that's what keeps you thinking about the movie long after the credits roll.

My own view overall was that Walter was unable to act out Erika's desires until his internal rage overcame his superego, but then he couldn't control the rage. Although he was now able to comply with the letter, he was past the point of responding to the fact that she no longer sought this abuse. The way that he kept pausing to look at her showed that he was aware that she was no longer consenting, but was too full of loathing (and self-loathing) to stop.

[–] flowery_meerkat 17 years ago

That what remains of love after transposing it from the realm of imagination to the realm of reality may seem odd, strange, childish ...

An astute if somewhat bleak observation

S O C H I Y

[–] kasparhauser44 17 years ago

i think way too many people are interpreting whether or not the scene was a rape in the framework of a very legalistic and modern p.c. view, not in terms of the nature of the massive sexual ambivalence that conflicts isabel huppert's character.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bwfcmichelle 17 years ago

After watching the film and reading the book, the word 'rape' is never actually mentioned, and as we probably all know, in the legal context it is rape as she tells him to stop and he carries on.
Erika lies there unfeeling, she doesn't try to fight him, she doesn't scream for help. However, is this because that would be very stereotypical? It would be easy for us to say 'okay he raped her' if she was kicking and screaming and fighting against him.
I think ultimately it comes down to the difference between fantasy and reality. Erika has never had a 'normal' sexual relationship. She only sees sex when she goes peeping in the cinema in the film or in the Prater in the book, or when she watched hardcore porn. Her mother has constantly repressed her, Erika resents young women in mini skirts as she was never allowed to wear them herself.
I don't think Klemmer is particularly following her letter, I feel he is making it an excuse so it becomes acceptable for him to do what he did. I believe Klemmer only wanted a conquest, a fling with a teacher, whom he sees as naive. He had no idea what he had let himself in for. I would like to know why he actually did do it, was it revenge for the scene in the toilets? Was it to regain control of the relationship? As Erika pretty much called the shots with her commands and letter. Lots of ideas really, plenty for my dissertation!

I just had a thought, what if she had written the letter in hope Klemmer would 'rescue' her from her feelings. Maybe she wanted him to instead show her that she doesn't really want to be treated like that. Also, how much does Klemmer know of Erika's experience, to me, she doesn't exactly seem like she is familiar with the experience of being tied up and abused in the way she described, surely it's clear to him that it is just a fantasy? If she wanted to be rescued from herself or her past, maybe the letter was a cry for help, a 'come and rescue me' cry to Klemmer? I would like to understand Klemmer a little more, his real motive, was it purely to show her that she shouldn't treat a man as she did?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]