MovieChat Forums > About Time (2013) Discussion > Isn't this film a little 'rapey'?

Isn't this film a little 'rapey'?

posted 9 years ago by HarveyManfredSinJohn
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm watching, on Channel 4, it for the first time at the moment. And I've just watched a scene in which the 'loveably awkward' upper-middle-class protagonist uses time-travel to bed the woman he is in love with on three separate occasions to make him look like a sexual maestro.

Isn't this all slightly rapey? The woman will have no memory of the first two times they had sex, so he will have intimate knowledge she isn't privy to.

Richard Curtis hasn't quite got his upper-middle-class public school/Oxbridge head around the whole concept of rape by deception has he (and yet his lead character is supposedly a 'lawyer' )?

In the film 'The Boat That Rocked', in one scene that took place in the dark he had one male character pretend to be another in order to sleep with a groupie. Perhaps Curtis didn't realise this is a form of 'rape by impersonation'.

RIP:
David Bowie (1947-2016)
Alan Rickman (1946-2016)
Prince (Rogers Nelson) (1958-2016)

[–] lilactime2014 9 years ago

Nope, you plainly didn't see the whole film or more likely didn't understand it or even more likely you purposely misunderstood the narrative to suit your own agenda.

Tim used the gift he had to put things back on track after trying to help the writer. Tim and Mary were meant for each other, that was plainly obvious from their first evening at the restaurant. Time wasn't going back in time for his own benefit in the bedroom scene he was doing it to make it more enjoyable for her, or else he would have just kept banging away for his own benefit. So what you claim to be a bit rapey was nothing of the sort but it does open up a window to your soul and shows the way you think.... oooh.

'tler

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

Time wasn't going back in time for his own benefit in the bedroom scene he was doing it to make it more enjoyable for her, or else he would have just kept banging away for his own benefit.

He got to sleep with Mary on two occasions she would not be aware of. And he used time-travel to set himself up as a sexual maestro, when he was nothing of the sort. That's a massive act of dishonesty and manipulation. He's basically misrepresented himself to her.

RIP:
David Bowie (1947-2016)
Alan Rickman (1946-2016)
Prince (Rogers Nelson) (1958-2016)

[–] lilactime2014 9 years ago

Just about every single relationship IN THE WORLD starts with some kind of misrepresentation. Unless you propose that we all have to prepare some kind of Sales contract that lists all of our faults up front, exactly how much you earn, your prospects, your pet hates, a psychiatrists report, familial medical history. You can even claim that wearing clothes and make-up is a form of mis-representation if one wanted to argue the toss and take it to the nth degree.

I can see why you desperately wish it to be so, in a Sheldon Cooper kind of way, as you say in another post you have OCD, maybe you have to be right. But on this occasion you are someway wide of the mark in intent and act.

It's little different to asking a girl's friend what music she likes so that you can swot up on Prince or Bowie when you find out that is what she likes. You are unlikely to get chatting to a girl you like if you are contractually forced to be at your worst as that "is you".

'tler

[–] pypsqweek 9 years ago

So many people misrepresents themselves when they meet someone. But no, it wasnt rapey because it was already established that she had already slept with him. To her each time he slept with her was her first time with him. Then after the third time she wanted it to happen more which btw was established the first time they slept together when he said it would be better the next time. The whole scene was suppose to be comical and not taken seriously.

[–] ozzmosiz 8 years ago

She wasn't unconscious! She was willing, therefore how is this "rapey" ?

[–] lulupalooza 8 years ago

Didn't read the OP's post? They are referring to the consecutive two other times they had intercourse. Each time he had increased his sexual performance while she will never know about. It does make him a bit of a creeper, since HE knew he was taking full advantage of the situation. Admittedly, it was an odd choice of character development (for him). ;)

It was a fun film, nonetheless.

"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

[–] taicraven 8 years ago

It wasn't rapey, Mr Manfrenjin Sinjin. It was an XK Red 27 technique. A smoke screen? A double bluff?
PS: You can put this marriage in your bottom.

[–] helenroscoe 8 years ago

I didn't see it as rapey. She was consenting all three times.

[–] Cokoki 8 years ago

No, it wasn't rape.
Especially not, since the two other times wouldn't have existed anymore.

[–] daveyh (634) 3 years ago

As far as I'm aware, in slang, "rapey" doesn't mean literally being a rapist, it means deviant or sexually inappropriate, or even just an extreme way of saying "creepy".
And in this instance, I'd say yes. For one thing, he could have just gone again in real time, as Leo Di Caprio did in another Margot Robie film from the same year (11 seconds!). It's not as if she dumped him for being premature.
As for consent, she only consented to one time, and he used this consent to go 3 times - sadly the law doesn't extend to time-travel do-overs so this remains a dubious area.
I'm also curious - did he do this every time they went at it, or was that a first night only thing? If it's the latter, wouldn't she have been confused as to how he lasted so long first time?

[–] Narwhale37 (1286) 2 years ago

Idk. Is it rape to have consensual sex with someone with Alzheimer's?