It’s known as one of the most infamous rape scenes in Hollywood history—but Last Tango in Paris director Bernardo Bertolucci admitted in a recently surfaced video that star Maria Schneider never consented to it.
Instead, Bertolucci confessed in the 2013 clip that he and Marlon Brando came up with the idea to shoot the assault scene in which Brando’s character uses a stick of butter to rape Schneider on screen. At the time, Brando was 48. Schneider was just 19.
“The sequence of the butter is an idea that I had with Marlon in the morning before shooting,” Bertulocci said in an event held at La Cinémathèque Française in Paris in 2013. He added that he felt horrible “in a way” for his treatment of Schneider but defended himself, explaining that he “wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress.”
“I wanted her to react humiliated,” he said. “I think she hated me and also Marlon because we didn’t tell her.” Even so, Bertolucci clarified that he didn’t “regret” how he decided to direct the scene.
“To obtain something I think you have to be completely free,” he said. “I didn’t want Maria to act her humiliation her rage, I wanted her to Maria to feel…the rage and humiliation. Then she hated me for all of her life.”
If you had asked me yesterday to guess one rape scene in the history of cinema that involved an actual rape, this is the one I would have picked. In some horrible, perverse sense, Bertolucci and Brando got exactly what they wanted.
Imagine Bertolucci saying this: “I didn’t want Marlon to act his painful gunshot death, I wanted him to feel…as if he’d been shot. Then he hated me for all of his very short remaining life.”
Tragically, I’d bet that some people will view this as a vindication of Roman Polanski: “Everybody was doing it. And sure, maybe he raped a girl, but at least he didn’t film it.”
… good lord, folks; how deeply do we need to quibble about gradations of sexual assault, especially when both the victim and the perpetrator claim it was non-consensual?
Changing policy towards Taiwan has been a long-term goal of many within the GOP foreign policy community. While the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II administrations all held the line (with some variance along the way) on the policy of strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan, there was always internal dissension (especially under Reagan and Bush II) over how hard to push Beijing. The faction that supports confrontation with Beijing seems to have the upper hand at the moment.
I expect that the short-term fallout will be reasonably limited. China is exceptionally displeased, and will make its displeasure known across a range of different venues, but we’re unlikely to see anything really severe in the near future. Beijing is also looking for clarity on what the Trump and Duterte regimes have planned for the South China Sea; I doubt that they’re going to push very hard when it still looks possible that the Philippines may fall into their lap. At the same time, I wouldn’t want to be planning any major investments in, or research trips to, the PRC in the near future.
If Trump is going to go loose cannon on the sacred jewels of American diplomatic policy, better now than later. Right now, both US and Chinese diplomats can write this off as inexperience, and in any case the outgoing Obama administration has to pay the immediate costs. A year or two from now, it’ll be much harder to draw a bright line between off-the-cuff statements of the US President and the actual foreign policy of the United States.
I sure am glad that we didn’t elect Hillary the Hawk who would have started a New Cold War with Russia or some such.
What does the death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mean for U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights abroad? The United States pushed heavily, and controversially, for the inclusion of significant IP protections in the TPP. This push is consistent with a broader effort on the part of the U.S. government to include robust IP protection in just about every bilateral or multilateral trade agreement since the turn of the century.
One of the captains asked for volunteers to swim to the surface, and report on the plight of the boat. Two sailors exited through the torpedo compartment, swam to land, and were promptly arrested under suspicion of spying.
As Stephen Stashwick and others have noted at The Diplomat, the U.S. naval lobby has fully embraced Donald Trump’s promise to increase the size of the fleet to 350 ships. Craig Hooper has some ideas about how to get to 350 fast; it would involve putting some prematurely retired ships back into service. Longer term, the U.S. Navy can only grow by slowing retirements and increasing construction, both of which will take some time to have a significant effect on numbers.
We are delighted to announce that Dan Nexon, long-term friend of LGM, has agreed to join the blog full time. Dan should be well-known to most readers here from Foreign Entanglements, Duck of Minerva and a variety of other venues.
A brief note; we’ve been discussing this move since the election, and we’re very happy to be able to move forward. The timing is obviously unfortunate, but accidental.
I’ve put together an In Memoriam page dedicated to SEK, with links from all of our posts this week, all of the other remembrances that I could find, and his collected works. If you know of anything else worth adding, please let me know in comments.
The second closest was in February 2015, while I was in New Orleans for the International Studies Association conference. We planned to get together, but failed on account of his job responsibilities at Salon. As is often the case with such things, I anticipated that there would be more opportunities in the future.
Early this fall, Dave Ferguson wrote a fine essay about “losing” internet friends. The headline was widely misunderstood, as most people seem to have assumed that he meant a facebook defriending or some such, but in fact he was writing about the impact of losing a friend to death or social rupture. And of course he was writing about Scott; Dave did outstanding work through this entire difficult process of going to Houston and keeping Scott’s friends updated about his condition. In any case, Dave’s point was that losing an internet friend can hurt as much as losing an FTF friend; it just depends on the nature and depth of the friendship.
Tracking back, my first exchange with Scott came in early 2008. We were bouncing back and forth in comments and blog about the final season of the Wire, and Scott was wondering if I’d managed to get ahead of the HBO viewership (I had). I had been aware of Scott previously, as it was impossible not to know him from his blogospheric misadventures, and this was when the Blogosphere was still a thing. Not quite two years later Scott e-mailed with an inquiry about joining the blog. There was no debate; he fit perfectly with what LGM had become, and we welcomed him with open arms.
Co-blogging is not necessarily an intensive affair, but over the course of seven years we talked a great deal about work, personal lives, academia, and the world writ large. Earlier this year we commiserated over the near-simultaneous dissolution of our respective marriages. Mutual friends can attest that we reacted very differently, but then the situations were quite different, and in any case the conversations helped me a great deal in moving forward from a dark place.
Scott was a magnificent contributor, not simply to LGM but to the broader conversation about politics and art that emerged in the heyday, and persisted into the twilight, of the Blogosphere. He was a few degrees askew, and this askew-ness gave him a vantage point into the core of the intersection of the aesthetic and the political; he understood as deeply as anyone the complex relationship between the message, the messenger, and the medium. I’m hardly the first to note that his talents were tragically wasted in some of the gigs that he had to take on in order to earn a living. Sadly, he became ill just as the internet powers-that-be were beginning to take advantage of what he could offer.
He was also occasionally maddening, and someone who is a few degree askew cannot help but to be. Now and again we had to restrain him from pointless, destructive crusades. At other times he didn’t wait to be restrained. He understood that he was maddening, and wasn’t unhappy about having that impact, but I don’t know that he ever fully understood why some people found him so confounding. But there was never any question that he was worth it, both as a friend and as a contributor.