is there such a thing as a responsible rape scene?

by guest contributor Thea, originally published at Shameless Blog

Research. It always gets you into trouble. This review was supposed to say “Empowering! Feminist! Realism! Actually Tough Women of Colour!”. But then I did a little googling, (damn you google!) and now I’m confused.

The movie Bandit Queen is based on the story of the real life Phoolan Devi. In the 80’s in India, Devi led groups of bandits to pillage high caste villages for money. She was notorious and fearsome, and this was a big, shocking, deal – not only was she a woman, she was a low caste woman.

A kind of Robin Hood with a gender twist: at 11 Devi was married to a 30-something man who raped and mistreated her. As an adult she found him and stabbed him in front of his village, as a warning for old men who marry young girls.

Devi was always described to me as a hero for poor people and women. Separate from who she actually was, Devi became a legend and a symbol of the one woman who just wasn’t going to take it anymore. She was tough shit! She was brutalised, pushed around and dehumanised by patriarchal culture (more on that later) – but she actually pushed back!

So a movie about the life of this feminist hero – ok, the violence she committed makes her a problematic feminist hero – would definitely be a feminist movie wouldn’t you say? Well, this is where the confusion kicks in.

What I liked most about this movie was how it is such an unflinching, unsentimental portrayal of life for women in a patriarchal culture. The violence against women in Bandit Queen is essentially constant and blatant (I didn’t say it was a fun movie to watch), but that amazed me. Because the movie seems to be saying, look, it’s not just that some men are bad apples, and it’s not just that women will experience gender violence once in their lives. It’s that under a patriarchal system the threat of violence and the incidence of violence against women is constant and total.

For example, often “rapists” and “wife beaters” in North American cinema are portrayed as dirty, creepy, foul-smelling and poor. The men who assualt Devi in Bandit Queen however, are just regular, average men. This seemed to say to me that, it’s not just lower income men who don’t wash their shirts who are capable of violence, it’s all men who’ve been socialised by rampant sexism.

BUT, that’s exactly the problem with Bandit Queen: the constant gender violence. Arundhati Roy argues here and here that Bandit Queen reduces Devi to a rape victim, and is just two hours of rape, rape and more rape.

It seems there was a lot of sexual violence in Devi’s life. According to the (deeply contested) movie, she was sold by her father, raped by her husband, nearly raped and then sexually humiliated by the headmen in her village, gang raped by the police, raped by the head of the bandits, and then gang raped by a village of men for 3 days.

But the question of how to responsibly represent rape in cinema is one that has enraged and puzzled people for eons. I would sum it up but my friend bell hooks (ok, I guess it would be more accurate to call her my idol) does it better in this youtube clip from her video Cultural Criticism and Transformation (she starts talking about rape around 3 minutes into the clip).

Inga Muscio in Cunt has this to say:

One out of eight movies produced in Hollywood contains a rape scene. In American cinema, rape scenes tend to be violently eroticized…when viewing a rape scene, scads of men feel confused and disgusted with themselves if it turns them on. (p. 161 of the 2nd edition, if you want to read along)

Interestingly in the same section, Muscio sites Bandit Queen as a movie that responsibly deals with rape. I would agree with Muscio, except for one big issue: Devi, the real Devi, did not want Bandit Queen to be made. She disputed the accuracy of the film and even threatened to set herself on fire outside the theater if it was screened.

In an article written after Devi was shot and killed in 2001, Indira Jaisingh, who represented Devi in court when she sued the filmmakers of Bandit Queen said:

[Devi] did not admit she had been gang-raped. This was one incident in her life she did not want to talk about. She just glossed over it. And what was Bandit Queen all about? Rape is not entertainment… that is what we were trying to say…Phoolan Devi did not want to talk about her rape.

On top of this, it seems that Devi was swindled out of the rights to her life – she signed a contract in prison agreeing to let Mala Sen write a book about her, which later formed the basis for the movie, but she was paid a very small sum, and the contract was in English – Devi could not speak English.

Shekhar Kapur, the director of Bandit Queen, according to the Sunday Observer, had no interest in meeting Phoolan Devi herself. He did not feel the need to meet her.

I would argue that the ultimate basis of violence against women is the silencing of the voices of women. What does it mean that, in making the film Kapur – who is a man, highly educated and wealthy, while Devi was none of those things – was essentially silencing Devi?

The confusingest thing about Bandit Queen to me is that in and of itself, I would say it is a fine movie, and definitely a feminist one. But can you critique a movie about a real life person in and of itself, especially if the real life person didn’t want it made?

While Devi eventually did agree to have the movie released, the question holds: if Devi felt completely disempowered by the movie, can it still be empowering for women who watch it? If a feminist movie was made in a very un-feminist way, is it still feminist?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Celluloid Sally’s » 2008 » January » 13 on 13 Jan 2008 at 1:19 pm

    [...] is there such a thing as a responsible rape scene? at Racialicious – the intersection of race and po… The confusingest thing about Bandit Queen to me is that in and of itself, I would say it is a fine movie, and definitely a feminist one. But can you critique a movie about a real life person in and of itself, especially if the real life person didn’t wa Send us a link! [...]

  2. The chicken or the egg? « latin american princesa {LAP} on 07 Feb 2008 at 7:36 pm

    [...] heros like MLK, Justin Dart, Phoolan Devi and Che really responsible for bringing about change or do they bring exposure to change that is [...]

Comments

  1. jstele wrote:

    No. It’s just a representation of a story.

  2. gatamala wrote:

    I saw this film years ago and really liked it – rape notwithstanding. Knowing that the director did not “feel he needed to meet her” puts it in a different context. He has essentially taken her dignity from her again and reduced her to a folk hero or even a myth.

  3. latinamericanprinces wrote:

    Why did she finally agree to have it released? Did she see it? Or did the judicial system force it?

    Doesn’t that happen quite often with movies about people? Directors never meet the person. jstele is right it’s a representation, one interpretation, a narrative, not a biography. No story even if told by the person itself is totally accurate. at the moment anything happens there are different interpretations. furthermore a myth is a powerful thing. It is a constant in human history in all cultures. a myth immortalizes and inspires. Is that bad?

  4. Mike wrote:

    Sounds like it’s time to make a better remake.

  5. Sara wrote:

    I kind of resent the accusation that the movie “reduces Devi to a rape victim,” not because I’ve seen the movie or anything (sounds really interesting, but probably too painful to watch), but just because there’s nothing wrong with having been the victim of rape. Everyone who’s been raped has been reduced to victim status by their attacker. That’s not a victim/survivor’s fault, though, and it says nothing about their dignity.

    And I don’t mean to single this particular discussion out – I have a hard time with a lot of the rhetoric surrounding victimhood and oppression. Like someone who’s legitimately suffered at another’s hand only gets to keep their dignity if we don’t get to see that they’ve been hurt – and then if they don’t seem so hurt, then they weren’t victimized, were they?

    (End rant)

  6. Skye wrote:

    Thanks for the post. My friend Grace wrote about this on our blog Heroine Content, and basically came to the same conclusion as Roy:

    “Taking a fantastic, unbelievable story about a woman and making it into a flat, deadening story about a rape victim is wrong, and it’s a horrible way to portray women.”

    http://www.heroinecontent.net/archives/2007/04/bandit_queen.html

  7. F Craye wrote:

    The book, despite the issues involving payments and contracts, is much more empowering and inspiring than the movie. I recommend it to everyone interested in learning more about her story.

    After watching the movie, I didn’t feel particularly empowered as it seems to make her less of a conscious decision on her part to act as she did and lead a gang. Reading the book made me see it in a new light, and it is definitely more empowering.

    I suppose my bottom line is read the book, even if you don’t see the movie. It may not be exactly her story or have empowered her, but it seems closer to her actual aims and personality than the movie.

  8. Katie wrote:

    I saw this movie at far too young an age, and what I mostly remember is rape after rape.

    I don’t think that works of art are separate from the contexts in which they are produced – it’s like that discussion going on right now at The Angry Black Woman about Ike Turner. Yes, he beat Tina. Yes, he made music. It’s not impossible, I think, to have both facts coexist.

    This movie was made not at the behest of the biographical subject but against her wishes. I think that the movie is incomplete without knowing the story of the legal wrangling behind it, without knowing that it was made against Devi’s wishes, etc.

    Also, I think the circumstances behind a work of art can put the viewer of that art in a position to choose whether to support it. I can have a good or neutral opinion of the movie itself while feeling that its creation was too coercive for me to support it by actually buying it or recommending it.

  9. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    I saw Bandit Queen back when it was originally released theatrically in the US (a few years ago, I don’t remember exactly when).

    And I came out of the movie deeply admiring Phoolan Devi – both as a literary character and the real life woman that she was based on.

    She came from the very bottom of Indian society – being both low caste and a woman – survived being sold off to a rapist at age 11 by her own father, and became a leader of a rebel army.

    The fact that Devi was repeatedly subject to rape and other sexualized violence made her heroism stand out even more deeply.

    With that said, I can understand why the real life Devi would object to the film. As a survivor of multiple rapes, it must have been traumatic for her to see the abuse and degridation she suffered be reinacted on the big screen – plus she may have felt publicly shamed to have it revealed that she was a rape survivor.

    Beyond that, she did get stiffed on the money, and she had little input on how her life was portrayed on the big screen.

    With that said (and with much respect for the late Ms Devi’s objections) seeing that film made me deeply admire her, and all she managed to overcome.

  10. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    I just clicked over to the posts Arundhati Roy wrote about Bandit Queen.

    And I have to say, I think I’ll have to retract what I said above!

    Apparently, the REAL Phoolan Devi became a political activist at age 10, had an amazing life (from bandit gang leader to Member of Parliament) until her tragic assassination at a relatively young age.

    The film Bandit Queen totally doesn’t present that view of Devi, according to Roy’s reviews – she’s merely shown as a rape victim seeking revenge, rather than as the real life injustice hating guerilla leader that she was.

    Now, I haven’t seen the film for a WHILE, so maybe that’s why my memory was so rusty, but now I understand what the objections to the film were.

    Moreover, I think I have to agree with those objections.

  11. Peter wrote:

    Muscio sites Bandit Queen as a movie

    Muscio cites…