It was pretty good, that’s all I’ll say about that. I’m not much of a critic in that way. [n.1] But I want to write about one particular part of the movie that got me all riled up.
- - SPOILER ALERT - -
(I can’t write about this without giving away key plot points in the movie, if you want to see it, you probably shouldn’t read this)
The movie is about Harvey Keitel’s character, a very ill behaved cop. He’s investigating the violent rape of a nun committed by two young men (they are referred to as “boys” a few times in the movie but they look like young men to me, maybe they were supposed to be younger but the movie needed more mature actors, I don’t know). The rape is very violent. - GRAPHIC IMAGERY ALERT - They pierce her hymen with a crucifix. And it’s, you know, a nun, which is seriously messed up. So, here’s what gets me. The nun knows who they are and won’t give them up to the cops because she says they are troubled and that she has forgiven them. Keitel says something like, “But they could do it again, we need to stop these guys.” She won’t give them up. Later on, Keitel gets another tip, figures out who the rapists are, and then arrests the guys. But then Keitel takes them to the train station and forces them to leave the city.
So when the nun says she won’t give the rapists up and that she has forgiven them, and it became clear that she’d remain steadfast in her position, I say to Anne (who was half watching the movie, half trying to work): “He should charge her. Bring her in.” We then have this discussion (paraphrased from vague memory):
Anne: “Wait. What?”
Me: “He should charge her. You know, for like interfering with the investigation. What’s that called?”
Anne: “You mean Obstruction of Justice.”
Me: “Yeah. He should totally charge her. Get her to talk.”
Anne: “You’re serious.”
Me: “Yes. Of course.”
Anne: “You think rape victims should be required to cooperate?”
Me: “Yes. Of course.”
Anne: “That’s messed up.”
So, yeah. I think he totally should’ve arrested the nun for refusing to give up her attackers. She made a big deal about having forgiven them, but that isn’t the point. She can forgive them in her heart, she can pray for their souls, she can love them, whatever, but she cannot forgive them for everyone else, for society. She can’t decide that they shouldn’t be arrested and tried before a court. That simply isn’t her decision to make. The strength of my belief on this point would rival that of Atlas’s shoulders. Why is this? I’m not entirely sure. I think it’s probably partly the lawyer in me, insistent that the law should be allowed to work. I think it’s also my somewhat fierce sense of vengeance and retribution—those bastards should not be allowed to get away with it, even if their (primary) victim wants them to. And maybe it’s that my role model for a prosecutor is Jack McCoy, from Law an Order, and Jack McCoy definitely would’ve charged that nun (unless his boss, the politico (before Jack was the politico), was buddies with the Cardinal and made Jack back down, then Jack would’ve just fumed, or something like that). Jack McCoy never hesitated to arrest a sympathetic character to get to the real bad guy—he’d charge a saintly child or a cuddly grandma if they were holding something back. Jack’s a badass.
(Obviously, the cop letting the rapists get away is even more wrong, but it seems too obvious to write about (except I'm sure it was supposed to say something about Keitel's character's nascent transformation.))
Note 1: Every time I think of what I’d say if asked to review something—be it music, a movie, or whatever—I’m reminded of a story Sarah Vowell tells about when she was asked to write a review of a Tom Waits album and the only thing she could think to say, at first, was “I quite like the ballads.” Which of course would’ve left her a thousand or so words short. [n.1a] That’s what would happen to me.
Note 1a: I don’t have a link to cite here, but that’s what I remember her saying.
Note 1: Every time I think of what I’d say if asked to review something—be it music, a movie, or whatever—I’m reminded of a story Sarah Vowell tells about when she was asked to write a review of a Tom Waits album and the only thing she could think to say, at first, was “I quite like the ballads.” Which of course would’ve left her a thousand or so words short. [n.1a] That’s what would happen to me.
Note 1a: I don’t have a link to cite here, but that’s what I remember her saying.
I think what I actually said was "You want to prosecute rape victims??!!"
ReplyDeleteLeave aside the high value I place on forgiveness and all the other spiritual/liberal crap that I fully recognize most people aren't ready for. (heh.)
Let's talk policy. You prosecute the victim? (?!!) And then you expect people to come forward? Because rape victims are so eager to come forward to begin with?
Let's put a few more question marks and exclamation points on there.
You want to prosecute rape victims????!!!!
I'll let the punctuation speak for itself.
No, I don't *want* to prosecute rape victims. But I would charge, at least, any person who knows the identity of a violent criminal and will not divulge that info. I don't see this as having some sort of chilling effect on who comes forward--(1) it's not like it would be a well known thing, and, more importantly, (2) it would affect only those people that won't give up the name of their known attacker. I don't buy it for a second.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between forgiveness and justice. The rape victim can forgive her attacker...because that is really about her mental health and being able to move on then anything else. But, justice should be served. We can't have the attacker not pay a penalty for his crime.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with Anne on this one, the victim shouldn't be charged. But perhaps a discussion should occur about what forgiveness really means :-)