To want a film I don't feel comfortable with, turned off?

[Knightly]

DH and I were just casually sitting, flicking through channels. He stopped on one film, no idea what it's called, but it had already started in full swing.

I didn't have a clue to the story line and neither did DH so not able to fill me in. He said he knew roughly he thought and her identity was different and she was in hospital.

Next thing I know a woman has woken up in a hospital gown screaming and looking at her hands.

Then some nurse brings in this bloke who has paid to have sex (rape), with her. Nurse was under impression she was still knocked out. Nurse leaves and when rapist gets to it, she bites his tongue off.

I said "DH, I don't feel comfortable with this. Can you turn it off?"

"No, ffs"

I said "Well I am leaving the room then because I feel uncomfortable".

"Fuck sake. Fine! I'll turn it off"

I said "Don't worry, I'm going anyway due to the way you're speaking to me".

He said "Well no, it's just always about what you want".

Was I being unreasonable here? It didn't help that I didn't know the story line, so essentially film was just graphic scenes with no plot to me.

Also, anyone know what film it is? Is on now.

Velourvoyager not having a name doesn't dehumanise The Bride. She's the most humanised human in the bloody film.

Ellendouble OK that makes sense. and velour did you hear or read the interview where Tarantino talks about the female who survives as having some sort of moral fortitude! So fucked up!

Tiger HTH Hope that helps.

Our conversations go like this..'I don't like this, so Im going elsewhere'. At this point, he'll ask me what I'd prefer to watch. Vice versa too. He has free time to watch what he wants and I have mine. We do sometimes watch stuff together - it's nicer.

I like Tarantino films. But they are uncomfortable watching for me at times too - far too violent.But I wouldn't force them on Dh if he felt he didn't want to see it.

Elle I was responding to this: 'Her name is revealed in the second film.'

I'll bet male characters are given a clear cut identity (all they need is a flipping name tbh) from the first film, right? I have a suspicion one is granted a very eponymous honour! Whereas the main female character must rely on viewers' loyalty (bought by male characters, richly and fully developed as they are with their bona fide names & identities) to be able to gain, in viewers' minds, their own identities in the second film. This then involves a sacrifice in terms of viewers' resources (cinema tickets, DVD price, time, etc), further impairing the likelihood of their gaining similar exposure to that of their costars. Thank goodness they have those men to entice those viewers eh? The female character isn't given the same opportunity to gain recognition, are they, if their name (= identity) is only revealed in the 2nd film, and if they're being carried by their male costars.
Identity is a powerful thing.

The Wikipedia page mentions rape happening during the scene - I do hope there's going to be an influx of complaints from MNers regarding this very misleading reporting of events? Since I've been assured that nothing of the kind happened?
I also see that the rape victim is referred to as 'the Bride' - please don't say I have to explain why that's less than ideal...

Bum not having a name doesn't dehumanise!!! It kind of does, IMHO.

38cody "I can't really see why he can't watch it just because you don't want to tbh, just read, watch tv elsewhere, go to sleep - whatever." Because she was in their bed, at night!

I can't fathom why you all want to convince the OP to give this film a go! It seems like a determination to somehow prove her wrong.

Along with all the insistence that it was not a rape scene, just an attempted rape scene. Watching a film, seeing an attempted rape, not knowing if the rapist will be successful, who the fuck would carry on because actually he may not succeed and that makes it all OK?

OP, I do wish you all the best chatting to your dh.

I feel folk are being unfair to you op purely because the know the film is Kill Bill and they have watched it and liked it.

I think you have given good reason why you YANBU and explained clearly that it was put on during a rather strange, difficult to watch part. I'm sure if you ran this scene only with a test audience many would walk away.

A normal audience will have already been given something to hook them in to the film before this so will continue to watch.

I think Kill Bill is a brilliant film but can see past that to try and understand where the op is coming from.

Bumdish do you think that the action of having a name could be seen as a political in this film perhaps? Is it an action, or does the fact of having a name bestowed on one remove some agency from that character?

(not being goady, am interested - would love to be proved wrong!)

Tarantino films are so out there that I can handle more violence than usual in them.

I'm very funny about horror films I can't bear to watch people tied up or children in them. Had to ask xh to turn off the hills have eyes. Open plan house so couldn't just go elsewhere. He's one of those that watched horrors from a young age so couldn't see the fuss.

velour, Tarantino does this with the male characters in Reservoir Dogs. They are called Mr Pink, White etc.

Thank goodness they have those men to entice those viewers eh?

The entirety - and I mean, the entirety - of Kill Bill's marketing campaign was based around Uma Thurman. The main male co-star doesn't even appear on the first film.

I'll bet male characters are given a clear cut identity (all they need is a flipping name tbh) from the first film, right?

Clint Eastwood's character is not named in the Dollars films, nor is Ryan Gosling's character in Drive, Bruce Willis in The Jackal. Are they also denied identity? The Bride in the first film is a force, an agent of revenge and destruction (consistent with the Hong Kong martial arts films to which it is an homage) - the fact that she gains a name in the second part is indicative of her getting closer to her final revenge and regaining her true identity from the violence visited on her.

YANBU. Sounds disgusting!

There's a film called 'La mariée était en noir' which bases a lot of its own Bride's (= la mariée) credibility in the eyes of her victims on the fact that she can convincingly adopt different roles. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a feminist film, as this credibility is based on something so transcient. She can't reproduce the authority which allows her to exact revenge in her everday role as widow - she has to take on a variety of personas to fulfil her aim - some of which (e.g. teacher, model) only have power vested in them by faceless and massive entities (government & patriarchy).
Any parallels with KB?

I'm sorry you went through that as a child. In the circumstances your H'a reaction were horrible.

I won't watch violent films and especially not violence against women. Very often it's gratuitous and even if not I find it upsetting. When something comes on unexpectedly I turn it over asap or if not possible leave the room.

OH was watching a film called CatRun. Silly but harmless until a woman puts a gun in a baby's mouth. Left the room and was sick. Refused to come back in until it was turned off. YANBU?

Female characters face invisible challenges, so I'm not sure comparisons with male characters in similar films are all that useful, as they do not have an immense power structure which discriminates on the basis of sex propping them up. Male characters benefit from this because audiences take into account the construct of assumed masculinity to presume that they already possess all sorts of beneficial attributes without these characters having to prove them onscreen. Female characters not only have to prove these attributes onscreen, they also have to disprove those negative, weak attributes which are ascribed them by present-day sex relations and culture. They also have to be extra special, extra interesting to be equal to the male default. Not having a name creates repercussions.

YANBU, it shouldn't have been that big a deal for him.

Sometimes me and DH watch shows where I'm not comfortable with scenes (certain types of violence) - I'll usually excuse myself and go to the toilet or something. But if the whole show is just sustained violence, or I'm just not feeling it, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to watch something else.

DH wouldn't watch a period drama or romcom with me either. He finds that unbearable to watch for other reasons It's just all about compromise.

No I haven't seen the film, yes I am basing my answer on the information given in the OP

Na really? That's not obvious at all that.

Maybe you should watch it if you want to have such a strong opinion because atm eyeballs are rolling along the floor reading your posts.

I don't like violent films & exh did (not the reason we split!) so he would just watch them downstairs.

So selfish to make someone sit through something they find upsetting even if it is an amazing film

Not having a name creates repercussions.

Not having a name reinforces the mythic qualities around the Bride in the first film - she is vengeance and violence, not a person, which is the entire point of the film (in my opinion).

Absolutely your choice to not watch it. Is your DH aware of the abuse you underwent?

Kill Bill has a lot of unsavoury scenes - Elle's eye gouged out, severed head, killing of a single mother in front of her child, mass slaughter of Japanese Yakuza, and rape. It's brilliant.

There's also a male rape scene in Pulp Fiction.

Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, Death Proof all have strong female characters.

Gamer which posts and why please?

OP YANBU

Mainly because this wasn't a case of you can only watch x when I'm around ,but a case of "I find this triggering and upsetting ",especially given your past. It feels quite off as well that your DH would sulk if you left and also sulked when you complained.

Pulp fictions on as well on spike. Must be the nigh for it

@velourvoyageur do you actually have any advice for OP or did you just came to rant about the rights and (assumed) wrongs of a movie you haven't even seen?