The second the opening titles start Guy Ritchie’s latest film “The Gentlemen” (2020) sets itself up as something sophisticated, colourful and bleeding with style.
And it was. The story veers from one twist to another, punctuated by side quests and violence. The soundtrack was sharp as a knife, the characters were larger than life. Nothing about this is supposed to be serious, it’s a drug dealing gun toting romp.
Except for the attempted rape.
At this point the film went from a lot of fun to deeply disturbing in a split second. But even more galling was that it went straight back to being fun again. Is rape really that much of a throwaway plot point?
To set the scene, the leading character Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughay) and his wife Rosalind (Michelle Dockery) are being targeted separately by rival Dry Eye (Henry Golding) who wants Mickey’s business.
The plan was to kill Mickey and kidnap Ros. But Mickey survives and races to Ros’s office to save her. Meanwhile Ros has already shot and killed two henchmen and is now grappling with Dry Eye.
During the fight Dry Eye pins Ros and it’s clear he’s about to rape her. As the camera pulls in tight on her face Mickey bursts in and shoots Dry Eye four times, yelling for him to get off his wife.
The camera settles on Ros’s face splattered in blood and wide eyed but not exactly terrified.
But for me this scene was terrifying. Not only that, it was used purely to further the male lead’s actions. We're not encouraged to care about Ros, we are only asked to care that Mickey’s 'property' was about to be violated.
I say that because we don’t see her angry, processing what happened or having any lasting effects. She doesn’t get any revenge or resolution. All the anger comes from Mickey and the revenge is metered out solely by him.
So Ros’s attempted rape was designed only to anger her husband and spur him into action. It was entirely tone deaf, unnecessary and belittling to victims.
This is also against the background of being the only main female character in the film which had a sizeable cast.
Some would say it’s a violent film, why not include another kind of violence?
The way this scene is shot is in contrast to the rest of the violence in the film which is largely stylised and humorous. We’ve seen comically huge projectile vomiting, sheepish accounts of accidental murder, henchmen caught tiptoeing with a dead body and heavily choreographed fist fights.
There were less comical acts of violence too but to even compare those with the attempted rape scene ignores the traumatic violation and intimacy of sexual violence as distinct from other acts of bodily violence.
Rape is not just about causing pain. It's about humiliation, dominance and dehumanisation. It is not the same as a gunshot.
Some films have treated this topic a lot better. Boys Don’t Cry and Elle spring to mind because they are about the victim’s experience not the perpetrator or someone else’s revenge on their behalf.
It has been widely reported that around a fifth of women will be raped at some point in their lives and 90% of rape victims are women. This is an incredibly serious and harrowing crime which should at the very least be treated with due care in film.
An otherwise fun, stylish and clever film was massively let down by reducing sexual violence to a plot device and entirely ignoring the trauma it causes. The victim had no personal resolution at all. To use sexual violence as a plot device without due care like this is hugely dangerous for audiences. It shows how out of touch many directors and screenwriters are and how accepted sexual violence is.
Hi, I'm Caz. I live in Edinburgh and I watch a lot of films. My reviews focus mainly on women in film - female directors or how women are represented on screen.