Spoilers galore for this seemingly little-known 2000 film starring Bill Pullman which even Wikipedia gives short shrift. The brief description I read of the movie before watching it clearly left out a lot, which is not surprising as that is a common tactic for getting you interested in the movie without any spoilers.
The movie begins with a young man, Nathan Corrigan, being released from prison and picked up by his extremely inconsiderate, loser friends who have the gall to pick him up from prison in a stolen vehicle. After a few minutes painting a sad portrait of his life, we are introduced to the other main character, a successful, wealthy asshole lawyer named Callum Crane.
Sophie Lennon is a beautiful, young new secretary in Crane's law office. After winning his case and having a few too many drinks with a friend, this married man makes the unwise decision to take Sophie out for more drinks. She makes the unwise decision to accept the offer.
They both openly flirt and end up at her place where she finally decides this is a bad idea because he is her boss, he is married and he is extremely drunk. Having been very warmly received by her so far and extremely inebriated, he has sex with her after being told "no" while she says "No" over and over the entire time.
I'm impressed with the scene because it paints a surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Crane. He's clearly in the wrong and guilty of raping her but it seems likely he's not done this before and you can kind of understand how one thing led to another and he didn't really mean to hurt her.
This is actually how most date rape occurs. It usually involves alcohol, mixed messages and misunderstandings between two people from "different worlds."
It's also not particularly violent, which is likely also more true-to-life than many people seem to realize. Other than her saying "no" over and over and very clearly feeling traumatized by the whole thing, it's basically just sex, not him brutalizing her.
I'm fairly confident some men who commit date rape are genuinely surprised when they get accused of rape afterwards. If they failed to realize she didn't want it or are one of these morons who doesn't understand the whole "No means no" meme for some reason, some men no doubt really think they got laid, and not that they committed rape.
A lot of people seem to imagine rape is some extremely violent event involving dragging someone into an alleyway by their hair and doing a lot of bodily harm. It's shockingly hard to get it through to people that the definition of rape hinges on the detail of consent and not how violent it was.
As with MANY things in life, the big problem is what goes down after he makes this awful but somewhat understandable mistake. In an effort to protect himself from the consequences of his bad act, his choices become increasingly depraved.
He gets her fired from her new job, advises her that since she didn't go to the police immediately it would look like petty revenge if she tried to report the rape now and ultimately hires someone to kill her. Ironically, he hires someone to kill her because he finally is offered a federal judgeship and she tells him to step down or she will go public, a thing she later decides she's really not up to doing.
When he fails to step down, she figures he has "called her bluff" and has no idea he thinks she's completely serious and has hired someone to take her out. The movie tension ramps up quite high at this point in the film because unbeknownst to Crane, the person he "hired" to kill her - Nathan Corrigan, the recently released jailbird we met first -- is his bastard son from a one-night stand who has come to the city to meet his real father and unbeknownst to Corrigan, he is already personally acquainted with the woman he is being hired to kill and is falling for her.
After meeting with his estranged father and being nominally hired to commit murder, Corrigan goes home to his loser friends with the unopened envelope of money that contains Sophie's photo, name and address, tells his friends he is not going to do it and drops the envelope into a storm drain. One of his friends, Leo, goes to retrieve it because he desperately needs money and he plans to kill Sophie and collect the remainder of the fee Corrigan was promised.
Surprisingly, this is not a movie where Corrigan gets to play hero, save Sophie and live happily ever after. Instead, Leo successfully murders her and everyone believes Nathan Corrigan did it.
This is perhaps part of why it was given two out five stars on Rotten Tomatoes. The plot twists and turns ramp up dramatically after that and it has a surprisingly satisfying ending -- at least to ME, so I don't at all agree with the low rating.
Alcohol is the number one date rape drug. People don't like to hear that and like to get all up in arms and act like you are ruining their fun to point that out.
I personally like my fun without ugly consequences and regrets. I'm a big believer in taking precautions and it's not cautious to invite your very drunk boss into your apartment alone, especially if you are very beautiful and have a track record of attracting excess male attention, as Sophie is portrayed as in the film.
No, that's not me blaming the victim. That's me saying that if you don't want to be a victim, rape is a crime that requires a certain set up -- including a certain level of privacy -- and if you know the stats, you can make choices that help reduce the odds that it will go down that way.
The main thing I like about this film though is the fact that things go so insanely wrong after she is sexually assaulted. This is actually how really bad things tend to happen in life and it's the reason I'm a cautious person.
The events prior to her assault are unplanned and had it not ended in her being raped could be described as good, clean fun: A guy celebrating his good work-related news with a coworker and both being friendly and flirtatious, which isn't necessarily a problem per se except for the fact that such things set precedents and tend to start you down a slippery slope from which people typically do not return.
Once two people flirt like that, you typically never go back to a professional relationship. So ruinous events tend to be set in motion at that point and people have a tendency to not see it. They tend to think things went wrong at a later point, such as the point where she was assaulted or it turned into an illicit affair, not at the point where he stupidly asked her out, she stupidly accepted and lots of flirting happened in a relatively safe public setting.
If you recognize the pattern, you know that once he has raped her, he is unlikely to be a stand-up guy, do the right thing, etc. After it gets to that point, the behavior of the perpetrator usually gets worse, not better, because their primary goal is typically protecting themselves.
If the truth about you and your actions hurts, most people suddenly develop a really flexible relationship to The Truth. The longer it goes on, the more they convince themselves their rewritten history is the real truth and the person they hurt is the actual bad guy for wanting justice or to protect themselves in some way.
Crane's desire to at some point in the film frame it as a misunderstanding and apologize as his solution to the whole thing is sort of understandable from his point of view but, of course, it's wholly unacceptable to her. Misunderstanding or not, she was raped -- which is a big deal -- and then fired and also threatened to protect his interests.
It's extremely unjust and framing it as a little misunderstanding just adds insult to injury.
I no longer really see myself as especially attractive though other people seem to still see me that way. I'm older than I used to be and I don't look like I did in my teens and twenties.
My experiences as someone who attracts excessive attention like the character Sophie in this film likely contributes to my very conservative stance on things.
Am I suggesting that "Ugly girls don't need to be so careful."? No, I think it's more like "I may have had more exposure to such patterns than some women, so I recognize it perhaps more readily than average."
Generally speaking, if someone is going to be a stand up guy, they will do that before they mess up badly and it will be more likely to happen if you nudge them in the right direction by declining to engage in certain patterns at their invitation. Once someone is drunk, alone with you in your apartment and taking the "next logical step" even though you have just told them "no, I've changed my mind, this seems like a really bad idea," the odds are good their future actions will only get uglier as they try to cover their ass.
I tend to be honest to a fault and was a little surprised at how one scene in the film went because of that personal Achilles heel. When Crane tries to hire Corrigan to murder Sophie, he describes the rape in terms that aren't outright a lie but make it sound like it was an affair, not sexual assault, and he makes sure to tell Corrigan that Sophie's trying to blackmail him -- which she is, but not in the way you might think.
She just doesn't want him being a judge now that he's a rapist. She doesn't feel he is qualified for the role.
I've been fortunate to know some uncommonly good people who tried to make things right after hurting me. This is not the norm.
The course of events in this film are much more the norm: After someone has effed up big-time, they often just keep doing worse and worse things to try to cover it up while feeling entitled to something from their victim.
If you know that ahead of time and know where certain patterns tend to lead, you know the only winning move is not to play.
Though good luck trying to helpfully explain that to other people.
The movie begins with a young man, Nathan Corrigan, being released from prison and picked up by his extremely inconsiderate, loser friends who have the gall to pick him up from prison in a stolen vehicle. After a few minutes painting a sad portrait of his life, we are introduced to the other main character, a successful, wealthy asshole lawyer named Callum Crane.
Sophie Lennon is a beautiful, young new secretary in Crane's law office. After winning his case and having a few too many drinks with a friend, this married man makes the unwise decision to take Sophie out for more drinks. She makes the unwise decision to accept the offer.
They both openly flirt and end up at her place where she finally decides this is a bad idea because he is her boss, he is married and he is extremely drunk. Having been very warmly received by her so far and extremely inebriated, he has sex with her after being told "no" while she says "No" over and over the entire time.
I'm impressed with the scene because it paints a surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Crane. He's clearly in the wrong and guilty of raping her but it seems likely he's not done this before and you can kind of understand how one thing led to another and he didn't really mean to hurt her.
This is actually how most date rape occurs. It usually involves alcohol, mixed messages and misunderstandings between two people from "different worlds."
It's also not particularly violent, which is likely also more true-to-life than many people seem to realize. Other than her saying "no" over and over and very clearly feeling traumatized by the whole thing, it's basically just sex, not him brutalizing her.
I'm fairly confident some men who commit date rape are genuinely surprised when they get accused of rape afterwards. If they failed to realize she didn't want it or are one of these morons who doesn't understand the whole "No means no" meme for some reason, some men no doubt really think they got laid, and not that they committed rape.
A lot of people seem to imagine rape is some extremely violent event involving dragging someone into an alleyway by their hair and doing a lot of bodily harm. It's shockingly hard to get it through to people that the definition of rape hinges on the detail of consent and not how violent it was.
As with MANY things in life, the big problem is what goes down after he makes this awful but somewhat understandable mistake. In an effort to protect himself from the consequences of his bad act, his choices become increasingly depraved.
He gets her fired from her new job, advises her that since she didn't go to the police immediately it would look like petty revenge if she tried to report the rape now and ultimately hires someone to kill her. Ironically, he hires someone to kill her because he finally is offered a federal judgeship and she tells him to step down or she will go public, a thing she later decides she's really not up to doing.
When he fails to step down, she figures he has "called her bluff" and has no idea he thinks she's completely serious and has hired someone to take her out. The movie tension ramps up quite high at this point in the film because unbeknownst to Crane, the person he "hired" to kill her - Nathan Corrigan, the recently released jailbird we met first -- is his bastard son from a one-night stand who has come to the city to meet his real father and unbeknownst to Corrigan, he is already personally acquainted with the woman he is being hired to kill and is falling for her.
After meeting with his estranged father and being nominally hired to commit murder, Corrigan goes home to his loser friends with the unopened envelope of money that contains Sophie's photo, name and address, tells his friends he is not going to do it and drops the envelope into a storm drain. One of his friends, Leo, goes to retrieve it because he desperately needs money and he plans to kill Sophie and collect the remainder of the fee Corrigan was promised.
Surprisingly, this is not a movie where Corrigan gets to play hero, save Sophie and live happily ever after. Instead, Leo successfully murders her and everyone believes Nathan Corrigan did it.
This is perhaps part of why it was given two out five stars on Rotten Tomatoes. The plot twists and turns ramp up dramatically after that and it has a surprisingly satisfying ending -- at least to ME, so I don't at all agree with the low rating.
Alcohol is the number one date rape drug. People don't like to hear that and like to get all up in arms and act like you are ruining their fun to point that out.
I personally like my fun without ugly consequences and regrets. I'm a big believer in taking precautions and it's not cautious to invite your very drunk boss into your apartment alone, especially if you are very beautiful and have a track record of attracting excess male attention, as Sophie is portrayed as in the film.
No, that's not me blaming the victim. That's me saying that if you don't want to be a victim, rape is a crime that requires a certain set up -- including a certain level of privacy -- and if you know the stats, you can make choices that help reduce the odds that it will go down that way.
The main thing I like about this film though is the fact that things go so insanely wrong after she is sexually assaulted. This is actually how really bad things tend to happen in life and it's the reason I'm a cautious person.
The events prior to her assault are unplanned and had it not ended in her being raped could be described as good, clean fun: A guy celebrating his good work-related news with a coworker and both being friendly and flirtatious, which isn't necessarily a problem per se except for the fact that such things set precedents and tend to start you down a slippery slope from which people typically do not return.
Once two people flirt like that, you typically never go back to a professional relationship. So ruinous events tend to be set in motion at that point and people have a tendency to not see it. They tend to think things went wrong at a later point, such as the point where she was assaulted or it turned into an illicit affair, not at the point where he stupidly asked her out, she stupidly accepted and lots of flirting happened in a relatively safe public setting.
If you recognize the pattern, you know that once he has raped her, he is unlikely to be a stand-up guy, do the right thing, etc. After it gets to that point, the behavior of the perpetrator usually gets worse, not better, because their primary goal is typically protecting themselves.
If the truth about you and your actions hurts, most people suddenly develop a really flexible relationship to The Truth. The longer it goes on, the more they convince themselves their rewritten history is the real truth and the person they hurt is the actual bad guy for wanting justice or to protect themselves in some way.
Crane's desire to at some point in the film frame it as a misunderstanding and apologize as his solution to the whole thing is sort of understandable from his point of view but, of course, it's wholly unacceptable to her. Misunderstanding or not, she was raped -- which is a big deal -- and then fired and also threatened to protect his interests.
It's extremely unjust and framing it as a little misunderstanding just adds insult to injury.
I no longer really see myself as especially attractive though other people seem to still see me that way. I'm older than I used to be and I don't look like I did in my teens and twenties.
My experiences as someone who attracts excessive attention like the character Sophie in this film likely contributes to my very conservative stance on things.
Am I suggesting that "Ugly girls don't need to be so careful."? No, I think it's more like "I may have had more exposure to such patterns than some women, so I recognize it perhaps more readily than average."
Generally speaking, if someone is going to be a stand up guy, they will do that before they mess up badly and it will be more likely to happen if you nudge them in the right direction by declining to engage in certain patterns at their invitation. Once someone is drunk, alone with you in your apartment and taking the "next logical step" even though you have just told them "no, I've changed my mind, this seems like a really bad idea," the odds are good their future actions will only get uglier as they try to cover their ass.
I tend to be honest to a fault and was a little surprised at how one scene in the film went because of that personal Achilles heel. When Crane tries to hire Corrigan to murder Sophie, he describes the rape in terms that aren't outright a lie but make it sound like it was an affair, not sexual assault, and he makes sure to tell Corrigan that Sophie's trying to blackmail him -- which she is, but not in the way you might think.
She just doesn't want him being a judge now that he's a rapist. She doesn't feel he is qualified for the role.
I've been fortunate to know some uncommonly good people who tried to make things right after hurting me. This is not the norm.
The course of events in this film are much more the norm: After someone has effed up big-time, they often just keep doing worse and worse things to try to cover it up while feeling entitled to something from their victim.
If you know that ahead of time and know where certain patterns tend to lead, you know the only winning move is not to play.
Though good luck trying to helpfully explain that to other people.