Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I don't think Stu is quite saying that (but he can correct me). Here's the quote:

...the previous line in that song was literally "Was it love at first sight?", and then he says "Did she put up a fight?", which to me, implies that he meant "Was she hard to woo?" (as opposed to it being "love at first sight")

Sounds like he's saying the lines are meant to contrast, but not that it's an "answer." He says right there what he thinks it means: was she hard to woo?

Also, ya' know, they rhyme.

It wouldn't be the first time
someone bent
what they meant
For the sake of a rhyme.

I think there is meant to be a contrast, but to me it is more between women mooning over love, and men oogling over sexual details.

Again, if it was just on paper, I can understand giving it a more gracious reading. But it is in the manner of how the guy sings it that makes its meaning fairly apparent. And I think it translates that way to a lot of very passive listeners as well since, as I mentioned in a previous post, this seems to be the line men remember to sing along to when drunk and on a dance floor. And in that context, it never has anything to do with their eagerness to know how hard she was to woo.

EDIT: I just started to watch the clip for the first time in years and the whole song begins with the T-Birds asking him to give them 'all the horny details'. RIght from the get go, they are establishing how these two conversations are very different: romance vs sex.

We can graciously assume on paper this means they are talking about the distance you drive in his car but.....one of the t-birds mimes groping breasts as he says his line.

It's rapey.

Okay, so at least watching Grease has led to me expanding my vocabulary.

I don't think I'm describing these two related (but different) things the same way. If I'd thought the line meant someone was actually being sexually assaulted, I'd definitely have mentioned that in my initial review and I wouldn't be using words like "icky" to describe my feelings about the lyric.

Why is that untenable, though? I'm not talking about a standard other people need to have.

There are a dozen other ways to imply someone was resistant to an idea ("Did you have to sweet talk her?" "Did you have to beg and plead?") that don't evoke the use of physical force.

This is actually part of why the actors being so much older than their characters adds to the problem. It's not some naive looking 16 year old kid saying that lyric. It's a 28 year old man.

And I do disagree with Stu's interpretation (though he's obviously free to read the lyrics however he chooses). I don't see "love at first sight" and "did she put up a fight" as two sides of the same coin, because I don't see prompt mutual attraction and having sex as automatic equals. To me (and this is just what these words mean in my head!) "love at first sight" = "were you guys into each other right away?" and "did she put up a fight?" = "Did she push back against having sex with you?"

I agree, I just don't think that's either-or. I think it's contrasting both things.


I'm genuinely confused by some of these responses. In this one, and in a couple of others, too, it sounds like people are trying to convince me/us that it's merely sexual. But I don't think anyone's disputing that. It's the leap from "sexual" to "rapey."

Here's another example:


How do we go from "mimes groping breasts" (and why is it groping rather than grabbing, except that the former has a non-consensual connotation?) to "rapey," as if that's the only context in which someone might be grabbing someone else.

In short: why are the lyrics' sexual nature being used as ipso facto evidence that they're talking about some untoward form of coercion, rather than just being immature horn dogs? If you just wanna say that's how you read it, that's fine. As I said in this post, I can't prove or disprove the implications we do or don't read into it. But I don't see why people are trying to support those perceptions just by talking about it being sexual.

Serious question, actually, and maybe this will cut through the Gordian knot:

Are people taking Stu's reference to "woo[ing]" like it refers to some quasi-Victorian courtship process? Because it's not an inherently asexual term or anything.

In short: why are the lyrics' sexual nature being used as ipso facto evidence that they're talking about some untoward form of coercion, rather than just being immature horn dogs?

I'm thinking specifically of the word "rapey." That's quite literally using the word (unless we think the appending of "y" fundamentally changes things) to describe the thing in the same terms as its most extreme form.

Me several days ago: Welp, Grease was just kind of a so-so musical. Guess I won't think about it much anymore.

Me now: *googling to see if there's actually a "did she put up a fight?" controvery* *googling "Summer Nights" lyrics* *googling zugzwang*

El Fantasma del Convento, 1934

Couple Cristina (Marta Roel) and Eduardo (Carlos Villatoro) and their friend Alfonso (Enrique del Campo) get lost while on an outing. They are seemingly saved when a man appears out of the forest and offers to take them to a nearby monastery. Once there, however, the trio discovers that one of the cells belonged to a monk who discovered dark powers connected to desire. This aligns with current tensions in the group, as Cristina is clearly attracted to Alfonso and he is slowly becoming tempted by her overtures.

While this film does take a little while to find solid momentum, it is full of spooky atmosphere and wraps up with a last act replete with great visuals.

The first half of the film does a lot of work in building the monastery's creepy credentials. The characters walk down many a long hallway filled with cobwebs. We are frequently shown a monk's cell that has been seemingly sealed with a large cross. The three visitors follow the dark, solemn figures of the monks through the many hallways. These sequences also give us plenty of time to watch Cristina flirt with Alfonso over and over, establishing the threat of infidelity and betrayal.

It's in the last half hour, though, that the film gets really fun and interesting. Having learned that the monk who haunts the monastery once lusted after his friend's wife, a situation that ended poorly for all involved, Alfonso manages to find the cell holding the remains of the infamous monk. Finding a book in which the monk wrote down his reflections on what happened, Alfonso experiences a series of visions related to his feelings for Cristina. The visuals and special effects here are really effective and jolting. And while it might be a touch predictable, I liked the way that the legend of the monk intersected with Alfonso's current situation.

The main downside to the film is the characters themselves. I didn't really gel to any of them. Eduardo in particular feels like kind of a non-entity. This has the effect of slightly dulling the sense of urgency about what's happening between the three of them.

I also thought it was interesting that the final act centers so much on Alfonso. Surely Cristina---the person really aggressively pursuing the infidelity---is the one who should be learning a lesson from a blood-drenched monk memoir, right?! Something that was not entirely clear to me in the way that the dialogue plays out in the last act is the degree to which Cristina's behavior was driven by the haunting. It's certainly impacted by it---the film says as much overtly. But was the whole point to make Cristina behave this way so as to drive Alfonso to a crisis point where he'd be more receptive to the message from the dead monk? I almost prefer this reading, because otherwise Cristina is just a terrible person who is sort of being used as a prop for Alfonso's character growth. The idea that her behavior was more out of her control is actually more scary and more satisfying.

I have to call out a great line from the end of the film. It does go kind of into spoiler territory though. In the end we discover that (BIG SPOILERS)

Part of the World Cinema Project and a lovely print is available (at least in the US) on YouTube. Definitely recommended! Doubly so if you enjoy spooky 1930s horror.

I'm down for this.

I should really put a PSA in the Horrorcram thread. I think a lot of folks would dig it.

If either/both of you are using the word "rapey" just to mean "made me think of rape," then plainly I am in no position to disagree. I certainly don't think you're lying, and "I didn't like it because it made me think of that" is a perfectly reasonable reaction.