CASE OF RAPE

US, 1974, 100 minutes, Colour.
Elizabeth Montgomery, William Daniels, Cliff Potts, Rosemary Murphy, Ronnie Cox.
Directed by Boris Sagal.

A Case of Rape is a very hard-hitting American telemovie, made in the early years of the popular telemovies.

Elizabeth Montgomery had made her mark in a number of films as well as starring in Bewitched. After this she began to develop stronger television leading roles for herself such as the lead in a remake of the Bette Davis film, Dark Victory.

She is supported by regular television actors William Daniels and Cliff Potts as the villain.

The film is very strong in its visual presentation of rape – though geared towards viewing by an audience at home. It illustrates how strongly a film can be made while exercising reticence and not being exploitative. Elizabeth Montgomery portrays a housewife, happily married, who is raped, reports the case to the police and is forced to undergo humiliation as she is interrogated by the police, harshly treated by hospital staff, suffers in the courts and is then raped again.

The film raises the question of the victimisation of victims of rape – as well as pointing out that men can be accused by hysterical women. However, this film is a very strong opportunity for audiences to understand the impact of violation on a woman who experiences it.

I. How satisfying a telemovie was this? As entertainment? As instructive? why was the film made?

2. Did the film use telemovie techniques well? The use of close-ups for home viewing? sections with the ending for advertisements? Did this detract from the impact of the film?

3. How real was the story of this film? Is it verified by newspapers and court reports? Was it filmed in a realistic way? Were the situations contrived? The details, the relationships, the trial? Where were audience sympathies during the film? Did they veer from Helen?

4. What was the impression of the film as regards justice? How was the audience sense of justice appealed to? Did this add to the audience response to the film and colour it? Successfully, appropriately?

5. What did the film have to say about the reality of rape? Its effect on the woman herself, her stance with the law? the victim put on trial? The horror of the whole situation? Was this balanced by the necessary precaution of protecting the accused? The fact that men could be victimised by hysterical women? How did the film bring this contrast out? Successfully?

6. How was the character of Helen established as an ordinary housewife? With her good points and had? Her relationship to husband and family? to friends? The fact that she was victimised and her kindness was played on? Her fears after the first rape? Could you understand why she didn’t continue to call the police? The reality of the second rape? Why did she prefer charges? How strong was she in deciding to go through with the court case? Her agreement to suffer the humiliations? Was she motivated by revenge? By other motives? What impact did the trial have on her? The ordeal of living through it? Her relationship to her husband? How did this experience change her life? Was this justified?

7. What were your responses to Larry as a person? His style of encountering the women? His brutality in the rapes? The fact that he came back? his presentation in the court case? His seeming innocence? His reassurances to Helen at the end? What impact did this have on the audience’s sense of justice? How important was this for the film?

8. The picture of family life, its strengths and weaknesses? Helen’s inability to tell David? their visit to the family downstairs, the party and the pool, the comments on marriages breaking up? Was David’s point of view reasonable - his love and yet his suspicions? Trying to overcome repugnance and be sympathetic? His suspicions raised during the trial? Why was he unable to believe that Helen would tell the truth? Was his alienation from her understandable? Justifiable? What was your response to the information that they were divorced eventually?

9. Was the picture of the, police in the film justified? Was it accurate? humiliation of Helen? The sort of details of examinations, photographs, thee language about rape? Their questioning of Helen so as to protect the accused from hysteria? How necessary is this? reactions to it?

10. The importance of the court sequences? The busy courts, the juries and the way that they could be appealed to? The role of the judge and his attitudes? Would you have followed through as he did in having the case in court? Would she have been better to have withdrawn the charges?

11. The lawyers? Helen’s lawyer and his ability to help her? Did he do his best? How well was this illustrated? Importance of the accused having a woman? Did she overstep the bounds in her defence? How skilful a lawyer was she? the manipulation of the truth and the lack of truth? How frustrating was this? How repulsive? Seeing the two lawyers arranging a golf game the following week? response to this?

12. Assess the effect of the case on all those concerned. Who came out the worst? The importance of Helen sitting in the court and camera shifts?

13. Why is it important that the audiences have the opportunity to see this kind of dramatisation of real crimes? Why?