I disagree.
A twenty-first century critique of early twentieth-century society should definitely be sensitive to how behaviors that were considered acceptable a century ago are no longer acceptable now, particularly in a scene where a woman is put in a position where she is damned if she does, and damned if she does not. More generally, Mary and Pamuk may not consider his intrusion into her bedchambers and subsequent coercion into sex to be rape, but a modern audience will, and should, because victims already silence and erase themselves daily if they suspect that they, in any way, might be at fault. That attitude is historically accurate to the present day; we desperately need to move away from it, in our daily commentary and in how we represent sex, intimacy, and the manipulative twisting of it in film and fiction.
If Fellowes’ intention was, as I suspect, for us to view this encounter as an illicit romp in the hay, then he went about introducing Pamuk completely the wrong way. If that wasn’t his intention, if he genuinely intended for us to be as horrified as we are by what transpires in her bedroom, then he dropped the ball there, too, because the atmosphere of this scene does not reflect the severity of what is happening to Mary. Sensitivity is what could have made this scene both compelling and heartbreaking. Instead, it’s repulsive due to what has just happened, and how horribly it was managed from the director’s chair.
Okay, but this show isn’t a critique of early 20th-century society. It’s a historical drama, which means that it needs to accurately depict the era it takes place in, for better or for worse. Women weren’t on equal footing back then, sexually or otherwise — arguing that we need to move away from representing sex in this way is to argue against historical realism in film and fiction. Is that really what you’re suggesting? That we can’t depict historical relationships as they would have happened, just because contemporary culture has victim-blaming issues?
I’d be interested to hear how you think Pamuk should have been introduced so as to make the “illicit romp” idea palatable — which I agree is what we’re meant to take away from this scene. Mary isn’t a passive participant, here; the whole point is that this is her choice. She has every option to send him packing; she doesn’t. (Pamuk challenges her when she threatens to scream, but he and Mary both know it’s a bluff — it’s her house, her family, her country. If she raised the alarm, then he’d be in the deepest of deep Edwardian shit.) And afterward, even when it would be the easiest thing in the world to claim victimhood and escape judgment, she doesn’t. She owns her decision, even to the point of throwing it back in her mother’s face. Which is why, even as a modern viewer, I don’t take away “rape” from this scene.
(Source: ithinkyoufweaky)
