Way back in 2014 Hayley Krischer wrote a post for the Huffington Post contending that t Maleficent includes a rape scene. Since this movie is a PG-13 Disney film, it does not contain a literal rape scene. Rather, the character of Maleficent is betrayed and mutilated (her wings are removed) and this can be taken to imply an off-screen rape or be a metaphor for rape.
The claim that the betrayal and mutilation of Maleficent is a metaphor for rape is plausible—Krischer does a reasonable analysis of the scenario and, of course, for rape to be in a PG-13 Disney film it would need to be metaphorical. But whether the scene is about rape is a matter of dispute. Metaphors are not literal and are always subject to some degree of dispute.
One way to address the question would be to determine the intent of those who created the film. After all, the creators would be the best qualified to know their intent and can be seen as those who get the final say about what it means.
However, creators sometimes do not know what they intend. While I am but a minor writer, I know that sometimes the words come forth like wild animals, going as they will. Also, I know that sometimes the audience provides an even better interpretation. For example, in one of my Pathfinder adventures I created a dwarf non-player character named Burnbeard. While interacting with the players, he evolved into a true villain—a dwarf who burns off the beards of other dwarfs after he murders them (the greatest insult in dwarven culture). This sort of interaction between the audience and the work of the creator can invest something with new meaning. As such, even if the creators of the movie did not intend for the scene to be a rape scene, it could have evolved into that via the interaction between the audience and the film.
There is also the possibility that a metaphor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The intent of the creator does not matter as much as the interpretation of the audience. To use the obvious analogy to communication, a person might say something with a certain intent, yet what matters is the meaning taken by the recipient. As such, whatever an audience member sees in a metaphor is what the metaphor means—for that person. To those who see a rape metaphor in Maleficent, the movie contains a rape metaphor. To those who do not, it does not. As such, every metaphorical interpretation would be “right” in the subjective sense.
While this has some appeal, it makes claims about the meaning of metaphors pointless—if everyone is right, it is not worth discussing metaphors except as an exercise in telling others what you see in the mirror of the silver screen. As such, it seems reasonable that for discussing and disputing metaphors to be worthwhile (other than as psychoanalysis) there must be better and worse interpretations.
In the case of Maleficent, there is a plausible case that there is a metaphor for rape. However, a case can be made against that. After all, there are many fantasy movies in which something awful happens to a main character, in which they are subject to treachery and gravely wronged. However, these are not all taken as metaphors for rape. One does not speak of the rape of Aslan. Or the rape of Gollum (betrayed by the ring and robbed of his precious by Bilbo). Or even the rape of Sauron (who has his finger chopped off and is robbed of his ring of power). However, it might be contended that the rape metaphor is limited to female characters rather than male characters who undergo comparable abuses. But what is needed are clear guides to sorting out the evils which are metaphors for rape, and which are not.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.
By the way, I did watch the movie many years ago. Other than clearly remembering that it was a FANTASY movie and that it had a striking style, I don’t remember much else.
I think Ms Krischer tricked herself and fell into two types of fallacies: one, confirmation bias: ”there MUST be something in probably every movie that is an insult to women. No, worse. Wait a minute…..there! there it is! I knew it!. The wings getting ripped is a symbolism for rape! I KNEW it! ”;
and two, causal fallacy: ”hey look…..her wings have been ripped….wait a minute…. this is a woman! THAT’s why her wings are being ripped apart! Bad warlocks! Bad men! (etc etc…..)”.
”…wait a minute…. this is a woman! THAT’s why her wings are being ripped…”
”CONSEQUENTLY, this must be a sort of symbolism for rape. I mean, it’s wings, but so what? Look, it’s so obvious. A woman. Her wings are torn. Because she’s a woman. And therefore the ‘wings’ aren’t really wings WINGS….. Get it?.”.
I apologize for my foolish sense of humour. I swear I mean absolutely no disrespect to any woman, even less to any who has experienced any kind of very serious violence by men, such as rape. I know there are very bad men, but I don’t believe this is the majority at all.
Rape is a sickening act and I cannot understand how a man can let go of his honour in this way just to satisfy an urge. But I guess that to lose personal honour, one has to have it in the first place.
Perhaps maleifiCENCE is, or could be, another term for arrogance or ego? As proposed by the person you mentioned, it seems to have been contextualized, to fit the time, and, her assessment thereof. People manipulate terms to suit their advantage…their interests, motives and preferences. Happens all the time. I need not say more.
” the character of Maleficent is betrayed and mutilated (her wings are removed) and this can be taken to imply an off-screen rape or be a metaphor for rape.”.
I call this modern feminism hysteria. These women seem to interpret everything they see and hear as some kind of attack or harm to women. Truly a messed up society. I am not saying that rape doesn’t exist, it does and I am sure it must be devastating to incur any kind of serious violation on your person in that way. But personally I don’t think it’s a special type of evil. Animals commit rape too. It’s evil. It comes in a myriad forms, but at the basis there is no difference.
But to look at a piece of fiction and to interpret it as rape occurring in the real world, one must be messed up in the head. It becomes an ideology. It’s no different than religious fanaticism, where everything is interpreted according to a religion. It is a serious problem when one begins to interpret the entire experienced world as having some kind of connection to a single idea (the only one I ascribe to is that of Schopenhauer, the concept of the Will). It’s a kind of irrational generalization
In the past, women in the West truly fought for equality, right of voting, etc. But today? Feminism became an ideology, created by Western women who feed distorted ideas to one another.
These people live in a world of their own making. I am not saying the real world is much better, just that I try to make a distinction between what’s real and concrete and how I magnify aspects of it according to my own biases. Not always easy, of course, and I fail too, but I try to draw a line and not drown myself in my self created sea of fanciful exaggerations.
It’s like food: eat too much of something, even if it’s not bad, and it becomes bad.