Horribly Evocative, Grossly Inspiring: All Too “Swept Away” by Sofie Ramirez

Horribly evocative---these are the words I first used to describe Lina Wertmuller’s Swept Away. Watching the film elicited a very harsh emotional reaction and evoked some painful memories that I would have rather avoided, but Swept Away was created for that very reason. What I once took as the romanticization of a horrible issue was actually the opposite; Wertmuller made this film so that people could no longer hide in the silence of issues such as sexual abuse and rape. It feels as though she had accessed all of these negative feelings for the sake of change so that, instead of staying trapped in fear, I felt a call to action. She showed such inhumanity in her film so that we could strive for humanity in our everyday lives.

I realize now that the film was an attempt “to force [the audience] to think critically on societal issues with an objective morality, without romanticism or hatred of different concepts in their entirety, and by union of the most beneficial aspects of each system to create an objectively better world” (Hoffman, par. 7). However, I have to admit that my original reaction was not so comprehensive. Upon first seeing the movie I was devastated; I sat there with tears streaming down my face wondering why I needed to watch such graphic things. Some memories that I had been denying, things that I pretended never happened, were fighting their way up to the surface, and I blamed the movie for causing me so much pain. Clouded by anger and disgust, I was willing to accept the film’s criticism as an insult to women everywhere, pushing the feminist movement back for years to come. But more importantly, I was ready to sit in silence once more, thinking I could go back into my bubble, to lie to myself and say that things as horrible as this did not really happen to people and that it never happened to me. But then I was faced with a question, “What are you going to do: stay shocked or use those emotions to empower yourself to make change through your writing?” (Gottwald). So now I look at Swept Away with the new lens of social reform. I want to be a part of the conversation that Wertmuller has started. I went from seeing Swept Away as horribly evocative to grossly inspiring.     

It was not an easy feat to go from being absolutely disgusted by this film to using it as a catalyst for both personal and societal change. This issue became especially apparent during class discussions as the only things I would ever discuss were the scenes of graphic violence and rape. The nuances of the film were not lost on me; I understood the hypocrisy and sanctimony of it all. It was “incredibly ironic that the communist, who ostensibly fights for a classless society, sets up a diminutive sexist hierarchy as soon as the reigns are his to snap” (Hoffman, par. 5). I understood that through throwing away the shackles of society Gennarino and Rafaella could give into more primitive desires and live with no restrictions. I saw this, I truly did, but no matter what angle the class presented, my mind was ever fixated on the rape---but more so than that, the denial that rape had ever occurred. After days of class discussion, I had heard many people say that the scene in which Rafaella was chased, beaten, stripped, pinned down and eventually has sex with Gennarino (while unfortunate) was consensual because she technically agreed to it (Wertmuller, 01:06:00). Some argued that Rafaella was given a choice and did not have to sleep with Gennarino, but she did so repeatedly so it could not be counted as rape. The illusion of free will makes it so easy for people to deny that rape has occurred, but there is a danger to taking the word yes at face value and refusing to see everything that was manipulated in order to elicit that response and this manipulation has a name. It is called sexual coercion and it “is unwanted sexual activity that happens when you are pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced in a non-physical way” (Office on Women’s Health, par. 1). Rafaella faced the threat of starvation, physical abuse and even murder (Wertmuller, 01:32:00). When thinking about her options and the freedom she possessed in her situation, she tells Gennarino, “I feel like that rabbit you killed” (Wertmuller, 01:15:00). She saw herself as nothing more than prey that was hunted down and slain by a predator, a pitiful creature with no autonomy whatsoever. “Swept Away is not portraying the love between a tamed woman and the dominant man who puts her in her place; rather, it is a story about a cold mockery of love born from fear and abuse meant as a means of survival, not affection” (Knight, par. 2). Someone who has sex under these conditions does not do so out of genuine consent but out of a feeling of helplessness.

Wertmuller succeeded in her task to spur a homeostatic upset which forced me to come to terms with the reality of my own situation as well as the injustice of the world. Her film was powerful not only due to the vivid portrayal of issues of domination and sexual abuse but because of the social climate that she drew upon as a model for her story. Wertmuller created this film during the cinematic movement of Commedia all’taliana, “the genre [that] came in response to political unrest (legalization of divorce, abortion, etc.), poverty after WWII and other social issues…  as a way to talk about serious topics without creating something that felt like a lecture” (Garber, par. 2). Even though Wertmuller’s work served as a criticism of Italy in the Seventies, it also serves as an accurate commentary on today’s society.

One issue plaguing society that not only allows but encourages violent actions like those committed by Gennarino is the mentality of toxic masculinity. This idea that “men had to be tough, had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating — no pain, no emotions, with the exception of anger — and definitely no fear; that men are in charge [and] women are not” (Porter 0:11)” is the reason sexual violence occurs. Toxic masculinity is not a natural mindset; it is a learned behavior, “a sturdy, poisonous branch on a tree built from social constructs” (Marking, par. 6) and it is constantly reinforced. While some men are taught to put masculinity “on the chopping block” as they know “its culture attempts to disguise dominance as benevolence… [that] has normalized values that debilitate not only men but women as well” (Gottwald, par. 9), these men are few and far between. The majority of “men are taught to… view [women] as property and the objects of men… an equation that equals violence against women” (Porter 09:20). This perception does not say that all men are doomed to commit such atrocities as the ones that were done to Rafaella or the ones that were done to me; it is to say that men are much more likely to commit these acts if society constantly encourages the mindset that men must dominate, regardless of the consequences. Toxic masculinity takes the blame off of men, as it is their right to control, and in some cases even shifts the blame onto women. When confronted with the horrifying reality of rape, some people will say things that echo the mentality that the woman “asked for it,” as “if these women [had] acted as society dictates a proper lady should, perhaps the men would not feel the need to break them down and build them back up again” (Rudegeair, par. 3). This “taming of the shrew” creates a vicious cycle of enablement, as men are encouraged to be sexually aggressive and submission, as women are taught to be meek and obedient.

Demanding social change and reformation is not enough when one does not have the complete knowledge of the systematic oppression that needs fixing. That is why, though it is shocking, it is important to “represent the decades of damage done by previous generations that lived in the shadow of ignorance all their lives. [So that] young people are forced to ask themselves the question: if it were up to me, how would I repair the broken heart of the world?” (Storms, par. 7). It is easy to stew in anger and point fingers at Wertmuller, to claim she is not a feminist and that her film is just an actualization of the male fantasy or a romanticization of rape (Ebert, par. 2). It is much harder to accept that Swept Away is something that we need to see in order to wake up and see how we have been socialized so that we may take back the narrative of sexual abuse. Wertmuller’s film is a testament of strength and shows that “victims have the ability to leave their abusers and regain their freedom, and that women do not have to be tethered down by men that wish to control them” (Knight, par. 8). Watching the film provides the audience a chance to shed light on the dark chasm of rape and to help pull people out of it; it is a chance to say “I am in pain and that’s okay; I need help and that’s okay. I don’t need to keep what happened to me a secret, and I don’t need to be ashamed. I was victimized but I refuse to be a victim, and I will not let this hold me back for the rest of my life” (Ramirez). This film gave me a realization that now is the time to take back my power and to live my life free from the fear of victimization. I will not be swept away by empty promises, but instead demand real change. Regardless of whether or not it is proper, I will be grossly inspired to find my voice and never let anyone take it away from me again.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. "Swept Away Movie Review (1976)". RogerEbert.com. Romano Cardarelli, 20

Feb. 1976. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.

Garber, Cerena. Class Discussion. 29 March 2019

Gottwald, Benny. “Putting Masculinity on the Chopping Block”. 06 February 2018.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/02/putting-masculinity-on-chopping-block.htm

Gottwald, Benny. Personal Communication. 11 March 2019.

Hoffman, Isaac. “Interpreting WALKABOUT and SWEPT AWAY”. 05 March 2017.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2017/03/interpreting-walkabout-and-swept-away.html

Knight, Lindsay. “Swept Away: An Illusion of Affection Stretched Too Thin”. 18 October 2018.

            https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/10/swept-away-illusion-of-affection.html

Marking, Alexis. “‘Boys Will Be Boys’ Until They Turn into Abusive Men”. 04 February 2019.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2019/02/boys-will-be-boys-until-they-turn-into.html

Office on Women’s Health. “Sexual Coercion”.

https://www.womenshealth.gov/relationships-and-safety/other-types/sexual-coercion

Porter, Tony. "A Call to Men." TEDX. TedX Women 2010, Washington DC. 30 Mar. 2017.

Lecture.

Ramirez, Sofie. Journal Entry. 27 March 2019.

Rudegeair, Anna. “The Same Old Story: Tamed Women and Their Misogynistic Male

Counterparts”. 28 February 2017.

            https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-same-old-story-tamed-women-and.html

Storms, Samantha. "Passion’s Dark Side: Roeg’s Walkabout vs Wertmüller’s Swept Away.” 08

December 2016.

https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/2016/12/passions-dark-side-roegs-walkabout-vs_6.html

Wertmüller, Lina (Dir.). Swept Away. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato. Romano

Cardarelli, 1974.

Interpreting WALKABOUT and SWEPT AWAY: Saeviri Humanum Est by Isaac Hoffman

Reviewers and interpreters of the films Walkabout, by Nicolas Roeg, and Swept Away, by Lina Wertmüller, tend to paint the over-arching messages of the films as acutely monochromatic, when often there is much evidence that through the motifs of juxtaposition in the two pictures, the directors not only contrast “civilization” with “savagery” and capitalism with communism, but also compare the adverse concepts in such a manner that the viewer is forced to critically contemplate the value of each. These interpretations, though perfectly valid, often neglect the inherent reciprocity of “juxtaposition,” that the correlation of different ideas highlights both differences and similarities.

In her analysis of Walkabout, “Eyes Wide Shut,” Alexa Grabowski skillfully elaborates one such comparison in the beginning shots of the film:

People’s faces were not shown for the majority of the opening scene; they were cut off at waist level. The children even appeared to be panting like dogs while in class leading me to believe that Roeg wanted us to see them as a herd of animals rather than individuals. At that point I understood that there was going to be a hint of societal mockery throughout the film. (2)

This is an engaging interpretation, and later in her essay, Ms. Grabowski explains that to interpret this “societal mockery” as purely subversive detracts from the film’s message as a whole (4). Rather than focusing only on the contrasts between civilization and savagery, the film considers the parallels between modernity and its ancestors in tribal systems and unfortunately suggests no solution to the problems which Roeg presents.

In a similar manner, Xavier Eang Lee in his analysis, “The Colored Man’s Burden,” interprets a poignant scene in the film which juxtaposes the Aborigine boy’s gutting of a kangaroo with cuts to a professional butcher in his shop:

The switching between visuals shows the connection between the two ways of butchering. Ab’s way is messy and out in the open, while the Western butcher is chopping in a clean, white environment.  Although these two methods are different they are still essentially the same thing.  Roeg uses the constant changing between frames to show that what may seem savage or taboo from one point of view may not be so from another. (4)

This scene does not demonize Western society, but uses the assaulted sensibilities of the viewer, offended by the brutality of the butchery, to remind him/her that the most significant difference between the two worlds, civilized and savage, is that Western society demonizes the personality of the uncivilized; the concept of civility pretends that the connection between actor and action has been severed, that interaction which remains impersonal is of higher status. Notice that, much like the children in Ms. Grabowski’s scene, the face of the butcher is not in the field of view, his identity is separate from his deeds.

This insulation of doer from done is most clearly present in the young boy, who runs about playing war in the beginning of the movie, yet does not understand the implications of his own father taking shots at him. Society has severed the connection between the deed and the morality and brutality of its author, no one is personally invested in their action and this allows them to do as they please without intervention on the part of the conscience. It is this intentional severance which Roeg is highlighting in this film and he gives no real suggestions for solving the problem.

Unlike the previous analyses, the following interpretations attempt to place the film Swept Away in neat little boxes of “misogynistic” or “pseudo-feminist,” with little consideration of how the themes are used in the movie, particularly whether or not the sexism in the film—Gennarino states outright, “Women were meant to serve men” (Wertmüller 59 min.)—is presented in a negative or positive light. Though it is certainly arguable whether or not rape in film (and, in this case, it most certainly is rape) can even be comedic at all, Wertmüller’s film can be interpreted satirically, and the question simply becomes whether or not the mockery was successful and clear (the very fact that it must be debated is evidence that the parody has failed). How this satirical interpretation affects the intent of the film remains mostly unexplored.

Roger Ebert, in his review of the film, argues that the film sends two specific messages:

(1) That once the corrupt facade of capitalism is stripped away, it's the worker, with the sweat of his back, who deserves to reap the benefit of his own labor, and (2) that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male. (par. 5)

While this is one possible interpretation, it assumes that Gennarino is meant to be viewed as the film’s protagonist, that he is in the “right” at all times. It seems a more nuanced approach is necessary. Perhaps Wertmüller intends to highlight the similarities between the two systems, capitalist and communist, as she points out that even when the communist is in power, he abuses his power as much as Raffaella does when she has the greatest influence. This is certainly not to say that her verbal abuse is somehow equal in magnitude to rape, as this is not the case, but if the director is satirizing Gennarino’s actions, then it is incredibly ironic that the communist, who ostensibly fights for a classless society, sets up a diminutive sexist hierarchy as soon as the reigns are his to snap.

James Berardinelli, in his opposing view of Swept Away, argues that those who criticize the film’s sexism are neglecting two pieces of evidence:

First, Raffaella actually starts the abuse with her constant berating of and lording over Gennarino on the yacht. Secondly, this "romance" is not taking place in anything resembling a civilized situation - by virtue of their circumstances, the characters have been thrown back into a setting that mimics prehistoric times, when survival (of the individual and of the species) dictated coupling. Gennarino's physical dominance of Raffaella is, in a strange way, the manner in which he proves to her that he is strong enough to be her mate. (par. 4)

About the most valuable fragments of analysis in this review are the scare-quotes around “romance,” as the film is hardly romantic and not very comedic. The critic’s first point, which has already been touched upon, argues that Raffaella somehow brought the sexual abuse upon herself through her verbal attacks on Gennarino—when he ignores her whining, she shouts, “Your refusal to answer me only shows what a peasant you were!”(Wertmüller 55 min.)—and this argument essentially justifies rape to avenge insult. Berardinelli’s second point romanticizes a primitive state of being and he falls into the trap of demonizing civility and glamorizing “prehistoric times.” The characters’ natural setting is not an excuse to defenestrate morality, but an opportunity to analyze society (which is has both advantages and disadvantages) in an objective manner; injustices can be redressed and a better amalgamated system implemented. To throw completely off the mantle of civilization is to lose its benefits along with its issues, and this principle can also be applied to capitalism, which, though quite imperfect, has some admirable qualities. This is perhaps the message of Wertmüller’s film, that critical analysis and alteration of the status quo is a better path than starting again from tabula rasa. Not to mention that to justify rape by the location in which it was committed, which Berardinelli attempts to do, is morally myopic.

These reviews prove that to focus only on either the comparisons or the contrasts between two concepts limits interpretation, and, ironically, falls into the same trap as the characters in Swept Away, who can only see each other’s differences, physical and political, and not their similarities as fellow human beings. Neither Walkabout nor Swept Away attempt to subvert civilization as it is today, but to force their audiences to think critically on societal issues with an objective morality, without romanticism or hatred of different concepts in their entirety, and by union of the most beneficial aspects of each system to create an objectively better world.

Works Cited

Berardinelli, James. Rev. of Swept Away, dir. Lina Wertmüller. ReelViews. Web.

Eang Lee, Xavier. “The Colored Man’s Burden.” 2016. Print.

Ebert, Roger. “Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August.” RogerEbert.com.

            20 February 1976. Web.

 Swept Away. Dir. Lina Wertmüller. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini, Mariangela Melato. 1974. Web.

Walkabout. Dir. Nicolas Roeg. Perf. Jenny Agutter, Luc Roeg, and David Gulpilil. 1971. Film.

            YouTube. 10 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.