Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    	I hesitated to bring this topic up because I was afraid that
    	it might be misunderstood (and that people might think that
    	I was advocating violence.)
    
    	This movie is about "head games" more than anything (the sort
    	of "power games" than attackers use to subjugate their victims.)
    
    	Farrah's character used the attacker's EXACT GAMES against him.
    	It startled her female roommates (AND ME) to see a woman act
    	that way and her attacker was literally astounded!
    
    	The attacker was so completely dead certain that the SYSTEM
    	WOULD WORK FOR HIM that he simply could not believe that a
    	victim would turn on him with any sort of strength or skill
    	in power games.
    
    	It was an amazing movie.
    
    							Suzanne...

    	I have not seen the movie.  I have, however both read and seen
    the play.  I think the impact is diminished somewhat by having read
    it first, but I still found the play to be very powerful.
    
    	The play is violent.  Violence is not necessarily physical.
    I went, expecting to be disturbed by the play (as I expected to
    be disturbed by the racism in "Master Harold and the Boys") and
    I was not disappointed.
    
    	A female friend of mine had seen the play in Dallas and recommended
    I see it.  She felt that I would be an interesting person to discuss
    it with and she was interested in my reaction.  The play certainly
    raises a lot of questions...
    
    					--Doug

    
    I rented "Extremities" over the labor day weekend.  I enjoyed
    the film, it was both entertaining and emotional.  I wouldn't
    consider the film to be realistic though, most women would
    probably turn the rapist in immediately, instead of making plans
    to shoot, kill and bury.
    
    Farrah Fawcett is great in this film....wonder why she makes
    so many movies of this type??  
    
    Jeanne
    

Saturday night at University Health Services, 1968, according to RC  ...

A girl friend drove her in around 10pm. Her clothes were ripped, she was
covered with dirt, and her arms and neck and upper torso were deeply
bruised, and she was MAD. Said she was going to get her gun and hunt down
that *&^% sob. The police came and she gave a *detailed* description of the
rapist. She left the Health Services about 11:30. 

At 2:30am a perfect match for the *detailed* description arrived by
ambulance, full of buckshot from knees to waist.  He told the police he had
no idea how this happened. The police brought them together and they 
looked daggars at each other while claiming they had never seen each other. 

I know other cases but the way they happen, they don't show up in the crime 
statistics.  For sure, you don't put it in your autobiography.    Meigs

    "Extremeties" was both my mother's and my favorite movie.  I can't
    believe you don't think it was realistic!  I think that is exactly
    how I would act if I found myself in the position of having the
    upper hand.  Do you remember that the man said that no matter what,
    he was going to come back and "get her?"  She had plenty of reason
    to believe him, seeing that he had hunted her down after the first
    attack to "finish her off."  She also didn't have all that much
    faith in the judicial system, seeing as they treated her case very
    lightly because she hadn't actually been raped or killed.  Her attacker
    told her himself that he would get off if it went to trial because
    again, she wasn't actually raped.  he said they could put him away
    for 10 years or so, but he'd come back to get her.  Obviously, she
    felt she had no choice.  Personally, I loved the movie, and if,
    heaven forbid, it happens to me, I hope I can be that strong.
    
    Stacie

    Fabulous movie!
    
    I think it was very realistic because I too would have brutalized
    him were I able to turn the tables.  And I think Farrah's character
    was much more in control than I would be.  She purposely took her
    time - I think I might have just killed him outright in blind rage.
    
    What I didn't understand about the movie was the need to prove
    rape or attempted rape.  No, he didn't rape her, (thanks to HER), but
    why doese that let him off the hook?   How come nobody thought of
    assault & battery?  Can't women be assaulted?  Or is it perfectly
    legal to rough 'em up as much as you want as long as you don't
    actually DO it?
    
    Can anyone clarify this for me?
    
    I think Farrah is playing a lot of these kinds of roles in an attempt 
    to shed her lightweight, bimbo image.  Sort of like balancing
    the cotton candy fantasy image with some real gutteral realities.
    Only now that she's finally getting the respect as an actress that
    she deserves is it somewhat "safe" for her to play a character in
    a movie that comes anywhere near her being just "pretty" & "sweet".
    
    Good for her and I'm looking forward to her next effort.
    

    
    I thought the movie was powerful, and Farrah was tremendous!  My
    favorite part was when he was making her say "I love you" and she
    sprayed bug killer in his eyes!!!!  The build up to that scene was
    timed perfectly.  In a situation like that ( in my opinion ) the
    would be rapist deserves everything he gets when the tables are
    turned -- and more!  I was so frustrated when the roommates tried
    to talk her out of what she was doing...
    
    Sheryl
    

    Me too!  They were trying to get her to "be rational" and I was
    sitting there yelling "Do it!  Kill the sucker!"  I couldn't decide
    how I wanted her to do it, though.  I wanted the *worst* for that
    animal.  It's one thing to physically violate someone, which is
    terrible enough, but the parts about him making her dress, say,
    and do everything he wanted her to do, I think I'd've gone crazy.
    The movie really moved me, and I hope it gave me the inner strength
    to ACT if it happened to me.
    
    Stacie
    

    	One of my favorite parts of the movie was when Farrah's
    	character walked back in the room and found her "caged
    	attacker" talking to one of her roommates and she BANGED
    	THE CAGE really hard with the shovel and said,
    
    	   "HEY!!!  What did I say about talking???"
    
    	I liked it because she did such a great job of assuming
    	the role HE had played earlier with her (the mental control
    	he had had over her before she turned the tables on him.)
    
    	I also liked where she used his EXACT WORDS back at him,
    	like, "Aww... did I hurt you?"  The look on his face was
    	priceless.  She set him back emotionally by about 25 years.

    	I would find it difficult myself (if not impossible) to
    	actually use violence on such a person, but I would wonderful
    	irony in AT LEAST throwing the individual's "attacker head
    	games" back in the person's face (if I got the chance.)
    
    						Suzanne...

    I didn't watch the movie because the description mentioned the violence
    turn-around.
    
    As you all probably know, I am uncomfortable with the violence-for-
    violence concept and cannot support it.  Did the fact that "he did
    it first" make her actions any less reprehensible?  It was wrong
    for him to act that way, and it was wrong for her to act the same
    way.
    
    As fantasy it may be very satisfying to watch, but in reality I
    would be hard put to approve of such actions.
    
    Lee

    
    We rented the movie this weekend, and I had a lot of the same issues
    that Lee mentioned.  There was one thing that I liked about
    the movie and a number of things that I didn't like.  The thing
    that I liked was that it showed the victim regaining control.  She
    doesn't feel guilty; she gets angry.. and that anger enables her
    to save her own life.  I've heard stories about rape victims 
    who after undergoing therapy begin to dream that they kill their 
    attacker.  So as a kind of fantasy for those who have been victimized, 
    I think the movie is powerful.  But I was extremely uncomfortable with 
    the level of violence from both the rapist and the victim.  I was 
    especially troubled because it seemed like the victim's house mates 
    were afraid of *her*.  She spoke sharply and threatened them with 
    violence, if they tried to stop her.  I admired her ability to regain 
    control, and I understood her frustration with the system that would 
    not punish her would-be rapist, but I could not support her actions.  
    In a way, he still had control because she acted just like him.
    
    Justine

    A fascinating note, this.  Several replies have mentioned that
    the dirt ball gets (at the very least) what's coming to him 
    while others are uncomfortable with the violence Farrah displays
    when she turns the table.
    
    A couple of curiosity questions:  for those in the "let him have
    both barrels" group:  what then separates the victim from the
    victimizer?  For the other group, what is the basis for you
    discomfort?  I think it was Lee who indicated that violence
    works better in fantasy than reality.  That struck a chord in
    me - while a Military Policeman (I hear the "boos" already) I
    discovered not only that I could, but that I *would* display
    violence given the right conditions.  Happily I never had to
    use deadly force, but I came close enough and ever since then
    I'm a lot less comfortable with violence because I know it's
    real and it's inside me, waiting for the right triggers; I 
    find that real scary.
    
    Steve
    

    What separates the victim from the victimizer are the reasons.  
    She did not hunt him down and victimize him for kicks which he did 
    to her, gleefully.  We ALL have the capacity for violence within us 
    just waiting for the right buttons.  If we didn't, we'd be spineless
    wimps at the mercy of everyone and everything.  Some of know what
    our "right buttons" are, some of us would rather not know but don't
    think for a minute they're not there.  Denying that we have the
    capacity for violence is naivetee.  We can, nearly every one of
    us, be driven to it.
    
    But his "button" was the mere desire to subjugate a woman.  It's not 
    the violence per se that's so bad, because we all DO possess the
    capacity, but that his is too close to the surface for a "civilized" 
    society.  It's triggered TOO easily.
    
    Maybe some people think that this creep's treatment of her should
    not have been one of her "right buttons" - that she should have
    retained human compassion and empathy.  I personally feel that this
    kind of violence done to me IS a right button.  
    
    How about if she had an infant son or daughter sleeping peacefully and 
    the creep picked it up?  Would THAT be justifiable circumstances or
    should she try and talk him out of hurting her child?  Or should she
    leave him there alone with the kid and go and get help?  Remember he
    tore out the telephone.
    
    Peace is nice and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt is nice,
    too.  But mortal danger changes all the rules and if you are
    interacting with someone who believes only in primitive justice then
    being "civilized" is not going to save your life. 
    
    I'd still save my life with whatever means I could, violent or
    otherwise, and I'd make him pay if the law wouldn't.   I think her
    reaction, (to torment her tormentor), is completely normal.  Who
    in this file has never acted out the desire for revenge?   Sure,
    we learn as adults that it doesn't always "taste sweet" and we often
    dismiss the desire as pointless.  But again, mortal danger changes
    all the rules.  I'm not going to "be nice" to someone who has willfully
    and just for kicks put me in fear for my life - sorry.  Farrah's
    character demonstrated a healthy reaction.  Anything less would
    have been more like her other character in the Burning Bed who buried
    everything and tried to stay sweet.  The revenge came out in the end even
    then, though, didn't it?  It's normal, it's healthy, and it doesn't
    make her slime like him.  When the other option is death, it makes one
    in control of their survival.
    

    Interesting reply, Sandy.  I'm not sure I agree that we'd
    be "spineless wimps" without the capacity for violence - I
    agree that we all seem to have this capacity, I'm just not
    sure what we'd be without it.
    
    I think your reply also highlights the ambiguity lots of folks
    feel around this issue:  we all agree that self-defense is a
    valid, "right" course of action; but what about vengence?
    
    Those versed in various forms of combat (particulary the oriental
    martial arts) frown on "emotion", that to fight effectively and,
    more importantly, to be in "balance with the cosmos" (whatever that
    is), one must purge out such earth-bound concerns.
    
    Maybe what bugs me is a feeling of "Oh no!  It's not bad enough that
    the media panders to (and perhaps teaches us) the make-my-day-Rambo-
    waste-the-slime mentality to men; now they start on the women, too".
    
    I wonder how the ratings might have been if, upon capturing her
    tormenter, Farrah proceeds to re-educate him to such a point that,
    in his profound regret, humiliation, and sorrow, he repents and spends 
    the rest of his life promoting womens' issues (after he gets out of 
    prison, having turned himself in on various charges).  Yeah, yeah, I 
    know: if I want sci-fi, I should tune in Star Trek. . .
    
    How say the rest of you on revenge vs. self-defense?
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    When I watched the movie, I cheered Farrah when she first turned
    the tables on the creep.  I felt some discomfort when she started
    wrapping the phone cord around his neck (real tight) and hands,
    but at that point she was still trying to restrain him, and I thought
    the fact that she was rough about it was understandable.  After
    that, she kind of lost (some of) my sympathy.  Once he was tied
    up and his eyes burned, she was no longer defending herself.
    
    {if you haven't yet seen the movie and wish to, don't read the
    rest of this reply.}
    
    When she planned to kill and bury him, I had some mixed feelings.
    On some level I felt, "That 'll show him."  But I mostly felt that
    she was now taking on too many of his traits.  (Granted, the motivation
    was different, but the behavior was quite similar.)  I also felt that
    she would suffer for her behavior in the end because she *wasn't* really
    like him.  Whether he lived or died, she was going to have to
    deal with and recover from her attack and the fact that she almost
    died in a terrible way.  If she killed him, she would also have
    to deal with that.  I think if she *had* carried out that deed,
    she would have had difficulty dealing with the guilt.  In the
    end it became clear that what she really wanted was for him
    to confess, to validate the reality of what he had done when
    no one else would... not the police, not even her one house mate
    until the very end.  I think she ended up with the best resolution
    available to her; she humilated him, but she didn't abandon all
    of her principles in the process.
    
    Justine                                   

re: .14 (Steve)

>>    How say the rest of you on revenge vs. self-defense?
 
That is for the jury to decide and the lawyers to argue about.

- Howard

    RE: last several
    
    This discussion brings to my mind a thought which bubbles up now
    and then. Since I can't seem to resolve it, I usually just ignore
    it and it goes away til next time.
    
    It's this: It seems to me that there's a disturbing trend in this
    country/society (and others, for that matter) which dictates that
    unless an oppressed group makes itself obnoxious and *violent*,
    it will not be *really* dealt with.
    
    You'll get pats on the head, and "There, there, now these things
    take time."
    
    Until Watts, until Stonewall, things were worse for the groups
    involoved. (Not that there's been light-years of progress, but things
    *are* better to a degree)
    
    Both situations presented a "I'm *prepared* to, and *will be* violent
    in protecting my best interests" attitude. And *then* people took
    notice.
    
    Do we *have* to "put up our dukes" to make progress?
    
    Dawn

    In a man's world, yes.  Strength is valued.  "Womanly" traits are
    considered signs of weakness.  If you can't "beat" the boys, you lose.

    
    Sandy,  (for your consideration)
    
    In the early days of the feminist psychology movement, a lot of
    energy was spent trying to *prove* that women were just like men.
    For example, some people believed that men were inherently smarter
    than women, and the fact that men have larger brains than women
    was cited as proof.  So these feminists actually went around
    measuring and weighing brains of (dead, I presume) men and women 
    and found that even though men's brains were larger, women's brains
    were actually larger in proportion to their average body size. 
    And things went on like this for a while with women trying to prove
    their sameness... on men's terms.  And finally somebody said, "why
    are we doing this?  If men and women are different, how are they
    different?  Why are they different.  Can we learn from each other's
    differences?"  
    
    To get back to your point (and I am headed there), in a "man's world,
    ... Strength is valued.  'Womanly' traits are considered signs
    of weakness."  In many ways, what you say is true, but I would suggest
    that we have an opportunity to redefine what it means to be strong,
    for example, must we be violent to be considered strong?  Or does
    it require a different (and valuable) strength to avoid violence
    as a response when other strategies *can* be used?  I add that qualifier
    because in the case of the film, the woman *had* to use force to
    free herself and restrain the rapist, but after he was restrained,
    she exercised a *choice* to continue the violence.  And in a sense,
    she allowed him to control her actions just as those early feminist
    psychologists allowed the questions posed by men to become *their*
    questions.
                            
    Justine

    Hi Justine!
    
    What you are saying is also true too, but we're looking at it from
    different perspectives.  Yes, we do have an opportunity to redefine
    what it means to be strong but redefine for who?  If the top dogs,
    (is that safer than just saying "men" which irks so many of them?),
    believe that strength is defined by muscle power and those people
    who don't posses it are weaklings, what makes you think they're
    going to "let go" of their stranglehold long enough to listen to
    us pontificate on other, less violent ways?
    
    We're not dealing with a group of people here who WANT to lay down
    their arms in the battle of the sexes - we're dealing with a tenacious
    and powerful group of people who are basically wary of the more
    subtle strengths of women.  Not an environment conducive to education.
    
    And to get more specific and less general, what SHOULD Farrah's
    character have done then?  You said in your previous reply that
    after she had restrained him she was no longer in danger and therefore
    didn't need any more violence, (I'm paraphrasing so please correct
    me if I've misunderstood).  I disagree.  Unless she kept him tied
    up forever she WAS still in danger.  As long as he was alive and
    out of jail she was in danger.  Once she restrained him she was
    actually in MORE danger.  Remember he got angrier and rougher every time
    she made a little victory and got away to a different room.  Once he
    got out of that telephone cord she was a dead duck fer sure!  Anyone 
    will tell you if you strike out at a guy in this situation you'd
    better make it count!  I'd bring the rage of a lifetime to that
    moment and I'd probably kill him.  Sometimes just the knowledge
    of that is enough to avoid it.  If he EVER thought she'd turn the
    tables and do him some real physical harm he might think twice.
    It was the shock and surprise that this little "lady" actually
    outwitted him once or twice that really got him angry.  We need
    to remove the shock and surprise from their twisted minds and let
    them know there are women out there who are going to fight to the 
    death if they have to.  Rapists want a relatively "easy" mark.
    Oh, a little screaming and chest pounding gets the blood going but
    they sure don't want to be knifed/blinded/killed in the process.
    We need to trash the myth that women are helpless and non-violent
    and ever-sweet and too timid to actually DO anything and that's
    why I applaud her every move in the movie.  It's his belief that
    she was helpless that forced her to prove otherwise.  Had he believed
    she could/would kill him, she wouldn't have HAD to go that far.

    Justine,
    
    I *really* want to believe that a groups can accomplish full entree
    into society/the world on our terms, using our strengths. I am saddened
    in that, as of this moment, I do not see those ways succeeding.
    
    Who's done it?
    
    I can only think of groups who have stood up and said "WE'VE HAD
    IT", with violence. A physical fighting-back.
    
    And time and time again, the violent manner of standing up for one's
    rights wins respect - from the kids on the playground, to the "kids"
    in international relations. All the verbalization in the world has
    never done what one well-placed fist has, in gaining respect, so
    far as I can see.
    
    This doesn't make me happy.
    
    Please tell me there are people who've succeeded else-wise.
    
    Dawn
    

    What about Martin Luther King?

                                                 
    What about the non-violence of the Civil Rights movement of the
    60's?  
    
    I think there's a lot of truth in Sandy's comments.  We have to
    prove that we can defend ourselves (sometimes), and in that movie,
    the rapist kept laughing at her as if he had the upper hand *even*
    when he was tied up and blinded.  So you're right, Sandie, Until
    the very end, he didn't think she was capable of defending herself.
    But I still think that she crossed the line (many times) between
    proving herself capable of defending herself (Don't F**K with me!!)
    and what I considered to be sadistic treatment (Remember when she
    stabbed him with that poker??  Several times?)  I think my discomfort
    has to do with the level of violence with which she met his violence.
    
    Back to Dawn's question:  Can a group "accomplish full entree into
    society/the world on our terms, using our strengths?"  
    
    In response I would say that if we don't succeed on our own terms,
    then how can we "accomplish *full* entree?"  
                                      
    Justine
    
    ps  If you liked "Extremities" then there is a Dutch film (with
    subtitles) that you *must* see.  I'll post the title tomorrow.

    re .21 
    
>    Please tell me there are people who've succeeded else-wise.
    
    I am not going to pick a directly violent example, but rather one
    a step removed.
    
    Once a confrontation style of management was quite common.  Even
    here, today, I see that happen.  It was once assumed in the business
    world that to get anywhere you had to be real tough.
    
    Nowadays, many recognize the value of positive reinforcement with
    "difficult" employees and employers.  If I try confrontation with
    any of my bosses, I risk a very hard slap on the wrist.  Adopting
    a style which is foreign to me sets me up to lose.
    
    So I play the game MY way, gaining my victories in different ways.
    And I _do_ win, quite often, in _my_ style of negotiation.  If I
    say to my boss, "I want more money because I deserve it and I am
    not being paid what I am worth."  I will get an excuse as to how
    management is limited in what they can do, etc.  But if I make very
    sure to let my boss know my acheivements and my value, and not say
    "pay me more", I get a much bigger raise.
    
    This year I won by refusing to play that game.  I may or may not
    be seen as "powerful" (I honestly don't know), but I _did_ get what
    I wanted.
    
    Now as far as violence is concerned, it is nowhere near as easy.
    Yes, maybe we all have our "buttons" but we can say to ourselves
    that this is wrong and we will not sink to that level.  Maybe I
    am naive, but the person who convinces me that violence in ANY case
    is justified will probably have to kill me to make their point.
    
    Stubborn I guess.  
    
    Re: Sandy
    
    Lets agree to disagree, eh?  And please make an effort not to call me
    names for my beliefs which are no worse than your own.
    
    Lee 

    After reading this topic, I am certain I don't want to see the movie.
    I have a hard time seeing how turned-around violence is liberating
    for anyone.  
    
    Holly

    Re. 22 
    
    Martin Luther King accomplished something (I don't know if he
    succeeded) but he was also killed for trying.
    
    CQ
    

    re:  < Note 483.26 by SUPER::HENDRICKS "Not another learning experience!" >


�    After reading this topic, I am certain I don't want to see the movie.
    
    Holly (and others who might feel the same way...) --
    
    	When I mentioned seeing the play I deliberately did not state
    any opinions on what was "right" or "wrong" about "Extremities".
    I did state, however, that I went expecting to be disturbed by the
    play and was rewarded in that expectation.  Some of my favorite
    performances have been the most disturbing - "Listening" by Edward
    Albee, "The Birthday Party" by Harold Pinter, "Children of a Lesser
    God" (the play is better than the movie - I've seen both) and
    "Extremities."
    
    	The play *is* violent - both physically, mentally, and emotionally.
    It deals with a number of touchy subjects.  When I saw it, rape
    prevention groups were associated with it.  I don't think they're
    wrong, but I think they're looking at the gross plot of the play
    rather than *what ***I*** perceive the playwright's message to be.*
    
    	Interpretation is very much a personal thing.  Don't dismiss the play
    out-of-hand without seeing it because you don't believe it has any
    redeeming value based on what you read in Womannotes.  Go, expecting to
    be bothered by what you see, and see it for the questions it raises
    within you... Yes, another learning experience...
    
    					--Doug
    					  (Who trys to seperate the
    					   play, from the players, from
    					   the way I feel about the
    					   world)

    I have always been a pacifist, and will alway be. I believe that
    ends can be achieved by peaceful means rather than by agression,
    however, SOMETIMES IT HURTS SO MUCH THAT I ALMOST LOSE MY BELIEFS...
    Additionnally anything that is achieved by peaceful means takes
    10 times as long, and I can't help but feel that time may be running
    out.
    
    About .22 (I think) and people who have achieved their goals by
    peaceful means, there are many of them, but I will cite only two
    well known people:
    
    			G A N D H I
    
    			 J E S U S
    
    But we are not all that wise and that strong and may have to settle
    for achieving what we can with our own means, and violence is so
    much part of our world...
                             
    I re-read what I have just written and realise that I sound thoroughly
    muddled on the subject ... well, I AM!
    
    Joana
    
         

    I haven't seen this movie, nor do I want to. Glorifying revenge
    undermines a far more important concept - justice. In establishing
    courts, people attempt to deal with offenders in an objective
    way, recognizing that they may be too emotional to deal with
    offenders justly. The courts are not perfect, but they are not
    vigilantes or lynch mobs. 
    
    Dana

    I haven't seen the movie but I have seen other movies that have
    used similar methods to justify violence.
    
    There were a series of Charls Bronson movies a few years back that
    followed the standard format.  A terrible act of violence was perpetrated
    by some horrible group of people who are somehow free of the long arm of
    the law. 
    
    These movies make the opening violence by the "bad guy's" bad
    enough so that any amount of violence by the "good guy's" seems
    justified.  They also make sure that when the criminals are finally
    hunted down they look like shady characters (Sure their guilty,
    they look like criminals don't they?).  The vengeance is of the
    "shoot first and ask questions later" variety.
    
    This movie sounds like the same old plot line with a new twist.
    Personally I have a hard time condoning any form of violence
    that is not very clearly for self defense.
    
    					MJC

    RE: several
    
    MLK, Ghandi, Jesus....all good examples of peace-making folk.
    
    I plead ignorance to the situation in India. But I will say, that
    violence has played a large part in the gaining of respect (or maybe
    fear. Or maybe they come to the same thing, in the end) *for the
    group with which the individual is associated*.
    
    Hence, my previous example of Watts. That, and the other riots is
    the 60's were catalysts which made people sit up and take notice.
    
    I see, Lee, that certain individuals have made it "their way" -
    on an individual basis. But I still haven't seen an example of a
    group which gained recognition without some form of violent expression.
    
    Can the power structure give way without *fearing* the reaction
    if it doesn't?
    
    Is the "king of the mountain" method of society so ingrained we
    cannot change it?
    
    ("king of the mountain" - you have to literally knock me off the
    mountain before you can play in the game)
    
    The threat is not from individuals - there have *always* been
    individuals, from whatever group, who "made it". The threat is from
    the group as a whole. Is there a group who has "made it" without
    using violence to make points?
    
    Dawn
    

    	Many of you who haven't seen the movie are getting the
    	wrong idea, I think.  Farrah's violence had MUCH MUCH LESS
    	to do with revenge than it had to do with stopping this
    	guy from coming back and killing her (and her roommates.)
    
    	Spoiler follows:
    
    
    	After he confessed to them all that he planned to kill them,
    	she never laid another hand on him.  Sure, she pushed him
    	back into his cage a bit (where he lay in the fetal position
    	sort of crying from the pain of having confessed or whatever)
    	but she NEVER TOUCHED HIM AGAIN!  She sat right next to him
    	and just smiled.
    
    	I don't think revenge had anything to do with it.  She played
    	the game that she NEEDED to play to save her own life (and
    	she played it well.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	This movie was nothing whatever like the Charles Bronson
    	"Death Wish" movies.  Nothing at all.
    
    						Suzanne...
    

    Thanks for the last two, Suzanne.  As one who didn't see the
    film, I find this discussion extremely interesting - your
    reply (.33) casts an entirely different light on the interpretation
    of the film; if nothing else, I'll make a point of seeing it
    at the next opportunity.
    
    Steve
    

    Lee, I apologize if I seemed to be calling you or anyone else a
    name.  That is certainly not my intent but even coming close to
    that is a level to which I don't want to sink.
    
    Well, maybe I DO have a few choice "descriptive nouns" for the 
    antagonist in the film...  ;-)

    	After having seen the film for the second time this past
    	weekend, I'd like to address the "revenge" issue one more
    	time.
    
    	I watched the film closely to see what Farrah's character
    	did when she first overcame her assailant.  This time around,
    	I noticed that she struggled with him while trying to subdue
    	him, but that once she had him safely tied up, she DID NOT
    	TOUCH HIM AGAIN IMMEDIATELY.  What she did do was to run to
    	her roommate's car to fetch the police (since the man had
    	broken the phone lines in her house.)
    
    	When the car wouldn't start, she returned to the door to
    	hear her assailant tell her that she couldn't prove a thing
    	(and that the police would let him go, at which time he promised
    	to RETURN to kill her.)  At that point, she stopped as if to
    	consider her alternatives (and proceeded to cage the man.)
    
    	The only two times she seriously roughed up the man were during
    	the struggle to subdue him and during her attempts to get a
    	confession from him (when he tried to throw up a smokescreen
    	by lying that they had had an affair.)
    
    	At no time did I see anything that could be construed as pure
    	violence for the sake of revenge.  I think that the character
    	could have done FAR worse damage to him and that, realistically,
    	the average victim would have probably done much worse to him
    	(given the clear opportunity) than she did.
    
    	Farrah did an incredible job on this film -- I'm even more
    	impressed now (that I've seen it a second time) than I was when
    	I saw it the first time.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Just popping in to mention that the Showtime cable station is
    showing EXTREMITIES this month. In fact, my Betamax is taping
    it for me, even as I type.
    
    --- jerry