Talk:Last Tango in Paris

author and music

The music was by Oliver Nelson, and Gato Barbieri was the soloist and perhaps wrote the theme. It is not right to say Barbieri did the film music.

I have been unable to find what the uncredited song is that plays after Marlon Brando's character fixes the record player; it would be nice to know.

Also, LTiP was based on a book, which is not mentioned in the article. Did (pen-name) Robert Alley do the novelization after the movie ? I think it was based on an earlier book. 203.173.200.146 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is correct. LTiP was Bertulucci's story to which he and Franco Arcalli wrote the screenplay. Robert Alley's book was based on the film. Irshgrl500--irshgrl500 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied from imdb

Some of the text is identical to the trivia in the imdb-Page to the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070849/trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.93.131 (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

"After revisions were made to the MPAA ratings code, it was classified as an NC-17 in 1997. MGM released a censored R-rated cut in 1981."

The above makes no sense. How can it be rated in 1997, then released in 1981? That needs to be fixed. Or maybe I'm missing something. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that there may be a misunderstanding in this passage. According to this, the film first received an X-rating, but due to controversy about its content, it was edited to have an R-rating to have national distribution with less issue. I think that the sentences should be removed in their entirety and new ones written to be closer to what's in the link I presented. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction 2

Not to mention that the film is called "a 1973 Italian film", but it also says that "the film premiered in New York on October 14, 1972". Debresser (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The date of a film's premiere does not necessarily contribute to its universally acknowledged release year. For example, a film may appear at a couple of film festivals in 2008 but only be released to the public in 2009. In this case, though, it looks like the film was publicly released in Italy on December 15, 1972 then publicly released in the United States and the United Kingdom on January 27, 1973. (This is based on IMDb; verifiability by citation should come from somewhere more reliable for all.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot

Could somebody rewrite the plot? It has shortcomings and mistakes.

1. The present plot summary stresses the beginning and especially the end of the film, but leaves most of the film undescribed.
2. How can Paul be interested in renting an appartment which he owns (inherited from his dead wife)?
3. Jeanne wasn't engaged yet when she and Paul first met.
4. It is likely true, that "this loss of anonymity disillusions Jeanne about the relationship", but it is not mentioned in the film.
5. The second and third paragraph of the plot desciption talk about the same scene and should be merged into one paragraph. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

FilmReference.com mentions books and articles that cover Last Tango in Paris. Not listed there (probably because too new) is the book Last Tango in Paris published by the British Film Institute. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Raped?

It's very unclear as to what the quote is talking about. A rape scene in the movie? Some off-camera voyeurism that the director supported? Could this be clarified somehow? 168.103.245.247 (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the scene where he takes here from behind, with the butter. To me that was cristal-clear. Debresser (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the original post. The butter scene isn't mentioned before the quote, but much further along in the article and under a separate section, making it completely unclear until someone has read the entire article. – Quoth (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So by all means clarify it. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the plot summary there’s a mention of a rape that would occur in her father’s apartment and was cut. I don’t see any evidence that a “second rape” (counting butter as first rape) was part of the original film. I think it’s important. Charidea2 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"gun goes off inexplicably"?

Isn't that implying that she didn't shoot him on purpose? Which is definitely not the impression I get from the film. Unless there are objections I'll change it to "she shoots him". RenniePet (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't altogether sure Jeanne intended to shoot Paul. But I found a source that says so clearly: this link. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This was originally posted on the Plot section of the article

Plot could be understood differently. Paul did consider this relationship only as "anonymous sexual relationship" until he heard that Jeanne was pregnant. And then, the possibility to finally have a child suddenly changed his attitude. His all life could have had a new meaning and thus the relationship could become a meaningful. However, in the meantime Jeanne made her decision to get back to the "normal" life, to marry her fiancé and not to continue to be involved with the weird older man, with whom "anonymous sexual relationship" was exciting at the time, but became unacceptable when he wanted to have a "normal" relationship with her. When he showed aggressive need to connect his life with her, because of his child she was carrying, which could have gave him the meaning in life, she felt the urge to get rid of him, as she could not relate to his feelings and needs and sacrifice for him.

• This was originally posted, today, on the Plot section of the article.  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Releases

Does anyone know if the original X-rated cut has been released at any time? Can this be added if it has. 97.124.86.177 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Last Tango in Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214234528/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/07232007/gossip/pagesix/sick_stick_pagesix_.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/07232007/gossip/pagesix/sick_stick_pagesix_.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-consensual rape scene

This seems to be a notable recent revelation. Surely it should be adequately covered, not just briefly mentioned, in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned at length in the post-production section. The word "rape" is metioned 13 times! I am utterly taken aback by your revert and claim that it is not mentioned in the article. Also, be ware of recentisms. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How exactly was the interview a "slightly altered version"? The way that passage is currently written is not wholly clear, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can work with the sources and make it a bit clearer. But no reason to create yet another section about this. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what "slightly altered version" means, or is meant to imply. Are you? I think it deserves a mention in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. 12 instances of that word, I think, including: "Brando later said he "felt raped and manipulated" by the film." !?

There are two versions of the video which depicts Bertolucci's 2013 interview. One is uncut and has been available (in several places) since the interview was conducted, one was edited and uploaded in November 2016. The edited version is the one referred to in the Elle article, and cuts out the beginning of the interview and a short section of the middle of the interview where Bertolucci states that the scene was in the script.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Oh and also another mistake made by (as far as I have seen) every news article is confusing the College Tour interview (which is filmed somewhere in the Netherlands) with the Cinémathèque Française interview a few months later. Its not a terribly important mistake, but it is inaccurate (and in my opinion sloppy) reporting.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The lead is already very clear that the film was controversial. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not Playboy. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

? I have no idea what you mean by that.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down and don't try to WP:OWN. It just makes you look silly.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This last post is a serious WP:CIVIL violation, since 1. I am calm. 2. Your implication that any resistance to what you want to do is me having WP:OWN issues is childish. 3. Not nice to call a person "silly" for disagreeing with you. It is now clear to me that you should take a break from this article for a few days, and you'll see things differently. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No need to call anyone childish! That's "not nice", lol. I'd like to thank Deoliveirafan for clarifying the changes to the video clip here. I think the article looks fairly well-balanced as it stands. I'm no longer sure that any mention is needed in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all four parts of the previous post. :) Debresser (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, come on now. Judging from both your demeanor and a quick glance at your editing history, you clearly have a tendency towards "serious WP:CIVIL violations". Would you care to explain what was meant by the reference to Playboy? I would interpret it as condescending and rude, perhaps directed at me or perhaps at the other editor. I am not the one trying to OWN any page, I reverted an edit once and described why in the edit summary. I listed two reasons for my revert, which were a direct response to the two reasons in your previous revert. One reason was that you claimed that the info was unsourced. I am very skeptical of you somehow being unaware of the fact that (most) content in the lead does not need to be cited so long as it reflects content in the body of the article. And yet you reverted the edit based partially on that reason. The second reason was that according to you "who cares about 'journalists'?" That was the reason you gave and as far as you went to elaborate what that even means. That is at best WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at worst a nonsensical tantrum. And so, based on the condescending remark and the baffling reasons behind your revert, I gave you a lecture and pointed out that such actions are "silly". And they are silly. And I think all of the facts speak for themselves here. And so now I will request: please stop being silly.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant that this is an encyclopedia, with the high standards appropriate for an encyclopedia. Not Playboy magazine, with the low standards they use. What did I mean? You may not like my "demeanor", but if that is what it takes to keep low standards from entering this project, then so be it. Insult me once more, and you will be reported. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What did I mean about what? You are not being clear.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah c'mon, Debresser, you gotta own up, capisce??. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, you changed "you" to "I", which makes even less sense. Um, I guess we're done here. Also for the record Martinevans123, I too amused by all this (the conversation here, not the situation about the film in the news). Wishing happy, rational editing to all.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken. Elle magazine did not originate the story, Yahoo news did on November 30.But the same YouTube video is cited. Will correct now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Brando quote

Brando quote about 'feeling raped and manipulated' by director is not in source given. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is. Second page, end of the second paragraph.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I note that context isn't given, and is actually a quote by Maria Schneider. I don't imagine it'd be possible to find where Brando actually said this? In the source, this seems like something Brando told Schneider in person. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed the quote to the one in the source, as IronMaidenRocks point out is something Schneider said. Also the source given for the 15 years period of him not talking to Bertolucci says nothing about it and the following source, again about the quote of being "violated" says nothing about it either. So I'm deleting those. Atu (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the one about the 15 years period is in the source, but has a total different reason for no talking to him, gonna add that Atu (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Brando did make such statements in his autobiography, so I think Schneider was paraphrasing him. But the current source of the quote in the article is from Schneider.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Was it rape?

Rape according to Dutch law, may also happen by penetrating forcibly a body with a subject. Reading on Maria Schneider's afterwards reactions it seems to me she wasn't aware she could legally have stated she had been raped, however she hadn't made up her mind about the fact if she could state of 'being forced to' take part in the scene. It is also a known fact that rape victims feel ashamed, do doubt their own feelings and if memories of these can be reliable enough to forward them in trial. Etc. etc. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically here are the facts: The film was always controversial for its content and banned in several countries. It was also very successful and critically praised. Schneider, then an unknown actress, became a sudden celebrity. The media immediately associated her with the role, in other words they assumed that she herself was a highly sexualized person. As early a 1975 she stated in an interview with Roger Ebert that at the time of the film's release she made up stories about her promiscuity as a joke because she thought that all of the publicity and assumptions about her sex life were ridiculous. However when these stories were published everyone assumed that they were true and she wanted to be taken seriously as an actress, not a sex symbol. Add to that the fact that, according to her, for years afterwards men would approach her in public and make vulgar references to the "butter scene" as a joke (as in "Go get the butter"). This, as stated by her in interviews during the 2000s, was why she regretted both making the film and agreeing to film the "butter scene". It also is what led to her drug addiction. She specifically said that the media attention was what led to her addiction, not that particular scene. In the 2000s interviews she even made a joke about butter: "I never cook with butter, only olive oil." Now in these interviews she did say that the scene itself was not in the script and that she was only told about it just before filming it. She stated that at that time she let her objection to and anger over the scene be well known to Bertolucci and Brando, but that Brando convinced her to shoot the scene. Both she and Brando specifically stated that no actual sex acts occurred on set, with Schneider saying "Not at all" when asked about it. So to answer one question, no penetration of any kind occurred in the scene.

Now Bertolucci's version is slightly different. He states that the scene was in the script as a rape involving sodomy and that Schneider was aware of that. But he does vaguely imply that Schneider was unaware of the use of the butter until the scene was shot to get a reaction from her. I think it is odd that Bertolucci's version is in fact worse than Schneider's version, but it also doesn't make much sense if you watch the actual scene, where the butter is mentioned over a minute before the sex act begins. I also think its odd that Schneider claimed that it was shot in one take, whereas several camera angles are used in the scene. Now it is possible that several cameras were rolling all at once during the one take, and that may very well be what occurred, but I personally think that that is unlikely based on my knowledge of filming techniques at that time. Multiple cameras just weren't as prevalent then as they are now. My point is, the two versions of the story don't quite add up, both in controversial and non-controversial ways.

Now the recent media "revelations" are odd for several reasons. The story itself is very old news. The 2013 interview has been available since it was conducted and reported on before from several news outlets. The new version of the interview was slightly altered. Specifically it cuts out a sentence where Bertolucci states that the scene was in the script. That's a key part of his side of the story. The individuals who posted this altered video made very strong statements about the treatment of actresses in films and asserted that Schneider was psychologically traumatized by the scene. They also asserted that she may have been physically assaulted in the scene. They did not say it did happen, they said it may have happened. Yahoo News gave the video more media exposure, making a minor (but sloppy) mistake in reporting where the 2013 interview took place at. And after that news outlets began reporting that Schneider was in fact literally raped in this scene.

So, to reiterate and re-answer all of your questions/concerns: All available statements made are that no sex act of any kind occurred on set, so no she was not penetrated by Brando or the butter. Schneider was not aware that she could have refused to shoot a scene that was not in the script. At no point did she ever state that she was unaware that she could have brought up charges of rape. That as never been stated before. Your last statement of the shame and uncertainty of victims is tragically accurate. But Schneider explained her regrets over making the film and specifically that her regret had more to do with the aftermath and controversy than the actual shooting of the film.

My two cents are this: Schneider is currently being exploited by opportunists who saw a high profile news story, re-shaped it to make it "juicier" and released an inaccurate account of both Bertolucci's 2013 interview and Schneider's life just to get attention, make headlines and frankly make money. This is hardly a new trend and we are constantly seeing the news media get more and more tabloid orientated. What's difficult is that objecting to the inaccuracies of the reporting here is dangerously close to endorsing rape, or at least one can anticipate that accusation. I think that many of the motivations behind the outrage are sincere, but I just wish people would look more closely at the facts before immediately grabbing their pitchfork and demanding a public hanging. That being said, I believe that I have done a good job editing the article in an objective way that does not force my personal opinion or bias. I will trust other editors to evaluate that.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive reply which clears a lot. Quoting "But Schneider explained her regrets over making the film and specifically that her regret had more to do with the aftermath and controversy than the actual shooting of the film": public morale, or rather: the public lack of morale appearing in the public reactions did rape her afterwards.
However, Bertolucci's stand remains immoral. Schneider should have been pointed on her rights of objection to cooperate in an unplanned improvisation. I think many would have warned her about the double standards on sexuality, the either being a Madonna or a whore controversy, in those days emphasized by conservative moralists and radical feminists, and that Schneider would never be able to escape being in the middle of a societal taboo, eventually becoming a target of those seeking either a victim or a collaborator to win their opposite cases.
In those days of sexual liberation, the 'sexual revolution', however, mentioning you were regarding your stand on these moral points of view would have caused an image of being old fashioned and sexually frigid, avoiding the key point which even now is playing its part: did Schneider have decided in completely full consent? There is no doubt she wasn't aware of the burden she would have to carry afterwards. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The same dilemma did victimize Brando, feeling manipulated by Bertolucci. Both Schneider and Brando were exploited by a director wanting pure emotions on the screen. I wonder if Bertolucci was influenced by the views on sexuality of Wilhelm Reich, which were popular amongst Marxists and sexual liberation opinion leaders in the late 60s, early 70s. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have one more thing to point out that as far as I know no current news articles are discussing. In 1972/1973 when the film was released and controversial, the "butter scene" was often what made so many people upset. Unless I am completely mistaken, it appears that what people objected to was the fact that it was sodomy, which is often considered a homosexual act. From how I am reading it, when the Italian government brought charges against Bertolucci, etc all, it was because a homosexual act was being depicted. It seems to me that at that time the fact that the act was sodomy was the reason many people were so upset, not because it was a rape involving butter. I actually do not know when the first homosexual love making scene was first depicted in a mainstream or art house film, but I don't recall one earlier than 1973 (other than kissing). Now I have not read any current articles that object to the scene for that reason, but I do think that its worth mentioning that the history of the scenes controversy appears to be directly related to homophobia. Bertolucci was controversial before this in 1970 when The Conformist depicted a closeted homosexual male in 1930s fascist Italy, so Italian and international censors were already familiar with this theme in his work. This, of course, does not address anything in your previous two edits, but I think it is an added detail to the history of this scene that should be mentioned. To be clear, in my opinion Bertolucci did manipulate both Brando and Schneider in order to get performances out of them and I do think that, in this particular scene, he could have handled it much better. He is a bully, but he made a great film with two great performances. But he is not a rapist and neither was Brando.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Er, I haven't seen Sunday Bloody Sunday (film) in years but I don't recall there being a scene that went beyond kissing. Also,Women in Love (film) had a very homoerotic scene, but not one with sex. So I may be wrong.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Oh, duh, Midnight Cowboy had fellatio, but off camera.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I read Schneider hated being regarded as a sex symbol, in a time period in which she acted in many movies having themes concerning double sexual standards and sexual liberation. Meanwhile discovering her own bisexuality, the last she was after should have been getting someone in her personal life claiming to know and rule her sexual feelings. I agree on your opinion about Bertolucci, Brando and Schneider. What many scarecrows are often forgetting is that legally in western countries in which consensual sexuality amongst adults is permitted an alleged victim him/herself (in maturity, sane etc.) is the only one who may put an alleged sexual crime of which he/she is telling he/she is a victim, to court.
About homosexual acts in mainstream movies you could be right, but of course underground, subcultural anti-establishment movies were ahead of their time. Rosa von Praunheim made a movie about homosexuality in 1970 in Germany: Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die Gesellschaft in der er lebt. It showed affection and techniques to hide one's secret homosexuality. Furthermore, it is a public secret that in the world of arts liberal views concerning sexual freedom always include acceptance of homo-eroticism, though this opinion may often remain hidden to the outer repressive world. Hollywood however is still quite out of date, reading the biased reactions on social media about the Bertolucci leaks. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed renaming section

The "Post-production" section currently has nothing to do with Post-production, which means editing, sound mixing, special effects and maybe advertisements/pre-release publicity. It seems that new sections with duplicate material of some of this section have previously been created and reverted. The vast majority of this section relates to the so called "butter scene". The rest of it (basically the first two paragraphs) could be included in the "Reception" section. I'll wait a bit to see if there are objections, but otherwise I will re-arrange the section, create a new sub-section titled "Controversial sex scene", and add an expansion needed banner in the current section.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Last Tango in Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105081412/http://daily.greencine.com/archives/007965.html to http://daily.greencine.com/archives/007965.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211065556/http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Last_Tango_in_Paris to http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Last_Tango_in_Paris
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629060644/http://camillacastro.org/Movie/Last_Tango_In_Paris/index.html to http://camillacastro.org/Movie/Last_Tango_In_Paris/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Last Tango in Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614035532/http://scc.lexum.org/en/1978/1978scr2-662/1978scr2-662.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/1978/1978scr2-662/1978scr2-662.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No Rape

Brando did not rape her. She totally went along with it. It was the entire point of their relationship. If you don't understand this, you should stop watching movies. 2601:449:4300:980:50C4:AAEA:DA7D:DD63 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)