Emily Blunt is Spanish for Hitman in SICARIO



He definitely went with Graver/CIA’s blessing, because no way, no how would he have the Paper for her to sign otherwise. I kind of think that he requested it due to her blowup with Graver/CIA, and his relationship with her - the one who saved her life, but also shot her ‘safely’, and the grabber during that scene - where he reveals that she reminds him of his daughter - the one who had been dropped in Acid by Fausto. His last line reinforces that - he doesn’t want her to become a wolf like him, but to go somewhere where she can hold onto her moral side.

That was a very, very intense movie, with some great performances.


I watched this tonight. I thought it was a good movie. Loved Benicio. Question though, what the hell was up with that scene where he was interrogating the captured dude? He carried a jug of water in the room…but the scene ended with the jug next to the drain and some weird noises going on. Was he raping the dude or what? Seemed like it but what the hell?


Waterboarding, I assumed.


There’s quite a bit of speculation that it was a rape. There’s no water going into the drain.


Rape? What?

It’s clearly a set up about waterboarding. There’s no rape going on. Good lord. The close up body contact is all alpha-male tactics. The clear connotation is that this is about waterboarding. That we don’t actually see it is Denis Villeneuve not being obvious about it. I think he assumes we will get it.

What I like is that the torture we do see is a guy sticking a finger in another guy’s ear. And the way that plays out is at once fascinating, ridiculous, and revolting.

I love that touch.


“So if your fear is that we are operating out-of-bounds, I assure you we are not. The boundary’s been moved.”


Olaf, I’m surprised a dyed-in-the-wool Bush Administration supporter like you doesn’t catch a reference to waterboarding. :)

Out of curiosity, where is this speculation?

And there’s no water going down the drain because [I]the waterboarding hasn’t commenced yet[/I]. It’s like showing a torture implement on a tray to imply the torture is about to happen. It’s also probably some sort of metaphor, but that’s probably not going to read for anyone who thinks he just saw a scene in which a dude rapes another dude to interrogate him. I mean, really, not even Cheney would go that far.



I bet Rumsfeld would. But not to get information.



Number of reddit threads and blogs discussing it, as well as discussions in other forums. There’s also this Motion Picture Academy discussion where the moderator asks Benicio about how he physically imposed himself in the movie, and he smiles and says his direction was to “get closer” and “penetrate.” 3:40 mark.


I don’t think it’s crazy to wonder about it. Del Toro puts his groin in the guy’s face, they cut away. Hollywood has trained us that cutaways imply sex. Zero Dark Thirty patiently shows its waterboarding. Prisoners, a Denis Villeneuve movie, patiently shows its torture of Paul Dano’s character. Seems unfair to bring olaf’s voting record into it.


That’s clearly both a joke, and about personal space.

Again, it’s alpha domination. Not rape. That makes no sense at all.



What about Alejandro’s character makes you think it’s outside the realm of possibility? And furthermore, what’s the distinction between alpha domination and rape?


There is a clear distinction in this instance.

The distinction is about proximity and control. Which pretty much makes them the opposite in this case. If he fucks the dude he’s interrogating, where does it go from there exactly? And what if he can’t get it up? Hilarity ensues. And if no questions answered before completion? Does he keep calling in more dudes for the rape patrol? Come on.

When a dog humps your leg, he’s not raping you. He’s showing a domination behavior. He’s showing he can do whatever he wants in your personal space. That he owns it. And if you allow him to do that, he is your alpha. Clear and simple. When Alejandro violates that personal space in so aggressive a manner, that is what he is doing.

Look. It’s simple. The jug of water isn’t there for lube. And the rape thing makes no sense.



There seems to be some kind of discontinuity for you between “leg humping” behavior and sexual assault. Everything you say about leg humping goes double for actual rape. Where does it go from there? To waterboarding. I don’t think torture has to ramp up for the big finish…

You have an amoral, vicious man standing with his crotch in a prisoner’s face. We then cut to a drain showing the still-sealed jug of water. We hear what sounds like rustling cloth, Guillermo’s voice suddenly obstructed, and then grunting. Sexual assault makes no sense? Now that I’ve gone back and watched the scene, it seems like the most likely outcome. I mean, listen to this

One more thing: Jeffrey Donovan’s character doesn’t step out when he sees the water jug. He steps out when Alejandro splays Guillermo’s legs and steps in on him. What would this guy be squeamish about? After they see mutilated bodies dangling from an overpass in Juarez, the guy muses about how brilliant the cartels’ tactics are.


No. There’s no discontinuity. I don’t think you’re hearing me, or I’m just not being clear. So I apologize. Dogs aren’t having sex with you when they hump your leg. Anymore than they are french kissing you when they lick your face. It is domination behavior. Sex and domination, in the animal world, are not necessarily the same thing. I’m thinking of the term sillogism in this case. Sure, sex might involve domination. But not all domination involves sex. When your dog jumps up on your guests at the front door, she’s not having sex with them. She is dominating them. The two things are different. I’m not sure why you insist upon conflating them in this instance.

Whatever you think you are hearing in the rustling of cloth notwithstanding, what is the end-game to raping the man exactly? Can you explain that to me? As disgusting as this line of questioning is, and as wrongheaded as I believe it to be, on a base level it seems hopelessly inefficient. “I’ll just fuck you for awhile and then if you don’t answer my questions, we’ll move on to waterboarding.”

Again, it’s a weird fantasy cooked up by some blog somewhere that simply makes no sense. Alejandro is ruthless and efficient. You really think he’s going to go sideways and waste his time fucking one of his enemies while Josh Brolin sits there and looks on? To say nothing of the danger it exposes him to physically, what would be the point?

We see all we need to know in what the director shows us in the scene. The man is humiliated already. Now he has to be broken. Water will do fine. And much more efficiently in the universe of this movie, and this character. If we accept that torture works at all, I don’t see how raping the man helps him get the information that he wants.

Unless you want to try to argue that part of his plan of flushing out the guy who gets called back to Mexico is the humiliation of rape of the brother. Which might be a thing, but is such a stretch. And if that’s what the filmmakers intended, they neglected to tell us about it. Which is pretty much a fail.

Again. I’m not buying it.



I was going to reply, but eh, I kinda doubt it’ll go anywhere, and we’d be arguing about whether or not this rorschach blot is a butterfly or a vulva. If you don’t hear anything sexual in that ten seconds of audio, fair enough.


Oh I think you can hear it if you want to hear it. I just don’t think it makes any sense. And you haven’t answered a one of my questions. I think I’ve proven I can be swayed by a logical argument. I haven’t heard one yet.

So, as you say, fair enough.



Good lord. As Freud and Cheney would say, sometimes waterboarding is just waterboarding. And to answer your question, yes, sexual assault makes no sense despite supposedly suggestive audio of a guy struggling against someone holding him down for obvious and impending nefarious purposes. I guess del Toro brought the jug of water because he gets really thirsty after sodomizing people he’s supposed to interrogate?

As for Woolen Horde citing reddit discussions, well, that’s barely a step above citing YouTube comments. Barely.

Anyway, Denis Villeneuve already has a track record for strong opinions about the contemporary torture issue, which is not the same as the issue of rape. But more to the point, Villeneuve has an impressive bag of tricks to make things ominous that you might not want to take at face value, much less at some unnecessary weird sexual level. For instance, a giant spider doesn’t terrorizes Toronto in Enemy nor does Jake Gyllenhaal marry one.

But on to topics that are actually relevant to the movie Sicario: [I][B]that was Jeffrey Donovan[/B][/I]! I knew I recognized that guy, but never got around to looking up who he was. But yeah, of course. I can see it now. Totally Jeffrey Donovan. I’m so glad you mentioned that, Mr. Zero. I’ve seen Sicario twice, at least one of those times since appreciating what great work Donovan did in season two of Fargo, and even in a half-way not terrible movie called Extinction. I now like Sicario even more.



It really blows my mind that anyone would think there’s going on something other than waterboarding. It’s a water canister, FFS. If it was about them violating him sexually, the movie would have Alessandro bring a broom stick or something.


Yeah. Thinking Alejandro rapes the guy in that scene is picking up on a subtext and constructing something that ignores the actual text.


What an awesome film this was to inspire such conversations.