How the Anatomy of a Scandal Compares to Consent in the Post-Me Too Era




Sienna Miller Discusses Consent and the Importance of Holding Powerful People Accountable

Anatomy of a Scandal may seem far from reality because it shows an upper-class family in the middle of a scandal, but at its heart is a very important issue: consent.

It’s one of those topics that, like religion and politics, you try to avoid bringing up at a dinner party for fear of causing a fight.

Stars Sienna Miller, Michelle Dockery, Rupert Friend, and Naomi Scott, on the other hand, are hoping that the series will spark debate because it is something that “should be talked about,” as Sienna told E! News.

Sophie Whitehouse, Sienna’s character, understands the importance of these discussions better than anyone else in the series.

“How have I contributed to these men feeling like they can take what they want without any consequences?” What does Sophie wonder about being the wife of British politician James Whitehouse (Friend)?

The show follows her as she tries to come to terms with her role in promoting a person who could be a predator. A jury of his peers found him not guilty.

Sophie can’t help but feel responsible, even though she isn’t to blame. “Girls my age when I was growing up had it different than girls now.”

However, Naomi, who plays James’ mistress, Olivia Lytton, does not hold Sophie responsible.

Naomi pointed out that just because a jury acquitted someone of rape doesn’t mean their actions didn’t cause real harm.

Instead, the jury was likely to have doubts about a sexual assault survivor for one reason or another, according to Naomi, who believes that people should be asking, “Why are we reacting the way we are?” What causes us to believe or disbelieve things? “

The actress reflected on Olivia’s admission that she was in love with James.

As if she said something so damaging to her case, Naomi recalled, “the air is taken out of the room.” However, why does that make her even more untrustworthy?

Furthermore, Olivia chose to wait a few weeks before approaching the cops, which James’ lawyer used as a defense, but Naomi pointed out, “When you consider the statistics on people who have experienced trauma and that period of shock, as well as the many, many reasons why someone might not come forward right away, she becomes part of the majority.” That should, if anything, bolster her case. “

Other parts of the trial, like when Olivia and James talk about their first date, are right to make the jurors question who is telling the truth. James remembers her drinking champagne, but Olivia says she drank beer, which raises the question of who is telling the truth.

The show continues to build on these contradictory details, but does it really matter? Anatomy of a Scandal, on the other hand, does not have the answers.

Michelle, who plays barrister Kate Woodcroft, said she “loves those moments” of uncertainty because they emphasize the role of a barrister—or prosecutor in American terms. “I think the show explores that a lot,” she said, adding that the barrister’s job is to remind jurors of the more important issues at hand, such as whether Olivia consented to sex with James.

How the Anatomy of a Scandal Compares to Consent in the Post-Me Too Era

Ana Cristina Blumenkron for NETFLIX

“I have a lot of respect for the prosecutors because it’s such a complicated process,” Michelle added.

Even though Rupert played up the ambiguity of his character’s guilt to “further stir up the kind of conversations Sienna was hoping people would have, where you may be rooting for the guy at times and determinedly sure he’s guilty at other times,” he agrees with his female co-stars that it was a good idea.

How the Anatomy of a Scandal Compares to Consent in the Post-Me Too Era

Blumenkron, Ana Cristina.

James’ cruelty in ending their brief fling was less ambiguous to the actor. “I remember finding it very cold when he broke up with her,” he explained, “because she was so wide-eyed and innocent about the whole thing.” And he appears to believe it’s a done deal; that it’ll be over.

That’s another thing about a “casual” relationship, according to Rupert. He probably chalked it up to a miscommunication: “That’s another thing about a “casual” relationship.”

Normally, one person is much more invested than the other, and this is where the issues arise because there is no transparency.

The cast, on the other hand, isn’t trying to persuade you of anyone’s guilt. As Sienna pointed out, “The show is very cleverly produced, and it does not spoon-feed any answers… As a result, I’m hoping for a lot of debate and interesting conversations.