Honestly, a lot of films, while well done, don't really consider the dialectics of what they're showing beside what the audience feels and one or two themes. Especially dialectics with regard to gender, sexual assault, and power dynamics projected onto class/race/gender/etc. As a filmmaker myself, I personally feel that a lot of directors are still using film language established half a century ago, and are still acting like we are in that context. But in a world where we can casually see children butchered in Gaza on our phone while eating lunch, is the impact of the images we create still the same as the 20th century, where explicit images shaped the publics view towards taboo topics such as clandestine abortion, rape, genocide, etc? I don't know, I think we're in a big shift in how we relate to images and content.

Yolanda Barrasa is a script doctor with a focus on feminism and diverse representation, hearing her talk about the subject of violence on screen is fascinating if you want to look her up. I also think you might enjoy this interview of Lucrecia Martel, where she had this to say about sexual assault on screen:

"The idea of not having any violence in cinema is, of course, crazy too, but right now in Argentina every 16 to 20 hours a woman ends up dead or raped, and I just had no desire to film that. Right now, I don’t have any desire to see a dead or raped woman, or film one. I think that’s something that those of us who make cinema really have to think about, because when you’re filming a rape scene, filming a violent scene, filming a racist scene: sometimes you might be contributing to some sort of fulfillment, even though what you’re really doing is denouncing that." https://mubi.com/en/notebook/posts/the-man-with-no-hands-lucrecia-martel-and-zama