Duke Nukem
04-17-2011, 10:04 AM
This is the eighteenth of 21 movies I picked up at a recent Monster Mania Convention.
I have seen some disturbing movies that have caused me to re-evaluate how I view cinema. One is 1972’s “Last House on The Left,” and it was not my cup of tea. It made me wary of other movies with similar reputations. Another one is 2005’s “The Devil’s Rejects,” which was meant to pay homage that earlier time period. I despised it and it left an even greater impact on me. I stayed away from the movie theater for a month. These are considered gritty horror films and they have their place in cinema. They have an audience in people who aren’t as interested in phony slasher films. They want something more real. Something that is more reflective of real life. Okay, so the colorful characters in “The Devil’s Rejects” are not so believable, but their attitudes towards humanity are. There have been and there are sick people known to exist.
One other film with a similar reputation is “I Spit on Your Grave.” I haven’t seen it until now, and I stayed away from it for the longest time. It is known to have a forty-minute rape scene. It is also known to feature a heroine who survives her ordeal and get revenge on her rapists. It was first actually released in 1978 as “Day of The Woman,” and it failed to receive much attention. It was re-released in 1981 as “I Spit on Your Grave” and finally got the attention, as well as infamy, it desired. It was also a target of Roger Ebert’s and Gene Siskel’s campaign against exploitation films centering on women in danger. Naturally, they and other critics despised it. So, this was going to prove to be an interesting watch.
The movie begins with a woman named Jennifer leaving the so-called safety of New York City and traveling into the country to write a novel. She stays at a summer house by a river. Also living in this backwoods territory are four men who will rape and torment her. She meets their ringleader when she stops at a gas station. He, Johnny, pumps her gas. He takes full notice as she stretches her legs after a three hour drive. He will later claim that she walked back and forth in her dress to supposedly tempt him. She meets another one when she recieves her groceries. Matthew is mentally-challenged and it is his job to deliver the grocery orders to the people living in the area. The other two are Stanley and Andy. They have no jobs and are bums. They and Johnny find out shortly that Matthew is smitten with Jennifer, and the three of them intend help him lose his virginity.
In a matter of days or weeks, Jennifer has written eight chapters of her novel. This is when the four men begin harassing her. When she is off-guard one day, they take her into the woods for Matthew. When Matthew cannot bring himself to take advantage of her, one of the other men rapes her instead. They let her get away for now. Wearing nothing and feeling dirty inside and out, she treks through the woods and swamp. However, the men have her exactly where they want her. They know the woods like the back of their hands and are waiting for her. And they are waiting for another turn. When Jennifer hears a harmonica being played in the distance, she shudders and gulps. And so did I. It gets uglier and much more unpleasant from this point on.
From the moment they take her into the woods, the whole sequence in which they torment her is thirty-five minutes long. There must have been approximately four minutes in which she is raped. During rest of the time, she is making her way through the woods, trying to get back to her house, being tormented by the men along the way, and even having her novel mocked by the men as well. She is wearing nothing but dirt on her skin. The men get down and also take off their clothing. This sequence is the second act of the film. The first twenty minutes in which she arrives and begins to suspect the men is the first act. And during this second act, I felt genuinely scared for Jennifer. What she experiences is horrible and unpleasant. It is ultimately shocking and repulsive to witness. However, having seen “Last House on The Left,” it could have been worse. It could have more exploitive than it was.
Jennifer is played by Camille Keaton. She is brave and shows no bounderies. She has experience in this field, and it ranges from Italian Giallos like “What Have They Done to Solange?” to the women-in-prison film “The Concrete Jungle.” It just so happens that she was directed by her husband, Meir Zarchi. And in terms of directing and overall execution, it could have more exploitive than it was. It could have been a lot more sleazy, explicit and disgusting. As shocking and repulsive as the film is, it is watchable and shows professionalism. And dare I say it, it shows a little more class in the final product than one would expect. Keaton’s character experiences something unthinkable, and it is meant to be tough for her and the audience, but Zarchi handles it with restraint and respect for the actress. He makes it shocking, but he also makes it genuinely suspenseful.
There is still a third act, and Jennifer uses the remainder of the running time to spy on her rapists and eventually kill them. After everything that happens to her, the filmmakers want us to root for her and get revenge, and I was totally on her side. This is a fictional work, and I found it healthy to root for her after all the torment she experiences in the second act. I know fantasy from reality, and I know this film is as close to reality than any phony slasher film. The only exception is that Jennifer, in real life, probably would have been killed and not spared. And I think that’s reason I favor this movie more than other gritty horror films. As unrealistic as her survival may have been, I wanted her to live so that her rapists would pay for their actions. And they do. I was happy for her at the end.
Upon coming up with a rating, I can’t help but feel Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin and all the other critics looking over my shoulder. They have every right to despise this film. However, I have my reasons for awarding it with a fair rating. It was meant to shock us and it did. It also wanted us to root for the heroine and it did that as well. It also could have been a lot more exploitive, but it wasn’t. That is where I draw the line. I’m not suggesting that this film is for everyone. It certainly is not. I am also not suggesting that it has strong re-watchability value. It doesn’t. Here is the point I’m driving at. If you are indeed a genre fan, this is a one-of-a-kind film that is perhaps viewed once in your lifetime. No matter what, it will leave a lasting effect on you. For me, it is a positive one. I didn’t feel too dirty after watching it. And if you have seen your share of gritty horror films, it most likely won’t hurt to give “I Spit on Your Grave” a shot.
**1/2 out of 4
I have seen some disturbing movies that have caused me to re-evaluate how I view cinema. One is 1972’s “Last House on The Left,” and it was not my cup of tea. It made me wary of other movies with similar reputations. Another one is 2005’s “The Devil’s Rejects,” which was meant to pay homage that earlier time period. I despised it and it left an even greater impact on me. I stayed away from the movie theater for a month. These are considered gritty horror films and they have their place in cinema. They have an audience in people who aren’t as interested in phony slasher films. They want something more real. Something that is more reflective of real life. Okay, so the colorful characters in “The Devil’s Rejects” are not so believable, but their attitudes towards humanity are. There have been and there are sick people known to exist.
One other film with a similar reputation is “I Spit on Your Grave.” I haven’t seen it until now, and I stayed away from it for the longest time. It is known to have a forty-minute rape scene. It is also known to feature a heroine who survives her ordeal and get revenge on her rapists. It was first actually released in 1978 as “Day of The Woman,” and it failed to receive much attention. It was re-released in 1981 as “I Spit on Your Grave” and finally got the attention, as well as infamy, it desired. It was also a target of Roger Ebert’s and Gene Siskel’s campaign against exploitation films centering on women in danger. Naturally, they and other critics despised it. So, this was going to prove to be an interesting watch.
The movie begins with a woman named Jennifer leaving the so-called safety of New York City and traveling into the country to write a novel. She stays at a summer house by a river. Also living in this backwoods territory are four men who will rape and torment her. She meets their ringleader when she stops at a gas station. He, Johnny, pumps her gas. He takes full notice as she stretches her legs after a three hour drive. He will later claim that she walked back and forth in her dress to supposedly tempt him. She meets another one when she recieves her groceries. Matthew is mentally-challenged and it is his job to deliver the grocery orders to the people living in the area. The other two are Stanley and Andy. They have no jobs and are bums. They and Johnny find out shortly that Matthew is smitten with Jennifer, and the three of them intend help him lose his virginity.
In a matter of days or weeks, Jennifer has written eight chapters of her novel. This is when the four men begin harassing her. When she is off-guard one day, they take her into the woods for Matthew. When Matthew cannot bring himself to take advantage of her, one of the other men rapes her instead. They let her get away for now. Wearing nothing and feeling dirty inside and out, she treks through the woods and swamp. However, the men have her exactly where they want her. They know the woods like the back of their hands and are waiting for her. And they are waiting for another turn. When Jennifer hears a harmonica being played in the distance, she shudders and gulps. And so did I. It gets uglier and much more unpleasant from this point on.
From the moment they take her into the woods, the whole sequence in which they torment her is thirty-five minutes long. There must have been approximately four minutes in which she is raped. During rest of the time, she is making her way through the woods, trying to get back to her house, being tormented by the men along the way, and even having her novel mocked by the men as well. She is wearing nothing but dirt on her skin. The men get down and also take off their clothing. This sequence is the second act of the film. The first twenty minutes in which she arrives and begins to suspect the men is the first act. And during this second act, I felt genuinely scared for Jennifer. What she experiences is horrible and unpleasant. It is ultimately shocking and repulsive to witness. However, having seen “Last House on The Left,” it could have been worse. It could have more exploitive than it was.
Jennifer is played by Camille Keaton. She is brave and shows no bounderies. She has experience in this field, and it ranges from Italian Giallos like “What Have They Done to Solange?” to the women-in-prison film “The Concrete Jungle.” It just so happens that she was directed by her husband, Meir Zarchi. And in terms of directing and overall execution, it could have more exploitive than it was. It could have been a lot more sleazy, explicit and disgusting. As shocking and repulsive as the film is, it is watchable and shows professionalism. And dare I say it, it shows a little more class in the final product than one would expect. Keaton’s character experiences something unthinkable, and it is meant to be tough for her and the audience, but Zarchi handles it with restraint and respect for the actress. He makes it shocking, but he also makes it genuinely suspenseful.
There is still a third act, and Jennifer uses the remainder of the running time to spy on her rapists and eventually kill them. After everything that happens to her, the filmmakers want us to root for her and get revenge, and I was totally on her side. This is a fictional work, and I found it healthy to root for her after all the torment she experiences in the second act. I know fantasy from reality, and I know this film is as close to reality than any phony slasher film. The only exception is that Jennifer, in real life, probably would have been killed and not spared. And I think that’s reason I favor this movie more than other gritty horror films. As unrealistic as her survival may have been, I wanted her to live so that her rapists would pay for their actions. And they do. I was happy for her at the end.
Upon coming up with a rating, I can’t help but feel Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin and all the other critics looking over my shoulder. They have every right to despise this film. However, I have my reasons for awarding it with a fair rating. It was meant to shock us and it did. It also wanted us to root for the heroine and it did that as well. It also could have been a lot more exploitive, but it wasn’t. That is where I draw the line. I’m not suggesting that this film is for everyone. It certainly is not. I am also not suggesting that it has strong re-watchability value. It doesn’t. Here is the point I’m driving at. If you are indeed a genre fan, this is a one-of-a-kind film that is perhaps viewed once in your lifetime. No matter what, it will leave a lasting effect on you. For me, it is a positive one. I didn’t feel too dirty after watching it. And if you have seen your share of gritty horror films, it most likely won’t hurt to give “I Spit on Your Grave” a shot.
**1/2 out of 4