Horror Movies / I Spit On Your Grave

Roger Ebert continues his annoying habit of writing pretentious reviews, as if he is above the fray of lesser works not worthy of civilized movie goers. This critique of what admittedly sounds like a bad movie is telling. Why exactly is the film "masquerading as a feminist revenge picture?" Simplistic plot design is not unique to the revenge genre; nor is the use of overblown villains. Are you telling me that "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" doesn't have exaggerated villains, or a favorite of Ebert's, "Death Wish" (or "The Last House on the Left")? Does not exaggerations cheapen the messages these films send? And do not "revenge films" by nature have extended scenes of (1)the need for revenge and (2)the revenge itself?

And why is "Enough" a "step or two above" "I Spit On Your Grave," when the latter film does not have a similiarly naive (or stupid) victim nor a cop out ending in which the death of the abuser is not blamed on the heroine? As discussed below, "I Spit On Your Grave" has a basic and largely no frills style that tells the story forthrightly, not dwelling on unbelievable story complications or the same problematic character inconsistencies reviewers like Roger Ebert complain "Enough" has. The movie is more explicit, but it shames me not to say it is more of a work of art, which often involves violence and at times perverse goings on (e.g. some works of David Lynch). The success or at least acceptance of "Enough" shows how arguably troubling and hard to defend themes and plots are accepted if the "right" type of people are involved and the unpleasant is not that graphic.

One more thing. At some point over the last few months, I notice that some of my favorite "I Spit" links have been taken down. Very annoying, but since a few of them were the source of the information below, I will leave them up, broken or not (they were okay early 2002). I found a new one via Rotten Tomatoes, namely this one. The only favorable review of the few included on that site, it includes this bit of praise: "However, it’s also a film that seems to have something to say about numerous issues—including the whole ‘city versus the country’ thing, the class distinctions between the well off and the poor, and a whole lot about gender issues." It is this suggestion that the movie has value or even can be recommended that inspired this page.

"Men Women and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Movie" by Carol Clover seriously interprets popular horror movies of the 1970s and early 1980s. The book argues that they were a way for men (young adult males being the primary audience) to address certain fears in an emotionally acceptable ways (largely by using women as the victims and heroes). The book eventually bogs down in academic speak, but it makes some good points on how, for example, men cheer on as women (as was usually the case in many horror flicks such as "Halloween" or "Friday the Thirteenth" films) overcome various horrors and beat some monster, who in some cases are males who abuse them in ways akin to problems women deal with in real life (e.g. rape revenge flicks). In the past, it is men and/or authority figures who were heroes in suspense or horror movies, people now rather useless (even in modern day movies such as "Scream," and "I Know What You Did Last Summer," women are often the heroes).

The book spends most of its time dwelling on this thesis of horror movies as a way for men to address fears that society usually terms "feminine," that is, fears that a true man would not dwell on, since they would not make themselves victims. The very fact that many women in horror films become heroic, including physically attacking their foes, is used to show this very fact: such acts are seen as "male" and gives solace to the male audience who for the moment is associating themselves with the female victim. The argument clearly can only go so far (the book fails to discuss in much detail ways such films appeal to men as men, including gratituous nudity), but as the book discusses to some degree, the evil forces shown in horror movies clearly addresses fears men and women have, as shown by the theme of sex in films seen largely by teenagers (as viewers of "Scream" know, sex is liable to not just get you pregnant, it is liable to kill you).

Finally, the fact that horror movies address many themes that are important to us gives worth to even those seen as worthless. For instance, the typical slasher flick might be cheaply made and have a lot of sexual content and violence, but it addresses important themes in ways not often shown in many other movies. The films also are made in a way to appeal to a certain audience (sexual content geared to young males for instance), including violence that addresses some of our deepest fears (violence being so primitive as compared to what we feel is civilized). Many films that portray women as victims, also clearly make it clear the victimizers are wrong, as shown by the revenege themes involved in many of them (I Spit On Your Grave, held to be trash by many, is a good example). The films surely have some flaws, and still are often good just for plain all fun (or scares), but horror movies also have messages, just like all other films out there.

"I Spit On Your Grave" is a 1970s exploitation* film (originally entitled "Day of The Woman," the writer/director apparently might disagree with this label*) that received some controversy when it first came out, arising from various scenes of rape and violence, as well as mixed reviews overall.* Nonetheless, though the film does have some exploitation (shock for shock sake) components, it actually is a superior film in many ways, or at least surely not worth its reputation as worthless trash. Furthermore, the film is not bad as compared to other exploitation and horror films of the time period and later (some comment they were disappointed the film wasn't more explicit), and the more troubling aspects of the film can either be explained or is balanced by the superior aspects of the film. Finally, the movie can still be enjoyed as exploitation, if that is your preference, but even this response grows from the film's themes that touch something deep inside of us in a visceral way. Thus, "obviously, there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye."

The film begins with a young woman leaving her Manhattan apartment and going to a country cabin to work on her book, stopping at a gas station on the way. The gas station attendant and two unemployed guys who hang around him took notice of her, as does a (stereotypically portrayed) retarded supermarket delivery guy (she is not wearing a bra when he comes to deliver her stuff). The attendant took special notice of her legs when she got out of the car to stretch her legs, and thought (perhaps rightly) that she was doing a bit of flirting as well. They all discuss her and "loose" city women in general, the two unemployed guys harass her in a boat as she tries to read in the woods, and eventually they trap her (dressed skimpily) in the woods.

Let it be noted that the setting of the film, a deceptively peaceful rural area of apparently upstate New York or some comparable area, is but one of the many homages to (and comparable in) other films seen in the movie. For instance, the movie's use of low class country males raping civilized city folk just visiting (country vs city is a common theme in horror) is comparable to the movie "Deliverance," as well as its use of a keenly placed harmonica solo reminds one of the use of banjos in the earlier well known film. Likewise, its low rent, almost documentary look reminds one of the similarly rural film "The Blair Witch Project." It was also noted that a particular striking scene of just raped Jenny running away nude is comparable to the famous image of fleeing villagers in Vietnam. Other comparisions can be made by those who watch the film with an educated eye, which reflects my argument it is worthy of serious interpretation.

The lead-up to this scene is about twenty minutes or so, and it (as is the film in general) all is filmed in an almost documentary style with little or no music. The acting style is spare, but not amateurish as compared to other films of the genre, or even in general. The basic themes of the movie begin to show itself: city vs. country, poor v rich, animalistic male v more refined woman (she carries herself as a 1970s feminist woman of the time would, sure of herself and her sexuality, as seen by her actions and swimming in the nude), as well as what goes through a man's mind that causes him to show his animal side. The discussion on loose, sexual active city women is more explanation for the upcoming violence than most exploitation films offer to justify its violence. The treatment of the strange rich city woman ("bitch" is left unsaid) that occurs is horrible, but it does not occur without reason. Therefore, a film that centers a violent set of events as this one cannot be said to be purposeless, and even the beginning suggests there is enough to the film for it not to be considered trash.

The center of the film is an extended rape scene (seen mostly in her point of view and in real time or even slow motion at times, which is just as it might seem to the victim), which takes around a third of the screen time, and is very graphic and explicit. It is does seem a bit too long, but it is not as long as some make it out to be (for instance, the revenge scenes are just as long, and as noted the opening scenes not much shorter), and its length is important for the overall story, especially the revenge component. This is important to note, since much of the criticism of the film grows from this part of the movie, since the rest of the film is fairly standard revenge plot material. The revenge might be graphic, but not graphic enough for the film to be seen as worth of special scorn.

Anyhow, the three guys used giving Matthew a chance to have his first sexual experience as an excuse in snatching her, but he could only stay on the sidelines trembling. Therefore, the guys themselves raped her, while she struggled all the way. The head of the trio went first, and after he was done, she was exhausted from struggling and spent now that she could not stop from being violated. Also, there was no sense of pleasure from the rapists once they were finished (the sex is quick and not explicit in itself, but full nudity on both sides is shown), though they egged each other on while doing the act itself. After the heat of the moment, it seems they recognized that what they did was clearly wrong on some level. It also seemed that they left her a chance to leave twice afterwards, but she was raped again in the woods (her hearing music and realizing she is not out of danger is a powerful moment) and then she struggled to the cabin blooded and nude, and they were there to stop her just when she was about to call for help.

They smacked her to the floor, and this time Matthew made a show of stripping down and actually having sex with her as she was half unconscious, but could not finish. One of the guys made fun of the romantic story she was working on, while her liquor is enjoyed. She is left on the floor when they leave, and Matthew is sent in with a knife to kill her. He could not do it, and just coats the knife with her blood. They leave without checking, uncomfortable with what they did, and not wanting to face their victim now that the evil energy that filled them during the act is done. This uncomfortable feeling is well addressed in a scene cut in some cuts of the film, which takes place in a diner a week or so after the rape. Something makes a few of the guys think about the rape, but the leader changes the subject with a bit of levity. The message is that the victim is dead and to be forgotten, not worthy of concern. Nonetheless, it is clear the concern is there, some inner feeling of the evil that had been done. It is a powerful little scene, seldom seen in such fare.

The bridge between the rape and the revenge is short, but the few scenes are well done with a lot included in about fifteen minutes. After the rape, the victim takes a shower and basically crawls in a fetal position, trying to block out the horrors that had just occurred. It is clear that the formerly lively vivacious if a bit reserved woman was hurt and violated in a way that she could not truly totally overcome. She is almost in a daze, probably feeling dead inside, and just cannot get the energy to leave. This decision to stay behind and not tell the authorities seems the most ridiculous part of the film, but we soon see the reason behind it. She is plotting revenge, and stops in a church to apologize to God for what she will do, so she is secure in her mission. She is an angel of destruction, if anything more vicious in her retribution than her attackers, but few could truly blame her for what she planned to do. Actually, her ability to take revenge on her own is a type of feminist measure of self-empowerment, since so many movies make women victims and men are needed to serve as avenging angels (e.g. "Death Wish"), or perhaps more socially acceptable women ("The Accused"). The violence of the act is balanced by the violence of the revenge, a zero sum game that benefits no one. This is refreshingly opposite than films that glorify revenge without recognizing no one really wins.

Some reviews center on the rape and the revenge, ignoring the other components of the film, as well as the overall whole that clearly is of some value as film. What, some might ask, is the value of watching a sadistic rape, and then an almost as sadistic (and more calculated) revenge that kills each attacker in a very nasty fashion? My philosophy is that it is sometimes important for fiction, including film, to address the truly animalistic parts of our nature, including the depths we all are capable of falling into. The exploitation film goes out of its way to appeal to our basest instincts, to try to titillate us with sex and violence. There is clearly a negative component to this exercise, but let it be known that it is done here with some artistic skill and finesse. Furthermore, it is very graphic, but its very graphic nature makes it clear that nothing good is going on here. The rapists themselves did not really enjoy the rape (especially afterwards), and the woman surely does not get much out of killing her attackers (she still was raped and cannot gain fully what she had loss). Compare this to a standard shoot-up flick ("Die Hard," etc.) where violence, nudity, and abuse are shown in an almost throw away fashion, often encouraging us to root for the death of evil faceless foes.

"I Spit on Your Grave" prevents the audience easily involve itself in such frivolous sadism. There were some complaints that some audiences yelled at the screen to cheer on the rape and the revenge afterwards. Nonetheless, many were silent when they first viewed it, shocked and uncomfortable at what they saw. How could they not be by an unemotional, almost stark documentary type look at a rape and its aftermath? No soundtrack, except for a bit of music, no subliminal push to root for the debauchery and violence showed. Furthermore, some yelled at the screen out because they did not want to think about what was going on, much like the rapists in the film, who deep down felt uncomfortable about what was done. This is made clear as well by the fact that obviously the rapists are not the good guys, and for those who don't realize this, the end of the film clearly informs us where the picture's sympathy lies. Some might like the nudity or rape scenes (like some like rape fantasies), but it is quite hard for a viewer to miss the point that the rape is wrong. Nonetheless, more surprisingly, the viewer is not given a free ride to root for revenge.

As one person who praised the movie noted, "The movie makes you feel like killing the whole way through, but with all the killing done you feel nothing, just empty; and realize that violence is not as satisfying as some movies would have you believe .... If this movie makes you feel horrified and disgusted that's because it was trying to: best you think about why that is."

The revenge starts soon after the woman lets herself be seen by her rapists. They beat up Matthew for not killing her, but again do not have the wherewithal to kill her themselves. When she calls to the grocery for a delivery, Matthew decides to finish the job he failed to do earlier. Nonetheless, she lures him with an offer of sex to the woods, where she lets him have sex with her, but meanwhile ties a noose around his neck and hangs him on a tree. She does this all with little or no emotion; apparently even her now violated body is fair game in her revenge. Furthermore, the savage attack deserves a savage retribution. A few question her killing a retarded person, including one who actually did not kill her when given the chance. Nonetheless, Matthew clearly knew right from wrong, making his actions wrong. It can be argued that his part in the rape is worse, given one expected more from him than the others. Finally, someone raped can be forgiven for not balancing out the levels of right and wrong. This scene is comparable to "The Last House On The Left" (a favorite of Roger Ebert, who feels ISOYG is trash) in which the mother of the victim (again third party revenge) seduces one of her daughter's attackers via oral sex, and then kills him.

Her revenge fits a pattern. (1) The victim is wary, but at some point (wrongly) thinks he might escape (2) The victim tries to convince her he really did not mean it or try to blame the rape on someone else (the exception is Andy, killed too quickly and not given much of a unique role in the rape) and (3) The death has some type of irony to it, given the person's involvement in the rape. For instance, the message to Matthew is: well you wanted me, well you had me alone just as you liked, so now I can kill you. None are given particularly special treatment (though the leader aka Johnny and Matthew have longer scenes), seen as less or more guilty, nor are their cries of innocence taken for any more than the justified disdain (though realistic in the masculine mindset behind them) they deserve.

Next, she lures the leader back to her cabin by going to the gas station and silently beckoning him into her car. At first, it seems like she would just shoot him in the woods, after she takes out a gun and forces him to strip. Nonetheless, he tries to justify his actions by saying how she flirted, how it's only natural for a man to be titillated by her, and finally by blaming it all on one of the unemployed guys. She seems to have been convinced, and leads him back to give him a bath. There she brings up his wife and kids, who she earlier referred to when it seemed like she would kill him, and he says his marriage is comfortable, and he loves his kids. This is no faceless rapist; after all, rapists often have girlfriends, people they love, etc. We cannot fully ignore that they are more than their acts, which hurt not just the victim, but those who care about them. She mentions she killed Matthew, but he takes it as a joke. She washes him, he likes it, until she castrates him. As he bleeds to death in agony, she locks bathroom door, and rocks as she plays an opera record with a blank expression on her face. She later goes up to wash away the blood, and burn the clothes and body.

We later see his wife with her two kids (apparently related to the director) yelling at the other two guys that they are worthless idiots and better find her husband. They go out with an axe on their motorboat to search for her. She is there to lure them to her, and gets control of their boat. She deals with one with the axe and chases the other with the boat, just like they tortured her by passing by menacingly before the rape. The remaining guy takes hold of the boat and begs her to have mercy, she tells him to suck it (the propeller) like he told her to suck his penis when she was nearly unconscious in her cabin, and turns power on. After killing him, she silently drives the boat downstream, as the credits roll. It ends as sparely as it begins, and the viewer is about as dazed as she looks. The rapists are dead, but in the process she lost more of her innocence, and cannot truly be at peace. Just satisfied the revenge is complete, for what good that really could be given what happened. She may spit on their graves, but she herself suffered a type of death that could not truly be avenged. As one reviewer of the film noted: "Her revenge is understandable, but leaves her a triumphant, possibly insane animal."

An interesting companion piece to this movie would be the independent film Positive Id.

* The director said in an interview that he was driving one day with his eight year old daughter (perhaps the young girl who has a cameo in the film) and came across a young woman who narrowly escaped two rapists. This is far cry from the suggestion in some promotions that the film was based on a true story, but Meir Zarchi clearly felt the movie was a serious work of what might happen if a woman struck back after being savagely attacked. The lead in the film (Camile Keaton, granddaughter of the famous silent screen actor) by the way married Zarchi soon after completing the film.

* Exploitation:

* Reviews