Next up is a comparison review of both the 1979 original and the 2010 remake of I Spit On Your Grave courtesy of Markus.
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE aka DAY OF THE WOMAN (1979)
If a movie is generating as much heated criticism as passionate defense well over 30 years after its initial release, we have to be talking about something far more compelling than your bog standard "video nasty".
And indeed, when talking about Meir Zarchi's originally titled "Day of a Woman" we're entering some kind of reviewers' mine field seemingly not allowing for much middle ground between "feminist classic" and "mysogynistic exploitation at its worst", although more recent articles tend to be a bit more diverse, often trying to reach some "in between" take.
I for one applaud a movie such as "I Spit On Your Grave" for having the guts to go the whole nine yards to get its point across, which is to give at least a glimpse of an idea to an audience about what a violation a rape actually is to a woman's body and mind.
Yes, it's not subtle in the least and you won't have to search for the "subtext" in the extended ugliness of the approx 25 mins of "gang rape" to see that Zarchi did what he felt neccesary to do to visualise the consequences of primal male evil cut loose- tainting the heroine not only physically, but also robbing her off her own humanity as she's "working" her way through ending the lives of the four men who destroyed her life in gruesome fashion.
There'll always be those eagerly pointing out that "certain males" with a craving for "violent sexual images" COULD get "turned on" by a movie like "I Spit...", hence justifying all kinds of censorship restrictions or outright bans on films such as this.
Well, the reality of this is that the same effect could be attributed to a "Britney Spears" or "Beyoncé" music video, "Big Brother", an ad for underwear, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" etc- there are thousends of nutters out there who COULD theoretically be triggered into committing god-knows-what for the most stupid of reasons....so where do we start "eliminating the risks" if we still want to live in a free society?
By denying artists, filmmakers etc the right to thematize violence for the painful, vicious act against another human being that it is despite the conventions of glossy sanitised blockbuster fare to lessen its physical and emotional impact for mere entertainment purposes, the censors actually do the public a disservice by making the portrayal of an act such as rape appear more "harmless" than the writer/director intended.
Zarchi's goal apparently was to make the audience go through the same hell as his protagonist Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton), so that they would not only "side with the victim of rape" on her bloody revenge, but also would sense the rapists getting increasingly desensitised towards cruelty and perfectly human notions such as pity as they proceed with her ordeal.
There's enough food for thought here to distinguish Zarchi's film clearly from your average "grindhouse" outing. It's not a very intellectual affair, but thank god for that, because its agenda is way too serious to be solely grasped by the "arthouse crowd".
The campaign and infamous poster artwork though did their part in cementing "I Spit's..." immortal "nasty" status, not to mention the ongoing listing as a "banned movie" in several countires, the latest being the rejection in Ireland for the recent UK rerelease, which is still cut by nearly 3 mins, yet far closer to the movie's intended impact than the previous British DVDs, which had lost over 7 mins to the censors.
Ironically, by cutting the most intense bits out of the rape scenes, the subsequent "revenge" part becomes somewhat more problematic, as the gruesome vengeance suddenly appears to be far more graphic (and therefore emotionally more "injust"/"dubious") than the previous physical and mental humiliation and destruction of Jennifer, which almost doesn't take place at all in the earlier UK editions.
While I wouldn't say that all movies dealing with violence have to be as blunt as "I Spit On Your Grave", I'd say they certainly do have their right to be around, to be shown, to be debated.
I don't know if they contribute to "a better world", but if they get you thinking and reflecting a bit about the brutality you just witnessed, it might not be such a bad thing after all.
And for those struggling with the 70's low budget look, some of the performances (Personally I like them all!) or Jennifer's (to some) "far fetched" ways of killing the rapists, I can only say: Roll on the (Zarchi supervised) remake!
5/5
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010)
Of all the more recent updates, the remake of "I spit on your Grave" was the one flick I was most curious about, as with "The Last House on the Left" I saw some merit in revisiting a classic 70's tale of terror, which still has the potential to shock and upset an audience as jaded and "Seen it all" as the early 21st century horror crowd while still standing a good chance of "making a point" as valid (if not more) today than back in the 70's.
And indeed, considering that "I spit...(2010)" is about the only redux of a former (and in its uncut shape still) "video nasty" which managed to run into trouble with the BBFC- loosing 43 seconds (partically replaced with zoomed in footage) in the process- director Stephen Monroe certainly stayed true to the source material's controversial potential, though there are still those considering the modern "I spit..." to be compromised by the significantly reduced amount of nudity in the rape secenes
Those voices seem to overlook the little detail of the original "I spit..." being very much a film of its (in many ways far more- to some extent carelessly- liberal) times, with Meir Zarchi consciously setting his depiction of the molesting and degradation of a woman against the "romanticization" of rape-esque situations in many 70's films, reaching from grindhouse exploiters to more widespread mainstream fare.
While the original film would have likely benefitted greatly rep-wise from getting released under its earlier title of "Day of the Woman" (actually that's the title under which it's billed in the remake's credits), the redux clearly makes no qualms about being "I spit on your Grave" indeed, as the main focus has been shifted from Jennifer Hills' lengthy ordeal to the revenge she inflicts upon her tormentors.
That's of course the point at which somebody's going to accuse the film of trying to be a mere cash-in on the still rolling wave of "torture porn", though with the appeal of Jennifer's mission still being intact and pure- trying to fullfill the desire of the kind of "true justice" the real life victims can usually only dream about- that can be hardly counted as a flaw, with the torturer being a victim striking back instead of an ingenius horror-movie- mastermind setting out a series of far fetched "games".
The 2010 version does look slicker; it even features a score whereas one of the original's strengths was the lack of any accompanying music to increase the sense of "documentary" realism.
Though obviously catering to en vogue viewing habits, the new "I spit..." is far from loosing its teeth, still doing one hell of a job to get its audience feeling increasingly uncomfortable.
Monroe's version stays close to the original's plot for the most part, but there's a striking difference coming with the introduction of Adam-Mason-regular Andrew Howard's Sheriff Storch, which I shouldn't really go into, not to spoil the viewing experience for those who haven't seen it yet.
While "I spit...2010" is easily one of the best entires in the circle of recent remakes, which got going after 2003's reworking of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", the original film is still the more compelling movie for me and that has a simple reason.
Zarchi wisely chose to let the audience experience Jennifer's horror first hand by telling the majority of his version from her pov whereas some of the changes to the 2010 film demand a narrative, which spends an increased amount of time with the rapists.
On the plus side, this makes the villains appear less one dimensional than in "Day of the Woman", yet that also means we get less time to spend with Jennifer Hills, which creates a slight distance to her character in stark contrast to the original.
That's a minor pity as the new movie's Jennifer, as portrayed by Sarah Butler, is just as compelling to watch as Camille Keaton in the 70's film.
Butler alone would be a good reason for hoping that early plans for a sequel to the remake would actually come true.
If they also found a place for a Keaton cameo in "I spit on your Grave 2", I would be simply overjoyed....
And no, this WON'T come out uncut in Germany either...
4/5
Written By Markus Duschek
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE aka DAY OF THE WOMAN (1979)
If a movie is generating as much heated criticism as passionate defense well over 30 years after its initial release, we have to be talking about something far more compelling than your bog standard "video nasty".
And indeed, when talking about Meir Zarchi's originally titled "Day of a Woman" we're entering some kind of reviewers' mine field seemingly not allowing for much middle ground between "feminist classic" and "mysogynistic exploitation at its worst", although more recent articles tend to be a bit more diverse, often trying to reach some "in between" take.
I for one applaud a movie such as "I Spit On Your Grave" for having the guts to go the whole nine yards to get its point across, which is to give at least a glimpse of an idea to an audience about what a violation a rape actually is to a woman's body and mind.
Yes, it's not subtle in the least and you won't have to search for the "subtext" in the extended ugliness of the approx 25 mins of "gang rape" to see that Zarchi did what he felt neccesary to do to visualise the consequences of primal male evil cut loose- tainting the heroine not only physically, but also robbing her off her own humanity as she's "working" her way through ending the lives of the four men who destroyed her life in gruesome fashion.
There'll always be those eagerly pointing out that "certain males" with a craving for "violent sexual images" COULD get "turned on" by a movie like "I Spit...", hence justifying all kinds of censorship restrictions or outright bans on films such as this.
Well, the reality of this is that the same effect could be attributed to a "Britney Spears" or "Beyoncé" music video, "Big Brother", an ad for underwear, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" etc- there are thousends of nutters out there who COULD theoretically be triggered into committing god-knows-what for the most stupid of reasons....so where do we start "eliminating the risks" if we still want to live in a free society?
By denying artists, filmmakers etc the right to thematize violence for the painful, vicious act against another human being that it is despite the conventions of glossy sanitised blockbuster fare to lessen its physical and emotional impact for mere entertainment purposes, the censors actually do the public a disservice by making the portrayal of an act such as rape appear more "harmless" than the writer/director intended.
Zarchi's goal apparently was to make the audience go through the same hell as his protagonist Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton), so that they would not only "side with the victim of rape" on her bloody revenge, but also would sense the rapists getting increasingly desensitised towards cruelty and perfectly human notions such as pity as they proceed with her ordeal.
There's enough food for thought here to distinguish Zarchi's film clearly from your average "grindhouse" outing. It's not a very intellectual affair, but thank god for that, because its agenda is way too serious to be solely grasped by the "arthouse crowd".
The campaign and infamous poster artwork though did their part in cementing "I Spit's..." immortal "nasty" status, not to mention the ongoing listing as a "banned movie" in several countires, the latest being the rejection in Ireland for the recent UK rerelease, which is still cut by nearly 3 mins, yet far closer to the movie's intended impact than the previous British DVDs, which had lost over 7 mins to the censors.
Ironically, by cutting the most intense bits out of the rape scenes, the subsequent "revenge" part becomes somewhat more problematic, as the gruesome vengeance suddenly appears to be far more graphic (and therefore emotionally more "injust"/"dubious") than the previous physical and mental humiliation and destruction of Jennifer, which almost doesn't take place at all in the earlier UK editions.
While I wouldn't say that all movies dealing with violence have to be as blunt as "I Spit On Your Grave", I'd say they certainly do have their right to be around, to be shown, to be debated.
I don't know if they contribute to "a better world", but if they get you thinking and reflecting a bit about the brutality you just witnessed, it might not be such a bad thing after all.
And for those struggling with the 70's low budget look, some of the performances (Personally I like them all!) or Jennifer's (to some) "far fetched" ways of killing the rapists, I can only say: Roll on the (Zarchi supervised) remake!
5/5
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010)
Of all the more recent updates, the remake of "I spit on your Grave" was the one flick I was most curious about, as with "The Last House on the Left" I saw some merit in revisiting a classic 70's tale of terror, which still has the potential to shock and upset an audience as jaded and "Seen it all" as the early 21st century horror crowd while still standing a good chance of "making a point" as valid (if not more) today than back in the 70's.
And indeed, considering that "I spit...(2010)" is about the only redux of a former (and in its uncut shape still) "video nasty" which managed to run into trouble with the BBFC- loosing 43 seconds (partically replaced with zoomed in footage) in the process- director Stephen Monroe certainly stayed true to the source material's controversial potential, though there are still those considering the modern "I spit..." to be compromised by the significantly reduced amount of nudity in the rape secenes
Those voices seem to overlook the little detail of the original "I spit..." being very much a film of its (in many ways far more- to some extent carelessly- liberal) times, with Meir Zarchi consciously setting his depiction of the molesting and degradation of a woman against the "romanticization" of rape-esque situations in many 70's films, reaching from grindhouse exploiters to more widespread mainstream fare.
While the original film would have likely benefitted greatly rep-wise from getting released under its earlier title of "Day of the Woman" (actually that's the title under which it's billed in the remake's credits), the redux clearly makes no qualms about being "I spit on your Grave" indeed, as the main focus has been shifted from Jennifer Hills' lengthy ordeal to the revenge she inflicts upon her tormentors.
That's of course the point at which somebody's going to accuse the film of trying to be a mere cash-in on the still rolling wave of "torture porn", though with the appeal of Jennifer's mission still being intact and pure- trying to fullfill the desire of the kind of "true justice" the real life victims can usually only dream about- that can be hardly counted as a flaw, with the torturer being a victim striking back instead of an ingenius horror-movie- mastermind setting out a series of far fetched "games".
The 2010 version does look slicker; it even features a score whereas one of the original's strengths was the lack of any accompanying music to increase the sense of "documentary" realism.
Though obviously catering to en vogue viewing habits, the new "I spit..." is far from loosing its teeth, still doing one hell of a job to get its audience feeling increasingly uncomfortable.
Monroe's version stays close to the original's plot for the most part, but there's a striking difference coming with the introduction of Adam-Mason-regular Andrew Howard's Sheriff Storch, which I shouldn't really go into, not to spoil the viewing experience for those who haven't seen it yet.
While "I spit...2010" is easily one of the best entires in the circle of recent remakes, which got going after 2003's reworking of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", the original film is still the more compelling movie for me and that has a simple reason.
Zarchi wisely chose to let the audience experience Jennifer's horror first hand by telling the majority of his version from her pov whereas some of the changes to the 2010 film demand a narrative, which spends an increased amount of time with the rapists.
On the plus side, this makes the villains appear less one dimensional than in "Day of the Woman", yet that also means we get less time to spend with Jennifer Hills, which creates a slight distance to her character in stark contrast to the original.
That's a minor pity as the new movie's Jennifer, as portrayed by Sarah Butler, is just as compelling to watch as Camille Keaton in the 70's film.
Butler alone would be a good reason for hoping that early plans for a sequel to the remake would actually come true.
If they also found a place for a Keaton cameo in "I spit on your Grave 2", I would be simply overjoyed....
And no, this WON'T come out uncut in Germany either...
4/5
Written By Markus Duschek
No comments:
Post a Comment