I Spit On Your Grave

[Guest evenflowDDT]

My review.

 

So, hopefully someone's read that, you know what I think...what do you think? Post comments about the film (if you've seen it) and my review (if you haven't) here.

 

Hmmm, that's a bit vague, so in true "essay prompt" style, I'll even try and bring in a starter. I Spit On Your Grave is most well known (and vilified) for its graphic portrayal of rape. Is that really necessary or appropriate in film? I've yet to see the French film Baise Moi, which incited similar controversy about a year or so ago at some festivals for the same type of graphic portrayal, but it's a similar issue. What is it about sexual violence that makes it so much more taboo to show on screen than graphic murder or other non-sexual violence? In the majority of films I've seen, even where rape is the focus of the film, it's not the act itself, just the aftermath. Don't take my statements as saying I want to see rape on-screen or support the act in real life (on the contrary, I believe it's the most vile thing you can do to someone), but why is there a double standard?

[Guest Lethargic]

You could ask questions like that until the dawn of time and still never get the answer. Why is it OK for people like Christina Aguilera to make a video that looks like a porno, but Disturbed makes a video with some rocks falling and it gets banned? Why does the word "gun" get bleeped out of rap songs but "bitches" and "niggas" doesn't? There are SO many questions about the double standards in entertainment that actually trying to answer them would cause a vortex into which we would all be sucked.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

I'm gonna go read your review right now, but from now on, I'm taking a page out of your book and becoming a shameless and blatent self-promoter and plug my reviews and the relevant questions they raise as it pertains to today's society. I always assumed such discussion was taboo or over the heads of most posters that frequent TSM; I mean honestly, 13-year-olds don't have much to say about things like that. I'll be back with comments on your review later, Evenflow.

 

In the meantime I would like to add that it's a huge coincidence that my wife (who hasn't seen ...Grave yet) suggested we watch it tonight. It's in our DVD library for some odd reason.

 

OK quick comments: Good review. Any review that makes you want to run out and purchase something is rare, but this did that for me. I already own the first DVD of this movie and never considered buying the Millennium Edition until now. I've GOT to hear the commentaries.

 

The movie itself? I never found it terribly offensive. Simply because it tries so HARD TO BE. It's the ultimate in Sexploitation. And it IS explotation, because it doesn't cover rape in a way that makes you feel sorry for the victim or make you sympathize with her or offer any answers or even meditate on her state of mind after the incident (other than MURDEROUS RAGE). It's simply a device used to throw in some cheap thrills for pervs and give our heroine motivation to commit her "revenge murders" for the gore hounds. There is virtually no plot. Woman comes to Deliverance, USA to write a book in quiet, local dimwits decide to rape her, she kills them in retaliation. That's not exactly worthy of high praise or even pushing the envelope, nowadays and it HARDLY was then. ISOYG isn't about female empowerment or rape, it's a mockery of both. It's a fucking cartoon.

 

I found this movie more humorous than appalling. I mean, when the guys rape her NUMEROUS times in one day? Rape her, let her crawl closer to her house, rape her again (and the facials on these guys during the rapes were actually WORSE than the absolute WORST porno actors' cum-face after-the-fact facials, they bordered on silly, over-the-top pantomime, although I will give the actress credit for her screams of pain and absolutely TERRIFIED face. She channelled Spacek in "Carrie" for that shit. It's no great mystery why she was the only actor involved to get any work afterwards), let her cover some more ground... and then finally, just as she's about to reach a telephone RAPE HER AGAIN. The first time I watched this with my friends we BUST OUT LAUGHING at that scene. That can't be good and I doubt was the director's intention. I know it wasn't intended to be some great masterpiece, but still that's gotta be considered a failure.

 

The only scene I distinctly remember EVERYONE cringing at was the one guy whose

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

penis she cut off in the bathtub.

When the first spurt of blood comes up out of the water, the sound effect is CHILLING. My package shrinks just thinking about that scene. The poor guy was literally yelling for his mother.

 

I think I'm done. I'll agree that it is classic although I'm not quite sure of the reasons. But whatever they are, they're all wrong. It's classic for the same reason as the first Faces of Death, not a cult classic in the same vein as the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

 

Btw, I loved the inclusion of the old movie poster. I have books and books and reproductions of those old movies posters. Hollywood really needs to go back to that and letting artists do artwork for posters and not be so "photo" happy. I'm not just coming off like an old geezer when I say the posters were better in "my day", cuz it wasn't even my day. Also I wish you had included just ONE screencap of ol Camille's face when she's getting raped on that huge rock. That expression of absolute terror and unwanted violation is PRICELESS. You go back and add that and you get an A+ from me.

Edited July 26, 2003 by Crucifixio Jones

[Guest Downhome]

I watched it, and enjoyed it while it lasted, but I don't think I'd ever own it or really go out of my way to watch it again.

 

Take that for what it's worth.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Did Evenflow mention Camille's relation to Buster Keaton in his review? Also, how stupid did those four guys have to be to be "seduced" by the chick they just conspired to rape? "Yeah, after I RAPED her, she wanted me SO BAD." Dummies. They deserved to die, not only for raping her but for being so much backwoods hillbilly trash too ignorant to recognize her thinly-veiled plot to kill them all. You rape a chick and then she suddenly falls in love with ALL of you? What moonshine was these good ol boys sippin on?

 

And for what it's worth, I didn't find the rape scenes to be "accurate" at all. I was more appalled at Dr. Melfi being raped on the Sopranos than I was at this. The only reason this is "praised" in feminist circles (aka MEN HATERS) is because of the violence perpetrated on the males.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

The only scene I distinctly remember EVERYONE cringing at was the one guy whose

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

penis she cut off in the bathtub.

  When the first spurt of blood comes up out of the water, the sound effect is CHILLING.  My package shrinks just thinking about that scene.  The poor guy was literally yelling for his mother.

"Ooooh, that feels so good it almost hurts!"

 

I definitely agree with you on the effectiveness on that death. That's the only death scene in the film that really satisfied me, and as such (even though Jerry Gross gave it away in his trailer just like the rest of the movie), I wanted to keep that one as a "surprise", which is why I refrained from going into specifics in the review.

 

In regards to it being exploitation or not, I still don't agree that it is; Zarchi stated numerous times in his commentary his disappointment with how the Jerry Gross Organization marketed the film as a straight-grindhouse exploitation film, and it's not really filmed like most films in that genre (e.g. there's not a lot of T&A and the story takes place from a female perspective).

 

Yet you're also right about having no feeling for Jennifer other than sharing her murderous rage. However, that's still a feeling (and really, is rage any more or less a "valid" feeling than sympathy?), which is why I view it as a classic and what sets it above most of the other films I review; as much as I love the genre films, they really do exist solely for cheap thrills for pervs. Even for those that have a competent story and execution, there's no connection with the characters on any level, because the films by themselves aren't character-based (unless you count Uschi Digard's tits as characters). It's still pretty trashy, and it's still a threadbare plot, but I really wanted Jennifer to kill those men, for once not to see cheap gore effects, but because I shared her rage (and I never realized until I read your reply how that really was all I felt and how scary that is, even moreso than the film). I've never felt a connection to a character like that in any genre film, or in any film portraying rape (although that's likely because the only films I've seen that deal with rape are exploitive rape-revenge titles or equally exploitive Lifetime tearjerkers). I'm not going to go as far as saying I felt her pain, but I shared her fear and anger (as mentioned in my review, I felt a little under the weather after the phone scene, which to you didn't work at all). I guess I just got exploited...probably to Zarchi's dismay, he has created the ultimate "exploitation film".

 

And I actually was going to mention the men's faces. I meant to go into more detail and include it when talking about how their performances were inferior to Camille Keaton's, but I couldn't think of a way to work it in there without sounding awkward or silly.

 

And Leth, yea, there are so many double-standards in the entertainment biz, and they probably will never be resolved, but that's half the "fun" of entertainment - finding out that what pushes someone's buttons to say "No one in their perfect state of mind can make a movie like this, and those who watch it and found nothing wrong with it should seek help.This is not normal...Meir Zarchi exceds his limit in this film. Freedom, democracy first idea, like most our principles, have limits, but Zarchi's artistic freedom extends it's meaning beyond limits." is the same thing that makes CJ say "I never found it terribly offensive. Simply because it tries so HARD TO BE....I found this movie more humorous than appalling." tells us not so much about the film, but about society, personal morals, etc. Perhaps I'm just trying too hard to sound intelligent since I haven't been since the college quarter ended, but trying to get to the root of double-standards, while a fruitless effort, is still interesting from an academic and personal standpoint. At least to me it is.

 

Oh, and to work with your examples, I'm not familiar with Disturbed, but in the latter case, it's basically that radio/media etc. doesn't want to promote violence in America, yet words that were once considered violent and hateful have been "dulled" over time to the point that they don't offend most people any more. "Bitch" and "nigga" have been reclaimed to become terms of endearment and respect, but "guns" are still deadly. I don't know, I'm BS'ing this one, but you get the idea.

 

Thanks to the both of you for reading and commenting on my review. Really I mean it. This and T3 are the first times I've ever gotten feedback (I've gotten a stray e-mail of gratitude or request from time to time, but for all I know most of my reviews just collect cyber-dust), so apparently this means if I want feedback in the future, I should write more scathing reviews of popular films, or reviews of films that have been traditionally "controversial" or dealt with traditionally "controversial" topics (even if said controversy is, as CJ suggested, no longer valid). Hmmmm....or I could just rent Junk and say to hell with it. It's not like Pop Culture's ever going to win out on a WRESTLING site anyway, particularly Pop Culture as obscure as mine (no, I'm not claiming to be some sort of ultra-hip-underground guru, but I'm guessing most of the people who read the main-page don't know or care about the names I drop or the histories behind some of the films that intrigues me so; shit, maybe I SHOULD become a film professor, I certainly sounded like one tonight, didn't I? ).

 

EDIT: I had no idea Camille and Buster Keaton were related. I just knew her name from What Have You Done to Solange?

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Yet you're also right about having no feeling for Jennifer other than sharing her murderous rage. However, that's still a feeling (and really, is rage any more or less a "valid" feeling than sympathy?

Actually I didn't say I shared her rage, rather it was the only feeling she expressed, which to me made her just as much a cardboard cutout, one-note character as the men.

 

Zarchi stated numerous times in his commentary his disappointment with how the Jerry Gross Organization marketed the film as a straight-grindhouse exploitation film, and it's not really filmed like most films in that genre (e.g. there's not a lot of T&A and the story takes place from a female perspective).

Actually, I'd say it takes place from on onlooker's perspective and Camille being nude or scantily clad for nearly the entire movie I think constitutes a lot of T&A.

 

as much as I love the genre films, they really do exist solely for cheap thrills for pervs. Even for those that have a competent story and execution, there's no connection with the characters on any level, because the films by themselves aren't character-based (unless you count Uschi Digard's tits as characters). It's still pretty trashy, and it's still a threadbare plot

You just described ISOYG to a tee and exactly why I didn't "connect" to it or its characters in the way you seem to have.

 

It honestly felt like two seperate movies ala From Dusk Til Dawn: you have a short set up that allows you to string together three semi-violent and potentially disturbing sex scenes and then it suddenly turns into a murder fest. That's it. I don't see how someone can find themselves emotionally invested in the female, regardless of what happened to her. The situation itself is scary, yes, but here it plays out like a children's game and that takes away from the seriousness of it. And if it's not seriousness, well then it turns into camp.

 

Thanks to the both of you for reading and commenting on my review. Really I mean it. This and T3 are the first times I've ever gotten feedback (I've gotten a stray e-mail of gratitude or request from time to time, but for all I know most of my reviews just collect cyber-dust), so apparently this means if I want feedback in the future, I should write more scathing reviews of popular films, or reviews of films that have been traditionally "controversial" or dealt with traditionally "controversial"

I think it just means after you write a review you should start a thread. Will once suggested I do that, but I feel like that's the cheap way to get feedback. However, it seems to have worked for you on a small scale, so more power to you if you do it again two or three months from now. Haha. I already stated that I may consider doing the same, but I was only kidding.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I think it just means after you write a review you should start a thread. Will once suggested I do that, but I feel like that's the cheap way to get feedback. However, it seems to have worked for you on a small scale, so more power to you if you do it again two or three months from now. Haha. I already stated that I may consider doing the same, but I was only kidding.

I really think you should, CJ, after all, it worked for me

 

Oh, and you mentioned a couple plot holes earlier while I was typing my long first response (although they're really more of character holes because the men are that stupid, but I think that's the point, the men are undoubtedly cardboard cut-outs, they're to be as despicable as possible, with the intention being to hate them as much as Jennifer does and for you to want to see them die)...the ones you mentioned don't bother me that much (since like I just said, they're "character holes" and were probably intentional), but the two plot holes in ISOYG that really bother me are:

 

1) Why would they have Matthew do the killing in the first place? Not only is he retarded (apologies to anyone if that sounds harsh), but he's also the only one who didn't participate in the rapings. If he wouldn't rape her, why would he kill her?

2) What's the deal with the guy's wife at the end? She's introduced for one scene, does nothing, and leaves.

 

I still don't agree with you that Jennifer's a cardboard cut-out. Granted, for most of the film she's mainly one-dimensional, either playing a total victim (although she never stops struggling against her attackers or becomes a "passive victim" a la the rape scene in Straw Dogs) or a total heartless killer, but there are scenes, such as where she's writing her book, enjoying nature, or recovering in the shower after the rapes, where she has at least a potential backstory, even if Zarchi chose not to develop it, and thus some depth. There's also the sequence in the church, which I feel drags the film, but does give Jennifer a bit of moralistic and religious belief (she repents for her future actions after all). The opportunities were there...Zarchi chose not to use them, but they're there and because of them Jennifer's not totally shallow.

 

As is, there are enough people (like me in this case) in an audience that can and will latch onto "shallow characters", using the character's defined skeleton and lack of any other defining personality traits to project their own feelings "into the character"...look at any teen movie. Everytime I went to see one of those, or a summer blockbuster, whenever left I always heard someone saying "I'm just like so and so" or "I feel for so and so, I woulda done that too"; it's the same case here. I "put myself into" (or you could even say "fell for") the character and you didn't. I don't think it makes either of us better or worse. To tell you the truth, I'm just glad you thought highly enough of the film to argue this with me rather than dismiss it outright like most people do.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

2) What's the deal with the guy's wife at the end? She's introduced for one scene, does nothing, and leaves.

I think the reason for this is that it's mentioned that he has a wife and kids, and he's about to be murdered. We get to see that his wife is a bitch so we don't feel too sorry for his family after he's dead. In theory, I suppose that's good, but I don't think it really works that well... and it does nothing for the kids, except maybe to say "Ok, both their parents are horrible, so we're doing them a favor by killing one." I'd have opted for subtracted the reference to the family rather than adding an appearance by them, myself.

 

I really did enjoy your review a lot, here's hoping for more.

[Guest J*ingus]

ISOYG is a completely unique movie; I've never seen anything quite like it. It has almost NO backstory whatsoever to any of the characters. Not that they're one-note cutouts, as some have argued; the actors in this movie actually do a competent job. Thing is, the story behind these men, who they are, what they're like, etc, is simply never told. It's a shock when you see the family of the one, since you just didn't imagine any of these guys being married.

 

As for the much-argued rape scenes, this is my take: I think they were intentionally done like that to reduce the entire theater to dead silence. (Unfortunately, Zarchi underestimated the depravity of the modern film audience, as Ebert's review clearly illustrated.) Most movie violence is stylized to an extent, the artifices of camerawork, lighting, editing, and effects keeping the audience at a comfortable distance from the horrific actions being done to characters on the screen. ISOYG didn't bother doing any of that, and filmed and edited the scene in the most brutally simple and straightforward fashion possible.

 

Yeah, feminists love the flick; but in my experience, it's because for once a movie didn't sugar-coat a horrific rape scene, not because she kills the men afterward. The Accused was also about a woman striking back at her rapists, and even the bystanders watching the act, but it gets a much more tepid response from feminists that I know, because it was a Hollywood movie star getting raped, which does tend to hamper the suspension of disbelief, and because the rape was showed at the end in a flashback and not at first, which many thought was a pandering "climax" to the movie, a money shot to send the viewers off satisfied.