Monday, September 20, 2010

I Spit On Your Grave - Before I See The Remake

I Spit On Your Grave – Before I see the remake


I really wanted to write on this movie before I see the remake tonight. The original 1978 version is very near and dear to my heart. I probably hold it in too high esteem. I’m so nervous about seeing the remake tonight. I figure there are two ways the remake could go that would make this an absolute cinematic abortion.

#1: By focusing too much on the graphic violence of the rape scenes in a misleading fashion. What makes the original what it is, is that it wasn’t pure schlock, 70’s grindhouse sexploitation. I think this is likely in the remake because the original is always put in that category. During its original release the title was changed from Day of the Woman to I Spit On Your Grave, and further along it was double-featured with such masterpieces as Redneck Zombies. The world erroneously took this movie and degraded it into what most people think it is today.

Yes, the rape scenes take up around 11 minutes, that’s 10% of the full running time. And if you’ve seen it, you know how utterly vulgar and downright disturbing those scenes are. After all, they caused Roger Ebert to get the movie banned in Chicago and go on a furious tirade against violence towards women in the media. He was so close, yet so far from understanding the movie.

Turning the remake into a remake of the sensationalized sexploitation flick, instead of a remake of the original idea for I Spit On Your Grave would be a tragic mistake. It would be dishonest to the movie itself, to Meir Zarchi, and to his poor, miserable muse.

#2: By not focusing ENOUGH on the graphic violence of the rape scenes. I know, I’m walking a thin line here. This is why I didn’t think the film should be remade in the first place. But merely glancing over the gory details is going to make this movie into something it isn’t, and it’s going to turn it very run-of-the-mill. My press pass touts graphic violence and that the theater will be carding people, but that remains to be seen. After all, I watched - in this same theater - a woman march past a giant sign that said “No Children Admitted” right into a screening of The Exorcist with her two-year-old and infant in tow. Is it a marketing gimmick? I guess we’ll find out.

What makes the original the artistic experience that it is, is the graphic violence. I cannot stress this enough. GRAPHIC. It has the most realistic rape scenes I’ve ever seen on film. When Roger Ebert said that it “sensationalized” violence and rape, I don’t know what the hell he was smoking but it must have been good. There is nothing sensationalized about it. There is nothing about these scenes that will make someone decide that raping a woman looks like a good time. I appreciate this film because it shows rape for exactly what it is, and yes I think it should be shown in such a light. Roger Ebert should have listed a dozen other movies in his crusade but left this one alone, as it basically proves his point but he wasn’t smart enough to see that. I’m sure, as most people are, he was overcome with emotion while watching these scenes. I’ve seen people react in a myriad of ways; I’ve seen people cry, get physically ill, even nervously laugh. THAT’S THE POINT.

If you watch this movie, I encourage you to watch it in the following way: first, watch it. Easy enough, right? Don’t you dare fast forward through the rape scenes. If you feel you’re experiencing them enough, YOU’RE NOT. This movie is going to grab you someplace no other movie has grabbed you, and you aren’t going to like it but you need to experience it. After that, watch it again with Meir Zarchi’s commentary track playing. Trust me, you won’t want to, but it’s important. Pay special attention to his dialogue during the rape scenes, when he tells you why he made this movie. It will change your whole perspective. Then, come back here and tell me how much you hate me for making you watch that movie. But be forewarned. It’s not for your average horror movie fan; it’s not even for your seasoned horror movie fan. This movie is going to HURT YOU. But I think it’ll be worth it.

I guess I’m a little touchy. I wrote my undergrad thesis on this movie. Oh dear Lord, please let them do it justice.


***If you read this, thanks. I'm going to be editing it a lot in the next few days. I just can't get the words to come out right at the moment. ***

3 comments:

  1. I don't know if I have the balls to sit through this one. I'll wait to see your thoughts on the remake and decide then.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you might do better with the remake, honestly. I'll get my write-up soon. It has to be submitted by midnight; I'll have it up tomorrow morning or so. <3

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my God! There is so much to say about this movie that I don't know where to begin. First, I have to say that I rented "Day of The Woman" (the title I prefer) with a lot of trepidations. I had read about the 30 minutes of rape scenes, the revenge scenes and was under the impression that this was nothing more than a graphic torture gore movie. It is not. In fact, even though it contains a fair amount of gore and is horrific, I'm not even sure I'd describe it as a horror movie.

    This movie takes you on a visual and visceral journey into one of the most violent and dehumanizing acts a person or persons can inflict on another human being. Rape. It is not a Hollywood or horror movie depiction of rape. It is rape ..raw and animal and real. Watching this movie with Meir Zarchi's commentary is a must! I have to believe that the rape scenes for this movie began to form in Zarchi's mind the very moment he encountered the young rape victim, in real life, walking naked from that park. It was real to him and after watching this film, I will never again look at a rape victim I encounter in the ER (where I work) in the same way.

    The revenge scenes are also not so much about showing the slashing gore and bloody deaths that are typical of most horror movies. It’s more about what has happened to the psyche of Jennifer Hill. It is about not running away after being so horribly victimized ..not letting them win. Jennifer uses her sexuality like a weapon, to lure these scumbags close to her because she wants them to experience the same fear, pain and demoralizing humiliation that they inflicted on her. The fact that they die removes the possibility that they can ever violate her again and it does somehow make you feel better for Jennifer.

    Other things I appreciated about this movie was the symbolic scene of the butcher at the market carving the lamb(?) through the crotch with it’s legs spread apart ..and.. Camille Keaton’s long beautiful hair that did not include nasty hair extensions.

    I would love to know what Ebert thinks of this movie today. It is hard to believe that he felt it exploited or sensationalized rape back when it was first released ..but that was 30 years ago. I hope he reviews the remake. This movie is not for the faint of heart. You have to except what you getting into before seeing it but I really do recommend it. I’m not sure I even want to see the remake. I’d give it a 7/10.

    Thanks Eddie for bringing this movie to my attention..

    @TessDeco

    ReplyDelete