Sunday, July 15, 2012

I Spit on Your Grave (1978) Vs I Spit on Your Grave (2010)



I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
AKA: Day of the Woman

Directed by: Meir Zarchi

Starring: Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleeman

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Jennifer Hills (Keaton) is an independent writer from New York City, renting a cottage in the country to work on her first novel. Her relaxing summer getaway soon turns into a nightmare when she is attacked and raped repeatedly by four men from town. After her ordeal, she resolves to make these men pay.
This film is not for the easily disturbed. The rape scenes are very graphic and take up about a quarter of the movie. This flick is actually known to have the longest rape scene in a feature film. I wouldn’t say that is exactly something to be proud of, but it gives potential viewers a scale to measure whether they want to see the film or not. Jennifer is held down and forcibly penetrated, beaten mercilessly for fifteen minutes before being left for dead in the home she thought she would be safe in.
While the above sequence was brutal, drawn out and hard to watch, it did portray how horrific rape actually is. The revenge scenes were where things took a turn for the ridiculous. For instance, in getting back at two of her assailants, she seduces them and performs sexual acts despite the fact that she had been brutalized by these men only weeks ago. One of these men, she had the opportunity to kill out in a field where no one would notice, but decides, instead to bring him back to her house for a hot bath. Granted, this led to a much more vicious death, but it was ridiculous and not something I would think a recent rape victim willing to do. I think these scenes would have been more effective if the seduction hadn’t been a part of it. I also feel that the way she went about killing these men off was risky and left a trail leading right back to her. Maybe at that point she didn’t care anymore.

As for the acting, Keaton does a good job alternating from the carefree writer to the broken victim and, finally, to the woman hell-bent on revenge. Richard Pace is very believable as the mentally disabled Matthew, making him almost pitiable. In some ways, I do feel he was also a victim of his friends’ animalistic behavior. While it was wrong for him to participate, I do feel he was forced to a degree, and was afraid of what the other men would do if he refused. The other men are just common egotistical trash who think they have the right to invade the private parts of any woman they choose.

I didn’t like the style the film was shot in at all. To me, there were way too many wide-angle establishing shots where there should have been medium ones. I felt too far away from the characters when they were introduced for the first time at the gas station. I felt that some moments deserved to be closed in on because the multitude of extra space was simply distracting. The director used maybe three different types of shots throughout the entire film.

Overall, despite decent performances from Keaton and Pace, this film has little to stand on. The cinematography is amateur and Keaton’s behavior in the revenge sequences seemed highly unlikely and more of an excuse to show off the actress’s body. Aside from brutality, this film has little to offer.

4.5/10




I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Directed by: Steven R. Monroe

Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Andrew Howard, Daniel Franzese, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated


Young novelist, Jennifer Hills, has rented out a secluded country cabin by a lake to work on her next book. She sees this summer retreat as a great way to relax and let her creativity flow. Her summer plans are destroyed when she is attacked, humiliated, beaten and brutally raped by five local men. Leaving her for dead, these men soon discover what it’s like to be terrified when Jennifer comes back for revenge.

I never thought I’d see the day when I’d legitimately say that a modern remake is better than the original film. I especially didn’t think this would be the one to curb my usual anti-remake tirade, as I thought there was no way that this could capture the essence of the original. However, this remake is different from many I’ve seen in the past because it actually has respect for the original subject matter. The original was a bare-bones outline while this version is the flesh to fill it in.

The writing is much better in this version. The characters are more defined and have their own little quirks. Jennifer’s much stronger and smarter in this version as well. She employs many well-known tactics to try to scare off an attacker, she fights back and she tries going to the police for help. (Something that she did not do in the original, which makes her killing spree a little less justifiable.) It is only after these methods fail that Jennifer takes matters into her own hands.

The character of Matthew was even more sympathetic to me in this one than the last. Again, he is almost as much of a victim as Jennifer, herself, because he never would have done anything to her without being forced by his “friends.” He is visibly horrified by the things being done to her and powerless to stop them. His actual participation, no matter the motive is unforgivable, but it can be debated that he was raped too. He is also the only one to feel remorse when the deed is done.

The length of the rape scene is toned down from the original, abiding by the less is more ideal. The audience sees a lot more of the emotional torment and humiliation the men inflict upon Jennifer and less of the violent acts themselves. We don’t need to see each individual man take his turn to get the point that each one violated her. Cutaway shots and dialogue can fill in what the filmmakers didn’t feel necessary to show. Both this technique and the original’s drawn out sequence successfully show the horror of rape, but this film does a better job of addressing the emotional breakdown of the victim.

The revenge sequences in this film aren’t entirely realistic, but at least they’re not insulting like those in the original. These attacks are thoroughly planned out, violent and cruel, and admittedly, reminiscent of the traps in the Saw franchise, but at least she’s not seducing these men to lure them to their demise. This is no femme fatale – this is a brutalized woman, probably half-insane, hell-bent on revenge. These kills are examples of what many people believe men like this to deserve – a fantasy of what some would like to do to such offenders. They also raise the issue that violence begets violence, and the question of whether Jennifer was any better than the men who attacked her when all was said and done.

The gore in this film is extensive and as uncomfortable as the rape and humiliation scenes. The torture these men endure at the hands of this young woman is every bit as detailed as the things they put her through – many of which are twisted around and used against them. This movie really is not for the squeamish.

The acting is also well-done. Sarah Butler really gives it her all in both the scenes where she is victimized and when she is doing the victimizing. Despite her tiny size and the fact that she’d hardly be able to move these guys – at least 180 to 230 lbs of dead weight – she manages to sell it with her performance. Chad Lindberg is very believable as the mentally challenged Matthew, making him less of a source of humor and more a source of partial sympathy. Jeff Branson was incredibly intimidating as Johnny, and I was actually surprised at how believable Daniel Franzese (the lovable Damien from Mean Girls) was as the voyeuristic Stanley. It was also cool to see horror veteran, Rodney Eastman (Joey from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 & 4) cast in this film as well.

As I mentioned above, this remake truly seems to respect the source material for what it was – an exploitation cult classic of the rape-revenge oeuvre. This version just strengthened the original story and made subtle nods to the original film, i.e. the total price of gas ringing up to $19.78, etc. I also loved that they kept the same creepy harmonica tune from the original film.

Overall, this is one of the rare remakes you will see me value over the original film. The characters are much stronger, the heroine’s motives more understandable and the overall tone creepier. I actually felt a little creeped out being alone in my house after watching this film in broad daylight. That alone earns this film points as that is hard to do. This is not a film for everyone, and I don’t recommend it unless you’re familiar with the sub-genre of exploitation film and enjoy gory revenge flicks. For being the type of film that it is, it did its job well.

7/10

No comments:

Post a Comment