El día de la mujer

I tried to watch this film once before and made it up to the second rape scene before leaving the room, believing I was seriously about to throw up. I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through recently, and I'm glad I did.

Jennifer Hill is a young, hip, free-spirited woman of the 70s, who leaves her home in New York City for a long vacation in Connecticut, where she plans to write her first novel. Jennifer soon attracts the attention of four lowlife scumbags as she sunbathes in her bikini. The semi-evolved thugs kidnap Jennifer, drag her into the woods, rape her, beat her, sodomize her, beat her some more, follow her home, rape her again, kick her when she's down, make fun of her manuscript, rip it to shreds, rape her with a bottle, beat her up one last time and leave her, bleeding and unconscious on the floor of her vacation home. Damn. They send the retarded Matthew back into the house with a knife and instructions to kill her, but Matthew can't bring himself to do it. He tells the guys that he has killed her, and they stupidly believe him and leave. But Jennifer is alive, and as she heals from her hideous wounds and recovers her strength, she plots revenge against her rapists.

Roger Ebert called this the worst film ever made and feminists damned it to hell for all eternity, but you know what? I'm a woman and I liked it. Jennifer is no weak, whimpering, helpless little victim. She tries her best to fight back. When threats and violence fail to work in her favor, she uses the only other weapon she has: sex. The men are all stereotypical slobs, disgusting pigs who are clearly already emasculated and use Jennifer as an outlet for their frustration and rage. The rapes have nothing to do with sex and are portrayed most realistically - they are ugly, brutal, violent, nasty and completely devoid of eroticism. The sodomy scene was the one scene that horrified me the most, as Jennifer emits the most bloodcurdling scream of pain ever heard. It is very difficult not to flinch from that sound. Jennifer's revenge is every bit as bloody and painful, and nowhere is it more sadistic than in the infamous "bloodbath" scene. These guys all get what's coming to them, and Jennifer makes sure that the punishment fits the crime, turning the men into the helpless, pleading victims and feeding their own sadism right back to them.

Okay, so not all of the plot points make sense, and not everyone is going to agree with Jennifer's decision to kill the men, but it's still a powerful film. It's told primarily from Jennifer's point of view but it never takes sides. It simply tells the story and lets you decide - is Jennifer an insane psycho-killer who ought to go to jail for her crimes, or is she an angel of vengeance delivering poetic justice?

Scaredy cats like me might prefer to watch this film with the audio commentary by Joe Bob Briggs turned on. Joe Bob provides a lot of interesting information about the making of this film, and also supplies some much needed comic relief throughout.

I Spit on Your Grave is a film that will never be accepted as a serious piece of film-making. This is thanks in part to the gratuitous rape and murder scenes, which don't exactly hold back the shocks; and it's also due to the time in which it was made. These days, as proved by the likes of 'Irreversible', films tackling rape in a shocking and disgusting way are more readily accepted, and even gain a strong reaction from many critics. This film was unfortunately (albeit for good reason) caught up in the 'video nasty debate' in the early eighties, and as such it's reputation has been diminished to such an extent that the likes of Roger Ebert have labelled it 'the worst film ever made' (even though The Blair Witch Project is the worst film ever made) and it's reaction in general tends to be of the bad variety. For some reason, we have found ourselves in a world where it's more than acceptable to give praise to 'A class' rape themed dramas such as Irreversible, but woe betide thee who labels this as a good film. Well, woe betides me then.

For a 'video nasty', I Spit on Your Grave has surprisingly good production values. While the acting often lets it down, the cinematography and even the script are more than decent and this helps the film in it's bid to get the praise it deserves. The story, which follows a New York writer who moves to a backwater part of the USA to work on her new novel, shortly before being horribly raped and beaten, is just a plot device for the more important elements of the plot. The main theme on display seems to be a comment on the male sexual ego and the way that women can have power over them. The film plays out like a revenge thriller, with the protagonist getting her own back on the men who raped her. This disrupts the main argument against this film; namely, that it's misogynistic, as much of the violence in the movie is actually directed against men. Of course, the rape scenes are the main crux of the film; but most of the gore comes later. Don't get me wrong, this is hardly an uplifting feminist drama; but it's not the worst film ever made either. Content caution though; it gets a bit extreme. A certain scene in a bathroom takes the prize for being one of the sickest sequences ever to grace the silver screen.

The entire movie can be summed up into rape and death. There's not much more to it. I'm currently trying to watch all the horror classics. And I was hesitant on this one. Being a woman, and watching it, I had to look away for most of the rape scenes. They are extremely graphic with nudity. And very long. Just as you think its over, it keeps going.

The first quarter of the film is setting up the scene. The next two quarters of the movie is the never ending rape. And the last quarter is the revenge. It felt like they didn't spend enough time on the revenge killings. They were too quick. The movie does have a strong message in trying to dish out where the blame lies. Which felt strongly unneeded. There really is next to no acting skills or script in the film. And there's no music track.

Lets just forget the title "Day of the Woman", the alternate title for which this movie is much better known for; "I Spit on Your Grave" is a far better one and part of the reason why this has become a sort of a cult-classic over the years. It's a pretty repulsive and extreme movie in which a young woman gets gang-raped. The second part of the movie focuses on the woman, taking revenge on her rapists, Charlie Bronson style, that on its own right is also pretty extreme as well.

This movie features the longest rape scene out of movie history? I don't know but the entire first halve of the movie is basically about the woman getting raped by 4 different guys, multiple times, in various violent ways. It just never stops and just when you think its over it starts all over again for her. That is what mostly makes the rape within this movie shocking and disturbing. It's something pretty extreme for a movie to feature, even for an '70's exploitation flick.

Also the way the woman takes revenge upon her rapists is pretty extreme and mostly original as well. The movie its story basically features too extremes; rape and killing. It's combination might not be unique but the way it is being handled within this movie is. On top of it all, it works out well within the movie, much to my own surprise. I mean, the main story for this movie sounds pretty ludicrous but because of the two extremes within the movie, the movie balances out well. I especially liked the way the second halve of the movie worked out, in which the woman starts her revenge. I can't of course with a straight face claim that this is a brilliant movie or anything like that, it's far too amateur like made for that but it basically is great as an '70's exploitation flick, that is worthy of its cult status.

For yes, it's an obvious very cheap made movie, with poor production values. The sound sounds pretty messed up at times and the acting is just plain poor for 80% of the time. Especially Camille Keaton is no great natural acting talent and is the reason why she isn't active in the business anymore and has never broken through. She was married to the movie its director/writer/producer/editor Meir Zarchi at the time, which probably was the only reason why she got cast in the movie. Appearantly she also is the grand-niece of the brilliant Buster Keaton and I must say that she looks a bit like him.

A great movie for what it is.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A young woman (Camille Keaton) is spotted by a group of men while writing near a river. Not much later, things go from tranquil to nightmarish for her... where do you go after you reach the lowest possible point in your life?

The director's commentary with Mier Zarchi begins by revisiting the history and controversy over the film -- is it a story that is sick and makes woman out to be nothing more than a sexual object, or is it a feminist film where the "day of the woman" allows the victim to strike back?

Zarchi finally reveals the film's inspiration: in the early 1970s, he and his friend Alex Pfau (a protégé of Roman Polanski) witnessed a rape victim after the fact, her body naked, bloody and broken. They brought the young woman to the police, but allegedly the officer on duty was not very concerned. At this point the director realized that being questioned by the police is not the solution to the rape -- at least not yet -- but the continuation of it.

The film is certainly the most explicit up to the time it was made, and some might even say up until today. Those who do not know what to expect may be very shocked by this film if they see it uncut. Then again, even cut, it is a shocking film -- what would be a two minute scene in some films goes on over an hour here.

Mike Mayo praises the film to a point, but considers it "crude and single-minded" and suggests viewers check out Abel Ferrara's "Ms. 45". Indeed, the film has a pretty thin plot, but its point is clear, and even the attackers get fleshed out a bit in the second half.

What should we make of the church scene? Can you reconcile Christian beliefs with murder or revenge? That is not a question I choose to answer, but certainly a question raised by this film, whether intentionally or otherwise.

The film is a natural step from "Last House on the Left", actually upping the ante. And Camille Keaton has to be honored for such dark subject matter and tackling it head-on. This could have been a career killer, and perhaps it was, though it has sealed her place in cult film history.

There is also a 29-minute special feature called "The Values of Vengeance" which is insightful, though does not cover much the commentary does not. Of course, if you want to actually see Meir Zarchi's face, here is your chance. And you will hear a nice story about Wizard Video's shrewd business dealings.