I Spit On Your Remake?

And Also: The iCarly/Victorious crossover movie was okay, a bit more about Carly. The Wingless Bird was a good WWI era PBS drama.

Disturbingly (for those of us guiltily enjoying the bloody payback), it suggests that what happened to Jennifer took away not her sanity but her humanity, leaving a calloused spot where her soul once was. ... The filmmaking is circa 1910, with silent-movie acting to match. I Spit on Your Grave makes people angry, disturbed, depressed (Ebert's word). Of course it does. The camera just stares, refusing to editorialize or to put a stylistic barrier between you and the cruelty. You are there, and you're not doing anything to stop it.

-- Review of I Spit On Your Grave, 1970s exploitation flick

I first saw I Spit On Your Graves years back on VHS. It struck me then and still strikes me now; this is suggested by two reviews posted on IMDB among other things. The opening quote was originally used in a post about "Feminist Pulps," which included this:

The value of certain sorts of popular culture surely is debatable, even if we accept their importance. I Spit On Your Grave, for instance, is one of the more controversial members of the exploitation genre that is often viewed as guilty pleasures. Likewise, the fact that gratuitous nudity in horror films grows out of their reflection of social norms about gender norms doesn't mean they send positive messages any more than the violence in Dirty Harry movies. All the same, popular sitcoms often examine important issues, even if the sitcoms themselves might be pretty trivial on various grounds. And, a look at the comics page of your local newspaper is sometimes more striking than the front pages, and not just Doonesbury.

The subject arose again when I reviewed Descent (a more polished rape revenge flick) and Hard Candy (same, though closer to the original in the spider attracting the fly technique). In the latter, I said this:

The movie turns out to be a revenge flick. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre in various respects. My annoyance though tends to be when the movie simplistically twists our blood thirst and lead us not to care about the mindlessness of the vengeance. Consider Mystic River, an Oscar winner that I personally thought overrated. But, the movie suggests revenge is a dubious transaction. The actual revenge motif by itself seems to me a legitimate question to examine in cinema. This includes those that have exploitative aspects -- we actually see the victims being harmed in graphic fashion, often women -- perhaps most infamously shown in I Spit On Your Grave.

The original is not to be exaggerated as to merit. It is an exploitation film. It, whatever the claimed point of the director, seems to wallow in the rape and how the victim uses her own body to get revenge. It has some ridiculous moments. But, it also has some raw power, underlined by the type of '70s minimalism of music, dialogue and setting (in part, probably because of budget requirements) as well as the fact that we do see the victim has in effect lost her soul. Ebert might have felt disgusted by people in the movie theater taunting and egging on, but the same audience would have done that for a superior film. Others realize the film, also known as "Day of the Woman," as a horror blog by a college aged woman shows via its title, has value.

The remake, which I saw on DVD, was disappointing. The trailer for the original speaks of five attackers, though there were only four, but this one adds a fifth (a redneck sheriff). The original had Camilla Keaton, the actor's granddaughter (though at least one source as I recall suggested some doubt on the matter); this one has a character actor in a bit role. I toss that in as trivia. Anyway, the addition of the extra person, having the lead talk a lot more, a few touches updating the time period (such as her having a laptop and cell phone) and so forth really doesn't add much positive to the film. Some suggested the original star didn't have much acting chops, but I think her overall silence added to the proceedings. A few more sarcastic revenge tinged comments didn't.

I think the lead-up and intermission (after the rape, before the revenge) was done better in the original. A scene in some cuts of the original where the guys talk about the "city girl" was particularly powerful. Jennifer being being harassed by two of the guys passing in a motorboat (sorry fans of the original, not much motorboat related early or late here) not here. For some reason, they cut the scene of her going to church, praying for forgiveness for the sins she will do. And, unlike the retarded guy not being able to go through with killing her in the original, this one has a lame ass scene of her falling into the water, them not shooting at her or anything and then she pops up some time later ready for revenge. The original showed her right after the rape, the horror of the situation clear.

The rape itself is not as explicit as in the original (that really drew things out) and it suggests how remakes often are less gritty these days. The remake of Assault on Precinct 13 or The Taking of Pelham One Two Three both appeared from previews and what I heard about them to have similar problems. But, it's not really necessary to draw out the rape. That's not really the issue here. I do like the original Jennifer. This one seems more like someone out of some WB show. The clip of her walking nude after the rape was briefer here and as unrealistic looking as some stylish show there too. The original was gritter and dirtier. You might feel dirty watching it, but that's the point -- she was abused horribly and her revenge is psychologically understandable if not defensible (for some). The guys are not really much different though again the original set probably did the job better.

The revenge of the original has her trick the retarded guy and ringleader (the latter by having a bath with him!) in ways that turned their use of her around. Since she basically had died inside (the last shot again underlines this more powerfully in the original), use of her body toward this end was understandable. It was not merely some exploitation device though the honest viewer realizes that is part of it. What else is an extended nude scene in a bathroom, including her putting pins in her hair while talking to the ringleader, right before she castrated him with a pair of scissors? The second half of the revenge was quicker, but also turned around an earlier bit of harassment by two of them in a motorboat as well as the desire of one for oral sex.

The sequel does have an original worthy twist, this time concerning anal sex (with a gun) though The Descent probably has the best answer in that department. But, overall, the scenes were stupid. The basic problem was believability -- how did she actually move the guys around to set things up? She didn't need such strength (didn't seem to break a sweat) in the original, where surprise and guile did the trick. The bit where she pretended to be the cop's young daughter's new teacher (the remake gave the family man one less kid) was a nice touch. Still, if you didn't like her using her body in the original as much as she did, fine, but the remake's revenge scenes left something to be desired.

Overall, the remake was okay. As suggested, it didn't have the style of the original and some aspects hurt the overall flow of the film. The lack of a portion between the rape and her starting to gain revenge particularly was a major deficit. The deleted scenes showed that a scene in the church was shot, but that's all that we see even there. The lack here robs the film of a key dramatic element. It is as if The Descent skipped from her rape to her revenge, with her dealing with the trauma of the situation basically off scene or basically assumed. That is quite possible, but that's like assuming grief in a portrayal of tragedy -- the audience generally should see some evidence of emotions, not just take them as a given.

I might not "spit" on this remake, but it is sorta lame.