Writer(s): Zarchi
Starring: Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, and Anthony Nichols
Exploitation films have long been a popular subgenre for horror. Peaking in the '70s, but with roots as far back as the '30s, the exploitation films that we have come to love often thrived on blending graphic acts of violence with explicit sexuality; this was a direct result of the MPAA becoming more lax with their ratings, opening the door for these perverted “classics” to infiltrate grindhouse theaters. (Many of the more graphic offerings would also become part of the infamous UK “Video Nasties” list of the early-to-mid '80s, with these movies often subject to obscenity charges; all were subject to cuts, and released in mangled, edited forms if they weren't outright banned.)
Here we have a film widely considered to be the “pinnacle” of the exploitation genre; it is a film so graphic, it still has not been released uncut in the UK, owing that mainly to rape scenes that may just be the most difficult-to-stomach this side of Irreversible. But underneath its disturbing subject matter of rape (which, for the record, should be disturbing no matter how it's handled) lies a powerful pro-woman sentiment that was, and continues to be, unfairly maligned for all the wrong reasons.
Camille Keaton (grand-niece of famous Hollywood actor Buster, and then-wife of writer/director Meir Zarchi) plays Jennifer, a writer from New York City who holes up in an isolated cottage in the small town of Kent, Connecticut to focus on her latest novel. Her arrival catches the attention of Johnny, the manager of the local gas station; she, rather unwisely, reveals a little too much about the location in which she'll be staying. Johnny seems to be taking mental notes, and after she pays for her gas ($5.20 for a fill-up?!) she heads to her cottage.
She places a grocery order with the local general store, and before you know it, mentally-challenged Matthew delivers the goods to her. He seems like a nice enough guy, clearly smitten with the new woman, and the two strike a friendship. But unbeknownst to us, the well-meaning Matthew hangs around with the wrong crowd, and the leader of the four-person “gang” is none other than Johnny, the gas station manager! Soon, the innocent Matthew is telling them what cabin she is in and how beautiful she is, and that captures the attention of the others.
Before long, the men start “flirting” with her, which consists of them riding their speedboat in circles near her while she sits on a hammock on dry land, trying to focus on writing. The men in the speedboat are Stanley and Andy, two ne'er-do-wells who have no job and spend their days hanging out at Johnny's gas station. But living in New York City has no doubt prepared Jennifer for dealing with scum like them, so rather than engage with them, she just disgustedly goes inside.
Unfortunately for her, this is just the beginning of her terror. That night, they make loud noises outside her cottage, then run away when she goes out to investigate. The following day is when her ordeal begins: as she lies sunbathing in a boat, Stanley and Andy approach in their speedboat, attaching a hook to hers, and dragging her to shore. She runs through the woods, desperately trying to escape, but runs right into Johnny. The plan is for Matthew to lose his virginity to her, but when he gets “performance anxiety”, Johnny rapes her instead. When he's done, they let her crawl away; in obvious shock, she travels so slowly that she doesn't even make it home before bumping into her attackers again. This time, Andy proceeds to sodomize her, in a scene that's stomach-churning despite the ridiculousness of Gunter Kleeman's over-the-top performance (he goes about it with such cartoonish veracity that, in real life,he would have twisted his own dick off).
She's allowed to “escape” again, this time making it all the way to her cottage. But just as she starts dialing the police for help, the phone is kicked away from her, and once again she is raped, this time by Matthew (who can't finish with the others watching him), and then penetrated with a bottle by Stanley, who is interrupted by the others for “wasting time” and taking it too far when he attempts to get her to service him orally, and then beats her when she is unwilling, or unable to. The men are about to leave via speedboat, when Johnny suddenly realizes that they can't just let her live, and makes the piss-poor (from his perspective) decision to have Matthew stab her in the heart. He wusses out, instead rubbing some blood from her mouth on the blade, and pretending that he finished the job—no one thinks to double-check the mentally-handicapped man who will say or do anything to fit in.
Over the course of an unspecified number of days, Jennifer slowly recovers from her assault, at least physically, and starts hunting them down one-by-one, killing them in retaliation for their brutal crimes. This was the first moment where I felt the film really went a little overboard into “exploitation” territory, as Jennifer seduces them before killing them, even going so far as to let Matthew lose his virginity to her before hanging him from a noose. This does take the film a couple of notches down in my book, because otherwise it has the feel of a feminist war-cry, and is handled fairly realistically; but the thought that, after just a week or so, that she would be able to take things that far with the men who viciously raped her and left her for dead is both a little offensive, and completely unnecessary.
The other hindrance are the production values, which are clearly next to nil. The voices all sound like they were re-dubbed in a large room, regardless of where the characters actually are on the screen, and the audio levels vary wildly all over the place. Jennifer's kill scenes are well-conceived, but amateurishly executed; that is a slight problem, because the graphic, unflinching details of her rape leave nothing to the imagination. Naturally, you want to see her get her revenge, but the sloppiness of the execution leaves a lot to be desired, and leads to a rather intense letdown.
Still, I applaud the film on the grounds that it feels, at least to me, like a pro-feminist film. The male characters are all vile miscreants who, eventually, all get what they deserve. There's even a scene where one of them tries justifying his actions to her, by blaming her for looking so hot and sexy; blaming the victim is always a key bulletpoint of rape culture, and feels included here as an example of such. The rape scenes are brutal and honest, with the unflinching camera capturing every agonizing detail. Many exploitation films seem to get off by inflicting harm on its main characters, but this one clearly sympathizes with Jennifer. Rapes happen all the time, especially in this current culture where rape claims are treated like minor crimes and rarely investigated to their full potential, and as tough-to-stomach as this film is, they can be infinitely worse in real life. A film like this almost feels like the perfect launching point to start a meaningful discussion about rape, but the unfortunate reality is that, because of its reputation as an “ultimate exploitation film”, it stands a better chance of playing to drunk kids at college frat parties, who will be cheering the men on as they commit their vile acts.
Certainly it has divided critics, with probably the most notable review coming from Roger Ebert, who gave it zero stars (for the record, the same Roger Ebert who praised Last House on the Left, an infinitely more unpleasant and amateurish mess, with three-and-a-half stars). Many others have blasted it for its blatant misogyny, and have denied the film's feminist overtones (with Luke Thompson stupidly stating, “Defenders of the film have argued that it's actually pro-woman, due to the fact that the female lead wins in the end, which is sort of like saying that cockfights are pro-rooster because there's always one left standing.” This is the same man, mind you, who praised Species II as: “Pure exploitation of breasts, blood, and beasts, often without digital enhancement. Absolutely freakin' brilliant!” as if his only criteria for grading such a film is whether or not it gives him a sustainable erection.) Forget all of that, and go in with your own open mind. There are some things about it that will inevitably let you down, but for all of the white noise and overhype that surrounds it on both sides, this might be one of the most devastating accounts of rape ever committed to film.
OVERALL: 6/10
Certainly it has divided critics, with probably the most notable review coming from Roger Ebert, who gave it zero stars (for the record, the same Roger Ebert who praised Last House on the Left, an infinitely more unpleasant and amateurish mess, with three-and-a-half stars). Many others have blasted it for its blatant misogyny, and have denied the film's feminist overtones (with Luke Thompson stupidly stating, “Defenders of the film have argued that it's actually pro-woman, due to the fact that the female lead wins in the end, which is sort of like saying that cockfights are pro-rooster because there's always one left standing.” This is the same man, mind you, who praised Species II as: “Pure exploitation of breasts, blood, and beasts, often without digital enhancement. Absolutely freakin' brilliant!” as if his only criteria for grading such a film is whether or not it gives him a sustainable erection.) Forget all of that, and go in with your own open mind. There are some things about it that will inevitably let you down, but for all of the white noise and overhype that surrounds it on both sides, this might be one of the most devastating accounts of rape ever committed to film.
OVERALL: 6/10
TRAILER
No comments:
Post a Comment