The Schlock VaultRating: 4.5 of 5 yaps
I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
A graphic, gruesome, and undeniably gutsy revenge flick, “I Spit on Your Grave” captures the full essence of a cult classic.
It’s unrelenting, often difficult-to-watch, and at times casual about its depravity, and is the film Siskel and Ebert got pulled from Chicago cinemas when it bowed in 1978 (well, their scathing reviews led to theater owners bouncing the film from local moviehouses).
First off, let me say, there’s very little spitting in this film, and certainly no graves, as reflected by the film’s alternate title “Day of the Woman.” The film stars Camille Keaton as Jenny, a writer who ventures out to the country for some peace and quiet and finds it.
That is, until four local yokels find her, terrorize her, rape her (repeatedly), beat her, and leave her for dead, then go on with their lives. What they don’t know is Jenny survived, and is ready to take some back for herself.
“Grave” has been called a trailblazer in exploitation films, but in all actuality it’s very derivative of other films. It’s practically a heterosexual “Deliverance,” and certainly shares more than one narrative beat with “The Last House on the Left.”
But it was something of a new take on the woman-in-peril storyline that has permeated cinema both exploitation and otherwise, and is equal parts vengeance flick and cautionary tale for any guy who thinks pushing women around is fun.
The film’s centerpiece is a protracted rape sequence where the four men take their time in savaging Jenny. Indeed one guy finishes with her, and the quartet of scoundrels let her amble off into the wilderness before they track her down and let the next man in line step up. The scenes are rough and realistic, and the camera rarely blinks, much less flinches, as she’s being victimized.
The tone changes somewhat later on, when the brutality switches to gore while Jenny takes her tormentors down one by one, starting with Matthew (Richard Pace), who seems to be mentally disabled and was the most reluctant of the rapists.
The most gruesome scene takes place in a bathtub as Jenny attempts to seduce one of the men. Say what you will about the rape, but these guys are so stupid they don’t deserve to live. Would anyone honestly think a woman who was just beaten and raped would come back for more willingly a short time later?
“Grave” is relatively serious in tone, and for the most part holds the cheese many drive-in classics do not. There film’s standout line, though, comes from Matthew, who wonders if women use the restroom the same way men do. “Of course they shit,” one says. “Everyone shits.” Sage words, indeed.
There are a few technical gaffes, highlighted by one in Jenny’s house, as you can see shadow movement behind her in a scene where she’s alone in the house, but otherwise “Grave” keeps its place as a serious cult film.
I can’t really argue Siskel’s and Ebert’s objections to “Grave,” because it is indeed depraved, and the entire narrative is simply men victimizing a woman, then the woman victimizing the men in retaliation. But I can argue the merits of the film, because I found it extremely disturbing, and it’s easy to see the stark violence is not meant to be romanticized and isn’t supposed to be funny.
Yes, it’s unabashedly exploitation (our first glimpse of nudity comes in a little more than 5 minutes in, as Jenny goes skinny dipping, the first of many minutes in the film that features lots of flesh), but as an anti-rape treatise, yes it’s crude, but very effective.
Related Posts
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
Who will win the battle between man and vegetable…er, fruit?
Posted by Annie February 10, 2010 10:04 am
I remember sneaking and watching this in my early teens – this is the first time since then I have heard/seen anyone refer to it. Memories….Thanks Film Yappers.
Posted by Joe Shearer February 10, 2010 1:00 pm
You’re welcome Annie! I remember seeing an ad for it at the drive-in as a kid and wanted to see it (I knew nothing about it other than that magnificent title), but never did. I’m glad I didn’t see it then, in all honesty.
Posted by Matt Jones February 11, 2010 10:04 am
I know about this movie solely from reading Ebert’s movie guides (my dad had one from back in 1985 where he compiled his reviews for videos released 1980-1985; then it was later reprinted in I Hated, Hated….This Movie". ) So having never seen it, I cannot comment on the film itself. But from all descriptions, it sounds like a film that the makers of Hostel would have watched multiple times before making their film (or his film, if you want to give all credit to Eli Roth).
I’m not really a big fan of watching movies where terrible things happen to good people for no particular reason, revenge accomplished or no. Torture porn films are the refuge of the sick and depraved, and though I don’t always agree with Ebert, I agreed with his review when he talks about the people watching it and enjoying it. Just sickens me.
And I’ll admit, I’m only 27 so I don’t know what was going on back in the day, but did there really need to be an "anti-rape treatise" on film back in the 80s? I mean, people didn’t know rape was wrong? I mean, something like Requiem for a Dream as an anti-drug treatise is powerful, hits close to home, and shows the personal downfall of those on drugs. That’s a treatise. Revenge films are pure catharsis, and in this case, doesn’t even seem to have a cathartic purpose.
(Again, this is all from someone who has not seen the film, so I could be wrong.)
Posted by Joe Shearer February 11, 2010 12:29 pm
This discussion hits perfectly home in my discussion of who horror films and exploitation movies like this are created for. I’ve long argued that horror films are made for kids (older kids and teenagers, of course) as lessons on how to behave, and what to do and what not to do.
I’d argue that while most teenagers "know" rape is wrong, among a certain group of them they might be thinking in the back of their minds "eh, what’s so bad about it?" Well, that question would certainly be answered if they saw this film. It’s presented as brutal and vicious and traumatic to the victim. Then you have the implied message that if you do that horrible thing to a woman, you can and will be punished in an equally reprehensible fashion, and also plants the seed that her pain is approximately equivalent to the pain the four men felt later on.
To answer your question directly, no I don’t think it NEEDED to be made, and in many (okay, most) ways, this is pure exploitation. It’s not torture porn in the sense of an Eli Roth kind of movie, where people are sadistically tortured over a long period of time, though the rape sequence I suppose would be some sort of precursor. But I’d argue we’re not supposed to have the reaction that Roger Ebert witnessed the day he saw the film.
Anyway, don’t take this as me saying exploitation films are bastions of ethics and that I’d advocate for this film to be shown to every 13-year-old in America. Hardly, but I think all movies, even one as prurient as this one, have a place for positive effects in people’s lives.