By Nia Edwards-Behi
A woman rents a lakeside cottage in order to retreat and spend the summer months writing her first novel. Her arrival attracts the attention of four local men, who proceed to stalk her, attack her, repeatedly rape her, then leave her for dead. The woman is not dead. She takes time to recover, before returning to exact precise and deadly revenge on the men who raped her. The simplicity with which I Spit on Your Grave can be retold in synopsis undersells the film somewhat. It’s as simplistic as it can possibly be, with minimal characterisation or deviation from the now well-worn three act structure. But, while I Spit on Your Grave is on the one hand rape-revenge by numbers, on the other it is so, so much more.
The film began life as Day of the Woman, writer/director Meir Zarchi’s creative response to a real life experience. Zarchi reportedly witnessed the aftermath of a woman’s rape, and attempted to help her. His alleged second-hand experience of the incompetence of police handling of reports of rape inspired his film depiction of the ultimate revenge. Seemingly made out of Zarchi’s own back pocket, and certainly initially distributed by Zarchi himself, Day of the Woman is understandably a hard sell. It’s hardly the slickest film (though not as badly made as many would make out), and it remains to this day an incredibly difficult film to watch. In the UK it was always known as I Spit on Your Grave, the gloriously exploitative title given to the film when it was re-released and distributed by the Jerry Gross Organisation in 1980. The film became one of the über video nasties, films which, according to certain British newspapers and politicians, if watched in the home could turn you – or your dog – into a vicious murderer or rapist. The UK isn’t the only place to have banned the film, of course, with several other countries deeming it unfit for public consumption, while others simply cut the film to shreds. It’s not difficult to see why, as the film still has the power to shock. In its current certified form in the UK I Spit on Your Grave is still cut by almost three minutes. The cut rape sequences are still deeply disturbing, though the bizarre ‘stretched scenes’ are quite jarring – slow motion and repetition of images with overlaid audio are used to mask some of the cuts. For all the well-documented controversy though, there is much more to this ‘vile bag of garbage’ (as per Roger Ebert) than its over-bearing reputation.
Though I won’t go so far as to merrily claim I Spit on Your Grave as some sort of feminist triumph – it’s not – it’s far from the badly-made, misogynistic, dangerous exploitation film that it’s often made out to be. It certainly is an exploitation film, simply by dint of its release history, as well as its shocking and confrontational content. However, I Spit on Your Grave successfully demonstrates the sheer idiocy of correlating film with simple effect. The rape sequences are certainly protracted, almost unnecessarily drawn-out, but at no point are they offered up as entertaining, or titillating. This is due in part to Zarchi’s actually brilliant (at times) direction, and due to Camille Keaton herself. Martin Barker’s excellent essay on the film wonderfully outlines the cleverness of many of Zarchi’s creative decisions. For example, Zarchi’s use of long shots in particular ensures that Jennifer is never objectified. She spends much of the film nude or partially-nude, but her nakedness is never filmed in anything closer than a mid-shot. We’re not allowed any closer, but at no point does Zarchi’s direction distance us from her, either. Barker also draws attention to the use of music in the film. The almost complete lack of musical soundtrack is highlighted part-way through the attack on Jennifer, as she stumbles through a wooded area. A non-diegetic harmonica begins to play for several seconds until it revealed to be entirely, painfully diegetic, as we discover that one of the gang of men is playing the instrument as they lie in wait to attack Jennifer again. Barker’s essay was written and published in 1984, providing one of the few voices to approach these films as films, rather than as social poison. For Barker to have critically analysed such a contentious film in this way in 1984, at the height of its controversy is testament to his courage and critical integrity at that time. Barker’s analysis of the film actually holds up when revisiting the film, though it’s true others have defended the film a little too rigorously at times – better than Halloween it ain’t, Marco Starr.
An under-played strength of the film is Camille Keaton as Jennifer. Her performance is often dismissed but for me Keaton is arguably the reason the film works. Her willowy, slight frame is thrown about with such abandon by the men that it’s difficult not to genuinely fear for her safety when watching the film. However, as skinny and as slight as she is, in the revenge sequences she is sinewy and resilient. Problematic though some of the sequences are, they do not turn her into a machine (as the remake does) – her revenge on each man is arguably pragmatic and swift. As much as I’ve already stated that film is not some sort of feminist triumph, its depiction of Jennifer in the first half the film is admirable for the fact that at no point does she stop trying to physically fight the men. The only point at which she seems to give up is during the third attack on her, and after one of the men has repeatedly kicked her stomach and ribs. That’s more than can be said for a great deal of films with similar sequences.
Now, for all the potential praise that can be heaped onto the film, if one is so inclined, it’s hard to believe it would still be of such interest to people 35 years on if not for its association with the video nasties. If there’s one positive outcome of the utter debacle of the nasties and the Daily Mail and government and everything in between, it’s the longevity of some of the films that might otherwise have been forgotten. I Spit on Your Grave, of course, has left a film legacy, outside of itself. Though the film has a ‘sequel’ in Savage Vengeance (or Vengance, to take the film’s own spelling of the word), it’s hardly an influential or noteworthy film like its predecessor, and hell, I assume that only a few hundred people have ever bothered to watch it. If you’re reading this as someone who thinks that I Spit on Your Grave is a shoddy, badly-acted mess, then Savage Vengeance might truly blow your mind. It’s notable, perhaps, that from the outset this ‘sequel’ (Meir Zarchi had nothing to do with it) makes itself out to be a horror film with some ‘creepy music,’ but just what the bloody hell it ends up being is beyond me.
Of course, there’s Steven R. Monroe’s 2010 remake, which I hated, but I know others did not. My main problem with it is much the same as my problem with the Last House on the Left remake, amongst others, and that is that snappy and effective scenes of violence become protracted and elaborate set-pieces, more often than not completely diminishing any power the original might have had. Then, of course, there’s I Spit on Your Grave 2, which I’m not sure I can adequately express my feelings for without attaching my laptop to a boomerang and aiming it directly at the heads of everyone involved and submitting whatever the open Word document ends up with. No, the most direct descendants of I Spit on Your Grave are not its proudest legacy. Instead, the film seems to stand atop a dubious subgenre or cycle of films that contains many an under-appreciated classic. The film remains an unflinching account of horrible violence resulting in further horrible violence. Though there’s a very little to feel happy about after watching I Spit on Your Grave, when Jennifer Hills smiles as those credits roll, it’s very difficult not to smile with her.