This guest post by Sophie Besl appears as part of our theme week on Rape Revenge Fantasies.
I got into exploitation films through Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill. I liked the Bride’s unapologetic rampage, and was thrilled to learn that Tarantino’s work emerged from a rich tradition of female-fronted films starting in the early 1970s. What interested me most was that this tradition was created by men for the entertainment of a predominately (young, urban) male audience. Yet these exploitation films, such as Coffy, Foxy Brown,[1] Lady Snowblood,[2] and dozens of low-budget slasher films[3] where the “last man standing” was almost always a woman, felt like some of the most empowering, pro-women films I had ever seen. No subgenre of exploitation films brings up the question of whether these films empower or exploit more so than the rape revenge genre. While there is evidence on both sides, as a feminist woman, I greatly enjoy films that follow this plot formula, seeing them as explorations of women’s potential to be fierce and powerful in the face of horrific abuse.[4]
I Spit on Your Grave, originally released as Day of the Woman[5] in the late 1970s, is to me the flagship film of the rape revenge genre. A woman named Jennifer rents a house in the country to spend some quiet time to herself writing and relaxing, but is trapped, tormented, raped, and almost killed by a group of four men from the small town. She then plans and exacts gruesome revenge on each of them. The film was torn apart by critics, yet decidedly not from a feminist angle. A review decrying the scene where Jennifer castrates one of her rapists as “one of the most appalling moments in cinema history,”[6] also calls out the double standard of sexual violence in film–rapes in other films, or even the rape of Jennifer earlier in the same film, did not rile up even close to the same level of distaste at the time it was released.
But while reviews were mixed for an understandably disturbing horror/exploitation film, this film importantly caused viewers to identify with a rape victim in ways previous films did not allow. In her book Men, Women, and Chain Saws, Professor Carol Clover suggests that I Spit on Your Grave is an example of the movement away from how rape was treated in films prior to the 70s, which typically caused the viewer to adopt the rapist’s point of view, such as with somewhat titillating close-ups of a woman’s face as she is strangled.[7] In this film, the viewer adopts Jennifer’s perspective. The camera reveals the ugliness and uncouthness of the male perpetrators from her point of view, and the acts are depicted in such a violent and unpleasant way that there is little discernable sexuality in the assaults. The filming reverses prior conventions in a way that could cause even male viewers to side with the victim rather than the rapists.
Another element that enables male viewers to identify with Jennifer is her victim-to-hero character, not commonly seen fully realized in female characters. Films from earlier in the century tend to have “victim” and “avenger” as separate characters—and often female- and male-gendered, respectively—but in rape revenge films, these roles are unified in one character. Without the “assumption that all viewers, male and female alike, will take Jennifer’s part, and…‘feel’ her violation…the revenge phase of the drama can make no sense” (Clover, 1992). If viewers want to cheer for Jennifer as a hero in the second half of the film, then they have inherently sided with her during her victimization in the first half.
Other than these new and progressive ways of considering female rape victims in film, I Spit on Your Grave provides three fantastic and thought-provoking elements:
The entire movie operates outside the realm of the law
Unlike many other rape revenge films (such as Last House on the Left, where the rapist is a criminal actively hunted by police; The Accused, which is entirely about the legal system and rape; or even the 2010 remake of I Spit on Your Grave, where one of the four men is a police officer), I Spit on Your Grave takes place without any sign of law enforcement. Jennifer does not go to the police after her attack. There is an interesting scene where she prays briefly at a church, but mostly the film recounts, somewhat objectively, the play by play of her attack, followed by the play by play of her revenge killings (though the trailer does proclaim “There isn’t a jury in this country that will convict her!”). No movies ever had to justify a cowboy going on a rogue revenge kick after his log cabin was burned to the ground or his family was killed; certain sufferings of injury, murder of loved ones, robbery, etc., have been accepted throughout cinematic history to merit revenge at all costs. I Spit on Your Grave was a large part of a relatively new phenomenon, possibly born out of the feminist movement, to add rape—based on the woman’s experience of rape, whether validated by law or not—to that list of worthy harms, which is an important statement in our rape culture.
Jennifer uses feminine seduction to exact her revenge
In rape revenge films, the feminine experience of rape often, notably, is the cause for the hero-victim to take on masculine qualities, such as low emotionality and physical brutality. However, in I Spit on Your Grave (while she is undoubtedly brutal in committing murder), Jennifer gets her first “victim” by softly entreating him, “I’ll give you something to remember for the rest of your life.” She actually begins to have intercourse with him (interestingly, he was the only one of the four men who did not want to assault her—he had been a virgin, is cognitively challenged, and caves to peer pressure) so she can slip a noose around his neck and hang him. She simply drives up to her next “victim” and beckons him into her car. He goes willingly because he believes she wants some more. When she pulls a gun on him, he tries to talk her out of shooting him. She complies and invites him back to her house, which he also willingly does due to her coy demureness. At her house, they take a bath together, and while touching him underwater saying, “Relax, I’ll make you feel like you’ve never felt before,” she subtly slips a knife into the tub and cuts his genitals off. Jennifer swims up to the next man’s boat in her bikini and seductively climbs in. Caught off guard, he is pushed into the water, and Jennifer kills him and the last man with an axe and the boat’s motor as they flounder. Her sexuality is her means of entering the situations that enable her to execute each man.
I find it interesting that the castration scene was removed in the remake (as was another such scene in the remake of Last House on the Left), and I’m not sure why. Castration seems to be on an equal plane with the level of violence in these films. (Was it too distasteful to male viewers? Something to think about.) There is also no seduction during the revenge in the remake, with Jennifer instead relying on torture/murder tactics similar to the Saw movies. While perhaps this rewrite to agendered violence is feminist in that she can use the same cunning, engineering, and brutality as men, I think the significance of 1978’s Jennifer using female sexuality, the root of her attack, as part of her revenge technique should not be overlooked.
All four of the men must die, no matter their physical role in the gang rape
During their attack on Jennifer, three of the men constantly “offer” her to the cognitively challenged man, who is visibly horrified by what his friends are doing and avoids participating at all costs. The other three men commit different acts trying to impress and show off to one another, sickly showing that this is more of a sport or game to them than a sexually driven act. When Jennifer confronts each man alone, he pleads and blames the other men. The group dynamic may have caused the men to do things they otherwise wouldn’t have, and the film could serve as a sick warning to men in our rape culture. However, it is important and noteworthy, especially because some reviews at the time described “three rapes” and “three rapists,”[8] that there is no doubt in Jennifer’s or the viewer’s mind that all four should be punished.
I don’t believe the anti-feminist trope that women need attacks like this to make them strong. Many of these films involve gang rapes, or other situations where the woman is at a serious disadvantage due to the men’s weapons or physical strength. To me, the message in these films is that if men choose to take advantage in these sick ways, they will be punished beyond their imagination. A common question is, What do men get out of watching these films (made for men, by men)? I think, because rape is based in extreme powerlessness, degradation, and humiliation, it gives audiences a free pass to fully experience and enjoy the revenge half of the film. In a rich history of movie characters avenging murders of loved ones and all types of suffering, the rape revenge fantasy should only take second place to someone being able to avenge their own murder. Anything the media or society can do to enforce the idea that rape is a paramount crime is a step in the right direction, and I Spit on Your Grave played a large role in building that case through film.
See also at Bitch Flicks: Rape as a MacGuffin: The Hollywood Cop Out
Recommended reading: I Was Wrong About I Spit on Your Grave
Sophie Besl is an exploitation film fanatic with a day job in nonprofit marketing. She has a Bachelor’s from Harvard and lives in Boston with her feminist boyfriend and three small dogs. She tweets at @rockyc5.
[1] Coffy (which Tarantino cites as a direct precursor to Kill Bill) and Foxy Brown, both star Pam Grier, a darling of Blaxploitation whom Tarantino later directed in Jackie Brown. (For more on the fantastic Pam Grier, please read these Bitch Flicks articles on her unfinished legacy and her time in another exploitation subgenre, women in prison). A similar discussion of racism is relevant with Blaxploitation movies—while these films use excessive nudity and do confirm stereotypes, they star Black protagonists who are in themselves empowered in fighting personal battles, and viewers of all backgrounds identify with these protagonists.
[2] Lady Snowblood stars a fierce female protagonist, and is part of the chambara subgenre of exploitation, a revisionist, non-traditional style of samurai film popular in Japan in the early 1970s (Wikipedia).
[3] Slasher films are an exploitation and horror subgenre. While they too are arguably feminist, in that the murderer is usually defeated by the “Final Girl,” in these films, the female protagonist fights because she has to. Rape revenge plots have women calculate revenge, then choose to engage in violence as an avenger, rather than a continuation of being a victim.
[4] When a female character is the attacked avenger, I prefer films that focus on rape revenge fantasy as the entire plot, as opposed to a story like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where it is a part of a larger story. A story where it is simply part of the plot sends me the message that rape is part of what women have to deal with on a daily basis; it is inescapable. The extreme treatment of and sole emphasis on rape in films like I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left enables these films to be an exploration of power plays and humanity’s darker sides, rather than a statement about the prevalence of rape in women’s lives.
[5] The original title of this film is significant. The “day of the woman” to me clearly refers to the day of her vengeful murders. By using the phrase “the woman” instead of the character’s name, this seems to imply that her revenge is not just on behalf of herself against her attackers, but on behalf of all women against all men who have perpetrated crimes like this.
[6] Review from Mick Martin and Marsha Porter, Video Move Guide: 1987, as cited and described in Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, by Carol J. Clover (Princeton University Press 1992).
[7] See Clover (1992, p. 139) for more. She argues that, in films made before 1970, rape was “construed as an act of revenge on the part of a male who has suffered at the hands of the woman in question (to have been sexually teased, or to have a smaller paycheck or lesser job, is to suffer).”
[8] Clover, 1992.
I found this post to be intriguing on many
levels, but before I responded to this post I decided maybe I should watch the
movie for myself. I was horrified to say the least. I think the main point of
this post is the question “is rape revenge empowering or exploitative?”. I
think the author was trying to respond to this movie from a feminist stand
point. It is stated that the castration scene was noted to be one of the most
gruesome scenes in history, I wondered myself why the rape scene wasn’t also
considered to be equally horrifying. I have seen movies which included rape
scenes that I thought were equally gruesome but for some reason they are never
seen as such. WHY? Why is a rape scene considered normal and a castration scene
is considered horrifyingly gruesome? Jennifer is brutally rapes multiple times
and nothing was said about it but the castration scene was what stuck out to viewer’s.
I feel this is because women are not seen to be as violent as men, which this
post also points out and need to be raped in order to become violent. Even her
revenge is highly sexualized, she seduced the men before she killed them. I
think all of this comes down to the fact that the MALE viewer cannot possibly
see a castration scene because it is a gruesome way to show the seriousness of
rape. This really puts you in the shoes of Jennifer and how the rapes effected
her. She felt the only justice she could get was murder. This really points out
the woman’s experience and audiences cannot stand to feel that way so they
declared it to be distasteful. I think another main point that could have been
elaborated on more was the individual encounters with the men after the rapes.
Although all of the four men sexually assaulted her when she encounters them
later they plead with her saying they didn’t want to do it, although they were
all showing off to each other. It was almost like they wanted to see who could
be more horrible but only when they were all together and knew they had power
over Jennifer. When she had them alone and they had no one they (I would like
to think) realized what they did was awful and they couldn’t take it back. I
also thought it was interesting that rather than losing her female self
completely as often happens in rape revenge movies she contained her sexuality
and used it to her advantage, which was also pointed out in this post. I think
this post was motivated by her feminist standpoint and that she saw the film in
the different light than others. This film succeeded in putting both the male
and female viewer in the shoes of a rape victim and forced people to feel what
she felt. The rape scenes were not sexual in any way and they did not seem to
be to be sexual to any of the men, they were about power and that really speaks
to the rape culture that exists today.
The thing that has always worried me about rape-revenge is that take away all the politics of exploitation vs empowerment, and you’re still left with a bunch of pervasive rape myths that are so entwined in our culture it’s hard to know where we first learned this including
Rape is done by strangers, often in deserted areas that isolate. Not by a friend or acquaintance who invites them into their house or goes on a date with them. The only exception I can think of is Straw Dogs, but that’s not really about a woman’s revenge…
Rapists are always portrayed as having a physically intimidating appearance, morphing from man to monster so that they are barely identifiable.
But lastly, the idea that rape is defined not by the violation or coercion, but by unprovoked VIOLENCE. This is the thing I most often worry about after hearing how the kids in Steubenville reacted to watching a gang rape, that because she didn’t resist, because they didn’t hit her, it was not rape.
In my opinion, these qualities make it hard to see the genre as anything but problematic, though I do think the way men react to them says a lot about how uneasy we are to the idea of women taking revenge without mercy. It’s just sad that so many films seem to suggest that revenge is the only satisfying course to take, when real survivors have to live with the fact that their assailants won’t be punished and they have to rebuild their lives.
First, I should mention that I have not seen the original I Spit on Your Grave, so all of my perspectives and opinions are going to based on the 2010 version. Additionally, I will make some comparisons based on the information provided in this post. In this post, three thought-provoking elements are discussed; I’m going to respond to each of them since each of them are very interesting.
The entire movie operates outside of the realm of the law:
The remake includes a police officer as one of the rapist. I think adding a police officer as one of the rapist shows the irony of how our justice system works. Women are encouraged to report and to speak out, but more often than not justice is not served. Additionally, I think adding a police officer as a rapist touches base with the reality that there are officers who abuse their power; this is very relevant today with police brutality. In the remake there is a juxtaposition when she attempts to run away in the woods, runs into the police officer, and he seemed all about helping (although I knew he was bad since it’s a movie), then once he checks out her cabin he starts to use the typical victim blaming when she was explaining she was hearing noises and being attacked, just because she had alcohol and marijuana joints. He was victim blaming; someone who is suppose to protect citizens was victim blaming. Ironic.
Jennifer uses feminine seduction to exact her revenge:
The remake didn’t play on this as much, which I think is good. I think that by not playing into the sexual seduction, it shows you how powerful she is without having to use her body to lure them. Instead, she is clever and pretty much sneaks up on each of them. One thing I think they attempted to keep the same was using the same phrases the men used when they raped her. For example, in the remake the police officer anally raped her and right before he did so he said “Don’t worry sweetie, I’m an ass man.” Right before she killed the police officer she used the same exact phrase on him. I think this flips the script, showing men how fucked up what they say can be. Since I haven’t seen the original, I can’t really appreciate the castration scene. But I think that it is extremely interesting thing that people were so uncomfortable seeing a penis cut off, but didn’t think twice about the rape scene. Almost as if the rape scene makes sense, kind of like “well she was alone in the woods, what did she expect?” which is why we still tell our daughters “Don’t walk alone in the dark” “Don’t wear short skirts to parties.” Or “Don’t drink the jungle juice at a party, it could be drugged.” These perspectives sadden me. The fact that people were so upset about the castration scene and not the rape is unsettling me. It also demonstrates that we STILL teach people to value genitals in the wrong ways.
All four of the men must die, no matter their physical role in the gang rape:
The remake did keep the cognitively disabled man apart of the rape. I do think that they all deserved to die. I think that by killing the cognitively disabled man shows that there is NO EXCUSE to rape women. REGUARDLESS OF WHO YOU ARE AND YOUR ABILITIES, RAPE IS NOT OKAY.
I don’t think women necessarily need to be attacked to posses this kind of power, but that’s the thing, we keep assuming that women don’t already have this kind of power. WE HAVE POWER. But most often, we have to make a decision if we want to fight back. This is why it’s never just as simple as leaving an abusive partner. I feel like rape revenge is such a big thing because the majority of people (men) didn’t expect for women to actually fight back. I definitely think films like this show what can happen if you rape someone, but it’s sad that this is what it takes to teach someone not to rape.