In some ways following the same general premise of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, with a young woman being terrorised by crazed criminal redneck types, the next film I watched was more horrifying but whilst it probably had more consistent plot, better acting and higher production values than Texas Chain Saw, whether it’s a “better film,” or certainly whether it is a “better horror film,” are difficult questions. It’s I Spit on Your Grave (1978) which has since seen remakes and sequels.

This film is horrific, there are genuine moments of suspense and a sense of imminent peril throughout. The problem I struggle with (and there are spoilers here) is that the “horror” is based on repeated sexual abuse of the main protagonist, who repeatedly tries to escape a group of redneck rapists, only to be brutally beaten and raped by them. Now, when it comes to slasher films, with blood-splattering murder, unlikely weapons (chainsaws, hammers, kitchen knives being used from the elbow…) and characters making poor life choices resulting in their gruesome demise then, in a weird way, it seems more harmless. Somehow, helpless young people being slaughtered seemingly at random is much less horrific than a young person being repeatedly sexually abused then murdered (although, for the story to conclude, the murder doesn’t happen). Following all of that, the woman then proceeds to take bloody revenge on all of them, which feels more like a horror, but in no way removes the unsettling feeling that the whole thing is not really entertainment.

A lot of horror films have gratuitous nudity. That seems to be an industry standard that I’ve commented upon earlier in the month. Jennifer (the heroine) in I Spit on Your Grave probably spends more of the film naked than not, which would fit with the genre generally if it wasn’t for all the sexual and related non-sexual violence she suffers. Even if someone tried to argue that the nudity wasn’t exploitative in the first part of the film, in the second (revenge) part, Jennifer not only gets naked with one of the original perpetrators as part of her revenge plan, but actually has sex with another one… all for apparently no good reason. She has ample opportunity to shoot her rapists (she has a gun at this point), yet does something a lot more elaborate, inherently illogically risky and personally degrading… presumably because it means the actor can spend more time naked on-screen. It’s not great.

I have no friends because of you.

It’s definitely a horror though? I’m not sure. If the first half was different (maybe the men killed her family/friends in a classic slasher way or perhaps if there was less gratuitous abuse), then the second half would definitely be a horror film, because the gratuitous nudity, odd decision-making and general elaborately constructed gore-scenes would be more acceptably entertaining. Again, I struggle with what a horror film “is,” but there’s something about this movie that makes me feel like it “isn’t” (at least in parts).

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? There’s a whole interaction where one of the men essentially explains his actions to Jennifer by victim-blaming her, which may have been ahead of its time in terms of social commentary. Some of the acting was good (Camille Keaton in murder-mode is a particular highlight).

What are the worst bits? There are no winners in this game. The whole premise of the film does not make the bloody revenge seem as euphoric as you’d hope. It’s all pretty grim. In the second half, the protagonist (with respect to horror movie tradition) does make a series of odd/bad decisions, but unhappily they just seem invited to blur the line further between entertainment and sexual violence. You feel like this is definitely not the sort of thing that would get made now.

But what about the 2010 remake… and sequels? It might be interesting to know what a modern version of this movie looks like, but I’m not sure that curiosity is enough to make me find out.