I Spit on Your Grave!
Happy last week everyone! I've really enjoyed being in this class despite everything being online this term, and hopefully most of us will be back in the fall.
I Spit on Your Grave! was one of the most interesting films for me to think about in the context of both of the books we read this term, since I found myself questioning my own spectatorship, as well as most of the ideas Creed puts forth about the monstrous feminine and specifically the feminine castratrice.
I wrote some reasons why I found this movie to be cathartic on the Moodle forum, but in writing that I didn't acknowledge that much of the catharsis depends of your positionality as a spectator (Amy talked about this a bit in class). Reasons why I may have found it cathartic may not apply to everyone, and when I was writing the forum post I went back and forth with a few of my points because I wondered if the intention of the film aligned with my interpretation and reaction. I'm not going to go into detail about what I wrote there, since you can go read it, but I do want to focus on the extended length of the rape scene, as well as the extreme brutality, and examine if that affected the catharsis that was intended.
I think I enjoyed this film more than I expected largely because I was so prepared to be incredibly disturbed. I honestly was very hesitant to watch this one, and was nervous that it would be a bad experience. I think knowing that the rapes were going to occur helped, since watching The Untold Story was difficult due to the unexpectedness of that scene. Knowing there was going to be a revenge/redemption arc also propelled me through those twenty minutes, but it did feel endless. The scenes where she killed felt rather short, especially the last two murders. Jennifer's characterization was limited to being raped and becoming a killer, and Clover's argument that men can identify with her felt hard to accept, because as a character, she is grossly underdeveloped outside of what happens to her. If indeed it is a sadomasochistic identification, where does the identification start and where does it end? I found this a lacking explanation for what makes young men enjoy this film. This may be too simple of an explanation, but I think revenge is a strong enough narrative to create identification and interest across gender lines. The strong and brutal nature of the rapes makes it so that neither men or women identify morally with these rapists. I found myself wondering if the rapes were less brutal or severe, would her actions be condemned? If one of those men was her boyfriend, would the audience (mostly men) find it more excusable? If it was less violent, or prolonged, or it was some other scenario in which society tends to blame the woman, would the film and audience be more likely to villainize the woman? Maybe this acceptance towards rape revenge is largely conditional.
Many of Creed's observations about the film were enlightening, especially her thoughts on the duality of sex and death, and how that's a special fear for male viewers of the horror genre (128). "It seems that the desire for revenge is always present in women. The message of the film appears to be that for the unsuspecting man, caught in the throes of orgasm, death may come at any time" (124). The link between sex and death has been explored a lot this term, but I found Creed's summary of this film to be interesting for a few reasons. There's some phrase that refers to orgasm as "a tiny death" or something, so there's no doubt that orgasm and death are closely linked in ideology, but I found myself thinking about the film exploring male fears of sexuality. Jennifer kills multiple men post-orgasm. There's a lot of ways to interpret this (her using sex against them as they used it against her, perhaps) but the link between sex and death intrigued me. I wish Creed went into this more, because I think it could be explored more in relation to this film. It seems to relate to Clover's view of sadomasochistic pleasure. I also found her thoughts about Jennifer representing a mythological figure important, because although this is common in the horror genre, I felt in some ways it took away from her autonomy as a character. It's visually pleasing to see her wearing all white gowns and listening to classical music, but as Creed pointed out, she appears catatonic.
One last point from Clover that I want to include is from Chapter 4, which wasn't assigned, but was instructive in viewing the film. She spends most of the chapter talking about the cinematic gaze. Her theories about the assaultive vs reactive gaze fit well with my thoughts on I Spit on Your Grave! because I personally feel that the film is working from a reactive gaze, even during its rape scenes. Clover writes extensively about the gender associations and misinterpretations of the gaze, but what I found most important what the viewer's positionality regarding the violence. As viewers, we are not seeing the violence from the perspective of the men. The assaultive gaze is figured as phallic and as the first person camera, and even during the killings Jennifer performs, I don't view them as phallic (except the weapons). The camera is subjective, although the narrative is not.
I realize that my opinions are slightly scrambled, since I found the readings to be instructive to understanding the film, and found it cathartic, but nonetheless was disturbed and frustrated by multiple elements of the film. I want to know if other people felt frustration watching this, or were able to enjoy the film as it played out. I found myself feeling a mixture of both.
I Spit on Your Grave! was one of the most interesting films for me to think about in the context of both of the books we read this term, since I found myself questioning my own spectatorship, as well as most of the ideas Creed puts forth about the monstrous feminine and specifically the feminine castratrice.
I wrote some reasons why I found this movie to be cathartic on the Moodle forum, but in writing that I didn't acknowledge that much of the catharsis depends of your positionality as a spectator (Amy talked about this a bit in class). Reasons why I may have found it cathartic may not apply to everyone, and when I was writing the forum post I went back and forth with a few of my points because I wondered if the intention of the film aligned with my interpretation and reaction. I'm not going to go into detail about what I wrote there, since you can go read it, but I do want to focus on the extended length of the rape scene, as well as the extreme brutality, and examine if that affected the catharsis that was intended.
I think I enjoyed this film more than I expected largely because I was so prepared to be incredibly disturbed. I honestly was very hesitant to watch this one, and was nervous that it would be a bad experience. I think knowing that the rapes were going to occur helped, since watching The Untold Story was difficult due to the unexpectedness of that scene. Knowing there was going to be a revenge/redemption arc also propelled me through those twenty minutes, but it did feel endless. The scenes where she killed felt rather short, especially the last two murders. Jennifer's characterization was limited to being raped and becoming a killer, and Clover's argument that men can identify with her felt hard to accept, because as a character, she is grossly underdeveloped outside of what happens to her. If indeed it is a sadomasochistic identification, where does the identification start and where does it end? I found this a lacking explanation for what makes young men enjoy this film. This may be too simple of an explanation, but I think revenge is a strong enough narrative to create identification and interest across gender lines. The strong and brutal nature of the rapes makes it so that neither men or women identify morally with these rapists. I found myself wondering if the rapes were less brutal or severe, would her actions be condemned? If one of those men was her boyfriend, would the audience (mostly men) find it more excusable? If it was less violent, or prolonged, or it was some other scenario in which society tends to blame the woman, would the film and audience be more likely to villainize the woman? Maybe this acceptance towards rape revenge is largely conditional.
Many of Creed's observations about the film were enlightening, especially her thoughts on the duality of sex and death, and how that's a special fear for male viewers of the horror genre (128). "It seems that the desire for revenge is always present in women. The message of the film appears to be that for the unsuspecting man, caught in the throes of orgasm, death may come at any time" (124). The link between sex and death has been explored a lot this term, but I found Creed's summary of this film to be interesting for a few reasons. There's some phrase that refers to orgasm as "a tiny death" or something, so there's no doubt that orgasm and death are closely linked in ideology, but I found myself thinking about the film exploring male fears of sexuality. Jennifer kills multiple men post-orgasm. There's a lot of ways to interpret this (her using sex against them as they used it against her, perhaps) but the link between sex and death intrigued me. I wish Creed went into this more, because I think it could be explored more in relation to this film. It seems to relate to Clover's view of sadomasochistic pleasure. I also found her thoughts about Jennifer representing a mythological figure important, because although this is common in the horror genre, I felt in some ways it took away from her autonomy as a character. It's visually pleasing to see her wearing all white gowns and listening to classical music, but as Creed pointed out, she appears catatonic.
One last point from Clover that I want to include is from Chapter 4, which wasn't assigned, but was instructive in viewing the film. She spends most of the chapter talking about the cinematic gaze. Her theories about the assaultive vs reactive gaze fit well with my thoughts on I Spit on Your Grave! because I personally feel that the film is working from a reactive gaze, even during its rape scenes. Clover writes extensively about the gender associations and misinterpretations of the gaze, but what I found most important what the viewer's positionality regarding the violence. As viewers, we are not seeing the violence from the perspective of the men. The assaultive gaze is figured as phallic and as the first person camera, and even during the killings Jennifer performs, I don't view them as phallic (except the weapons). The camera is subjective, although the narrative is not.
I realize that my opinions are slightly scrambled, since I found the readings to be instructive to understanding the film, and found it cathartic, but nonetheless was disturbed and frustrated by multiple elements of the film. I want to know if other people felt frustration watching this, or were able to enjoy the film as it played out. I found myself feeling a mixture of both.
This is an awesome post Lauren!!! :D I really relate to how you said knowing that there would be revenge was keeping you invested in the film. I feel the same way! In a really weird way I was very excited to watch her murder the men. However, I also felt uncomfortable in the same ways you did - especially with how the rape scene was so long while the deaths of the men felt so quick. Overall I feel like I did not hate the film as much as I thought I would, but it's still questionable. I also really like your addition of the extra Clover chapter! That was super interesting :)
ReplyDeleteI also found this to be an awesome post and I think that you make some really fantastic observations about the film and the readings here. I especially find your series of questions at the end of the fourth paragraph really compelling. I wonder as Alison says if knowing that she will kill her rapists makes the rape tolerable for audience members who might otherwise resist it. When you put it like that it makes it even more disturbing somehow.
Delete