I Spit on Your Grave
Date: 2018-03-27 04:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Performing Arts; Film; History & Criticism; Guides & Reviews
Description: There is no denying that Meir Zarchi's I Spit on Your Grave (1978) deserves its title as one of the most controversial films ever made. While many condemn it as misogynistic, others praise it for raising uncomfortable issues about sexual violence. While its reputation as a cult film has undoubtedly been cemented by its unique position in the 1970s/80s exploitation era and the "video nasties" scandal, it has also become mythologized by its own official and unofficial franchises. David Maguire examines why the film still continues to provoke fierce debate forty years on, not only investigating t
Publisher: Wallflower Press

I SPIT ON

YOUR GRAVE

David Maguire

OGRAPHIEST

CUL

C U L T O G R A P H I E S

CULTOGRAPHIES is a list of individual studies devoted to the analysis of cult film. The series provides a comprehensive introduction to those films which have attained the coveted status of a cult classic, focusing on their particular appeal, the ways in which they have been conceived, constructed and received, and their place in the broader popular cultural landscape.

OTHER TITLES IN THE CULTOGRAPHIES SERIES: THE ROCKY HORROR

BAD TASTE

PICTURE SHOW

Jim Barratt

Jeffrey Weinstock

QUADROPHENIA

DONNIE DARKO

Stephen Glynn

Geoff King

FASTER, PUSSYCAT!

THIS IS SPINAL TAP

KILL! KILL!

Ethan de Seife

Dean DeFino

SUPERSTAR:

FRANKENSTEIN

THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY

Robert Horton

Glyn Davis

THEY LIVE

BRING ME THE HEAD

D. Harlan Wilson

OF ALFREDO GARCIA

MS. 45

Ian Cooper

Alexandra Heller-Nicholas

THE EVIL DEAD

DEEP RED

Kate Egan

Alexia Kannas

BLADE RUNNER

STRANGER THAN PARADISE

Matt Hills

Jamie Sexton

THE HOLY MOUNTAIN

SERENITY

Alessandra Santos

Frederick Blichert

DANGER: DIABOLIK

THE SHINING

Leon Hunt

K. J. Donnelly

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

David Maguire

WALLFLOWER PRESS

LONDON & NEW YORK

A Wallflower Press Book

Published by

Columbia University Press

Publishers Since 1893

New York • Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu

Copyright © 2018 Columbia University Press All rights reserved

Wallflower Press® is a registered trademark of Columbia University Press

A complete CIP record is available from the Library of Congress ISBN 978-0-231-18875-3 (pbk.)

ISBN 978-0-231-85128-2 (e-book)

Series and Cover design by Elsa Mathern

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements vii

Introduction

1

1 History and Herstory in the 1970s and 1980s 6

2 ‘Only Women Bleed’: Filth or Feminist?

31

3 I Spit on Your Grave and its Legacy 66

Notes 115

Filmography 118

Bibliography 126

Index

137
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There will be no spitting on graves for the following: Jonathan Marshall, for first proposing that I write a book on this topic – thank you!

Karen Scott, for her advice and encouragement in over-seeing my dissertation for I Spit on Your Grave which then mushroomed into an obsession with the rape-revenge genre generally.

Stratford Kirby, for his never-ending support and enthu-siasm throughout every step of this book’s creation. When you’re writing about a much maligned film on a topic that (quite understandably) upsets a lot of people, your options of discussing it with anyone are limited!

Amanda Adrienne, for restoring my faith in the raperevenge genre with her film Savaged and her kind support throughout the writing of this book.

And finally, Jamie Bernadette, star of I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà Vu; who, despite being incredibly busy, was always very gracious when I pestered her with interview questions.

vii

INTRODUCTION

There is no denying that I Spit on Your Grave (1978)1 deserves to be considered ‘the most controversial film to hit the world … the most talked about film in cinema history’.2

From its unflinching subject matter (the brutal gang-rape of a beautiful career woman and her subsequent revenge), its battles with censors and mauling by critics, the picketing of its screenings by feminists and the politicians who deemed it a corrupting influence on society, it is a film that continues to divide opinion and enflame passions. It is, depending on your point of view, either ‘the most powerful or repulsive rape revenge melodrama ever filmed’ (Crowdus and Bloom 2003: 32). While many condemn its misogyny, others praise it for raising uncomfortable issues about sexual violence, then unheard of in exploitation – or even mainstream – movies. It is deeply distressing to watch – it was in 1978 and remains so today. And yet that is not to say that it is a bad film without merit, only that the film’s reception was, and continues to be, complicated. To fully understand ISOYG’s growth from celluloid pariah to cult film, one has to explore its unique position in, and impact on, the cultural, historical, political and gender landscape of its initial release. While oth-1

CULTOGRAPHIES
er exploitation films of the 1970s/1980s and the UK ‘video nasties’ scandal have been consigned (often quite rightly) to the trashcan of time, ISOYG has found itself mythologised and revered by the countless rape-revenge films that have followed. Despite being condemned for its ‘sick attitude towards women’ (Ebert 1981: 55), director Meir Zarchi’s film has spawned official and unofficial franchises, and even a spoof. Cynics may argue that these productions are simply ‘cashing in’ on the cultural memory of the original, and there is undoubtedly an element of this, but there is also evidence to suggest that ISOYG is being updated to explore more complex issues such as vengeance and retaliation in a post-9/11world relating to the ‘war on terror’. In so doing, the film’s official remake and sequels challenge contemporary viewers in different ways to the original, questioning ideological and ethical issues relating to torture, revenge and violence.

In light of its impact on film culture and the increasing number of pro-feminist reappraisals of the film – something which is in itself problematic in light of the clear exploitation route the movie went down and the (male) audience such productions are designed to appeal to – it is perhaps fitting that, forty years on, Zarchi’s film is re-examined as an important part of cinema. While other challenging independent horrors of the era such as Night of the Living Dead (1968), The Last House on the Left (1972) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) have all since been re-evaluated and acclaimed (with
the latter added to the permanent collection of New York City’s Museum of Modern Art), ISOYG is still brushed under the carpet as ‘a complete turn-off’ (Newman 2011: 76). But just as these once-vilified films are now regarded as having something important to say about society, ISOYG is no exception: ‘the most disturbing thing about the film will not be the profanity or its nudity or its violence; it will be the 2

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
awareness – perhaps for the first time in their [viewers’]

lives – of how unnervingly traumatic rape is. These feelings will occur because I Spit on Your Grave takes rape, and the feelings of rape victims, “far too seriously”’ (Starr 1984: 54; emphasis in original). It can be argued that Zarchi’s insistence on tackling rape in the manner that he does is a key reason why many continue to find the film so repulsive.

While ISOYG’ s ‘remakes, the sequels, and even the trailers all participate in a pleasurable game of repetition which has contributed to turning the film into a fetish’

(Zanger 2006: 16), its imitators – of which there are many

– remind us of just how creative, daring and provocative the original was. ISOYG doesn’t need to rely on over-blown non-diegetic music to prompt the viewer how to feel ( The Accused [1988]). It doesn’t introduce clichéd supporting characters like sympathetic (male) detectives to strengthen identification with its protagonist ( Naked Vengeance [1985], Thelma & Louise [1991] and The Brave One [2007]). It can also be argued that it doesn’t utilise models for its heroine, thereby eroticising her subsequent rape (e.g. Raquel Welch in Hannie Caulder [1971], Margaux Hemingway in Lipstick

[1976]). While Camille Keaton, playing Zarchi’s central character, is an attractive actress and is coded as such, it is difficult to argue that the film’s rape scenes are titillating; if anything, they are ‘represented in a grotesque “realism”

that Hollywood would not dare depict’ (Fidler 2009: 58). And yet, because it has been marketed as exploitation, many have been unable to see past this label and have failed to realise that herein lies a genuinely shocking film – but not for the reasons that have seen it pilloried, censored, banned and condemned.

It is important to remember that from being part of the narrative in earlier films, ISOYG has been instrumental in making rape-revenge the narrative. And unlike the eroticised 3

CULTOGRAPHIES
route down which most rape-avengers strut, both the 1978
film and its 2010 remake have attempted to make serious comments about sexual violence. However, the main area of conflict has been generated by those who find it difficult to marry these films’ supposedly anti-patriarchal sentiments with a genre that has traditionally overflowed with gratuitous images of sexually exploited women. As Krystal Cooper argues, ‘there’s no denying that rape fetishists might in fact be the main audience seeking out these types of films’ (2013). And while Zarchi and Stephen R. Monroe (the remake’s director) may claim to have come to their projects with noble intentions, these have had to be juggled with the expectations of their intended audiences; for Zarchi, the grindhouse circuit and unregulated home video market; for Monroe, the post-9/11 torture porn crowd with an appetite for elaborate retaliation. Understandably this duality has caused friction with many denying that any such picture can seriously be considered pro-feminist.

Another reason to consider the re-evaluation of ISOYG is that, forty years since its release, rape is still understandably a highly contentious issue. In the run up to the 2016 American presidential election, tapes were released of Republican Party nominee Donald Trump boasting of how he liked to grab women ‘by the pussy. You can do anything’ (cited in Lusher 2016); his remarks sparked women’s marches around the world. In 2017 Hollywood was rocked to its core by allegations of rape and sexual assault surrounding movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, sparking a tsunami of sexual harassment scandals in media, politics and other industries. In 2014 musician Cee Lo Green, who pleaded no contest in court to putting ecstasy in a woman’s drink, tweeted that it wasn’t rape if the victim was unconscious; a year later fellow singer Chrissie Hynde, who was raped when she was 21, was publicly condemned for stating that rape could be the woman’s 4

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
fault. In 2012 the gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old female student in South Delhi led to month-long protests in India’s cities; a Bollywood film entitled Kill the Rapist is due to be released in 2018 off the back of this outrage. In response to a high volume of rape in South Africa, the prototype for a female condom lined with ‘teeth’ – a very literal vagina dentata – was announced in 2005, although it has never been sold to the public (see Chonin 2005).

In such a context it is perhaps unsurprising that the twenty-first century has seen a revival in the rape-revenge genre, particularly as the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ lies at its very heart. It is also feasible that such films are being used to explore those aspects of ourselves which we find repugnant and morally indefensible i.e. that ‘what makes rape so distressing is also what makes it so fascinating’ (Thrower 2008: 32). Cinema has always been perversely intrigued by rape

– Sarah Projansky dates its first appearance to 1903 if not earlier (2001: 243). Whatever the reason, the consequence is that Zarchi’s heroine, Jennifer Hills, and subsequent versions of her, will continue to be raped on screen. But she will also continue to seek vengeance, as evidenced in the fact that Zarchi’s own belated sequel, I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà Vu, is to be released in 2018 . With that in mind, it is perhaps fitting that the man who brought Jennifer into the world in the first place should be the one who has the last word on her refusal to be buried: ‘some of the critics … made it their mission in life to kick this movie into a black hole, a void into which they hope it will permanently vanish … [but] the movie is indestructible’ (Zarchi 2010b).

5

1

HISTORY AND HERSTORY

IN THE 1970S AND 1980S3

It is a nasty, disgusting picture that should be banned forever from the face of the earth. Those who enjoy watching the rape scenes must be potential rapists and those who enjoy the revenge scenes must be sadists.

… This is the most anti-feminine movie ever made… It is the most vilified picture in cinema’s history.

– Meir Zarchi detailing critics’ comments of ISOYG

(2010b)

To fully appreciate the significant impact ISOYG had on audiences and critics on its first release, i.e. its condemnation as one of the most misogynistic sexually violent films ever made, one first needs to delve into the highly-charged gender powder keg that was 1970s America. The feminist movement had already begun to make headway in the decade before with landmarks such as the creation of the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women in 1961

(set up to advise the Commander-in-Chief on issues regarding women’s equality in education), the establishment of the 6

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

National Organisation for Women by activist Betty Friedan in 1966 and the protesting of the 1968 Miss America pageant.

In 1972, the year that Helen Reddy’s number one single ‘I Am Woman (Hear Me Roar)’ became a key paean of the US
feminist movement, the Equal Rights Amendment to the US

Constitution, outlawing sexual discrimination, was passed.

Throughout the 1970s, feminism made huge changes to US
society at work and in the home. In the former, record numbers of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity policies provided women access to hitherto denied professions; in the latter, many US states passed new ‘no-fault’ divorce laws, making the process simpler and splitting the assets more evenly. Birth control was relaxed, marriage was no longer an aspiration and many women chose to experiment with a single lifestyle. Prominent feminists such as Frieden and Gloria Steinem held conferences, created organisations and penned literature aimed at empowering women. All across the US, women were becoming more confident, self-reliant and proud of their capabilities; a January 1980 Cosmopoli-tan survey of 106,000 women revealed that single women not only made more money than their married counterparts, they were also healthier and having more sex.

It is unsurprising then, with men finding themselves emasculated and their place in society shifting, that a backlash occurred – one ‘returns every time women begin to make some headway towards equality’ (Faludi 1993: 66). And it is during these periods of backlash, Susan Faludi argues, that ‘images of the restrained woman line the walls of the popular culture’s gallery. We see her silenced, infantilised, immobilised or, the ultimate restraining order, killed’ (1993: 93). After World War II, which had witnessed women enter the workforce in previously unforeseen numbers, this misogyny was reflected on the silver screen in the form of ‘women’s films’ which tried ‘by ridicule, intimidation, or 7

CULTOGRAPHIES
persuasion, to get women out of the office’ (Haskell 1987: 221).4 As women became more of a serious threat to men in terms of earning power, the films of the 1940s and 1950s embodied patriarchal fears. As Anne (Irene Dunne) tells Jonathan (Charles Coburn) in Together Again (1944), ‘women can live perfectly well without men. But you’re terrified of the idea that they can.’ The threat of enervation was evident in such science fiction titles as The Incredible Shrinking Man (1958) and Attack of the 50-Foot Woman (1958).

The celluloid creation of female vampires in Dracula (1931), Mark of the Vampire (1935) and Dracula’s Daughter (1936) can similarly be regarded as ‘a projection of both male fantasy and fear; a response to modern redefinitions of

“the feminine” and to the social and sexual freedoms which were increasingly being demanded by women’ (Rhodes and Springer 1996: 25). Followed by the femme fatale of the 1930s and 1940s, these were representations of women that needed to be destroyed; ‘this drive to punish or eradicate these dangerously active and sexual figures has often been interpreted as a sign of the anti-feminist tendencies of the texts in which they appear’ (Read 2000: 180). It is no surprise that the correlation between the image of woman-as-vampire and the ‘new Woman’ witnessed after World War I produced the term ‘vamp’, used to describe women who were ‘both highly beautiful and highly dangerous …

who figuratively sucked the life out of the men that fell at their feet … [and who] became an early twentieth-century embodiment of women’s sexual freedom and, by extension, a symbol of women’s growing demands for social and sexual equality with men’ (Rhodes and Springer 1996: 31, 28). Barbara Creed argues that the re-emergence of the female nosferatu in the 1970s – with an even stronger sexual appetite – is directly connected to the advance of second-wave feminism and public fears about a more threatening 8

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
expression of female sexuality (1993: 59). A lot of the horror titles of this era succinctly summed up these sexual overtones – The Vampire Lovers (1970), Vampyros Lesbos (1971), Les Lèvres Rouges ( Daughters of Darkness) (1971) and Lust for a Vampire (1971).

Despite the emergence of new liberated women in the real world, in the cinema of the 1960s and 1970s the trope of woman as victim continued to be peddled; this was evident in the deranged heroine of Repulsion (1965), the harassed pregnant wife of Rosemary’s Baby (1968), the psychological and physical torment of the successful career woman, divorcee and single mother of The Exorcist (1971) and the destruction of a teenage girl upon finding empowerment as a woman in Carrie (1976). Actresses found themselves at the mercy of self-indulgent directors ‘not only for their employment but for their images, images that were ever less rounded and more peripheral’ (Haskell 1987: 326). At the same time depictions of sex and violence began to gain mainstream acceptance with commercially successful productions such as Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Wild Bunch (1969) and Soldier Blue (1970). This had been facilitated by the collapse in 1968 of the Motion Picture Production Code which had attempted, with varying success, to instil moral guidelines in films since the 1930s (it was replaced by the Motion Picture Association of America [MPAA]

rating system which rated films’ suitability for audiences based on content). While the relaxation in censorship was liberating for filmmakers, ‘it also liberated parts of the artistic unconscious responsible for sadomasochistic fantasies …

[which] increased in brutality and ferocity’ (Rickey 2013).

Alfred Hitchcock’s Frenzy (1972) involves a particularly nasty rape where ‘the woman’s body is fragmented … [with]

repeated shots of … ankles and breasts … [suggesting]

that, for Hitchcock, woman is little more than the sum of 9

CULTOGRAPHIES
her (sexual) body parts’ (Read 2000: 81). Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971) saw Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his droogs beating and raping his victim while her husband was forced to watch. Equally controversial was Straw Dogs,
released the same year with its notorious rape scene which suggests that its victim Amy (Susan George) enjoys it. Director Sam Peckinpah’s misogyny was indisputable in his assertion that ‘there are women and then there’s pussy’ (cited in Prince 1998: 126), i.e. that he viewed the opposite sex as either virgins or whores. Amy’s rape, incidentally, does not appear in the film’s source material, the novel The Siege of Trencher’s Farm. It seemed that ‘the closer women came to claiming their rights and achieving independence in real life, the more loudly and stridently films [asserted that] …

it’s a man’s world’ (Haskell 1987: 363). While the new Don Corleone shut his wife out of his machismo world at the end of The Godfather (1972), the protagonist of Looking for Mr.

Goodbar (1977) was brutally murdered for daring to be a sexually independent career woman.

While women were being deliberately punished and marginalised in Hollywood, the same was equally true in low-budget independent productions – with far nastier effect. In The Last House on the Left two teenage girls are tortured and murdered in explicitly graphic detail. Although director Wes Craven always asserted that the film was a serious response to the stylised hyper-violence of Peckinpah and his ilk, a slew of cheap knock-offs followed which had no qualms about revelling in their sexual violence.5 The Texas Chain Saw Massacre saw women hung up on meat hooks, shoved into freezers, bound, gagged and chased with chainsaws (incidentally, the view of women as ‘meat’

was chillingly continued on the cover of Hustler magazine’s June 1978 edition which portrayed a model being churned in a grinder. The appearance of blood around a dead woman’s 10

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 1: Hustler’s infamous

June 1978 cover.

mouth in La Bestia in Calore ( The Beast in Heat, 1977) infers

‘that she has been – quite literally – fucked to death’ (Kerekes and Slater 2000: 80). La Settima Donna ( Last House on the Beach, 1978) featured a number of rapes, one of which was disturbingly filmed in slow motion and The Toolbox Murders (1978) married scenes of female masturbation with nail gun slaughter. Violence, as ‘the indispensable staple of male pornography, [was] expressing itself in apocalyptic allegories of male virility’ (Haskell 1987: 364).

Depictions of rape and sexual violence had been a mainstay of less reputable cinemas throughout the 1960s in the form of ‘roughies’ – films which focused on male brutality towards women, particularly involving kidnapping, bondage, sexual assault and murder. In the 1970s these developed into ‘loops’ played in porno theatres, short films of ten to fifteen minutes involving hard-core simulated sex with no narrative. With established directors such as Hitchcock, 11

CULTOGRAPHIES

Peckinpah and Kubrick pushing the envelope ‘artistically’

when it came to sexual violence, the commercial success of Deep Throat in 1972 helped pornography – and misogyny

– go mainstream. Deep Throat may have been celebrated for making pornography acceptable in the mainstream but its star Linda Lovelace would later claim that she made the film under duress: ‘every time somebody watches that movie, they’re watching me getting raped’ (cited in Bronstein 2013). In another commercially successful taboo-breaker, Emmanuelle (1974), the eponymous protagonist is raped while watched by her mentor, his lack of intervention inferring that this is all part of the tutoring. The 1970s, quite simply, saw an explosion in the ‘relentless portrayal of sex and violence … [in] grindhouse strips of hard-core sleaze’

(Normanton 2012: 168). With the intended audience at such venues being male, and with American masculinity already threatened by the emergence of strong, independent, sexually assertive women, 1970s exploitation offered an outlet to punish such figures – while providing cheap, non-threatening, titillating thrills along the way.

The decade also saw the emergence of a whole new subgenre of horror film. Condemned by many as encouraging misogynistic violence towards women, it is perhaps no coincidence that the popularity of ‘slash and gash’ movies coincided with the growth of second-wave feminism in America. The genre revelled in depictions of scantily-clad women being sliced and diced by male oppressors, usually with phallic instruments like kitchen knives, axes and machetes. According to film critic Gene Siskel, such movies were ‘some sort of primordial response by some very sick people, of men saying “Get back in your place, women” …

Women in the films are typically portrayed as independent, as sexual, as enjoying life, and the killer, typically … is a man who is sexually frustrated with these new, aggressive 12

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
women’ (1980). No matter where you looked, in real life or on screen, women were continually the victims of sexual aggression perpetuated by men. A small independent film by a first-time director was about to bear the brunt of all that pent-up anger felt by women, critics, the media and politicians about the crimes dished out upon the ‘weaker’ sex.

As Julie Bindel suggests, ‘the feminist movement was at its height when ISOYG was made in 1978, with a plethora of conferences and marches through cities protesting about rape [and] domestic violence’ (2011). Prior to the 1970s it was still legal in some US states for a husband to rape his wife

– in fact it was considered his right. A common complaint of rape victims was the insensitive treatment they received from police officers, with the emphasis often placed on what they had done to provoke the assault. Between 1976 and 1984 sex-related murders rose by 160 per cent in the US (see Watkins, Rueda and Rodriguez 1999: 133). Campaign groups such as Women Against Pornography and Women Against Violence Against Women picketed cinemas and condemned

‘women-as-victim films as just another pornographic expression of contempt for women’ (Schoell 1988: 48). The feminist critique of rape was brought to the fore in 1975 with the publication of Susan Brownmiller’s bestseller Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape which argued that rape wasn’t a crime of male frenzied libido but rather ‘a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear’ (1977: 15; emphasis in original). Brownmiller recorded that the volume of rapes in the US had increased by 62 per cent over a five-year period (1977: 175). In the same month that ISOYG was released (November 1978), the first Take Back the Night rally, aimed at raising awareness of rape and sexual violence against women, took place in San Francisco. The same year also saw the Privacy Protection for Rape Victims Act signed into law.

13

CULTOGRAPHIES

It was an era where ‘men got to do anything to women and women got to walk around scared and traumatised and angry’ (Tea 2013: 8); if, as Brownmiller had asserted just three years earlier, the body of a raped woman was a ‘ceremonial battlefield’ and that rape was a war which women could not win (1977: 38, 360), then ISOYG – with its protracted gang-rape of a young career woman – became one of the decade’s first celluloid casualties. The film sent ‘women running and gagging toward the exit’ (Bian 1978). Critic David Keyes declared it his worst film of 1980, describing it as ‘grotesque and repugnant … a work of sexist and unordinary humans, so lacking in human decency that they are the type of people cinema should immediately condemn’ (1980). Gene Siskel was particularly scathing of what he perceived as the film’s misogynistic agenda, condemning it as ‘a very cruel film that expands upon the notion that women are nothing but sexual playthings. Jennifer Hills is portrayed as an independent woman, who strikes out from the Big City to live and work by herself. For this sin against domesticity she is rewarded with the most humiliating kind of violence’ (1980). Siskel’s film critic partner Roger Ebert dismissed it as ‘a vile bag of garbage … without a shred of artistic distinction … sick, reprehensible and contemptible … [and] an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human nature’; he walked out on the film ‘feeling unclean, ashamed and depressed’

(1980). Both he and Siskel slammed it on their television programme Sneak Previews, choosing it as their worst film of 1980, with Siskel ranking it as the most offensive film he had seen in his eleven years as a critic. In a decade when films like Water Power (1976) featured a sexually deranged rapist forcing women to undergo enemas, shown on screen in all its unpleasant glory, this was harsh criticism indeed.

Although director Meir Zarchi has always insisted that he made ISOYG with a pro-feminist aim, i.e. to highlight, as he 14

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
has put it, the true degrading horror of rape, the fact that it was marketed as exploitation, playing drive-ins, grindhouses and the midnight movie circuit, meant that any noble intent was quickly buried. After almost bankrupting himself attempting to distribute and market the film with little success under its original title of Day of the Woman, in 1980

Zarchi handed over the film to the Jerry Gross Organisation, an exploitation company, in a bid to give it a wider release.

Gross changed the title to ‘one that matched the notoriety of its unsavoury content … [and] the poster accompanying the movie’s release made Zarchi’s efforts resemble one of the countless exploitation features of the period; it would go on to acquire a similar notoriety’ (Normanton 2012: 266). One of the film’s lobby cards, of actress Camille Keaton naked on all fours, was equally problematic. After a decade in which women had been sexually abused, tortured and murdered on screen, Zarchi’s film – under its new moniker and titillating marketing campaign – appeared at a time when cinemagoers had become ‘far more sensitive (understandably so) to the issues of rape, misogyny, and violence against women’

(Schoell 1988: 46); this was evidenced in the picketing of films like Dressed to Kill (1980). Zarchi’s honourable objective was immaterial: ‘it is not the intention of the director that is the issue but how an audience may respond to what is represented and what is considered an appropriate reaction to the representation of sexual violence’ (Fidler 2009: 47).

For many, ISOYG simply revelled in what women had been experiencing in real life and on screen for years: that ‘where a woman excelled as a professional she had to be brought to heel’ (Haskell 1987: 30).

The repackaged ISOYG soon found itself at the mercy of the world’s censors. In America, the film received an X rating, further increasing its notoriety. As the MPAA had trademarked all of its ratings bar this one, producers of hard-core 15

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 2: ISOYG’s
infamous poster.

pornography liberally applied it to their films, so much so that it became synonymous with extreme adult entertainment.

Due to this association, television channels were not permitted to advertise X-rated movies, a large number of newspapers refused to promote them and most cinemas declined to book them. ISOYG’s association with pornography is unfortunate – there is no hard-core sex in the film, unlike the earlier rape-revenge movie Thriller – En Grym Film ( Thriller – A Cruel Picture, 1973) which featured close-ups of vaginal and anal penetration – but it was indicative of the widespread condemnation of ISOYG. Speaking at hearings in December 1983 to Minneapolis City Council on the effects of sexually violent imagery on male viewers, Dr Ed Donnerstein outlined research that had involved exposing hundreds of men to a six-week diet of ‘porn’ films, one of which was ISOYG. The result was ‘changes in attitudes towards women. They be-16

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
come more callous towards women. You find a trivialisation towards rape’ (cited in Everywoman 1988: 19). It was this association – with hard-core pornography, with slasher films and their wilfully misogynistic violence, with exploitation films that revelled in torturing and killing women and with the climate of anger on American streets around rape and sexual violence – that saw ISOYG labelled ‘among the most loathsome films of all time’ (Newman 2011: 80) and ‘utterly reprehensible … one of the most tasteless, irresponsible and disturbing movies ever made’ (Martin and Porter 1990: 704). It is ‘a reputation that has damaged and popularised it for the wrong reasons’ (Fidler 2009: 57).

One of the key ingredients to the success – or infamy – of Zarchi’s film was its release coinciding with the introduction of a completely new media format. With the first commercial Video Home System (VHS) recorder released on the market in 1977, most Hollywood studios were initially suspicious Figure 3: The controversial lobby card.

17

CULTOGRAPHIES
of the impact domestic videos might have on the cinema; consequently, they erred on the side of caution when it came to releasing their own films via this new medium. This meant that the video rental market became monopolised by small, independent companies which pushed out bargain-basement products, often produced outside the mainstream and generally featuring large amounts of sex and violence:

‘low-budget horror and exploitation films, many of which had very little chance of ever being seen again, found a new life on video’ (Rockoff 2002: 19). This was particularly true of ISOYG, which became one of the first films to acquire monetary success this way. Having performed poorly at the American box office, on video it reached number twenty-four in Billboard’s 1981 list of bestselling titles. It stayed in the Billboard Video Cassette Top Forty for fourteen consecutive weeks and won the number one best-selling video cassette award above such mainstream fare as Fiddler on the Roof (1971), The Godfather: Part II (1974) and Grease (1978); by 1982 it had been released on video six times in the US due to high demand (see Zarchi 2010b). Its success wasn’t solely down to horror fans: ‘thanks to the PBS Sneak Previews show, which labelled it inhuman and sexist, this revenge exploitation feature … gained a new audience of videocas-sette buyers’ (Weldon 1983: 354). The irony of the attention this brought the film has not been lost on Zarchi, who has referred to Ebert as one of ‘the best promoters ever for this movie’ (cited in Heller-Nicholas 2011: 35). Even today, the website for Zarchi’s sequel – ISOYG: Déjà Vu – contains a link to Ebert’s review.6 The original film’s video success in the US
wasn’t without its problems, however; a suit lodged by the MPAA in 1983 against Jerry Gross, the Jerry Gross Organisation, Wizard Video (the initial American video distributor) and Cinemagic Pictures ( ISOYG’s production company of which Zarchi was president) complained about the R rating paraded 18

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
on the video’s cover (the rating restricted admission to theatres for those under the age of seventeen). The suit alleged that seventeen minutes of footage removed from the film in 1978 so that it could obtain this rating had been restored when it was released on video.

ISOYG did not get a theatrical release in the UK; it was solely released on home video. This would prove to be a double-edged sword for the film’s success as it became the

‘poster girl’ for video nasties, helping to secure the title’s infamy in motion picture history. The video nasty affair effectively began in 1981 when the British Videogram Associa-tion7 and members of the public complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the grisly nature of certain cassette covers and posters: a ‘moral panic [was] soon to be whipped up by the National Viewers and Listeners Association, the tabloid press, teachers, churchmen and others’ (Petley 1984: 68).8 Questions were raised in parliament about the easy access of such films on video which, unlike those aimed at theatrical release, were at the time unregulated –
and therefore uncut. These video nasties, wrote the Daily Mail (30 June 1983), contained nothing but ‘rape, rape, rape

… [and were] soul-soilers that deaden decency and encourage depravity’ (cited in Barker 1984a: 28); their sole purpose was to depict sadism and featured victims enjoying their sexual assaults ( The Sun, cited in Barker 1984a: 37). This last assertion is a clear indicator that most journalists hadn’t watched ISOYG before passing judgement; ‘the claim that Spit shows the woman enjoying the rape is flatly dishonest; not for a moment does she express anything but protest, fear, and pain’ (Clover 1992: 118). (Such inaccuracy is a common occurrence in negative reviews of the film; despite the rape sequences spanning approximately twenty-five minutes, Ebert claimed to have ‘been appalled by the movie’s hour of rape scenes’ [1980]; Kim Newman asserts that they 19

CULTOGRAPHIES
last for ‘an unbearable, demeaning forty-five minutes’ [2011: 80] while Mark Dinning [2000] reports that every rapist in the film is castrated – only one is.) Based on its subject matter, it is hardly surprising that the film featured heavily in the media campaign against video nasties between 1982 and 1984; its rape sequence was more than likely the inspiration for the Daily Mail editorial entitled ‘Rape of Our Children’s Minds’.

Although such films were unavailable from major stores, they were ‘easily obtainable from some 8,500 of Britain’s 14,000 indie dealers’ ( Variety 1982) and with video nasties quickly overtaking pornography and blockbuster movies in terms of popularity, something had to be done.

In 1982 the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir James Hetherington was sent copies of ISOYG, Lager SSadis Kastrat Kommandantur ( SS Experiment Love Camp, 1976) and The Driller Killer (1979) by the Obscene Publications Squad for suggested prosecution. The DPP opted to prosecute all three films along with Death Trap (1976) (originally titled Eaten Alive) and Cannibal Holocaust (1980) under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This allowed for forfeiture and destruction of such films and gave distributors the unambiguous warning that video cassettes could now be categorised as obscene material – and that dealing in such films could lead to a prison sentence. For Astra Video, ISOYG’s UK distributor, it meant that the master copy and all video covers, posters and promotional material had to be destroyed as the film could no longer be circulated; in May 1982 police removed 234 copies of the film from the distributor’s offices and destroyed them. On 22 February 1983
video library owner Stephen Taylor became the first person in the UK to be fined (£600) for hiring out video nasties after police raided his shop in Leeds, West Yorkshire, and removed sixty-one tapes, including ISOYG; it was the first time that a horror film had been dealt with under Section 2 of the Act.9

20

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

To avoid such Draconian measures and reacting to requests from video sellers for a list of films likely to be seized, in 1982
the DPP published a list of seventy-four films that had seen charges made against them. Although the list was modified on a monthly basis, ISOYG remained on it until the Video Recordings Act of 1984. This Act, which gave statutory power to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to examine and classify all films, effectively made the list obsolete; ISOYG, however, would remain ‘banned’/unclassified in the UK until 2002, when the BBFC permitted a heavily edited version to be re-issued on video (they insisted on seven minutes being removed).

If ISOYG was already ‘the most infamous of the “video nasties”’ (Andrews 1984: 45), then worse was to come in terms of public condemnation. Critics had long argued that such films were indicative of a decline in Western morals; consequently, Zarchi’s film and its ilk fed conveniently into the hands of the press, a radical Conservative government facing re-election and vociferous social campaigners such as Mary Whitehouse. The influx of films deemed to be pornographic or featuring violence against women in this period led to many scenes in the north of England where women went on city marches, attacked cinemas for showing films like Dressed To Kill and He Knows You’re Alone (1980), de-faced posters and, on some occasions, assaulted men. Such behaviour was an angry response to the terror created by the

‘Yorkshire Ripper’; by 1978, the year ISOYG first materialised, Peter Sutcliffe had murdered nine women.10 Such films, argued their detractors, clearly intended to make women feel frightened and vulnerable.

Campaigners against video nasties had long insisted that there was a direct link between screen violence and real violence and that such videos were therefore corrosive, particularly on the minds of the young or vulnerable. James 21

CULTOGRAPHIES

Ferman, then Secretary of the BBFC, had gone on record stating that he was ‘very worried about exploitative rape scenes because people can watch them over and over again

… [they] feed the fantasy of rather disturbed people’ (cited in Video Nasties: Draconian Days, directed by Jake West, 2014). Advocates of this argument finally got their ‘proof’ on 27 June 1983 when 18-year-old Martin Austin was was sentenced to six years’ youth custody after being found guilty at the Old Bailey, London, of raping two women (alongside seven charges of burglary). Austin, it was claimed in court, committed the rapes after watching video nasties; he was described as ‘emotionally immature with a low IQ … a ha-bitual glue-sniffer who lived in a fantasy world ruled by a daily diet of films like I Spit on Your Grave’ (Kerekes and Slater 2000: 37). In September 1983 Zarchi flew to the UK to appear on Tyne Tees Television’s Friday Live programme to face critics of his film; on the show, Austin’s mother – who had also written to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pleading for such films to be banned – told him: ‘I believe that videos like yours corrupted him and changed his behaviour. He became addicted to them and they gave him urges that were never there before’ (Joan Austin, cited in Miles 2010). Heavily condemned by the media on both sides of the Atlantic and held up by politicians and campaigners as the worst kind of filth imaginable, Zarchi’s film was now being mentioned in the same breath as serial killers and rapists. Watching the film became a form of shorthand for possessing unsavoury personality traits; in Paul Theroux’s novel Half Moon Street, a character enjoys renting films featuring pornography, karate and Nazi prison camps: ‘his favourite was one called I Spit on Your Grave: rape and murder’ (1986: 42).

Outside of the US and the UK there is a fair amount of confusion regarding which countries ISOYG was or wasn’t banned in, depending on which versions of it were released, 22

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
when, and in what format. Some countries simply banned the film outright – for instance Iceland, Ireland, Norway and West Germany. Canada, despite initially boycotting it, did permit individual provinces to make up their own minds as to whether to release it, which some in fact did from 1998 onwards. In Australia, the censored American version received an R rating 18+ in 1982 and was released theatrically. Like the UK, Australia was in the grip of its own video nasties furore and in September 1986 the New South Wales government banned X-rated videos, effectively associating them with snuff movies and child pornography. Following reclassification in 1997, ISOYG lost its R rating 18+ and was pretty much banned; it wouldn’t be until 2004 when a full uncut version was released. In New Zealand the Women Against Pornography group tried in 1984 to force the resignation of Chief Censor Arthur Everard after he cleared the film for theatrical release. Two years later retailers started a petition for the right to choose to view videos at home following the police seizure of video cassettes from shops; 1986 also saw a man convicted of importing a video version of ISOYG. In the audio commentary to the 101 Films 2010 re-issue of the film, Zarchi states that a New Zealand teacher was dismissed for discussing the movie with his pupils (2010b); a similar incident occurred in June 1998 when a teacher in Leon County, Florida, was forced to resign after showing the film in his social studies class. Interestingly in 2011 the remake of ISOYG was also banned by the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification ahead of its DVD release; they objected to its torture porn tendencies. In 2013 the New Zealand Film and Video Labelling Body fined online retailer Fishpond $4,200 for selling the remake alongside American horror movie Megan is Missing (2011). In 1987 the Tasmanian Attorney General appealed, via the Commonwealth Attorney General, against the R classification given to Zarchi’s 23

CULTOGRAPHIES
film by the Film Censorship Board. In Tasmania’s view, the film should have been banned completely; the appeal was dismissed. And Ireland’s distaste for the film hasn’t abated in forty years; in 2010 the Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO) banned the DVD re-release of the 101 Films ‘Ultimate Edition’ meaning that if Irish fans wanted to see it they had to import the UK version from online retailers. Zarchi was mystified – but pleased, as ever, for the publicity: ‘with the level of graphic violence and horror available these days, it’s surprising that IFCO sees this 1978 film [as] more offensive than some of the most daring and empty of content torture porn available today … thank you IFCO for promoting the film in Ireland’ (cited in Wells 2010).

Despite or possibly because of the controversy there were a number of countries that veered away from the exploitation route entirely when marketing ISOYG. In Peru, Mexico, Finland and the Soviet Union the film played as Day of the Woman ( El Día De La Mujer, Naisen Päivä and ǙșȡȰ

ȚșȡȭȜȡȯ). Brazil and Canada were closer to Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hills (another title Zarchi’s film played under in the US) with A Vingança De Jennifer and La Vengeance De Jennifer – effectively The Revenge of Jennifer, with Italy also urging Non Violentate Jennifer – Don’t Rape Jennifer. The vengeance aspect was played up in a number of territories’

titles, particularly France ( Oeil Pour Oeil – An Eye for an Eye), Finland ( Koston Enkeli – Avenging Angel) and West Germany, where it was released on video as Blood Angel. In Ecuador the film was bizarrely titled Suspiria 2: Killer Sharks, possibly in an imaginative attempt to cash in on the success of both Dario Argento’s Suspiria (1977) and Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975). This was a typical exploitation technique of the 1970s and 1980s where movies in different countries were often renamed (usually as sequels) to cash in on the brand and financial success of popular American products with which 24

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
they had no connection.

As happened with a lot of low-budget sex and violence films released in the 1970s and early 1980s, condemnation actually made them, initially, commercially successful. In an article on ISOYG in 1983, Daily Variety pointed out that ‘in a typical boomerang effect, the film’s current press kit turns Chicago’s Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel’s soapbox attacks on the film into selling points’ (Lor 1983). Or, as Zarchi put it more succinctly: ‘the more the film was attacked, the more money shot into my pocket’ (cited in Fleming 2008). None of this was lost on the producers and distributors of such films who used it to their advantage: ‘there was a distinct unfa-miliarity [among the media and politicians] with the aggressive marketing techniques of new distribution companies’

(Mathijs and Sexton 2011: 47), as evidenced in the highly provocative and challenging posters for The Last House on Figure 4: The Last House
on the Left’s poster of
a dead teenage girl.

25

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 5: Maniac’s poster which many newspapers
refused to print due the
severed woman’s head
over a man’s groin.

the Left, Maniac (1980) and ISOYG. With the advent of video,

‘any geek with a video camera began to make movies featuring inane scripts, horribly bad acting, gratuitous T&A11 …

[where] women were chainsawed, dismembered, terrorised, brutally raped, butchered and mangled’ (Svehla, 1996: 264).

To ensure that their products stood out in an already over-populated market, many promotional campaigns sold such fodder by courting controversy. ISOYG was no exception;

‘central to the effect of the movie were the very salacious marketing campaigns that Astra Video effectively imported: a very bloodied, partially clad woman seeking revenge’ (Mendik, cited in Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide, directed by Jake West, 2010). ISOYG’s poster may have been pure exploitation, but it also helped cement the film’s notoriety:

‘for many, the “narrative image” of I Spit 1978 is the scantily clad, blood-soaked female avenger made iconic through 26

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 5: The poster for

ISOYG 2010.

the poster (which is replicated on the I Spit on Your Grave 2010 poster, but appears in neither film). This can be considered rape-revenge’s presold concept, or the reduction of the genre down to a saleable image’ (Henry 2014: 28).

As evidenced in the early days of video nasties, the ‘moral panic [ironically] served to increase enormously the sales and rentals … by bringing their existence to wide public attention and arousing curiosity in the uninitiated’ (Petley 1984: 68). As Mark Jancovich has recognised, regulation created a whole new subculture; ‘as banned objects, these videos became celebrated by fans for whom their illicit status made them desirable’ (2002: 6), in effect creating

‘cults’ of such productions. There are numerous definitions for what constitutes a cult film, but perhaps the most easily accessible is Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton’s: ‘obscure, marginal … their perceived status as “bad” … made for 27

CULTOGRAPHIES
much less money than traditional cinema … [and with] a worrisome reputation when it comes to gender equality’

(2008: 5, 18, 27, 108). Welch Everman’s suggestion that a

‘ cult horror film has come to mean “bad horror film” … [in that] they have minimal budgets, they are poorly written and directed, and production values are near zero, and the acting is appalling’ (2008: 212–13; emphasis in original) is hard to dispute when one considers certain aspects of Zarchi’s film. He had never directed before, he wasn’t working with the strongest of actors and the finished production does look exceedingly amateurish in places. He has openly acknowledged the problems he experienced on set due to budget constraints; these ranged from sound equipment failing so that audio didn’t match with the actors on screen, to generators packing up meaning lamps with long extension cords had to be dragged from the nearest house to light scenes (2010b). For many fans, however, ‘these weaknesses can be excused because the film serves as a key example of what is missing from much contemporary horror: namely, heart, soul, grittiness and rawness’ (Egan 2011: 41).12 While calling ISOYG a ‘cult film’ can be problematic when comedy musicals such as The Blues Brothers (1980) and The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) are also deemed as such, it can be argued that this simply illustrates just how wide and uneven the definition is. However, if ‘cult films often seem to represent topics deemed unusual or inappropriate …

upset[ting] cultural sensitivities, causing condemnation or even persecution’ (Mathijs and Mendik 2008: 8), then ISOYG
certainly deserves the accolade.

ISOYG has been fortunate – just as it was in the 1970s and 1980s with the introduction of video – to have found a resurgence in popularity due to another new media format: Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), in particular the notion of ‘cult’

DVDs. With DVDs overtaking video cassettes in the early 28

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

2000s as the main choice for home entertainment, the extra digital space has opened up a world of additional features –
trailers, interviews, documentaries, etc. – making them ‘a medium associated with knowledge acquisition, regardless of its genre’ (Harper 2005: 97). Certain companies – Arrow Video, Shameless, Criterion – have focused (some or all of) their DVD distribution output on low-budget exploitation pictures. This has meant that titles which were once ‘cultural detritus … [not] seen as worthy of preservation’ (Jones 2015) are now marketed with an emphasis on the material surrounding the film, aimed specifically as collectors’ items.

This has clearly benefited ISOYG’s longevity. Exploiting its previous notoriety, it was re-issued in 2005 by Anchor Bay in its ‘Box of the Banned’, a DVD collection of video nasties alongside The Evil Dead, Zombie Flesh Eaters (the more commonly recognised name for Lucio Fulci’s Zombi 2 [1979]), The Driller Killer, The Last House on the Left and Nightmares in a Damaged Brain (1981). Ironically this compilation received criticism from fans for containing censored versions of ISOYG and The Last House on the Left. Zarchi’s film was Figure 7: The 101 Films ‘Ultimate Edition’ of ISOYG .

29

CULTOGRAPHIES
also released individually – on DVD and Blu-ray – with an abundance of extra-textual features by 101 Films in 2010. This

‘Ultimate Edition’, promoted as featuring new uncut material previously unseen in the UK, included a 24-page booklet, an exclusive interview with Zarchi, audio commentaries by the director and film critic Joe Bob Briggs, reviews, articles and essays. Zarchi’s DVD commentary is regarded as ‘the central avenue of retrospection for I Spit on Your Grave … the central arena for debate on the disc … a text in its own right’ (Fidler 2009: 44, 40). Although the release of a film in a DVD special edition format seems to signify the retrospective importance of that film, it is debatable as to whether the ‘canonisation’

of ISOYG has really vindicated Zarchi’s reasons for making it. Zarchi has to date only directed one further film – Don’t Mess with My Sister! (1985) (retitled Family and Honour in the UK), followed by a producer role on his son Terry’s film Holy Hollywood (1999) and a self-published novel in 2013 entitled Death Wish Soozan about a dirt bike racer. ISOYG’s actors Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleemann, as well as most of the supporting cast, didn’t appear in anything after; in this respect, the film could be described as ‘the ultimate resume killer’ (Crowdus and Bloom 2003: 33).

30

2

‘ONLY WOMEN BLEED’: FILTH OR FEMINIST?13

This thing with you is a thing that any man would have done. You coax a man into doing it, a man gets the message fast. Whether a man is married or not, he’s still a man. Hey, first thing, you come into the gas station and you expose your damn sexy legs to me, walking back and forth real slow, making sure I see them good. And then Matthew delivers the food to your door. He sees half your tits peeking out at him, tits with no bra. And then you’re lying in your canoe, in your bikini, like bait.

– Johnny (Eron Tabor) in ISOYG

Although ISOYG was released in 1978, Jennifer Hills first staggered into Meir Zarchi’s life in 1974 when he discovered a naked woman in Goose Pond Park, Jamaica Hills, New York. At the local police station he was horrified at the treatment she received there, the interviewing officer viewing her as ‘another piece of damaged goods that he had to cata-logue in his inventory … As he was pounding and pounding her with these questions I felt that the raping of this girl had not stopped. It had just transferred from that park into 31

CULTOGRAPHIES
this police station and was continuing right before my eyes’

(Zarchi 2010b). If this is true, then it may go some way to explaining why Zarchi films his rape sequence as brutally as he does. With Zarchi believing it ‘necessary to show the rape explicitly, in order to make clear its brutality’ (Barker 1984b: 116), ISOYG addresses a problem that many rape-revenge films simply fail to grasp, or choose not to; i.e. ‘the very

“unrepresentability” of the reality and trauma of rape itself

– the inability to capture the magnitude of human suffering that results from sexual violence’ (Heller-Nicholas 2011: 8).

Unlike Straw Dogs, there is no suggestion that the victim enjoys her ordeal. Filmed entirely from Jennifer’s perspective, the viewer has to endure the ugly grunting faces of her attackers as the assaults play out in real time. When one of the rapist’s harmonica playing restarts, ‘we are back for a few moments into the conventions of mood, emotions, and artistic intensification of feeling … and then it destroys the illusion, smashes the conventions. This is for real, it seems to say. You can’t hide the reality of rape behind a mask of filmic devices’ (Barker 1984b: 115). To bolster this, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is Zarchi’s use of sound.

Rejecting the inclusion of non-diegetic music, Jennifer’s screaming throughout the lengthy rape sequence height-ens its intensity. Likewise, in the scene in which Jennifer castrates Johnny, ‘we have an elongated series of cries and screams as he slowly dies. So distressing, that she has to go downstairs and put on music to smother his death cries

… It’s one of the few moments where you have a score in the film … [and] the director’s clearly trying to get as realistic an image of violence and its consequences as possible’

(Mendik, cited in Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide 2010).

Having us identify with Jennifer while she is raped is crucial to Zarchi’s pro-feminist agenda. While Keaton is an attractive woman – and having a beautiful victim seems to be 32

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
a staple of rape-revenge films – it is difficult to interpret the film as salacious; as Joe Bob Briggs points out, ‘if you wanted to make this erotic … [you wouldn’t] make her so dirty and bloody … you would show her body and not this ugly guy’s buttocks’ (2004). Zarchi initially distances the viewer from the attacks by using master shots to show the four men pinning her down while she is hidden in the grass. Subverting the usual cinematic technique of close-ups of the terrified victim staring up at the camera (making the viewer complicit in the attack), Zarchi instead includes close-ups of the rapists, forcing the viewer into Jennifer’s shoes, i.e. that of the victim.

After each rape Jennifer’s naked, bruised and bloodied body attempts to crawl away until she is recaptured and subjected to more torture. Like the real rape victim that stumbled into Zarchi’s life in 1974, Keaton here can barely walk.

It can also be argued that the film unambiguously repudi-ates many common myths surrounding male sexual violence:

‘these include the idea that women can enjoy rape, that “no”

sometimes means “yes”, that some women invite assault by their provocative behaviour or clothes, that men are subject to sudden, uncontrollable sexual urges, and that rapes are normally committed by strangers’ (Oldridge 2003: 22). To put the film in context, at a conference on the links between pornography and sexual violence held in Minneapolis in December 1983, the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale touched upon

‘many of the common types of myths which individuals hold about rape … [these included] any woman who hitchhikes deserves to get raped, [and] women unconsciously set up situations which force rape on them’ (Everywoman 1988: 15). In the film, Jennifer is able to use the rapists’ warped belief that she was ‘asking for it’ and that she enjoyed her degradation to enact her revenge. As she masturbates Johnny in a relaxing bath, he sighs “God bless your hands … that’s so sweet, it’s painful”, not realising that she’s castrated him.

33

CULTOGRAPHIES

Darren Oldridge argues that the film rejects the notion that women bring such attacks on themselves by what they wear by stating that ‘Jennifer clearly wears a bikini for comfort, not to display herself to men’ (2003: 122). (That may be one interpretation, but the depiction of her in such attire – an image repeated in the 2010 remake – does bring with it erotic con-notations and adds nothing to the character’s motivation.) Other rape myths that the film rejects include the belief that such attacks are motivated by men’s uncontrollable sexual urges (all the attacks on Jennifer are premeditated) and that rapes are usually committed by strangers (Jennifer knows her attackers). The detachment she exhibits in despatching her attackers can also be argued as realistic; ‘despite eventual “renormalisation”, no woman ever fully recovers from being raped. Even when a woman is able to emotionally detach herself from the occurrence’ (Janisse 2012: 50). Jennifer may successfully execute her vengeance but ‘there are no winners in this film, by the time the credits [have] rolled, we feel that Jennifer has lost a fair chunk of humanity; robbed by her attackers’ (CJ34 2008). The rapists, with their deroga-tory comments such as ‘Sunset Strip is just swamped with broads looking to get laid’ and ‘all women are full of shit’, actually ‘believe that abused women should be thrown away and forgotten: the filmmaker quite definitely does not … If anything, it is the men who are actually being warned to get back in line’ (Starr 1984: 52; emphasis in original). Zarchi offers the offenders no excuses for their actions; our sympathy throughout lies with Jennifer. Although they attack her both physically and mentally, Jennifer’s revenge ‘exposes the men for what they are: woman-hating, power-drunk, but in the end puny little creatures. That is why the film was originally entitled Day of the Woman’ (Barker 1984a: 37), reinforced by the fact that it also appeared, briefly, under the alternative title of The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hills.

34

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

An interesting technique Zarchi uses to strengthen identification with Jennifer is through her brief use of voiceover.

As Xavier Mendik explains, ‘the movie came out during the seventies when feminist groups were asking women to discover their own female voice or female language and this female voice or language is coded in the movie through Jennifer’s writing’ (cited in Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide 2010). Jennifer arrives at her riverside retreat to focus on writing a novel having previously had stories published in women’s magazines. We hear her thoughts as she writes and when ‘Jennifer points to her forehead and explains to an enquirer that her travelling companion, Mary Selby, is “right here” in her own mind (Mary being the main character of the aspiring novelist’s book) … [this] finger-on-forehead gesture is admirable proof that Jennifer has a mind of her own, that she can think’ (Starr 1984: 50–1; emphasis in original). Her internal narration stops when the rednecks intentionally disturb her solitude with the noise from their motorboat. When she is assaulted, her attackers parody what she has written, laughing as they rip up the pages. Mendik argues that ‘if there’s a recovery for Jennifer it occurs through her writing –
we see her piece together the manuscript and begin writing again and this gives her the trigger to go out and fulfil her revenge’ (cited in Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide 2010).

While this may seem a little simplistic (surely the catalyst for revenge is not the act of reassembling her book but the degrading rape they subjected her to and the knowledge she has that they believe she is dead?), new research by Naomi Wolf indicates that when a woman’s sexuality is threatened

– verbally or physically – her creativity does suffer. Authors Linda Grant and Natasha Walter have both acknowledged that, upon receiving sexually violent comments online, they now write less frequently (see Wolf 2013: 267). If, as Julia Kristeva acknowledges, ‘writing, which allows one to recov-35

CULTOGRAPHIES
er, is equal to a resurrection’ (1982: 26), then perhaps Zarchi was indeed on to something here, and the destruction of Hills’ manuscript is yet another violation of the successful modern women that these men find so threatening.

At this point, it is worth evaluating the role that Keaton played as an actress in bringing to life what is undoubtedly

‘one of the most demanding and challenging roles that any movie actress has ever encountered’ (Zarchi 2010b). Prior to ISOYG she had starred in a few European films, the most famous being Cosa Avete Fatto a Solange? ( What Have You Done to Solange? , 1972) and had recently moved back to the US after living in Italy. During the casting, Zarchi did not reveal the full content of his story to her; only when he was convinced that he had found the right Jennifer did he hand over a copy of the screenplay – and she phoned him the following day to commit. (It could be argued that another reason Zarchi kept the script hidden is the strong likelihood of scaring away most actresses.) So what was it about Keaton that was so right for this role – after all, she won the best actress award for her performance at the 1978 Sitges-Catalan International Film Festival? According to the director,

‘her slim delicate figure and her soft ethereal beauty gave the impression of a vulnerable woman, a woman you could not suspect possesses such inner strength and depth … let alone executing her own special hell for each and every one of her tormentors’ (2010b). Those unconvinced by the film’s feminist leanings may question why a director claiming to want to show the brutality and reality of rape felt he could only do so by casting a young woman with a ‘slim delicate figure’ and ‘ethereal beauty’. The stipulation by (usually male) directors that victims in rape-revenge films be young and attractive skewers the reality of rape – that anyone, regardless of age or ‘looks’, can be a victim. When Albert DeSalvo, murderer of thirteen women in Boston between 1962 and 1964, 36

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
was quizzed as to why he’d progressed to sexually assaulting and killing septuagenarians, his response was simply: ‘she was a woman’ (cited in Brownmiller 1977: 204).

Despite acknowledging an unheard-of level of female empowerment in its representation of its heroine, the pro-feminist stance taken by its supporters – that it ‘wants us to hate the nature of the act of rape and what it calls forth’

(Barker 1984b: 105) – has made the film for many ‘a problematic case for feminism’ (Clover 1992: 228). This has further contributed to its controversial legacy, the main argument being that just because a film depicts rape graphically does not automatically make it a feminist text. As critic Luke Y.

Thompson states, the fact that ‘defenders of the film have argued that it’s actually pro-woman, due to the fact that the female lead wins in the end … is sort of like saying that cockfights are pro-rooster because there’s always one left standing’ (2003). Andrew Rockoff posits that ‘after the backlash against the film, some critics, apparently not knowing what to make of it, chose to intellectualise the film as some feminist experiment’ (2002: 64–5). It is easy to understand why many struggle with ISOYG’s almost perverse split between exploitation cinema and documentary realism.

The amount of screen time Zarchi devotes to the degradation of his protagonist is what has divided most critics and is what still makes the sequence difficult to watch today, despite our sensibilities having been eroded by the likes of contemporary horror films and torture porn. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that Jennifer escapes three times only to be recaptured and raped, ‘lulling both the character and the viewer into a false sense of release and optimism’

(Mendik, cited in Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide 2010).

Not content with having her raped just once, Zarchi ensures she is assaulted by four different men, with the ‘cinematic teasing’ of relief that Mendik refers to serving to heap even 37

CULTOGRAPHIES
further cruelty on to Jennifer’s ordeal. If the film is indeed ‘a severe indictment of rape and the objectification of women

… [then] what is the point of spending so much time linger-ing on the graphic details of the assault?’ (Rockoff 2002: 64).

(This may be one of the reasons why Rockoff co-wrote the 2010 remake – to address some of the elements he found so troubling about the original.) Zarchi may insist that he made the film after finding a real rape victim and witnessing the subsequent poor treatment she received at the hands of the police, but it is difficult to comprehend how this factors into the protracted multiple degradations he subjects Jennifer to or her sexualised revenge. If Zarchi was so indignant about how police handled rape victims – a common complaint during the 1970s – then why not show this in his film, as 1974’s Act of Vengeance did?

It is also debatable whether Zarchi’s film would have reached its level of notoriety if it hadn’t gone down the exploitation route. The film was a staple of drive-ins and grindhouses for years ‘because it is one of the all-time great titles’

(Crowdus and Bloom 2003: 34); it is doubtful whether Day of the Woman would have had such a long shelf life. Although Zarchi has gone on record stating how much he detests the title ISOYG (see Gallagher 2016) the film was also shown under the equally exploitative moniker of I Hate Your Guts before he handed the film over to Jerry Gross. It can also be argued that Day of the Woman is just as sensationalist a title and Zarchi’s original poster featured a topless Keaton, her breasts barely covered by her hair, looking directly at the viewer, alongside the text ‘After it was all over … She waited

… Then she struck back in a way only a woman can!’ (emphasis in original). Zarchi’s own marketing of the film was far from innocent; the original trailer stated that ‘for the first time in motion picture history a movie deals with the eternal subject – the battle of the sexes – with such frankness and 38

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
shattering reality that men will never be the same again. For this is the Day of the Woman … the ultimate day of terror’

(the same words were repeated in a radio advert over Hills and her attackers screaming). A television promo similarly proclaimed that ‘the day has come, the ultimate day of terror … A mature subject for mature audiences only’. There is, however, a marked contrast in tone between the trailers for Day of the Woman and those released by the Jerry Gross Organisation. While Zarchi’s attempts have the air of ‘educa-tional’ films from cinema’s golden age of exploitation – for instance, 1936’s Tell Your Children aka Reefer Madness about the ‘dangers’ of marijuana and 1945’s Mom and Dad (sex education and teenage pregnancy), films whose ‘Adults Only’

posters were designed to titillate prospective viewers – the trailers for ISOYG turn up the exploitation dial with increased emphasis on the film’s sex and violence. A male voiceover repeats the film’s title while Jennifer seduces – and kills –
each of her attackers. The film’s tagline – famously repeated on the repackaged poster – provocatively announces that

‘this woman has just cut, chopped, broken and burned five men beyond recognition, but no jury in America would convict her!’; this is despite Jennifer despatching only four, none of whom are burned. Flames are shown flickering under Jennifer’s face – implying the burning of said victims – but in the film this shot relates to her destroying her clothes post-rape.

Another trailer falsely states that ‘what you are about to see did happen’.

In light of Zarchi’s comments regarding his ‘noble’ intentions for making the film, and it being his first stab as a director, it is tempting to forgive the lubricious aspects of ISOYG

(and his initial promotion of it) and put its exploitative tendencies down to naivety; and yet Zarchi was no stranger to film controversy. In 1960 he co-wrote the screenplay for a drama entitled Rachel. The story of a young prostitute and her strug-39

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 8: The exploitative
poster for Day of the

Woman.

gles caused such uproar in Israel that the censorship board attempted to ban it, the Knesset denied it state funds and its director ended up bankrupt and fleeing the country. While it purported to be a ‘crime melodrama with a social message that sought to make the public aware of the existence of a deprived underclass in Israel’s cities’ (Anderman 2010), the film was condemned for its erotic content. ISOYG, therefore, was not the first time that Zarchi had been embroiled with critics, politicians and censors regarding a film he had written which straddled the line of sex and serious intent.

Any discussion of ISOYG would be remiss without exploring the ways in which feminist film theory has interacted with it over the years. With films featuring rape – and revenge – growing exponentially during the same period as the emergence of second-wave feminism in the 1970s, feminist film theorists tended to interpret classical Hollywood cinema 40

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
as an extension of patriarchal society further subjugating women. The cinema of the 1970s and early 1980s saw an explosion in films featuring graphic violence towards women

– ISOYG being no exception – but what is fascinating is how this one film has been both dismissed by feminists for its depiction of brutality and claimed by feminists because of its exemplification of the structure of what would come to be termed the rape-revenge genre. The fact that it was originally entitled Day of the Woman only increases the value of such a study into the film’s reception. Comparing the film with how it was received in 1978 to more recent interpretations provides a vital historical overview in tracking the changes in feminist theory over four decades, particularly as it has been so influential in the film’s analysis and because ‘there is little doubt that rape is central to the feminist attempt to trace the origins of women’s oppression’ (Horeck 2004: 17) In the 1970s, feminist film theory and psychoanalysis effectively conjoined, creating an authoritative ideological critique which paid particular attention to how women were represented on screen, the cinematic apparatus used to capture this and the role of the viewer. Molly Haskell’s From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in Movies (1974) had investigated the historical context within which women and their common celluloid stereotypes co-existed, especially in relation to whether they were portrayed as active or passive, but it was the publication of Laura Mulvey’s ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in 1975 which became the seminal text, arguing that images of beautiful women on screen were constructed to sate male viewers’ voyeuristic desires. As celluloid female characters were substitutes for an imaginary phallus (drawing heavily on the works of Christian Metz and Jacques Lacan), Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’ theory argued that the first-person perspective of the cinematic camera belonged to men, with the audience forced to adopt 41

CULTOGRAPHIES
the viewpoint of the film’s male characters. Such positioning of the camera served to objectify the female subject on screen; consequently, female viewers could only watch from a male perspective. Linda Williams took this further in 1984
with ‘When the Woman Looks’ by arguing that while men were the intended likely audience for horror films, women could possess ‘the gaze’ as the female character was frequently the first to see and know about the monster. However, because she stood outside the patriarchal order, she –
like the creature – had to be punished to restore a masculine narrative.

Mulvey’s argument has received a number of criticisms over the years for oversimplifying the role of the audience, filmmaker and camera; in fact it is the perception that the

‘male gaze’ is reversed in ISOYG – with the rape sequence shot entirely from Jennifer’s perspective – that has under-written feminist claims to it. Zarchi’s choreography means that the viewer – male and female – has to watch the action unfold through Jennifer’s eyes. The effect is deliberately unsettling and instead of this reversal objectifying the males on screen, we are instead faced with the ugly reality of who they are and what they are doing to her. By adopting the woman’s own viewpoint as she is violated, the film clearly marks Jennifer as a victim who merits our sympathy and compassion; in doing so, Zarchi destroys the argument that the cinematic look is intrinsically male. Similarly, in direct contrast to Williams, Jennifer – like countless other female protagonists of the rape-revenge genre (and even the slasher genre) – is not punished at the film’s end. In assessing the film’s gender ideology, Jennifer is quite clearly the character who moves the narrative along. The male-centred and male-driven form of classical cinema is nowhere to be seen in ISOYG; even the argument that horror films traditionally present naked women for the gratification of male characters (and by extension 42

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
male viewers) is complicated by the scene in which Johnny is forced to strip naked under the threat of violence.

While 1970s feminists denigrated the rape-revenge genre as nothing more than misogynistic sleaze aimed at tanta-lising male audiences, ‘feminists and film critics alike now grudgingly recognise that the films are doing more complicated cultural work’ (Oler 2009: 31). Carol Clover in her book Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (1992) praises ISOYG for attempting to problematise the topic of male instigated sexual violence. Clover argues that Ebert’s decision not to watch the entire film was flawed; a male colleague of hers ‘found it such a devastating commentary on male rape fantasies and also on the way male group dynamics engender violence that he thought it should be compulsory viewing for high school boys’ (1992: 115–16).

While Clover doesn’t believe that Zarchi’s film possesses artistic merit or offers original insights into sexual assault, she admits that there are many, herself included, who ‘do not find its values more “shockingly misplaced” than those of a great deal of critically acceptable film and video fare’ (1992: 116). The film has been punished, she believes, because of its ‘perverse simplicity, the way it closes all the intellectual doors and windows and leaves us staring at the lex talionis unadorned … it reminds us that lots and lots of the movies and television dramas that we prefer to think of in higher terms are in fact funded by impulses we would rather deny’

(1992: 151). The fact that the film disposes of its male characters, ‘a disappearance that leaves us alone in the company of a first victimised and then heroic woman, is a remarkable cultural admission’ (1992: 229).

Like Clover, Jacinda Read argues that the rape-revenge genre explores important questions about gender and power and that such films can be interpreted as attempting to make sense of feminism. In The New Avengers: Feminism, Femi-43

CULTOGRAPHIES
ninity and the Rape-Revenge Cycle (2000) Read states that the genre does this by exposing the tensions between the victim (‘feminine’) and the avenger (‘feminist’). Unlike Clover, Read does not view rape-revenge as a sub-genre of horror but as a narrative structure in its own right (as evidenced by its prevalence across a number of genres) which, on meeting second-wave feminism in the 1970s, produced a historically significant series of films. Clover’s positioning of rape-revenge as a sub-genre enabled her to strengthen her argument of cross-gender identification in horror; Read, however, struggles with the notion that the rape victim becomes masculinised when she adopts violence to enact her revenge.

Instead she suggests that feminists are drawn to film noir and erotic thrillers because ‘they represent a fantasy of being conventionally feminine but strong. Rape-revenge, on the other hand, thanks largely to the widespread success and circulation of Clover’s work, keeps the rather less appealing prospect of a masculinised female victim-hero constructed for the pleasure of the male spectator’ (2000: 49). Read does make the valid point that Jennifer, especially as presented in the film’s poster, is clearly eroticised rather than masculinised. However, although Jennifer resorts to violence (coded as masculine according to Clover), she uses her femininity to disarm her attackers. She is the only character left at the end and, as she charges off into the sunset in her motorboat, a smirk across her face, she is the very epitome of a strong female character who has relied on her wits – and feminine charms – to beat her oppressors: the very things that Read says she is drawn to and yet does not recognise in the film.

What Clover and Read do both agree on, however, is the acknowledgment that rape-revenge has now made its way into the mainstream, with films such as The Accused, Thelma & Louise, Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Eye for an Eye (1996). Subsequently Alexandra Heller-Nicholas and Claire 44

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Henry have both raised issues with Read’s assessment, arguing that labelling such films as ‘historically significant’

doesn’t appreciate just how broad and diverse the genre is, particularly as there has been a resurgence in rape-revenge films since Read’s volume was published.

The psychoanalytic leanings of second-wave feminist film theory do not take into consideration a plethora of other aspects which influence an audience’s interpretation of a film

– for instance differences of age, race, sexual orientation, class, etc. As Cynthia Freeland points out, it is always possible that ‘a film may not have much to say that is particularly exciting or illuminating on the subject of gender … [Also] a feminist reading need not be a “complete” reading of the movie’ (1996: 755). The theories of Mulvey, Williams, Clover, etc, are very much bound to the culture and era in which they were written, particularly in relation to the rise of second-wave feminism and then post-feminism in the 1980s.

A feminist theorist following Donna Haraway, for instance, may question how a film depicts its female characters in relation to modern technology – this would be particularly pertinent in relation to ISOYG 2010 and its use of video cameras. Although the seminal feminist film texts of the 1970s and 1980s do explore such disparate elements as story, editing, characters and viewer perspective, they often fail to acknowledge that all texts ‘function within a context, and the context is constantly changing’ (Freeland 1996: 762). As she acknowledges in her analysis of Repulsion, Freeland’s reading of the film would probably not even have been possible or appropriate in 1965 when it was released, particularly due to greater social awareness by 1995 of child sexual abuse.

This is equally true of the change in feminist interpretations of ISOYG. Julie Bindel, who once picketed outside cinemas in Leeds when such films were first shown, penned an article in the Guardian in 2010 entitled ‘I was wrong about I Spit 45

CULTOGRAPHIES
on Your Grave’. In it she criticises the ‘happy ending’ of The Accused for twisting the story upon it was based; in real life the victim found herself vilified in public, saw her onlookers acquitted and was forced to leave her home town. Bindel argues that ISOYG on the other hand realistically portrays just how far a woman will go when she cannot rely on the law of the land; ‘I still believe in our criminal justice system and am against vigilante attacks, but the fact remains that the majority of men who rape women get away with it. If I were gang-raped, aware as I am of the near impossibility of winning justice through the courts, I would not be sitting here fantasising about being saved by crusading lawyers and nice men’ (2010).

While Mulvey associated the female viewer’s experience of film-watching with one of displeasure, 1970s/1980s feminist film theory fails to appreciate that a large number of female viewers actively enjoy watching horror. Isabel Pinedo (1997) has explored in depth why the genre is such a powerful source of pleasure for women and what this may say about society, while Brigid Cherry (2009) has argued that female viewers are able to enjoy strong capable characters regardless of gender; both contradict Williams’ assertion that women are frequently forced to turn away during terrifying scenes on screen because they do not desire what is being shown. Many feminist film theorists find solace in the rape-revenge genre, precisely because it portrays strong female lead characters who, although viciously victimised, survive against their oppressors and are rarely brought to book for their retribution. As Hannah D. Forman, the editor of Axe Wound zine, writes, ‘a lot of the women I know … who find comfort in rape-revenge films have been victims of rape and view the revenge formula as therapeutic and dare I say it, comforting … Rape-revenge films are about the degradation of rape and the empowering moments when a woman 46

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
takes her healing into her hands in a way that only can be done legally on screen’ (cited in Oler 2009: 31). If, as Susan Griffin argues, ‘the propagandists for male supremacy broadcast that it is women who cause rape by being unchaste or in the wrong place at the wrong time – in essence by behav-ing as though they were free’ (1971: 35), then it is not entirely surprising that a genre exists in which women redress the balance using violence. As Kier-La Janisse argues, ‘for a woman, we’re taught that nothing is more terrifying than the ever-present threat of rape. So it seems natural to me that I would love rape-revenge films, especially when the revenge is particularly sadistic or creative’ (2012: 50).

While it is correct that ISOYG and the rape-revenge genre have been responsible for putting images of sexual violence and intimidation towards women up on the big screen, they have also conversely provided an opportunity for identification with a fantasy of strong female empowerment. Again, such modern interpretations of the rape-revenge genre are directly at odds with earlier feminist film theory. Mulvey’s assertion in ‘Afterthoughts on Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ (1981) that female viewers only perform two roles –
a masochistic identification with the female object of desire or a transsexual identification with the male characters who are the active viewers – is rendered problematic in ISOYG
in two key ways; one, in the fact that a number of women find watching the film cathartic, and secondly, the way in which Zarchi films Jennifer’s degradation. As Heller-Nicholas explains, ‘somewhere in those gruelling 25 minutes is a lightning flash of empathy where we realise we are trapped, too – even leaving the cinema or turning off the DVD can’t take back what we’ve already seen. Jennifer’s rape therefore leaves us powerless. I Spit on Your Grave moves the onus of trying to comprehend the brutal incomprehensibility of rape firmly onto the spectator’ (2011: 37; emphasis in original).

47

CULTOGRAPHIES

While many condemn such films as simply exploitative, feminists such as Janisse argue that their detractors ‘don’t realise that a rape scene is the single greatest justification for anything else in the film that follows – no matter how illogical, unbelievable, sadistic, misanthropic, graphic or tortuous. The audience will accept any direction the story takes because, culturally, rape is worse than death’ (2012: 50).

The contradictory feminist and anti-feminist arguments surrounding films such as ISOYG mean that ‘ethics are at the heart of the spectator’s engagement with the rape-revenge genre … not least because the genre inherently involves a witnessing of (typically graphic) violence, and further, the generic expectations and pleasures include this witnessing of rape and revenge’ (Henry 2014: 11). By bringing such elements to the forefront, ‘by pushing at the limits of the watchable and the tolerable, these films involve and impli-cate spectators in particularly intensified ways with what is shown on screen, demanding critical interrogation’ (Horeck and Kendall 2011: 8). The narrative structure of such films means that because we are keen for the protagonist to enact her revenge we are also complicit in it. Feminist film theorists such as Tanya Horeck and Sarah Projansky have highlighted how there is a strain between the intimacy of such a personal crime as rape and its very public analysis.

They question the ethics of watching cinematic representations of rape and whether this is tantamount to watching an unspeakably horrific act of violence or shamefully participating as voyeurs. Equally problematic, as Projansky points out, is the notion that ‘rape or the threat of rape is the lever that transforms the woman into a powerful and independent agent of change’ (2001: 100); it is rape that enables her latent independent identity to appear. To complicate matters, the victim responds to her violation by becoming stronger not weaker.

48

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Despite being condemned as misogynistic upon its release, the film does clearly reflect the same concerns that second-wave feminism exposed regarding male attitudes towards the opposite sex – and their fear of women’s increasing sexuality and freedom. While the yokels’ treatment of Jennifer is utterly appalling, what is equally disturbing is their low opinion of women, as evidenced in comments such as

‘one day I’m gonna go to New York and fuck all the broads there’. These are men who view cities as simply being full of women waiting to be raped. The fact that Jennifer’s beauty is what seals her fate – made abundantly clear when Johnny describes her ‘damn sexy legs’ and her lying around in a bikini ‘like bait’ – and that once she comes into their lives she cannot escape their constant cat-calls and wolf-whistles, presents a damning critical representation of male attitudes towards beautiful women. While Mulvey – and others –
may argue that horror films (and cinema generally) objectify woman, ISOYG bravely challenges such representations of male sexual desire and connects them to acts of sexual violence. This is the ethos of the rape-revenge genre; as Freeland argues, ‘when women fight back against such violence and abuse, their actions may be reasonable and warranted’

(1996: 761).

That said, the fact that Zarchi chooses to sexualise each of Jennifer’s revenges is not without its problems. It is a tenuous notion that a woman who has just been so viciously gang-raped would go to such lengths – nudity, seduction – to get her revenge. It is this sexualised retribution that director Stephen R. Monroe and his producer, Lisa Hansen, clashed with Zarchi over during pre-production for the 2010 remake.

For Monroe, these scenes marked the original as clear exploitation (see Decker 2010), with Hansen adding that ‘a woman wouldn’t do that’ (2011). In this respect, the female empowerment angle is difficult to justify and it is an issue that has 49

CULTOGRAPHIES
dogged other equally controversial films. While Wes Craven argued that he was condemning screen violence in The Last House on the Left, the audience still finds itself cheering as the despicable degenerates get their just desserts. For all of Craven’s moralising, would the mother of a girl who has just been so savagely raped and murdered really exact her revenge by dropping to her knees and fellating – so she can castrate – one of the offenders? It is pure exploitation, and basing the film (loosely) on Ingmar Bergman’s Jungfrukällan ( The Virgin Spring, 1960) does not raise Craven’s film to the same level of artistic merit. Similarly, Zarchi’s film is exploitation; there is no getting around that and the tag is not solely due to its sexualised violence. As Clover has noted, the film’s

‘realism’ is stretched when Hills, introduced as a city-based career woman, is able, when pushed, ‘to be perfectly capable of rigging up a spring-noose, driving a speedboat, slicing off genitalia, and getting rid of bodies’ (1992: 143).

The fetishising of the female avenger is a common problem in the rape-revenge genre; ‘even if dressed in black or pictured with horrifying objects, they … [are] always beautiful’ (Rhodes and Springer 1996: 31). Rikke Schubart argues that this is because gender and sexual attraction are at the heart of rape-revenge (2007: 89). While rape-avengers are typically played by the likes of Farah Fawcett ( Extremities

[1986]), Margaux Hemingway ( Lipstick) and Raquel Welch ( Hannie Caulder), ‘rapists on the other hand are unattractive and played by unknown actors’ (2007: 90). With regards to ISOYG, the Encyclopaedia of Horror Movies describes Jennifer’s attackers are ‘grossly unattractive’ (1986), while film critic Joe Bob Briggs labels them ‘ugly guys’ (2004). However, although there is a tendency to portray celluloid rapists as working class, foul-mouthed and intellectually challenged ( Deliverance [1972] being a prime example), Eron Tabor, Gunter Kleeman and Anthony Nichols (Johnny, Andy 50

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
and Stanley in ISOYG) are far from uniformly ugly. The rapist in 1976’s Lipstick is a composer played by Chris Sarandon; in 1984’s Handgun, the rapist (a teacher) is played by Clayton Day – both are presented as handsome. It would perhaps be more accurate to state that rapists in such films are typically presented as possessing ugly characteristics.

That said, it is a rare rape-revenge film that includes a victim who isn’t played by a young, attractive actress. Maria Bello was 47 when she appeared in the television movie Big Driver (2014); not ‘old’ by any stretch of the imagination, but probably one of the older victims of the rape-revenge genre and attractive nevertheless. As Laura Mee points out regarding Zarchi’s film, Camille Keaton spends most of the first half

‘in a bikini, a dress or apparently bra-less in a thin shirt, and is often heavily made up’ (2013: 9). After she is raped she is

‘empowered by anger and a new wardrobe: She appears in church in the clichéd black outfit signalling death and action.

The audience does not really think that she packed a pair of long black trousers and a black shirt for a summer holiday.

No, this is the rape-avenger’s new costume’ (Schubart 2007: 96). Jennifer’s outfit – and her seduction of her victims – had a tremendous impact on rape-revenge films which would subsequently exploit this form of vengeance and the fetishising of its protagonist, pandering to a male-centric audience.

While the avengers of Handgun and Sudden Impact (1983) were content to dress in conservative black, Zöe Lund would slip into stockings, knee-length boots and red lipstick for Ms.

45 (1981), Linda Blair into a black latex catsuit for Savage Streets (1984) and Lia Williams into heels and tight dresses for Dirty Weekend (1993).

While ‘the contemporary horror film genre is a combina-tion of feminist and antifeminist elements … [which] criticises and endorses hierarchal relations of power’ (Pinedo 1997: 133), there are elements of ISOYG which ground it 51

CULTOGRAPHIES
with an almost mythic quality. The film utilises a number of elements from folklore, particularly in upholding the initial purpose of fairy tales, which was to prepare young girls for adulthood and warn of the dangers of male predators: ‘a cau-tionary attitude towards men and an attendant celebration of female disobedience, cleverness, and resourcefulness feature strongly in earlier versions’ (Short 2006: 26). In these tales men were depicted as wolfish and debauched; it was not uncommon for sleeping maidens to be raped by their admirers or for fathers to sexually assault their daughters.

When the Brothers Grimm published their adaptations in the nineteenth century, these stories were updated to foster female obedience under patriarchy: unsavoury males were replaced with dashing heroes who whisked princesses off their feet and feisty, independent women were punished.

Little Red Riding Hood, for example, was still eaten by the wolf, but now she bore more responsibility for disobeying her mother’s instructions to stay on the path. As Catherine Maybrey and Merril Smith have noted, ‘[she] did not conform to appropriate female standards. Therefore, she was responsible for what happened to her … similar to still widely held rape myths in which women who talk to strangers or who go out alone and unprotected are often said to be “asking for it”’ (2004: 70). The patriarchal ideals perpetuated in Western fairy tales – which portray the perfect woman as pretty and passive – are challenged in ISOYG and its remake.

Using a common trope from rape-revenge/horror films like Deliverance, The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes (1977) – that of

‘the city, representative of civilisation and normality, pitched against the threatening, rural Other’ (Mee 2013: 4) – ISOYG
begins with Jennifer’s concierge seeing her to her car as she escapes Manhattan’s busy streets. In many films of this era, e.g. Death Wish (1974), Taxi Driver (1976), The Driller Killer 52

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
and Maniac, modern urban society is delineated ‘by a sense of decay associated with poverty, overcrowding, alienation, loneliness, neglect of the old, divorce, alcoholism and violence’ (Creed 1993: 34). The country offers escape in an almost mythological form; as Cathy (Candy Sweet) in Wrong Way (1972) – a film which included two women viciously raped over twenty minutes – points out: ‘monsters and creeps and assorted maniacs are city breeds … people here

[in the country] are friendly and helpful’. Like Cathy, Jennifer Hills soon learns that her hinterland retreat is no safe haven from the threat of men. Building on the folkloric aspect of leaving behind civilisation, Meg Barker argues that Jennifer’s journey to the country is ‘like Red Riding Hood going into the dark wood’ (2010: 46), a point reiterated by Creed who points out that Jennifer too is ‘captured and eaten by a wolf

… [but] multiply and humanise the wolf, read “rape” for “eat”, skip the woodsman (let Red save herself), and you have I Spit on Your Grave’ (1993: 124). With Jennifer swinging the axe – literally – against her attackers (rather than relying on a huntsman to save her), ISOYG (and its remake) bear more than a resemblance to the earlier versions of fairy tales. Little Red Cap for instance tricks the wolf into falling to its death

– a far more resourceful version of Little Red Riding Hood.

Jennifer too outwits the wolves to survive, destroying them in the process.

The mise-en-scène of the woods in ISOYG reinforces the film’s primordial link with folklore and fables, something that horror repeatedly taps into due to our collective fear of the unknown: ‘what has made ghost stories and fairy tales crucial enough to pass along … [is their] engagement of re-pressed fears and desires and … re-enactment of the re-sidual conflict surrounding those feelings’ (Clover 1996: 71).

It is no coincidence that films such as The Last House on the Left, The Evil Dead and The Blair Witch Project (1999) have 53

CULTOGRAPHIES
all ‘led us back into … [the] “Hansel and Gretel” territory of being lost in strange woods’ (Short 2006: viii). Jennifer’s isolation, chased through the woods by her attackers, miles from help and civilisation, also further strengthens the audience’s identification with her. The threat of rape associated with wooded areas (see Deliverance, The Last House on the Left and Revenge for a Rape [1976]) extends to the birth of cinema: the attempted violation of Flora (Mae Marsh) in The Birth of a Nation (1915) is preceded by a chase through the forest, with Gus (Walter Long) ‘bent double and thus almost on all fours, virtually foaming at the mouth, suggesting a man reduced to his base and animalistic instincts’ (Read 2000: 79).

The relevance of water in ISOYG adds another mythic element. In the world of the Grimms’ fairy tales, ‘water (or at least certain kinds of water) appertains exclusively to women. Wells, springs, brooks, and streams seem pecu-liarly under feminine sway’ (Bottigheimer 1987: 25). For the rape-revenge genre, nowhere is this more pertinent than in Bergman’s The Virgin Spring,14 where the father’s violent vengeance is absolved by the spring of the title appearing at the site where his daughter was raped and murdered.15

Both ISOYG and its remake have Jennifer retreat to a riverside cabin; so crucial is this location in Zarchi’s film that his screenplay’s original title was ‘The Housatonic Revenge’, named after the Connecticut river by which the film is shot and set. In ISOYG 1978, all four of Jennifer’s revenge kill-ings take place in or by water – Matthew (Richard Pace) is seduced and hung by the edge of the river (into which his corpse is then dumped); Stanley and Andy join him when Jennifer guns them down in their speedboat and Johnny is castrated in a warm bath. In the 2010 version (where the bathroom scene is updated to having Andy [Rodney Eastman] suspended above a tub filled with acid), Jennifer (Sarah 54

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Butler) purges herself after the rapes by deliberately falling, arms outstretched in a Christ-like pose, off a bridge, seem-ingly to her death into the very river by which she was attacked. That she doesn’t resurface further emphasises her innocence, bringing to mind the infamous ‘trial by water’ test by which women were persecuted during the Middle Ages

– if they floated it was proof of witchcraft and they would be punished accordingly; the innocent sank to the bottom.

The 1487 book Malleus Maleficarum, which had a huge impact on the persecution of women across Europe for two hundred years, credited sorceresses with the power to steal penises; some were even believed to keep them as pets, locked away in boxes and fed oats and corn. In her punishment of Johnny in both the 1978 and 2010 films, Jennifer Hills certainly reflects this age-old demonisation of woman as castratrice. To further emphasis this, even the name of her victim is symbolic, with the Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English acknowledging that ‘Johnny’ has been a slang term for the male member since 1972 (see Dalzell 2009). Jennifer’s ability to seduce and promptly destroy men feeds into the Freudian theory that the female terrifies because she is castrated and that

‘her lack of a penis … [implies] a threat of castration and hence unpleasure’ (Mulvey 1988: 64). This theory is posited in Creed’s seminal work, The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, in which she argues that such dread has led men to create the frightening fantasy of the ‘monstrous-feminine … what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject’ (1993: 1). While Vera Dika and Carol Clover concentrated on female characters being the victim of monsters, Creed focuses on the spectacle of woman as monster. This monstrous-feminine has the power to make men fear her, not just because of her ability to castrate, but because she has also steadfastly rejected 55

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 9: Jennifer
as seductress in

(innocent) white.

her role in patriarchal society. The spectre of such a terrifying figure looms large over the rape-revenge genre, particularly as ‘the most iconic revenge for rape is castration … like rape, castration robs its victim of reproductive fitness. It avenges one sexual trauma through another, offering male viewers a visceral analogue for rape’ (Andrews 2014: 4–5).

Figure 10: Woman as
sexual temptress in

The Vampire (1897).

56

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 11:

Promotional shot
for Mark of the

Vampire.

If we take Creed’s definition of the monstrous-feminine literally then Jennifer can also be read as a representation of other frightening female figures from folklore and mythology, all of whom reflect anxiety about the power of female sexuality. When the revenge-obsessed Jennifer re-appears to Matthew in the original ISOYG she is dressed all in white, her long hair flowing over her shoulders; she ‘appears invulnerable and ghost-like; indeed, the whole scene in the woods has the feel of a supernatural tale … [with Jennifer positioned as] an avenging spirit … apparently killed and [who] returns to life’ (Oldridge 2003: 117). Her appearance strongly echoes Philip Burne-Jones’ painting The Vampire (1897), which presents a smiling woman posed alluringly above an immobile man. Jennifer’s representation equally mirrors the standard iconography of female vampires from early horror films, e.g.

Mark of the Vampire. Such imagery advocates female power 57

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 12: The iconic
axe moment as

Jennifer raises hell.

and sexual control, as evidenced in Jennifer’s seduction –
and destruction – of her victims. Comparing Jennifer’s appearance and actions to those of a vampire can be construed as strengthening the argument that what this film is really about is the threat men feel from modern, sexually confident women. Creed posits that during the revenge sequences, as Jennifer is dressed in garments befitting a priestess or nymph, ‘the iconography of these scenes has a ritualistic quality: white robes, water, classical music, the shedding of blood as form of atonement; the clear connection between sexual pleasure and death’ (1993: 129).

The most iconic image of ISOYG – Jennifer raising the axe above her head as she guns down two assailants in a motorboat – also associates her with punishing female figures from Greek mythology: ‘maenads, Sirens, Amazons, and Furies …

just as they often were in second-wave feminism’s iconography’ (Henry 2014: 48). Like the Sirens, Jennifer lures her victims to a watery death by seducing them; like the Amazons she hunts and disarms any men that cross her. According to some versions of mythology, no men were allowed to have sexual liaisons with the Amazon warrior women; those that do in ISOYG suffer and die. Like ‘the Bacchae, Furies, Sirens, Gorgons or Kali … [Jennifer destroys any men] foolish enough to arouse the anger of the female monster’ (Creed 1993: 126). The allusion to the Furies carries a further associ-58

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
ation with castration; according to Hesiod’s poem Theogony, when Uranus’s genitals are cast into the sea, the Furies –
deities of vengeance who pursue and punish the wicked –
emerge from the blood that has been spilled. The distressing scene in which Jennifer is spread naked across a rock like a sacrificial offering (which in effect she is, as the rapists insist they are doing this for Matthew’s benefit) mirrors the fate of Andromeda, who, similarly disrobed, was offered up to a sea monster as punishment for her beauty; unlike that tale, however, no one rescues Ms. Hills. With Sirens, striges and Figure 13: Jennifer
back from the
dead in ISOYG

2010.

Figure 14:

Resembling the
antagonist of

The Ring (2002).

Figure 15: 2010’s

Jennifer bears a
striking resemblance
to the demonically
possessed rape
victim of Evil Dead

(2013).

59

CULTOGRAPHIES
harpies all described in mythology as being part woman and bird with insatiable appetites, the ornithological monstrous imagery also provides an uncanny scene in ISOYG 2010, when the first thing Jennifer does to unnerve Johnny (Jeff Branson) is to throw dead birds at his trailer-home, signifying her return from the grave.

Jennifer’s return to the narrative in ISOYG 2010 following her rape is almost demonic, suddenly appearing – and instantly disappearing – before Matthew (Chad Lindberg), similar in look to the antagonists of The Ring (2002) and Evil Dead (2013). Director Steven R. Monroe actually refers to the ‘zombie dead Sarah [Butler]’ (2011) to describe this transformation, a term also coined in a review describing her as

‘less a woman regaining control of her life than a bloodthirsty zombie’ (DeFore 2010). As Claire Henry argues, ‘she is part girl, part horror movie monster’ (2014: 48) and we cannot (at least initially) be sure that her return is anything other than hallucinatory on Matthew’s part. Although the remake’s emphasis on undead imagery panders to a modern audience hungry for visually gory effects, it does further emphasise the horror of Jennifer’s ordeal and her appearance is actually closer to Zarchi’s description of the real-life victim he encountered in 1974: ‘a young woman … staggering slowly towards us like a walking corpse, her body stained with blood … her eyes wide and staring into space, numb with shock, her lower jaw hanging down and bleeding’ (2010b).

What is telling in all of the ISOYG films and their sequels is that the rape-revenger is a man- made monster; Jennifer only becomes this way after her ordeal and after the attackers believe she is dead. Her assailants are modern-day Victor Frankensteins; as with Mary Shelley’s tale, the monster they create returns from the grave to destroy them. As ‘society makes powerful women (be it sexually or intellectually…) into monsters, films are a good way to metaphorically ad-60

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
dress these issues … and horror rape-revenge films [are]

tackling this’ (Adrienne 2017).16

In her examination of the slasher genre, Clover describes the Final Girl as the only character who is really full-drawn and who matures as the film develops (1992: 44). Jennifer is clearly the only rounded individual in ISOYG 1978; none of the rapists are presented as anything other than one-dimen-sional. As David Kerekes and David Slater point out, ‘a brief scene where Johnny is shown to be a family man (tellingly only via long-shot) – serves only to provide Zarchi with the opportunity of dropping him from an even greater height, i.e.

not only is he a rapist, but a cheat and a liar, too’ (2000: 190).

Just as Clover pondered the complex identification at play in the slasher film between the female protagonist and the male teenager commonly associated as being the genre’s prime audience (1992: 44), the same issue is evident in her reading of the rape-revenge film where ‘this shift from being the object of violence to being its subject involves a concomitant transformation of the feminised victim into a masculinised avenger, a shift which … facilitates cross-gender identification and thus male spectatorial pleasure’ (Read 2000: 50; emphasis in original). In Zarchi’s film, however, there are none of the typical slasher point of view (POV) shots taken from hidden characters, objectifying Jennifer without her knowledge. Although there is a brief nocturnal scene near the beginning where Jennifer ventures outside her cabin to investigate strange noises, these are filmed as two static long shots as opposed to using a handheld camera; equally there are none of the slasher tropes of heavy breathing or hands moving tree branches out of the way, etc, for a better view of her. Consequently, these shots appear to be the director’s and not the rapists’ POV (plus Keaton is fully dressed in a non-revealing dressing gown). This strengthens the argument that Zarchi’s intention is that we identify with 61

CULTOGRAPHIES

Jennifer, a fact strengthened by the filming of the rapes from her viewpoint.

Although ‘actual rape is practically non-existent in the slasher film, evidently on the premise … that violence and sex are not concomitants but alternatives’ (Clover 1992: 29), ISOYG does share a number of similarities with the genre –
in fact Creed (1993), Clover (1996), Rockoff (2002) and Peter Normanton (2012) all label it as one and the The Hollywood Reporter refers to it as the ‘infamous 1970s slasher flick “I Spit on Your Grave”’ (1969),17 a reference that is bolstered by the film’s Italian poster which closely resembles that of Lucio Fulci’s notorious giallo Lo Squartatore Di New York (The New York Ripper, 1982).18 Like the slasher genre’s Final Girl, Figure 16:

The Italian poster
of ISOYG.

62

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 17: The
poster for the
infamous The

New York Ripper

(1982).

Jennifer has to grow as a character to face – and destroy –
the male monster(s) that stalk her. Despite being released in the same year as Halloween (1978), a film viewed by many as the pioneer of stalk-and-slash movies, Jennifer Hills is a far stronger Final Girl than Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).

Although Laurie repeatedly fights off ‘the boogeyman’ in the form of Michael Myers, she still has to be rescued by a man, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence); he saves her again in Halloween II (1981). Similarly at the conclusion of proto-slasher Black Christmas (1974), Jessica (Olivia Hussey) kills the wrong person and ends up alone, sedated and at the mercy of the real murderer. Jennifer Hills, however, despatches her victims without any male intervention. Darren Oldridge argues that one of the ‘many intentionally unsettling aspects 63

CULTOGRAPHIES
of Zarchi’s film is his portrayal of its heroine. Camille Keaton’s character is unique in cinema: she is a sane and intelligent rape survivor who gets away with murder … this is one of the reasons for the extremely hostile response to the film’

(2003: 119). However this trope of the rape-revenge genre –
of a woman successfully seeing through her revenge, using her wits and without comeuppance – was firmly in play long before Jennifer Hills appeared (see Hannie Caulder, Joshû 701-gô: Sasori [ Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion, 1972],

Thriller – A Cruel Picture, Act of Vengeance and Lipstick for instance). It can be argued, though, that Jennifer did help to pave the way for far more resourceful Final Girls, as evidenced in films such as Friday the 13th, Prom Night and Terror Train (all 1980). If, as Bethany Guida acknowledges, ‘the Survivor Girl is one of the most important refutations to the argument that women are constantly victimised in horror films’ (2011: 4), and that such films are typically viewed as being predominantly misogynist, then it can be argued that the emergence of such a protagonist introduced a strong feminist voice to the genre; this is particularly relevant when examining the cultural impact of ISOYG.

Despite sharing the slasher’s Final Girl, ISOYG sub-verts the generic trope of a masked male killer hunting a predominantly attractive group of young females by having an attractive young woman stalk and despatch a group of middle-aged men. While the sequence where Matthew follows Jennifer into the woods carrying a knife would not look out of place in a slasher movie, what is subversive here is that Matthew becomes the victim and not Jennifer. Rockoff points out that in most slice-and-dice flicks the murderer is typically an ordinary person triggered by some terrible trauma in his or her past (2002: 5); having just been gang-raped, Jennifer fits the bill perfectly. Clover may complain that with regards to rape-revenge ‘the notion of women going around 64

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

… putting bullets through male chauvinists has everything to do with fantasy and little to do with reality’ (1992: 142), but one can argue that Jennifer’s revenge ‘actually represent[s]

an attempt to make sense of a reality in which radical feminists such as Valerie Solanis [sic] advocate the “cutting up of men”’ (Read 2000: 26). The rapists in ISOYG are fearful of Jennifer, of what she represents, i.e. a modern, sexual, independent woman: each is ‘trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate … [with] a horror of civilisation, people, cities’ (Solanas 2013: 38). The generous tip Jennifer gives Matthew for her groceries, her car and her ‘fancy’

clothes all create resentment within them. While there are concerns regarding the likelihood of a gang-rape victim subsequently seducing the very same offenders to enact her revenge, the fact that Jennifer uses her sexuality – the very thing that attracted the rapists to her in the first place – to en-trap them does echo Solanas’s assertion that ‘males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventu-ally drown in the passive flesh that they are’ (2013: 67). With terms such as ‘submerged’ and ‘drown’, this is yet another reference to the watery fate of Jennifer’s rapists.

65

3

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE AND ITS LEGACY

If you can stomach it, there is a highly interesting film here … a cult classic of epic proportion, truly a mas-terpiece of cinema … It is a gripping, intelligent and direct film and the most pro-feminist movie ever made.

It truly is Day of the Woman because here, finally, a woman takes control. … It is the most misunderstood movie in cinema’s history. Like it or not, it is a remarkable motion picture truly beyond reproach.

– Meir Zarchi details critics’ comments of ISOYG

(2010b)

For many, the date of birth of the modern horror film is widely credited as Psycho (1960). Previously, gothic romances or outlandish monsters had roamed the screen, but Hitchcock brought the horror into the home of the American family.

Anat Zanger points out that as a result of this, ‘cinema (and culture) embraced Psycho and endowed it with a “cult” status, complete with quotations, allusions, homages and direct and indirect transformations ... In this ritual, Hitchcock’s film was acknowledged as the original text, while its sources of inspiration were overlooked’ (2006: 9, 20). These previ-66

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
ous sources included the 1959 novel on which the film was based, the media articles on murderer Ed Gein that inspired the novel and even the Fritz Lang film While the City Sleeps (1956), which contains a number of similarities. Regardless of these antecedents, Hitchcock’s film has become the original and any subsequent similar film is said to have been influenced by it. Like Psycho and its impact on modern horror, Halloween is widely regarded as the film that kick-started the trend for slasher films in the 1970s and 1980s, and yet films such as 6 Donne Per L’assassino ( Blood and Black Lace, 1964), L’uccello Dalle Piume Di Cristallo ( The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, 1970), Il Gatto a Nove Code ( Cat O’ Nine Tails, 1970), Reazione a Catena ( A Bay of Blood, 1971), 4

Mosche Di Yelluto Grigio ( Four Flies on Grey Velvet, 1971), Black Christmas and Profondo Rosso ( Deep Red, 1975) all preceded it and all contained essential ingredients that would become synonymous with the genre.

The same thing happened with ISOYG; despite rape-revenge films existing well before Zarchi’s debut, his film has effectively become ground zero for the genre, with almost every rape-revenge film since lifting its narrative structure, motifs, tropes and archetypal characters. Like Psycho and Halloween, Zarchi’s film lifted from previous sources, a common technique of filmmakers seeking to maximise profits by pilfering elements from other economically successful productions. The importance of rural location, in particular the city-dweller-versus-country-folk aspect, was introduced in Deliverance, credited by Schubart as the ‘birth’ of the rape-revenge film (2007: 85) and explored in films such as The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes. ISOYG, with its learning-disabled country bumpkin and harmonica-playing scene, tips its hat to John Boorman’s film and indeed one of the movie’s taglines claimed that it was ‘more devastating than Deliverance! ’.

67

CULTOGRAPHIES

Zarchi’s film also shares similarities with the 1976 television movie Revenge for a Rape in which a woman is assaulted by rednecks while on a deer-hunting trip, although here it is the victim’s husband who takes it upon himself to seek vengeance. Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion, Du Nu ( The Kiss of Death, 1973), Thriller – A Cruel Picture and Act of Vengeance all feature women who deliberately hunt and kill their assailants. Female rape-revengers also appeared in The Animals (aka Five Savage Men, 1970), The Hunting Party (1971) Kozijat Rog ( The Goat Horn, 1972), Lipstick and The Witch Who Came from the Sea (1976) to name just a few. In Zarchi’s film, Jennifer frequently breaks the fourth wall, almost daring the viewer to look away and questioning their complicity as passive participants in her degradation.

It is a powerful technique but not uncommon in the rape-revenge canon, having been utilised in Hitchcock’s Blackmail (1929) and Thriller – A Cruel Picture. Likewise, castration as a suitable punishment for rapists was dispensed in The Last House on the Left, The Kiss of Death, The Witch Who Came from the Sea and Death Weekend ( The House by the Lake, 1976). While it could be argued that this choice of punishment is the female equivalent of male violation – and, being sexual/violent, an added bonus for exploitation audiences

– castration has been the sentence for such crimes as far back as ancient India, Egypt and medieval Europe. Prior to the late 1970s, when rape and revenge began to appear more prominently in films, the inclusion of sexual assault was typically as a catalyst to spur a male character into action, i.e. it was a crime against him when the victim was his wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter. This was the inciting incident in The Bravados (1958), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), The Virgin Spring, Carne (1968), Chato’s Land (1972), The Last House on the Left, Buster and Billie (1974) and Death Wish. When women did kill, in films such as Blackmail, Safe 68

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 18:

Implicating the
viewer in the
traumatic scenes

Jennifer has
endured.

Figure 19: Alice

White breaking
the fourth wall in

Blackmail having
murdered her
would-be rapist.

Figure 20:

Christina Lindberg

‘shooting’ the
viewer in Thriller

– A Cruel Picture
for participating

(vicariously) in her
ordeal.

in Hell (1931), The Story of Temple Drake (1933), Johnny Belinda (1948), The Blue Gardenia (1951), Jackson County Jail (1976) and Autostop Rosso Sangue ( Hitch-Hike, 1977), it was usually in self-defence as opposed to a premediated thirst for vengeance ( Shanghai Express [1932] is a notable exception).

69

CULTOGRAPHIES

Despite there being a number of female-centric rape-avenger films before ISOYG, it is interesting that a number of its predecessors are now consigned to the footnotes of rape-revenge – and for that matter film – history. Thriller –

A Cruel Picture bears the closest resemblance in terms of structure, even down to the two films having similar scenes of their heroines going to church before seeking revenge, but it is marred by its frequent scenes of hard-core pornography. This means that ‘ Thriller far transcends the violent nasti-ness of the original versions of I Spit on Your Grave or The Last House on the Left by making it impossible to deny the directorial intent of making rape sexually titillating … these few strategically placed porn shots make the nasty intent of the movie inescapable’ (Heller-Nicholas 2011: 40, 42). Clover argues that the criticism of a male-centric justice system in Act of Vengeance is ‘extraordinary’, but that this is overshad-owed by it being ‘an amateurish and (at least in hindsight) predictable film’ (1992: 138). The tale of a group of women who band together after being raped by the same masked man descends into farce as they drive around in a van dispensing justice Scooby Doo-style (one of the characters even refers to their actions as being ‘crazy escapades’). The film’s gratuitous nudity also panders to its exploitative nature as do its other titles of The Violator and Rape Squad. Viewed in this context, when compared with other rape-revenge films of its era, it can be argued that although ISOYG is exploitation it does at least attempt to tackle rape in an unflinchingly honest manner. Whether this makes it possibly the first definitive feminist rape-revenge exploitation film – a notion that many will find a contradiction in terms – is up for debate.

All of the above examples go some way to explaining why rape-revenge films since 1978 have incorporated a number of elements from ISOYG – so much so that they have now become essential tropes of the genre. Some are clear hom-70

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 21: Title
card for ISOYG.

Figure 22: Title
card for ISOYG

2010.

Figure 23: Title
card for ISOYG

2013.

Figure 24:

Alternative title
card for Savage

Vengeance.

ages – the title card of ISOYG showing Jennifer driving to the country is replicated in the 2010 remake, ISOYG 2013, the

‘unofficial’ sequel Savage Vengeance (1993) and A Gun for Jennifer (1997), the latter featuring a protagonist who actu-71

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 25: The
beginning of

A Gun For Jennifer.

Figure 26: Poster
for I’ll Kill You …

I’ll Bury You …

I’ll Spit On Your

Grave, Too!

ally changes her name to Jennifer. Clear references can also be found in the titles and posters of I Spit on Your Corpse (originally Girls for Rent, 1974), I’ll Kill You … I’ll Bury You …

72

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 27: DVD
cover for I Spit On

Your Corpse, I Piss

On Your Grave.

I’ll Spit on Your Grave, Too! (1995), Ich Pisse Auf Deinen Kadaver ( I Piss on Your Cadaver, 1999), I Spit on Your Corpse, I Piss on Your Grave (aka The Captives, 2001), the announced-but-never produced 2010 zombie comedy I Spit on Your Rave and a DVD compilation of sexploitation films released by SRS

Cinema entitled I Spit on Your Naked Corpse to name just a handful. Following ISOYG, rape-revenge films have trod a narrative path that has endured to this day: a young, attractive, independent career woman is raped (usually by multiple offenders and often with one having learning difficulties) and left for dead; the law cannot help her so she tracks down her assailants and kills them. Variations of this format have appeared in, amongst others, Last House on the Beach, Sudden Impact, Savage Streets, Run! Bitch! Run! (2009) 73

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 28: Cover
of SRS Cinema’s
compilation I Spit

On Your Naked

Corpse.

and Avenged. Wicked Lake (2008) – penned by ISOYG 2010’s screenwriter Adam Rockoff – follows four lesbians who leave the city for a lakeside cabin where not one, but two lots of hillbillies sexually harass them. Rockoff’s earlier comments questioning how Zarchi’s film can really be a ‘severe indictment of rape and the objectification of women’ is interesting in light of this misogynistic offering, clearly influenced by ISOYG and which revels in its unsavoury nature. The wronged woman of Katalin Varga (2009) seduces her first victim before killing him (he also has a wife and child like Johnny) and she confronts her final rapist on a boat in the middle of a lake – another nod to Zarchi. The backwoods setting, minimal dialogue, long shots and outdoor rape sequence of the Ar-74

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
gentinian/Spanish production No Moriré Sola ( I’ll Never Die Alone, 2008) make it, as Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, points out, a ‘love-letter to I Spit on Your Grave’ (2011: 106). Perhaps the award for most blatant imitator should go to 2009’s Hora ( Whore), the tale of a young, beautiful, female writer who retreats to a country cabin to write a book only to fall foul of local ne’er-do-wells. Sound familiar?

Another reason why ISOYG has endured and become a benchmark for such films is that, compared to big-budget Hollywood productions which have attempted to tackle similar issues, Zarchi’s movie is surprisingly far less exploitative.

Paramount Pictures’ Hannie Caulder features big names such as Christopher Lee, Robert Culp and Ernest Borgnine, but any attempt to introduce a strong independent female avenger or to pose questions about the ethics of (sexual) violence and retaliation are squandered by the casting of Hannie and how she is portrayed. The film’s ‘model of femininity is hypersexualised, and the very presence of superstar Figures 29 & 30: Overtly sexualised promotional shots for Hannie Caulder.

75

CULTOGRAPHIES

[Raquel] Welch herself (who spends much of her onscreen time half-naked) makes the film’s desire to titillate inescapable’ (Heller-Nicholas 2011: 77). The film’s trailer accentu-ates her physical appearance, describing her as a ‘beautiful avenger … a beautiful hellraiser’. Her femininity (or at least a male view of it) is further emphasised in shots of her frolick-ing with children, nursing a baby goat and walking along a beach, hand in hand with Culp. After a sexualised gang-rape featuring frequent close-ups of her mouth as she gasps and writhes suggestively – a stark contrast to Jennifer Hills’ ordeal – Hannie wastes no time in falling in love with the next man she meets and by the end rides off into the sunset with another. Even though she is able to kill two of her rapists single-handed, she is saved on two occasions by male intervention. The film’s worst offence, however, is its portrayal of her rapists as ‘comic and bumbling … Verging frequently on slapstick, they are not presented as evil or dangerous, despite their violent assault of Hannie and the murder of her husband’ (ibid.). Disturbingly, the film’s poster has her posed provocatively beside her grinning attackers; one can only imagine the furore there would have been if ISOYG’s promotional material had featured a similar congenial image of Keaton amongst her abusers.

Despite Jodie Foster winning an Academy Award for her portrayal of a real-life rape victim in The Accused, Clover argues that if you take away the film’s ‘elaborate displacement machinery – its legal, psychological, ethical and social rumi-nations – and relocate it beyond the reach of the law … you have I Spit on Your Grave: the story of a gang-raped woman hell-bent on revenge’ (1992: 151). At the time of its release in 1988, reviews praised the film for exposing rape myths such as ‘no means yes’ and that women are ‘asking for it’, but ISOYG had explored this far more effectively a decade earlier. Foster’s gang-rape is genuinely shocking and brutal, 76

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
but it is only shown when a male eyewitness narrates his account. Foster, as victim Sarah Tobias, had testified in court to exactly the same events moments before, but it is the man’s account that becomes the film’s accepted version; Sarah’s voiceover stops and his vision takes precedence. Although the issue of rape was now being considered seriously in the mainstream , ‘the fact that justice finally is served not through the straightforward prosecution of rape but through the unorthodox deployment of a statute concerning criminal solicitation – presented, in the film, as a stroke of luck – does little to dispel suspicion about the law’s efficacy in such cases’ (Clover 1992: 148). The film’s focus is also confused, with Sarah becoming increasingly marginalised, moving from victim to passive observer in her own tale of vengeance, as attention shifts to District Attorney Kathryn Murphy (Kelly McGillis) and then to the legal system. At least with Zarchi’s interpretation of rape and its consequences, ‘the revenge meted out … is something men should fear. It does not rely on the law of the land, but on a woman being pushed too far and deciding enough is enough’ (Bindel 2011). With The Accused ending on an uplifting musical score as Sarah and Kathryn emerge victorious from court, if one compares the two films, ‘in terms of their visceral impact … the mainstream take on gang-rape [is] fundamentally lacking’ (Fidler 2009: 53).

It is highly unlikely that anyone in 1978 could have predicted that Zarchi’s infamous production would lead to a film franchise decades later. The tale of a brutal gang-rape and the subsequent sexualised murder of those responsible is an unlikely area for revision yet, forty years on, there has been an official remake and two sequels. CineTel Films and distributor Anchor Bay Entertainment have actively promoted it as a franchise; discussing ISOYG 2013, CineTel’s Lisa Hansen commented that ‘the film had to be real, brutal and honest.

77

CULTOGRAPHIES

They [fans of the remake] walked that path lockstep with us and continue to do so as we shape the franchise’ (cited in Gingold 2013). The 2015 instalment ISOYG 3: Vengeance is Mine is described as ‘the third chapter in the successful horror franchise’ (Gruenwedel 2015). The word ‘successful’ is interesting when considering other remakes of 1970s/1980s horror. The Last House on the Left (2009) received mainly poor reviews on release, yet took over $45m worldwide in theatrical grosses on a budget of $15m; it has produced no sequels. The production budget for A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) was $35m and reaped over $115m at the global box office but was deemed not enough of a success to merit further investment. ISOYG 2010 cost $2m to make and yet made only $1,278,471 worldwide; ISOYG 2013 fared even worse, taking in just $80,472 worldwide (in the US it took the paltry sum of approximately $810). The third instalment appears to have taken just $79,343.19 All three films had very limited theatrical releases: the remake’s widest release in the US was twelve theatres; its sequel managed just one theatre for a week. This does beg the question – if the producers aren’t making returns on these films, then what else is driving the need to make them?

Kristen Thompson argues that the phrase ‘franchise’ is used far too liberally but that ‘essentially it means a movie that spawns additional revenue streams beyond what it earns from its various forms of distribution, primarily theatrical, video, and television. These streams may come from sequels and series’ (2007: 4). A film is made, it is successful (usually commercially) and any subsequent productions help to construct a franchise or brand. As ‘sordid, explicit and violent subject matter has long generated big bucks at the box office … it was only a matter of time before studios began to siphon from the horror well, filling their coffers with revenue generated by an ever-evolving cadre of increasingly brutal 78

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 31: Poster
for ISOYG 2013.

Figure 32: Poster
for ISOYG 2015.

79

CULTOGRAPHIES
horror titles’ (Decker 2010). The beginning of the trend for remaking previously banned/notorious films was undoubtedly the success of 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Other remakes swiftly followed, which in turn have created new franchises, regardless of their quality; as director Rob Zombie puts it: ‘they’re not meant to be good films; they’re meant to just cash in on a franchise because they know horror fans are so desperate to watch horror’ (cited in Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror, directed by Stefan Hutchinson, 2006).20 It is noticeable that ISOYG was remade quite late into this cycle (2010), possibly because it ‘remained seem-ingly too depraved to revisit … the subject matter has long been believed simply too gratuitous to be palatable to today’s audiences’ (Decker 2010).

David Roche makes an interesting point that what all these movies ‘ultimately have in common is not so much Figure 33: Blu-ray
pack of the remake
and its sequels.

80

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 34: Blu-ray
pack of ISOYG

1978 and ISOYG

2010.

their status as cult films as the familiarity of their titles …

It is the title that the producers of these remakes set out to exploit because it carries the aura of the original’ (2014: 9, 15). This is clearly evident in the marketing campaigns for ISOYG’s remake and its two sequels, all of which trade off the original’s infamous poster and keep the alternative – and more notorious title – over Day of the Woman. This is despite Zarchi being executive producer on all three of the modern films and frequently airing his distaste of the exploitative name that his own is known by. That said, Zarchi is astute enough to know that his infamous title is good for business; he has directed his own sequel to the 1978 film and yet, rather than reclaiming Day of the Woman, he has chosen to trade off the infamous brand by calling it ISOYG: Déjà Vu. It is unsurprising then that many view modern horror remakes 81

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 35: The

Netherlands
collection of all
four ISOYG films.

as simply cynical cash-ins; ‘a sizable number of movie productions not only admit that they are remakes but actually flaunt the fact to capitalise on the audience’s familiarity with the original … DVD packages of originals and their remakes abound … [and] these examples underline the established status of the film remake as a commercial practice’ (Heinze and Krämer 2015: 8). ISOYG’s franchise is no exception; the remake and its sequels market themselves off the back of the original’s notoriety as clearly evidenced in their posters.

The 2013 film’s poster proudly announces that it is ‘from the director of the controversial 2010 film’ and all three are packaged as one saleable product. The 1978 and 2010 versions are also sold as one and a collection from the Netherlands packages all four films together.

ISOYG’s remake and sequels have a reciprocal relationship with the original; all benefit from the others’ presence, not least monetarily: ‘as is the case with cultural products in 82

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
general, new versions of older films are generally produced for financial reasons. They can capitalise on the original and thereby, unlike new stories, have the bonus of coming from a tried and often greatly-revered original’ (Lindner 2015: 25).

This is not to wax lyrical about the filmmakers of the 1970s; as Roche states, ‘[they] were hoping to be successful both artistically and economically and were not just making art for art’s sake’ (2014: 12). Thus, ‘the remake talks back to and thus potentially multiples the meaning of the “original” …

both depend on each other’ (Heinze and Krämer 2015: 12).

Viewers are, then, invited to explore the differences between both films and to evaluate what has/hasn’t been successful in the updating of the text; or, if they have not seen the original, to explore it in the context of the new film. A remake, therefore, has a number of moviegoers to please: ‘the audience that has never heard of the original film it is based on, the audience that has heard of the film but has not seen it, the audience that has seen it but does not remember it, the audience that has seen it but liked it little enough to hope for an improvement, and the audience that has seen it and enjoyed it’ (Leitch 2002: 40–1). A remake of a film as notorious as ISOYG brings further complications: Monroe made his version ‘knowing that there will be fans of the original that will be pissed off and new fans that will be pissed off …

[and that] there will be a large chunk of America that won’t even go near it’ (cited in Decker 2010).

If one considers Thomas Leitch’s 2002 typology on remakes then ISOYG 2010 can be seen as falling into two areas. As a ‘homage’ it clearly acknowledges the 1978 version as evidenced in its poster campaign and the fact that the remake keeps the same narrative structure and characters –
unlike, for example, the remakes of Black Christmas, Prom Night and Mother’s Day, which alter names, plots and end-ings. It is also an ‘update’, transposing Zarchi’s story from 83

CULTOGRAPHIES
the 1970s to the present day and introducing modern technology. The problem remains, however, that no matter how well-made Monroe’s version is, ISOYG 2010 cannot escape the shadow of its more (in)famous predecessor. For marketing purposes, this can be a blessing as discussed, but it has also meant that Monroe’s film has been dogged by controversies still associated with Zarchi’s film. Most of the reviews express bewilderment at the ‘dubious undertak-ing’ (DeFore 2010) of making a ‘pointless photocopy of a flick that doesn’t deserve one’ (Weinberg 2010), describing it as ‘a completely worthless enterprise that offers nothing to the world other than the crushing realisation that it exists’ (Hall 2010). For Roger Ebert, so scathing of the original on its release, Monroe’s is simply ‘a despicable remake of the despicable 1978 film’ (2010). Perhaps the most imaginative review comes from Little White Lies, who labelled the film ‘completely pointless, like being in the Guinness Book of Records for eating a wheelbarrow of your own shit … the most shocking thing about this film is that anyone bothered to make it once, let alone twice’ (Glasby 2011).

Despite a background in exploitation filmmaking – Sasquatch Mountain (2006), Ogre (2008), Mongolian Death Worm (2010) – Monroe claims to have come to his project with similar honest intentions as Zarchi did in 1978. For Monroe, this was the rape of an ex-girlfriend: ‘it took everything out of me … There were times when I saw him [the victimiser] and I wanted to take a baseball bat and bash his head in … I wasn’t thinking about any of the repercussions such a vengeful action would have on my life’ (cited in Decker 2010).

If this is the case – and it would certainly justify the pro-feminist feel of the movie – then it might also explain Zarchi’s decision to come on board as producer. Owning the rights to the original, Zarchi has acknowledged that a number of people had approached him wanting to remake it but that 84

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
he had rejected them all, unhappy with the direction they wanted to take it. As Monroe has admitted, ‘before I was hired, one of my pitches was that it was going to feel real, and with doing that I wanted to bring a social responsibility’

(ibid.). Consequently, Sarah Butler’s Jennifer, despite what ultimately befalls her, is a stronger character than Keaton’s.

Initially humiliated and assaulted in her cabin, she escapes by smashing a bottle over one attacker and maces another.

When Sheriff Storch (Andrew Howard) pads her down suggestively she slaps him across the face. In the revenge section she plays psychological games on her assailants creating distrust and division within their ranks. Dead birds are thrown at Johnny’s home mimicking his initial harassment of her; Stanley’s (Daniel Franzese) videotape of her rape goes missing and is posted to Storch’s wife and Jennifer torments the sheriff with the suggestion that she has abducted his daughter. There is also a very marked change in how she is physically presented, typically seen in ‘jeans, running gear or pyjamas and minimal make up’ (Mee 2013: 9).

The introduction of the sheriff acknowledges one of the original film’s major failings; i.e. it is never clear why Jennifer doesn’t go to the police instead of embarking on an elaborate sexualised killing spree. Having believed she has escaped her attackers, Butler’s Jennifer falls (literally) into the arms of the law (Storch) who subsequently shows that

‘the law cannot be trusted … This provides a more water-tight logic behind her decision to execute revenge on her own, and to some degree accounts for the increased intensity of her post-rape violence’ (Heller-Nicholas 2011: 177). If Creed argues that ‘woman-as-victim is represented as an abject thing, [while] man-as-victim is not similarly degraded and humiliated’ (1993: 130), then the 2010 revenge segment certainly addresses this by turning the attackers’ own perversions against them. Having throttled Jennifer to bring 85

CULTOGRAPHIES
himself to ejaculation, Matthew is strangled unconscious.

Sodomised by Storch, Jennifer violates him with a loaded shotgun. Stanley the voyeur has his eyelids forced open with fishing hooks and his face smeared with fish innards to enable crows to peck out his eyes, all the while videoed by his camera. Andy, who tried to drown Jennifer in a puddle during her ordeal, is submerged in a lye bath. Johnny, who humiliated her with animal references (particularly regarding her being a show horse), is gelded with shears. These brutal scenes are unmistakeably emblematic rapes that reflect Jennifer’s own degradation and with ‘the men begging, crying and screaming during their torture … they are reduced to shows of female traits, a further humiliation that enhances their symbolic castrations’ (Mee 2013: 11). Claire Henry, however, argues that such violence is a failing of the film:

‘where in the original the audience wonders how far Jennifer will go in her revenge, in the remake the audience wonders how far the filmmakers will go in depicting it’ (2014: 49–50; emphasis in original). This is influenced by audience expectations that horror remakes will surpass the original in levels of intensity. And yet, although Jennifer’s actions are far more extreme acts of retribution than Keaton’s, they do actually correlate with Monroe’s own desire for violence towards his ex-girlfriend’s rapist: ‘I honestly believe that if someone’s wife came home and said, “This just happened to me,” that the husband would either go do to these guys what Jennifer does, or at least sit there and ponder on it. There is no one that would just forgive and forget’ (cited in Decker 2010).

It can be argued that the remake actually enhances the feminist theme of Zarchi’s film by removing problematic elements such as Jennifer’s sexualised revenge and the extended rape sequence. That is not to say that Butler’s ordeal is any less traumatic: ‘the rape scenes, although brutal, are less protracted, placing more emphasis on Jennifer’s degradation 86

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
and mental torture’ (Mee 2013: 4). Over twenty minutes Jennifer is made to drink alcohol, has lit matches thrown at her face and is forced to fellate a bottle and a gun. Hansen describes her bullying as ‘humiliating’, acknowledging that ‘the torment that they give this woman prior to raping her is unbearable. Some people have come back to say that they feel it’s actually worse than the rape … we designed that intentionally’ (2011). This focus on domination reiterates feminist discussions of rape as being symbolic of man’s brutal control over women as opposed to it being something sexual. Monroe films these scenes using a handheld camera for a rest-less documentary effect. They are so realistically staged that they are not only uncomfortable for the viewer, they were also traumatic for those involved. In a film that was ‘emotionally draining … [with] an entire crew that was being affected by the subject matter’ (Monroe, cited in Decker 2010), after one of the rapes Butler ‘cried for about fifteen minutes’ and following his rape sequence actor Chad Lindberg ‘was in the corner of the room retching’ (Monroe, cited in Waddell 2010: 20). This is not dissimilar to events on the set of the original; Zarchi did not storyboard his film, relying instead on three or four master shots of each sequence and a mixture of close, medium, long and reaction shots. As he only had one camera, it meant each rape had to be performed a number of times. This was too much for Keaton who at one point

‘dashed off into the equipment van and slammed the door behind her. Then for the next four minutes she screamed her lungs off … throwing things against the wall’ (Zarchi 2010b).

After a few days shooting in the woods, Keaton was so badly stung by poisonous ivy and insects that she had to be rushed to hospital for treatment. Likewise, two crew members stormed off the set never to return; first an electrician who, after ‘standing frozen with shock … said [he was] sick of this violence’ and then the makeup artist who revealed ‘she 87

CULTOGRAPHIES
was once a victim of a vicious gang-rape herself and these scenes bring [sic] awful memories’ (Zarchi 2010b). The actor Richard Pace also suffered for his art, collapsing unconscious following his hanging. In this respect, in their search for realism, both Zarchi and Monroe subjected not just their fictional characters, but also their actors – female and male – to actual trauma associated with rape.

Just as in the 1978 film, Monroe shoots the attacks on Butler’s Jennifer from her perspective. The footage Stanley shoots on his camcorder, viewed first-hand by the audience, forces us to question what we are watching while emphasising Jennifer’s distress at being its subject matter; it does not, as the BBFC suggested, ‘endorse sexual assault … by encouraging viewer complicity’ (David Cooke, BBFC director, cited in BBFC press release, 2010). While the first rape is shot from both Jennifer and Stanley’s perspective, our identification is clearly with her from the second assault onwards.

Unlike Zarchi’s film which shows all four attacks, only the first two rapes in the remake are captured on screen; the other three (five in total, due to the introduction of the sheriff) blur in and out of focus as Jennifer loses consciousness. This make it difficult, as in Zarchi’s film, to argue that the rapes in any way encourage identification with the attackers; like the original, the rapes ‘are sustained and agonising, the camera refusing to cut away … only by showing the full horrific nature of the rapes and by making the pain so real can such a subject be responsibly approached’ (Graham 2010).

The fact remains, however, that although Monroe may argue that ‘it’s in everyone’s gut to call it an “exploitative raperevenge film” [but that] … I didn’t want to do that’ (cited in Decker 2010), his film has, like its predecessor, been sold as just that. Like the infamous advertising of Zarchi’s debut, Monroe’s movie poster is heavily sexualised and fetishised with an image that does not appear in the film. In a suitably 88

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
hyperbolic fashion the trailers for ISOYG 2010 advocate that

‘some crimes are so brutal that if you survive your only option is revenge … show no mercy’ and that the film is ‘unforgiving, uncompromising, unmerciful, unapologetic, unrated’.

Figures 36 & 37:

The objectification of

Sarah Butler mirrors
that of Final Girl

Jessica Biel.

89

CULTOGRAPHIES

When the film was released Zarchi proudly announced that he hoped it would be as controversial as his (see Fleming 2008). There are also those who have taken exception to Monroe’s so-called ‘feminist’ overtones; Heller-Nicholas argues that ‘although Butler’s Jennifer does not use her sexuality to seduce her rapists in the same way Keaton does …

[Butler’s] top is thin and light-coloured, allowing her erect nipples to be clearly visible … although Jennifer here may not be feminised, she is certainly still “eroticised”’ (2011: 177). In this regard, Butler’s Jennifer resembles the overtly sexualised heroine of 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with her exposed mid-riff and low-cut jeans. This would align with Mulvey’s position that the male viewer’s pleasure is governed by voyeuristic control. While Hansen may argue that when the audience does see Butler completely naked that ‘there’s certainly no excitement or joy in seeing it. It’s horrific’ (2011), it must be acknowledged that Sarah Butler is young, slim and attractive – all the ingredients of the typical exploitation rape-revenger. This brings us back to the recurring question as to why so many films in the genre are written and directed by men. If, as they argue, the purpose of these films is to illustrate the horrors of rape, then what makes male directors believe that they have the right to speak on this issue – and why use young, good-looking women as their victims? As Krystal Cooper points out, what such films actually seem to portray is ‘a man’s idea of what women would want to have the power to do if they were brutalised’ (2013). Very few female writers/directors have ventured near the subject; The Ladies Club (1986) by Janet Greek, Baise-moi ( Rape Me, 2000) by Virginie Despentes and Coralie Trinh Thi, Descent (2007) by Talia Lugacy, American Mary (2012) by Jen and Sylvia Soska and M.F.A. (2017) by Natalia Leite and Leah McKendrick spring to mind, although Baise-moi and American Mary are not strictly rape-revenge.

90

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Another key problem critics have had with the remake is the revenge section; ‘here it becomes a movie, not an ordeal, the tone shifting to make the super-violent, super inventive payback scenes the stuff of cheering, whooping entertainment’ (Graham 2010). For many, Monroe’s elaborate retribution turns it into more of an identifiable horror film than the original, emphasised further by Jennifer’s absence from the narrative for twenty minutes. As the viewer loses their point of reference this encourages audience identification with the rapists in whose presence we now find ourselves. Unlike Zarchi’s film, we do not witness Butler’s Jennifer lose the last vestiges of her humanity as she prepares for vengeance; instead her transformation is coded as horror in her presentation as a zombie. Other horror film devices employed include jump scares, unattributed POV shots and a suspenseful score. Many of the film’s reviews condemned it as ‘gleeful tricks ’n’ traps torture porn’ (Fletcher 2011) but it can be argued that this is only to be expected in a modern rape-revenge picture. The genre, in its most basic form, presents a woman who has been raped and seeks revenge; torture porn is just another means of updating this narrative for modern audiences.21 There is no denying the torture porn aspect of Monroe’s film; in pre-production CineTel founder Paul Hertzberg said that ‘after seeing what was done with an R rating on films like Saw and Hostel, we think we can modernise this story, be competitive with what this market-place expects and not have to aim for an NC-17 or X rating’

(cited in Fleming 2008). This indicates the financial incentive behind remaking ISOYG – and its intended audience. With Saw and Hostel making more than $100m and $80m respectively worldwide, both on miniscule budgets, a slew of imitators followed.22 In fairness, the torture porn-isation of ISOYG
is no different from what Zarchi did in 1978; one can argue that Zarchi’s grainy, hand-held, docu-realist aesthetics were 91

CULTOGRAPHIES
simply copying techniques used in earlier, independent – and financially successful – horror films such as Night of the Living Dead, The Last House on the Left and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

It is to Monroe’s credit that despite his revenges being far gorier and elaborate than the 1978 film, his Grand Gui-gnol leanings actually strengthen the film’s feminist intent.

Many torture porn films portray the tortured subject’s perspective during their ordeal: in the remake’s rape scenes

‘a blue-hued filter is employed to bleach out blurred-edge shots. The incident is portrayed from lead protagonist Jennifer’s perspective, the effect mimicking her tear-filled field of vision’ (Jones 2013: 74). Similarly, the film’s ‘dulled, reverber-ating soundscape suggests that she is emotionally drown-ing, being overwhelmed with horror. These mechanisms provide access to her torment’ (2013: 75). Even if Monroe’s film is geared towards a modern horror audience brought up on Saw/ Hostel, it can be hypothesised that his torture porn leanings are simply modern equivalents of Zarchi’s deliberate lack of incidental sound or music during the 1978 rape sequence. The intention (and effect) is the same: to make the scenes uncomfortable to watch and to ensure that they are told from Jennifer’s point of view. Both films ‘make the viewer feel like an invisible observer’ (Zarchi 2010b), powerless to help; in this respect, Monroe’s remake is the equal of the original. It is also worth noting that ‘although there is no suggestion of a ‘“happy ending” for Hills … she is seen in the final shot of the film having lost neither her mind nor her life, but instead calmly reflecting on her actions’ (Mee 2013: 18), a stark contrast to 1978 which saw a grinning Keaton metaphorically riding off into the sunset.

Henry argues that modern rape-revenge films are often

‘hybridised with torture porn … [because they] similarly present spectacles of violence that are connected to – and 92

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 38: Strung
up and gagged,
ready to be
castrated in ISOYG

2010.

Figure 39: An
extreme form of
waterboarding in

ISOYG 2010.

perhaps help to process – sociopolitical conflicts and their media representation, particularly around issues of violence, retribution, torture, and trauma’ (2014: 9). In this respect the resurgence of rape-revenge films in the twenty-first century

‘might be attributable to the fact that the rape-revenge narrative lends itself well to being overlaid with torture porn gore, in that rape is a form of torture and its eye-for-an-eye vengeance involves other spectacles of violence or body horror’

(2014: 30). This may go some way to explaining, above the obvious financial reasons, as to why the genre seems to be fixated around the ethical aspects of torture. As Kevin Wetmore points out, Monroe’s film is lined with images from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay: ‘naked men, suspension in chains, waterboarding, stress positions, beatings, chok-ings, all designed to humiliate and cause pain’ (2012: 113).

Jennifer’s torture of her assailants is made permissible by the fact that they tortured her first (a theme also prevalent in Hostel and Hostel: Part II). The fact that she metes out her vengeance in jeans and vest, ‘clothing more suggestive of the military than suggestive of being suggestive’ (Wet-93

CULTOGRAPHIES
more 2012: 112), strengthens this argument. If ethics do lie at the heart of the viewer’s interaction with the genre, then revisionist rape-revenge films like ISOYG 2010 exploit this by making us question our desire to see such retribution handed out. If, as Henry feels, the violence in Monroe’s remake celebrates rather than condemns it, then perhaps this feeds into ‘reassuring the audience rather than implicating them in ethical questions raised by American actions in the “war on terror”’ (2014: 31).

If modern remakes and contemporary rape-revenge films do indeed reveal a cultural need to work through post-9/11
ideological questions around torture and vengeance then this does pose a problem for ISOYG 2010 and its sequels, mainly because the suffering inflicted on the men is directly related to their own sexual perversions. Their torture is personally connected to their treatment of Jennifer – not ‘as metaphorical representations of terrorism or subsequent American retaliation’ (Mee 2013: 16). The complication with allegorical interpretation can be found in other torture porn films; according to the director of 2010’s A Serbian Film, his tale of a porn star tricked out of retirement to embark on a sex-crazed killing spree is actually about two decades of war (Spasojević 2010). Eli Roth has argued that the subtext of Hostel is anger around the Iraq War (Zinoman 2011: 221), not something that is immediately apparent in a film about American students being tortured on a backpacking trip across Europe. That said, one can argue that Monroe’s use of torture porn/allegorical references to Abu Ghraib/Guantánamo Bay actually enhance, rather than diminish, the film’s feminist agenda. Heller-Nicholas points out that ‘one of the more interesting features of the remake is its awareness of

… technological factors and the notion of remediation’ (2011: 178). Near the beginning of the film, Jennifer is videoed by Stanley, his POV becoming our frame of reference. While the 94

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
camcorder’s presence reflects modern concerns about a surveillance culture and modern technology in the wake of 9/11

– i.e. ‘a constant sense of being watched … [it also adds] to the complete sense of violation against her’ (Monroe 2011).

This correlates with Susan Sontag’s assertion that ‘to photograph people is to violate them … The act of taking pictures is a semblance of appropriation, a semblance of rape’ (1979: 14, 24). This was illustrated during the My Lai massacre of March 1968 when the gang-rape and murder of a peasant woman in Vietnam by American soldiers was photographed by one of her rapists (see Brownmiller 1977: 103). More recently three men in Sweden were jailed for raping a woman and broadcasting it live on Facebook (see Tamplin 2017). Although the use of video and surveillance equipment features in a number of modern revenge films ( Straightheads [2007], The Brave One and American Mary), possibly because they

‘lend themselves thematically and visually to processes of objectification, control, scopophilia, voyeurism, and sexual violence’ (Henry 2014: 20), Stanley’s camcorder works not only in placing the film in a contemporary locale but also enables feminist film theory’s long-established voyeuristic male gaze argument to be questioned.

While the video camera undeniably places us alongside Stanley and his colleagues during the rape sequence, Jennifer later turns its POV against him. Both scenes – Jennifer’s ordeal/her revenge – are unsettling because of where the film places the audience. With the camcorder’s LCD
screen facing her, Jennifer is forced to watch herself being sodomised. She similarly points the screen towards Stanley when she ties him to a tree to enable crows to peck out his eyes; ‘in both cases point of view is complicated because the object of the voyeur’s gaze – Jennifer during the rape, Stanley during the revenge – also becomes its diegetic viewer. When the viewer is given a full-screen camcorder 95

CULTOGRAPHIES
shot, are we sharing the perspective of victim or perpetrator?’ (2014: 51). Just as Zarchi did in the original, Monroe’s film constructs ‘a cinematic revenge upon the traditional representation of women in Hollywood cinema by inverting the male gaze in which woman is object and man is bearer of the look’ (2014: 93–4). (It also has echoes of Kathryn Bigelow’s exploration of celluloid voyeurism and mass entertainment in Strange Days [1995], in which a woman is forced to watch her own torture and murder).

The serious messages of ISOYG 2010 and the techniques used to convey them are sadly lacking in the 2013 sequel; even its new story and characters stretch credibility. Aspiring model Katie Carter (Jemma Dallender), desperate for new portfolio photographs, visits a seedy New York studio run by three Bulgarian brothers; she leaves when they demand that she pose topless. Later, learning-disabled brother Georgy (Yavor Baharov) breaks into her flat and rapes her. When he calls on his siblings for help, they drug her, bundle her into a box – and she awakes in Bulgaria. There she is chained up, abused and in one particularly distressing scene raped with a cattle prod. Burying her in the cellar, the ground conveniently gives way and she escapes to the sewers to plot her revenge. Like ISOYG 2010 her methods of retaliation mimic her assailants’ deviances. Unfortunately, Monroe – back as director – pushes the torture porn envelope so far that the film has no real message or purpose beyond its gratuitous violence.

Gone are the intelligent credentials of the protagonist; whereas the Jennifers of 1978 and 2010 were writers, Katie is a clothes horse whose aspirations are simply to get by on her looks as evidenced in an eroticised fashion shoot in Ivan’s (Jo Absolom) studio, where his camera – and Monroe’s

– panders to Mulvey’s argument of a male gaze. While she may be desperate to obtain new photographs and is low on 96

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 40: Katie as
clothes horse.

cash, her visit – alone – to a dubious-looking underground studio is incredibly naive. This is frustrating because Katie does initially show signs of self-reliance; her neighbour’s in-adequate attempts to catch rodents are surpassed by Katie’s improvised trap, skills inherited from a childhood spent on a farm. Yet this scene’s inclusion seems solely to foreshadow her elaborate revenge, particularly when the apparatus used to ensnare Georgy is a larger version of the earlier mouse trap. Whereas the previous Jennifers were self-reliant, dish-ing out their lex talionis alone (and thus presenting themselves as strong, independent women), Monroe here introduces a priest and policeman who band together in a bid to save her. Despite being able to knock off her assailants unas-sisted, in the finale she is saved by Detective Krill (Georgi Zlaterev). This cliché – of needing to be saved by a man, as evidenced in Hannie Caulder – is what ISOYG 1978 and the genre has spent decades erasing. The film also squanders an opportunity to say something important about the traffick-ing of young women into sexual slavery in Eastern Europe (albeit here it is done in reverse, with Katie smuggled from America). The notion that she can be drugged, hidden in a box and resurface in Bulgaria is ridiculous. No explanation is given as to how they got her there or why they would go to such extraordinary lengths in the first place. Another wasted moment for social commentary is the figure of the brothers’

mother, a woman who rounds up young victims while working at a rape crisis centre.

97

CULTOGRAPHIES

Disturbingly , ISOYG 2013’s torture porn revels not just in the punishment Katie dishes out but also on her suffering – a stark contrast to ISOYG 1978 and its remake. The majority of the film’s locations – the photography studio, the cellar, a nightclub where she murders one of the brothers and the box they transport her in – are either underground or small, dark places where Katie/her victims are confined: the typical mise-en-scène of torture porn (even the sewers are lit with a blue hue like Saw). Unlike the rape sequences of ISOYG

1978 and 2010, the perspective in the cattle prod rape is not the victim’s; instead, the camera circles Katie’s terrified body, prowling around her like a second assailant, cutting to close-ups of her crying face and bloodied mouth. Henry points out that ‘the failure to either induce or convey the horror of rape is both a generic and feminist political failure’ (2014: 34) as it fails to motivate and justify the protagonist’s brutal retribution. This is the key failing of ISOYG 2013 which revels in the violence thrown at the screen, demanding nothing of the viewer except its acceptance.

Katie’s torture of Georgy – manacled to a wall, semi-naked, crying, urinating in fear – is eerily reminiscent of the images leaked to the press of the humiliating treatment of prisoners by American military at Abu Ghraib. Like the soldiers who took those pictures, Katie too enjoys demeaning Georgy as she snaps away with her camera. Although this is clearly meant to mimic his earlier treatment of her – breaking into her apartment and taking photographs while she slept

– the introduction of Katie’s camera makes no statement about voyeurism or the implication of the viewer as it did in the remake. Unlike 2010’s Jennifer, who sent the video of her rape to Storch’s wife and turned the camera on Stanley, Katie does nothing with her photographs. This raises the disturbing inference that she is a voyeur just like her oppressors and sadistically enjoys filming their torture (otherwise why go to 98

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 41: An
abused prisoner at

Abu Ghraib.

Figure 42: Georgy
humiliated and
tortured in ISOYG

2013.

the trouble of obtaining a camera?). Consequently, ISOYG

2013 ‘pales in comparison to the original remake’ (Whitney 2013) as evidenced in its one week US theatrical run and negative reviews: ‘everything about this film feels like a

“been there, done that” deal’ (Torfe 2013), ‘too ugly to laugh at and too ridiculous to take seriously’ (Newman 2013) and

‘bottom-feeding exploitation trash’ (Harvey 2013).

It is perhaps because of the lukewarm reception (critically and financially) to the first sequel that the franchise returned to its original protagonist, Jennifer Hills in ISOYG 2015. Although Monroe is replaced by another exploitation director, R. D. Braunstein,23 Sarah Butler is back, with Jennifer living under a different identity and attending group therapy for rape survivors. After listening to the horror stories of its members, the rape – and murder – of a friend pushes her over the edge and she re-embarks on a vigilante rampage.

99

CULTOGRAPHIES

The dynamics of the counselling group enable the film to raise some important questions about rape; Brownmiller’s famous assertion that rape is about power not sex is dismissed as ‘bullshit’ by one victim, who asserts that ‘it’s very specifically about sex, to hurt you as deeply as possible’. The fact that Jennifer attends group – and individual – counselling sessions, suffers from constant flashbacks of her ordeal and frequently hallucinates is a devastating reminder that women are never the same after rape. When Jennifer meets Maria (Jennifer Landon), ‘the two fantasise strength and control, and verbally begin their evolution into a duo of powerful women … [They] snipe at sexual predators, and eventu-ally get physical with the father of a girl in their group. It’s empowering stuff’ (Miska 2015). This fits with the acknowledgement that ‘fantasises of revenge can be healing for rape victims’ (Henry 2014: 96) and that ‘watching these films … is an act of solidarity … a provocative means of dispelling the threat their subject matter poses’ (Janisse 2012: 72).

While the second sequel’s plot is undoubtedly an improvement over the previous film, its main problem is that it is possibly ‘the first rape-revenge film to feature neither on-screen rape or straightforward revenge’ (Hanley 2015).

Jennifer’s character may be more developed than in Monroe’s outing, but it is unclear who she is claiming revenge for. Herself? Her group members? All women? This is complicated further by a ‘twist’ at the end suggesting that everything we have just witnessed has all been in Jennifer’s head. Whereas Martin Barker argues that ISOYG 1978 can be read as a ‘serious … study of the idea of rape’ (1984b: 116; emphasis in original), the horrific nature of Jennifer’s revenge here leaves the viewer with the uncomfortable feeling that

‘this film is nothing but hate. Seething, gender-bashing hate

… [with men] the most obvious target’ (Donato 2015). While one scene involves Jennifer hammering a steel pipe up an of-100

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
fender’s rectum, another has her flay a penis while biting off its tip. The overabundance of hyper-violent sequences soon becomes tiresome and sadly Jennifer’s transformation into the rape-revenge genre’s fetishised and sexualised avenger is complete when she dresses in bobby socks and pigtails, goth gear and tight dresses to entice predators. This may be the avenue the franchise decides to pursue, but it is ‘a sad excuse that confuses the dehumanisation of woman as an action-packed rebirth, complete with costumes and traps.

When society asked for stronger female roles, this isn’t the product we were asking for’ (ibid.). As Brad Miska ponders,

‘unless Daniel Gilboy [its writer] is a rape victim, which I hope he is not … [it is] extraordinarily uncomfortable to see him write from the perspective of multiple female rape victims.

This leads to a tone-deaf and possibly misogynistic I Spit on Your Grave sequel’ (2015).

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then there are those who have blatantly sought to directly trade off the back of Zarchi’s film; this is a pure exploitation tactic, although the unofficial remake in 1985 ( Naked Vengeance) and unofficial sequel in 1993 ( Savage Vengeance) push the envelope as far as they can before homage and imitation descend into farce.

The Philippines-made exploitation production Naked Vengeance (also known as Satin Vengeance) is ‘a perfectly crazy rip-off’ (Adelman 2015). Here an independent city woman visits the country, is raped by yokels and seeks payback. The most obvious steal is that the protagonist Carla’s (Deborah Tranelli) revenge references a watery castration and motorboat episode. Dressed all in white (as Keaton was with Matthew), Carla disrobes as she enters the river, kisses her former rapist and emasculates him with a knife. There are no attempts to examine issues of misogyny, male violence or to encourage audience identification with the victim; instead the film goes to ‘outrageous lengths … [to] up the 101

CULTOGRAPHIES
stakes established by its predecessor … [in] a style so overt it becomes its own self-parody’ (Guarisco 2017). Not content with subjecting his heroine to an incredibly degrading gang-rape, director Cirio H. Santiago also has her witness the brutal murders of her husband and parents in separate scenes.

Sexually harassed by every man she meets, after despatching her rapists Carla travels back to the city – trench-coated, in true Death Wish fashion – to slay her husband’s killer. The film is so demeaning – Carla’s rape is brutal and eroticised, dramatic music playing as she is circled, jostled and stripped

– that some critics have even labelled it hard-core pornography (see Lehman 1993: 107).

Although Zarchi’s filmmaking is often crude, his directorial skills are evident in his deliberate use of long takes to emphasis the protracted horror of Jennifer’s ordeal, her POV
shots and the film’s absence of non-diegetic sound. Santiago instead throws in action sequences (two car chases, a shoot-out) accompanied by a bombastic soundtrack; Carla even has her own soft-rock theme song, performed by Tranelli. At the moment when Carla decides upon her plan of revenge, thun-der and lightning strike in exaggerated gothic fashion. Narratively the story makes little sense; despite the crime scene containing the DNA of her rapists and parents’ murderers, and the sheriff guessing the identity of the culprits, he treats Carla as the prime suspect. Likewise, although being rendered supposedly catatonic by her ordeal, she is allowed to wander the grounds of a hospital unsupervised and barely dressed. Under such lax supervision she is able to sneak out to exact her vengeance and, despite the injustices heaped upon her and her family, the townsfolk decide that she is the real monster and hunt her through the woods before burning down her house.24 Santiago’s cardinal sin, however, is that Carla’s revenge plan isn’t even her own; in a lacklustre attempt to give the film some semblance of feminist agenda, 102

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Carla overhears a rape victim discussing her revenge fantasises with a doctor. Only then does she embark on her killing spree, insinuating that she is doing this for all rape victims who want to – but can’t – take matters into their own hands.

If Naked Vengeance is pure ‘derivative shlock’ (Guarisco 2017), then Donald Farmer’s unauthorised sequel Savage Vengeance is ‘a murky mess that solely stands as an ironic curiosity thanks to its script and direction’ (Tabor 2014). Like Monroe, Braunstein and Santiago, Farmer’s background is in exploitation with such titles as Cannibal Hookers (1987), Chainsaw Cheerleaders (2008) and Shark Exorcist (2015).

Where Santiago stole scenes directly from Zarchi, Farmer actually has Keaton reprise the role of Jennifer. Five years after the events of 1978, Jennifer is now at college having been found not guilty of her rapists’ murders. When she is in-advertently identified in class, she and her friend Sam (Linda Lyer) go on holiday to a log cabin in the country. Here Sam is raped and murdered by local degenerates (one played by Farmer himself), who also violate Jennifer and leave her for dead. Armed with a chainsaw and shotgun, Jennifer seeks revenge.

According to Andrew Sarris, although ‘a badly directed or an undirected film has no importance in a critical scale of value’ (2000: 132), the amateurish nature of Farmer’s film and its unpleasant attributes are invaluable in illustrating just how ground-breaking ISOYG was in dealing with rape in a hard-hitting and realistic manner. Farmer’s film is an

‘unacknowledged remake’, so named because the ‘producers have failed to acquire the necessary copyrights’ (Heinze and Krämer 2015: 9); as Dan Tabor elaborates, ‘Donald basi-cally got the star of one of his favourite films and decided to make a sequel to said film without really clearing it with anyone’ (2014). Shot in 1988, the film wasn’t released until 1993 and it is widely believed that the holdup was because 103

CULTOGRAPHIES

Zarchi had threatened to sue; this may be the reason for the poorly dubbed dialogue used to change plot points and the pitiful recreation of the first film to provide flashbacks. It is unclear why Keaton agreed to make the film and there are rumours that she walked off the set, which would explain her appearance in the credits as ‘Vickie Lahl’.25 With a running length of just over an hour and shot on video for $5,000, Farmer’s effort is a lesson in how not to make a movie. Boom mics are visible, the special effects are anything but, Sam moves her head while dead and the soundtrack is dread-ful. When the film was released in 1993 by Magnum Video, even the on-screen title was misspelled – Savage Vengance.

The amateurish nature of the production and Farmer’s lack of talent as a director don’t, however, excuse the fact that elements of the film are in extremely bad taste. As Tabor continues, ‘the concept of “rape” in Savage Vengeance, unlike I Spit on Your Grave, equates to the cast wearing tight stonewashed jeans and grinding on one another, while the topless women subjected to this pretend to be in pain … It’s pathetically hilarious, considering this is a sequel to one of the most brutal rape/revenge films of all time’ (2014). Farmer has blamed such scenes on his director of photography and Figure 43: The
misspelled title
card for Savage

Vengeance.

104

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
actors, but this is undermined by his own admission that ‘we really weren’t trying to make it that realistic, we were trying to make it more light-hearted … like more of a comedy’

(Farmer and Keaton 2014).26 If Farmer was indeed attempting to make the world’s first comedic rape-revenge film, then he certainly has a strange concept of humour, especially as his degenerates commit necrophilia.

An unusual addition to the unofficial ISOYG franchise is 1979’s Intikam Kadini, also known as A Woman’s Revenge or Woman of Vengeance, but more commonly referred to as Turkish I Spit on Your Grave. It tells the story of four men whose car breaks down in the country and who seek refuge at the farm of an elderly man and his daughter, Aysel (Zerrin Doğan). After receiving food and lodging for the night the visitors repay this hospitality by gang-raping the girl and beating the father to death. After contemplating suicide, Aysel heads off to the city to track down the men and kill them. The film shares a number of similarities with Zarchi’s film, e.g.

a group of uncouth men gang-rape a young woman in the country and leave her for dead; like ISOYG, she prays, makes herself glamorous and seduces each of the men into an early tomb. Two of the revenge segments notably take place in water – one rapist has his throat slit on a boat, the other is found drowned in a swimming pool. What is also intriguing about Intikam Kadini is that the film was released in 1979, just one year after Zarchi’s. It would not, however, have had the title of Turkish I Spit on Your Grave at this point as Zarchi’s film wasn’t re-issued under its infamous moniker until 1980.

Director Naki Yurter’s film, therefore, received its exploitative tag much later, as happened with a lot of Turkish films from this era; the country’s film industry had no regard for copyright and frequently remade Hollywood movies. Hence the emergence of titles such as Seytan – Turkish Exorcist (1974), Süpermen Dönüyor ( Turkish Superman,1979) and, probably 105

CULTOGRAPHIES
the most famous of them, Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam – Turkish Star Wars (1982).

While it is feasible that its makers could have seen Day of the Woman on its initial release, Intikam Kadini cannot be written off as a straight cash-in on Zarchi’s film. Despite the similarities in subject matter and narrative an essential difference is the subversion of the trope of the city representing civilisation and the countryside as threatening; Aysel is a peasant girl and her rapists are estate agents from the city.

It is civilisation that invades and rapes the country. Another intriguing aspect is the genuine contrition of one of her assailants: ‘I was so bad to you … you were right’, he acknowledges. It is difficult to imagine Jennifer Hills’ rapists showing such contrition, even as they plead for their lives. Likewise, Aysel’s change from plain peasant girl to glamorous avenger could be construed as saying more about Turkey’s culture than the sexualising of her revenge; as Heller-Nicholas points out, ‘the Western style of dress that she adopts in vengeance mode can be considered overt: wigs, sunglasses, heavy make-up, bikinis, blue jeans and high-heeled shoes.

This strikes a dramatic contrast with her traditional outfit at the beginning and ending of the film, and her transformation from rape victim to vampish avenger is coded explicitly through this wardrobe shift from “East” to “West”’ (2011: 151). This links in with the film’s final twist: Aysel’s arrest.

Unlike most rape-revengers, she doesn’t get away with murder; ‘her calm surrender to the police is therefore an act allied with traditional values, simultaneously acknowledging that her role as vengeful vamp was a deviation from these values and therefore necessarily coded as explicitly “Western”’ (ibid.).

Promising aspects aside, Intikam Kadini is still an unsettling, seedy film which peddles the soft-core porn side of rape-revenge, pandering to a male-centric audience with no 106

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
regard for victim identification. There is little attempt at character or story development; at just over an hour in length, Aysel’s gang-rape takes place six minutes in and her thoughts of revenge kick in at the thirteen-minute mark. She recovers from her ordeal remarkably quickly and even finds time to belt out a song. Disturbingly, not only does Aysel seduce her attackers, she even has sex with two of them. If that wasn’t enough, the director throws in two further sex scenes involving the men and other women. The excessive copulation is probably due to Yurter and Doğan having previously worked on Öyle Bir Kadın Ki ( A Woman Like That, 1979), the first legally produced hard-core porn film in Turkey. Perhaps the most laughable aspect of the film is that all four of the rapists fail to recognise Aysel simply because she wears makeup and Western clothes. All in all, Turkish I Spit on Your Grave’s poor quality editing, inappropriate choice of soundtrack (Aysel’s second rape is scored to a non-diegetic disco track), atrocious sound quality, lousy acting and appalling grainy picture make it very hard to get through.

With a title clearly influenced by Zarchi’s film, 1999’s German I Piss on Your Cadaver is possibly the first rape film to feature a blooper reel in its end credits. While containing an unnecessary amount of nudity, misogyny and sexual assault, and filmed on a budget that makes Savage Vengeance look like Gone with the Wind (1939), the film’s ‘plot’ (a term used loosely) involves a virus invented by the military being sold to gangsters. Six years later Japanese exploitation Akuma No Ejiki: Sâdo Baiburêshon also known as Third Vibrations, but more commonly referred to as I Spit on Your Remains was released. Notoriously difficult to track down, this seventy-minute film mixes rape-revenge with the supernatural.

The most interesting aspect in relation to Zarchi’s film is its poster which rehashes ISOYG’s seminal image of a scantily clad woman, her back to the camera, knife in hand.

107

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 44: The DVD
cover for I Spit On

Your Remains.

Other films that can be directly related to ISOYG 1978 in terms of their subject matter are Demented (1980), the story of a woman who seeks revenge on her rapists after suffering a psychotic breakdown; Shan Kou ( The Beasts, 1980), a Chinese tale of a father seeking retribution after the rape of his daughter and murder of his son (although this is also clearly influenced by The Last House on the Left); Feng Huang Nu Sha Xing ( Deadly Darling/ The Lady Avenger, 1981), a Taiwan-ese story of a woman’s violent rampage against her rapists; The Ladies Club in which the female protagonists form a vigilante group to track down and castrate rapists; and 1988’s Chinese Xue Mei Gui (also known as Her Vengeance) to name just a few.

While Farmer’s treatment of rape is unsettling, the spoof that is I Spit Chew on Your Grave (2008) almost manages to successfully lampoon the rape-revenge genre, as opposed to making light of sexual violence. Directed by Chris Seaver

– whose previous works have included titles such as Anal Paprika 3: Ménage-A-Death (2001), Scrotal Vengeance (2001) and Quest for the Egg Salad (2002) – it tells the story of three evil prostitutes who, led by a mythical prince, rape, murder and rob a local redneck who has won the lottery. Resurrected by a witch, he returns to kill them. With a running length of an hour, the film’s main redeeming features are 108

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Figure 45: I Spit

Chew on Your

Grave’s ridiculous
rape-revenger.

Figure 46: Poster
for I Spit Chew on

Your Grave.

that it doesn’t take itself seriously (evidenced in the name of Seaver’s production company, Bosoms Till Tuesday) and contains a number of ridiculous set-pieces and characters, most notably its protagonist Leo DeChamp (Josh Suire), 109

CULTOGRAPHIES
a Toblerone-obsessed misfit who sports a bizarre wig and moustache. There is something to be said for the unusual choice of making the victim a man (typically unheard of in the rape-revenge genre), but ‘certainly there will be some who bristle at the whole “sexual assault” theme, even when it is aimed at the male members of the species’ (Gibron 2010), particularly when the 2013 American National Crime Victimisation Survey recorded that 38 per cent of incidents of sexual violence were against men – with women often the perpetrators. With a poster proclaiming the film to be a

‘tale of heart pounding, bone chillingly silly rape!’, and with DeChamp’s ordeal preceded by a song and dance routine entitled Magic Rape (a spoof of the Magic Dance song from Labyrinth [1986]), I Spit Chew on Your Grave does enter uncomfortable territory: ‘there are a lot of different sub-genre horror films that can be fun and light-hearted, but not in the rape-revenge genre’ (Cloude 2015).

Savage Vengeance is exploitation filmmaking at its most cynical, banking on the notoriety – and star – of Zarchi’s film, as evidenced in the fact that it was promoted in some countries as a direct sequel under the titles of I Spit on Your Grave 2, I Will Dance on Your Grave: Savage Vengeance and Return to the Grave. By doing this, films like Savage Vengeance, Naked Vengeance and I Spit Chew on Your Grave grab the attention of audiences who are aware of – and enjoy – the original or the ‘brand’ that ISOYG has become. This is a tried and tested exploitation technique and is no different from Jerry Gross changing Day of the Woman to ISOYG to cash in on previous drive-in titles like I Drink Your Blood (1970) and I Eat Your Skin (1971). There was already a 1959 film entitled I Spit on Your Grave about the mixed-raced relationship between a white heiress and a black man investigating his brother’s lynching; that film’s theatrical poster, very much like the marketing campaign of the Jerry Gross Organisation, 110

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
proudly proclaimed it as ‘the film that defies every taboo’

(its original French release poster is eerily similar – a naked woman, posed defiantly, with her back to the camera).27 By associating themselves with ISOYG, filmmakers such as Santiago, Farmer and Seaver are simply using established exploitation tricks to sell their products off the back of a better known, comparatively well-made production; such films, otherwise, would likely be forgotten. Farmer is really only known for Savage Vengeance – more than likely his intention. In 2015 exploitation director Matt Cloude announced he was remaking Savage Vengeance with Farmer’s blessing. It is telling that he isn’t remaking one of Farmer’s other thirty-odd films; just the one he’s (in)famous for.

Figure 47: French
poster for 1959’s I

Spit on Your Grave.

111

CULTOGRAPHIES

With the recent re-animation of a number of horror franchises it is often hard to express surprise when the next one predictably rolls off the assembly line. In September 2014, however, Zarchi took the film world by surprise when Dread Central exclusively revealed that the original ISOYG was getting a sequel. After languishing in post-production for three years, at the time of writing ISOYG: Déjà Vu is to be released in 2018 to mark the fortieth anniversary of the original. Written and directed by Zarchi, the film sees Jennifer Hills return as a famous writer who provides comfort to rape survivors.

Having penned a best-selling book about her ordeal and her subsequent trial for killing her attackers, the relatives of the rapists are less than happy that she was found not guilty and seek revenge.

Although Donald Farmer bastardised the first attempt at a direct sequel in his lamentable Savage Vengeance, there are striking similarities in plot with Zarchi’s new film in that a number of years have passed since the events of ISOYG
and Jennifer (again played by Keaton) has been put on trial for her crimes and has similarly been acquitted. While Zarchi has stated that he always envisaged Keaton one day returning to play Jennifer (see Galluzo 2015), the story has changed significantly from what was announced at Cannes in 2014
when he was securing finance: ‘the original concept was to focus on a serial killer that uses a crisis hotline to target rapists with one of the counsellor’s dark past finding the law turning to their direction’ (Hunter 2014). This time around, it is Jennifer’s daughter, Christy (played by Jamie Bernadette), who bears the brunt of the trauma first inflicted on Jennifer in the original, orchestrated by Becky (Maria Olsen), Johnny’s widow. ISOYG: Déjà Vu is also, despite its subject matter, a family picture; not only does it re-unite Zarchi with his ex-wife Keaton, it also features his children, Tammy and Terry, who appeared as Johnny’s (very young) offspring in the original; 112

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
they return to play grown-up versions of the same characters.

Terry also produces the film (his own documentary, Growing Up with I Spit on Your Grave, has been in production since 2012 and will also be released in 2018).

Despite announcing the sequel in 2014, Zarchi has proved very adept at keeping details of the production a closely guarded secret; as Kevin Farrow notes, ‘with Déjà Vu being a belated sequel to one of modern horror cinema’s most discussed titles; revered and reviled in equal measure, all the secrecy surrounding the finer points of the plot is understandable’ (2017: 26). Most media articles have rehashed the same material from the film’s official website and even Farrow’s piece in Scream magazine (Jan/Feb 2017), one of the few to go into any real depth regarding the film, is limited by the cautious response from cast and crew: Terry Zarchi responds with ‘you will have to wait and see where the story goes’ and Maria Olsen shuts down any further probing with

‘Non-Disclosure Agreements are such pesky things’ (2017: 25, 26). However, what is immediately noticeable is that the film seems to be dominated by three strong female leads

– Jennifer, Christy and Becky. Equally illuminating are the comments made by the three lead actresses in choosing to be part of such a controversial picture. Olsen regards the 1978 version as an important feminist text, arguing that it

‘doesn’t degrade or exploit women; it shows how they can empower themselves and strike back after they’ve almost been destroyed. It celebrates their power, strength and resourcefulness instead of exploiting their weaknesses’ (2017: 27). Likewise, Bernadette acknowledges that ‘rape is a tragic and dark side of our species that is not talked about enough

… Films like ISOYG bring awareness to this crime and also, believe it or not, can assist in helping victims to heal … Why is it suddenly a “naughty” movie when it is addressing a real issue in a raw way that we in our society really need to take a 113

CULTOGRAPHIES

Figure 48: ISOYG
in The Simpsons.

good look at and do something about?’ (2017). And Keaton, who has lived with the film for forty years, proudly embraces it because rape victims at fan conventions have told her what a positive difference it has made in their lives (2017).

And so I Spit On Your Grave’s cycle comes full circle with the new sequel, with the franchise – or franchises, official and unofficial – showing no signs of dying out. The original film – and the character of Jennifer Hills – has taken on an almost mythical importance, not just in the genre of raperevenge, but also in the history of cinema, as evidenced in the plethora of films which owe a huge debt to it. It is this

‘constant repetition of the same tale [that] keeps it alive in social memory, continually transmitting its meaning and relevance’ (Zanger 2006: 9). That it has earned a place in popular culture is undeniable – in 1995 it was even referenced in an episode of The Simpsons. It is an exploitation film and like a lot of similar ‘cult’ films it straddles a very fine line between deserving praise for its courage in tackling a difficult subject matter and vilification for its objectification of women. Forty years on, it still continues to divide opinion and more than likely will for another forty and beyond. It is a film that defies easy classification and that is what makes it so interesting and powerful. No doubt Jennifer will, in one form or another, continue to wreak a trail of vengeful destruction for a long, long time to come.

114

NOTES

1

For ease of reference I Spit on Your Grave (1978) will hereafter be abbreviated to ISOYG. Its remake I Spit on Your Grave (2010), its sequels – I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013) and I Spit on Your Grave 3

(2015), and Meir Zarchi’s own sequel – I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà Vu (2018) – are abbreviated to ISOYG 2010, ISOYG 2013, ISOYG 2015
and ISOYG: Déjà Vu respectively.

2

Taken from the sleeve of the 101 Films UK Ultimate Edition DVD of ISOYG.

3

‘Herstory’, a term first coined in 1970 by activist Robin Morgan to emphasise history from a feminist viewpoint.

4 Mary Anne Doane describes these as ones that focus on domesticity, family, self-sacrifice and romance (1987:152–3).

5 Examples
include

Don’t Ride on Late Night Trains (retitled The New House on the Left, 1975), The Last House on Dead End Street (1977) and La Casa Sperduta Nel Parco ( The House on the Edge of the Park, 1980).

6

Accessible at http://www.ispitonyourgrave1978.com/reviews-2/

(accessed 10 October 2017).

7

The British Videogram Association was the trade body that represented the interests of publishers and rights owners of video entertainment (now known as the British Video Association).

8

The National Viewers and Listeners Association was a pressure group which campaigned against the publication/broadcast of media content it deemed harmful and offensive.

9

While Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act enabled prosecu-115

CULTOGRAPHIES
tion of video dealers, it had only enabled the forfeiture and destruction of video tapes; Section 2 made the prospect of prison a reality.

10 Sutcliffe was convicted in 1981; his killing spree spanned from 1975
to 1980.

11 ‘Tits and ass’.

12 Egan is specifically referring to the ‘inexperienced actors, low production values, weak character development and plot’ of The Evil Dead (1981) (2011: 41) but the point is valid for a number of similar films ( The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) that became cults partly for these reasons.

13 ‘Only Women Bleed’, Alice Cooper’s song about a woman in an abusive marriage, released in 1975 in the midst of protests across America regarding rape and sexual violence, reached number 1 in the Canadian RPM national singles chart and number 12 in the US

Billboard Hot 100 singles chart.

14 Described as ‘the basic template’ (Alexander 2005) for modern rape-revenge films.

15 Incidentally the film continues rape-revenge’s association with folklore by being an adaptation of a twelfth- to fourteenth-century medieval ballad entitled ‘Tore’s Daughter at Vange’.

16 Actress Amanda Adrienne, star of 2013’s rape-revenge thriller Avenged (aka Savaged), a film described as ‘ I Spit on Your Grave meets The Crow’ (Long 2015).

17 The web article, ‘”I Spit on Your Grave” marks CineTel’s bold return to theatrical distribution’, has the published date of 31 December 1969. This date (1969) is quite clearly wrong as the original film wasn’t made until 1978. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/i-spit-your-grave-marks-32969

18 Giallo – stylish Italian mystery thrillers which introduced slasher elements such as knife-wielding killers, stalking POV shots and elaborate murder set pieces.

19 Box office statistics on production budgets and worldwide grosses for The Last House on the Left (2009), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), ISOYG 2010, ISOYG 2013 and ISOYG 2015 are from boxof-ficemojo.com and the-numbers.com. No budgets could be found for ISOYG 2013 and 2015.

20 Other remakes include: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003); Dawn of the Dead and The Toolbox Murders (both 2004); The Amityville Horror, House of Wax and The Fog (all 2005); The Texas 116

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, When a Stranger Calls, The Hills Have Eyes, The Omen, Night of the Living Dead 3D and Black Christmas (all 2006); The Hitcher, The Hills Have Eyes II and Halloween (all 2007); Prom Night and It’s Alive (both 2008); My Bloody Valentine, Friday the 13th, The Last House on the Left, Sorority Row, Halloween II and The Stepfather (all 2009); The Crazies, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Mother’s Day and Piranha 3D (all 2010); and Fright Night, Straw Dogs, Evil Dead and The Thing (all 2011).

21 Torture porn has been identified as containing three key ingredients: films are ‘made (roughly) after 2003 … [feature] abduction, binding, imprisonment and torture (mental or physical) … [and]

broadly belong to the horror genre’ (Jones 2013: 8).

22 These
include:

Saw II (2005); Saw III and Turistas ( Paradise Lost, both 2006); Borderland, Captivity, Frontière(s) ( Frontier[s]), Hostel: Part II, I Know Who Killed Me, Inside, Saw IV, Scar and W 6 Z (all 2007), Martyrs, Saw V and Untraceable (all 2008); Saw VI (2009) and A Serbian Film, The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Saw 3D: The Final Chapter (all 2010).

23 Braunstein’s previous credits include Layover (2012), a torture porn tale of sex traffickers and 100 Degrees Below Zero (2013), a disaster picture about a new ice age.

24 The scene is reminiscent of Universal Studios’ Frankenstein (1931), reiterating the point made earlier that the female avenger is a man-made monster.

25 Although the opening credits of the film have the name as ‘Vickie Lahl’ (with an ‘a’), the end credits have it as ‘Lehl’ (with an ‘e’) – another example of the amateur nature of this film.

26 What is interesting in this interview is the look of horror on Keaton’s face when Farmer says he was aiming for a ‘light-hearted’ rape film.

27 The film’s original title was J’irai Cracher Sur Vos Tombes, which translates as I Shall Spit On Your Graves.

28 See footnote 17.

117

FILMOGRAPHY

4 Mosche Di Yelluto Grigio (Film) d. Dario Argento, Italy/France, 1971.

6 Donne Per L’assassino (Film) d. Mario Bava, Italy/France/Monaco, 1964.

100 Degrees Below Zero (Film) d. R. D. Braunstein, USA, 2012.

Accused, The (Film) d. Jonathan Kaplan, Canada/USA, 1988.

Act of Vengeance (Film) d. Bob Kelljan, USA, 1974.

Akuma No Ejiki: Sâdo Baiburêshon (Film) d. Yoshiyuki Okazawa, Japan, 2005.

American Mary (Film) d. Jen Soska, Sylvia Soska, Canada, 2010.

Amityville Horror, The (Film) d. Andrew Douglas, USA, 2005.

Anal Paprika 3: Ménage-A-Death (Film) d. Chris Seaver, USA, 2001.

Anatomy of a Murder (Film) d. Otto Preminger, USA, 1959.

Animals, The (Film) d. Ron Joy, USA, 1970.

Attack of the 50-Foot Woman (Film) d. Nathan Juran, USA, 1958.

Autostop Rosso Sangue (Film) d. Pasquale Festa Campanile, Italy, 1977.

Avenged (Film) d. Michael S. Ojeda, USA, 2013.

Baise-moi (Film) d. Virginie Despentes, Coralie Trinh Thi, France, 2000.

Big Driver (Film) d. Mikael Salomon, USA, 2014.

Birth of a Nation, The (Film) d. D. W. Griffith, USA, 1915.

Black Christmas (Film) d. Bob Clark, Canada, 1974.

Black Christmas (Film) d. Glen Morgan, USA/Canada, 2006.

Blackmail (Film) d. Alfred Hitchcock, UK, 1929.

Blair Witch Project, The (Film) d. Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez, USA, 1999.

118

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Blue Gardenia, The (Film) d. Fritz Lang, USA, 1953.

Blues Brothers, The (Film) d. John Landis, USA, 1980.

Bonnie and Clyde (Film) d. Arthur Penn, USA, 1967.

Borderland (Film) d. Zev Berman, USA, 2007.

Brave One, The (Film) d. Neil Jordan, USA/Australia, 2007.

Bravados, The (Film) d. Henry King, USA, 1958.

Buster and Billie (Film) d. Daniel Petrie, USA, 1974.

Cannibal Holocaust (Film) d. Ruggero Deodato, Italy, 1980.

Cannibal Hookers (Film) d. Donald Farmer, USA, 1987.

Captives, The (Film) d. Eric Stanze, USA, 2001.

Captivity (Film) d. Roland Joffé, USA/Russia, 2007.

Carne (Film) d. Armando Bo, Argentina, 1968.

Carrie (Film) d. Brian De Palma, USA, 1976.

Chainsaw Cheerleaders (Film) d. Donald Farmer, USA, 2008.

Chato’s Land (Film) d. Michael Winner, UK/USA/Spain, 1972.

Clockwork Orange, A (Film) d. Stanley Kubrick, UK/USA, 1971.

Cosa Avete Fatto a Solange? (Film) d. Massimo Dallamano, Italy/West Germany, 1972.

Crazies, The (Film) d. Breck Eisner, USA/United Arab Emirates, 2010.

Crow, The (Film) d. Alex Proyas, USA, 1994.

Dawn of the Dead (Film) d. George A. Romero, Italy/USA, 1978.

Dawn of the Dead (Film) d. Zack Snyder, USA/Canada/Japan/France, 2004.

Day of the Woman (Film) d. Meir Zarchi, USA, 1978.

Death Weekend (Film) d. William Fruet, Canada, 1976.

Death Wish (Film) d. Michael Winner, USA, 1974.

Deep Throat (Film) d. Gerard Damiano, USA, 1972.

Deliverance (Film) d. John Boorman, USA, 1974.

Demented (Film) d. Arthur Jeffreys, USA, 1980.

Descent (Film) d. Talia Lugacy, USA, 2007.

Dirty Weekend (Film) d. Michael Winner, UK, 1993.

Don’t Mess with My Sister! (Film) d. Meir Zarchi, USA, 1985.

Don’t Ride on Late Night Trains (Film) d. Aldo Lado, Italy, 1975.

Dracula (Film) d. Tod Browning, USA, 1931.

Dracula’s Daughter (Film) d. Lambert Hillyer, USA, 1936.

Dressed to Kill (Film) d. Brian De Palma, USA, 1980.

Driller Killer, The (Film) d. Abel Ferrera, USA, 1979.

Du Nu (Film) d. Meng Hua Ho, Hong Kong, 1973.

Dünyayi Kurtaran Adam (Film) d. Çetin Inanç, Turkey, 1974.

119

CULTOGRAPHIES

Eaten Alive (Film) d. Tobe Hooper, USA, 1976.

Emmanuelle (Film) d. Just Jaeckin, Franch, 1974.

Evil Dead (Film) d. Fede Alvarez, USA, 2013.

Evil Dead, The (Film) d. Sam Raimi, USA, 1981.

Exorcist, The (Film) d. William Friedkin, USA, 1973.

Extremities (Film) d. Robert M. Young, USA, 1986.

Eye for an Eye (Film) d. John Schlesinger, USA, 1996.

Feng Huang Nu Sha Xing (Film) d. Chia-Yun Yang, Taiwan, 1981.

Fiddler on the Roof (Film) d. Norman Jewison, USA, 1971.

Fog, The (Film) d. Rupert Wainwright, USA, 2005.

Frenzy (Film) d. Alfred Hitchcock, UK, 1972.

Frankenstein (Film) d. James Whale, USA, 1931.

Friday The 13 th (Film) d. Sean S. Cunningham, USA, 1980.

Friday The 13 th (Film) d. Marcus Nispel, USA, 2009.

Fright Night (Film) d. Craig Gillespie, USA, 2011.

Frontière(s) (Film) d. Xavier Gens, France/Switzerland, 2007.

Girls for Rent (Film) d. Al Adamson, USA, 1974.

Godfather, The (Film) d. Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1972.

Godfather, The: Part II (Film) d. Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1974.

Gone with the Wind (Film) d. Victor Fleming, USA, 1939.

Grease (Film) d. Randal Kleiser, USA, 1978.

Growing Up with I Spit on Your Grave (Documentary) d. Terry Zarchi, USA, in post-production.

Gun for Jennifer, A (Film) d. Todd Morris, USA, 1997.

Halloween (Film) d. John Carpenter, USA, 1978.

Halloween (Film) d. Rob Zombie, USA, 2007.

Halloween II (Film) d. Rick Rosenthal, USA, 1981.

Halloween II (Film) d. Rob Zombie, USA, 2009.

Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror (Documentary) d. Stefan Hutchinson, USA/UK, 2006.

Handgun (Film) d. Tony Garnett, UK, 1984.

Hannie Caulder (Film) d. Burt Kennedy, UK, 1971.

He Knows You’re Alone (Film) d. Armand Mastroianni, USA, 1980.

Hills Have Eyes, The (Film) d. Wes Craven, USA, 1977.

Hills Have Eyes, The (Film) d. Alexandre Aja, USA/France, 2006.

Hills Have Eyes II, The (Film) d. Martin Wiesz, USA, 2007.

Hitcher, The (Film) d. Dave Meyers, USA, 2007.

Holy Hollywood (Film) d. Terry Zarchi, USA, 1999.

Hora (Film) d. Reinhert Kiil, Norway, 2009.

120

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Hostel (Film) d. Eli Roth, USA/Germany/Czech Republic/Slovakia/

Iceland, 2005.

Hostel: Part II (Film) d. Eli Roth, USA/Czech Republic/Italy/Iceland/

Slovakia, 2007.

House of Wax (Film) d. Jaume Collet-Serra, Australia/USA, 2005.

Human Centipede, The (First Sequence) (Film) d. Tom Six, Netherlands, 2010.

Hunting Party, The (Film) d. Don Medford, UK/USA, 1971.

I Drink Your Blood (Film) d. David E. Durston, USA, 1970.

I Eat Your Skin (Film) d. Del Tenney, USA, 1971.

I Know Who Killed Me (Film) d. Chris Sivertson, USA, 2007.

I Spit Chew on Your Grave (Film) d. Chris Seaver, USA, 2008.

I Spit on Your Grave (Film) d. Steven R. Monroe, USA, 2010.

I Spit on Your Grave 2 (Film), d. Steven R. Monroe, USA, 2013.

I Spit on Your Grave 3: Vengeance Is Mine (Film) d. R. D. Braunstein, USA, 2015.

I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà Vu (Film), d. Meir Zarchi, in post-production.

I Spit on Your Grave: Millennium DVD Edition (DVD) d. Meir Zarchi, USA, 2004, Elite.

I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition (DVD) d. Meir Zarchi, UK, 2010, 101 Films.

I Spit on Your Grave – Unrated (DVD) d. Steven R. Monroe, USA, 2011, Anchor Bay Entertainment.

I Spit on Your Naked Corpse (DVD) DVD Collection, USA, 2010. SRS

Cinema.

Ich Pisse Auf Deinen Kadaver (Film), d. Jochen Taubert, Germany, 1999.

Il Gatto a Nove Code (Film) d. Dario Argento, Italy/France/West Germany, 1971.

I’ll Kill You … I’ll Bury You … I’ll Spit on Your Grave, Too (Film) d. Thomas R. Koba, USA, 2000.

Incredible Shrinking Man, The (Film) d. Jack Arnold, USA, 1957.

Inside (Film) d. Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury, France, 2007.

Intikam Kadini (Film) d. Naki Yurter, Turkey, 1979.

It’s Alive (Film) d. Josef Rusnak, USA, 2008.

Jackson County Jail (Film) d. Michael Miller, USA, 1976.

Jaws (Film) d. Steven Spielberg, USA, 1975.

J’irai Cracher Sur Vos Tombes (Film) d. Michel Gast, France, 1959.

Joshû 701-gô: Sasori (Film) d. Shunya Itô, Japan, 1972.

121

CULTOGRAPHIES

Johnny Belinda (Film) d. Jean Negulesco, USA, 1948.

Jungfrukällan (Film) d. Ingmar Bergman, Sweden, 1960.

Katalin Varga (Film) d. Peter Strickland, Romania/UK, 2009.

Kill the Rapist (Film) d. Sanjay Chhel, India, 2018.

Kozijat Rog (Film) d. Metodi Andonov, Bulgaria, 1972.

La Bestia In Calore (Film) d. Luigi Batzella, Italy, 1977.

Labyrinth (Film) d. Jim Henson, UK/USA, 1986.

La Settima Donna (Film) d. Franco Prosperi, Italy, 1978.

La Casa Sperduta Nel Parco (Film) d. Ruggero Deodato, Italy, 1980.

Ladies Club, The (Film) d. Janet Greek, USA, 1986.

Lager SSadis Kastrat Kommandantur (Film) d. Sergio Garrone, Italy, 1976.

Last House on Dead End Street, The (Film) d. Roger Watkins, USA, 1977.

Last House on the Left, The (Film) d. Wes Craven, USA, 1972.

Last House on the Left, The (Film) d. Dennis Iliadis, USA, 2009.

Layover (Film) d. R. D. Braunstein, USA, 2012.

Les Lèvres Rouges (Film) d. Harry Kúmel, Belgium/France/West Germany, 1971.

Lipstick (Film) d. Lamont Johnson, USA, 1976.

Looking for Mr. Goodbar (Film). d. Richard Brooks, 1977.

Lo Squartatore Di New York (Film) d. Lucio Fulci, Italy, 1982.

L’uccello Dalle Piume Di Cristallo (Film) d. Dario Argento, Italy/West Germany, 1970.

Lust for a Vampire (Film) d. Jimmy Sangster, UK, 1971.

Maniac (Film) d. William Lustig, USA, 1980.

Mark of the Vampire (Film) d. Tod Browning, USA, 1935.

Martyrs (Film) d. Pascal Laugier, France/Canada, 2008.

Megan is Missing (Film) d. Michael Goi, USA, 2011.

M.F.A. (2017) d. Natalia Leite, USA, 2017.

Mom and Dad (Film) d. William Beaudine, USA, 1945.

Mongolian Death Worm (Film) d. Steven R. Monroe, USA, 2010.

Mother’s Day (Film) d. Darren Lynn Bousman, USA, 2010.

Ms. 45 (Film) d. Abel Ferrara, USA, 1981.

My Bloody Valentine (Film) d. Patrick Lusier, USA, 2009.

Naked Vengeance (Film) d. Cirio H. Santiago, USA/Philippines, 1985.

Nightmare on Elm Street, A (Film) d. Samuel Bayer, USA, 2010.

Nightmares in A Damaged Brain (Film) d. Romano Scavolini, USA/Italy, 1981.

122

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Night of the Living Dead (Film) d. George A. Romero, USA, 1968.

Night of the Living Dead 3D (Film) d. Jeff Broadstreet, USA, 2006.

No Moriré Sola (Film) d. Adrián Garcia Bogliano, Argentina/Spain, 2008.

Ogre (Film) d. Steven R. Monroe, Canada/USA, 2008.

Omen, The (Film) d. John Moore, USA, 2006.

Öyle Bir Kadın Ki (Film) d. Naki, Yurter, Turkey, 1979.

Piranha 3D (Film) d. Alexandra Aja, USA, 2010.

Profondo Rosso (Film) d. Dario Argento, Italy, 1975.

Prom Night (Film) d. Paul Lynch, Canada, 1980.

Prom Night (Film) d. Nelson McCormick, USA/Canada, 2008.

Psycho (Film) d. Alfred Hitchcock, USA, 1960.

Quest for the Egg Salad (Film) d. Chris Seaver, USA, 2002.

Rachel (Film) d. Nuri Habib, Israel, 1960.

Reazione a Catena (Film) d. Mario Bava, Italy, 1980.

Repulsion (Film) d. Roman Polanski, UK, 1965.

Revenge for a Rape (Film) d. Timothy Galfas, USA, 1976.

Ring, The (Film) d. Gore Verbinski, USA, 2002.

Rocky Horror Picture Show, The (Film) d. Jim Sharman, UK/USA, 1975.

Rosemary’s Baby (Film) d. Roman Polanski, USA, 1968.

Run! Bitch! Run! (Film) d. Joseph Guzman, USA, 2009.

Safe in Hell (Film) d. William A. Wellman, USA, 1931.

Sasquatch Mountain (Film) d. Steven R. Monroe, USA, 2006.

Savage Streets (Film) d. Danny Steinmann, USA, 1984.

Savage Vengeance (Film) d. Donald Farmer, USA, 1993.

Savage Vengeance (DVD) d. Donald Farmer, USA, 2014, Massacre Video.

Scar (Film) d. Jed Weintrob, USA, 2007.

Saw (Film) d. James Wan, USA/Australia, 2004.

Saw II (Film) d. Darren Lynn Bousman, USA/Canada, 2005.

Saw III (Film) d. Darren Lynn Bousman, USA/Canada, 2006.

Saw IV (Film) d. Darren Lynn Bousman, USA/Canada, 2007.

Saw V (Film) d. David Hacki, USA/Canada, 2008.

Saw VI (Film) d. Kevin Greutert, Canada/USA/UK/Australia, 2009.

Saw 3D: The Final Chapter (Film) d. Kevin Greutert, Canada/USA, 2010.

Scooby Doo, Where Are You! (Television), USA, 1969–1970.

Scrotal Vengeance (Film) d. Chris Seaver, USA, 2001.

Serbian Film, A (Film) d. Srdjan Spasojevic, Serbia, 2010.

Serbian Film, A: Special Edition (DVD) d. Srdjan Spasojevic, UK, 2010.

Seytan (Film) d. Metin Erksan, Turkey, 1974.

123

CULTOGRAPHIES

Shanghai Express (Film) d. Josef von Sternberg, USA, 1932.

Shan Kou (Film) d. Dennis Yu, Hong Kong, 1980.

Shark Exorcist (Film) d. Donald Farmer, USA, 2015.

Simpsons, The (Television), USA, 1989–present.

Sleeping with the Enemy (Film) d. Joseph Ruben, USA, 1991.

Soldier Blue (Film) d. Ralph Nelson, USA, 1970.

Sorority Row (Film) d. Stewart Hendler, USA, 2009.

Star Wars (Film) d. George Lucas, USA, 1977.

Stepfather, The (Film) d. Nelson McCormick, USA, 2009.

Story of Temple Drake, The (Film) d. Stephen Roberts, USA, 1933.

Straightheads (Film) d. Dan Reed, UK, 2007.

Strange Days (Film) d. Kathryn Bigelow, USA, 1995.

Straw Dogs (Film) d. Sam Peckinpah, USA/UK, 1971.

Straw Dogs (Film) d. Rod Lurie, USA. 2011.

Sudden Impact (Film) d. Clint Eastwood, USA, 1983.

Süpermen Dönüyor (Film), d. Kunt Tulgar, Turkey, 1979.

Suspiria (Film) d. Dario Argento, Italy, 1977.

Taxi Driver (Film) d. Martin Scorsese, USA, 1976.

Tell Your Children (Film) d. Louis J. Gasnier, USA, 1936.

Terror Train (Film) d. Roger Spottiswoode, Canada/USA, 1980.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The (Film) d. Tobe Hooper, USA, 1974.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The (Film) d. Marcus Nispel, USA, 2003.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The: The Beginning (Film) d. Jonathan Liebesman, USA, 2006.

Thelma & Louise (Film) d. Ridley Scott, USA/France, 1991.

Thing, The (Film) d. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr, USA/Canada, 2011.

Thriller – En Grym Film (Film) d. Bo Arne Vibenius, Sweden, 1973.

Together Again (Film) d. Charles Vidor, USA, 1944

Toolbox Murders (Film) d. Tobe Hooper, USA, 2004.

Toolbox Murders, The (Film) d. Dennis Donnelly, USA, 1978.

Turistas (Film) d. John Stockwell, USA, 2006.

Untraceable (Film) d. Gregory Hoblit, USA, 2008.

Vampyros Lesbos (Film) d. Jesús Franco, West Germany/Spain, 1971.

Vampire Lovers, The (Film) d. Roy Ward Baker, UK/USA, 1970.

Video Nasties: Draconian Days (Documentary) d. Jake West, UK, 2014.

Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide (Documentary) d. Jake West, UK, 2010.

W 6 Z (Film) d. Tom Shankland, UK, 2007.

Water Power (Film) d. Shaun Costello, USA, 1976.

124

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

When a Stranger Calls (Film) d. Simon West, USA, 2006.

While the City Sleeps (Film) d. Fritz Lang, USA, 1956.

Wicked Lake (Film) d. Zach Passero, USA, 2008.

Wild Bunch, The (Film) d. Sam Peckinpah, USA, 1969.

Witch Who Came from the Sea, The (Film) d. Matt Cimber, USA, 1976.

Wrong Way (Film) d. Ray Williams, USA, 1972.

Xue Mei Gui (Film) d. Ngai Choi Lam, Hong Kong, 1988.

Zombi 2 (Film) d. Lucio Fulci, Italy, 1979.

125

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, F. (2015) ‘Thriller part II’, Critical Condition. Available at: http://
www.critcononline.com/thriller%20part%202.htm#Naked%20Ven-geance (accessed 6 October 2017).

Adrienne, A. (2017) Email correspondence with the author, 3 March.

Alexander, J. R. (2005) ‘The maturity of a film genre in an era of relaxing standards of obscenity: Takashi Ishii’s Freeze Me as a rape-revenge
film’,

Senses of Cinema, 36, July. Available at: http://senses-ofcinema.com/2005/the-metaphysics-of-violence/freeze_me/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Anderman, N. (2010) ‘The book of Rachel’, Haaretz, 11 April. Available at: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-book-of-rachel-1.284033

(accessed 6 October 2017).

Andrews, D. (2014) ‘Reconsidering the body genre: Rape-revenge and postfeminist softcore as biocultural phenomena’, Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, 7, 1–22.

Andrews, N. (1984) ‘Nightmares and nasties’, in M. Barker (ed.) The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media. London: Pluto Press, 39–47.

Barker, M. (1984a) ‘Nasty politics or video nasties?’, in M. Barker (ed.) The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media. London: Pluto Press, 7–38.

____ (1984b) ‘“Nasties”: A problem of identification’, in M. Barker (ed.) The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media. London: Pluto Press, 104–18.

126

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Barker, M. (2010) ‘My response to ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ in What do people say and think about ‘I Spit on Your Grave’: Reviews and articles from around the world, PDF document in I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, UK: 101 Films.

Bernadette, J. (2017) Email interview with the author, 20 October.

Bian (1978) ‘Miami Film Fest Reviews: Day of the Woman’, Daily Variety, 22 November, in What do people say and think about ‘I Spit on Your Grave’: Reviews and articles from around the world, PDF
document in I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, UK: 101

Films.

Bindel, J. (2011) ‘I was wrong about I Spit on Your Grave’, The Guardian, 19 January. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2011/jan/19/wrong-about-spit-on-your-grave (accessed 6 October 2017).

Bottigheimer, R. B. (1987) Grimms’ Bad Girls and Bold Boys: The Moral and Social Vision of the Tales. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Briggs, J. B. (2004) ‘Critic’s commentary’, I Spit on Your Grave: Millennium DVD Edition, d. Meir Zarchi [DVD]. USA: Elite.

British Board of Film Classification (2010) ‘Press release: BBFC cuts A Serbian Film and remake of I Spit on Your Grave’, 26 August.

Available at: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-cuts-serbian-film-and-remake-i-spit-your-grave (accessed 6 October 2017).

Bronstein, C. (2013) ‘Why the new movie about “Deep Throat” could be important’, The Atlantic, 7 January. Available at: https://www.

theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/why-the-new-movie-about-deep-throat-could-be-important/266850/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Brownmiller, S. (1977) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. London: Penguin.

Cherry, B. (2009) Horror. Abingdon: Routledge.

Chonin, N. (2005) ‘Vagina dentata’, SFGate, 12 June. Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Vagina-Dentata-2628293.php (accessed 9 October 2017).

CJ34 (2008) ‘I Spit on Your Grave [Meir Zarchi, 1978]: Discussion in

“Reviews”’, 7 May. Available at: http://www.cultmovieforums.com/
forum/threads/i-spit-on-your-grave-meir-zarchi-1978.13451/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Cloude, M. (2015) Facebook interview with author, 15 August.

127

CULTOGRAPHIES

Clover, C. J. (1992) Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

____ (1996) ‘Her body, himself: Gender in the slasher film’, in B. K.

Grant (ed.) The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 66–113.

Cooper, A. (1975) ‘Only Women Bleed’. USA: Atlantic.

Cooper, K. (2013) ‘Woman Seeks Revenge: What’s the Purpose of the Rape/Revenge Horror Film?’, IndieWire, 15 October. Available at: http://www.indiewire.com/2013/10/woman-seeks-revenge-whats-the-purpose-of-the-raperevenge-horror-film-208110/ (accessed 6

October 2017).

Creed, B. (1993) The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.

Crowdus, G. and J. Bloom (2003) ‘Cult films, commentary tracks and censorious critics: An interview with John Bloom’, Cinéaste, 28, 3, 32–4.

Daily Mail (1983) ‘Video nasties trader’, 23 February.

Dalzell, T. (2009) The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English. New York: Routledge.

Decker, S. (2010) ‘Exclusive: director Steven R. Monroe talks I Spit on Your Grave’, Dread Central, 5 September. Available at: http://www.

dreadcentral.com/news/19373/exclusive-director-steven-r-monroe-talks-i-spit-on-your-grave/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

DeFore, J. (2010) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave – Film Review’, Hollywood Reporter, 14 October. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.

com/review/i-spit-your-grave-film-30084 (accessed 6 October 2017).

Dinning, M. (2000) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave review’, Empire, 1 January.

Available at: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/spit-grave/
review/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Doane, M. A. (1987) The Desire to Desire: The Woman’s Film of the 1940s. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Donato, M. (2015) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave 3: Vengeance Is Mine review’, We Got This Covered. Available at: http://wegotthiscovered.com/
movies/i-spit-on-your-grave-3-vengeance-is-mine-review/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Ebert, R. (1980) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave: review’, 16 July. Available at: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-1980

(accessed 6 October 2017).

____ (1981) ‘Why movie audiences aren’t safe anymore’, American Film, 6, 5, 54–6.

128

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

____ (2010) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave 2010’, 6 October. Available at: http://
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-2010 (accessed 6

October 2017).

Egan, K. (2011) The Evil Dead. London and New York: Wallflower Press.

Everman, W. (2008) ‘What is a cult horror film?’, in E. Mathijs and X.

Mendik (eds) The Cult Film Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 212–25.

Everywoman (1988) Pornography and Sexual Violence: Evidence of the Links. London: Everywoman.

Faludi, S. (1993) Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women.

London: Vintage.

Farmer, D. and C. Keaton (2014) ‘Interview with Camille Keaton’, Savage Vengeance, d. Donald Farmer [DVD]. USA: Massacre Video.

Farrow, K. (2017) ‘A dish best served old …’, Scream, 40, 24–8.

Fidler, T. (2009) ‘“They don’t call ’em exploitation movies for nothing!”: Joe Bob Briggs and the critical commentary on I Spit on Your Grave’. Available at: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/colloquy/
download/colloquy_issue_eighteen/fidler.pdf (accessed 6 October 2017).

Fleming, M. (2008) ‘CineTel set for “Grave” remake’, Variety, 3 June.

Available at: http://variety.com/2008/film/markets-festivals/cinetel-set-for-grave-remake-1117986830/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Fletcher, R. (2011) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave remake’, Total Film, 4 January.

Available at: http://www.gamesradar.com/i-spit-on-your-grave-1-review/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Freeland, A. C. (1996) ‘Feminist frameworks for horror films’. Available at: http://uffilmanalysis.pbworks.com/f/Freeland742-763.pdf (accessed 10 October 2017).

Gallagher, B. (2016) ‘Exclusive: Meir Zarchi talks I Spit on Your Grave’, Movieweb. Available at: http://movieweb.com/exclusive-meir-zarchi-talks-i-spit-on-your-grave/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Galluzo, R. (2015) ‘Camille Keaton returns for official I Spit on Your Grave sequel’, 13th Floor, 10 November. Available at: http://www.

the13thfloor.tv/2015/11/10/camille-keaton-returns-for-official-i-spit-onyour-grave-sequel/ (accessed 19 December 2017).

Gibron, B. (2010) ‘Still Seaver, still insane: Taintlight/ I Spit Chew On Your Grave’, Popmatters, 27 January. Available at: http://www.pop-matters.com/post/119776-still-seaver-still-insane-taintlighti-spit-chew-on-your-grave/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

129

CULTOGRAPHIES

Gingold, M. (2013) ‘Revenge returns in I Spit on Your Grave 2!’, Fangoria, 7 May. Available at: http://www.fangoria.com/new/
revenge-returns-in-i-spit-on-your-grave-2/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Glasby, M. (2011) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave review’, Little White Lies, 20

January. Available at: https://issuu.com/lwlies/docs/lwlies33/68

(accessed 6 October 2017).

Graham, J. (2010) ‘FrightFest 2010: I Spit on Your Grave review’ , Games Radar, 29 August. Available at: http://www.gamesradar.com/fright-fest-2010-i-spit-on-your-grave-review/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Griffin, S. (1971) ‘Rape: The all-American crime’, Ramparts, 10, 26–35.

Gruenwedel, E. (2015) ‘Anchor Bay acquires third I Spit on Your Grave movie’, Home Media Magazine, 23 March. Available at: http://www.

homemediamagazine.com/product-news/anchor-bay-acquires-third-ispit-your-grave-movie-35503 (accessed 6 October 2017).

Guarisco, D. (2017) ‘Review: Naked Vengeance (1985)’, AllMovie. Available at: http://www.allmovie.com/movie/naked-vengeance-v34407/
review (accessed 6 October 2017).

Guida, B. (2011) Girls on Film: Issues of Misogyny and the Female Figure in Slasher Films. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Hall, P. (2010), ‘ I Spit on Your Grave: unrated review’, Fantastic Fest, 3

October. Available at: http://horrorsnotdead.com/wpress/2010/i-spit-onyour-grave-2010-review-fantastic-fest-2010/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Hanley, K. W. (2015) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave 3: Vengeance Is Mine (film review)’, Fangoria, 22 October. Available at: http://www.fangoria.

com/new/i-spit-on-your-grave-3-vengeance-is-mine-film-review/

(accessed 6 October 2017).

Hansen, L. (2011) ‘Producer’s commentary’, I Spit on Your Grave –

Unrated, d. Steven R. Monroe [DVD]. USA: Anchor Bay Entertainment.

Harper, G. (2005) ‘DVD and the new cinema of complexity’, in N.

Rombes (ed.) New Punk Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 89–101.

Harvey, D. (2013) ‘Film review: I Spit on Your Grave 2’, Variety, 19

September. Available at: http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/i-spiton-your-grave-2-review-1200652161/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Haskell, M. (1987) From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heinze, R. and L. Krämer (2015) ‘Remakes and remaking: Preliminary reflections’, in R. Heinze and L. Krämer (eds) Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, 7–19.

130

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Heller-Nicholas, A. (2011) Rape-revenge Films: A Critical Study. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Henry, C. (2014) Revisionist Rape-revenge: Redefining a Film Genre.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hollywood Reporter (1969)28 ‘ I Spit on Your Grave marks CineTel’s bold return to theatrical distribution’, 31 December. Available at: http://
www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/i-spit-your-grave-marks-32969

(accessed 6 October 2017).

Horeck, T. (2004) Public Rape: Representing Violation in Fiction and Film. New York: Routledge.

Horeck, T. and T. Kendall (eds) (2011) The New Extremism in Cinema: From France to Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hunter, C. (2014) ‘It’s Deja-vu as original I Spit on Your Grave star & director return for sequel’, Screen Relish, 22 September. Available at: http://www.screenrelish.com/2014/09/22/deja-vu-original-spit-grave-star-director-return-sequel/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Jancovich, M. (2002) ‘General introduction’, in M. Jancovich (ed.) Horror: The Film Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, 1–19.

Janisse, K.-L. (2012) House of Psychotic Women: An Autobiographical Topography of Female Neurosis in Horror and Exploitation Films.

Godalming: FAB Press.

Jones, S. (2013) Torture Porn: Popular Horror after Saw. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

____ (2015) ‘Grindigital: The ghost of grindhouse present’, Global Exploitation Cinemas: Historical and Critical Approaches Conference. Ritz Cinema & Theatre, Lincoln, 28–29 May. Lincoln: University of Lincoln.

Keaton, C. (2017) ‘Q&A with Camille Keaton’, The Festival of Fantastic Films, Pendulum Hotel, Manchester, 20–22 October.

Kerekes, D. and D. Slater (2000) See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy. Manchester: Headpress.

Keyes, D. (1980) ‘I Spit on Your Grave review’, Cinemaphile.Org, 13

September. Available at: http://www.cinemaphile.org/reviews/1998/
ispitonyourgrave.html (accessed 6 October 2017).

Kristeva, J. (1982) Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lehman, P. (1993) ‘Don’t blame this on a girl: female rape-revenge films’, in S. Cohan and I. R. Hark (eds) Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema. London: Routledge, 103–17.

131

CULTOGRAPHIES

Leitch, T. (2002) ‘Twice-told tales: Disavowal and the rhetoric of the remake’, in J. Forrest and L. R. Koos (eds) Dead Ringers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 37–62.

Lindner, O. (2015) ‘The Remade Prequel – Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)’, in R. Heinze and L. Krämer (eds) Remakes and Remaking: Concepts – Media – Practices. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, 23–39.

Long, J. (2015) ‘ Avenged (2013): I Spit on Your Grave meets The Crow in this gritty supernatural revenge flick (B-movie review)’, Fox Force Five News, 11 May. Available at: http://www.foxforcefivenews.com/
avenged-2013-i-spit-on-your-grave-meets-the-crow-in-this-gritty-supernatural-revenge-flick-b-movie-review/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Lor (1983) No title, Daily Variety, 16 March.

Lusher, A. (2016) ‘Donald Trump: All the sexist things he said’, The Independent, 9 October. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-sexist-quotes-comments-tweets-grab-them-by-the-pussy-when-star-you-can-do-anything-a7353006.html (accessed 6 October 2017).

Martin, M. and M. Porter (1990) Video Movie Guide 1991. New York: Ballantine.

Mathijs, E. and X. Mendik (2008) ‘Introduction: What is Cult Film?’, in E. Mathijs and X. Mendik (eds) The Cult Film Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 1–24.

Mathijs, E. and J. Sexton (2011) Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Maybrey, C. and M. D. Smith (2004) ‘Fairy tales’, in M. D. Smith (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Rape. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 69–70.

Mee, L. (2013) ‘The Re-rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hills: Gender and Genre in I Spit on Your Grave (2010)’. Available at: http://www.

academia.edu/1765480/The_re-rape_and_revenge_of_Jennifer_Hills_

Gender_and_genre_in_I_Spit_On_Your_Grave_2010_ (accessed 6

October 2017).

Miles, T. (2010) ‘A mother’s anguish: Daily Mail, July 2, 1983’, in C. Waddell (2010) ‘The most controversial film to hit the world!: A critical review’, in What do people say and think about ‘I Spit on Your Grave’: Reviews and articles from around the world, PDF document in I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, UK: 101 Films.

Miska, B. (2015) ‘Review: I Spit on Your Grave: Vengeance is Mine is tone-deaf’, Bloody Disgusting, 9 October. Available at: http://

132

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
bloody-disgusting.com/news/3363410/review-i-spit-on-your-grave-vengeance-is-mine/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Monroe, S. R. (2011) ‘Director’s commentary’, I Spit on Your Grave –

Unrated, d. Steven R. Monroe [DVD]: USA, Anchor Bay Entertainment.

Mulvey, L. (1988) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, in C. Penley (ed.) Feminism and Film Theory. London: Methuen, 57–68.

____ (1989) ‘Afterthoughts on Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, in L. Mulvey, Visual and Other Pleasures. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 29–38.

Newman, K. (2011) Nightmare Movies: Horror on Screen Since the 1960s. Revised and updated edn. London: Bloomsbury.

____ (2013) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave 2 review’, Screen Daily, 25 August.

Available at: http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-latest/i-spit-onyour-grave-2/5059524.article (accessed 6 October 2017).

Normanton, P. (2012) The Mammoth Book of Slasher Movies: An A–Z

Guide to Over Sixty Years of Blood and Guts. London: Constable & Robinson.

Oldridge, D. (2003) ‘“Video abuse”: Gender, censorship and I Spit on Your Grave’, in T. Waddell (ed.) Cultural Expressions of Evil and Wickedness: Wrath, Sex, Crime. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 113–26.

Oler, T. (2009) ‘Rape-revenge films have evolved since the days of exploitation films like I Spit on Your Grave – this new breed has Teeth’, Bitch, 42, 31–4.

Petley, J. (1984) ‘A nasty panic: Julian Petley traces the evolution of a moral panic’, Screen, 25(2) (March/April), pp. 68–74.

Pinedo, I. S. (1997) Recreational Terror: Women and the Pleasures of Horror Film Viewing. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Prince, S. (1998) Savage Cinema: Sam Peckinpah and the Rise of Ultraviolent Movies. Austin, TX: Texas University Press.

Projansky, S. (2001) Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture. New York: New York University Press.

Read, J. (2000) The New Avengers: Feminism, Femininity and the Rape-Revenge Cycle. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Reddy, H. (1972) ‘I Am Woman (Hear Me Roar)’. USA: Capitol Records.

Rhodes, G. D. and J. P. Springer (1996) ‘They give us that “weird feeling” – vampire women in films of the thirties’, in G. J. Svehla and S. Svehla (eds) Bitches, Bimbos, and Virgins: Women in the Horror Film. Baltimore, MD: Midnight Marquee Press, 25–49.

133

CULTOGRAPHIES

Rickey, C. (2013) ‘Brutalisation of women is a constant in popular film’, Variety, 429, 10, 49–51. Available at: http://variety.com/2013/voices/
opinion/brutalization-of-women-is-a-constant-in-popular-film-2654/

(accessed 30 June 2017).

Roche, D. (2014) Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s: Why Don’t They Do It Like They Used To? Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Rockoff, A. (2002) Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978–1986. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Sarris, A. ([1962] 2000) ‘Notes on the auteur theory in 1962’, in P. A.

Sitney (ed.) Film Culture Reader. New York: Cooper Square Press, 121–35.

Schoell, W. (1988) Stay Out of the Shower: The Shocker Film Pheno-menon. London: Robinson.

Schubart, R. (2007) Super Bitches and Action Babes. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Scully, S. (2015) Hesiod’s Theogony: From near Eastern creation myths to Paradise Lost. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Seaver, C. (2008) Magic Rape. USA: Bosoms Till Tuesday.

Shelley, M. (1992) Frankenstein; or the modern Prometheus. London: Penguin.

Short, S. (2006) Misfit Sisters: Screen Horror as Female Rites of Pas-sage. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Siskel, G. (1980) ‘Women in danger’, Sneak Previews. PBS–TV, 18

September.

Solanas, V. (2013) SCUM Manifesto. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Sontag, S. (1979) On Photography. London: Penguin.

Spasojevic, S. (2010) ‘Special introduction by director Srdjan Spasojevic’, A Serbian Film: Special Edition, d. Srdjan Spasojevic (DVD): UK, Safecracker Pictures.

Sprenger, J. (2011) Malleus Maleficarum, M. Summers (trans.).

Mansfield, CT: Martino.

Starr, M. (1984) ‘J. Hills is alive: A defence of I Spit on Your Grave‘, in M. Barker (ed.) The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media. London: Pluto Press, 48–55.

Svehla, S. (1996) ‘Queen bitches of the universe’, in G. J. Svehla and S. Svehla (eds) Bitches, Bimbos, and Virgins: Women in the Horror Film. Baltimore, MD: Midnight Marquee Press, 247–83.

134

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Tabor, D. (2014) ‘Pick of the week: Savage Vengeance’, Cinapse, 13

August. Available at: http://old.cinapse.co/2014/08/13/pick-of-the-week-savage-vengeance/ (accessed 30 June 2017).

Tamplin, J. (2017) ‘Three men jailed for gang raping woman on Facebook

Live’,

Metro, 26 April. Available at: http://metro.co.uk/2017/

04/26/three-men-jailed-for-gang-raping-woman-on-facebook-live-6597934/#ixzz4fo4IVQQe (accessed 6 October 2017).

Tea, M. (2013) ‘Foreword’, in V. Solanas, SCUM Manifesto. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 1–19.

Theroux, P. (1986) Half Moon Street. New York: Washington Square Press.

Thompson, K. (2007) The Frodo Franchise: The Lord of the Rings and Modern Hollywood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Thompson, L. Y. (2003) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave review’, Rotten Tomatoes.

Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_spit_on_your_
grave/reviews/?page=2&sort= (accessed 6 October 2017).

Thrower, S. (2008) Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents. 2nd edn. Godalming: FAB Press.

Torfe, P. (2013) ‘[BD Review] I Spit on Your Grave 2 is as brutal as the original, but brings nothing new …’, Bloody Disgusting, 30 September. Available at: http://bloody-disgusting.com/reviews/3256681/bd-review-i-spit-on-your-grave-2-is-as-brutal-as-the-original-but-brings-nothing-new/ (accessed 30 June 2017).

Variety (1982) ‘U.K. buyers like “nasty” cassettes”, Variety, 13 October.

Waddell, C. (2010) ‘The most controversial film to hit the world!: a critical review’, in I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, DVD
booklet. UK: 101 Films.

Watkins, S. A., M. Rueda and M. Rodriguez (1999) Introducing Feminism. Cambridge: Icon.

Weinberg, S. (2010) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave – pretty little thing’. Available at: http://www.fearnet.com/news/reviews/b20390_ff_2010_review_
i_spit_on_your_grave.html (No longer active).

Weldon, M. (1983) The Psychotronic Encyclopaedia of Film. New York: Ballantine.

Wells, M. (2010) ‘Ireland bans I Spit on Your Grave’, Horror Society, 17

September. Available at http://www.horrorsociety.com/2010/09/17/
ireland-bans-i-spit-on-your-grave/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Wetmore, K. J., Jr. (2012) Post-9/11 Horror in American Cinema. New York: Continuum.

135

CULTOGRAPHIES

Whitney, S. (2013) ‘ I Spit on Your Grave 2: review’, Dread Central, 26

August. Available at: http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/47515/ispit-on-your-grave-2-2013/ (accessed 6 October 2017).

Williams, G. (1969) The Siege of Trencher’s Farm. London: Secker & Warburg.

Williams, L. (2002 [1984]) ‘When the woman looks’, in M. Jancovich (ed.) Horror: The Film Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, 61–6.

Wolf, N. (2012) Vagina: A New Biography. London: Virago Press.

Zanger, A. (2006) Film Remakes as Ritual and Disguise: From Carmen to Ripley. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Zarchi, M. (2010a) ‘Meir Zarchi’s account of his “confrontation” with Mrs. Joan Austin’, in What do people say and think about ‘I Spit on Your Grave’: Reviews and articles from around the world, PDF
document in I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, UK: 101

Films.

____ (2010b) ‘Director’s commentary’, I Spit on Your Grave: Ultimate DVD Edition, d. Meir Zarchi [DVD]. UK: 101 Films.

____ (2013) Death Wish Soozan. Self-published.

Zinoman, J. (2011) Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern horror. New York: Penguin.

136

INDEX

101 Films 23–4, 29–30, 115
castration 55–6, 59, 68, 86, 101

9/11 2, 4, 94–5
censorship; global reception of I

Spit On Your Grave; relaxation

Abu Ghraib 93–4, 98–9
of 9, 40

Accused, The 3, 44, 46, 76–7

Cherry, Brigid 46

Act of Vengeance 38, 64, 68, 70

Clover, Carol 19, 37, 43–5, 50, 53,

American Mary 90, 95

55, 61–2, 64, 70, 76–7

Anchor Bay 29, 77

Cooper, Krystal 4, 90, 116

Astra Video 20, 26

Craven, Wes 10, 50

Austin, Martin 22

Creed, Barbara 8, 53, 55, 57–8,

62, 85

Bergman, Ingmar 50, 54
cult films 1, 27–8, 66, 81

Bindel, Julie 13, 45–6, 77

Black Christmas 67, 83, 117

Daily Mail 19–20

Blackmail 68–9

Day of the Woman 15, 24, 34,

Blu-ray 30, 80–1

38–41, 66, 81, 106, 110

Branson, Jeff 60

Death Wish 30, 52, 68, 102

Briggs, Joe Bob 30, 33, 50

Decker, Sean 49, 80, 83–4. 86–8

British Board of Film Classification

Deliverance 50, 52, 54, 67

(BBFC) 21–2, 88

Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) 23–4,

Brothers Grimm, the 52, 54

28–30, 47, 73, 82, 108, 115

Brownmiller, Susan 13–14, 37, 95,

Director of Public Prosecutions

100

(DPP) 20–1

Butler, Sarah 54, 60, 85–8, 89–91,
documentary realism 37

99

Doğan, Zerrin 105, 107

Dressed to Kill 15
camcorder 95

Driller Killer, The 20, 29, 52

137

CULTOGRAPHIES
drive-ins 15, 38, 110

Guantánamo Bay 93–4

Eastman, Rodney 54

Halloween 63, 67, 117

Ebert, Roger 2, 14, 18–19, 25,

Handgun 51

43, 84

Hannie Caulder 3, 50, 64, 75, 97
ethics 48, 75, 94

Hansen, Lisa 49, 77, 87, 90

Evil Dead (2013) 59–60

Haskell, Molly 8–11, 15, 41

Evil Dead, The 29, 53, 116–17

Heinze, Rüdiger 82–3, 103
exploitation cinema 1–3, 12, 15,

Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra 18, 32,

17–18, 24, 26, 29, 37–9, 49–50,

44, 47, 70, 75–6, 85, 90, 94, 106

68–70, 84, 90, 99, 101, 103, 107,

Henry, Claire 27, 44, 48, 58, 60, 86,

110–11, 114

92, 94–5, 98, 100e

Hills, Jennifer (character) 5, 14, 24,
fairy tales 52–4

31, 34, 36, 39, 50, 53, 55, 59,

Farmer, Donald 103–5, 108, 111–12,

63–4, 76, 92, 99, 106, 112, 114

117

Hills Have Eyes, The 52, 67, 117

Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion

Hitchcock, Alfred 9, 11, 66–8

64, 68

Horeck, Tanya 41, 48
female avenger 26, 50, 75, 117

Hostel 91–4, 117
female sexuality 9, 57
female vampire 8, 57

Irish Film Classification Office
feminist film theory 40–1, 45–7,

(IFCO) 24

95

I Piss on Your Cadaver 107
feminism; second-wave feminism

I Spit Chew on Your Grave 108–10

7–8, 12, 37, 40, 43–5, 49, 58

I Spit on Your Grave (2010) 27, 45, Final Girl, the 61–4, 89

59–60, 71, 74, 78, 83–4, 89, 93–4,

Folklore 52–3, 57, 116

96, 115–16

Foster, Jodie 76–7

I Spit on Your Grave 2 71, 77–9, Franchise 2, 77–8, 80, 82, 99, 101,

98–9, 115–16

105, 112, 114

I Spit on Your Grave 3: Vengeance is

Freeland, Cynthia 45, 49

Mine 78

I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà Vu 18, genre; horror; rape-revenge;

112–13, 115
slasher 2–5, 10, 12, 15–18, 20,

I Spit on Your Remains 107–8

23–4, 27–9, 32–3, 36–7, 41–54,

56–7, 60–8, 70, 73, 78, 80–1, 86,

Janisse, Kier-La 34, 47–8, 100

88, 90–4, 97–9, 100–2, 105–8,

Jerry Gross; Jerry Gross

109–10, 112–14, 116–17

Organisation 15, 18, 38–9, 110
grindhouse 4, 12, 15, 38

138

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

Katalin Varga 74

Naked Vengeance 3, 101, 103, 110

Keaton, Camille 3, 15, 32–3, 36, 38,

Newman, Kim 2, 17, 19, 99

51, 61, 64, 76, 85–7, 90, 92, 101,

Nichols, Anthony 30, 50

103–5, 112, 114, 117

Normanton, Peter 12, 15, 62

Kerekes, David 11, 22, 61

Kiss of Death, The 68

Oldridge, Darren 33–4, 57, 63

Kleemann, Gunter 30

Obscene Publications Act 1959 20,

Krämer, Lucia 82–3, 103

115

Kubrick, Stanley 10, 12

Olsen, Maria 112–13

Ladies Club, The 90, 108

Pace, Richard 30, 54, 88

Last House on the Beach 11, 73

Peckinpah, Sam 10, 12

Last House on the Left, The 2, 10, point of view (POV) 61, 92, 95

25, 29, 50, 52–4, 67–8, 70, 78,
pornography 11–12, 16–17, 20,

92, 108, 116–17

22–3, 33, 70, 102

Leeds 20, 45
pro-feminist agenda 2, 4, 14, 32,

Leitch, Thomas 83

37, 66, 84

Lindberg, Chad 60, 69, 87

Projansky, Sarah 5, 48

Lipstick 3, 50–1, 64, 68

Prom Night 64, 83, 117

Little Red Riding Hood 52–3

Psycho 66–7
psychoanalysis 41, 45, 55
male gaze 41–2, 95–6

Malleus Maleficarum 55
rape 1, 3–6, 9–11, 13–14, 17, 19–20,

Maniac 26, 53

22, 24, 32–8, 40, 42, 44, 46–8, 52,

Mark of the Vampire 8, 57

54, 56, 59–60, 62, 64–6, 68, 70, 74,

Mathijs, Ernest 25, 27–8

76–7, 84–8, 90, 92–3, 95, 97–103,

Mee, Laura 51–2, 85–7, 92, 94

105–8, 110, 112–14, 116–17

Mendik, Xavier 26, 28, 32, 35, 37

Read, Jacinda 8, 10, 43–5, 54,

Monroe, Stephen R. 4, 49, 60,

61, 65

83–8, 90–7, 99–100, 103

Remakes 2–4, 10, 23, 34, 38, 49,
monsters 53, 55, 60, 66

52–4, 60, 71, 77–8, 80–4, 86, 88,
monstrous-feminine, the 55, 57

91–2, 94, 98–9, 101, 103, 115–16

Motion Picture Association of

Repulsion 9, 45

America (MPAA) 9, 15, 18

Revenge for a Rape 54, 68

Motion Picture Production Code 9

Ring, The 59–60

Mulvey, Laura 41–2, 45–7, 49, 55,

R rating 18, 23, 91

90, 96

Roche, David 80, 83
mythology 57–8, 60

Rockoff, Andrew 18, 37–8, 62,

64, 74

139

CULTOGRAPHIES

Santiago, Cirio H. 102–3, 111
video camera/camcorder 26, 45, 95

Savage Streets 51, 73
video cassettes 20, 23, 28

Savage Vengeance 71, 101, 103–4, video nasties controversy 2, 19–23,

104, 107, 110–12, 71

27, 29

Saw 91–2, 98, 117

Virgin Spring, The 50, 54, 68

Schubart, Rikke 50–1, 67
voiceover 35, 39, 77

Seaver, Chris 108–9, 111
voyeurism 95–6, 98
sequels 2–3, 5, 18, 24, 60, 71,

77–8, 80–2, 94, 96, 99–101,
war on terror 2, 94

103–4, 110, 112–15
water (significance of) 54–5, 58,
sirens see mythology

65, 101, 105

Siskel, Gene 12, 14, 25

Welch, Raquel 3, 50, 76

Sneak Previews 14, 18

Wicked Lake 74

Solanas, Valerie 65

Williams, Linda 42, 45–6

Straw Dogs 10, 32, 117

Witch Who Came from the Sea,

Sudden Impact 51, 73

The 68

Wrong Way 53

Tabor, Eron 30–1, 50, 103

Thelma & Louise 3, 44

X rating 15, 91

Tranelli, Deborah 101–2

Thriller – A Cruel Picture 16, 64, Yorkshire Ripper, the 21

68–70

Yurter, Naki 105, 107
torture; torture porn 2, 4, 10, 15,

23–4, 33, 37, 86–7, 91–4, 96,

Zanger, Anat 3, 66, 114

98–9, 117

Zarchi, Meir 2–6, 14–15, 17–18,

Turkish I Spit On Your Grave 105, 21–5, 28–40, 42–3, 47, 49–51,

107

54, 60–1, 64, 66–8, 74–5, 77, 81,
technology see video camera/

83–4, 86–8, 90–2, 96, 101–7, 110,
camcorder

112–13, 115

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The

Zarchi, Terry 113

(2003) 80, 90, 116

Zombie, Rob 80

Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The
zombies 60, 73, 91

(1974) 2, 10, 52, 67, 92, 116

140

Document Outline

- Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction

- 1. History and Herstory in the 1970s and 1980s

- 2. ‘Only Women Bleed’: Filth or Feminist?
- 3. I Spit on Your Grave and its Legacy
- Notes
- Filmography
- Bibliography
- Index

Table of Contents

- Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction

- 1. History and Herstory in the 1970s and 1980s

- 2. ‘Only Women Bleed’: Filth or Feminist?
- 3. I Spit on Your Grave and its Legacy
- Notes
- Filmography
- Bibliography
- Index