Nasty Video - Part 1

In the world of film there is the horror genre, but among that are also a number of subgenres. I’m not just talking cross over horror genres, such as sci/fi horror, or horror musicals (yes they exist!), but subgenres that are more descriptive about what you are going to watch. For instance, there is: body horror; slasher horror; and the subgenre of topic here which will be rape/revenge horror. Rape/ revenge horror was a more popular horror subgenre in the 1970s, keeping in with the sociological context of pornography becoming more widely accepted and accessed by showcasing almost (but not quite) hardcore scenes of sexual acts; doubled with an increase in more daring and graphic horror films, which similarly to pornography, had ventured into the mainstream and could be made cheaply with the return of huge profit.

Two films in particular that are considered the most notorious of this category are Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left (LHOTL) and Meir Zarchi’s I Spit on Your Grave (ISOYG).

LHOTL and ISOYG follow a very similar plot involving women/a woman who tread(s) into unfamiliar territory and encounter a group of dangerous people. Being vulnerable and overpowered by these people, the women are raped, severely beaten and left for dead. In the second part of the films, revenge is taken out on the attackers in a very violent and gruesome way. This is where comparisons can be easily drawn between the two films, but however similar the recipe may be, there are plenty of differences that can be explored as well.

Both films were made at different periods of time – LHOTL in 1972 and ISOYG in 1978. Not a very long gap between the films, but certainly in terms of cinematic, sociological and political changes. LHOTL was released at the start of what could be considered significant sociological events in America. It was one of the first independent films of this kind to make a major impact in cinemas, returning high profit and stirring up a lot of controversy. It was graphic, violent and sexually explicit and with its raw and realistic style, some were almost convinced what was being shown on screen was in fact real. The success of the film was initiated by Hallmark Releasing Corp who changed the face of these independent low budget horrors with its clever (and often misleading) methods of advertising. They were responsible for the unusual and somewhat irrelevant title and the famous tagline ‘It’s only a movie’. Following LHOTL, many other similar films were spawned with Hallmark using references to LHOTL and marketing the films as having some relation to it.

The film was either completely dismissed by viewers and critics, or hailed as a cult masterpiece of amateur filmmaking. What could be considered by some as pure trash with no merit whatsoever could equally be considered as an honest and socially relevant 80 minute film about the horrors of what was happening in real life. Wes Craven would explain his reasons for the film as exposing the truth about violence more realistically against a backdrop of real footage from the Vietnam war being covered on televised news. Perhaps as an experiment to expose the reactions of viewers choosing to watch fictional violence, versus viewers choosing to watch actual violence in their homes; the film conjured up some odd opinions – whilst it was ok to expose real life death and brutality in the news, it was somehow another thing entirely to try and reflect that in a fictional film.

Controversy aside, the plot of the film is as follows: Mari, a teenager on the verge of ‘becoming a woman’ decides to celebrate her 17th birthday by going to a metal concert with her best friend Phyllis. Whilst Mari is the sweet natured, innocent girl from a happy family environment, Phyllis represents the opposite. She is rebellious, wayward and according to her comes from a less well rounded family (“my parents are in the iron and steel business … my mother irons and my dad steals ….”). Mari’s parents feature heavily in the film. As they watch her leave the house, it is a metaphorical final farewell: she is older now and they must let go of being so cautious for her, in such troubled times where young people are living through the mistakes made by an untrustworthy government and where the repercussions of failed free love have been left in their path.

During a trip to the city for the concert, Phyllis insists that they hunt for some marijuana, which is where they come across their attackers. Prior to this, the viewer has been told about how a gang of criminals are currently on the run after two of the members have helped the other two escape jail for some truly abhorrent crimes. Lured into their sleazy apartment by the young junkie of the gang, Junior, the girls soon realise their fatal error. The girls are molested and the next day are tied up and placed in the boot of the gang’s escape car.

The gang leave the city and are driving through the country when their car breaks down. Krug, the gang leader, decides that they should take the girls to the nearby woods for further punishments. Before being dragged off, Mari looks up to see the mailbox of her house standing before her, realising just how close she is to safety. Bound and gagged she is unable to help herself and is taken away with Phyllis by the gang. In the woods, the girls are beaten, humiliated and forced to perform sexual acts on each other. Phyllis eventually finds an opportunity to escape and is chased by two of the gang members, Weasel and Sadie, whilst Krug runs off in another direction to try and track her down. When Krug and co return, they inform Mari that Phyllis is dead and then Krug rapes and kills Mari.

The film then takes a major shift, as Krug and co decide to find shelter for the night after their vicious attacks. Unbeknownst to them, the house of choice is none other than Mari’s house. The gang soon realise this when Mari’s parents invite them to stay and give them Mari’s bedroom for the night. Overnight, Mari’s mother, who has become suspicious of the gang, takes a look through one of their suitcases. Inside she finds some bloody clothing and then she comes across Junior in their bathroom, suffering from drug withdrawals. She discovers to her horror that he is wearing a necklace and it is the same one given to Mari for her birthday by her mother and father. Both parents run out into the woods and soon find their daughter’s dead body. They bring her body back to their house and whilst the gang are asleep, create some elaborate booby traps as a set up to what will be an extremely violent revenge of death upon their daughter’s murderers.

LHOTL provides an odd viewing experience. On the one hand you are intrigued to see how far it goes in terms of stirring up controversy through its raw, graphic and unpleasant scenes. On the other hand, you can’t help but feel a sense of bleakness, or if you truly hate the film, disgust. Perhaps this is the most powerful part about the film. Although it offers some final resolution to the horrors the gang put the two young women through, that resolution is only brief, as the film ends by asking a question about the violent and animalistic nature in all of us, even those who are the most unassuming. Mari’s parents, well off, hard working good people, who love their daughter and supposedly abhor violence (after all, Mari’s father makes this clear with his opinions on the death metal band Bloodlust the girls are going to see in concert: “I heard they devour live chickens on stage …. Well don’t you feel sorry for the chicken?”), take a completely different turn in character in the face of revenge for their daughter’s torture at the hands of the gang: electrocution, castration, throat slashing and a chainsaw comprise the revenge. The film climaxes at the point of which Krug, the leader, is left as nothing more than a bloody pulp by Mari’s father. He wields the chainsaw just as a police officer enters the house insisting he refrains (“For god’s sake, don’t!”). And if that isn’t enough to suggest revenge can be an ugly trait, the looks of disgusts at themselves on Mari’s parent’s faces say it all.