1972 - 12 years before Wes Craven's seminal Nightmare on Elm Street, two years before Black Christmas would redefine horror, and the same year as Deliverance, which shares some of the same barbarity and deptavity . Wes Craven, in his directorial debut, based this film on The Virgin Spring, albeit set in modern times and set out from the start to make an impact by creating a film that even 5 decades later, still has the capacity to shock audiences.
It's hard to view this in 2023 knowing how far we've evolved from the male gaze of a film that opens with a postman talking about how Mari is a fine piece. This is a very old mailman creeping on a 17 year old girl. And that's almost the first line in the film. It was unnecessary and immediately establishes the young, good looking women as objects that will have things happen to them and have no agency. Victim blaming is established from the start - she's a good looking girl, she hangs out with a bad influence, she wears a top that shows her nipples and she's going to a dangerous neighbourhood.
The only way to view this is to accept that it was a different time and try to find some of the redeeming aspects of the film. It's almost impossible, though. The men are truly vile and what they do is more than sick. Did it need to be as graphic as it is? As exploitative as it is? No, it didn't. But then it is likely it wouldn't be remembered 50 years later.
Wes Craven knew the movie he wanted to make, and the great film director he would become shows its first signs here.
My discomfort with the film doesn't take away from how effective it is. I can't say I enjoyed the movie, but my rating of 6/10 is based on how much respect I have for Craven as a director, and how well made this low budget film is. Craven has a knack for realising his vision for a film better than most. I also enjoy revenge thriller/horror films and this definitely set a template for others to follow.
A few words on the remake- , I feel it goes a long way to address all the issues of the original and produces a film far less problematic and much more effective. Whatever the thoughts on remakes are, I think in this case it was important to update the film's themes for a modern audience.
It's hard to view this in 2023 knowing how far we've evolved from the male gaze of a film that opens with a postman talking about how Mari is a fine piece. This is a very old mailman creeping on a 17 year old girl. And that's almost the first line in the film. It was unnecessary and immediately establishes the young, good looking women as objects that will have things happen to them and have no agency. Victim blaming is established from the start - she's a good looking girl, she hangs out with a bad influence, she wears a top that shows her nipples and she's going to a dangerous neighbourhood.
The only way to view this is to accept that it was a different time and try to find some of the redeeming aspects of the film. It's almost impossible, though. The men are truly vile and what they do is more than sick. Did it need to be as graphic as it is? As exploitative as it is? No, it didn't. But then it is likely it wouldn't be remembered 50 years later.
Wes Craven knew the movie he wanted to make, and the great film director he would become shows its first signs here.
My discomfort with the film doesn't take away from how effective it is. I can't say I enjoyed the movie, but my rating of 6/10 is based on how much respect I have for Craven as a director, and how well made this low budget film is. Craven has a knack for realising his vision for a film better than most. I also enjoy revenge thriller/horror films and this definitely set a template for others to follow.
A few words on the remake- , I feel it goes a long way to address all the issues of the original and produces a film far less problematic and much more effective. Whatever the thoughts on remakes are, I think in this case it was important to update the film's themes for a modern audience.