This has become one of the most controversial films ever released in North America. It features a very prolonged gang rape where the victim, intended to suffer the ultimate penalty of death to protect her attackers, finally escapes only because the retarded individual detailed to kill her did not understand why, and failed to carry out his mission. After she recovers physically the mental scars are such that she can only think of revenge, and eventually she goes to a church to ask for absolution for taking the law in her own hands before killing all four of her attackers. These brutal and degrading events provide a synopsis of the complete film which has nothing in it that could conventionally be called entertainment. Many viewers called it misogamist, some felt it encouraged extreme male superiority views, others that the latter part showed it favouring feminine empowerment. In practice the story is presented essentially in a documentary style, not from the point of view of either assailants or victim. Its author and director has related how he was once instrumental in providing assistance to a girl he found in some bushes who had been gang raped, and left with a broken jaw. His horror both at what had happened to her, and at the way the authorities responded when she reported the rape, led him to appreciate how such a victim could be traumatised to the point of becoming mentally unbalanced. Gradually these thoughts coalesced into a script for a story designed simply to depict the reality of the utterly mindless violence experienced by the victim and of its effect on her psyche. Clearly this is a valid subject for either a book or a film, equally clearly reading or viewing such a work would not be enjoyable; and if the characters were real enough could prove very distressing, severely limiting its audience. Ultimately perhaps this audience could even be limited to those perverted enough to identify with the assailants, so enabling them to gain some sort of pleasure from watching the ongoing suffering. This seems to be the assumption made by Roger Ebert who described it as the sickest film ever made and attempted to have its screening halted. His review reported that when he saw it some men in the audience were applauding and cheering the attackers on. If such perverts were the only people likely to view the film it would be better for it not to be screened.
It is a valid point of view even if only a small proportion of the audience falls into this category. After Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange", which also featured graphic scenes of rape and violence, was released these were a significant number of violent crimes in England, which exactly copied the scenario of the film. This was reported to Kubrick who in response withdrew the film from distribution there for a number of years. But logically if such films cannot be shown because of fears about their impact on the sanity of unbalanced characters in the audience, the same would apply to news stories about violent events such as accounts of torture, massacres, suicide bombers and all too often genocide. We must keep what man can do to man firmly in our attention if its total unacceptability to all normal people is to have any effect in restraining those not blessed with even a modicum of normal humanity, and there is no other method of restraint which can be effective before rather than after these individuals go off the rails. A different reason for putting a ban on this and similar films is an assumption that there are basic universal standards of taste which would justify it. But this does not follow even when there is nobody who enjoys watching them. Who enjoys watching newsreel shots of a major earthquake with the survivors attempting to dig into the ruins by hand to rescue their loved ones? Distaste does not universally lead to rejection; the wish to remain well informed forces us to watch, and sometimes even to join, or at least support, the work of rehabilitation.
I watched this film largely to find out why Roger Ebert wanted to prevent it from being shown, and now feel sure his reaction was due to the behaviour of the fellow members of his audience, not to the nature of the film. Most people would not want to watch it, but they are free not to. It is no more unpleasant to watch that many other scenes depicted on television and even though watching it was unpleasant I am now glad I did so. I am probably more aware that if I see a girl alone who looks spaced out, it just might be because she is not on a drug trip but needing help and support. Ultimately this is not a bad thing. Another good reason to see it is the tremendous performance by Camille Keaton - her grandfather 'Buster' was noted for the discomfort and pain he accepted whilst making many of his films, Camille was certainly a chip off the old block and could only have endured what she did because of a conviction that in the long run it would make a small contribution to the evolution of a more caring society. As to the film itself, I felt the rape sequences, which were almost documentary in character, did not comfortably integrate with the revenge sequences which were made less realistic and more stylistic by attempts to bring out the almost unbelievable egos behind the behaviour of the rapists. Otherwise it was very well made.
I do not feel it would be appropriate to give this film an IMDb rating. but I do recommend it without reservation to those who feel, despite the comments above, that they still want to see it.
It is a valid point of view even if only a small proportion of the audience falls into this category. After Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange", which also featured graphic scenes of rape and violence, was released these were a significant number of violent crimes in England, which exactly copied the scenario of the film. This was reported to Kubrick who in response withdrew the film from distribution there for a number of years. But logically if such films cannot be shown because of fears about their impact on the sanity of unbalanced characters in the audience, the same would apply to news stories about violent events such as accounts of torture, massacres, suicide bombers and all too often genocide. We must keep what man can do to man firmly in our attention if its total unacceptability to all normal people is to have any effect in restraining those not blessed with even a modicum of normal humanity, and there is no other method of restraint which can be effective before rather than after these individuals go off the rails. A different reason for putting a ban on this and similar films is an assumption that there are basic universal standards of taste which would justify it. But this does not follow even when there is nobody who enjoys watching them. Who enjoys watching newsreel shots of a major earthquake with the survivors attempting to dig into the ruins by hand to rescue their loved ones? Distaste does not universally lead to rejection; the wish to remain well informed forces us to watch, and sometimes even to join, or at least support, the work of rehabilitation.
I watched this film largely to find out why Roger Ebert wanted to prevent it from being shown, and now feel sure his reaction was due to the behaviour of the fellow members of his audience, not to the nature of the film. Most people would not want to watch it, but they are free not to. It is no more unpleasant to watch that many other scenes depicted on television and even though watching it was unpleasant I am now glad I did so. I am probably more aware that if I see a girl alone who looks spaced out, it just might be because she is not on a drug trip but needing help and support. Ultimately this is not a bad thing. Another good reason to see it is the tremendous performance by Camille Keaton - her grandfather 'Buster' was noted for the discomfort and pain he accepted whilst making many of his films, Camille was certainly a chip off the old block and could only have endured what she did because of a conviction that in the long run it would make a small contribution to the evolution of a more caring society. As to the film itself, I felt the rape sequences, which were almost documentary in character, did not comfortably integrate with the revenge sequences which were made less realistic and more stylistic by attempts to bring out the almost unbelievable egos behind the behaviour of the rapists. Otherwise it was very well made.
I do not feel it would be appropriate to give this film an IMDb rating. but I do recommend it without reservation to those who feel, despite the comments above, that they still want to see it.