Pajiba

Ummmmm....

I really really like this post. That is all.

I wonder why Congress can make a bill forcing TV commercials to be the same volume as actual programs, but they can't stop Hollywood from remaking movies and TV shows.

Now let me get this straight:

A few weeks you have a member of your staff write a review of A Serbian Film, which is a film that, if I remember correctly, involves lots of rape, and of children and family members, no less.

Yet along comes this movie, a remake of something which already exists, and it is now banned from a review because it features rape as entertainment?

Kinda curious about your logic on this one, because to me it seems pretty hypocritical of you.

So... um... WHY were you reading accounts of animal abuse? (Was it for the purpose of writing this piece?)

Because even reading about such things is really fucking depressing.

I have a very hard time watching rape depicted in films. There's a scene in "Immortal Beloved" where a character is assaulted and then her throat is cut-- with no warning, and as far as I could see, no real relevance to the plot.

It's treated so casually, as a plot point or a way of making the film seem more exciting or controversial. It's not only cheap, it's disturbing and unnecessary in most cases. It also serves to upset many members of the audience, and for what? So a filmmaker can appear more edgy?

I will never watch this movie, or the original it's based on. Life is hard enough without putting myself through this shit.

Thanks, Dustin. You couldn't be more right on this call.

*backs away slowly out of the room*

I think Some Guy does raise a fair point regarding reviewing A Serbian Film vs not reviewing this movie. Hopefully Dustin will respond.

That said, I'm glad you're not reviewing it. I love horror movies, but there's a fetishism to wanting to watch this movie that turns me off.

And Slash I know what you're talking about -- in the last few years there's been a rise of humiliation, abuse and cuckolding sites. I always ask "who is getting turned on by this idea?"

@Spender:

It's in the "Twisted Masterpieces" section instead of the normal review section.

Thanks, MM.
Oh... I mostly agree with ChuckFilm regarding the whole torture/death porn thing. To me, it's almost as vile and disgusting as any act of rape portrayed on film. I'm not saying there's no place for violence in films, just that the gratuitous violence and sickening acts depicted in torture porn are as impossible for me to watch. This movie, "A Serbian Film", any of the SAW movies, they're just not for me.

How very noble of you, Dustin. Now justifiy this review:

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/antichrist-review.php

@ChuckFilm: It's "different because it just is", is so hipster lame its apalling.

No, it's Dustin's website and he doesn't have to review any film that he doesn't want to. Frankly, he's already going out of his way if he decides to tell us why he doesn't want to review it. The discussion of the choice is in and of itself worthy of a post and I'm guessing there will be a lot of responses. I'm not coming back though as I am afraid of what will be referenced in the comments.

On a somewhat related note, Netflix just sent me the blu-ray of The Human Centipede: First Sequence.

I have to agree with the few people that mentioned it: it does seem a bit hypocritical to ban the review when some pretty violent and horrible movies have been featured on this site. And I completely understand not wanting to review the movie.

ChuckFilm and Matt I feel that you're missing the point.

This IS the review of the movie, clear as pie. 'Unworthy of review' is the essentially distilled point. For the reasons clearly defined above.

I would guess that if this film offered up anything as intentionally obscure as the Serbian film promised (That which can't be discussed! What on earth will he do?! Heard it's mental! Gotta know!) it would have been referenced. Prisco specifically detailed the contents of that movie, so that you could go into it (or not) armed. In fact, disclosure is a Pajiban review trait.

This film? It is a remake. Content known. All that's left is the social commentary, and here we have one.

No pretending that it doesn't exist. Rather, another opportunity to define what Pajiba IS about, from the publisher.

Save those index fingers for wagging at the mouth breathers who go with an ample stash of kleenex in their pockets, will ya?

It's clear you love horror films, Matt, and are willing to question the dominant paradigm, but this post is hardly out of character for Dustin.

If censorship doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

It's a consequence that you have to accept in order to live in a truly free and open society. I don't want anyone telling me what can and cannot be written, painted, sung, filmed, or built. As this comment section proves, even a small collection of cool, like-minded individuals have no idea where to draw the lines. The only acceptable answer is that there can be no lines.

The consequence of freedom is that you get movies like A Serbian Film and ISOYG. People will always seek to push the boundaries. You don't have to like it, you don't have to review it, and you are free to criticize it but the creators are free to create (and to make a buck on the controversy, too).

You also can't control how other people respond to it. If they blog-post a rant about how the rape is a metaphor for the current political climate, if they list it under 'favorite movies' on Facebook, or if they download a bootleg copy and furiously masturbate to it every night.

You can criticize it (and that criticism is going to carry a little more weight if you actually see it) or you can ignore it. You can engage people in a dialogue (which this site did a fantastic job of a couple months ago). But movies are going to get made, books are going to be written, and people are always going to be capable of doing something you think is disgusting or reprehensible. I'm just glad the people who think my bookshelf is obscene don't have the ability to do shit about it.

Add me to the list of people who are puzzled by the decision not to review the movie that has received almost as much attention as Human Centipede and Twilight. The reasoning seems a little shaky. If you want to criticize the movie you should watch it and criticize it. If you want to question when anyone would ever make such a movie in the first place, well, you are going down a slippery slope that is going to become untenable pretty quickly.

You are comparing actual abuse to fictional abuse. There is no logical connection, and it does no good to advance the argument against either issue. You and the people who support your thinking on this are idiots.

I don't have any plans to see this movie and I haven't seen the original. Nor have I seen or have any inclination any of the Saw films, A Serbian Movie, Twilight, Antichrist etc, etc as they aren't something I'm interested in. While it certainly is Dustin's site and he has every right to dictate what may and may not be found within its pages, I like to think that the regular purveyors of Pajiba are intelligent enough to be able to read a review of a movie such as this and consider it for its merits or lack thereof. I suppose what I'm saying is that I feel that my intelligence may be a little insulted but at least my sense of decency (what little there is) isn't.

As a contrast to that comment, I could go and see it if I wanted to and Dustin doesn't have a say in that. So, I'm just going to go over here and put on my DvD of puppies playing with kitties and have some ice cream while the rest of you hash this one out.

superasente: I review Martin Lawrence films for a living. Nothing is beneath me.

This IS the review of the movie, clear as pie.

Sorry, Replica, but if you don't see the movie you don't get to review it. You can only offer commentary on the idea of the movie. It's not the same thing and it is an inferior substitute.

Dustin's house, Dustin's rules, I don't have a problem with it and I don't believe we need to set him up like Alex in A Clockwork Orange and force him to review it, but the decision was arbitrary and it is perfectly reasonable for the readers to question it.

Here we go again with the false equivalency. What the fuck has a Martin Lawrence film have to do with animal abuse and or torture porn? Unless you think that these barbaric acts are somehow within Lawrence’s wheelhouse? Look Rowles, just man up and tell the people that you just didn’t feel like reviewing “I Spit On Your Grave” because you felt an uneasiness about the film. Damn Dude! You don’t have to get into some goddamn philosophical debate about how you run your website.

It's funny (not haha, but...you get my point) what people choose to stand for, you know?

It's an interesting alignment of values, to say the least, to insist that one thing, being like another in some topical way, is 'deserving' of a similar treatment.

If we 'go there', then we must also 'go unto the other there'. Must we really? To what end?

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I just personally feel most confident with the article that defines what is not desirable to promote further (this film) than with the quibbling over 'C'mon, why not?'.

What are we hoping for, exactly? What alignment is hoped for in the placing of this film against the likes of the Serbian Film, or Hatchet 2? More lavish detail and care in the description of the film? Another perspective on a subject thoroughly explored here already? What?

We already got a taste of the grims to express the concept, why the insistence we play it out with the girl dolly?

The reviewers here like us, but they don't 'owe us'. We clap them on the back for enduring Blart all the time, but we can get a little weird if our 'hit' isn't offered like we want. The day this place rolls over to my whims and yours, is the day it curls up and dies. fer real.

You know where this is gonna end up, right?

Gimme a R!
Gimme a A!
Gimme a C!
Gimme a E!
Gimme a W!
Gimme a A!
Gimme a R!

Yeah, bitches! YEAHYEAHYEAH! Let get right down in the muckity glop of it! C'MON EVERYBODY, GRAB YOUR RUSTED PRUNING SHEARS, FILL UP YOU ANGER GAUGES AND LET'S... uh... get to it and stuff, I guess.

Hasn't this whole goddam thing been run into the fucking ground several times over by now? Can't we just go hang out in the Pajiba Love column and talk about how much albinos suck?

Please?

For the children of the future? Who we need to teach well and let them lead the way. Beauty they possess inside and whatnot? Greatest love? Anyone?

...

Sigh.

I guess the problem is that I feel reviewers and critics exist to see a movie or read a book or eat in a restaurant so others don't have to.

Dustin, I thought this was a great article/review. There's always this wink whenever an animal is killed in a movie, an "Oh, they went there... shit is getting real." Because everyone knows that you can leave fields piled high with human carcasses in film, but if you kill a dog or a horse, well, that shit is unacceptable.

Therefore I think your analogy, if gruesome and somewhat blindsiding, was apt.

You've been accused of being disingenuous and hypocritical here by publishing this rather than a traditional review, in light of other reviews of torture porn films that have been previously reviewed (and not always by you.) Like you and replica said, I think there are a several legitimate reasons for your choice.

a) at some point, it's acceptable to take a stand. Just because you've reviewed films of this ilk in the past doesn't mean you have to keep putting up with it, lest you be labeled a hypocrite if you don't. Everyone has the right to say, "From my experience with this shit, I think it is uniformly terrible, and here is why I refuse to expose myself to any more of it."

b) this is a remake, so it's not really like you're holding out on Pajiba readers and censoring undisclosed content from us

c) even if you were, we can, frankly, suck it, because you can do what you want on your own site.

I like seeing that a site that isn't marketed explicitly at women and/or feminists takes a stand like this, and I find it disappointing that (in typical fashion) the comments have been derailed by "UR A HYPOCRITE" -- "NO HE AIN'T" rather than just attempting to digest your message (or at the very least, generated a thoughtful discussion about when and what kind of rape is acceptable/necessary in film.)

I can confirm that Dustin's reviews of so-called "torture porn" films are so angry, bitter, and spiteful that I have on more than one occasion called him out on it. He proved in his own way he had, for example, seen The Collector, but chose to discourage Pajiba readers from seeing it rather than review the film in a traditional sense. It's probably the biggest dividing point between us. we disagree on.

Yet, I would hate to be the one who comes out here and says he's not allowed to set the ground rules on his own website. That's basically what's happening here from a lot of people screaming "hypocrite" as soon as a Pajiba stance is taken.

Regarding A Serbian Film, I have a strong feeling that Brian Prisco, the reviewer and a long time contributor to the site, approached Dustin about reviewing it. It's not often that straight to DVD features are reviewed here in that fashion. And with "in that fashion," I mean with any sense of seriousness. It's usually a fluff real-time review or something satirical.

Now why do I feel like "banned from Pajiba" is something that could wind up on a DVD for a budget release of a film like this down the line?

First thing I thought when I saw the header pic for this review article, was - "Holy shit! Michael Jackson rose from the dead and dug his way out?"

Dustin Rowles...just. You fucking Rock.

If Dustin's making a stand here, a greater stand would've been not to acknowledge ISOYG at all. Ignore it completely, make it an un-movie on Pajiba. Now you're just giving this flick more attention than it deserves.

People pay to see this to see rape...

Steph, that's bullshit.

Listen, you (all of you) don't have to like the movie. You don't have to agree with the filmmakers intent. You don't have to approve of it's actors, cinematographers, or the audience who enjoys it. You don't want to support this art? Then don't support it.

But why -- WHY do you have to assume that everyone who does support, enjoy or view the things that you find deplorable are evil? Don't you see how insane that logical leap is?

There is a large audience of people who like graphic violence in their movies. They're not all rapists who are vicariously living through cinema. They're not all sociopaths itching to cut somebody up. Just like you aren't a devil worshiper when you laugh at a picture of Jesus riding on the back of a velociraptor, or a communit because you voted for the black guy.

The people you don't agree with aren't evil and wrong. People aren't paying to see rape; they're paying to see a subgenre of horror which they enjoy and which you do not. It's that simple. To imply that an audience of people, probably millions of people, are lining up just so they can watch some actress pretend to get raped is so frustratingly intolerant and judgemental.

This rally to return to sanity should be said of all things, y'know. For fucks sake.

I'm with Nurse EagerBeaverBaby. Much like how human rape is only funny when the victim is a clown, animal rape is only funny when it's a panda. Bring on the red-nosed rainbow pandas!

To Dustin,

Word.

@replica - While I'm certainly a big horror fan and admittedly my tolerance for onscreen violence has been heightened by all the films I've seen, I still have my line. Despite my curiosity, I refuse to watch A Serbian Film because of its content. In fact, the violence I find most disturbing is sexual violence.

Still, I find it hypocritical to condemn a film that portrays this type of violence even if it's for no "good reason" and at the same time herald the over-the-top violence in Hatchet because it's just "good fun." The point has already been made here, but is there anything less deplorable about a decapitation for entertainment value than a rape? I don't think so, personally.

I'm not going ponder why these films exist - be it because society is sick or not - but I believe in their right to exist. If you don't like them, don't watch them.

Matt, hold up, hold up. I never said what my movie viewing preferences were.

I am the person who brought you sparkletits, so clearly I am not declaiming from a position of moral superiority.

The key thing I'm saying is that if Dustin doesn't want to review this thing with a play-by-play - because he obviously DOES see a difference between a splatterfest and a two-hour rape scene - that's his right and privilege.

I felt (some of) you came off sounding like you wanted him to see it and provide a certain kind of review in order to be 'doing movie reviewing right'.

He can be as selective about what he wants to do as Salma Hayek at a speed dating dinner.

Peter G, DOES a movie have to be reviewed like you expect?

You must be new to Pajiba, home of the silent review, the mock review, the incredibly detailed exploration of tropes and symbolism in reference to a current studio offering. etc.

You hipsters and your fixies! Really.

I just want to respond to one part of this debate. People really think that the cultural representation of decapitation and rape have the same impact? Let's check it out.

One in four women are raped.

That means that 25% of this country's women will be sexually assaulted at one point in their lifetime.

Based on those numbers, you know someone who has been traumatized and assaulted sexually.

I cannot say the same about someone's head getting chopped off. There is a fantasy element to the beheading because it just doesn't happen often. Hell, I just know about that one case in Canada. But rape? It carries huge cultural baggage because of the fact that we live in a rape culture, in a culture that constantly tries to condone the sexual submission of women. I can't say the same about decapitation.

So yea... in terms of cultural weight and media representation, rape does not equal decapitation.

@Ruth

30 years people have been bandying that 1 in 4 "statistic" that so long ago was debunked as a made up number from a magazine article that went viral long before there was the internet. never let a little truth get in the way of hysteria.

there is a tremendous amount of violence and injustice in our world, but 25% of women being raped is not among it.

I've seen other statistics that lumped everything from an askance glance to brutal rape together into one number labelled "sexual assault". An entire generation was brought up filled with fear and guilt and shame and confusion, fed by a small but fierce hoarde of hate mongerers no different from the lunatic fringe convinced there needs be a white supremist holy war.

this all has nothing to do with this thread in general. I'm with Dustin on this film, though i didn't need the puppy images.

But I can't sit by though when some wingnut brings out the same old crap that we live in some kind of monstrous world where men are psychopathic monsters and women can hardly make it to work with their hydes intact. "Rape culture"?? this stuff is straight out of hate literature. and the "sexual submission of women" is also from back in the stone ages when certain authors were trying to convince people that all sex was rape because women had no freedom when they thought they were saying yes. Ruth, I don't know who the people you know are, but going by the ones i have known, not to mention the voracious folk who frequent this site, I'd say happy consensual sex is alive and well, vigourously sought and enjoyed by both genders; and as deplorable as rape is, it isn't going on around every other corner.

Dustin can do whatever he wants with his website but that does not mean we have to accept "because I said so" as valid argument. And while some people have been a little blunt in making their points above I don't see any trolling or personal attacks. It's ok for Pajiba to be a forum for discussion and disagreement, there is no need to interrupt and try to diffuse every argument with 'it's only a movie' or 'if you don't like it don't read it'.

I get that Dustin is trying to make a point that this movie doesn't merit a review because it has no redeeming qualities. I just think his point is poorly made, and considering the amount of discussion and page hits that have been generated by ISOYG posts I think it is a little disingenuous to skip out on actually watching the movie (but still get your parting shots in with a non-review review).

I don't want to defend this movie. I don't want to see this movie. It may very well be lacking in any redeemable, reviewable qualities. I agree that it sounds like a mindless, soulless attempt to market a film based on shock value, name value, and possibly (disturbingly) the prurient interest in the sex & nudity implicit in a however-many-minute rape scene. I can't imagine that any of the people involved in making it having any creative or artistic excitement about the work they are doing and I doubt anyone financing/producing the film care about that.

But my point isn't about the movie. I have a problem with a movie review web site skipping the movie entirely and still passing judgment. Despite not wanting to watch the movie myself (or, maybe because I don't want to watch the movie) I was interested in reading Pajiba's take. Even though I knew it was going to be a rage-filled rant against "torture porn" I still wanted the analysis to be based on the actual film, not the preconceived notions and value-judgments based on trade news, marketing materials, and personal prejudice [an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy].

"...I don’t want to see anyone — man, woman, or animal — brutally tortured and raped for an extended period of time, and I can’t imagine any scenario in which I’d consider that art, entertainment, or at all redeeming."

-Strange how that sounds remarkably like Mel Gibson's tourture por....er ah...religious epic "The Passion of the Christ".

Oh and I just saw some of the posters of ISOYG around town and I notice they Photoshoped her ass so now the shirt completely covers it. As though that was the film's biggest shortcoming. It's still all 31 Flavors of Wrong in a waffle cone.

@Slash

First of all, you said "porno" which marks you as old and out-of-touch. Most importantly, however, you discount the entire experience of BDSM sex and porn, just because you're old fashioned and out-of-touch. Just because you like vanilla sex, doesn't mean none of the rest of us get to have any fun.

Like Yossarian's last comment.

Also, amend the word "ban" in my last post- in the era of online piracy nothing is truly "banned"- replace with "rail against".

My understanding of A Serbian Film is that it is intended as an allegory. Disgusting things are shown to display the type of large-scale dehumanization that took place in a real place and time. Whatever its offenses, there was a moral stance. A review of that movie takes on the question of whether it succeeds as allegory, or whether it hid behind its pretensions for the ultimate purpose of repulsing just to repulse.

I've seen the original ISOYG. The verdict (to me, anyway) was clear -- it used the barest of rationales as cover to revel in a 30-minute (or however long) gang rape. No credible feminist message was derived by any legitimate source that I've ever seen, and so a remake has no benefit of the doubt to draw upon. It's for people who enjoyed the first go-round. So, by all means, go check it out if you want to.

In other words, A Serbian Film needed to be dealt with. ISOYG has already been dealt with. I can't imagine a motivation to remake either that doesn't ultimately rely on capitalizing on what made them reviled in the first place. Because if you had something valuable to say about dehumanization during wartime, or about feminine empowerment, why would you begin with source material whose validity in regard to those topics has already been rejected? What's the point?

Re the "no credible feminist message" in the original:

I get where people are coming from when they say, "It's subtitled Day of the Woman! It's about feminine empowerment!" I see why that argument is tempting to make. I really do. However, in looking at the Rotten Tomatoes page for the original movie, there's a review/quote that I feel sums it up pretty well:

Defenders of the film have argued that it's actually pro-woman, due to the fact that the female lead wins in the end, which is sort of like saying that cockfights are pro-rooster because there's always one left standing.

Clown rape is wrong. Panda rape, on the other hand, is acceptable and, in fact, to be condoned.

For the record: I fucking hate torture porn, I have no desire to see this, Saw, Serbian Film or any other such cinematic projectile vomit of creative bile:

Serbian Film did not need to be “dealt with” any more than ISOYG (though as I said before, I’m actually grateful it was, but it's Dustin's show) and yet in addressing it in this way you are “dealing with it” and in a pretty silly manner. By condemning a movie sight unseen, do you think defenders of the film might point to an article like this as an example of “unfair criticism” or “controversy”? You already have a track record of attacking it, do you think Mr Reasonable from Anchor Bay will be interested in your response upon it’s release?

To follow on from admin’s point, "entertainment" in itself may not be the best term but it will do as a placeholder. A horror movie is basically a bungee jump into hell, a means of exploring nightmares through artistic expression. As abhorrent as the ISOYG concepts are and however artlessly - I assume- they are exploited, few would argue the synopsis is anything less than hellish. While I’m certain ISOYG will attract it’s ration of heavy-breathing creeps (in probably the same proportion as gun nuts who show up to watch Rambo slice and dice a horde of nameless brown folk), not everyone who seeks this type of “entertainment” (that word again) is a freak seeking to wallow in whichever form of depravity is on offer.

I'll throw my two cents into the mix:

Since this is Dustin's site, he can put up whatever reviews he wants to. If he doesn't want a film reviewed for the site, then it doesn't get reviewed.

However Dustin, as it has pointed out repeatedly by the people on this board, you haven't really left yourself much room for taking the high moral ground. After the reviews of A Serbian Film, Hostel II, Hound dog, Last House of the Left Remake, and others, the defense that this movie is offensive doesn't really stand up. As you wrote in the article:
"Because I Spit On Your Grave is not about the revenge; it’s not even about the juicy, blood-drenched kill. It’s not about scaring you, or shocking you with a creative dismemberment. It’s not about zombies or monsters or serial killers. It’s about making you stew in dread, it’s about subjecting you to something intensely uncomfortable, and then prolonging it, and sticking your nose in someone else’s depravity until you’re too sick even to vomit."

There are a number of films like that, Serbian Film being just a recent example. If you don't want to review the film because of personal moral objections, I completely understand and accept that decision.

Just don't try to sell us something that clearly isn't true for this website. It sounds disingenuous when you do that.

At this point I couldn't possibly add anything meaningful that hasn't already been said, but I can't resist chiming in. I have to agree with the all or nothing crowd. While I certainly understand the inclination to draw a line somewhere, and I'm sure doing so feels good, I can't get behind it.

I do agree that Dustin has the right to refuse to review anything, but my right to disagree with his decision falls soundly within the same wheelhouse. Dustin made a stand I don't agree with (one that many commentors here don't agree with) and the result is this lively and enlightened discussion.

As usual I feel that Yossarian in his infinite wisdom has one of the most reasonable comments. Also, I agree with Ian that the most unreasonable comment probably goes to Karen who seems to think some people here are "rape apologists." How absurd.

^^^^Ignore the above. Punxsutawny Phil was paid for that shill.

Serbian Film did not need to be “dealt with” any more than ISOYG (though as I said before, I’m actually grateful it was, but it's Dustin's show) and yet in addressing it in this way you are “dealing with it” and in a pretty silly manner.

Scare quotes are not a refutation. I explained why I think they're different cases, so please either address the point I made in full or pull a quote from someone else.

This is a fascinating debate I wholly did not expect to read first thing Wednesday morning. On one hand, I have no interest in seeing this flick. I didn't see the original, nor have I ever wanted to. Not my bag. I saw Hostel and hated every frame. I saw The Hills Have Eyes remake and didn't hate it as much as I thought. Namely because as brutal as things get there was catharcis at the end when the main guy goes totally apeshit on the mutants. But I've had my fill of the "terrible act is committed and survivor goes on a rampage" movie from that viewing along.

I'm a horror fan but I tend toward the over the top gore and supernatural side of things. Sadistic violence and realistic brutality are not fun for me. But I love Dead Alive and The Devil's Rejects and Se7en so I know that comes across as hypocritical. There is a line most of us will draw when it comes to these movies. But just because I don't want to go those extra couple steps doesn't mean it's wrong that someone else is willing to.

However, when brutally violent movies like "Red, White, and Blue" and "Kidnapped" and "The Killer Inside Me" and "A Serbian Movie" are getting some serious press from festival screenings it DOES seem disingenous for a review site to say "this is ok" but "this is bad".

Review whatever you want, but in this case, the justification for excluding ISOYG is where people are getting fired up I think.

All that said, this discussion is exactly why I love this site as much as I do.

Thanks, Phil, you're awesome. And I'm a bit prickly before my coffee, sorry about that.

I guess where you stand on DR's position here depends partly on whether you view the original ISOYG as singular in its approach to this particular subject matter, or if you see it as merely another genre entry.

If the former, then you have to examine the motives of the re-makers. Whether or not they reprioritize screen time, they're still capitalizing on the infamy of a film that includes a rape scene so protracted that any storytelling context is lost, and the viewing experience becomes watching rape qua rape.

If the latter, then hey, bad shit happens to a bunch of people in a bunch of movies. Let's see if this is at least entertaining in some way. I understand this viewpoint, but I was sufficiently disgusted by the first ISOYG that I respect DR's stance. Whether or not the filmmakers capitalize on it is their business.

Seriously Dustin...I need some warning when you're talking about animal abuse. I kinda stumbled into that and ran away screaming.
I was prepared for the horrible subject matter relating to the movie...I was not prepared to add abused dogs to the mix.

God.

An interesting take might be on whether or not the film is culturally relevant AT ALL. I mean, in the context of the time in which the original was released, it made sense, in a way; one could argue that it was a product of either the filmmakers' desire to see women take their revenge on a patriarchal society or their fear of what reprisal might happen as a result of the women's movement that was still very much in full swing at that time. So, bearing that in mind, what is the point of re-making the movie now, in the current climate? Women continue to be oppressed, at least to an extent (and geography plays a part in that, and I'm curious about where the new version is set-still in upstate NY?), but there's no massive organized revolution happening. So why, then? Is there a point, at all?

I kind of want to see it for that reason. Illegally downloaded, of course.

It's really starting to bother me the way some people insist on missing the point and mischaracterizing this argument.

It's not about defending this movie or my right to enjoy a good rape scene. It's not about whining for a review and insisting that if you reviewed those movies over there you must also review these movies over here. Pajiba can review whatever they want however they want.

The problem is that a film critic shouldn't reduce a film to a list of all the bad things it contains and pass judgment without actually seeing the film. Normal people can do that- we do it all the time- but the critic is held to a higher standard. Dustin is not shy about occasionally getting on his soap box and calling out the failings and compromises he sees in blog-based film criticism (and we love him for it). This is an instance where, in my opinion, he is making a poor choice.

It is reductive to call this a movie about 'watching a person reduced to a piece of meat that other people can stab, kick, punch, and fuck'. There are an infinite number of variables in the way this material is filmed that influence the finished project. I highly doubt Steven R. Monroe is a auteur who will elevate this sordid source material to new heights and depths but I do think there is a range of possibilities in which this film can exist. For the amount of attention that this film has been given on this site the decision not to review it seems like a cop-out.

Perhaps a greater issue I have with the non-review is the invitation to generalize and dismiss a whole genre of films a priori based on content. Maybe it's just sloppy writing but I have a problem with statements like this:

I don’t want to see anyone — man, woman, or animal — brutally tortured and raped for an extended period of time, and I can’t imagine any scenario in which I’d consider that art, entertainment, or at all redeeming.

That statement is problematic because it simply isn't true. There are many films and many directors that portray brutal violence for a variety of different purposes and I can imagine plenty of scenarios where you can find artistic merit, entertainment value, or redemption in it. The experience is going to depend on the quality of the work and the subjective interpretation of the viewer and it is something you actually have to experience to judge. You've gotta buy the ticket and take the ride.

Judging a work on it's merits is criticism. Judgments based on content are something else entirely.

Wow...step away for a minute.

I am just gonna clarify a few things that those too interested in making point to be accurate are writing.

In terms of my intent: Dustin's right to review a film was never my point. However, as long as he allows me to post, I am gonna call BS on it.

Splatter Comedy? Seriously?

There are some really smart, eloquent people supporting the post that have reserved the valid point that all fans of any genre can make arguments of hypocrisy when comparing the relative merits of a picture. I appreciate that point that you have not driven home.

Still, I just don't see the value of death porn. I can understand and not appreicate horror. I can even understand the artistic point that you do not have to look to the supernatural to find the monsters or even there are worse monsters roaming the streets of our cities than any vampire or goblin.

That was an initial point of a serial killer movies.

However it became more of a voyeristic fetish where the viewer became the drooling, patner of the killer. That's what I mean by death porn.

Now I respect it's right to exist, I just find taking a stance on one version over another based on it's graphic nature silly. Particularly in view of what real killers do. It's all demeaning, it's all dehumanizing.

Whether cheering for Jason, or getting off on SAW it's all about the same type of dehumanization.

And what are you opposing? Is it too real? Too anti women, but other versions of anti women movies are okay b/c they make it funny?

Look I will make it easy for those defending Dustin, maybe I've seen just a few too many autopsy photos of what these things really do, and have been friends with a few too many people who get these monsters off the streets to appreciate the nuance of this art.

Maybe I lack the nuanced view to see the point in getting a vicarious thrill in evil acts as entertainment. Maybe I think too much of the evil that is happening in our world today and see no point in wanting to identify with it. So call me biased, unsophisticated and a party pooper.

Enjoy your "splatter comedy", I do support your right to view it (but reserve the right to cry BS), I'll enjoy not seeing it (and you reserve the right to call me parochial) and we can all agree Uwe Boll is hellspawn.

Let's have fun.

Why watch movie like "Life is Beautiful" or "Schindler's List" then? They are horrible torture films as well? Granted, the ending in Shchindler's List is not exactly the same as I spit on Your Grave, one is about redemption while the other is about revenge. But just because something is horrible/tragic doesn't mean it shouldn't be watched. We don't always watch movies for entertainment. The aforementioned movies are two examples. Just because someone watches this movie doesn't mean they are looking fro entertainment or deriving pleasure from it. I don't know if I will see this movie or if it is worth seeing, but I think the point you should be making is not that this movie shouldn't be watched but that this movie shouldn't be watched for pleasure or entertainment, those would indeed be morally dubious.

Just checking in again. Hi!

I think everybody gets the point too - for me, it comes down to:

Does Dustin OWE you a review on this, or not?

Pretty good debate, I think. I love this place because of how cool it is to be disagreed with, with respect.

No worries sansho1 :-)

"that may be true but it is also what invites the criticism and debate in the first place"

Sure, but I'd think the obvious jumping off point for debate after reading Dustin's piece was what the place of rape and torture is in cinema, what is acceptable and what is not, etc. Not the meta discussion of whether or not the piece itself was a fuck-up for not being a traditional "review."

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo husband...

Yeah, that was poorly phrased by me. I think I was trying too hard to be pithy.

What I meant was: you can't make judgments about a film simply by generalizing about the content (without watching the movie). You can't lump all graphic rape and torture movies together just like you can't lump all war movies or all slasher movies together. That context is important, the style and execution are important, and it all comes from the millions of shot-by-shot decisions in cinematography, editing, Mise-en-scène, performance, etc. Give a dozen directors the task of filming a graphic rape scene in the woods and you are going to get a dozen different films. You can't just write them all off as torture porn based on content.

(But I'm probably carrying on too long at this point because I am 95% sure that if we all go out to watch the movie we will come back and say "Yup, that was some real lousy torture porn alright, not an ounce of artistry or a single frame of redeeming social value. We are all poorer, spiritually as well as financially, for having seen it. And on top of that we are now two hours closer to death.")

not to split hairs, but there is a universe of difference between emotionally bringing your audience to a vulnerable yet enraged state for a courtroom drama about painful injustice via a graphic rape scene, like the film, The Accused, and on the other hand, making a voyeuristic horror film which devotes a great deal of its time and energy to depicitng a long drawn out tortuous and terrifying gang rape scene, while the camera drools with love.

I saw the original and there was nothing entertaining, reflective or cathartic about it. it was the equivalent of fictional snuff. I have seen films with much more to offer in story, ideas and theme where i still ended up ultimately traumatized because, the film is imbedded with too much visceral voyeuristic violence that seemed to celebrate the power to destroy, in a way designed to simulate the real for no purpose than its own focus(i.e. Martyrs--i truly wish i could take back having seen that film).

I don't lump silly horror comedies and garish comic-booky gore fests in this category at all. they make us feel safe because they make the boogey man too outlandish, they make us laugh because their events are too over-the-top, too silly, and they make us shrink back from gruesome displays in safe ways(i.e. I loved Piranha 3D). I have nothing bad to say about "scary" movies either, where the unknown stalks us and we are helpless, whether they are violent or simply frightening. Those films too, help us quell our fears by letting us live them out for 90 minutes only to emerge safely with the lights back on.

There are reasons why people are drawn to films.

I guess we can all watch whatever we want, but I do sometimes evaluate the reasons we are drawn to different kinds of film and the messages we recieve and the likely responses we will have. I suppose that is a fairly subjective personal thing for a great many films and filmgoers. And maybe some truly graphically vile films use that tool in some justifiable way.

I'm willing to bet the remake of ISOYG is not one of them, without seeing it, and really sympathize with Dustin for taking a stance that obviously and overwhelmingly was controversial for his readers.

Personally, if I ran a movie site, there are shitloads of relatively benign films i would refuse to review, unless they were going to pay me royally for the degradation. and my movie site would never ever mention tw*l*ght for fear of any promotion, because it is way more insidious and harmful(not to mention widespread) than disgusto crap like ISPOYG.

ok, rectum never healed; neither my psyche. I hate you all and wish you to burn in hell.

I couldn't even get through the arguments because I couldn't read them, I have tears streaming down my face. I love you clown. Seriously, that was the funniest thing I have read in weeks.

Late to the party. Will I get hounded out of here if I say that I would absolutely watch the Dog version of "I Spit on Your Grave", as long as the revenge was equivalent to the rape, and by equivalent I mean exactly equivalent, including the default conversion factor Nastiness of attack on Innocents : Required nastiness of revenge on Attackers of 1 : 20, minimum.

Also, well done everyone for having a massive clusterfuck of a discussion in an intelligent and respectful way, even though there was confusion sometimes about who was watching what. Except for Karen. Fuck you. Who are you calling a rape apologist? I want names. I read this entire post and I didn't see any. If you're going to call people out, have the politeness to do it to their face.