Review of Day of the Woman (1978) by Gavin S — 23 Oct 2007

When I first read a brief synopsis for I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (aka DAY OF THE WOMAN), I thought to myself, 'that sounds like a really bad film'. I got a hold of the uncut version on DVD as I refused to watch the cut British version, watched it, and thought it was just that â?? a truly bad film. It's only recently that I decided to give it a second chance. After watching it again and listening to director Meir Zarchi on the DVD audio commentary, I saw the film in a whole new light and now I think it's actually very good.

First off, I noticed how good the acting was, and two roles in particular stood out for me. Camille Keaton is perfect for the role of Jennifer, the poor lady who suffers at the hands of her monstrous rapists. Eron Tabor, who portrayed Johnny, also gave a rather fine performance. Neither are Oscar-worthy performances, but they more than serve their respective purposes. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is also shot nicely too. The film's pacing is kept slow and easy-going by the use of long, stationary, and wide-angled shots, creating a false sense of peace before the rapes occurs.

Meir Zarchi sets I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE in some beautiful and tranquil forest locations, but within the confines of this we are subject to repeated acts of brutal rape and sexual violence. The decision to film in such lush landscapes was one of a few daring things Zarchi as director boldly chose to instigate, and I think it works to great effect. A criminal is not seen to rape Jennifer as she walks down a dirty, dark alley late at night. Jennifer is seen to be stripped naked, beaten, and raped out in the broad daylight, amongst the trees and wildlife, and even in her own house. The use of attractive locations thus helps add shock factor to the rape sequences, and again gives the film that realistic edge. I think, though, that the reason why this film continues to get such bad press is because Zarchi made the rapes a bit *too* realistic, and a lot of people found that hard to cope with.

Not one bit of musical score is used within this film. Not one. Again, another bold choice on Zarchi's part. The lack of music helps bring a sense of realism to the proceedings, which therefore helps Zarchi in bringing his message effectively across that rape is a horrendous and unforgivable act. Zarchi only employs the use of ambiance as his 'score'. For example, as Johnny and his gang leave Jennifer's house after the second rape, you can hear a dove cooing in the trees behind them. By and large in any normal situation, we would take that as a peaceful and comforting sound. But after what we have just seen, it hits home that really there is no peace in this place and makes the events prior to the cooing all the more disturbing. It's as if Zarchi is saying, 'Life goes on, and things like rape are happening all the time, wherever you may be'.

An interesting point which has been debated over for years now, is that the movie is told from Jennifer's point of view and it is her who takes out the revenge on the rapists; not a friend or member of her family. It's just her. I think I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is one of the most feminist films ever made. Its saying, 'Hey, look at us. We have power, we can stand for ourselves'. Jennifer is never seen as a feeble, weak character who can't stand on her own two feet.

Unfortunately, over the years I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE has had a huge amount of bad press, which I think is a shame. People have said that it encourages men who watch the film to go out and rape, and that it takes pleasure in showing the degradation of women. This is total and utter garbage. The film does anything but glorify rape or rapists. The rape scenes are shocking, disturbing and extremely hard to watch. But this is a good thing â?? rape should provoke a disturbed reaction in any normal human being, and be seen for what it is, which is an awful crime. Someone else said the film was "tasteless and irresponsible". This is not entirely true; it's not the film that's tasteless and irresponsible, but the rapists it deals with are. Again, this is how they should be portrayed.

Roger Ebert said he was bothered by the fact that the rapists aren't shown to be deranged. Well I'm sure not all rapists look deranged, seemingly normal-looking people rape too. I praise Zarchi for avoiding the all-out stereotypical, deranged psycho rapist. Instead, he shows Johnny and his gang as normal-looking people and the fact they rape women is seen all the more horrifying, as they don't look like psychopaths.

One feministic critic accused Zarchi of showing Jennifer as flaunting her sexuality at the gas station, by having her show off her legs. I don't know what this person was thinking. Jennifer has driven for three hours and many miles in her car without a rest, so she gets out to stretch her legs. Her legs are never fully seen, and are not once shot in close-up. Her folded arms show defensiveness, as she is wary of her new surroundings. She's flaunting nothing at all. The only time Jennifer seemingly flaunts her sexuality is when she is committing her acts of revenge, but this is not degrading in any way. Jennifer is confident of her body (as we see when she swims naked in the water and later when she is sunbathing in a bikini), and she is merely using her sex appeal as her weapon of choice against her rapists. While it is probably safe to say this would never happen in real life, this is a film, and in a film one can get away with almost anything.

But there are some genuine flaws in the film. For example, why did Johnny send Matthew to kill Jennifer when he could have sent someone more competent? Was this carelessness on Johnny's behalf because he is having mixed feelings about what he has just done? Or was it because he sees Matthew as his tool, and so he uses him for everything? It's never made clear in the end. I also think Stanley and Andy's characters are somewhat underdeveloped. The pair of them are not given enough dialogue and individual screen time for us to fully explore the monsters they really are, and thus they become nothing more than a couple of mates of Johnny's on the sideline. The movie would have been better overall if these two characters had been more polished.

Cult film guru Joe Bob Briggs says I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is one of the most underrated movies of all time. I totally agree. It's a much-misunderstood movie, probably because 99% of people who see it are so shocked by the rapes that they fail to concentrate properly on the rest of the film and so become confused and annoyed at it. This is a shame. What people need to understand is that Meir Zarchi wrote this film after he and his 8-year-old daughter had the terrible misfortune of seeing the aftermath of a real gang rape. It shocked Zarchi so much so that the only way he could get his feelings out was to get them out on paper and write a film about the incident. I know what this feels like, as I too have written scripts as a way of cleansing myself and venting my frustrations with the world.

As I said above, perhaps Zarchi underestimated his audience and went a bit too far with the rape sequences, and this is why people hate it. I believe he was just so passionately against rape and it annoyed him so much that he made the rapes well and truly horrendous to hammer home his feelings about it. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE doesn't condone rape; it simply shows it for what it is. People seem to forget there have been other films that show rape for what it is, but the levels of hatred aimed towards them are virtually non-existent compared to the grossly bad press I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE got.

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a unique, hard-hitting and thought-provoking movie, although it won't be to everyone's tastes. It is a one of a kind movie; there is no other like it. It is both a misunderstood and highly underrated well-made piece of art, which pushes the boundaries in ways no other movie has done before. And to be honest, its original title of DAY OF THE WOMAN suits it better.