14

Sales Art for I Spit on Your Grave Redux

Sales Art for I Spit on Your Grave ReduxGet closer, dear reader. Closer still. We’ve gotten our hands on a postage stamp size image of some confirmed to be unofficial artwork Steven R. Monroe’s remake of I Spit on Your Grave (a.k.a. Day of the Woman for you purists out there). We hope the powers that be go with this concept as even in this teeny tiny form it’s a great homage to the original.

Check it out to your right. Anchor Bay Films has picked up rights in the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand to CineTel Films’ remake of the 1978 cult film. It will receive a targeted theatrical release in the fall, followed by a DVD release in the first quarter of 2011.

The redux stars Andrew Howard (Devil’s Chair, Blood River, Luster), Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Chad Lindberg (Push), Daniel Franzese (Killer Pad, War of the Worlds), Rodney Eastman (Joey in A A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: Dream Warriors and A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master), Saxon Sharbino, Amber Dawn Landrum, and Chad Lindberg (Push).

Look for more soon!

Uncle Creepy

VISIT THE EVILSHOP @ AMAZON!
Got news? Click here to submit it!
Spit on things in the Dread Central forums!

Image Type 1:

Steve Barton

You're such an inspiration for the ways that I will never, ever choose to be.

  • The Butcher

    That sales art sucks. And no rape in DAY OF THE WOMAN aka I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, or going with “rape lite” or whatever defeats the entire purpose. Not my bag at all, but the movie is all about the degrading rape of the lead character.

  • Spaceshark

    I would LOVE this movie. But only if the entire cast was replaced by an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue.

    • RingoJ

      You are what’s wrong with horror.

      • Spaceshark

        I can live with that : D

  • Terminal

    I’m not impressed. I am also not looking forward to this. They’re obviously going to wuss out on the raping and just miss the point of the entire movie. I’ll stick with the original.
    ———-
    “We are bad guys. That means we’ve got more to do other than bullying companies. It’s fun to lead a bad man’s life.”

    • AngryChairr

      I don’t think wussing out on the raping is a bad thing. The rape-and-revenge genre is generally terrible because 99.99999% of the movies used “empowerment” as an excuse to get away with lingering on the rape. This is one of the few films within the subgenre that contains any merit so I understand the concern, but I just don’t trust most filmmakers to mix exploitation and art as well as the original did. Especially not after the last notable entry to the genre, Chaos, was just godawful and wallowed in the depravity of its actions.

      • Terminal

        It’s less about empowerment and more about seeing her point of view. The rape was obviously exploitative but it was also crucial to the story to indicate to the audience the sheer ruthlessness of these men and the utter helplessness of this woman being victimized over and over without anyone to be able to help her out. This supports our need for revenge as it does her own.

        Wussing out on the rape is a very bad thing and yet another indicator that even with alleged edgy horror films, directors are still too much of pussies to actually engage in some anarchy and brutality.
        ———-
        “We are bad guys. That means we’ve got more to do other than bullying companies. It’s fun to lead a bad man’s life.”

        • AngryChairr

          I disagree. We don’t get her point of view; we get a male’s perception of what her point of view would be. The violence in this film exists because that’s the only way most men could ever conceive of coping with something like rape. The intended audience for this movie was never women. It was made as a fairly lurid exploitation film, a genre whose audience has almost always been men. Because of this, I can respect it’s intention to be subversive but this movie doesn’t even come close to expressing the trauma rape victims experience. It’s more Death Wish by way of Deliverance subbing the actual victim in for Charles Bronson’s passive bystander. The movie had to play out the way it did because it was the only way its intended audience would empathize with the lead.

          • Terminal

            But the carnage works perfectly to depict the woman’s rage. Implied or off-screen would simply be rather bland and wouldn’t quite sell the utter agony this woman is submitted to. The scene where she’s walking down the woods with her arms up in pure disgust works because of Camille Keaton’s utter horrified expression, and it works even more because we’ve seen what happens to her. She’s punished for being sexual by sexually repressed men and they take out all of their aggression on this poor woman thus extrapolating the measures she is willing to go to to even the odds.

            Off-screen rape or hinted rape is going to completely ruin an extremely terrifying story, pure and simple. I haven’t seen the remake but I am convinced it will not be as extreme as its predecessor. Not in the least.
            ———-
            “We are bad guys. That means we’ve got more to do other than bullying companies. It’s fun to lead a bad man’s life.”

          • AngryChairr

            The problem is that her rage is the byproduct of the male writer/director. I’m not saying a woman couldn’t be capable of those things, but the story is skewed by a male perspective. It’s basically man-vs-man with her character playing a traditionally male role (no doubt, influenced, as I pointed out earlier, by Deliverance) instead of taking a more nuanced approach where we see the victim run a gamut of emotions instead of focusing solely on rage, which isn’t anywhere near realistic.

            I applaud the movie for being a subversive effort by attacking male concepts of sexual justification for rape but it’s overall message is lunkheaded and sloppy because it’s a revenge fantasy where the victim can only find peace with herself by becoming as depraved as her attackers. The end, for example, where she turns the “Suck it, bitch” line back on one of her attackers when he begs for mercy.

          • Vanvance1

            When I went to University my English classes were full of bitter middle aged women who trotted out this argument.

            “A man wrote this, he doesn’t understand women.”

            “A modern woman would never behave this way.”

            Invariably all of these annoying cows were also enrolled in womens studies.

            I could get into a long debate as to what a realistic response would be. But honestly, I don’t see the point.

            The movie is a revenge story and it is designed to entertain. While women are generally more nurturing than men they can enjoy and appreciate a revenge fantasy as well as men can. I’ve been a first hand witness to it watching Hostel 2 with several women.

            As for skipping the rape. Why? The rape is the motivating factor; you need to see a villain be evil to become emotionally committed to a quest for revenge or retribution. Skip the rape and you pull the fangs from the film.

            I do not expect this remake (again completely unnecessary) to live up to the quality of the original. It’s just another case of a company realizing they have a great title people know that they can slap on some paint-by-numbers garbage.

          • AngryChairr

            Maybe I should have prefaced my statements by saying that I am in fact male. I’m also not middle-aged. Or bitter. And I don’t recall ever taking women’s studies. Regardless, there are very distinct differences between how a woman written by a man will act and how she will act in real life. This movie doesn’t ring true. I Spite On Your Grave is a male reaction to rape.

            I’ll also point out that I didn’t go into this expecting a chamber drama or a Lifetime movie. I knew what it was. It’s a crudely-made revenge film with a ham-fisted political slant to it. That’s really what I’m trying to say. This isn’t the classic film it’s being made out to be. Its legend precedes it because it’s one of the only “good” rape-and-revenge films out there, so it tends to get remembered as being better than it legitimately is.

            I also phrased the portion about the rape wrong when I said it wouldn’t be bad to wuss out in the remake. I should have clarified. I have no problem including the rape in the story but to say the remake’s rape scenes won’t be able to compare to the original is ludicrous. Those scenes were there as much to sell the film as they were to condemn the act. You can include the rape but minimize the exploitative elements which the original film intentionally amplified because it was intended to be an exploitation film.

          • Terminal

            You reduce the rape and you cut off the film’s balls thus reducing any and all of the shock value of the original. What made the original so vile was the repeated victimization of this woman. If you’re happy with watered down remakes, then by all means indulge yourself with this upcoming movie, but I’ll stick with the original which is unflinching, well made, very well acted, vicious, and presents a relentless revenge tale that continues to disgust to this very day. It’s a classic for a reason, pure and simple. I’m so sick and tired of horror being tamed even when the directors promise to be brutal and edgy. There will never be another movie like “Day of the Woman.”
            ———-
            “We are bad guys. That means we’ve got more to do other than bullying companies. It’s fun to lead a bad man’s life.”

          • AngryChairr

            The only thing the film has going for it is the rape scenes. It’s the only reason people watched the movie in the first place, and it’s the only reason people still seek it out. People don’t watch it because it’s a good movie. It’s an average to okay revenge films that only has rape to differentiate it from thousands of other similar movies. People watch I Spit On Your Grave for the same reason they watch Men Behind the Sun or Salo: shock value. And if shock value is the only reason people still watch a movie, that doesn’t speak well for the movie itself. It doesn’t have balls. It has a marketing gimmick. The victimization of the woman could have been accomplished any number of other ways. It was lazy to use the “unflinching” rape scenes because anyone can do that, and they have, as shown in the countless knock-offs and other movies that have done in the following years. I give the movie some credit, but it’s not a classic. I think in this era we’re far too lenient with that label as it gets tossed on almost any old movie.