Not not be all impatient and all, but what's the new ETA?

I've been a little anxious as well Ed.

I imagine Mr. B has been pretty busy as of late. Speaking of...how's the second trimester treating you two Mr. B?

Passion of Joan of Arc?

What a great choice!!

As it says, "needs comments"

One of my fave films of all time. A straight 10 and one that made me cry. The film critic for the SF Chronicle Mick LeSalle pushed me to watch it and I was simply gob smacked (British expression).

I hope James watches all the extras as they are a treat on this simply fabulous Criterion disc.

Rob

I last watched it when the Luc Besson Joan of Arc film came out. If I recall, when I was putting together the Top 100, it came in somewhere around the middle of the second 100, which would have placed it near #150.

IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT is currently scheduled to see the light of day on January 23 (the review is written). THE GREAT ZIEGFELD is scheduled for February 7. So it will be some time between those dates. As I wrote elsewhere, I'm in the process of preparing the review now, which involves two re-watches and a lot of reading. Plus I'm going to watch a couple of other Joan of Arc movies. My movie schedule has me seeing new movies on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week, so I'll probably start writing the PASSION review on Friday. If you want a target date, I"ll aim for Feb. 1.

I have said this else where...but damnit, I really appreciate the thoroughness taken on the films you review Mr. B. By my count, you'd have watched the chosen film three times, in addition to supplemental reading on said film...as well as watching other films on the subject of Joan of Arc? Geez...that's effing hardcore.

Thank you for that...wow. I just really hope you enjoy it...Top 100 be damned.

I'm just curious if you'd have been this thorough if I had chosen I Spit on Your Grave?

Ah hah, another classic.
Slightly different tone though.
Rob

Hey Rob.

Hmmmm. I want to admit something without having to start a brand new thread to do so. I've been very curious about I Spit On Your Grave ever since I read Ebert's review about a decade back. Curious but not exactly interested in seeing the film. It's one of a family of titles that alternately fascinate me and disgust me. All of this family has gone unseen by me.

For example, Mondo Cane. It's infamy is either well-deserved or part of the marketing. The same goes for other Gualtiero Jacopetti films: Adios Africa and the hideous-sounding Farewell Uncle Tom. There doesn't seem to be any arguments for these supposedly racist, violent, and pseudo-documentarian films. But, as the concept of Faces of Death fascinated my in my adolesence and has remained unseen by me to this day by virtue of my hatred of exploitation/vengeance/dubious entertainment, I have never forgotten the titles for very long before they pop back up in some dark corner of the internet.

Has anyone, not just Rob, seen any of these films? What is the the experience of watching them like? I flat-out refuse to see any of them but can't help but tongue the sore tooth.

I can only assume, before told otherwise, that the experience is kind of like watching the tremendously immoral, grotesque splatter of the godforsaken Guinea Pig franchise of films. Mermaid in a Manhole being the only one I, regretfully, made it through. Regretfully in that I watched it and I very sincerely wish I hadn't.

Any input into these films, or films like it, would be greatly appreciated by me.

Yeah i've passed by I Spit On Your Grave in one of my local vdieo stores several times, but i've never gotten the courage to rent because of how disturbing it sounds, I mean i've seen plenty of rape-revenge films and i've enjoyed them on some level, but if I hear a film has a long protracted rape scene, then I generally don't want to see it, that's mainly why i've aovided seeing Irreversible and I Spit on Your Grave BTW just so you know, from what i've heard the rape scene in ISOYG is 40 minutes long!!! I highly doubt ANYONE could get through that scene without feeling sick or closing they're eyes!

I don't mind violence. Just so we're all on the same page. If there's a purpose to it, or if there's a reasonable response by the characters to it, I don't even think about it. Inglourious Basterds was violent, sure, but it was never sadistic. Salo, so unpopular with so many, had a degree of sadism but it never felt purposeless. So it's hard for me to say when the line is crossed. I get the feeling I Spit On Your Grave crosses the line but just don't know. The told-in-reverse Irreversible, with a protracted and much too graphic rape sequence, barely crossed the line. It certainly wasn't enjoyable. It may have had a larger purpose but, as time goes on, I become less sure of what it may have been.

But then you've got The Virgin Spring, the effective but overtold The Last House on the Left, and the remake of the Craven vehicle (also effective but another "joy in vengeance" message that I wish I had passed on). I hope there's some gonzo/weirdo movie fans out there that have seen some of the more out there nightmarish stuff. And I'm not talking about Dario Argento's weird, kind of brilliant early 80s stuff. I'm talking Herschell Gordon Lewis. Cannibal Holocaust. Someone start a thread and inform me about these movies!

I Spit On Your Grave actually got a really cheap direct to video sequel called Savage Vengeance, supposedly the only thing they have in common is that the lead female is said to be jennifer's sister or something, though i'm guessing you would probably enjoy that one more as from what i've heard it's far too incompetently made to be disturbing, as in one seqeunce, a female character gets raped by guys despite the fact that they sitll have their pants on! it certainly sounds like a really cheap movie!

It has been many, many years since I saw I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. Probably 1986 or 1987 (as I recall, I rented it the same night as THE HOWLING).

Never saw the sequel to I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, but I did see the first sequel to THE HOWLING (I think there may have been more than one). Talk about incompetent and cheap...

The difference between IRREVERSIBLE and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is pretty clear. IRREVERSIBLE is making a rather bleak statement about human nature. The rape goes on for so long precisely because it is intended to disgust and repulse. And because we're in a reverse chronology situation, there really is no catharsis, with the revenge scene having already happened. The movie is tough. I have seen it twice and recommend it for people who can appreciate really bleak movies.

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, however, is pure exploitation. There's no art involved. The purposes of the rapes is merely to give the revenge killings a jolt of righteousness. The movie didn't horrify me the way it did Ebert (although I was 18 or 19 when I saw it), but I wasn't impressed. I thought it was poorly made and a little boring. Today, I'd probably be more outraged, but it's certainly not something I'm going to seek out for another viewing.

I will probably not watch IRREVERSIBLE again. Seeing that movie twice was enough, even though I would argue it has artistic and thematic merit (in fact, it was on my Top 10 list the year it came out). It's like THE WAR ZONE in a way. Powerful but really tough to watch. And it stays with you. I may never feel the need to watch THE WAR ZONE for a fourth time (I have seen it three times) because so much of the film is fixed in my memories.

Well I have no absolutely no desire to see either of those films(Or The War Zone for that matter), regardless of what they're intentions are, and I can gurantee you that the sequel to "Grave"(if you can even call it a sequel, it barely qualifies form what i've read) is probably 10 times more inept then any of the Howling sequels are, and that's really saying something!

which ones?

In the UK there was a video nasty outcry about 20 years ago, so guess what.

Many of us started searching them out. I had to buy "I Spit on your Grave" for $17 to get to watch it. Add to the "Driller Killer", "Toolbox Murders", the uncut "House by the Cemetary", Zombie Flesh Eaters", "Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue", "SS Experiment Camp", "Terror Eyes"....... there were about 30 or so banned movies.

"I Spit..." is not as ghastly as it's reputation. the rape scene at the beginning of the film is protracted and awful, but so are the scenes of revenge. The film is without any real artistic merit and more a curiosity piece. Like James I have not seen it recently and won't, not because it's horrifying, but because it's just plain bad.

The Wes Craven "Last House on the left" is considerably scarier and has an equally, if not worse, rape scene. Once again, it's merit is dubious, but it is certainly scarier than "I Spit"

"Irreversible" contains another long and awful rape scene. However, I think, like James, that it's an interesting take on human nature. It's a rough ride and very well made. Not an exploitation movie.

James mentioned "The War Zone"'. This is a masterpiece IMHO and by far the hardest to watch. It should almost be required viewing for anyone interested in cinema. It's heart breaking. That said, it is not an exploitation movie.

Majoraphasia asked about the experience watching them. Believe it or not, we used to get together in a group with beers and watch them. This included a very enthusiastic lady from New Zealand. It was sort of fun.

The UK film critic Mark Kermode is a big fan of these films. he's often mentioned "The Witch Who Came From the Sea" as a great example of the genre. I have not seen it.

Slightly ashamed of myself
Rob

Man...

I kind of feel bad I brought up the damn film. I just brought it up it as sort of a joke...but at the same time, seems like it brought up some good conversation. Thanks major!

I haven't even seen I Spit On Your Grave...I came across talk of the film online, just like I just came across some other exploitations films just mentioned in the thread. It's something I'm curious about, but something I don't know that I'll see. But now that I'm typing that...hell, I watched Salo, just because of it's reputation. Who knows...but to try to stay on topic of the thread, I never would have asked Mr. B to review it.

Irreversible was a good movie. Not good in how it made me feel, but good in how it made me feel...if that makes any effing sense. I did not like the feelings I had in watching that film...but I appreciated that it made me think about rape in a different way. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well at all.

You hear news about a female getting raped and you don't think much about it. But you watch a film like Irreversible...and you see it happen...you see it happen as it might in real life...and you take heart to that news.

I tell you what...if anything like that ever effing happens to my wife you better believe that I would try to bash in the dude's face with a fire extinguisher...that's what that film tells me without having to actually experience it.

I'm thinking that's the difference between an exploitation film and a film like Irreversible and The War Zone. Educate me.

Great post and yes, Ram1312, I do know what you mean.

Irreversible, War Zone and Distant Voices Still Lives are all examples of great movies where one of the main protagonists are evil. We feel deeply uncomfortable.

I cried uncontrollably the first time I saw the unique Terence Davies Distant Voices, Still Lives. I watched Pete Posthlewaite as a total monster beating the crap out of his wife and daughters and all set to beautiful music. I will never forget the first time.

When I first saw War Zone I was stunned in the same vein. Another great actor - Ray Winstone is at the center of your emotional turmoil.

These film succeed because we care about the characters involved.

The exploitation movies don't. I watch them as curiosities. I'm never truly involved and I'm never moved. there is no art, just titillation.

That said, I think anyone seriously into film should watch some exploitation movies.

The ultimate dilemma for me on this topic is how we feel about Clockwork Orange?

Great movie because Stanley was at the helm?
Vile exploitation dressed up as art?
Both?

Rob

C'mon Rob...that's a can of worms, man.