Rue Morgue Podcast
RM PODCAST – I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE VS. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
This week on the podcast, the lovely Andrea Subissati joins me for a bit of an old school, ‘compare and contrast’ exercise.
In one corner, we have Meir Zarchi’s controversial 1978 classic I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. In the other, it’s Steven R. Monroe’s 2010 remake.
Which one will emerge victorious (or at least reasonably unscathed?) Tune in to find out!
:- FDBK
To have one of your letters read on an upcoming edition of the Rue Morgue Podcast, send an email to letters @ ruemorgueradio.com.
To listen to the episode, use the embedded player or click HERE
(or ‘Right Click’ to save to your hard drive).
To subscribe in iTunes, use the following URL:
http://www.ruemorgueradio.com/RMpodcast/rss.xml.
I wish I could say that I enjoyed this particular episode….but I’ve been way too stressed out lately because Andrea WON’T ANSWER MY PHONE CALLS OR E-MAILS!!!
I will NOT be IGNORED!
Seriously, though….that was a very funny intro. Caught me off guard, but gave me a good laugh. Though I’m not sure who this “goth singer” is that you say is my new crush.
No, there’s only one girl for me. And she will be mine. Oh yes…she WILL.
The transcript of Roger Ebert’s review that you read on this episode made me realize exactly how reading his criticisms of most genre or exploitation films were like listening to a broken record.
I wish had a dime for every time he made the same exact points about how these films are just “geek shows” and how, in HIS opinion (though he writes these statements as if they are universal truths), the filmmakers show absolutely no artistic justification for the violent and brutal content of their films.
As you stated, he has written reviews of many other films wherein I also found him to be “on point”. But many of those have been of films with a much more “high brow” caliber, films that aren’t considered to be “trashy”…including IRREVERSIBLE, which is HIGHLY stylized, and which carries with it the prestige of being a European film, which, in most every case, erases the stigma of being “exploitation”.
I just think that, when it comes to many of these lower-budgeted, less-stylized, more visceral or raw genre films, he cannot seem to be able to bring himself to accept the more amateurish approach of the films for what they are trying to achieve at their own level, using far less resources and finessse, resulting in a far more direct, blunt style of filmmaking.
It’s then that I feel he becomes sort of the cliched, “snooty” critic, and I don’t think he has ever given these various “drive-in” types of genre films a fair shake. It’s a bit maddening.
Also, you talk about Zarchi’s commentary being a bit self-aggrandizing, and how you felt that, despite his good intentions, there’s a definite “lack of awareness” on his part in regards to the subject matter of the film.
I would have to agree. I think it’s an issue of subjectivity. He talks about how the film was inspired by a real-life incident wherein he found and “rescued” an actual rape victim. But, as much as I admire some of the artistry and “poetry”, as you put it, of the film…I don’t think that Zarchi actually fully understands the issues, both psychologically and sociopolitically, inherent in this, the most reprehensible of violent acts towards the opposite sex.
I think he, and indeed possibly no one, is capable of making a film that deals with this in an entirely realistic way…unless they have had some sort of completely personal experience with the subject matter, either by having been a victim themselves, or having known a relative or loved one very close to them that has been through this horrendous experience.
To put it another way, and to use a different film as an example…
In 1998, when Steven Spielberg’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN came out, critics were quick to praise the opening D-Day battle sequence as “the most realistic depiction of war ever put on film”. They also claimed that it made the viewer feel as if they were actually there, experiencing the graphic, harrowing terror of combat “for real”.
And yet, EVERY vet I’ve talked to over the years has said that, though the film has an effect on you, it doesn’t even come CLOSE to giving the viewer the experience of what actual combat was like.
Indeed, the late, great Samuel Fuller was quoted at the time as saying that anyone who thinks that PRIVATE RYAN was a realistic depiction of the experience of war doesn’t know what they’re talking about. He said (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Unless you were to fill the theater with smoke so thick that the audience chokes on it, fire actual bullets at them, set off random, ear-shattering explosions all around them, and shoot the guy in the seat next to them in the head, there’s no way that watching the film even comes close to being a realistic experience.”
I’m not necessarily saying that in order to make a truthful, realistic film about rape, you have to have actually BEEN raped…but I just think that Zarchi didn’t quite think about the issues he was tackling in a complete and understanding way.
But he gets points for trying, at least.
And speaking of trying to score points, I have to agree with Andrea on one aspect. Despite the film’s shortcomings, I think that the “revenge” sequences do indeed draw their power from the drawn-out first act of the film, and that, despite being a bit “ridiculous” at times (as Joe Bob Briggs puts it in his commentary on the film’s DVD), the rape sequences are still powerful enough to merit a serious discussion of the artistic intent of the film, despite what Roger Ebert so dismissively said.
Great discussion all around. The remake was, indeed, pure garbage, with no redeeming qualities to it whatsoever. And I COMPLETELY agree with Andrea’s views on Charlie Sheen and Roman Polanski.
Speaking of some the issues raised here, I wonder, Stuart, if either you or Andrea have seen Lucky McKee’s THE WOMAN yet? And if so, what are your respective thoughts?
Great posts, Mike. I thought I’d responded but I don’t see my post anywhere. Regardless, I agree with 99.99% of everything you said so you’re preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned.
As for THE WOMAN. I haven’t seen it yet. Have you?
Also…
“I’m not sure who this “goth singer” is that you say is my new crush.”
Typically fickle male! You’ll have to go digging through your old chonebook posts to jog your memory.
But as always, your enthusiasm for the podcast is mucho appreciated, as are your intelligent and thoughtful comments. I wanna bring you on soon!
….maybe a HORROR COURT on the WALKING DEAD? Ha ha!
p.s. you’re really bang on with Zarchi’s shortcomings. The world still awaits the GONE WITH THE WIND of rape/revenge epics. And when it comes, it will come from a woman (or most likely, a womyn.)
I also have not seen “The Woman”. Will add it to my ever-growing queue, though! Meaning my list of movies to watch, I’m not actually growing a tail. Thanks for the tip!
A great episode. I’ll have to sit down and listen to Zarchi’s “I Spit on Your Grave” commentary sometime. To date, I have only listened to the one recorded by Joe Bob Briggs. Actually, it was the inclusion of his commentary that got me around to watching the film in the first place. Much like Feedback’s observations, “I Spit” had a sort of mythic quality to me when I was getting into horror films as a kid. It was one of those movies that had a reputation for extremity that I wasn’t comfortable exploring in my youth. But a commentary by Joe Bob Briggs, the venerable horror host of my generation? How was I going to pass that up?
By the way, what was the track used to close out the episode? I enjoyed it, and I’d like to track it down.
This was a pleasure to listen to – a thoughtful and nuanced examination of both films. This is another format for the RM podcast which I hope to see frequently in future.
As for the subject of this specific podcast, I’ve not seen the remake (I largely avoid remakes now, unless there’s a particularly good director attached) but after that discussion, I don’t feel I’ve missed anything.
The discussion of Irreversible was particularly fine, and provoked the thought that perhaps there’s room for this sort of analysis for other films that wear their thematic concerns openly (Audition, À l’intérieur, A Tale of Two Sisters, Antichrist, and The Descent are, for instance, all films that grapple overtly with tropes and concerns specific to women). It’d be a very entertaining series, I expect.
As for the remake, perhaps the director’s comment that he didn’t understand the story as specifically gendered might have provoked a discussion of films featuring the rape or traumatic disempowerment of male protagonists (Deliverance, certainly, but as well pictures like Pulp Fiction and A Clockwork Orange). It would at least have been a fertile path to pursue, to see if other filmmakers had been able to better represent the aftermath of an analogous violation in the way that the director of the I Spit on Your Grave remake was able to manage.
Feedback-
“As for THE WOMAN. I haven’t seen it yet. Have you?”
No, but I’ve been following the controversy pretty closely. I LOVE this video, from the first screening at Sundance:
http://youtu.be/o3lUAZLB4JY
“But as always, your enthusiasm for the podcast is mucho appreciated, as are your intelligent and thoughtful comments. I wanna bring you on soon!”
Anytime!
“….maybe a HORROR COURT on the WALKING DEAD? Ha ha!”
We’ll have to wait until after Season 2. I have a bad feeling that with Frank Darabont walking off the show the way he did, I may be switching to your side real quick. We’ll see…
It occurs to me that the films that fit naturally into the conversation about rape in cinema are Roth’s HOSTEL pictures. Rape is much more about the exercise of power than mere sexual gratification, and the abuse of power is a strong thematic point in both movies. Further, the torture trade as depicted is highly sexualized – a point made some clarity in both movies. And in both HOSTEL and its sequel, one of the tortured gains the upper hand on a tormentor late in the proceedings. Not to condemn Mr. Andrews to spend more time with films he doesn’t like (I quite agreed with the criticisms he’s levelled against the initial movie), but they slot seamlessly into this topic. Worth consideration, perhaps?
Very interesting clip. There’s more of him on there with footage of him getting ejected from the theatre. I’m assuming you’ve seen all of it.
Hmmm…..
Not sure what to make of it. I have mixed feelings about this.
Obviously, the guy’s upset and the film affected him strongly. And in a way I admire him for expressing his outrage because most people are just meek little sheeple who wouldn’t dare speak out of turn for fear that their tongues may slip from the bumholes of whatever filmmaker happens to be present for a Q&A.
But on the other hand, I can’t stand knobs who put themselves front and center at the expense of others.
Although I’m not sure he needed to be ejected from the theatre though as he merely sat down ready to hear the Q&A after getting so upset.
Then again, I’m definitely not on board with his calls for confiscation and censorship….etc. I wonder if he’s ever seen a horror movie before? If you’ve been out of the loop for a while, perhaps something like this could fuck you up. Then again, I haven’t seen the flick so maybe it’s as jarring as this guy thinks.
Either way, it’s interesting to see a reaction like this captured on camera. Whatever you think of the guy, there seemed to be very little tolerance for his response and I don’t fully accept that.
So it’s a bit of six of one, half a dozen of the other, isn’t it?
Boy makes a film. Man gets upset. Crowd gets upset at man for getting upset. And neither wants to hear from the other
(except the man actually who sat down again because eventually he wanted to hear what the filmmaker had to say.)
El Goro.
I typed out a whole bloody response to your post and somehow lost it!
Anyway, the track is from IRREVERSIBLE, from the soundtrack which is a fantastic album with a lot of great cues by Thomas Bangalter from DAFT PUNK that are only in the flick for a second.
It’s called STRESS and there’s also a nice little video for that one on the DVD which is more a less a camera/effects/lighting test for the tunnel sequence from the movie.
Bangalter and Noe are one of the great composer/director match ups of the 21st Century thus far.
http://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Score-Thomas-Bangalter/dp/B00008OM4M
Stuart. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Yeah, definitely wanna do more of this type of thing. Right now, the RM PODCAST is a new thing, sorta like a WILD WEST situation as we try different theme ideas out (which I like). So it’s just a matter of finding the right focus or hook…
As for films depicting male rape….
To me it’s not such an obvious flip side. And what I mean is, men being raped by men is not the exact opposite of women being raped by men.
For that to be the case, the rape would have to occur against men by women in a matriarchal society that’s sexually repressive towards men. (Of course, such a society would never exist. Just on a hormonal level, it wouldn’t happen.)
So I’m not quite sure how to contrast male rape against female rape in films but it’s definitely an interesting thing to think about.
I would imagine that in general, men feel far more empathy towards male victims of rape in films than female victims. Because let’s be perfectly honest, a lot of rape scenes as depicted in exploitation films are designed to titillate – and even if they don’t, that is often the end result.
You see this more clearly now in the DVD culture. There’s a whole new generation of young male viewers who fetishize these films on DVD and who seem to celebrate them for nothing more than their visceral shock value (which was another reason why I wanted to do this show actually.)
But it’s important to think about these flicks and the issues they raise. Of course, violence for violence’s sake and perhaps even ‘rape fantasies’ have a place in cinema but like Andrea said, when there’s rape involved you can’t easily avoid the political dimensions.
So again, it makes that comment by Monroe even more ludicrous than it appears upon an initial, superficial glance.
If the producers felt that there was a credible way to remake that flick, it’s almost like they hired the 100% perfectly polar opposite man for the job.
Feedback-
I agree with your assessment 100%. I, also, was actually more disgusted with the crowd who were yelling at him to get out than I was with him. As ridiculous as his calls for censorship were, the man had EVERY right to voice his disgust with the film, and to hear McKee’s Q&A in an effort to try to get an insight into where the filmmaker was coming from.
I think his mistake was in confronting McKee so obnoxiously as he re-entered the theater after the screening. Perhaps that’s why security was called.
Though I don’t know why McKee didn’t ask for the guy to stay and voice his objections. If nothing else, it may have provided Lucky the opportunity to further illustrate the points he was making with his film. Oh well…
I was present for a very similar situation a few years back when I went to a screening of Crispin Glover’s WHAT IS IT?, hosted by Glover himself. After the film, an EXTREMELY upset woman stood up during the Q&A and confronted him about some of the more troubling imagery contained in the piece. The crowd that was there became just as ignorantly and sycophantically irate as the crowd in the video.
But Glover handled it like a real pro, quieting everyone and letting it be known that she was perfectly entitled to her opinion. He then invited her to have a discourse with him right then and there over the content of the film. It not only made for a fascinating back and forth between filmmaker and film viewer, but also helped to enlighten everyone on the nature of his artistic intentions.
But the point is….you’re right. No matter what side of the fence, people suck.
Would’ve loved to have seen that! I missed out on Crispin Glover showing the flick here a few year’s back.
Anyway, the guy in that Sundance clip mentioned he’d been in over 40 films. Is that right? (Meaning, as an actor?)
If anyone has any idea who he is, can you speak up? It might be interesting to track this fella down…….
Mr. Andrews,
I think the podcast has been taking shape quite nicely, actually. You’re getting a range of different types of shows into the rotation, which allows you to provide a little something for most fans. It’s fascinating watching this evolve, and a great pleasure to see the range of commentators and interviewees you’ve been able to enlist. Very nice work.
Your point is well taken: the director’s comment caught my attention and started me musing about analogues. He may not be as cretinous as he sounds (whatever his failings as a director). IF rape is understood primarily as a brutal violation, an expression of hatred and aggression to be sure, but fundamentally about demonstrating power on the one hand and vulnerability on the other, then there are analogous situations that might be fruitfully considered (torture, for instance, certainly seems to fit the criteria). Ms. Subissati is precisely right that the political implications of such an act need consideration, but the director may not have been altogether wrong to attempt to universalize it. The conversation perhaps turns on the special states (for instance, vulnerability, desirability, depersonalization) affixed to women by some men or certain societies, and whether those conceptions and prejudices are the primary or a secondary issue. Nevertheless, there’s still a conversation to have (however much the director of the remake might not be the one to have it with).
Happily (?), horror is a genre deals which with such themes regularly and openly, so at least there’s a lot of material at hand to consider.
Yes, there’s a lot of offensive hackwork in the genre, but has ever been thus. All of the women in prison movies of the 1970s, for instance, were unapologetically “crafted” with prurient markets in mind. I don’t watch enough of the really fringe cinema from North America anymore to agree or disagree with your analysis of many of the recent direct to DVD titles, but you appear to be identifying the newer generation of viewers and filmmakers as particularly debauched. Although it sounds a little like you’re warming up to shouting those damn kids off of your lawn, the popularization of extreme, even violent pornography may support your understanding of audience attitudes and film-makers’ intentions. On the other hand, how many people were titillated or aroused by IRREVERSIBLE’s rape sequence? As your discussion of the original I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, suggested, these topics are often handled very sensitively indeed by genre (and even exploitation) film makers.
I suspect – as you argued – that the producers were looking for nothing more than a quick cash out on the back of an infamous but aging property. The director probably fit their needs and intentions quite well; the last thing such producers would want is a director who wanted to seriously engage with the material, and perhaps release a film that was too challenging for the exploitation market they were hoping to tap.
I don’t know anyone more adept at what Feedback does than Feedback. Nobody knows that better than me because I’ve worked with him at it. Fact!
That said, I’ve never been as reluctant to listen to one of his podcasts as I was with this one. Based on past experience, I can pretty much predict where these things are going to go, but that didn’t prepare me for what I was about to hear.
Did you and Andrea mispronounce Meir Zarchi’s name on purpose?! You played the clip of Zarchi’s commentary where he pronounces it! I’m well aware that you purposefully put that clip in, Feedback, so what’s the story? Did unfailingly mispronouncing the filmmaker’s name and effectively mocking it somehow lend authority to the ensuing hatchet job? Or were you just too lazy to get it right in the first place?
Because you didn’t stop there! The completely irrelevant bit of Ford-bashing was embarrassing, particularly given your strident tirades against corporate-controlled media in the message board. What the fuck makes you think what you did is remotely different than what you vehemently condemned on the Mortuary?! Holy hypocrisy, Batman!
Then it gets worse!
As a husband and father to a 9-year-old girl, I would like to advise those not trying to raise children in a society where tight pants with ‘Juicy’ emblazoned on the ass that are marketed to 10-year-olds to shut the fuck up about how women are regarded in society. Seriously, this ‘Slutwalk’ nonsense is half-cocked, reactionary bullshit to a bit of common sense, regardless of how offended you might want to appear about how it was delivered. What a load of anti-feminist shit. I have a better idea – speak out about the cheap porn ho fashion aesthetic that seems to be so popular today or the gross sexualisation of pubescent girls over the last 12 years or so.
But no, let’s undersell the rape sequence in the original and oversell it in the remake because it suits our agenda.
And let’s predicate it on possessing a vagina, as that apparently grants special insight into exploitation films that were made before we were born.
Wait, am I implying that ‘women in Horror’ is just another pathetic, politically correct, quasi-feminist con job? Or that ‘women in horror’ like Lianne Spiderbaby, who clumsily totters about on heels at horror conventions and appears in bed in lingerie to breathlessly prattle on about 70’s exploitation films in YouTube videos, actually have a fucking clue?
Certainly Miss Subissati is intelligent and well-spoken, not the utter embarrassment that Ms. Spiderbaby is, but in the end why do I care what you have to say if it’s only intended to make an old man like me look bad? And when you’re a year late to this party?
Anyway, I’ll get my tits out faster than any ‘woman in horror’ will. That’s the tease they’re trading on.
To wrap up:
- in no way does Seinfeld have any relevance in a discussion of ‘70’s exploitation films. That merely showcases the lack of depth brought to the subject.
- Irrerversible is the most unbelievably over-rated rape/revenge film extant. There are really only three bits of note – the fire extinguisher scene (which is kind of lame), the rape (which is no worse than I Spit on Your Grave), and the final line (which is admittedly brilliant).
Anyway, at the 35-minute mark I’m out of patience. It’s only half over, does it get any better?
Wow. Is this really the GORE-MET or is this someone posing as the GORE-MET intending to sully his good name with a reactionary tirade that would make the FORD BROTHERS blush?
Dude. I don’t even know where to start with some of the flagrantly anti-feminist, pro-sexist, pro-police, anti-rape victim, pro-rape culture embarrassing claptrap you’ve spewed here. I’ll let others try to enlighten you.
But I will respond to a couple of things. As for Zarchi’s name, no that wasn’t on purpose. At the time of recording, I couldn’t remember the correct way of saying it.
Keep in mind, I splice the clips in at the end, after the recording is done so of course I heard it then.
As for the ROB FORD clip. What was wrong with that? I went off on a tangent to address something that seems to be a gross misconception about Canada, that we’re some sort of left-leaning, pro-socialist state. But as our prime minister demonstrates and as the Mayor of Canada’s biggest city demonstrates (and I’m sorry, as your post here demonstrates), Canada is a very RIGHT WING, REACTIONARY state.
If Rod Ford’s comments make him look like a fool, that’s not my fault. He’s a civic embarrassment. His comments about AIDS and ASIANS are equally as hard to stomach.
And I said I would let others respond but come on man….SERIOUSLY? You’re down with those fucking comments about SLUTS from the Police Officer? Do you not see why they would arouse anger? Do you not see how they blame the victims of rape? Do you not see how they fit into the larger issue of sexual repression of women in this society?
Those comments are way the fuck out of line, hence the reaction.
and p.s. You’re using the word ‘reactionary’ in the wrong context. The police comments that inspired the slutwalk were reactionary. The slutwalk itself was decidedly radical.
@Stu White
I wrote up the remake for RM a year ago.
I went to the I Spit on Your Grave (2010) panel at the Festival of Fear last year and shot video which I put up on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UR1Xmkodpc&feature=channel_video_title
Later that night, I met Jeff Branson on Queen St. and talked about the film over a couple of smokes. Then I met Lisa Hansen and Sarah Butler at the industry party RM puts on. These were casual conversations; I’d already submitted my review.
These people put their hearts into this project. Nobody was looking to make a buck from it, they believed in what they did. I believed them.
Oh yeah…this too….
“What the fuck makes you think what you did is remotely different than what you vehemently condemned on the Mortuary?! Holy hypocrisy, Batman!”
You’re gonna have to be REAL fucking clear for me on this and spell it out for me in bold relief.
Exactly how was that related to anything I condemned on the RUE MORTUARY? And feel free to provide links, quotes….etc. I can’t answer your question because I honestly don’t understand it!
“These people put their hearts into this project. Nobody was looking to make a buck from it, they believed in what they did. I believed them.
Oh I see, you like the folks involved so you’re incapable of seeing the work in an objective light. I get it. Don’t worry. Happens all the time.
GM. I said I wouldn’t respond but your tirade is so loaded with problems, I can’t help it. Look at this quote for instance…..
“let’s predicate it on possessing a vagina, as that apparently grants special insight into exploitation films that were made before we were born.”
I think I made it perfectly clear as part of my ‘thesis’ for this episode that depending on your gender orientation, you’re gonna experience a movie like ISOYG in an entirely different way. So the intent was to open the discussion up to both gender oriented points of view, and I think we unearthed a few interesting tidbits.
So what are you trying to say? That I believed that you have to have a vagina to have a perspective? No, I didn’t say that.
But do YOU believe that having a vagina doesn’t allow one to have a perspective on a film made before you were born? Does having a penis give us insight into films made before we were born?
I don’t understand the accusation or the implication here.
So for real. Is this REALLY the Gore-Met?
“Wait, am I implying that ‘women in Horror’ is just another pathetic, politically correct, quasi-feminist con job?”
Well, clearly you are! So whattya say ladies? Is “Women In Horror” (and I’m assuming Women In Horror month….etc) just another pathetic, politically correct, quasi-feminist con job?
Another funny thing. I was really alarmed by some of the comments Lianne’s initial article generated on the Fango site and in my naïveté I thought, “Well at least we don’t have to endure such misinformed hateful intolerance towards feminist critiques of horrors films here on the RM blog….”
Well, thanks for proving me wrong, GM! Holy moly, Grandpa.
“Anyway, I’ll get my tits out faster than any ‘woman in horror’ will. That’s the tease they’re trading on.”
Yikes and DOUBLE YIKES! Jeez….
And Stu. Sorry, in all the excitement I forgot why I came here initially, to respond to some of your comments.
“All of the women in prison movies of the 1970s, for instance, were unapologetically “crafted” with prurient markets in mind.”
True. But have you seen MACHETE MAIDENS yet? Some interesting perspectives on that in there….(We covered some of them in my interview with the director Mark Hartley.)
“you appear to be identifying the newer generation of viewers and filmmakers as particularly debauched. Although it sounds a little like you’re warming up to shouting those damn kids off of your lawn”
I wasn’t targeting younger filmmakers per se. I was generalizing but I was talking about the idea that in this DVD exploitation film fan culture that seems to have evolved over the last ten years, there’s a lot of shallow celebration of exploitation films for their titillation factor alone and a dearth of critical analysis (as evidenced by my observation of messageboards, conversations on certain podcasts and at festivals, conventions and screenings….etc.)
Yeah, many of these films are raunchy and fun in their own right, but there’s plenty of interesting political and social issues raised by them as well. Those are important to examine too.
Gore-Met,
Fair enough. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve not seen the remake. But it’s easier to slot it for a viewing if it has enthusiastic defenders – if only to see if there’s a middle ground to be found. I’ll tag it for future reference then, and get back to you when I’ve seen it (fair warning, I have a lot o deadlines, so it’ll be mid to late autumn).
Some touchy subjects were glossed over; a little plain talk about them isn’t a bad thing.
I’m neither a prude nor misogynistic. I don’t have to explain that to you. But the next time you’re out in public, take a look around and imagine your daughter in the most hyper-sexualised outfits you’ll see.
Then imagine her in even less in a YouTube video talking about how, like, how gnarly Cannibal Holocaust and shit is, then try to spin it into an example of female empowerment!
Mr. Andrews,
No trouble. The Gore-met’s post has a lot to consider, so I took no offense that you responded to it immediately.
No, I’ve not yet seen MACHETE MAIDENS. But I can also add that to my list for later.
Shallow celebration of atrocity is often how people first approach horror films. You suggested that as a young man, you were initially intrigued by I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE by its reputation for extremity, and then disappointed that it failed to deliver appropriately gratuitous content. But your views have shifted over time. But I think a lot of fans who are initially attracted to outré images or explicit violence come around to giving the films they watch a fuller appreciation. An understanding of a movie is as much a snapshot of the viewer’s state of mind at the time of viewing as it is a clear interpretation of the piece under consideration. What people bring to cinema will change over their lives: we’re none of us at 40 the same person we were at 15.
Some movies are just poorly executed or cynically conceived – but even the most inept, mercenary efforts are still a reflection of the culture in which they were produced, and often worth discussing for what they inadvertently reveal.
“Yeah, many of these films are raunchy and fun in their own right, but there’s plenty of interesting political and social issues raised by them as well. Those are important to examine too.”
And the choir says Amen.
” You suggested that as a young man, you were initially intrigued by I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE by its reputation for extremity, and then disappointed that it failed to deliver appropriately gratuitous content.”
It’s true that on my first viewing I thought it was underwhelming but that’s what appalled me; that it was sloppy and artless.
And you’re right, we come to films differently over time. Now, I see ‘art’ in the movie whereas before I saw very little of that.
Having said that, I still don’t think it’s a particularly great film, perhaps only great by comparison to how ludicrous the remake is.
Gore-Met! I have a solution to your problems….
Let’s ban all high heels, lingerie and short skirts. We’ll stick the women in Burkas and if they sing or attempt to play any sports (or host any youtube horror videos), we’ll stone them to death.
If they dress like sluts, we’ll rape them in order to teach them a lesson. That’ll learn them, no?
And let’s ban Andrea’s Roller Derby league immediately! Have you seen the slutty, cameltoe-esque crap they wear? What sort of a role model is that for young girls!
Remove their clitorises and sew up their vaginas! It’s the only solution.
(And let’s get rid of bike lanes and libraries while we’re at it!)
Gore-met,
I’ve a young daughter as well. I certainly take your point about the hyper-sexualization of young girls. But the officer’s argument was, I believe, wrong-headed. Rape is not primarily a sexual act: it’s a violent one. Wearing more conservative clothing, or being a child, or elderly, (and in some cases, being male) is no defence against rape. Attractiveness isn’t the issue, so much as vulnerability. To the extent that high-heeled shoes or tight-fitting clothes make either flight or resistance more difficult, then he may have had a point; but style tips don’t prevent sexual assault.
The comment was understood as a slight against the dress of the women in question, and the slut-walk, I think, an expression of anger over being instructed in how to live one’s life. I can appreciate the protesters’ larger concern, even if I feel this particular expression of it wasn’t best judged.
Gore-met,
One last point that I didn’t make clearly enough. A further, probably more substantial reason, for the outrage was the implication that women invite rape by their choice of clothing, their manner of speech, or their way of acting. If his intention was that the women should do nothing to draw attention to themselves, then it’s at least well-meant. If his suggestion was intended to be analogous to advice not to walk down dark alleys alone at night, then it was merely poorly articulated. But from the reaction, it seems that many people read it as an affirmation that the police officer (if not the police force as a whole) held victims of rape as at least partly responsible for their own violation. And that’s less forgivable.
Thank you to Andrea who brought all of this to my attention – I enjoyed the podcast, and these comments after the fact only further prove the points that were made
Gore-Met. You made some comments about me PERSONALLY (which isn’t fair in the realm of journalism as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t think we’ve ever met, so it’s even more disgusting).
First of all, I don’t walk around clumsily in heels, I am perfectly well walked in those shoes which I only wear on occasion – I’d love to see you get in a pair and walk around. That low blow of a jab is ridiculous, especially since your former awesome editor, Jovanka almost always sported towering heels. Shame on you.
I don’t own lingerie because I’m too cheap, but thanks for not noticing.
Actually, I do have a fucking clue. I have an honours degree in cinema studies specializing in the representation of women in exploitation and horror cinema from the University of Toronto, and I’m currently working on my masters.
As a writer for Fangoria (yet still a supporter of Rue Morgue, and friends of mine that work and write for the magazine), I don’t read Rue Morgue as much as I used to. HOWEVER, I did read your recent review of my boyfriend’s film, IF A TREE FALLS. While I’m very happy you praised the film, your writing was amateur and convoluted. However, that is just my opinion.
I’m not going to visit this page again because I simply don’t have the time in between writing my book and shooting episodes of Fright Bytes in lingerie in my boudoir – but I’m sure you’ll have a nasty little rebuttal that will be on par with that of genius Hart D. Fisher (another horror genius) on the Fangoria website. Perhaps include a little bit about how I had to mention my boyfriend in order to make my point clear. At least you won’t be able to call me a slut.
I’ll be at the Festival of Fear, come find me – I will be walking around in heels that put me at 6’0. Hopefully I won’t have to look down at you.
Best,
Lianne Spiderbaby
p.s. in case I need to spell it out for you (which, I think I do – and please, feel free to get your tits out as I type) my exploitation segments are tongue-in-cheek. I’m very aware of how ridiculous they are, and that’s just the point. So attacking me for those segments? The joke is on you.
Do you also consider Elvira an idiot slut who says “like” and “gnarly” because of how she dresses? You better check yourself before you riggity wreck yourself.
(Again, a joke).
Thanks for the support, Andrea, Stu, and Feedback!
Lianne. You don’t have to defend your high heels, how you wear them, how well you wear them, how often you wear them….etc. Or your lingerie or anything else.
Those comments (and more) by the GM were wildly off base. I thought for a moment that maybe one of his messageboard foes was using his handle in a nefarious plot to discredit him.
Or maybe he was a little sauced when he scribbled that diatribe? Who knows? (If that’s the case, stay away from messageboards while under the influence, GM!)
I know the GM personally and while we’ve had many disagreements on politics and films (many on RMR), we’ve always gotten along in real life. He’s always been a friendly, sweet chap in person so I’m a little surprised at the anger in this post, especially at how it targets women.
Something about that podcast really hit a deep nerve with him. But let’s face it. His reaction is not unique. We saw a lot of the same on the Fango blog.
If this was coming from someone I didn’t know, I’d be far more merciless in my reaction than I am now. As it stands, I’m willing to cut him some slack because the GM as represented in that diatribe is not the GM I know personally.
So we’re gonna look at this as an opportunity to expand and clarify many of the points we made on the podcast and an opportunity to play a bit of Devil’s Advocate and respond to some of the reactions generated on this thread.
What I mean is, we’re gonna do a follow-up to this show in the near future and hopefully we can shed some light and help elevate certain perspectives.
Seinfeld LOL! Great episode. Gets the wheels turning.
To put it in perspective, Seinfeld is classical farce and farce is motivated by dramatic irony. So yes, though a stretch, there is some sort of relation. But then again, this is present in almost all fictitious narratives to varying degrees.
“…we’re gonna do a follow-up to this show in the near future and hopefully we can shed some light and help elevate certain perspectives.”
I, for one, am VERY MUCH looking forward to that. This particular debate has been fascinating, for a variety of reasons.
@Andrea- If and when you do get around to seeing THE WOMAN, I would love to hear your thoughts/reactions to it.
“Wind him up, he can’t stop
He’s wound up tight just like the clock
That’s winding its second hand down”
- Saga
I’m actually listening to the song.
Nobody thought to thank me for turning this into the most interesting and vigorous blog post ever.
So!
Feedback:
You used your personal bully pulpit to take a cheap shot at Ford. You vociferously complained that corporate-controlled media outlets engage in this sort of shoddy journalism, then did exactly the same thing. Did you call Ford’s office and offer him equal time and a rebuttal? Of course you didn’t. Goes to credibility, your Honour.
You did slide your personal political agenda into a facet of Rue Morgue sponsored by the magazine. Are you speaking on behalf of Rue Morgue? I missed that meeting.
So of course you took my comment to the most extreme position you could.
Women have every right to present themselves as they wish and go wherever they want without fear for their personal safety. Fucking duh.
But that’s hardly realistic, is it? So when a police officer involved in the investigation of a serial sex offender targeting a university campus bluntly tells a crowd that they should take a look at their own conduct it’s automatically an attack on women worthy of the sanctimonious bullshit that ensued? Seriously, this is that fucking important in this world?
Remember making jokes about jizz targets?
You guys made my day! I wrote the initial review pitting the original film against the remake for Horrorbid.com. I’m glad that your podcast was inspired by my article. I have plenty of other reviews in my Versus Series.
P.S. i’m not particularly fond of my photo editing skills. So, i was flattered that you used the graphic i made for my article, too (http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d33788d54caddfd070a8e49b6/images/ispitonyour)
here’s the url for the photo edit (sorry for the double post): http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d33788d54caddfd070a8e49b6/images/ispitonyourgrave.jpg
“You vociferously complained that corporate-controlled media outlets engage in this sort of shoddy journalism, then did exactly the same thing. Did you call Ford’s office and offer him equal time and a rebuttal? Of course you didn’t. Goes to credibility, your Honour.”
GM. You’re confused on this – and other issues. I am perfectly within my rights to editorialize as I see fit. The onus is not on me to provide equal time to every point of view on the planet. BUT if this was an election and I was making a campaign run against FORD then you could complain to RUE MORGUE and/or the CRTC if you felt he wasn’t getting equal time here. But not to me. So you’re comparing apples and oranges and it’s a ludicrous point anyway. I’m not allowed to comment on ROB FORD without giving him equal time? Ridiculous!
By that logic, did you email LIANNE SPIDERBABY before you lambasted her in your posts? It doesn’t hold, GM. Nevertheless, Rob Ford is welcome to join the debate whenever he wants. He’s free to post. Drop him a link to the podcast if you’re so concerned.
“You did slide your personal political agenda into a facet of Rue Morgue sponsored by the magazine.”
What’s my agenda? I’ve explained wholeheartedly the reason behind the FORD thing. We were talking about the SLUT WALK, the sexist POLICE COMMENTS and Canada as a reactionary state in general. It was all linked to our discussion of the issues raised by the films. Or do you believe that the sociopolitical dimensions of horror films should NOT be explored on the podcast?
Do you disagree with me? Then by all means you’re free to comment here. No-one’s gonna stop you. I want this podcast to inspire an exchange of ideas but here you seem to think I should keep my mouth shut for some reason. Again with the censorship fetish. Weird stuff from a horror maniac!
Nevertheless, as I explained, I think the ROB FORD clip is an eye opener for our American friends still under the widespread impression that Canada is some sort of progressive state. Our Mayor, our Police and our Prime Minister are glaring examples to the contrary.
Do you disagree?
“when a police officer involved in the investigation of a serial sex offender targeting a university campus bluntly tells a crowd that they should take a look at their own conduct it’s automatically an attack on women worthy of the sanctimonious bullshit that ensued?”
YEAH but he didn’t say that, did he? Let’s get things crystal clear. He told them to not dress like SLUTS. That demonstrates a deep, institutional ignorance towards women, revealing an attitude that the victims are somehow to blame. It’s the language and the attitude that’s alarming and revealing much more than the advice.
Hence the slut walk.
I’m totally on board with chicks who wanna reclaim that word! Why? Are women not allowed to own their sexuality? To have hormones? To wanna indulge in carnal desires? Of course, none of that excuses RAPE does it?
“Sluts” don’t deserve to be raped anymore than their male counterparts, i.e. red blooded sons who make their fathers proud!
“Remember making jokes about jizz targets?”
Yeah…love me some jizz targets but what’s that got to do with anything? Did I say that JIZZ TARGETS are a blank cheque for a man to rape a woman? Were my comments about JIZZ TARGETS hateful and angry towards women?
GM. Your comments in that tirade are highly problematic for a number of reasons. I heard a couple of interesting responses to them so far. On the one hand, someone read them and thought you made perfect sense. (You can guess the sex of the reader I’m sure!) And then someone else read them and was considerably alarmed and surprised by your attitudes (and I think you can also guess the sex of that reader as well.)
So it’s not about possessing a vagina that offers insight – but we need to acknowledge that by and large, women have a very different perspective on exploitation cinema than men. They’re sensitive to qualities that can very easily elude male viewers. THAT’S why I wanted a female perspective on those films.
But truthfully, I see a lot of anger and contempt for women in your post. You lambasted Lianne for what she wears. You supported or at least EXCUSED the police for making the SLUT comments. You railed against the WOMEN IN HORROR movement as a feminist con job. You told Andrea that you’re not gonna listen because somehow her comments make you feel bad (Truthfully, that was the comment that had me wondering if you were drunk when you wrote it!).
The whole comment about ‘possessing a vagina’ is weird. And your ‘cock tease’ criticism of women in horror is wonky too.
Maybe you don’t see it the way I do but all those comments are very revealing of underlying attitudes about women’s sexuality, their right to be sexual creatures, to display their sexual nature, to be attractive, alluring, seductive and tempting.
None of that excuses RAPE which is an act of violence that happens to women regardless of whether or not they dress like SLUTS or how many JIZZ TARGETS they get tattooed on their backs. Do you understand?
And the word SLUT should not be used by an authority figure to a woman any more than the word NI**GER or P*KI should be directed at a man of colour. It’s demeaning. And it puts women down.
And that’s the reason behind the SLUT WALK! Those were women who refused to be defined that way, who have RECLAIMED the word (like Dykes did with that once derogatory term.) And there’s power in that. It’s empowering.
And understand this – the women in the slut walk were not advocating for 12 year girls to prance around town with JUICY emblazoned on their arses. They were trying to EMPOWER women and force the authorities to reassess some stagnant (and dangerous) bigoted, sexist attitudes.
But here’s the deal, GM.
I DO thank you for your provocations because I’m looking at this as an opportunity to examine these attitudes and to shed more light on them. I welcome your reactions and I look forward to playing devil’s advocate a little with them on the next program.
But do me a favour moving forward. Reel in the anger a bit (and especially the personal attacks.)
You offered absolutely nothing of substantial criticism of Spiderbaby’s words or works other than her high heels and lingerie. And condemning her for her attire alone is not compelling in any fashion. She is entitled to wear whatever the fuck she wants to and to be as alluring and as colourful as she sees fit.
NONE of it compromises any opinion she may have about ‘sexism’ or ‘rape culture’ in cinema.
So stay tuned for further comments. Listen to the remaining 30 minutes of the program. Take out your sexual frustration on that glow in the dark FLESHLIGHT you keep hidden under the robe that won’t stay closed. And for God’s sakes man….quit obsessing over Spiderbaby’s lingerie videos. It’s either arousing you past the point of tolerance or you’re growing jealous of how much better she looks in high heels and lingerie than you do!
(I still love ya by the way. Even though you’re a chone.
)
‘Women in horror’
From the moment I became involved in this business in a professional capacity, I have worked with women. It never occurred to me to regard them differently.
Mary-Beth, Cass, Audra, Jovanka, Monica, Jessa, Liisa, Ankixha and anyone I may be neglecting to mention – just colleagues. I won’t get into the wicked chicks who volunteer to work the booth at FoF except to say thanks! Wow, how sexist of me…
Anyway, I find it Orwellian that a ‘Women in Horror Month’ was promoted on RMR this year, if I’m not mistaken.
“All horror fans are created equal. Some horror fans are more equal than others.”
Bullshit.
If so, when is ‘Sensible White Men in Horror’ month, and where are my 8 minutes?
“White Men in Horror” is every other month of the year as it’s an industry dominated by white men.
I mean….these comments are kinda blowing my mind.
WOMEN IN HORROR has a place because women are marginalized in the film business.
It helps inspire women to get more involved in an industry that at one point they were perfectly within their rights to feel they weren’t welcome in.
Plus, as I’ve pointed out, women have a different perspective on it – so WIH month gives us all a chance to contemplate an alternative to the largely MALE dominated culture of horror, that persists despite the contributions of all your worthy female colleages.
But I’m not gonna say anymore GM. You’ve given me more material for the follow up episode than I can deal with.
I need some of the girls to chime in on these issues now. I’ll let them explain to you the importance of WOMEN IN HORROR month and why there should be a distinction.
Actually, fuck that. I already dealt with it all on the series of shows I did. Listen to them. And if you still don’t understand, KEEP LISTENING until it starts to sink in.
(Are you also one of these guys who thinks there should be a FAMILY PARADE to counteract the PRIDE PARADE?)
JOHN CARPENTER, GEORGE ROMERO, WES CRAVEN, TOBE HOOPER, RUGGERO DEODATO, LUCIO FULCI, MARIO BAVA, DARIO ARGENTO, ALFRED HITCHCOCK, WILLIAM FRIEDKIN, STEVEN SPIELBERG, ELI ROTH, LUCKY MCKEE, ALEXANDRE AJA, JAMES WAN, ROB ZOMBIE.
These are all major horror directors. Definitive of their time. What do they have in common?
They are all WHITE MEN.
Of course, there’s been women who have infiltrated the industry too but not to this extent. They haven’t DEFINED the genre like white men have.
So are you STARTING to see the point here, GM?
No need for WHITE MEN IN HORROR month.
It’s all the fucking time, man.
So why resent one piddly little month of the year (and the shortest one at that) to celebrate WOMEN IN HORROR?
What are you so offended by or afraid of?
@Lianne Spiderbaby
I admit I blindsided you and owe you somewhat of an apology for doing that. But – you asked for it!
(Wow that was fucking tasteless!)
I didn’t intend to single you out, but I am not a fan of how you present your opinion.
Brutally to the point – when you blatantly sexualize your message by slapping on a bustier and recline on bed to recite IMdb trivia, you don’t just demean yourself.
Why would you expect to be taken seriously with that approach? It’s offensive – you’re playing on your physical appearance to sell your message. Do you not believe in it enough to let it stand on its own?!
Then again, maybe I should just look for the right thong…
I’m not gonna respond to that because Spiderbaby can defend herself – but do me a favour all who read this – don’t let this devolve into blatant name calling or anything like that.
I don’t want the thread to get shut down.
I have hesitated to join in on this clusterfuck of a discussion for two reasons:
1) I’ve heard rumblings of a follow-up podcast that will likely address most of these issues, and
2) There is some pretty ugly mudslinging going on that I would prefer to not dignify with a reaction.
BUT
Part of me feels like I am leaving Feedback all the dirty work of dealing with a troll, so I will quickly say a thing or two that I would rather not bring into the possible follow-up show.
Mr. Gore-Met,
“Nobody thought to thank me for turning this into the most interesting and vigorous blog post ever.”
To thank you for those insights is tantamount to thanking someone who shit in your mouth for making your day memorable. Car crashes are also interesting, but we don’t praise those who cause them for a reason.
“So when a police officer involved in the investigation of a serial sex offender targeting a university campus bluntly tells a crowd that they should take a look at their own conduct it’s automatically an attack on women worthy of the sanctimonious bullshit that ensued? Seriously, this is that fucking important in this world?”
Yes. It is that fucking important because it demonstrates an institutional tendency toward victim-blaming in the judicial system. Rape is largely underreported because many women choose not to come forward out of fear that they will not be believed, or be blamed for their assault. Bad thing. Very important.
“Anyway, I’ll get my tits out faster than any ‘woman in horror’ will. That’s the tease they’re trading on.”
I also know Monica, Jessa and Liisa. Frankly, you disrespect them (and myself) with that remark.
“When is ‘Sensible White Men in Horror’ month, and where are my 8 minutes?”
If there were such a month, you would not qualify for the 8 mins.
Thanks for the bad taste in my mouth!
Hang on, I didn’t realize Lianne totally lost her shit!
“Thank you to Andrea who brought all of this to my attention – I enjoyed the podcast, and these comments after the fact only further prove the points that were made
Gore-Met. You made some comments about me PERSONALLY (which isn’t fair in the realm of journalism as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t think we’ve ever met, so it’s even more disgusting).
First of all, I don’t walk around clumsily in heels, I am perfectly well walked in those shoes which I only wear on occasion – I’d love to see you get in a pair and walk around. That low blow of a jab is ridiculous, especially since your former awesome editor, Jovanka almost always sported towering heels. Shame on you.
I don’t own lingerie because I’m too cheap, but thanks for not noticing.
Actually, I do have a fucking clue. I have an honours degree in cinema studies specializing in the representation of women in exploitation and horror cinema from the University of Toronto, and I’m currently working on my masters.
As a writer for Fangoria (yet still a supporter of Rue Morgue, and friends of mine that work and write for the magazine), I don’t read Rue Morgue as much as I used to. HOWEVER, I did read your recent review of my boyfriend’s film, IF A TREE FALLS. While I’m very happy you praised the film, your writing was amateur and convoluted. However, that is just my opinion.
I’m not going to visit this page again because I simply don’t have the time in between writing my book and shooting episodes of Fright Bytes in lingerie in my boudoir – but I’m sure you’ll have a nasty little rebuttal that will be on par with that of genius Hart D. Fisher (another horror genius) on the Fangoria website. Perhaps include a little bit about how I had to mention my boyfriend in order to make my point clear. At least you won’t be able to call me a slut.
I’ll be at the Festival of Fear, come find me – I will be walking around in heels that put me at 6’0. Hopefully I won’t have to look down at you.
Best,
Lianne Spiderbaby”
Well, where to start?
I’m pretty tall?
I guess by suggesting that you should seriously refrain from critiquing the work of more established writers when you couch it in high school English teacher’s nightmare that you did.
I wasn’t aware that I owed you collegial slack.
Wait – I haven’t met you, or you haven’t met me? Because this is kind of important…
Jovanka is no longer awesome?
Actually, she’s not because she steamrolled a bullshit opinion about Horror Rises from the Tomb in her book. Tsk, tsk!
And you don’t exactly glide across the floor…
I never mentioned who you write for or what your qualifications are. Good on you for not letting the opportunity to do so pass you by!
I don’t have any credentials, so I don’t put much stock in them.
And… did you just threaten me?!
It’s only a clusterfuck because I vehemently reject the notion that gender grants unique insight into the horror genre or that gravitas is derived from what’s between your legs. Deal.
Feedback,
You know how conjured up ‘Women in Horror’ month? Women in horror!
Is there a governing body of horror fandom I’m not aware of who determine these things?
It’s nothing but snide self-promotion and self-important bullshit.
Is it our of line to say ‘blow me’ here>
GM. Honestly, mate. This hasn’t been much of a debate at all.
I have systematically addressed all of your comments. Actually, I’m guilty of false modesty here. I have SYSTEMATICALLY demolished your comments and exposed the faulty logic therein.
If this debate was being conducted in a moderated context, you would have been annihilated many times over by now.
But in return, you’ve SYSTEMATICALLY ignored ALL of my responses and moved on to new nonsense each time.
Hate to say it but this is TROLL behaviour.
And after all is said and done, after all I’ve written and all we’ve said on the podcast, the fact that you can STILL write this….
“I vehemently reject the notion that gender grants unique insight into the horror genre”
…..only proves that “debating” with you is a waste of time. You haven’t understood a bloody thing, have you? Jesus.
Nevertheless, you do bring up some points that we’ll deal with on the next show because your position is quite emblematic of a major cross section of the population.
I think Andrea schooled you quite vigorously on the whole ‘victim blaming’ problem in rape cases and my comments about the need for WOMEN IN HORROR MONTH should have settled in by now but you’ve offered no evidence here that you understand or that you’ve even READ our remarks.
Anyway, keep trolling if you wish, G. I will reserve my responses for the follow up show (if you can stomach listening to it that is.)
I’m ignoring things that don’t deserve attention.
I have a daughter.
You won’t truly understand what that means until you have one. You can BE one, and not understand what that means. Seriously.
I have special insight.
Trust me.
Pretty simple here.
Women DO offer a different perspective…on life, period. Gender means different motivating factors in life. Simple biology.
But I think what GM is saying is that he hates the umbrella politicizing of “women in horror month” like it’s a cultural movement.
Women and men can offer different unique takes on exploitation – though to read anything else into I spit on your grave outside of a one dimensional cheap dime rape fantasy made for teens too young to see porn films in 77 is laughable -but to group all women who speak on dark film together like a radical political movement is ridiculous.
I know so many women who simply don’t have the chops to speak at the level they think they do. Just because they hang out at conventions or write a blog. It’s meaningless. It’s just another social scene for people to cling to as opposed to simply being themselves.
I wonder what someone like Kier La Janisse would say. There’s a woman who has made remarkable waves simply by being intelligent and resourceful.
That’s all that should matter at the end of the day.
And though GM’s points are histronic and insensitive, his points about having a daughter offering special insight are correct. I have a daughter. And let me tell you, nothing gives you instant deeper insight and concern into humanity than being in charge of protecting a tiny human who depends on you.
The world is a scary place for all of us. Testosterone mixed with insanity is scary as hell. Basic fact.
Hi. Against my own judgement, I’ve decided to chime in on something Gore-met said above in his final post — as well as has been stating throughout this thread.
I also have a daughter. She is 7 years old. And, yes, having that child has certainly opened up certain ‘sensitivity’ receptors and has changed me in certain ways (and only certain ways) for the better. But I’m not sure what you think you are addressing with that comment, Gore-met. Are you saying that with this ‘special insight’ you are granted some kind of universal understanding, an understanding that others without children can’t possibly have and maybe one that is even innately honorable in some way? I, and a world of evidence, completely refutes that, if that is what you’re saying. Many people who do tremendously evil things have daughters (and boys). Many people who act in ignorant, bigoted, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and misogynist ways have children. Fuck, in some countries, fathers stone their own daughters to death. There are many things that come with having a child — yes, a greater sensitivity for your fellow man can be one, but also a greater fear can be (and usually is) another, and a growing agenda to validate one’s own faulty reasoning in the name of ‘protecting your child’ (man, how many times I hear a Senator or some other chone say ‘I won’t have my child grow up in a world that allows…’. I feel like screaming Fuck your child! There’s over a billion children on the planet and the only one you can think of and govern for is YOUR child?? — who, chances are, is one of the elite anyway and is ALREADY protected). I also watch parents act in ways that don’t reveal the better part of their natures all the time (including myself, admittedly). I believe a big part of parenting is not only embracing the wonderful feelings it can bring to you, but also fighting against the fear it naturally brings and make sure it isn’t destructive and conservative and repressive (all redundant terms), which is what so often happens (fuck, I hear parents say it all the time, as if it is some kind of template we are SUPPOSED to live by… ah, you know, as you get older, we ALL move a bit to the right — well, the people who say that are generally kicked out of my door and my life anyway, if at all possible).
I say again I have a 7 year old daughter. And I disagree with just about (no, I’d say everything) you’ve said in this post, Gore-met. I truly and honestly don’t think you get it. Feedback and Andrea have clearly stated so many appropriate things, including the reasons why a WOMEN IN HORROR month is not only good, but important, not only for correcting certain injustices and empowering a gender that has felt — and willfully been — disempowered, but for hopefully acting as a role model for later generations (including for your and my daughter, Gore-met). And, as Feedback says, not only do you not respond accordingly, but don’t even seem to address his responses.
I mean, do you feel this way about Black History Month as well? It’s just some lefty pandering useless bullshit thing? After knowing how much you love and support that insanely offensive Black Devil Doll film, I have an idea of your answer to that… but, believe me, I’d love to be wrong with my assumptions (even though I would assert that my assumptions are based upon the case you’ve been presenting).
Now, the last thing I want to point out is this. It’s very clear to me, Gore-met, that this whole perspective you have of all this hateful ‘ho’ type clothing and ‘slut walk’ embracing by certain women and their liberal (progressive) male brethren is not an ‘awareness’ you’ve been granted overnight (ie, since your child was born) but is clearly a simple continuation and crystallization of certain ‘tendencies’ you clearly always have had (ie, your perspective of women as jizz targets) before you HAD children (I know, I know, that was all in great fun… of course, I’m sure I said the same thing, but at some point clearly outgrew it, became aware of how I was being indoctrinated to think it is okay to think of women that way, and realized how offensive it actually WAS). Now, it seems to me, as so often happens with parents, the birth of your child has allowed you (in your mind) a validation and license for your own faulty belief system (of course, now you need to protect your child from them!). Now, the origins of your clearly misogynistic thoughts is conjecture on my part (bolstered by your own words however), but either way, daughter or not, they are what they are.
Please let me be clear. I have tried not to call you a misogynist, Gore-met. I have said I believe you have expressed very clear and certain misogynist tendencies on this board (and some that are, again as Feeback says, surprisingly intensely vitriolic… I guess in some ways I have to hand it to you… you certainly haven’t censored yourself here…) … and, fuck, who wouldn’t in a society that is constantly reinforcing these types of thoughts and images in all of us, so it isn’t hard to understand. I’m quite sure (okay, in fact, I KNOW, I have some of these tendencies myself). But the important thing is to be aware of them as part of a social indoctrination, to work against them, to recognize them as wrong and harmful. And NOT to embrace them… and, fuck, please, not in the name of your daughter.
Okay. Shit. And now I know I’m officially under attack by the Gore-met.
*Seinfeld bass*
Hi Doug!
I’m being facetious here.
Why?
Because I have faced the immutable wall of Feedback many times. When I express an opinion not in full agreement with Feedback’s worldview, it’s inevitably twisted into a representation of neo-con fascism, etc. So, I ran with it.
Not to say that there aren’t elements of truth in what I’ve said, but I’d better let you know right away that my last comment was a pisstake.
Yes, having a child does bring out sensitivities you might not have considered previously. In fact, I briefly contemplated retiring The Gore-met after my daughter was born because of that.
Instead, I decided to keep it up to see what sort of long-term effect that initial rush of regret at glorifying violence in print would have. Turns it out wasn’t that long-lived, but it did alter my views on matters like the objectification of women, although not to the point that I was going to renounce The Gore-met. I like to believe I’ve always been somewhat responsible in this area anyway.
And just to clarify the ‘jizz targets’ comment – Feedback and I once discussed the tattoos many young women get above their buttocks, what are colloquially known as a ‘tramp stamps’. What purpose do they serve? Jizz targets! Yes, it was in thoroughly bad taste, and we both laughed about it. Personally, I find them foolish affectations, but I don’t have to live with them.
But on a more serious note, they’re there to attract sexual attention, as are piercings, fake blonde hair, overblown make-up, low-rider jeans, and push-up bras. When you go to those lengths to get that sort of attention, you somewhat forfeit your right to complain when you don’t like the attention it attracts. By no means am I suggesting that ‘they’re asking for it’, but I do believe that there is a degree of complicity there that should not be disregarded.
I try to look at life as realistically as possible. Realistically, I don’t believe that women are abdicated of all responsibility for their appearance when they dress in a purposefully provocative fashion. I’ll invoke the ‘playing with fire’ cliche here.
Yes, no man has the right to harass a woman for her appearance, but that certainly doesn’t stop it from happening. Having a little regard for your personal safety by managing your risks is just common sense.
But you can’t express common sense around here without Feedback jumping all over you!
Anyway, that cop expressed something that is really just common sense, and it was distorted into some example of neo-con fascism, etc., and we wound up with much hand wringing and marching. Realistically, it’s a lot of nonsense.
And I’d like to dispel any notion that I have ‘misogynist tendencies’
I believe that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.
I do not believe we achieve that by treating some ‘more equally’ than others.
As I stated previously, I’ve worked with women the entire time I’ve been in the horror business, and I’ve never looked at any of them differently than the men I’ve worked with.
That is what true equality is.
When we go down this ‘Women in Horror Month’ road, we’re granting women special status. That shatters my notion of equality.
The message this sends is that the work of women in horror is not strong enough to stand on it’s own merit. To me, that’s actually committing a disservice to women.
It may not seem that way, but I take this business seriously. I see that devalued when second-rate Elvira-wannabes tart themselves and use their sexuality to promote their work. If you have to do that, it must not be very good.
I say that because I work with women who do not need to do that. Their work is damned good, it doesn’t need the sex sell.
Oh, and in regard to the ‘insanely offensive’ Black Devil Doll.
Yes, it’s insanely offensive! That’s why it can’t be taken remotely seriously.
If you can’t laugh at yourself, then is life worth living? (My ‘Sensible White Men in Horror Month’ comment was that).
I’m sorry, I don’t subscribe to political correctness or white guilt. Instead, I do my best to treat everyone equally. I live in a highly multicultural area, and it’s remarkable how similar we all are.
What really we need to do is to stop highlighting the differences and find the commonalities.
And try to have a good laugh.
I would also like to applaud JimmyDean for smashing it out of the park!
Great to get new blood in the discussion!
Mr. Gore-Met
Re: “But on a more serious note, [tramp stamps] are there to attract sexual attention, as are piercings, fake blonde hair, overblown make-up, low-rider jeans, and push-up bras. When you go to those lengths to get that sort of attention, you somewhat forfeit your right to complain when you don’t like the attention it attracts.”
The examples you provide are of stereotypical feminine beauty ideals. Cosmetics and clothing that accentuate certain physical features play toward what has long been perpetuated as the image of the desirable woman. Sexually desirable yes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean sexually available. The problem is that some women perceive their worth to be closely tied with their attractiveness, so trying to conform to the standard to achieve respect also walks a fine line with the negative reaction you describe.
Also, have you ever heard the increasingly popular adage: “real women dress to impress other women”? The ability to use makeup properly or to pull a great outfit together is a skill that women positively reinforce in one another. I know it’s hard to believe, but the way women dress and behave isn’t all about men.
“Having a little regard for your personal safety by managing your risks is just common sense.”
I agree with that. The problem is that this tidbit of advice assumes that provocative clothing and dark alleys at night contribute to rape. They don’t. Women are raped at all hours of the day in various types of clothing. The perception that it only happens to girls who are dressed like sluts and are out late at night is false. This means that the “commonsense” advice is actually useless, and serves only to typecast and blame victims.
“By no means am I suggesting that ‘they’re asking for it’, but I do believe that there is a degree of complicity there that should not be disregarded.”
So they’re asking for it a little bit? It’s only sort of their fault? Sorry, but I don’t see how it can be one way and not the other.
Nobody’s trying to make you feel guilty or ashamed of being a white male. Patriarchy got its foothold long before you (or your dad, or your dad’s dad) arrived at the party. We’re all just trying to get out of its shadow by offsetting the imbalance a little bit. Thoughts on that?
Andrea for mayor. There, I said it.
Gore-Met said: “But on a more serious note, they’re there to attract sexual attention, as are piercings, fake blonde hair, overblown make-up, low-rider jeans, and push-up bras. When you go to those lengths to get that sort of attention, you somewhat forfeit your right to complain when you don’t like the attention it attracts. By no means am I suggesting that ‘they’re asking for it’, but I do believe that there is a degree of complicity there that should not be disregarded.”
I disagree – strongly. I don’t wear funky, sexy clothes to attract men or attention. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for almost a decade now, so I simply don’t need to. I wear these things because I LIKE them. I LIKE how they look. Just like how I don’t wear shit from The Gap, Banana Republic, etc. because I DON’T LIKE those clothes or how they look on me. I dress for myself, and no one else. If you don’t like it, too fucking bad. Because, really, the only person who NEEDS to dig what I’m wearing is me.
Furthermore, I didn’t get my tattoos or piercings for those reasons you suggest either, I got them because I LIKE tattoos and piercings and the ones I have mean something to me personally. Same goes for dying my hair strange colours. These are all just expressions of who I am. The things I wear/decorate my body with make me feel comfortable and confident in my skin. They make me feel like me.
I grew up in an intensely conservative household where self-expression was quashed at every turn, and I’m absolutely thrilled that as a grown-up I can do, see, wear, be, enjoy what I love. I’ve thought normal was boring since I’ve been old enough to know what normal was – this again has nothing to do with wanting guys to fall all over me. Hell, you know me, you know I’m the last person who screams from the tops of hills for attention. But I would fight to my death for the right to express myself as I please, because that’s just one of the perks of living in a free society in 2011.
To be completely honest, I don’t think about what others (men or women) are going to think of my clothes when I get dressed in the morning, I just think of what I’d like to wear that day. I think you’ll discover that I’m not the only woman who approaches her closet in this manner.
“As I stated previously, I’ve worked with women the entire time I’ve been in the horror business, and I’ve never looked at any of them differently than the men I’ve worked with. That is what true equality is.
When we go down this ‘Women in Horror Month’ road, we’re granting women special status. That shatters my notion of equality.”
What is it you don’t get about what’s already been stated?
I’m gonna repost what I already wrote in the hopes it sinks in….
JOHN CARPENTER, GEORGE ROMERO, WES CRAVEN, TOBE HOOPER, RUGGERO DEODATO, LUCIO FULCI, MARIO BAVA, DARIO ARGENTO, ALFRED HITCHCOCK, WILLIAM FRIEDKIN, STEVEN SPIELBERG, ELI ROTH, LUCKY MCKEE, ALEXANDRE AJA, JAMES WAN, ROB ZOMBIE.
These are all major horror directors.
Definitive of their time. What do they have in common?
They are all WHITE MEN.
This illustrates the LACK OF EQUALITY in the horror business – or even the film business at large.
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YET?
Ok, finally you do…..Great.
So perhaps a movement like WOMEN IN HORROR which ENCOURAGES and EMPOWERS a female perspective on the horror genre will go a long way towards redressing that balance, no?
Of course it fucking will. If you were a teenage girl developing an interest in creatively interacting with the genre in a capacity greater than simply getting your tits out and your throat slit, the world today seems an immensely more inviting place than it did 20 years ago, precisely because of movements like this.
Men have been dictating how women have been represented in horror films forever. That’s all gonna change GM.
So be duly afraid!
Now…as you said, I don’t deserve the respect you give others with a considered response because my points are just garbage, but I’ll end this by saying you preach COMMON SENSE and yet you’re demonstrating repeatedly on here that you are bereft of the quality yourself!
And I can’t believe you still push the idea that women, regardless of how they dress, are COMPLICIT in their own rape. Go back up and read Andrea’s comments about the DANGERS of that attitude and how ‘Victim Blaming’ (The very thing which inspired ‘I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE’ to begin with) keeps women AFRAID of reporting rape for fear they will be determined to be at fault.
Honestly, GM. It’s a REPREHENSIBLE attitude and a dangerous one. Common sense, yes, by all means. But don’t tell me that women are complicit in acts of violence against them because of what they wear. That’s fucking Archaic.
To Doug.
Just wanna say thanks for popping onto the blog. I know it’s not in your nature to scribble diatribes on the internet so I appreciate it.
It’s amazing that you were the first one who managed to get a somewhat thoughtful response from the GM. He certainly wasn’t offering it up to me or any of the ladies.
Not that his response was adequate of course as he merely perpetuates much of the rubbish that others have taken issue with and rightfully exposed. It’s funny. He preaches ‘common sense’ but yet he’s immune to it himself!
And to Monica! Thanks too! I think you’re the first RM full-time STAFFER who’s ever commented on the podcast blog. I feel strangely honoured.
Lastly…
I think Women in Horror month is not so different than other programs that are out there (“Take Your Daughter to Work Day,” for instance) that encourage girls to take greater interest in traditionally male-dominated fields.
The college program I was in had 60 male students and 8 female students. This tells me that, no, things are not quite equal for women yet (at least in certain fields), so why not encourage our daughters/nieces/etc. to try their hands at the maths, sciences and technology-related fields, as well as horror filmmaking and anything else they want to do? I mean, really, how could it hurt?
Your facts about the infamous Polanski case are completely incorrect. Polanski did jail time. Polanksi did NOT get his friends in high places to put together a petition so he get escape the charges. Polanksi pled guilty and did his time. Altogether Roman did more time in jail then most first time offenders. I suggest seeing the movie, reading the book or getting the facts online from a site like ‘The Smoking Gun’ would be quite helpful before making misinformed statements on a show about rape.
This show was well researched except for that HUGE ERROR about Polanksi. To place Polanksi in the same sentence as Charlie Sheen really, really pissed me off. I think an apology or correction is due.
This would be a good excuse to watch the doc which I’ve been meaning to see for a while.
We’ll get the facts straight on this and issue whatever corrections need to be done (if that’s the case) but I think the point remains.
There WAS as petition to get Polanski out of custody when he was apprehended in Switzerland.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/roman-polanski-petition-circulating-cannes-23663
So whether the facts were correctly put together or not, I think Andrea’s point remains that if cinema big wigs are willing to sign a petition to help a man get away with rape, then it says something about attitudes towards rape in this culture, no?
It’s not entirely unlike how Charlie Sheen’s record with abuses towards women were systematically ignored or minimized in many of his high profile mainstream media interviews.
Here’s a great article that opened my eyes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/opinion/04holmes.html?_r=2
So maybe the facts were wrong (I’ll have to relisten) but I think the point remains. Nevertheless, we’ll definitely discuss this on the follow up show!
Not that I should be getting involved in this discussion, but as a woman who makes independent horror films–and who has loved the genre since I was a kid, I have to say, I agree with Goremet, and I think it’s maybe easy to lose sight of the point. It’s not about the gender. It’s about the movies. I just happen to be a woman in horror, but I am, more importantly, a person in horror. I don’t find my gender a particular help or a hindrance, and I certainly don’t want to project any kind of agenda into any one of my films that’s as self-serving as trying to prove some kind of grand female empowerment message. If it doesn’t serve the story, it doesn’t belong there. I’m all for Women In Horror month, but I’d be as equally for Men In Horror month or Golden Retrievers in Horror month. I’m not saying there aren’t certain disadvantages or biases, only that the minute that affects your work, I do believe there’s a chance it’ll suffer. I love the genre, and I’ve never felt more or less equal than a male independent filmmaker. Another debate, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that putting a girl who kills people in a movie is equal to female empowerment. I don’t know… I just don’t think anyone should let gender get in the way of enjoying and being critical of films based on merit. I want people to like my movies because they’re into them–I would consider anyone who was inclined to like anything of mine based on me being a female rather–well, dis-empowering.
P.S. I only read Goremet’s first comment, I didn’t really have time to read all the slutty dressing conversations. So, I mean, the first bit.
Thanks for the comments Leah.
Curious though. What comment by the GM are you responding to exactly? You said you only read his first comment.
His first comment starts out with how reluctant he was to listen to the podcast, then he takes issue with our pronunciation of Zarchi’s name, then he loses his shit over the Rob Ford clip, then he defends the cop in Toronto who made the infamous ‘slut’ comments, then he attacks the Toronto slutwalk, then he takes issue wih our discussion of the rape sequences in the respective films and disputes that having a vagina affords a different perspective than not having a vagina, then he goes on to say that perhaps we shouldn’t really have an opinion on films made before we were born, then he implies that ‘Women in Horror Month’ is just another pathetic, politically correct, quasi-feminist con job, then he goes on to attack Lianne Spiderbaby’s high heels and her lingerie, then he asserts that he’s not going to listen to Ms. Subissati because anything she has to say is intended to make an old man like him look bad, then he claims that he’d get his tits out faster than any ‘woman in horror’ would and he points out the irrelevance of any reference to Seinfeld, claims that the fire extinguisher scene in Irreversible is kinda lame and concludes by stating that he only listened to 35 minutes of the show! (All common sense points of course, as he’s fond of praising himself for possessing.)
So while I appreciate your comments Leah and defense of the GM, I have no bloody idea what this ‘first comment’ is that you’re referring to!
As for any response I may have to your posts, I would encourage you (if you have the time) to read through my posts on here. Anything I would say has already been stated in painful detail.
Thanks! (And we’ll also address this post on the next show.)
Honestly, just the bit about “All horror fans are created equal. Some horror fans are more equal than others.” So, not so much a defense, just a similar view to my point. His trajectory in your sum-up sounds not great, and I can’t really speak to that.
I see. Well, that bit definitely wasn’t in his first few posts.
As for all horror fans are created equal….of course.
But unfortunately, equality does not exist in the horror film industry. It’s been a cinematic tradition defined largely by white men since it began.
And that’s the logic behind WOMEN IN HORROR month. (For more musings on this, go up and read some of my other posts.)
Here’s another perspective on the usefulness of WIH month.
Since the podcast began (not counting my shows with Lance who’s more or less a co-host of sorts with the letters segment), I’ve had 18 MEN and only 6 WOMEN on the show.
Not a ‘terribly’ bad ratio considering that it’s a male dominated industry and most of the attention goes to projects created by men.
But keep in mind, three of those female guests were part of my WIH month focus.
And in fact, this program itself grew out of that. So if I had ignored WIH month entirely, then the ratio would look more like:
18 MEN
2 WOMEN.
Now, that’s starting to look dire, isn’t it?
Well, that’s more like the reality of the horror industry.
So not to sully the journalistic profession by claiming that I belong to it, but as a journalist, WIH month has been useful for helping shine a light on facets of the genre that are well worth exploring but are traditionally ignored.
Of course, I would never give points to the quality of a film simply because it was made by a woman. That would be both ignorant and condescending. But I can totally get behind a movement like WIH month because I see that it encourages young women to get involved in a genre that has exclusively been the domain of WHITE MEN for far too long.
And truthfully, the boys have had their turn. The great ones like Carpenter, Romero, Hooper…etc are fading. And I’m not at all impressed with their successors. I’m bored of their flimsy visions. So bring it, ladies! Let’s see more of what the girls have to say on the subject.
But thanks to things like the WIH month movement, that’s precisely what we’ll get more of – MORE women in horror!
(Sorry, GM.)
Wasn’t most of your rants on the boards and in this show about how people speak about shit they don’t know about. They believe the lies they read in the media? That is what exactly is going on here with the statements made about Polanski in the podcast.
Yes, there was a petition BUT that petition wasn’t to “help him get away with rape”, that petition was to trying to inform other people that Switzerland was playing polictical games by holding Polanski hostage.
A// Roman pled guilty to sex with a minor, not rape. He had already done 42 days in jail when he left that country, now he has spent over 100 days in jail for his crime. Roman fled the US because he heard the judge from his case was going to renege on his plea bargain to get some publicity for the upcoming US election.
B// Why would they all of a sudden throw a 77 year old man in jail after he had been in and out of their country many times, he had filmed in Switzerland before and was entering the country to receive a prestigious award.
Charlie Sheen is a scumbag with a criminal record a mile long of mainly incidents of abuse against the opposite sex. Roman on the other hand has NEVER had another run in with the police. To represent the two together as these misogynistic symbols of Hollywood is just plain stupid.
Isn’t stupidity the number one problem in this world FB?
A couple of things. 1. Maybe some facts stated on the podcast were wrong. I’ll have to look into it. If so, there will be a correction on the next show.
2. But I heard an interview with Geimer, his 13 year old victim once and she described the incident. It was a lot more than just sex with a minor. It was a RAPE.
Here’s an article on that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-polanski/story?id=8705958
Prior to that interview, I had always assumed that Polanski had been busted for simply sleeping with an underage girl.
Well….according to the interview I saw with her, she had a different story. It was a full-on, forced RAPE of a child that he knew was a child.
He eventually paid off the family in a civil suit so she has publicly forgiven him….etc.
But Polanski drugged and raped (in the arse too!) a 13 year old child against her will.
When he was 43 years old!
So don’t get me wrong. I love the guy’s films. He’s one of the great geniuses of film. But he drugged and raped a 13 year old child IN THE ARSE against her will!
Did Charlie Sheen ever do that?
So I get it. You’re a fan. So am I. But that doesn’t excuse the act, does it?
And he pled GUILTY to sex with a minor as a reduced charge from a plea bargain. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty of RAPING and DRUGGING a 13 YEAR OLD CHILD and fucking her in THE ARSE against her will, was it?
And as we’ve seen recently in the travesty of JUSTICE that was the HORROR COURT, a NOT GUILTY verdict isn’t worth the paper it’s scribbled on.
Mr. Andrews,
Not to stir up any more hornets, but the complaints about the podcast’s representation of Roman Polanski seemed a touch odd. I did a quick search to see if my memory had failed me as well, and found a variety of reports that substantiated your appraisal.
CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody
The Guardian Again http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-arrest-hollywood
Time http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html
And on the vexed issue of his sentencing, the LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/04/local/la-me-polanski-sentence4-2009dec04
Generally speaking, drugging and sodomizing a thirteen year old can properly be considered a crime for which three months in jail is considered a very light punishment indeed. Further, one wonders if the luminaries who rushed to Mr. Polanski’s defence would have been as vocal if the accused had been, say, a bus driver rather than an acclaimed director.
In any event, this is hardly an exhaustive search, but the links above should at least provide a place for interested readers to begin.
Thanks, Mr. White.
I gather from LaMort’s posts that he doesn’t want to consider that Polanski actually RAPED a child, that he was merely having sex with a minor.
I sympathize – BECAUSE I’m a HUGE fan of Polanski’s work. And I remained so even after learning the horrible details of his actions according to the account given by his victim.
But you’re right. 42 days in jail for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl against her will is a fucking joke.
Please, Stu is fine.
Since the facts of the case, and the accuracy of the account you and Ms. Subissati related, had been called into question, I simply wanted to refresh my memory of the events and provide some links for others to chase if they were so inclined.
In that spirit:
Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/
Yeah but Mr. White is a cool fucking name.
Ask Mr. Keitel.
Incidentally, RESERVOIR DOGS is Jimmy LaMort’s favourite film.
Thanks again for the links. I actually popped into all of them and glanced through. I still have to listen back to what we said about Polanski to hear exactly where we went off the rails though.
Just to comment on a point that’s been disturbing the shit out of me as it’s being made over and over again.
I’m the father of a 10-year-old girl, and here’s how I see it:
If my daughter were ever raped, and some FUCKBRAIN said it was her fault because of the way she dressed, that FUCKBRAIN would be just as dead as the rapist.
There’s a father’s perspective for you, Mr. Gore-Met.
With apologies to Tal, I can’t let this opportunity pass us by:
*Seinfeld bass*
Sorry, GM, but the moment you tossed out the NAAWM card (National Assoc for the Advancement of White Men), you lost whatever shred of credibility you still had up to that point. Seriously? On a slight tangent, you were correct in proclaiming that there are certain grand understandings that only the act of becoming a parent can bring to light. I just think we disagree vastly on what those revelations are. Having a loving beautiful wife and a perfectly innocent perfect newborn child is, fortunately, diesel fuel for the fearmaking machine. That I do understand. My first film contained many moments, as Feedback can verify, of young women in states of naked vulnerable peril. My only wish, now that I’m a recent father to a 9 month old baby girl, is that I had ratcheted up those scenes even further (including a rape sequence) because I’m a hell of a lot more mentally pounded by these types of images now than I was just a year ago. To understand love better is to better understand the potential threats to that love. Filmmakers need to run towards these things, not away from them (the same applies to genre journalists I imagine). I often wonder why the Masters didn’t follow the darkest paths even more so once they had families and kiddos, it just seems like good business (how the same man who made LHOTL later conducted Deadly Friend or, say, Vampire in Brooklyn simply baffles me). Perhaps they’re afraid to a certain extent to push their very own buttons. I can understand that but I wish more would take the mental descent for the sake of more impactful/memorable horror films, something North America has been sorely lacking for a good while now. Its not easy, or psychologically healthy, but somebody’s gotta do it. I have yet to see The Woman but it is a top priority for me for that very reason, I want my fucking buttons pushed. As a cinephobe, as a husband, a father, as a man. And that’s why I feel that Women in Horror Month is a fantastic idea. We need to be doing everything possible to encourage and embrace more women in front of the keyboard and behind the camera. To anyone who says that it’s all been done before, I ask “Can you imagine what dark primitive scares exist in the female brain that have yet to be projected on a screen?” I’m terrified just thinking about the potential. No disrespect intended, but the fact that any mainstream list of “top women in horror” is usually still topped by Mary Lambert for directing Pet Semetary is absolutely pathetic. And you, Gore-Met, are demanding your 8 minutes? That’s just silliness.
In the meantime, I’m going to work my ass off to secure the remake rights from Peter Bogdanovich to make “Jizz Targets” starring Misty Mundane as a retiring genre actress attending one last jizz soaked premiere…
Way to stir up shit, FDBK.
Matt A. Cade
Texas USA
http://ruemorgueradio.com/RMpodcast/Seinfeld.mp3
Great post, Matt!
You know, the GM has repeatedly put forth the view that being a father offers a ‘special insight.’
But conversely, he has repeatedly asserted that being a ‘woman’ offers NO ‘special insight.’
Now, I know it’s more than pedestrian and fruitless at this point to draw attention to any contradictions in the GM’s posts, but what makes him so firm in the belief of one and not the other?
I’ll offer a theory.
Accepting that being a father offers special INSIGHT into ANYTHING empowers the GM. Why? He’s a parent.
DENYING that being a woman offers special insight into ANYTHING also empowers the GM. Why? Because he’s a man and not affording that distinction to a woman allows him to continue enjoying the privilege of being a white man in a society (and horror culture) dominated by other white men.
That’s my theory. What else could explain it? Either he’s oblivious to the GROSS contradictions of logic in his posts or else he’s being willfully obtuse and deliberately confused or perhaps some other subconscious force is informing his position, for instance my ‘theory’ as stated above.
So GM. Maybe you need to head up a ‘Fathers of Daughters Horror Month!’
I’ve figured out your game, Feedback. You’re paying the Gore-Met to stir things up just like Lucky McKee probably paid that maniac at Sundance.
I cry foul!
Wow, 83 comments!
I never anticipated the amount of attention this blog gets when I decided to troll Feedback.
Yes, he sussed me out in his initial reply, but I decided to run with it. So, guilty as charged in that respect.
That said – and this is the important part- I’m not disavowing any of the salient points of any opinion I expressed, nor am I apolgising for for doing so. Had I expected this amount of audience, I probably have tempered my comments.
When Doug chimed in, I realised this was out of hand and I wasn’t sending out the message I wanted to.
In conclusion, I’d like to play the victim card.
Feedback is a bully who brooks no opinion but his own. Burn him!
While I’m exhibiting a degree of remorse I’m going to embarrass Monica like I don’t think I did previously:
“Hell, you know me, you know I’m the last person who screams from the tops of hills for attention”
Yes I do. I hope you weren’t offended that I surreptitiously dragged you into this. If we’re seriously going to get all squishy about ‘women in horror’, then I’d like to put you at the top of the list.
I like to think that we’re alike in that neither of us seek the spotlight, but if anybody deserves it, that would be you.
Small-press publisher, RM editor, way-cool chick. That’s you. Don’t change.
“this is the important part- I’m not disavowing any of the salient points of any opinion I expressed”
That’s unfortunate, GM. Because the vast majority of your points were weak and have been demolished accordingly. You’ve shown NO signs of grasping even some of the most glaring examples presented to you of where your opinion falls short.
You’ve been schooled here and you have not acknowledged a single point made against your positions. Too bad.
“nor am I apologising for for doing so.”
Again. Too bad.
“In conclusion, I’d like to play the victim card. Feedback is a bully who brooks no opinion but his own. Burn him!”
I know you’re kidding here (I assume) but as you’ve levelled these accusations against me in the past, I will point out that this is not true.
Even in this thread I have paid respect to many opinions, including YOURS. I responded to ALL of your points. You have not reciprocated in kind.
And I understand why you didn’t. Because you would have had to confront the short sightedness of your positions and that’s not an easy thing to do. Much easier to ignore them.
The thing that bothers me though is that you make the pronouncements, they get dismantled, you refuse to respond and when it’s convenient for you, you simply RESTATE them as though they had never been challenged to begin with, that for the mere virtue that they were made by YOU is sufficient for them to stand.
And I’m the one you accuse of being a bully who brooks no opinion other than his own? LUDICROUS!
And let’s not forget. I wasn’t the one carving on an innocent chick for her high heels and lingerie. And yet I’m the bully?
You can back peddle all you want GM but not at my expense. Please!
You’ve been an absolutely awful debater. You can excuse this behaviour as “TROLL” antics designed to punish me for my inability to respect anyone else’s opinions as much as you want but you’re failing to respect that you are FAR more guilty of what you accuse me of.
And I find it almost sad that it took Douglas Buck’s comments for you to snap out of your antics a little. You clearly respect Doug. After all, he IS a white male. And you’ve made your case why I’m not to be respected (I’m VERY FUCKING used to that so don’t think I take it personally!)
But you showed ZERO respect to my co-host on this show. Why does she deserve your TROLL antics? Or do you not give equal weight to her opinion because she’s a woman?
Listen, GM. you’re not gonna squirm out of this by positioning me as the guilty party.
No way! But I don’t want an apology. I can handle it. I welcome it, in fact.
And despite all of this nonsense, I’ll still say hello to you at the next RM get together. Of course, you will be unable to respond verbally and may very well drool over me in a stream of incoherent drunkenness (and God forbid….even fall asleep with your face planted firmly in my CROTCH!)……
But when you come to your senses, I think you may very well owe Andrea and Lianne an apology, especially Lianne because if your motive was to purely antagonize ME, then you did it at someone else’s expense and she did NOT deserve that level of a personal attack.
At least think about it…..
Maybe Gore Met was rough around the edges but it’s lame that you all keep missing his main point. That making women who watch and talk about horror movies a special interest group is ridiculous. Intelligent film journalism knows no gender. Better to make a “horror fans against sexism” month than further isolate differences and gender in what should be an even playing field for intelligent discourse. At least that’s what I got out of GM’s sometimes reactionary and personally offensive points. But really why does this thread and that scott pilgrim thread disolve into political ravings anyway? I come here to talk about horror movies not get political agendas shoved down my throat. Why is feedback not on a noam Chomsky forum instead LOL.
When people say “I don’t see gender” or “I don’t see color”, I tend to immediately suspect their honesty.
We’re all different, and that’s what’s worth celebrating, not our similarities.
When it comes to color or nationality, those differences tend to be cultural.
In terms of gender, there’s a cultural aspect, but there are very significant differences that are straight up biological, chemical, genetic . . . whatever you wanna call it.
For example, nothing happens to me once a month that puts the Devil in me the way it does my wife. That’s a perspective that I’ll never have and never understand, no matter how hard I try.
And, as Feedback said in pretty much demolishing one of GM’s points, if having a kid gives you a perspective that a non-parent can’t have, then surely being a woman gives you a perspective that a man can’t have.
It’s just common sense. Something that was missing from most of GM’s arguments.
Jimmy. I’m gonna quote something someone wrote on CHONEBOOK in reference to this blog.
“People who think acknowledgment somehow confers special status must have very…creative notions of what equality is.”
As for political agendas shoved down your throat….
You don’t see the political dimensions in a rape/revenge film? Have you somehow completely missed the endless amount of stuff written on the political importance of horror films in general?
Should we ignore the political implications of horror films and merely just revel in their visceral, superficial nature?
That’s the sort of view that kept horror films in the cinematic ghetto for so long.
Thanks to the work of brilliant writers, the horror film has been held up as an important mirror of our culture, revealing much of our collective anxieties and fears.
Rue Morgue (and even the Gore-Met) has benefitted greatly from the work of critics who have elevated the genre by discussing its socio-political importance.
And if all the horror genre was about was tits and arse and women’s throats being slit and nothing else, then believe me, I wouldn’t be here.
I WOULD be on a Noam Chomsky forum!
(Of course, I must point out, Chomsky never came up ONCE during our discussion of ISPOYG!)
So if you can’t stand a political analysis of horror films, then by all means, there’s a million podcasts out there JUST for you!
And as this is one of the few more visible horror podcasts that delves into such areas, I think it has a place.
p.s. I’ve got so much great stuff for my follow-up rants on the next episode. Wow…..Thank You!
p.p.s. And Nick! Thanks for getting my back!
Look, there are no politics on spit on your grave. It is an expoitation film that ripps on popular death wish style vigilante films of the the time and couples them with taboo sex and violence that would fill theatres. its the most base and shrug of a film ever and I find it funny when people start reading it as anything more. its designed like all sex based horror or action films are to offer cheap titilation. its as empty and primal as the act of rape itself but worse because its designed to make profit. But you can read anything into anything if it suits an agenda i suppose.
And I stated that women and men are different but all people are different and have unique perspective. small minded bible addicted men are the ones who kept women in a bubble and women perpetuated that because they thought that was their role. Today I am much more concerned with removing borders not creating groups. Rape is a selfish act done without concern for its victim. So is murder. Theft. We should both men and women view these the same way, not differently as the offensive and sad things they are and as acts of terror against humanity period.
“Look, there are no politics on spit on your grave.”
Not true. As Meir Zarchi himself explains, the whole movie was inspired by how a rape victim was treated by the police after the rape. He was affected by how women are treated in society and how sexual violence impacts them. These are political issues at the core. These are the core issues we delved into in the program.
You can agree with our analysis or not but you can’t ignore the political dimension. But I have a serious question for you. Did you listen to the show or are you merely responding to the blog posts?
That’s fine either way but I find it hard to believe that you listened to the show and then come back here to assert that there are no politics at play in ISOYG.
JimmyDean-
I’m sorry, but you cannot address a hot-button topic like rape WITHOUT it being a political issue, no matter how base or crude or “simply exploitative” the intentions are of the filmmakers.
The very act, or even mere MENTION of the act, is in and of itself political. And that’s putting it mildly.
Anyone who thinks differently…indeed, anyone who thinks that rape can be presented in a film or ANY form of media in an “innocent”, non-political way….is someone who must not do any sort of serious critical thinking AT ALL about the world around them.
That would be akin to making a film about slavery that depicts the subject in all of its horrible, dehumanizing viciousness…but claiming that it has nothing to do with the black experience in early America.
Your argument that I SPIT is in any way “harmless” or “meaningless”, or that it is just plain “entertainment” does not hold. Not with a subject like that, it doesn’t.
Ask anyone who has ever been raped if they regard I SPIT as nothing more than fluff.
And yet….
Steven Monroe claimed that his REMAKE was not about rape against women. That it was just about a horrible thing happening to a person regardless of gender.
What a planktoid!
But Jimmy. I hope you don’t feel besieged here by these posts. But please try to entertain these notions.
Not just RAPE films – but actually ANY film on ANY subject has a political dimension regardless of the filmmaker’s intent.
You either have films that are VERY CONSCIOUSLY political and somewhat AWARE of the values in the films.
And then you have films made by filmmakers (like Monroe) who have no political awareness at all.
But by and large, THOSE films are also political in that they usually just regurgitate the prevailing POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL assumptions of the dominant culture.
Now keep in mind, when we say ‘political’ we’re not referring to politics as it relates to concrete issues like HEALTH CARE and TAXES or partisan politics like anything specific to DEMOCRATS or REPUBLICANS….
…but political issues as it relates to more general SOCIAL issues.
Tank’s analogy with the slave film is bang on.
But getting back to RAPE films.
When RAPE happens, it brings to bear a ton of issues about female repression in society as a whole.
Regardless of how much we would all like to believe that women and men are treated equally in society, the truth is, they’re not. Women do NOT enjoy the same equality as men. And that’s a political issue. And rape underscores that too.
Anyway, I hope you give some consideration to these posts because we’re not talking complete bollocks here!
Zarchi is I’m afraid full of it.
It’s an exploitation movie.
When the assholes who assault Keaton do this, they do it because they hate her and they’re horny and think they can get away with it.
It’s a crime. And in the film, it’s rendered to titilate and whip up its audience.
And you failed to catch the jist of my post…
I’m aware of the equality of gender imbalance. One that stems from religion, religion which of course helped shape the backbone of society.
Since we as movie fans, sophisticated of thought know this why do we continue to put women in a “group” and not channel our energies into eradicating sexism and celebrating what is the same about all humanity.
“Women in Horror Month” ? It only further lets men put women in a group and targets their “otherness”
Sigh.
Alright, Jimmy. Have it your way. You’ve beaten me down. Alright, there’s NO POLITICAL dimension to the movie or really any rape/revenge movie. It’s just titillation…..etc. No meaning beyond that.
Mike Tank is obviously on glue with his analogy about slavery….etc.
And to think of ALL the time I wasted reading about the political implications of horror cinema. What a fucking MAROON I am! DOH!
It’s just exploitation! I get it. NOTHING beyond that. No other perspective is needed.
Okay. Got it.
Yes, and WIH month serves no purpose, certainly doesn’t acknowledge women, inspire young women in the face of a male dominated industry….blah blah blah.
Alright, I get it.
I’m done.
Just three posts shy of 100 on this one and I throw my hands up in surrender. You guys win.
Anyway, lots to talk about in the follow-up show and I’ll save my breath for that.
And you never answered my question. DID YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE SHOW?
But to be honest, I’m tired of coming on here and treating these posts with due respect and responding to them only to find that my responses either go unnoticed, unread or plainly disregarded.
Whatever. This is a work in progress but I’m officially bowing out of the discussion on this one.
Make sure you check out the follow-up.
I promise. It will be INCENDIARY!
:- FDBK
Its like Romero casting Duane Jones in NOTLD- he didn’t do it because he was black, he did it because he was a great actor, yet people go on about how it was a ground-breaking, taboo-smashing choice on his part.
The fact that it happened alone IS a political act, even if it was unintended. It happened because Romero is a progressive thinker and his expressions come from that place. Romero didn’t cast him because he was black, but casting a black guy because he was the best actor for the job was pretty bold at the time. That’s why it is seen as an important gesture.
In the case of ISOYG, Zarchi made an exploitation film to make money. His freedom to craft the story as he did, with a woman chopping up a bunch of dudes who raped her is a rather heavy statement, despite Zarchi’s personal intent.
There is no “political statement” by the girl in the photo of the hiroshima bombing, yet she and the photo say so much.
Huh?
No political statement in the Hiroshima girl shot?
What a strange comparison. I get what you’re saying but that example is weird.
Anyway look to The Virgin Spring if you want a movie that shows rape and revenge and has a real soul and things to say about religion, morality, crime and even politics. And is a serious film.
Not all the junky 70′s cash grab rip offs. Nothing there no matter how hard you try to push an agenda. It’s not there. Some things are just surface, take them as they are.
And back to the poor writer goremet was attacking, Lianne, I read that blog and she makes the point that if Zarchi had something to say about the tragedy of sexual assault, he wouldnt pander to a horny male audience by sexualizing Keaton in the first place. Shes right. All he does is make ugly art that makes dudes hate themselves and uses a very serious, sad crime to titillate and set up a cheap climax that serves as shock value.
At least te guy who made the remake was honest about his motives.
Sweety, i am just stating that Polanski comment was incorrect and out of place.
Jimmy Dean. You are either deliberately ignoring what’s been written in response to your assertion that there’s no political dimension to these films – or else you can’t grasp the point. Either way, you’re not taking this discussion head on.
I’ve asked you POINT BLANK questions regarding whether or not you even listened to the program under discussion here and you have consistently ignored my question.
You’re trolling me.
And you Jimi! You’ve ignored my questions too.
So listen guys. I wanna have a forum for the radio show wherein we discuss ideas and debate but I’m through with this TROLL stuff.
If you don’t have the conviction of your opinions to respond when they’ve been addressed then I really don’t wanna hear from you.
When I go to RM next I will be discussing this blog and the forum and I want some sort of a moderated forum because I don’t want the podcast and the discussion to be lowered to these standards.
I am DISMAYED by this blog. Until now, I’ve been thrilled that the podcast has generated a lot of activity on the RM BLOG – until NOW.
Colour me THOROUGHLY not impressed.
I freely admit that I came into this debate as a shit-disturber. I can’t advocate personal responsibility and not exercise some, now can I?
In owning up to my conduct, I’d like to be clear that my ‘Sensible White Men in Horror’ comment was a sarcastic throwaway. Yeah, if I didn’t want anyone to focus on it then I shouldn’t have made it, but I did so I want to be clear that people shouldn’t read anything into it.
I’m loathe to type this because of all the connotations this has, but honestly – “some of my best friends are black”. I hate that expression, but it is true. I’m not insensitive to issues of race, and I’m not going to nominate myself as a spokesman for the black people I know. They’re perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, hence my comment about not buying into white guilt.
Feedback or Doug, have any black people asked you to speak out on their behalf, or did you just take that upon yourself?
I’d also ask Feedback if any rape victims asked him speak out on their behalf?
Back on point – one of the first things I did when I first got “Black Devil Doll” was show it to my buddies, who are black, to see what they thought of it. They laughed their asses off at the fucking absurdity of it just as much I did. While I might have had a rather small representation of black men, I can assure you both that they were not offended by it. So, I’d say be careful about taking on the responsibility of being offended on their behalf.
Bill Zebub has the right idea when it comes to stereotypes of any sort – they are to be held up and viciously mocked. I agree with that approach and indulged in a bit of self-deprecating humour in that area. That’s what that ‘Sensible White Men’ comment was.
Nick English said “When people say “I don’t see gender” or “I don’t see color”, I tend to immediately suspect their honesty.”
I agree. Speak to what you know. I don’t want to paint myself as someone who does that, because I don’t. I look at people as PEOPLE, who have individual merits that age, sex, creed or orientation don’t necessarily inform. It’s the contents, not the packaging.
I was part of the Liberal multicultural experiment of the ‘70’s. My elementary class pictures go from whitebread to human rainbow in three. It may be the only thing Trudeau did that I agree with.
Multiculturalism, particularly in light of what happened recently in Norway, is somehow being regarded as a failure. That is so fucking wrong-headed.
When you put children of every type of culture there is together, they capably sort themselves out. The classes my kids are in are comprised of people all over the human map. They don’t think there’s anything unusual about it, and I don’t dispel them from that notion. That is how racism dies. Angsty white folks don’t factor into this.
Hi Goremet,
No. You are correct. No black person has asked me to speak out on their behalf. I simply, on my own, recognized something offensive, something that, in the case of ‘Black Devil Doll’, took many, if not all, of the worst stereotypes of black people that white North American culture has been foisting upon them for hundreds of years as a way to repress them and validate their own mistreatment of them and put these stereotypes on a screen in a way that reinforces them and, at the same time, allows the dominant white culture to laugh at them.
I don’t have to be black or female to recognize the culture that i live in, to be offended by the repressive forces at work within it (ESPECIALLY when most of those forces come from the side that favors me), and also to recognize my responsibility as a white male (ie, a person privileged within the culture for no other reason than my skin color and gender) to speak out when I recognize these offensives. Especially, when I can do it from the safety of my perch of privilege, a perch that black people and women often don’t have when they want to speak out against crimes perpetrated against them by the dominant white male order. All you have to do is look at the attacks Lianne Spiderbaby had to deal with at the Fango site for criticizing ISPOYG.
And, by the way, the dominant order has been effectively spreading its lies and messages for many years, working its charms and convincing many people, both white, black, male, female, Native American, that the system is GOOD, that the dominant white male culture WORKS FOR ALL and is CORRECT. It’s not a surprise that many people are duped. The fact that your black friends didn’t realize how offensive the film is, well, I’m sorry, but they’re simply no more or less misguided then you in celebrating this film.
Oh, and your last posting came in after I posted. May I go over your first paragraph with you as I don’t understand it (and would like to).
It’ starts with you quoting Nick English:
“When people say “I don’t see gender” or “I don’t see color”, I tend to immediately suspect their honesty.”
Okay. That makes sense what Nick is getting at. We all, I think, recognize gender difference, race difference, etc.
Then you go on:
>> I agree.
Okay. So you agree with what Nick says. I think we can probably all agree on that. They guy who pretends he doesn’t see those things is either full of shit, or naivety, or false hopes of what he thinks the world should look like, or whatever.
>>Speak to what you know.
Since we’re talking about gender and race here… Are you saying that only black people should speak about ISSUES INVOLVING BLACK PEOPLE and only white people should speak about ISSUES INVOLVING WHITE PEOPLE and women should speak only about…. (yadda, yadda, you get the point) ?
If so, this seems a bit iffy to me. Very iffy, actually. But lets continue.
>>I don’t want to paint myself as someone who does that, because I don’t.
You don’t… what? Think people should’ speak to what they know’? But that was in fact what you were saying in the previous post in which you asked me and Stuart to lay out our credentials (ie, approval from blacks and women) on whether we are allowed to speak at all about the offenses of ‘Black Devil Doll’ and rape against women.
>> I look at people as PEOPLE, who have individual merits that age, sex, creed or orientation don’t necessarily inform. It’s the contents, not the packaging.
Now I’m really confused. Your original posting from Nick at the HEAD of your post speaks to the feeling that anyone who doesn’t SEE the differences between genders and races as most likely full of shit, or at least suspect. Now here you’ are saying that you are colorblind and gender free in your assessment of others. So, if we put the two assertions together, what do we get?
In other words, if
Assertion 1) is that people who say the don’t see gender or race in other people are suspect at best, full of shit at worst and
Assertion 2) is I, Goremet, don’t see race or gender when I assess people
What do we get?
Anyone?
Anyway, I’m obviously being a bit snarky at the end there. But I am geniunely confused by your last post, Goremet. Maybe you can clarify.
Feedback,
“…the vast majority of your points were weak and have been demolished accordingly”
Because that’s the way you roll.
FEEDBACK SMASH!
That’s fine. It doesn’t bother me and by no means does this have any effect on the respect I have for you. Man hugs!
I don’t believe I’ve been ‘schooled’ because I don’t believe that there is right or wrong when it comes to opinion. I was indeed kidding when I said that you brook no opinion but your own, but is there not an element of truth in that?
If life is black-and-white to you then consider me jealous. I’m half-way through it and it’s all shades of grey to me. It got worse when I had children. I remember when I was cocksure about things, but it seems the older I get the less I know.
It ain’t that cut-and-dried.
feedback, wow…i can’t grasp the point? You are incredibly arrogant and righteous and even more single minded than the right wing politicos you call out..
I’m out. Have fun.
Doug.
It there’s a white hegemony I’m privileged to a part of, then why was my most recent job outsourced to India?!
Gore-met,
Let’s just say the probability that it was a black CEO who made the decision to outsource your job is extremely low.
Nick English!
Well put.
Being white doesn’t automatically get you into the club, but it is one of the qualifications.
“Gore-met,
Let’s just say the probability that it was a black CEO who made the decision to outsource your job is extremely low.”
Nick, do we need a tag? I’d like to believe that you could see my comment was intended as nothing but a JOKE.
Actually, the current CEO of the corporate-controlled mass media company I worked for is Jewish.
Have you had a boo at what some people think about Jewish ownership of media outlets? The online comment sections of those same media outlets are bursting with fucking vile comments about that.
He didn’t decide I didn’t need to work for his company anymore, it was the old white dude who wound up being fired for bungling our dismissal that did. So, how can I think that other white guys are looking our for my ass when they’re obviously not?!
Seriously, I was happy to be packaged out as it was a totally fucking dead-end job. Good on India for getting me out with some dough!
More importantly, partisan bickering accomplishes nothing. The results of the posturing that went on in the US debt ceiling debate is certainly proof of that. I’m actually rooting for the biggest black CEO on the planet. And holy fuck do I not envy that guy his job. I didn’t do anything to put him in it, but you know, he was the guy who was put in charge, no matter how flawed that system that put hin there may be. What happened to ‘rally around the chief?’
Anyway, with economies teetering on the outcomes of situations like this, the stated intentions of a guy who made a low-budget exploitation movie 33 years ago are pretty fucking meaningless. So really, what is served by getting indignant about them in the face of far graver worries?
Shit, I formatted my first sentence with HTML tags and it didn’t come through properly. It was meant to read:
“Nick, do we need a JOKE tag?”
Yo Feedback,
Mark Bonokoski of the hated Toronto Sun wrote an opinion piece on US politics I think you’ll find interesting:
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/05/usa-home-of-the-broke
So, I just listened to the podcast in its entirety for the second time after having reluctantly screened the ISOYG remake last night. Anyone on this board who proclaims that there is nothing overtly (or even subtextually) political about these films HAS NOT listened to this podcast. FACT. If they had, it would have been made obvious to them the many sociological and political elements at play with both films (intentional with the original versus amateurish happy accidents with the redo, hence their glaring varying degrees of success).
Excellent dissection of both films, compelling points of view, undeniable POLITICAL elements brought to the surface by Feedback and Andrea.
Listen to the damn podcast before you litter up messageboards with uninformed zings, you might just learn something.
I should add that as a filmmaker who has used rape as a storytelling tool, the podcast discussion also put the bullseye squarely on me to rethink my motivations and my use of the act. I’m still rethinking… and I wonder what FDBK category FDBK would file my film under when using that same investigative lens…
AND, as an added bonus, you get to hear Stuart proclaim for the record that there is always entertainment to be found by a man putting his own severed penis in his mouth.
That’s good stuff right there, so tune in!
Gore-met,
Your “joke” didn’t come off as a joke at all, but as something that would logically follow many of the statements you’d made in previous posts on this thread.
But if it was a joke, and you actually do think non-white, non-males are underrepresented at the top of the corporate and political ladder, then congratulations. Maybe you’re comin’ around.
Regarding your comment about other white guys not looking out for your ass, I refer to my last post:
Not all white guys are in the Privileged White Guy Club. Heaven knows, I haven’t been accepted yet. But you kinda do have to be white to get in.
Nick,
The supervisor I had at the job I don’t have anymore and the last two managers I had were black dudes (actually the last manager I had was half-Jamaican, but I hope you get the point).
I’m cavalier about racial issues because I clued into them in 1979 when I started to tell a paki joke to two Indian classmates I’d known for years at the start of Grade 9.
That was a really uncomfortable moment I’ve never forgotten.
I’m neither a Christian nor faultless, but the whole ‘do onto others’ thing is a message I can get behind.
CADE,
“I should add that as a filmmaker who has used rape as a storytelling tool, the podcast discussion also put the bullseye squarely on me to rethink my motivations and my use of the act.”
I’m presenting an indie rape/revenge exploitation homage called “Revenge is Her Middle Name” at this year’s Festival of Fear. Judging by this thread, it ain’t looking good for me!
Hey everybody . . .
Here’s something that would have come in especially handy for this thread.
http://sartalics.com/
Jesus H. Christ.
What a bunch of wankery, from all sides.
But thanks for the reminder that there are still dudes out there that think high heels and cleavage and piercings are only worn by women to attract male attention. Fuck me. (And I truly don’t mean that literally.)
You know who I blame for this? The women who fuck men like that. Else, their genes would die out.
Signed, a humanist.
Wankery from ALL sides? Care to elaborate or does a single sentence, blanket condemnation of all points of view expressed here suffice?
CADE,
“I should add that as a filmmaker who has used rape as a storytelling tool, the podcast discussion also put the bullseye squarely on me to rethink my motivations and my use of the act.”
In putting out this podcast, we had hoped to generate some critical thought on the subject but to inspire a filmmaker to rethink his motivations toward the subject?? Can I get an “Hallelujiah!”
Nick English,
No way! Sartalics are totally cheating! A good writer should be able to convey sarcasm with regular typefact. Jokes should be clearly identifiable as such on account of their being funny! Barring that, there are always emoticons.
God, I hate emoticons
Crap, I made a typo in a comment about good writing! If I comment on it first, it’s like it never happened!
I meant “typeface”. *sigh*
Feedback, I have no time or desire to debate the hundreds of points in this mammoth discussion. I threw out my feelings about the one that pissed me off the most. Not saying it’s an invalid topic or dismissing that some some thoughtful things aren’t buried in here but my overall response remains simply: Jesus.
Fair enough that you don’t wanna jump into a mammoth debate but you charge “wankery” on all sides but don’t indicate wherein the wankery lies. I suggest if you’re above expounding on your point because u got better things to do then perhaps you could save even MORE time by not making it in the first place. That’s my time saving tip of the day! (insert the appropriate sartalic at your leisure.)
*seinfeld bass?*
People are people.
People should treat people like people.
The End.
You missed your calling GM. A career at Hallmark beckons…….
Bob Marley wasn’t kidding when he sang “So much trouble in the world:…
Goremet….. You preach this gospel of sexual equality yet your comments are rife with glaring double standards which are the very soul of inequality. For more on this, you’re gonna have to listen to the follow up episode….Brace yourself. It won’t be gentle.
Just listened to your fascinating podcast, some great comments by both feedback (who i must say has the most intriguing accent ever- where ARE you from?)
Anyways, i gotta confess i tried to watch the original I Spit about 5 years ago and had to turn it off towards the end of the excrutiating and prolonged rape scene. Now i certainly think its time to revisit, considering im such an anti-censorship advocate and have since tried to watch as many so called ‘shocking’ films as possible. I have ordered a copy (of the original of course, lost all interest in watching the remake after your condemnation of it. )and i look forward to making my own reading of it.
Keep up the awesome podcasts
Thank you Chelsevie for the comments! And just when I was ready to throw the towel in on this thread completely!
As for your questions – I’ll respond on the follow-up show. But please come back and let us know your thoughts on the original ISOYG!
Cheers,
FDBK
Finally catching up on my much missed RM podcasts and listened to the first half of this episode this morning.
Andrea’s reaction to ISPOYG is aligned with mine – worst nightmare in the 1st half, best fantasy in the 2nd (paraphrasing).
I watched ISPOYG for the first time in college when my mom lent me her clam shell VHS copy stating “This is my favorite movie.” I felt nauseous throughout the rape scene and just hearing the soundbites, remembering that first viewing made me feel sick. It looked pretty damn real, especially with the gritty, minimalist shots AND it is really drawn out (much like Irreversible). But, as you both mentioned, rape is brutal and more often than not extremely violent. I felt a sense of redemption after Jennifer exacts revenge, which is something that is glaringly absent from the other film which came up in this discussion, Irreversible.
I would have to agree with both Feedback and Andrea regarding the impact of the rape sequence gaining strength in Irreversible as the viewer is exposed to more backstory. Feedback, your comment (I think you said) “reverberates” is spot on. Makes the intimate moments of joy that much more depressing and sad.
Anyway, I’m just sorta rambling now, but to conclude, the first half of the podcast so far has been a highly entertaining, interesting discussion with poignant observations made on both sides. It’s refreshing to listen to this type of in depth analysis considering the dismissive attitude many people have regarding the genre, which was illustrated well by Malcom McDowell’s comment in the Love & Hate podcast.
I am counting down the seconds until I can listen to the remainder of this episode on my commute home.
Thank you Meli! (Did you ever get around to listening to the rest of it?)
Yes! Listened on my way home that day.
I think I heard rumblings of another RM Podcast discussion with Andrea concerning more exploitation (maybe on Chonebook), so I look forward to that.
Pingback: Rue Morgue : Horror in Culture and Entertainment
Pingback: Rue Morgue : Horror in Culture and Entertainment