The re-rape and revenge of Jennifer Hills: Gender and genre in I Spit On Your Grave (2010) Laura Mee This article originally appeared in Horror Studies 4:1, pp 75-89, April 2013. Abstract This a ti le ai s to add ess the la gel egati e iti al espo se to “te e ‘. Mo oe s remake of I Spit On Your Grave (2010), by both considering its themes in comparison to Mei )a hi s o igi al fil , a d positio i g the e e sio ithi its o ge e i context. Using examples from feminist film theory that a al ses )a hi s fil , I suggest that Mo oe s e sio not only interprets, but actively enhances the perceived feminist message of the original, and consider how role reversal during the revenge section of the fil o t i utes to this. I also outli e the a i hi h Mo oe s fil a e understood as representative of recent trends in the horror genre – most notably, its inclusion of explicit, gory violence and themes of retribution. Ultimately, the portrayal of the e ake s fe ale p otago ist as less se ualized a d a gua l oe o st ous tha the original character works in conjunction with other changes and a torture porn aesthetic in order to position the film clearly within the context of contemporary horror cinema. Keywords remake rape-revenge contemporary horror cinema torture porn gender feminism This article focuses on I Spit on Your Grave (Steven R. Monroe, 2010), a recent remake of Mei )a hi s o t o e sial fil of the sa e a e. Follo i g festi al s ee i gs and a limited theatrical release in America and the United Kingdom, director Steven R. Mo oe s fil as eleased o DVD i ea l to a i ed iti al espo se of indifference, derision and disgust. With the exception of a handful of positive reviews (mostly on horror forums),1 this new version attracted criticism that, while frequently a k o ledgi g a ked i p o e e ts upo the o igi al s di e tio , a ti g, s ipt a d i e atog aph , epeatedl d e atte tio to the pe ei ed poi tless ess of e aki g )a hi s fil . E e pts f o suggesti g the fil othe tha the ugl a d u so e of the is a o pletel o e egati e e ie s highlight this opinion, o thless e te p ise that offe s othi g to the o ld ushi g ealisatio that it e ists Hall e essa , a d des i i g it as […] a ge e i , distasteful a d poi tless photocopy of a flick that does t dese e o e Wei eg . E e the ost s athi g constructed around the notion of I Spit on Your Grave s Lies, fo i sta e, la elled it Records fo eati g a thi g a out this fil itless, e ie s ee o thless ess . Little White o pletel poi tless, like ei g i the Guinness Book of heel a o of ou o shit , a d lai ed the is that a o e othe ed to ost sho ki g ake it o e, let alo e t i e Glas 2011). Discourses of insignificance often feature in reviews of any remake – and of ho o e akes i pa ti ula . Yet the iti is le elled at Mo oe s fil see s e essi e by comparison, and is accompanied in many cases by vitriolic comment on its violent content. In a review that reflects upon his own, now infamous, espo se to )a hi s fil E et , ‘oge E e t efe s to this e despi a le fil that o ks e e e sio as a despi a le e ake of a ette as i a ious uelt agai st o e , efo e suggesting that couples in the audience may wish to rethink their future together should o e of the fi d the fil e otel e jo a le E e t . Also k o )a hi s original title Day of The Woman, and on an early poster as The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hills (Kerekes and Slater 2000: 190); the 1978 film initially encountered similar complaints regarding its brutal depictions of sexual violence, yet has subsequently come to be widely discussed within feminist psychoanalytical film theory due to its raperevenge narrative and infamous castration scene.2 However, it remains problematic as a legitimate example of a feminist text, due in no small part to the highly sexualized depiction of its female protagonist and the methods by which she undertakes her revenge. This article aims to address the largely negative response to the remake of I Spit on Your Grave a al si g so e of the fil ith pa ti ula atte tio to the a i s the es i o pa iso to the o igi al, hi h Mo oe s e sio a e see to oth interpret and enhance the perceived feminist message of Zarchi s fil . Ca ol J. Clo e s (1993 a d Ba a a C eed s a al ses of the fil e ai the ost useful i approaching its gender issues, and are used here as a framework for comparison with the e ake, efo e o i g o to o side ho Mo oe s film should also be positioned within its own genre context by looking at recent trends in contemporary horror cinema. Rape and the city/country divide The plot of the original runs as follows. A writer from New York, Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton), escapes to a secluded lakeside cabin to spend the summer working on her latest novel. There she encounters a group of four local men who, under the pretext of deflo e i g e tall halle ged i gi Matthe ‘i ha d Pa e , aptu e Je ife , a d subject her to a series of brutal rapes. Matthew, unable to bring himself to kill her as i st u ted the ga g s i gleade Joh E o Ta o , oats a k ife i he lood to lead the others into believing her dead, and leaves her for such in her cabin. Jennifer slowly recovers from the attack and sets about undertaking her revenge. She hangs Matthew, castrates Johnny, kills Stanley (Anthony Nichols) with an axe, and Andy Gu te Klee a ith a oat p opelle . Mo oe s e ake follo s the sa e a ati e thread as Zarchi s fil , etai i g e ough of the plot a d offe i g i -jokes and visual references to the original in order to appeal to its fans. For example, Jennifer (Sarah Butler) buys $19.78 worth of petrol in a nod to the original year of release, and Andy (Rodney Eastman) ominously greets her at the garage by playing his harmonica – which he also does through part of the rape scenes in the 1978 version. Yet there are sufficient changes that o k to disti guish it f o a e less p ot a ted, pla i g )a hi s fil . The ape s e es, although o e e phasis o Je ife s deg adatio a d utal, e tal torture than any explicitly sexual act, while the violence and gore during the revenge sequences is intensified in a series of increasingly creative and gruesome set pieces. The addition of the local Sheriff (Andrew Howard) to the gang of rapists both changes the group dynamic and answers the question of why Jennifer exacts her own bloody revenge, rather than going to the police. In Men, Women and Chainsaws (1993), Carol J. Clover suggests that I Spit on Your Grave is a al ost stalli e e a ple of the dou le-axis revenge plot so popular in modern horror: the revenge of the woman on her rapist, and the revenge of the cit o the ou t Clo e : 115). Leaving aside the woman versus rapist axis for the moment, it is worth first considering how the films deal with said city versus country polarities. The city, representative of civilization and normality, pitched against the threatening, rural Other is a widely recognized trope in horror cinema; consider The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Hooper, 1974) or The Hills Have Eyes (Craven, 1977), as well as their respective reboots (Nispel, 2003; Aja, 2006).3 The relocation of action from the city to the country in horror cinema (and notably in rape-revenge films) is a trope that, as Clo e otes, ests s ua el o hat a e a u i e sal a het pe Clo e : 124), ascribing a folkloric, fairy tale quality to these films: Going from city to country in horror film is in any case very much like going from village to deep, dark forest in traditional fairy tales. Consider Little Red Riding Hood, who strikes off into the wilderness only to be captured and eaten by a wolf (whom she foolishly trusts), though she is finally saved by a passing woodsman. Multiply and humanize the wolf, read rape for eat , skip the woodsman (let Red save herself), and you have I Spit on Your Grave. (Clover 1993: 124) I Spit on Your Grave, alongside films such as The Last House on the Left (Craven, 1972), represented a shift in the 1970s from rape as a narrative aside to rape-revenge as a d a a o plete u to itself […] i folklo i te into a tale-t pe Clo e s, hat had ee a otif g aduated : 137). The importance of I Spit on Your Grave in understanding rape- e e ge as folklo e is appa e t the , a d Clo e s asse tio that ho o o ies look like othi g so u h as folk tales – a set of fixed tale types that generate an endless stream of what are in effect variants: sequels, remakes and rip-offs ould fu the suggest that Mo oe s e ake should fu tio i (Clover 1993: the sa e a as )a hi s fil . A d et, hile the u h ol es a e just as i ious a d ‘ed just as vengeful, the blurring of the city/country divide in the 2010 film arguably reduces the folklo i ele e ts of Clo e s dou le-a is plot. )a hi s fil sophisti ated Je a plifies the diffe e es ife a d he hill ill Jennifer upon thei fi st tip f o et ee apists. You e f o eeti g, afte Hills e a ds hi edu ated, afflue t a d a e il pla e , Matthe tells ith hat she efe s to as a a e il Ne Yo ke fo deli e i g he g o e ies. We a e e i ded of Je ig ife s city status through her internal monologue as she works on her book, and the assumptions that the men draw from this during the harrowing rape scenes, where A d , o ki g he u fi ished oads su e fu k a lot . Je a us ipt as he tea s up the pages, e lai s Ne Yo k ife Hills , ea hile, ight ot speak ith the hea southern accent of her tormentors, but her city credentials are only assumed, and never ade e pli it. Despite efe al to he as a stu k-up it ho e , Butle s Je ife it h , o a ig-city, cock-teasing e e flau ts this fa t i the slightl pat o izing way that Keato s did. The e a e o esta lishi g shots he e of Je ife s doo a seei g he o her way as she escapes the concrete jungle and noisy streets of Manhattan, as there are in the original film. She stops for petrol in a 44, and seems just at home in practical jea s a d a he k shi t as the e do, athe tha he ou te pa t s d ess a d high heels, which signify her as a city dweller. Her initial banter with Johnny (Jeff Branson) is friendly, and there is no mention of where she has travelled from. Her iggest i e , the , does ot see it supe io it o e the e , as Je to e that she is so eho see to oast he ig- ife a gua l does i the o igi al fil , ut si pl that she has the audacity not to find them attractive; to laugh at Johnny when he tries to seduce her, and to unintentionally humiliate him in front of his friends as a result of this rejection. It is also worth noting that perhaps the most crudely drawn southern/country stereotype in the film is old-timer Earl (Tracey Walter), who happens to be the only amiable character that Jennifer encounters, and certainly the only male genuinely concerned for her welfare. The men do, on occasion, take umbrage with what the pe ei e to e s o he o deal, Joh ish ess o Hills s pa t: efo e fo i g he to drink liquor during asks he ou too good to ha e a d i k ith us? What a e e to ou, u h of di t? Ho e e , as Ki poi tedl does t e p ess a Ne a o se es i his e ie fo Sight & Sound, she egati e attitude o lass g ou ds, and even when she comes back for revenge belittles them not for their backgrounds but for their actions hi h, i this o te t, akes he sai tl Ne a . It is ot i te tio he e to suggest that the city versus country dichotomy is not an issue in I Spit 2010, but rather that this a is is pla ed out i the a ati e th ough the e so i se u ities athe than Jennifer believing herself to be superior in any way, and that this is ultimately used as their excuse for attacking her. Clover discusses the rapes of the original as a sporting act that functions as a test of group dynamics and hierarchy, with Jennifer as mere playing field on which this game is carried out (Clover 1993: 122).4 This is certainly e ide t he e, i Joh s eed to egain respect as ringleader of the gang after Hills humiliates him, and in the power struggle between Johnny and Sheriff Storch, who asse ts his autho it delegati g tasks du i g Je ife s assault. But the apes a e also lea l the g oup s a of tea hi g the stu k up it it h a lesso a d a atte pt to put her back in what they see to be her place.5 Thus, Clo e s dou le a is of it e sus country and man (as rapist) versus woman function in the remake in ways that are intertwined. The attacks on Hills are noticeably different across the two versions of I Spit – most obviously in the screen time dedicated to the act of rape itself. While both of the films devote around 25 minutes to these scenes, the original shows three separate, increasingly violent rapes that take up much of this time. The remake instead e phasizes Je ife s ps hologi al assault a d hu iliatio . O e a pe iod of t e t minutes, Hills is forced to drink liquor, has lit matches thrown at her, and is made to perform fellatio on fi st a ottle a d the a pistol if I do t like ou e thusias , I u ad , Joh a a s he , efo e es api g – only to encounter Storch. Initially believing him to be a potential saviour, a twist reveals the Sheriff to in fact be the leader of her gang of tormentors and thus her ordeal begins anew as she is made to strip and da e fo the g oup. The fo us o Hills s ull i g i the e ake oi ides ith fe i ist dis ou ses of ape as a displa of a s iole t po e o e o e athe tha as a explicitly sexual act; these men appear more angry than aroused.6 The attacks are la gel shot i a si ila a to those i )a hi s fil i espe t to the poi t of ie ith which the audience is awarded. As with the original scenes, the initial intrusion is from Je ife s pe spe ti e. The g oup e te he a i as e at h f o i side, just as helpless as she is; the viewer is not offered the opportunity to identify with her attackers as they conspire to break in. The camcorder footage Stanley (Daniel Franzese) shoots, witnessed by the audience first hand, positions the perspective briefly with the ga g, ut athe tha e ou agi g ie e o pli it ith the apists, as the BBFC suggest in a press statement justifying their associated required cuts (Anon. 2010), it instead acts self-reflexively, forcing the audience to question what they are seeing, hile also highlighti g Je ife s dis o fo t ha i g he effe ti el add ess the camera. When the first rape occurs, we witness the events equally from both Matthew Chad Li d e g a d Je ife s poi ts of ie . B the se o d atta k, asso iatio a d empathy is solely with Jennifer. The shots directly from her perspective begin to blur, Johnny addressing the camera directly as Jennifer blacks out, in effect making the audience fade out with her. Similarly, as the next scene begins, so the viewer is aligned ith Hills, disto ted s at hes of the e s post-rape jeering vaguely heard as she comes to and the shot comes in to focus. It would be difficult to argue that the scenes present rape in any way other than as a despicable, violent act or that we are encouraged to identify with anyone other than the victim. While the remake does differ in its p ese tatio of Je ife s ape, the , it esse tiall o ks i the same way as the original, albeit with slicker production values and an emphasis on the threat of assault athe tha the atta k itself. Ulti atel , ho e e , it is the e e ge se tio of Mo oe s film that displa s the sta kest diffe e e to )a hi s I Spit on Your Grave, and it is Je ife s etu as a e ge that I will now consider. ‘eve ge, role reversal a d the o strous fe i i e In her study The Monstrous Feminine, Barbara Creed discusses Hills as being ep ese tati e of the all-powerful, all-destructive, deadly femme castratrice C eed 1993: 129). In her dual roles of both symbolically castrated (through the act of rape) and lite al ast ato ith the e phasis ulti atel o the latte , Je ife s e e ge is sho to be justifiable and her actions sympathetic. Yet, Creed argues, the film remains misogynistic in spirit, mainly due to the eroticized depiction of male torture, and its resulting association of death with masochistic pleasure (Creed 1993: 130). Matthew is enticed into the woods by Hills,7 who bares her body with a promise that she could have gi e hi a su e to e e e fo the est of ou life , the e ou ages hi to penetrate her before she tightens a noose around his neck at the very moment of his ejaculation. After having Johnny literally stare down the barrel of her gun, she chooses not to shoot him, instead taking him back to the cabin. She masturbates him in the bath before severing his penis, his initial reaction being to mistake pain for intense pleasure before he looks down to see his arterial blood spurt forth. While the need to first seduce her rapists in order to then kill them could be understood as some kind of feminist statement, perhaps the use of her body and sexuality as her ultimate weapons, the way in which Jennifer lures her rapists to their eventual deaths is decisively problematic – not so much in the use of seduction to entrap her tormentors-turned-victims, but in the fa t that a d pa ti ula l i Matthe s ase she a tuall follo s th ough sexual acts offe ed as allu e e t. Co e sel , Je atta ke s i ol es o e ti e e t, o lu i g the ith udit o the p o ise of a hot ath . I stead, the a e aught i ife s ethod fo ith the aptu i g he i e, ea t aps o k o ked out ith a ase all at; the one exception being to expose her behind to Johnny anonymously in order to get him close enough to hit him over the head with a crowbar. Furthermore, and in parallel to ho Je ife s se ualit is po t a ed a d used i ea h fil , the e is a e disti t contrast in the way she is physically presented across the versions. Keaton spends much of the first act in a bikini, a dress or apparently bra-less in a thin shirt, and is often heavily made up. Butler, meanwhile, is usually seen in jeans, running gear or pyjamas and minimal make up. The early, brief scene in which she sunbathes by the lake in a bikini was added, according to Monroe in his di e to s o e tary, as homage to si ila shots of Keato i )a hi s o igi al. o a -as-victim is represented as an abject For Creed, in I Spit on Your Grave, thing, [while] man-as- i ti is ot si ila l deg aded a d hu iliated C eed The e ake e tai l add esses this, p i a il perversions back on them during Je : . tu i g ea h of the atta ke s o ife s e e ge. Thus, self- o fessed ass- a Storch is anally raped with a loaded shotgun in a mirrored attack, which follows Je ife s su je tio to a si ila ho fil ed Je iolatio at the ha ds of the “he iff. Vo eu “ta le , ife s assault, has his eyelids pried open with fishing hooks and his eyeballs smeared with fish guts before they are pecked out by a murder of CGI crows while his own camera records his torture; and Andy gets his face dunked in a lye bath as a consequence of his near-drowning Jennifer in a dirty puddle. Johnny, who reduced Hills to animal status during her ordeal, labelling her a show horse and commanding she sho hi he teeth, is efe ed to as a o e stallio a d has his o with pliers before she produces a pai of shea s, tau ti g ho ses that a t e ta ed, Joh ? The geld the ou k o teeth pulled hat the do to . C eed dis usses the sig ifi a e of pulling teeth in Freudian dream analysis, concluding that the meaning of such an act, if the tooth was understood to represent the penis, could be interpreted threefold: as an act of castration, intercourse or masturbation (Creed 1993: 117–19). This association of castration with sexual gratification again signifies a kind of symbolic masochistic pleasure, an element of the original film that, as stated earlier, caused Creed to ultimately view it as a misogynistic text (Creed 1993: 130). Despite this connection, I ould suggest that the lite al pulli g of Joh s teeth i the e ake p io to his a tual castration, and the methods Jennifer uses to capture him (violence as opposed to sedu tio o l se e to fu the dista e Butle s Hills a d he si e a d the e oti is e gea e f o of the o igi al s e ui ale t s e e. E e Matthe s death, ia a u itti gly self-inflicted shotgun blast through “to h s od , is efle ti e of his elu ta t o pli it i the atta ks. I itiall take pa t i Je fo the othe he f o Keato s ife s hu iliatio , ul e a le Matthe o l e a d Joh s th eat to get ou apes Je efusi g to ife afte ull i g lothes off, Matthe , o I ll sli e hi to u t . His atta k o Hills is a di e t atte pt to sa e oth Je ife f o this fate and himself from a potential beating from Johnny and exclusion from the group. And yet, as we have clearly established that Matthew both knows the act to be o g he e all defe ds Hills, efuses to pa ti ipate i he assault u til Joh s warning, vomits immediately afterward in disgust, and subsequently suffers flashbacks of the attacks) and ultimately – physically, at least – enjoys it regardless of this fact (he orgasms), he must suffer the consequences of his involvement. As Jennifer states before tighte i g a oose ou d his e k, i not good e ough . Matthe espo se to his apologeti e la atio s: it s just akes up to fi d hi self tied to a hai , a st i g looped round his wrist (in place of the rubber bands he nervously plays with throughout the first half of the film) that leads to the trigger of the shotgun buried inside Storch but unkno i gl poi ti g i his di e tio . Despite “to h s a i g, Matthe o es to f ee his arms, killing both himself and the Sheriff – his death explicitly linked to another pe so i u h the sa e a as his pla e as Je ife s apist as i flue ed othe members of the gang. Clover suggests that we may choose to interpret the ways in which Jennifer 1978 dispat hes he atta ke s as s oli apes, the losest a pe is-less person can get to the eal thi g , ut a gues that the fil […] it is a a aila le itself d a s the e uation only vaguely, if at all ea i g, ut the fa t that it is ot pa ti ula l e ploited suggests that it is not pa ti ula l e t al Clo e : 161). The brutal acts of torture in the remake can in contrast be understood as explicitly symbolic rapes that i o Je ife s own violations. The restraints that each of the men find themselves in – absent from the original – reflect how Hills was pinned down by the men as they took turns raping her. The intrusions on the male body – Stor h s shotgu ape, “ta le s e es ei g pe ked out, and Johnny being forced to perform fellatio on a pistol before his teeth are wrenched out and his severed penis is stuffed into his mouth – are in direct response to Je ife s fo ed a al, agi al a d o al penetrations. The language she uses either e pli itl uotes he apists jee s of it, it h , o othe ise highlight ho ha e i agi ed possi le: o it s o teeth, sho ho se , deep, deep, deep a d su k she has tu ed the ta les i tu a s the to fu k ou . This ge de ould ot ole e e sal is furthered by the men begging, crying and screaming during their torture, displays of abject terror that traditionally, according to Clover, are gendered feminine (Clover 1993: 51). Thus they are reduced to shows of female traits, a further humiliation that enhances their symbolic castrations. Johnny does respond to pain – e e did t piss the sel es , Je ife tau ts i ou o s espo se to his ea tio to he pulli g his teeth. But as the only member of the gang who refuses to cave in and plead, instead laughi g a ia all a d elli g fu k ou at Hills th ough a outhful of lood, he ust be literally (as opposed to symbolically) castrated as the ultimate punishment for his actions. If the fates of her rapists result in them being demasculinized, then Jennifer as their torturer surely runs the risk of becoming phallicized, not just the ulti ate Fi al Gi l Clo e ), but a near monster who stalks, captures and tortures her prey with practically superhuman strength and prowess. Indeed, one of the issues critics seem to hold ith the e ake is this shift i Je ife s pe so alit et ee the ape a d e e ge halves of the narrative, and the resulting potential loss of sympathy towards her character.8 Yet this seems an illogical complaint, not least because these two sides of Jennifer represent her as victim and victor, captive and captor, raped and symbolic rapist: dichotomous roles that would obviously see her adopt different traits. Furthermore, Je ife s st e gth a d dete i atio , he ill to fight, he i tellige e and physical fitness have already been made apparent throughout the first half of the film. What could be a problematic portrayal of Jennifer as unsympathetic avenger is further balanced with glimpses of the woman she was prior to her ordeal, in the fleeting expressions of hesitance, sadness and disgust on her face as she conducts her revenge. Storch begs Jennifer to release his young daughter (the ironically named Chastity), taken te po a il Hills as ait, ith the plea she s just a i responds sombrely.9 Bitte atu e keep s path fi o e t gi l . “o as I , Je e i de s th oughout the to tu e s e es of the l o Je e s ife s side, a d he a tio s justified; “to h s last o ds to he a e I ll ape ou i hell; ou e just a pie e of ou do ife eat. I ll fi d ou, I ll hu t i hell, ou it h . Although Hills is represented as a sympathetic character throughout her revenge, there is no doubt that her acts, and the determination with which she carries them out, are indeed monstrous. This is enhanced by her physical absence during a twenty-minute mid-section that divides the rape and revenge halves of the narrative. We do ot see Je fo gi e ess as ife s slo e o e a d he p e-emptive praying to God for e do i )a hi s fil , although si ila s e es e e i itiall shot a d seen in early trailers). Instead, the focus is on the rapists, their group dynamic collapsing and paranoia growing as Jennifer, unseen and anonymous, begins to stalk them over the course of a month – steali g “ta le s ho e ideo of the atta ks a d se di g it to “to h s ife, a d d oppi g dead i ds o Joh s doo step a otif epeated f o he own protracted torture earlier in the film). Again, rather than allowing the audience to identify or sympathize with the men during these sequences, with the possible exception of Matthew, we are instead reminded of their earlier acts. Johnny tries out his pick-up lines on another potential victim. Andy oi es dis elief at Matthe s e o se, telli g the g oup I thi k he e e feels guilt . A d “to h, i a atte pt to tie up loose e ds , shoots Ea l, a a he has k o si e hildhood, at poi t la k a ge. Je ife s sudden, almost silent return after this point, and especially her brutal acts of vengeance, o t i ute to a ds a positio i g of Mo oe s fil as o e that belongs firmly within the horror genre. Understanding I Spit 2010 as a remake, and comparatively analysing it in this context alongside Za hi s fil , is u dou tedl i po ta t i add essi g its ke themes. But in order to establish how the film functions within its own genre context, a d i deed to app e iate the e essit of the ha ges ade, Mo oe s fil should also be considered alongside recent trends in contemporary horror cinema. Contemporary genre trends, torture porn and retribution Jacinda Read has argued that categorizing rape-revenge as a sub-genre of horror is problematic, not least due to its parallels with other genres such as the Western, the absence of a clearly defined and unsympathetic monster, and the fact that other revenge dramas are not usually considered within the realms of horror cinema (Read 2000: 25–27). Instead, she suggests rape-revenge should be understood as a st u tu e hi h has ee apped o e othe ge es ‘ead this u de sta di g, )a hi s : a ati e . A gua l the , I Spit on Your Grave is not easily defined as a horror film, and certainly not when judged by more recent genre conventions. The target audience for the remake, meanwhile, is not comprised primarily by fans of 1970s exploitation cinema – ith the ota le e eptio of those u ious to see ho e sio has ee adapted. ‘athe , Mo oe s fil is )a hi s ade fo a e , ou g ho o audience expecting Hostel-esque (Roth, 2005) gruesomeness, and it is to these potential viewers that the film must ultimately appeal. The early buzz and subsequent marketing for the film does rely on the notoriety of the original, a strategy frequently used when promoting horror remakes. This is most obvious in the posters and DVD covers that p a ti all epli ate the o igi al s p o otio al i age , a u istaka le efe e e to the infamous, somewhat sexualized shot of Hills from behind, dirty and wounded, her white underwear and shirt (seen in neither version) torn, carrying a bloody knife (a weapon that Je ife e e a tuall a dishes du i g the e ake . )a hi s app o al of the remake has also been promoted; he retains an executive producer credit and is included in DVD extras discussing the new version as a stand-alone entity, and as a huge compliment and tribute to his original. Yet I Spit on Your Grave 2010 is clearly not simply p o oted as a espe tful etelli g of )a hi s fil . Early reports in the trade press of production company CineTel acquiring the ights to the s ee pla suggested that g aphi all o te po a iole t that the o igi al does t see and claimed that the produce s ge e fa e has as out ageous as it did e e looki g at e o e so ea s ago , a s to at het up the sho k fa to (Fleming 2008). CineTel President Paul Hertzberg told Variety: Afte seei g do e ith a ‘ ati g o fil s like “a [Wa , ] a d Hostel , hat e thi k as e a modernize this story, be competitive with what this marketplace expects and not have to aim for an NC- o X ati g He tz e g, i Fle i g . I a k o ledgi g these films as inspiration for I Spit on Your Grave s adaptatio , a d e p essi g thei i te tio to i te sif the shock factor , the e ake s p odu e s e pli itl alig the fil with a cycle of successful, graphically violent horror that had become popular in the mid-2000s. Hostel and Saw were included – alongside The Devil’s Rejects (Zombie, 2005), Wolf Creek (Mclean, 2005) and others – in a 2006 New York magazine article by critic David Edelstein to express his personal concerns over a new wave of explicitly violent horror films that he du ed to tu e po . Edelstei ide tified these as predominantly mainstream horror films that featured extreme gore and bloodshed, usuall ithi ult a iole t s e es of p ot a ted to tu e, t pi all i fli ted upo people ith e og iza le hu a e otio s , a d hi h p ese ted a a gua l de e t oe ambiguous sense of morality than their generic predecessors (Edelstein 2006). Edelstei s to tu e po la el e a e the esta lished te fo the o e is e al ho o cinema of the last decade, although it has attracted criticism from horror fans, critics and academics alike.10 Adam Lowenstei po does ot e ist , suggesti g that the te o ki g defi itio fo goes so fa as to a gue that spe ta le ho o is a torture o e app op iate the stagi g of spe ta ula l e pli it ho o fo pu poses of audience admiration, provocation, and sensory adventure as much as shock or terror, ut ithout e essa il eaki g ties ith a ati e de elop e t o histo i al allego (Lowenstein 2011: 43).11 The popularity of the torture porn/spectacle horror film remained evident throughout the latter part of the decade with a Hostel sequel (Roth, 2007) (followed by a third film, released direct to video [Scott Spiegel, 2011]), and six further, successful instalments of the Saw franchise between 2005 and 2010 (as well as a theme park ride and two video game releases). These aside, however, it would be difficult to locate many later texts featuring spectacle horror tropes among mainstream genre cinema (where, according to Edelstein, torture porn belongs), or to suggest that films lumbered with the description feature many connections other than their visual extremities. Critical failures such as Captivity (Joffé, 2007) and The Tortured (Lieberman, 2010) are difficult to place alongside controversial foreign fare like The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (Six, 2009), Srpski film/A Serbian Film (Spasojevic, 2010), or the new French extreme cinema such as Martyrs (Laugier, 2008), Frontières/Frontiers (Gens, 2007) or À l'intérieur/Inside (Bustillo and Maury, 2007), and yet are often discussed almost intercha gea l as pa t of a to tu e po le , despite thei a i g themes. The association of any contemporary genre film (and particularly American horror) with torture porn does risk the imposition of a particular allegorical reading of its themes. Edelstei s a ti le alig ed the t e d ith post-9/11 debates surrounding the ethics of torture, debates fuelled by horrifying pictures of manifestly decent men and o e so e of the , a a e a ti g utal s e a ios of do i atio at A u Gh ai (Edelstein 2006). Metaphorical associations with 9/11, the subsequent War on Terror, and media circulated images of abused Abu Ghraib prisoners have been made by critics and academics in discussions of many of the films, especially Hostel.12 Similar suggestions have been made of I Spit on Your Grave, most notably with reference to its to tu e i age . Ke i J. Wet o e a gues that all of the i ages i the fil a e lifted directly (if, perhaps presented more extremely) from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Naked men, suspension in chains, waterboarding, stress positions, beatings, chokings, all desig ed to hu iliate a d Fu the ause pai a e p ese t o e, Wet o e suggests that i sho i g Je Wet o e : . ife s atta ks as espo ses to he own assault, the torture is defe si le: To tu e, hu iliatio a d te o a e justified if one is using them in response to the same. Like the end of both Hostel films, it is a epta le fo a A e i a to do this to those ho did this to A e i a s Wet o e of A d s pu ish e t as e pli itl 2012: 113). The interpretatio ate oa di g, a d the e s est ai ts as holdi g the the o se atio that Hills s jea s a d est a e lothi g than suggestive of being suggesti e Wet o e ep ese ti g i st ess positio s, alo g ith o e suggesti e of the : , lea l alig s Je ilita ife ith the American forces and her rapists as camp prisoners. Yet this interpretation of meaning is problematic – in I Spit on Your Grave and potentially for rape revenge films more broadly – not least because it risks ignoring the important central issues of gender, sex and rape in the film. The suggestion that the film is concerned with allegories of American vengeance bypasses the obvious point that the men are also, in fact American a d that thei othe ess is ide tified p edo i a tl th ough thei ge de , athe tha their geographical origins, as discussed earlier in this article). The tortures inflicted upon the e a e highl pe so al pu ish e ts fo thei espe ti e pa ts i Hills s assault; both series of attacks are difficult to see as metaphorical representations of terrorism or subsequent American retaliation. The mirrored suffering of the rape and revenge sections of the narrative – the men torture Hills, Hills tortures them in symbolically equal ways – aims to validate both Je ife s a tio s a d he e -fou d, o st ous pe so alit ; he ape a d hu iliatio serving as retributivist justification for both the punishments she inflicts and her change in demeanour. As Jeremy Morris (2010) says of victims-turned-to tu e s i fil s, su h ole e e sals a e o e te h i ue that e ou ages the audie e to to tu e Mo is : . Justifi atio fo Hills s e e ge is fu the st e gthe ed th ough the use of e ual-punishme t et i uti is inventive tortures that efle t Je keepi g ife s o e o the side of the Mo is : , i those suffe i g.13 It is worth noting here that, in ith the idea of suita le e e se pu ish e t, Je ife , hile o iousl ei g responsible for their suffering and ultimately their inevitable deaths, does not actually kill a si gle o e of the . The e a e left to leed Joh , “ta le o u a id to death, o thei fates a e put i ea h othe s ha ds “to h a d Matthe A d ,i . Hills is not present at the moment of any of their deaths, just as the audience is not made privy to their last breaths (again, aligning identification with her) – we hear the men scream, see them struggle and suffer, but then cut to see their lifeless faces, post-death. Jennifer leaves them for dead in much the same way as the men did her after she jumped from a bridge to escape them – and they intended her death just as she then sets up theirs. Torture porn is perhaps best understood here at the most basic level through Lowenstei s spe ta le ho o odel the – its most obvious and undeniable tropes ei g the isual p ese tatio of suffe i g a d e pli it iole e. While Je ife s d a out torment at the hands of her rapists is evident of these trends, the revenge half of I Spit on Your Grave certainly pushes them, with cleverly designed traps and restraints, painful and ultimately explicitly gory tests of physical endurance, and that eye-for-aneye retributive logic that would not be out of place in a rurally set Saw. The association with a torture porn aesthetic is also apparent in the teaser poster – Jennifer brandishing he lood shea s, ith the e phasis o he date ight a li e she a tuall tu s o Joh eapo , a o e the th eate i g tagli e it s . I additio to its torture porn imagery, I Spit on Your Grave also employs other motifs from horror cinema more widely. From early in the film, the use of jump-shocks, POV shots of Jennifer stalked unknowingly th ough “ta le s a e a, a d a added i te se s o e all ai to increase the suspense and to explicitly code the film as belonging to the contemporary horror genre. The shift to a ds a o e o ious ho o fo the e ake of Wes C a e s ula i I Spit on Your Grave is somewhat similar to ape-revenge film The Last House on the Left (Iliadis, 2009) – which may have faced similar potential problems with its genre identification. Conclusion Ultimately then, while any potential feminist message in I Spit on Your Grave 2010 is arguably confused by the representation of its protagonist as a monster (albeit a sympathetic one), I would suggest that this is as a result of the need and deliberate attempt to position the film clearly within a particular contemporary genre context, and to market it as such. Furthermore, and despite the near demonizing of Jennifer, it could e ai tai ed that Mo oe s fil ot o l i te p ets the pe ei ed fe i ist age da of )a hi s o igi al, ut a ti el e ha es this the e – Butle s Hills does ot eed to exploit her sexuality as a precurso to e gea e i the a i hi h Keato s Je ife does. While the plot does need to be understood within the context of I Spit as a remake, and thus takes the rape- e e ge sto li e a d eatl aps it o e Mo oe s version, the film can be seen to comparatively progress elements of other, recent films with which it may be thematically grouped. The most obvious of these would be Dennis Iliadis s The Last House on the Left – a film that had its rape victim survive the ordeal the ha a te dies i C a e s version) just to have her passive during the second act, as her mother and father undertake vengeance on her behalf. This parental revenge for the rape (and murder, in these instances) of a child is seen elsewhere in films like The Horseman (Kastrissios, 2008), Les 7 Jours du Talion/7 Days (Grou, 2010) and The Tortured. Jennifer battles until the final frame just as the heroines of so-called su i alist ho o s Haute Tension/Switchblade Romance (Aja, 2003), The Descent (Marshall, 2005), or Eden Lake (Watkins, 2008), but unlike these women is neither recaptured (Eden Lake) nor revealed to be delusional (Switchblade Romance, The Descent) in a last minute twist. Here is a strong, smart and determined female protagonist who not only survives, but returns to avenge her own violations, and although the e is o suggestio of a happ e di g fo Hills afte justi e is supposedl served, she is seen in the final shot of the film having lost neither her mind nor her life, but instead calmly reflecting on her actio s. To app op iate the title of Ma o “ta s 1984 defence of I Spit on Your Grave: J. Hills – version 2.0 – is alive. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Johnny Walker and Tom Watson for their feedback and support during the inception of this article, with additional thanks to Johnny for his valued suggestions. Thanks also to Steve Jones for sharing his thoughts (on both the film and my article) with me. References Aja, Alexandre (2003), Haute Tension/Switchblade Romance, France: Alexandre Films. ____ (2006), The Hills Have Eyes, USA: Craven-Maddalena Films. A o . , BBFC uts A “e ia fil a d e ake of I “pit o You G a e , p ess release, http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2010/00/. Accessed 12 February 2011. Bindel, J. , I as o g a out I “pit o You G a e , http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/19/wrong-about-spit-on-yourgrave. Accessed 15 February 2011. Bradshaw, P. , I “pit o You G a e – review , http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/20/i-spit-on-your-grave-review. Accessed 12 February 2011. Bustillo, Alexandre and Maury, Julien (2007), À l'intérieur/Inside, France: La Fabrique de Films. Canfield, D. , Be o d the pale: I “pit o You G a e – churned out or churched out? , http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2336:beyo nd-the-pale-qi-spit-on-your-graveq-churned-out-or-churched-out&catid=81:beyondthe-pale&Itemid=208. Accessed 12 February 2011. Capo e , Capo e a d Eli ‘oth dis uss ho o o ies, go e, “tephe Ki g, the ph ase To tu e Po a d u h o e!!! , http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32868. Accessed 13 May 2012. Church, D. , ‘etu of the etu of the ep essed: Notes o the A e i a ho o film (1991– , http://offscreen.com/phile/essays/return_of_the_repressed/. Accessed 22 November 2007. Clover, Carol J. (1993), Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, 2nd edition, London: BFI Craven, Wes (1972), The Last House on the Left, USA: Lobster Enterprises. ____ (1977), The Hills Have Eyes, USA: Blood Relations Co. Creed, B. (1993), The Monstrous Feminine: Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis, London: Routledge. DeFore, J. , I “pit o You G a e – fil e ie , http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/i-spit-your-grave-film-30084. Accessed 12 February 2011. Ebert, R. , I “pit o You G a e , http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800716/REVIEWS/71603 01/1023. Accessed 2 October 2011. ____ , I “pit o You G a e , http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101006/REVIEWS/10100 9983. Accessed 12 February 2011. Edelstein, D. , No pla i g at ou lo al ultiple : To tu e po , http://nymag.com/movies/features/15622/. Accessed 27 October 2011. Fidler, T. , The do t all e e ploitatio o ies fo othi g! : Joe Bo B iggs a d the iti al o e ta o I “pit o You G a e , http://arts.monash.edu.au/ecps/colloquy/journal/issue018/fidler.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2011. Fleming, M. , Ci etel set fo G a e e ake , http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117986830?refCatld=2430. Accessed 19 April 2011. Fletcher, R. , I “pit o You G a e , http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/ispit-on-your-grave-1. Accessed 12 February 2011. Frost, C. (2009), Erasing the B out of Bad Cinema: Remaking Identity in The Texas Chai sa Massa e , COLLOQUY text theory critique (18), www.colloquy.monash.edu.au/issue18/frost.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2011. Gens, Xavier (2007), Frontières/Frontiers, France/Switzerland: Cartel Productions. Glasby, M. , I “pit o You G a e , http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatricalreviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-13263. Accessed 12 February 2011. Graham, J. , F ightFest : I “pit o You G a e e ie , http://www.totalfilm.com/news/frightfest-2010-i-spit-on-your-grave-review. Accessed 12 February 2011. Grou, Daniel (2010), Les 7 Jours du Talion/7 Days, Canada: Go Films. Hall, P. , I “pit o You G a e , http://horrorsnotdead.com/wpress/2010/i-spiton-your-grave-2010-review-fantastic-fest-2010/. Accessed 12 February 2011. Hayes, B. , Fa tasti fest e ie : I “pit o You G a e , http://www.brutalashell.com/2010/10/fantastic-fest-2010-review-i-spit-on-your-grave/. Accessed 12 February 2011. Hooper, Tobe (1974), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, USA: Vortex. Iliadis, Dennis (2009), The Last House on the Left, USA: Rogue Pictures. Joffé, Roland (2007), Captivity, USA/Russia: Captivity Productions. Jones, S. Ti e is Wasti g : Co /se ue e a d “/pa e i the “a “e ies , i Horror Studies, 1:2, pp 225-239. ____ (2013 , The le i o of offe se: The ea i gs of to tu e, po , a d To tu e Po , i Att ood, F., Campbell, V., Hunter, I.Q., Lockyer, S. (eds.), Controversial Images, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 186-200. _____ (forthcoming 2013), Torture Porn: Popular Horror in the Era of Saw, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kastrissios, Steven (2008), The Horseman, Australia: Kastle Films. Kerekes, D. and Slater, D. (2000), See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy, Manchester: Headpress. Laugier, Pascal (2008), Martyrs, France/Canada: Canal Horizons. LaSalle, M. , I “pit o You G a e , http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-1008/movies/24117241_1_torture-picante-sauce-plumber. Accessed 12 February 2011. Lieberman, Robert (2010), The Tortured, USA/Canada: Twisted Pictures. Lo k ood, D. , All st ipped do Communication, 7:1, pp. 40–48. : The spe ta le of To tu e Po , Popular Lo e stei , A. , “pe ta le ho o a d Hostel: Wh Critical Quarterly, 53:1, pp. 42–60. to tu e po does ot e ist , Marshall, Neil (2005), The Descent, UK: Celador Films. McCannibal, P. (2010), I “pit o You G a e , http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/ispit-on-your-grave-2010. Accessed 12 February 2011. Mclean, Greg (2005), Wolf Creek, Australia: Australian Film Finance Corporation. Mendik, X. , Geog aphies of te o : Eli ‘oth a d Hostel , http://www.kamera.co.uk/article.php/616. Accessed 2 April 2008. Monroe, Steven R. (2010), I Spit on Your Grave, USA: Family of the Year Productions. Morris, J. , The justifi atio of to tu e-horror: Retribution and sadism in Saw, Hostel and the De il s ‘eje ts , in Thomas Fahy (ed.), The Philosophy of Horror, Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, pp. 42–56. Ne ____ a , K. , To tu e ga de , Sight and Sound, 16:6, pp. 28–31. , I “pit o You G a e , Sight and Sound, 21:2, p. 61. Nispel, Marcus (2003), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, USA: New Line Cinema. Pinkerton, N. , ‘ape revenge, repeat i I “pit o You G a e , http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-10-06/film/rape-revenge-repeat-in-i-spit-on-yourgrave/. Accessed 12 February 2011. Read, J. (2000), The New Avengers: Feminism, Femininity and the Rape-Revenge Cycle, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Roth, Eli (2005), Hostel, USA: Hostel LLC. Roth, Eli (2007), Hostel: Part II, USA: Lionsgate. “ha ett, C. o te po a , The problem of Saw: To tu e Po a d the conservatism of ho o fil s , Cineaste, Winter, pp. 32–37. Six, Tom (2009), The Human Centipede (First Sequence), Netherlands: Six Entertainment. Spasojevic, Srdjan (2010), Srpski film/A Serbian Film, Serbia: Contra Film. Speigel, Scott (2011), Hostel: Part III, USA: Raw Nerve. “ta , M. , J. Hills is alive: A defence of I “pit o You G a e , i Martin Barker (ed.), The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Arts, London: Pluto Press, pp 48-55. Walke , J. , Nast visions: Violent spectacle in contemporary British horror i e a , Horror Studies, 2:1, pp. 115–30. Wan, James (2004), Saw, USA/Australia: Evolution Entertainment. Watkins, James (2008), Eden Lake, UK: Rollercoaster Films. Weinberg, S. , I “pit o You G a e – pretty little thi g , http://www.fearnet.com/news/reviews/b20390_ff_2010_review_i_spit_on_your_grave .html. Accessed 12 February 2011. Wetmore, K. J. (2012), Post-9/11 Horror in American Cinema, New York: Continuum. Zarchi, Meir (1978), I Spit on Your Grave, USA: Cinemagic Pictures. Zombie, Rob (2005), The Devil’s Rejects, USA/Germany: Lions Gate Films. Notes 1 See Newman (2011), Hayes (2010), McCannibal (2010) for examples. See Clover (1993), Creed (1993), Read (2000) for examples. 3 See Clover (1993: 124–37, 160–65) for a detailed discussion of city versus country themes (or u a oia i ho o i e a a d fu the efe e es. 4 C iti Joe Bo B iggs also o se es this i his DVD o e ta : These e look at ape as a recreational sport, proving their manhood to o e a othe . 5 I te esti gl , this lea l esou ds ith adi al fe i ist ‘o i Mo ga s state e t that k o i g ou pla e is the essage of ape – as it was for blacks the message of lynchings. Neither is an act of spontaneity or sexuality – they are oth a ts of politi al te o is Mo ga 1977, in Read 2000: 96) – itte a ea p io to the elease of )a hi s fil . 6 See Read (2000: 104–05) for discussion on this perspective of rape. 7 C eed dis usses the u de of Matthe as ei g i the ode of a sa ifi ial ite , ith Je ife d essed i the ga of a p iestess o ph C eed : , thus fu the e e ti g the association between ritual, eroticism and death. 8 See Graham (2010), DeFore (2010), Weinberg (2010), Hall (2010) for examples. 9 Mo oe o se es i his di e to s o e ta that, although Chastit s su se ue t fate is never made clear, this was not addressed as he never assumed viewers would think that Jennifer could harm the girl. 10 Hostel director Eli Roth also highlights film-makers dis o fo t ith the te : 2 It shows a lack of understanding and ability to understand and appreciate a horror film as something more than just a horror film. The gore blinds them to any intelligence that goes into making the fil . A d I thi k that the te to tu e po ge ui el sa s o e about the critic's limited understanding of what horror movies can do than about the film itself. (Roth, in Capone 2007) 11 It is well beyond the scope of this article to consider the wealth of academic writing on torture porn, but studies of the cycle remain prevalent as the trend continues. In addition to Lowenstein, see also for example Dean Lockwood (2009), Christopher Sharrett (2009), Jeremy Morris (2010) and Steve Jones (2010). Jones also has both an essay and a monograph on the cycle forthcoming (both 2013). A number of essays on other areas of genre cinema also make reference to the influence of torture porn (most notably its aesthetics) – see for example Craig F ost s a al sis of The Te as Chai sa Massa e e ake, a d Joh Walke s discussion of contemporary British horror cinema. 12 See Newman (2006), Church (2006), Mendik (2006) for examples. 13 See Morris (2010) for a more in-depth discussion on philosophical theories of retributive justice and torture horror.