(*SPOILERS*) I don't know; I'd almost have to see the film again to develop/support this theory, but I think it's probably very possible to make a case that the movie is actually depicting His decent into insanity, vs. Hers. At the very least it could be an open question. Defoe is the one having visions, after all; we are placed primarily in his POV. Let's consider what really happens: after their child's tragic death, Defoe takes his wife to a remote cabin in the woods, strangles her to death, and destroys the body. A lot of the rest of what we are seeing may be Defoe's psychological degeneration, with much of the narrative after they reach the cabin being an expressionistic take on an internal progression for him, similar to what we see in some of Lynch's work. You could perhaps say that he is acting out a version of the subject of her thesis as he degenerates into madness. The circumstances of the accident being attributed to her sexuality and consequent neglect of her motherly role.

Early in the film I recall She noting that "you were never this interested in me until I became your patient." Once he objectifies her in that way, contrary to the supportive husband role he shows on the surface, the expressionistic content of the movie queues us in to what's really going on inside. Are the faceless women at the end a threat or merely the products of a guilty conscience, representative of the victims of man's crimes against women, burning them (as he does her body) when they proved convenient moral scapegoats?

To really support this idea I'd have to view the film again, but it feels like an argument that could potentially be further developed, based on what I remember. But there are holes too -- the action near the end is connected enough that it invites being taken literally -- so, I could be wrong. But "women are evil" seems too pat for this type of film. And Dogville almost seemed to take the opposite position, though it would certainly lend itself to feminist criticism for its own reasons.

K

I reckon you won't be any more convinced than you are now, but here you go. And here's Noah B.'s much longer take. I wouldn't exactly call I Spit nuanced or sophisticated -- it is an exploitation film, after all -- but it does provide for more complex thought than "it sells rape."



But that could be said of any subject in any art that's being sold. The question is whether the subject is being used for more than mere entertainment. Some of the movies on the list that Madget linked to probably do that. I think that's a good basis for criticism of that stuff, but it's a good basis for criticizing most romantic comedies, too.

That's some good stuff, Madget. You're probably right about my take. It makes me want to watch the film again, which I guess I will and then get back to you.



Yep.

Let me know, if you do. I must admit, I do foresee some problems with my idea. Namely that it is hard to take that idea and then put Her actions into some kind of framework that makes sense. Surely, for example, the autopsy report noting the foot problem was real? And if so, that lends direct evidence to her own descent into some kind of psychological instability even before the accident? But it did strike me that we are more in Defoe's POV than Gainsbourg's. And satanic foxes are talking at him. Man I love that fox. If he is having visions of that extremity, maybe, for instance, when he reads her research journal which turns to gobbledygook, that's what's happening in his own mind, vs. on the paper. Maybe a light bulb is going off and stoking unjust suspicions that his wife's inherently evil sexual nature is to blame. On the other hand, maybe that's a stretch. And with Von Trier there would seem to be the possibility also that he's just fucking with us and isn't quite sure what it's all saying himself. I compare/contrast with Dogville somewhat too, whose themes re: sexuality were not as easy to reduce as Antichrist's.

But yeah, I think it'd be interesting to watch the movie again with the idea in mind and see to what extent it can be rationalized to fit. Maybe they both go nuts.

One little part I couldn't make heads or tails of -- when Defoe wakes up with the fallen petals on his hand which is draped out the window. He reacts with horror, picking them off as if they are limpets burning his skin. Just another vision? Meant to illustrate his repulsion towards nature? <Shrug>

K

I have a blu-ray in my possession, so I'm going to watch it sometime this week.

And now, since I don't have a costume, back to my survey of contemporary French horror films:

AMER (2010) (aka Bitter)

I think the point is that ANYTHING "provides" for more complex thought, if a person is capable or willing to think it. The question is, is there anything in the work which would provoke or require such thought in those not inclined? While defenders of SPIT take issue with much of the intial reviews of Siskel and Ebert, one thing that goes largely unremarked upon is how one the things that fueled the vehemence of those reviews was Siskel and Ebert's revulsion at how the audience they saw the film with responded to it.

Mike

No. The question is, why did it have to be a 25 minute long rape scene? What precisely was essential to the story of SPIT that couldn't have been accomplished in a 5 minute brutal scene where a woman is beaten, raped and left for dead?

Mike

Sure, if you want put weasel marks around 'provides', then anything can "provide" for any thought whatsoever. The debate is over the legitimacy of said thought. Many people aren't inclined to think about Joyce, but you'd surely agree that his books legitimately provide for a deep study, right? I SPIT isn't Finnegan's Wake, of course, but it's certainly a more involved work than "it sells rape." As for audience reception, all I can say is that I've had weird reactions to horrifying sequences (the tortoise torture in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST caused me to burst out laughing despite being truly disgusted by the spectacle of it). Let Ebert psychoanalyze the crowd, I'm more interested in whether the rape is meant to be enjoyed. I don't believe it is, at least, not in any straight-forward manner that suggests people love to watch rape.

Much of the rape scene wasn't strictly rape, it involved the dehumanization of the woman. Her objectified remains is what strikes back in the end.

The longest rape I know of is in IRREVERSIBLE -- I can't think of a more horrifying depiction of rape than that. Depiction over elision can add to the emotion of an act. It doesn't just desensitize us as the moralizers would have it.

Ever seen DESCENT, w/ Rosario Dawson? There's a couple rape scenes in that, but the one at the end hits so many check-boxes it ends up being pretty comical (homosexual, interracial, etc.) -- and it's quite graphic. The intent and emotional tenor is different than in IRREVERSIBLE though.

K