Again, I really don't think Friday the 13th was as bad as they're saying. First of all, the film wasn't saying "Women shouldn't act like this, they may die." The film was saying "No one should act like this, camp counselors need to do their fucking job." And also, these movies are slasher films. Not women in danger films. If the audience identifies with the killer, that the audience's fault, not the movies. The point of the movies is to scare, not to offend.
Truly one of the worst era for horror films ever: the post-Halloween slasher era. Good riddens to 90% of the films they mentioned. Eventually at least the 80's did get worthy stuff like the Evil Dead series and the first Nightmare on Elm Street.
They were right in some ways, but wrong in others. Some of those flicks were just exploitative trash, but others featured surprise female killers, females getting revenge on their attackers, females saving the day/beating the killer etc. Did these films play on peoples fears of having their privacy/perfect day violated by an insane stalker or killer? Yes, that's the point, they're horror films.
thanks to who ever uploaded this archive from 1980 i saw it once when i was 13 i felt that these two at the time were just hypocrites trying to get viewers to watch their show and what more by condemning the horror genre some of these films and a lot of them even today are complete trash but those two at the time were really aggravating to watch, today i think their both funny watching this is more entertaining then the films they despise.
That was a very educated response as to why you disagree with the views of Siskel and ebert. Especially when they are talking about the number of films being produced at that time that were showing women being raped and people enjoying it. Again though, bravo.
It is a classic and has it's merits but it does have a lot of issues with what they said. In and of itself it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered a classic but it has to be looked at through a critical eye (the same thing is true with many classic in other genres that are also often misogynist and/or racist); It does showcase sexualized violence, it was a blatant cash grab to profit off the success of Halloween (even the creator is very clear about that lol), etc. but it can still be enjoyed for what it does right.
I disagree with them completely though the people cheering on the rape scene in I Spit On Your Grave are sick individuals not all of us fans are like that.
Back when Friday the 13th was released in 1980, it was negatively received by critics. And not the normal "It got bad reviews" type. No, a lot of critics acted like Friday the 13th was gonna destroy the fibers of society. Heck, Gene Siskel hated it so much that he published Betsy Palmer's (Mrs. Voorhees) address in his review, so that people can send her letters about how disgusted they were with the film. However, this backfired and all it did was result in the film getting more popular. The fact so many critics said to NOT watch this film only peaked interested in people wanting to see what the fuss was about. Eventually, the controversy died down and years later, the film was critically re-evaluated, where it is now viewed in a more positive light. .
i understand siskel and ebert's stance on women in danger, but it's uncalled for when you think of other horror films from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s or even 60s with a little film called Psycho where a young woman gets stabbed to death in the shower. she was in danger. vulnerable, naked and showering. ah i remember it well! shhhh! quiet mother!
This classic episode of Siskel & Ebert is a good example why we need film critics in different genres. Clearly, they didn't like these films and were getting frustrated at having to see them as part of their jobs. If you can't be unbiased as a critic, then maybe it is for the best that we now have different critics for different genres, who are also fans of that genre.
Both Siskel and Ebert gave positive reviews to some of the films mentioned here. They are talking a look at the films as reflective of an unfortunate trend as opposed to individual films.
Matt Pniewski Actually, giving just a positive review to "Halloween" does not validate their positions as unbiased critics. Although I agree that not many of the films mentioned are great, it doesn't change the fact that in some of their statements, it shows that Siskel & Ebert had not seen the films. Best example is "The Howling" which they refer to as a woman on vacation being tormented by the locals. Everyone knows "The Howling" is a werewolf film. Siskel says that "we're out to get The Boogeyman before he gets your four bucks" and Ebert really goes off with his claim that "these filmmakers hate women and that people who go see these films probably don't like women either". That's not film criticism. That's using your TV show as a bully-pulpit against a film genre you do not like.
***** That's one of the things I love from this era, now there are many genre specific critics on youtube and other streaming sites that focus on the good aspects of said movies, and each and every one of them provides his/her own opinion of concepts such as violence against women (the feminist reviewer may hate slasher films, but hey, there's a slasher film critic that counters those thoughts). I think movie criticism is currently having an awesome change.
***** What they trying to do on this special was show what is the problem with these films. If you compare Halloween to a lot of these other films, you come up short. They didn't hate scary films, they just didn't like these terrible ones.
Black Christmas, Texas Chainsaw Massacre both very violent slashers yep. The whole women or girls in peril from the monster goes way back in time to stories like Frankenstein and Dracula or even Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White for kids. The original Little Red Riding Hood is very dark for children, the wolf actually eats her and that's the end of it and the moral is to beware of dangerous wolfs with nice manners. Of course now Disney is making them all woke and pc.
i think you have to give these exploitative filmmakers some credit. they were trying to push the boundaries of horror movie making. even to it's extreme. horror isn't suppose to be sugar coated, happy go lucky nonsense (that's for the romance & family genres).
The thing is, when guys get hacked up its not such a big deal. When a beautiful girl in her little undies gets hacked and slashed its more scary, more sexual, and more pleasing to the eye. Its funny how people were so shocked and appauled though, espescially in the 80s, when the movies today have escalated the violence 10 fold..
Something that needs to be considered is that if audiences root for the killers, it is probably because the main characters either aren't well-developed, or are straight-out unlikeable. I should know because I've watched a lot of slasher films and its clear that most of them had a hard time getting me invested in their protagonists.
isn't that kind of the argument? the filmmakers obviously felt that they didn't *need* to have scripts that flesh out the (female) characters because they were somewhat "disposable" anyway. (I mentioned this in a different comment: it's not a coincedence that the killers were basically the protagonists in many of these movies. which seems very different even from a movie like initial "Halloween" - although to be fair the sequels suffered from the same problem as well)
I admit I saw all the Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees movies as a kid. That was because I had an older sister I was close to and we watched a lot of movies together and she identified with the survivor girl in those films, but those films always made me afraid and I never routed for the killers. But the problem may be with slasher films is that they show sexually provocative imagery of women followed with scenes of realistic depictions of graphic, brutal violence and perhaps in some viewers it creates an association which links sex and violence. Some of the worst most detestable crimes are committed by perpetrators who are sexually aroused by violence.
On the other hand, it may make some people scared of sex, by connecting the act with unavoidable "punishment". Both options suck. But most of us are just simply entertained by the thrill. And that's what counts.
While I agreed with them then (and now), this special may have backfired, giving those movies a second life and exposure to a larger audience. In fact, I recall a few years ago finally watching the original "I Spit on Your Grave," and I wish that I listened to the two and bypass this picture. It had zero redeeming value, and it made me feel sick watching it.
While I agree with a lot of what they are saying about these films, they neglected to mention that the killers in SILENT SCREAM and in FRIDAY THE 13th were BOTH FEMALE! Which makes me wonder if they even saw the films. And F13 IS a classic.
+jeremy gann agreed & in I spit on your grave she got revenge on the men who attacked her & killrd them all. In awful ways. It's other title is Day of the woman.
graham french Nonsense, Graham. These guys had no point. They were just two hypocrites who stroked their own egos by ruining everyone's else fun and projecting their own biases onto harmless fright flicks. I'm glad Vincent Gallo put a hex on Roger Ebert.
Mind Splosion Thanks for the two month old advice. I can assure you, I already have read them. That's why I referenced them in the first place. The fact that he gave these films a "thumbs up" WASN'T my point. Anyway since you're extolling the late Ebert's "incredibly effective" reviews, did you read where he gave "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Unforgiven" the SAME rating as "Gigli"?
whizzbangnyc Did you know that he did not consider his star rating absolute but relative, as in not all 3 star (etc.) reviews were to be considered equal?
Uh, did they forget Halloween starts with a POV shot of a little boy stabbing his topless sister? Interesting video. I thibk their best theory was that people just keep ripping each other off. I don't think there was a anti women's liberation themes in the movies.
I'm really interested in other people's thoughts on this, since I haven't watched any of the movies. I spit on your grave is a rape and revenge story, isn't it? How does this fit in with the rest of the movies? I was under the impression it was more empowering than demeaning of women, almost like a reply to the other movies which were coming out.
Siskel and Ebert got a few things right here, but they got a lot of things wrong. ISOYG is misogynistic in the fact that it depicts a graphic rape (though it doesn't glorify the rape at all, so...) But, ultimately, the movie is about a woman who gets her revenge and the men's death scenes are done in a way where the viewers will cheer the woman on. A lot of the movies they're talking about do not belong here. "The Howling", "Motel Hell", "When a Stranger Calls" and, in a way, "Friday the 13th" because the killer is not a sexually frustrated male going after scantily clad women.
ISOYG isn't "empowering" imo, it exploits the girl's revenge for viewer's excitement, just like all male revenge movies do. It would be like saying that, say, "Commando" is empowering to guys, when it's just exploitation aswell.
What about all the men that are killed in these movies? Do they not count? S&E showed a scene from Friday the 13th of a girl getting hacked up by a killer after sex but what about the boyfriend who was also brutally slaughtered after sex by a killer who turned out to be a woman? And what about how the end of most of these movies turn out with a woman who usually ends outsmarting and defeating the villain? No mention of any of that. This debate is pointless.
sha11235 Yes I read the damn description thank you and I watched the video and again I ask what about all the men in these films? Why don't they count? Why are they trying to make it seem like only women are attacked or killed in these kind of films?
They complain about the lack of strong female characters, but then conveniently fail to mention that "I Spit on Your Grave" who they deemed the worst of the bunch.. and that movie's central plot is actually about the woman going for revenge and kills the guys that raped her and left her for dead. That's not a helpless damsel in distress stereotype.
Just as there is no difference in stealing 1 penny or stealing 1 million dollars- "stealing is stealing". There is no difference in violence in movies. Watching someone "else" suffering and enjoying or being entertained by it is the same- whether being stabbed or mutilated. Being entertained by the pain and suffering of others is tantamount to being in the roman arenas and watching people being eaten by wild dogs or lions Would you enjoy having your wife or daughter as the victim? Why others?
I agree with Siskel and Ebert on this. If anything I has gotten worse, you can't tell me that you watch Saw for anything other then seeing how jigsaw kills people this time.
Before delving further into the Saw series I would have agreed. I am generally not a fan of torture porn, but my opinion of Saw has changed.There are themes to Saw that react to what is happening in the real world. There was a Saw movie dealing with the healthcare crisis, and the banking crisis. I agree that the traps are the real draw to the movies but there is more to it than that. It's also a who-done-it, trying to guess who the new Jigsaw apprentice is. And the complicated backstory, oh my goodness. It's a little too complicated for me. It's also interesting to note that some of the traps used in Saw are based on real life medieval torture devices.
They're was an increase of serial killers throughout the 1970s. Unfortunately most of those depraved murderers killed women primarily. Writers tend to write about what's going on in society. It makes sense that the horror genre would create movies that spoke of the times. Psychologists have attempted to explain why the trend. Some have said the Vietnam war as being 1 reason. The times were violent. That war was in the news like none before it and people saw gratuitous violence either from being there or experiencing it on TV. Unfortunately women aren't as physically strong as men therefore they had to be more careful hitchhiking.
The hypocrisy of Gene Siskel talking about women being "degraded" in those slasher films.....what was his all-time fave film? "Saturday Night Fever". Which has men degrading women throughout the movie. Hypocrite.
Lol! People making comments on this are ridiculous as are Siskel and Ebert's point of view. Black Christmas and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were the precursors to all of slasher movies. In each of those movies we see the perspective primarily from the killer. Slasher movies aren't typically done from the victim and when you show it from the victim, it defeats the purpose of building up suspense. You yourself are the victim being stalked by the killer. In almost all of these moves all the women lasted until the end when the fought back. In real life women are not as physical as men so showing the latter and what happens builds up hatred for those people. I.E. the people from I Spit on Your Grave.This is why Siskel and Ebert hated horror. they never understood it. If we left it up to them, we'd probably have nothing outside of ghost stories.
As someone who's seen a lot of slasher films, the men tend to suffer more gruesome deaths than the women. Plus I Spit On Your Grave is an explicitly anti-rape, pro-feminist film. Frankly, Siskel and Ebert come across as incredibly out of touch here.
All the final girls were responsible and strong why didn't they recognize that and Jamie Lee Curtis cowered in the closet and a knife was being brandished in her face
I like how all the films make out men to be brutal sadistic killers who should be avoided while the reviewers are upset that women are being portrayed in an offensives manner.
good point except you forget they're only movies. something i think analytic minds tend to forget since they're too busy being over critical at something that isn't really happening in real life real life would be a different matter because nobody would enjoy seeing a real person dying or getting victimized. it's just that simple. violence in movies are nothing more but an illusion. a sick illusion at times but that's to remind us of the nastiness of reality. it's all in how you see it of course
Ok, but I'm still trying to figure out how I spit on your Grave hates women, when the revenge part was worse than what happened to her. The evil men all suffered and she seemed to take pleasure in what she was doing. She even cracked a smile at the end. Also, in the other movies they named, men 'get it' just as bad as the women, and women are always the survivors (if there is one).
the core idea behind "rape & revenge" films (just in case you didn't know, it's perceived as its own subgenre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_revenge_film) is "having your cake and eating it, too" and as exploitative as it gets. because very often with this genre, the rape scenes that set up the murderous revenge are shown in graphic detail, instead of restraint, making it questionable on if this wasn't an intentional decision. and considering where and to which audiences these movies usually played, it's not far-fetched to assume it was. to put it more bluntly: they basically "can" show a sexualized/fetishized rape scene because they justify it with the revenge part - which of course in itself has appeal to "that" kind of audience (gore! blood!).
The woman ends up broken and brutalised, turned into the very kind of person who destroyed her own body. It's not a win. Becoming violent and vengeful is not a win for women-- or for anyone
@The Video Nasty Project I agree with this. I don't think ISOYG is a good movie, but in a not very nice way, the rape sequence (and it goes on quite a while) is raw and horrifying. Camille Keaton's screams are very convincing.
Little did they know in 1980 that the entire decade would be chock full of these types of movies.
I love how this video has way less comments than the first one. People didn't even finish watching before voicing their inane, childish opinions.
I miss Gene and Roger. :-(
I own & love everyone of these movies...
They're awesome. Right on.
Thanks for this terrific upload.
I agree standing up and applauding
Again, I really don't think Friday the 13th was as bad as they're saying. First of all, the film wasn't saying "Women shouldn't act like this, they may die." The film was saying "No one should act like this, camp counselors need to do their fucking job." And also, these movies are slasher films. Not women in danger films. If the audience identifies with the killer, that the audience's fault, not the movies. The point of the movies is to scare, not to offend.
I freaking agree!
I know enough women who love these films to not be worried about it.
thanks for posting this! Iinteresting discussion between the two, and interesting the different view points in the comment sections.
Lumping "The Howling" in with the other garbage is way off the mark.
I agree...and I love that other garbage.
Jetfire1959 yeah because that was a werewolf movie and she wasn't alone
The difference between Halloween and the other movies - John Carpenter is a master filmmaker, the others are not.
i slightly disagree Romero and Savini and a lot of the European Directors produced some good work
+Jack Gattanella
Doesn't change the fact that he still made a slasher flick that, while great, is every bit as "sleazy" as the films that followed it.
+Masked Guy But Halloween wasn't just about the killer. We got to know the victims and care about them. Not with these garbage films.
sha11235
Really? I didn't care about the victims; they were the typical teenaged stereotypes that you can find in any slasher film.
Well, I cared for them.
"women as sport... to be stabbed... I think that's a bad idea!"
what a progressive thought, Siskel.
Such a sweet & simple time.
xoxo
The Clarences
Also a little known horror film called Violent Midnight from 1963 was supposed to be the first teenage slasher horror film
I didn't know that.
Truly one of the worst era for horror films ever: the post-Halloween slasher era. Good riddens to 90% of the films they mentioned. Eventually at least the 80's did get worthy stuff like the Evil Dead series and the first Nightmare on Elm Street.
They were right in some ways, but wrong in others.
Some of those flicks were just exploitative trash, but others featured surprise female killers, females getting revenge on their attackers, females saving the day/beating the killer etc.
Did these films play on peoples fears of having their privacy/perfect day violated by an insane stalker or killer? Yes, that's the point, they're horror films.
thanks to who ever uploaded this archive from 1980 i saw it once when i was 13 i felt that these two at the time were just hypocrites trying to get viewers to watch their show and what more by condemning the horror genre some of these films and a lot of them even today are complete trash but those two at the time were really aggravating to watch, today i think their both funny watching this is more entertaining then the films they despise.
I thought Friday the 13th was considered a classic? But I completely agree with Siskel and Ebert.
That was a very educated response as to why you disagree with the views of Siskel and ebert. Especially when they are talking about the number of films being produced at that time that were showing women being raped and people enjoying it. Again though, bravo.
It is a classic and has it's merits but it does have a lot of issues with what they said. In and of itself it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered a classic but it has to be looked at through a critical eye (the same thing is true with many classic in other genres that are also often misogynist and/or racist); It does showcase sexualized violence, it was a blatant cash grab to profit off the success of Halloween (even the creator is very clear about that lol), etc. but it can still be enjoyed for what it does right.
I disagree with them completely though the people cheering on the rape scene in I Spit On Your Grave are sick individuals not all of us fans are like that.
Back when Friday the 13th was released in 1980, it was negatively received by critics. And not the normal "It got bad reviews" type. No, a lot of critics acted like Friday the 13th was gonna destroy the fibers of society. Heck, Gene Siskel hated it so much that he published Betsy Palmer's (Mrs. Voorhees) address in his review, so that people can send her letters about how disgusted they were with the film.
However, this backfired and all it did was result in the film getting more popular. The fact so many critics said to NOT watch this film only peaked interested in people wanting to see what the fuss was about. Eventually, the controversy died down and years later, the film was critically re-evaluated, where it is now viewed in a more positive light. .
i understand siskel and ebert's stance on women in danger, but it's uncalled for when you think of other horror films from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s or even 60s with a little film called Psycho where a young woman gets stabbed to death in the shower. she was in danger. vulnerable, naked and showering. ah i remember it well! shhhh! quiet mother!
3:15. But the killer was a woman. Siskel, you don't know what you're talking about. And it is so odd they loved Halloween.
That doesn't change what's onscreen. He's talking about the themes of those sorts of scenes.
I fully agree with Siskel and Ebert. Halloween is awesome, the rest are trash.
I loved these movies
I agree with you.
This classic episode of Siskel & Ebert is a good example why we need film critics in different genres. Clearly, they didn't like these films and were getting frustrated at having to see them as part of their jobs. If you can't be unbiased as a critic, then maybe it is for the best that we now have different critics for different genres, who are also fans of that genre.
Both Siskel and Ebert gave positive reviews to some of the films mentioned here. They are talking a look at the films as reflective of an unfortunate trend as opposed to individual films.
Matt Pniewski Actually, giving just a positive review to "Halloween" does not validate their positions as unbiased critics. Although I agree that not many of the films mentioned are great, it doesn't change the fact that in some of their statements, it shows that Siskel & Ebert had not seen the films. Best example is "The Howling" which they refer to as a woman on vacation being tormented by the locals. Everyone knows "The Howling" is a werewolf film. Siskel says that "we're out to get The Boogeyman before he gets your four bucks" and Ebert really goes off with his claim that "these filmmakers hate women and that people who go see these films probably don't like women either". That's not film criticism. That's using your TV show as a bully-pulpit against a film genre you do not like.
***** That's one of the things I love from this era, now there are many genre specific critics on youtube and other streaming sites that focus on the good aspects of said movies, and each and every one of them provides his/her own opinion of concepts such as violence against women (the feminist reviewer may hate slasher films, but hey, there's a slasher film critic that counters those thoughts). I think movie criticism is currently having an awesome change.
***** What they trying to do on this special was show what is the problem with these films. If you compare Halloween to a lot of these other films, you come up short. They didn't hate scary films, they just didn't like these terrible ones.
***** They had seen them.
Exploitative women in danger films were out there long before Halloween
Black Christmas, Texas Chainsaw Massacre both very violent slashers yep.
The whole women or girls in peril from the monster goes way back in time to stories like Frankenstein and Dracula or even Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White for kids. The original Little Red Riding Hood is very dark for children, the wolf actually eats her and that's the end of it and the moral is to beware of dangerous wolfs with nice manners.
Of course now Disney is making them all woke and pc.
i think you have to give these exploitative filmmakers some credit. they were trying to push the boundaries of horror movie making. even to it's extreme. horror isn't suppose to be sugar coated, happy go lucky nonsense (that's for the romance & family genres).
The thing is, when guys get hacked up its not such a big deal. When a beautiful girl in her little undies gets hacked and slashed its more scary, more sexual, and more pleasing to the eye. Its funny how people were so shocked and appauled though, espescially in the 80s, when the movies today have escalated the violence 10 fold..
I remember seeing this when it first appeared on TV. It definitely influenced how I look at "horror" films.
Something that needs to be considered is that if audiences root for the killers, it is probably because the main characters either aren't well-developed, or are straight-out unlikeable. I should know because I've watched a lot of slasher films and its clear that most of them had a hard time getting me invested in their protagonists.
isn't that kind of the argument? the filmmakers obviously felt that they didn't *need* to have scripts that flesh out the (female) characters because they were somewhat "disposable" anyway.
(I mentioned this in a different comment: it's not a coincedence that the killers were basically the protagonists in many of these movies. which seems very different even from a movie like initial "Halloween" - although to be fair the sequels suffered from the same problem as well)
I admit I saw all the Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees movies as a kid. That was because I had an older sister I was close to and we watched a lot of movies together and she identified with the survivor girl in those films, but those films always made me afraid and I never routed for the killers. But the problem may be with slasher films is that they show sexually provocative imagery of women followed with scenes of realistic depictions of graphic, brutal violence and perhaps in some viewers it creates an association which links sex and violence. Some of the worst most detestable crimes are committed by perpetrators who are sexually aroused by violence.
That's true.
On the other hand, it may make some people scared of sex, by connecting the act with unavoidable "punishment". Both options suck. But most of us are just simply entertained by the thrill. And that's what counts.
I am going to rent every one of these films mentioned!! Thanks Siskel and Ebert!!!
LONG LIVE THE 70S AND 80S HORROR AND SLASHER FILMS.
I Spit On Your Grave was not copying Halloween, it was made the same year.
that made me laugh
While I agreed with them then (and now), this special may have backfired, giving those movies a second life and exposure to a larger audience. In fact, I recall a few years ago finally watching the original "I Spit on Your Grave," and I wish that I listened to the two and bypass this picture. It had zero redeeming value, and it made me feel sick watching it.
Yeah, I Spit on your Grave really portrayed men in a positive light. Great investigative work there, guys.
that's really not their main claim.
My point is it makes men look worse. I didn't think I needed to explain that to anyone.
While I agree with a lot of what they are saying about these films, they neglected to mention that the killers in SILENT SCREAM and in FRIDAY THE 13th were BOTH FEMALE! Which makes me wonder if they even saw the films. And F13 IS a classic.
+jeremy gann agreed & in I spit on your grave she got revenge on the men who attacked her & killrd them all. In awful ways. It's other title is Day of the woman.
jeremy gann right
Fast forward 20 years and Roger Ebert gives a favorable review to "Irreversible" and "The Devil's Rejects". Go figure.
Wow, you've really missed the point.
graham french Nonsense, Graham. These guys had no point. They were just two hypocrites who stroked their own egos by ruining everyone's else fun and projecting their own biases onto harmless fright flicks. I'm glad Vincent Gallo put a hex on Roger Ebert.
whizzbangnyc
He explains incredibly effectively in his reviews why he gave both of those movies a thumbs up. You should go read them.
Mind Splosion Thanks for the two month old advice. I can assure you, I already have read them. That's why I referenced them in the first place. The fact that he gave these films a "thumbs up" WASN'T my point. Anyway since you're extolling the late Ebert's "incredibly effective" reviews, did you read where he gave "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Unforgiven" the SAME rating as "Gigli"?
whizzbangnyc
Did you know that he did not consider his star rating absolute but relative, as in not all 3 star (etc.) reviews were to be considered equal?
Uh, did they forget Halloween starts with a POV shot of a little boy stabbing his topless sister?
Interesting video. I thibk their best theory was that people just keep ripping each other off. I don't think there was a anti women's liberation themes in the movies.
I'm really interested in other people's thoughts on this, since I haven't watched any of the movies. I spit on your grave is a rape and revenge story, isn't it? How does this fit in with the rest of the movies? I was under the impression it was more empowering than demeaning of women, almost like a reply to the other movies which were coming out.
Siskel and Ebert got a few things right here, but they got a lot of things wrong. ISOYG is misogynistic in the fact that it depicts a graphic rape (though it doesn't glorify the rape at all, so...) But, ultimately, the movie is about a woman who gets her revenge and the men's death scenes are done in a way where the viewers will cheer the woman on. A lot of the movies they're talking about do not belong here. "The Howling", "Motel Hell", "When a Stranger Calls" and, in a way, "Friday the 13th" because the killer is not a sexually frustrated male going after scantily clad women.
ISOYG isn't "empowering" imo, it exploits the girl's revenge for viewer's excitement, just like all male revenge movies do. It would be like saying that, say, "Commando" is empowering to guys, when it's just exploitation aswell.
And the movie also had sexually active teenagers and scantily clad teenagers and naked teenagers in it
What about all the men that are killed in these movies? Do they not count? S&E showed a scene from Friday the 13th of a girl getting hacked up by a killer after sex but what about the boyfriend who was also brutally slaughtered after sex by a killer who turned out to be a woman? And what about how the end of most of these movies turn out with a woman who usually ends outsmarting and defeating the villain? No mention of any of that. This debate is pointless.
Cropsy25 This show was about women in danger. Read the damn description of the video.
sha11235 Yes I read the damn description thank you and I watched the video and again I ask what about all the men in these films? Why don't they count? Why are they trying to make it seem like only women are attacked or killed in these kind of films?
They complain about the lack of strong female characters, but then conveniently fail to mention that "I Spit on Your Grave" who they deemed the worst of the bunch.. and that movie's central plot is actually about the woman going for revenge and kills the guys that raped her and left her for dead. That's not a helpless damsel in distress stereotype.
Just as there is no difference in stealing 1 penny or stealing 1 million dollars- "stealing is stealing". There is no difference in violence in movies. Watching someone "else" suffering and enjoying or being entertained by it is the same- whether being stabbed or mutilated. Being entertained by the pain and suffering of others is tantamount to being in the roman arenas and watching people being eaten by wild dogs or lions Would you enjoy having your wife or daughter as the victim? Why others?
Well, the upside is that nobody in these movies are suffering, being stabbed or mutilated. So your analogy doesn't work.
I agree with Siskel and Ebert on this. If anything I has gotten worse, you can't tell me that you watch Saw for anything other then seeing how jigsaw kills people this time.
Before delving further into the Saw series I would have agreed. I am generally not a fan of torture porn, but my opinion of Saw has changed.There are themes to Saw that react to what is happening in the real world. There was a Saw movie dealing with the healthcare crisis, and the banking crisis. I agree that the traps are the real draw to the movies but there is more to it than that. It's also a who-done-it, trying to guess who the new Jigsaw apprentice is. And the complicated backstory, oh my goodness. It's a little too complicated for me. It's also interesting to note that some of the traps used in Saw are based on real life medieval torture devices.
Sorry, im always misspelling E words lately. I dunno why? Maybe its a typing lisp..
They're was an increase of serial killers throughout the 1970s. Unfortunately most of those depraved murderers killed women primarily. Writers tend to write about what's going on in society. It makes sense that the horror genre would create movies that spoke of the times. Psychologists have attempted to explain why the trend. Some have said the Vietnam war as being 1 reason. The times were violent. That war was in the news like none before it and people saw gratuitous violence either from being there or experiencing it on TV. Unfortunately women aren't as physically strong as men therefore they had to be more careful hitchhiking.
The hypocrisy of Gene Siskel talking about women being "degraded" in those slasher films.....what was his all-time fave film? "Saturday Night Fever". Which has men degrading women throughout the movie. Hypocrite.
Where's their review of ALIEN(1979)?,I want to see that so bad!!!!
Here it is: www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi3037575961
Lol! People making comments on this are ridiculous as are Siskel and Ebert's point of view. Black Christmas and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were the precursors to all of slasher movies. In each of those movies we see the perspective primarily from the killer. Slasher movies aren't typically done from the victim and when you show it from the victim, it defeats the purpose of building up suspense. You yourself are the victim being stalked by the killer. In almost all of these moves all the women lasted until the end when the fought back. In real life women are not as physical as men so showing the latter and what happens builds up hatred for those people. I.E. the people from I Spit on Your Grave.This is why Siskel and Ebert hated horror. they never understood it. If we left it up to them, we'd probably have nothing outside of ghost stories.
As someone who's seen a lot of slasher films, the men tend to suffer more gruesome deaths than the women. Plus I Spit On Your Grave is an explicitly anti-rape, pro-feminist film.
Frankly, Siskel and Ebert come across as incredibly out of touch here.
But they say in this video the killer is a man in those movies. They should use a different scene. Black Christmas or something.
All the final girls were responsible and strong why didn't they recognize that and Jamie Lee Curtis cowered in the closet and a knife was being brandished in her face
I like how all the films make out men to be brutal sadistic killers who should be avoided while the reviewers are upset that women are being portrayed in an offensives manner.
you really can't compare that, when the POV character in so many of these scenes were the villains, chasing the women.
good point except you forget they're only movies. something i think analytic minds tend to forget since they're too busy being over critical at something that isn't really happening in real life real life would be a different matter because nobody would enjoy seeing a real person dying or getting victimized. it's just that simple. violence in movies are nothing more but an illusion. a sick illusion at times but that's to remind us of the nastiness of reality. it's all in how you see it of course
bs..
Ok, but I'm still trying to figure out how I spit on your Grave hates women, when the revenge part was worse than what happened to her. The evil men all suffered and she seemed to take pleasure in what she was doing. She even cracked a smile at the end. Also, in the other movies they named, men 'get it' just as bad as the women, and women are always the survivors (if there is one).
the core idea behind "rape & revenge" films (just in case you didn't know, it's perceived as its own subgenre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_revenge_film) is "having your cake and eating it, too" and as exploitative as it gets.
because very often with this genre, the rape scenes that set up the murderous revenge are shown in graphic detail, instead of restraint, making it questionable on if this wasn't an intentional decision. and considering where and to which audiences these movies usually played, it's not far-fetched to assume it was.
to put it more bluntly: they basically "can" show a sexualized/fetishized rape scene because they justify it with the revenge part - which of course in itself has appeal to "that" kind of audience (gore! blood!).
The woman ends up broken and brutalised, turned into the very kind of person who destroyed her own body. It's not a win. Becoming violent and vengeful is not a win for women-- or for anyone
@The Video Nasty Project I agree with this. I don't think ISOYG is a good movie, but in a not very nice way, the rape sequence (and it goes on quite a while) is raw and horrifying. Camille Keaton's screams are very convincing.
How about- "Women in Peril"? That sounds pretty cool, no..
how about instead of watching this terrible example of trying to explain and understand the exploitation genre you read Men Women And Chainsaws :)
l guess no men died in any of these movies....
were the men sexualised simultaneously? sit down.
It's funny how they never seemed to grasp that the killer in the original Friday The 13th was a WOMAN
yes how convient Mentioning that will make this whole thing invalid
it absolutely does not change a thing do some research