"Last House on the Left" by Natasha Jenkins

Title/Year

The Last House on The Left/1972

Director/Birth Country/Year Born

Wes Craven/ Cleveland, OH, USA/ 1939

Budget

$90,000

Gross

$10,000,000

Synopsis

When two teenage girls, Mari and Phyllis, take the family car to see a concert in New York City, they walk the streets looking for someone to sell them marijuana. They meet, Junior, who promises Columbian grass and takes them back to his apartment, where they’re meet his father, Krug, and the rest of the criminal gang.  All the while, Mari’s parents plan a birthday party for her.  After raping and killing the girls, the psychos unknowingly take refuge at Mari’s house, where her parents discover the truth about their daughter and plot to take revenge.

Narrative and Visual Keywords

Violence, rape, sadism, revenge, brutality, murder, independent/exploitation film

Characterization/ Dialogue

The dialogue and characterization of the girls epitomizes teenage sexuality.  In the opening scene, Mari is taking a shower and later she’s criticized by her father for not wearing a bra.  Her friend Phyllis is of seemingly lower class and appears to be the troublemaker.  They talk about boys, their breasts, and feeling like women.  Their characters become victims at the hands of ruthless villains.  The criminals are sociopaths.  Except for, Junior, the drug addict whose rewarded for his loyalty to the family.  Weasel, Sadie, and Krug are sadists who force the girls into humiliation and abuse.  The parents’ act of revenge, in response to the victimization of their daughter, changes their characters from an ordinary middle class couple to bloodthirsty killers. 

Camera/lighting/editing technique

This film uses hand-held and static shots to capture most of the action, cutting in close ups for shock value.  The lighting is a mix of available and dramatic.  The editing is fast paced and shocking at times: cutting between scenes and to flashbacks and flash-forwards for dramatic effect.  These elements were used to create realism in the scenes and to build intensity. 

Social Commentary 

This movie has criminals and victims, and victims who become criminals.  The characters don’t go into much depth; the young girls are objectified, the criminals’ violence seems almost innate, and the parent reaction is utterly disturbing.  The film is full of societal taboos like rape and murder, making it more like watching a train wreck than actual entertainment.  In the end, you don’t mind watching the parents brutally pick the gang off, one by one.  Imposing the statement that violence spawns violence.

Historical Relevance/ Recognition

The story is inspired by the 1960 Swedish film The Virgin Spring, and the film was nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills.

Random fact, Etc.

Goof

Near the end, during the chainsaw scene, one of the crew member's hands is on Krug's back.

Why is the film considered controversial? Where was it banned (considered controversial)?
The film is controversial because of the extensive violence and rape scenes.  It was banned in Great Britain, classified as a “video nasty”, and was finally released in 2002 after about 30 seconds were cut.

What societal "comfort zones" does it push the limit of?
The sadistic scenes with the young girls and the violent response from the parents got society out of their comfort zone.  The film creates powerful emotional responses to its characters and their behavior.  Finding any relation the situation and the characters makes the viewer uncomfortable.  The tagline encourages people to keep telling themselves “It’s just a movie”, but when you strive for realism in film the object is to help people forget they’re watching one.

Would it still be considered controversial if it were released today? 
This film would not be considered as controversial today.  In fact, the movie was remade in 2009, and the violence and cruelty went beyond anything Craven depicted.  Modern film pushes the envelope even farther, catering to the desensitized generation they’re marketing to. With computer generated imaging, the gore and violence looks real.  The acting and editing made the film much more intense as well.

Do you feel the director's choice to show the material is ethically sound?
There is something to be said about shock value, but I didn’t appreciate Wes Craven’s approach.  Reminding us that it’s just a movie doesn’t do anything for the residual thoughts left behind.  And who’s to say who can handle that amount of shock value.  Sexualizing a young female character, titillating the audience with the build up, and then showing a violent rape creates connections for them somewhere.  Or creating feelings of empathy for the parents and then showing their violent acts.  As filmmakers we hope for realism, but is it ethically sound to interpret taboo acts in all its intrinsic horror?  I don’t believe it is.  You can see in the remake what forty years has done for the content, and well it’s horrifying all right.  I feel like I’m pretty open minded, but an exploitation film like this does nothing for the victims in creating a violent revenge scene. 

Would you recommend this film to a friend?

I would never have chosen this film for myself, and I probably won’t recommend it.