Title/Year: The Last House on the Left (1972)
Director/Birth Country/Year Born: Wes Craven/America/1939
Budget: $87,000
Gross: $10,000,000 (excluding the US)
Synopsis: Country girl, Mari, wants to have a nice birthday with her best friend. When they are taken hostage by a couple of serial killers, she has to find a way to get back home and survive the ideal.
Narrative and Visual Keywords: Horror, Thriller, Censorship, Revenge, Death, Teenagers
Characterization/ Dialogue: Teenage, Protective Parents, Gang violence
Camera/lighting/editing technique: Natural Lighting, Jump Cuts, Music Overlays
Political/ Social Commentary: Rape, Drugs, Concert, City Violence, Useless Police
Historical Relevance/ Recognition: Heavily censored in countries, Banned in Australia
Notable Collaboration: In the 2009 remake, Dennis Iliadis directed the film while the original writer, Wes Craven, stood in as the Producer.
Random fact, Etc: Wes Craven's directorial debut.
Why is the film considered controversial? Where was it banned (considered controversial)?
This film was heavily censored in most countries and banned in Australia for 32 years over the rape and violence. There are three scene in particular that were considered 'lost' because they were so graphic they had to be removed were never re-released. One scene that was brought back as a special feature on the DVD was the woods scene in which both girls are forced to have sex with each other.
What societal "comfort zones" does it push the limit of?
Aside from the many scenes of rape and sex, there are also very violent acts in which the parents are biting penis's off and pulling organs out of victim's stomachs. They were edited down in the release version so they are only hinted at but they still made the audience cringe.
Would it still be considered controversial if it were released today?
The remake to this film was very similar in the way the plot and scenes played out. Upon release, Audience members were getting up and walking out during the big rape scene that takes place between Mari and the main antagonist. Even which it being so graphic and violent, it was never banned. If the original 1972 film was released now, I doubt it'd be banned. Especially since the DVD was re-released and included the scenes that were originally cut.
Do you feel the director's choice to show the material is ethically sound?
I feel for this film the plot called for it. Maybe not as long or as vividly graphic, but it fueled the fire for the final battle. If the initial rape did not take place and the acts against Mari and her friend were not kept the same, Mari's parents probably wouldn't have been angry enough to seek out revenge that resulted in the climax of the film. It's a movie about revenge. We need something to start it and this was the choice Craven went with.
Would you recommend this film to a friend?
I would recommend this film from an editors stand point. I strive to become an editor and as such this film was very interesting in the way it was cut. There were close-ups and long shots, jump cuts and oddly happy country music in places they shouldn't be. During one of the sex scenes, a happy country song is playing leaving me very confused. I wasn't sure if I was suppose to feel depressed about what was happening or laugh at the music choice. The story was tummy twisting but the editing was so unique that I would watch it again just to pick up on all the little easter eggs hidden in the editing.
No comments:
Post a Comment