One of the most notorious of the so-called "rape and revenge" flicks of the 70's, which were rife with them, Thriller: A Cruel Picture, aka They Call Her One-Eye, has a vibe all its own, though whether or not it may be your cup of tea is down to the viewer.
On the one hand, I'm tempted to say that you might not want to spend a lot of time around those who claim to "love" it, but on the other hand, it is a pretty bad-ass movie. Besides, it's not like rape should be an easy watch, and it certainly isn't here, so I'm torn. Can one love and hate a movie at the same time? And should one be condemned for liking a movie that's well-done for what it is?
Personally, I think a movie's a movie, and just because one likes a movie about a tough subject doesn't mean that person should be faulted for it. I mean, would we judge someone the same way if they said they loved Kurosawa's Rashomon or Bergman's The Virgin Spring? No, because those films are critically-acclaimed masterpieces widely acknowledged as some of the best of what film has to offer.
And yet, the latter was the source of inspiration for the infamous The Last House on the Left, another film it's tough to say one "loves". But I own that film and I'm not ashamed to admit I think it's one of the benchmark films of the 70's- a viewpoint shared by many major critics, genre-oriented or otherwise, I might add. (Roger Ebert was one, for whatever that's worth.)
Then there's something like I Spit on Your Grave. It's an ugly, nasty piece of work, and features one of the most unwatchable rape scenes in film history- a dubious honor perhaps only rivaled by the more recent Irreversible, which manages to be even worse, and interminable, at that.
And yet, like I said, it's not as if you want a rape scene to be an easy watch in the first place. It should be ugly and nasty because it IS an ugly and nasty thing to do to someone. The last thing any filmmaker should do is to glamorize something like that, and yet, many have over the years. So, should they be condemned?
There's no easy answer to that question. In some cases, they may not know any better, having never been personally affected by such a thing. In other cases, they may have but quite simply don't care. Or maybe they have a particular type of style and are determined to stick to it, regardless of content. Who can say but the filmmakers themselves?
But I suppose I've always adhered to the "Art is in the eye of the beholder" theory, which is to say that one man's (or woman's) art is another man's (or woman's) trash. Once a film is released, it no longer really belongs to the filmmaker- it belongs to the people, and they can regard it however they want to. If you don't like it, don't watch.
But as long as no one got hurt making it, I say people can make whatever film they want to make and should be able to release it without any fear for repercussion. And yet, over the years, many filmmakers (and artists, and writers, and so on) have indeed been persecuted for their art, as "un-artful" as it may be, and in some cases, even gotten in serious trouble for it. It is what it is, I guess.
Thriller is indeed a "Cruel Picture"- it's kind of right there in the title, isn't it? Hey, at least you can't say they didn't warn you. And I know a lot of people who do indeed profess to love it. Just the other day, I was listening to a podcast featuring a female reviewer that also professed her love for it, so it's hardly just a male province, either.
Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino is another avid fan, having somewhat based the Daryl Hannah character in the Kill Bill movies on the main character here, at least in terms of her look. And mind you, this is a film that was banned in the country of its origin, Sweden, so it's not as if it's a film they themselves celebrated in it's time, damn the controversy. Nope, they all but disowned it.
But there is admittedly something about it that sticks with you, even in its truncated form, which is how I first saw the film. Depending on which cut you see, it can run anywhere from eighty to an hour-and-forty-seven-minutes. I think the first version I saw, the so-called "Vengeance Edition" from Synapse Films, was about an-hour-and-forty-four-minutes.
This time around, I finally saw the completely unedited version, which clocks in at the full 1:47 running time, "hardcore" inserts and all. For those who don't know, the filmmakers initially inserted- no pun intended- some pornographic shots of sex that was done with some Swedish locals known as "Romeo & Julia," who were known at the time for performing "live sex shows," which is just what it sounds like, I imagine. Who says true love is dead?
Anyway, these inserts were done without the permission of the participating actors in the film, as was somewhat common practice at the time. The most common example of this is the notorious Bob Guccione trash epic Caligula, which is why a lot of that film's stars, which included Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren (!), have since disowned it.
Perhaps needless to say, they don't do such things anymore, not the least because it's now illegal to do it without the participating actor's permission, especially if it's implying that the actors in question themselves are doing it by the way it's edited. That's not to say it doesn't still happen on occasion- the most recent example being Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac, but that was done with the permission of the actors involved.
TBH, I'm not sure it adds much to the proceedings here- if anything, it's more of a distraction- but I will say that, when combined with leading lady Christina Lindberg's pained expressions, it does make the recurring sequences in which it occurs that much more uncomfortable- and they were already pretty uncomfortable to begin with.
But, in addition, given the, shall we say, more "naturalistic" state of people's, um, personal "landscaping" at the time, it's also a little bit gross, quite frankly. I mean, I grew up in the 80's and watched my fair share of raunchy flicks over the years as a kid, so I don't mind a little grass on the field, if you know what I mean, but this was more like a shrubbery, if you get my meaning, and I think that you do. And that was just the guy, lol. (*Ba dum bump*- Thanks, I'll be here all week!)
So yeah, could have done without all that, but I can't say I didn't know what I was getting into to a certain extent. Of course, the real draw was the increased violent content, including the uncensored eye gouge, which was something. Rumors persist that an actual cadaver was used for the scene, and it sure looks pretty real. (Star Lindberg reportedly confirmed this in an interview, as per IMDB, but who knows if that's true, given the site's occasional unreliability?)
The murders are also seemingly more graphic, though it's been so long since I saw the original version, it's hard to say for sure. Depending on your sensibilities, these scenes are either awesome, laughable, or awesomely laughable, given that they are mostly done in exaggerated slow-motion shots that go on for quite a while, getting more amusing as they go on...and on...and on. (I couldn't help but think of this notorious death scene that went viral a few years back.)
The plot is basic rape and revenge territory, albeit more dragged out than usual, and not always for the best. (Spoilers for those who haven't seen the film. Look for an "end of spoilers" in bold down below a piece, if you want to skip this bit.)
It begins with the rape of a little girl, thankfully more suggested than shown, albeit in a somewhat confusing way- it looks like a kind of sweet, charming scene (which is supposed to represent the rapist's POV, I guess?) until it's revealed that what we're seeing isn't what really happened.
Flash-forward a few years and the little girl is all grown up and living on a farm with her parents. Alas, the event has left her emotionally scarred, and unable to speak, despite the efforts of her parents to get medical and psychological help for their little girl.
One day, on the way to her doctor's appointment, Madeline (Christina Lindberg) misses the bus and catches a ride with a sleazy sports-car driving dandy named- what else?- Tony (Heinz Hopf), who wines and dines her and takes her back to his place.
Knowing what type of film this is, we brace ourselves for what is to come, but it's actually much, much worse. Instead of, say, taking advantage of the poor girl, Tony drugs her and then proceeds to shoot her up with heroin until she gets hooked on the drug, and thus, under his control. She does try to escape, but fails miserably, and gets smacked around for her efforts.
After she finally caves, Tony re-brands her Frigga, after the Swedish God Odin's wife, which proves to be a bad karmic move on his part. Never scorn a Goddess, ya'll. He then proceeds to prostitute the poor girl, eventually allowing her time off for good behavior and to keep a portion of the profits.
On one such occasion, she goes back home to let her parents know she's okay, but is horrified to find they have both killed themselves, as Tony sent them a letter, ostensibly from Madeline, claiming she didn't need them anymore and was out living her best life or what have you.
This sets into motion Madeline's plan for revenge. Using her spare time to train herself, Kill Bill-style in all sorts of things, from martial arts to shooting to stunt car driving (!), Madeline bides her time until she's ready to strike. Buying some heroin and a car with her cut of the profits, she sets out to kill off all of her "Johns" (and one "Jane"), and anyone else who gets in her way, including some innocent bystanders.
Cue all the slo-mo death scenes. I also laughed at the ease with which cars she just bumps into end up exploding, turning this flick into a mini Michael Bay movie for a hot minute. Eventually, she ends up stealing a police car and going after her final prey: Tony, but of course.
He gives her a run for her money, but she gets him good in the end, using a fake-out to shoot and capture him, then buries him underground and ties a noose around his neck, which she attaches to a horse. (Get it? Horse? As in slang for heroin?)
She then places some water just out of the horse's reach, plops down on the ground in front of Tony...and waits for his slow, cruel demise, meant to mirror her own slow, cruel torment, but of course. Roll credits.
END OF SPOILERS
Thriller is a nasty bit of business, but an effective one. By extending Madeline's torment the way the film does, it kind of puts us in her shoes, albeit from a safe distance, making her later revenge all the more sweeter. Granted, it goes on a bit longer than it probably should, but I get what the filmmakers were going for.
As such, the shorter version may actually be more effective, save the absence of the more extreme violence. I can't imagine most people missing the hardcore inserts, so maybe the hour-and-forty-four-minute version is actually the better way to go for this one, which is unusual, as I tend to lean towards the uncut versions of these films, as they are the closest representation of the filmmaker's vision. In this case, though, less is more, IMHO.
That said, it is absolutely a must-see viewing, especially if you like this sort of thing and haven't seen it yet. Likewise, if you're a die-hard Tarantino fan, you can see a lot of influence he cribbed from the film and not just the things I mentioned- note also the way the stunt-car driving sequences are shot from Madeline's perspective, for instance, which QT replicates as well.
A lot of why this film works as well as it does is down to the leading lady's performance, which is superb. Christina Lindberg was a real find: beautiful, sympathetic...and deadly. She owns the part, and seems game for anything. Well, save actually having sex on camera, but who can blame her there? However, she did regularly pose for Men's Magazines at the time, including Playboy and Penthouse, in which she was a "Pet" in June of 1970.
By the time she did Thriller, she was already a fairly well-known film presence in her native Sweden. Her notable, mostly Swedish-made film roles include the likes of What Are You Doing After the Orgy? (lol), Maid in Sweden, Smoke, Exposed, Swedish Wildcats, Young Playthings, Sex at the Olympics, Love in 3-D, What Schoolgirls Don't Tell, the excellent Sex & Fury, Anita: Swedish Nymphet (another one with "hardcore inserts" she wasn't involved in), Outrage and, most recently, a brief bit in Sex, Lies & Videoviolence, in which she reprises her Madeline role.
The still-beautiful Lindberg has since become a journalist and an editor- of the largest circulated aviation magazine in Scandinavia- and also an expert on mushrooms, and an animal rights' activist. She dropped out of the film industry after films began to get too racy for her tastes, but continued to pose nude throughout her years in college.
Sadly, Thriller would prove to be her last starring role, though she did a few small roles in films in the late 70's and early 80's here and there. Aside from the aforementioned Sex, Lies & Videoviolence, her only "major" role was in a documentary short about mushrooms, in which she starred as herself.
As with Lindberg, most of the Swedish cast stuck to films in their own country, but co-star Heinz Hopf, who played the pimp Tony, did nonetheless appear in a few major, internationally-successful films, including The Girl, Friends, Mask of Murder and Ingmar Bergman's classic Fanny & Alexander.
Director Bo Arne Vibenius, aka Alex Fridolinski, got his big break working for the legendary Ingmar Bergman on such films as Persona and Hour of the Wolf, two of my favorite films by the Swedish auteur. After his first film as a director bombed, he hoped to fare better with the more "commercial" Thriller.
As I mentioned, though, it backfired, as the film was banned, and only released after much censoring, in a heavily-edited eighty-two minute version, which was also the version originally released in the States.
He didn't fare much better with his follow-up, Breaking Point, which was also banned. Though he worked sporadically throughout the late 70's and early 80's, that film would prove to be his last as a writer or director.
As such, Thriller is undeniably the film for which both Lindberg and Vibenius are best-known, especially in the US, albeit mostly amongst cult film fans. Still, it's been enough for the film to have multiple DVD releases, albeit no Blu-Ray release to date.
Which one you invest in may be up to your respective tastes, but be forewarned about going out of your way to get the uncut version. In addition to it being rare, it's also pricey and doesn't really add that much to the proceedings. I'd stick with the "Vengeance Edition" unless you have a particular liking for hairy asses. But that's just me, maybe.
Thriller may not be an easy film to "like," per se, but it is worth at least a viewing, especially for Tarantino fans. But be forewarned, it's definitely not for the faint of heart and it is undeniably a tough watch. But given the subject matter, that's as it should be, IMHO. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have been made or seen by anyone. You might disagree after seeing it, but one thing's for sure: it'll stick with you.
Check it out- but tread carefully...
Emoji Review: 👧👴💋👪💔⏰👩💨🚌😔🚗😎💨🍖🍸🏩💤👩😨🏃👨👊👩💤👯😈🙈🙊🙏💉😬💨🚗💪🔫👨💀👩💀👨👨👨💀💀💀👨🐎🎀💦👈👨💀👩😤
No comments:
Post a Comment