Neither the plot nor the story of this film can be considered complicated. The story tells the story of an unmarried female writer who came to a remote small village alone for a summer vacation. Her beauty formed a temptation for the four young men in the small village who mingled with each other all day long. They conspired to one day kidnap the female writer and raped her in turn with extreme brutality. After recovering from her injuries, the female writer who survived the disaster did not call the police, but carefully planned a one-on-four revenge plan, and used different methods to kill the four young men who had murdered her one by one.
Therefore, such a film, without a detailed description of the female writer's victimization process, cannot provide a basis for her revenge thereafter; and without her revenge, the entire film will lose its special significance. Therefore, victimization and revenge are two very important links, and neither is indispensable. This is also doomed that its details cannot be abridged or abridged, and can only be banned.
The film was also banned due to the delicate details of crime and revenge. The narrative of the rape process is delicate, showing the scenes in which the female writer was injured by four thugs in two different scenes: the deep forest and the female writer's villa; the narrative of the revenge process is also delicate, describing the female writer one by one In the process of killing four thugs, one of the cowards who delivered food was hanged from the tree by the river, the other who opened a gas station had his penis cut off and died in the bathroom of the writer's villa, and the other was chopped to death in the river with a sharp axe. , one was cut to death in the river by the propeller of a speedboat. Although the detailed description of the crime process can make people resent the criminals and sympathize with the victimized female writers, too detailed descriptions may have adverse side effects on the audience.
At the same time, the victims in the film did not choose normal legal means after being killed, such as calling the police, and then punishing the criminals severely through the law, but chose to rely on their own strength to take revenge. Although this kind of revenge is sympathetic and heartwarming, it is far from the social concept of advocating the rule of law, and her revenge against the four criminals is far beyond the scope of legitimate defense. This makes herself objectively transformed from a victim into a criminal. This kind of revenge for disregarding the law or for flouting the law is something our society cannot advocate. Otherwise, the whole society will surely put everyone in danger and repay their grievances.
And more importantly, in addition to reproducing the process of victimization and revenge, the film itself did not clarify the director's correct view of the entire incident and the correct orientation. Not only the title itself casts a garland of "justice" on the heroine's act of punishing the four criminals alone, but at the end of the film, the heroine drives the boat away from the scene with her head held high after killing the four thugs. It also seems to imply that the director agrees with her revenge approach. It is this incorrect orientation that constitutes the fatal wound of this film. In this way, this film is not only destined to be banned in the past and banned now, but as long as human society always upholds the rule of law, it will also be banned in the future.
The fate of this film also reminds us from another aspect that film is art, and it also bears certain social responsibilities. What it advocates and what it opposes must be for the sake of the whole society. Otherwise, the film will lose the recognition and support of the entire society, and thus lose its value of existence.
View more about I Spit on Your Grave reviews
