‘Last House on the Left’ Presents Rape as Entertainment
by Mike LongThe explicit portrayal of rape in Last House on the Left (2009) is repugnant and coarsening and wrong. Director Dennis Iliadis dwells on the act long past the moment in which we get the point; long past when we have been emotionally affected. The scene quickly becomes exploitation.
This poison goes down smooth because Last House is creepy, frightening, and well-executed, as horror movies go. The movie looks as good as any other mid- to big-budget Hollywood picture. The acting is above-average for this kind of thing, the villains are creepy (though made oddly sympathetic at times), and the updates to the original story make the plot far more believable than it was in the amateurish, junk-pile original from 1972.
But rape isn’t something to portray for kicks. It’s a valid element for a plot, but it ought to be handled with care. Unlike other extremes in movies—we see murders all the time, for instance—rape is freighted with cultural and psychological impact that deserves special respect, for both the victims and for ourselves as civilized people. Portray rape once like this and someone will do it again, and again, and then again, and each time we’ll notice and care a little less. That coarsening effect goes beyond entertainment. Ultimately, it makes it harder for us to get along with each other in a civilized society.
The first reaction by many is that “there oughta be a law,” but laws and regulations about this sort of thing are blunt instruments that always reach further than we intend. That’s why we have to take these responsibilities on ourselves.
The makers of Last House either didn’t think or didn’t care about any of this (or pretended their horror remake was performing some service to “art”). Or maybe they just overreached, seeing dailies day after day and losing sight of the impact. Whatever the reason, no matter–they ought to be ashamed to the core.
So, what do do about this kind of thing? Should we urge some kind of statutory action anyway?
Absolutely not.
The price of free speech is that sometimes, people will abuse it, and the result will be to coarsen society and injure the emotions of others. But that’s the price we must pay if the other choice is the introduction of speech police, no matter how clear-cut the issue seems to be. Such rules are the slipperiest of slippery slopes. Of course, we’ve already started downhill, especially on university campuses, where speaking or even holding the wrong opinion can lead to expulsion or firing.
When filmmakers abuse their rights as they’ve done in Last House, they give a little more ammunition to those who would “protect” us (or the culture, or the country, or “the children,” or someone’s conveniently delicate sensibilities) from offensive or so-called “hate” speech. Never forget that there are a whole lot of folks who are anxious to use your offense as a way in–as the first stroke toward harnessing the coercive power of government to control what you can say about that government–plus entertainment, politics, and everything else.
Left and Right once stood together on this: We may have disagreed with what someone said but we would, as Voltaire said, defend til death their right to say it. Now both Right and Left make room for speech cops: Many conservatives make personal morality a public issue, and just as many liberals draft lists of so-called “hate crimes” and verboten ideas in order to punish thought as much as action.
So what’s worse about Last House on the Left, its callous depiction of rape or its incremental assistance to those who would limit free speech? Call it a toss-up.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
53 Comments
As someone who's made several films decried as horribly insensitive and insulting (because of their contrary politics,) I've found that the powers that be love truly offensive material that shares their lefty sensibilities.
The rape sequence was beyond entertainment and beyond anything one can imagine. It was not just vile and idiotic but to sell ANYTHING goes as entertainment was satanic to say the least. Its not RIGHT period. NO left or right needed here it was WRONG, no movie requires this scene long enough…..!!! Pretty soon I can surely say, get ready for pedophile sequences of children for entertainment!!! WE need right and moral judgement or just a kiss ass from JESUS !!!!
"The price of free speech is that sometimes, people will abuse it"
No. The price of free speech is understanding that it means different things to different people. YOU do not get to decide which speech shouldn't be free–it ALL is.
YOU are the one 'incrementally' calling for some kind of rein to be put on speech here–because this is just distasteful. Even though the rein you cry for is voluntary, it is a rein, a limitation, a method of stopping truly free speech.
Think of what you're saying–'Free speech is good, and all, unless it's offensive–then it might empower those who would censor speech–so, to keep speech from being censored, we must censor ourselves lest we help those who would censor free speech'.
What we need to do is stand fast in our defense of free speech–no matter what we get called.
What's worse? I think slipping the chains around your own neck and claiming to yet be free because you did it to yourself is worst.
This is what happens when people get used to being shown rather then showing themselves. Better special effects are a good thing up to a point, but movie audiences and film makers have gotten lazy too. They want to be shown everything and as a result, so much that used to be done by your own imagination and craft is done by CGI or just actually shown to you. That rape scene could likely have been just as horrific once upon a time through clever use of sound, music, shadow to set the scene, and then the audience's own imagination would have done far more than any filmmaker ever could. Now, they want it spoon-fed.
I guess you just say whatever thought comes into your head without any thought about its appropriateness then? Its not putting chains on ourselves, its using wisdom and discernment to determine what speech is worth saying. We have brains for a reason (some of us, anyway) and it is the ultimate exercise of freedom to use those brains to determine what kind of speech we are going to put out there. For example, I desperately want to tell my Trust and Estates professor that his tie looks like it was made from the upholstery of a couch you would find in the basement of a 70's porn star. I'm not going to though, because it would be inappropriate. Does that means I'm censoring myself? Maybe, but I'm also using discernment and exercising my freedom to choose what I say and when I say it.
Free speech is meaningless unless it is practiced with wisdom. Otherwise you are nothing more than a 6 year old who doesn't understand the importance of manners.
The price of free speech is taking on the responsibility of being held accountable for your words. Otherwise, it's just the exercise of free-will, much like the rantings of a urine-soaked crack-head wandering the streets, or a politician who has no intention of living up to his campaign promises..
Thank you for acknowledging the truth about the original Last House On The Left. Lauded for years as a horror classic, it is a shockingly mediocre film, notable only for its brutality.
More interested in showing the police as comic buffons and presenting its rapist-killer villains as folk anti-heroes (with their own jaunty theme song performed with kazoos) than telling an imaginative story, the film also indulges in a eye-rolling whiff of moral relativism, suggesting that the vengeful parents might be no better than the rapist murderers who kill their child.
It plays like the worst kind of 70s TV movie, only with swearing and nudity added to the mix. Awful, awful film.
We can't separate the speech, when it is entertainment, from the culture. If you believe this is filth, it is born of the culture you inhabit, and goes far deeper than just one movie. Self-censorship isn't the answer, it's up to every individual to choose. If you favor self-censorship, what you should be talking about is a code of conduct or a moral code that transcends movies, but those are long-gone except for politcally correctness.
I'm suprised it took this long for extended rape to enter the movies though, Clockwork Orange is really the only movie that comes to mind. Notably, it was also made in the midst of economic decline and societal unrest. With the near total destruction of the patriarchy, we should expect to see the return of pre-modern social norms, which includes widespread rape.
Thank goodness I have free speech enough to call jack a jackarse, a fool, an idiot, a moron and a drooling lunatic. And a leftist. Pardon my redundancy.
Winston Churchill once said "Wherever there is a great deal of free speech there is bound to be a certain amount of foolish speech." Very true. I like a good horror flick as much as the next guy but the "torture porn" category of films like "Hostel" and "Saw" have caused me to avoid the genre altogether. It is tempting to call for some sort of "control" over this material since these movies cannot but lead to the dehumanization of their target audience. Stil, I would oppose that. Change will probably only occur if some politically conservative film maker has a smash hit featuring an unstoppable masked, chainsaw wielding killer slaughtering his way through the offices of CNN or "The New York Times" during a blizzard-induced blackout. That would get people's attention.
I don't agree with anyone bashing the film, firstly it's a remake what you call "The original" which was a low budget remake of "The Virgin Spring" which is based off a 13th Century Swedish Ballad "Töres dotter i Wänge". IMO it's taken a turn for the better in this remake as there is no Christian bashing blurring the lines between right and wrong like the older tales, this one is just presented as a straight up revenge movie, and I quite enjoyed it.
The movie can show what it wants and if people decide it is inappropriate, they don't go see it. That is free speech both ways. There can be no concessions on this because the dbag liberals will take any opening and ban everything in the name of sensitivity and, ironically enough, free speech. Its like gun rights. The average hunter has no need for an AK-47 but if you let congress ban them this year, next year you won't be able to buy a knife without a permit and a 90 year waiting period. Common sense went out the window years ago thanks to the American left.
Winston Churchill said "Wherever there is a great deal of free speech there is bound to be a certain amount of foolish speech." Unfotunately movies like this as well as "Hostel" and the "Saw" series put this truism to the test. I enjoy a good horror flick but I have "voted with my wallet" and avoided the genre since the "torture porn" genre became so lamentably popular. Censorship is not the answer and the true conservative will avoid it. The only way change will take place is if some conservative film maker has a surprise smash hit featuring an unstoppable masked, chainsaw-wielding killer mowing his way through the offices of CNN or "The New York Times" during a freak blizzard and blackout. Now THAT would get some attention.
Yet another TROLL who didn't read the article but just spewed talking points.
Thanks Mike, a well written defense of free speech.
I haven't seen the film yet. How does the rape scene compared to the one in Deliverance? Are you saying this one is gratuitous or that it's excessive?
Winston Churchill said that "Wherever you have a great deal of free speech there is bound to be a certain amount of foolish speech." This applies to films as anywhere else. The true conservative should reject censorship however satisfying it might appear to be in the short run. I enjoy a good horror flick but have voted with my wallet and avoided them since the advent of the "torture-as-entertainment" genre represented by "Hostel" and the "Saw" series. We can only hope that these films don't prove to be too coarsening and dehumanizing to their target audiences.
I'm not necessarily a fan of horror movies. I like a lot of them, and neutral about a lot of them, and dislike many more of them. "Evil Dead" = Genius. "Saw II" = Not worth my time. What I have found though, is that I can always recognize when I feel the content of the film has crossed the line into excessive and then into exploitative. I don't feel that I have been desensitized to anything. I agree with Mr. Long, tolerating the abuses of free speech is much better than undermining the principle behind it by targeting those abuses. Especially when you are intelligent enough to discern when certain kinds of speech are abuses.
the rape scene in this movie is just about the most punishing, brutal, numbing presentation that I think I care to ever see… if you're "entertained" by it (or, rather, think the filmmakers MEANT you to be entertained by it) you might have an even lower opinion of mankind than me. That's impressive.
Honestly, the same bit from the 70s film is MUCH closer to "exploitation" – it's partly played for laughs and titilation. The new version is more like Bergman's "Virgin Spring" on which both are based (and which is in certain ways meaner and darker than either) where the scene is STILL hard to watch despite having been done in the late-50s.
Straw Dogs also featured an extended rape.
The term "Free Speech" has never been intended to allow a person the right to say or show anything they want at any time. We have always had restraints on what could be said and shown at certain times and places. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, public nudity, cross burning the list goes on and on. Free speech must be respected and limited by the individuals or the government will be forced to do it for us and that never turns out well.
leftist? Have you read anything I've written?
The first movie I saw with rape as a major theme was "Two Women." The rape was strongly suggested, but not graphically shown. It's not a subject easily dealt with, let alone to portray it by inference rather than full-on visual depiction. As always, I have a problem with bans or censorship. And the line between censorship and disapprobation can nearly as hard to define as the difference between gratuitous violence and sex versus violence and sex to make a point about the horrors of evil violence and forced sex.
I haven't seen the new version of "First House," but I saw the rape scene in the original as a condemnation of rape. From the views I've read of the new version, it's unclear what was actually intended, but given the current Miller-Roth test, it sounds like it wouldn't fit into the constitutional category of obscenity. Bad taste and personal opinion are quite another thing, and if people believe the rape scene is gratuitous, they have a right, and perhaps a duty to speak out against it. In other words, counterpoint free speech is the best remedy for abuses of free speech, without the necessity of bans or censorship.
We agree that this is not so much a 'free speech' issue as it is one of taste and what is and isn't appropriate. It hacks us off no end when the left screams first amendment on kiddie porn but wants to believe the second amendment doesn't exist. This is coarse and crude and base… there is no kind face you can put on this. We don't mind it's existence as much as the fact this is ok but a blonde, heterosexual military type is not allowed to be portrayed positively. So, in that context gratuitous and venal muck is just that- not 'free speech' in a community that doesn't know the meaning of that phrase…
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is perfectly alright if it really is on fire.
why the original was/is noteworthy was never on it's film making chops, it was because it pushed the limits at the time. good or not that is why.
"suggesting that the vengeful parents might be no better than the rapist murderers who kill their child" seems you at least got some of the point of the original.
for the record i also do not like the original, nor this remake. but as an adult i tried not to write them off due to there subject matter. 'titus andronicus' and 'othello' contain rape scenes, is shakespeare a hack?
yes, and the mother of all extended rape scenes: 'Irreversible'. i'd argue all three are great films (straw dogs, clockwork orange, and irreversible)
ragnar not to speak over your head but there is a whole sub genre of these sort of films. some good, some very bad/trashy. obviously it's a topic you don't want to handle poorly, but i'd say that about any topic really.
i agree, free speech both ways. but don't say 'dbag liberal' as the poster Mike Long is talking about limits to free speech above you. he's hardly liberal.
He's not saying that "free speech is good–unless it offends somebody." The gratuitous extended rape scene isn't just offensive, it's morally harmful, and, yes, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who acknowledges the existence–and pre-eminence–of objective morality. Just as you cannot scream "fire!" in a crowded theater (unless there really is a fire), because it would cause panic and possibly lead to some theater patrons being trampled to death, no one has the right to say or publish whatever they want without any regard for the good or safety of others. There are already reasonable limits to free speech–just as there are already reasonable limits to freedom of social behavior (murder, for example).
Standing up for the truth is actually more heroic than standing up for one's (or someone else's) "freedom of speech" when that freedom is used as a weapon against others (souls, minds or bodies).
this is the key, rather then looking to be pretentious as mr. long is here by saying his say so should be the final moral perameter, we should seek an educated mass that can decide when things are done just to get a rise and offer no intellectual merit. i'd say 'passion of the christ' is exploitative, 'pearl harbor' too.
Shakespeare was not a moral relativist.
i wasn't aware that i said he was. or are you just saying this in general as an off topic point? one could argue that both of my shakespeare examples do contain notions of moral relativism, but i'd think that is looking to 'after the fact' on his writing, as these where not notions being thrown around in shakespeares day.
my comment in regards to shakespeare wasn't necessarily directed to you but to anyone who was hinting at 'any film with rape is in ill taste', just to be clear.
If your such a 'Jesus' freak, what are you doing at a HORROR movie? They have been pushing the boundaries in horror movies for the past 20 years–if you didn't want to see something scary maybe you should have stayed at home and watched 'Oprah'. Just a thought
I find gratuitous extended scenes of 'Oprah'. offensive. Can we ban her, too? Opinions are like A$$holes…there is a little bit of both running around here..
It wasn't an off-topic point. You mentioned Shakespeare in what looked like a direct response to my earlier post.
As for the moral relativism you allege in Titus Andronicus or Othello, I can only say that I've never noticed any, having read and seen both on numerous occasions. Shakespeare's characters run the gamut from good to evil, but it's usually quite clear from the text where any given character's actions resides.
Of course, as you acknowledged, plays by their very nature are quite easily subject to radical reinterpretations and tonal variations every time someone opts to stage them, as opposed to films which are inherently far less flexible due to their set place in time and space, so I'm not sure how fruitful it is to compare their moral tones in the first place.
I agree with you that Hollywood should not treat rape so cavalierly. The changing of sentiment through "that coarsening effect," as you put it, is as insidious as it is real. Why do you think there are no heros like John Wayne anymore?
You're wrong that "that coarsening effect" is okay for such MUNDANE things as murder. No, it's not. Hollywood sucks for even going there, and if it had even an ounce of decency left it would try to change things.
While I am religious, my point isn't. My Hollywood heroes still win wars, kiss women and ride off into the sunset. You can call me a polly anna if you'd like, but I'm happier about my heroes than you are yours. And I save an $8.50 movie ticket to go with a $1.00 rental.
Very poignantly put, Mike. I have read other reviews that have told me how incredibly harsh this pic is. Too bad, though. I love good "righteous vengeance" movies. Especially, fathers avenging their children. But, based on the reviews, I don't think I could handle this one.
And, at the risk of sounding like a Bible-thumping evangelical, my response to the whole situation is quite blunt: What else could we expect?
When a culture, with each successive generation, is increasingly separating itself from God… or any kind of a transcendent set of Moral Laws… what else could we expect? I mean, really.
The inability of Hollywood to monitor itself… to moderate its behavior… to see some things as flatly wrong, or over-the-line… How can we expect anyone to exhibit this sort of self-restrained behavior, if we are decreasingly convinced in Right and Wrong?
If there is no God, then what is the source of this thing called "good", or this thing called "evil"? "What's moral for you might not be moral for me?" "Who are you to tell me what's inappropriate?" "Keep your morality off my body?"
All of these phrases speak to the same dark destiny: A human culture without a God becomes simply a collective of very smart animals.
A while back, I read an article by Mark Steyn. He mentioned that, at the time, London was experiencing a rash of petty thefts. The object of the thievery? Brass door knockers on private residences. (Apparently, the blackmarket price for brass and other metals is quite fetching.) Mark's point, however, was… "How can a society guard itself from true godlessness?" How can a society guard against the petty theft, and petty vandalism of a culture that has no moral center? If there is no God inside the individual… a God who tells him, "It's wrong to steal that brass knocker"… how can a society truly defend itself. You can't hire enough police, or install enough surveillance cameras, or pass enough laws. You simply can't.
That's what our founders were saying, 200+ years ago, that this Republic cannot survive without a communal of faith. (Not a "National Religion", per se. But, just a general conviction among its citizenry.)
To any sentient being, prolonged portrayals of rape… portrayals that relish and revel in the act… portrayals that inject even the most obscure twinge of "pleasure" into the act… such portrayals are contemptible. They are disgusting, and a society should not abide them.
But, you are right: What can we do? Very few people truly want to pass laws to ban such practices. But, if there is no Moral restraint on the individuals (in this case, the individuals in Hollywood)… we can expect nothing to prevent the onslaught. Then, when you open your eyes to the true implications… we see that there are NO boundaries.
George Carlin and the "seven words".
Andrew Dice Clay.
The Wild Bunch
That first naked butt on Hill Street Blues.
Sex in the City
Barbara Walters and her vibrator
Virtually every soap opera since (at least) the mid-70's
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Brokeback Mountain
Nightly murders and cadavers and autopsies on broadcast TV
That lady urinating in her oversized diaper on that "Temptation Island" (?) reality show
The recent flick that demonstrated the rape of the young girl (forget the actress's name)
Each event was a mild chipping-away of boundaries that were in place for a generation or two. But, now, in a society that is less "uptight about all this morality business"… what's to stop any of it? What's to prevent any of it just getting worse and worse, each year?
I agree with an earlier post on this article: it won't be long until we'll see pedophilia presented in the same light.
And, why not? All in the name of freedom and art.
God bless America.
I have no interest in seeing this film, so I can't comment on how offensive it may or may not have been.
But just like in the thread a few weeks ago about the so-called art made to represent President Bush, the fact that anyone dares say such things are vile and not needed is considered trampling on freedom of speech and advocating censorship. And there will probably be a zillion comments along the same lines here, just as there was on the other story.
We are simply not allowed to say something is obscene or vulgar.
I agree with you that Hollywood should not treat rape so cavalierly. The changing of sentiment through "that coarsening effect," as you put it, is as insidious as it is real. Why do you think there are no heroes like John Wayne anymore?
You're wrong that "that coarsening effect" is okay for such MUNDANE things as murder. No, it's not. Hollywood sucks for even going there, and if it had even an ounce of decency left it would try to change things.
While I am religious, my point isn't. My Hollywood heroes still win wars, kiss women and ride off into the sunset. You can call me a polly anna if you'd like, but I'm happier about my heroes than you are yours. And I save an $8.50 movie ticket to go with a $1.00 rental.
"We are simply not allowed to say something is obscene or vulgar."
why not? who's stopping you? nice strawman.
I should've clarified, without someone crabbing about our saying so. But by the nasty tone of your comment, I'm sure you're one of those people, right?
Last House to veer to the left?…
Mike Long, another contributor to Big Hollywood, argues that the remake of the overrated Wes Craven’s 1972 movie that was based on the Virgin Spring, sensationalizes the rape taking place inside it, and even oddly presents the villains sympatheticall….
When did "freedom of speech" mutate from "freedom to make a reasoned political argument, however obnoxious to the powers that be" to "freedom to titillate a paying audience with graphic imagery inconsistent with the moral foundation sof any civilization worth living in?"
When did censorship become a greater sin than most of the traditional 10?
There is something very sick about a society that regards the creation and commercial distribution of a graphic depiction of forcible rape, but not the purchase of air time for criticism of an incumbent politician within 30 days of an election, as a constitutional right.
THANK YOU. It drives me crazy that every time I say something like this is just vile, I get a bunch of comments saying that I am calling for censorship.
There are actually guidelines for what legally constitutes pornography/obscenity. Whether this scene falls under that guideline, I don't know. I doubt it, or it would not have gone through. But the guidelines do exist and are enforced. (Though probably not as often as they should.) I'm sure those who continue to defend this sort of thing would want to do away with that as well.
Somehow 'freedom of speech' has come to mean that we have to cheer on every manner of filth and perversion that someone chooses to put forth for public consumption. If you dare state disapproval about it, you are screamed at.
oh, so now i'm your strawman. nice, before i even open my mouth.
i mean who cares if some one 'crabs' if your points are legit, make them. don't be so defeatist. i mean history is full of people making brave points while a phony conservative mass claims a moral authority. mike longs above post is a perfect example of this. someone tries to make a movie (good or bad) and someone comes along that has never made a film (only judged others) and claims it 'offensive'. makes me sick. don't let 'crabby' people like this win.
also, don't be so touchy when people engage you (my tone was anything but 'nasty').
"And, at the risk of sounding like a Bible-thumping evangelical, my response to the whole situation is quite blunt: What else could we expect?
When a culture, with each successive generation, is increasingly separating itself from God… or any kind of a transcendent set of Moral Laws… what else could we expect? I mean, really."
man get over yourself. if you think the bible is an adequate moral authority then you need to read it again for the first time. we as a culture today are infinitely more 'morally consistent' then ANY of the events depicted in the bible (particularly the OT).
"The recent flick that demonstrated the rape of the young girl (forget the actress's name)". haha, with sources like that how could i doubt you? i think what you are looking for here is found in Genesis 3:16, Genesis 19:8, Genesis 34:3, ect. i could go on but this is just the first book so whats the point.
i now assume this will spark quite an apologetic post from you, which will help my point even more. i mean what has more impact on our culture, "That first naked butt on Hill Street Blues" and "Virtually every soap opera since (at least) the mid-70's" (nice use of extreme vagueness here) or the bible? what a joke you are.
Exactly right. A culture that has no moral standards and where you are not allowed to speak out against evil without being accused of censorship is a culture in decline.
You can see that by the continued responses to my posts. If you dare call anything wrong, you are railed at and accused of censorship.
Online Article……
[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……
Great website…
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
Great website…
[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
puppy breeders The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the want of limitations and comfortableness of use that allows developers to obligate tasteful content and ‘skin’ the site in such a way that with real labor one would never as…
The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the want of limitations and comfortableness of use that allows developers to obligate tasteful content and ‘skin’ the site in such a way that with real labor one would never asking what it is m…
You must be logged in to post a comment.