I Spit On Your Grave director reveals updated brutality
I'm a bit confused by this update from the director of the remake of I Spit on Your Grave. Talking about the film the director Steven R. Monroe has revealed what they plan to do to make it different from the original, and everything he says about it sounds the exact opposite of what they should be doing, and just the way I feared it would go.
It sounds like the route they are taking is more violence and less intelligence, just what an I Spit On Your Grave remake needs. Doesn't it?
Speaking about the remake he's very aware that there's a lot of negativity against him for making the film, from fans and those who hate the original alike:
"I know that fans of the film and haters of the film are already up in arms about the remake and already saying that I am going to screw it up and chicken out of doing this and doing that... But I hope that maybe they can at least wait till the film is released and make a educated decision then, even if they still hate it, they have at least seen it."
Hey, I'm happy to do that too, but then I talk about film all the time, that's what I do, and if you are going to use the marketing through film sites then you might as well take the rough with the smooth.
Being positive though, he's clear that he has a lot of respect for the original and for films that really push cinema, as I Spit On Your Grave certainly did, and does to this day.
He's also revealed a bit of casting for his I Spit On Your Grave, with Sarah Butler, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg all on board, however, here's the bit that has me most concerned from the comments of the director Steven R. Monroe about the remake over at Moviehole, which I found through AITH:
"We wanted to stay as true to the original as possible while making sure it was updated in a few ways. There is one additional lead character, a Sheriff played by Andrew Howard, and of course we upped the brutality and length of the tortures and kills - as they were quite short in the original - which was really a disturbing Thriller at heart not a Horror film. I also wanted to update the look of the film and give it a very voyeuristic quality and gritty realism."
I'm not so sure that this sounds so positive. I mean making it more brutal and the length of the torture and kill scenes is just making it more and more mindlessly violent, trying to out-do films such as Hostel and Saw, and you have to wonder why that's really necessary, after all there's more to the film than just the shock value, although that is a big part of it.
Yet this choice is likely to end up earning the film that horrible moniker that I hate being used, the words that they use to describe films such as Hostel, Saw, etc. While that move might be great for marketing, I don't think it's great for the film, and the concentration really should be on other things than the brutality and the violent scenes, shouldn't it?