By popular demand (!) Savage
Fridays is returning. Starting next Friday, I’ll be reviewing, once again, the
films of the savage cinema here on the blog.
However, before I started, I wanted
to re-post my description of the Savage Cinema (originally posted in 2012):
“As the 1960s turned into
the 1970s, the “New Freedom” arrived in full, and cutting-edge filmmakers began
to vet stories -- horror stories, I maintain – about basic
human nature.
In tales of the Savage Cinema, resources are scarce, compromise is
impossible, and two “sides” go to war. The Haves and the Have Nots (The
Hills Have Eyes [1977]), the lawful and the unlawful (The
Last House on the Left [1972]), the male and female (I Spit
on Your Grave [1978]), the liberated and traditional (Straw
Dogs[1971]), even city folk and country folk (Deliverance [1972])
find that there’s no room for debate…only bloodshed and hatred.
In each one of these
films, for the most part, there’s an Every Man (or Every Woman) who is drawn or
pulled into combat, and must consequently re-evaluate his or her sense of
morality to contend with the sudden, often inexplicable outbreak of
violence. That Every Person rises to an unexpected challenge, but also
– in some way – succumbs to the basest human instinct: to
kill.
In the crucible of
(unwanted) combat, the Every Person thoroughly tests him or herself. Does
he or she have what it takes to survive? Does this character descend,
finally, into bloody violence? And what is the personal, mental, and
physical toll of shedding civilization and established norms of morality, even
for an instant? Can you come back from that? Do you want to
come back from that?
Such questions intrigue
and fascinate me, perhaps because I have always lived a sheltered and safe
life. I’m a largely risk-averse person in terms of my choices and
life-style. I live in a world where there is ample police protection, no
military draft, and remarkably little crime. But I admire the Savage Cinema
films I’ve mentioned above because they force audiences to ponder, quite
frankly: what would I do?
Even better, these films
echo their content to an extreme and remarkably pure degree. If Savage
Cinema film narratives involve shedding the shackles and protections of
civilization and the norms of morality, their cinematic, visual approach
involves a stylistic corollary: shredding established film decorum and
conventions, and going over the edge into transgressive and taboo-breaking
territory.
This territory is not
for polite company, to be certain.
It’s a place of frequent
female and male rape (Deliverance, Straw Dogs, I Spit on Your Grave, Last
House), imperiled family members (The Hills Have Eyes, Last House),
and brutal violence. Often that on-screen violence is of an intensely
personal and even animalistic nature: A woman bites off a man’s penis in
Craven’s Last House. Similarly, in Straw Dogs,
we see a man’s foot blown off (by a stray shot-gun blast) in extreme
close-up.
So yes, these movies are
explicit and disturbing, but also courageous in the sense that they follow
through on their promise and premise. Where some people and critics have
stated that such films are gratuitously violent, I argue the
opposite point. These films are about violence, and the
consequences of violence on families, and civilization as a whole.
The violence highlighted
in films of the Savage Cinema is of a type that makes you wonder about our
human nature. It isn’t depicted as heroic, but rather, in some instances,
as necessary and human, but still awful. Retribution or
revenge -- a hallmark of these pictures -- may satisfy blood lust for a moment,
but then what do you do -- for a lifetime -- knowing that you are
the same thing, at heart, as the “monster” you slayed?
This is the
morally-fascinating territory of the Savage Cinema, and the reason why it
boasts artistic worth and social value.”
So, check in next Friday
for my first new savage cinema review. I've decided to go "international," to start-out.
The film I’ll be looking at furst is Eden
Lake (2008). It’s a British entry in the savage cinema canon, and if
possible, please give it a watch before the week is out, so you can comment on
it as well.
(The second film I’m
reviewing in the series is the new Australian movie, Killing Ground [2017], so
you may want to put that in your queue, as well. Up third: Martyrs.)
I have always regarded this as a subgenre with roots in two earlier genres: westerns and film noir (especially Ida Lupino's films). A host of films in both those genres are clear antecedents to the pictures you mention--to which I would certainly add "The Taking of Pelham 123"--and when you throw in the entire police/justice genre (Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Walking Tall) this is easily traced. Tell me "The Hills Have Eyes" isn't related to "Rawhide" with Power and Hayward.
ReplyDeleteSpaghetti westerns have the same "I wanted to be left alone but now you've dragged me into this" root story. Television was doing the same thing, having moved from police procedurals to one-man crimefighters out for justice (Dan August, Kojak, Baretta, etc.)
The similarities are obvious when you zoom out just slightly to take in "The Cowboys" along with "Deliverance", for example, which came out the same year and are essentially variations of the same story with an element of "Lord of the Flies" added in. It then becomes obvious why Don Siegel first wanted John Wayne for "Dirty Harry."
Thanks! I'm thrilled to see more entries in this category.
ReplyDelete-T.S.