MovieChat Forums > I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Discussion > Who is RIGHT?

Who is RIGHT?

posted 2 years ago by TheMan18 (12698)
8 replies | jump to latest

I have read a lot of reviewers and posts on the general theme of vengeance in this movie.

Many thought that Jennifer was absolutely and morally CORRECT in exacting violent revenge on her perpetrators here.

Others, including the late critic Roger Ebert, even if they agreed that those men were despicable monsters for what they did to her, claimed they think two wrongs don't make a right and that Jennifer was WRONG to exact vengeance like that and she should have made more effort to handle the matter legally instead.

But who ultimately in their views is RIGHT here? And please really THINK about it, thanks.

Or is it all a matter of opinion? But then, look at the seriousness with which people state either stance.

And in the Roger Ebert review, does he REALLY have a point to make when he states that even killing of bad guilty people is a second wrong offense to those bad guilty people sexually assaulting Jennifer or is he being (what's the word?) here?

P.S. I myself don't think that I could make an argument like Mr Ebert did. Then again, many of us including me have what's called a positive bias and prejudice towards the offenders as shown in this movie, seeing them as brutal monsters who ought to be exterminated more than merely guilty offenders who ought to be legally punished. But he had a different view (more liberal??) SO...?

[–] TheMan18 (12698) 2 years ago

About the last one, I didn't mean to say they should all be killed instead of facing legal justice. I just meant that I and a lot of us tend to see those people as violent monsters more than mere guilty offenders and can actually relate to and understand the victim mentality of Jennifer in those types of situation managing to take the matter as personally as she does.

[–] millsey72 (9759) 2 years ago

Jennifer

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) a year ago

I have no problem with her doling out her justice and making sure they can never rape again.

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) a year ago

Honest question:
Have you ever seen a movie where a bad guy murders a friend or a family member and then a survivor takes up weapons and gets vengeance by murdering the bad guy as well as a bunch of his gang?
As seen in The Punisher, Death Sentence, Law Abiding Citizen, Django Unchained, or so many other masculine action movies this happens in?
Did you ever question that?
If not then why this movie in particular?
What is wrong with a woman doing the same things we see men do all the time getting their justice in movies?
WTF is wrong is Roger for feeling that way?

[–] [deleted] a year ago

This this an excellent response WarrenPeace. We have seen this type of film in the past, and maybe it is the gender aspect that caused more of a discussion about the film. I don’t know honestly.

One thing I do know is the OP is really looking to see if Jennifer was morally right or wrong. We need to remember that this is a movie about someone who had been put into a horrible situation.

For me, when talking about morals and rightness I would rather ask, ‘What can we do to try and prevent these horrible situations from ever happening?’

OP’s questions about Jennifer’s correctness and rightness in her actions is one I cannot and will not answer. I think it has the potential to divide people, as well as undermine or loose sight of what, I think, is the more important issue. But that’s my opinion. Couldn’t answer OP’s question, but hopefully this gave some insight into a different perspective.

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) a year ago

There is another rape/murder victim revenge movie called Last House on the Left where it is the parents of a daughter who get the revenge on the gang that raped her and killed her friend.
Would that bring up the same kind of moral questions?
Maybe not because that one has a man involved?

In any of these revenge movies the filmmakers do a good job with distracting us or getting us into it that we do not stop and think and realize that what the one getting the revenge is doing is murder and they get away with it.
They always make the crime so heinous and horrible that we want to see the bad ones get what they deserve.
There is no mourning period. No chance to blame the good guy. No time to stop and think and realize.
Look at Mad Max.
Wife is brain dead in one scene then the very next one is Max getting his gun and into his car to go and get 'em!
And when they get their revenge, what good does that do? It doesn't bring them back. When the movie is over we forget the dead of the anti hero.

[–] warrior-poet (1339) a year ago

I allow some leniency for characters who've been brutally victimized, but for society's sake there must be a limit. If everyone always escalated a reprisal with an act that was harsher than what was committed against them, we'd all end up dead. So, I do think murdering them the way she did was a step too far, and more importantly almost certainly did more damage to her own psyche than any temporary satisfaction and catharsis. So, I'd agree that Ebert had a point to a degree. Our goal should always be to try to be better than the enemy. Having said that, I can't judge her for it in this case, and admittedly always do find some gratification seeing an underdog give their oppressors a comeuppance, even if they take things too far. In other words, I think she probably deserves some jail time and would be in sore need of some therapy, but if I were in her position I'd consider those consequences worth it and would gladly accept them.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Wanting justice for an aggression against you is moral. Becoming a monster to enact that justice isn't. We witnessed an immediate "relief" from trauma. But we cannot know what horror she'll experience after or if she'll repeat her actions to a lesser incident. Will the action be enough for her? Or, will the horrors of her experience cause years of PTSD? Will she no longer enact violence? Or will this situation have dulled her resistance to violence and allow her to mentally justify violence for something less or perceived rather than enacted.

Though I agree with why she murdered them, Morally I cannot support it.