The Last House on the Left (1972) VS. The remake (2009)

[harmonica44]

ORIGINAL:

Personally I don't know how to feel about either movie. On the one hand a lot of is really dramatically effective, but on the other some parts of the script, especially most of the first third, are just really kind of wrong for the movie it feels.

It starts out by the mail man saying how the girl is the 'prettiest piece he's ever seen'. Then it show that girl getting out of the shower and admiring herself, naked in the mirror.

Her parents then tell her that she's dressed too naughty and to not go out like that, saying she'll attract predators. She then goes out with her friend and talks about she feels like such a woman.

So it seems that the movie has an antifeminist feel to it, before she gets raped and murdered. But then her parents avenge the rape and everything, so it seems that the movie is clearly anti-rape as well. This causes a clash of tone it seems cause why be so anti-feminist about a movie that deals very sensitively with a woman being raped?

REMAKE

Well the backstory with the brother dying I felt didn't serve any purpose, and not sure why it was there. But this seems possibly better, than the antifeminist character development to start it off with.

One the other hand the violence in this one is handled much worse. There is just way too much blood and the director shows too much, instead of implying through terror. He gets the camera too close to the wounds way too much, where at least Wes Craven, had the decency to mostly imply, and what graphic things he did show, he didn't get carried away with.

Even in scenes, where the is no menacing going on, there is still blood, like in the very opening at the surgeon's job, they show some randomly, which serves no purpose, cause we know he's a surgeon by other means anyway, and even when he stitches the guy's nose up, the director still gets in way close and shows the stitching, when we really don't need to see that, and seems like he has a gore fetish maybe.

However both movies, although simple plotted, are kind of complex in how they are suppose to read and interpreted, so perhaps I am reading them both wrong. Thoughts?

 

[mad_hatter]

Firstly, I’d say don’t read too much into either film; they’re both designed purely as exploitation (one from the real exploitation period, the other from the ‘torture porn’ period) so probably best not to analyse them too deeply!

…a movie that deals very sensitively with a woman being raped…

I don’t think there’s anything sensitive about the original ‘Last House…’. You need to remember it was made in the 70’s, they couldn’t get away with as much then. Regardless, the rape itself is still quite disgusting. Have you seen the uncut version? Not sure about Canada, but here in the UK certain scenes were cut; no disembowelment, no chest carving, no forced urination. Even without those scenes (which have since been reinstated), the original is a brutal movie.

…in scenes, where the is no menacing going on, there is still blood…

That’s just a sign of the times I’m afraid. ‘Saw’ and ‘Hostel’ upped the ante, so for a while, any films that fell into that ‘torture porn’ genre, needed to show the gore.

…both movies, although simple plotted, are kind of complex in how they are suppose to read and interpreted, so perhaps I am reading them both wrong…

Possibly… Exploitation, in any form, is designed to titillate. Nothing more. Although we can go back and analyse these films in hindsight, I think it’s safe to assume that at the time Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham simply wanted to make a brutal, violent move.

Have you read the script for the original? Not sure if it’s available anywhere on the internet, but the original intention was for the movie to be a hardcore porno!

 

[harmonica44]

I don't mind at all the 70s being able to get away with it. That's a good thing, depending. I am in Canada, and I did see the forced urination, and chest carving, but no disembowelment, in this version.

I don't see why a modern horror movie needs to fall into torture porn. I mean if you look at a movie like Oldboy or United 93, they are still able to show terror, without near as much gore. Even people thought Insidious was scary. Haven't seen it yet, but it does not seem to come off as Hostel or Saw type movie. So there doesn't seem to be a need to stick with the times, just because you live in them, in order for a movie to be a success.

One exploitation movie which I kind of like is the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even that is not near as gory as this remake. It shows gory dead bodies, but it's mostly aftermath, where as the this remake puts the camera in close during the stabbing processes, and gets down right and dirty it seems to me.

Interesting on the original intended as a porno... hmm... interesting...

 

[harmonica44]

I don't mind at all the 70s being able to get away with it. That's a good thing, depending. I am in Canada, and I did see the forced urination, and chest carving, but no disembowelment, in this version.

I don't see why a modern horror movie needs to fall into torture porn. I mean if you look at a movie like Oldboy or United 93, they are still able to show terror, without near as much gore. Even people thought Insidious was scary. Haven't seen it yet, but it does not seem to come off as Hostel or Saw type movie. So there doesn't seem to be a need to stick with the times, just because you live in them, in order for a movie to be a success.

One exploitation movie which I kind of like is the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even that is not near as gory as this remake. It shows gory dead bodies, but it's mostly aftermath, where as the this remake puts the camera in close during the stabbing processes, and gets down right and dirty it seems to me.

Interesting on the original intended as a porno... hmm... interesting...




Sorry this posted twice, not sure how that happened.

 

[mad_hatter]

The 'torture porn era' is now (pretty much) dead. The only people still making 'tortre porn' are ultra-low-budget types, who know they can do so and stand a chance of making their money back. In my opinion, horror is now in a transitional stage, moving away from torture porn, to... something else. 'Insidious was made by Leigh Wannel and James Wan, the same people who made 'Saw' (pretty much, inventing torture porn). Rob Zombies next film 'The Lords of Salem' looks to be moving away from the ideals of 'The Devils Rejects' or 'Halloween' (although I expect it will still be extremely violent!). Gore and violence will remain in the genre, but I expect it will grow to be less exploitative once again.

I don't quite know what you are getting at with all this, but 'Oldboy' and 'United 93' aren't horror films. Comparing a thriller to an exploitative horror wont really achieve anything. That said though, Oldboy is very violent...

 

[harmonica44]

Well I compared them cause like horrors, those thrillers have scenarios of terror in, but yet I found those movies to be more terrifying and suspenseful, then the torture porn-ish approach of the remake. How does the original classify as exploitation though? Even though it may have been intended to be a porno in pre-production, I wouldn't say that the content is enough to be considered exploitation. It is edgy content but not sure what constitutes edgy content that is exploitation, compared to not. I mean no one calls Last Tango in Paris or Straw Dogs an exploitation film by comparison.