https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-4872
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Notes
1 As French (Citation2001, 218) observes, the same effort is found in philosophy where authors advance theories of revenge as moral balance: ‘Balancers like Sher and Davis work hard to make their accounts sound plausible.’
2 To be absolutely clear, even though I express doubt over the moral legitimacy of Jennifer’s revenge, this article does not seek to defend the film’s rapists or rape itself in any sense.
3 Indeed, I have taken this approach in my previous work; see Jones (Citation2013b).
4 See also Acorn (Citation2004, 51), who suggests that such ‘instincts’ are intrinsic, and argues that without state-sanctioned justice our natural ‘impulsive’ bent might lead to ‘potentially limitless…revenge.’
5 Other theorists have expressed skepticism over the notion of moral balance per se. For instance, Henberg (Citation1990, 20) voices his concern that the ‘moral balance’ metaphor is so abstract that it leads to inconsistent interpretations regarding what can be balanced, how, and by whom.
6 I am not claiming that the narrative techniques outlined here are exclusive to revenge film; rather my point is that philosophers who have engaged with revenge films have not adequately accounted for analytical approaches that are commonplace within film studies.
7 On justifying revenge as a by-product of preserving one’s own life or safety, see Hindriks Citation2011. On this distinction between revenge and self-defence, see also Kaufman (Citation2013, 139).
8 In retrospect, her promise to Matthew (long before the attack) that she is ‘not going anywhere’ – intended to mean she would remain at home so he could fix her plumbing – is bitterly ironic.
9 However, it is worth acknowledging Bloom’s assertion that ‘of all dead psychological theories, catharsis is the deadest’ (Bloom Citation2021, 84).
10 The implication that Jennifer is forced into avenging the rape connotes that the premeditated homicide she commits should not be equated with first-degree murder (on this distinction, see Jacoby Citation1983, 192).
11 Since Storch is the lead antagonist and this incident is the film’s climactic act of revenge, it is implied that object-rape is a form of balance that offers closure. I Spit is not the only film of the period to depict object-rape as a form of sexual horror (on this, see Jones [Citation2013, 143]), but here the incident raises the aforementioned problem with lex talionis or balancing “harm with harm”. Numerous thinkers have cautioned that ‘rape for a rape’ is a literal proportionate form of punishment, but rape is clearly incompatible with justice; the inherent wrongness of rape means it cannot be utilized to attain moral balance (see Roberts-Cady Citation2010, 186–187). On the problem of assessing ‘what sort of punishment is suitable or apt’ in cases of rape, see French (Citation2001, 225). I Spit eschews this question by creating motif-based parallels between the rape sequences and the revenge sequences, as outlined above.
12 As Cerulo notes (Cerulo Citation1998, 40–43), a narrative’s point-of-entry is significant because it shapes one’s apprehension of subsequent hostile action, most notably in terms of justification and moral assessment.
13 That inconclusiveness is underlined by the production of a sequel – I Spit on Your Grave 3: Vengeance is Mine (2015, dir. R. D. Braunstein, USA) – which continues Jennifer’s story by focusing on her inability to move beyond her trauma. Similar implications follow from a more recent sequel to the 1978 original – I Spit on Your Grave: Déjà vu (2019, dir. Meir Zarchi, USA) – which depicts the original’s Jennifer and her daughter being abducted by the original rapists’ family members. In both cases, the sequels indicate that the initial film’s revenge fails to offer resolution. Indeed, the revenge is followed by further appalling violence in these sequels.
14 The literature on this subject is bountiful, but notable examples include Carroll Citation1990; Gaut Citation1993; Hills Citation2005; Martin Citation2019; Smuts Citation2008.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Steve Jones
Steve Jones is Senior Lecturer in Media and Film at Northumbria University (England) and Adjunct Research Professor in Law and Legal Studies at Carleton University (Ottawa). His research principally focuses on sex, violence, ethics, and selfhood within horror and pornography. He is the author of Torture Porn: Popular Horror after Saw, and his work been published in Feminist Media Studies, New Review of Film and Television Studies, Sexualities, and Film-Philosophy. He is also on the editorial board of Porn Studies journal, and the Hidden Horror Histories book series (Liverpool University Press). For more information, please visit www.drstevejones.co.uk.