Product: Day of the Woman (1978)
Rating: 1.0
Extremely Controversial Exploitation Movie
I love horror movies and I am fan of most of them and will watch almost anything because I like the genre. For the first time I have witnessed something that I felt went beyond the accepted boundaries of art and certainly moved into the realm of films that feature unforgiving scenes like animal abuse (Cannibal Holocaust comes to mind). I would love to give this five stars but I will not because in my opinion this film has no place in cinema or on the video shelf. If anything this film should only be released as part of an art-house circuit or as film lecture material. I certainly believe that this film should not be available to all adults and should be accompanied by some sort of a follow-up lecture in which a professional explains to the viewer the problems that this type of film has on society. Sure it is daring and bold and tries to show us what is beyond our acceptable standard but it also presents an unpardonable and excessive amount of sexual violence towards human beings, especially women. I hope a film like this is never made again.The film has pretty low production values and is a bit of a mix bag in terms of the quality of the acting on display. The sound is not very good and the execution of most of the dialogue is pretty poor. Where this film outrivals most for its type is in the brutality and its horrific chauvinism that reaches its peak in a very graphic thirty minute gang rape sequence that gives this film its notoriety. That actual sequence is made all the more brutal because one of the gang members has a mental age of about ten.The premise is simple. Our protagonist is a young writer, played by Camille Keaton (Buster Keaton's grand-niece and the wife of this film's director) who journeys out to "redneck" county to write a book. There she is accosted by four hillbillies who proceed to do the deplorable with her in a very disturbing way that is often as violent as it sexually distressing. The problem with this sequence is that it lasts so long and in so many different locations as they drag their victim about the place. One could only imagine what purpose all of this serves and if the film is not just catering for a very unbalanced and criminal type of viewer. At the same time we can say that this is "just a movie" or "art" but it does go beyond that - especially when bottles are involved.The question that is poised at the back of the mind when watching this (and it is not a very pleasant experience), is if this is just exploitation material or does it have some moral or underlying philosophy to explain its actions or why it should have been made in the first place? Maybe this is exploitation cinema just testing the limits of what it can do? Well the film makers have done just that, however the director has said that he made this movie to show the ugliness of its theme. Who does the director think he is fooling? This film is exploitation through and through with one true purpose - to abuse the protagonist, disturb the viewer and to provide the splatter for the gore hounds - nothing more, nothing less. This is not "The Accused" or "Irreversible". It is not even "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Last House on the Left". This is akin to "Cannabis Holocaust" or "Cannabis Ferox". Not only is this movie prejudiced, sexist and down right cruel it also seems like potentially dangerous material for the more unhinged elements in our society.The second half of the film concentrates on the victim's revenge for the crimes committed again her and this is really where the entertainment can be found in a short of female version of a Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood vigilante retribution movie. To be honest the film would have been much better, and acceptable, if it cut down on the intensity of the sexual violence at the start of movie. Certainly there are a number of interesting segments, one involving a shopping delivery that plays itself out in a very strange way. One of the deviants also tries to justify his actions by blaming the victim instead. Another scene involves a very shocking dismemberment in the bathroom (very realistic). All in all the second half is quite interesting but the first half is revolting and disgusting and like I said, probably dangerous material in the wrong hands.In short this movie has no place in cinema or in the video shelf. It should be part of art-house circuits or film lecture halls, period. I think this is the first time that banning a film makes sense. This is a rape movie that is unpleasant for most but gratifying for the maniacs that will enjoy it... over and over and over again.This movie is just plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.