It's not that the film was bad, as such; it was certainly well shot, and there's lots here for film students and media studies types to get all chin-stroky about... But that's not my thing.
In its day, I'm sure the matter-of-factness of things like the rape scene and the fathers subsequent revenge were a revelation. I can see that the lingering, thoughtful shots, the way the camera stays behind the father, allowing him to stand in the distance and contemplate what he has done, would have been, in 1960, a revelation to many film makers, and I understand that they have shaped movie making in a way we still see today.
But that's the problem; we see them today. All the time. By being innovative, it's methods have become the norm; 53 year later, they don't seem so impressive.
So the movie has to stand on it's own two feet, in 2013, as a piece of entertainment. And it doesn't.
Like every rape-revenge movie that has followed it, 2/3rds of the film pass before we get to the 'rape / revenge' part; Until that point, it's a fairly run-of the mill medieval set black and white drama about a religious 'Lord of the Land' type, and his household; the type of movie I used to find my gran watching on channel four on a Sunday afternoon (and think 'why?').
Unlike it's more recent copy-cats, the revenge when it comes is swift, and matter of fact; yes it's brutal, but at the same time it's over far too quickly to have any real impact, or (to me at least) satisfactory emotional payoff.
But perhaps that's the point; if we consider the closing scenes of Wes Craven's quasi-remake (last house on the left), we see there too that the 'revenge' chi ever nothing of note - the family remains incomplete and broken. Maybe that's how it should be.
Unlike Last House, The Virgin Spring continues to follow the father for a shot time after his revenge, to show us the emptiness, the realization that he has done things he perhaps should not. As a very religious man, we see him try to reconcile the events of the movie, both his daughters ordeal and his own reaction, with his faith; that's potentially interesting, but was for me too calm and easily resolved (or accepted). There was also a small supernatural element, which to me felt out of place.
So there it is, it's beautiful, but dated and a little dull; I wouldn't mark it 'avoid', as I like to reserve that for films I feel completely wasted my time, but I'm a long way from recommending it.
If I were you, I'd stick to Last House (70s or 2000s versions) or I Spit on Your Grave (again, 70s or 2000s).
As I wrote that last paragraph, it occurred to me that maybe there's a reason that both of those films have a very direct remake; where as there is only one Virgin Spring...
If I were you, I'd stick to Last House (70s or 2000s versions) or I Spit on Your Grave (again, 70s or 2000s).
As I wrote that last paragraph, it occurred to me that maybe there's a reason that both of those films have a very direct remake; where as there is only one Virgin Spring...
