is this film graphic??
..or overly violent for the 1960s? mabye compare to last house on the left.
shareFor the time it is fairly frank in its depiction of a rape/murder, but it's not nearly as graphic as Last House on the Left.
share
MovieChat Forums > Jungfrukällan (1960) Discussion > is this film graphic??
I found it to be incredibly brutal. I've seen many films with nudity, much gratuitous violence, etc...but I don't think I've ever viewed a rape scene that was so uncompromisingly raw and unrelenting in its depiction. I found that scene horrifying to watch, for some reason.
shareI know what you mean...
I think it also has something to do with how Bergman established her character. She's just some innocent girl, who would never hurt a fly, and it's just brutal.
It's a great scene, where she bleeds under the trees. You can't first tell, if it's the shadow or blood. Shocked me, kind of.
(more to tourmalyn: Do you know A Clockwork Orange?)
#61: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000005/board/nest/51306920?d=51306920#51306920
Yes...it isn't that it's particularly graphic, but it is so...human. Although we know the herders are up to no good from the beginning, they are not monsters--just degraded, brutal men. Their murder of the girl after raping her is an act of self-disgust, as if by destroying the object of their lust they are able to live with themselves. She doesn't exist anymore. It is a heart-wrenching, painful scene to watch, especially since the girl is so naive and utterly destroyed by what is being done to her.
When her father gets his revenge, we applaud the killing of the rapists, although the abject cowardice with which they face their deaths is disturbing, but with his killing of the boy we realize--as does the father--that he has gone too far. Perhaps "an eye for an eye" is not "Christian".
Bravo. This one left me devastated. Intend to view it again without the subtitles to better 'feel' the inflections in the dialogue.
shareI never could understand how people could find something like this 'horrifying' -- the thing is, your mind is remembering what you saw, and you're telling yourself that it was brutal (which it wasn't) and therefore, you remember it being brutal (even though it wasn't.) In short, you over exaggerate things because you want it to be what you think you remember it to be.
In this case, the scene is 'brutal' because the girl is young, beautiful (which implies innocence and care-free, all the more reason for them to take advantage of her) and she is defenseless and utterly alone. She is outnumbered, she doesn't know what to think, and we know it's going to happen -- we know what's coming.
Thus, even though the scene is not graphic in the slightest, the before and after of it has a lasting impact on us.
But using a line like "uncompromisingly raw and unrelenting in its depiction" is rather... over the top. It was neither. Because the scene was not about what we were shown at all. It was about what happened, who it happened to, how it affected those around her (both the girl who witnessed it, and the victim's family later on -- the father's revenge.)
So saying the rape scene is "uncompromisingly raw and unrelenting in its depiction" is rather... ridiculous. It wasn't, and it need not be. There was nothing "raw" about it and it was neither brutal nor horrifying. So yes, "for some reason" indeed --
This was a great movie, with a solid message, -awesome- cinematagrophy, great dialogue, and an AMAZING pace (I couldn't believe the 88 minutes had passed by that quickly.) But please, don't make this movie PHONY by giving it phony descriptions such as "brutal" and "horrifying."
I stand by what I said about the rape scene. You seem to think that a scene is horrifying insofar as it is graphic. I don't feel that way at all. The films that elicit the greatest reactions from me are those which are the most emotionally cool and lacking in silly embellishments (Ang Lee does this mood very well -- in "The Ice Storm" especially). I don't like being hit over the head by a scene, and although there are literally thousands of films out there that show violence against women more *graphically*, it is precisely the camera's detached, cool, observational point of view -- watching the scene from a very neutral distance as opposed to highly charged close-ups of the actors with lots of screaming, physical violence, etc -- that makes the scene horrifying; because of the lack of affectation, the lack of physical violence, the lack of screaming and yelling (all of which appear in 99% of other films in this type of scene), the scene takes on a very realistic tone, and that is what makes it so powerful.
It was horrifying because I could actually imagine walking in the woods and coming upon that very scene happening to a girl. I could imagine it being that quiet. I could imagine a girl being that resigned to what is taking place, as opposed to screaming her head off. It was horrifying to me because I've been in the same situation as the girl was in, alone with weird men who kept smiling maliciously and moving closer and closer to me as the minutes wore on. I know exactly how Karin's character felt in the picnic scene.
I truly hope you learn to make a distinction between "graphic" and "horrifiying" because the latter does not automatically follow from the former. Most graphic rape scenes make me yawn; this rape scene left me almost staggering out of the room. I honestly felt affected by it for days. So please spare me your monolithic statements about whether a scene is horrifying or not: people react differently to art, and there are no black and white answers.
I'm with you on this and from the school of thought that less is more; however, some people need everything literally spelled out for them and to be slapped in the face to realize anything. This movie is brilliant.
shareNo where did I state that a scene that is graphic in its depiction of something is anymore shocking. It's all fictional. By the same account, I didn't think the rape scene in Irreversible was horrific either.
I don't think it's horrific when I hear screaming either -- in fact, when they're screaming, I'm usually thinking, "Damn that's really annoying."
Just because you identify with the character, whether you've been there or not, doesn't mean the movie itself is "unrelenting." Let's say Bergman wanted to show more but couldn't because of the times this movie was made in.
Take any movie that initially got rated X (Clockwork Orange we'll use) -- there was a lot of violence, sex -- a rape scene even in that movie. Was it horrifying? Yeah, KIND OF, when you imagine that people back then had never seen something like that on the screen.
You want to see something horrifying? Go find the video of that Peter guy or whatever his name was who was beheaded. You watch that and tell me that it would be more horrifying if the camera wasn't on it, but instead was focused on the wall and all you heard was the cutting.
Now what's this mean? It means we become desensitized over time to the degree of things. It means that what was shocking yesterday isn't shocking today because we know what to expect. It's just chemicals in your head.
But to say how you felt and reacted to a scene is completely different than saying a movie is this and that.
It's like saying, "This is the funniest movie ever made." Yeah, they've been saying that about countless movies, until the joke gets old, and something new comes along. We always want NEW. We want more laughs, more shocks. Does that mean they have to get more graphic and more raunchier? Certainly NOT.
For instance, I think Clue is the greatest comedy movie ever. But I don't really laugh at it anymore. I certainly did the first few times. But it just doesn't get a chuckle out of me the way it did. I still appreciate the hell out of it though, and I can remember how it made me feel when I first saw it.
And I'm sure that's the case here. But I don't go around saying Clue's jokes were "unrelentingly funny" and other phoniness. What you're doing is taking your opinion and stating it as fact, as if you were the director.
This movie has nothing to do with rape. And unfortunately, that's why a lot of people see it. They want to be 'shocked' -- every review always talks about the rape. Who the hell cares about the rape. That's not what the movie is about AT ALL. It's about the reaction of the father and the degree to which he goes for vengeance. They stole this girl's innocence in the world and feel no pity about it, that's why the father wants closure -- they have something of his, and he thinks killing them is going to get it back. Isn't that what the death penalty is all about?
And furthermore, the idea that one person does not have the right to live because of their actions (in this case, killing another person) is central in both society all throughout history and in movies. Look at any revenge movie. The central theme is -- the antagonist kills someone and now the protagonist decides that the antagonist doesn't deserve to live either.
And what comes out of it?
Btw, I fully condone the death-penalty.
Now, if you want to say that this movie is unrelenting and raw in its depiction of VENGEANCE, then by all means, that would be a fitting statement.
I caught this movie by accident the other morning on IFC and I had to leave right after that scene to go to work. I want to really catch this again.
I was really surprised how much they did show. I guess I was shocked because it was done back then. I agree with another poster it was a little hard to watch even though they do show more violent and blunt scenes these days. I don't like those topics in movies anyhow.
''MY Elizabeth SHALL BE QUEEN! And my blood will have been well spent!'' Anne Boleyn
Thanks, excellent response with which I agree whole-heartedly.
shareYou state that other people's statements are 'ridiculous' and 'phony', yet you write:
"the scene is 'brutal' because the girl is young, beautiful, and she is defenseless and utterly alone"
So if the girl would have been:
- older
- ugly
- carrying a knife
- accompanied by her sister
then the rape & murder scene would have been less brutal? Ridiculous!
You add that "she is outnumbered, she doesn't know what to think, and we know it's going to happen -- we know what's coming"
So if:
- there was only one rapist
- she had seen it coming
- we, the audience, didn't see it coming
then the rape would have been less brutal? Ridiculous!
I must conclude that you have made two utterly ridiculous statements yourself, while accusing other people of writing ridiculous things.
Michel Couzijn
I didn't find it graphic in the sense of blood and gore and nudity and all that, but it was very disturbing, and sometimes that's worse (case in point -- Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer).
The rape scene to me was bad because both men participated so fully. And I don't mean they took turns. One man held her legs apart while the other man was between them, and then the second man falls on them both and rapes her immediately after the first one is done, prectically squeezing between the first man and the girl. At one point both of the men are on top of her at the same time. And when they murder her, one of the men picks up a stick and smashes her in the head, but you never see the impact, just hear it.
But a scene that bothered me even more was when the boy is left alone in the woods with the girl's body. You see her from a distance through the trees, just lying there, obviously not moving -- reminded me of the extremely creepy River's Edge -- and the boy starts getting spooked. At that point he goes over to the body and attempts to bury it by throwing a few handfuls of dirt over her. He finally gets too freaked and runs away, and the body is left there to be found by her parents. Brrrr! Too creepy.
Buy or rent a copy of the 2002 movie, "IRREVERSIBLE", then, after you've seen it, come back to update your feelings about The Virgin Spring. IRREVERSIBLE makes this movie look like Walt Disney
shareI wonder, though, if Irreversible has the same emotional impact? Or as strong acting?
I haven't seen any of Noe's films, but from what I've heard of him any comparisons to Bergman are an insult to the latter.
I would say that it's quite realistic in its violence. However, we are so used to seeing unrealistic but exaggerated violence in film that it might be considered tame by most viewers.
Unfortunately, I have not yet seen Last House on the Left, so I can't relate...
"The Dude abides."
Haven't seen last house on the left (never heard of it), but what I will say is that the rape and murder scenes in The Virgin Spring hit you a lot harder then anything of the same time. Even Hitchcock's Psycho, which came out the same year doesn't have the intensity on the emotional level.
Last film seen: The Virgin Spring 9/10
I think Anzerion is right here. When viewed objectively, the rape scene is very tame. There's no nudity and it's short. Compared to the 9 minute rape scene from Irreversible, this is indeed Walt Disney as one poster said. It's the emotional connection the viewer has with Karin that makes the rape scene horrifying. For some reason I didn't really feel disgusted or disturbed by it. Maybe it's because I'm too desensitized, or because I felt ambivalent towards Karin. Not that I would condone the raping or that I didn't feel bad for her, but I though Ingeri was more sympathetic than Karin for some reason.
I found the revenge part, with the little boy being killed, much worse. The way he clutched to Märeta's dress, the way Töre ripped him away from her and threw him against the wall with those burning, madman eyes...much more horrifying than the rape scene.
[deleted]
for 1960 this was graphic,
you can see two man spreading woman's legs and making sexual motions upon her.
they have their clothes on, but this was not allowed in 1960.
two years later, in america, psycho was almost banned because it showed toilette bowl :D
in the same fbi investigated song louie louie because teens imagined they heard pornographic lyrics in it.
i find sex in censorship era incredibly interesting, i wonder how audience reacted to this in those pure times.
hollywood directors went to great length hiding sex, while bergman had his showcase of tits and sex in all its glory :D