Horrorfest 14: The Virgin Spring

What? THE VIRGIN SPRING isn't a horror film? Well, this is my horrorfest, so I'll watch whatever I want.

I chose THE VIRGIN SPRING for 2 reasons:

1.) It was playing at the Clinton St. Theater

2.) It was remade as the famous slasher flick LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (Wes Craven's first flick)

I've seen the original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT a couple times over the years, and each time I read up on it I come across the factoid that it's actually a remake of Ingmar Bergman's classic 1960 film, THE VIRGIN SPRING. Both films deal with the same subjects, though Bergman approaches it from a more philosophical point of view while Craven is happy to indulge in the exploitative angle of the material. I guess the difference in attitude towards the material decides which genre we're talking about here, but if you simply look at what happens in the story, both films could easily be classified as "horror."

I repeated the premise of both films to some friends the other day, and they thanked me for giving the film away. But, in my opinion, the "twist" is so integral to the point of the movie, and such a famous twist, that it's not really spoiling anything to discuss it. But, if you don't want to know, stop reading.

THE VIRGIN SPRING is about a religious farming family in medieval Sweden whose daughter is raped and murdered while she's traveling through the woods to take candles to the village church. The rapists and murderers, a group of three brothers, seek shelter later that night at the home of the girl they just killed, the family finds out about it, and the tables are turned. Revenge follows.

Seems fairly simple, and it's easy to see why Craven would crib the plot for an exploitation slasher flick. But, Bergman uses the framework to tell a story of people trying to understand God in the face of tragedy. It also tells the story of characters who give in to their most evil feelings, and become afraid of themselves and the world because of it. If people can seemingly get away with this kind of stuff while God is watching, why do we still seek God's foriveness?

Let's get into the specifics: we've got unmarried, pregnant, servant girl Ingeri. She prays to the old Gods, specifically Odin. And, she HATES Karin, the daughter of her masters (Birgitta Pettersson). Karin's perfect -- good looking, virginal, born of good stock. She parties all night and sleeps in while everyone else works. Jerk.

The two girls embark on a journey to deliver candles to the nearby village church on the day of Our Lady of Virgins. On the trip, Ingeri grows to hate the perfect Karin more and more before eventually abandoning her under the pretense of being afraid to go into the woods. Karin goes on her own, and meets a group of creepy shepherd brothers who share a picnic lunch with her. One of them seems fairly intelligent, but sinister. His oldest brother is the creepiest -- he has no tongue, so he speaks with unintelligable grunts. The intelligent one translates, but you get the feeling (up to a point) that he's not exactly accurate. The third brother is the youngest and most innocent, by default -- a mere child, but clearly warped and abused by his older siblings.

As mentioned before, Karin's hospitality and naivete is repaid with brutal rape and murder. In the mean time, Ingeri has caught up with her and watches in horror but fails to do anything to save her. She's either scared or interested to see her own fantasies of revenge on the virginal Karin acted out. You decide.

That night, the shepherds seek shelter at the home of Karin's father, Tore (the always bad-ass Max Von Sydow). Tore and his wife (Birgitta Valberg) deduce that the shepherds are responsible for their beloved daughter Karin's disappearance, and enact their swift and brutal revenge.

The passages with the most philosophical insight occur in the last few minutes, so I won't give them away. Suffice it to say, the surviving characters find themselves quesitoning their actions (or inactions).

The film is beautifully shot in black and white by Sven Nykvist. The country scenery of Sweden all looks inviting, a series of forests with babbling brooks. My favorite sequence was the early morning scenes when Tore is preparing himself for his grand revenge. The sun rises over his house as he ritualistically bathes himself and prepares for the carnage to come. The sky looks peaceful, but the dark outlines of Tore's home's roof tops suggest violence stabbing up into the sun. Both beautiful and terrible.

While this film clearly takes a much more intellectual look at the idea of revenge and all of its implications, I was a little surprised how little of a stretch LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT really was. Sure, it goes way over the top into the exploitation department, placing a magnifying glass on the rape and torture scenes and then relishing unabashedly in the perversity of the revenge sequence. But, as far as the basic story elements are concerned, the films follow each other incredibly closely. Here, Bergman's rape scene is less graphic and shorter than Craven's, but just as effective. Similarly, the revenge sequence isn't as elaborate, but it might even be stronger thanks to the swiftness of the violence and the fact that Tore actually thinks about what he has done, once it's done.

I guess whatever attitude you take towards the material, it's still the same story, and the same fundamental feelings deep down get stirred. Everyone hates injustice, and everyone loves to see a villain get what's coming to him. Sure, it's perverse and voyeuristic, but it's there in every human.

Still, I think Craven's version would appeal more to the criminals and Bergman's version would appeal more to the victims, even if we're all both criminals and victims in our psyches.