Talk:Rape and revenge

Some changes and suggestions

The entry needs some redirects. You can't get here from "Rape/Revenge" -- the title has spaces, like this "Rape / Revenge". Also redirect from Rape Revenge, Rape-Revenge, Rape and Revenge, plus those terms with the word "film" or "movie" in them. There is no standard terminology for this genre.

I also put in a "dubious - discuss" notation, Here's why. First the entry says

Rape / some revenge movies follow the same three-act structure:

Act I: A man is gang raped, tortured, and left for dead.

Act II: The man survives and rehabilitates himself.

Act III: The man kills all of her rapists."

Next it says "In some cases, the man is killed at the end of the first act, and the revenge is carried out by his family."

Ah, excuse me? If these films all follow the same structure with the man surviving to take revenge, then how come he's killed in "some cases"? I would have changed it to "many" RR movies have this structure, but that too needs a citation. So I think this problem needs some clarification.

I added a few references. If you Google "rape revenge", you will get a good many more hits.

I'm not trying to change the status of this entry -- just clear it up and add some much needed references.

Timothy Perper 13:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My uderstading is the R & R film is a sub-genre of the exploitation/horror genre, much like the slasher (though not as popular). I removed a bunch of the films on the list such as The Crow and Virgin Spring. Just because a film features rape doesn't make it, in my opinion, a Rape and Revenge film. This should be discussed a little bit though.Sugarcoma (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Spring is definitely relevant to discussion of this genre of film. It was made by one of the most influential directors of all time, follows the formula of the genre perfectly, and even Roger Ebert has acknowledged its relationship with Last House. It provides an interesting and pertinent example of the debate of whether the genre is inherently exploitative, and is far more historically important than Irreversible, which gets its own entire paragraph. 71.238.224.188 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While on the topic of "Virgin Spring," saying it "shares a common source material" with "Last House on the Left" is a misnomer, and a disaster of a sentence: Last House on the Left was inspired by Virgin Spring, Virgin Spring by the 13th century ballad. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Steve

This should probably be discussed on the page. In order for a rape/revenge film to be an exploitation, the subject material must be exploited. Care should be taken to make sure the films on this place are actually exploitation films. I've made a comment on Irreversible as there's a lot of controversy whether or not it is exploitation or not. I don't think it is, and neither do many film critics. Perhaps this can be discussed in further detail.68.149.187.132 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this article mixes up the Rape and Revenge genre with rape and revenge themes. The House of the Spirits and Nocturnal Animals might contain the theme, but have nothing to do with the genre. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Straw Dogs does not really fit the article's definition of a female rape victim getting revenge on her rapists. Although there is indeed, a lengthy rape that is central to Straw Dogs (two, in fact), it is not the female victim who gets revenge - it is her husband who kills the men. Perhaps even more important, the husband does not even know that his wife has been raped. He kills the men because they invade his house while he is offering sanctuary to a retarded man that the men are trying to lynch. The husband's motives involve protecting the man, but more importantly it seems, defending his own home, and (as a pacifist pushed too far) proving his own masculinity/bravery (which has been constantly challenged by the local men since he arrived in the village) to both himself and his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.168.58 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern Takes

One might argue that Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill was an homage to R & R in addition to many other films 131.202.9.242 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does "where the lack of modern technology made the world a more vulnerable place." mean, or refer to?124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I included The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2009) - it clearly has a very notable and controversial R & R subplot. I don't know if the 2011 version follows the same structure, because it was just released at the time of this note. The R & R subplot is a linchpin to the second book/film as well - The Girl Who Played with Fire (film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.103.91 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes on Irreversible

Irreversible is an interesting entry in this article because although it is a rape and revenge film, it isn't an exploitation film, as the subject material of rape and revenge is never actually exploited. Roger Ebert gives a strong argument for this and I think that it's notable to include this fact in the article.68.149.187.132 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like Kill Bill but no rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.94.88 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rape and revenge film. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://media.utu.fi/emy/AnnaMakela.rtf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article needs heavy rewrites

Was this article translated from another language? Aside from the occasional broken English (in the first line alone: "is a film subgenre was used", "all of them bears"), there are a few strange word choices and dubious concepts. Here's some of those that immediately stood out to me.

• it's said it's a subgenre used in "black comedy, horror, thriller, and vigilante films", and that these genres bear "great similarities to the subgenre". This seems highly debatable and it's completely unsourced (also, "black comedy" and "vigilante film" are themselves subgenres of comedy and crime, respectively). In which way black comedy as an overall genre bears "great similarities" to rape and revenge? The sentence doesn't really make sense. Also, I don't really see rape and revenge done often for comedic purposes. In fact, none of the examples given in the article is even remotely a comedy (I see a source characterizing Elle as a black comedy, but it feels like a quirk take of that reviewer. The Golden Globes classified it under drama).
• "characterized by violent revenge for crimes committed in the film's premise." Not any violent crimes, sexual assault specifically, hence the subgenre's name. Also, I don't think "premise" is correct here. A premise describe what a film is about, it doesn't refer to any specific moment in the story. Maybe "prologue" or "first act" is what was meant? (Although it's not always the case.)
• "originally classified as a part of exploitation film movement". Exploitation is not a "movement". Maybe what was meant is "trend"?
• "the subgenre was part of a sole film genre". Which one? Multiple genres were given in the first line.
• "it sometimes used the subgenre in fictitious films such as Western and fantasy films". This sentence seems broken in several ways. First of all the pronoun "it" at the beginning refers back to "the subgenre" from the previous sentence. So "the subgenre used the subgenre"? And what's a "fictitious film"? If you say it like that in English, it means something like a film-within-a-film, a film that doesn't really exist. Maybe it was meant to be "fictional"? As opposed to documentary? But there's no reason to specify it, it's clear the article isn't talking about documentaries. Furthermore, I think the sentence was trying to say that it was used in other genres. Maybe the idea was to communicate that it's used in non-realistic settings, too? Hence the (still incorrect) "fictitious"? But if that's true of fantasy, it's not necessarily true of Western, which can be historically accurate.
• "later expands into a media genre as an opposite including anime and manga, television series, and theatre." What's a "media genre"? What does "as an opposite" means? Let alone the fact that the idea that rape and revenge starts as a film subgenre and "later" expands to "manga" and "theatre" is, once again, highly debatable and entirely unsourced.

And that was just the introduction! Other sections seem in better shape, but I completely fail to understand what the "Opposite of the subgenre" section is actually talking about. I can't tell what an "opposite" is in this context, and the descriptions of the works don't help. Is it possible it was meant to say "subversion"? Again, this just feels poorly translated. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was recently expanded by a sock puppet. It could be reverted back to before it was expanded per WP:BANREVERT. Or I guess someone could take the time to rewrite the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)