10/31/10 - The Last House on the Left

The Last House on the Left (1972, 84 min)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068833/

This was a movie I'd wanted to watch for some time. I had read it was disturbing and twisted and weird but it was also an early Wes Craven film so I was hoping it would also have some good quality here and there. I elected to watch the older film instead of the newer remake even though I'd heard it was okay.

The film follows Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) and Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham) as they take a detour on their way to a concert so as to get some drugs first. They accidentally meet a psychotic group on the run led by Krug Stillo (David Hess) and Fred "Weasel" Podowski (Fred J. Lincoln). Eventually Mari's parents Dr. John Collingwood (Richard Towers) and Estelle Collingwood (Cynthia Carr) get mixed in the plot.

The thing about The Last House on the Left is how unsettling it really is. What I found most fascinating about this though is that the difference between The Last House on the Left being a horribly cheesy film and being one of the most uncomfortable films to watch with a group of people is probably one minute. What I mean here is that if one minute total was cut all over from the film (like five seconds here, fifteen seconds here, eight seconds here, etc.) then The Last House on the Left would not even be remotely remembered for anything. The spark of the movie is how uncomfortable it makes a viewer feel. People are getting raped and killed by a psychotic group of murderers and everyone behaves in a realistic fashion for this situation. And nothing is not shown because it's a movie. I mean, sure, we're dealing with fake stuff here, but the intense nature of how everything is shown tricks us temporarily. Scenes like when Krug is cutting "Krug" into Mari's chest or the rape itself are obviously not being conducted but that doesn't make the movie any less easy to watch.

Normally, I'm fine watching pretty much anything in a film. I think the only stuff that really bothers me is eye gouging for some reason (so the one death in 28 Days Later ... isn't that fun to watch). Anyway, The Last House on the Left is probably the most squeamish I've been in a movie in a long time. It's unrelenting, intense, and uncomfortable to watch (though this might have been because I was watching with a group of people, I don't know). The film doesn't hold back. However, this raises some other questions. Was this shown just because Craven was trying to make a name for himself and sometimes gross stuff will get your name out there? Or was this shown because Craven was exploring some social dilemma and he felt that these scenes best explored it? Honestly, I can't answer that question and if it was truly done for either of these reasons than it really only succeeds on the first since I can't really see what Craven could be exploring here.

When I step back and look at this movie it holds a weird place in my film history. Obviously The Last House on the Left doesn't have top-notch acting nor an excellent plot nor an engrossing story. And yet I still found it to succeed. Is it because I wanted to be grossed out? Maybe deep down it was because I hadn't been shocked with horror in quite some time and I simply wanted that. And while I said it doesn't have top-notch acting, it's not like anyone's atrocious. Everyone does a fine job with their parts but I didn't just feel like commending anyone really by name.

Overall, I gave this film a 7/10. In my opinion, The Last House on the Left was made to shock 1970s audiences and it did just that to a 2010 audience. I think this is worth some points right here. Sure, the movie doesn't have a high production value, but it's still one intense and unforgiving look at psychotic killers.