Bofsensai
To revile or not to revile? This is a 'nasty' one that when first watched, left a deeply unsettling sense not of horror, but of revulsion against the underlying conceit assault of its storyline: i.e. that the eponymous 'dead girl' was (ab)used over and over again as a young fratboy's mere sexual thrill outlet object = let's be frank, cold body w**k receptacle! And which even in the setting down of here, surely already comes over as f**king (pun!) reprehensibly worst misogynistic in the horror genre!Except; but she was 'dead'; so, just like a corpse, she - or 'it' - can give neither consent (nor deny it!), coz, well, she's 'dead' ain't she, so don't matter?! So 'acceptable'? (Perhaps rather a rumination on the reprehensibility of necrophilia then? Since then, such a lifeless thing don't know – therefore care - what's happening to them, do they: so what?) Ah but, then here's the rub - or bite, as it were, since if she (it?) can move (to so bite her violators, of course, etc.), then, really, surely she's more of a form of zombie? The storyline never bothers to exposit on why or even how 'she' came to be where stumbled across by the two protagonists: either deliberately - or lazily? So, then, why not – as probably even more exciting come-on to the fan genre – have titled it 'Zombie Girl'? So initially, utterly awful: ah, but, then sparked by the widely differing views on (e.g. this site), despite many also got the same adverse (shock) reaction, those that had tried to think about what had been disturbingly set before them, actually had discerned a pertinent point previously missed, that does this ostensibly (very, VERY) nasty little piece of misogyny deserve possible re-assessment? As any ardent 'don't ever abuse women' feminist would have to agree, really, GENUINE consent – (to whatever (!) they, genuinely, want done to them) - is always, all essential, means that is the initial problem with the premise of this titular 'dead girl' is: being dead she can't give consent to the constant outrages inflicted upon her body (in effect, rape!): but then, the conceit of zombification / zombie films is that they are not conscious, either – are they? Or are they, but – as in the original (Haitian) premise – just hypnotised into submission to their master's will? In which case, this film then begins to depict a premise not initially grasped, which was already set forward in zombie luminary director Romero's third sequel 'Day of the Dead', in which he explored what if the zombies could be 'trained' to be of, ah, (re?) use to the society they would otherwise menace, rather as the original (Haitian) zombification procedure was meant for (as first set forward cinematically in precursor 1930's 'White Zombie'): unquestioning, un-resistant slave labour? Right: now apply that to this film's premise: that the not quite really 'dead' – ergo, 'zombified'? - female body found in the basement, is indeed used as a form of slave labour viz. in this case, a sexual slave - or rather, object - for the gratification of one of the two young teenager, (ergo, full of raging unfulfilled sexual urges whose, ah, biological imperative 'outlet' is unacceptable in society's norms) characters: so, a premise already, challenging the viewer to, surely, obviously, revile thereby reject. But then those two characters are then split between one which society would / should expect of every boy to do - if not duty, then display - their decency, ethical upbringing, and - admirably (= as the 'hero!) - upholds that expectation, that "it's just not right – guys", as opposed to the other who contravenes such by violating (let's be frank, raping) her (=it?) all the time (and in every which way of revulsion – inferred corpse sodomy anyone?). OK, so inside an ostensibly nasty little 'horror' film, lurks like a submerged explosive device, this quite challenging dilemma .. perhaps? Ah, but wait; for the director / writer then serve up = PLOT Spoiler ALERT = DO NOT READ IF WANT TO SEE; ah 'FRESH' -those usually liked unexpected 'I didn't see that coming' denouement twists, the fact that that throughout the film that ostensibly portrayed as hero (coz he rejects / objects to the zombie / 'dead' girl's constant violation) then gets skewered because in effect he becomes even worse: coz he now has his own previously sexually non-responsive girlfriend similarly bound up, but now she's now fully compos mentis ALIVE … although perhaps not; as had been bitten by the now escaped 'deadgirl' a.k.a. zombie … follow?! And then, if the (supposedly?) 'deadgirl' escapes, then horror of horrors, (guys!), must mean she could not have been that zombiefied, let alone 'dead', before, since she DID have the 'awareness' prior to her desire to escape her (abusive – very awfully abusive) predicament - could she? (Er, follow?)Ah hah! Which means that this little 'horror' is indeed, pretty harrowing horrific, for the subtexts it is challenging its viewers with! So there! Watch with care.
omnimog
I was really gonna let this one go after rating, just erase it from my mind. But after seeing so many ovations in the reviews, I suddenly felt the urgent need to balance things out a bit.First of all, I do like weird, low-cost indie movies. So this is in no way a genre-bashing, nor is it a "I didn't get it, so f**k y'all who are better than me"-kind of approach. There are a couple of elements that I see people easily read into this production, which I in no way see though. For starters, it is the social commenting. OK, teenage boys rape as soon as they get a chance. Disturbing, huh? And it really says something in the most intricate, subliminal, and psychologically thrilling ways of how teenage culture, manliness and all works for this generation, in our general, western culture etc etc. It is just so that it does not. People seem to find the theme and concept in itself so different from your everyday Hollywood-productions that they think the premise in itself is somewhat genius. Well, I guess it could be. But problem is, the characters are not even once believable throughout the entire movie. Their actions are mildly retarded at the very best, as is all the dialog between them. Not to mention the mediocre acting, or directing for that matter.Then there is all these comments about this being "art". Now, I have great respect for arts, as I have great respect for individual perception on how to define arts for someone. But seriously guys. I will not call any movie production "artsy" just because the pacing is slow. Or, because of the fact that there is a semi-conscious idea behind how to make use of light and dark in the most basic ways. Nor do I like to call it "art" just because the idea behind something sets it apart. It also need something more substantial, which I didn't find Deadgirl to have whatsoever.To give an example of horrifying, different wickedness that I do appreciate, I did find a film like Martyrs to be very, very good. Then again, that is of course, my very own taste, so I do not want to project anything upon others. To each his own. But please. Do make up your own mind about Deadgirl, and just don't feel the need to find this to be a masterpiece just because so many others do so. Personally, I found it to be one of the worst movies that I've seen in quite a while. Not because the idea was disturbing, or because I didn't "get it". But because I found it to be a horrible production in most every way.
