Bad Girls Go to Hell, 1965
Meg (Gigi Darlene) is home alone when she is sexually assaulted by her apartment building's janitor. When he comes after her again a short while later, she hits and kills him. Afraid that no one will believe she acted in self-defense, Meg flees the city and goes on the run. But at every turn she finds herself at the mercy of people who want to take advantage of her.
Doris Wishman really is her own little cinematic island, isn't she? And that island is full of people wearing full-body fishnets and an askew houseplant, isn't it?
In my writing about
Indecent Desires, I said that it was hard for me to get a read on exactly what Wishman was thinking as she smashed together a pretty disturbing horror/fantasy plot with some very silly nudie-cutie content. Having watched this film, I only feel more confident in saying that there is a stronger sense of intent to be disturbing while offering up the requisite cheesecake sequences.
The premise at the beginning is a bit goofy, even for a Wishman film. Meg deciding that she needs to up and leave her husband because "no one would believe" that she was attacked by the janitor, but rather . . . seduced and murdered him? Doesn't wash. Still, once she hits the road, things go in a grungy, slightly-surreal direction and the film really picks up steam.
My favorite sequence was probably the first, in which Meg is picked up by a man named Al (Sam Stewart). While Meg---and probably every audience member watching--is wary of his intentions, he is shockingly not interested in her. And when she realizes this, she deliberately provokes his anger.
This is a real turning point in the film, because despite Meg's seemingly helpless situation, she's maybe not exactly the story of someone who is an innocent victim. The emphasis in the different sequences is not on the sex itself, but the scenarios around the sex. Repeated shots, like a certain angle on clothing being removed, cast this more as Meg's fantasy than the fantasy of someone objectifying her. As the film goes on, the scenarios become more "high-end" for lack of a better word, in the way that they are shot, the colors used, etc. (I also think the people playing her attackers got more attractive, but that might be a very subjective observation).
And this is very interesting in light of the final 10 minutes or so, where
WARNING: spoilers below
it is revealed that this was all a dream of Meg's.
it is revealed that this was all a dream of Meg's.
But something that the film does that I really appreciated, despite it being kind of disturbing, is at the very end where (MAJOR SPOILERS)
WARNING: spoilers below
having woken from the dream, Meg goes out into the hallway where her dream assault actually starts to take place as she is cornered by the janitor. Unlike in the dream version where Meg softly resisted and only threatened to scream, in this real attack, she looks terrified. The film ends on her screaming in fear.
Women fantasizing about non-consensual sex is a highly fraught topic. What I appreciate in this film is the way that it delineates between fantasy and reality. A fantasy about non-consensual sex and actual non-consensual sex are two really, REALLY different things. One is entirely in control the of the person being attacked, while the other is entirely out of their control. I don't mind a sexploitation film exploring the idea of non-consensual fantasy, but I very much appreciate that this one takes the time to draw a firm underline under the "fantasy" part of the equation.
having woken from the dream, Meg goes out into the hallway where her dream assault actually starts to take place as she is cornered by the janitor. Unlike in the dream version where Meg softly resisted and only threatened to scream, in this real attack, she looks terrified. The film ends on her screaming in fear.
Women fantasizing about non-consensual sex is a highly fraught topic. What I appreciate in this film is the way that it delineates between fantasy and reality. A fantasy about non-consensual sex and actual non-consensual sex are two really, REALLY different things. One is entirely in control the of the person being attacked, while the other is entirely out of their control. I don't mind a sexploitation film exploring the idea of non-consensual fantasy, but I very much appreciate that this one takes the time to draw a firm underline under the "fantasy" part of the equation.
This is probably my favorite thing that I've seen from Wishman. While I definitely enjoyed
Double Agent 73 in a laughing-at-it kind of way, this film was genuinely involving, with the thriller and sexploitation elements sitting much closer together thematically. Yes, this one has all of the usual things you expect in her films---like the same room being used multiple times as different locations, or the wild zooms---but here it almost universally elevates and fits the nightmarish vibes.