Thriller: A Cruel Picture (Bo Arne Vibenius as Alex Fridolinski, 1973)

[Vaughan]

**Some minor spoilers**

I finally got to see this one today, and as is sometimes the case, I regret having owned the DVD for what - a year - and not giving it a spin.

For me it defied all expectations, and I consider it a far better picture than I was led to believe. The Director made a couple decisions that influenced me in this regard, first off the film almost has no soundtrack. What is used a pips and pops of electronic psychobabble that in one sense don't suit the movie at all (there's no new technology here) but in another just highlights those odd moments of wanton violence.

Then the Director leaves plenty of space at all times. He lets the film breath. The sequences where the One Eye is training up could have been cut down (it was my first instinct) but I must admit that I found he was not doing Hollywood window-dressing, and pretending this drug-addled girl could suddenly become a super hero.

And finally the slow motion sequences in the violent scenes added something too. it made them the antithesis of what you'd expect - fast cutting, people running, hiding, shooting, fighting, and moved them more in violent poetry (the booklet with the DVD talks about the influence of Peckinpah, which is obviously where some of this came from). It really worked.

It goes without saying that Christina Lindberg is outstandingly beautiful. And while the other characters aren't particularly well cast (or that their performances are all that great), I found Christina could easily carry the whole thing - something of beauty in an ugly world.

Some scenes of note are the reading of the communications between One Eye and her parents after she's spent time in the brothel, harrowing in their simplicity. The climatic scene which involves a horse is just amazing too.

I saw the hardcore version and found it didn't distract - although it's hardly essential. Like my recent viewing of The Witch Who Came from the Sea, this another film that I think could do with some meaty study, it's very very good.

So yeah, I recommend this film that probably needs no recommendation. The awesome soundscape, locations, and the wonderful Christina elevate this above your usual rape/revenge tale. Recommended.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture: amazon.co.uk (Hardcore inserts version)

Thriller: A Cruel Picture: amazon.co.uk (Non Hardcore inserts version)

[Johnny_Alucard]

Agree with you there...this is a smart and compelling rape-revenge thriller, in which the hardcore inserts are a bit of a needless distraction...and the slo-mo action sequences are indeed worthy of the best of Sam Peckinpah...high recommended to those who haven't yet viewed this...was looking on the 'Sex Gore Mutants' site recently and I see that the long in limbo 'A Gun for Jennifer' has just had a German DVD release, so that might be a welcome addition to a controversial but when done well, affective exploitation subgenre...

[Someone Weird]

In this case, I find the film a bit too slow (and maybe pretentious) for my liking. It has its moments. Still, an essential purchase - it has Lindberg.

[Vaughan]

Has anyone compared the soft version to the hard? Is it just the sex that's cut out? And if so, why two discs.... ever heard of branching?

[MarcMorris]

Don at Synapse did the hardcore version first, but when stores refused to stock it and after some requests, (me being one) he issued the original version.

[Vaughan]

Interesting - and what were the sales of the soft version as compared to the hard I wonder?

[mark meakin]

In this case, I find the film a bit too slow (and maybe pretentious) for my liking. It has its moments. Still, an essential purchase - it has Lindberg.

I'm with you here on this one but no fan of exploitation films should be without it.

[abs1nth3]

By the way, the director's real name is Bo Arne Vibenius.

[JAMIOUSE]

I found it a rather cold film, it certainly left me indifferent or maybe I was shocked? There were a few moments and few scenes that were visually striking but I haven't watched it again since buying it. Perhaps I should watch the 'standard' version next and not the hardcore one.

[Vaughan]

Good to see some replies here. Some of the issues people have had with it I saw myself, but I think my take on them is simply different. Is the film slow? Yes, it definitely is. However, I think the pacing was deliberate, that the Director was allowing the horrible things to sink in, to peculate for a bit. Too often these films rush from cause to effect - this one waited and left you wondering for a bit. I think it gained power because of that.

A cold film? Yes. The lack of a soundtrack really causes much of this. Without the dramatic booms and bangs and cues and soundtrack stabs, you were left to react to the action on the screen. But I think we're so ingrained into expecting things to be spelled out to us (jump now! This is a terrible moment! etc.) we're a bit dis-oriented. At least I was. So it worked for me.

So everything people have said bothered them I saw too... I just ultimately felt different about it.

[Someone Weird]

Generally I prefer a slower pace. I like films to lead up to moments of shock/violence, as you remember it more afterwards...when films lead from one explosive action set piece to another it all just becomes a blur and a bore. With Thriller, they took the slow pace to another level - as you say, this was probably done deliberately, but for me, it just didn't work. Like I said earlier, it seemed a bit pretentious. I'd still recommend people check it out.

[Vaughan]

Tis fair enough. I didn't think it was pretentious in the least. I often see the word "pretentious" used whenever a film is taking something a tad more seriously than the usual fair (whether or not you're doing that here). I think the two most misused words used on message boards are "pretentious" and "hypocrite". One to to explain away films that attempt to go to another level with subjects we're used to seeing treated in a more exploitive way, and the other to explain the fact that few things are entirely black and white (as life rarely is).

So in this case, I personally don't think pretentious fits. In fact, it's so laid back and leisurely in a way, that I think it's very much an inappropriate label. The film, for me, simply took the film from the lead characters tone - she's been punished by life since childhood, and she's dead inside. So everything she does or thinks is dead-pan, inevitable.

We agree people should see it though, so that's cool. Personally I've no interest in the softer version - and I wouldn't pay more money to see it.

[MarcMorris]

I read somewhere that soft version is actually closer to a director's cut and that the producer added the hardcore footage.

[Vaughan]

Fair enough, mate. They should have done a disc with both versions (which of course wouldn't have solved their problem with stockists). I'm not paying twice for the title just so some footage can be taken out.

If the label wants to go with a Director's vision, then fair enough. But clearly someone made a decision here to release the harder version of the film, and that's what many people seem to have gone for. We often buy the hardest version of things...... whether it be gore, violence, or sex. This was such a case.

But yeah - I appreciate the point. There's too much to buy to revisit based on something like this though.

[fredzilla]

I read somewhere that soft version is actually closer to a director's cut and that the producer added the hardcore footage.

Well, actually, the director - who I know - told me in private conversations that HE added the hardcore footage and was planning that from the beginning. So that's closer to the directors original vision, even if it's more tasteless or controversial.

So I guess no one never will know the truth

[Vaughan]

What does "closer" mean in this context? Whatever happened to his vision?

[MarcMorris]

I also read that the director hates the Synapse disc and regretted selling the rights off. I must admit he came across as a bit of a nut job!

[SimonT]

I must say I could not understand the need for the hardcore inserts (no pun intended).

Close-up penetration shots are included in porn films for the purposes of stimulation. Thriller was supposed to be a shocking exploitaton film, so I really fealt these ruined the tone of the film, and seemed totally out of place with the other scenes.

Did the director forget was he was filming and think it was meant to be a porno?

[MarcMorris]

I take it you've not seen Water Power, Forced Entry or Femmes De Sade?

[Peter Neal]

I also read that the director hates the Synapse disc and regretted selling the rights off. I must admit he came across as a bit of a nut job!

Rumour in the Finnish exploitation fanbase is that he was gambling for a way -over-the-top selling prize after Tarantino hyped "Thriller" as one of the major influences for "Kill Bill", scaring off some interested buyers....that's probably why the Synapse discs so far have been the only DVD releases of the movie worldwide. It's not even been released on its own home turf, Sweden.

For a comparison between the "soft" and HC version look no further:

http://www.schnittberichte.com/schni...ht.php?ID=4303

Texts in German only, but it boils down to this: Not only hc scenes were removed, also a bit of violence (the eyeball being sliced) and small bits of "plot" due to the hc cuts.

I still haven't fully made up my mind about this flick : It's a one-of-a-kind slice of rare Scandinavian exploitation peppered with some art....but I'm not too keen on its cold and distanced mood. This film makes it very hard to really "feel" with the heroine, which seems so odd, considering her ordeal on screen...may be, this distance was the intended effect....but it doesn't make it easier for me to embrace "Thriller" as whole.