The premise of 'Fight for your life' sure sounds like an intriguing watch on paper: takes the vigilante rape/revenge format of films like 'Straw Dogs' (1971) and proto-type video nasty 'Last House on the Left' (1972) and apply it to a racial context. Even without the Civil Rights and Black Power movement still fresh in the public consciousness, the result was always bound to be explosive and some/many were always bound to be offended. However, the question concerning 'Fight for your Life' has always been: does the movie offer enough to escape the charge of just trying to shock? Many would answer "no", however I would disagree and say that, despite some flaws, it really does.
William Sanderson (who would later star in 'Savage Weekend' and 'Blade Runner') plays Kane, the vehemently racist leader of a trio of escaped convicts who stumble across a house belonging to a black minister and his family and decide to hide out there. While there, the trio hold the family hostage and subject them to increasing levels of exploitation and sadism including a seemingly interminable array of racial swear words and a rape (although thankfully not graphically presented). However, the family resist the violence and abuse in various ways (some very moving) and as the upper hand swings and sways between the two groups the convincing performances from the cast definitely elicits fear, suspense, pathos, and rage from the viewer until the racists finally get their comeuppance.
But is it a film about racism or is it a racist film? It's clear to me that, a similar way to D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' (1915), it is a powerful film about racism and this power comes precisely from the depictions of racism in it. Sure there is an extraordinary amount of racially offensive language in it, but that's because the characters in it are racist! In fact, if there is any moral dubiousness in the film's premise it's the way the viewers' identification with the family sanctions the violent revenge enacted UPON the racists at the end of the film, a moral grey area acknowledged in the film by the police officer listening to the unfolding vengeance down the phone line.
However, saying this, my issue with the film is that the while the racially offensive language used in the film is quite effective at the beginning, as it swiftly sets up both the perpetrators and the victims, the sheer quantity of these racial epithets lessens their impact considerably, even to the point of near boredom. I'm sure this felt "edgy" to the director at the time but set against the moral complexity mentioned before it comes off as unnecessarily crude. And yet, it was this very over-the-top language which got it on the list of Video Nasties drawn up in the UK in the 1980s and, like so many of the films on the list (although 'Fight for your Life' is more deserving than many of the others), it managed to gain a longer shelf life than it probably would have had otherwise.
It's not a masterpiece by any measure, and the offence at times feels showy, but the film has heart and is definitely worth a (discomforting) watch.
William Sanderson (who would later star in 'Savage Weekend' and 'Blade Runner') plays Kane, the vehemently racist leader of a trio of escaped convicts who stumble across a house belonging to a black minister and his family and decide to hide out there. While there, the trio hold the family hostage and subject them to increasing levels of exploitation and sadism including a seemingly interminable array of racial swear words and a rape (although thankfully not graphically presented). However, the family resist the violence and abuse in various ways (some very moving) and as the upper hand swings and sways between the two groups the convincing performances from the cast definitely elicits fear, suspense, pathos, and rage from the viewer until the racists finally get their comeuppance.
But is it a film about racism or is it a racist film? It's clear to me that, a similar way to D. W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' (1915), it is a powerful film about racism and this power comes precisely from the depictions of racism in it. Sure there is an extraordinary amount of racially offensive language in it, but that's because the characters in it are racist! In fact, if there is any moral dubiousness in the film's premise it's the way the viewers' identification with the family sanctions the violent revenge enacted UPON the racists at the end of the film, a moral grey area acknowledged in the film by the police officer listening to the unfolding vengeance down the phone line.
However, saying this, my issue with the film is that the while the racially offensive language used in the film is quite effective at the beginning, as it swiftly sets up both the perpetrators and the victims, the sheer quantity of these racial epithets lessens their impact considerably, even to the point of near boredom. I'm sure this felt "edgy" to the director at the time but set against the moral complexity mentioned before it comes off as unnecessarily crude. And yet, it was this very over-the-top language which got it on the list of Video Nasties drawn up in the UK in the 1980s and, like so many of the films on the list (although 'Fight for your Life' is more deserving than many of the others), it managed to gain a longer shelf life than it probably would have had otherwise.
It's not a masterpiece by any measure, and the offence at times feels showy, but the film has heart and is definitely worth a (discomforting) watch.