BBD Comments:
Whatever its uses, film is meant to make you feel something. We have come to name genres of film after the feelings they provoke, “tear jerkers,” “feel good movies,” or “guilty pleasures.” Yet modern cinema seems content to limit itself to just one feeling, if any. Audiences have been subdued into viewing films as “action/adventure,” “drama,” “comedy,” “classic,” etc. ‘Straw Dogs’ is a film that defies any simple genre classification, and does not just make you feel something, it makes you feel many things not all (if any) of them pleasant. It is a troubling film that pushes its audience to the edge, and for some it pushes them over it.
Reading past criticism and observations of Coolbaugh’s pick, yield endless discussion of the film’s misogyny, and I suppose for a film that shows a violent rape turn into a consensual act of love making that is appropriate. But Peckinpah is not some hack and ‘Straw Dogs’ is no mere exploitation film. Unquestionably the film, after an hour of small town menace and marital dysfunction, explodes with the assault on Amy (the excellent Susan George). I believe this scene, though horrifying, is not a hateful commentary on the nature of feminine character, but a challenging turning point replete with some very difficult questions. Does the film mean to suggest that Amy likes it rough? Her resistance of Charlie’s advances could be read as thinly veiled come-hithers. Is the point instead that she realizes during the rape that Charlie is truly the man of her dreams? An ugly question, but it could be argued. Does the film believe Amy “has it coming to her” for her bathing with the blinds up as the workman are watching her? Again, I can see how people view it as such, but I would disagree. Whatever the ultimate point of the filmmaker with this scene, it is surely unlike any I can remember elsewhere. It seems simple to make a cinematic depiction of rape upsetting, but to make a scene such as this, where the audience is at times terrified, hopeful, disgusted, and ultimately truly repulsed is impressive. When she first begins to caress Charlie’s face, I for one begin to think of the bear trap on the wall. Is she planning to put his head into that trap? Is she wooing him into a false sense of security? Certainly that would be an easy way to make sense of her behavior, but this film is not interested in easy, it is interested in problem solving, and the equation presented by the rape sequence is not one I am likely to solve here.
What makes this film so problematic is that this one scene is so devastating it makes some in the audience decide to “check out.” A film is simply not allowed to make any statement about rape other than it is an act of violence. If the rapist isn’t punished and the victim isn’t saved we are dealing with a sick and twisted film from the mind of a moral degenerate. I believe Peckinpah is making a film that deals in this, as in almost every scene, with the grey areas of the human condition. ‘Straw Dogs’ is a film that doesn’t purport to know the moral high ground, but has the courage to investigate violence in almost all its forms. It is no surprise that in the month of its release ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and ‘Dirty Harry’ also entered the public consciousness. The three films created an uproar and subsequent backlash against violence in cinema, and ‘Straw Dogs’ is the one film of the three that remains too violent for even our modern desensitized palates.
I know full well that ‘Straw Dogs’ is not for everyone. In the end it is populated with essentially despicable characters, and it makes one wonder what is the point of the whole endeavor? For me, it may be the very thing that Coolbaugh pointed to in his preamble. This film revels in the tension it creates. We are uncomfortable with the incestuous siblings, the horrific rape sequence, the gimpy child molester, the increasingly violent climax, and the bi-polar marriage. If a film is measured by the sum of its parts, ‘Straw Dogs’ adds up to a sickening total. Still the main question of the film is why? Why make this film? Why watch it? Sam Peckinpah was an ex patriot living in Europe when he made this film. The Vietnam War was raging, and America was burning with riots, assassinations and Nixon. Dustin Hoffman’s David is an American who has fled his country in its time of need, and as his new bride points out, hides at his blackboard puzzling out some unknown equation related to far away planets and stars. He is as removed from the realities of his world as he can manage, so much so that a powerful bear trap can be viewed abstractly as a work of art to hang on the wall rather than a bloody instrument of death. From this starting point, the troubling and complex realities of the world intrude - stealing his pride, his wife’s purity and love, his faith in the law, and the sanctity of his home. Pushed to the edge, he finally and ironically stands up for the most despicable person in this despicable town.
When the dust settles he has nothing left but a house filled with corpses and a shattered marriage. But the viewer is left with many questions, and not one easy answer. We are now the hermits staring at a chalkboard, searching for meaning, and praying we never have to face a world like the one Peckinpah has presented to us.
‘Straw Dogs’ is not an easy film, and I doubt it was an easy pick for Coolbaugh, but I am glad it is in our canon, and that I finally saw it projected. I remain troubled by ‘Straw Dogs,’ and the feelings it generates, but a film that makes me feel something, even if it isn’t pleasant, always seems useful.
Nubs Comments:
It is because I am aware that I stand alone in my opinion of this movie, and that I know it was expected to stimulate controversy and extreme views, that I have no trouble deeming ‘Straw Dogs’ as the Worst Pick Ever. In some way I feel bad because Coolbaugh has been such a strong supporter of my picks, yet not too bad knowing that Eric was looking for a memorable pick that spurned strong emotions. Well, when a movie makes you feel physically nauseous repeatedly so that you are moved to either vomit or walk out, then I suppose the pick is successful. Couple that with a passionate discussion of the film in lieu of our usual programming - winding-down with headsets - and some might call this a great pick. Not me, however, I hated it.
There will be some who suppose my opinion is from a soft stomach, a lack of fair criticism based on a high moral tastes, or a new found feminist point of view. I can assure you none of the above is true. I love truly shocking, gut-wrenching movies that would send your average viewer running for the nearest multiplex. ‘Breaking the Waves,’ ‘Dancer in the Dark,’ ‘A Clockwork Orange,’ and ‘The Pianist,’ are just a few of the most disturbingly depressing, hard to enjoy movies that I would place among my list of favorites. As powerful and poignant as these movies are, I have only viewed them once or twice. It is mostly out of courtesy that I don’t force these picks on my Movienight cohorts. The other difference I would argue is that those movies are good and able to stand up against the test of time.
So what would I argue makes this movie different from similar beasts? It is quite simply gratuitousness and timelessness. I feel this movie was primarily made to shock an audience of 1971 and now only serves to repulse a modern audience that can no longer find its purpose. The drudging first act of ‘Straw Dogs’ does not properly prepare the viewer for its subsequent acts. This is careless but probably justified by the director as setting us up to be taken off guard like the victims of the story. As if we needed that to be shocked by the next acts. First Amy is violently beaten into submission and raped. However, it is revoltingly presented, in a way showing she enjoys some of the rape, to start our stomachs churning. The movie has our heroine literally perform the most offensive act in the English language; she just lays back and enjoys it. Then she is also raped by another from behind while looking down the barrel of a shotgun. After this we are relieved to have our hero, the husband, return home and berate her without ever finding out what monstrosity was performed on her. We move away from this to the next scene where she goes to a church function with her attackers in the room, hideous loud sounds of children screaming, and multiple flashbacks of the rape, in case we forgot. Our subplot then takes off when a naive teenager lures a known child molester to a private hideaway where they can make-out before he inevitably gets spooked and strangles her. I think then I closed my eyes and went to my happy place during the arduous third act where most of the townsmen get drunk, break into the couple’s house for a very long time, and then finally get their almost just desserts. All get it, except the psychopathic killer who gets saved and driven home by the husband, who, we’re never quite sure, figures it out or not.
In ‘Breaking the Waves’ we watch a helplessly, naïve believer tortured to show a beautiful end proving hope and faith can persevere. ‘A Clockwork Orange’ shows us a disgusting FIVE minute violent rape scene setting up a future that has to come up with alternative reform for its maniacal youth. ‘The Pianist’ and other disturbing war films show us the horrors man is capable of both committing and surviving. These movies all, at the very least, give us some revolutionary cinematic devices and incredible visual imagery that ‘Straw Dogs’ cannot claim. I never could figure out what point ‘Straw Dogs’ was hoping to convey. One point I could try to draw is that the passive, American mathematician learns to stand up and fight for his home and family. However, since he never really finds out what his wife went through or the true guilt of the killer he is protecting, I don’t see how he learns anything. He even states with the last line he doesn’t know where he is going or where his home is. So what is the point of putting those horrifying images in my brain forever? It seems like gratuitous sex and violence to me. And if the point is a metaphor for some timely political issue vaguely touched on, then the movie fails to transcend into modern pertinence.
The really disgusting part is that the only consistent theme I could take from this film is that it seems to be saying all of the characters got what they deserved. Because the little girl refused to listen to her father and brother/lover she was killed. Because the Major didn’t look after his brother and put him away, he was killed. Because the townsmen were drunken misfits they died horrible deaths. Because Charles was a rapist he was killed by the overly set-up bear trap. Because the husband wouldn’t stand up for his home and wife, he got a broken home and wife. Because the wife behaved childishly and craved attention and wouldn’t wear a bra, she was raped. Yeah, justice!
The other point I could see this film taking is it’s a simple psychological horror for its time. It’s like ‘Deliverance.’ We can compare the two movies when Coolbaugh chooses it next. I’m sorry anyone called ‘Bull Durham’ a chick-flick.
I know the others saw this movie in a different way than me. It would be interesting to hear what our one female member thought, but we never get to know her opinion. Perhaps I was ultra-sensitive to the misogyny because I was the only viewer who had left his wife and daughter home alone to view this flick. Perhaps I’m being too judgmental of one person’s view of art in cinema. Perhaps I am not considering the one point to take away which is I should fuck my wife HARD before someone else does for me. Perhaps I’m the only one man enough to call this movie what is: an offensive, pointless, shock flick that doesn’t hold up for its time, my time, and should no longer waste anyone’s time.
I do want to welcome back Ben Wiener to Movienight, and welcome back some testosterone in our selections, and welcome back some controversy to Movienight. I guess I’m glad to see Wiener and testes and controversy at Movienight. All three are always good for drummin’ up business.
Wiener Comments:
This is a hard review to write. For the first time since reviews became an expectation of Movie Night membership, I'm being forced to respond to a film that I've only seen once. Without the benefit of the kind of specific recollection that comes from multiple viewings, I have to respond with my gut.
First and foremost, despite being shot in Middlesex, ‘Straw Dogs’ is really a Western. We've seen the same story before. Usually it features a man who comes to a lawless town in the Old West and is forced to violence to protect his family and property, and to avenge the dishonor inflicted upon him. In this case, we have an American graduate student instead of a carpet bagger from the east. And the villains are thuggish, inbred, drunk Welshmen instead of thuggish, inbred, drunk cowboys. The plot, the characters, and the motifs are all the same, right down to the role played by the saloon, or pub if you prefer. So any of us inclined to see this film as any kind of departure for Peckinpah from the genre he's best know for would be mistaken. It also provides an exploration of two of Peckinpah's favorite themes: explosive violence and the ambiguity of rape.
‘Straw Dogs’ is an uncomfortable and shocking movie. But it's not a good movie. The first third is wonderfully tense and atmospheric. And we get some interesting moments like the first exchange between David Summer and the Reverend. But it's got a lot of holes. Most glaringly for me, we never get any sense of the attraction between David and his wife. From the very first scene, they're somewhat hostile to each other, and they really seem to have nothing in common. Maybe we need a leap of faith to get a nerdy American graduate student in to the English countryside, but as a viewer, you get the feeling that David and Amy are doomed. The utter lack of screen chemistry between Dustin Hoffman and Susan George may be the cause of it. Or maybe the utter lack of chemistry is by design. Either way, they're not a couple you believe and to a certain degree, that mitigates the horror of what follows.
What follows is, for the most part, a pastiche of genre conventions. The rape. The murder. The lynch mob. The discovery of courage. There's nothing new to be seen or told here. No one can disagree that the rape scene is both impossible to watch and impossible not to watch. But guess what? It's a graphic rape scene. If you can't make that compelling, you should hand in your light meter. We're shocked by what we're shown and we're shown it. In the hands of a different director, rape could have been alluded to, not reveled in, pornographically. But then we'd have a movie with no staying power whatsoever. In all of Peckinpah's films, the critics encourage to contemplate what the director is trying to say about violence. But honestly, I think he just likes rough sex and violent death. And there's nothing wrong with that.
When you compare ‘Straw Dogs’ to that other "rape and violence in the English countryside" film of 1971, ‘A Clockwork Orange,’ you see how little ‘Straw Dogs’ really has to say about either.
‘Straw Dogs’ was a provocative pick. I could certainly dust off the feminist critical theory playbook and rant at length about the film's patriarchal construction of sex and power (it's David's wife's father's house he's protecting after all), but the analysis here becomes too easy. And for too little reward. There's an undeniable visual power to ‘Straw Dogs.’ It's a film I'll remember. It's just not a film I'm going to think about again.
SELECTOR Comments:
‘Straw Dogs’ very well may have been the most hotly debated film the Movienight crew has enjoyed to date. It’s very polarizing - that’s the primary reason I went with it. It’s my kind of film. I appreciate a film that leaves room for interpretation. Ambiguity. Take away what you want – it’s like a great song. When you finish watching ‘Straw Dogs,’ you’re uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as when you’re watching. Perhaps more, if you’re Nubs who thinks the world is out to get his family. It’s not a movie that leaves you feeling very good. You don’t really know what to make of it, and I love that.
The foreshadowing in this movie gets more and more pronounced every time you see it. There is so much said in a single glance, or pause in between words, that you simply cannot catch the first go around. Let’s not even talk about the editing. That was some of the most intense, cerebral editing I’ve seen. The actors were well aware of the significance of every single shot. There’s not one scene that you could lose. Wiener said he felt there were many scenes missing – but I disagree. You get precisely what Sam Peckinpah wants you to get. Not an ounce more, or less. You don’t have to KNOW what they were running from in the States. You can reason several things, but you don’t know…and you don’t need to. All you need to know is that they’re running, and that she despises his cowardice.
‘Straw Dogs’ has a handful of different story lines swirling and intertwining at the same time. Some are more obvious than others, but there are very few that can’t be supported with a damn good argument. One of the primary stories revolves around the strained marriage of Dustin Hoffman (Mr. Sumner) and a super hot Susan George (Mrs. Sumner). He’s clearly the man she wishes she could love, but isn’t what she REALLY wants. She’d love nothing more than to be an upscale mathematician’s wife living in the countryside of England, but you cannot become something you are not. People do not, and cannot, change like that. Hoffman’s perfect - you don’t know if he’s cool, or an ass. But one thing’s for sure, he’s a coward in her eyes – and he doesn’t like that accusation…not one bit. Perhaps what she hates about his lack of courage is what she hates about herself. “Show me what you hate, I’ll show you what you are.” Hell – she’s probably running from her own past when she ended up with Hoffman in the States. We obviously come to learn that her past is just littered with sick and twisted baggage like the lost and found at a third world country’s airport. But they’re back in England, and this is where the action takes place.
This story just builds and builds and builds. The intensity just keeps coming, and it ultimately explodes into the grand finale, and then it’s done. You’re sitting there with your head spinning. But there’s really no other way for this movie to end. It’s like a great Phish jam ending, like in “Run Like an Antelope.” No repeat and fade, just build it up, explode and get out.
I could go on forever and ever, but I’ll leave it at this – check this movie out. It’s one of my favorite picks we’ve had. It’s a must see. I know that I’ll be checking out some more of Sam Peckinpah’s repertoire.
See you next week.
_118_Minutes_files/shapeimage_4_link_0.png)