by Allan Fish
(UK 1971 118m) DVD1/2
Some men goes for women
p Daniel Melnick d Sam Peckinpah w David Zelag Goodman, Sam Peckinpah novel “The Siege of Trencher’s Farm” by Gordon M.Williams ph John Coquillon ed Paul Davies, Roger Spottiswoode, Tony Lawson m Jerry Fielding art Ray Simm, Ken Bridgemann cos Tiny Nicholls
Dustin Hoffman (David Sumner), Susan George (Amy Sumner), David Warner (Henry Niles), Peter Vaughan (Tom Hedden), Del Henney (Charlie Venner), Ken Hutchison (Scutt), T.P.McKenna (Maj.Scott), Colin Welland (Rev.Hood), Sally Thomsett (Janice), Jim Norton (Cawsey), Peter Arne, Donald Webster,
Head in a mantrap anyone? I didn’t think so. Here’s a film that must really have proved popular with the Cornish tourist board. Straw Dogs is undoubtedly a film for very strong stomachs, but also one for people with thoughtful minds. Anyone who sees it as merely an exercise in machismo and violence, sexual and otherwise, are totally missing the point in an alarming way. At its heart, Peckinpah saw this as an Anglo western, with the homesteaders fighting off cattle barons replaced by a young couple fighting off angry villagers. It’s a film that provokes an angry response, not just from its central protagonists, but from the audience.
Amy Sumner is returning home to her Cornish village to Trencher’s Farm with her American husband, David, a mathematics professor who wants a peaceful climate in which to write a treatise. At first they are accepted into the community, but Amy’s ex, Charlie, contrives to get David out of the way so that he can rape Amy and, when local mental case Henry Niles accidentally murders a young girl and David steps in to protect him from the angry mob, they besiege his house in a fight to the death.
The English countryside plays a significant factor here and the photography of John Coquillon (who also saw the primeval darkness in the landscape in Witchfinder General) is almost painfully beautiful. Here is a film that, ultimately, is about violence and what violence brings, much like Michael Reeves’ aforementioned horror film, but it’s also about so much more. At times one is reminded of Ingmar Bergman’s Shame, with its isolated couple caught up in a Civil War realising they are complete strangers and showing their real character in the face of a crisis. The crisis here is in the final siege and it’s here that David (superbly played by Hoffman) realises Amy is a stranger to him and, at that point, no longer cares for protecting her. He’s happy to do what it takes, including slap her across the face, to take control. Dogs is a film that shows, perhaps dangerously, that violence not only breeds violence, but that violence committed against you can bring a response that you don’t expect. Not just standing up to it, but enjoying the rush. Two horrific attacks take place in the film, firstly the rape of Amy by Charlie (inter-cut with the blatant symbolism of David out hunting with a primed gun). She doesn’t want him, but during the rape she begins to get off on it, she enjoys it (at least until the point before the second more brutal rape) and that is what is so controversial about the scene. It provokes a real feeling of unease. However, later on David feels the same release when the siege brings out a pleasure in dishing out violence that he never knew he had. At first it’s a matter of principle, “this is where I live. This is me. I will not allow violence against this house.” But as the siege gets more drawn out and bloody he gets ever more rational and enjoys every bit of destruction he can dish out. And that is what makes Straw Dogs so discomforting to watch. Amy may finally help by blowing the final intruder away, but we know their marriage is finished.
In the end Straw Dogs is a film that everyone must see, though perhaps as Susan George has pointed out, you must be in the right frame of mind. It cannot be casually popped in the DVD player. If Peckinpah may have been a sexist bigot and his film overtly masculine, it’s also as damning an indictment and warning of the addictive power of violence as the cinema has yet offered.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Like the other violent masterwork of this decade (Kubrick’s A CLOCKWORK ORANGE), I will agree with you here. This is NOT a movie for weak stomachs or faint hearts. However, I also agree with you that this0is masterful cinema (I loved this film the first time I saw it and its never left my mind since). But, here the violence is real and unlike CLOCKWORK’s stylized foray into bone-breaking and murder, this film can be far tougher to take. Kubrick was analyzing social acceptance to violence as a deformity to men with little intellectual expression. Peckinpah shoves violence in you face as an expression of might makes right and I want what I want. Violence here, in this film, I believe is about force of will. Ultimately, I don’t see this as anything other than a intelligent HORROR film expertly done and branded throughout with metaphorical meaning as to violence inherent in isolated communities where it is accepted as expression. Heavy flick if there ever was one. Bone-chilling.
I really feel like I’m missing something with this film, and the other beloved indictment of violence from this era A Clockwork Orange. It’s pretty much making me want to pop both films in the DVD player and attempt to look at the film through different eyes!
I’ve always loathed this film. And boy do I feel hypocritical about it considering some of the horror films I placed on my list. I’m just being honest, here. Perhaps it’s because, for some reason or another, I can view those films through a different lens because they are categorized as horror and are fully indebted to classic horror tropes. There’s a certain kind of detachment or fantasy to those films: they exist in another reality…where Peckinpah and Kubrick are forcing you to look at it in REALITY (although I would argue that Kubrick’s films have never existed in any kind of reality, as real as the violence may seem in his films…examples: his “Vietnam” from Full Metal Jacket and “New York City” from Eyes Wide Shut.) and deal with it. Hmm. Sam??? Help me out here, what am I missing?
Straw Dogs may be great cinema, but is it necessary? Allan says it is a “film everyone must see”. I think Dennis is saying something similar, though he also make some sweeping half-baked sociological assertions about violence, which I will ignore. My view is we don’t need movies such as Straw Dogs. If you want to see such films, and seek to redeem the graphic violence and misogyny as having some artistic merit fine, but don’t give me cant like “a damning an indictment and warning of the addictive power of violence” (Allan) or a sermon that labels it “a force of will” (Dennis). Are we to believe that such films should be compulsory viewing? To what purpose? To show our baser selves and then all violence stops? Pigs might fly. The ‘real’ horror and ‘real’ violence continue unabated. The dynamics are infinitely more complex than that.
A film such as Waltz With Bashir that provides a wider context and a deeper focus on culpability, is infinitely more valuable.
The hypocrisy of Hollywood’s trafficking in violence and the hypocrisy of the film establishment is well drawn in Barry Levinson’s latest effort, What Just Happened, a strange low-key satire on Hollywood film-making, which is supposed to be accurate, but otherwise boils down to nothing much at all. In the movie, producer Robert de Niro’s career is jeopardised by a stoned Keith-Richard-clone director, who gets his pyrrhic revenge by putting back his ending to a violent Sean Penn vehicle for its Cannes premiere. The director’s cut as well as having a guy graphically blown away at the ending, has the victim’s dog suffer the same fate, with the canine’s blood actually sticking to the camera lens. Typically the preview audience and the studio boss won’t wear the violence against man’s best friend, despite the director’s (rather hollow) yapping about it’s artistic necessity. The cineastes at Cannes don’t know what to do – some walk out and others give a standing ovation….
Tony – Very well put together post. I know that these comments are directed toward Straw Days, but it seems up how I feel toward A Clockwork Orange and makes me wonder how I will react upon seeing this film. I’ll still see it, but I have a feeling that it is going to be a similar reaction to when I first watched ACO.
Well, the bomb has been planted, and I await its explosion. I saw the film a few years ago, and the impression it left remains oddly muddled. I recall the violence and the outrageousness of much of the film (along with the almost purposeful illogic of the plot) but do not retain a strong impression of my own take on the movie – I do recall not quite being able to sort out how much was exploitation and how much was “sermon.”
As for Tony’s point, I just don’t find film violence to be something that gets me up in arms. At least not in principle. The graphic nature of it will have less to do with any resistance from me, than the “type” of violence. Straw Dogs’ vigilante violence, graphic as it is, does not quite get under my skin, whereas Clockwork raises ethical objections because it basically asks us to sympathize with the brutalists (I would have to re-view the film to determine if its rape scenes are similar to Clockwork in questionable intent). But as far as bloodiness, eh…I grew up with this stuff and am pretty desensitized.
But, yeah, I have trouble accepting the “wallowing in violence, to disapprove it” argument at least unambiguously.
Although I have always felt this to be Peckinpah’s greatest film, I am not willing to stake my sentiments on an all-out brawl here as I admire and venerate those here who have parted company with it. In a rare allignment here, I side with Allan and Dennis, but I fully understand the outcry against the excessive violence (I am recently engaged at another thread defending A CLOCKWORK ORANGE for precisely the same reasons) and even the question posed by Tony as to why the film was even made at all. I have always embraced this film, while silultaneously being repulsed by it as a parable of that animal instinct that explodes in the persuit of survival, and that when goaded the mild mathemitician can enact even bloodier violence than his nefarious perpetrators.
But at school later I wil re-read this thread again and ponder the outcry. Kevin, your are not missing anything to answer your question, your response here is most valid and regular. You make an excellent case there (“eyes” and “prism”) as to why you reject this an dembrace Italian horror.
I call on Allan at some point to defend his choice here, a position I would myself defend.
At school this morning, I have done some research as my fifth grade group watches THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS. I have searched for a critic or reviewer who would take both positions so superlative presented above. Danny Peary, like Tony, Kevin and Movie Man (perhaps Dave as well) decries the violence for the same basic reasons, yet he admits it’s a “very important film.” How’s that for sitting on the fence? LOL!!!
Anyway, here’s what he says:
“Extremely controversial meditation on violence has, understandably, never appealed to women, but men seem to get cathartic satisfaction from Hoffman’s violent, sadistic final acts. Peckinpah’s contentions that pacifists are really cowards who would like to express themselves violently and that violence is so exhilarating that having a woman (as sex mate or wife)is nothing in comparison (as Hoffman realizing at the film’s end) are very suspect. His treatment of women as sluts who goad men past their breaking points is reprehensible. Not my favorite, but it’s an important film. Has excellent performance by Hoffmann, and George has never been better. Expert photography by John Coquillon.”
You could take it all the way. What is necessary to you or to me are and should be different things. If you want to take it to the extreme, cinema itself is superfluous, arbitrary in the extreme, same with any artform.
To you and others it probably is, if not unnecessary, not attractive, which will alienate. Besides, it’s a far better film that Waltz With Bashir.
We’re all different, and certainly Straw Dogs wouldn’t be remotely as high on a favourites list, but this is my BEST of the 70s, not favourite.
Allan, interesting distinction between “favorite” and “best.” I too consider such a distinction vital and important. I can’t help but feel that there’s a bit of “favorites” bent to your countdowns (weaning that element out completely would be almost impossible, and perhaps it would be a mistake to try), but it also seems to me that you lean heavily towards an objective “best” in making your decisions, which I like (it tends to be rare in the blogosphere).
That said, at the end of the day I would love to see your favorites list too. I know you’ve been doing “guilty pleasures” but it’s not exactly the same thing. Can we expect your “personal” decades lists sometimes in the future?
As someone conducting a “Year’s Best Countdown” I can see the distinction made between “best” and “favorite.” That being said, I don’t even pretend to be completely objective and admit that personal preference is playing the largest role. I can respect a film for its historical value or influence, but if I can’t stand the film itself I’m highly unlikely to include it any countdown regardless of whether it is a favorites or best film
I have some thoughts on the rape scene in Straw Dogs as part of a longer discussion here:
http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/lust-caution-et-al-thoughts-on-sexual-violence-in-cinema/
Overall though Straw Dogs isn’t a film I particularly like. I find it problematic for the reasons mentioned in that discussion but also because ‘violence’ here is too easily coded along class lines. The problem with Peckinpah as always is that he is a bit too seduced by the notion of ‘violence’ to be its best critic. In other words his films are always already compromised on this point. Beyond this I think that a term like ‘violence’ becomes an abstraction eventually if it is not rigorously interrogated.
I too would agree incidentally that Waltz with Bashir is the much superior film though again we are all indulging in a certain obfuscation here. Because we are simply jumping around from rape to other forms of physical abuse to war and so on and lumping it all together under the rubric of ‘violence’.
What may have been lost here is Allan’s review, which is simply one of his greatest pieces ever. It’s the kind of informed writing that is the envy of film bloggers. The final sentence is brilliance incarnate, and the writing leading up to it has really captured the film’s essence. No one in the blogosphere writes with economy like Allan, as there is never a single word wasted. There’s no bullshit with Allan, he goes right to his subject like a surgeon. It’s rather sad and startling that his work is not in a major newspaper to this point.
Kaleem’s response above is extraordinary, and more than a match to any submitted. I hope more will join me in visit that rape scene discussion at his blog later today.
Agreed on Allan’s review, Sam… it’s a testament to his writing that he manages to make films that I don’t personally care for or that I haven’t seen but wonder if I would like them, and make me thing — “Maybe I should revisit this one because I missed something!”
Allan’s review is indeed one of the finest so far in this decade. Kaleem also manages quite an intelligent negative appraisal of the film, and while I don’t quite agree with him, his points are well worth taking up.
I find it problematic for the reasons mentioned in that discussion but also because ‘violence’ here is too easily coded along class lines. The problem with Peckinpah as always is that he is a bit too seduced by the notion of ‘violence’ to be its best critic.
I think this is, indeed, the film’s primary flaw. Also, everyone focuses on the alleged “misogyny” of the film, which I find too surreal to be taken seriously, and ignore the confused masculinity: As I think Pauline Kael pointed out, Straw Dogs represents a kind of post-primitive nightmare where men can only truly “mature” when they discover the capacity, and appetite, for sadism. Were the film a clearer criticism of this stance and not a recondite celebration of it I would probably enjoy it far more, but even in its existing state it is indeed essential cinema. I can understand certainly, however, how it may not be for all tastes, as with most of Peckinpah.
As for the points about Waltz with Bashir I don’t quite see how an oneiric war psychology film (and Psych 101 at that) is relevant, unless we’re trying to make the rather dubious assertion that futilely examining the motives behind “real” violence is a more worthwhile cinematic goal than splashily depicting “fake” or imagined violence for its own sake (it isn’t). Aren’t films like Bashir just as exploitative as Peckinpah? Especially the ending, where the protagonist “awakens” to the visceral reality of the genocide and we’re shown live action footage of the massacre’s aftermath — effectively using genuine suffering as a cheap “ta-da!” denouement. Give me Peckinpah’s male doubt, yonic fear, and brutal fetishism any day of the week — at least his flaws don’t masquerade under a cakey face paint of moral gravitas.
Fantastic comment Jon. Thanks also for your comment on my blog.
I read differently the conclusion to Waltz though. To my mind it is of a piece with the ending of Taste of Cherry where the ‘real’ suddenly intrudes on the ‘fictional’. It is each film’s ‘meta-commentary’ moment. I don’t see the Waltz moment as somehow being more ‘genuine’ than the rest of the narrative. It is in some ways even a critique of the sort of media culture where precisely such images of ‘real’ suffering constantly flash on the screen and the viewer becomes numb to them. Palestine or Darfur, what difference does it make? The images belong to the same narrative of ‘naked’ human suffering. There is also a de-politicization always inherent in the media game so that we are supposed to sympathize with those we see suffering on screen because these have been reduced to “bare life” sans politics, sans ideology. It just becomes an exercise in a very cheap sort of humanism. I think it is this sort of ‘vulgarity’ that Waltz critiques towards the end. It is incidentally also the reason why no matter how ‘realistic’ (even ‘hyper-realistic) violence is on screen it often seems less than these documentary images we always have access to. Perhaps only a new surrealism could rescue us or a cinema that is ‘fictional’ in exaggerated fashion. To my mind the ‘animation’ of Waltz is actually more ‘real’ than the documentary footage that shows up at the end for this very reason. I would love to see many war films attempted with this sort of animation.
As an aside one could think about the use of color in cinema. There are those directors who’ve treated it as representing normal life (most of them!) and have made it utterly banal. Then there are those who use color in a very ‘painterly’ sense to more or less ‘beautify’ (Powell/Pressburger for example.. it should be added that what works in opera and ballet in terms of staging often becomes reductive on screen). Finally there is a very select group that problematizes color, renders it ‘artificial’ (Antonioni is a good example). With this last group ‘color’ becomes an issue. In an analogous sense ‘violence’ can only become the issue in the truest sense when an entire aesthetics of cinema is brought to bear on it. I believe Waltz does this. But also consider an earlier example like Kurosawa’s legendary Sanjuro one where inb the climactic scene blood just spurts out like a fountain. Kurosawa revisited this signature moment in Ran but then Haneke also used it to great effect in Cache. Note how in the last of these films that entire moment seems completely artificial given the rest of the director’s visual grammar in the same work. But for this very reason it’s shocking to behold (certainly in a theater). The violence of this scene does not belong to the logic of the film’s aesthetic choices as these have been set up by Haneke. Contrast this with a war film where we see the worst kinds of images in the first ten minutes and then nothing really moves one because no matter what else happens it seems completely ‘normal’ within that framework. I think Jancso is a director who again very adeptly deals with ‘violence’ both in Roundup and Red and White (in different ways) by similarly constructing his own ‘artificial’ system. To get back to Waltz I would reiterate that the documentary footage at the end is not meant to be the ‘real’ that confirms the ‘fictional’ that has gone before but the ‘intrusions’ that itself seems completely false based on the strength of the preceding fiction. And yet much as in Taste of Cherry this is a problematic moment. We do recognize a link with reality in each case.
Jon, nicely done. I agree completely.
I’ve always seen a primary point in this film (that I rarely see mentioned) is the opening subtle disdain that is shown to the ‘bookish’ American, by everyone from his girlfriend to his neighbors. You see everyone emasculating him, right down to his girlfriend (who he himself sees only as child as well). It seems to me this struggle between (as Allan pointed out) basically married strangers is the film core. Clearly the comment about sophisticated elites inability to live in this environment is clear, the rural British landscape is vital. For a viewer to get tied up in all the macho BS (and showing contempt for it at the films expense) seems irrelevant.
I’ve never seen this film as a glorification for violence either. I see little glee from Peckinpah too (as many claim)… consider two keys scenes, and how I view them: first, the rape scene. I believe at the end of the act she isn’t enjoying it at all, quite the opposite, it’s the rapists physicality that has destroyed all her barriers. This is what violence does; sometimes you don’t fight it because you are physically or mentally unable to do so, not because you enjoy it. I think most people don’t see this, they see her as somehow ‘liking’ it and the end. I find that absurd.
The second key scene is the films final shot; the resolution of the film leaves our protagonists traveling in a white car into (literally) an unknown, dark world. I’m not sure how anyone can view these two scenes this way and still believe the film is irresponsible in it’s handling of violence. This is why I’ve never saw ‘Clockwork Orange’ as an interesting film (at least in this respect), Kubrick always seems to be able to shrug violence off, or his comment on it, but handling it in a comical manor (see the opening gang fight scene in ‘Clockwork Orange’).
If one see this film as glorifying violence I’m not sure how anyone could tackle the subject while still showing violence.
I’ll also add for anyone who has strong feelings either way about this film to buy or rent the R1 special edition and listen to the great commentary; many points are made that I believe viewers don’t realize or omit for whatever reason. It’s really one of the great commentaries I’ve ever listened too.
Finally, Allan, nice write up on what I believe to be Peckinpah’s masterpiece.
Not sure if everyone is aware but an American remake is in the works (in production actually–so they are past the point of no return), and it sounds like finally peoples complaints of this 1971 original will be realized; it’s a dumbed down contemplation of violence set in (where else would you go for stock comments like these?) the American South.
Absolutely fascinating! Now we have top-rank contributions here from Jon and Jamie!
So far here’s how we stand:
Pro STRAW DOGS:
Allan
John
Jamie
Dennis
Sam
Anti STRAW DOGS:
Tony
Kevin
Kaleem
Dave
Movie Man
Thats 5 to 5.
Ha!!
Leave it to Sam Peckinpah to always elicit responses to his films at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Fantastic thread.
5 on 5? Sam, I love basketball how did you know?
Jamie:
Allan is into cricket and probably never picked up a basketball in his life. I was a decent palyer in my day but now I’m 260 pounds, out of shape and addicted to the PC. I don’t smoke or drink, but it’s always a battle to refrain at the dinner table! As Allannotes however, I am very fond of spinach (and blueberries for that matter!).
As you are a basketball fan, I dare say with the line-up above we might prevail! Tony is a Sydnet native, and odds are he’s not familiar with the game, and Kaleem, (though of the right weight) is a book worm (in the best sense of course!).
Was far more into cricket once upon a time than I now am. and I used to be a basketball (NBA only!) fanatic in the 90s.
Cricket is fine, but rugby’s the proper game…none of this namby pamby weak-assed American football shite…
My basketball, or NBA for that matter, fanaticism is similar to Woody Allen’s in ‘Annie Hall’. I’ve only played a little in my life, but I root for my team and I see much beauty in game. It’s more of an artistry appeal, not so much playing. As a Cleveland ‘expatriate’ living in Chicago now, I’m a life long Cavs fan and a bit of a fan boy for the genius of LeBron James.
That being said, I’d still lace ’em up for a game to defend ‘Straw Dogs’.
as for competing I’m more of a soccer player then anything, and I do like the physicality of rugby. I see Allan’s point, but I missed ‘A Sporting Life’ on his 60’s list….
Ah, but This Sporting Life is Rugby League, a fair enough game, but not the real thing. Rugby Union’s the real deal.
Kaleem and Jamie, thanks for your quite thorough replies. I’ll try my best to respond in the limited time I have this am.
Kaleem: your reading of “Bashir” is far more scholarly than mine, and I must say that the legitimacy of my argument here will probably be terminally crippled by my instinct to go by the gut: in others words, my critical stance is nothing more than an unraveling of my own personal reactions to the film in question. You are quite right in several respects, and your point is aptly summed here:
To get back to Waltz I would reiterate that the documentary footage at the end is not meant to be the ‘real’ that confirms the ‘fictional’ that has gone before but the ‘intrusions’ that itself seems completely false based on the strength of the preceding fiction
Perhaps I misspoke; I see it less as a confirmation of reality and more a hairpin turn from the self-consciously lyrical to plain, bald reportage that unnecessarily breaks the film’s spell. Indeed, the animated segments are more moving — a fair comparison might be made with the Japanese film “Grave of the Fireflies,” a heartbreaking domestic war tragedy if ever there was one. Were it shot in live-action the film would be called maudlin, exploitative, manipulative, and a pitiful rendering of human suffering, and rightly so — the iris of a camera can only open so wide to gather such excruciating content. But through the careful prism of drawn and inked images the story takes on a strange vitality and authenticity. Cartoons are distancing enough as it is, so we need not remind ourselves that we’re watching is fiction: it’s a given. With that internal mechanism silent, we are free to wander and penetrate the film’s brutal terrain uninterrupted and unhindered by simulacrum confusion: the artist’s blatant depiction thus draws us nearer to the story’s veracity than a more direct simulation of the events might have.
But “Grave of the Fireflies” doesn’t need to end with black and white reels of emaciated Japanese corpses. I understand the point made about “Bashir” and the numbing power of the media, but placing the footage at the film’s end, as though it were an epiphany, is a mistake. I was not fond of the technique in “Taste of Cherry” either, nor in Bergman’s “Persona” where we start seeing cameramen in the frame’s periphery. Meta-comments are well and fine (they may be some of the most remarkable moments in cinema when executed properly) but — as I think you point out in your comment — overly explicit comments on the artifice of cinema or other mediums when expressed in those mediums themselves always wind up seeming, to me, a bit superfluous at best and cheaply indulgent at worst (isn’t breaking the fourth wall about the easiest way to get a laugh in comedy?). I don’t mean to generalize and dismiss EVERY instance of this device in cinematic history, but it’s a hard one to pull off. Films like “Taste of Cherry” are self-obliterating fictive spells without a cocky flourish to finish off the job — the same with “Bashir,” which took an interestingly elliptical approach (both in form and in content) to analyzing wartime cruelty. I guess more simply put, I had a hard time telling whether the end of “Bashir” was criticizing the media game you refer to or sneakily attempting to play it with slightly different rules. Perhaps a more effective critique would have been to slowly repeat and intersperse the live-action images throughout the film, so that their rawness fused with the protagonist’s (and the audience’s) numbness. But that wouldn’t have had the element of surprise that the existing ending had, and that’s where I think the film crossed the line — whatever the deeper meaning, it shocked me first and foremost as simply a “twist”. But maybe I’m just a dolt…
Also, to Jamie:
I think most people don’t see this, they see her as somehow ‘liking’ it and the end. I find that absurd.
I find it more than absurd, I find it appalling, but that might be part of Peckinpah’s point. At Kaleem’s blog I posted an autobiographical comment about watching the film for the first time with my dad and his friends, who seemed to be enjoying the rape scene far more than was comfortable for me. Though not a pleasant memory, in retrospect it somewhat enhanced Peckinpah’s genius — it was as though he reached through the screen and was extending the faux-machismo metaphors of Straw Dogs through my fellow viewers. It was a powerful experience.
Another outstanding set of thoughts Jon.. I see where you’re coming from on this and as a more general matter, certainly the way you’ve outlined it here, I would be inclined to agree. Also, what’s problematic about such a gesture is the extent to which the ‘fiction’ of the film is juxtaposed with documentary footage. This late in the day we should all know that the latter is simply another kind of fiction. Which is why a Godard was always smarter. The boundary between these two modes of the ‘fictional’ is the space in which many of his films operate. Weekend is a good example.
As always though you’ve been far too generous. Much appreciated and certainly reciprocated…
Thanks much, Kaleem (and Sam, below).
This late in the day we should all know that the latter is simply another kind of fiction.
Precisely so, and the connection with Godard was also on the tip of my tongue. Another director who I think toys between these fictive spheres quite well is Lars Von Trier, what with his dogme nonsense and all — he may also offer a kind of cyclical return to the Peckinpah, given his veering towards gratuitous sexual violence.
“fair comparison might be made with the Japanese film “Grave of the Fireflies,” a heartbreaking domestic war tragedy if ever there was one. Were it shot in live-action the film would be called maudlin, exploitative, manipulative, and a pitiful rendering of human suffering, and rightly so — the iris of a camera can only open so wide to gather such excruciating content. But through the careful prism of drawn and inked images the story takes on a strange vitality and authenticity. Cartoons are distancing enough as it is, so we need not remind ourselves that we’re watching is fiction: it’s a given. With that internal mechanism silent, we are free to wander and penetrate the film’s brutal terrain uninterrupted and unhindered by simulacrum confusion: the artist’s blatant depiction thus draws us nearer to the story’s veracity than a more direct simulation of the events might have.”
Superb Jon! I couldn’t agree with you more! Both Allan and I are big fans of FIREFLIES too.
My good friend Kaleem has made spectacular contributions here today, but what else is new? I wish I had time to say more now, but I am heading over to Manhattan to see WAITING FOR GODOT. Thanks very much Kaleem for all you have done here. You are one talented guy.
I have been off line most of the day, however I just want to say what a fascinating thread this has been to read and I am in awe of the contributions made here by all. There is nothing I could add of any substance, however I will add my name to the list pro “Straw Dogs” bloggers despite an unsettling feeling about most of the characters in this film. The film caused controversy when I saw it way back when and obviously, it has lost none of it bite.
Sam:
I just got back from Hell…well…Drag Me to Hell that is, and I just now am getting to see the rest of the comments here. Great stuff by everyone and it’s only cementing the idea I had last night that I need to re-watch this very soon. So, Sam I would say that I am more on the fence about this film since I want to re-watch it…so I don’t know if I feel comfortable quite yet being on the “anti” side of your unofficial poll, hehe.
Sam, and you are one kind guy! Will be waiting for your Godot review. Saw something on this on Charlie Rose the other day. My favorite Beckett remains Endgame though.
I will keep it short.
Kaleem. Your comments re “abstraction” and “obfuscation” are at best red herrings and at worst lazy throwaways. Violence is violence is violence. If you want to split hairs then go ahead, don’t just stand there up in your ivory tower.
Jon. You have missed the point totally with Waltz with Bashir. It is a deftly handled and convincingly elaborated exploration of memory and how young men in war deal with the trauma of their experience, and is based on real people and real testimony. Animation and color have been cleverly used to illustrate states of mind. I direct you to Alexander Coleman’s excellent review.
Thanks again, Tony, for showing us the error of our ways. I suspect I would be in trouble without your stern — and not at all brusque! — retorts.
But seriously, Alexander’s review is delightful and imbued with his typical acumen, although he does not address the film’s problematic ending.
Tony, thankfully I don’t believe all violence is the same or else I would be equating your remarks with the rape in Straw Dogs.
Ooo, a better one-liner! A tip of the hat again to you, Kaleem…
I love you too Jon. I am too ‘violent’ for you?
Lol! I hope that remark wasn’t meant as too acidic. Not too “violent,” no, but sometimes I wish you would parse replies in a manner that engendered more debate, for the simple reason that you’re an intelligent guy, Tony, and though we disagree often I feel like I don’t get a chance to properly tease out your point of view through prolonged conversation. When I feel threatened I often simply resort to cheap sarcasm, and nothing shuts down discussion quicker…
Gotta agree with poll-meister “Shmule” here… Allan’s review may have sited the best blog thread ever on WONDERS. I’d rather spend a morning here than with the New York Times anyday.
The views of:
1. Geoff Andrew (UK film writer and critic): “[Peckinpah’s] vision of virile independence besieged by a changing, industrial society gave rise to rampant misogyny… [Straw Dogs was] executed with a meticulous narrative logic that failed to conceal both its basic misogyny and its glee in celebrating the triumph of primitive hatred over rationality.”
2. Chris Petit (Time Out): “[the] mixture of fantasy wish fulfillment and pure terror seems more informed by a general misogyny”.
3. Joshua Klien (Chicago-based writer): “Peckinpah hardly lets the audience off easy when it comes to Straw Dogs’ willfully barbaric conclusion… [and Peckinpah] strains and exploits the viewer’s emotions by stacking the deck against the brutish antagonists. But the disturbing, bloody outcome hardly results in any real catharsis or satisfaction. Rather it leaves you feeling even more stunned and unsure of what you’ve seen than ever before”.
4, Halliwell: “Totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten Cold Comfort Farm melodrama with farcical violence”.
Just got in! Well, I must say the STRAW DOGS thread has received maximum mileage, and as Tony pointed out with those review clips (Tony and I think alike in that sense–we like to presents evidence and opinions to strengthen an argument, or at least to prove that the film has prompted various people to think this way or that way)
STRAW DOGS is a controversial film, and has been since it’s release in 1971. I saw it in a movie theatre that year at the age of 16. That was the year that began a still-running 38 year obsession with theatrical movie-going, so I’ll admit there is a bit of nostalgia that is fueling my defense of the film, and that’s much the same with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE for me, although I’m prepared to defend this with more than sentiment.
What I love about Tony d’Ambra is that he has never been nor never will be a critic/blogger who will blindly comment to reassure anyone, and we need this man desparately to keep everyone honest and on their toes. Nonetheless, even though he always sells himself short (he’s not remotely the only one at this site that feels that way, even Allan tries to downplay his exceptional talent) his argument are sound and superbly-reasoned. in other words, with Tony we get a contrarian view that is brilliantly defended with reasoning, sharp writing and evidence. But Tony’s position is most assuredly not a “contrarian” position at all with Straw Dogs, as it’s clear this film has evenly divided the critics.
As to Jon, Kaleem, John Greco, et al, what can I say? It’s a thread for the ages in more ways than one, and it’s what we blog for. I realize that I must play cheerleader and moderator asometimes more than someone who has something profound to say, but if I responded to all of these lengthy thought-provoking submissions, my mind would melt. LOL!
Now why did I go bold there? LOL!!!!!!
Scott Tobias (Onion AV Club): “Stepping away from the Western genre for the first time, Peckinpah directly confronts the violence at the heart of masculinity; as his response to the letter-writer implies, he wanted men to consider the unsettling extent to which it defines their actions.”
Michael Sragow (from Salon online): “Rather than proof of Peckinpah’s machismo, the double rape that ensues is a stunning demonstration of his empathy. In the uncut film (available since 1998 on a wide-screen video from Anchor Bay) it’s a horrific assault and an emotional crucible. The first rapist, her ex-boyfriend, rouses feelings and needs she can’t control; it’s neither a blow against feminism nor a denial of rape as violence that she eventually succumbs to him. The swift, surgical flashbacks to David making love to her evokes her sad confusion; the comic-pathetic cutaways to David shooting a bird out on the moor evokes his.
As if to ensure that the sequence can’t be misread as an apologia for rape, Peckinpah introduces a second rapist and puts across Amy’s agony as he sodomizes her — an act blunted when censors snipped the scene after the second man appears. The element of torture was lost in the reediting. But no film has ever conveyed the scarring of rape as unsettlingly as Peckinpah does when David and Amy (too shamed to speak of the crime, too unsure of her husband’s response) attend a church social the next night. Images of rape leap into Amy’s mind as they pass the roofing-and-ratting crew gorging on the free ice cream and cake and sit down to watch the fatuous preacher’s feeble magic trick and an amateur diva doing “Rigoletto.” (David’s intuitive protectiveness toward her at the social provides the film with a single blessed gentle moment.)”
also there is the fantastic commentary on the criterion edition from Stephen Prince that is essential listening in my opinion on this subject.
But doing this I’ve (or we) have just proved what we all already know; this film polarizes. I think it also proves there are no ‘quality authorities’ in matters like this… just tight asses like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert that want to play the role of moral authorities.
Thanks for that Jamie.
There is no question that responses on STRAW DOGS run drastically pro and con. As I stated I am with the pro, but understand the con. I must re-visit the Criterion commentary ASAP.
I like what you say there about Pauline and Roger! LOL! I have been engaged over the last two days at another site defending A CLOCKWORK ORANGE against her 1971 attacks! Ha!
Agreed on this being an amazing thread… as I said, I haven’t seen the movie yet, I simply related to what Tony had earlier said. All I know is, after the discussion, it must be watched by me ASAP!
Definitely the most provocative thread during my brief time at WitD. Haven’t seen this film, but I think I will be hitting up Kaleem to borrow it…
Jon, I felt I had nothing to add to my first post here, thus my brevity.
One final thought, if we accept for argument’s sake that Peckinpah is seriously not a misogynist and he does not revel in the barbaric brutality he portrays, he has still failed, as there are too many who have seen the film who do not accept any such view. How then can it be considered great?
Thanks, Tony, for this final thought. I think that part of the issue here may reside in the differences between our personal definitions of “greatness”. For me a film can be genuinely racist, misogynist, and barbaric but still be a “great” film, if it explores its own shortcomings in a frank and engaging enough manner (a lot of John Ford pictures come to mind…). I think it’s very likely that Peckinpah shares or shared similar bigoted viewpoints, but his films are hardly out-and-out endorsements of such behavior, and as for the people who feel that they are: they’re entitled to their opinion, but that hardly affects the film’s isolated power in my eyes. In fact, as I have discussed earlier, I have watched the film with family members who seemed to miss the point of — or at least got something rather perverse out of — the rape scene, but even this hasn’t totally turned me off the movie, which I think says something. Unlike others, I don’t think this is Peckinpah’s masterpiece and there are moments that downright fail, but it’s still a film I admire a great deal. I can, however, see your point a bit better now.
I like this film better than some of the other commenters here, but that enjoyment (if one is to call it that, for Straw Dogs is a difficult film to truly “enjoy”) can only happen for me if I am to assume that Peckinpah really was aiming for the high-minded themes that Allan and Sam presume (a treatise on the proclivity towards violence in all of us). Peckinpah even claimed this to be the case — that David is the true villain of the film because he lets his violent tendencies get the best of him.
Yet, at times I remain skeptical that he wasn’t trying for anything more than “weak, liberal professor learns what it’s like to be a real man.”
It seems that both of those positions are defendable when one looks at Peckinpah’s oeuvre. I guess if one assumes Peckinpah had “bad intentions” from the get-go, that presumption can make it difficult to appreciate the film.
Anyways — great write-up on the film Allan. Loving the countdown so far.
Thanks, Tony, for this final thought. I think that part of the issue here may reside in the differences between our personal definitions of “greatness”. For me a film can be genuinely racist, misogynist, and barbaric but still be a “great” film, if it explores its own shortcomings in a frank and engaging enough manner (a lot of John Ford pictures come to mind…).
good point. as i say this i try and take a broom to the bushes to scare out all the ‘the searchers’ fans among us. now there is a truly misogynistic, xenophobia, fascistic (as Kael called ‘Straw Dogs’) film. but, never the less, hailed as a classic.
tony the best way I could answer your question is anytime you are going to show anything as disgusting as rape in a film (and show it honestly on screen) there will inevitably be a certain percentage of populist circles that will see it as offense, no matter how exploitive it is– or isn’t. certainly this brings to mind ‘irreversible’, a film many see as this. not surprisingly i’ve read little comments on the mans face being turned to ground chuck by a fire-extinguisher earlier in that film. it seems to me that most filmgoers are able to separate when murder happens (unless it’s a horse in a western) as being a ‘fake filmatic device’ then when rape is portrayed. both are not real. one is seen as disgusting, when in truth both are (if real), or neither are (if fake).
perhaps peckinpah should have omitted showing the rape and just eluded to it. after all, had the camera been able to follow Scarlett and Rhett into the bedroom and show the rough stuff in ‘Gone with the Wind’ we may be viewing that film differently today too.
on a personal side note I has a friend once who tried to watch ‘irreversible’ on a recommendation and was able to get past the fire-extinguisher scene, but called it quits about two minutes into the rape scene. i always found this extremely curious. not to mention to get the thought of ‘irreversible’ out of her head she opted for ‘old school’. evidently statutory rape, infidelity, and other vague depravity can be tolerated in a comedic setting.
Great points, Jamie. Our repellent fetishism with rape is indeed a strange one, and is probably tied to our still somewhat puritanical view of sex in general (I mean, most of our parents can still remember when this stuff simply wasn’t talked about and even instances of legitimate rape, when they weren’t wholly ignored, led to ostracism on the part of the victim before that of the victimizer). The Christ myth abounds with holy carnage; not so much with sanctified non-consensual sex.
perhaps peckinpah should have omitted showing the rape and just eluded to it. after all, had the camera been able to follow Scarlett and Rhett into the bedroom and show the rough stuff in ‘Gone with the Wind’ we may be viewing that film differently today too.
Let’s take that even a step further to “The Searchers,” a film I admit I adore in spite of its ugliness. There are TWO instances of rape alluded to very specifically and psychotically in that film, including one rape/murder and another case of virtual sexual slavery that nearly ends in “friendly” fire. If the details were shown in all their glory, these scenes would easily trump anything Peckinpah approaches in Straw Dogs, especially considering that some of the rape probably occurred while the victims were what we would consider “under age”. But this isn’t the film John Ford made, nor would he have if he could (I don’t think). But my question is this: what’s more moral dubious, depicting the act with its complexities to viscerally explore the psychology of brutishness, or forcing the audience to imagine the acts for themselves? In both cases the viewer is implicated, but the latter instance feels, to me, more sordid, because rather than simply empathizing with something occurring on the screen, we’re creating our own little private snuff film. I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit intimidated by what my mind is capable of…
Couldn’t agree more. It’s interesting as on the commentary track I’ll now plug for a third time, Stephan Price flat out says Peckinpah (and perhaps anyone in the know) knew the only way to tackle violence was head on. I certainly would agree with this assessment. in art it seems definitely the case as I fear a world where certain issues are too taboo to tackle head on. what would a film world like this look like? all romantic comedies, musicals, and PG-13 dramas I’d guess.
As far as showing or leaving it up to the viewer to decide, it seems weird to straddle this line. certainly that approach is used in literature and horror films quite well (not showing i mean) and to great affect. i’m reminded of the great frank zappa quote when asked what the dirtiest part of the human body was. his answer? ‘the mind’ of course. i’ll agree again with you jon… my mind (over exposed to 24 hour news, heavy metal, and horror) can certainly dream up quite the perversity and mayhem. I suppose we are treading on ‘clockwork orange’ now a bit, no?
and that’s how i’ve always viewed ‘straw dogs’, if you see this as exploitive it’s more because you find rape and other assorted violence exploitive (and thats fine, and probably true of course), but it seems an unfair lob at peckinpah.
Yet, at times I remain skeptical that he wasn’t trying for anything more than “weak, liberal professor learns what it’s like to be a real man.”
Troy, I could see this vantage point. But as I said earlier, how we leave this ‘liberal professor’ at the end of the film is emotionally alone, bewildered, with a future as bleak as the unknown dark night he’s about to drive into. I’d hardly say he sees himself (or we should see him) as a triumphant newly born Man as you say.
Jon, I tend to follow the ‘less is more’ principle in all of these debates whether the question is one of ‘sex’, ‘violence’ or whatever. You are right in that when something is not shown on screen the viewer perhaps ‘fantasizes’ about it but this I think adds to the effectiveness of the moment. The imagined horror is always worse than that which is completely witnessed. It’s like Nosferatu bending over his victim. We don’t see anything after this. Juxtapose this with those countless horror films where we are shown everything and the films cease to horrify.
But getting to the specific rape issue in question here the stakes are much higher. I actually prefer the example of the Searchers. When rape is depicted on screen there is always the danger of simultaneous titillation (this is true for acts of violence as well). When nothing is revealed the viewer can of reconstruct the scene mentally but this is no different from fantasizing about a girl who in the classic movies would disappear into the bathtub behind a screen (alas no such pleasures to be had anymore! As an aside one should add that Hitchcock is truly sick for he presents such a moment in Psycho but also has the girl brutally murdered! A fine statement on the voyeur/killer if ever there was one! De Palma owes much to this moment). I don’t mean to equate acts of violence with this sort of scene but nonetheless the viewer is always free to ‘fantasize’.
The other point I would add with respect to Straw Dogs is that the rape scene as depicted here (and I do keep in mind the censorship history but for which we would have had a far more explicit scene) is actually not too repellent. Unpleasant yes (in the ways I suggested in the link above) but not completely inaccessible in terms of titillation. A good example of a similar scene that perhaps avoids this danger to a great extent is Irreversible where the violence in the scene is just so profound, the act just so mechanical, and then the whole sodomy angle really reduces the ‘seduction’ (black as this adjective might sound in a discussion of rape I have Swiftian instincts!) quotient. The scene of the Free Will is similar in its violence.
Getting away from rape the very representation of sexuality in even the best arthouse cinema is something I am often ambivalent about for this reason. If cinema in one sense is about the male gazing at the female and then over time proceeding to strip the latter it seems to me that even some of the best directors in cinematic history have happily gone along with this project without interrogating it the way they would every other aspect of the medium. Notice how vulnerable males look when completely nude on screen. Male actors can never be ‘female’ enough to look completely relaxed about this. But it is also the ‘male’ eye of the spectator that spots the oddness instantly. Sure, things have changed quite a bit over the last two decades, especially in ‘foreign’ cinema but the ‘eye’ stripping the actors is still male. Even in a scene where both sexes are totally nude each is rarely treated in the very same fashion by the camera. But even the codes can be very different. One will rather more often see the male receiving oral sex than the reverse. Why? I could multiply the examples but I get into this seeming digression because I believe the representation of rape occurs within these contexts.
This is by the way not to say that I don’t accept the point about Peckinpah’s larger commentary on male sexuality or domination and so on. But the moment of rape is also complete in itself. In other words the rest of the film might offer commentary on it but shouldn’t the moment itself be represented in a certain way so as to avoid even temporary titillation? Consider how the woman’s shirt is first torn, her breasts are on display.. the rapist moves down, somewhat violently dispatches her panties.. all of this happens slowly.. the viewer takes the woman in (another unfortunate metaphor I know!). It is true as I suggested elsewhere that only by placing the viewer in the position of the rapist for which some titillation is perhaps necessary can Peckinpah also shame the very same viewer later. But isn’t this too much of a risk? What if the viewer became a rapist?! This might sound outrageously phrased but could it be that this ‘rape’ actually lends itself to the overall fantasy of sexual possession of women? Does it make enough of an argument against the latter? I am not so sure..
Kaleem, good points/questions. One’s I’d like to contemplate then return.
i will also add to everyone when discussing this rape scene is the importance of the different cuts of the film. the first theatrical cut (that many critics reacted negatively towards) the second male was omitted, thus, perhaps overtly titillating the scene. when viewed properly to Peckipah’s complete cut with second male (and cut aways to Hoffman and others hunting) I’m not sure how any viewer can view this scene as anything but a condemnation of male brutality/sexuality.
Many thanks to all for engaging with me here. I now understand more clearly where you are coming from.
One thing that concerns me though is that no women have yet made a contribution to this important discussion.
What a thread, everyone, and a great piece by Allan to start things.
First allow me to thank Tony for pointing to my review of Waltz With Bashir, and for Jon for the kind words about it as well. Briefly, my take on the ending of that film is admittedly informed by the construct Ari Folman chose as the fulcrum against which everything else pivots and descends: his own traumatic memory loss. The cathartic conclusion of the film is more than just revelling in the documentary footage (which I realize is setting up a straw man because no one indicated that they believed it was), it’s about recognizing reality for what it is. As such, Waltz With Bashir plays out as a Platonic odyssey in the most fundamental sense, as the animated imagery represents “unreal” manifestations of objects, people, etceteras. Since so much of the film is about subjective memory and oneiric avatars for dreams, it seems altogether fitting that the conclusion inaugurates media-dictated visages of such chaos and violence. In that way, everyone here is correct that it serves as a meta-commentary on the supremacy of the playing, unspooling image, and as such editorializes that the cinema is equally molded by and instrumental in further disseminating pervasive, mind-altering simulacre.
As for the debate about whether the idea of rape in The Searchers is more or less responsible than that of Straw Dogs, I must commend Kaleem Hasan for his thoroughly acute and pointed comments, with which I happen to agree. It may sound unpleasant or horrible, but I find the rape scene in Straw Dogs to be nearly comical in its presentation; much of this is doubtless due to the film’s saturating cocktail of variegated representations of violence, which I find quite distancing. Compared with the clear but unseen rapine of property, body and spirit in The Searchers, I find Ford’s grounded and terrified perspective to be riveting. As Kaleem states, “I actually prefer the example of the Searchers. When rape is depicted on screen there is always the danger of simultaneous titillation (this is true for acts of violence as well).”
An astonishingly great discussion, everyone.
Thanks very much Jamie and Alexander…
This has been an excellent exchange all round..
Heya! Excellent idea, but could this truly do the job?
ANDREW
Somebody essentially lend a hand to make critically posts I might state.
This is the very first time I frequented your web
page and so far? I amazed with the research you made to
make this particular submit amazing. Magnificent job!