Sam Pecikinpah's Straw Dogs might not be one of his very best films- after seeing the Wild Bunch it attempts the same level of psychological intensity but not the overall weight with the ensemble form- but it always kept me interested and glued to the screen. This is the kind of film, or at least has many a scene, that would work greatly in psychology and women's studies courses in colleges, to really get a real debate going about what is going on with these people. It brings issues of social class, society in general (and where you come from mostly, i.e. Brits vs. Americans), rape, violence, and a certain male domineering way that undoes everything. It's charged with an unusual Dustin Hoffman performance and Peckinpah's disorienting but exciting way of editing his scenes. These are all fractured people, and some of these scenes are fractured to the point of a kind of unhinged, brilliant disturbance. But its really the subject matter that kicks things into people's mind sets, and what is and what isn't usually shown on screen. Hence, what is suggested becomes about as powerful as what is really laid on thick on screen (particularly in the 2nd half).
The main centerpiece of the film sticks this in and doesn't let up, and one wonders why logic never seems to intervene. Perhaps because this is more of a kind of treatise on behavior than any kind of typical revenge story. This centerpiece- where Susan George's character gets raped by an ex-boyfriend, and then gang raped by the men working on her and her husband David's (Hoffman) garage- acts as the first tip of the scale in what becomes un-hinged for them in this little British community. It's at first, of course, a real sexual crime as he forces himself upon her. But then, apparently, she succumbs to it and becomes lusting towards the man who once was close to her. But then the other men come in, pointing a gun at him to get up, he does, and then the full-on rape ensues. This is all edited (along with Hoffman, oblivious, off on a strange Quail hunt) to maximum efficiency, and is probably one of the more provoking scenes from any film of the 70s. Is this really more of a male viewpoint, the typical 'no means yes' thought process by the director, or is there something even deeper not being read right off the bat? Or is it clear as day that this is just the real, shattering force to drive the rest of the film? The latter might be truer to me. This then becomes further complicated later in the film as the men break into the house, and what preceded it with the tension she has with David.
Then, as the film rolls into its final chapters, as Henry Niles (David Warner, always good) has been hit by accident by David driving home and taken in, is suspected of murder of a girl. "This is my home, I can't let them in" says David, and so the violence becomes widespread, almost bordering over the top (i.e. bear-trap). It comes about as close as one could figure to the final act of The Wild Bunch, and it has that same visceral impact. But in a way, these scenes aren't really AS engaging as some other ones, like a very tense scene where before all of this happens David and Amy (George) go to some Catholic shindig, where her visions of what just happened, surrounded by the very same men who committed the act, are compacted into something quite terrible for her. This editing job, headed by three editors, is quite eye-catching, if of the period, and sets the tone for everything that takes place. It's quite the subjective movie, a precursor perhaps to Taxi Driver. But this is not to say I thought the film flawless- George's performance, while occasionally gripping and sincere, usually didn't do it for me and almost made the character too thin to really understand (maybe only till the very end does her character come full circle). It also has a couple of last lines that are either very good or very annoying. And some of the early scenes in the film make a little too obvious what the mood might become.
But all of this aside, Straw Dogs works as a film meant to turn the heat up about what it means to reach the 'breaking point' for both men and women, who are far from being very 'good' people but try not to be evil either. The ones that are made to be the antagonists are almost cartoonish (one of the British thugs practically can't stop laughing, that is until he breaks into the house). There's a lot that can be read into this film, and it might even work better for me on a repeat viewing. It's controversy doesn't really wane thirty-five years later, and it questions the actions of almost all involved, almost asking us to judge, but presenting us in general with a vision into a kind of hell. Hence why it might work best in psychology classes.
The main centerpiece of the film sticks this in and doesn't let up, and one wonders why logic never seems to intervene. Perhaps because this is more of a kind of treatise on behavior than any kind of typical revenge story. This centerpiece- where Susan George's character gets raped by an ex-boyfriend, and then gang raped by the men working on her and her husband David's (Hoffman) garage- acts as the first tip of the scale in what becomes un-hinged for them in this little British community. It's at first, of course, a real sexual crime as he forces himself upon her. But then, apparently, she succumbs to it and becomes lusting towards the man who once was close to her. But then the other men come in, pointing a gun at him to get up, he does, and then the full-on rape ensues. This is all edited (along with Hoffman, oblivious, off on a strange Quail hunt) to maximum efficiency, and is probably one of the more provoking scenes from any film of the 70s. Is this really more of a male viewpoint, the typical 'no means yes' thought process by the director, or is there something even deeper not being read right off the bat? Or is it clear as day that this is just the real, shattering force to drive the rest of the film? The latter might be truer to me. This then becomes further complicated later in the film as the men break into the house, and what preceded it with the tension she has with David.
Then, as the film rolls into its final chapters, as Henry Niles (David Warner, always good) has been hit by accident by David driving home and taken in, is suspected of murder of a girl. "This is my home, I can't let them in" says David, and so the violence becomes widespread, almost bordering over the top (i.e. bear-trap). It comes about as close as one could figure to the final act of The Wild Bunch, and it has that same visceral impact. But in a way, these scenes aren't really AS engaging as some other ones, like a very tense scene where before all of this happens David and Amy (George) go to some Catholic shindig, where her visions of what just happened, surrounded by the very same men who committed the act, are compacted into something quite terrible for her. This editing job, headed by three editors, is quite eye-catching, if of the period, and sets the tone for everything that takes place. It's quite the subjective movie, a precursor perhaps to Taxi Driver. But this is not to say I thought the film flawless- George's performance, while occasionally gripping and sincere, usually didn't do it for me and almost made the character too thin to really understand (maybe only till the very end does her character come full circle). It also has a couple of last lines that are either very good or very annoying. And some of the early scenes in the film make a little too obvious what the mood might become.
But all of this aside, Straw Dogs works as a film meant to turn the heat up about what it means to reach the 'breaking point' for both men and women, who are far from being very 'good' people but try not to be evil either. The ones that are made to be the antagonists are almost cartoonish (one of the British thugs practically can't stop laughing, that is until he breaks into the house). There's a lot that can be read into this film, and it might even work better for me on a repeat viewing. It's controversy doesn't really wane thirty-five years later, and it questions the actions of almost all involved, almost asking us to judge, but presenting us in general with a vision into a kind of hell. Hence why it might work best in psychology classes.