Straw Dogs (1971)

[InformationGeek]

You know what I just realized?  There's going to be a remake of this film coming out next month!  Since I did a similiar topic regarding Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, let's take a moment to remember the original before the remake hits theaters.

Directed by Sam Peckinpah, based off the novel The Siege of Trencher's Farm, and staring Dustin Hoffman, with a plot that goes something like this:

Upon moving to Britain to get away from American violence, astrophysicist David Sumner and his wife Amy are bullied and taken advantage of by the locals hired to do construction. When David finally takes a stand it escalates quickly into a bloody battle as the locals assault his house.

Or something like that.  Landed itself in controversy regarding the violence and rape scene (possibly on the level of Last House on the Left or worse), but still had a positive response from the critics.  Haven't seen it, but it doesn't appear to be my kind of movie.

For those who have seen it, as always, sound off about what you thought of the film.  I'll bring up another topic later to discuss the remake once it arrives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjQIXzFCRA
	Small | Large

[The Burgomaster]

This is a GREAT movie, but many people find it to be slow by today's standards.  Most of the violence occurs at the end, but there's a steady build up throughout the movie.  One of my favorites and probably Peckinpah's all around best effort.  The climactic home invasion may be the best ever filmed.  

I believe the remake is set in rural U.S.A. instead of England, with rednecks as the bad guys.

[Skull]

Oddly I heard so much about that film for a long, long time, it's one of those films that I'd seen in the video store when I was a teenager although the subject matter isnt something I wanted to rent and end up watching with my mother.

So I'd put the movie off for a long time, then one day I bumped into the film on Netflix or Ondemand and end up watching when I was home alone (this is also one of these films that I know my wife wouldnt want to see or waste her time watching so I didnt want to push it.)

After watching the story I realized it was loaded with hype. I guess the rape/revange issue was a hot button in Hollywood in the early, early 1970's because they were allowed to make it and the story is recongnized as a movie, not as a prono. I guess this is why The House that happens to be on the Left is where the parents of the Victim that we Raped, was such a hot movie. And in the early, early 1970's everybody was getting raped! Clockwork Orange, Deliverance and Hannie Caulder.

Straw Dogs is much tamer then Wes Cravens (hum-hum) 'Classic' story, although it was also overacted and the revenge plot seem ultra silly for a movie in 1971. I sense Dustin Hoffman did his best without laughing but the story was so controversal that it looked like a good movie. It seem so silly how the men were standing in line to rape his wife and that she seemed to be ok with the ordeal.

On the other hand, the story is so typical that I've seen a few copycats from the 1980's and 1990's without even knowing, such as Bullies (1986) and KickBoxer (1989) [yea I said KickBoxer] so a remake by name wouldnt make it anymore special.

[The Burgomaster]

Straw Dogs is much tamer then Wes Cravens (hum-hum) 'Classic' story, although it was also overacted and the revenge plot seem ultra silly for a movie in 1971. I sense Dustin Hoffman did his best without laughing but the story was so controversal that it looked like a good movie. It seem so silly how the men were standing in line to rape his wife and that she seemed to be ok with the ordeal.

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

[Flick James]

Straw Dogs is much tamer then Wes Cravens (hum-hum) 'Classic' story, although it was also overacted and the revenge plot seem ultra silly for a movie in 1971. I sense Dustin Hoffman did his best without laughing but the story was so controversal that it looked like a good movie. It seem so silly how the men were standing in line to rape his wife and that she seemed to be ok with the ordeal.

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

SPOILER:

She's raped by two, first the ex-boyfriend, then the construction buddy.

END SPOILER.

Anyway, rape in movies always gives me the creeps, and I always question whether or not such scenes are present for a purpose or for some sick titillation.

In any event, I thought the original was a decent film. I don't really consider it a remake if it's based on a novel, but these kinds of things are blurred. Even movies based on books are obvious remakes of an earlier film, and sometimes not. True Grit comes to mind as less of a remake and more of an alternate adaptation of a novel.

I undestand the new one stars Stellan Skarsgaard, whom my wife has a celeb crush on, so that basically means I'll be seeing it at some point.  It's so unfair because I don't really have celeb crushes so I can't exact any retaliation. That's okay, I'm overdue to make her sit through all ten episodes of Band of Brothers, so...

[The Burgomaster]

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

SPOILER:

She's raped by two, first the ex-boyfriend, then the construction buddy.

[/quote]


ADDITIONAL SPOILER:

Hmmm . . . I'm not remembering the rape by the construction guy.  Isn't that at the end where he attempts to rape her, but doesn't get very far?  Or am I forgetting about another rape scene?

[Flick James]

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

SPOILER:

She's raped by two, first the ex-boyfriend, then the construction buddy.

ADDITIONAL SPOILER:

Hmmm . . . I'm not remembering the rape by the construction guy.  Isn't that at the end where he attempts to rape her, but doesn't get very far?  Or am I forgetting about another rape scene?


[/quote]

Not sure. I know there are two versions of the film, with different edits of the rape scene, and I've only seen one version. Perhaps it has to do with that?

[RCMerchant]

I own it on video.
It's easier on the senses than LAST HOUSE...almost too easy.
I think of it as the high class version of LAST HOUSE...the high falutin' critics loved it...but for hardcore horror fans it's humdrum.
Me...I find it ok. I was gettin' p**sed at Hoffman for being such a spinless wuss through out most of the film.
I'da  grabbed a pry bar and put a mudhole  in anyone of them shmucks within the first half hour into the movie.

[The Burgomaster]

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

SPOILER:

She's raped by two, first the ex-boyfriend, then the construction buddy.

ADDITIONAL SPOILER:

Hmmm . . . I'm not remembering the rape by the construction guy.  Isn't that at the end where he attempts to rape her, but doesn't get very far?  Or am I forgetting about another rape scene?

Not sure. I know there are two versions of the film, with different edits of the rape scene, and I've only seen one version. Perhaps it has to do with that?
[/quote]

Maybe.  Now you've made me want to go home and watch it again.

[Flick James]

SPOILER:

???? Only one guy actually rapes her . . . and it's her ex-boyfriend.  She is "okay" with it because her frustration with her husband's inability to stand up to the local bullies builds up throughout the movie and she gives in to animalistic passion when her much more aggressive ex makes a move on her.  She would have much preferred it if her husband took control and stood up to the guys in the village.  Which he does at the end.

SPOILER:

She's raped by two, first the ex-boyfriend, then the construction buddy.

ADDITIONAL SPOILER:

Hmmm . . . I'm not remembering the rape by the construction guy.  Isn't that at the end where he attempts to rape her, but doesn't get very far?  Or am I forgetting about another rape scene?

Not sure. I know there are two versions of the film, with different edits of the rape scene, and I've only seen one version. Perhaps it has to do with that?

Maybe.  Now you've made me want to go home and watch it again.

[/quote]

I have the DVD at home too, and my wife and I are planning to watch it tonight, as she's never seen it. The wikipedia article says there were indeed two versions, one released for Europe and one for the U.S. The controversy over the rape scene was more about the duration of it, as in the intended edit it's quite long, with the inclusion of the second assailant. So the MPAA required that it be edited down. The problem with this is that shortened scene resulted in a version that made it appear as if the rape was welcomed by the character, especially since it scaled down significantly or maybe even eliminated the second assailant, which caused further controversy by feminist groups saying the scene glorified rape. What a great thing censorship does, ay?

Anyway, I looked at the box for the DVD I have and it says it's the extended version, so I'm thinking it's the restored version that came out in the early 2000's, as I bought it around 2004. Likewise I'm thinking your copy may be the American version with the shorter scene.

[peter johnson]

Even the American version had the scene of the foreman unbuckling his pants & moving forward while the wife screams "NO!", didn't it?  It just didn't show the second rape in its entirity.

As Checkov said, if you show a gun on the mantle in act one, it must be used in act 3.  Watch for a great scene involving a certain antique alluded to early on in the film.

peter johnson

[The Burgomaster]

Even the American version had the scene of the foreman unbuckling his pants & moving forward while the wife screams "NO!", didn't it?  It just didn't show the second rape in its entirity.

Now that you mention it, that scene does sound familiar.  I checked my DVD and it is the Criterion Collection 2-disc said, which claims to be the uncut version.  I'll try to watch it again this weekend.  It's probably been a couple years since the last time I saw it.  I also remember there is a very interesting interview with Susan George among the special features.  She talks about what a tyrant Peckinpah was and how she walked off the set and almost quit after she had enough of his ranting and verbal abuse.

[Neville]

I am sort of a Peckinpah fan, but never liked this one. Rather than some complex and pull no punches study of violence, the whole film seemed to me an excuse for packing as much violence and obvious symbolism as it was possible in 1971. Add to that the rape scene and you'll understand why I've never watched it again.

[Flick James]

**THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Watched it last night for the first time in a few years. It is an interesting film. Good shooting and editing overall, and the ending was pretty tense for 1971. I have mixed feelings about it, however. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. It is fairly typical of early 70's films in that it is dark and has no discerable good guys. In fact, I didn't find one savory character save the constable/magistrate. Even my wife said there is no mistaking she gave in an to some extent enjoyed the first rape, and went to so far as to say it could hardly be called a rape.

Like I said, aside from the constable there were no good people in this film. David (Hoffman) was an a***ole, and the movie left me thinking that he was not a coward at all, that he was a bit of a sociopath whose intellectualism gave him the knowledge of knowing what he was capable of and therefore that was the motivation for his seemingly pacifist stance. He didn't even know she had been raped. There was no discerable moment that said "this is the breaking point." Things got tense, and he reacted in a very measured and methodical way, as a brilliant sociopath would.

What was my take on the film. I would not call it a bad film. It was well made, and had some complexity to it. I just had some problems with it's themes.