Criterion Challenge #1: Review: Straw Dogs (1971)
September 2010 Criterion Challenge #1
Spine Number: 182
*Major Spoilers
Straw Dogs (Peckinpah, 1971)
9.4/10
Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs will leave you reflecting over it long after it ends. It is a masterful piece of filmmaking both in its technical achievements, two seminal performances at its center and for its complex and hazy moral boundaries. It clearly begs multiple viewings to get more of a grasp on it. As an exploration into what Peckinpah asserts as barely contained male brutality and what happens to the man who denies what is inside of him, Straw Dogs puts forth a number of questions and addresses them in perhaps the most pessimistic and troubling way imaginable.
Peckinpah has apparently said that David (Dustin Hoffman) is the true villain of the piece. While this is not how I choose to interpret the film, he makes it clear that David himself is a participant in quiet and unknowing brutality that he lets seep out through the course of the film. The stance Peckinpah takes on David is one I cannot figure out. On the one hand, the film looks down on him for not only being a sheep among wolves but for his many apparent character flaws that accompany his mild-mannered shell. On the other hand the film does not exactly praise the behavior or look up to the actions of the Wakely residents who seemingly exist solely to look for reasons to assert their masculinity. Neither way of life looks commendable and both lead to different types of brutality so is there any silver lining for Peckinpah? Doesn’t look like it which largely contributes to the feeling of hopelessness that comes from watching it.
It is important to discuss David’s (Dustin Hoffman) character and the way his marriage with Amy (Susan George) is depicted since the film spends just as much time establishing their dynamic as it does concentrating on his downfall. There are a lot of characteristics about David that the film looks down on and that I don’t. This film hates cowards whereas I do not think that non confrontational solutions equal a coward nor do they equal a flaw. The way he reacts to much of the situation seems reasonable and his nervousness is nothing to be looked down upon. The way the film sees all of David as problematic is in turn problematic for me.
However, David is a very flawed being and a lot of time is spent on establishing this. He is arrogant and never puts any effort into getting to know his new environment or its inhabitants. His sense of superiority is easily sensed by the locals which helps start their animosity towards him. The way he treats his wife is where the quiet brutality of David comes in. How they even got together in the first place is a bit unbelievable. They constantly play literal and figurative games with each other. He is condescending to her on a regular basis and looks down on her in the same way he does the villagers. She playfully dodges questions and asserts false moods onto serious situations. They have many moments of genuine connection but there is an underlying sense of mutual disrespect happening underneath. Both of them expect the other to meet their gender defined expectations. David expects Amy to cook and clean as he orders her around and never truly treats her as an equal. Amy on the other hand constantly berates David for not “manning up” and pushes him to handle a situation when she could easily try to handle it herself. Furthermore after Amy is raped and chooses not to tell David about it, he is completely oblivious to her mood which has changed significantly from anger over the garage situation to troubling sadness. Despite the fact that she chooses to shut him out, David’s inability to recognize that his wife’s behavior is radically different shows how unperceptive he is towards her on all counts. The finale is when his treatment of her goes from constant condescension to outright violence.
I like to think of myself as a feminist so clearly a film that has been often labeled as misogynistic is going to be somewhat problematic for me. I certainly agree with these claims to an extent and the concerns regarding its extremely ambiguous and horrific double-rape scene not to mention many other aspects of the depiction of Amy’s character. However, to write it off as misogynistic is far too simplistic for this film. The way people talk about the first rape made it sound far more conclusive than it actually is. Her own reaction to the event is confused even as it happens and moments of pleasure seep into her face in a far more ambiguous way then I was led to believe. It is a misstep to write off this scene so easily. Is it potentially problematic? Of course it is; this is one of the more risky scenes in any film and it is rightfully controversial.
Yet, many neglect to focus on the specificity of Amy and Charlie’s situation. Not only is she as confused and disturbed by her reaction as we are but this is someone she was with, still harbors an attraction towards and represents everything David is not. This has probably led to some sexual repression on her part based on David’s reactions to their encounters which he uses as yet another manifestation of condescension. I do not think any sort of horrific grand statement on women is being made here. She looks back on both rapes as trauma later on and her confusion and disturbance over all of it is made perfectly clear. The second rape cancels out any assertions of a grand statement as it is extremely disturbing, not glorified in the slightest and is absolutely unambiguous as to the horror of Amy's experience. The aftermath is handled with sensitivity and complete sympathy to Amy’s plight which aligns us with her.
With Amy, Peckinpah seems to be portraying the role women are placed in due to the patriarchal brutality they are a part of. I doubt the role of women was of special concern for him due to the material he normally focuses on but there is a very heavy thematic thread about gender roles going on here. The first we see of Amy are her braless nipples poking through a sweater as the camera pans up to her face. Her choice to not wear a bra will inevitably lead to men looking at her a certain way. The film seems to look at this with a “she should know better” attitude which I do not agree with but it nevertheless shows that for women there is an unfortunate and unfair risk in very simple decisions that they should have the right to swiftly make such as what they wear or how they choose to interact with others. Her behavior towards the locals working on the garage has been seen as encouraging and flirtatious but I did not see it that way at all. Friendly interactions from women are automatically seen as flirtatious which the film sees as a cause to later consequences here. It seems (a phrase I am using a hell of a lot in this review because I don't want to make too many assumptions about Peckinpah's goals) blames Amy for not seeing that her actions cannot healthily sustain themselves in this type of world and she should be more aware of her surroundings. I differ with the film again because it is wholly lamentable that this world puts such confining expectations on women in the first place due to the world Peckinpah shows us.
All of this leads up to the final act which takes the form of a long sequence as we witness the disintegration of David. There are a couple of choices made in the story which really reinforce the unconventional circumstances of the climax. First of all, David’s breakdown and vehement defense of his home has nothing to do with Amy’s rape which he remains unacknowledged about. This means that his breaking point is merely a result of being driven by his new surroundings making it seem inevitable as opposed to rightfully stirred out of his wife’s trauma. Second, his unflinching determination to keep Henry Niles safe is impossible to sympathize with knowing that the villagers assumptions about Niles is correct and that he did in fact just murder a young girl named Janice. While Henry would have unlawfully been murdered very soon after being interrogated by the men, the lengths David goes to keep him safe along with his false belief that Henry “wouldn’t hurt a fly” just further clouds the morals of the film and makes it impossible to for the audience to take any sort of conclusive stance.
Then to top it all off, the film ends with David, joyous and self-satisfied leaving his wife to go riding in a car with a murderer who does not know where he lives. Talk about depressing. The finale is truly masterful as it provides brilliant payoff to all of the set-up that came before it. Seeing David finally lose it in a way that does not have the audience cheering and the tension that builds from everything that came before is an explosion of primal rage and near insanity on the part of our protagonist.
There was so much to discuss that I completely forgot about the performances from Dustin Hoffman and Susan George both of which are monumental acting achievements. George is just as good as Hoffman in a stunningly tragic and multi-layered portrayal and Hoffman gives what might be a career best performance (which is saying something) as David our anti-hero, villain or however you choose to think of him. Straw Dogs is not an easy film to watch or to think about but it succeeds in presenting a complex, problematic but electric and powerful exploration on violence, gender roles, primal masculinity and what happens to those who deny that. I do not agree with everything Peckinpah seems to be saying (or what I think he might be saying) but the ambiguity of the film leaves infinite room for interpretation, analysis and arguments and is masterfully done on all counts.
*As I said I think several viewings are required to get a grasp on this. While I mentioned many times stances that I think Peckinpah was taking on certain matters I cannot say for certain that any of this was what he intended. They are merely observations I made based on the sense of his viewpoint I got from the film. Also there is a remake in the works which is very disappointing and troubling. Rob Lurie writing and directing and Alexander Skarsgard as Charlie are the only things that are intriguing. Mainly though I continue to be confused and perplexed by remaking films that are established classics instead of remaking films that had potential the first time around but were executed badly. The logic of Hollywood continues to confuddle my mind.
Film & TV on DVD
I rank this film very highly and its deeper complexities make it better with repeated screenings and age.
Horrorphile
Not sure if you read my own review which I posted quite recently.
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
Bryn - I read your fantastic review! I completely agree that it asks a lot of questions and leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions about how they feel. That "bitter taste" at that end? Spot-on. That's exactly what it feels like after watching it.