What was so good about Straw Dogs (1971)

H

harmonica44

SPOILERS

It's hailed as this great cult classic but I wasn't seeing what was so special about it, at least not on the first viewing. For one thing the plot doesn't seem to be sure of it's structure. The villains want to break into the protagonists house, because there is someone in there he wants. This subplot is completely different from the rape plot before, and the rape is forgotten about, once the new subplot of wanting to get into the house is introduced. So therefore it feels like the rape wasn't given the deep pay off it deserved. So why introduce it, when the third act is about something different?

And before the rape, most of the set up of the married couple I thought was very weekly done. The wife exhibits very strange 'Lolita-ish', behavior, but it's never really delt with in a thoughtful way to the relationship. It' just seems there as a mere gimmick, and therefore comes off as false character bevavior with no purpose. She likes to annoy her husband, but it's never clearly explained why, and that comes off as very pointless therefore, to me.

So why was it that this movie is hailed so high?
 
harmonica44 said:
So why was it that this movie is hailed so high?
Click to expand...

I just saw it and...I don't know why. :lol: Of course, Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. For me, Peckinpah's stuff doesn't age that well. I was really expecting some build up of Hoffman's character, from soft spoken mathematician to a man forced into a corner, but it just kind of happens.

The rape is supposed to be ambiguous, I guess. She's getting raped, but actually enjoys part of it as she caresses the man back. Aggressive for it's time, but I was disappointed. The attack on the house is okay.

I've heard terrible things about the current remake, so I will probably pass on it.
 
Nothing. It's a crap movie. And the remake is surely crap. I will never know, because I won't see it. But I'll bet it's crap. Also, I'm a little concerned about your obsession with movies that involve rape.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I'm a little concerned about your obsession with movies that involve rape.
Click to expand...

Well, after all those years in prison, I became......


hand-clenching.jpg



........Oh, are you talking to harmonica44?



:lol::D
 
Last edited:
I think the reason it is held as a cult classic is the controversy. It was band for AGES in the UK, and anything banned gets a lot of press. That said, I enjoyed it. I haven't seen it in years, but I remember that his wife's behaviour is indicative of the deeper dissatisfaction and problems in their relationship. Dustin Hoffman's character is too wrapped up in himself to really process what is going on. I don't feel that it needed an explaination, it's pretty obvious if you think about the movie.

As for the third act, well, that was what the entire film was building towards. The rape scene was another stone on the path of abuse and alienation that sparked both character's rage. The reason why the home invasion began isn't important. It was a catalyst, and an ultimately misguided one.

I think I could have more to say about this, but again, I haven't seen the movie in years. Also quite possible that I wouldn't like it as much today as I did when last I saw it.
 
Been years since I've seen it, but I remember Hoffman being brilliant. It may seem a bit dated now. It's commentary on violence and the barbarian that lurks just below the surface in each of us. At the time, the violence was totally over the top. In the original cut the rape isn't as ambiguous.
 
You have to take into context the time-period the film was made. The graphic violence at the end, as well as the rape scene itself, was pushing a boundary that nowadays we take for granted.

The real reason the film generated so much interest, I think, was the political and social message Peckinpah seemed to be giving. One way to read the movie, and I don't think Peckinpah ever discouraged it, was to say that contemporary males had been emasculated, that machismo and its accompanying glorification of violence, can never be totally suppressed in a civilized society.

But the real controversy was the rape scene and, in particular, the end of the first rape when Susan George seemed to enjoy the rape, when she began to cuddle with the rapist, to act tenderly and lovingly toward him (which is different from the brutal sodomy of the second person raping her). Feminists were, perhaps rightly, totally outraged by the scene, which seemed to suggest some women enjoy rape.

Whatever the case, and whether you agree with the interpretation of Peckinpah's intentions or not, the film made a point, and made it with style. It was an important movie.

The remake, by the way, has intentionally removed ANY ambiguity about the rape scene. She does NOT ever appear to enjoy it.
 
Well I don't have a problem with how the rape scene happened particularly. My problem was with how there was no pay off and didn't seem to have anything to do with the third act, since it's getting revenge on the village idiot. That made me feel that rape was pointless so why have it? As well as many other things before the village idiot subplot came into play. Like what was with the scene where the two teenagers were spying on the married couple doing foreplay? Did that have anything to do with anything? Things like that.


Cracker Funk said:
Nothing. It's a crap movie. And the remake is surely crap. I will never know, because I won't see it. But I'll bet it's crap. Also, I'm a little concerned about your obsession with movies that involve rape.
Click to expand...

Lol a fair question. Since I'm writing feature script, about the subject, I was watching other movies on it, for research, and previous takes on it.
 
harmonica44 said:
Well I don't have a problem with how the rape scene happened particularly. My problem was with how there was no pay off and didn't seem to have anything to do with the third act, since it's getting revenge on the village idiot. That made me feel that rape was pointless so why have it? As well as many other things before the village idiot subplot came into play. Like what was with the scene where the two teenagers were spying on the married couple doing foreplay? Did that have anything to do with anything? Things like that.
Click to expand...

Two points: the third act is NOT about "getting revenge on the village idiot". That would be like saying that Falling Down is about Michael Douglas losing his job. It is the event that allows emotional currents that have been building beneath the surface for the entire movie (both on the part of the main character AND the villagers) to boil over.

Second, the rape scene did have a payoff. After it happened, the dynamics between the main character and his wife changed. The dynamics between them and the villagers changed. Again, it's been too long since I've seen it, but I remember that being a VERY pivotal scene in the movie. What happened to her is what led the villagers to feel they can do whatever they want to the main characters (remember, rape is more about power than sex). Leading to the climax, etc, etc

On one hand, this movie is more about the emotions of the characters, rather than the actions (though the actions are how we understand the emotions). What were you expecting to see that you didn't?
 
'On one hand, this movie is more about the emotions of the characters, rather than the actions (though the actions are how we understand the emotions)"

Which is like pretty much every good film ever made, the foundation of screen writing. It's not about what happens, it's about who it happens to and how they react to it.
 
Oh okay. I thought the bad guys were so fascist that they didn't need to commit rape, in order for them to build up into, breaking into somebodies house in order to find the suspect who made a girl disappear. I thought they would still do that even so. Now that you say they needed to rape to build up to that, I can kinda see it being there for a reason now. What about the scene, where the two teens were spying on the married couple, and why was the wife acting so strange with no reasonable explanation, which was bringing the marriage down, before the rape or anything happened? What were the points of those?
 
harmonica44 said:
What about the scene, where the two teens were spying on the married couple, and why was the wife acting so strange with no reasonable explanation, which was bringing the marriage down, before the rape or anything happened? What were the points of those?
Click to expand...

You would have a ball, if you took some Film Theory classes. You would learn that there is a metaphor for just about anything. For instance, the teens could be a reflection of the audience - we are voyeurs. They watch out of curiousity, just as we watch the rape scene.

As far as the wife, one of the first shots of the movie is of her bra-less bust walking down the street, catching the attention of every man around. Of course, Hoffman's character is a little bit oblivious about the attention she craves. This is why she screws with his math equations on the chalkboard.

Secondly, one of the laborers is obviously an ex-boyfriend of hers - which is why the rape confuses her. She wishesthat the man she is married to (Hoffman) was more like this man.
 
Okay thanks. I get why the rape confused her, since it was her ex. I don't get why her being an attention seeker, had anything to do with the plot though. There is no rule that the characters behavior has to have anything to do with the plot, but it's just very unusual. For example in say... The Dark Knight, we don't see Rachel Dawes being a sexual attention seeker for the first half, that has nothing to do with the plot. In that one, all of the characters behavior relates to the plot. There is no rule that is has to, but most script writers and movie critics, advise, that the writer has a point for weird character behavior and actions, in a thriller. But I guess the rape was connected to the attention she craved, which explains her behavior perhaps then...

Okay so the teens are voyeurs, but the foreplay watching went on for too long, after the metaphor was established maybe. But some good points were made, I am now on the verge of reconsidering and liking this movie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top