Straw Dogs (1971)

What is it about violence that is so appealing to us? We built arenas to watch gladiators battle each other to the death, we have boxing and UFC to satisfy our bloodlust in a more sporting manner, and every time there is a fight at high school we all come running. The visceral, explosive nature of violence is attractive, let's be honest. It is something on the primal level that reacts in us; if you've ever been in a fight then you know what I'm talking about: The surge of adrenalin and ecstasy, the muscle-shaking fear and elation after it's over. Violence is quite powerful indeed.

No one recognized this better than Sam Peckinpah. In the 60's and 70's, Peckinpah directed many films with themes of violence as a rite of passage, masculinity, and honor. In fact, his films were so centralized around patriarchal figures that he was oft-accused of being a misogynist. Yet movies like The Wild Bunch, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, and Straw Dogs are not so much "anti-women" as they are "pro-men". Peckinpah was a hard man that lived a hard life. He grew up in Fresno, where he frequently skipped school to brand and trap cattle and practice shooting on his grandfather's farm. His behavior had him put in military school, and he later joined the Marines and was sent to China following World War II. His career was plagued with alcoholism and drug addiction, and he was notoriously known to be quite difficult to work with. All of this becomes painfully apparent when viewing his films, as is the mark of any great director. Straw Dogs, to me, is easily the most remarkable of his works and the apex of this legendary director's career.

We are first introduced to the mouse-ish mathematician David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and his lovely young wife Amy (Susan George). In an attempt to settle down, they move to Amy's home village in the UK. Tensions start to mount very quickly soon after. As David enter a local pub to buy cigarettes, the locals make it abundantly clear he is not welcome with their yellow-toothed sneers and passive aggressive behavior. David has just recently received a grant for his work, and spends much of his time in a self-imposed exile in his study, much to the frustration of Amy. It's evident that their marriage is a little rockier than it seemed, and David's cold demeanor and distance just wedges them further apart. So much so in fact, that Amy begins acting coquettishly towards the local men who've been doing repairs on the couples new home. The audience is unsure of Amy's sincerity, but the men's is painfully obvious. Besides guzzling bottle after bottle of booze, their favorite past-time is lusting after David's young bride; one of them even going so far as stealing her panties.

Further complicating matters is the fact that one of these men, Charlie Venner (Del Henney), used to be Amy's lover. This awkward situation goes on for awhile, until one night David opens up his closet to reveal his pet cat
hung by the light chain. Amy is convinced it was the workmen, who claims they did it to prove they could get into his bedroom. Amy urges him to confront them, but his meek and timid ways make it impossible for him to broach the subject. Amy is infuriated by David's inability to stand up to them, and even calls him a "coward". In an attempt to win their friendship, David agrees to go hunting with the workmen, only to leave him stranded there. While David is hunting, Charlie goes back to David's house where Amy is alone. Immediately he starts grabbing her and kissing her, refusing to comply with her screams of "No!" and "Stop!". He slaps her a few times and then throws her down onto the couch and begins raping her. This scene is the single source of all controversy surrounding this movie, for the simple fact that at the beginning of the rape, she is obviously horrified and frightened, visibly crying and fighting Charlie; but after a while, she appears to start to enjoy it, running her hands up and down his face and kissing him tenderly. I'm not going to tell you how this scene will make you feel or how you should interpret it, I'm only going to tell you what I thought. Amy and Charlie are old lovers, and as anyone knows, most of the time those feelings never really disappear entirely. As much as she is disgusted by him, some part of her seems to be attracted to the wild feral aspect of Charlie, which is in stark contrast to the milquetoast, effeminate David, not to mention her dormant feelings for Charlie have also been stirred up by this encounter. I think debasement and criticism of this film on this scene alone is foolish, because as we all know, some of the most revered art is indeed the most controversial. Films that evoke ire and scandal are good. They allow us to take a look into the mirror of society and see where we stand, and it's always interesting from a sociological perspective to see what people consider taboo. Bottom line : It's a movie, get over it.
During the rape however, one of the other workmen intrude and hold a shotgun to Charlie, demanding that he get a turn with Amy. Charlie is reluctant, but holds down Amy and lets him have his way with her, much to Amy's horror. Meanwhile, in the woods, David manages to finally shoot a duck. When he picks it up and studies it however, his guilt is obvious and he gently places it back in the bushes. David finally comes home to find Amy in bed, and she breaths not a word of the rapes, though she experiences haunting flashbacks. Later, at a church social, the sight of the rapists prove too much for Amy and the couple leave early. The foggy conditions cause David to accidentally hit the village idiot Henry Niles (David Warner). What they don't know is that it seems Mr. Niles has a penchant for young girls, and earlier that night, accidentally strangled the daughter of one of the locals. David calls the pub for help, and soon an enraged mob composed of the girls' father and the workmen head over to David's house to get Niles. David refuses to give Niles to them, knowing full well they would kill him if he did. He kicks them out, and the local magistrate soon arrives to defuse the situation. However, the drunken mob accidentally shoot him in the chest with a shotgun. The men agree that they have crossed the point of no return, and they must get Niles by any means necessary. They soon start taunting David and Amy, throwing rocks at their house and breaking their windows. David does his best to stay calm, but Amy relentlessly insists they give him Niles, as she reveals she could care less if he lives or dies. David is staunch however, declaring "This is my house!" and refusing to let them in or Niles out. He begins preparing for the inevitable confrontation by setting a large foothold mantrap by a window and cooking two pots of oil on the stove. When one man stick his hand through a window David ties it with wire and sticks a knife to his neck, viciously saying "You make one move you son of bitch...I'll slit your throat." While he is freeing himself, David flees to another window and throws the boiling oil into three men's faces, temporarily stopping them. When the girl's father finally gains entrance, David misdirects the man's shotgun barrel, causing him to blow his foot off. When another one of the drunken maniacs enters after him, David beats him to death with a fire poker. As soon as he finishes with him, yet another man appears from behind with a switchblade, but David manages to overpower and kill him as well.
Charlie comes out holding a shotgun to David, and just as it seems he is about to kill him, Amy begins screaming upstairs, causing both David and Charlie to come running after her. The other workmen is trying to rape Amy, tearing off all her clothes and demanding Charlie at knife point to kill David so they can rape her again.
Charlie shoots the man in the chest, and David grabs the gun and they start fighting. They tumble down the stairs where David clamps the mantrap around Charlie's neck, crushing it and killing him, much to Amy's vocal protest. An exhausted David looks around, incredulously stating, "Jesus...I got 'em all..". No sooner does he say this when another man lunges and attacks him. As his back is being crushed, David pleads with Amy to grab the gun and shoot him, which she reluctantly does. David grabs Niles form upstairs, takes one last look at the carnage around him, and sets off in his car with Niles.
It is quite enthralling to see David's transformation from boyish nerd into homicidal predator, and even more so the role reversal that takes place between David and Amy. Her bossy, assertive nature has all but vanished at the end of the film, she seems almost catatonic even. Meanwhile, David has never seemed happier. Is this a commentary on the aggressive nature of man, or merely circumstance? Was David pushed into this by Amy's emasculation of him and societies perceptions about what makes a man? Is society to blame, or is it something innate or instinctual that drives men to be more naturally violent than women? These are just many questions posed by the film, and ones which I am unsure of the answer. Even more intriguing is that perphaps this bloody denouement would be better understood had David had knowledge of the rapes, but he remains blissfully unaware throughout. Peckinpah himself stated that Straw Dogs is simply an exploration of violence, not an endorsement. He believes that David is the true villain, not the workmen, as the ensuing violence was the result of his own subconsciously deliberate provocation. He believes that the murderous, menacing David is his true self. Yet that is just one man's interpretation, and the thematic ambiguity of this film is one of it's most exciting aspects. It's something that has stayed in my mind long after viewing, and to me that is certainly the mark of a superb film. Take care not to write it off as mindless violence, this is deep, engrossing stuff that has to be seen to be truly appreciated.