Customer Reviews

Straw Dogs (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I've now seen Straw Dogs 7 times. The first time I saw it years ago, I thought it was pretty good, kind of slow, but good. The second time I fell in love with it; for all the wrong reasons. The third time, something clicked and I realized this isn't a Hollywood movie, there's a reason it still strikes a nerve with so many people: it's one of the few films that says to you, in a whisper:

"If you like this movie for the action, you're scum; if you associate with any of the characters, you're scum. If you cheer during the siege, you're utter scum. This is not a heroic film, there are no good people, because in life there are no good people, we are all animals."

At the time, and to this day, claims of the glorification of violence are heard, but this is just idiotic. In order to glorify something, in the end, it has to be shown in a majestic light. Straw Dogs does everything but this; it begins quietly and ends bleakly, you'd be heart broken if you weren't so scarred and trembling.

Sure, Hoffman goes from mouse to "man", "but at what cost?", the film asks. His already crumbling marriage is utterly obliterated by the final sequence of the film, where he declares that he's no idea how to get home, because what once was his house, wife and all, is no longer a part of him.

It's a statement on many things: the animal nature of the human being: territory, sex, violence, pride; the futility of law. Highly recommended, but don't expect a chipper feeling when the credits begin.

About the infamous rape scene...

It's important to bear in mind that this is a work of fiction, not a documentary. In fiction, people do not necessarily behave in ways that people do in real life. It is, for instance, highly unlikely that the meek Dustin Hoffman character could successfully slaughter a half dozen brawny opponents, but that's the story.

The second point to remember is that the rape scene comes in two parts, with two different sexual couplings. The first is merely a "fantasy rape scenario", while the second underlines that point by showing a far more realistic example of rape.

How does fantasy enter into the scenario? Although some may deny it, studies have routinely shown that 'forced sex' fantasies are popular with both genders. Nancy Friday, in "The Secret Garden", documented the popularity of such fantasies with women. Anyone who has ever read a typical romance novel from the 1970s (the time this movie was made) realizes that the 'rape' scenario has played a key role in women's erotica.

This does not mean that women want to be raped (nor that men want to rape them), merely that many women are sexually aroused by fantasizing about non-violent situations where they find themselves overpowered and 'forced' to do what they really want to do. In these fantasy situations, the women are really in total control, of course, because the fantasy takes place only in their own minds. The fantasy 'rapist' does only what they choose for him to do, no more no less. He is, in fact, the puppet in the fantasy, not them. If they chose, they could just as easily fantasize about them raping HIM (another theme that arises in some women's fantasies). As such, there is no actual 'rape' at all in 'rape fantasies', only the iconic use of masculine force and a pretense of resistance to add heat to the imagined situation.

In the film, just such a fantasy is presented, then contrasted with the reality of rape.

The Susan George character knows the first 'attacker' well. She grew up with him and introduces him to her husband early on. There's a strong possibility that they were lovers in the past, or at least boyfriend and girlfriend. Residual sexual tension remains between them. It is clear that the man desires her from the moment they meet again. It is likely that the continued attraction is mutual.

Although the Susan George character no doubt admired the peaceful, civilized manners of her husband when she met him in a culture which valued these traits, it is clear that she is repulsed by (and ashamed of) her husband's perceived weakness once they move to the backwater community where she grew up - a more primitive and violent environment where his passivity is seen as a mark of shame. It's hard to shake one's upbringing, and once back in her home town, she bristles at having to watch the macho locals ridicule her passive husband. She reverts to the villagers' way of valuing things, and when she does, the socio/sexual value of her husband dims by comparison to that of her former macho boyfriend, a native son who understands the rules of survival there. A part of her yearns for the rough, primitive kind of man she grew up with - but the Hoffman character seems incapable of being that man for her.

As her husband continues to ignore her sexual needs, and resentment between them increases, the (fictional) Susan George character seems to make a (conscious or subconscious) effort to goad her former boyfriend into making a move. Perhaps she is hoping that her husband will respond by becoming a more masculine protector, perhaps she is trying to prove to herself that she is still in control in the backward environment (even though it is clear that she is not), or perhaps she secretly hopes that her former boyfriend will force her into the affair she secretly craves. Either way, she is playing a dangerous game, but seems to feel that any result would be preferable to the current situation of being ignored by an ineffective husband. She exposes herself to the man and his fellow workers on several occasions, virtually daring them to do anything about it. Having grown up there, she must realize the likely consequences of goading these kind of Neanderthals.

When the men lure her husband away on a hunting trip and her former boyfriend comes knocking at her door to test the waters, her actions are revealing. She meets him wearing just a robe over panties and a T-shirt. She lets him into their home while she is alone and helpless, despite knowing his aggressive nature. She offers him a drink. When he offers to leave voluntarily, his offer seems to be a sincere one, but she tells him to stay. She challenges him openly about killing her cat, even though she must know how a primitive like that would respond. Finally, when he kisses her, gently, she doesn't resist. Quite the opposite, she responds sexually, clinging to him and kissing him back, displaying obvious desire for him. While still in his arms, but not resisting, she says "Please leave me", sending what may be the world's most mixed message. He kisses her again, and once again she kisses him back, although she mixes in a minor show of resistance while doing so. Suddenly, she pulls away and slaps him, hard, in a mock pretense of outrage. Predictably, the confused Neanderthal reacts aggressively. His angry response is more violent than she expected, as he loses his temper, slaps her back hard. She backs away, as he begs her not to tease him (which is exactly what she has been doing, whether intentionally or because of conflicting desires). When he reaches out gently to brush her hair, she she slaps him again, which to a man of this social level would be translated into a challenge to his masculine strength, perhaps even a message of "if you want me, you'll have to take me by force".

He believes that she is merely teasing him, and (in this story) he is right. In stereotypical caveman fashion, he drags her by her hair to the couch, slaps her again and rips off her robe. She is briefly overcome by fear & pain, by resentment of being manhandled, and by guilt over betraying her husband, so she resists at first. Even then, though, there is something in her heavy breathing and 'heaving bosom' that seems to come straight out of a bad old romance novel. Her resistance, while real, seems less than whole-hearted. Her breathy gasps of "no" are mixed with returned kisses and embraces of the man who is about to 'rape' her. And despite making a few threatening gestures when needed to subdue her, the 'attacker' otherwise seems suspiciously gentle and romantic in his approach, in line with typical bodice-ripper fantasies. The former boyfriend seems to genuinely care for her. He even says "I'm sorry" as they finish.

Once she is stripped naked and taken on the couch, she soon responds sexually to her old lover, pulling his head down to kiss him passionately, caressing his face, and clearly enjoying the sexual act, perhaps even achieving orgasm.

This is not really supposed to be rape that we are watching, this is a fictional, unrealistic 'force fantasy' playing out on screen, the end result of a lengthy game of sexual one-upmanship in which she has manipulated the Neanderthal male into doing what she wants - taking her by force, and hence absolving her of the guilt associated with voluntarily cheating on her idiot husband.

To view it as actual rape (despite the initial violence at the onset) is to misunderstand the dynamics of the scene.

The SECOND part of the incident, on the other hand, is meant to illustrate the actual crime of rape, and to contrast it to the earlier fantasy situation. This time the attacker is a stranger (not a sexy former lover whom she secretly desires). This time the sex is truly involuntary. This second time, it really IS rape. There is no romantic tenderness this time, she is held face down and either sodomized or taken from behind in brutal fashion - and she definitely doesn't enjoy it.

We are seeing two different events: a real rape, and a pretend rape. Fantasy and reality. The former, in this script, being no more than an extramarital affair played out under the guise of resistance. The latter being a clear act of violence and sadism.


(On another note, on first viewing, it's easy to make the mistake of assuming that Dustin Hoffman's orgy of violence is an act of revenge for the rape of his wife. But in reality, his character never learns that his wife was attacked. His violent explosion comes as the result of the men invading his home and challenging his manhood - an idea that is probably more open to criticism than the rape scene.)

Anyone who has ever wrote on the subject of movie violence has ackowledged Sam Peckinpah, both for this 1969 masterpiece "The Wild Bunch" and his gritty "Straw Dogs". Both are fantastic movies, but I have always loved "Straw Dogs" in particular. Criterion has finally done the movie justice with this superb DVD package, one that any serious movie collector would be proud to own.

This is the classic revenge formula, with a young American mathematician (Dustin Hoffman) and his sexy British wife (Susan George) moving to a small town in England and soon find themselves in battle with the drunken and brutish locals. Hoffman's character, as a mild-mannered bookworm, is contrasted by his later rage when he must defend himself and his home. The DVD cites this movie as "a harrowing and masterful investigation of masculinity and the nature of violence", which perfectly describes the tone of the film, as well as the intended message.

The violence in "Straw Dogs" is, while not overly graphic, potent nonetheless. It also has one of the most brutal rape scenes ever done on film. Both in terms of structure and content, "Straw Dogs" was well ahead of it's time. The acting is solid, and the script is beautifully written. The characters range from people we empathize with to people we love to hate. Despite the age (the movie was released in 1971), "Straw Dogs" never seems dated.

The Criterion DVD is packed with quality extras, starying with audio commentary by film scholar Stephen Prince. Thankfully, it is not overly intellectual, but also doesn't lack insight, and it quite easy to follow. The documentary "Sam Peckinpah: Man of Iron" is an interesting 80 minute documentary that has interviews with his friends and family. Although no footage from his movies is shown, and no interviews with the man himself, we get a lot of insight into Peckinpah's life and work. Next is the Behind-the-scenes footage, which is rough at times but still fun to watch. The Dustin Hoffman segment runs for 30 minutes.

Criterion have excelled themselves with "Straw Dogs", and you can expect to spend at least 4 hours with this DVD. The transfer is the best ever released, and the selection of extras makes this worth every penny. Essential.

This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Hoping to escape the social unrest happening in America during the late 1960's, American David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) retreats to the English countryside, residing in the hometown of his wife Amy. (Susan George) The town is the perfect example of a quiet rural town, like something you would find in "All Creatures Great and Small" or any other British TV series. There is something hiding under the surface, however: the villagers are not entirely fond of David, and Amy's ex-boyfriend and his friends in particular take a loathing to him. This begins with simple taunts, such as one scene where they laugh at David's inability to drive a British car. It escalates in the killing of the family cat, and climaxes in Amy being raped by her ex-boyfriend and one of his friends. David continually tries to shrug off the anxiety built by this, trying at first to laugh it off as simple hazing, but then gradually feeling more and more bitter as each act gets worst. The peak of this results when David takes in a mentally handicapped man who accidentally killed a daughter in the Hedden family. (the family close to Amy's ex-love)

Made after "The Wild Bunch" and "The Ballad of Cable Hogue," Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" was met with much controversy and has entered a cult status. It is, however, an amazing film to watch, if not a brutal one. I've seen Peckinpah's other films involving violence, and this had to be the most brutal one of them all. The reason for this has to be that here the violence appears to real. In "The Wild Bunch" or "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" the violence is almost expected with the genre. (cowboys and shoot-outs are almost synonymous) Here, we're dealing with real people dealing with real issues, and when one of them dies it actually means something. Also, the timing and filming is so amazingly done here. Violence doesn't carry the film, and David is not your typical hero.

For example, when the cat is killed by his enemies, he does practically nothing. His wife bugs him into confronting the family coming against him, but instead he accepts an invitation to go hunting with them. This allows some of the men to get to his wife when he's not around and rape her, but even after that she doesn't tell him about it, and the conflict continues to simmer. In some ways, it's a very human reaction - nobody likes conflict, and we'd rather go on with our lives peacefully then have a showdown. On the other hand, it's a foolish and surely self-destructive route for a person to go, not standing up for yourself at all until it's finally too late to turn back. David hides his anger and frustration inside, until suddenly at the end he lets it all out when his enemies surround and attack his house.

This is where the violence really struck me. One reason is that David, as a character, is calculating and thoughtful, and here he suddenly uses that intelligence to unleash pain on human beings. The other reason is that the violence here is done so quick and so terrible - not glorified in the slightest sense - that it doesn't necessarily come across as heroic. Instead, it becomes desperate. Oh I'll admit there were times when I cheered for David, but when all is said and done you're not left feeling hopeful. He doesn't kill people because he necessarily has to for the story - he kills them because he as a human being has to. I had heard that Sam Peckinpah wanted to portray violence as an ugly thing in this film, something he had tried but failed to do in "The Wild Bunch." Well, Mister Peckinpah, rest in peace, because you accomplished your goal.

The DVD-collection from Criterion has a good assortment of special features. The one I was happy to see was Stephen Prince doing the commentary for the film. I had listened to Stephen Prince do the commentary for Akira Kurosawa films ("Ikiru," "Kagemusha," "Ran") and loved the way he did them. He examines every shot of the film, explains the reason the director does it, and most of all he uses words the directors themselves say in regards to the film and historical connotations for the time period the film came from. He is a refreshing change from the usual film historians you get. Many commentaries are done by people who either state the obvious, read simple trivia about the directors, or overanalyze every single part of the movie. I had grown fed up with this after listening to such commentary done for Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" and "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia," so Prince's take was a nice change. He explains Peckinpah's method of editing the film, and tries to counterpoint a lot of criticism made about the film, including the infamous rape scene. (a lot of people have said Peckinpah glorifies rape with that scene, but personally I thought it was the most disturbing rape scene put to film)

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is without a doubt one of Peckinpah's best films. It's not an easy film to watch (and, like many films, it's not the ideal movie to watch with your girlfriend) but if you want to see a film with a bit of suspense and a shocking ending, then it's definitely the film for you. Criterion, as usual, as gotten the DVD release right.

I will start with my thesis, namely that this film is one of the single greatest American films of all time, ridiculously complex psychologically, completely satisfying on an aesthetic level but at the same time hating itself as said success. Not a shot or line of dialogue is unnecessary, and almost every scene is ambiguous enough to be read any number of ways. It is easily more complicated than Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert would have you believe, and is in my mind a much subtler and more intelligent father to the cinema of satirist Paul Verhoeven.

I don't believe David is the villian, that is too simple of a subversion, nor do I find him to be as unsympathetic as others do, but I think that is the whole point. We are meant to identify superficially with David, to congratulate ourselves on our intelligence and civility, all the while enjoying the inevitable brutish spectacle play out as it does in all genre films, only this film is one of the very few that is aware of the voyeuristic beast that is the audience. Rather than cartoonish villians, I would argue that the villagers should be seen as more overt manifestations of David's personality throughout the film. He is smug and condescending, secure in his intellectual and moral authority, and he is just as much an aggressor as they are, flaunting his money, car, and knowledge as opposed to his drinking, crudeness, and sexual potency, and using it to constantly one-up everyone around him who will bear it (the single scene in that most exemplifies this is his meeting with the reverend). Amy is too often knocked for being a one-dimensional "tease" character, but I would argue against this as well, although I'm not sure I would call her the most sympathetic character in the film as some would. I would instead argue that she expressing herself sexually because it is the only way she can express herself in this microcosm, where every woman is objectified and men are only interested in them for sex and as a symbol of status. In the end no one is right here, though some may be more abused than others. Everyone is fair game for Sam Peckinpah's misanthropy in this great and crude masterpiece.

Dustin Hoffman stars as timid mathematician David Sumner in Sam Peckinpah's highly controversial film, "Straw Dogs". The film filmed in England and banned there due to excessive violence was released at a time when this type of film action was starting to be in vogue.

Hoffman and his flirtatious and comely wife Amy played by Susan George go on retreat to the farmhouse she grew up in in the Cornwall countryside. Looking for solitude to complete his research he hires some locals to complete some repairs of the house. Sensing his cowardice they become abusive and intimidating which culiminates in a brutal rape scene of George, the main reason for the banning of the film.

George keeps the incident from Hoffman but when he accidently strikes local pervert Henry Niles played by David Warner on a foggy night with his car he feels responsible. He offers him shelter in the farmhouse not knowing that Warner had accidently just strangled a local girl. Her father the alcoholic Tom played by Peter Vaughn and the abusive locals arrive on the scene to extirpate him from the farmhouse.

Hoffman seeking to protect Warner and George morphs into a merciless warrior defending his turf in a segment festooned with violence as he proceeds to bloodily dispatch the group trying to gain entrance to the house.

Peckinpah's penchant for the display of violence in his film was demonstrated quite vividly in "Straw Dogs". The portrayal of the rape scene was disturbing even to actress George and had to be toned down. The ambiguous depiction of her reaction to her violation was extremely puzzling and branded Peckinpah as misogynistic by his critics.

Movie: This is not a film for everyone. When I first saw the movie, I wasn't quite sure what to think or how to feel. Sam Peckinpah has a way of doing that to his viewers, sometimes. So, I watched the film again and I began to see the brilliance of the film, the examination of violence and how it occurs through the parable of the mathmatician and his wife who move to a Cornish village. The performances and the way Peckinpah uses violence to make his point, and indeed, examine his own demons and problems is amazing. Those going to this film expecting to see the "most violent ever made" may be disappointed, as the violence seems a little tame by today's standards of cinematic violence. Although few films have the creative vision and strong characterization that Peckinpah has here, and uses to great effect. The film is great (once one gets used to it)!

DVD Package: Critierion is always on top of things when they release a DVD and they don't skimp out here, even for a fairly obscure movie that has only recently gained some attention from cinemaphiles because of the Criterion release. On the DVD, there is the invaluable commentary by Stephen Prince, a Peckinpah biographer and a strong admirer of the directoir's work. His commentary is a fascinating analysis of Peckinpah's style and content, breaking down even the composition of the frame to give depth and meaning. The Peckinpah bio is good but a little long. The disc also includes some essays that further help shed light on Peckinpah's artistic vision and use of violence. If one is a film buff or a fan of film criticism and critique, than buy the Criterion release for the Stephen Prince commentary and the essays. Stephen Prince, through his commentary and essay contained here, has helped me enjoy this movie more and has helped me look closer at the movies I watch.

Bottom Line: If you like 'Straw Dogs', the films of Sam Peckinpah, early 70's cinema, or good film analyses...find and buy the Criterion DVD release of Straw Dogs. Buy quickly though, as the Criterion release is Out of Print. MGM bought the rights to release the film, and they did so without any of the great special features available on the Criterion release. If one is unsure about Peckinpah or this film, rent it first or buy the cheap MGM release.

Eerie and disconcerting from the very first frame. Director/Co-Writer Peckinpah creates a strange alternative universe where people act on their base impulses. A stuffy professor (Dustin Hoffman) and his gorgeous young wife (Susan George) are thrown into this world and almost destroyed by it. Peckinpah creates a rich tapestry of characters and brilliantly explores the subtle and occasionally explosives shifts in power between them. The high-minded sophistication of film-making belies the outwardly lurid nature of the subject - "Deliverance" springs to mind as another example of this. Stunning in every department - acting (especially by Hoffman and George), editing, writing, music, cinematography, and of-course direction. In many ways Peckinpah's best film.

The DVD version I have (Region 4) also features:
- Interviews
- Commentaries
- Standalone musical score

The ugliness of so called 'civilised' people is explored in this film . I have read parts of people's writings about this film , but had to stop out of boredom .

The simplest way to put it for me is : if you only know Dustin Hoffman from RAIN MAN or THE GRADUATE , then be prepared to have the rug taken out from under you .
The film is unsettling because we see ourselves or someone we know reflected in it .
Do you know any young married couples that don't seem too well matched ? This film will explore that for you also .

It is perhaps a film to watch when you are angry with the world . The film may then make you question your own motives .
This is a film that will make you think and there are less of those than ever before .
I do recommend renting it first , though , as you may find some of the ideas in it offensive .