It is extremely rare that a movie which causes controversy when it is first released continues to be controversial 50 years after its premier. Sam Peckinpah’s, “Straw Dogs”, is one such movie. Even today, the film resonates strong emotions from people. When I first saw it in the late 70’s, I loved it. However, watching it today gives me mixed emotions.
David Summer (Dustin Hoffman) is a young American mathematician, who, along with his beautiful British wife Amy, move into a secluded countryside home near Amy’s hometown in the Cornish countryside. This is a small town that appears to be inhabited mostly by closed-minded, violent British rednecks. I am not sure why the Cornish countryside was used, but the plot of the movie would have felt right at home in the American rural mountainside, and the residents of this town are kindred spirits to the American Hillbilly. David looks and acts like your typical intellectual geek, while Amy looks like a playboy bunny, and enjoys flaunting her ample physical attributes. David wants the seclusion of Cornish country life, so he can quietly finish writing his research paper, which is of a highly technical and unintelligible nature. He also makes the mistake of hiring Amy’s ex-boyfriend Charlie and his friends to fix the roof on the garage of the home. David becomes condescending to Amy and the locals, which causes Amy, through boredom, to become increasingly more provocative towards the local workers. This mix of condescension and provocation results in some unbelievable violence towards the couple from the locals, which in turn lights a long dormant aggressive fire within David. The movie would seem to propagate the theory that there is violence and aggression locked into almost every human being. The town’s population also includes Charlie’s brutish uncle Tom, Tom’s flirtatious teenage daughter Janice and a mentally handicapped but physically imposing local named Henry. Representing the more educated members of this extremely inhospitable township are the town Vicar and Army veteran local magistrate. David succeeds in alienating these two lone figures of civility by cynically degrading their faith.
Peckinpah does a masterful job of instilling a sense of dread and danger as a slow burn build-up to the explosive ending. This movie has a lot in common with Kubrick’s, “A Clockwork Orange”, from the same year, with its first-person viewpoints from both David and the locals. The locals are seen as looking deranged through Peckinpah’s lens, which works to mirror David’s perspective of them. This is not a subtle film, as Peckinpah makes sure not only what each character is looking at, but also what is going through their minds, most of which is not friendly or pleasant.
The locals are perceived as being deviant as well as extremely stupid. The mentally handicapped Henry is shown as being more sympathetic and thoughtful than his sane neighbors, even though there is a claim that he is a sexual predator. That reality or unreality is one of the paradoxes of the movie, as I believe Peckinpah tried to mirror Lennie’s gentle giant from Steinbeck’s brilliant novel, “Of Mice and Men”. Watching the movie, I had a feeling that Peckinpah loved Lennie and wanted to create a story where an unlikely hero saves him from his fate. Instead, Henry, as the pseudo-Lennie, comes across as even more dangerous than Lennie was. Both commit a terrible act without intent and due to a combination of unrecognizable sexual desire and fear. Lennie is killed by his brother in an act of strength and pity, while Henry’s brother is too weak to defend him, allowing him to be saved by the supposedly meek outsider David.
The movie features a powerful violent ending that, in my opinion, is one of the top five best action sequences ever filmed. Revolving around a siege on David’s home, the sequence uses rapid editing, gritty, realistic violence, and peaks with disturbing finality while a great bagpipe recording is played at full blast. Bagpipe music will never be the same for me after watching this movie. The violence shown is very close and personal, with the pain being displayed never disguised. One of David’s clear symbols of who he is are his eyeglasses, as no one else in this terrible town wears glasses. During the chaotic final sequence, David never forgets to pick up his glasses each time they are forced off his face. At one point, there is clear blood on them. Having to wear glasses keeps him as an intellectual but does not deter his ability at being a bad-ass.
The acting is first rate within the entire cast, but it is Hoffman’s performance that stands out. Like his performance in “The Graduate”, Hoffman seamlessly and believably allows his character to transform. When he is meek and nerdy, he looks the part, and when the attack on his home becomes the line that he will not allow to cross, he becomes steely eyed and focused. Hoffman portrays all these characters with subtle finesse.
Where I have issues with “Straw Dogs”, is in the mixed messages that are displayed. There is a disturbing rape scene that at one point wants us to believe that Amy was enjoying being ravaged. David at one point tells her that she should watch how she dresses in public. There is a somewhat upsetting feeling that Peckinpah is at the same time blaming the rape victim as well as showing how she may enjoy part of the violence enforced on her. It is true that the complete scene does make it clear that Amy does not want or ask for the rape (this is especially true for the more horrid 2nd rape), I still thought that Peckinpah purposefully made us question this. When the movie first came out the censors cut this scene in such a way that people thought Amy was not even raped but having sex with her ex-boyfriend. The censored version was a travesty that worked to do the opposite of what its intensions were. The complete uncensored scene, while hard to watch, does eventually make it clear that Amy was horribly abused.
Another part of the movie that bothers me is its portrayal of the towns’ people as being uneducated, ignorant, brutish, and evil. Recently it has become abundantly clear that sexually abusive people can not only come from all sectors of society, but that the rich and powerful are probably even more guilty then the poor and uneducated, yet this movie feeds on our fear of people we perceive as being simpler. The movie’s depiction of people with mental illness is even more repugnant.
I was also never quite sure, unlike Kubrick with “A Clockwork Orange”, as to what Peckinpah was trying to say. I have heard people say that this is a violent condemnation of violence, but I do not see it. To me it felt like an intellectual’s wet dream, where smart meek people dream about hurting all the people who hurt them growing up.
Regardless of the theme or motives, Peckinpah’s, “Straw Dogs”, is a powerful piece of filmmaking that is a textbook example of how to build up extreme tension and not disappoint with the resultant ending. It is an unforgettable film that, unfortunately, does not give clear answers to its numerous questions about humanity. Maybe that was Peckinpah’s point all along.
1001 Movies before you die 