I'm not quite sure what to say about this film. it was interesting. i have encountered the kind of British "lads" that it depicts, and they are not often so clearly depicted. but it did occasionally sink into some kind of weird lady chatterly's lover/heartbeat cross over, which was thoroughly pointless and helped diminish the narrative drive. the story for those who don't know: David (dustin Hoffman) and Amy (Susan George) are on a quiet retreat from American life, living in a cottage in the British countryside. he is there to write a book on mathematics. but Susan has some kind of past with the natives, which is never quite explained. 4 of the locals are working on David and Susan's shed, repairing it, and while David it out hunting one day, one of them (who she seems to have some kind of past with) "rapes" here, and then assists his friend in sodomizing her. David remains oblivious to this occurring, even when the final confrontation comes, in which a couple of rowdy locals including the repairmen attempt to break into his house to kill a man accused of killing a local girl (its all a bit convoluted and i cant be bothered going into all the details). anyway, David finally makes a stand and refuses to move from his house, thus things even in a bloodbath. so, themes of violence, attacking the audience, blah blah blah. this was my first Peckinpah film, and i must admit i was not greatly impressed. a director renowned for his violent imagery, pushing the boundaries at a time when intense violence in the mainstream was largely unheard of, one must approach this film from the time it came from. but that still doesn't help it much. the first major problem: the rape scene. it is hard to tell if this film is sexist, or just trying to show some screwed up relationships. and it is hard to tell if it is just being exploitive or if it does actually have some meaning. unfortunately, i think it is both sexist and exploitive. the rape scene is totally pointless to the narrative, it never once comes into play, and doesn't even affect Susan's participation in the climax. this combined with the fact that it is clearly shown that while she does not want to have sex with the man, she still enjoys it (at least until she is anally raped by the other guy), points it in the direction of pure exploitation. the ending is quite impressively written and directed, paving the way for many films of this type, hell, even home alone can be seen to borrow from straw dogs. so while i found it interesting, and i think it is a reasonably important film in film history, i do not think it is a true classic. now, after watching it, i couldn't help but think of irreversible. both contain similar plot points and themes. but in irreversible, we have Gaspar Noe, a creator who understands destruction, who understands who to wield violence and drive it straight into our hearts so we cannot escape from it. Peckinpah, from what i have read of him, and after viewing this, his most controversial film, i don't think he is a creator. he is only a destroyer, and thus his films come out as they do, heading in one direction only, downhill into death and decay. and because he does not control destruction, only creates it, his vistas of violence are so overplayed that they become exploitive, and tap into our global mainstream unconscious joy for violence, thus a film like straw dogs CAN lead to a film like home alone. Noe on the other hand, because of everything i said above, he needs only one or two acts of violence to make us feel all the things we want or don't want, and because it is so painfully alive it will never become a cypher for entertainment in its most basic form.
1 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends