Straw Dogs
It’s amazing to see that after almost forty years, Straw Dogs is still a movie that will divide opinion quicker than a humorous family tragedy. This is unquestionably one of Dustin Hoffman’s greatest roles, as bookish intellectual David Sumner. A quiet mathematician who, tired of the peace protestors in his resident USA, travels to Cornwall with his new wife Amy, played by then unknown Susan George.
The locals, in keeping with traditional countryside traditions, ‘don’t take kindly’ to the arrival of the pair. With an old flame in the shape of Charlie Venner (Played by Del Henney) making his feelings quite clear to Amy upon their re-acquaintance.
‘Remember when I used to take care of you?’ He asks leeringly,
‘But you didn’t, remember?’ Amy replies.
This simple enough statement is a clue to the events that will unfold later, on initial examination; it simply refers to the fact that whilst they were once sweethearts, he was neglectful within the relationship. It is only when she is talking to her husband later on and he quizzes her on the past liaison, she confesses that there were never any physical relations between them. This will serve as a vital statement later in the movie.
Charlie and his friends are hired to assist with the construction of a garage on the Sumner’s farm; their aloof and lackadaisical approach to the task only serves to increase the tension between the young couple and the group of local men. In the village, the rapport is even less developed, with the vast majority choosing to either fully ignore or to simply taunt the timid American and his bride.
Tensions also begin to form between the young couple, as David retreats further within his work he drives away the playful Amy, leaving her to flirt with the workmen (including Charlie). After their pet cat is found hung ghoulishly in their closet, Amy pressures David to challenge and confront the locals, for she sees it as a warning. David instead tries to win their friendship, something that proves to be a drastic error.
I will abstain from summarising the rest of the plot for you. This is a movie that you will most likely be aware of, but may not have yet seen. The central argument was due to an ambiguous and graphic rape scene, involving Susan George. This resulted in the film being cast into the notorious BPP list, along with the rest of the supposed ‘Video Nasties’ of the time.
The trouble with this decision was that it served only to confuse the contextualisation of the scene itself. By drawing further attention to it, it made it a predominant thought in the mind of the viewer. Like the eyeball gouging scene in Zombie Flesh Eaters, upon first viewing, you are merely waiting for the scene to pop up, as it were.
It was interesting watching it with a woman, who had neither seen the movie before nor was aware of any of the surrounding furore. We could both agree that the scene itself is open to several interpretations, due to George’s apparent responsiveness to her (first) attacker, and the subsequent (albeit brief) tenderness that exists between them. It’s a hard one to call. (Stop sniggering at the back you)
What is more interesting is how she handles the situation afterwards. Choosing not to tell her husband about the events, she is stuck in a peculiar form of hell, as she is continually thrown into their company. The psychological deconstruction of her mental health is played so well in this picture that it is a dominant force in the latter half of the movie.
David’s psychosis also increases as he becomes more erratic, unpredictable and eventually homicidal.
The other significant question raised is that, is David, a meek and bookish individual, really then instigator of all the events which unfold? Does his refusal to stand up for himself and his family ultimately cause the horrific results? There are many questions that this movie leaves you with. This being a Sam Pekinpah movie, the action and violence are both raw and believable, as are his characters.
What you really take away from this movie is just how well crafted it is, it is so far removed from exploitative misogyny (as it is often accused of being) in its realism and subtle use of suggestive implication, that it leaves most criticism that I have read completely unfounded and misinterpreted.
The movie portrays terrible acts in a very realistic way, in that nothing is ever black and white. There is ambiguity in all that we do, and if some people won’t allow themselves to ponder this aspect, and to merely focus on the sensationalist elements of this picture, then they truly are missing the point.
It has recently been announced that Rod Lurie (No, me neither) is set to remake Straw Dogs next year. Don’t bother. Really. Don’t bother. You are wasting both my time and yours by doing so. Make sure that you have seen the original before whatever tainted dilute version makes its way to our cinemas next year.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.