Straw Dogs
Thereâs some movies that deal with fantasy and fantastical elements and then there are some movies that deal with truth, and Sam Peckinpahâs 1971 effort, one of the most controversial films of all time when it was released, is certainly reflective of that fact, that the truth, and reality can be a very upsetting thing. Released in America with an X rating, and outright banned in the U.K. (where it was filmed), allegedly for âsex and violenceâ, but maybe possibly because it exposed the British society outside London for what it was, specifically in the villages that are scattered throughout the countryside: the locals are portrayed as drunken, brutish swine to the ninth degree, extremely xenophobic towards outsiders like Dustin Hoffmanâs American mathematician, and also condescending and abusive towards anything even remotely resembling a female, namely Hoffmanâs British wife played by the gorgeous Susan George. At the same time, it is the ambiguousness of the piece that helps it derive so much of its power, especially in its blurring of the lines between right and wrong and good and evil. Peckinpah himself was reportedly quoted as saying that he considered Hoffman to be the true villain of the film, and indeed Hoffman does seem to show some mild sociopathic tendencies early on that boil over in the violence filled climax of the film. On the surface, the main conflict seems to be a direct rebuke of the outcome of John Steinbeckâs Of Mice And Men, where the simple-minded Lenny was ultimately judged âbeyond redemptionâ by none other than his trusted friend George, who summarily executed him rather than hand him over to the lynch mob hunting him for the accidental death of a young girl. Here though, the Lenny-type character (played by the brilliant and unbilled character acting legend David Warner) is portrayed as a pathetic and helpless soul, and yes, while he too accidentally kills a young girl, when he comes to Hoffmanâs house for safety and shelter, it is Hoffman who decides that instead of handing him over to the bloodthirsty villagers looking to kill him, he instead is going to STAND HIS GROUND, and defend Warner and his home at all costs despite the fact that it is possible that Warner really might not be worth saving, as well as factoring in the idea that the tensions between Hoffman and the mob have been building up for the whole movie and that the situation involving Warner is merely an excuse for Hoffman to finally unleash some retribution. First time viewers should be warned, that the movie takes an awful long time to get its motor going, with almost excruciatingly slow pacing used to develop the characters and the differences between them. It isnât until the two thirds mark that the story kicks into high gear, culminated by arguably the most controversial rape scene in movie history, not so much because of its explicit detail but more because itâs heavily implied that the victim might actually be enjoying it, not to mention Peckinpahâs brutal yet effective fast-cutting editing style. Again with this, itâs that grey, unclear line between right and wrong that has polarized this movie with various people for literally decades, which ironically enough, has also enabled it to stand the test of time as something that actually challenges those who view it to make up their own minds as to who is doing the right thing. Wouldnât we all prefer if more films were quite as thought provokingâŚ
8/10