How far will a man go to defend his wife and home? This is the theme of a highly controversial classic film, Straw Dogs (1971). Dustin Hoffman plays a pacifistic math professor who is forced into a violent confrontation when his wife Amy is raped by 2 local losers. The main theme of the movie is how a man, who is peaceful in every sense, can wake up the sleeping violent nature inside if provoked. Although the movie is thought provoking, it is not for the faint of heart. It is however, one of the greatest studies of violence on film.
This was my very first time seeing this film and I got to tell you it was jaw-dropping. It is a film that slowly builds up to an exploding last half hour; this brilliantly done by director Sam Peckinpah.
David, perfectly, and I mean perfectly, played by Dustin Hoffman is as mild-mannered as they come, American which has moved to England on a research grant along with his English wife Amy (Susan George). Their home is no castle, but sure gives you an impression it is with its beautiful fortress like stone walls, and medieval décor. Amy is silly and childish, and as newlyweds would have it, in need of constant attention from her husband. Attention he just can’t spare as a mathematician.
David tries very hard to fit in the town, but soon finds he is not welcomed and is ostracized. Amy knows the deal when it comes to small town living in England and lives by the code of the community, the code that intellectual David looks down on. Amy is portrayed as a subservient, dumb, lecherous woman, but at the same time a woman with a lot of common sense. David hires local men, one of which Amy knows very well named Charlie. Amy sensed danger when her cat is killed and left in her bedroom closet. David down plays it, and feels he can handle it without getting into any confrontations.
David believed in “talking,” “negotiating without preconditions” so to speak. Amy on the other hand, smelled danger and understood that civility would only take you but so far in life. But although she was much more aware of the danger than her husband was, she invites it in, as if to urge on a battle which at a subconscious level she knows must be fought.
Amy is raped by Charlie, but, this is what I find most disturbing in the film, Amy is not exactly an unwilling partner. Her feelings quickly change when one of Charlie’s cohorts takes his turn. This is a very, very disturbing scene.
All hell breaks loose in the last half hour of the movie. All codes are violated in every sense. A mob of men surround David’s home and are out for blood. Murder, mayhem, destruction, lunacy run about the fortress like home, like demons devouring all in its path. David is forced to use any tool in the house to defend his home and in a Rambo-esque fashion he kills all 5 men.
David learned that there are very real battles in this world; battles that will not end unless you use violence. “Talking” with those that would kill you and your family without batting an eyelash, will not work, period. Violence in many battles is the only option in order to have peace. It wasn’t so much that the intellectual David turned into a savage, but rather the intellectual used his wit and in the end smarts won over savagery.
One Response to “Straw Dogs: How Far Will You Go?”
Hi, stumbled across your blog. We’re screening a 35mm copy of this tonight here in Dallas.
It’s interesting but you describe the film in much the way I saw it back in college.
However over the years, my perceptions of the film and its characters and motivations and meanings have changed.
I now believe that its David who is the villain of the piece. He comes into a world he knows nothing of and despite what you describe as him trying desperately to fit in, I believe him to do no such thing. In fact, he explicitly does everything he can to distance himself from the locals — with their set ways, their backstory, etc. David also forces Amy into an unnatural role — that of a submissive housewife. She is shown freely teasing and kidding the villagers and her past with Charlie may explain the uncontrolled passion she discovers during the pivotal rape scene. She secretly wants Charlie — but not his friend — who Charlie ends up killing over Amy. There is a relationship between Charlie and Amy. The agression he pushes onto her is unconscionable, however she turns out to be a willing accomplice. Her guilt over David produces the suffering and pain and the ambiguous rape scene with Charlie’s friend — Charlie seems pained but he has had a gun pointed at him — is naturally completely unnatural. Even her position on the couch hints at the “unnaturalness” of the situation (I am not making any personal moral judgement calls here, but I’m sure a director of Peckinpah’s talents could be).
*SPOILER ALERT* Interestingly, David ends up participating in the decimation of an entire family while protecting a repeat murderer (or offender — Henry Nyles’ previous crime is never revealed). When David does decide to act on his own “principles” he further meddles in a culture he not only doesn’t understand, but actively disdains. His only connection to his homeland are his American cigarettes and faulty ideas of justice. In the end he has lost his way and the audience is left with their moral compasses reeling. Dustin Hoffman — a household name at the time — MUST be the “hero” of the piece according to Hollywood tradition. These bad, ugly, illiterate British thugs MUST be the bad guys. But Peckinpah — who had been rejected by Hollywood after his previous film — is not making a “Hollywood Film”. He is just as easily mocking the proverbial Ugly American ideal represented by misunderstanding, arrogance and finally soul-shredding violence. Heady stuff.
thanks for your time,
Erich Scholz