STRAW DOGS - an essay

It was a dark and stormy night.

OK, actually, it wasn't stormy. But it was wet. And humid. And I want to personally thank each and every one of you glorious bastardos who made their way to the Angelika last night for our screening of STRAW DOGS. We couldn't do it without you.

I wrote a very lengthy essay on the film...and then promptly lost every single word after the web-based editing program I was using crashed without warning.

I feel that STRAW DOGS is a widely misunderstood film. That misunderstanding extends to the packaging of the film's DVD and to the film's synopsis on IMDB which describes David Sumner as a meek man, pushed to the breaking point by thugs in the defense of his family. It's a view that is easily perceived by college age viewers of the film (including yours truly). After all, this is Dustin Hoffman, who at the time, was already a household name. By Hollywood standards, he SHOULD be the hero. But Peckinpah, burned by Hollywood, is not making a typical Tinsel Town flick. I believe that Dustin Hoffman's character "David Sumner" is the film's true villain. David fuels the miscommunication that ignites the furious climax. David, accused of never taking a stand (although it's never quite explicit what that stand is in the movie), eventually chooses a battle where he can't claim the higher moral ground. He is generally, at least in press materials for the film, described as a man who can't fit into his adopted community despite his best efforts. In reality, he makes little effort to fit in. He muddles through a culture he not only has little understanding of, but actively disdains. His constant connection to his homeland are the American cigarettes he chain smokes. Thoroughout the beginning of the film, he is filmed behind glass, like an arrogant fish starring at the unfamiliar behind the protection of a bulletproof fishbowl. And while the attitudes adopted by the local "thugs" cannot be defended, they can be understood within context of the basic human nature response to the "other." Amy, his wife, is a part of the community. She understands and can communicate with the locals. Yet David is constantly forcing her into an unnatural role of a subservient housewive -- a role this young woman is willing to accept but not entirely comfortable with.

*SPOILER ALERT*
Much is said about the rape scene in STRAW DOGS. There are actually two rape scenes. The first with Charlie is, for some reason, the most controversial. Mainly because Amy appears to actually derive enjoyment from it at one point. I think it's important to note Charlie and Amy's previous, apparently unresolved, past relationship. This relationship fuels the passion between the two. And while Charlie's aggression and violence seem wrong, Amy's longing for the muscular handyman is apparent. Her obligation to David causes her confusion and refusal but it is more than obvious that there is affection between the two. However, when Charlie's friend Norman decides to elbow into the proceedings, there is a betrayal of trust signified by Amy's "unnatural" position on the couch (and I make no moral judgements here, yet believe Peckinpah -- a director of singular talent -- could very well be making one). As a note, the edited version cuts away from this scene rather quickly and creates a new kind of ambiguity reenforced by the next scene which shows Amy enjoying a "post coital" cigarette in bed. The bond between Charlie and Amy is strengthed when she attempts to let Charlie in during the siege at the farm, assured by his afirmations of taking care of her. And it is sealed when Charlie kills his friend after Norman's final attempted rape of Amy. There is a constant theme of the man being a cage for a wild, natural animal in the film and Amy's relationship with David is obviously a cage for this young woman who is not yet ready for David's type of "grown-up" relationship. But as she states, she's "trying."

It's interesting to note that David's final "stand" is in defense of a repeat sexual offender, Nyles, who accidentally murders Janis Hedden, setting off the murderous siege at Trencher's farm. David participates in the decimation of an entire family over a matter of David's perceived justice for the malformed and simple Nyles -- the town pariah. Even Amy is willing to throw Nyles to the drunken locals outside her house to save her skin. She is aware of the values which pulse beneath the unnamed English town that she and her American husband have settled into and she is even more keenly aware of the horror wrought by David's macho grandstanding after successfully vanquishing his "oppressors."

*End of Spoiler*

Anyway, if you disagree, have a say, let me know and give us buzz.

See ya at the next film.