MovieChat Forums > Straw Dogs (1971) Discussion > Why did Charlie...

Why did Charlie...

posted 7 years ago by April-151-CT (10210)
11 replies | jump to latest

Why did Charlie allow/help Scutt to rape Amy? I know Scutt held a gun to Charlie and silently threatened to shoot him. But eventually he put the gun down to get ready to have his way with Amy. At that point, why didn't Charlie just overtake him and beat the crap out of him and kick him out of the house? Why hold her down and let him touch the woman who he considers to be his? I know they're friends and all, but Scutt aimed a gun point blank in his face. I'd say that would then negate any friendship that they had. I just don't get that part of the movie at all.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

<< Why did Charlie allow/help Scutt to rape Amy? I know Scutt held a gun to Charlie and silently threatened to shoot him. But eventually he put the gun down to get ready to have his way... >>

Because the characterizations of almost all the people in this movie is a mess.
.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts exactly.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

I just started a thread where I asked:

<< How does David go from being a schlemiel who's too intimidated to challenge day laborers about killing his cat...to being this brave He Man who slaughters the same guys for trying to intrude on his home? >>

It would make sense if Amy had told him about the rape, and then he had an epiphany, deciding "Goddammit, I'm Going to Defend My House/Wife/Pride/Whatever" and then transitioned into being Rambo...but as it is now, he goes from being meek to just suddenly taking on the mob.

It's very...choppy.
.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Well on that note, I'd say the fear of being invaded by, and the clear threat that harm was about to befall himself and his wife and especially the mentally challenged Henry Niles, is what finally breaks him out of his wimp shell. Fear of harm is a very powerful propellant.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

I guess that's legitimate...but it doesn't really stick, for me, because he has practically no reaction to their cat being killed, earlier. He goes from zero to sixty, when the situation was already RATHER dire.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

He hated the cat. He didn't care about what happened to the cat. Hell, be may have even done it himself. The movie never really says who did it. I never read the book though. I wonder if it says it in there?

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Mmmmmm....possible! He did seem to detest that poor cat for some reason. Still, having someone break into your house and kill your (or your spouse's) pet would SEEM to awaken something territorial in anyone (?)

Maybe the cat had enough of the hurled grapefruits and hired the villagers to attack David.
.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

But if he himself did it, then that means no one entered the home and did it. If he did it himself, then he'd have no reason to confront them. And he was too wimpy to even pretend to confront them about it.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Someone said in another thread the cat got fed up and committed suicide by hanging itself : )

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

😆😆😆😆

reply

[–] wiiztec (235) 4 years ago

They're a bunch of brit hicks not the mob

reply