MovieChat Forums > Straw Dogs (1971) Discussion > What do you think was supposed to be the...

What do you think was supposed to be the real theme, meaning and message behind this film?


Hi folks, with everything that happened in this notorious and controversial but still highly acclaimed film, set and filmed in Britain's Cornwall by a reputable and acclaimed, again, American filmmaker Sam Peckinpah, who passed away himself in 1984, what was this film trying to say and what are, in your opinion, its main themes and messages?

For instance, what was the significance of the "bear trap" device, at times often alluded to as a "man trap", in this film and with it, what was Peckinpah trying to say?

What was the deal with those villagers and why did they do what they did in this film including the notorious outbursts of violence and sexual violence, and at one point even, a murder of the cat?

With the much talked about and discussed controversial rape sequence, what was the film trying to say here and why was it filmed ambiguously in terms of the reaction of the victim of Susan George's "Amy" character? And when the second non-ambiguous as such official and de-facto brutal rape came up, what, again, was the film saying and was there also meant to be any metaphors portrayed or conveyed here?

Also, in the above scenario, why does the second rapist hold a shotgun against the first one if the other one himself was equally as bad and guilty and immoral and also a friend of his?

What was the deal with the pervert Henry Niles and that teenage girl who almost came across as a "teen version of Susan George's Amy character"? And with Henry Niles managing to (accidentally?) kill her and then spend his time in hiding in the mathematician's home with him traumatized wife, why did the film all of a sudden intend to make HIM a somewhat "sympathetic" character and the main catalyst for Dustin Hoffman violently defending his home against the attacks and invasion of those angry villagers? And also, why doesn't he phone the police or did those invaders cut off his phone line?

Even though he was no doubt guilty of rape and sexual assault, why was Amy rather sad and unhappy after Dustin Hoffman's character kills him (Charlie) with that bear trap? However, paradoxically, she does NOT want him to defend Henry Niles and has no problem even herself later killing one of those other village home intruders?

And at the end, when David and Henry drive off, are we to simply interpret it as him letting that guy go despite the suspicions against him?

Anyways, with all of this, let's explore, what was the film saying and what are its themes and messages, thanks.

reply

I think it was just that point in time, in the early 70's, when this type of explicit sex and ultra violence genre was huge. This had never been allowed in cinema before and once it started attracting eyeballs directors like hard drinking Pekinpah took advantage of the opportunity to go all out.
The truth is Pekinpah had made so many enemies by this point, he could only go to England to find work. He took one aspect out of a book and cast a meek Hoffman as lead and sexpot Susan George as his wife, who's really the star of the entire movie.
In short, this is Pekinpah's pornographic movie with good, not great, acting.

reply

True, but what about the themes explored here?

reply

The themes are certainly man's propensity for violence and destruction, which has been very apparent throughout history. Also, we humans are civilized 99.9% of the time, but just one wrong turn around the corner and all of our primordial instincts for survival can be uncovered and unleashed in virtually no time flat. Fairly standard nihilistic view from Pekinpah.

reply

"humans are civilized 99.9% of the time"
I think the many wars, conflicts, murders, violence, violations we have had since time immemorial suggest otherwise, lol.

reply

I think it was just that point in time, in the early 70's, when this type of explicit sex and ultra violence genre was huge. This had never been allowed in cinema before and once it started attracting eyeballs directors like hard drinking Pekinpah took advantage of the opportunity to go all out.

---

I was there, and I certainly agree with that. The new rating system (with R and the lesser used X) arrived in late 1968, so through 1969 and 1970 "mainstream" studio films(in America and a lot of British-made releases) suddenly took on a hard edged emphasis on "sex and violence"(so apart in some ways, so together in others), and we ended up with a few movies involving rape (Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, Dirty Harry, Hitchcock's Frenzy, and for the man-on-man taboo breaking, Deliverance.) In retrospect, it was a pretty sick few years, and the movies evolved away from it over the decades. For one thing female actors no longer were quite so willing to go along with the staging of rape scenes. For another, I don't think too many of these brutal sexual films really made blockbuster money. (They did if action was involved -- Dirty Harry, for instance.) The genre burned out.

So if one asks what the themes of Straw Dogs were -- they were clearly there(the issue of masculinity and the savage within us all; man's need to fight back hard when threatened; the "trophy" nature of women to men) -- but the main theme was "Its 1971 and Sam Peckinpah wants to make a movie about rape and murder."

CONT

reply

Funny side-bar: there's footage for 1972 of Old Director Alfred Hitchcock being asked if his new film Frenzy(which has a central scene of the rape and strangulation of a female) "was influenced by Straw Dogs." Hitchcock gets VERY angry -- I never saw him that angry in an interview, and says "But NONE of my films are influenced by the films of other people." I'm not so sure about that. However, Straw Dogs was in release AFTER Hitchocck filmed Frenzy, it couldn't have influenced the making of Frenzy.

What WAS influential -- to both Peckinpah with Straw Dogs and Hitchcock with Frenzy -- was the coming of sex and violence on the screen. Both men wanted to partake. And in a later interview, Peckinpah praised Htichcock for the "realism" of the rape and murder in Frenzy, saying movies needed to stop making murder(at least) so "easy."

reply

I've only seen the 2011 version. Is this one worth checking out? Which is better?

Anyway, I thought the theme could be summed up by the question: How far can a civilized man be pushed? The conflict is basically brawn vs. brain.

reply

This original is better, the remake is merely OK at best. This 1971 version - 9/10, the 2011 remake 40 years later - 6 at most out of 10.

reply

Yeah, that's what I gave the remake, 6/10.

reply

I didn't even know that the 2011 was a remake of a past movie until recently, so I watched the 1971 movie yesterday, and without spoiling anything: The husband seemingly acts more foolish in the 1971 than in the 2011. Suddenly people you thought were decent folk become villains at the blink of an eye, in the 2011 it is fairly obvious who will be the villains.

I'd say check it out and see which one you like more.

reply