Fascistic or Allegorical? The Complicated Violence of 'Straw Dogs' (1971)

(Blog written Autumn, 2016)

(A movie poster for Straw Dogs)

Straw Dogs (Peckinpah) has always been a film that has stirred heated debate among critical circles, most often dividing critics in an almost love/hate relationship. Since its release, it has quite rightly been regarded as one of the most controversial films of the 1970s (Barker, 2006). What causes such hysteria around the film is the ambiguous depiction of sexual violence and supposed indulgence in macho fantasy. Pauline Kael, a feminist critic, once famously labelled Straw Dogs “the first American film that is a fascist work of art” (Courrier, 2011). With this language, Kael was speaking of the films sexual and gender fascism, which is most likely an attack on the infamous rape scene. This alludes to the idea of an authoritarian male imposing himself upon the woman, through ‘fascistic’ brutality by gaining power at all costs, and ‘fascistic’ governance over her in dictator-like fashion. Whilst one cannot deny these allusions to dark, primitive ‘male fantasy’ in the film, it is much harder to pinpoint whether Peckinpah was indulging in this fantasy, or whether he intended to criticise such human behaviour. This ambiguity is why it continues to confuse and mystify people still to this day, myself included. However, although the film still does not completely sit right with me, I propose a different view of the film in comparison and respect to Kael, and many horrified critics of the time.

First of all, in the rape scene it is entirely possible that the censors of the time disrupted Peckinpah’s intentions (Courrier, 2011). By removing a pivotal part in which ‘Scutt’ (Ken Hutchinson) joins Charlie (Del Henney), the confusion and ambiguity in which Amy (Susan George) reacts suggests that on some level she enjoys the rape, as if ‘no means yes’ and she desired him all along because he is the stronger male. In this light, it is entirely understandable that this caused anger, and the perception of it as ‘male fantasy’ is justified. However, in the removed shots, what is at first ambiguous becomes a lot more lucid. Here, we see her in incredible emotional and physical pain, and solidifies the scene as undeniable rape and utter vileness. This then would suggest not an indulgence in male fantasy, but an attempt by Peckinpah at revealing the repulsive brutality of it, in an incredibly uncomfortable way as if to purposefully direct the male audience to look within themselves at the brutal possibilities of their own nature. Still though, there is confusion. Her obvious sexual teasing of the rapists earlier on suggests that on some disturbing level, she asked for such a situation and she therefore holds ‘rape guilt’. Furthermore, she asks for the help of her rapist (Charlie) later on over her husband as if he is the “strongest primate”, suggesting natural submission to male dominance (Ardrey, 1966). This is what Kael was speaking of, and when scrutinizing Straw Dogs from a feminist perspective, it is a natural conclusion. However, there is still conflicting meanings throughout the film. We know macho fantasy is a clear theme, but the director’s intentions of this are still clouded.

(Vietnam 1966/AP Photo, Peter Arnett)

The films ambiguity has led me to search within the context of the time to discover a reasoning for Peckinpah’s callous depiction of violence. Up to 1971, the Vietnam War had been central to American life in the late 1960s, and so were the acts of savagery committed by both American and both North and South Vietnamese soldiers. On one level, Straw Dogs is an allegory of the conflict, and furthermore the degrading nature of war to savage violence. David (Dustin Hoffman) is a pacifist to the core, trying to uphold his morality throughout the film. The way he touchingly regrets killing a duck because it was an act of pointless violence rooted in male assertiveness, expresses his dedication to non-violence. However, Peckinpah drags him into unnecessary violence, just as young men were drafted into Vietnam, and as a result, whatever innocence there was within him dies. The violence depicted can only parallel war because of its undoubted destructiveness of the collective human soul. It is with the final line of the film that further suggests this allegory, as in the aftermath, he no longer knows his way home. It suggests that this violence has changed him forever, as well as ‘home’, much like the broken soldier coming back to a divided and violent America. Like war, there are no winners in the end.

The ambiguity of Straw Dogs made it a conundrum for critics and people in 1971, and still does today. It is a troubling picture, and I could not help but feel a sense of male guilt and melancholy at the end. Guilt for my entertained, passive participation in the revenge fantasy and male brutality upon screen, and melancholy for the needlessness of violence not just in the film, but in life too. I conclude, from my own reaction to the film, that Peckinpah intended it to be so intensely sadistic for this reason. The constant ambiguity arouses constant questioning, and this could very well be for the purpose of looking inward at ourselves: to question our own capacity for violence and participation in it.

Bibliography

Ardrey, R. (1966) The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into Animal Origins of Property and Nations.

Barker, M. (05/2006) 'Loving and Hating Straw Dogs: The Meanings of Audience Responses to a Controversial Film' Part 2 - Rethinking Straw Dogs as a Film. Particip@tions. Volume 3, Issue 1. http://www.participations.org/volume%203/issue%201/3_01_barker.htm Courrier, K. (27/09/2011). The Macho Imperative: The Enigma of Straw Dogs. Retrieved from http://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2011/09/macho-imperative-enigma-of-straw-dogs.html.

Filmography

Straw Dogs (1971). Directed by Sam Peckinpah. US/UK, Cinerama Releasing.