Straw Dogs is a highly controversial film from 1971. The director, Sam Peckingpah, had expresed interest in directing Deliverance but opted to do this instead for some reason. This has been compared to Deliverance a few times, which I thought was an excellent film, so I thought I'd check this out as well.

Straw Dogs is the story of mathmetician David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and his wife (Susan George) who move to Cornwall, England in hopes of enjoying a quiet, peaceful life. When there, they recruit some of the locals to work on building a garage for the house. The locals don't take too kindly to the Sumners and subject them to various forms of torment (including luring David away from his home under false pretenses and raping his wife behind his back). The worst comes when the Sumners take in a potential mob victim and have to fend off against the locals who proceed to stone and destroy their home. Here, David is forced to break out of his calm, quiet composure and fight back.

Straw Dogs is a decent film but I think it could have been much better. The main problem is the amount of exposition that occurs throughout the majority of the film. I have no problem with exposition if you are made to care about the characters (such as in Deliverance and Audition, both films with extreme amounts of exposition). But in Straw Dogs, you don't care about the characters for the most part. During the final act, which is the best part of the film, you're finally able to care about David's character as he is standing up for the weak, regardless of the extreme opposition he faces. Yet, while Sumner's endeavours are noble, they are still hard to agree with as it turns out that the mob victim isn't as innocent as he appears and the motives of the locals are somewhat understandable. Sumner's wife is very difficult to care for as she'd rather throw the victim to the dogs and mostly cares only for herself throughout the film. I think the film also suffers from the editing, which often splices seperate scenes together making them disorienting and hard to get involved in.

All in all, Straw Dogs is a decent film. The acting is good and it has several genuinely suspenseful moments. However the film is not without shortcomings and as a result of these shortcomings, it suffers and is unable to be as good a film as it probably could have been.

Yeah, I saw this last year, and it was freakin' DISGUSTING!! I was literally sick. Literally. Wasn't it banned or something?

I thought Straw Dogs was fantastic.  I understand where you're coming from with some of your criticisms though, James.  I would recommend seeing some other Peckinpah if you haven't...it's a style that takes a little getting used to in some ways.  

Either way, I thought this was a really brilliant film.  Hard to watch, but brilliant.

Straw Dogs is a ludicrous film because the premise is ludicrous!

Seriously, Sam Pekinpah was a pretty good director, he made some fine movies but unfortunately this wasn't one of them!

You'll never find a community in a small Cornish village that would behave like the villagers in Straw Dogs, and it was outrageous to even suggest it. There was no justification for their behavior except for Peckinpah and his screenwriter to provoke audiences at the time, to try and make a cult film..

Susan George is on record as saying she was not told of the rape scene until the day it was shot and she was a little distressed by the whole thing.. Now that doesn't sound good to me!

If there was a reason for the villagers behaving in such a manner, like in The Wicker Man, where the islanders behavior was motivated behind a religious ritual, then this may have worked, but as it stands the idea has no verisimilitude at all..

Very poor film that uses sex and violence to titillate. The rape scene is particularly bad in this film, truly awful!

Straw Dogs was banned in some U.K. cities and towns upon it's original theatrical release. British councils can prevent a film from being shown, they still can, if the film is considered blasphemous or a danger to public morals.. The British Board Of Film Censors demanded some cuts and these were made which enabled the movie to have a national release at the time.

I have seen a fully restored version and it really is worse! It's bad, bad, bad! There is simply no excuse or reason for the violence or the rape scene and because this is not explained then this is why it makes for a bad film!

This really doesn't sound like your typical dustin hoffman movie

Dustin Hoffman only took the job for the money haha.  

SPOILERS

I don't agree that the rape scene is not explained.  Susan George, being a bit of an immature character, was subtly taunting the men through the film with her newfound wealth and social standing, teasing them by taking her shirt off when she knew they were watching, and so on.  She wanted to show them how much she had risen above them, while at the same time, she came to be more attracted to (don't remember his name)'s more base "manly" ways as she came to see what she viewed as flaws in her husband's more quiet character...hence the decidedly half-hearted struggle during the rape sequence.  It was a case of two opposites - brute force versus intelligence, as it were - and she found that she was attracted to both in different ways.

That's how I took Peckinpah's intentions, anyway.

I've seen this at Roger's several times and what always catches my eye is the bold letters BANNED IN THE U.K, so I have been interested in renting it.

Quoted from Heretic Dustin Hoffman only took the job for the money haha.   SPOILERS I don't agree that the rape scene is not explained.  Susan George, being a bit of an immature character, was subtly taunting the men through the film with her newfound wealth and social standing, teasing them by taking her shirt off when she knew they were watching, and so on.  She wanted to show them how much she had risen above them, while at the same time, she came to be more attracted to (don't remember his name)'s more base "manly" ways as she came to see what she viewed as flaws in her husband's more quiet character...hence the decidedly half-hearted struggle during the rape sequence.  It was a case of two opposites - brute force versus intelligence, as it were - and she found that she was attracted to both in different ways. .

But that's no reason for a character to rape another character! My argument is this would never happen in a small Cornish village at that time, probably still wouldn't! These places are real secluded, the community are pretty close and strangers once they have got used to them are usually welcomed not raped!

This is the problem with my take on "realism".. Now if it would have been set in America, I probably could have accepted the narrative because this kind of stuff goes on over there.. Now I'm not saying rape doesn't occure here in the U.K. but at the time in 1971, and being set in a Cornish Village, well, the violence and rape are really very silly, they just wouldn't happen! This is the problem with the film and prevents the viewer from appreciating any story truth.. This is my argument, the whole film falls flat on it's face, it's not believable and therefore a sick fantasy..

With Clockwork Organge, at least there is a cause and effect for Alex and his Droogs behaviour, their social deviance and a possible solution to combat it albeit this doesn't work and simply makes Alex all the more dangerous.. This story works on those levels you see..

Straw Dogs is sadly reduced to an exploitation film which contains violence and rape for its own sake, to simply be a controversial film.. I know, I've studied and commented on this film as part of my thesis for my University Degree.. At least Clockwork Orange had a message and subtext in it which poked at Facist political ideologies for attempting to correct deviant behavor which itself creates by allowing crap social conditions to create these monsters from alienated youth culture.

A film must have a meaning why things happen, Staw Dogs doesn't.. That's why there was such an outcry when it was first released..

Hmm...

Well, Susan George wasn't a stranger, she was an ex-girlfriend of the man who would eventually rape her, returning to her village with an American husband.

Also, I don't agree that the other violence is pointless, because it is a study of the perversion of morals and what eventually drives a person to violence and even murder.  Things build and build for Hoffman until finally, he feels that the very lives of himself and his wife depend on him defending his home, his sanctuary, which in itself is a very base instinct.  As with many studies of violence, it carries the undertone of a return to primitive instinctual action rather than thought-out, informed decisions.  

Again, that's my take.  I don't think we're going to find an agreement on this one haha.