Let sleeping 'Dogs' lie

A soon to be rapist contemplates his future victim in Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, 1971.

A few fellow cinephiles are telling me that writer/director Rod Lurie deserves some kind of smackdown for some characterizations he made of Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, by way of justifying his (Lurie's) upcoming remake of the film. Said characterizations appeared in a report from Coming Soon.net, and appear off-the-cuff enough that what one might call a smackdown would maybe be overkill. There's a lively—perhaps too lively—discussion of Lurie's assertion that Susan George smiles during her rape over at Jeffrey Wells' place, complete with screen grabs and smile-or-grimace speculations. Jeffrey Wells' place is hosting a lively—perhaps too lively—discussion of Lurie's assertion that Susan George smiles during her rape, complete with screen grabs and smile-or-grimace speculations. (Try that sentence, tk.) There's a "she was asking for it" quote from one of Peckinpah's more blustery interviews. (And boy, if there was ever a filmmaker who should never have done interviews...) There's some stuff funny enough to make me wish I wrote it. ("Rod Lurie is the perfect guy to remake this. I'm sure he'll work the same kind of magic that Neil LaBute did on The Wicker Man.")

But it's what Lurie says about the putative smile that nails down just how...well, just how he doesn't really get Straw Dogs. Or, to be kinder about it, how he will not see what Peckinpah is putting on screen, and projecting his own idea of what the story should be upon it. Which, of course, he will materially accomplish with his remake. "You can be certain she's not going to be smiling in the rape in my film," he says, showing, first off, that he doesn't understand the scene, and secondly, that the idea that an individual can be complicit in his/her own violation is completely beyond the pale to him.

Joshua Clover, who wrote the liner notes for the Criterion DVD of Straw Dogs, is an entity that I have very little use for most of the time; hence, on those occasions when I actually agree with him I find it more exasperating than illuminating or vindicating. But that's my problem, really. He's dead right in the opening graf of his Dog notes:

Straw Dogs turns on a woman's rape, and one can't blame pictures for depicting. But the film shows the woman, after some resistance, seeming to enjoy it, and this approaches the apex of what a delicate soul might call "problematic representation." It's fucked up. What's more, the film offers this sequence, if not for our crooked pleasure, than as a means to meditate on male violence as something like an absolute truth, beyond good and evil.

Yet to name the movie misogynistic is to mistake the degree to which it is a movie that despises everyone.

Bingo. Straw Dogs is Peckinpah's darkest film, nihilistic rather than proto-fascist as some might have it. Lurie the sometimes sentimental idealist says he'd never dream of remaking The Wild Bunch—I imagine it's partly because, after its climax of senseless slaughter, it nonetheless ends with a "weren't those guys great" flashbacking coda. Lurie's filmmaking, for better or worse, is notable for a redemptive bent, so it's no surprise that he wants his Straw Dogs to be a film "about what it means to be a bully, how easy it is to become a bully, and how decency is defined I think by not being a bully when you have the opportunity to be one."

Which of course has nothing to do with Peckinpah's film, which is only—only?—about the myriad ways human beings destroy one another.

Comments

[Filmbrain]

As one of those cinephiles who was nudging you, I'm pleased you wrote the piece.

No matter how many times I read Lurie's sentence ("You can be certain she's not going to be smiling in the rape in my film") I can't help but get enraged about his sanctimonious grandstanding.

How lucky we are to have directors like Lurie who are finally going to set the record straight that rape is nothing to smile about.

Just what we need -- another Hollywood film that waters down complex issues into a convenient package that leaves no room for ambiguity or questioning.

Future pullquote: "Rod Lurie's 'HARD VENGEANCE' is this year's CRASH."

Did you note that the supportive comment over at Wells' was signed Hickenlooper? He's posted there in the past -- perhaps it is him?

[stpetebeach]

Who is Rod Lurie?

"The Contender" I remember only because the ending was a pathetic Hollywood cop-out. (Don't ask for details, but I seem to recall that the story would have had more teeth if the Veep had actually done what she was accused of having done and still had the, ahem, balls to do whatever it is she did at the end, like take over the world or something.)

Also, keep in mind that Susan George and the first guy are former lovers. And her marriage is in deep shit. And that she emphatically does not consent to the second assault. And what man (Hoffman) goes out into the woods and leaves his wife alone, if not to test her? He is not blameless. But these are complicated issues, fit for grown-up discussion. The quote from Lurie about bullies shows he's not ready for that. The bully homily belongs on a public service announcement for middle schoolers or in a cartoon, not as the theme of a film for adults.

As someone who enjoys -- ENJOYS -- smiles during rape scenes, I am disgusted -- DISGUSTED -- and revolted -- REVOLTED -- and enraged -- ENRAGED -- that Lurie dares -- DARES -- in his remake -- *REMAKE* -- to omit it and go for a different thang.

The operative word here being 'remake'. Chances are it won't be anywhere near as complex -- COMPLEX -- as the original but isn't it kind of premature to condemn it? The movie, being a remake, won't tread the same ground. And, after all, won't the original still be around?

Excuse me while I search around for other rape scenes. With, you know, complex signifiers of fleeting enjoyment.

[bemo]

Ooops. Last comment by me.

[G. Kenny]

Yeah, the original will still be around. And no, there's no point in grousing about the remake because it's gonna happen whether we like it or not. I'm not condemning the remake, I'm taking issue with Lurie's objections to the original. And I resent the implication, Bemo, that those who revere the original are a bunch of drooling rape-scene lovers.

[bemo]

I got your issue with Lurie's objections just fine, Mr. Kenny, but I wanted to exaggerate a point that was quite evident: Lurie is not Peckinpah and their viewpoints are most likely (or, probably - who can tell?) not the same and this movie, therefore, will not be the same as the original. As much as Lurie's convictions can be filtered through a production of the remake's size, I have no objections with it being about what Lurie gets (and doesn't get) from the original as his starting point. Because he may have his reasons to state the objection in a larger context of a movie that we have yet to see.

And.I never meant to imply that you, and the other admirers of the original, are rape-scene lovers, just that it's a highly flammable topic for discussion.

Heh. Rape-scene lover.

[tk]

Me, I only saw the rape scene in Straw Dogs. So I have no opinion on whether Susan George smiles during her rape over at Jeffrey Wells' place. But that's an awfully serious charge to throw at Wells. Hope you've got some proof.

[Dennis Cozzalio]

Lurie, in his waning days as critic for Los Angeles magazine in the early to mid '90s, used to host a local L.A. weekend radio show where he would trumpet his general ignorance, bully those whose tastes didn't line up with his (Some favorites? "Braveheart," "Pleasantville," the forgotten Samuel Jackson vehicle "187") and cuddle up to a much talent as he could with an eye toward padding the mattress of his future career. His big thing was touting his rate of accuracy in predicting weekend box office numbers, and he also majored in excessively kissing celebrity ass-- he bent over backwards to make a big deal out of "Braveheart," practically taking a personal credit for the movie's financial performance and especially it's Oscar prowess. (He was even so shameless as to get Mel Gibson to promise to name-check him during his Oscar speech. Mel obliged.) Virtually anything Joan Allen or Samuel Jackson appeared in was beyond reproach-- and look who ended up in his movies. And with the "Straw Dogs" business, it seems Lurie remains as clueless, and as sanctimonious, as ever. "You can be certain she's not going to be smiling in the rape in my film," says Lurie. Did Monica Bellucci smile during her big scene in "Irreversible"? Probably not. Gee, I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to avoiding Lurie's upcoming lesson on sexual violence.

[don]

Firstly I just want to say that aside from the remake of THE BIRDS that's coming soon, I can't think of another slated remale that's more irritating or lame than the STRAW DOGS one.

Yet Luries comments sort of speak to whats so frustrating about todays filmmakers. Thy just don't "get it." And by "it" I mean, everything. Peckinpah wasn't afraid to do something unpopular...it was all aprt of his self destructive nature. Call him brave, crazy, shalow, misogynist, hyper violent...any of those things and he'd probably have said, "yup, you're right." Filmmakers these days feel the need to please everyone or at least give some kind of Spielbergesque saintliness to their films.

Of course on the other hand we have people like Eli Roth who probably think they're as brave and innovative as Pekinpah...but they too don't get it. There's no method to their madness. There's no subtext except for when they need to create one to justify the mess they've made onscreen.

Where's the honesty in todays films? Where's the unpopular point of view? I mean, is Michael Moore the bastion of honest, brave filmmaking because he has a point of view unpopular with some? Couldn't everyone generate a little press and conversation by *gasp* waking up and not being afraid to piss some people off?

[tk]

Re: the updated post

Hey, somebody's gotta be a smartass around here. But don't sweat it...with sentence construction like that, you can always get work as an editor at the National Review.

[G. Kenny]

Ouch. Dude. Whassa matter, you didn't like that "Men In War" DVD I recommended or something?

[tk]

Just bustin' ya chops. And actually, I did (do) like the dvd, thanks for the recommendation. And keep up the good work generally.

Ok, I'm starting to sound like Rickles at the end of a gig...gotta go, it's getting a little dusty in here.

[bemo]

don wrote: "Where's the honesty in todays films? Where's the unpopular point of view?"

I'm not sure I'd readily equate honesty with unpopular POV. But I don't think it's quite time yet to despair; out of recent examples, movies that I've had strong, violent reactions to are, like, Miike's (although I understand that what gets distributed in the west isn't properly representative of his body of work, still, I have to say, that! "Imprint" -- EEEEEE!), Von Trier's "Dancer..." which left me equally parts devastated and fucking angry, and Lynch's latest. "Taxidermia" too.

So.

[David Schwartz]

Anybody who wants to see STRAW DOGS for themselves on the big screen; it's showing this Saturday, August 25 at 5:30 pm at the Museum of the Moving Image. Check movingimage.us for details. As a bonus treat, George Romero's THE CRAZIES is playing at 3:00 that day in a great 35mm print.

[G. Kenny]

That's quite the "feel-good" double feature you've got there, David. I have a nuptials celebration in Joisey or else I'd be there.

[jrh]

Why does there need to be a Hollywood remake of Straw Dogs in the first place? Did studio execs really watch the film and decide that a contemporary update would bring in some ticket sales? The only i could think of that would draw a crowd is if the film riffs off the neo-senseless killing that appears to be popular in recent horror flicks, a la Texas Chainsaw/Hills-Eyes remakes. Either that, or the macho thrills of watching one man beat up the bad guys. Of all the films that scream "Hollywood remake" ... a film-essay on masculinity and violence?