Midnight Cowboy (1970)

Midnight Cowboy (1970)

Director: John Schlesinger

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight

Midnight Cowboy is a fish out of water story about a young Texan dishwasher who decides he wants something more out of life so he packs up his bags, gets on a bus and heads towards big bad New York City. The problem is that his big plans for a better life strive entirely on hustling in the world of male prostitution. And further complicating matters, Buck isn’t really much of a hustler, in fact, he’s one hundred and one percent naïve, which means, in a city like New York, he is the one who’s going to get hustled. So it’s that kind of a story in which an innocent person is confronted with a bizarre and violent world, which will transform him forever.

Usually the first thing you do when you arrive to a new place is make new acquaintances and hopefully, find a kind soul which you can befriend, someone who will show you the ropes. In the case of young and naïve Joe Buck, as soon as he arrives to New York, he connects with a guy whom people call ‘Ratso Rizzo’, a name that would’ve raised a couple of red flags under my radar, but Buck is so naïve he becomes best friends with Rizzo. This ultimate naiveté is what drives the whole story; Buck’s innocence is pitted against Razzo’s experienced hustler ways. These opposite personalities create some very interesting and entertaining situations, for example, the party scene in which they are both randomly invited to one of these crazy swinging parties from the 60’s, where people are doing all sorts of drugs,   dancing naked and fucking. I got flashbacks from a similar scene in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). There was something about movies from the 60’s; they always had these groovy party sequences. Lots of psychedelic images, like some sort of acid trip, nothing makes sense! Someone’s always smoking weed, there’s always trippy music. Anyways, it’s interesting to see both characters getting lost in all that craziness. Will Joe Buck survive all that insanity? Will he become corrupted somehow? Or has he finally found his place?

At the crux of it all, are these two guys helping each other under such dire living circumstances.  And they are truly dire, I mean, these guys are so dirt poor that they live in an abandoned building in New York City, with a million rats and the roaches as their roommates. Dinner is canned soup. And there’s always that question of, are they attracted to each other? Is there something else going on here? I love how the film hints at it, but never truly answers that question. The strongest part about the film are the performances by its two main actors, Jon Voight as Joe Buck the innocent manwhore with a heart of gold and Dustin Hoffman’s Rizzo, the scummiest dirt bag in town. They both portray their characters to perfection. This without a doubt is one of Dustin Hoffman’s most memorable performances, I’m sure it’s one of his top five. It’s in this film he gave us that famous line “I’m walking here!” a line that some say was improvised by Hoffman because that cab that almost hits him on that scene was a real New York cab, because they were filming that scene live, on the streets, without the proper permissions. Hoffman’s performance is so good, you actually feel empathy for Rizzo, a low street hustler who owes money to everybody and will lie through his teeth for a twenty dollar bill. Yet, by the films end you will feel something for the guy. For both of them actually, but what’s beautiful about this movie is that they both grow to become family, a true friendship develops.

Interesting thing about this movie is that it was rated X. I’m pretty sure it’s because of all the sexual themes. I mean, Joe Buck does become a bisexual, but only out of necessity, he doesn’t seem to enjoy being with men, he just needs the money. There is some nudity, but nothing that I’d say would garner an X rating, so I’m thinking it was the subject manner and the conservative mentality of the time that got this movie the dreaded ‘X’ rating, which is something that any studio fears because getting an ‘X’ rating means death at the box office. Yet even with its X rating the film went on to become the first and only film with an X rating to win academy awards! Actually, it won three, Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay! Right now it is not an X rated film, in 1971 they the MPAA changed it to an R, without changing a thing about it.

Bottom line is, you should watch this film because it’s a real American Classic. It truly captures the city of New York thanks to some amazing photography and the fact that they had the fortune of being able to film in the actual city of New York, which is something a lot of films are faking these days because its so expensive to film there. So those are real New York City taxi cabs about to run over Dustin Hoffman! Those are real scummy, 1970’s New York City streets! The film has amazing performances from both its protagonists and it’s a film about true friendship. John Schlesinger purposely left out any sexual complications between Buck and Rizzo in order to make a film about two guys who end up becoming the best of friends, without any sexual ties. These are just two dudes who decide to support each other in the middle of this messed up world, in the middle of the darkness true friendship blossoms. But can friendship eclipse the darkness in our lives? The film asks the question: can we make our lives better, even when we’ve been dealt a dark hand in life? Can we out of sheer will power and positive thinking change the course of our lives? Or are some of us so far down the rabbit hole that there’s no way out no matter how much we try? 

   

Rating: 5 out of 5

    

Dick Tracy (1990)

Dick Tracy (1990)

Director: Warren Beatty

Cast:  Warren Beatty, Madonna, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Charlie Korsmo, William Forsythe, Mandy Patinkin, Catherine O’Hara, James Caan, Dick Van Dyke, Kathy Bates

The 90’s brought on the rebirth of the big budget comic book movie (which had been dead since Richard Donner’s Superman films) thanks to the phenomenal worldwide success of Tim Burton’s Batman (1989), suddenly every studio wanted to make a comic book movie, the problem was they didn’t know how to go about it. For some reason, they got the idea in their heads that going with ancient comic book heroes like The Phantom (1996) and The Shadow (1994) was a good idea. And even when they did do original comic book films, they went with a comic book that paid tribute to all those old heroes called The Rocketeer (1991). The studios hadn’t figured out yet that people really wanted the more contemporary heroes like Spiderman and the X-Men, which is probably why a lot of those old school comic book movies tanked at the box office. Batman made kajillions because the character had remained alive in the collective consciousness because Batman has always remained in print, it had its own television show and it became a part of popular culture. Not so with the older characters, which though not entirely dead, were not as recognized by modern audiences. In other words, characters like The Shadow and The Phantom all had their day back in the 30’s and 40’s. Today’s kids aren’t really familiar with these characters. The same can be said of Dick Tracy, Chester Gould’s hard boiled detective that started out in comic strips, on news papers, three little squares of story per week. The strip was such hit that they made Dick Tracy serials, radio shows, b-movies, you name it. Unfortunately, Tracy never got the big screen treatment that Chester Gould wanted. That is until Warren Beatty came along and directed this here picture.

I remember seeing Dick Tracy in theaters, that awesome summer of 1990. It was a big summer as far as blockbuster movies go. Squished in between big action films like Robocop 2 (1990), Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990) and Total Recall (1990), Beatty’s Dick Tracy (1990) seemed tame in comparison, it made my 15 year old mind wonder if it was going to make it a the box office. I remember there was a big publicity push for the movie, Disney (under the Buena Vista Pictures banner) made sure you knew about the film one way or another, right down to selling Madonna’s soundtrack ‘I’m Breathless’, which by the way I really dug and still own to this day. Was the film a huge hit in theaters? Well, it didn’t lose money, but it wasn’t the smash hit that they were expecting either. The smash hit of that summer was Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in Ghost (1990). Dick Tracy ended up making  162 million dollars worldwide, a figure that didn’t impress its producers and probably the main reason we never saw a sequel. But who cares what producers think right? At the end of the day, what we really care about is if the movie was good or not.  And in my opinion, Dick Tracy was excellent; the problem was that Dick Tracy was a hero from another era, with a big budget film that came many decades too late.

But if you can see past the fact that Dick Tracy is a hero from the 30’s you can actually have a lot of fun with this movie. While I understand why the masses shy away from anything they consider ‘old’ or ‘passé’, I personally enjoy all types of films, I don’t just watch contemporary things, I can appreciate the many attributes that a film like Dick Tracy has to offer, for example, it’s a beautiful film to look at. Warren Beatty aimed to make a film that looked like the comic strips; so he went with a color palette composed of primary colors that leap off the screen; this movie is pure eye candy, a vibrant kaleidoscope of colors! Dick Tracy was made using old school filmmaking techniques and I have a great appreciation for films made using miniatures and matte paintings to create city landscapes, I just love that about films made this way. The interesting thing is that Dick Tracy was made just before computer generated effects were about to take over, so it’s one of the last films to be made this way. I think that Beatty wanted to purposely make an old school film, same way that Coppola purposely used old school visual effects to make Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). In this way, the director evokes a bygone era of filmmaking; Beatty wanted to take us back in time. And he achieved it if you ask me. We go back to a time when hardboiled detectives were out on the streets trying to solve the crime, getting the bad guys in the big bad city. In this way Dick Tracy is an interesting film because it has elements of film noir, yet it’s also colorful and vibrant, bringing together an interesting mix of genres and styles.

The cast is something truly amazing! Beatty as Tracy is pitch perfect casting if you ask me. Beatty has said that they tried applying fake noses and jaws on him to make him look more like Gould’s sketches and that ultimately they decided not to go with it because it would distract audiences. I think it was a great idea because Tracy’s normality goes in direct contrast to the downright grotesque villains. And while the villains are comic book monsters, Tracy is human, he’s all about heart. He’s Tracy, the ultimate good guy who is in many ways like Superman, the embodiment of all that is good and pure in humanity. He’s loyal to the love of his life, Tess Truehart even though Breathless Mohoney is trying to eat him up every chance she gets. Tracy’s such a good guy; he wants to adopt an orphan he picks up from the streets. He’s all about the law and doing what’s right, he’s honest and hard working, he wants to get the bad guys. He’s the ultimate do gooder. His counterpart is Al Pacino’s Big Boy Caprice, one of Pacino’s most over the top performances, he got an Oscar nomination for this performance. He just goes nuts here. Madonna as Breathless Mahoney oozes sensuality, you have to understand this was Madonna at the peak of her youthful beauty, she was so damn sexy in those days! She exploits that sensuality for all its worth. Every line Breathless speaks is in double entendres. Then we have Big Boys gang, which is composed of a who’s who of character actors like William Forsythe, Ed O Ross and Paul Sorvino. We also get big name actors playing smaller roles, like Dustin Hoffman playing ‘Mumbles’ one of Big Boys men, who, as his name suggests, mumbles everything he says. All these characters make the film an amalgam of craziness straight out of a comic book, made all the more interesting because each and every one of these actors are made up to look exactly like Gould’s original drawings. Which I’m sure made making this film, a huge challenge, I mean, having all those actors in make up at the same time!

The icing on this Dick Tracy cake is the music! The orchestral score was composed by the always excellent Danny Elman. His score is grandiose and epic, similar in many ways to his score for Batman (1989), but then again, that’s the exact reason why Elfman was hired, Beatty was impressed with Elfman’s score for Batman (1989). Then we have the soundtrack, written by Broadway composer Stephen Sondheim and sung by Madonna, it makes for one of Madonna’s most unique albums. It’s fun, retro and heartfelt. So as you can see, many awesome elements came together to make Dick Tracy an extremely unique film, a trip back in time to simpler times when good was good and evil was evil, no place for in betweens; or is there? At the end of the day, while Tracy is always out to get Big Boy and his gang, this film is really about Tracy having to decide between pleasure and sensuality over true love, marriage, kids and possibly becoming a family man. Which one will he choose? Tracy is torn between being a bachelor or becoming a family, some say this mirrored Warren Beatty’s own personal life, after all, Beatty was the ultimate bachelor back in his day. So anyhow, I’ve gone on long enough, bottom line is Dick Tracy is an excellent comic book movie, dare I say one of the best ones ever, an excellent production from beginning to end.  

Rating:  5 out of 5  

    

The Graduate (1967)

Title: The Graduate (1967)

Director: Mike Nichols

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katharine Ross

Review:

The Graduate is one of those classics that every film buff should see at some point in their lives. It’s a classic film with a fantastic script that manages to capture an era while addressing social issues at the same time. It is also, simply put, one of Dustin Hoffman’s best performances ever. What The Graduate achieves so well is that it captures the aura and general malaise of the 60’s; a time brimming with revolution and social unease. This film was made during the days of Nixon and Vietnam, a time when most Americans weren’t happy with the way the country was being run. Staying true to the idea that “art imitates life” the general discomfort felt in the nation during those days was subtly caught in Mike Nichols’ The Graduate. The fantastic thing about The Graduate is that at first you can’t really tell what’s wrong with its main character, Ben Braddock, but you know something’s definitely bugging him. Little by little and in very subtle ways we discover that it’s modern society that’s got him on the edge, this world is too crazy and Ben can’t seem to take it.

   

In The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman plays Ben Haddock, a young man who’s just returned from college. His parents throw him a welcome home party populated by family, friends and neighbors, all of them curious to know what Ben is going to do with his life now that college is over with. Problem is that Ben himself doesn’t even know what he’s going to be doing now, he feels uneasy, not ready to take any significant steps in life just yet. For now Ben seems contempt with just chilling by the pool and getting a sun tan, in a way, blocking out the rest of the world. But life has other plans for Ben. He ends up meeting Mrs. Robinson, a foxy lady who’s about to shake things up for Ben, the naïve young man. The character of Ben is one of the best things about the film; Dustin Hoffman perfectly embodies the insecure 20 something with everything to learn about life, a young man afraid to face the harsh realities of the world. I loved those scenes that mark the sharp contrast between Mrs. Robinson, an adult who is extremely sure of herself and knows her way around life and Ben, a young dude who doesn’t even know how to ask a waiter for a drink. The awkwardness between the two make for some truly great scenes.  

What I loved the most about The Graduate is how it satirizes and comments the typical American family of the 60’s. Ben lives in a family that expects him to be a productive member of society, problem is, Ben doesn’t seem to like society very much. But his parents expect him to follow the program, go to college, get the job, fall in love, get married have kids and settle in your perfect suburban home with your pool and your perfect neighbors. Ben doesn’t care for any of these things at this point in his life, many things are wrong in the world for him, so everything else stops making sense to him. All this pressure “to do something with your life” is getting to him, especially when he sees the world around him falling apart. Coming back from college feels like he just came back from war, he simply can’t settle back into “normal” life. When we first meet Ben, he’s out of it; he can’t focus on being polite or having a light conversation. He has too much on his mind. It is hinted that his virginity also makes him uneasy, so he has a lot of that pent up sexual anxiety in him; fortunately, this is a problem that Mrs. Robinson is willing to help him with.

Aside from Ben’s sexual exploits, the main focus of the film is society and how Ben wants to turn his back on it. For example, the whole idea of marriage isn’t taken too seriously in the film; in fact, Ben is willing to get married to the object of his affections from one day to the next; at one point he nonchalantly asks her to marry him. “Are we getting married tomorrow? The day after tomorrow?” It is clearly shown that Ben doesn’t care about the institution of marriage; he just knows he loves Elaine and wants to be with her. Marriage is portrayed as something that we do out of tradition, or simply because it’s what you’re supposed to do, but not something that you really want to do. The whole ending of the film with Ben trying to stop Elaine’s marriage to some douche bag is a big “screw you!” to the institution of marriage. Elaine was just going through the motions; she was getting married to this doctor because it seemed like the safe thing to do, not because she loved the guy. She loved Ben, not the guy she was marrying. The final moments of the film are a revolutionary outcry to the status quo of things. Elaine and Ben seem to be saying “screw this world, we’re doing things our way!” So expect a film that displays young people trying to go against the grain, trying to change things. If you ask me, this is a natural reaction to the way the world was at the time. American was extra crazy during the last half of the 60’s, young people trying to shake things up was a gut reaction to the crazy world that surrounded them. By the way, the whole ending for Wayne’s World 2 (1993), in which Wayne tries to stop Cassandra from marrying Christopher Walken was completely copied, almost shot for shot, from The Graduate! They even filmed it in the same Presbyterian Church!

But then again, many filmmakers have been influenced by The Graduate. Director Wes Anderson, the guy behind The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), Moonrise Kingdom (2013) and Rushmore (1998) is very obviously an admirer of The Graduate. For example, same as The Graduate, Rushmore focuses on the life of a student going through an existential crisis while looking for love. The only thing that Anderson did differently with Rushmore is that he turned things around, instead of the mature lady trying to seduce the naïve young man; it’s the other way around, it’s the naïve young man that wants to seduce the foxy lady. A couple of more elements from The Graduate show up in Anderson’s Rushmore, for example, there’s a scene in The Graduate that takes place as Ben and his family are hanging out by the pool. In this scene Ben’s parents are constantly asking things of him, so when Ben can’t take his parents constant yammering, he hides underwater, trying to shut out the rest of the world. In Rushmore there’s a scene that mirrors that one in which Bill Murray’s character does the exact same thing, he shuts out the crazy family by hiding underwater. There’s also the aspect of criticizing the modern American family and what is wrong with it, an element that can clearly be felt in The Graduate and has also been present in most of Anderson’s films. So as you can see, Wes Anderson has always had a hard on for this film.

And yet another aspect of the film that makes it memorable is its soundtrack which is almost entirely composed of songs by Simon and Garfunkel. It might take a little getting used to (especially for those who didn’t grow up listening to Simon and Garfunkel) because Simon and Garfunkel are all over this movie, but after a while you realize that this movie and Simon and Garfunkel are and will forever be linked together, one goes with the other. I think the soundtrack gives the film uniqueness; the duo are an integral part of this film, right down to having a song called “Mrs. Robinson”, just like one of the main characters in the film. So if you ask me, The Graduate is a bonafide classic. It's class A, grade A, filmmaking. It explores family life in a somewhat similar fashion to films like American Beauty (1999) and the more recent Silver Linings Playbook (2012). It holds a mirror to our collective behavior and then asks the question, why are we the way we are?  

Rating:  5 out of 5

Behind the Scenes on the making of The Graduate

Sphere (1998)

Title: Sphere (1998)

Director: Barry Levinson

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Samuel L. Jackson, Sharon Stone, Live Schreiber, Queen Latifah

Review:

Some movies just fall flat no matter the amount of talent that’s behind them. That being said, I wouldn’t go as far as calling Sphere a failed attempt. In my opinion Sphere was simply not all that it could have been, still it ends up being an interesting film. Dustin Hoffman himself said that he had some issues in regards to the film, he felt it was not finished, that it needed to be worked on a bit more and I have to say that I agree with him because the film feels like a couple of short films strung together, without smooth transitions from moment to moment. This is probably the reason why they decided to divide the film with title cards that read “The Sphere”, “The Spaceship”, “The Monster” and so on. Speaking of ‘The Monster’ what a disappointment; but more on that later.

Sphere tells the story of how the U.S. Government has found an abandoned spaceship resting deep within the darkest pits of the ocean. They quickly go ahead and gather a team of experts that includes a biologist, a physicist, a mathematician and a psychiatrist to deal with a possible alien encounter. But they don’t know if there’s aliens on the ship, they are simply speculating. Their purpose is to find out what this mysterious spaceship is all about, to take that first step, those first risks. They soon discover that the ship holds an ominous golden sphere inside of it, but what is it? What does it do? Who controls it?

So basically, Sphere attempts to be the kind of science fiction film I love the most: the philosophical science fiction film. This is not a science fiction film with light saber battles or the U.S. military shooting their guns at little green men, no, this film attempts to be something deeper and more thought provoking; which is always a plus for me.  Gotta love it when a film tries to go deeper then your regular dumb flick. Sphere actually wants to talk about important themes that I’m sure were better explored on the Michael Crichton novel on which the film is based on; I never read this book so my review is solely based on the film itself. I say Sphere is an ‘attempt at a deep film’ because I felt it didn’t fully get there in my opinion. It does ask some interesting questions, kind of in the same way that Prometheus (2012) did and I enjoyed that about it. In fact, it can be argued that this film comments on the nature of religion and the illusion behind it all. The use of fear to control the masses; the use of a book to bring our fears to life; I of course enjoyed that about the film.  Sphere starts out pretty cool because it achieves a level of mystery to the sphere that was reminiscent of the mystery revolving around the ‘Monolith’ in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), unfortunately this film presents us with a promising premise…only to never truly deliver on the spectacle that we as an audience see on the horizon. This is always a letdown: the film that doesn’t deliver the goods.

The problem with this film is that it’s afraid to be what it is supposed to be. It’s like one of those vampire movies that is afraid to use the word ‘vampire’ for fear of sounding cheesy. Sphere is a brainy sci-fi film, but it is also has horror elements to it. Sadly, this is a monster movie that is afraid to embrace its monstrous side. If this is a monster flick, then by all means, show us some monsters! The film uses Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea as a plot device, a character loves to read this book but is scared of reading the ending because it’s “too scary”. Through the use of the book, the film hints that we might be seeing a huge squid attacking the good guys, we hear the squid, we see it on a computer monitor, but we never truly see the creature. What the film does is tease us to death; it shows us everything but the monster. Can you imagine 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) without the scene where giant squid attacks the Nautilus? One gets the impression that the filmmakers behind Sphere didn’t have the money to show the monster? This wouldn’t surprise me; the film was in hiatus for a while. In fact, while this film was in hiatus, Levinson and Hoffman went off and did a whole other film called Wag the Dog (1997); which by the way was released before Sphere was! This gives you a pretty good idea of how long the making of Sphere was put off for; which of course points towards production problems, creative differences and a slew of other things that can slow a film down.    

A scene from Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)

Sphere has many similarities with films like Leviathan (1989), Deep Star Six (1989), Event Horizon (1997) and James Cameron’s The Abyss (1989). Let’s count the similarities between Sphere and The Abyss shall we? The film takes place in an underwater rig, with a small crew who end up meeting an alien life form. We get a strong willed woman in a lead role. The crew cannot resurface because there’s a huge storm going on above, a plot device seen in almost all of these underwater monster films. Somebody goes whacko at some point. And basically, Sphere was shot in similar fashion then The Abyss was, with giant water tanks and sets built on them. Extreme similarities can also be found with P.W. Anderson’s Event Horizon (1997), because it also deals with a sphere that augments our fears. Anderson’s style of making films is he steals ideas from his favorite filmmakers and authors and reworks them, then spews them out as if they were his own. He is the Tarantino of science fiction. I’m thinking Anderson read Crichton’s novel and then did his own version of it. Typical Anderson behavior. Sphere came out one year after Event Horizon, it almost feels as if Levinson saw Event Horizon and said let’s do Crichton’s book the right way, let’s make an intelligent film! Which would explain why Sphere puts a lot of its emphasis on philosophical ideas. This is one of  Sphere’s strongest points, the philosophical angle. It asks questions like: Are we ready for the secrets of the universe? Are we ready to know it all? Or are we better off not knowing? Are we just babies in this universe? Are we a race of infants?

What I enjoyed about Event Horizon is that it is a film dealing with these phenomenal cosmic themes, like black holes and traveling to other dimensions through them, but it does it in a highly entertaining way, plus it never forgets that it is a horror movie. It didn’t forget to have some fun with its themes. Sphere needed a little more of that entertainment value seen in Event Horizon to it. Why shy away from showing the monster? I’m willing to bet that this films disappointing box office performance was due to audiences feeling cheated. Audiences were expecting a spectacle or a monster movie (or both) and what they got was Stone, Hoffman and Jackson playing scientists talking about the ultimate knowledge and the secrets of the universe; which is cool if you enjoy philosophical conversations, which I do, but if you don’t you’ll probably think this is a boring film, or that the film cheated you. If you want some spectacle, this movie does little in the way of giving it to you, find it somewhere else. For some reason, opportunities to give a little grandeur to the proceedings are thrown away and shown in a hurry, basically, the film feels like it was rushed; this is something I find surprising coming from such an accomplished director as Levinson, I guess his forte was never science fiction or the production problems ended up bringing the film down. Bottom line is that Sphere had potential, but wasn’t given the time and dedication needed to make a truly special film.

Rating: 3 out of 5 

Straw Dogs (1971)

Title: Straw Dogs (1971)

Director: Sam Peckinpah

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Susan George, David Werner

Review:

As a warning, I’ll let you guys know that this review is more of an analysis of Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs, so if you don’t want to read any spoilers…your welcome to skip this review, otherwise, read on my friends because today we’ll be talking about Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs! Peckinpah was known for making violent, sexually charged films that spoke about that animal/violent side that is dormant within most of us; and that was definitely the vibe that I felt while watching Straw Dogs, a film about mild mannered mathematician David Summer (Dustin Hoffman) and his beautiful wife Amy Summer (Susan George), who have just relocated to England to escape the violent political climate permeating in the United States during the early 70’s. I guess they figure things will be quieter in another country, far away from all the turmoil. And for a while, things seem fine. They are staying in a secluded house amongst mountains and green pastures. How can evil crawl up into this beautiful and seemingly peaceful landscape?

This is the premise for Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs a film regarded by many as the directors’ masterpiece. I haven’t seen Peckinpah’s entire repertoire, but Straw Dogs does feel like it could definitely be amongst his top films. It is a very powerful film, with some scenes that will definitely make some of you squirm. Some audience members were so shocked with this film that in test screenings, some actually got up and left half way through the film. They couldn’t take the violence and the sexual assaults that the film presented. At the time not many theatrically released films ventured this far into sex and violence, and so virgins to Peckinpah’s particular style of film, audiences reacted accordingly. The film was banned in some countries and edited down in others.

The scenes that shocked the most were the famous scenes where Susan George’s character gets raped and another scene in which Dustin Hoffman’s character goes nuts and smashes some dudes face to a bloody pulp. And though I’ve seen far more graphic films than Straw Dogs, this was one of the first to go as far and as graphic as it did. I mean off the top of my head I can mention Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible (2002) as a film that was obviously influenced by Straw Dogs, but decided to push the envelope a bit further by being even more graphic with its sex/rape scenes and its violence. But Straw Dogs did it first; it was one of the first to really shock people. So much so that some reviewers went as far as to accuse Peckinpah of being misogynistic, misanthropic and even fascist. But was he any of these things he was accused of because of making this film? Or was he simply exploring mans natural capacity for violence? Is the way women are portrayed on this film misogynistic?

In my book, Peckinpah was doing what he came to this world to do. He was a filmmaker commenting on human nature and he did it without any filters, without anything to hold him back, which in many cases means we’re in for an honest movie, one that tries to tell things the way they really are. Nothing that is portrayed in this film can be labeled as fake or unrealistic. Situations like these do happen in the world everyday. Peckinpah was simply exploring why events such as these occur; what is at the root of it all? This is why I don’t really attack Straw Dogs the way some people do. But hey, I’m not going to deny that Straw Dog’s rape scene was not an easy scene to watch. I felt Susan George’s ambiguity; she wanted to be with the first rapist because her husband was cold and harsh with her at times. He ignored her because of his obsession with math. But at the same time, she didn’t want to get raped, of course she didn’t, no woman would want such a thing. Plus, she knew she was married, and she loved her husband. That scene is amazing because of the incredible range of emotions that Susan George puts across through her performance. Her characters divided self shined through and through, praises to her and that scene. To the films credit, the rape scene isn’t even graphic in nature, most of the pain and anguish is transmitted through Susan George’s facial expressions, yet the scene still manages to shock, a testament to the way the film was directed and acted.

In Straw Dogs, Amy Summer is the ultimate provocateur, she walks around town bra-less, with mini-skirts. She doesn’t mind flashing people every once in a while either. Does this mean that she is asking to be raped? Should the fact that a woman dresses and behaves in a sexually provocative manner give rapists and excuse to do what they do? These are the questions that Peckinpah asks with this film. This film is about rape, no doubt about that, but also, it asks the question of what makes a man a man? Does a man have to be tough? Does he have to treat women roughly? Or lovingly? Should every man have a capacity for violence in reserve, just in case he needs it? In the film, Dustin Hoffman’s character David Summer is a mild mannered man; a bookworm, a cerebral man, the furthest thing away from the macho type. But what happens when the mild mannered, peace loving man clashes with the alpha male? Will David have what it takes to stand up to these bullies? And how much will he stand before he actually takes a stand? David Summer is the kind of character (like most of us I guess) who avoids violent confrontations as much as possible. Yet the people he has to deal with are the complete opposite; they  solve everything through violence. In this town, if a man is denied a beer at the local bar for being too drunk, he breaks a couple of glasses until he finally gets it! What’s a peaceful individual like David going to do in such a violent environment? I guess Peckinpah is commenting on how no matter where you go, humanities violent nature will follow you.  Straw Dogs is the kind of film that makes you think about how you would react if you would ever face such a situation.

Some (even Peckinpah himself) have called David Summer the villain of the film not because of how violently he reacts, but because of his unwillingness to do something about the situation that presents itself. He fails to take action. The idea behind David being the villain is that everything that happens to him is his fault because he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the rapists when he first had the chance. That his cowardice and naïveté made everything else happen, that he brought it all onto himself, which I agree with. This is a story of a man who learns that things need to be dealt with before they get out of hand. At the same time, I sympathize with David because he is a peaceful guy who’d be happiest educating himself and learning new things, not smashing peoples faces up. During the whole film he is portrayed as a character that is afraid of any type of confrontation. His  reason for moving to England was to get away from all the violence and rebellion going on in the U.S.; in fact, it is mentioned that David didn’t even have the guts to form a part of the revolutionary movement, this is a fact that his wife Amy never liked about him.  But hey, can you really blame a guy for wanting to be peaceful? I guess the films big question is what is a peaceful man to do in a violent world? What’s a peaceful man to do when his life, or that of his family is threatened? Some might say that Peckinpah’s answer is “grow some fucking balls and kick the living shit out of anyone who messes with you”, I say it's deal with things before they get out of proportion. Deal with things when they first show their ugly face. David Summer is definitely a character that cannot be described in terms of good or bad, of black and white, there are definitely a lot of grey areas with David Summer. He essentially became that which he hated the most. But then again, this isn’t a black and white world we live in either. What was he supposed to do? Stand back and let those men kill him and rape his wife? Was his violence justified? I kind of lean towards hell yes it was; but you my dear reader can be the judge there.

Straw Dogs is a moving film, I can’t tell you how much I got into it. It’s the kind of film that makes you scream “Do It!” to the screen. It is beautifully shot and acted. To me, it's a great revenge film that I wish I had included in my  "Top 16 Revengiest Films Ever Made" post I did a while back; though some argue that this isnt a revenge film, I argue that it is, because he is avenging the violence thats being brought onto his household, he just executes his revenge at a lightning fast pace. I finally had the chance to catch up with this classic, and of course, Im glad I did. Straw Dogs gives us one of Dustin Hoffman's best performances. He portrays the quiet bookworm effectively; a worm that eventually turns and kicks some ass. In the end, Straw Dogs talks about how we are all capable of incredible amounts of violence, if we are pushed far enough. It speaks about the hypocrisy in society. One scene has all the pivotal characters going together to church for a social event and even the rapists are there, sharing with the rest of society in a “sacred place” when in fact they are the lowest of the low. Hypocrisy is further explored when the rapists attempt to kill a rapist, when in fact they are rapists themselves. These characters makes you think these evil men were only out to kill, maim and destroy just for the sake of it, not because they have a reason for it like David Summer did, after all, David was simply protecting his home, cant blame a guy for that.

Rating: 5 out of 5