Also discussed this episode: Wuthering Heights(2026), Pretty Lethal (2026), How to Make a Killing (2026), Straw Dogs (1971) Outcome (2026), Thrash(2026), Meatballs 4 (1992)
I will be one of the 4 people listening to that Straw Dogs podcast.
I come down more on the side that Peckinpah is celebrating Hoffman's violence at the end, but I think his views on masculinity are pretty complex (if disturbing). I think he presents 3 kinds of violence - there's the thuggish, might-makes-right violence of the antagonists; there's the Lenny from Of Mice and Men violence which is horrible but contextualized by mental illness and a developmental disorder; and then there's the violence Hoffman unleashes at the end, which I think Peckinpah thinks is absolutely necessary and the first time that his character has ever been a real man. I think Peckinpah believes that, in a world of laws and civility, you still need to be willing to commit violence. When a caveman picks up a rock and threatens to bash you and your wife's heads in, your intellect and decorum get you nowhere. A real Capital M Man clamps a bear trap around the caveman's neck. If you're unwilling to do that, Peckinpah believes, you're worse than the caveman. All you're doing is outsourcing your violence to the police, and they can't help you until after the fact.
Hoffman is unwilling to see confrontation as ever necessary, and he's infuriating as a result. Hoffman leaving his country because of the social unrest of the civil rights movement and Vietnam protests is just yet another example of his "unmasculine" mindset that you shouldn't stand your ground and face the threat of violence... that these protesters are just making trouble for everyone and you should always face your problems with civility, smugly believing that this makes you better than everyone else. Peckinpah is so skilled at conveying his worldview that I think it's borderline impossible for someone to watch this movie without internally screaming "JESUS CHRIST, DENNIS... BE A MAN."
I also think almost everyone misremembers the SA scene as being one in which it's a violent assault from beginning to end and that Susan George, after the fact, seems to have enjoyed - but that's not what happens. It's impossible to analyze that scene without sounding like a complete misogynist prick - so I wanna make it clear, this is NOT how I view SA, just how I think the scene is presented. But Peckinpah essentially depicts her 'more or less' consenting to have sex with Del Henney - though of course, she does say no. Peckinpah does depict her as attracted to his violence and her protests are deliberately depicted as insincere. It's not until Henney's friend comes out that she's horrified and she is absolutely NOT into that. There's a lot that is rightly controversial and uncomfortable and repugnant about that scene. It comes after an hour of her playing games with these men who are clearly a violent threat to her and her husband, and I think it's reasonable to come away from it thinking "Peckinpah is saying women bring this on themselves." It's also uncomfortable to see a character depicting as genuinely consenting to sex even though, if she really meant "no", Henney likely wouldn't have stopped - and of course, in the real world, no means no, I don't think this is a realistic depiction of SA. What I think Peckilnpah's actually saying is that Hoffman brought this on his wife - that she's as much a victim of his lack of masculinity as she is of Henney and his crew's masculinity.
Especially in the world we live in today, with prevalence of the redpill, incel, MRA approach to masculinity, it's very easy to just reject this movie out of hand, but I think Peckinpah was a more sincere and reflective and complex person than, say, Andrew Tate - and his view on masculinity is interesting to me to think about, even if it's ultimately a view I reject. I even think there's a grain of truth to it... If I handed over a disabled guy to a Lynch mob purely because I wasn't willing to defend my family, I think it would do a lot of harm to my perception of myself as a man. But holy hell, it must have been bleak to be Peckinpah and see every man as essentially one small step away from savagery.
There's an excellent article by John Kenneth Muir on Straw Dogs who is far more eloquent and insightful than I am.https://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/2012/06/savage-friday-straw-dogs-1971.html
Thanks for your insightful comment! The movie definitely gave me a lot to chew on, so while I'd hardly describe watching it as a pleasant experience I'm glad I did.
I will be one of the 4 people listening to that Straw Dogs podcast.
ReplyDeleteI come down more on the side that Peckinpah is celebrating Hoffman's violence at the end, but I think his views on masculinity are pretty complex (if disturbing). I think he presents 3 kinds of violence - there's the thuggish, might-makes-right violence of the antagonists; there's the Lenny from Of Mice and Men violence which is horrible but contextualized by mental illness and a developmental disorder; and then there's the violence Hoffman unleashes at the end, which I think Peckinpah thinks is absolutely necessary and the first time that his character has ever been a real man. I think Peckinpah believes that, in a world of laws and civility, you still need to be willing to commit violence. When a caveman picks up a rock and threatens to bash you and your wife's heads in, your intellect and decorum get you nowhere. A real Capital M Man clamps a bear trap around the caveman's neck. If you're unwilling to do that, Peckinpah believes, you're worse than the caveman. All you're doing is outsourcing your violence to the police, and they can't help you until after the fact.
Hoffman is unwilling to see confrontation as ever necessary, and he's infuriating as a result. Hoffman leaving his country because of the social unrest of the civil rights movement and Vietnam protests is just yet another example of his "unmasculine" mindset that you shouldn't stand your ground and face the threat of violence... that these protesters are just making trouble for everyone and you should always face your problems with civility, smugly believing that this makes you better than everyone else. Peckinpah is so skilled at conveying his worldview that I think it's borderline impossible for someone to watch this movie without internally screaming "JESUS CHRIST, DENNIS... BE A MAN."
I also think almost everyone misremembers the SA scene as being one in which it's a violent assault from beginning to end and that Susan George, after the fact, seems to have enjoyed - but that's not what happens. It's impossible to analyze that scene without sounding like a complete misogynist prick - so I wanna make it clear, this is NOT how I view SA, just how I think the scene is presented. But Peckinpah essentially depicts her 'more or less' consenting to have sex with Del Henney - though of course, she does say no. Peckinpah does depict her as attracted to his violence and her protests are deliberately depicted as insincere. It's not until Henney's friend comes out that she's horrified and she is absolutely NOT into that. There's a lot that is rightly controversial and uncomfortable and repugnant about that scene. It comes after an hour of her playing games with these men who are clearly a violent threat to her and her husband, and I think it's reasonable to come away from it thinking "Peckinpah is saying women bring this on themselves." It's also uncomfortable to see a character depicting as genuinely consenting to sex even though, if she really meant "no", Henney likely wouldn't have stopped - and of course, in the real world, no means no, I don't think this is a realistic depiction of SA. What I think Peckilnpah's actually saying is that Hoffman brought this on his wife - that she's as much a victim of his lack of masculinity as she is of Henney and his crew's masculinity.
Especially in the world we live in today, with prevalence of the redpill, incel, MRA approach to masculinity, it's very easy to just reject this movie out of hand, but I think Peckinpah was a more sincere and reflective and complex person than, say, Andrew Tate - and his view on masculinity is interesting to me to think about, even if it's ultimately a view I reject. I even think there's a grain of truth to it... If I handed over a disabled guy to a Lynch mob purely because I wasn't willing to defend my family, I think it would do a lot of harm to my perception of myself as a man. But holy hell, it must have been bleak to be Peckinpah and see every man as essentially one small step away from savagery.
There's an excellent article by John Kenneth Muir on Straw Dogs who is far more eloquent and insightful than I am.https://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision.blogspot.com/2012/06/savage-friday-straw-dogs-1971.html
DeleteThanks for your insightful comment! The movie definitely gave me a lot to chew on, so while I'd hardly describe watching it as a pleasant experience I'm glad I did.
Delete