Is this any good?

Is this any good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Hnv7tXEBATc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Sam Peckinpah

Probably.

depends
do you like old westerns and hate women? then yes
are you a faggot? then no

I find it highly overrated, but Susan George was a qt.

Good use of rusty bear-trap

The rape and revenge formula is really boring. You have to sit through one hour of nothing happening until the rape then the revenge happen. The rape itself might have been controversial back then but seems tame by today's standards. The revenge part however is really well directed, Peckinpah was great with expressing violence through editing.

>hate women
Isn't the point of the movie is that men are terrible animals?

I liked this version

>You have to sit through one hour of nothing happening
you mean one hour of building up tension and setting up the hostile environment for that couple
>The rape itself might have been controversial back then but seems tame by today's standards
yeah try telling anyone that women enjoy rape m8
you either didnt watch the film or is too much of a pleb to understand it
what makes you think that?

Anglos are such subhumans in this.
Any more movies showing their savage nature?

It's great

While reading about I've seen a lot of people saying it's about violent masculinity.

Yup, it's an interesting look into the integrity and morality of a man.

I'm not one of those beta virgins that calls all women roasties like most of this place.

But the wife was totally asking for it.

I love this movie. The fact that the protagonist's life was so garbage that being cuckolded improved his relationship with his wife was absolutely hilarious. I need more weak man with broken glasses turns rageaholic films.
I agree with what most people are saying about it being slow and then ramping up really hard, most of the characters are good and the tension is present, but the general plot and sequence of events just doesn't work for me. The climax and ending are fucking great though.

of course they did, they tend to do that when their views are challenged. But it's the opposite

Coldfish was so fucking good

I saw the movie a long time ago but I remember Dustin Hoffman's character never finding out that his wife was raped. Thought that was odd considering they were going for the whole revenge angle

>they were going for the whole revenge angle
But it wasn't

He was defending his home and the invalid there was nothing about revenge in the movie.

I like it but actually prefer the remake.
I think both versions make people uncomfortable because idk how to explain this but the woman seems to enjoy/give in to the rape momentarily. I thought that was a pretty interesting depiction of rape and it gets unfairly criticized.

Do they talk about the dang old I-ching in this or something.

>Think of Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 Straw Dogs as a pop myth, not some vulgar expiation of unruly, anti-feminist temper—or Hollywood exploitation of same. Its story, by now a notorious legend, digs into a primal event: a modern, civilized man forced to use brute cunning to protect his home and property. Peckinpah’s dismantling of social custom comes from an era unlike today when popular filmmakers, through personal intelligence and experience, believed art had a serious purpose. The new remake of Straw Dogs trashes that precept and the disaster should resound throughout the art world. Anyone who cares about art in any form should rise up against this foul remake.

>Let’s give Peckinpah’s most controversial work its due by relating its most startling scene—a sexual assault on the hero’s flirtatious wife that is more than she or casual moviegoers bargained for—with an equally provocative work of classical art, Titian’s 1559 painting “The Rape of Europa.” This isn’t a wild stretch but a reminder of the depth and vision serious filmmaking ought to share with other artifacts of our cultural heritage.

>Consider how art scholar Susan Benford’s description of Titian fits Straw Dogs’ hotly contentious scene: “This grand painting portrays the abduction of Europa by a determined Jupiter, disguised as a bull. Europa is a reclining nude both submissive and resistant, appearing both abandoned with desire and frightened, beneath a calm blue sky with threatening storms. The Putti, or Cupids, in the sky and atop the dolphin, are mesmerized watching the tension between the lovers, while the nymphs vague on the distant shore, watch and wave helplessly. Both her generous, billowing flesh and Jupiter’s tail seem to quiver with excitement at the pending sexual act…Each time I visit it, I feel that Titian‘s bull’s eye—inescapably leering, impossible to avoid—is the most intensely painted of any eye in Western art, human or animal. It’s riveting, dares you not to stare back and is not to be missed.”

>Peckinpah’s bullseye in Straw Dogs is proof of how cinematic art equals the power of the classical arts. Its uncompromising vision and intensity is what we no longer expect from today’s fawning, dumbed-down Hollywood. Reviewers who applaud the Straw Dogs remake readily liken it to cheap-thrill blockbusters, but neglect to recall Peckinpah’s heroic antecedents.

>To remake Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs shows Hollywood’s usual barbarism, a shameless assault on our cultural heritage. Worse than the shoddy film itself is the complaisance shown by reviewers who accept the trashy new remake as part of their own business routine. These circumstances trap all those moviegoers who never saw Peckinpah’s 1971 original or maybe never even heard of it, in cultural ignorance. It normalizes vulgarity, inanity and disrespect for culture.

>After the cultural battles won by Picasso, Joyce and D.H. Lawrence, it’s shocking to have to defend Peckinpah against 21st-century vulgarians who do not distinguish his artistry from grindhouse smut or social exploitation. Peckinpah’s films were infamous for bypassing cultural niceties. Ride the High Country, The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, The Getaway, Junior Bonner, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, The Killer Elite, Convoy and The Osterman Weekend all exploded genre conventions. Despite their controversial dynamism, those films updated moral movie watching reflexes to accommodate the post-WWII reactions to the American legacy—mostly romantic attitudes about loyalty, crime and family.

I liked how the movie emphasized the difference between "rape" and "rape rape"

>Peckinpah redefined the modern complexities of masculine and feminine identity by going deeper into the feelings associated with the western (a moral epic in High Country, Wild Bunch and Junior Bonner) and action movie (a test of personal and political ethics in Alfredo Garcia and The Killer Elite). Straw Dogs combined the genres; its unnerving virtuosity got under the already crawling skin of white-flight, feminist, Vietnam-era America. The story of an intellectual (played by Dustin Hoffman when he embodied the zeitgeist) retreating to rural life but unable to avoid the call of the wild, distilled a brilliantly simple narrative into a something as discomforting and unavoidable as psychotherapy. With The Wild Bunch, Peckinpah’s visceral, kinetic style—lyrical, viscous, slo-mo details—forever changed editing technology to reveal the raw ferocity and elegant absurdity of violence. Only Sergei Eisenstein—and no one after Peckinpah—captured a collapsing human body so memorably. (Artist Robert Longo’s 1980s Falling Men series paid tribute to this.)

>Even if Peckinpah’s imitators imitated him for the worst, the culture was changed for the better through his fearless look at the desperation and folly within mankind. He used slo-mo not for titillation but for a shocking awareness of time and mortality. That’s what makes Straw Dogs possibly “Bloody” Sam’s greatest film, the movie that least needed remaking. It only, constantly, needs appreciation, acknowledgement and acceptance. The battle for understanding art continues.

>Critical Complaisance or Critical Collusion?

>A new 21st-century Straw Dogs remake would only be necessary if it reacquainted audiences with the difficult realities that Peckinpah’s singular style exposed and claimed a hand in. But that’s exactly what our acquiescent, commercially vulgarized culture misrepresents. Not to pick on the New York Times’ laudatory review of record but it typifies the problem of a non-rigorous, incurious, cultural attitude that forgets heritage and is too compliant with commercialism. Perhaps by detailing the Times’ negligence, the problem of cultural lassitude can be identified and avoided.

>Starting with referring to remake director Rod Lurie (who parlayed a journalism gig into a Hollywood career) as a former “film critic” presupposes that Lurie had some sort of cinematic expertise to transfer. But Lurie’s lousy filmography (The Last Castle, The Contender, etc.) suggests quite the opposite. Straw Dogs could only be remade by an imbecile with no knowledge of Peckinpah’s artistic or political achievement. Calling Peckinpah’s film a “venerable and violent button pusher” yet commending Lurie’s as “odd and interesting” perverts standards of intellection and aesthetics. Loftily pretending that Lurie’s “hyperbole is more amusing than offensive” only confirms our culture’s false sophistication.

>In 1971 critics were appalled by Peckinpah’s blunt violence and eroticism; today those aspects of cinema are shrugged off, ridiculed. Lurie extracts the seriousness from Peckinpah’s primal story of a man defending his house from intruders, yet the Times huffs that he’s “holding a fun-house mirror up to an America that seems, at the moment, to thrive on polarization and mutual contempt.” This doesn’t help. It’s sophistry that accepts the contrivance of Liberal partisanship as a game.” To confuse Lurie’s inanity with a polemical purpose is a fatuous way of selling contemporary product while disrespecting-and demeaning-a redoubtable masterpiece.

>It took more than Quentin Tarantino to derange the appreciation of movie violence from a moral aesthetic to a fan boy delectation. As with a hack like Lurie, the derangement must be abetted by media shills who pretend that this vulgarization is OK. It’s useless to blame “the sensibilities of the times” as an excuse for Lurie’s crudeness. Citing “Something of the corrosive, absurd logic of the culture is captured in the interactions between David and the gang of good ol’ boys who become his mortal enemies” misses the point Randy Newman made so well in his 1972 album Good Ol’ Boys, where Liberal-Conservative tension was more actively engaged.

>Referring to Peckinpah’s savage tableau as “a nasty, queasy, fascinating document of its era” is a rank criticism, similar to the kind of belittling Maureen Dowd practices. Peckinpah’s art is not of an era but of soul. To praise the mindless Lurie for “uncover[ing] an unacknowledged layer of feminism” in the story misses the complexity of Peckinpah’s original vision.

>Peckinpah’s daring should not be forgotten but deserves to be met with daring, rigorous critical standards. Initially the rape in Straw Dogs (source of the film’s politically incorrect controversy) drew more ire than the rape in Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange due to Peckinpah’s Titian-like pitilessness. Peckinpah didn’t distance horror with Kubrickian cool or with Lurie’s trite politics. Critic Kyle Smith aptly ridiculed Lurie’s remake by juxtaposing it with Kenny Rogers’ more honest and affecting pop hit “Coward of the County.”

Damn
This is pretty interesting stuff.

>In the original Straw Dogs, Peckinpah’s fraught sensuality and compacted male fears subverted p.c. feminism so much even non-feminist Pauline Kael sought different terms to critique it. Her slam “fascist” reacts to the unsettling power of what Peckinpah evokes; it peculiarly tags the film as something it isn’t. The sex and violence in Straw Dogs are the brushstrokes Peckinpah uses to convey man’s personal confusion. After David’s manly defense of home, he drives into the dark with his doppleganger idiot who complains, “I don’t know my way home.” David’s response “Neither do I” isn’t fascist triumphalism but boldly admits personal moral alarm. It’s different from the utter moral and aesthetic confusion that Lurie stirs up. If we recover our cultural standards and make useful critical comparison of original and remake, we will realize, like Smith’s apples-and-oranges comparison, how Peckinpah’s apple kicks shit out of Lurie’s Clockwork Orange.

It wasnt even rape and revenge. It was Cuckold, rape, and violently protect a retard against men you didnt know raped ur wife

I thought the point of the film was that the city-dwelling liberal who considered himself more evolved than the other men is pushed to tap into the violent primal instincts within thus proving that people who pretend they're more evolved are actually just full of shit and lying to themselves about it.

I really hope that pic related is true

Calling Straw Dogs a rape and revenge movie is like calling Crime and Punishment a detective novel.

That is a facet you can take away from it You can also say Peckinpah was stating that no matter how gentle, naive or articulate a persona america has, its true talents lie in supreme violence and self-defence

Libtard propaganda trying to normalize sharing you're wife and portraying the husband as unstable for not accepting it

>I prefer their cave man ads
>Can't believe they got Malick to show up for this thing

Is it safe!!!!

>the husband was unstable
>not the drunken welsh trying to kill him and his wife for housing a mongoloid

Literally the opposite is true. A libtard learns that if you are unwilling or too timid to stand up and fight for what's yours bigger and ballsier men sense your weakness and will straight up rape your woman and laugh in your face about it.

Dominic Purcell's portrayal of a mentally retarded man was most underrated part of the remake

I used to jerk off to the rape scene on a regular basis when I was a teenager. Is there a decent scene like that in the remake?

The remake's is a lot more watered down, they cut away as it's happening and there's no implication that she enjoyed it

That's extremely disappointing.

The title is a quotation from the Dao De Jing, so actually the other end of the spectrum of Chinese philosophy.
"Heaven and earth are heartless, treating creatures like straw dogs".
The implied message, at bottom, appears to be plain nihilism.
To be honest, I've always been a little puzzled by how seriously Peckinpah was taken as an "auteur" and as a director with "something to say". I think the Pythons cottoned on as early as 72, 73 to the hollowness and ludicrousness of it all, and to how ridiculous it was that "highbrow" film critics were talking about Peckinpah's films as "existential meditations on violence".

youtube.com/watch?v=Hnv7tXEBATc

Arthur Penn is his heyday, and Scorsese right up until the early 80s - THEY could produce "existential meditations on violence". The last-but-one sequence of Taxi Driver and the ten minutes leading up to Gene Hackman's death in Bonny and Clyde really REVEAL something about violence. They are stomach-churning and enlightening.

Peckinpah, less so, imo. Maybe Straw Dogs is his best effort in this respect because it plays in a less gun-laden society and the violence is consequently less choreographic, more horribly intimate and close-up.

As David Thomson points up, though, a major flaw of the movie is having Dustin Hoffman married to Susan George. Both give great performances but, sorry, she is just too fucking luscious for the audience to be able to believe she would ever marry that snouty little yid.

It's interesting that Bosworth and Skarsgard started dating during the filming of Straw Dogs. I wonder if it was the rehearsals.

but faggots hate women user...

>As David Thomson points up, though, a major flaw of the movie is having Dustin Hoffman married to Susan George. Both give great performances but, sorry, she is just too fucking luscious for the audience to be able to believe she would ever marry that snouty little yid.
Then you both missed the point that she was a WHOOOOOORE who was very conflicted about the people she loved and hooked up with david because of his money and wit and only left welshman because he wasn't there for her when she felt the urge to travel and explore

that was a good 'un