Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched the movie again after a few years and still feel the same way about it as I do not know why certain parts of the plot are in the movie.
SPOILERS
For example, there is a scene where the reverend character comes over to the main character's house for a visit, but the reverend does not care for the main character's views.
However, this is never referred back to again, and the reverend character never becomes part of the plot, so the scene and the character just feel unnecessary.
There is also the underage girl who is trying to get with main character, David Sumner and she has a scene where she is watching David and his wife in bed. This scene also feels unnecessary and it doesn't add anything from what I can tell.
Later on, she tries to seduce David, but David turns her down. She then goes for the mentally challenged character and is killed. However, I do not understand they wrote it so that David turns her down first.
Why not just write it so she goes for the mentally challenged character all along, instead of being turned down by David first? Are the filmmakers trying to say that if David hadn't turned down her invitation, that none of the blood bath would have happened?
If so, I don't think that's fair, since many adult men turn down under age girls, without fearing that doing so, would cause a series of events to happen, that would lead to a blood bath later.
I also do not understand why they had the rape scenario in this story. Basically the villains go over to rape David's wife, and she begins to enjoy the rape with the ex boyfriend villain, but does not enjoy with the other villain after.
However, she never tells David that this happened, and it never motivates the plot afterward. Basically the villains would have attacked David's house to find out what happened to the underage girl anyway, so the rape doesn't change anything in the plot.
Was it put in there for shear shock value and that's it? I got nothing against a rape happening in a movie story, I just feel it needs to further the plot. Maybe if she told David she was raped but enjoyed it as it went along, then that would make David feel emasculated and could motivate him to make decisions to carry the story to a different and perhaps better ending, but since she keeps it a secret, nothing in the plot changes from the rape.
So what do you think, did I miss the points to this movie perhaps?
Like you ironpony, I don't really know. But I think this one belongs in the thread just below "films that made you ill"
Didn't make me physically sick, but grossed me out. It was gratuitous sleaze.
Sam Peckinpah made a lot of morally ambiguous movies. His late work was shockingly bloody for its time as well, and really pushed the limits of the R rating.
What's Straw Dogs supposed to mean? You might as well ask what The Wild Bunch, or Pat Garret and Billy The Kid was supposed to mean. Or for that matter, any of the Transformer movies or any of the Jaws movies.
If his characters acted like you think they should, would the movie have been as tense? Or would have it been boring?
Last edited by banjomike; 08-13-2018 at 08:55 PM..
Like you ironpony, I don't really know. But I think this one belongs in the thread just below "films that made you ill"
Didn't make me physically sick, but grossed me out. It was gratuitous sleaze.
I watched the movie again after a few years and still feel the same way about it as I do not know why certain parts of the plot are in the movie.
SPOILERS
Spoiler
For example, there is a scene where the reverend character comes over to the main character's house for a visit, but the reverend does not care for the main character's views.
However, this is never referred back to again, and the reverend character never becomes part of the plot, so the scene and the character just feel unnecessary.
There is also the underage girl who is trying to get with main character, David Sumner and she has a scene where she is watching David and his wife in bed. This scene also feels unnecessary and it doesn't add anything from what I can tell.
Later on, she tries to seduce David, but David turns her down. She then goes for the mentally challenged character and is killed. However, I do not understand they wrote it so that David turns her down first.
Why not just write it so she goes for the mentally challenged character all along, instead of being turned down by David first? Are the filmmakers trying to say that if David hadn't turned down her invitation, that none of the blood bath would have happened?
If so, I don't think that's fair, since many adult men turn down under age girls, without fearing that doing so, would cause a series of events to happen, that would lead to a blood bath later.
I also do not understand why they had the rape scenario in this story. Basically the villains go over to rape David's wife, and she begins to enjoy the rape with the ex boyfriend villain, but does not enjoy with the other villain after.
However, she never tells David that this happened, and it never motivates the plot afterward. Basically the villains would have attacked David's house to find out what happened to the underage girl anyway, so the rape doesn't change anything in the plot.
Was it put in there for shear shock value and that's it? I got nothing against a rape happening in a movie story, I just feel it needs to further the plot. Maybe if she told David she was raped but enjoyed it as it went along, then that would make David feel emasculated and could motivate him to make decisions to carry the story to a different and perhaps better ending, but since she keeps it a secret, nothing in the plot changes from the rape.
So what do you think, did I miss the points to this movie perhaps?
I saw Straw Dogs in a cinema way back in 1971. I remember the audience were just shocked by it, especially the end section. The rape part was bad. I haven't seen the film for decades, but seem to remember Susan George grew to despise her husband for failing to protect her, even though he didn't know about the rape.
In the end, he decided to stand his ground, and save both their lives by whatever methods were needed. It was strong stuff, and as I said, when the lights came up, the audience seemed shocked by what they had just seen. It made an impression on me at the time, and I have never forgotten it.
But Susan George's character actually enjoyed the rape and seemed to think that the rapist was more of a man than her husband's so why would she despise her husband for failing, when she herself enjoyed the rape? It just seems contradictory or hypocritical of her.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
