U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-12-2018, 04:22 PM
 
2,828 posts, read 935,380 times
Reputation: 898

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2018, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Maine
14,972 posts, read 19,624,607 times
Reputation: 17068
I don't think I've seen this movie since around 1982. All I remember is the boiling water and the bear trap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2018, 05:23 PM
 
Location: La Costa, California
850 posts, read 432,420 times
Reputation: 1858
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2018, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
19,273 posts, read 12,914,144 times
Reputation: 13957
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2018, 09:45 PM
 
2,828 posts, read 935,380 times
Reputation: 898
I don't think the moral ambiguity was the issue, but it is more like plot structural ambiguity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2018, 12:45 AM
 
103 posts, read 26,945 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauialoha View Post
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.
↑ This. Exactly what I thought when it came out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:47 AM
 
583 posts, read 735,315 times
Reputation: 2141
As far as I'm concerned, it was all about Susan George's boobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Dublin, Ireland
47 posts, read 7,607 times
Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
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?
Fixed that for ya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2018, 01:25 AM
 
Location: England
22,065 posts, read 5,450,844 times
Reputation: 28986
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2018, 11:46 AM
 
2,828 posts, read 935,380 times
Reputation: 898
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top