Quite a long time ago I reached a point where I decided I wouldn’t watch any more films with sexual violence, I simply couldn’t stomach the gratuitous use of rape scenes and the film-makers’ indifference toward cruelty. There were a few exceptions along the way but they basically had to be absolute knock-out films for me to bother overlooking my no-rape-scenes policy. And then recently, I sat down to knowingly watch the very average 2011 re-make of Straw Dogs and I ended up spending quite a bit of time thinking about the rape scene and I even went and watched the 1971 version of Straw Dogs in order to make sense of that rape scene. Here are my thinky thoughts on the atrocious use of a rape scene in yet another film (Pauline Kael, I salute you) and how it’s being updated for a modern audience and also, how I manage to quite like one version of Straw Dogs.
Straw Dogs, a film by director Sam Peckinpah was supposed to be about the savage, ancient violence lurking beneath a modern, civilised society. In the 1970’s that was a concept that still had the power to shock people. The original film bases its tension around a culture clash – an American abroad, living in a tiny, dreary, English village with his English wife – the new version, by Rod Lurie, uses the same class warfare but places it all in the United States of America with a North versus South thing going on. Straw Dogs is essentially about a couple (David and Amy) seeking change from their stressful city life (or an escape from conscription into the Vietnam War as in the 1971 version), and so they move to Amy’s birthplace, where the guy can work in quiet solitude on something very intellectual and very important while his wife gets a little bored and lonely. The house they move to requires work, and ‘work’ is an important matter in this film because it’s the core of a man’s identity, but of course it is not ‘intellectual work’ the house requires, rather it’s ‘manly labouring type’ work. This means they need to hire some very manly labouring type men to fix their house. Enter manly Charlie and his manly crew. In both versions the class war in Straw Dogs is straight up. The sex war, not so much.
This is what you need to know about the 1971 version of David, he is played by Dustin Hoffman. He’s brilliant to watch.
This what you need to know about the 2011 version of David, played by James Marsden, he wears pink shirts (ie. metrosexual!), is obnoxious, snobbish, over-paid and apparently cultured (he uses chess pieces on his wife in foreplay: well, la di dah). He also has a lovely car, but significantly, doesn’t know how to change its tyres and is more interested in it as a status symbol than as a classic automobile (watch for the ‘hood ornament’ moment). In other words, this man is struggling to be a man. He is no Dustin Hoffman either.
In fact, everything about Straw Dogs is about masculinity and the fear of being emasculated, but more on that later.
This is what you need to know about Charlie. In the 1971 version he is played by Del Henney and he (second from the left) and his crew look like this.
Kind of a brutish sexuality there but still, more brute than out-right hot.
Here is Charlie in 2011.
He is fucking gorgeous. Problematic. Alexander Skarsgård is too hot to be a rapist and Straw Dogs concerns manly brutish men being rapists, it’s part of their potent masculinity and it’s how they lead the turf war against those white-collar men who can’t figure out how to be real men. (Get all the high-paid jobs, take ’em all, take everything, but do you look like this when you take your shirt off?) It is incredibly wrong thinking to suggest that rapists can’t be good-looking, as if rape was about unmet sexual needs rather than the cruel and deliberate exploitation of power, but then the 2011 version of Straw Dogs goes out of its way to make Charlie irresistible and in doing so the film tries its little heart out to make the rape really blurry. Actually, that’s the bit that made me seek out the older version of Straw Dogs for comparison, was it a rape, was it supposed to be blurry, was Charlie actually intended to be kinda sexy during that scene?
The real battleground for these two men – David and Charlie – is their masculinity. Both men are being sexually humiliated by David’s wife, Amy. David, because he won’t confront the manly men over their behaviour, which becomes increasingly threatening, allowing him to be seen as a coward by his wife, and Charlie, because he doesn’t have the money and status to pull a chick like Amy, and there she is, right in front of him, existing (ie. how provocative of her). This theme is played hard with Charlie and Amy also being ex-lovers from their youth. Charlie is mortified to be watching his manly crew ogling his ex-girlfriend, the one he let get away, the one he isn’t ‘big’ enough to have anymore. Both men cast as Charlie in Straw Dogs are physically imposing, that’s significant because the title of the film is derived from this very aspect. Physical stature was once important, back in highschool, but also back in time when life was more labour-intensive, it was valued enough to get them the girl, where as now with the new world order Charlie is in the subservient position of working for David; the power of being physically superior has diminished. Or has it?
In both versions of the film David is a patronising git to his intellectually inferior wife but at least in the 1970’s version the marital politics feels pretty truthful to the time, and Hoffman has a little something going on that makes him momentarily attractive to you, he and Susan George also manage some charming chemistry together that Marsden and Kate Bosworth never do. In the 2011 version Straw Dogs has Charlie being quite chivalrous – intervening where bullying is happening, calling men ‘sir’ and dreamily admiring a pregnant friend’s belly – a bit of Southern Gentleman mixed in with his redneck. The kind of menacing charm that blends chivalry right into misogyny. Because, the rape scene.
Here’s all the super dangerous stuff in the Charlie-Amy rape scene.
Firstly, Amy is supposed to be seen as asking for it, she doesn’t, after all, always wear a bra, as noted by her blaming/shaming husband, and we all know rapists can’t resist jiggling. Plus, she gets a little pissy with the manly brutes for ogling her at one point and flashes her breasts at them in a little ‘fuck you’ gesture. Oh no, you know how rapists feel about feisty women. (As an aside, another key plot development in the film involves an underage girl ‘seducing’ an older man with diminished mental capacities, she’s asking for it too, of course).
Now, here comes the serious ‘rape mythology’ crap. Part-way through the rape scene Amy apparently starts to enjoy the experience. In fact, in the 1971 version, Charlie and Amy are quite tender together by the end of that ‘thing’. I hate this notion so much that I considered whether or not to even call this a rape scene. I mean, if you and your partner get off on it and it makes you feel so happy together then it’s rough consensual sex, not rape. But then, even by a misogynist’s definition, surely this scene constitutes rape – because in both film versions Amy says no multiple times and in multiple ways and Charlie continues, and in both versions Charlie uses physical force and intimidation. In the 1971 version of Straw Dogs the rape is initially seriously violent, the 2011 version tones the violence down but accommodates for that by allowing Amy to look more distressed by the rape than 1971 Amy does. Problem is, though, both versions really eroticise the rape scene.
Next ‘rape mythology’ bit of crap. Is Charlie attractively assertive and bad at reading women’s emotions or is he predatory? Both versions of Straw Dogs film the scene in such a way as to suggest that the rape is almost an accidental moment of masculine brutality. Symbolically, the rape by Charlie happens simultaneously when David is out trying his hand at hunting, where through dumb luck he actually manages to shoot and kill an animal. In fact, in Straw Dogs 2011 Charlie appears hurt that Amy is behaving so much like someone who has just been raped, he’s misunderstood you see, he thought she wanted him, and in both versions David is kinda sad about killing the animal. Oops. These things happen when men are being manly, things can get hurt or killed or scarred for life. Accidentally, naturally.
And this brings me to the thing about Straw Dogs that really troubles me. It’s not Amy who is sexualised so much in the rape scene, as it is Charlie. Skarsgård, particularly, is directed to play Charlie in a manner very close to something like ‘romantic lead’. Men and women, both, in the audience are left with no doubt that naked Charlie is supposed to be way hotter than naked David – the 1971 version rather bluntly flashes topless images of Charlie and David against one other. Straw Dogs features multiple close-ups of Charlie’s naked torso, and in the 2011 version, shot for shot they’re like something out of a passionate love story. I think this was a deliberate act to make female audience members complicit in the ‘rape mythology’ of the storyline. Of course Amy really wants Charlie, you do, too. You want a rapist.
And supposedly, here lies the inner struggle for men – if you’re not manly women won’t be attracted to you, but if you are manly, women will want to hate you for it. In case you have any doubt that the rape scene is all about the men in this film and what it means for them and their journey, rather than anything about the victim’s point of view or journey, the scene culminates in Charlie punishing Amy in the worst possible way – the infamous ‘double rape’ scene – enter Charlie’s manly, rapist mate. Charlie punishes Amy for the revulsion he feels towards himself for what he’s done, which depending on the film version is either expressed as a sense of horror and shame or as a sense of being too soft and vulnerable. Don’t worry, this is ‘rape mythology’ bullshit, so Charlie gets to redeem himself right at the end of the film by putting his life on the line to save Amy. Although, if you watch the film you’ll note that the whole moralising climactic bit of the story happens when men are trying to protect a home and another man from men – it’s really about property rights and due process. And David finally claims his masculinity and status as hero when he can be as violent and blood-thirsty as the brutish men.
In the end, Straw Dogs, like those other manly films of the 1970’s tells you little about women but quite a lot about men. I have to admit that I retain a bit of a soft spot for these 70s films, partly because they feature these amazing actors in their prime, like Dustin Hoffman (who said he wanted to do Straw Dogs because he was “interested in [the] repressed violence in liberals”), and partly, because they’re all so preoccupied with fears about masculinity (it was a time of serious social change, after all), and partly, because they didn’t bother to make any kind of gesture towards feminism so you get to see these horrid little thoughts in all their misogynist glory – they really wear their MRA spirit on their sleeves, there’s nothing that deceptive or manipulative about them.
Ok then, two sorta film reviews in one week, I promise never to do that again here.
P.S. This was a very long and tiring post to write (and probably also to read, congratulations you made it to the end). At times I thought why bother, is anyone even watching the Straw Dogs remake, but then, in researching my post I started reading what others said about it on the Internet and you should see the kind of bullshit that is still being written out there about this story, really, my god you should read it, and I just wanted to say I see the rape scene differently to you guys, very differently.
really great post! I haven’t seen either…but really? Replace Dustin Hoffman with James Marsden?
Thank you for both watching and writing about both films, so that I don’t have to. The last rape scene I was able to watch was in The Accused (that long ago) and since then I have avoided them. However, I appreciate your watching both films and commenting so intelligently. The things have to be said!
I say ‘able’, but it was impossible to watch and stayed with me with for years …
Fascinating dissection of these films, neither of which I’d heard about. Always interesting to note and read about the observations and interpretations of the power struggles between the sexes. Thanks for writing such a dissection of the culture
I’ve not seen either – I was shocked when such a notorious film was remade, but I remember seeing an interview with Susan George (the 1971 Amy) where she described her reservations on set – which descended into stand up rows – about the ambiguity of the rape scene. I think maybe it’s reassuring that at least some people on that set in 1971 realised that there was a problematic message being put across.
One of the worst film I have ever seen that involved “titilating” sexual violence and violence against a woman was the film Malèna. It is an Italian film. Anyone else seen it? I was appalled. It was supposed to have a feminist and progressive message – that a beautiful, vibrant woman was punished by a repressive society for simply being that. But it was basically pornography masked as art house film.
I’ve seen it and yes, I completely agree.
Oh good – so I wasn’t going crazy. My husband watched it with me and couldn’t understand why I hated it so much.
jen, I also remember that the film was told from the perspective of a boy in the village (wikipedia says he was 12 years old) so there’s your problem right there.
I’m so glad other people have a ‘no rape scenes’ movie policy, people always look at me weirdly when I say I don’t want to read X book or watch X movie because I heard it has a rape scene in it and I don’t find that entertaining.
You’re definitely not alone, Hendo, and in some communities you’d be in the majority – on some romance fan message boards, reviews routinely include tagging books with rape scenes, because so many readers object.
yeah, i imagine particularly in romance – a book genre which is often supposed to be just a bit of relaxing fun – a scene like that would be a rather nasty surprise
Thank you for this subtle analysis. I find myself wanting to watch the 1971 version, because I do find masculinity an interesting topic. I can’t quite imagine the interpretations you found on the wider internet, but I also suspect I don’t want to. It reminds me of when I saw Saturday Night Fever, and there is a scene where Our Hero just sits in the front seat of a car while his friend rapes a girl in the back seat. I went looking for responses to something so horrific (were we still supposed to be sympathetic to this protagonist? Or was this meant to be the point where we see him as just a thug like the others?), but no one seemed to have noticed that it happened at all. There should be a book called Watching Classics While Female.
I remember watching that scene. Frankly, that entire film is much darker than references to it in general culture suggest. I was quite surprised. Ditto for the original “Fame” film.
The other day, I switched off the “Girl with the Dragon Tatoo” as the rape scene was totally unjustified and overtly graphic. How can we justify portrayal of rape as entertainment?
My husband agrees too with this sentiment.
This was the film that was the last straw for me, and now I am much less open to watching anything I haven’t googled the shit out of first. I watched the whole thing and I believe all up there were 3 rape scenes? Including a ‘revenge’ rape scene. Really unexpected as I didn’t read the books and despite the massive hype and interest in the film had heard absolutely nothing about the sexual violence.
I saw that film (the original one, not the American remake) because a friend recommended it to me as mostly a movie about sexual violence – one that was mostly violent, instead of sexualized. In those terms, thinking about violence and power and how they mis-shape people’s lives, I thought it was really powerful.
Did anyone see that French movie starring Monica Bellucci? I forget the title but there was a long rape scene (with horrific beating) that took place in a subway. At one point, someone sees the violence and just walks away. I didn’t even watch the entire LONG scene or rest of the movie. There was definitely a “shock value” factor to the whole thing.
Interesting, it was Monica Bellucci in the film Malena we discussed above. According to IMDB.com the movie you’re thinking of is called Irreversible. Apparently her current and ex boyfriends then took revenge on the rapist. Sounds like you didn’t miss much.
I will always have problems with movies and books directed or written by men which have rape scenes. They rarely seem to get it right.
As a sexual abuse survivor I just cannot watch these or read them, ever. I wish there were warnings on covers of movies and books so I could avoid it!
Unfortunately, last night I watched “The Whistleblower” with Rachel Weiss. It was a good movie about human trafficking, and I thought it was done reasonably well. But there was a very brutal rape scene that I really could have done without. It’s in my head now and it won’t go away. I’ll have to watch “Absolutely Fabulous” 100 times to minimise it.
Thank you Blue Milk for watching those two movies and thank you for your excellent analysis.
I don’t watch many movies, fiction in general doesn’t interest me much. Most of the movies i have seen which include rape have quite unambiguous rape scenes where the rapist is clearly in the wrong and the victim is clearly traumatized, like Thelma and Louise.
One movie really bothered me though, and i guess – a bit like this movie – what bothered me was the ambiguity. I thought the lack of consent was pretty unambiguous, but (to the best of my memory – i saw it about 10 years ago) the victim was very blatantly held totally responsible. I only caught the end of it on TV, i’m rather glad i didn’t waste my time with the rest.
It was 40 Days and 40 Nights. The plot seemed to be that the main character gave up sex for lent and was having difficulty resisting by the end. The scene in question involved him somehow physically restraining himself, for the last night of his challenge so he couldn’t break his pact with himself or whoever he was inspired to do this for, tied to a bed i think (weird way to resist, but it was a silly movie, i looked up reviews apparently he was also trying to resist masturbating).
While he is like this, a female character comes in and has sex with him while he is unable to move. It went into a bit of a dream sequence, i think he was supposed to have been driven mad by 6 weeks without sex. I don’t know how well i am remembering this, but at the time it seemed he was aroused (or at least that was assumed by the genders of the characters), but he also seemed clearly non-consenting. Afterwards he was held totally responsible, a girlfriend-like character seemed angry at him for being unfaithful.
Has anyone else seen it, maybe there was more lead-up which makes it make sense? Maybe he’d invited the malicious-seeming female character? but he seemed not to want the sex when it happened, and even if he’d invited her over, he’s allowed to change his mind, right? It didn’t seem like some weird game, it seemed like he genuinely didn’t want sex.
I just read the wiki article to check my memory, he was waiting for the other female character, the girlfriend character, and wiki describes what the malicious female character did as rape (so at least one other person saw it the way i did). But the male character still (in the words of wiki) “wins Erica (the girlfriend) back by reminding her of the special moments they shared during their relationship”, surely “reports Nicole (the rapist) to police” would be the more reasonable course of action? That movie really bothered me.
Some of the criticism seems to have been a bit restrained by critics not wanting to spoil the ending, but surely a comedy is already rather spoiled by a rape scene at the end? There is no way you could do that so blatantly with a female character? Or do i just not watch enough movies to see that happen too?
Very interesting post, thank you. Strange that they simply remade the film, and didn’t go back to the actual book to reinterpret – which, incidentally, doesn’t have the rape scene (but does imply, in one small paragraph, that Charlie does enjoy hitting and raping women). Makes me think they were only cashing in on the notoriety of the rape of the 1971 film to make a quick buck.
… Now how about a remake done with a female director?
When I was younger, I snuck out of bed and secretly watched the movie “a time to kill” while my mom and dad were watching it. Since then I can’t stomach a rape scene. My older sister feels the same way. The hills have eyes, I spit in your grave, last house on the left…I absolutely can not watch a rape scene. I avoid them like the bloody plague. Thank you for your review, it was very well written, you have a good eye for hidden points in movies. I’m glad to know I am not the only one that can’t stomach a rape scene.
Thank you for taking the time out your day to compare these two films intelligently. I have been trying to make sense of the rape scene (Straw Dogs 2011) for two days. At first Amy appears to be very resistant and then in the course of if she calms down. I thought i saw her kiss back at one time (you got to help me). But in the end her eyes showed that she did not want it and Charlie is in disbelief. The second guy comes in and she freaks out! Even in the 1971 version she does this but in that version she’s going along with it and seems to like. I think its mainly that little bit of feeling for an ex lover? Who knows, But well written and interesting.
Excellent Review.
I spent some time questioning this rape scene, obviously an intention of the director.
It was the class war depiction which really struck home for me – leaving me with (nearly) equal hatred of low class social barbarity and higher class liberal lah di dah. One hopes a common middle ground can be found one day.
That was fucking brilliant!
send me an email if u wan’t to fuck chat
on
stephny83@gmail.com
I don’t know if it adds much to the discourse here, but Dustin Hoffman’s first sexual experience was as a rapist. Apparently the applause of his friends even drove him into acting. How heroic :eye roll: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Dustin+Hoffman-1384.html
I didnt understand what you wrotte well enougth, but what I understand in 2011 movie rape scene is that the girl want it but resist it. And that in that scenario she likes charlie more than the other guy. I got that from the rape scene itself, previous to that, and after.
Previous she is asking for it.
In the rape scene, she is portrayed as enjoying in the last part, and letting go.
After, she keep it to herself.
And in the last scene, she is more concerned that charlie was killed that the david health, and dont even aknowledge david when he leaves, just keeps there looking at charlie.
Thats how I understand the movie, and it fucked with my head, all of it, so I google it to get more explanations. There was more simbology like the music, second rape guy puts its the same one david plays when killing the guys and stuff like that. Fuck up movie. Made me want to scream and even cry.
improve your English please, your comment is indecipherable , no offense !
When I wrotte the post above I didnt notice this was a rape blog.
A well realized piece. I am a man and think you are spot on about the never-ending attempts to make a rape scene erotic. As you touch upon; rough sex with consent is not rape nor is a fetish or a woman being turned on by a man who is, say not physically appealing but somehow touches the right buttons. However, there is a myth about a woman enjoying rape. That is sick and quite pathetic. I am no die-hard left-winger but there is something wrong with a world where men can ever think rape is a sexual experience: it isn’t – it is an invasion!
A long but excellent blog article.
Lee
Ok for the movie 1971, david leaves with henry leaving his wife alone in the house. Does this tell us that david left amy for good please explain i am probably at lost but it seems to be that way
Interesting piece. I’m quite late to the buzz around the movie but I have unanswered questions and different angles to look into myself. For example, what was the meaning by giving the crew (singling out probably Charlie) a strip tease in the window after her run? She knew that she was being looked at as a piece of meat. People have responded that it was a “fuck you” sort of gesture like you can see all you want but you won’t actually get. That just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to provoke them. When i first watched this, I took it immediately as an underlying sexual tension between her being objectified by Charlie and the crew not only liking it but encouraging it. Any other thoughts?
Another question. After the rape – why didn’t Amy tell David immediately what happened? I haven’t seen anyone cover this yet and I feel rather stupid for asking. What exactly made her give in eventually to Charlie’s way and why does she insist on being around them shortly after it happens. Why didn’t she just go straight to the authorities etc.? Scenes like this intrigue me very much and I love being thorough with the meaning for me to enjoy the movie fully. Was it a sense of her not wanting to be in shame or pity? Is she meant to secretly enjoy it .. before the other guy comes in, obviously.
I realize this is a reply to a post you made a few years ago so I’m not sure if it will go into the cyber ether and be lost in space. Your thoughts and critiques of the Peckinpah movie are excellent. I agree with you the rape scene is done in such a way to leave room for wrong takeaways as to the nature of rape. I am male and I can tell you if I were raped not only would I feel physically disabused but also emotionally and spiritually defiled humiliated and powerless. I would like to bring your attention to A book titled “my secret garden” it was written in the 70s and is a compilation of female sexual fantasies one of which is a rape fantasy. It is an academic work and was controversialwhen it first hit the market. The other thing I would point out is that Peckinpaugh was examining the deeper nature of humanity both male and female. He did it in a ham-handed fashion but I think he had a sincere intention to explore the more malignant aspects of human nature. There Is an author named Ardrey who published books in the paleoanthropology field that were influential on all of Peckinpahs work. Ardreys works claimed humanity had evolved as violent territorial carnivores who raped and pillaged throughout history. So there is deep within our instinctual heritage both the residue of the rapist and the raped. There are many ways we wish that life might be different or better but alas we are only animals with a very thin veneer of civilization. And like the stones song says “rape murder it’s just a shot away”.
Thankyou for writing this. It has really confirmed what i thought about the two films too. The so called ‘Rape’ scene in the films has had me befuddled. I just couldn’t work out whether she actually enjoyed it by the end but then felt guilty for enjoying it or whether she was going along with it to lessen the pyschological anguish/guilt afterwards.
It’s annoying that this one scene has taken away my focus from what is actually a very clever power play movie but that’s maybe what they intended. That maybe women in particular are supposed to be in some ways consenting of being forced into sex because we all actually want a manly forceful man?
I don’t know any women that would open the door to a man who they suspect has hung their cat unless… They actually wanted a bit of sexual tension because their marriage isn’t as happy/sexually exciting as animal murdering ex boyfriend.
It’s interesting how the perception of what woman want hasn’t changed much since the 70s. Not!
I enjoy watching the rape scene. I find the concept of a woman not being able to say ‘no’ to the forceful advances of a masculine man very erotic
At least you’re honest, dickhead.
I agree with you though maybe my wife have the same fantasy She mostly thinks about being raped and I I would like to rape somebody doesn’t sound right but it sure makes my penis hard. Just a fanticy
Amy is a slut who teased them knowingly, let the guy who “got fresh” with her once (as she says so in the beginning of the movie), then consented after the penis was in her. She knowingly cheated on Charlie. I don’t care if you’re single and get raped and like it, I care if you’re married and let it happen. What in the fuck is the point in marriage if not to stay faithful?
knowingly cheated on David* not Charlie
“Letting rape happen to you”… luckily I already wrote a post for you on here.. it is called “But why shouldn’t she take some responsibility too for the rape?”
1. The only sluts in the film are Charlie and Norman.
2. She did not consent. She never said “yes.”
3. Even if the did consent “after the penis was in her” that means the beginning of it was still rape.
4. She did not cheat on David. Being raped is not cheating.
5. Rape, by definition, is against the will of the victim, therefore, no one can “let it happen.”
Amy was not rap the first time but what she didn’t know it was a second person in the room who played the music
I am a male who recently watched the remake and have not seen the original. Rape scenes are very disturbing to me and I would not have watched this film if I had known about it. I agree with most of your post.
After reading a man’s review of it I completely lost hope in people. Thank god I came across this and now there’s a spark. Thank you for putting this out there, there can’t just be…. Them