In her review of Straw Dogs, influential New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael famously called it, "the first American film that is a fascist work of art." Discuss what you think Kael meant by this statement. Incorporate your observations about the film's engagement with issues of gender (masculinity and femininity), violence, and politics/national identity.
According to Cook (in Lost Illusions), how does the concept of the auteur play into our understanding of American cinema from this period? (Be sure to discuss what underlies the concept in your answer).
After screening the clip of The Wild Bunch's opening credits sequence (above), and taking into consideration the clip shown in class and Straw Dogs, how might we think about Peckinpah as an auteur?
(An addendum to my mention of Britain's banning of Straw Dogs - it was banned from many theatres and then from public home viewing under the 1984 Video Recordings Act. It couldn't be seen in its original form until its DVD release in 2002. The rape scene was edited down in order to receive a R rating from the MPAA. We saw the un-cut version of the film in class.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
According to Cook's book, the concept of the auteur plays into our understanding of American cinema from the 1960s/1970s because it was a time of controversy for the film industry. Filmmakers were filming films with controversially new stories in controversial ways that they really defined the way films were made in the future.
After watching STRAW DOGS (1971, Peckinpah) as well as the opening sequence of THE WILD BUNCH (1969, Peckinpah), I have noticed several things that may classify Peckinpah as an auteur. First off, therer was an excessive use of violence and sexuality, at a time when that was not used in films all too often. To show a regular, non-violent (appearing) citizen transforming into a violent individual (self-defense) proves that anyone is prone to violence, whether they want to admit it or not. The whole take on violence is a don't ask, don't tell policy, but what would we really do if we were in the situation in which Dustin Hoffman & Susan George's characters were pitted in.
Another thing that shows that Peckinpah as an auteur is his ability to increase the suspense of a particular scene by making use of quick, editorial cuts and by using Jerry Goldsmith's original score.
According to the trivia page on STRAW DOG's imdb.com webpage, Peckinpah got into a heated argument with his star Susan George over how he was going to film her initial rape scene. At first, he was hesitant to tell her that he was going to focus on her body rather than her facial expressions but when he finally gave in and told her, she threatened to resign from the film's production. So, Peckinpah instead focused a majority of the scene on her eyes and face, rather than her body. This is an excellent example of collaborative filmmaking, listening and taking advice from one's actors.
Nicholas Naber
9.21.07
Keal describes this movie as a “the first American film that is a fascist work of art” this may have multiple meanings. In the film Straw Dogs there are multiple undercurrents and symbols of the time period. The idea that the movie is fascist come through especially in the vigilantly justice that the towns people want against the pedophile man who killed the daughter of the town drunk. It is also evident when David changes from the more almost feminine to the masculine role taking charge over his home and defending it from the crazed towns people. Violence in Straw Dogs is brutal especially in the rape scene, when Amy is raped twice. Also, the scene where the men are trying to break into the house and David is beating them back left and right, pouring hot oil on them, killing one with a bear trap, beating a man to death, and the other more gruesome deaths within that scene.
Cook describes auteur as a film “ …bearing the signature of his or her personal style, rather than the work of a collaborative collective (68).” This is apparent in Straw Dogs and all of the other movies we have viewed. This movie has a certain earthy, dark violent character that Peckinah is known for in his films. As the book discussed his films always have a certain point of view, with violence and symbolism.
It’s apparent even in the opening credits that there is a foreshadowing of violence. The ants are killing the scorpion. Just like in the clip we saw in class, there is great aggression in the scene of the cowboys shooting up the town. Straw dogs isn’t so much shoot em’ up as it is psychological and disturbing. In viewing parts of Wild Bunch and all of Straws Dogs it’s safe to assert Peckinah has an extremely defined point of view when making films. He is about violence but he is also about the story and character development. David is a completely different character by the end of the film and so is Amy after being brutally raped and sodomized. This leads one to think that he uses a plot in his films and follows a system that he has defined for filmmaking.
I think the fascist style that Kael is referring to in her statement is in regards to the way the violence is framed within the film. There are very long takes when it comes to the violent moments in the film, most notably the scene in the house near the end. Whereas with a film like Bonnie and Clyde, where it seemed the actors were choreograophed to fight within the frame of the camera, with Straw Hats it appeared as if the camera was following this ballet of violence that the actors take part in. The camera becomes handheld for the first time in the film, and there is a moment of tension included in every shot until the fight is resolved- even the shot of all the actors on the floor after they’re dead has an eerie feeling to it, as the camera slowly pulls up, revealing the record player stuck at the end of a 78 rpm. Sound plays a big part in this too, with the foghorn constantly blaring, there’s this whole feeling of tension within the viewing of the film, it’s like being stuck in one where the regime is based on violence, much like a fascist state.
Cook’s direct quote is ‘[Peckinpah] ended the 1970s in failure when auteurism became an impediment to the direction the industry had finally taken.’ He also says, however, that Peckinpah came at a time when the industry needed directors. This means that his films will be remembered as most 1970s films are, from a specific time when the industry wanted to try something new. This can be the explanation for the attempt at the graphic and choreographed fighting films that he released. While they weren’t all successful, they will be remembered as something that was attempted from this period, much like the Altman ensemble films. While both concepts were weened out of Hollywood, although arguably action films today really aren’t all that different, they still stick out as ‘new wave cinema’.
Peckinpah seems to concentrate on several concepts as an auteur of film. For starters, as seen with the Wild Bunch title sequence, he makes a strong attempt for characters to be portrayed as they fully are, as Altman always used to say, “I want strong characters, not strong actors.” This seemed to be a newer concept from that time, as before, when a character walked on screen, it was practically automatic as to who the actor was, whereas in The Wild Bunch, the viewer is given the actor that plays each character right at the beginning, with the identification matched up with the face of the character they’re playing (as the action of the film is already beginning to unravel). This leads to the next concept that Peckinpah concentrates on in his film- pace. The pace that Peckinpah takes is quite fast compared to many films of the time. By using such techniques as speeding up scenes that are minimal in dialogue but extending action sequences and verbal debates, the films of Peckinpah tend to move quite rapidly. Other techniques, such as combining opening shots of the film with title cards, as in The Wild Bunch, also tend to aid this field.
Shiraz Bhathena
With regards to Pauline Kael’s declaration of Straw Dogs as a fascist work of art, I have to assume she didn’t know what fascism meant, and was using the word to describe some other negative elements of the film, in much the same way that people often attribute odd meanings to Communism. I really can’t spot anything in the film, it’s production, or it’s reaction to critics that can be called fascist. She didn’t like how the film portrayed and treated women, so she called it a strong word with negative connotations. Otherwise, the best I can figure she meant was that his auteur attitude seemed totalitarian. However, as a previous poster pointed out, he WAS willing to make a few compromises with people in the production itself.
As for auteures in this period, it seemed to imply that as the highly beurocratized and structured studio system fell apart, new moviemakers were able to fill the void, without too many higher ups backseat driving their films.
From various clips, we see that Peckinpah flexed his auteur muscles to try new, non- stereotype characterizations. Not so terribly heroic heroes, not so cute children, not so pleasant/old fashioned villagers.
I have to agree with a few of the comments above that when Paulina Kael called Straw Dogs “the first American film that is a fascist work of art” it was slander and an inarticulate way of describing the film as a controversial piece of work. However when considering Sam Peckinpah’s consistent incorporation of extreme violence into almost every story he’s done, its plausible to say that the comment may have been a reaction to the extended rape sequence depicted in the film.
Auteur filmmakers of this time had been originally reliant on the studio system to fund and produce their works but in turn would sacrifice some control over an area of the project like re-writing, casting, production budgets, etc. As their commercial Hollywood successes built onto the next, some filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick, and later Peckinpah himself, moved away to European countries to not only take advantage of financial opportunities like tax breaks, but to also escape the conservative, controlling power of Hollywood. David Cook’s Lost Illusions says an auteur is an artist “bearing the signature of his or her personal style, rather than the work of a collaborative collective.” The signature of an auteur is something that is found consistently throughout many works. Peckinpah’s signature seems to be a specific perspective through violence. The opening scene shows even children participating in it as they watch two deadly scorpions suffer under the hoard of some fire ants. Quick research on IMDb.com shows that the film was considered to be a revitalization of the Western and that he was “Pouring new wine into the bottle of the Western; Peckinpah explodes the bottle.” This elaborate, stylized exhibit of excessive violence became a staple in Peckinpah’s filmography making him a well-pronounced Auteur during 1970s cinema.
In regards to Straw Dogs being,"a fascist work of art," I'd have to agree that the statement is a bit of a stretch on the term fascist. However, there is the element of the English gang overpowering Dustin Hoffman and Susan George. This American teacher, who has their object of desire, being strong armed for a good portion of the film (the death of the cat) is much like the high handed terror used by fascists. Although I thought that racism played a bigger role in fascism, the role gender plays in the film is pretty old fashioned and caveman like. Susan George is introduced to us with a shot of her bra less chest. Througout the film Hoffman belittles her intelligence and tells her what to do and where to go. In the last fifteen minutes of the seige at the house, when she does make a choice to leave, he makes her stay and even strikes her. Hoffman, through the course of the film, has his manhood belittled by George often due to his inaction (his "interrogation" of the gang after the cat's death, his lack of "commitment" to the anti-war movement back home). Then there is the English gang acting as the ultimate alpha males that work in construction, drink heavily and seeing women only as objects of desire. I think Hoffman and the English gang have similar ideas of women and that these ideas are penetrating women's minds (George stares at the gang from the window topless). Most of the violence in the film is by Hoffman's character near the end of the film, despite his non-violent attitude/demeanor. It is easy to say that the rape scene is the most violent, George being hit several times and then sodomized by another gang member. From what I saw on the screen, the first guy who raped her, she didn't seem to enjoy it but I noticed her carressing his head at some point and kissing him back which made me question her character.
Cook describes the importance of the auteur in 70's American cinema by saying,"although it was market driven, the studios' embrace of auteurism represented a genuine attempt to bridge the generation gap, which brought with it a few years of real artistic freedom and resulted in some of the most original American films since the late forties." Despite the concept of the auteur being around since just after the medium arised, the auteurs of this specific time were given a real chance, after it proved marketable to the youth, to make films with out having to conform with the studio system that had fell years prior. There were cuts to be made for ratings purposes but other than that, the filmmakers were in control more than they have ever been before. I don't know if that says they were more original or had better ideas than directors prior to them, but considering the turmoil at this time it seemed like these films, or similar ones would have been made regardless of the studios approval or exploits.
When thinking of Peckinpah as an auteur I have to think of violence because that's about all I hear when his name is mentioned. I've only seen his work shown in class but would have to say that he does not rely on violence in his films to entertain as much but to make statements or ask questions. The ending of The Wild Bunch, lots of guns and lots of bodies flying, the opening on the other hand only shows the men passing by, mainly a group of children enjoying the fight between the scorpions and the ants. They are being entertained by fight so he could be saying something about the link of an audience and violence or the natural appeal it has in general. Regardless, Peckinpah is telling the story the way he sees it, which seems to be very realistic and raw in it's view of violence which was in question at the time of the release of both films.
-New York film critic Pauline Kael famously called Straw Dogs, "the first American film that is a fascist work of art." I think she means that this video shows power unlike the other videos of this time. I dont think she means government power but male power. In this video they strive on showing how men had more power over women during that period. It showed with the husband doing the work and making the money and the women doing pretty much what he said and also how much power the men had on the women during the scene where she got raped.
-According to Cook the concept of auteur playing a big role in understanding the American cinema from this period by changing the way films were made. According to Cook, "We were really running it, so we could introduce this new perception of how to make another kind of movie." This shows in Straw Dogs because they put scenes in this movie that weren't in any other movies during this time. The rape scene was a great example of this. No other movie had this sort of sexual content, but I think this was a one of the first movies to have it.
-After watching that short clip, we might think of Peckinpah as a secretive filmmaker. He seems to like to make his films where you are always into the movie because you want to know whats going to happen next. I think that is a great tool to have in filmmaking.
In Lost Illusions Pauline Kael referred to STRAW DOGS as "the first American film that is a fascist work of art.” Fascism is basically dictatorial control. Now the way I see it she could mean that David (Dustin Hoffman) was the dictator over everyone else. Or that the group of men are the dictators over both David and Amy (Susan George). Also, maybe the power that men have over women. I, however, think that David is the dictator. At the beginning of the film we see him as being very shy and standoffish. By the end he has complete and total control over the situation at hand. Also, the men make fun of David because he is an American and are all jealous of him because of Amy. She is very attractive and they all want to be with her. In the first scene Charlie and Amy were flirting with each other and David seemed intimidated. But in the end he ended up killing them all. There are also some gender roles being taken. Amy is the object that all of the men want. She flaunts herself in front of all of them with and without clothes and then wonders why she gets raped. I’m not saying she was asking for it or deserved what she got, but it definitely made her appear more irresistible to them. She is obviously inferior to the men, as women still were at this time, but she does put a pretty good fight.
From the 1960’s to the 1970’s an auteur was someone who had his or her own personal style, instead of mimicking normal Hollywood directors at that time. Peckinpah is definitely an auteur from this time. The styles that he has in his films are like no other before him. He foresees the violence that lies ahead in the opening credits of THE WILD BUNCH when the scorpions are being killed by the thousands of ants. It very much reflects the scene in the end when the cowboys open fire on the town. In STRAW DOGS when the men are trying to keep the iron trap open and it snaps back you know that at some point the film will come back to it and something bad will happen. Peckinpah gives you the clues, but keeps you wondering when, how, why, and so on. The rape scene was for sure something that you know he went out on a limb for. As hard as it was to watch it made the film have so much more meaning to it. I don’t know if I would have felt the same way if I had watched it when the scene had been cut from the movie.
I believe it is Fair and Unfair for Keal to call this movie a "facist work of art". I believe Keal was referring to the way Amy was treated during this movie. She was not only violated by the antagonists of the film she was also physically dominated by Dustin Hoffman's character. Towards the end of the film he smacks Amy, grabs her by the hair and tells her that he is going to break her neck. The movie did show what role society had given women. They were sex objects who really had no pull in the relationship and often viewed as childish or immature.
To say Peckinpah was an auteur is getting it on the head. As shown in the wild bunch, he grabbed attention with his state-of-the-art violence scenes. Not only did he capture the violence he captured the raw emotion that is happening while the violence is taking place. We saw more of Amy's and facial expressions more so than the actuall rape, and to me it was horrifying. This kind of shooting wasn't really showed at this time. The same with the Wild Bunch he gets into the emotion, the excitment and fear of what is about and is actually happening. Violence is a touchy subject, and Peckinpah doesn't really glorify it as much as he does depict it. Dustin Hoffman becomes the most violent character because he is emotionally pushed to the limit. His cat is killed, his house is being vandalized and broken into, and he witnesses the murder of the Major. Peckinpah showed when violence is absolutely necessary, he doesn't glorify it.
Joe Evrard
I know that we where told to explain why we believe this movie was considered fascist or not but the only thing that I really noticed in this movie was not fascism but sexism. The introduction to our leading lady was a shot of her breasts. Then later, when she is going to take a shower and takes off her shirt by the window, she doesn't seem to care to much that the men working on her house are starring at her. The fact that this movie only has one main female character that is looked on through the movie as just a body instead of a human really pushes this movie to be overpowered by a male-dominant theme.
As for the violence, it proves a small point instead of being completely unnessary. There is not one person in this world who doesn't have a breaking point. Anyone, no matter how nice or noble, can be pushed hard enough to turn to violence. This movie might have gone a little to far with people actually dying, but Dustin Hoffman's character did what he thought he had to do to basically survive. This violence, just like with the ants and the scorpions in THE WILD BUNCH show almost a Darwinish method to violence in these movies. Basic instincts to survive can easily turn to violence.
This was definetly an interesting movie which contradicts the way filmmakers do it nowadays. In current movies, the main character would find out that his wife was raped and get revenge in probably a violent manner, or the strong female character would even get her own revenge on those who did such a horrible act. I thought this movie was a little different in the fact that Hoffman's character never found out about his wife's rape, and seperatly, he would rather kill many people than give up one. (the one he hit with his car)
I can understand where Kael is coming from. I can understand her calling it what she did (Being a female and all). But the uses of masculinity and the degrading view of women are not enough to call it what she does. This isn’t “Triumph of the Will” by any comparison. I do sympathize with her though. It’s portrayal of women is a bit harsh, but then again on the flip side so is “Mr. Mom”.
I do not have Cook’s book, but I’ll try to understand it from the bit of knowledge I have about the “auteur”. The 1970s is a perfect auteur era. Certain directors have a unique style that identifies them. If you can start watching a film and recognize who directed it, then that director probably has a unique style. Scorsese has a unique style when it comes to his gritty, violent films like “Mean Streets” and “Taxi Driver”. Spielberg has it with his summer blockbusters in “Jaws” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. The overall feel of the 70s, though, belongs to the violence in films. Violence in film has hit its peak in Hollywood in the 1970s. Violence defines 1970s film.
Peckinpah’s art, like Scorsese’s, is violence. The opening sequence of “The Wild Bunch” has two scorpions being attacked and killed by ants. Along with that of course is the stylized use of violence in both “The Wild Bunch” and “Straw Dogs”. The deaths are never fast. The deaths caught on camera are always slow and hypnotic. It’s almost of Peckinpah wants to you entrance you in his art.
I think that by this statement, Pauline Kael is pointing out the fascist like control that Dustin Hoffman’s character seems to constantly brandish over Susan George’s character. The movie sets up the sexist theme very early in the film, merely in Susan George not wearing a bra and a shot I recall of panning from her face instantly to her breasts. The concept of the auteur is heavily reinforced by these films in the sense that both display brutal violence that seems only possible in the savage world of nature; however this same violence is an undeniable part of civilization, like a repressed instinct that resurfaces, sometimes in extremely destructive forms. In this sense I believe Peckinpah was exploring these socially unacceptable urges whether they are violent, sexual, or degrading in nature so that the public would come to fully understand the underlying role psychology plays in the actions of the individual. The necessary action of individual repressing these desires subconsciously effects the way in which the individual deals with the stress of their environment. However without the constrains of social order in an extremely stressful environment these previously unacceptable desires and violent urges suddenly surface into the conscious mind, and play themselves out in the manner we viewed throughout the film Straw Dogs.
-Brian Shea
Sebastian Juarez
What I think Pauline Kael meant when she called Straw Dogs (Peckinpah.1971) “the first American film that is a fascist work of art” is that Straw Dogs glamorizes violence and the thug mentality (scary young men out to terrorize citizens). In her review she talks about how “the goal of the movie is to demonstrate that David (the protagonist) enjoys the killing, and achieves his manhood in that self-recognition.” In this film, a man is not considered a man unless he is chauvinistic and able to commit brutality against his fellow man (and especially woman).
The women in Straw Dogs are shown as sexual objects (wearing tight fitting shirts and short skirts), as teases (being nude in front of the window where the local help can see), and paying for their sexuality by being brutalized by the men. The rape scene of Amy Sumner (Susan George) is not portrayed as a brutal act of violence against a woman. It is shown more as a consequence of a woman who was asking for it by her actions. She is shown smiling during the rape scene. This film is taking place during the Woman’s/ Feminist Movement of late 1960’s - early 1970’s. Many women and men took offense to how Sam Peckinpah portrays the women in the film and the violence that is perpetrated against them.
The concept of the auteur during this period of American cinema is one of the directors controlling the style of the film with little input from outside sources. In the past, the studio controlled the making of the film. The studio had a say in all parts of the film from casting, budget, and content of the film. The rise of independent producers like BBS during the late 1960’s gave way to the director having more power and influence in the making of their films. The independent producers let the director do as they wanted as long as they stayed within the budget of the film. After the success the independent producers had in the late 1960’s the studios followed suit by creating departments within the studio to create films with small budgets. In these sections of the studio the director was given more freedom in their making of the film with less input from the studios.
This concept of auteur differs slightly from original idea of the auteur. The original idea was that the director-writer was the one who created the style of the film. Some of the directors who were considered auteurs were Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, John Ford, and Howard Hawk. Some of the directors of period of 1967 – 1980 would be considered auteurs in the original sense of the concept. Some of those directors would be Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Woody Allen, and Francis Ford Coppola.
Sebastian Juarez
Note: Straw Dogs is to be remade by director Rod Lurie (Resurrecting the Champ, 2007) with the screenplay to be written by Lurie and Reed Steiner (The Shield TV series). It is tentatively set for 2009.
I think that what Kael meant by it was that Straw Dogs was showing powers that was controversial for the time period of the film and for history. What I think that she’s saying is that the way that Peckinpah was portraying the characters as they are in real life, the brutality that people do not see on film at the time. I think that the role of femininity and masculinity that was being portrayed in this film was very clear: the local thug working on the garage who ends up raping the wife and the husband who protect his home from the thugs. I feel that in this film the women was portray as a sex machine, from the beginning when she was shown walking down the street with a bra and the girl who tried to hit on the husband. The men were portrayed as tougher and have the authority to do as they want.
According to Cook, the concept of auteur played into our understanding of American cinema from his period was that it was the original ideas, the first of its kind to be done and acknowledged. They are a work that “ideally be a means of personal artistic expression for its director; bearing the signature of his or her personal style” (Cook, 68).
As an auteur, Peckinpah was brilliant in showing his style of violence and as Cook said it, “the WILD BUNCH(1969), which in this unprecedented violence was the first film to take advantage of the new freedoms offered by the CARA” (COOK, 82). The beginning of The Wild Bunch was some what the same as Straw Dogs were it shows the characters as they are and what influence they might have later on in the film. In his film, there is a since that there will be violence later but we don’t know when. He likes to explore and show the controversial parts that society are not used to seeing. I think that the brutal violence is his mark in film history.
When Keal called "Straw Dogs" fascist, I believe she was referring to the graphic amount of violence in and the fear the characters felt as a result of violent behavior in the film. These qualities could have a symbolic subtext, which in turn can be seen as a type of propaganda used to influence the film’s audience of the time. Fascist regimes used heavy amounts of propaganda to influence their citizens and keep power in the government.
As Lost Illusions tells us, the time period where “Staw Dogs” was made showed drastic changes in the movie industry. The studio system collapsed and newer film makers educated in the auteur theory had more creative control over the films they made. Being an auteur meant one had to apply their own personality and style to film. Peckinpah demonstrates his auteur spirit in the clips and film we saw in class. Each Peckinpah work showed isolated locations with a gritty representation. The use of violence works well with this style. Peckinpah used graphic violence much like a painter uses oil on canvas. His use of violence supports the plot and gave the audience subtle views into the thoughts and ideas of the film maker.
Christian Turckes
The only way I think I can interpret that statement, is that all the men from Straw Dogs, thought lowly of women, and that they were just there for disposable pleasure, hence that rape scene in the movie. Also in that same scene, violence is brought into play, with the hitting of the wife, and then the other man pulling a gun on the first rapist. The men in that village had no problems with violence, which is what I think really makes it a fascist movie.
I think that becoming an auteur in the 70s, was the only way to become a recognizable name in directing movies, because if you could make movies that had a style all your own, that people really liked, I think that you could have a very good career in the business for a long time.
I think that Pekinpah is auteur, and his style is very unique. He seems to have a taste for dark comedy, like the kids playing with a scorpion, and watching it die,in the beginning of The Wild Bunch, and grotesque violence, like in the shoot out in the end of The Wild Bunch, and the traps Dustin Hoffman sets for his prey in the end of Straw Dogs, which not many people had succeeded in copying, and even those who have been able to copy his style, I don’t think it makes as good of an impression, because he just does a much better job at it.
Fascism - "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." – Robert O. Paxton, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” 2004.
We can see the English gang and David Sumner as both having fascist traits. In Straw Dogs we have a party of English alpha males who humiliate and torment a wealthy American and his wife. The gang commits heinous acts without hesitation or remorse. Like someone said before, they see women as nothing more than objects for a specific outlet. David Sumner’s actions exhibit sexist characteristics when he orders his wife around and puts her in her place. Peckinpah’s display of brutal redemptive violence might contain aspects of fascism but to label the film as a fascist piece of art is a bit of a stretch.
American cinema in this period was changing in terms of style and content. The concept of auteurism was very prevalent in the 70’s and can be seen as the driving force behind the changing of directions. Directors for once had the freedom to fully express themselves and really put their artistic signature on their work.
We know that having creative control over his movies was important to Peckinpah, and he definitely made sure to put his stamp on them. His focus was on violence and he successfully opened audience’s eyes to many forms in his films.
What I think Kael is referring to is because the fascist part of the film is not crass or pointless, it is meant to change people's ideas and make them think. When I read that quote I thought of the movie 'Crash' where I read many people didn't like it because of its racism and some would walk out. That made me think that maybe they were seeing something of themselves in that racism and couldn't stand it (of course they didn't realize this and it wasn't with all people who believed this of course). So like Straw Dogs, because of the time it was made, I believe people thought it was fascist in a bad way, but in reality they couldn't face that this was just a, I can't think of the word, but overdone (on purpose) representaion of what the director saw in the world.
Someone else had quoted Cook with “ …bearing the signature of his or her personal style, rather than the work of a collaborative collective (68)," which I think sums up auteur perfectly. This decade of movies seemed more personal than movies in the past. The movies were more about how the character was being affected rather than what the character was affecting, if that makes sense. And because of all that was going on in the world at the time, filmmaker's took advantage of this to put their opinions out through their work in an artistic way, more subtle than films before.
Peckinpah seems like an auteur because he let's the actor's and the scene take over the movie. The camera follows the action, not vise versa. Everything in his scenes and films seems so purposeful and the way the camera and the actors move, its the audience's job to follow them and pick up what's going on, nothing is handed to the viewer.
I can maybe see why Pauline Kael described Straw Dogs as fascist. David Sumner as well as the English men of the film displayed many fascist traits. Through out the film the English men humiliated and tormented David and Amy. The men don’t seem the least bit bothered by the acts they do and show no remorse for doing them. They see Amy and other women as object to do whatever they please with. David shows sexist characteristics as well towards Amy throughout the film. He orders her around and treats her like a child at times. However, I agree with other students that calling the film a fascist work of art might be a bit of a stretch.
The idea of auteurism was very prevalent in the 1970’s. With excessive use of violence and sexuality in his films, Peckinpah could very much be described as an auteur. This style of film making definitely was attention grabbing and Pechinpah did that with both Wild Bunch and Straw Dogs. And this was a time when this style wasn’t done by many film makers. Pechinpah definitely has his own style. Like Becka said Peckinpah keeps giving you clues during his films, but he keeps you wondering when, how and why.
Although fascism isn't the word that came to my mind when describing STRAW DOGS, I don't think Kael was wrong in her description (although I would like to have read the entire review). Fascist is an adequate adjective to describe the town and their mob mentality with the pedophile. When I think of fascism I typically thing of governments - dictatorships with aggressive nationalism. In a way, I thought Straw Dogs might have been commenting on the government and their involvement in Vietnam (and how it was moving towards a fascist society). The draft made it mandatory for men to participate in a violent crusade against a faceless enemy (guerrilla warfare is hardly cut and dry). These men were forced by the government and supportive citizens to enter a violent war, despite their own personal views. Like wise, David is forced to become violent. His passive attempts to reprimand the workers are met with mockery and the raping of his wife. He is portrayed as being weak and feminine, while the other men (who are not afraid to pick up a gun or rip a woman's clothes off) are portrayed to be masculine. Likewise, the American society during Vietnam often portrayed members of the counterculture as weak and feminine (as we saw in Easy Rider). Straw Dogs certainly bore parallels to American involvement in Vietnam.
Auteur is defined as having complete control over the film and presenting it in an individual manner - creative freedom. Peckinpah was certainly creative and original in his portrayal of violence in STRAW DOGS. I got goosebumps during the rape scene; it made me feel physically uncomfortable. The portrayal of violence in that scene achieved what previous films could not - realism. Nothing was left to the imagination. Similarly, the ending is complete with many different brutal, agonizing deaths. The death in the trap was particularly barbaric and horrific. Although Bonnie and Clyde's death might have been monumental, I think that Peckinpah certainly rose to the occasion with his portrayal of violence and death in STRAW DOGS.
The only image that struck me in the opening credits of THE WILD BUNCH was the ants attacking the scorpion. Typically we think of scorpions as being powerful. Watching the ants attack the scorpions as the children look on in entertainment had a disturbing element to it. After all, a mob is surrounding (and to a certain extent, cheering) the tortuous death of another creature. Then again, it's just scorpions and ants. Honestly, I didn't see anything monumental in the opening scene. I also felt that the scene we watched in class was relatively mild in comparison to STRAW DOGS.
Cook's concept of an auteur made a significant leap in American filmaking because many different kinds of films were created that had individual qualities of the director. During this time (1960's-70's) many new directors had a large influence and their own perspectives on how the movie should be made. Many did not care if the movies would offend anyone or be controversial because it was what they wanted. Since watching both STRAW DOGS and the couple scenes from THE WILD BUNCH I have noticed a number of things Peckinpah incorporated in his films. First of all, he was not afraid of showing his audience "real life" violence. By that I mean he changed the way movie violence was made to make it look more realistic. Instead of showing a man shooting and the next scene a man holding his gut with blood on his hand, Peckinpah would show a man getting shot with a shotgun and blood spraying. I didn't really understand the thought of any fascist thoughts in the movie aside from the fact he made the American was the hero and all the Europeans were selfish and evil. Maybe that's what we were supposed to be looking for, maybe not. Thats what I saw in it. Chris Krombach
I think that when Kael called Straw Dogs “The first American film that is a fascist work of art” that it could mean different things. But I have come to conclusion that it is probably talking about the way that Amy was being treated throughout this film. How powerful men were over women and they could pretty much do anything to control what happened. Throughout the whole movie Amy was getting ordered or yelled at to do curtain things that she may or may not wanted to do especially towards the end of the movie when the men were trying to break into the house. One example in particular where Amy was especially taken advantage of was when the two men raped Amy and how they treated her and forced her to do something she did not want to do. These things showed so much that men were so much more powerful than women where at this point in time.
Auteur meaning showing ones originality and personality in a film applies to Peckinpah film, Straw Dogs very well. A lot of the film makers personality has come out through his work in how he shows violence. For example towards the end when he is trying to keep the men out of his home and all the different ways he attempts to keep them out. Peckinpah here is starting to get express his way a violence in a whole new way and show how its progressed through this time.
Kelly Grzybowski
To me it seems as though “fascist” is just suppose to be some dirty word, like how a conversation might digress into someone calling some other person a “nazi” or “communist”. As a lot of posters above me have said, it really doesn’t see like Pauline Kael was very accurate in expressing of emotion towards the film. Now that is not to say I don’t think she would be right in saying there is an excess of violence and gender issues. I cannot say excess is a bad thing in this particular film though, it isn’t an annoying excess, it is a building an exploding excess that feels justified under the characters stress.
The importance of an auteur in this specific period of film is that the studio system was failing, it was pouring out money. New film makers were given an opportunity step in and making something different, some their own, they put their personal stamp on their style and it changed the way we see movies now.
What I take from Wild Bunch’s opening sequence is that Peckinpah was an auteur in the sense that his staple in film history was that he would portray violence, not only through physical violence but also by a more representational violence. The kids poking the scorpion that is being attacked by a horde of fire ants shows us in the beginning of the film that if you think these kids are badass, wait till you see the dudes with guns. The Wild Bunch would be known for its graphic violence, this became Peckinpah’s “thing”.
Kevin Stephan
"the first American film that is a fascist work of art." is a quote used by Kael. When she said this i believe she was referring to was overall how contorversial and violent the movie was for its time. I mean never before has a movie had a rape scene in it, where the main character was raped not once but twice. Plus the movie became more and more violent as the movie went on. The main character who at the beginning was a nice guy, but had a small anger problem, became very very violent and would lead to many that he is very capable of doing worse things then what he did at the end. Plus throughout the whole movie Amy was phsycially and mentally beaten. Not only was she physically harmed by the rape and by dustin hoffmans character, the rape had to take a mental toll on her and how dustin's character treated her personally. Never before this time had a women taken this much abuse from anyone. Which i believe Kael thought was disgusting. This film was just like a lot of the others around this time because of the controversy, which just added to the mix. Now after watching the opening scenes from both movies they had one thing in common and that was violence. Which was a key role for a lot of these movies because it brought them lots of money and controversy, but the violence, well actually the extreme violence was a very common thing throughout both movies.
Thomas Penglase
I think Kael described Straw Dogs as "Americas first fascist film",because like a Fascist regime this movie was largely dictated by one mans vision and complete power and control over how it was made. I think you could also say the fact that he used his power in film making to create one of the most violent movies of the time was much like a fascist leader often controls and dictates his goverment through the means and use of violence.
The concept of auteur plays a large role in our understanding of this period in film history. The old generation of film makers ideas were dying out and there became a great loss of interest in cinema. When the film industry discovered that the largest concentration of movie goers belonged to youths aged 19 to 24 they gave the younger generation of film makers a chance to display their talents. These new directors told their stories in a new way howerever, largely without the dos and donts from the higher ups of the industry. This is what allowed the great breakthroughs people experienced in films during this period. Especially in Peckibahs case where the ultra violent and graphically sexual scenes he created could have never been done in the past with old Hollywoods group collaboratives and values. I think this period showed the shift in values of an older generation that was busy being cozy,naive,and"safe"to one that finally deemed overtly violent and graphically sexual scenes as something acceptable to view on the big screen. Id like to personally thank the auteurs because without their crazy and violent values my eyes might have never witnessed the crazy and violent world of the first Terminator.
The fascism comes from the portrayals of the characters themselves, particularly the hostility toward the “outsider” in David Sumner. He is not exactly greeted with open arms in the community, and they seem to be banding against him in a way. The community seems to be ruled by that Catholic Church, which makes itself apparent when the priest visits David's house. David is initially reluctant to go to the party, and the priest becomes somewhat angry, as if he is expected to abide by him. Women are portrayed with a sense of fascism in that they succumb to the orders of men. David is increasingly barking orders at Amy and she obeys, especially toward the end of the film during the violence. When she is raped, she also obeys fairly easily, even when the other man steps in. The violence also occurs in a fascist manner because of the struggle between the group and the individual. The individual is persecuted for his beliefs, so to speak, by trying to protect the man from being killed, and the group obviously will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal.
The auteur concept helps us understand what the beliefs and the standpoints of the director really are. The fact that these filmmakers were making art that was entirely personal really led to the idea that the director is the sole creative force of the movie, and that the collaboration was merely from a technical standpoint. Sam Peckinpah injects his ideals of male chauvinism and masochism into his movies. He does not compromise with censorship that takes away his artistic integrity, which really shows he is an auteur because there could have been so many factors that would have changed this idea before the film was finally screened.
Kael's claim about Straw Dogs has a great deal to do with the new, uncomfortable concepts of violence and gender that were being observed in cinema of the early '70s. In Straw Dogs these ideas were schockingly presented in a way that reminded critics of Bonnie and Clyde and A Clockwork Orange. I feel that Kael got the idea of fascism through the film's depiction of David, who begins as a pacifist of sorts and in his desperation becomes a man of vigilance. He take matters into his own hands by single-handedly killing seven men, and it is the result of a transition that is brought on by facist feelings.
Cook's feelings on auteur cinema of this period is evident through the way he describes Peckinpah as being one of the last auteur directors. Cook examines his career and points out that Straw Dogs seemed to be the last of his films that was aimed more towards that of an auteur artist, whereas most of his following films were geared towards financial issues. Therefore, this period in cinema was still open to auteur directors, but was beginning to decline some. As far as Peckinpah as an auteur, it seems as though he was one of sorts through his creativity. For example, he uses unconventional film techniques in the opening scene of The Wild Bunch, such as freeze frames during the credit sequence. The Wild Bunch was also noted for its protrayal of violence, which is another credit that could be added to Peckinpah's list. This continued in Straw Dogs, where he was relentless with violence and rape, and it was the freedom to create that compelled him to be an auteur of sorts.
Melissa Neumann
9-26-2007
By Kael’s statement about Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs,” I believe she was focusing on the vast amounts of violent acts that occurred in the film. Many things that people might consider disturbing happen. Though in all honesty, I don’t believe what Kael said made sense. It seems, as someone else stated, that she doesn’t seem to know the definition of ‘fascist.’ Though I do think she was focusing on the disturbing images in the film. In the movie, women are portrayed as being weak and helpless. The men in the movie can easily rule over the women. The females all are put through various tragedies because of the men. The men are powerful; the women lack power and are just objects. David orders Amy around and never shows her respect. She gets raped and sodomized and can’t fight. Even during her rape, Amy goes from fighting it to enjoying it. With the violence, we see different ways of killing, different types of tortures. And with identity, David is an outsider who doesn’t agree with what is going on in his home country (violence), but doesn’t fit with the locals of his new town, and the townspeople harass him and his wife.
According to Cook, certain directors of the period were getting known for a specific style of movie they were making. Moviegoers expected this style from these directors, and because of it, they became popular for these types. Pekinpah had violent movies, and that is what he was known for and what was expected from him. From what we see in opening scenes of Pekinpah’s movies, like “The Wild Bunch” and “Straw Dogs,” it foreshadows the movie, telling us that this isn’t going to be very pleasant. In “The Wild Bunch,” with the opening titles, there are children enjoying the massacre of ants by scorpions. In “Straw Dogs,” we see villagers who don’t seem like the friendliest folks you’ll run into.
As to the fact that in class we saw the unedited version of the movie, I was actually expecting worse than what I saw. None of it was that shocking. The rape scene was sad, but I’ve seen worse things. The same goes for the killing. The only disturbing part was the death of the cat, thought the cat did look fake.
This movie is a harrowing example that black and white don't exisit in our world only gray. It shows conlicts on all fronts with women being an object, from the opening shot of dave's wifes breasts to the control and submission men want over women (the rape), with the church condoning money for worship, from the outcast of mentally disabled people, to violence leading the pack in right or wrong. Keal describes this movie as a “the first American film that is a fascist work of art", in true though its not at all a facist piece just a documentation on american ideals at the time, it shows wrongs to make rights,showing that David it actually the strongest character even though he is portrayed as a coward, until the very end, he is less of a coward then anyone with his views on doing the right thing, protected an unarmed man that can't take care of himself, its intreguing how everyone focuses on the violence and rape of this movie without realizing its purpose, to show what are natural instincts are to prove were still animals. The acting in this film is superb, both George and Hoffman standing their ground against one another and neither giving up an inch. Their roles are the pivot points for the rest of the film, and if they fail, if they make the Sumner’s too cowardly, or too childish, or even too loving, then the film is not as gripping or as interesting. The violence here is very hard to stomach, and the ending is relentless, but this is violent images put to good use, this is a very grim look at reality and war, personal war, and what it means to stand for what you believe in. This film starts not just a violent revolution in terms of gore but in character dvelopment that deals with intense stiuations of this nature.
I think it's almost comical the quote by Pauline Kael labeling Straw Dogs as a fascist work of art. I see it as comical because the film has really no connection at all with fascism; rather it was Pauline's way of attempting to voice a strong opinion against the movie in defense of women. Thus the statement becomes hypocritical because of the very inaccurate description of the film. However, this inaccurate statement does give a good idea of the kind of shock value the film gets out of its viewers. The film presents issues between gender which during the raping scene becomes very uncomfortable and almost depressing delivering a paranormal shock to the viewer. Also the violence from the locals versus the violence from the outsider, David, sort of gives the viewer a sense of emotional attachment to David against the locals because they are so violent and constantly drunk. In Kael's quote she mis-labeled the film however was spot on in saying that the film valued such a high shock value that no negative word could describe it accurately.
An auteur is someone who had their own personally style, taking the path less traveled and branching out from typical hollywood directors. During the 60's and 70's Peckinpah was and still is considered one of the most successful auteurs of his time. The violence and foreshadowing in his films had never been used quite like Peckinpah before. As someone mentioned earlier about the scorpions and ants alluding towards the gun battle at the end of the film; or in Straw Dogs the Bear-trap. Both show Peckinpah's great love of foreshadowing. During this time of a shifting Hollywood it was very important to be a true auteur because the typical cl'ech'e film of the time were not successful; film goers wanted something new, something fresh, something they hadn't seen before. Which is why Peckinpah was successful just as Scorsese and Lucas were under the same auteur idea.
Kaels comment about how Straw Dogs (1971) was a "..Facist work of art" could have came from the many uses of extreme measures that were taken in the name of justice. This may also have came from the gruesome rape scene, and the scene which David fights off the men by beating them or pouring hot oil on them. This also could be a Facist work of art because of the specific gender roles that were shown in the movie. David put himself in front of his wife and so did every other man in the movie, the rape scene hows the gender roles in full force by how she was forced to have sex because of how scared she was of the stronger man.
According to Cook and auteur artist is one who separates themselves from the other artists by building a gap in between their work and every other artists work. After i had watched Straw dogs and the opening scene from the Wild Bunch i have noticed a couple ways in which Peckinpah could b classified as an auteur. One of the reasons was the abundant use of violence, which was not used by filmmakers that much in that time. He may also be thought of as an auteur filmmaker because he used violence in his own way which in turn separated his work from other artists of that time.
The concept of an auteur means that the filmmaker of a work of art has complete creative control over the work of art and gives the film a personal mark plus shows a unique creative style. Peckinpah exemplified this concept fully. He takes everything into his control on this film and does it in a well organized fashion. Straw Dogs and the limited clips of The Wild Bunch epitomized this concept. Peckinpah was an agent of change in putting violence in film. He was known as “Bloody Sam,” a master of violence and exquisitely rendered this in Straw Dogs. In the final scene of The Wild Bunch that was viewed in class displays the violence that Peckinpah was known for. This principle of an auteur was exactly what New Hollywood was all about and Peckinpah was leading the charge. The final scenes of Straw Dogs show Peckinpah’s extreme use of violence. Dustin Hoffman’s character takes a stand against the Englishmen and holds his ground. Contrary to what I thought was going to happen; Hoffman, with the help of Amy kills all of the intruders in his house in a very violent gruesome way. Peckinpah’s innovative way of showing violence and gender in film is what makes him a perfect example of an auteur.
Nathan Radoszewski
The term fascism that I believe Keal is referring to is that of forcibly suppressing opposition and aggressive nationalism. This is clearly evident in how Amy is treated. She is forcefully suppressed using fear and then she ends up getting raped by not one but two men. The gender roles are also strongly enforced. David is a meek man that is also being pushed around by the stronger more aggressive males. He is even tricked into going hunting because it's the manly thing to do. The violence plays a very important role. Keal uses fascist to represent the idea of how a fascist government is seen - in the way that things are forcefully and violently suppressed. This doesn't make the film bad though. Keal also uses the word art, and that's what this is. It's beautifully cinematic and has a great overall story.
Cook says that the studios embraced the auteurism as a way to relate to the masses. This was used to bring out creative ideas and make a connection with the audiences. Peckinpah can easily be seen as a auteur. Peckinpah's films, aside from the violence were not just marketed things that people wanted to see,but they were his own ideas and feelings. Similarities between Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch don't just end with the violence and the overall cinematics,but also how that violence is portrayed. In The Wild Bunch you see the kids laughing at the fighting bugs and in Straw Dogs the men get drunk and treat killing someone like it's some kind of party.
I believe the term 'fascist' applies to the amount of control in STRAW DOGS. Everyone is trying to be in control. Tom was the drunk father and ring leader for the towns trouble makers. He was always trying to impose his will on the town and eventually all the focus shifts onto Niles and David. The Major wanted to be in control because he represented the law and a structured system that he wanted impose on the town. The rape scene is about control and putting Amy in her place under Charlie (?). David for the longest time is afraid to be in control which is why he is usually so passive. At the end of the film David has his awakening to what must happen, and that is that he must take control of the ever growing madness. Amy attempts to get control of David during the house attack scene but David rises over her and everyone else and assumes control. Amy represents the male vs female perspective in life and that the film is commenting on how men are more violent and over powering in gender roles. So the term fascist applies to control and perspective of the characters in the film.
As for being an auteur, Peckinpah uses the camera to be an eye of focus. Both STRAW DOGS and THE WILD BUNCH examine violence and the different responses to it. We dont just see in his films, we watch and experience. We dont just witness the rape scene, we become part of it. That's why it was so important to leave it long, as hard and disturbing as that may be. Or when David went duck hunting. We watch his struggle to actually kill one, but as soon as he does we become part of the film as we witness his pain as he notices what he has done. The longer one can watch the suffering, the more they become part of it. Like the scorpion in the opening of THE WILD BUNCH. We watch the scorpions suffer their death and be destroyed by hundreds of ants. The helplessness and brutality of the scene forces the viewer to almost sympathize with a scorpion, which is strange since a scorpion is usually feared and not pitied. The duration of violence in the house attack in SD and the final battle in TWB aren't about glorifying the spectacle of violence but rather how people react to it. As an auteur, Peckinpah uses his camera to make audiences witness and be part of the challenging aspects of the film while engaging with the story.
Alex Brucker
Marisa Marcus
It is difficult to ascertain what Pauline Kael exactly meant by stating Straw Dogs was a “fascist work of art” without reading the entire review. However, Kael may have been approaching the film from strictly a political perspective. One of the perceived accusations generated from “right-wing” politics is that “left-wing” or liberal politicians tend to be too appeasing, especially in times of danger, and this sort of appeasement tends to have disastrous effects. If one wanted to compare this accusation to the events that occur in the film Straw Dogs, the character David Sumner begins the film as an appeasing, non-confrontational individual, whose nonviolent actions appear to have no active effect on the oncoming events. It’s only when David Sumner takes action by becoming violent that his actions appear to have any successful effect. The fact that his excessive violent actions appear to have a “justified” cause, seem to advocate the use of violence as a justified action. Especially given the context of an era in which people were willing to try nonviolent means as a form of action, this concept in itself might seem controversial. The fact that the violence in this movie is portrayed in such a graphic way, as well as its possible justification, may have been the reason why Kael objected. She possibly objected to this concept mainly based on what she might possibly have felt were severe "right wing" ideals, even going so far as to make an extreme claim that this was an example of fascist ideals in cinema.
The chapter in Lost Illusions that explores auteur cinema concentrates on the fact that new filmmakers were given more creative control over their work. Because of this there were more chances for experimentation and innovation, as well as gave directors a chance to develop their own unique style. The fact that Peckinpah decides to explore such controversial subject matters distinguishes him as an artist. Also, his exploration into violence and unconventional film techniques also grants him a particular style that can be recognized in both The Wild Bunch and Straw Dogs. His distinguished style as well as his experimentation in unconventional techniques and subject matter set Peckinpah apart as an auteur.
In my opinion, Pauline Kael's quoted review of Straw Dogs uses fascism to allude to power. The whole movies is filled with power struggles between all the characters in many different ways. As prompted, powers shift due to gender, violence, and nationality politics. Amy Sumner seemed to assume she was powerless by being a woman and tried to fight her battles with the men working on the house through David Sumner. The one time she tried to stand up for herself (her attempt at interrogation) ended with her being raped, a situation where she was powerless. Violence was a huge power representation in this film as well. The town rapist was constantly abused and slapped to be kept in line, the town drunk roughed up the bar to exercise his power, Amy was beaten into consent to the raping, and even her own husband ended up slapping her and controlling her in the final battle scene. Also to be considered is the theme of nationality. Right from the beginning David advertised himself as an American with his choice of cigarettes. All the locals working on his house thought him strange and had no quarrels with doing him wrong by luring him away from his house to abandon him on a hunt and eventually besieging his house.
The concept of the auteur plays in this period of cinema because so many directors were given their own freedoms to become the authors of the films. Peckinpah didn't have to worry about corporate stooges changing his ideal film (though from a previous post it seemed he had to compromise with Susan George about the rape scene) and so his style is quite evident. Compared with The Wild Bunch, there are many similarities that derive from the fact that Peckinpah was allowed to pursue his ideal version of movie-making both times. The Wild Bunch is seemingly a violent and power based film, as expressed with the scorpions being overtaken by the ants and the ever more powerful children orchestrating the whole thing. Also, the obviously rough'n tough gang of cowboys have a great deal of power under their belts. From my little experience, I can come to the conclusion that these themes are very important to Peckinpah and he likes to take them on in all of his movies. They are his personal qualities that make him such a unique auteur.
Dylan Statz 004
Colin Stone
Kael's description of a "fascist work of art" seems to be an exaggerated reaction to what I think could be more aptly characterized by an extreme sense of a patriarchal societal structure in which woman are overpowered through violence and force. Gender roles are clearly characterized, as are the inequities of those roles. The extreme violence, especially in scenes like the rape scene (as many have noted), in conjunction with Peckinpah's "unique" perspective towards gender and violence don't negate the fact that that perspective, sexist as it may be, is integral to the development of both the plot and characters, and how they develop towards the end.
As an auteur, I think this would be simply illustrated by the fact that he, like many directors of the era, strayed from what was thought of as the "norm". His use of editing styles and portrayal of violence strayed from classic hollywood "formula" films, therefore, defining it as more of an accurate vision of the director as opposed to a corporate compilation of what the studios hoped would be the next cash cow, pandering to a "typical audience"
When Kael referred to Straw Dogs as the first fascist film, I think what she was referring to was the violence discharged upon the house and it occupants by the local militia group. Here is a group of men who shot down the law only to take the law into their own hands; not thinking about any of the consequences that may follow. Their only motivation in the end is to humiliate Hoffman (which they pretty much have already accomplished), and the hatred they feel towards the other two occupants. Really out of hatred, humiliation, and unity (shown through the group fighting together) can an idea such as fascism survive.
Now for Peckinpah being an auteur, that is quite evident seen as he surfaced during the period when filmmakers began to push the boundaries of modern film and tried to overtake all the steps of production. Before the 1960’s-70’s the production companies would control where the film was to be shot, who was going to be the main actor, etc., etc. But now with the new wave film students, of the 60’s and 70’s, graduating, these students wanted everything to be done their way. Only then would the film be “perfect.” Because Peckinpah felt agitated with Warner Bros. for purposely releasing his film Cable Hogue in second run theaters to create a loss, he left to ABC Pictures where he filmed Straw Dogs, and would have more control over the production and releasing of the film. Peckinpah fits the definition of an auteur perfectly in my eyes.
Tom Emmrich
The fact that this film has been called fascist is a little disheartening to me due to the relative passive nature of David, his lack of nationalism, there is no mention of centralized control of private enterprise or dictatorship. The only thing that seem to be relative to this film and fascism seems to be the repression of all opposition, but this only comes after numerous attacks on David’s wife and property. As the Cinefiles state in their discussion of Straw Dogs, David only resorts to violence as a last resort and as a defense. This statement of fascism then must be looked at as more about Peckinpah’s direction of this film. The fact it is an American director and American protagonist in a story that doesn’t make the British look very modern or reasonable is probably one way in which this film could be said to have a subversive nationalism. This idea is a little misaligned though due to David’s fears and explanations about himself and his ideals. He states that he didn’t run away from what was going on in America, he just isn’t one to get involved and the only violence that he witnesses in his country, “Takes place between the commercials”. As far as the films depiction of masculine and feminine roles, this film showcases an endless display of these archetypical characters. There is Charlie and the rest of the workers who have a rugged masculinity about them but are uncouth compared to David’s emasculated cowardly nature and intelligence; Amy’s innocence about her dress compared to the Lolita nature of Janice (both pay for their womanly charms); Male dominance by not only the masculine characters, but also the emasculated males (David and Henry Niles); the reversal of roles in the end when Amy takes the gun and saves David. The idea of the impotent male shows up a few times in this film, Henry and his feebleness, David and his lack of mechanical ability, and quite literally the Major and his one gimp arm unable to perform his task at hand.
I don’t have the book yet so I was not able to answer the Auteur theory question as far as Cook is concerned but it is easily recognizable that Peckinpah had a style unique to his films, one of graphic violence and distinctive editing.
I think Pauline Kael called Straw Dogs for a number of reasons. The whole story takes place in a town that is ran by seldom people and the impact of localized government cease to be. The town was to be a certain way and the people of the town did whatever it took to keep it that way. During the climax of the film, the townspeople took an authoritarianism approach on the house and they were in the mindset that they were leaving until they got what they want. Another form of fascism is that the men viewed women, more specifically Mrs. Sumner, simply as a sexual device. The men in the town held a certain bond that led to balance in the town. It was the society of men that did what they pleased and nobody did anything to stop them. A main goal of these men were to sodomize women, and with using their numbers as a tactic, the men saught after that goal. Other than symbolism I don’t see any blatant fascist qualities to Straw Dogs.
During this time in cinema many directors were adding personal influences into filmmaking. Peckinpah was quite interested in real-life violence and how it is portrayed. Both the movie Straw Dogs and the clip from The Wild Bunch showed his boldness for this (seeing how some of his movies were banned in some countries). Violence was portrayed very differently before this time, and the new style was shocking to many. Looking at movies nowadays I can see the influence of filmmakers and films of this time.
I believe this statement was made, because of the strong POV within this film including but not limited to gender, violence and politics. For instance gender, mostly this film is from a male’s prospective. I said this because the lady although she is married, walks public without a bra and she also shows herself to other man. She is nothing but a sex object as well as a slave around the house. Her opinion matters very little and she is the one to break down at the end when the four men were trying to break into their house. Violence in that nothing was hold back in regards to making it seem as real as reality. For instance, the snap of the trap into one of the guys head as well as the pull of the trigger, several times, once into his own brother and another into the Marshall as he was trying to take away the shotgun. Political in that nothing was done to protect the mental/weak man from the public.
Well I guess auteur help this generation to break from the old traditional way of filmmaking and in return it produce many different aspects of presenting different ideas to the public. For instance, more graphic interms of showing violence and sex scene such as what we saw in Straw Dog as well as The Wild Bunch’s and in Bonnie and Clyde.
Defne Tuzun
Koua Xiong
Straw Dogs defines the male role as a person of power. Dustin Hoffman's character for instance, was very controlling of his wife, played by Susan George. George barely had an opportunity to voice herself in the marriage. This unquestionable control is analogous to fascist ideals. Even other males in the nearby town had physical dominance over George, most obvious is when she is raped. Complete dominance is asserted, the male is the fascist. By defining every male as a dictator like role, collisions of power are inevitable. The males attacking Hoffman's house and his desperate attempt to defend it is the manifestation of this collision. Violence only seen in other Peckinpah films of the time unfolds. Hoffman employs lethal and grotesque means to defend his home and wife, and kills his assailants. Violence is the product of opposing fascist powers. Now five dead men now lay outside and around of his home. The bodies of five men of England, five bodies that once held such destructive and chaotic personalities. Was this an attempt to expose England's rural communities as barbaric and lethal? Peckinpah may have been outlining England's decline from law, the same law that America holds so dear. Hoffman, the American, is very rational, logical, while the English townsfolk are drunkards, spending all their hours off the job at the pub. Peckinpah may either be presenting real issues which England should address, or he is merely being nationalist to his country, and thus painting American as better. America is the fascist.
This era of film is the rise of the independent filmmaker. These pioneers are creating new issues to analyze, new ways of presenting these issues, and a stylistic change that can only come from fresh talent. The auteur is what these pioneers were titled. Filmmakers who participated in every form of direction, production, etc. These men were the absolute driving force the project. Their hands are in every cookie jar. And in turn, a style emerges. Each auteur defining their own niche, just as important as the rest. And so films became varied. Each film was something entirely new and fresh and different. The auteur revitalized the film industry.
Peckinpah has chosen a violent niche. His style is more brutal, and a little hard to watch. Breaking from regularity, his style is individual. He, an auteur, delves himself into every aspect his film's processes. And so the films feel as if they are a whole.
The words "fascist" and "auteur" share a lot of the same implications; complete, authoritative control vested in a dictatorial ruler -- power (especially appropriate for a discussion of Peckinpah) acquired and maintained through violence.
Understand, though, that as an iconoclast auteur Peckinpah (and most of his early '70's ilk) were the rebellion, creating their own order to destroy the existing order, not to fill an anarchistic void.
To clarify the specific reference, "sexism" more or less equals "fascism" in the radical jargon of the 1970's: this was a time for strong words, accompanied whenever possible by strong action...whatever cause you got, man, bang the drum loudly. Culturally, it's a crescendo of battle noises, and there in the midst of it is Peckinpah, a lone gunman of sorts, firing his own loud shots from his own big guns. Peckinpah was a beacon on man's inhumanity to man...and since this is a gender-sensitive discussion I hasten to clarifiy "man" as "mankind"...humanity in total...that is, yes, women too. The ugliness of war can make a war of all things; culture, sex, entertainment, philosophy. There is something honest about ugliness, something perhaps terrifying, in that it's endemic to all of us, an inborn component of the soul, inescapable.
Brian Cooney
The reason the films we watch in class are so controversial is because of the idea of the autuer. The directors of these films put whatever they felt like in them, no matter what the critics or movie raters may think. STRAW DOGS is a great example of this because it was banned in Britain for so long, and it had to be cut down to recieve an R rating.
Peckinpah is definitely an auteur. He is one who will make his film the way he wants no matter what. He must have known that almost all women back when this came out would not appreciate his rape scene or the way the men in his film treat the women. This film, as well as the two scenes from THE WILD BUNCH, had very excessive, brutal violence that was never shown before. The seemingly innocent children watching the scorpion be overtaken by the ants reminded me of the retarded brother in STRAW DOGS. They seemed harmless, but were capable of performing some terrible acts against others.
This film was probably thought of as fascist because of the way women were portrayed, the way Dustin Hoffman started acting towards his wife towards the end, and the way the men on the roof acted in general.
For the record, I just can't see an astrophysicist with a gum-smacking bimbo.
I agree with Victor--I think she thought fascism is just a fancy way of saying evil. In fact, if you try really hard not to think at all throughout the entire film, it just seems like a messed-up pile of violence and woman-hating. Susan George is not at all likable, except for sexually I suppose, and even once she is raped it's hard to feel for her because of her gallivanting around topless before that. She and the town hussy are manipulative, and they seem to thrive only on the way men look at them. The redeeming quality of this movie is in its portrayal of a man defending his home--we all have animal violence in us, but most of us keep it pretty well stifled. This film shows a dramatic un-stifling of Dustin Hoffman's character's potential for violence, and shows a man that will do anything to protect his home and his ideals.
Seems like Peckinpah is interested in mob vs. individual violence--the shot of the scorpion being overtaken by ants reminded me of the whole of Straw Dogs. Looks like The Wild Bunch is pretty violent, just as Straw Dogs was. The black and white in the credits also is very similar.
Jennifer Campbell
I believe the term fascist is misused by Pauline Kael. I believe that she means that this film is a violent in its representation of women and politics. The power that men had not only in politics but over women is very evident. The only people of power in this movie were men – not jus the commander, but also the village men, despite not having an official position of power they obvilously had power which results in the comanders death in the final battle scene. Dustin Hoffman’s character is also able to display his power by taking control over the fight in protecting the man, even though guilty, and killing the villagers off. The power that Charlie had over Amy was evident as well in the rape scene. I found this scene weird, because even though her words at the beginning seemed to spout frustrations, her actions at the end spoke of her submission, and almost pleasure of him domineering over her. This quickly ended when he allowed the other villager to join in, but again showed the power Charlie had over her through her feeble protestrations. Overall, this film did not provide an empowering message to women, but insteat seemed to reduce them to mere body parts put together for sex. This is evident not only in the close up shots of Amy’s braless chest, and the discussions that follow, but also with the young girl who later gets killed accidently. Because she eggs on the man the entire time through the film, you don’t really feel sorry or her, but rather her murderer.
In the 1960’s to 70’s, coof defines an auteur as someone with their own style that didn’t belong grouped in a collection of film genres. Peckinpah is definitely one of those directors. His films were highly violent, even in its nuances, not only outright. An example was with the bear trap – the opening of it was rather pwerful, and you knew that because of its violent treatment, it would later be a part of the ending violence. Not only did he capture the sheer outward violence, but the subviolence within sheer raw human emotions. Dustin Hoffmans character was a perfect example. He left the states to avoid being drafted because he didn’t believe in violence, yet found himself falling prey to it because he stood up for his beliefs in protecting the wife, and the man captive in his house.
I think that Pauline Kael was referring to the gender and violence issues within the film when she called it the “first American film that is a fascist work of art.” The two go together in Straw Dogs and so Kael considers fascism to be apparent during scenes in which we see acts of violence. The violence in the film is disturbing and yet it is hard to pull away as it draws you in to form an opinion and judgement on Peckinpah as a director. Nationality is also a big issue within the film, with the American being seen as an outcast in the English community and therefore a lot of the violence being centred on and around him. It leads me to consider whether the violence towards the character Amy was partly to do with her being married to David and the gender and national identity become linked.
The concept of the auteur plays a part in our understanding of American cinema during the 1970s as it brings in issues which audiences are able to identify with on some level. The style of filming is more personal and allows the audience to become more involved with the characters, unlike in classical Hollywood in which all films followed a similar storyline and presentation of the main characters.
From what Cook is saying in Lost Illusions, it would seem he considers becoming an auteur allowed Peckinpah to gain respect within Hollywood and become a director of what are considered to be some of the best films of the twentieth century. As the focus during the 1970s was on the younger generation, auteurs were able to reach out to the primary contributors to Hollywood's profit making during the 1970s. With Straw Dogs, Peckinpah broke boundaries in filmmaking by including long sequences of extreme violence and making them main focus points of the film.
buy tramadol hcl can someone overdose tramadol - buy tramadol with paypal
can you buy xanax online legally can 2mg of xanax kill you - xanax 0.5 effects
buy tramadol online buy tramadol missouri - buy-tramadol
xanax online buy alprazolam paypal - safe place buy xanax online
buy tramadol online get tramadol online no prescription - buy tramadol ultram
buy tramadol online get out tramadol addiction - tramadol 50mg is it a narcotic
cheap tramadol buy tramadol online missouri - tramadol 50/ 100 mg
buy tramadol online tramadol online american express - buy tramadol in usa
buy tramadol online tramadol hcl vs.tylenol 3 - buy tramadol online no prescription cheap
buy cheap carisoprodol carisoprodol false positive - carisoprodol 350 mg generic for
xanax online xanax yellow pill 106 s - xanax bars double stack
cialis online genuine cialis price - order cialis phone
xanax online xanax and alcohol fatal - xanax vs zoloft
buy cialis online buy cialis online cheapest - buy cialis without doctor prescription
xanax online no prescription xanax overdose seizures - xanax side effects menstrual cycle
buy tramadol online tramadol dosage rls - tramadol xl dosage
buy tramadol tramadol jwh 018 - buy tramadol for dogs online
http://blog.dawn.com/dblog/buy/#blog buy tramadol online overnight - tramadol hcl 50 mg abuse
buy tramadol tramadol overdose dose - tramadol dosage equivalent
buy tramadol tramadol ultram high - best place to buy tramadol online reviews
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#50897 tramadol dosage in humans - can you buy tramadol over counter spain
buy ativan online ativan withdrawal depression - can ativan overdose kill you
It's an amazing article for all the internet visitors; they will take advantage from it I am sure.
Feel free to visit my blog: dental implants cost
It Is All About MetabolismWeight loss training
focuses on speeding up the metabolism process.
Our metabolism digests food and supply energy to our whole body.
So apparently, the speed of metabolism is the only thing that
can reduce the fat building process of our body.
Feel free to surf to my website ... mdelec.host.et35.com
Post a Comment