Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Le Stephanois Brings The Old Male Barroom Attitude To Rod Lurie's STRAW DOGS!

Beaks here...

Rod Lurie's remake of STRAW DOGS isn't due out until September 2011, but the film has already been test screened a couple of times, and, last week, was shown to students at Syracuse University. Reactions are, predictably, all over the board on this one, and they tend to break down along Peckinpah party lines - which is why the below review from Le Stephanois is so intriguing. He's a "major" Peckinpah fan who happens to prefer Lurie's remake. Here's one suitable for framing, Rod...
It's hard for me to recall a remake that has drawn as much ire as STRAW DOGS, which seemingly everyone (at least everyone on the IMDb message boards) has lambasted and written off entirely. They refuse to believe that it could be good in its own right, that Lurie could have actually made a decent film. After seeing it, I can confidently say that anyone who might have harbored some prejudice towards the film should, quite simply, be ashamed. Neither I nor Rod Lurie need tell you that he is not trying to best Peckinpah, though it appears the naysayers demand some sort of explanation as to why it's being remade. That's easy. STRAW DOGS is arguably the best example of Peckinpah's misogynist ideology (this coming from a major fan of his work); Lurie, whose works are often defined by strong female protagonists, set our to reverse the original's misogynist implications. David and Amy Sumner (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth) are certainly recognizable as reincarnations of Peckinpah's David and Amy, though their ideals are altogether different. Lurie puts different human beings in situations close to what Peckinpah devised, and he does so brilliantly. The plot of Lurie's STRAW DOGS - David and Amy Sumner seek solace in Amy's hometown so that David can write in peace, only to be brutally antagonized by the locals - hews close to the original, save for some slight alterations. David is a screenwriter and not a mathematician, and the setting is the fictional town of Blackwater, Mississippi, and not rural England. The townies' new identities then correlate. One of the most admirable qualities of the picture, which most probably did not expect of it, is its slow-burning tension. This is not an obnoxiously chaotic exercise in extreme violence, but a classically photographed, deliberately paced and thought-provoking thriller, a rarity in today's mainstream cinema. Just because it is not relentlessly violent does not mean it is in any way 'STRAW DOGS-lite,' however; indeed, it is just as brutal and arguably as discomforting as the original, a major triumph considering Lurie's ideological framework is nowhere near as controversial as Peckinpah's misogynist mindset. The siege at the end of the film is extraordinarily riveting, the ending itself a revelation of sorts. And none of it is cheap or self-indulgent; the violence is beautifully choreographed, achieving a rhythmic intensity that is well-nigh overwhelming. It is during the siege that Marsden makes a quantum leap as a performer, projecting an eerie confidence that lends an extra degree of weight to the film's haunting conclusion. The utilization of the film's setting is similarly outstanding, as the bloodthirsty nature of a familiar southern football town mirrors the air of violence that persists throughout the picture. The meaning of the title is clearer (it's almost as if the title didn't necessarily suit Peckinpah's film, considering how well Lurie articulates its meaning), and the town's having an identity imbues the film with a unique atmospheric tension. Lurie masterfully cultivates that tension so as to constantly remind the audience that they are in the presence of men who are predisposed to committing acts of violence with a primal mentality, having been conditioned to beat the hell out of anyone that crosses them, be it on the field or in a more domestic arena. The acting is uniformly terrific, and Alexander Skarsgard might just be the best thing about the movie. In a subtle tour de force, Skarsgard is utterly mesmeric; you cannot take your eyes off him for one moment, and you even root for him and relate to him in the oddest scenarios. As a former high school standout whose knee - and scholarship - lasted just three semesters at the University of Tennessee, Skarsgard is much more relatable and dynamic than the Charlie (Del Henney) in Peckinpah's film. There is much to be said for Marsden and Bosworth too, both of whom give the finest performance of their careers thus far. Marsden tackles the Dustin Hoffman role with uncommon poise, unintimidated by the stature of the man whose part he inherited. Bosworth gives a mature, nuanced and at times disquieting turn, revealing a side of herself that should lead to plenty more roles in high-pedigree dramas and thrillers. Lurie's film is certainly not perfect, though it should obliterate the low expectations placed upon it by a small army of Peckinpah fans. They're certainly entitled to their opinion, but they would be wise to reserve their judgment until the picture is released next year.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST


    by topfivevideo

    Whats your deal man? Banning some guy for sticking up for people? Asking a question? What did you want? A moment of silence or something? Where the fuck do you get off you prick?!

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Good article Beaks

    by BlaGyver

    Just kidding, FREE VADER

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Stop banning talkbackers please.

    by fiester

    It's bad business and fascist to boot.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Greg Giraldo died.

    by JShanW

    Just sayin'.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST


    by topfivevideo

    we built this site asshat! everyday we come here and you guys get stronger for it! what right do you have? bricks and mortar douche!

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Mr. Beaks we shall forgive if you accept Stargate

    by DioxholsterReturns

    and force merrick to make a talkback

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:21 p.m. CST

    This is what it sounds like happened. Tell me if I'm wrong.

    by sweeneydave

    Beaks says, "Everybody come on over to my house. I'm having another party." He has parties all the time and usually people trash his house and have a good time. No big deal. But this time he says, "On this day only, I ask that nobody trash my house out of respect for something and so-forth. And if you do, I'm kicking you out of my house." Fair enough. He laid the very specific rules and even made everyone aware of the consequences. But then D.Vader (who is such a great nice popular guy) walks over and says "Oh yeah, I hear what your saying. I'm on board." And then with a smug grin, tips over a glass cat figurine with his finger. So Beaks points to the door and says "Out". To be honest, Aintitcool is really Harry and company's house. They invite us over. They tell us to make ourselves at home. They usually don't inforce any specific rules. But when they do, they have every right to enforce them the way they want. It's their house. It's not a country that we've created and established some kind of government and we must RISE UP and INSIST that they let us do whatever we want because aintitcool represents America. That's dumb. It's not about how major or minor D.Vader's disrespect (if any at all) was. It's not wrong for Harry to not allow us talkbackers complete freedom. It's their house. If you don't want to be here, go to somebody else's house and quit getting in the way of them showing me their cool geek collectibles.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by topfivevideo

    You don't get it do you? Thats not what it is at all. Using your example I have to ask, what at that time when everyone came over the house did he say not to touch anything? It's bullshit! Go f yourself!

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST

    by HansBubi

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by BlaGyver

    Beaks did not actually say anything offensive or crude in his post. He simply inquired as to why the rules were so strict for this particular talkback. Other obituaries on the site have been filled with flaming, but he wanted to know what was different about this one. Not so that he could go and say offensive things, just out of curiosity. This got him banned.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:36 p.m. CST


    by HansBubi

    Although that was a nicely written attempt to explain the situation in a relate-able way, it's simply not a very convincing example. Imagine if the person being asked to leave was someone who was a valued member of the party (not because he was the wild, hilarious life of the party), but because he actually contributed to conversations at the party and was respectful. Don't you think if you had someone like that at your house and at your party, and the person respectfully questioned you on the day you decided to be stricter (keeping in mind you know this person won't be a problem for you anyway), wouldn't you respond to the person's question/comment before calling the cops and acquiring a restraining order against the person. I think you need to reconsider the person who was banned and why he was banned. Maybe I won't convince you, yet I hope you don't get banned the moment you ask a question. I personally like questions, and I think a questioning attitude isn't always a bad thing if used respectfully and logically.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:37 p.m. CST

    I get it.

    by sweeneydave

    But Beaks even said that any comment towards this rule, either against or in agreement, will also get banned. Why test it if you know the rules. This particular article was a sensitive one to Beaks inparticular for whatever reason. And it doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. It's HIS house. He invited fans over to mourn. He has every right to get crazy, especially when he is feeling emotional about the article.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:41 p.m. CST

    I don't think the problem was the questioning.

    by sweeneydave

    I think the problem was questioning within the specifically sensitive forum. He should have sent him an email, especially since he knew what would happen to him.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Hey look, it's another Entitleback!

    by blackwood

    All websites with forums ARE fascist by design. Except you are free to leave if you don't like the regime.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by topfivevideo

    It's not his house, Harry has said it on more than one occasion that without us, the TB'ers this site wouldn't be here. A little respect would be nice and that door swings both ways.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST

    This is not a democracy...

    by JShanW

    Does it suck about this D. Vader cat? Obviously a lot of you think so. But guess what? If he hadn't been banned you'd be calling Beaks a pussy for not enforcing his own rules. Don't wanna hear shit about how Talkbackers make this site. You ever click on the ads? True, Beaks seems to have opened a can of worms he'll certainly have to deal with soon, but all you folks "protests" are juvenile and misplaced. Grow up and respect that you're a guest on this site. Don't like the decision? Stop visiting the site. End of story.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST

    This is not a democracy...

    by JShanW

    Does it suck about this D. Vader cat? Obviously a lot of you think so. But guess what? If he hadn't been banned you'd be calling Beaks a pussy for not enforcing his own rules. Don't wanna hear shit about how Talkbackers make this site. You ever click on the ads? True, Beaks seems to have opened a can of worms he'll certainly have to deal with soon, but all you folks "protests" are juvenile and misplaced. Grow up and respect that you're a guest on this site. Don't like the decision? Stop visiting the site. End of story.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST

    this is not a house.

    by HelveticaConspiracy

    it's a website. you can't tip over a 'cat figurine' on a website. that's just a dumb metaphor. having said that, i have no idea why everybody keeps talking about this 'd. vader' character; but, i do wish talkbacks would remain on point. now that's out of the way, i have to say this review makes me curious about the film. i'm not a fan of lurie's or bosworth's, but sounds like it might be worth while. now, everyone resume your bitching and moaning sessions...

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Groany Groan Groan

    by FailureAtTheCave

    Greg Giraldo becomes eligible to have an obit on this site, on the same day that this whole shitstorm happens ostensibly because of people being banned for ignoring orders to not do exactly the thing that Greg Giraldo himself made a career of doing! Let's get his obit up pronto and then have at it! It'll be post-modern... or "meta" or something...

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 6:02 p.m. CST

    D. Vader would never...

    by billyhitchcock1

    ...bring The Old Male Barroom Attitude

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Wait they made it LESS violent?

    by torontoxic

    The major strength of Straw Dogs was its crescendo. It is so frustrating to watch and then everything the worst part of you wanted to happen does. I hope this doesn't lose that.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST


    by torontoxic

    If you have some gay ass fucking community on here with familiar names and friends etc you're a loser. Plain and simple. In all the classic no pussy getting ways. Shut the fuck up and talk about the movie or the write up on the movie. Or fuck off. This place has long needed a screening process before allowing people to post anyway.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Shot in Techniscope

    by GalacticRaider

    This film was shot in Techniscope(2-perf 35mm).

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Revolution climate aside,

    by Aronofskys_GLEE_Reboot

    I wish I would have gotten the "no underscores in handles" memo before hitting "sign up"

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 8:41 p.m. CST


    by SebastianHaff

    Didn't Peckinpah himself say the title didn't really have much significance? Maybe I made that up, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he just liked the way it sounded. The story it's adapted from was The Siege of Trencher's Farm, and while it's arguably a more descriptive title, it's nowhere near as cool.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Fuck off you cunts.

    by Left_Nut

    That includes the quim who wrote this bullshit "review", and all the mongs who keep crying over some div who was too stupid to work out that he would be banned, DESPITE BEING FUCKING TOLD SO!<p>Idiots.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Surprisingly positive review, BUT...

    by Kammich

    The guy claims to be a big fan of the original, so its nice to see such a positive review of the remake. This had to be an EXTREMELY rough cut, though, right? The movie isn't scheduled to release for another year. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of the original... I'm a sucker for "revenge" films, and Straw Dogs is one of the best. Its really, really layered for a revenge film, and the performances(especially Hoffman) add to that depth. But some of the adjustments that are mentioned seem to kind of neuter the essence of the original... the dynamic of the marriage--a young, liberal woman with strong sexual tendencies and a sheltered, overtly-intellectual man who prioritizes work over pleasure--was a catalyst for everything that happens later in the film. the location of England is not only the wife's place of birth, but also a xenophobic source of discomfort for the husband. and finally, the violence... not only does it deliver a huge, justified finale to the movie, but it also manages to vilify Hoffman's character as the stereotypical violent American who--in some ways--instigated the final showdown. I'm willing to give this remake the benefit of the doubt until I actually see it, especially after this glowing review, but it sounds like the fundamental changes that Lurie chose to make may remove the very essence of Peckinpah's film.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Ban everyone bitching about D.Vader's banning as well...

    by Messiahman

    That way, the talkbacks will be filled with 100% less girlish whining.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Beaks and Faraci in: GeekBack Mountin'


    Yes it's a porno, but it's not so rapey so neither Beaks nor Faraci may sign on yet. Still, there's hope....

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 9:32 p.m. CST

    To honor Vader don't give these douches hits


    Go to /film or The Playlist or shit even CHUD, which will be a good way to stick a thumb in the eye of classless Beaks' even more classless underhanded chum Faraci.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Um... how does it reverse the misogyny?

    by mrgray

    The reviewer claims that Lurie's version refutes Peckinpah's sexist ideology, but I don't see anything in the review that actually speaks to this reversal/refutation. Did I miss something?

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Re: Reverse Misogyny

    by JillianneSix

    Lurie is known for making Speechless and producing Commander-In-Chief, both of which feature strong female leads (both being Geena Davis, as well). I was an extra on Straw Dogs and we had some long talks about how his "vision" of strong women would compare to Peckinpah's version of the movie which is admittedly heavy on the sexual violence towards the female lead. The crew confirmed a lot of this for us, in that Bosworth's Amy is much more independent and has her own mind about what is going on in the town and with Charlie.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 10:54 p.m. CST


    by ChaunceyGardiner

    So, here is a thread that has a potential to give good bread-and-sup time to arguably one of the most important films ever movies ever made, a profound personal statement from one of the most independent and frustrating American filmmakers of all time, and yet here we are again: three quarters of the talkback devoted to foolish blathering, gossip, fruitless conversation berating a website that they spent hours posting insipid, back-biting comments on. All is spent merely in the need to feel to be a member of a community - and yet, the purpose of the community, the films we discuss, how THEY bring us together, we end up going in circles, chasing arguments and insults from people we don't even know.<P>Thanks Kammich for actually discussing the film, and putting much of the emphasis on David's actions as a major actor in the social disintegration that occurs. Personally, I strongly disagree with the reviewer's assertion that "Straw Dogs" is Peckinpah's most bigotic, lunk-headed films toward women: I would say that "Pat Garret and Billy the Kid," as interesting as it is, or "Ballad of Cable Hogue," with its odd Romanticism that allows men to act like lechers as though they cannot help it, portraying lenience as forgiveness, which I do find morally distasteful as it directly impacts the director's view of himself and of his responsibility to others, these I find as much more "dishonest" or skewed films.<P>"Straw Dogs" on the other hand is like a cathartic disembowelment, an exorcism rite and one of the most powerful self-assessments I've ever seen, an essay on sexual politics and the bonds between men and women and what they believe that is as palpable and important as it has ever been. Peckpinah obviously romanticized women but rarely did he put a women in a position of cupability, a character of personal consequence. Rarely did he make a women a victim of violence. The only other example I can think of his the murder of the villager's sister in "the Wild Bunch," the catalyst for those damned men to fight the true scourge that they fought against: the corruption of the West by power and war mongering, by greed, by the ignorance of those stuck in an impossible situation and being unable to retaliate. If Peckinpah showed violence towards women, it was not because he thought poorly of them - it was because women were important to him, symbols of something higher and wealthier in life, of something that men could not possess but only partake in. Of course, this also meant that his women were more like pieces of staging, backdrops, or set dressing than actually characters. But "Straw Dogs" is much different.<P>One of the most astute observations about that film is the mere realization by a reviewer once that David does not even know that his wife has been raped. It is a fact known only to her and to the audience. It is the brutality of two lives out of control and at odds with each other and the truth of the life they share together. It is a film about a relationship. Not one character. It winds us, exhausts us. While I am interested in the remake, always interested when a director makes a personal statment, whether it is through a remake or not, I do find quarrel with the fact that the director made this film with the idea that Peckinpah underwrote the role of the Wife. One must be narrow-minded to belief that Peckinpah was painting the Husband as a hero. He was anything but. Peckinpah shows us that while he reacted purposefully, he has also ignored the growing void in the relationship to the Wife, that he has by blindness and pride allowed himself to become not an object of respect but as one of ridicule. And then in a moment of chaos, he unrealeashes all that he has withheld, becomes a machine and not a man, has only fallen privy to his own primal desires, to his need for opposition, becomes something "useful" and dangerous; and he falls prey to this, the drug of anonymity. He becomes an impersonal force. While he is triumphant in his protection of his home, the Home is a broken and splintered thing by film end, and we know that if their relationship continues, if their marriage survives, that it will be a marriage of great silences, of passages in the night.<P>And all this only scrathes the surface. It is Peckinpah's most thoughtful film. And it is an oft-misconstrued film at that. I am glad he made it, with all its shaes of grey, with all its personal demons not flaunted but put on ragged display. He is his most honest sentiment, and not a film with a trace of Romanticism. It is one that will be discussed, and possibly remade, for decades to come. It is a great artistic and personal achievement, and a touchstone for film culture. I still think of it, and it still humbles me in the furor of its self.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 10:56 p.m. CST

    by ChaunceyGardiner

    "shades of grey"

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 11 p.m. CST



    Beaks and Harry Harkonnen allow the classless, dishonorable sellout Devin Faraci post here, thus severing what little thread of integrity this site had. <p>Harry must be giggling like the sugar sucking manchild he is as he revels in his Fuck You to Nick Nunziata, a man who knows how to write ... and get a movie made.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 11:04 p.m. CST

    The Victory only Underscores the Husband's Defeat

    by ChaunceyGardiner

    And I have to say Feral Colon, haveing once been a college freshman, while I've found that some films I saw then, during that time, have fallen victim to the winds of my own age and were already victims of my own perceptions at the time, whose adultation were products of a time in my own life, I do doubt that "Straw Dogs" will be one of those films.<P>Possibly, like "Fargo" for me, that which once fascinated you about it during your time of first arrival upon it, will in turn draw you late in life to not only reassess the film and your reaction to it, but your own growth, being able to have a film that you find will mature as you do also. Those types of films are some of the most important ones we will ever have.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 11:04 p.m. CST


    by ChaunceyGardiner

    Susan George. Yeah, man.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 11:39 p.m. CST

    Does it have the anal rape scene? in R-rated?

    by KilliK

    if yes,yeah it is definitely better than the original.hmmm.

  • Sept. 29, 2010, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Um... Plant?

    by TheKoolAidisPoisonous

    This review is full of shit.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Green Stuff

    by Sirmausalot

    Not just a plant, but a piss poor studio write up by someone not even attempting to disguise it. And over a year away? Anyone else actually see this? Why give them free ad space. Ridiculous!

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Straw Dogs was a 'fuck you' to MALE BULLSHIT

    by PTSDPete

    Dumbass liberal reviewer.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 1:26 a.m. CST

    Straw Dogs is not a misogynist film, it's a human film

    by reflecto

    Humans are messy, complicated creatures. Amy inwardly wants to fuck her old flame though she loves David and resents the villagers; at the same time she resents David's weakness and covets their wild strength. Yes, it's messy and I see the misogynistic throughline one can draw out from That Scene. But the fact is People Are Fucked-Up Like That. Amy wanted him and that passion more than she wanted her cloistered life with David.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 2:53 a.m. CST

    remake of STRAW DOGS

    by CuervoJones


  • Sept. 30, 2010, 6:14 a.m. CST

    straw dogs needed a remake?

    by thefiendishdrwu

    straw dogs was pretty good. i always thought that the wild bunch was a better movie.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 8:17 a.m. CST

    BULLSHIT: "reverse the original misogynist..."

    by Laserhead

    It's not misogynist at all, and to read the film as such represents a severely reductive/politically limiting perspective. Or, liberal myopia. It's a great HUMAN film, and fuck Rod Lurie for 'reversing the misogynist intent' and fuck this reviewer for towing the bullshit line.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 8:21 a.m. CST


    by Nice Marmot

    That's what I was thinking. I thought the title really made no sense. But its been a WHILE since I saw it. What I'm getting at is that it seems there are enough changes that they could have given this new one a different title.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Peckinpah wasn't a misogynist Beaks, do your research.

    by Stuntcock Mike


  • Sept. 30, 2010, 1:31 p.m. CST

    stuntcock mike..

    by emeraldboy

    for questioning beaks research you'll get urself banned.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Cyclops is no Dustin Hoffman

    by dale dragon

    and I still dont know why you remake that movie

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Harry will say " not enough rape"

    by liljuniorbrown

    True story. Anyways,Melonman was right. The reviews these days are like living in Bizzaro world. Robinhood terrible NOES great!! Ugh no. Watched them both and it was backwards as most reviews these days

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 5:35 p.m. CST

    This should not have been remade.

    by MaxDembo1

    The original is a classic. This review was obviously written by a studio plant. Peckinpah was not a mysogynist. He made movies about people who were.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 5:37 p.m. CST

    James Marsden and Kate Bosworth????

    by MaxDembo1

    Would it have killed them to cast some actors?

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Rod Lurie Can Suck My Rod!

    by derek_vinyard

    seriously, no way can he expect dustin hoffman to be replaced by that pussy marsden. this film dies right around the time you realize that. hoffman is a magnificent actor, who brought depth and gravitas to this role. marsden is a pretty boy cocksucker. do i really need to say more? didn't think so.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 6:13 p.m. CST

    related but slightly tangential

    by mrgray

    See, I read stuff like that long deconstruction, Chauncey, and as well-written and well-meant as it is, I'm betting you're a dude. I have the same problem with guy gamers defending the shitty characterization of Samus in the most recent Metroid game (Other M). Even the smartest, most pro-woman male writer lacks the necessary personal experience of *being* a woman. And I know there are female defenders of Peckinpah out there. But until they choose to chime in here, I'm going to continue believing all the rotten shit I've heard about the guy. From women.

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 9:17 p.m. CST

    Thank you for chiming in MrGray

    by ChaunceyGardiner

    I hear you. I did not even think about a woman reading my thread, or at least someone reading my thread with a female perspective in mind. I have taken your words into consideration. And yes, again, thanks for commenting - there's a lot of emotion there. It is an extremely controversial subject, Peckinpah's treatment of women on film and not a subject to overlook, even if one loves his films - especially if one loves his films. It merits tremendous consideration, what one watches. But I also don't think Peckinpah was a dirtbag. (But he also most definately wasn't a feminist!)

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 9:22 p.m. CST

    But does that mean that male writers...

    by ChaunceyGardiner

    should not write female characters? At least attempt them?<P>Or do you mean more to the portrayl of the dangerousness of portraying violence against women? On that note, I most definately agree. I think that violence towards women on film is one of the most important issues facing a generation of filmmakers; in a world where our standards of on-screen violence are at their most lax, I most definately agree. Our society is plagued with its history of violence towards women. (But when a film approaches the subject as nakedly open and honest as possible, I think that those films are ones that are worth public consideration - if only to spark conversation and openness.)<P>I will now do something I've never done in all my history as an on-line writer: the smiley face. :}

  • Sept. 30, 2010, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Damn, that was a really bad smiley face.

    by ChaunceyGardiner

  • Oct. 2, 2010, 6:11 a.m. CST

    If anything it's anti-macho

    by chien_sale

    Big stupid guys rapping girl. Check. Then when Hoffman kills then it's seen as bad and ugly. Check.