Archives for posts with tag: 1970s

I actually watched this a couple of weeks ago but never got the chance to write about it: There’s a Channel4.com review which sums it up nicely:

For Blier, the surreal agent provocateur who would make a career out of winding up the bourgeoisie, the film’s male aggression, absurd black humour and absence of any clear moral perspective proved both a calling card and a template. The characters are meagre and obnoxious but there’s something playful about the determination to cause outrage, and Stephan Grapelli’s whimsical score introduces a lyrical undercurrent which events, on their own, can’t muster.

Verdict
Blier’s rude and rambling farce occupies a similar position in 1970s French cinema as Trainspotting in 1990s Britain. It’s chaotic and obnoxious, but executed with a fair degree of Gallic swagger.

“Gallic swagger”! Love that phrase.

One can definitely see how, at the time, this movie ruffled some feathers. The sexuality isn’t overly explicit, but the film and the characters are quite frank about their sexual needs.

I don’t have much to say about this film, not that I didn’t enjoy it. I will mention two things that struck me. First, the young Gerard Depardieu. I had never seen a film of his from this far back (1974) — most of the films that I have seen him in are from the 1980s onwards, and probably mostly those from the 1990s and early 2000s. So of course, seeing him
this young, giving what the Channel 4 reviewer calls a “ferociously energetic performance from a rangy young Depardieu”, is a real revelation. And I agree with that description as well, the young Depardieu is just bristling with energy, sexual and otherwise. Even in the very first scene when his character Jean Claude and his friend Pierrot are tormenting a poor bourgeois woman they are going to rob, you can see it in his eyes. This is no actor is lower-class drag, your eyes tell you — this is the real thing. There is something menacing in his eyes, his posture, the way he carries himself. He’s much more the loose cannon than is Pierrot. Maybe he can afford to be, because Pierrot does get shot in the balls in the beginning, and soon Jean Claude becomes his friend/steward (and maybe gay lover?). Jean Claude is clearly the brains of the operation, the one that comes up with the ideas (he’s always saying “I’ve got an idea”), the one that launches them into all these madcap adventures.

You feel that his anger and his hurt is the most real: what is more revealing than the eternal hunt for pussy is the inchoate rage he hurls at rural, suburban France. There is one scene where they are wandering through a remarkably drab town where even the flies seem to be on siesta. It’s a gray, overcast day and they are walking around this ghost town and Jean-Claude says something like “town of shit! This place is such shit” (I don’t remember the line, and I don’t speak French). And then there’s the scene where Marie-Ange, Jean-Claude and Pierrot take the young rebellious teenager (Isabelle Huppert in one of her first roles) and “rescue” her from her stifling bourgeois parents. The Channel 4 reviewer mentions that director Bertrand Blier has made a career out of winding up the bourgeoisie, and I find this interesting, both within the film itself and also in the sense that I wonder why more filmmakers don’t take the piss out of the bourgeoisie more often, that being, after all, the holy and eternal right of angst-ridden young people in developed countries throughout the world.

The other thing worth mentioning is the Jeanne Moreau, the Eternal Feminine of postwar French cinema. There are never enough superlatives in the dictionary for women like that, or should we say that the extant ones are deficient for capturing the essence of what a woman like that is.

Jeanne is just released from prison. They stalk her. Cajole her. Eventually she gives in. Two men and a woman they share… sound familiar? Throughout she’s like a mime; there isn’t much dialogue. She’s just been released from jail. No one knows what she is thinking. Certainly, she wants some delicious food and a side order of young cock. But what lurks behind the guarded smiles?

If you’ve seen the movie, you know: she gets her food, gets her menage-a-trois on, and then shoots herself in the head. It’s a strange episode within the movie, almost self-contained, and few scenes hence, the boys are back on their adventures. They do find her son, but that’s about all that ties the latter part of the film with the Moreau scenes. Maybe I’m just morbid, but I liked this “episode” or a least it stood out above the rest of the film.
Or maybe Jeanne Moreau just has that kind of effect on me!

, , , , , , , , ,

Violence, in most movies, is pretty standard—you get shot in the face by Scarface, your neck broken by Steven Seagall, or eaten alive by sharks. How many time have you seen a man thrash about as he is nearly decapitated by a bear trap? That’s Straw Dogs, a movie that must have been much more shockingly violent for the audiences of 1968 than it was for me (or us).

The film follows David Sumner, an American mathematician, and Amy, his English wife, as they leave the Vietnam-era maelstrom of the US for the bucolic Cornish countryside. There’s a sense of foreboding from the very beginning of the film, when you see the local mens’ lascivious stares at Amy’s chest—she’s a “liberated” woman who doesn’t wear bras. Throughout the movie, the locals—and I mean mostly the men—come off like they either think with their fists or their dicks or some combination thereof.

Of course, hostilities and misunderstandings accumulate, Sumner’s masculinity is questioned. The piece de resistance of the movie, if you can call it that while ignoring your body’s squirm, is the protracted rape scene. I don’t know how many rape scenes I have seen in films over the years—not a lot, I think—but there are two that stick in my mind the most: one of them is the rape of Monica Belluci’s character in Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible and the other is the rape of Amy in Straw Dogs. I can definitely see how some would accuse this scene of being a male chauvinist fantasy—the man attempts to rape the woman, but before you know it, she stops resisting it and starts wanting him. Of course, unlike Irreversible the rape scene in SD is a “double-rape”–its when the second man, Norman, rapes her.

Following a tip from Aric Queen I took a look at director Sam Peckinpah’s wikipedia page, and yes, the guy was a quite a character. Coke fiend, alkie, and talented director. But for that very reason, his patched career is much more interesting than those middling directors that neither lead interesting lives nor make interesting work.

The last scenes of Straw Dogs, where David successfully defends his house, woman, honor, and dignity from the local mob is a classic by any standards, and is, in the words of Aric Queen, a cross between Home Alone and True Romance–not the comparison I would have or could have thought of, but funnily effective as a description of the movie. Hoffman’s transformation from mild-mannered mathematician to defender of his homeland security is a bit far-fetched.

I haven’t read that many reviews of the film, but there is a thorough, lucid, and intelligent look at the movie by Dan Schneider, both on his site Cosmoetica as well as on the Alternative Film Guide. I think the last few paragraphs of that DVD/movie review are worth quoting here:

Straw Dogs, for its part, is plagued by a simple-minded script, unrealistic characters and situations, thus wallowing in gray mediocrity. Worse yet, lesser films on violence are almost invariably dull. Straw Dogs proves the rule. In fact, its own self-importance is what makes Straw Dogs far less enjoyable than, say, Last House on the Left or Night of the Living Dead. The former is so silly and unpretentious that its images and violence lodge in the viewers’ mind — such as the infamous fellatio-biting scene — while the latter is simply relentless pedal to the metal violence that is inexplicable.

Straw Dogs should have been more grounded in reality, or more campy, or more straightforward in its naked bile for mankind. As it is, it sits on the fence, and it is so predictable that it becomes
tedious. There’s not a moment where a viewer can get into any of the characters and identify with them — let alone care for what happens to them. Note that Peckinpah will show the beginning of acts of violence, but never the results — e.g., we see no real penetration of Amy, and we do not see David’s actual violence. The camera always looks away — even when he is tossing grapefruits at his cat. While this may seem commendable on the director’s part, it also neuters the visceral effect of the violence, so that we get in effect a serial killer of a film tidied up for children, showing all the “fun” of violence with none of the consequences. Thereby, Peckinpah’s set-up is not a statement of ethics, merely an unjustified and poor artistic choice.
In short, being controversial does not always equate with quality, and Straw Dogs feels increasingly like a puerile attempt to shock viewers (something it no longer does), despite its pretensions of offering something deeper. Ultimately, it no more than a passable B-movie with a pedigreed director and A-movie production values. Ironically, the very lack of such pretensions is what makes something like Last House on the Left work better, while a film like Night of the Living Dead touches far deeper into the human psyche.

Schneider’s two major points are interesting: the first is just that the film isn’t all that good, by the standards of Peckinpah’s oeuvre as a whole, or when compared to other movies exploring similar themes and made around the same time. The other and more subtle point is that the film is amoral—that this is an anarchy, where anything goes because no one really gets punished for it. And if, as Schneider says, you never see the effects of violence (he mentions, correctly, that you never see the cat getting hit by the grapefruit)–then what Roger Ebert asserted about the moral outrage of the film ought to be questioned.

The meta-issue of why films get misinterpreted is another can of worms. Schneider’s most acerbic criticism is for the film scholar that does the commentary on the movie, but also for others like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but Schneider is quite precise in laying out what he thinks is wrong with other critics’ interpretations—where their use of words and assertions fail to describe the film in front of us.
I really admire the intelligence of Schneider’s essay, and it humbles me to know to think about how, despite watching so many movies over the last few years, I have not developed the incisive analysis and insight into movies that I had wished for.