Seems like it may happen, with IMDb having this: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0331488
Notice the name of the character Norton plays matches that of the character in the movie and speculation says this will be like Solaris in ways, where it may be a closer adaptation of the original book and take elements or a feeling from the movie.
~rougerum
thats fucking crazy. if the original straw dogs was released today, i think it would get a NC-17 rating because of the rape scene. was it originally released with a R rating? but why the fuck would anyone want to remake that film. thats like the speculation that wizard of oz might be remade with drew barrymore as dorothy. what a bunch of garbage. certain film are sacred -- do not touch them, please.
But how could it be bad with the director of Swimfan attached?
shit, i remember this being discussed here before. I expect redirection anytime now.
~rougerum
Poor John Polson. He is getting raped by the system. The man made some awesome shorts here in Australia, started the best short film festival in the world, and then Hollywood put him behind one of their production line movies, and now he is already doing remakes. Such a waste of talent, and I mean that.
Quote from: The Silver BulletPoor John Polson. He is getting raped by the system. The man made some awesome shorts here in Australia, started the best short film festival in the world, and then Hollywood put him behind one of their production line movies, and now he is already doing remakes. Such a waste of talent, and I mean that.
sumtimes it seems Alex Proyas is the only one representin.
Bruce Beresford had a good run, shit he even made several oscar winners, and then he fell off.. Rolf De Heer coulda done it if he tried, but he's cool tho, unless he's really an asshole i'd say i wanna be like 'im, interestin shit.
I don't care, so long as they change that title.
Could be another bad choice for Ed, though. :(
Quote from: budgieI don't care, so long as they change that title.
The title of the book it's based on is "The Siege of Trencher's Farm".
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: budgieI don't care, so long as they change that title.
The title of the book it's based on is "The Siege of Trencher's Farm".
:yabbse-undecided:
I like 'Trencher's' but you couldn't have 'farm' or 'seige'.
Quotesumtimes it seems Alex Proyas is the only one representin.
Bruce Beresford had a good run, shit he even made several oscar winners, and then he fell off.. Rolf De Heer coulda done it if he tried, but he's cool tho, unless he's really an asshole i'd say i wanna be like 'im, interestin shit.
Representing Australia? I'd say Baz Luhrmann is our big hitter right now.
Quote from: The Silver BulletQuotesumtimes it seems Alex Proyas is the only one representin.
Bruce Beresford had a good run, shit he even made several oscar winners, and then he fell off.. Rolf De Heer coulda done it if he tried, but he's cool tho, unless he's really an asshole i'd say i wanna be like 'im, interestin shit.
Representing Australia? I'd say Baz Luhrmann is our big hitter right now.
But Proyas is a far better director and more long lasting.
It depends. I prefer Luhrmann. And even then, that said, I think the best Australian director is Peter Weir. By far.
Quote from: The Silver BulletIt depends. I prefer Luhrmann. And even then, that said, I think the best Australian director is Peter Weir. By far.
damn i totally forgot those. i think i was talkin about new ones that havn't made it yet and still can.
I think Polson can still make it, but he's going to have to act quick and do something daring, before they, you know, eat him alive.
Is this another contract forcing him to do a movie thing? Enough with the fucking remakes, it seems like more than half of the movies coming out are remakes of something. I liked the original, it made Brittish people seem evil. It was honest.
I'm not sure it is a contract [which sorta renders what I've said irrelevent], but what he needs to do is simply realise that if he gets caught it this whirlwind early, he ain't going to get out. Sure, he is new to Hollywood, but he has to realise that doesn't mean he has to sell his talent short because of that.
And I agree. No one on Earth needs remakes. Especially of films like Straw Dogs.
i..i can't stress this enough, people.
(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)
you use THIS BUTTON , LOCATED IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF YOUR POST(S)(https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif) (BY CLICKING ON IT) (THIS (https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/icon_delete.gif)) to delete your posts.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
Only the admins. have the delete button, pic.
Yes. You do. 'Tis a shame we can't delete our own posts.
actually, i believe you guys can edit your own posts. and if you go into the edit screen for one of your own posts, there's an option to delete it in there.
Quote from: sphinxactually, i believe you guys can edit your own posts. and if you go into the edit screen for one of your own posts, there's an option to delete it in there.
Nope. Well, yes, you can edit, but not delete.
It says this on the bottom of each thread:
"You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum"
I think the situation is finally fixed.
All registered users should be able to delete their own posts, in all forums.
Quote from: MacGuffinOnly the admins. have the delete button, pic.
:yabbse-lipsrsealed:
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think the situation is finally fixed.
All registered users should be able to delete their own posts, in all forums.
:arrow:
imdb's trivia section on Stuart Blumberg, who wrote the screenplay for this 'remake', says that, "[He] Once considered going to Harvard Law to become a lawyer."
haven't we all? :wink:
Why would they do a remake to the 70's film Straw Dogs? It was just fine as it was, Dustin Hoffman isn't dead yet and I can already say that it won't be as good. Gah...people are so desperate for movies ideas. Since they can't come up with any good ideas on their own, it's....REMAKES! REMAKES! REMAKES!
The best part of all will be hearing teens leave the theatres saying, "man that rape was awesome!!"
Yea, I don't see why they do remakes of already damn-good pictures. Unless they do something incredibly different with it (like what I'm hoping the upcoming Willy Wonka remake will do) then I see no point. The one plus is that it brings to the mainstream audiences a film that otherwise wouldn't be there at all.
Quote from: CinephileThe best part of all will be hearing teens leave the theatres saying, "man that rape was awesome!!"
But they'll be talking about the frat party that they went to the night before.
Buh-zing!
i didn't think the original Straw Dogs was all that great. granted, i watched it on an old VHS tape, but what did you like about it?
SPOILERS
i don't know if you call it a rape scene......well, it starts out that way, but then it seems she doesn't mind.......i don't know, that really caught me off guard, but i guess that was it's intention. how do you interpret the scene?
it really made me think how messed up a situation like rape is for the woman. of course on the obvious idea that it is total violation, but at the same time you can't make your body's sense to touch stop. i can't think of any situation in humanity where how you would want to feel and how your body is telling you to feel is in such unalignment. i just can't even begin to imagine how horrible that feeling must be.
Quote from: Chest Rockwell...Which raises the issue of whether the film is misogynistic. It certainly seems at times that it is. During the rape scene the wife actually seems to enjoy herself when being controlled by Charlie, and then again she obeys David after he slaps her. But I didn't see it as necessarily misogyny. Certainly a masculine film, though I think the masculinity shown in is more horrific than anything. She's actually a rather realistic character. She craves attention from David and doesn't get it. She doesn't want Charlie, but at the same time she enjoys the fact that he truly wants her. She clearly doesn't enjoy being sodomized by the other guy. After the fact she's quite uncomfortable, which makes sense.
I wrote that under Peckinpah in Director's Chair
Quote from: Chest RockwellQuote from: Chest Rockwell...Which raises the issue of whether the film is misogynistic. It certainly seems at times that it is. During the rape scene the wife actually seems to enjoy herself when being controlled by Charlie, and then again she obeys David after he slaps her. But I didn't see it as necessarily misogyny. Certainly a masculine film, though I think the masculinity shown in is more horrific than anything. She's actually a rather realistic character. She craves attention from David and doesn't get it. She doesn't want Charlie, but at the same time she enjoys the fact that he truly wants her. She clearly doesn't enjoy being sodomized by the other guy. After the fact she's quite uncomfortable, which makes sense.
I wrote that under Peckinpah in Director's Chair
whether or not i'll ever fully understand Peckinpah's intentions with the scene, it made me think none the less.
by your avatar, etc, it seems you really like the film. what do you like about it? did the Criterion further your appreciation or cement it?
Well I never saw the Criterion. But yes I do really like it. There's something about the whole Hobbesian view of people as the horrific savage that really entices me (I really want to see the original Lord of the Flies), so I was rather interested in seeing the film. Aside from the message and all that the film simply had me gripped. The tension was building up the entire time culminating into that excrciating 30-minute climax. About halfway through the climax the video started screwing up on what I was watching, and you wouldn't believe the curses I was saying to it to friggin get it to fix itself. But it started working so all was well. Anyway, point is I really liked it as a movie itself, as it entertained me, and never nsulted my intelligence. But more than that, I enjoy looking into all the little details, such as the said sex scene and the opening shot of children playing in the cemetary. Did that answer your question?
Lurie dons 'Straw' hat for remake
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Rod Lurie is on board to direct a remake of the 1971 thriller "Straw Dogs" for Screen Gems. "The Shield" scribe Reed Steiner is penning the screenplay.
Screen Gems is in the process of acquiring the rights to the Dustin Hoffman starrer, which originally was produced by ABC Pictures Corp.
The original, directed by Sam Peckinpah, revolved around a young American and his English wife who move to rural England and face increasingly vicious local harassment. Plot details for the remake are being kept under wraps, but sources said it will take place in the U.S.
Lurie's producing partner Marc Frydman will produce.
Lurie's film credits include the political thriller "The Contender." He is in postproduction on the Samuel L. Jackson starrer "Resurrecting the Champ." He also is the creator of ABC's "Commander in Chief."
Lurie is repped by WMA and attorney Peter Nelson.
Steiner, whose writing credits include ABC's "Line of Fire," also was a co-executive producer on "Shield."
If this gets made, I will picket every theater in the country. 'Last temptation of christ' style. Straw Dogs is the perfect film. My favorite of all time. This news breaks my heart a little. If it wasn't so sunny outside, I'd jump off the roof.
EXCL: Rod Lurie on the Straw Dogs Remake
Source: ComingSoon
Filmmaker Rod Lurie has made a name for himself with original ideas that have spawned the critically lauded 2000 political drama The Contender and a number of much-appreciated television shows like "Line of Fire" and "Commander in Chief." With that in mind, it was somewhat surprising to learn that he was planning to tackle his first full-on remake of Sam Peckinpah's 1971 violent revenge thriller Straw Dogs.
When ComingSoon.net recently had an extended talk with Lurie about his new movie Resurrecting the Champ, he told us that he's currently writing that remake with plans to shoot next May, and he also told us how this remake came his way. "My partner Marc Frydman came up with the idea to acquire the rights, which very quietly were floating around somewhere and we just snatched it up, because it's sort of a classic film in the sense that it's infamous. It's a good not great film by a great director, and we thought if we modernized it and Americanized it, it's rife for a remake, so we just went for it."
"It's an interesting film, isn't it?" he continued, "but it was pretty much killed by a two-second moment on screen where his wife is being raped and she smiles. That was the end of that movie. You can be certain that she's not going to be smiling in the rape in my film. I was a critic for years, and very often our reviews will say, 'Well, if he had done this, it would have been a better film.' I look at 'Straw Dogs' as a very imperfect movie. It's a little bit slow and it's themes are a little bit murky. There are some amazing moments and it's a very satisfying movie, but you sort of look at what can be improved upon now. It may seem very arrogant to say, 'We can improve upon Peckinpah.' I can never improve upon the best of Peckinpah. I would never remake 'The Wild Bunch' but this is a film that I think he was a little lazy on, and it's a fascinating story. What I really want to do is make a movie about what it means to be a bully, how easy it is to become a bully, and how decency is defined I think by not being a bully when you have the opportunity to be one."
Knowing Lurie's bent for politics, might there be a bit of hidden political underpinnings in that statement? Only time will tell, but next up for Lurie is Nothing but the Truth, a movie about the First Amendment, and on Monday, you can read our full interview with the filmmaker as he talks extensively about his current movie Resurrecting the Champ, which opens on Friday, August 24.
James Marsden is 'Straw' man
Will take over Dustin Hoffman's role from 1971 original pic
Source: Hollywood Reporter
James Marsden will star in Screen Gems' reimagining of the 1971 thriller "Straw Dogs" being written and directed by Rod Lurie.
The new "Straw Dogs" follows Los Angeles screenwriter David Sumner (Marsden), who moves with his wife to her hometown in the deep South. Once there, tensions build in their marriage and old conflicts re-emerge with the locals, leading to a violent confrontation.
The original, co-written and directed by Sam Peckinpah, saw Dustin Hoffman in the role of Sumner, with the story set in rural England.
Both films are based on the book "The Siege at Trencher's Farm" by Gordon Williams.
Marc Frydman will produce the new "Straw Dogs" with Lurie via the duo's Battleplan Prods. banner. Gilbert Dumontet, who brought the project to Screen Gems, will executive produce. Filming is set to begin in August.
Screen Gems senior vp production Nick Phillips is overseeing the project for the studio.
The movie offers a change of pace for Marsden, more known for such light fare as "27 Dresses," "Enchanted" and "Hairspray" and comic book movies like "Superman Returns." The actor, repped by Endeavor and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, is filming Screen Gems' ensemble comedy "Death at a Funeral," directed by Neil LaBute, and he next stars opposite Cameron Diaz in "The Box."
Thesps leashed for new 'Straw Dogs'
Bosworth, Skarsgard join Marsden in film
Source: Variety
Screen Gems has set Kate Bosworth and Alexander Skarsgard to star alongside James Marsden in "Straw Dogs," a reimagining of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film.
Rod Lurie wrote the script and will direct. Shooting is scheduled to begin in August.
Marsden plays a Hollywood screenwriter who relocates with his wife to her hometown in Mississippi. Bosworth plays the wife, who left the South for LA. to become an actress and returns home so her husband can finish his script in quiet. Skarsgard plays her high school boyfriend, an ex-football hero who sees the return of his former girlfriend as a way to reclaim glory.
Bosworth, most recently seen in "21," next stars in "Warrior's Way." Skarsgard is playing the badass vampire Eric Northman in HBO's "True Blood." Before that, he starred in HBO's "Generation Kill."
Marc Frydman and Lurie are producing through their Battleplan Prods. banner. Gilbert Dumontet, who brought the project to Screen Gems, is executive producer.
I don't get it... isn't the point of the Dustin Hoffman role to have a nerdy, seemingly pathetic guy who shows his true smarts and rage and everything else in a huge climax? Why would you cast a tall, handsome guy who has played a superhero? That's like casting the dude from Twilight in a remake of The Graduate.
Cast set for 'Straw Dogs' remake
Woods, Purcell set for Screen Gems pic
Source: Variety
Screen Gems has set James Woods, Dominic Purcell and Willa Holland in "Straw Dogs," the Rod Lurie-directed reimagining of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film.
Lurie wrote the script, which stars James Marsden as a Hollywood screenwriter who accompanies his wife (Kate Bosworth) as she returns to her hometown in Mississippi. Her ex-boyfriend (Alexander Skarsgard), a former high school football hero, sees her return as an opportunity to reclaim glory.
Woods most recently lent his voice to the animated film "Surf's Up," Purcell starred in the Fox TV drama "Prison Break," and Holland starred in "The OC" and the upcoming Screen Gems thriller "Legion."
Filming begins today in Shreveport, La. Marc Frydman is producing with Lurie. Gilbert Dumontet is executive producer.
Quote from: Convael on July 17, 2009, 10:43:51 AM
I don't get it... isn't the point of the Dustin Hoffman role to have a nerdy, seemingly pathetic guy who shows his true smarts and rage and everything else in a huge climax? Why would you cast a tall, handsome guy who has played a superhero? That's like casting the dude from Twilight in a remake of The Graduate.
Thats what they almost did. Redford originally wanted the role but I know most of you guys already know that.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreadcentral.com%2Fimg%2Fnews%2Fapr11%2Fstraw2.jpg&hash=b40f3c5a7996742a90f29c0a986b9ba97031b361)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810105888/video)
Release Date: September 16th, 2011 (wide)
Starring: James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgård, Walton Goggins, Drew Powell
Directed by: Rod Lurie
Premise: David and Amy Sumner, a Hollywood screenwriter and his actress wife, return to her small hometown in the deep South to prepare the family home for sale after her father's death. Once there, tensions build in their marriage and old conflicts re-emerge with the locals, including Amy's ex-boyfriend Charlie, leading to a violent confrontation.
So they reduced one of the most thematically complex and controversial films of the 20th century into an R-rated version of Home Alone. I liked it better when I was convinced this movie would never happen.
that guy gets Dustin Hoffman's role? I hate that guy..
Quote from: polkablues on May 14, 2011, 09:20:39 PMan R-rated version of Home Alone.
Because this film definitely needs to be approached from the low grounds wherein it resides, I'm gonna approach it like a violent version of the old porn routine about the blue collar worker who knocks on the door and wants to fuck, except in this version she won't wanna fuck and it'll be heinous rape and the husband will have to murder everyone. Hasn't actual porn been missing from torture porn? Even better, I'll pretend all the blood is sex juice. Daddy wants to fuck. Although I love the Home Alone idea and will consider it also.
I'd like to emphasize the satirical side of this post until you know me better.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 14, 2011, 09:48:02 PM
Hasn't actual porn been missing from torture porn?
Clearly you haven't seen A Serbian Film yet. I highly recommend it, if you have the disposition for it.
Quote from: polkablues on May 14, 2011, 10:31:15 PM
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on May 14, 2011, 09:48:02 PM
Hasn't actual porn been missing from torture porn?
Clearly you haven't seen A Serbian Film yet. I highly recommend it, if you have the disposition for it.
Highly recommended because of the quality of the film or the extremes of the subject matter? Torture porn is my least favorite type of movie.
A little of both. I have a complicated relationship with the film since I saw it, but above all I admired the way it made explicit the psycho-sexual undercurrent of the torture porn genre. It's a hard film to watch, but it has more cinematic value than twenty Saw sequels.
Does it use psycho-sexual motifs to justify its violent content or for self-critical purposes, i.e. do the motifs elevate the material into higher thematic grounds or simply amp the drama?
That's actually the big critical controversy over the film. I feel like it's tackling its themes with an eye toward an intellectual critical analysis of them, but there are a number of reviews I've read that feel otherwise, that it's extra shocking simply for the sake of being extra shocking. This isn't to say I don't think it has its problems, but I'm convinced there's more to it than its surface level.
Hey, funnily enough I'm downloading A Serbian Film as I read this. It's actually playing at the theater next to me, and I'd normally prefer to see it there, but apparently the film is so extreme that there has been no distribution of the full, uncut version, so the only way to view the uncensored film is to download a DVD screener that was making the rounds before all the hoopla.
It actually took me a decent amount of research to figure that out, as there is a British cut that has like 5 minutes cut out, and an NC-17 cut in American theaters that has 2 minutes cut out, and a legal online stream of the movie that calls itself the uncut version but actually has 5 to 10 seconds cut out of it.
I've read all sorts of things about the movie and I'm glad to see you say what you're saying, Polka. I don't normally seek out "torture porn," but I try to seek out interesting and different film experiences, and this sounds like maybe it could be that.
It's not a good movie by any standard. I made a big post about it last night be deleted it this morning because it made me look like heartless bastard.
However anyone feels about A Serbian Film, the important thing is that we continue talking about it instead of the godforsaken Straw Dogs remake that this thread is purportedly about.
Fuck a Serbian film. I felt sick just reading the whole plot on wikipedia and watching the trailer.
Whatever "themes" it ostensibly deals with can be addressed just as well if not better without resorting to extreme violent rape, misoginy, child sodomy, etc. It adds nothing to the dialogue which in any event remains centered on the extreme brutality of the film and not on it's supposedly high aspirations.
The filmmakers said it's a metaphor for the treatment by the eponymous government but you obviously wouldn't know that from watching a guy rape his own son up the..... i can't even finish that sentence without feeling sick let alone imagine the depravity of these people who enjoy FILMING this shit.
I don't think my opinion would be any different having seen it.. nor would the validity of my criticism be affected.
I can understand not wanting to watch it, but I can't understand dismissing it out of hand. Is morally abhorrent subject matter off-limits to film in your view, then? Or is it cool as long as it's not shown in a way that makes us uncomfortable? That, to me, seems way worse.
Oh right, I forgot that that we were talking about A Serbian Film in this thread (it should be split into its own thread, perhaps?).
I saw it. I had a very different reaction than most people, in that I thought it was funny. I think it's a dark comedy/satire. I actually didn't find it disturbing, and I watched the truly uncut version.
I suspect that it's possible that the censored version is more disturbing. It reminds me of Robocop, where the violence was originally so over the top and laughable, but got an X-rating, then was cut down to a level that just ended up feeling like realistic and horrifying violence.
But there's so much that's so over-the-top and ridiculous and funny that I really do think that this was intended to be a satire. A satire about serious stuff, to be sure, and there is probably some sincere rage about the Serbian government. I think it's a satire on obsessive artists and extreme things that are done for the sake of "important art," as well as on authoritarianism within the society (the film within the film is shot by cops or cop-like people who, rather than just doing their job objectively, keep entering the scene and fucking people). And in a satire, it makes sense to do the thing that you're making fun of, which is part of why this film had to be so extreme. If it wasn't extreme, it wouldn't be funny.
Of course, if you're not willing to find it funny, then it just comes off as sick and horrifying. It's obvious that the movie has a "point" that it's trying to get across, but if you're not seeing the humor, or if you're hearing about this film from other people, you'd think that it was very serious about that "point."
I think there was one review that likened the movie to a filmed "Aristocrats" joke, because the very last scene is a silly punchline (and is funny) after having heard the most horrendous stuff that the mind can come up with. I think the movie definitely works that way. In fact, all the stuff that happens in this movie is stuff that you hear in Aristocrats jokes (full of incest, baby rape, shitting and eating shit and whatever else you can think of). It's supposed to be so ridiculously terrible that you laugh.
I don't think you're supposed to take the morality of the movie seriously, or have any serious moral dilemma about watching it (though, of course, a lot of people always will with this kind of content). It's in your face in the way that comedy is often in your face.
It's not a great movie and you're not missing much by not seeing it, but I think that the impression that the hype gives you is not quite accurate because not a lot of people are watching it as a comedy.
To clarify: When I say it's funny, I don't mean in a "so bad it's funny" kind of way, but I actually think that it's intended to be funny. Not exactly wall to wall laughs but it's not super serious, either.
Very well said. I agree entirely.
Ugh, reading the Wikipedia entry for A Serbian Film before bedtime was a bad idea. Glad I didn't watch the trailer. I'm probably going to watch the film at some point, but I'll have to watch it with someone else in the room. The film sounds abhorrent, but at the same time I'm kind of interested in testing my limits as a moviegoer and seeing whether there's actually anything to this film.
Fuck. This. Shit.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fstrawdogsposter2.jpg&hash=4d6f35c1eb97a3538adff1814896a4b6d3abf744)
They're straight taking a stinky poo on the original.
Quote from: polkablues on June 15, 2011, 06:09:47 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fstrawdogsposter2.jpg&hash=4d6f35c1eb97a3538adff1814896a4b6d3abf744)
Is this a movie about a blind man who buys some of those blind people glasses, and then they break and in the glass-less part there's a portal to another world where Alexander Skarsgard is sort of a Mad Hatter character? Or is Alexander Skarsgard more of a White Rabbit character? That's my only real question.
Tea Party Massacre
Sex in 'Straw Dogs': The remake of a rape
In some ways, Straw Dogs is an odd choice for a remake - for a movie about "asking for it," it certainly wasn't. Nor, as Monday's box office results reflect, was much of an audience asking for it, either. (It came in fifth place).
Sam Peckinpah's 1971 original was reviled, most notably by Peckinpah champion Pauline Kael, as "sexual fascism." A key scene - a double rape - provoked arguments about the director's motivation, since the picture seemed to argue that the woman was "asking for it," which Peckinpah himself confirmed in an infamous Playboy interview. (In that same interview, he also claimed that most women were whores, and if they weren't, they weren't being honest.)
So why remake a film noted for its misogyny? "That's the very reason to make this film in the first place," director Rod Lurie explained on the red carpet at a Cinema Society screening last week. He calls it an "intellectual exercise": "How do you tell the same story, eliminate his philosophy, and put mine into it? Is it possible?"
Let's see. For starters, both "Straw Dogs" are based on a book - The Siege of Trencher's Farm, in which there is no rape, and the main violence is a home invasion. The rape comes about, in the original, partly because the female character, Amy Sumner (played by Susan George), has been walking around without a bra on and has accidentally revealed her breasts to some construction workers; but then upon realizing that they're staring at her through the window, she lingers to let them look.
Her new husband, David (played by Dustin Hoffman), is presented as a pacifist intellectual, who isn't around to defend her at the crucial moment - because he allowed himself to be tricked and, earlier, and failed to take a stand when the workers committed their first act of violence: hanging the family cat in the closet. When the first rape happens, Amy barely struggles, and even expresses pleasure. "People often asked, 'Why is she smiling? Why is she cuddling with her rapist?'" Lurie noted. And the danger with that presentation, he said, is "there were young boys watching this film who went, 'She said no, but he f---ed her, and she's OK with it.'"
The rape scene was part of a larger issue, however - a philosophy Peckinpah believed in called the "territorial imperative." "It said that all men are genetically coded to violence." Lurie said. "And so the most violent among us are going to be in charge. The woman will not gravitate to the best man for them, they're going to gravitate to the alpha male -- to the biggest bull in the herd." This is why, after the rape, Amy's loyalty seems divided - the rapist seems to understand her more than her husband does, and she only seems to respect her husband after he kills several men defending their home.
"I'm not buying into that whatsoever," Lurie said. "So what you'll find in my version of the film, it doesn't go that way at all."
Lurie changed the setting from Cornwall, England, to the South, to place the action in a small town where football, hunting, and churchgoing are the major pastimes. "They have preachers talking about a vengeful God who will spite you from the earth; and the flood, and Armageddon," he said. So while Lurie does not agree with Peckinpah that human beings are normally conditioned to violence, in this town, they are, "like it's no big deal to them." And his David (played by James Marsden) hasn't been raised with violence in his life, "except what he reads in history." (In the movie, David is scripting a film about the WWII battle of Stalingrad, a battle which was partly fought by women with brooms and kids with bricks, "a metaphor for everything that happens in the film," Lurie said).
"We're capable of violence if we're protecting ourselves," Lurie said. "So when David becomes violent at the end, it's because he has to, not because, like in the Peckinpah film, there's a rage being released that was there anyway."
And when that violence at the end happens in the remake, David is not alone in defending his home. "By the end of the original, everyone jumps ship. Even his wife deserts him," Marsden said. "In this film, they sort of stay together as a couple, and fight together. And throughout, they've had more discussion as a couple, like about the doors being locked."
The couple also have more discussion about whether it's appropriate for Amy (played by Kate Bosworth) to go braless, after she complains about men ogling her - which is what prompts her to reveal her breasts in the first place, because this time, it's no accident. It's a strange scene - if construction workers were ogling you, and it made you angry, would you take your top off for them in response? And then, the crucial point, even if you did, does that mean you're "asking for it"? "I don't know any woman that enjoys that notion," Lurie said.
"To be honest with you, what intrigued me about the film is how gray it is," Bosworth said. "I have so many questions about the original. And I have questions about our movie! I have questions about my character, still. It really is one of those films you never quite have the answers to."
When the rape finally happens in this film, it's more clear than in the first that Amy and Charlie (played by Alexander Skarsgård) have had a past relationship. "With Charlie, it's not really rape," Skarsgård said. "He thinks, there's this woman, she wants him, and they're going to be together forever. And when she rejects him, he's like, 'I offered you my protection for life. You said no. This is what happens.' So it's very primal, on an animalistic level. 'You didn't want that? This is what happens.'"
While Amy doesn't fight back as much during the rape this time, her rapist is also much bigger. (Plus, he's Eric Northman!) But she doesn't treat it like ex-sex, either. "I think it's a little more clear that she's not enjoying this thing done to her," Bosworth added. "That was more murky in the original."
"Our leading lady is certainly much more fierce and more modern than Susan George's character," Marsden said, "and a little less ambivalent in that defining scene."
While it's commendable to not eroticize rape, as the original does, it leaves the remake without much of a point. Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" had an argument to make - an argument many disagreed with, but an argument nonetheless, about what makes a man a man, and what women supposedly really want. Does excising that leave much of a picture left? Lurie said it does.
"Our Amy is a fierce Amy," Lurie said. "She's a feminist Amy. She's an Amy of 2011."
source: IFC.com
Shorter: "Rod Lurie confirms that he didn't get the point, and that his remake has no reason to exist."
Yeah, it was a sin for him to make this movie. I wonder what he's gonna do next? Maybe 'Deliverance' with Ryan Reynolds, Ashton Kutcher, Jonah Hill, and DJ Qualls. Only in this version the rapist tells Jonah to 'squawk like a chicken' because you don't want to offend fat people and that's really the whole reason I made the movie, to make a statement on obesity in this country.
Anyone else seen this giant hunk of garbage? I wanna do a 'how did this get made?' for it.