Straw Dogs (1971)

Its 1971 and the US is in great turmoil. Domestically, Americans of different races are at war – The Civil Rights Movement having be on going for over a decade now is heading towards its end. On a international front, The Vietnam War has begun and the US have deployed thousands of men to fight against the tyranny of the Viet Cong. Millions of Americans protested the US involvement, major unrest was experience throughout the 50 states. Then along comes a film about a couple David and Amy (Dustin Hoffman- Rainman and Susan George) who have had enough with the constant threat of violence and mutiny in the US and decide to move to Amy’s home town Wakely, England. A quiet southern town in which village life is undisrupted and all previous worries can be forgotten, Straw Dogs (1971) unleashes that mayhem that the couple try to avoid.

It is immediately noticeable that the laid back and classy style the couple have is the polar opposite of every villager. Women, men, girls and boys are all fascinated by the two when arriving in town, maybe because they have never ventured out of that particular area. In comparison to the re-make these ‘hick’ villagers are not slow or thick, but creepy and perverted. The unrefined look of the film only adds to the backward attitude that resonates from the feature.

With the idea of living in a farm house, isolated from everyone, the couple soon realise that employing Amy’s old flame Charlie and his pals to work on their barn may have been the wrong move. They seem friendly and harmless at first but don’t judge a book by its cover. The tension between the characters is palpable from the first moment all feature in a scene together. The English men who are disturbing and wayward prove to intimidate and scare the new comers, hoping to get them to leave town, or at least push them to breaking point. The tension between the couple is also evident, not only do they seem to have a childish relationship, they don’t seem to have a bond you expect a married couple to have or maybe this is just my opinion. The saying “opposites attract” may not work in this case. Hoffman’s fun yet slightly uptight character seems to become exasperated with Amy the free thinking yet childish adult.

As Amy begins to feel vulnerable around Charlie and co.she stops wearing sparse clothing (for the 70s) and dons a bra, but having harassed and entered their house without permission, the men step up their tactics. Charlie, Del Henney, plays foul and forces his way into Amy and David’s’ home, in a very uncomfortable scene. When watching this particular part and thinking back to when this was made, I see their issues with banning it. The 70s was meant to be a progressive era compared to the previous decades. However with everything that was happening in the US at that time, Hollywood may have thought censoring provocative films and showing positive ones was the way forward. Susan George takes the role with both hands and throws everything she has into the attack scene. Confusion takes over her as she doesn’t know how to respond to his advances and then un-adulterated horror as the situation spirals out of control. It was upsetting and unexpectedly more graphic than the re-make.

The film climaxes with realistic violence, resulting from Charlie’s gang trying to get to the mentally handicapped man, Henry, who is involved with a young teens disappearance and now in their home. Dustin Hoffman’s character steps out of his comfort zone, taking on the men now trying to fight their way into his home.  His presence on screen is demanding and chillingly calm, I don’t know if his psychopathic switch just tripped but he got pleasure from taking on these unrelenting men.  His smile says it all as he drives away from the house, Hoffman can always be relied on to perform to task.

The film – obviously not having the same budget as Hollywood blockbusters now or a budget that other films would have had during that era – was well made. The setting of rural England, despite being dreary, worked well. Life is slow and the drive of the people living in the town was non-existent. The actors played the roles of inbred-like nobodies with believability, proving that you do not always need to set a film in the US to make it successful (despite few actually having seen it).

Home sweet home.

Straw Dogs (2011)

Straw Dogs – a term used to describe a type of person that excels during high school only to stay stuck in their home town, permanently. Dreams of moving away, becoming successful, slowly lose focus. This re-make of the 1971 original starring Dustin Hoffman (which was banned when first released because of the controversy of certain scenes) focuses on a wealthy and prosperous couple, Amy (Kate Bosworth - Blue Crush, Superman Returns) and David Sumner (James Marsden - Superman Returns, The Notebook). Looking for serenity and peace whilst working on his new screenplay, David convinces wife Amy to move back to her father’s secluded house in Blackwater, Mississippi.

The setting is ‘south’ through and through, with swamplands and low hanging trees, the audience can feel the dense humidity and hear the folk songs play from thousands of miles away. Very different to the original setting in Wakely, England where the sun’s rays don’t filter through the clouds and its perpetually grey.

On arrival the class difference between the out of towners and the locals is evident. The setting illustrates the low income town in comparison to the wealth that the new couple have (despite one half originally coming from there). The Jaguar they drive into town is prime example of the different walks of life, as everyone else owns dilapidated trucks. A hurricane having just wrecked havoc within the area, means the barn on their land needs of reconstruction work. Enter the 4 men who play crucial parts throughout the next 110 minutes.

The leader of the group, Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård – Melancholia, True Blood) sets his sights on his old flame Amy, possibly thinking she still has feelings for him and they can resurrect their love that died a long time ago. The other 3 men play up to their redneck roles but don’t come off altogether convincing. They try to charm the ladies with their southern drawl, yet undertones of menacing threat remain present. As they begin work on the roof of the barn, Charlie and his men begin to aggravate the couple. Its starts off with small incidents such as loud music, lewd looks and ‘southern’ hospitality, until it begins to escalate out of control. Amy and David find themselves in situations that the men construct out of pure despicableness, until one of the mentally challenged town folk changes this. Then the trouble hits boiling point.

In comparison to the 1971 version a lot of factors have been changed to keep it updated and fresh. The first instalment introduces David Sumner as a mathematician, its 2011 now and he is a screenwriter – more of a rock’n’roll profession. The acting felt different to the original, the men are perverted and small minded, but manipulative using false kindness. The 1971 English males were twisted and oddly inbred.

Alexander Skarsgård is domineering and threatening on screen as one of the three protagonists, he belittles James Marsden’s character time and time again, but in a teasing way that makes the audience hate him less. James Marsden does Dustin Hoffman’s character justice as he plays the hesitant David combined with the right amount of quirkiness. He captures the reluctance that the protagonist has at getting involved in uncomfortable situations until he realises he needs to take a stand. The last 30 minutes of the film show him becoming proactively violent to kick some serious ass. Cue the fire and explosions.

Kate Bosworth however was disappointingly cold. Throughout she winds her husband up, and toys with him, which is possibly the only note worthy part of her performance. Instead of appearing laid back, she cheapened the role. Walking around without a bra on and in skimpy clothes is seen as provocative instead of liberated. The infamous scene that caused the controversy 30 years ago was severely lacking in terror which is surprising as times have changed and there are no restrictions on film content now. They could have really gone for it, but were perhaps worried about shocking audiences, and a drop in sales unlike Sam Peckinpah. She proved she can scream the house down, but it just felt false.

Straw Dogs in 2011 is vastly different compared to 1971. There are different issues occurring in the US now compared to that time period of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War. Times are less volatile, yet it felt as though it should have been received as it was in the 70’s. Meaning in this day and age it needs to be grittier. There was a certain raw quality to the filming, yet I didn’t feel shocked just stressed. The film kept the audience on the edge of their seat but Rod Lurie needed to add a element of psychological distress to get the full affect.

Rule number 1: don’t piss off your neighbours.

Paranormal Activity 3

2007 and 2010 saw the creation of Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, the third instalment has much to live up to. Being a firm believer in films failing to beat the first release I was proved wrong with the sequel. Lets test the theory for the third time, will the directors prove to scare the life out of the audience…I really hope so as very little fails to do so anymore.

The third chapter acts as a prequel, winding back through time to when the two sisters discover their ability of interacting with the supernatural. Not a skill one takes lightly or favours. Children are anything but ordinary, with susceptibility to things ‘other worldly’ and having fantastically creative imaginations their behaviour can be moulded by so many outside influences. The film takes the audience back to the two freaky sisters childhood home, living with their mother and boyfriend in 1980s California. As with the previous two films, the partner seems to have a fascination with camera’s and filming, think American Beauty but less morose and more abnormal. The use of static cameras are the common denominator of all three films, but still add the tension the films need. 

As Katie and Kristi Rey grow up together Kristi discovers an invisible friend, something many children create for a variety of reasons, loneliness, boredom or over active minds. Toby the ‘friend’ gradually becomes a permanent residence in their family home, slowly developing from an entity Kristi can only visualize to a force of reckoning upon everyone in the household. As Dennis sets up camera’s around the house, realising that something is a miss, things begin to slip out of control. Lights start to flick on and off, Kristi begins to wake at times children should be wrapped up in bed dreaming of Ballet and Barbies. Doors start slamming and noises are heard throughout the house, something is happening and only Dennis and Kristi know it. 

Sitting with fingers digging into the arm of the cinema chair, the directors play havoc with the audiences tension threshold. Figures appear then vanish, in one memorable moment there is some child’s play with hair pulling, only taken to the extreme. The film features the game ‘Bloody Mary’ horror lovers may know, the directors pull influence from films like Urban Legend and Poltergeist but take the viewing experience into modern Hollywood. When the paranormal activity becomes too much and Julie, the mother, finally believes what her family are experiencing they break away. Space should cure all evil, surely.

The children Jessica Brown (Kristi Rey) and Chloe Csengery (Katie) excel and make the film shocking in parts. Adding children into a plot will always make others feel uncomfortable, it’s no longer 1930 with The Hays Code to abide by, children being involved in horrible situations add extra terrifying factors. Although being main protagonists, both adults Lauren Bittner (Julie) and Christopher Nicholas Smith (Dennis) fail to deliver. They act with little believability and rise to the task merely because they need to. Perhaps they don’t believe in Paranormal Activity, but millions pay to see the film because they do, whether they admit it or not.

Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman delivered an acceptable piece of cinematography however it didn’t meet the expectations that Paranormal Activity 1 and 2 set. That’s not to say the twists in the storyline didn’t surprise, maybe they can reign it back with a sequel to the prequel and totally melt the audiences mind. 

How much more can you take?