Straw Dogs and Home Alone: The Violence of the Male Psyche

The following is a paper I wrote for my 70's cinema class. It's actually pretty ridiculous, but hopefully interesting at the same time. Enjoy.



On the surface, one almost has to laugh at the thought of comparing such radically
different films as Straw Dogs and Home Alone. But, just how different are they really? Sam Peckinpah’s film is bathed in machismo, repression, and sexual violence, while Chris Columbus’ film is a holiday favorite – a wholesome treat for the whole family, and one of the highest grossing films of its kind. Is there really a connection? Nearly twenty years separated, the times (not to mention genre and intention) have taken their toll and transformed a probing look into the male psyche into innocuous, family fun. But is that actually a healthy transition? Straw Dogs and Home Alone are two films that are strangely similar – in some ways united in character and theme, but differing in method, intention, and audience. However, when it is all said and done, both films can be seen as equally dangerous, though Straw Dogs is honest, where Home Alone is a lie.

There are at least two different ways to read Sam Peckinpah’s, Straw Dogs, and the more common of the two, I fear, is, perhaps, the least accurate to Peckinpah’s intentions, and the most dangerous. Dustin Hoffman plays, David, a mild-mannered mathematician, who seems to be everything abhorrently and annoyingly weak with the intellectual, immascualted male culture. He and his sex-kitten, Lolita-like wife, Amy, played by Susan George, have moved into an English manor so David can use his grant money to do some research. The village locals are like character actors from hell who attempt to flaunt their mindless manhood over the weaker David and stare lustfully at Amy’s sexy displays. A number of strange incidences (including two brutally erotic rape scenes) occur, leading up to the moment where the village idiot, who is on the run from the townsfolk, crosses paths with David and Amy who offer him shelter in their home. The resulting events are 20+ minutes of nonstop siege in which the villagers outside attempt to get inside while David, stripped of his mild pacifism, violently defends his home in some very creative ways. Anyone who has seen The Wild Bunch or any of Peckinpah’s other Westerns, knows that he has an almost beatific obsession with violence. However, in this film he takes it even a step farther and points out what he sees to be the inherent link between violence and eroticism – a fascinating theme and idea that I will not get into because, as far as I can tell, it is not shared in Home Alone.

I mentioned two interpretations of the film. The first, and most common, is summed up when Pauline Kael wrote in her review of the film, ". . . the movie intends to demonstrate not merely that there is a point at which a man will fight but that he is a better man for it – a real man at last. The goal of the movie is to demonstrate that David enjoys the killing, and achieves his manhood in that self-recognition. David experiences no shock, no horror at what he has done but only a new self-assurance and pleasure." Beyond that, we are to applaud David’s self-realization and encourage his violent nature. Kael also points out that, "Not surprisingly, the audience cheers David’s kills; it is, after all, a classic example of the worm turning. It’s mild-mannered Destry putting on his guns, it’s the triumph of a superior man who is fighting for basic civilized principles over men who are presented as mindless human garbage." It is the semi-barbaric view that men (as a sex, not a species) are little more than animals, and to deny one’s killer instinct is to deny oneself and become a hypocrite. Finally, Kael goes on to make the statement that has most commonly been used to describe the film, "Sam Peckinpah, who is an artist, has, with Straw Dogs, made the first American film that is a fascist work of art." And Roger Ebert, who disliked it for these very reasons, points out that, "The most offensive thing about the movie is its hypocrisy; it is totally committed to the pornography of violence, but lays on the moral outrage with a shovel." But is its use of violence pornographic? Is the film essentially fascist?

I have found that Peckinpah, throughout his career, has fought too many of his own demons in relationship to violence, to make a film that turns it into the cheap thrills of pornography. "He is an artist in conflict with himself," and that is the beginning of, what I believe to be the real meaning behind Straw Dogs. Peckinpah was notorious for being a harsh talker and a strong drinker – a vice that is, at least, partially responsible for leading him to an early grave. Through films like The Wild Bunch and Straw Dogs, he appears to be battling his own demons – fighting what he seems to think is his own violent nature. If the first interpretation is correct then Amy is nothing more than a childish tart who deserves what she gets, and David is a weakling who becomes a man through killing and we rejoice. In other words, Amy, in some way, is a villainess (or less worthy of respect) and David ultimately becomes the hero. I believe that it is the other way around – Amy is the character to be identified with and David is the film’s villain. Amy is constantly attempting to establish intimacy with David – both emotional and physical, but David pulls away. Her husband is not meeting her needs, so she seeks attention from others. I can’t condone the morality of her choice, but I can understand it, which makes her an empathetic character and not merely a tart. David, I fear, is a violent man just waiting to be unleashed. Throughout the film there are subtle, telltale signs that point to his true nature which he has so calculatingly hidden. Notice the way he treats his wife, he is not an impotent victim of her sexuality, he knows exactly what he’s doing when he acts uninterested – he wants to dominate her. During the final siege, she sees his true self and is afraid as he smiles. So, this could be seen as a film that attempts to justify and glorify violence and, in the process, becomes a semi-fascist masterpiece; or it could be seen as a film that condemns violence. Knowing Peckinpah’s body of work, I believe it to be the latter. That brings up the point, that if I am, in fact, correct about my interpretation, then the clarity of his theme must be brought into question. This film is almost always interpreted as a glorification of violence, and, as such, could become very easy to make a dangerous misinterpretation. So, it either is a dangerous film, or it can far to easily be misinterpreted into a dangerous film. This is the film’s greatest flaw, and one not to be taken lightly.

Home Alone, on the other hand, is every kids dream (or nightmare) – a boy, Kevin, being left by himself, with no parents or authority – free to do whatever he wants. However, there is a price to pay – the house is going to be burgled with him in it by himself. The film follows young Kevin as he indulges his new freedom in some amusing ways, but it also follows two burglars as they stake out the neighborhood and ultimately decide on robbing Kevin’s house. When he discovers that his house is going to be robbed, he decides to fight back and defend what is rightfully his (or his family’s). All of this leads up to an extended sequence that could be described as a "siege" of the house where the burglars attempt to get in and Kevin uses every means at his disposal to keep them out. Roger Ebert points out that, "When the burglar’s invade Kevin’s home, they find themselves running a gamut of booby traps so elaborate they could have been concocted by Rube Goldberg – or the berserk father in The Last House on the Left (another 70's film about violence with semi-fascist undertones)." It’s very a funny sequence. Herein, though, lies the problem. If not for the humor of the film, this sequence could easily be described as brutally violent and perhaps even disturbing. In fact, it’s not too far removed from some of the methods that David utilizes when defending his home in Straw Dogs. Now, Pauline Kael makes a good point that could appropriately describe either film, "The question asked here is ‘What would you do if someone tried to invade your house to kill an innocent person (or just rob your house)?’ In such extreme circumstances, probably most of us would use whatever means came to hand and brain, and if we won by violence we would be glad to have won but be sickened and disgusted at the choice forced upon us. We would be robbed of part of our humanity..." By the end of Home Alone, Kevin has "grown up" – he is on his way to becoming a man. Is that because he tortured a couple of incompetent burglars or because he defended his home and caught the bad guys? Take your pick.

I have to ask myself, that if it had been a girl in Kevin’s place, would she have resorted to the same methods. The answer, in most cases, would probably be no. I believe this is the major connection between the two films, that we have a tendency, whether accurately or inaccurately, to associate manhood with violence. It is a rite of passage. Kevin, as a boy, grew up and David, as a grownup, became a man. The director of Home Alone, Chris Columbus, succeeds at making a film which has become a family and holiday classic, but at what cost? Are we ultimately asked to laugh at, or, at least, ignore the fact that what may really be going on is Kevin’s dehumanization through violence?

Don’t misunderstand, I believe in the defense of one’s home and property, through violent means if necessary, but where Home Alone fails is in the fact that it never acknowledges the inherent violence of its narrative and theme. As Kael pointed out, "...we would be glad to have won but be sickened and disgusted at the choice forced upon us." Home Alone never acknowledges that choice, and that is dangerous. However, in the case of Straw Dogs we are disgusted exactly because David never acknowledges that choice, and rather than being sickened, he is aroused.

When the dust settles, Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs is an honest, and personally felt depiction of the male psyche, that, like Amy, leaves us disgusted both by the violence and by David’s lack of reaction to the violence. Chris Columbus’ Home Alone is a lie because it attempts to associate Kevin’s maturity with his defensive of the home, but refuses to acknowledge the violence one way or another. Both films could be viewed as dangerous, but is it more dangerous to expose violence for what it is, or to wrap it in the guise of family entertainment?