Not pleasant, but unmissable.

The controversy that surrounded this film may have sold tickets, but it distracts from the true qualities of the film. Some film catalogues apparently bill this as ?horror?, and much of it?s reputation is based on the violence (ungraphic by today's standrds)of the last third. I think the publicity of the time ran along the lines ?From the man who unloosed the Wild Bunch comes Hoffman unleashed?. But that would have been was the studio publicity department idea, not Peckinpah?s.

This is a far deeper, more subtle film than all that would suggest. It is about violence, but it?s about the

unpredictability of the consequences of violence; about how it solves nothing, but once started can gain a life and momentum of its own. It?s also a film about isolation, about failures of connection and communication.

Hoffman is good as the quite outsider, ineffectual, afraid of confrontation, and an easy target for the ribbing jokes of the local bad boys. Susan George, though, is outstanding as his wife. Initially she displaying a perfect naive innocence in her use of her sexuality to, she thinks, harmlessly tease the men around her. But, says Peckinpah, actions have consequences, intended or not.

It?s how George portrays her character?s reactions to the consequences that marks her as a far better actress than her other work did justice to. There?s the rape scheme itself, of course, in which little is actually seen, yet draws its power from the close-ups of her facial reaction shots. There?s the bedroom scheme that follows it, where the gulf between her and her husband, their total failure to communicate, is highlighted. And there?s the scheme at the village concert party, where, almost wordlessly, George conveys her internal horror, guilt, and torment at what?s been done to her.

Its not a pleasant film, and it's without conventional heroes and villains. Hoffman?s character is deeply flawed in his failure to relate to his wife on any meaningful level, or to provide emotional or physical security. When he finally is pushed to make a stand, its not over her at all, and he doesn?t even know about the rape; it?s only partly over protecting David Warner?s character. It?s really about defending the house itself, the house that, he says, ?is me?.

It?s only when there is the first killing that he intellectually, not emotionally, rationalises that there is now no going back - ?if they get in now they?ll have to kill us all?. The violence has taken on a life of its own.

With the exception of Norman, the villains are not really all bad. The father (Peter Vaughn) has at least legitimate cause for anger; Charlie does try to calm things down; the Rat Man had tried to connect with Hoffman, but failed.

Oh, and all that rubbish about Peckinpah being misogynistic, about portraying the rape as if the woman ?had asked for it? and was to blame for it? Just watch the film. It?s far more complex, and sympathetic, than that.