comment #1

George Prager says ...

Denzel Washington

comment #2

The InSneider says ...

Do you really want to know who would be PERFECT for the Hoffman role? Someone who MIGHT BE ABLE TO sell tickets in Europe. He's not a movie star at all. Hell, these days he's a TV director. Are you ready?






DAVID SCHWIMMER

comment #3

Moises Chiullan says ...

I actually completely agree on Schwimmer. Staying within the pool of former Friends actors, Matthew Perry could work too. Don't let their involvement in that show fool you, both of those guys have seriously under-used and under-appreciated chops.

comment #4

Glenn Kenny says ...

Come on, Jeff. Weixler is certainly talented and appealing, but that's no reason to implicitly slag Susan George, who did yeoman work in Peckinpah's film. Frankly, this sounds like the sort of special pleading Robin Wood's been known to make on behalf of Ethan Hawke.

comment #5

Calraigh Bracken says ...

'' In a whole-hearted, feminine sense'' ?

Can you, or are you able to elaborate on this please?

comment #6

clancy says ...

I am confused. haven't jake Gyllenhall and Kate Bosworth been cast? Schwimmer is a very creative idea. He worked with Lurie in the last film and was terrific.

comment #7

mutinyco says ...

Seth Rogen and some hot chick.

comment #8

MilkMan says ...

I was watching Warhol's Flesh last night and for some reason it reminded me of Swanberg's movies, except Warhol (and Morrisey - shouldn't forget him, that prick) was doing something pretty strange and original at the time, whereas Swanberg isn't doing anything I haven't seen in the countless number of acting class exercises I witnessed at NYU.

Joe D'Allesandro was a really creepy screen presence. Not as creepy as Joe Swanberg though, because I understand why everyone wanted a piece of Little Joe. Swanberg is repellent. He makes Eric Schaeffer look like George Clooney.

comment #9

MilkMan says ...

Straw Dogs remake: Jason Schwartzman and Abby Cornish go to Adelaide, Austrailia, directed by Abel Ferrara.

comment #10

The InSneider says ...

Also: Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Liev Schreiber. And as Glenn said, maybe Ethan Hawke too, although I feel like it'd be a little too familiar for him, like Training Day and Taking Lives, where the nice guy becomes an animal at the end. I like Gyllenhaal a lot but I don't think he'd be a good fit. And definitely not Bosworth. What about this Carey Mulligan girl?

comment #11

George Prager says ...

Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg.

comment #12

kingofnails says ...

Paul Giamatti and Hope Davis. Box office, schmoxoffice.

comment #13

berg says ...

I think you need a male lead who is small in stature ... A tall strong guy like L Schreiber or E Bana makes the stand off seem more of an even fight ... Schwartzman or how about Justin Long, he can be funny now let's see him act ....

comment #14

lazarus says ...

There's something disturbing about fantasy female casting for a Straw Dogs remake, because it essentially boils down to "Who would I most want to see raped onscreen in a way where you're not sure if she's fighting very hard, and maybe kind of likes it?"

This is all wrong.

comment #15

Cadavra says ...

David Krumholtz would be good; he's practically playing that character now on NUMB3RS, likewise Anna Paquin on TRUE BLOOD.

comment #16

Pomerania says ...

whatever else I hope they do something about the extremely dodgy rape scene in the original.

comment #17

televisiontears says ...

Lazarus, that scene took what was already amazing performance from George, and turned it into something iconic, vulnerable, and in a twisted way, almost empowering. I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating which contemporary actresses could match that kind of layered wonder.

My Picks:
Anne Hathaway and (wait for it) Motherfuckin' Tobey Maguire! No doubt.

comment #18

McClaneSveUs says ...

Justin Long

Vanessa Shaw

comment #19

JB Moore says ...

Eddie Deezen

Lauren Conrad

comment #20

BurmaShave says ...

Harris Ford and Calista Flockhart. "STOP RAPING MY WIFE!"

comment #21

The InSneider says ...

Bana was a reach, sure, but Schreiber would, as Lex G might say, OWN a role like this. I don't think he's THAT physically imposing. Sure, he's played the tough lately, with Defiance, The Sum of All Fears, Wolverine, but I think he could pull off the tweed jacket type, the kind of guy who grew up in rural Connecticut and never had to fight for anything in his life. Hell, maybe he could do it with his galpal Naomi Watts, although it's a little too close to Funny Games for her. Krumholtz and Goldberg are both decent ideas but they wouldn't sell tickets overseas. Numb3rs ain't exactly Friends in Europe.

comment #22

MilkMan says ...

JB Moore wins.

comment #23

George Prager says ...

Ernest Borgnine, Scarlett Johanssen

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

Fuck, Harrison, obviously.

comment #25

dangovich says ...

Ned Beatty and Burt Reynolds.

comment #26

Gabriel says ...

"There's something disturbing about fantasy female casting for a Straw Dogs remake, because it essentially boils down to "Who would I most want to see raped onscreen in a way where you're not sure if she's fighting very hard, and maybe kind of likes it?"

This is all wrong."

Not even. Lurie already said there's not going to be any smiling in "his" film. So this conversation is basically just about who we want to see get raped.

I nominate Brett Ratner.

comment #27

Gabriel says ...

"Harris Ford and Calista Flockhart. "STOP RAPING MY WIFE!""

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

comment #28

sumo-pop says ...

Ryan Gosling and Keira Knightley

or if you want to skew older

Robert Downey JR and Naomi Watts

comment #29

McClaneSveUs says ...

What about:

Allison Lohman?

She's grown up a bit, and not to mention, she is a talented actress. Does she have the sexuality for a role like that?

comment #30

Geoff says ...

Harris Ford and Calista Flockhart. "STOP RAPING MY WIFE!"

That deserves an LOL.

comment #31

lazarus says ...

McClane, apparently you haven't seen Atom Egoyan's Where The Truth Lies. I know, most people hated it, but Lohman's definitely all growns up.

comment #32

Calraigh Bracken says ...

''Does she have the sexuality for a role like that?''

What the fuck does sexuality have to do with rape?

I'm in complete agreement with Lazarus.
This has essentially devolved into a thread about determining which actors would have the best chemistry, all the while discussing which female actor they most want to see raped on screen.

comment #33

btwnproductions says ...

Ford and Flockhart aren't married, though.

comment #34

McClaneSveUs says ...

I disagree Bracken.

I think it's a very complex female role. What the character (and by turn, the actress) endure, is horrendous. But it's still a role, and as played by George, it was highly sexualized. And I don't mean the awful rape sequence. Peckinpah was obviously going through something profound and was displaying some powerful misogyny in this film. I'm not sure Rod Lurie is going down that rode, but if he does, I think an actress with a certain degree of sexuality is important.

comment #35

Calraigh Bracken says ...

What are you disagreeing with?
Because the only question I posed was what exactly rape has to do with sexuality.
There are no muddy waters there McClane and I wonder, do you really want to get into this, or are you just throwing stuff out there?

comment #36

McClaneSveUs says ...

I'm throwing stuff out there...and defending the purpose of the forum.

I don't believe the rape has anything to with sexuality. And I'm not arguing which actress I'd like to see raped on screen. I'm following up on Jeff's question - what actresses could play the part and also expand on it. And the original role, as played by George, was very sexual. She wasn't a librarian and she wasn't nymphomaniac, but her behavior was often suggestive. And her highly sexualized character was a startling contrast to Hoffman's buttoned-up academic. I think all those things are important for what the film was trying to do. So I asked, could Allison Lohman play that role? And could she do something interesting with it? I'm not asking if she'd make a good rape victim?

comment #37

Calraigh Bracken says ...

You don't believe the rape has anything to do with sexuality, yet you state that the original role was ''very sexual'' and that her behaviour was ''often suggestive''.
What do you define as the ''interesting '' facet Lohman, or any other actress could bring to the part?
And more importantly, what is your opinion as to what the film was ''trying to do '' in this respect?
As this has become a ''forum'', I look forward to a lengthy discussion!

Asking ''Could Alison Lohman play that role?'' is absolutely redundant. Any actress could play that role. Otherwise, whether you like it or not, you are actually asking whether she'd play a good rape victim on screen. Or anyone else for that matter.

Which is essentially what Well's original question was.

comment #38

McClaneSveUs says ...

Could I get away with just saying that the film is about classism?

comment #39

Calraigh Bracken says ...

If you took the time to say ''I disagree...I think it's a very complex female role'' and that you're ''defending the purpose of the forum'', why would you want to ''get away'' with anything?

Unless of course you were just talking out of your arse and you don't actually have the courage of your convictions.

By all means, go the whole ''classism'' route. But despite the fact that that's completely irrelevant to the questions I asked you, if you want a searing portrait of the class system, watch Renoir's The Rules of The Game .
Straw Dogs is a different animal.

comment #40

frankbooth says ...

"STOP RAPING MY WIFE!" would have to be accompanied by this gesture, of course:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/173460/

comment #41

McClaneSveUs says ...

Initially, when I first saw it, I thought Peckinpah was attacking women's lib. I thought he cast a sex symbol in Susan George and gave her character who was openly sexy and flirtatious and then went on to debase her in the name of misogyny. And perhaps that's the sole reason he made the film.

I'd also like to think the film is a meditation on violence and the idea that a good, intelligent man can be pushed into brutal resolve when his life and woman are assaulted.

And of course, there's the classism angle.

As far as any actress playing the role? Well, I'd like to think that defeats the purpose of casting - suggesting that any actor or actress and can any part. I'd like to think that certain performers bring certain traits that add texture to a role as it's written.

In the case of Lohman, I think that she has a youthful look, but perhaps projects more intelligence than Susan George did in the original.

I asked if Lohman had the sexuality for the role because, obviously, I think the role demands it. At least, how Peckinpah wrote it.

I hadn't seen her in anything requiring her to be sexy. The role that stuck out for me was in Matchstick Men.

comment #42

TVMCCA says ...

Melissa George and Jason Segel?

comment #43

Calraigh Bracken says ...

And therein lies the problem- that the role, as written, ''demands'' sexuality and that you and a lot of others agree with this notion. Saying that any actor can play any part is not the same as saying any actor can play this part, but I think you know this yourself.

There are so many problems with this film it's difficult to know where to start, even the fact that the director of something as wonderful as Nothing But The Truth is involved doesn't give me pause.
Remaking it is not only a pointless exercise, I think it's a retrograde one. Peckinpah was so incredibly inept in his depiction of George's character and her rape that it actually doesn't matter who plays her, she's reduced to less than a character, she's a device. She's a vehicle for Peckinpah's disturbed view of human sexuality, especially female sexuality.
If Lurie rewrote the character from scratch and made her a character , instead of a marionette, I'd give it the time of day.

As it stands, this ''complex female'' role is just another addition to the vast repertoire of hookers, victims and doormats that Hollywood has provided for female actors.
Arguing over which actor would be most ''interesting'' in the role is not only ridiculous it's nauseating.

comment #44

arturobandini2 says ...

McClane, I appreciate your thoughtful and self-deprecatingly humorous contribution to this thread.

comment #45

McClaneSveUs says ...

I don't think Peckinpah is completely inept. I think it's easy to make that assumption, but I believe his portrayal of "men" is the greater caricature, than of women. Because Peckinpah was such a misanthrope, he always believed violence, right or wrong, was man's finite solution. People say he glorified violence, but I'd disagree. When I watch his films, I'm not mesmerized by violence. I recoil. And I don't think he's glorifying it in Straw Dogs either.

I'm not sure George's character is quite the "device" you make her out to be.

Certainly, Peckinpah lets his camera linger on her in skimpy clothing throughout and he gives the character scenes where he behavior is sexually taunting, but I think that Peckinpah's intention was to show that just because George's character is a sexual being, that doesn't mean she should be punished.

Her assault itself, and George's performance, suggest not pleasure, but a reaction to events she can no longer control - to an action she is powerless to stop. And her tragic, horrific acceptance is perhaps a credit to George as an actress.

I think the role is far more complex than just that of a "device." I certainly agree that she is ultimately objectified, but I would argue that her relationship with Hoffman, and the hinting of their marriage's impending failure throughout, suggest more shading than you're giving the film credit for.

comment #46

McClaneSveUs says ...

Question:

If they remake Deliverance

Are we going to have the same discussion over who plays the Ned Beatty role?

comment #47

Calraigh Bracken says ...

I don't think Peckinpah is completely inept either; in fact I consider him a genius in a certain regard.
I certainly don't think he sought to glorify violence in Straw Dogs either; of course he didn't the entire crux of the narrative is that he's asking the audience, ''well, what would you do''?

That's not the point and this is where we'll always disagree, because George's character is always a device, to the extent that she doesn't even voice what has happened to her, to her own spouse.

Rationalizing Peckinpah's depiction of George's character by claiming that he wanted to show how a woman who displayed her sexuality still doesn't deserved to get ''punished '', implies that in some instances, well, she does.

It's like saying ''people shouldn't be murdered''.
How exactly is this a radical or ''shaded'' approach to ''classism'' as you put it?

As for George's ''reaction'', it's completely in line with Peckinpah's fantastical portrayal of rape and I don't think it has anything to do with George's abilities (which are negotiable), more with Peckinpahs character outline.

The complexity you attribute to this role is, quite honestly, laughable. The idea that a woman can be sexual, yet still doesn't deserve rape? Revolutionary! The notion that a victim could be psychologically damaged after such an attack? Insightful!
A victim not wanting to admit to such an attack? Boundary breaking.

I think the central conceit of man beign pushed to the limit is sound and Peckinpah is never less than brilliant when dealing with David Sumner. In this respect there's a huge amount to admire about the film

For me though, the film hinges on the fact that Peckinpah sought to make one point and then completely undermined it.

By dehumanizing a character for the sake of cheap thrills, I think his motivations were about as well thought out as Dubya's speech patterns.

Answer:

Can you give me a reason why we shouldn't?
Apart from the arse-breakingly funny repartee that is?

comment #48

arturobandini2 says ...

Phillip Seymour Hoffman would be too obvious. How 'bout Russell Crowe?

comment #49

TVMCCA says ...

Lurie's Straw Dogs is taking place in the south, by the way, and not rural England. I for one admire his bravery in plunging ahead with it.

Maybe he could consider partially distancing himself from the original by using a different title.

comment #50

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I now propose McClane and Calraigh for the lead roles in the remake.

They obviously have the right chemistry.

comment #51

Renfield says ...

Christina Hendricks

comment #52

Pomerania says ...

Calraigh is spot on. The film was one of the apotheoses of '70's misogyny and the way the rape is depicted is indifensible on every level. You can talk your way round it anyway you like, the basic fact remains that it showed rape as sexy. And that's got to be repugnant to all of us - right, Jeff?
So let's cut the crappy, inane, vapid conversations about casting.

comment #53

Pomerania says ...

...and isn't it worrying this film is being remade right now? What's that telling us? Isn't this the kind of question to ask - in fact the only conversation about this film worth having?

comment #54

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"I nominate Brett Ratner"

Gabriel for the win and the LOLz

comment #55

samizdat says ...

George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice.

comment #56

George Prager says ...

Kevin James and Sasha Grey.

comment #57

Machina de La Verdad says ...

Thank you - you have all been played by Mr. Wells for the amusement of third tier director Rod Lurie and his producing partner (lol). The correct answer is do not remake the film. You can now return to your mobile homes.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But, beware of men

comment #58

George Prager says ...

Satisfied with his silly-ass comment, Pocket Rocket of Truth slammed his laptop shut, causing his monocle to pop out.

comment #59

The Fisch says ...

Adam Sandler

Amy Adams

comment #60

bmcintire says ...

"Peckinpah was so incredibly inept in his depiction of George's character and her rape that it actually doesn't matter who plays her, she's reduced to less than a character, she's a device. She's a vehicle for Peckinpah's disturbed view of human sexuality, especially female sexuality.
If Lurie rewrote the character from scratch and made her a character , instead of a marionette, I'd give it the time of day."

Calraigh and Pomerania - a heads up. Peckinpah is not remaking this, Lurie is. And Lurie has been known to write things down all on his own.

And Susan George was a terrible actress many producers/directors apparently wanted to fuck. Witness MANDINGO, TINTORERA, THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS and DIRTY MARY, CRAZY LARRY. A healthy portion of the lack of characterization rests securely in her hands as well

And Prager, the monocle bit was priceless.

comment #61

Marty Melville says ...

George gives a terrific performance in Straw Dogs.

And calling Peckinpah "inept" is just witless. You can despise his philosophy, his morality, his misogyny... but his craft (particularly in Straw Dogs) is impeccable. He accomplished everything he set out to do in this film.

comment #62

frank_delsa says ...

Really, to be able to calll Peckinpah "inept" while keeping a straight face, one really needs to be drunk with Political Correctness. Lay off the PC booze guys, you had too much already...

comment #63

Calraigh Bracken says ...

Thanks guys, for not only not reading any of my comments, quoting me out of context but really revelling in it too.

I'm well aware of the fact that it's Lurie remaking the film BMcIntire- I said so. Twice. I said that and I quote , from myself- '' even the fact that the director of something as wonderful as Nothing But The Truth is involved doesn't give me pause.''

I'm in complete agreement about George's abilities as an actress. I said so and I quote, from myself - '' ..George's abilities (which are negotiable) ''.

Heads up McIntire- Try reading the comments you're criticizing first, it tends to piss off the original commenter.

comment #64

Calraigh Bracken says ...

Marty, my reference to Peckinpah as ''inept'' was in relation to the depiction of George's character. Which was completely and irresponsibly inept.
I completely agree with you concerning Peckinpah's talent. And I said so (sigh) twice : ''Peckinpah is never less than brilliant when dealing with David Sumner. In this respect there's a huge amount to admire about the film '' and '' ... I consider him a genius in a certain regard.''

It obviously doesn't matter to you whether people quote you incorrectly and out of context but it does to others, as it does to me.
Cop yourself on.

comment #65

Calraigh Bracken says ...

Frank, read the original comments, or even my follow-up comments. If you had, you wouldn't have had to comment at all! Then again, as you couldn't be arsed even to do that right, I suspect you'll just carry on commenting in this vein, despite the fact that we actually agree.

CHRIST.

comment #66

bmcintire says ...

Calraigh-
If it "doesn't give [you] pause", then why follow up with the comment that "Remaking it is not only a pointless exercise, I think it's a retrograde one."

Again, it is you muddying your own point. You obviously have problems with Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS and you are dismissing Lurie's adaptation of it based solely on what Peckinpah / George did with the role of Amy Sumner. ("As it stands, this ''complex female'' role is just another addition to the vast repertoire of hookers, victims and doormats that Hollywood has provided for female actors. Arguing over which actor would be most ''interesting'' in the role is not only ridiculous it's nauseating.")

I know you are aware of the current director of this remake (and even quoted your reference to it - sharp eye there!) but you certainly aren't pontificating as such. It would also seem to be you who is rushing to type this role as "Rape Victim,full stop"

And speaking of quotes out of context, please recall your back-handed praise of Lurie (which was simply a tsk-tsking of him for his involvement in this project) began with "There are so many problems with this film it's difficult to know where to start. . ."
This film. Which is still being written and has not shot a single frame of footage yet.

comment #67

Calraigh Bracken says ...

BMcIntire- I responded to you quoting me inaccurately and out of context. That's why I was prompted to respond in the first place.

Do you want to have a discussion about the merits/demerits of the original? Lurie's abilities as a filmmaker? The motivation behind remaking it?
What? Pick a point. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about.
As it stands, you've just grasped at few things in the hope of defending yourself against not actually reading the comments I made.

Which brings me to this- are you seriously condescending to me about the fact that I had to quote myself? Seeing as you couldn't actually manage to do it yourself?

Yes, BMcintire, there are many problems with the film. The original film . Tell me, did you have many reading comprehension problems in school?

Luries' involvement with the film, which is nascent, as you say (it doesn't exist yet! sharp eye there!) was irrelevant to the discussion, apart from me pointing out my obvious admiration for his talent and Nothing But The Truth , which I think is a masterpiece and one of the best films of 2008.

If you want to discuss something, great. Let's do it.
Otherwise stop talking out of your arse.

comment #68

bmcintire says ...

Calraigh - Please feel free to illuminate where I have quoted you either inaccurately or out of context or "couldn't manage to do it."

I fully understand - and agree - that there are many problems with the original film. I also get that you think it should not be remade (even or especially by a filmmaker you respect such as Rod Lurie) because of your problems with the original film. And you keep going back to the Hollywood rape victim trope in your condemnation of the remake:
"You don't believe the rape has anything to do with sexuality, yet you state that the original role was ''very sexual'' and that her behaviour was ''often suggestive''. What do you define as the ''interesting '' facet Lohman, or any other actress could bring to the part?"
You appear unable to separate the rape scene from the role in total. And you also appear to believe Lurie, whose talent you claim to admire , either could not or would not choose to do anything different or better with his script and direction.

And your charge of condescension is rich, especially coming from someone who wrote the following.
"The complexity you attribute to this role is, quite honestly, laughable. The idea that a woman can be sexual, yet still doesn't deserve rape? Revolutionary! The notion that a victim could be psychologically damaged after such an attack? Insightful! A victim not wanting to admit to such an attack? Boundary breaking."

comment #69

Calraigh Bracken says ...

''Calraigh and Pomerania - a heads up. Peckinpah is not remaking this, Lurie is. ''

''And Susan George was a terrible actress ...''

''back-handed praise of Lurie (which was simply a tsk-tsking of him for his involvement in this project) ''

''And you also appear to believe Lurie, whose talent you claim to admire , either could not or would not choose to do anything different or better with his script and direction. ''

Now you've gone from not only commenting on something that you had never read to begin with, to making assumptions based on comments that don't exist.

But keep trying to deflect the question at hand by trying to delve into a discussion that you were never involved in. Go on, keep it up.

Criticizing me for being condescending, for having to point out my own comments because you couldn't be bothered to read them ? That's not rich McIntire. That's logic.
That's the part that means you ''couldn't manage to do it''. And there's me having to do it again.

Again, if you want to discuss something, pick a point. Start a discussion of your own.

You thought you were calling me out on something to begin with, based on what someone else said incorrectly, not having read my original comments.

If you were so interested in the topic at hand, if you had really wanted to get involved, you had a whole thread in which to get involved. But you chose to jump on the bandwagon instead.

McClane committed to it. What the hell did you do?

comment #70

George Prager says ...

Hugh Grant and Renee Zellweger.