[ad_1]
The controversy begins when Charlie and his friends take David out on a hunt, only to leave him out on the moors so they can head back into town and assault Amy. When David finally makes it back home, he’s embarrassed and irritated by their abandonment, and has no knowledge of what took place. Amy doesn’t tell her husband what happened — a choice that is her right to make. Therefore, David’s explosion of rage and vengeance is not in Amy’s defense, but of his own accord. From the point of Amy’s first assault (yes, there is more than one) onward, David and Amy are operating from two different perspectives. We are witnessing two stories at once, and unfortunately, as David’s perspective becomes the dominant force toward the final third of the film, Amy’s is left ambiguous.
Another major focal point is a moment during Amy’s first assault where it appears as if she’s enjoying the violence being enacted upon her. What begins as a horrific act has a moment where she embraces the face of her attacker, and acts in a way that implies that she is encouraging the continued violence. This moment isn’t just an interpretation or a subtextual read, but an intentional decision made by Peckinpah that has been analyzed and interpreted for half a century. Is this moment proof that Peckinpah is nothing more than an exploitative misogynist, or is there something else happening that warrants discussion?
[ad_2]
Source link
Comments are closed.