Finally saw this film last night and, wow, lots to chew on.

Sgt. Howie is a really interesting character, and one that we don't encounter too often in film. His tenacity, piousness (one of my friends said "self-righteousness") as a devout Christian character is intriguing in its own right. And this is one of the best Christopher Lee performances. Lord Summerisle himself is a great character.I just found the entire film to be surprisingly engrossing.

The film builds suspense not through cheap thrills or by making things overly mysterious, but as the evidence builds, we are drawn into Howie's investigation better than most horror films I've seen. The film in that sense starts out as a straight mystery, and then descends into horror, but not the kind of horror we are used to. This is a smart and well written film.

Question? The film opens thanking Lord Summerisle for the opportunity to observe his islands pagan religous rites. I'm assuming this is just a "Coen Brothers" kind of thing, like in Fargo, to add more realism to a film that is already frighteningly realistic.

Actually, maybe this afternoon I'll go and watch "The Enigma of The Wicker Man" piece on the dvd. Should answer my questions.



However, what does the ending have to say about Howie. Is he a dupe? A Punch? Or are we supposed to admire him and his martyrdom?

I found this film to be much more frightening than most "cult/pagan" films I've seen because so much of what they do seems to be rooted in real practices of Medieval Europe.

Can't really comment on the film, Anders, due to my aversion to almost all horror films. I've passed this one by on the library shelves many a time.

BUT...did you know the director intends to revisit this theme in his upcoming film, May Day, which will also star Christopher Lee? IMDB doesn't say much about it, but I seem to remember that Sean Astin was once connected to this project, too. I think he was going to play an American preacher, but it looks like he's not part of it anymore. The film's listed as being in production, but the lack of info makes me wonder if it will be a go or not.

Thanks for the reminder, Anders.

I heard about this film years ago from a co-worker, but it wasn't until last month that I borrowed my brother's DVD copy of the film. I haven't watched it yet, but it's on my list. Maybe I'll post here again after I've seen it.

Actually Diane, I think this would be a great film for someone who doesn't like "Horror Films." It has barely any blood (unless you count dead animals), and none of the typical cheap shocks that you find in most horror films (Shyamalan included). The feeling of dread and horror is incredibly palpable at the end

However it does have a lot of nudity in it.

I've heard of the Wicker Man, and have read about it, and have not seen it because I'm... uh... sceeeeered of it.

I like scary horror films, as opposed to gory horror films, and have expressed admiration for the original Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street films, (but not their sequels).

But The Wicker Man seems to have too many elements that may completely throw me off. Maybe I'm wrong, but did the occultic elements in the film bother you in a good way or bad way?

Maybe I just need a little bit of prodding to see it if I can be convinced that it will not attack my faith, but instead provide good conversation fodder... I know, this sounds all so irrational, but that's what's kept me from it.

Nick

(but barely) for Nick

I wouldn't even go so far as to call the film "occultic", in the common sense, as it is more classical paganism/ druidism that is on display. The occultic elements definitely scared me in a good way, and did so even for my non-Christian friends whom I watched it with.

I don't see the film as an attack on Christianity, and I think it definitely could lead to some excellent Christian discussion, which is why I wanted to talk about it here.

(spoilers)

It's in a class of its own. I don't think it's a great film, but it has a ton of guts for going through with the premise.

I really didn't know how to react to the story's resolution, Anders, and I'm not sure there's any way to apply conventional reactions to it. You witness that climax, and the natural question to ask is whether you feel that he met his deserved end or whether he was wronged. The answer seems obvious on some level, but I certainly couldn't say with any degree of conviction that the film was trying to portray the pagans as obviously evil. I don't think I trust the film enough to credit it for commenting on the nature of identification with one character or another. There's the interesting conflict between the worldviews (and the ways in which Cowie's views conflict with many of his own countrymen), but the rest of it seems to play out a satirical farce with admirable straight-facedness.

I think the screenwriter, Anthony Shaffer, saw the film as anti-religious in spirit, at least according to what I remember from Allan Browne's intriguing book Inside the Wicker Man.

Although I had read the book in college, I only recently saw the movie just before leaving for Kenya in June, and was disappointed by the disjointedness of the production. But it wasn't until this past weekend that I realized I had viewed the truncated 88 minute version (the only one Netflix has available). Has anyone seen the 99 minute release, which is available on DVD? I have yet to find it available for rent, although there is a packaged DVD available containing both 88 and 99 minute versions for sale. Is the 99 min. any better? Are the characters fleshed out a bit more?

And is anyone who has already seen "The Wicker Man", going to revisit this movie in the fall, when the original and rarely seen 102 minute version is finally released on DVD (there may also be a limited theatrical release of this version)?

Some fascinating history of The Wicker Man film on this site:

http://www.steve-p.org/wm/

I dunno, Stef. I think the film should get some credit merely for pursuing such an unusual narrative arc. Howie's the protagonist, yet the film isn't sympathetic to his point of view. Lee and his pagans are presented as earnest, though dippy, and responsible for murders (yet heroic and free!). Despite what the filmmakers would perceive to be the protag's flaws (uptightness, disdain for pagan freedom), convention still calls for the hero to solve the crime and escape the danger. When it becomes clear that the film won't permit that sort of compromise, it's a sober moment. The film may buy into a bunch of lies (I could never read just how far the writer's and actors' tongues are planted in their cheeks), but it is true to its own vision, at least. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but on a dramatic level, I find it somewhat more satisfying than your typical lousy horror film that tries to affirm the right things--security, honesty, family-- through a contrived and poorly-plotted menagerie of murder. I mean, most horror films are at their root perversions of OT justice narratives, despite their indulgence in carnality. Here's one that is pagan through and through. It might be the best example of a anti-Christian film.

I found it really odd and it left me saying I-can't-believe-they-actually-went-through-with-it.

This is the last film in the world that i want to be drawn into a debate on. I honestly don't think it's worth all that much time. However, because it's you, Russell...

I yield to Kara.

I found the film to be very wary of making value judgements about anything, Christianity or paganism, human sacrifice or self-righteousness. What I found more interesting was the clash of worldviews which pervades the film. I find the film pretty much equally respectful towards both Howie and the island inhabitants. I don't think you can say this film is necessarily anti-Christian, more that there are simply more pagans littered thorugh the film and Howie is consistently shown to be struggling with his Christianity while the pagans are utterly happy to be pagan-like.

After reading the 40 Best Directors thread, I was looking into a project that was supposed to be pairing David Cronenberg and Nicholas Cage. I couldn't find anything about that particular project, perhaps it has stalled or Cage has dropped out.

But I did find this interesting bit of info... Nicholas Cage is set to produce and star in a remake of The Wicker Man, with writing and directing credits by Neil LaBute. Currently in pre-production in Vancouver, with a 2006 release.

Why? There is no need to remake The Wicker Man. There's no need to remake any film, in my opinion, but especially not this one.

Dear Lord, please let the plans for a remake of The Wicker Man go down the drain with plans for Mad Max 5.

-s.

There have never been plans in any history, recorded or unrecorded, to make a Mad Max 5.

UM, 4?

You know what I mean. I always lose track after the sequel's sequel.

-s.

I'm glad this thread reappeared just so I could read this sentence again. I actually considered using this as a sig line once.

Link to the thread on the remake.

I was listening to Scott Foundus (LA Weekly reviewer) on KLOS the other morning, and he revealed that the new version of The Wicker Man is not going to be screened for critics before its opening date in September. Can any of you confirm this rumor? Not the greatest of signs, especially for a film that has Neil LaBute and Nicholas Cage attached.

I wrote:
: Link to the thread on the remake.

And now I hear that there is ANOTHER "re-imagining" of this film coming along ... and that Robin Hardy and Christopher Lee, the director and star of the original film, are both involved ... and it is called ... Cowboys for Christ.

What is wrong with these people? This is like playing an awful, skipping record, with a song that annoys you, and still choosing to go back and play it again.

There's a line in my head from a movie, I don't know which one, but it is so perfect for my feelings about a Wicker Man second remake -- "WHY WON'T YOU DIE????"

-s.

Could that be a line that Robert the Bruce yells at his father in Braveheart?

Don't forget to rate this work by clicking "Rating", above, selecting a rating, and clicking "Rate". When five users have submitted a rating, the group rating will be displayed.

For guidance on selecting or understanding ratings, please click here.

Link to the thread on SDG's review of the film.

Not one, but TWO Wicker Man reviews, the 1973 original and the 2006 remake. I'm glad that SDG was able to get the review for the 1973 version out before the end of its 35th anniversary year, especially as other reviewers do not seem to have been going out of their way to mark the occasion.

Having read SDG's review of the original, I can see why he chose to review it, but he omitted what to me was the most striking thing about the 1973 version: how very "then" it looks; the inevitable consequence of its efforts to look very "now" in 1973. My wife and I had enormous difficulty in getting past that aspect of the film. It was similar to the experience we've had watching some old BBC Jane Austen adaptations where you can't attend to the dialogue because you can't take your eyes off the dreadful wigs that the cast are wearing. (BTW – should it be "the cast ARE wearing" or "the cast IS wearing"?) Anyway, where was I: Oh, yes; my wife and I watch old movies from the 30's, 40's, etc. routinely without finding it at all difficult to enjoy the movie in spite of the fact that everyone has hair and clothing appropriate to when it was made, so it isn't clear to me why we found it so distracting with The Wicker Man '73.

Has anyone else had that experience with some movies and not with others? Any idea why?

I don't remember the "then" of the way the movie looked, but I sure do remember that goofy musical score! I'm not sure it has a "then" quality, or just a "bad" quality to it.

Christian wrote:
: I'm not sure it has a "then" quality, or just a "bad" quality to it.

It's always so hard to tell these things apart where the '70s are concerned.

On reflection I think it is a consequence of the self-consciousness of the period; the overtly held belief that the counter-culture was breaking with the past and which was therefore obsessed with being current. Other periods did not raise being up-to-date to the status of a moral virtue, and so their cultural artifacts tend to age more gracefully.

Most correctly, "the cast is wearing"; just as we would say, "the audience applauds", not "the audience applaud". But in context, "are" is acceptable, while improper.

Bowen, great observation -- although I did not mention the "datedness" in my review, it was the first consideration that came to mind when a friend asked me how they would find the film. Why would I think to mention it to my friend first, and not think to mention it in my review?


Actually, my impression is that typical US use is "the cast/audience is" while typical UK use is "the cast/audience are." Ditto other collective nouns like press, faculty, etc.

SDG, very briefly: I wasn't aware of any difference in usage in the US vs. the UK, but that's not to say there isn't one, just that I've got no way of knowing.

The distinction, I think, is whether the group in question is acting collectively (e.g. cast is wearing, audience is applauding) or acting individually (cast are dressing, audience are laughing). I would be tempted in the latter case to say "cast members" or "audience members" just so that it will read well; but I think that's the technical point of difference. Of course, then it becomes (as I hinted) a matter of context.

I may be wrong! I only have pretense to expertise in such things.

I don't claim any expertise -- I just have the impression that every time I see a construction like "the cast are" I happen to be reading a British author.

However, something is tickling my brain that we have actually discussed this issue once before. I specifically remember M. Dale Prins reacting violently against constructions like "the cast are."

I tried to find it, but all I could find was this lovely thread. The end is worth quoting at length:


Um. Anyway, I don't think I linked to my review yet.