The Wicker Man 1973

[Brazoo]

There is no one reason I never saw this movie before - it's EXACTLY the kind of movie I want to see - but somehow this movie has been outrunning me for years.

I FINALLY watched it last night. Great movie - much stranger, more original and confounding then I thought it would be.

I deliberately avoided articles about The Wicker Man for years now - since I knew I was going to see it, so a lot of it was very surprising to me. Especially the movie's use of music. It was almost a musical! I absolutely loved the way the movie seemed artificial at times, like Tod Browning's "Freaks" or "Night of the Hunter". I think Ken Russell and David Lynch movies use a similar mix of seeming realistic and artificial too - but it's always hard to know how much of the artificial feeling was done intentionally.

It's hard for me to understand the intentions of the filmmakers right now. Treading carefully into this subject - and WITHOUT getting into details of your own religious views - I'd love to know people's thoughts on how you think we're suppose to interpret the movie.

a) Was it suppose to be a straight forward movie about good vs. evil? Sergeant Howie is a good man in a town of evil people? Because there are a lot of issues with that interpretation to me. Sergeant Howie doesn't seem very likable for a hero trying to save a little girl, and Lord Summerisle seems fairly sincere with good intentions, even though he's committing a horrible crime. But maybe that is what I'm bringing to it. Maybe it's not intentionally suppose to seem that way?

b) Is the movie suppose to be about the horror of following beliefs blindly? Maybe Howie is blinded by the townspeople's obvious intentions because he's so sure of his beliefs in his authority and morals that he never senses the danger he's in. Maybe Lord Summerisle isn't really evil, but he's blinded by his faith the same way? If the shoe was on the other foot would Sergeant Howie would be burning Lord Sommerisle for his beliefs? It seems that 200 years ago he might have. Again, it's hard to know if that's just me interpreting it that way - of if that's the way it's suppose to play out. Maybe we're suppose to be surprised when we find out the whole town is tricking Sergeant Howie and I just missed that? Maybe the filmmakers wanted to shock us there?

--

Also, I'm having problems identifying which cut of the movie I saw. Anyone know of a link that lists the running times (or any other identifying features) for the various versions so I can figure out which version I watched?

Another good thing about this, I can FINALLY watch that crazy Nicholas Cage version!

[ctc]

>I'd love to know people's thoughts on how you think we're suppose to interpret the movie.

I don't know if there's a way we're SUPPOSED to interpret it.... and I think that's what makes it such a nifty film. They present everything very matter-of-factly, with no particular good/evil spin. We get a good idea why everybody does what they do in the film, and can sympathise with them on SOME level at some point. I think that's one reason the film doesn't get more accolades from the general public: most movies lead you by the nose to the conclusion, wether overtly or not it's usually pretty obvious who you're SUPPOSED to root for. Even the ones that are supposed to be deep, and/or a character study. So a film like this would be kinda tough for an audience to get into.

I haven't seen too many films like that. "Curse of the Demon" is close. (You don't often see evil cult leaders performing at children's parties like that.) "Cube" was like that too.

>Sergeant Howie doesn't seem very likable for a hero trying to save a little girl

He's got that weird combo of self assured and completely naieve. I think you're right, that he adheres WAY too much to his personal dogma, and that's what gets him in the end. 'Course the OTHER folks adhere to their dogma just as tightly, and they seem to win.... unless you consider that they fail in their ultimate goal; to provide for life, 'cos they have to take life to do so. In some ways they're more pitiable than evil, their outdated beliefs driving them to such heinous acts. Then again, that could just be MY modernistic dogma looking down at them shamefull primitives....

....it really IS a complicated film, isn't it?

It's also interesting that the ol' Sarge ISN'T real likable. We support his quest, 'cos we can see the virtue in it; but we also wince a bit 'cos we've all had to deal with one of these right-seeing, stiff chaps at some point in our lives. So come the end, we feel bad for him, but part of us thinks he had it coming.

>If the shoe was on the other foot would Sergeant Howie would be burning Lord Sommerisle for his beliefs? It seems that 200 years ago he might have.

Haw! True.... although there's even odds he would have shared them, I think.

>Another good thing about this, I can FINALLY watch that crazy Nicholas Cage version!

....and that's good? Hmmmm.... you can never make fun of me for watching "Sharknado" again.

Don C.

[enyawd72]

This was one of the scariest movies I ever saw...to me, it really drives home a fear I have of organized religion. Without getting into a religious debate, all I can say is I find such beliefs to be irrational, but faith is so powerful it's affect on the human mind and the lengths some people will go to in the name of religion is terrifying.

[madmarva]

Enyawd, calling someone's beliefs - religious or not - irrational is the perfect way to start a debate if not a fight.

[enyawd72]

Enyawd, calling someone's beliefs - religious or not - irrational is the perfect way to start a debate if not a fight.

You misunderstand. The content of the film in question specifically deals with religious fanaticism, so it's impossible to discuss without bringing it up. The people in the movie follow their religious beliefs blindly to the point of committing human sacrifice. That is most certainly irrational. Faith, according to the dictionary is "A belief that is not based on proof." That would make such beliefs irrational, if only by definition. That doesn't mean faith itself is wrong, or that there is anything wrong with those who believe it, but sometimes, in the movies as well as in real life, it can be carried to extremes.

Hope I cleared that up...

[Brazoo]

I agree with Enywad's explanation - there's absolutely no question the horror in this movie comes from extreme beliefs, as in organized religious beliefs, but taken to a incredible extreme. I highly doubt he meant to be insulting or critical to people of faith in general, just fearful of what faith can end up doing if it's tainted, misused or abused by people.

I personally think of this as a basic fear that everyone has, like a fear of sharknados, and I had hoped that it wouldn't be controversial or insulting to discuss - but if this movie treads too close to seeming critical of faith in general we should maybe just stop this thread. I had not personally interpreted the movie that way - but maybe some do?

[Brazoo]

>I'd love to know people's thoughts on how you think we're suppose to interpret the movie.

I don't know if there's a way we're SUPPOSED to interpret it.... and I think that's what makes it such a nifty film.

Oy vey! Don, always with the semantics with you!!!

It just occurred to me that one way to look at it is that the filmmakers were very sincere about Howie being a moral hero in an evil world, and they just messed up this simple story by making Howie dislikable. Or I'm a psycho and everyone else loves him because he's obviously a good guy, and I'm missing that for some reason. maybe I'm a bad person?!

So I was slightly confused about how other people took this movie. It's also hard to know sometimes what the filmmaker's intent was, and this is the kind of movie that get's me curious, so I want to hear other people's views.

As an example, I can watch "Carnival of the Souls" and be amazed by how eerie and effective the movie is because it's so cold and soulless feeling, but then I find out that the director was a industrial and educational film director and can't help but wonder how much of that cold feeling was intentional and how much was a happy accident because of his previous film experience. I think maybe a little of both, in that specific case - but I really can't know - Herk Harvey never made another fictional movie for me to compare it to.

Sometimes movies find a life later, because they were misunderstood or ahead of their time when they originally came out, but I suspect that sometimes people read new things into movies as they age, and the meaning changes with time, and becomes more interesting to people later.

Like, maybe the pagan worship was suppose to illicit and automatic knee-jerk reaction against the townsfolk in 1973, "They're EVIL!!", but I've been so brainwashed to be tolerant of other people's beliefs later in the century that I watch this thinking Howie was the jerk, completely missing the point. Know what I mean?

He's got that weird combo of self assured and completely naieve. I think you're right, that he adheres WAY too much to his personal dogma, and that's what gets him in the end.

Yeah, the weird mix is dead on! He reminded me of a few other characters, like Jimmy Stewart in "Vertigo", Kyle MacLachlan's character in "Blue Velvet", and Tom Cruise in "Eye's Wide Shut". These characters with this same weird mix. They think for some reason they have the right to just walk into worlds they don't belong - and end up way over their heads. Come to think of it, these are some of my favorite characters - so maybe that's why I'm so excited about this movie.

Another one - Jonathan Pryce in "Brazil" is the same way too. He's the confident king of his artificially ordered world, until he enters the rabbit hole of reality. It's a great character type.

'Course the OTHER folks adhere to their dogma just as tightly, and they seem to win.... unless you consider that they fail in their ultimate goal; to provide for life, 'cos they have to take life to do so. In some ways they're more pitiable than evil, their outdated beliefs driving them to such heinous acts. Then again, that could just be MY modernistic dogma looking down at them shamefull primitives....

I don't know if the townsfolk really win, they think they do, I guess. I think no matter what that society will eventually cannibalize itself - like Howie predicted. Assuming the crops fail again at some point. I think it was interesting that you could see on Lord Summerisle's face that even he knew there was some truth to Sergeant Howie's warning to him.

Or, if you read this movie another way, the townsfolk will eventually be damned in the afterlife. I'm not sure which way the filmmakers were going with that, because I don't know their beliefs. I personally didn't read it as a theological movie.

I'll have to watch it again, but as I recall the last shot is of the sun setting. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that's symbolic of what happens to these folks, but apparently there are sequels...

....it really IS a complicated film, isn't it?

I thought so, but then I wondered if I was being too arsty-fartsy about it. I'm glad to know you agree!

It's also interesting that the ol' Sarge ISN'T real likable. We support his quest, 'cos we can see the virtue in it; but we also wince a bit 'cos we've all had to deal with one of these right-seeing, stiff chaps at some point in our lives. So come the end, we feel bad for him, but part of us thinks he had it coming.

Completely!

you can never make fun of me for watching "Sharknado" again.

I made fun of you for that?!! I just remember thinking movies that are bad on purpose aren't as fun as accidentally bad ones.

As it turns out I watched about half of that thing, I think it was more sincere than I had originally thought. I mean, maybe people who made it weren't trying their hardest, but some of the effort seemed genuine. In the end, I'm not sure it was much different then cornball 50s B-movie type films after all.

[ctc]

>I can watch "Carnival of the Souls" and be amazed by how eerie and effective the movie is because it's so cold and soulless feeling, but then I find out that the director was a industrial and educational film director and can't help but wonder how much of that cold feeling was intentional and how much was a happy accident because of his previous film experience.

It's interesting to wonder about stuff like that, but I try not to get wrapped around the axle over it. The product is the focus, and if the film was entertaining, engrossing and/or illuminating then so be it. HOW it got that way isn't real important. Except for film students and wannabe directors. That's one of the reasons I kinda rankle at questions like "Oh, who's in it?"

It's also interesting that sometimes the best stuff happens by accident. Hell; SUCCESS is mostly accident. (Successful folks call it "right place/right time" but that's a fancy way of saying "luck.") People ascribe success in entertainment to skill, but as often as not it's a result of the author/writer/director accidentally keying into the mind of the public. Or being so similar to them that what appeals to the author appeals to the audience.

One of the advantages of a vibrant B-movie industry is that you get a LOT of experiments. Most of which fail miserably, but every so often one of them produces something different. Maybe not something big, but something interesting enough that it finds it's way into other stuff. (Like the original Mad Max, and how EVERY post apocalypse became Mad Max.) Sometimes big movies do the same, but less often 'cos they tend to be more reigned in. (Like Blade Runner, that doesn't seem to have as many fans in the audience as it did in the industry.)

>Sometimes movies find a life later, because they were misunderstood or ahead of their time when they originally came out, but I suspect that sometimes people read new things into movies as they age, and the meaning changes with time, and becomes more interesting to people later.

This is true. Don't forget that everyone comes into a film with expectations; notions of the "right" way of making a film, or ideas of social acceptability, or iconography.... so a film's reception is as dependent on the time at which it's released as it is the actual content.

>maybe the pagan worship was suppose to illicit and automatic knee-jerk reaction against the townsfolk in 1973, "They're EVIL!!",

Like that. Funny thing, people in the 70's might have been MORE tolerant of an "alternative religion" like that. You had a boom in self-proclaimed pagans at the time. 'Course, that can work the other way and they could seem MORE weird and creepy to the straight laced members of 70's society who had to interact with folks expousing some of those beliefs, tying them in to all that icky "free love" and weed and stuff.... So there's some room for interpretation here. Again, a big part of why I like the film.

You don't get this nowadays 'cos they'd have focus-grouped the hell out of it (is that a pun?) WAY before it even came out, isolated the "target audience" and tweaked it so's to appeal to them more. Which takes a lot of the ambiguity out. That's a big reason I don't care so much for current films, especially the big budget ones. Once you know who their target audeince is (a process usually taking one scene, if not a single extended preview) it gets REAL EASY to predict what's going to happen, wether you want to or not.

>I've been so brainwashed to be tolerant of other people's beliefs

"Brainwashed" is an interesting choice of term....

>I don't know if the townsfolk really win, they think they do, I guess.

They achieve their goal, with no negative ramifications so I call that a win.

>I think no matter what that society will eventually cannibalize itself - like Howie predicted. Assuming the crops fail again at some point.

But EVERY society does that. We humans have a hard time keeping a lot of ideas in our heads, so we tend to rely on dogma, stereotype.... as we "advance" we rely on technical experts, specification.... and eventually it all goes wrong; requiring adaption or collapse. That was, in minimalist form what happened to the cop; HIS "reality" suffered a severe collapse when confronted with local conditions it couldn't adapt to. If it could, he would have seen his demise coming. By contrast, the townsfolk's paradigm had been in place for thousands of years.

>if you read this movie another way, the townsfolk will eventually be damned in the afterlife.

....if you believe in such things. Depending in your afterlife. To the townsfolk, death isn't the end, it's a return to the world. Hence the requirement for a life to restore life. To most of the audience, maybe. That's what WE'VE been told, but we could ALL be wrong and what awaits us is Carlin's "Great Electron."

>I personally didn't read it as a theological movie.

I didn't get that either; so much. It seemed more about the idea of perspective, and the clash of ideas than a testament as to who's god is better. The religion bit just facilitated the debate.

>I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that's symbolic of what happens to these folks

....or the cop, depending on how you look at it. "Night" isn't neccessarily a bad thing. The setting sun could represent the end of the old day.... which was bad for the townsfolk (AND the cop, I guess) and the beginning of the new one; where their plan worked, the gods are appeased and life goes on. (Especially if you consider them evil; the coming night representing the triumph of darkness....)

>I wondered if I was being too arsty-fartsy about it.

I think your concern here comes of our time. Most films (and entertainment in general) are lauded for it's simplicity and directness. ("It's a great popcorn/turn off your brain/ feel good film") Reading more into things is considered obsessive, nit-picky and pointless. Which is a great attitude to foster if your industry produces stuff like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTk1Gi5zoA

Fun aside!:
>In the end, I'm not sure it was much different then cornball 50s B-movie type films after all.

It's the first time I think they got that part right. They presented me with a bad idea, and they delivered.

Don C.

[madmarva]

That is most certainly irrational. Faith, according to the dictionary is "A belief that is not based on proof." That would make such beliefs irrational, if only by definition. That doesn't mean faith itself is wrong, or that there is anything wrong with those who believe it, but sometimes, in the movies as well as in real life, it can be carried to extremes.

Cool. The connotation of some words lend them more emotional strength than their explicit meaning implies, leaving words like irrational or ignorant as prejorative rather than just descriptive to some.

As for the movie, I'm not sure what the beliefs of its makers were either, but it certainly was executed in a way to leave the viewer thinking, which is an accomplishment particularly 40 years later. Few films attempt that today much less accomplish it.