70's Flicks ~ Remember?...

[Pumpkin_Man]

ScarecrowJack, I actualy liked the tv series "Logans Run" better then the original movie, because it told a continuing story of a post apochalyptic world with Logan and his crew trying to escape the authorities who are trying to terminate him.

Mike

[ScarecrowJack]

I bought The Wicker Man with Woodward on VHS, because Edward Woodward was a favorite of mine. However, the movie is not a favorite of mine. First off, the nudity etc. seems dated to me now, because it comes so much out of that era when people were still ga-ga that they could show naked actors and openly address topics like that in the movies.

Mainly, though, I have issues with the story itself. The Woodward character is a bit of a prude, but he is sincerely concerned for the safety of the child, and his genuine heroism is used to trick him. The movie leaves me with a terrible feeling, because a genuinely good man is ridiculed and tricked into his death. IOW, the bad guys win. I don't like it.

I caught The Wicker Man again recently and wanted to weigh in. I don't think Officer Howie is really that good of a person. He isn't merely a prude, he's judgmental and intolerant. And while he is motivated to find the child, he clearly holds everybody on the island in complete and utter contempt. It seems he's already assumed the worst about these people based on his own prejudices and he's using his position as a police officer to force himself into their community the entire time expressing in no uncertain terms just how wrong and ignorant they are. And how much better and right he is. There's also a scene in the beginning that isn't on all of the cuts. It shows Howie is equally contemptuous of his fellow officers that don't follow the religious traditions the same way he does. It comes off, to me at least, that he keeps the traditions he does to feel superior to those around him, not just for spiritual or religious reasons.

When Howie is specifically sent the letter, it's shown that he was specific selected. I don't think it was entirely because he was Christian, but the type of Christian he was.

On the other hand, Sumerisle is no better a character. He is just as fanatical, cock-sure, and arrogant as Howie. Neither have a scrap of humility or the ability to see another point of view. I think that gets a little lost in the movie, since Sumerisle is presented as more urban than Howie. In fact, he's presented as almost reasonable and more sympathetic. But they're both fanatics and neither are the hero. This movie doesn't have one. There I will agree with you, while I do think this is a good movie, it's not a nice one.

Now clearly Howie doesn't deserve what he gets. Being an arrogant fanatic does not mean you should die horribly. But within the mythology the movie sets up I understand why Howie was chosen. Some of the Celtic tribes appear to have practiced human sacrifice and among those who did it was often an enemy of the people, which Howie would have been perceived to be. Which gets to the point I took away from the movie.

I think it's less about conflict between to religious people or groups and more about how people misuse religion. Howie uses it as a bludgeon to judge and dismiss people who don't live up to his expectations or don't make the same choices he does. Sumerisle also uses religion to feel superior. He's so much smarter than Howie, so much more aware of the true religion and his place in it. That it was started, and is still being used, to get people to farm the land more in a more involved manner is glossed over in his thinking. And he is every bit as contemptuous and dismissive as Howie.

So, yeah. I think it's a good movie in terms of art direction, acting, research, and overall quality. I think it makes some interesting points and is worth watching. But it's not a nice movie, it's pretty dark and certainly not one I would watch for a happy ending.

[Murfreesboro]

I appreciate your rather subtle analysis of Wicker Man, Scarecrow Jack. If I can ever bring myself to watch that movie again, I will do so with more attention to the points you make.

[Kolchak]

You know the great thing about movies is that we can all play film critic. The problem arises when we insert our own personal prejudices and views onto a character or moment in the film when something occurs that makes us uncomfortable.

Was the Edward Woodward character really judgemental? Intolerant and a prude? First and foremost religions have the right to be judgemental. It's called Dogma and it is in everyday life and not just in religion. Anybody who says they are accepting of everyone and everything is a liar.

The character was a man in moral turmoil.

His anger at those not being as moral as him served to show during the movie that despite behavior he detests, he is prepared to find the truth at whatever the cost. This showing his ability to put aside one belief system so he can try and do his job.

Whether we arrive there by upbringing, parenting or life AND LACK of life experience we all are judgemental.

But to stick with the movie....

It was made at a time when taking pot shots at Christianity was in vogue and was meant to be a hit on the religion, and its values. That is not an opinion but a statement of fact. That's why you have the heavy emphasis on boom-boom and nudity.

Tolerance is a two way street. By Britt Eklands actions, it was obvious that she was trying to tempt the officer and get him to break his vows and get him to engage in conduct he was not comfortable with. Where is the tolerance there? These people ridicule and mock those who don't agree with their views. So much for being understanding of others feelings.

Honesty however is not a two way street. This man was chosen by this group to die. To be murdered, pure and simple. He was lured in under false pretenses by making him think a child would be sacrificed. What kind of religion does that? In the end he was prepared to go up against the entire island population to save the child.

He gave his life for that child and not because he was intolerant or a prude. Considering his character was a Christian it showed him at the end to be the only caring and tolerant soul there, since none of the other island folks would exchange places with the girl and burn to death.

You can call him stupid. You can call him naive. You can call him ignorant. But he cared enough to die for someone he never knew. I call that brave.

[Murfreesboro]

Oh, wow, and now you are swaying me back in the other direction, Kolchak! LOL I guess Wicker Man is good for prompting discussion, at any rate.

[Boogeyman]

It was made at a time when taking pot shots at Christianity was in vogue and was meant to be a hit on the religion, and its values. That is not an opinion but a statement of fact. That's why you have the heavy emphasis on boom-boom and nudity.

That hasn't changed since then, sadly. In fact Christianity and Christians are the only ones that are readily mocked. And I won't even start on the violence and targeting of Christians throughout the world, currently.

[ScarecrowJack]

I do think the Edward Woodward character was judgmental. You can site his dogma and that is probably where it came from. But I think it would ring just as badly if it was a group of Jews he was railing against.

The pagans were just as bad, you are correct. Which is why I took the movie as an indictment more on religion in general than a specific belief system. I could be wrong.

The pagans are committing the far worse moral wrong, clearly. But I don't think Edward Woodward went in thinking he was going to die. To say he died for the child I think is overstating the case. He went in to rescue her, yes. But he had every belief he would survive and be triumphant. Would he have given his life for the child? I don't know. Possibly not since she was a pagan also.

Brit Elkins actions are interesting. She was tempting him yes, but also providing an out. If he had slept with her, he would no longer have been a viable sacrifice. A hollow offer at best, since I don't think they believed he would do it, but if he had they would have been out a sacrifice.

I will agree, there is no one way to interpret a movie, and your way is as valid as mine. But I do think Wicker Man is more subversive than it appears.

[ScarecrowJack]

ScarecrowJack, I actualy liked the tv series "Logans Run" better then the original movie, because it told a continuing story of a post apochalyptic world with Logan and his crew trying to escape the authorities who are trying to terminate him.

Mike

I do like that they expanded on the world, but I was disappointed in their portrayal of Francis. In the movie he was torn about what Logan was doing and went after him in an attempt to help him, or at least understand what was happening. Once he was forced to confront the outside world, he went a little crazy. But the thought that Logan had renewed allowed him to die peacefully.

I understand from a storytelling standpoint why Francis was made more a traditional villain in the series, but I really enjoyed the character in the movie.

[Kolchak]

I do think the Edward Woodward character was judgmental. You can site his dogma and that is probably where it came from. But I think it would ring just as badly if it was a group of Jews he was railing against.

The pagans were just as bad, you are correct. Which is why I took the movie as an indictment more on religion in general than a specific belief system. I could be wrong.

The pagans are committing the far worse moral wrong, clearly. But I don't think Edward Woodward went in thinking he was going to die. To say he died for the child I think is overstating the case. He went in to rescue her, yes. But he had every belief he would survive and be triumphant. Would he have given his life for the child? I don't know. Possibly not since she was a pagan also.

Brit Elkins actions are interesting. She was tempting him yes, but also providing an out. If he had slept with her, he would no longer have been a viable sacrifice. A hollow offer at best, since I don't think they believed he would do it, but if he had they would have been out a sacrifice.

I will agree, there is no one way to interpret a movie, and your way is as valid as mine. But I do think Wicker Man is more subversive than it appears.

To call the Woodward character and compare his views to Nazism is not worthy of a response. When you feel the need to play the Nazi card when talking about Christians is old and doesn't hold water. Those who followed Mr Lee and his choke hold on the island, with the desire to kill with glee, by burning no less, someone who is from a different religion is far more Nazi than offering your opinion as to how the Woodward character behaved. The very fact he abstained from Britt Eklands advances shows he was a man of principle. The very fact he was prepared to do the right thing despite these people being of a different religion is not something a Nazi would have done.

I've been a soldier and a cop over thirty years. I never went to war or on patrol expecting to die. But you recognize that you are there to help when others can't. The fact is you might die, and everyday somewhere on this rock, a cop puts his life on the line to help someone. You know that there is a chance you might die so another might live. The character knew that was a possibilty and when the time came he made the extreme sacrifice.


Movies like the original Wicker Man were made to show young boys like me naked women and to see how far they could push the envelope, while making money. I have no idea why they made one with Nick Cage. He must have been really hurting for money.


Christianity, and for the record, I'm not a good Christian, is bashed every single day in this and other countries. They make for an easy target, especially by pseudo-intellectuals who are so messed in their personal lives that all they can do is gripe and criticize.

People who follow pagan religions today in the US and other English speaking parts of the world have been studied to death by anthropologists, sociologists, and pagans hardly have any room to throw stones. They don't paint a pretty picture, and even though it was not intended in the movie, it showed how truly ignorant these people were.

But I'd like to see these pagan people along with the Christian bashers move to Saudi Arabia or Oman or Qatar or Iraq or Afghanistan ans slam Islam. I doubt that you would be treated well for such an insult.

[ScarecrowJack]

I am very sorry for my poor choice of wording, I was not comparing Edward Woodward to a Nazi. That was not my intent and I'm very sorry for the comparison, even accidental. I was trying to point out, ham handedly it would seem, that his contempt for these people's ways would, in my opinion, come off badly in an circumstance.

As I said in my original post, I don't think Christopher Lee's character is in any way a decent person. He is abusing his position and the people following him are committing atrocities at his direction. These are not good people nor do I think they are meant to be.

I am not trying to discuss the place or perception of either paganism or Christianity in the broader society, either then or now, but rather how they are used as a metaphor within the frame work of this film only. Maybe that can't be done and these two things are inexorably linked and one cannot be discussed out of the context of the other.

I am sorry to have upset you, even unintentionally. This was meant by me to be nothing more than a discussion about a movie and I'm sorry it became otherwise. This was a very interesting exchange and you made some very good points.

[ScarecrowJack]

I want to add one more thing I may not have made clear. I don't think Edward Woodward's character is flawed because he's Christian. I don't think there is anything inherently flawed about Christianity. But I do think he's a flawed character and it is through the prism of his flaws that he views Christianity. The same thing with Christopher Lee's character, he isn't a bad person because he's pagan. He's a bad person using paganism as a justification for what he's doing. I don't think either value system is being well-represented by either of these characters.

[Kolchak]

Not a problem, no damage done and don't think I'm a bible thumper, in fact that's the last thing I am.


I have no problem with any critque of religion. I'm Roman Catholic and have enough gripes to fill a steamer trunk with how things are done.

The problem since the late 1960s has been the one way street that the mass media puts out there regarding Christianity, and only Christianity. It seems only Christians are bad people. Everybody else gets a free ride. Apart from being unfair its also not accurate.

The character portrayed as the protagonist is often a flawed individual. The problem here was the mistake of making it about religion. He could have been a drunk or absentee father and it would have been more accurate vis a vis cops lives, and you could have had the same kind of conflict. But because of the era we were living in, it was just too easy of a target to pass up making it about some religious nut.

Don't get me wrong. From a law enforcement standpoint the movie had plenty of flaws. Even in the early 1970s protocal was in place to keep something like that from happening. But it was not a movie based on reality, it was trying to put as much T & A into a movie while hoping to shock people by seeing how far they could push the envelope.

Did you know that inserted into the movie Repo Man was an entire segment talikng about the Holy Trinity? Sub text of course. I saw that movie back in the early 80s and only thought it was kinda' strange and best watched after a 6 pack. You find stuff like that in the most bizarre of places, but at least in Repo Man it was kept on as humor and not some social commentary.

[Murfreesboro]

I agree that there is a strong anti-Christian bias in popular culture, and that it did begin sometime in the '60s. I don't always watch the 700 Club by any means (in fact, their frequent "prosperity Gospel" message somewhat repels me), but I do value their regular reporting on the persecution of Christians in other countries. That's one thing that never gets reported in the "mainstream" media.

And when my children have come home from school talking about the way the bad Europeans over-ran the native cultures in the Americas, I remind them that several of those native cultures practiced human sacrifice. The wicked Christians did put an end to that, at least.

Of course, there is also a lucrative pocket of popular culture (music and films, some novels) aimed specifically at the Christian market. I haven't seen many of those films, but I am aware of them. All part of the Balkanization of our culture, I guess.

I do think Wicker Man was very much a product of its particular cultural moment.

[Andybev01]

I'm sure it began in April 1966..

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/ar ... 08_400.jpg

[Murfreesboro]

I remember that Time cover! But of course it had been going on for a while before the cover came out--they were catching an already-established trend.