« Previous Entry | Main Page | Next Entry »
January 16, 2007
What a wicker game to play
So, I'm probably the only guy on the planet who actually likes the WICKER MAN remake better than the original. I can live with that.
Only just caught the new version on dvd, with "SHOCKING alternate ending." A big lie, that. In fact, the unrated version with alleged alternate ending simply cuts off two minutes before the theatrical version, thereby eliminating the "six months later" coda scene, which was fine.
To be clear -- I don't think either WICKER MAN is a great work of cinema. I just think the newer version sucks less.
For years, I had heard about the original. The title is evocative, and I knew Christopher Lee was involved, so I figured it had to be something classic. Then, a couple years ago, I finally saw it. Herewith, an approximation of my thought process while viewing:
"Okay, this seems kinda creepy...hero's a badass...oooh, creepy island...unsettling, yeah...uhhh, wait, hold on a moment...Is this a fucking musical? What the hell is this hippie-dippy crap?"
Now, this may come as a shocker, since I know I have a certain reputation, but despite the fact that the original has nudity and the new one doesn't, the original does not automatically win my heart. If you want to entice me with hot naked chicks, don't use the Ludovico Technique by making me associate hooters with horrible, horrible music.
Oh, and Christopher Lee in a kilt? You take one of the scariest guys in the world, and make sure to give him the unscariest outfit you can think of?
Anyway, I know lots of people love it, and I can see why in some sense -- it's weird and unlike anything else. But it isn't scary, and how it's regarded as classic horror, I do not know.
The remake isn't really scary either, because Neil LaBute simply isn't a horror director. Women scare him, and he thinks we share that fear, so he creates a matriarchal society where they all love bees, and expects that to be inherently terrifying. It isn't. I know several guys who love the idea of being used as breeding stock and silent slave labor, and not much else. (They might not admit it, but they do.)
No, the reason to dig the remake is the same reason to love INCUBUS or THE ARRIVAL -- it features an over-the-top leading man utilizing every single tic in his arsenal that has ever been impersonated by a comedian, and doing so seemingly with gleeful abandon and blissful unawareness that it's happening. Just as Shatner went heavy on the hand gestures and pauses, or Charlie Sheen relied strictly on two facial expressions and that dry monotone, so does Nicolas Cage use every mannerism you've mocked him for here. The bug-eyed freakout, the slow enunciation to indicate that he's serious, the mood-swing temper-tantrum, the stoned drawl...they're all here. And they're glorious. It's funny that everyone seems to pick on the part where he's in a bear-suit, because it's relatively minor in the scheme of things, and certainly not as absurd as the teddy-bear costume scene in THE AVENGERS. Cage himself can be inherently more absurdist than any bear suit.
Pretty funny, too, that Edward Woodward starred in the original, and in this new one, NIc Cage's character is named "Edward," and Kate Beahan's character has the surname "Woodward." Brilliantly subtle, not.
I could do without the awful cheapness of the black-and-white flashback effect -- just use color, and go for the cheap scare, Neil, you know you want to! -- and the surreal opening sequence never really seems to pay off in the way that it should. I also should note, probably much to the dismay of fetishists for the original flick, that I still think there is a superior film to be made from the concept of "cop lured to mysterious island searching for missing girl, faked out into becoming ritual sacrifice." Put Douglas Dunning in a kilt, and I will be terrified.
In the meantime, the Nic Cage version will do. And Leelee Sobieski is growing up hot, just like I knew she would.
Posted by LYT at January 16, 2007 2:16 AM [Message Board]
Comments
Luke, of all your offbeat, contrarian, unusual calls on films, I think this may rank as your all time #1.
"The Wicker Man" is one of the coolest, creepiest movies in film history. The soundtrack is a masterpiece.
And while the remake is indeed genius (and one of my favorite movies of the year; I love it with the most earnest irony), it's for a whole nother rucksack of reasons.
LYTrules.com readers, I invite you to check out this link to a compilation of the choicest scenes from the remake - warning: Nicholas Cage brings the goddamned THUNDER in this film, so buckle up:
Posted by: Ben Boyer at January 16, 2007 12:51 PM
Perfectly illustrates the awesomeness of the remake, that.
Posted by: LYT at January 16, 2007 1:30 PM
I can watch that compilation over and over again and never stop laughing. Actually, the "punching" sound effects alone are enough to slaughter me.
Posted by: Ben Boyer at January 16, 2007 2:17 PM
I cannot speak for the remake, as I thought it looked too goofy to get into, but I'm here to support the original as a bonifide classic. Just saw it for the first time, maybe a year before the remake hit the theatres. The original isn't for everyone, but it gave me the heebie jeebies, thoroughly. And I can't say that there are tons of horror films that do. But this was an offering that I found to be very effective.
Everything you cite as terrible, was a bonus. I loved that Christopher Lee was not blatantly in Hammer Films mode. No cult ever thinks they're doing evil work. He *should* be wearing a kilt, given the location, and pagan tradition. He has the best of intentions, from start to finish... why would he wear a warlock cloak if he's not in league with Satan? I love the schizo nature of the musical sequences and Britt Eckland's naked seranade... they threw me off along the way, but in the end, I felt that they served well in showcasing the euphoria and sense of freedom cult members tend to experience and how strange it appears to outside eyes. But most importantly, served well for the film's final payoff - I didn't see it coming. I was on the edge of my seat thinking, "No! It's *not* going to end like this! No way!"
I don't think the film is careless or random. Ultimately, it's the "hippie-dippiness" that allows both us and our hero to greatly underestimate the island's residents, and what's to come. It's great Cinema. And ditto, Boyer, fantastic score and soundtrack.
Posted by: Jaye Luckett at January 16, 2007 3:18 PM
P.S. Always slightly creepy when men look at young girls and speculate they're they're "going to grow up to be hot." Fellas, please learn to be patient, and wait for these gals to grow up and become officially hot before commenting on them. ;)
Posted by: Jaye Luckett at January 16, 2007 3:23 PM
And now she is grown up. So I see no problem.
It was Entertainment Weekly that first compared her to photos of an underaged Helen Hunt. Blame Time-Warner for putting such thoughts into our heads.
No accounting for taste when it comes to the songs in the original Wicker Man. I actually prefer the musical interludes in The Monster Club, and that's not saying a whole lot. But monsters rule OK.
Posted by: LYT at January 16, 2007 3:30 PM
wait until you see how hot i'm going to be when i grow up.
Posted by: justin stone at January 16, 2007 3:33 PM
That's my point... she is grown up now. But any commentary in present or retroactively about her potential hotness before full maturity occured, is probably is best to remain internal dialogue for all time. Men need to learn to stop at "cute kid". I agreed with the rags at the time, that she looked like she could be Hunt's daughter or a younger version, but I never implied either doppelganger was as fuckable as Justin's gonna be when he grows up.
Posted by: Jaye Luckett at January 16, 2007 5:10 PM
Hahaha... that was the best compilation ever. Bear punch! AHAHAHAHA!
Ahem. Haven't seen either movie, though.
Posted by: David Scott at January 16, 2007 7:44 PM
Not the BEES!
I'm going to be quoting that... FOREVER.
Right after "Stupid, Stupid... Man!"
Ahem. Don't ask about that last one.
Posted by: Julie Scott at January 16, 2007 9:34 PM
I saw the original without any pre-knowledge - it was at our cinema club on my foundation course - 1976 I was 19 - I thought the camera work and acting and directing were all shoddy and sub standard. Pacing was off, music was off, Christopher Lee was not well used, nudity and sexuality was gratuitous in the sense that it didn't make me feel teased the way it should to fulfill plot function.
So all in all I agree with Luke - after seeing it I had several people expalin that this was a classic - I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. Except, I liked the idea of luring a cop to somewhere remote where the audience thought he would solve the crime - classic thriller stuff, and then find out it was all because he was a virgin and wanted for an ancient sacrifice ritual - that I liked
so I haven't seen the remake but I expected that it might be better but according to remake law = probably just as bad or worse...
Posted by: offpat at January 22, 2007 6:01 AM
Pat, I think some people over here may cut the film a break because of its "foreign-ness" -- those wacky Brits being wacky, you know.
Doesn't explain folks you know calling it classic, but I'm with you -- good premise, very odd execution. The remake works mainly if you enjoy Nic Cage overacting up a storm...and I do.
Posted by: LYT at January 23, 2007 3:31 AM
Haha "hero's a badass?"
Congratulations on completely missing the point i guess?
Posted by: ajs at December 13, 2008 8:23 AM
Cheez-its, some people are idiots.
There's a big difference between a thought-process during the viewing experience and a post-show analysis. Forgive me for thinking readers could tell the difference.
This is a review of the remake, not the original. For a nuanced take on the original, go elsewhere. I'm not interested enough to do one.
Posted by: LYT at December 14, 2008 11:14 PM