55
The Wicker Man: Original VS Remake
Amanda Pitto
The original. Directed by Robin Hardy, 1973.
There are few Pagans who can say they haven't seen this cult Pagan film from the early seventies. The storyline follows a police sergeant and practicing Christian who travels to an island in search of a missing girl, and who discovers an entire village dedicated to a religion completely different from his own. Only at the end of the film, in the crucial scene, will he discover the real motive behind his presence on the island, and his true destiny. This does not leave the spectator with a sense of dismay, as often happens in films with such cruel finales, but with a very particular emotion and the sense of a material resolution with a strong tangible concept of the divine.
The whole film transmits a sense of community, union, and evocative atmosphere that follows you through to the end of the story.
In The Wicker Man, Paganism is clean, an everyday routine, lived openly. No external contamination and no search for innovation, especially relating to the philosophical and ethical aspects of the village. A sole white sheep in the middle of a lot of black sheep (or vice versa). A subtle battle, a continuous contrast between Paganism and Christianity. A delicate battle between two worlds, where the main character (even if it's not) can do nothing but succumb, imploding in his derisive fairytale, built upon his own rationale and rigid imposition of morals. A film that can be defined as meditative and stimulating. Usually older films can be viewed as boring and unsuitable for the current generation, that is not the case for this original.
The remake. Directed by Neil LaBute, 2006.
Let's start from what this remake isn't.
It isn't boring, and most of all it is not far off the original plot, so it can't be dubbed a disappointment either.
In reality it is a politically incorrect film. A remake would make sense if the original ending was maintained, and the happy, positive theme was emphasized that could not be expanded due to questions strictly tied to the period in which the original was filmed. It should have had more visions linked to the village and to it's pagan every day life. It would have been appropriate to not let down those who loved the original, and to avoid it turning into a manifesto for modern feminism.
What I didn't like about the remake is its intent on portraying a cruel woman ruling an absolute and independent matriarchy which enslaves men. The air of pagan festivity from the original is totally lacking. I think the idea of this remake was to associate the woman with the queen bee, and for this reason the bee is the symbol of this film, becoming the symbolic animal of the community. This connection could only have worked in keeping with softer and more magical images. The remake is a horror film based on the ruthless image of the bee, but pagans know, as do beekeepers, that the bee is not a predator and stings only when it is in danger. This behavior is common to most animals and does not justify the way they are portrayed in the film.
This remake portrays ruthless women, and I think it could have been made with a more positive look, maybe by emphasizing sisterhood rather than a coalition against men. Maybe Pagans would prefer instead to see new and other aspects of pagan ceremony. A deeper narration, and a freer exploration of elements the original could only hint at due to the time in which it was made. Sadly this remake is a classic example of a package loosely put together. Many Pagans or Pagan sympathizers, full of expectation would have wanted to surround themselves with that purely pagan atmosphere and sensation that they loved in the original film.