While I enjoy film and enjoy even more to speak favorably about the ones I enjoy, I have just as much fun when I have the chance to tear a bad one to shreds with my words. Tonight I am giving the best of both worlds by comparing a cult horror classic against it's woefully re imagined update.
While they may be essentially the same picture, there is a tremendous distinction between Robin Hardy's 1973 film and Neil Labute's poorly thought out movie.
Exhibit A)
Starring: Edward Woodward, Christopher Lee
Synopsis:
Sgt. Howie travels to Summerisle to investigate the disappearance of a young girl. He discovers that the locals are weird and unhelpful, and becomes determined to get to the bottom of the disappearance.
And now, exhibit B)
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Ellen Burstyn, Leelee Sobieski
Synopsis:
While recovering from a tragic accident on the road, the patrolman Edward Malus receives a letter from his former fiancee Willow, who left him years ago without any explanation, telling that her daughter Rowan is missing.
Edward travels to the private island of Summerisle, where Willow lives in an odd community that plant fruits, and she reveals that Rowan is actually their daughter.
Along his investigation with the hostile and unhelpful dwellers, Edward discloses that the locals are pagans, practicing old rituals to improve their harvest, and Rowan is probably alive and being prepared to be sacrificed.
When he locates the girl, he finds also the dark truth about the wicker man.
I provided two synopsis (courtesy of IMDB, thanks fellas) to make my first point, never underestimate the importance of subtlety and intrigue in storytelling.
While Hardy's film kept the storyline simple and treated it's viewers with respect in terms of knowing we would figure out the odds and ends of what exactly is going on along the way, Labute chose to bog his movie down with needless subplot and far too unsubtle allusion as to what was going on in the small island town of summersisle.
To my next point, the inner workings of the mysterious community itself, there was a curious and quite unnecessary alteration of taking it from a neo pagan community to a quasi-pagan community that operates as some sort of female dominated hive.
I have heard that Labute has received criticism for being overly misogynistic in his previous works (In the company of men, nurse Betty, Possession) which leads me to think he made this odd change in response to these accusations, which, if it's true, is incredibly lame and more than a little repugnant.
An artist should stand unapologetic and should never bend to any critique for the sake of reputation, it is the sign of a petty and weak soul, in my opinion.
Hardy portrayed a Pagan community in a time where it was quite controversial to do so, granted it resulted in the film finding little mainstream success but at least he and Anthony Shaffer (the screenwriter) stood by it and did not compromise.
If they had, I very much doubt the film would stand as the little known classic that it is today. I suppose that is one of the differences between an auteur and some hack who gets work in movies by pleasing the studio.
Now to discuss the two leading men, both of whom I have a good deal of respect for in regard to their respective acting talents.
But while Ed Woodward played his part calmly and with much needed rigidity as a lawman simply pursuing the missing girl and to make the wrong right again, Mr. Cage, as he is one to do, becomes almost hammy in his performance and as a man upholding the law, comes off about as respectable and steely nerved as one Barney Fife.
I almost expected his pants to fall down every time he pulled his gun, his over anxious performance filled with silly escalations and regrettable overreactions took a bad movie and made it so much worse.
Especially in the final scene, in which Labute and co. proceeded to drop the ball and completely miss on what made the climax of the original so very effective.
The original scene was cathartic and uniquely captivating, where the townspeople were filled with joy and elation over the lawman's sacrifice to their god, which is what made the ending so very impactful.
One of the final shots, where the villagers are joining hands and singing gleeful hymns while Woodward is burning alive within the wicker man, raising up his hands and calling up to a god who either is pleased, apathetic or simply not there, made this film a classic and one that makes your skin crawl in a way no other film ever really has been able to do, at least not to me anyway.
In comparison, Labute's grim and sadistic tone merely serves to bum the viewer out. couple that with the overly drawn out exposition and the very unnecessary addition of brutal, ritualized torture inflicted upon Cage in the end and the very sour cherry on top of his own daughter starting the fire that ends him and you get a most distasteful treat that makes the viewer question why they wasted the last two hours of their life on something so wholly depressing such as this. Even though I hate it, I would have put the video of this ending up as well, but I could not find it, sorry.
The original is the ultimate "Mister, you are in the wrong town" tale, while the remake is the ultimate "Mister, your in the wrong theater" piece of contrived, MTV stylized horror movie schlock. If the original were not that classic that it was, the remake would have soured it by proxy.
I conclude this by simply saying thank you Mr. Hardy and curse you Mr. Labute, here's hoping you never get a chance to ruin anything worthwhile ever again.
The obvious winner: The Original
No comments:
Post a Comment