The Wicker Man: A Comparison of Two Films

8:18 AM

(0) Comments

To remake any film, particularly one that was originally well-received, is a daunting task. Basically, it's an undertaking that should not be entered into without careful attention to details about what made the film work the first time around. In my opinion, that's usually why a fair number of remakes will fail in comparison to their original versions.

It took a few days to track down a copy of the original "The Wicker Man", but in the end NetFlix came through. And, I guess because the Nick Cage version was totally American (Summerisle was actually in Washington State in his version), I was surprised to find that it was set, staged and acted exclusively by Brits! Shows just how much I thought I knew. . .

The cast fared much better in this version than in the remake. The performances of Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, and an often-fully nude Britt Eckland combined nicely with a tight script (written by Anthony Shaffer also known for Murder On The Orient Express and Sommersby.)

***Spoilers possible from this point forward!!***

According to the film's credits (which later my research revealed to be mostly bogus), the lusty pagan practices exhibited in the original "Wicker Man" were done so by permission of the current (as of 1973) Lord Summerisle and his islands' inhabitants. Their practices (with the exception of the human sacrifice demonstrated in the film by the burning of a large wicker statue with an unlucky human inside) are said to be reflective of the actual pagan rituals that have taken place on Summerisle for centuries. The truth to the matter, however, is that the film was actually shot on several locations, and the Summerisle represented in the script is actually an amalgamation of lots of different pagan locales. Fortunately, it was neither relevant nor necessary knowledge for me to enjoy the film.

The Wicker Man remake, starring Nick Cage and Ellen Burstyn, is out of gas before it can get started. It is repeatedly bogged down with attempts at building suspense that never comes to be. The story is weak (quite a feat considering the original was so strong) and the acting is awful. As bad as the on-the-screen moments were, I can't imagine the stench of what ended up on the cutting-room floor!

In closing, all I can say is that the original 1973 release of "The Wicker Man" comes with a firm recommendation, as either a rental or purchase to beef up your B-Movie collection.

As for the remake? Save your money--it simply isn't worth it.


Contributed to films with feathermaye & friends by S. Bond Herndon.

feathermaye

, , , , , ,

0 Responses to "The Wicker Man: A Comparison of Two Films"

Post a Comment