The Wicker Man : First Time I've Ever Done This

I just watched for the first time and giggled the entire way through. Thought the movie was hilarious and a well done sexy, campy romp. I gave the movie a rating of 7, purely based on it's hilarity. Then I read a review, then another and then talked to big fans of it, who said, this movie was 100% serious and wasn't meant to be campy or funny. Had to lower the rating. If this was meant to be taken as a serious (and cerebral film), it failed on every level. If it was silly, a la frat house humor, I would have said it was good. Anyone else feel this is just plain silly?

it's campy, and funny, but "frat house"? no, it's not "100% serious" (what is?), but like all good camp, its humor derives from a theatrical presentation of reality. nothing wrong with thinking while you laugh. i definitely can't imagine finding this movie "sexy" though, so maybe you are coming from a radically different perspective.

It's definitely not supposed to be "100% serious" in that there are intentionally funny lines and the way that Howie is flustered and out of his field of experience when confronted with the odd ways of the islanders is at times played for laughs. Where you got "frat house" from though I don't know. When the islanders put Howie in the wicker man did they then all fart in there then high five each other and start calling everyone dude?

Just because there are intentionally funny parts and moments of camp and whimsy does not mean that it is not also a serious movie. It is about hubristically strict adherence to a limited religious belief and the clash of cultures and values represented by the authoritarian christian copper and the communal hippy pagan islanders. Ultimately it is a film in which a sincere if overbearing and blinkered policeman is tricked, psychologically tortured and eventually lured to his death by an increasingly sinister-seeming band of subversives, and there's nothing particularly funny about that.

---

Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made

---

I think you misread my "frat house" comment. I also understood the movie perfectly fine, as it wasn't exactly what people would call complex. It's pretty straightforward in what it's trying to achieve, but I was under the impression, as I watched it that it was full blown camp. I'd heard it referred to as scary, horrific, deep, etc and I found none of that. I found it as ridiculous as it was intended to be serious. My point, which you missed, was if it was intended to be that type of humor, a la frat house mentality, I might have seen it in a different light. The same way, I despise Animal House as a comedy, but enjoy it as a timely look at the ridiculousness of collegiate politics.

Rocky Horror is probably a better comparison than animal house Pure camp, and intended to be funny throughout, but maybe meant also to encourage you to contemplate its themes. I don't fully understand you, though. You found it funny, which sounds like you enjoyed it, but someone told you to take it seriously, so you like it less now? I don't know. I think, if you found it funny, and enjoyed the over-the-top camp, that's good. It also has some thoughtfulness embedded in its campy presentation of conflict between Christianity and (neo)paganism, which you can think about if that theme interests you. Though you might still conclude that the film handles those themes poorly and isn't worth taking that seriously in the first place.

You didn't find Britt Ekland's dance sexy? I'm at a loss.

i guess i mostly found it creepy.

You must be mistaken for the remake, right? Because you cannot say that this movie wasn't a serious film and that you laughed all the way through after seeing the Nicolas Cage disaster. You're joking right?

If I laughed it was only because of Sergeant Howie's reactions towards all the crazy things that were happening onscreen. He was so out of his element because he was so high strung and uptight. Things like that fit my sense of humor, being stuck in what they consider uncomfortable situations. But other than that I took the story very seriously and the ending is one of the most disturbing scenes ever filmed. The fact that they're all so calm, serene, and holding hands singing a song while someone is burning to death because of them is highly chilling.

It is kind of a dark, dark comedy. Basically adopts the tried and true "fish out of water" comedic formula.

The gravity of any story is simply: what it means to you. There's people out there who laughed throughout Schindler's List or were furious with Blazing Saddles, takes all kinds and all that. So your view's as fair as anybody's. But I'd say it's not commonplace. I don't get the 'camp' thingmaybe that's being substituted for 'period' here.

I feel like you've missed out on something but then I would and I'm sure you've seen loads of other films you did like and were gripped by. Unless you laughed through them, too. In which case, you're unstoppable.


Free your mind and the rest will follow

I did laugh through your "unstoppable" comment! HAHA!

Honestly, maybe it was the period. Maybe I need to look at it from a different perspective, but this was always one of the horror films that separated people. It was a love/hate and after seeing it, I disagree with the people who found it terrifying (for the reasons they did) and I disagreed with the people who found it boring.

Completely different, but I just watched the new Poltergeist and felt it very similar in that they attacked the true desperation with subtle bits of camp. Would someone call it campy? Probably not, but the humor, as it is so often, acts as a buffer. The problem I have with both, is I never got to the point where I needed one and it just became hilarious to me.

I liked 'unstoppable' when I typed it - just sprang to mind, God knows why :-)

It's interesting what you're saying about it separating people because you're implying that there's some history behind this: people built its reputation up before you saw it. Maybe that created what I happen to think is a devil in storytelling: expectation. But I'm second-guessing you here :-)

My ideal way of seeing a new film is stone-cold, knowing nothing about it and expecting nothing. I had a good few good films ruined for me by people building it up or over-selling it. Equally, I had people build up some rubbish ones to make them look even more rubbish.

The Wicker Man was one I saw 'ideally' - didn't know owt about it, wondered if it was any good and watched it. It really took me by surprise but in a beautifully understated way and the only thoughts about it that I carried through it were my own. People sometimes drone 'that's two hours of my life I'll never get back' for a rubbish film but this was the opposite: two hours that gave me hundreds of ten minutes' wondering and exploring. I do think its a remarkable film, and I'm sorry that it passed you by, but I imagine you got that feeling from other films at other times, so it all evens out in the long run.


Free your mind and the rest will follow

The internet has changed the way film's are introduced to us and not for the better. What I am finding is there are tons of people (sadly, very few on this site), who will suggest things they liked that we might. I've found Bela Tarr and Wong Kar-Wai from Twitter pals. I've turned a few on to Tarkovsky and Ordet. Most of all it's fun to share. Before the internet, Wicker Man had always been one of those "best bad films" among my film friends. Then of course, the remake came out and the entire thing because a joke about bees.

The one thing that I should note, is I have mot own rating system and while I only gave Wicker Man a 5, for me that's a low 3 of 5, so I did find enjoyment in it. My original comment of dropping it from a 7, was merely my personal feelings about it being taken too seriously, but for me a 7, is still a 3 out of 5. I hate ratings, because there's so much grey area. Some people find anything entertaining a 9-10, where, I hold those two for the elite movies. I also think horror, in general gets a lower score, because there always seems to be something missing, even in some of the best. But, I do agree with you, I rarely feel "that's two hours of my life, I won't get back."