The Wicker Man (Neil LaBute, 2006)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Ste
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:54 pm

#1 Post by Ste » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:34 am

I've not seen much mention of this here yet, so I guess I'll start us off. The film opens September 1st, and the trailer has been all over the television this weekend. Looks like much of the script has been taken word-for-word from the 1973 original. Don't ask me what the bees are all about, though. Maybe the islanders are producing honey, not apples?

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#2 Post by tryavna » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:54 am

Looks like your honey idea is right.

Also looks like they've really ratcheted up the scare moments and Howie's backstory unnecessarily. (I mean, really! Do we need another couldn't-manage-to-avert-a-tragedy weighing upon the lead character's soul?)

I wonder if this version will have any "folk" musical numbers? (Based on the site, it looks like it won't -- which provided so much of the unique flavor of the original.)

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#3 Post by Michael » Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:15 pm

I wonder if this version will have any "folk" musical numbers? (Based on the site, it looks like it won't -- which provided so much of the unique flavor of the original.)
Not only that but Britt Ekland making love to the walls really makes the movie also.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#4 Post by tryavna » Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:19 pm

Michael wrote:
I wonder if this version will have any "folk" musical numbers? (Based on the site, it looks like it won't -- which provided so much of the unique flavor of the original.)
Not only that but Britt Ekland making love to the walls really makes the movie also.
Well, that goes without saying....

Actually, I've always heard that it was a body double!

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#5 Post by cdnchris » Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:22 pm

I think it was. Wasn't she pregnant at the time? At least I think I remember that being mentioned in the doc on the DVD.

User avatar
Ste
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:54 pm

#6 Post by Ste » Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:23 pm

The trailer has a feeling of The Ring about it to me. I really wanted to hate this remake -- the original being one of my all-time faves, and a truly unique film -- but I must say it doesn't look so bad. (I'll reserve full judgment until I see it in the theatre, obviously.)

It does look like they have avoided the whole musical angle completely, which is a shame. It would have been interesting to see an early 20th century American folk, Deliverance-style vibe to the proceedings.

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#7 Post by rs98762001 » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:16 pm

It seems like they've turned the island into some sort of matriarchal society, shown in the fact that Lord Summerisle is now Ellen Burstyn (the queen bee?).

But the context of the Howie character seems far less interesting this time around. Maybe for fear of offending right-wing religious nutjobs in the US (or maybe just from lack of imagination) the paganism vs. Christianity context seems to have been eliminated in favour of something far more straightforward.

User avatar
Gropius
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:47 pm

#8 Post by Gropius » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:59 pm

The latest travesty in Hollywood's eternal Groundhog Day. The original is surely untouchable; no-one can replace Christopher Lee or the original soundtrack. How long before we start seeing remakes of remakes?

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#9 Post by Matt » Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:22 pm

rs98762001 wrote:It seems like they've turned the island into some sort of matriarchal society, shown in the fact that Lord Summerisle is now Ellen Burstyn (the queen bee?).
Oh God. I fear you may be right, in which case the movie might as well be flashing the word METAPHOR on the screen the whole time.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#10 Post by dx23 » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Gropius wrote: How long before we start seeing remakes of remakes?
Probably in a couple of years, when several hip-hop dumdasses like Puffy, Jay-Z, 50 cent, Lil Jon along with their hos, star in Master P's remake of Scarface.

Image

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#11 Post by Matt » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:18 am

dx23 wrote:
Gropius wrote: How long before we start seeing remakes of remakes?
Probably in a couple of years, when several hip-hop dumdasses like Puffy, Jay-Z, 50 cent, Lil Jon along with their hos, star in Master P's remake of Scarface.
Hey, you may be right about all the rest of them, but leave Jigga out of this.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#12 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:02 am

We will eventually get to the point where they start remaking remakes... and remaking prequels and PART II's & III's... until we get to the point at last where every single film that has ever been made going all the way back to the Edison 1880's MONKEY SHINES film tests have been remade (with Vin Deisel playing a tattoo'd, shotgun toting Thomas E. in MONKEY SHINES). At the rate we're going we'll get there in 2007.

You poor kids live in the most completely pathetic of times. You're stuck with the absolute chumpiest, unfortunate pack of entertainment biz execs that ever clumped across the planetary carpet in low heels and smart business suit. Dice rolling and balls have disappeared, and it's pretty amazing, given the apparent hunger for originality which should be whispering in studio (and record label) ears via the mostrous sales of vintage entertainment product vs. even a decade ago. Regardless of whether WICKER is a serviceable remake or not, the disposition of the exec-squad just stuns me. A completely identity-free form of pop culture phasing, impossible to get nostalgic for and duplicate 20 years from now. The last identifiably unique time-zone with an identifiable "look" was the early 90's. By 95, ground-up mass-trending and originality died, I guess.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#13 Post by tryavna » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:31 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:You poor kids live in the most completely pathetic of times.
Aren't you alive right now, too, Shreck? Or are you speaking to us from beyond the grave? :-s

Just like that little girl who keeps popping up unnecessarily in the trailer for this remake....

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#14 Post by kinjitsu » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:24 pm

Remakes have been with us since the silent era, so I guess it's time for us to accept the fact that there will always be remakes... or whatever you want to call them.

Right after posting the Don't Look Now thread, I discovered that a remake is being considered in which the dwarf will be excised, will take place in present-day Venice during summer, will include lots of sex, and might star Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Naomi Watts, Julia Roberts or Clive Owen.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#15 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:48 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:We will eventually get to the point where they start remaking remakes... and remaking [...] PART II's & III's... 2007.
It's already happening. Not only have they remade Dawn of the Dead, itself a sequel, they are now remaking its sequel, Day of the Dead--and yes the set-up is the same. Give it five or ten years and I'm sure they'll remake Land of the Dead as well.

User avatar
Ste
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:54 pm

#16 Post by Ste » Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:58 pm

One wonders if we will ever reach the point where certain films are considered 'standards' in the same way songs are. Psycho the Mack the Knife of cinema, anyone?

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#17 Post by blindside8zao » Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:18 pm

still haven't seen the original. Do you think they'll put out a new DVD because of this remake (the only good thing about remakes is how the original usually pops up in an updated DVD around the same time (Omen)). If not, I need to go ahead and buy the DVD. It's one of the last major horror films of this time period I haven't gotten around to seeing.

User avatar
Ste
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:54 pm

#18 Post by Ste » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:01 pm

blindside8zao wrote:still haven't seen the original. Do you think they'll put out a new DVD because of this remake (the only good thing about remakes is how the original usually pops up in an updated DVD around the same time (Omen))
There is a one-disc straight reissue due out on Tuesday in R1.

The UK gets a lavish three-disc affair (2 DVDs, 1 CD) on September 4th. It is not clear at this stage whether or not this will include either the 30-minute easter egg or the 15-minute video of the commentary recording, both of which were on the previous Warner Bros. edition.
Last edited by Ste on Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
justeleblanc
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: Connecticut

#19 Post by justeleblanc » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:02 pm

blindside8zao wrote:still haven't seen the original. Do you think they'll put out a new DVD because of this remake (the only good thing about remakes is how the original usually pops up in an updated DVD around the same time (Omen)). If not, I need to go ahead and buy the DVD. It's one of the last major horror films of this time period I haven't gotten around to seeing.
Anchor Bay's website has a reissue coming out this fall.

You should check out the original. I enjoy LaBute, but it looks like the remake will just be a standard psycho-thriller murder mystery with lots of Val Lewton "buses" and masturbatory camera work. The original is just a solid murder mystery that's pretty disturbing on a Polanski level.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#20 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:03 pm

tryavna wrote:Well, that goes without saying....

Actually, I've always heard that it was a body double!
From what I remember from the DVD Britt Ekland did not want to appear completely nude in the wide shots, but was fine with doing the dance from the waist up. So apparently they filmed her stuff, put her in a car and took her away then brought in the body double to do the bare bottomed thumping on the wall part!

It is going to take a lot to make up for the absence of Ingrid Pitt, Britt Ekland, Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward - so far I'm not convinced by Nicolas Cage and Ellen Burstyn in blueface.

The problem I have is that the ending of the film is so well known and such an important part of the story that it always ruins other films for me when they're described as "being like The Wicker Man". Julian Richard's film Darklands is the most obvious example, often known as the Welsh Wicker Man. So that immediately destroys any tension in the film since you know the protagonist isn't going to end up well! It seems a little like a lazy simile and one that wrecks the film that's being compared to The Wicker Man, not just because it might not be as good, but because the plot is revealed.

At least a remake doesn't have to deal with having the plot revealed, since that's what remakes trade in, a brand awareness so if anyone recognises the title they will immediately remember the original and the finale, and on the other hand people who don't know films and might just be surprised by the ending. I'd be surprised if most people weren't aware of the ending, but am I expecting a 70s British horror film will be known about in the US outside of film buffs and horror fans? Yet it's obviously well enough known to have people wanting to remake it?

The remake looks interesting but the original was unique in so many ways beyond just the plot and the shock of the ending. The great performances and the tuneful but creepy music, but also the idea that such a place could exist outside of 'modern' society partly because I can believe that a place and people so far outside of the range of London would be ignored and allowed to go about its business. Is there anywhere in America that could be that remote from society, especially in our modern culture of constant surveillance, mobile phones etc?

It makes me think a little of the remake of The Fog. The original film wasn't a classic, so the remake had a lot of leeway that The Wicker Man won't have, but I was thinking that the best parts of John Carpenter's The Fog weren't anything to do with the plot. Indeed the parts of the film that deal with Jamie Lee Curtis are boring and too obviously there to just explain the story, which is a shame because I love Jamie Lee Curtis!

The best parts of The Fog seem like the bits that the remake had no choice but to change - the opening scene round the fire and then the strange events in the town, the finale with the fog sweeping through the town and the various groups of people finally meeting up, the radio host's son discovering the driftwood and the bit that makes the 1980 Fog unforgettable for me is the most ephemeral bit - the drive that Adrienne Barbeau makes down the coast listening to her various radio jingles, followed by her walk down to the lighthouse. It's both creepy and beautiful, and has nothing to do with the plot. It's the combination of the music, the sound of the radio jingles and the bleak landscape with Barbeau moving through it to her destination that made that film stick in my mind, not the poor plot with the returned seamen. That's also the reason why I don't want to see the remake, since atmosphere and style is the first thing that is completely changed, even before the story is manipulated.

The Wicker Man, although it has a great story too, seems to have the same unforgettable moments such as the opening flight to the island, the search for Rowan through people's houses, the Maypole dance, Ekland's sexy dance and the final amazing bowing of the figure's 'head' as it is consumed by fire to reveal the blazing sun and the implied promise of an abundant harvest. I'm hoping that some of these things just aren't attempted in the remake as I can't see how they could compare.

The horror magazine Shivers ran an article in their last issue about the new film and focused on the wicker man itself. It looks like some interesting changes have been made and that Nicholas Cage will end up in the head, rather than the torso as Edward Woodward did. Also in some pictures Cage is shown hanging by his feet, then in others he seems to be standing up. Could this suggest that the finale might be more involved, longer and perhaps more graphic?

Well, I'm interested to see what happens in the remake even if I am worried! I'd always imagined Stephen King's Children of the Corn to be the American equivalent of The Wicker Man though! (Oh no, now I'm ruining other films by saying they're 'like the Wicker Man'!)

I also remember the story my parents told me of when they first saw the original Wicker Man. It sounds like they saw it in perfect conditions, as they were stationed in Scotland while my dad was in the RAF! They were apparently in a temporary caravan type thing when the film was on the television - my mum who is a horror film fan wanted to watch it and so my dad, who isn't, sat with her. Neither of them knew what was coming and didn't sleep well that night! I guess they were worried about all those Scottish people outside the caravan! Or they were worried about something happening similar to what happens at the end of Race With The Devil!

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

#21 Post by Cold Bishop » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:47 am

Matt wrote:
dx23 wrote:
Gropius wrote: How long before we start seeing remakes of remakes?
Probably in a couple of years, when several hip-hop dumdasses like Puffy, Jay-Z, 50 cent, Lil Jon along with their hos, star in Master P's remake of Scarface.
Hey, you may be right about all the rest of them, but leave Jigga out of this.
You can keep Jigga on the list (overated), but the actual rapper Scarface (whole the album belongs too), is actually a talented rapper.

As for this film, unless it causes raves from everyone, I'll be skipping it. Some films just really don't need remakes.

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#22 Post by blindside8zao » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:05 am

from the stats of the anchor bay DVD, it appears that I'll be stuck trying to find the expensive oop box set to see the full cut. How is the DVD transfer? I know the packaging is amazing.

Narshty
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#23 Post by Narshty » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:53 am

The shorter cut of the original is the best one. The full versions of the songs are nice to have in the extended version, but there's a whole lot of extraneous Pagan window-dressing and red herrings that slows the film down to a crawl and the opening scene on the mainland is useless.

Incidentally, LaBute's film has just recieved a '12A' in the UK, so it should be somewhere around a PG-13 in the States. Full-blooded, indeed.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#24 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:32 am

kinjitsu wrote:Remakes have been with us since the silent era, so I guess it's time for us to accept the fact that there will always be remakes... or whatever you want to call them.
Holy canoli! Sure remakes always been around, but remakes are starting to take over the originals for gods sakes! Even Hollywood itself is aware of the embarassing flood over the past 2-3 seasons. They are in massive petro-mode. We're not actually suggesting there isn't something Very Different going on here with the trending, are we?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#25 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:40 am

HerrSchreck wrote:Holy canoli! Sure remakes always been around, but remakes are starting to take over the originals for gods sakes! Even Hollywood itself is aware of the embarassing flood over the past 2-3 seasons. They are in massive petro-mode. We're not actually suggesting there isn't something Very Different going on here with the trending, are we?
I suppose at least in these times the remake is used as the excuse to issue/reissue/re-plug the original at the same time. I remember those films that Hollywood bought and kept hidden away to avoid comparison like the 1940 British version of Gaslight when it was getting its 1944 remake. Perhaps it's like politics - the recycling of ideas and contempt for/catering to a 'new' audience to the detriment of fans has always been going on but recently it is just done in a more blatant, in your face way!

Also remakes seem to be the new sequels - I prefer sequels though, at least they have to try to move the story on a little (even if they usually ruin it by pushing the story past its limits and into absurdity!)

I'm actually less worried by the acknowledging of the original than I am when it is obvious that the people involved in the remake do not want to see the original because they are 'reimagining' it (e.g. Tom Hanks saying he has never seen The Ladykillers in the EPK for the remake) or if they don't mention the original at all, e.g. The Producers remake where everyone goes to great lengths to say how fond they were of the stage show, how life changing it was, but never mention that there was an earlier film as if their new audience won't remember! Film comes out and, what do you know, it's nowhere near as good as the original film - it could be fantastic compared to the stage show but give me Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder any day!
Narshty wrote:Incidentally, LaBute's film has just recieved a '12A' in the UK, so it should be somewhere around a PG-13 in the States. Full-blooded, indeed
That should cover the breasts :wink:

Perhaps the violence is done in the fast cut, I-can't-see-what-they're-doing-but-it-looks-gory style! An unrated DVD seems a possibility - with extra animal roasting!

Post Reply