Another viewing (on DVD) confirms my previous opinion that this is a nasty movie which wallows in its sadism, has very little true feeling for the period (e.g the ready coupling of hero and heroine) and gives the great Vincent Price little scope other than to look grim. The backgrounds are pretty, as is the ill-used Hilary Dwyer, but the film is no more accomplished than the average Hammer horror. Michael Reeves' early demise was, as they say, a good career move!
shareI agree that the film is overpraised. Not so much because of the subject matter etc, but more because it is so ineptly made. The camerawork reminds me of someone with their first camcorder trying out all the features (especially the zoom control), there is little real dramatic tension (when the director wants to increase the audience's pulse rate he just has his hero jump on a horse and gallop about a bit), the dialogue is stilted and cliche-ridden, the acting wooden, the music completely stylistically inappropriate and obstrusive, and the story's historical accuracy is dubious to say the least. Oh and the blood - blatant product placement by Heinz Ketchup.
www.sweeneytoddforum.org.uk
[deleted]
Good post, dominicmay-2, and well argued. I was aware that Tim Burton admired Vincent Price although I didn't know that he rated Price's performance in Witchfinder General so highly. (Price's portrayal is a little too camp for my taste, but I would agree that it's one of the better things in the film).
"If Witchfinder General is an ineptly made, innacurate piece of trash, why are people still watching it & enjoying it 40 years after it was made?"This has to be one of those inexplicable mysteries of life.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I liked this, but I do think it was overpraised, and seeing it was a bit of a letdown due to the high expectations I had. I thought that Mark of the Devil was a much better film about midieval witch hunting in most respects.
"No man is just a number"
"has very little true feeling for the period (e.g the ready coupling of hero and heroine)"
brice-18: you DO realize that this was PRE-Puritan England? People had sex just as readily as we do now, it was simply years of Puritans and then Victorians trying to cover up the "bad" parts of their own history.
Also, they were engaged - that doesn't seem that they had sex "readily". As well, they might have thought that one or both of them would die soon and wanted to enjoy themselves while they still could.
And to the other idiots in this thread - you dare to call it 'boring'? It is simply an older style when theatre and movies were more in tune with each other, and actors could readily go from Julius Caesar to a movie set. Steady, strong lines instead of overacting was the way they went then, it doesn't make it better or worse (although in my opinion it is better).
Brice 18 I agree with your point about the "ready coupling", it was completely anachronistic, especially taking into account the relatively middle class social positions of the, although the young man is a soldier, he is clearly not uneducated, poor or barely literate. Pre marital sex was taboo, period, especially amongst that social milieu.I found Vincent Price's (an actor whom I adore) performance completely generic, anyone could have done it, what's the point of having Mr Price in the lead when he can't be Vincent? Apparently Reeves kept telling him to "keep his hands still, stop rolling his eyes and stop overacting", which effectively killed off anything Price could have brought have to the film. I think is a good overall film, but it takes itself a little seriously considering the weakness of its historical accuracy. (There were no witches burned in England), furthermore, the interrogation techniques suggested a limited budget or limited acquaintance with historical facts, where were the thumbscrews, where were the leg irons, where was the strapado? Also, the Witchfinder's cynical abuse of his position is also probably incorrect, as bizarre as it seems to us, people were generally terrified of witches, rather than using witch hunts as an opportunity to exploit women sexually. This film is more of a statement about violence rather than a historical film or example of involving storytelling. I enjoyed the film in some ways, but found it flat as a tack in others. The final scene sums up the point the film tries to make about violence very well, as for the sadism in the film, I think it's a good thing that people realise how much their forebears suffered, even though the violence in the film is minimal compared to what really happened. There is a document of an actual witch trial of a man in southern Germany called Johannes Junius, if anyone reads this they'll understand what I'm saying. It is one of the saddest, most brutal, haunting things I've ever read.
sharebre anna,
In response to a couple of points made in your thoughtful post, I think the ´ready coupling´ in the film is deliberately anachronistic: it´s a film about the 1960s as much as it is the English Civil War. As far as Vincent Price´s uncharacteristically restrained performance, Reeves didn´t want to cast him: he wanted Donald Pleasance but Price was foisted on him. There was a certain amount of bad blood between the director and the star, although Price subsequently stated how proud he was of the film.
"dark, depressive, volatile: the film buff who lost the plot"
[deleted]
I disagree. This is the best film Price ever starred in. Absolutely amazing in every way and it really does have something to say about the era it depicts. This is a masterpiece!
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyleshare
The only comment I have to make is that it is a significantly better film than its existing imdb score of 6.9/10 would suggest. To anyone who has not seen it don't be put off by that misleading rating.
shareI disagree, this was a wonderful film, with minor flaws perhaps, but Vincent Price was brilliant in such a difficult and complex role and the music was great. Also for back then, the movie doesn't look that bad. It is shocking and bloody, but I am not complaining, I may have done 5 years ago but not now. It is actually a shame Michael Reeves died not long after, he showed great promise as a young director.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)
I have to agree. I bought this film twice, once on DVD and recently on Blu-Ray as part of the Vincent Price collection. I kept searching on why this is a cult classic or even a good film as I love Vincent Price. I couldn't get through it on DVD years ago because Price's character was such a *beep* a$$hole and just finished watching it tonight on Blu-Ray all the way through. It's 40 minutes of torture and watching innocent people suffer and raped and then for a little while it's like The Princess Bride with spots of Monty Python from some of the minor characters (The guy selling Stern a horse, for instance) and then more pain, suffering and torture. This is supposed to be entertaining? Where's Spanish Inquisition : The Movie? The best part was seeing Hopkins axed to death.
share