the slaying of hopkins - Matthew Hopkins: Witchfinder General (1968) Discussion

[–] Pamfino 19 years ago

Hi, runner_logan... great film, isn't it? Your take on the final scene is a bit off though, I'm afraid!

Marshall doesn't untie himself. When Hopkins and Stearne hear the fracas at the top of the stairs between the guard and Marshall's friends, Hopkins orders Stearne to bring Marshall to kneel before his wife to watch her suffer. Stearne is untying Marshall when he hears Marshall's friends fighting outside of the chamber - he looks around, and Marshall then kicks him and gets loose. There is a piece of rope hanging down from Marshall's wrists which isn't there in the earlier shot of him, before the fights occur, which shows that Stearne has started the untying process when he's distracted by the noise. So Marshall didn't do some kind of Houdini-like trick to get free!

When Marshall gets free, Hopkins is holding the branding iron with the cross on it (that he was about to use on Sarah) not his pistol. When Marshall grabs the axe and starts across the room, Hopkins has dropped the iron and is getting his pistol out from his belt - he is lifting it to fire, but Marshall hits him with the axe before he can shoot. Hopkins certainly isn't just standing there with the pistol in hand as Marshall rushes towards him with the axe!

If you've got the DVD of the film, take another look at the scene.

It certainly is one of my favourite films. I think Vincent Price gives one of his best performances ever - as does Ian Ogilvy. I think Hilary Dwyer is great, particularly as this was her first film. Wonderful music too!

It's always been my intention to go up to East Anglia (I'm in London) and see some of the locations that they used in the film. They did film in the actual area of the country where the real Matthew Hopkins did his evil stuff (though he never burnt anyone - that was a bit of 'artistic licence' in the film - burning was for traitors and heretics in England; witches were hanged). Must get around to going for a look-see... one of these days!

Pam

_______________________________________
"I am not young enough to know everything." : Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] runner_logan 19 years ago

hi pam,great post-not quite the norm on message boards haha!
if you look at the reasons marshall and sara survived-hopkins ordering stearne to untie marshall to give him a close up of the branding when he was only a few metres away,and hopkins fidgeting for his gun after dropping the iron,if you were watching this in a cinema it would reek somewhat of distilled convenience to fit a timeframe,not disagreeing with your post as i hadnt iterated this in my first post.Interesting footnote that matthew reeves wanted donald pleasance to play hopkins-possibly would have been even better as with price your half expecting him to jump into pantomime aka edward lionheart or stick a mic on his larynx aka dr phibes!
i agree about hilary dwyer,shame she wasnt more renowned,them dippy americans only employ there own!!

reply

[–] mail-1030 19 years ago

I thought the ending was a bit rushed, but only slightly, it's because the build up is is slow... gruesome stuff though with the old axe, brutal and very real - about the furthest away from a modern era hollywood ending you could get...

The rest of the film was fairly tame, apart from a few nasty bit's much of Witchfinder's a little more like "Carry on Witchfinding" mainly due to some camp/hammy acting. However, the unexpected ending's certainley up there with the Wicker Man for nasty weirdness - and it makes the whole film seem much more seedy in memory..

Very, very British and worth a watch definately......

reply

[–] BlondeVixen 18 years ago

< agree about hilary dwyer,shame she wasnt more renowned,them dippy americans only employ there own!!>

Right, like Brit actors never got a chance in U.S. films.

It helps if you go to Hollywood. She apparently didn't.

reply

[–] lewismiller1078 18 years ago

I thought the ending was absolutley terrific-almost hallucinatory.
A violent ending to a very violent film. Never have I seen the main character in a film hacked to death by an axe, after spending the rest of the film committing various atrocities. I remember sitting in the theater back in 1972, and there was this nauseated silence by the audience-almost if noone could believe what they were seeing. Possibly one of the most effective endings to a horror film...period.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Monkey-face 18 years ago

Well, I planned to see this movie this weekend but now I already know how it enda! :(

It's a bit silly of me to open this post but somehow I thought it was referring to 'Anthony Hopkins' and not to a character in the movie.
A little 'spoiler' warning would have been appreciated.

reply

[–] Pamfino 18 years ago

I agree with you, Monkey-face, that there should have been a 'spoiler' warning at the top of this thread. I've edited my previous post and added a big 'SPOILER' warning to the subject box!!! Unfortunately, as I didn't start the thread, it won't show up at the top.

Even though you now know something of the ending of this film, please don't pass on seeing it as it's a great film (in my opinion anyway!).

Pam

____________________________________________
"I am not young enough to know everything." : Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] jaloquisimo 18 years ago

I watched it today and the brutally quick ending is just perfect - disturbing, yes, and extremely nihilistic. No-one gets way unscathed, whether by death, disfigurement or mental imbalance. Quite possibly the second best British horror film I have seen (and I've seen plenty).

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard.fuller1 11 years ago

I'm now thoroughly interested once more in the Salem witch trials, which saw only about 20 people executed, just mainly an intrigue with the life and living in that era at times.

I've never bothered with any version of Arthur Miller's The Crucible as it is nothing but fiction, but I have ordered two tv movies on the Salem Witch Trials, 3 Sovereigns for Sarah, with Vanessa Redgrave, and an '02 tv movie, Salem Witch Trials with alan Bates, Shirley Maclaine and Peter Ustinov, that should both be interesting.

For some strange reason, I get a very strong feel to the life with this film, always called Conquerer Worm here in the states.

The isolated mob mentality when the three persons are executed is phenomenal. Have never felt it as well with other depictions, again, in Salem, showing people in the woods. Don't know why.

Probably because of Price.

reply

[–] Squonkamatic 17 years ago

Yes you need to be more careful with spoiler info. But I lobby that the ending is maybe 90 - 120 seconds of an amazingly painful and well made 86 minute long film, I hope you will avail yourself of a chance to see it regardless of the intransigence of allowing it's details to be known. To write the entire film off for knowing the contents of those 90 seconds misses the point, and if you didn't want to know about how Hopkins is slain you could have avoided this thread.

Just belly up and watch the movie, by the time it gets to the conclusion you'll be so numb that you'll probably still be surprised, shocked, disturbed and transfixed. It's good enough of a film to bother with.

reply

[–] shandy8 17 years ago

Monkey-Face, you should watch this movie anyway! This is not the type of film where a foreknowledge of the outcome would spoil the picture. Vincent Price does some amazing work here. It is clear that the director had the reins on him!

With regards to the 'hacking" scene, I too felt that is was rushed; however, I think this may be due to my desire to see Hopkins pay for his cruelty. I had hoped that they would slowly pull him face down into a bonfire!

reply

[–] Woodyanders 17 years ago

I found the ending of this film to be quite potent and disturbing. Hilary Dwyer's hellish screams are especially unnerving.

I enjoy keeping busy. Satan finds work for idle hands.

reply

[–] oldblackandwhite 15 years ago

Others have dealt with how Richard's straps were untied. As to why Hopkins stood there holding his gun without firing, it is quite simple. His gun was empty. He expended the charge shooting the man in the inn as they were coming down the staircase, and he had not had time to reload.

As to why the soldier said, "God help us all," and made the sign of the Cross, it was not because they were all likely to be hanged. If any of you is a faithful Christian, this needs no explaination. If not, no amount of explaining would clear it up for you.

He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

[–] clivey6 14 years ago

Well yes, but personally I could forgive Ogilvy going at him with an axe even if God couldn't. I see what you mean but the screams suggest they're all going to hell for it, and I'm not sure that's true. In some ways it reminded me of the finale of a film with Sean Connery in, mid-60s (not Bond) though I hesitate to name it as I guess it's a spoiler.

Perhaps the camera pulled back so we saw it from an outsider's point of view, a mad man with an axe as bad as his nemesis.

I mean, the guy is a soldier, death in a way is his staple diet.

reply

[–] oldblackandwhite 14 years ago

God not forgiving him is not the point. God forgives those who sincerely repent, and I would think Ogilvy's character later did, based on what we were shown of his character.

People who see this film as validating their anti-Christian bias are just reading what they want into it. All the people Hopkins were persecuting were Christians, most of them much more faithful than he. He was doing it for money and to satisfy his misanthropic sadism. Nothing was shown to indicate he or his wicked helper were faithful Christians. He was never shown praying or making the sign of the Cross, whereas Ogilvy's character did both. Their hypocracy and cynicism was clear.

The English Civl War was not about Christians persecuting others, Catholics persecuting Protestants, or Protestants persecuting Catholics. It was two different factions of the Church of England presecuting each other. This is a pastime Anglicans still enjoy, though with less violence. Persecuting witches was a sideline.

Nowdays persecuting the politically incorrect is the sideline.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

[–] clivey6 14 years ago

Well that's fine but then what's with the ending? It's not an unhappy ending you're saying, cos Ogilvy can repent. So the nightmare screaming doesn't really have any long-term implication.

reply

[–] oldblackandwhite 14 years ago

Okay, it's an unhappy ending for people who need that to validate their own nihilistic viewpoint. A happy ending was not possible or appropriate for this grim movie anyway. The mad screaming, however, doesn't mean the man was permanently mad, just temporarily insane from revenge and blood lust. People get that way in wars, but they get over it surprisingly quick when peace returns. No one goes permanently insane so easily unless he is already three-fourths of the way there.

I was just putting my two cents worth in on some philosophical/theological angles others raised. I didn't think this was such a good movie as some others did. It seemed to be flailing around for a view-point. Was it anti-war? If so, it would have helped to have shown an actual battle scene or two. It seems to have mainly been an excuse to show great effusions of blood. If so, it worked well on that low-brow level, though not, I'm sure, as well as many recent movies. Some have claimed that this was one of Vincent Price's best performances, but I personally thought he was wooden and less exciting than usual. This wasn't a good enough movie to have any long-term implications.

By the way, compare the ending of this to the ending with Ovilvy in "And Now the Screaming Starts!".

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

[–] richwicz 14 years ago

I always found the spur through the eye moment nastier than the rubber axe slaying of Vincent Price.I remember catching the end of Witchfinder General on late night TV when I was very young, I thought it was the bloodiest film I'd ever seen.In fact, that ending was one of the moments, along with being allowed to stay up & watch Hammer's The Vampire Lovers, where I found my love for horror movies.

reply

[–] oldblackandwhite 14 years ago

richwicz:

Ingrid Pitt is a lot more fun than all that gore in Witchfinder General.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

[–] richwicz 14 years ago

You're damn right! Ingrid Pitt did indeed look gorgeous, she certainly opened my young eyes to the splendour of the female form along with all the other Hammer lovelies. :-)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DreTam2000 12 years ago

Wow...

Someone once told me years ago that the best way to do sarcasm is to begin with a sarcastic tirade so slowly and subtly, that by the time it gets to the meat of the sarcasm, the reader or listener is totally thrown off from absorbing what initially appeared to be straightforward exposition. So once it becomes rather clear that what we are reading or hearing is a bit on the ironic or sarcastic side, we are engaged and captivated by the outrageous silliness that the exposition has spiraled into. Sometimes we even feel like fools for taking it so seriously up until its latter half.

Sarcasm doesn't usually come in this form. I've seen it done a few times since I learned the method, though. The most notable moment for me, is in the movie Robocop 2, when the executive is being sarcastic about the sorts of new directives that should be programmed into Robocop; the woman in charge takes him seriously, and thus Robo has all these ridiculously trivial and silly directives programed into him.

I guess what I'm trying to say, Hey-Fuhgeddaboudit, is... that's some damn good sarcasm!

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply