Well, we are talking Neil LaBute here. Watch the original: it's got Christopher Lee AND The Equalizer, Edward Woodward!

Alarming Female

My first thought was "sounds like a bunch of "Bad Seeds," but then I went to IMDb and my second thought was "Ellen Burstyn sure has some stand-up titties; Pagan bullet bra or boob job?"

A review posted on the site serves as apologia,

I do have to warn you that if you are not a Nicholas Cage fan, this will not be a role to win you over- there are parts where it is painful to watch him. Everything else is relatively flawless though- if you let yourself get into the movie, you honestly feel as if you are on an isolated island where the "old ways" are still very relevant to society, something that even the original couldn't seem to do if you looked closely enough. The story is definitely fleshed out a bit, and if you're open to a new take on the story I think you'll have a great movie-going experience. I think that the important thing to remember here is that it's a movie- a brief distraction from real life whose purpose is to entertain- NOT a commentary on paganism.
(emphasis mine)

Which "old ways" is this guy remembering? The witches at Salem weren't REAL, numbnuts.

Makes me almost want to see it. But not.

Comrade Kevin

The original, which is all I am familiar with, paints women in a picture of temptress and very much in control of the situation, though no less beholden to the evil desires of the man behind the controls.

It's one of my favorite cult movies, though you could formulate an entire post about how wrong it is to rejoice in the fact that a man of God who sincerely believes in his faith gets burned in the end.

It's the inquisition turned inside out.


I have long loved the original. My love for the first version has so far kept me from seeing the second.

I'd be very interested in your take on the earlier film. In it, I believe, the protaganist is also a policeman, but the villagers are a mix of men and women led by a spooky character played by Christopher Lee.


Stereotypes develop after long periods of time and for a reason. They are not always fair or accurate, but the people who are the object of the stereotype are wise to note it, and examine it for any kernels of truth. I think the way you saw extreme feminism exaggeratingly portrayed in the movie (I haven't seen it) is blow back from the way extreme feminism is practiced in real life. You see the same with groups like PETA. I'm all for treating animals humanely, for instance, but when PETA breaks into a Red Lobster to release the live lobsters from their tanks, they open themselves for a stereotype and chronic loss of credibility. In many ways, extreme feminism has done the same thing.

The Happy Feminist

. . . Or jackasses could refrain from perpetuating misleading and ignorant stereotypes about people they know nothing about.

I agree with you that stereotypes develop after long periods of time and for a reason. Often that reason is a desire to discredit a particular group, or hatred for a particular group. I would note that this particular film seemed to embody a hatred of women in general, as well as feminists.

. . . the people who are the object of the stereotype are wise to note it, and examine it for any kernels of truth. . .

Interesting. Would you also counsel black people to examine racist stereotypes for any kernals of truth?

The Happy Feminist

I have to say that I am dying to see the original "Wicker Man." I'd never heard of it before, but it sounds excellent.

Barbara P


Let's say I wanted to take your point to heart - that there are "extreme feminists" out there doing outrageous things, making all feminists look bad (the way PETA makes animal rights groups look bad). What exactly do you think should be done about it?

"Extreme Feminism" is not an organized group, like "PETA" is. And there are no (silly or otherwise) demonstrations that I know of that are done in the name of "extreme feminism". I *have* seen a sort-of "man-hating" attitude (held by otherwise "traditional" women) that's vaguely thought of in popular parlance as "feminist", but I don't buy it. I certainly don't see feminists (extreme or otherwise) advocating what is essentially immoral behavior (as depicted in this movie).

With such a vague definition, (unless you call "extreme feminism" any feminist thought that anti-feminists don't like!) there is absolutely no way for a supposed "regular feminist" to distance herself from it. And what about the fact that some ideas may be unpopular simply because they're misunderstood, but not because they're outright immoral? If a feminist really believes something is right, but knows it's unpopular to say, should she be quiet because otherwise she might paint feminism as being "too extreme"? If early feminists had followed that advice, there's a good chance that women wouldn't have the vote now!

I'll agree with you that surely some feminists aren't very nice people (if only because any group has it's rotten apples), but I can't possibly accept that the stereotypes against feminists (especially as depicted in this movie) are anything approaching reasonable or fair. There's no "kernel of truth" that feminists, by virtue of their feminist beliefs, are nasty people, or that any flavor of feminism teaches ingratitude, deception and downright cruelty.

Barbara P

I read my comment again and noticed I wrote "otherwise" way too often in the 2nd paragraph. Thank goodness we're not being graded on these comments! :o)


I don't know if you're into sci fi at all but if you are it would definitely be worth reading Ethan of Athos by Lois McMaster Bujold who apparently got sick enough of the old "planet of women who really just need sex with a man to sort them out" trope that she wrote a book about a man coming from a planet of patriarchs where women are absolutely forbidden.

It's much better than you'd think (the guy's comical suprise that parenthood isn't recognised for the huge amount of work that it is was great).

The comments to this entry are closed.