The 2006 Remake
In 2006, The Wicker Man received a "Hollywood makeover." In 2005, Robin Hardy, the original director of The Wicker Man, had called in his lawyers to have his name taken off promotional material: "The amazing thing is that all the publicity keeps on saying that I have written the screenplay, which is obviously not true," said Hardy, who did not even take a writing credit on the original, though he worked closely with writer Anthony Shaffer. He was at the time also worried about some of the rewrites to the storyline. In the original, Woodward's character, the police inspector to be burnt, was a virgin, making him ideal for sacrifice. That element was ditched from the remake, because it was thought that while audiences would accept the idea of an American community that practiced human sacrifice, the idea of a grown-up virgin was apparently too farfetched.
The remake of The Wicker Man did not have any advance press screenings. Such evasion techniques normally do not bode well, and unfortunately, the early calls of skepticism from the likes of Hardy proved all too true. At first, you wonder whether this is a remake or a liberal interpretation of the original movie. Nicolas Cage turns out to be a California Highway Patrolman, Edward Malus, who sees a mother and her daughter killed in a car crash, though no bodies are retrieved. It leaves him shaken and incapable to work. In the original edition, there was a prologue too, but this was cut from the actual release. The prologue was there to show that the police officer was a devout, fundamental Catholic. But in the remake, there really is no clear reason why Cage should be involved in this enigmatic accident. The scriptwriter obviously never had to explain during the production process how it fit into the plot, and the editor seemed unable to cut it out because of the expense gone into the special effects.
At a time when the United States is, apart from controversial international politics, particularly known for being a hotbed of extreme and ultra-conservative Christianity, surely leaving the original standoff between Christianity and paganism intact would have been a better choice? If The Da Vinci Code showed anything, it is that... Or was it deemed to be too controversial?
Cage then travels to a remote island commune in Washington to locate the missing daughter of his ex-fiancé. There he discovers a matriarchy of pagans who indulge in human sacrifice to ensure the fertility of their harvest. You can see the differences, as well as the resemblances to the 1973 version.
The American adaptation was done by the controversial playwright/filmmaker Neil LaBute, who moved the island of neo-Druids from Scotland to somewhere off the coast of Washington (which works), and has it run entirely by women, casting Ellen Burstyn as the Queen Bee, with a few men existing as eunuch-servants. The inclusion of beekeeping was a nice, highly symbolic element, with honey replacing apples as the main product upon which the island economy drives, but it is too little to make the movie work.
Though the finale is retained for the update, the soul-smashing, faith-crushing impact it is supposed to have amounts to nothing more than just another modern-movie "twist ending." The theatrical release had a "six months later" epilogue, which was the ultimate insult to the intelligence of even the most stupid of cinemagoers and destroyed any of the believability of the material it may have had with some. If it shows anything, it is that LaBute seems to think every person going to a movie has absolutely no intelligence whatsoever. Fortunately, it was dropped for the DVD release.
The original edition was notorious for its situational humor around the police officer, who tries to find his feet but is slowly slipping down the slope of madness. Some attempt is made by Cage, waving his badge around like he has jurisdiction, flailing his arms around angrily, shouting at women and children alike and even pulling his gun on them, but you wonder whether Cage actually "got it" as to what he was meant to portray. So it's difficult to say whether it is bad acting or bad screenwriting, but the end result is just not there when compared with the original edition. As a remake, it left out the positives of the original and was either unable or forgot to replace them with something else.
Unremarkably, the movie was nominated for five 2006 Golden Raspberry Awards: Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Nicolas Cage), Worst Screenplay, Worst Remake or Rip-off, and Worst Screen Couple (Nicolas Cage and His Bear Suit). Remarkably, like the original edition, the movie garnered a cult following as an unintentional comedy, with several scenes being posted on YouTube boasting repeated shots of Nicholas Cage brutalizing various women throughout the film.
Philip Coppens is an author and investigative journalist, ranging from the world of politics to ancient history and mystery. He co-hosts The Spirit Revolution radio show with Kathleen McGowan and is a frequent contributor to NEXUS Magazine and Atlantis Rising Magazine. Since 1995, he has lectured extensively, across the world. He is the author of The Stone Puzzle of Rosslyn Chapel, The Canopus Revelation, Land of the Gods, The New Pyramid Age, and Servants of the Grail.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In