MovieChat Forums > Eye of the Devil (1968) Discussion > Similar themes in WICKER MAN -- and othe...

Similar themes in WICKER MAN -- and other thoughts


** SPOILERS about both movies -- WICKER MAN and EYE OF THE DEVIL **

I just finished watching THE EYE OF THE DEVIL and saw resemblances throughout to THE WICKER MAN, but of course the premise dates back to antiquity and shows up in other stories/films like Tom Tryon's HARVEST HOME and Shirley Jackson's great short story "The Lottery". EYE OF THE DEVIL came out long before WICKER MAN, but it would be interesting to compare the source material for each film. The similarities to WICKER MAN are particularly prominent -- a failing harvest, a prominent land-owner whom the locals look to for salvation, a conspiracy to deceive and delude. But the victim/martyr turns out to be a different personage than you might guess. And in EotD the finale hints that this family tradition will continue for countless generations. (Didja catch how the family name begins with the letters D-E-M-O-N?!)

But ultimately it's futile to debate if one writer was directly influenced by another. Both concepts heavily rely on ancient lore -- offer a human sacrifice to coerce the hidden forces behind nature to bless us with a bountiful harvest. And this is probably deeply rooted within the Human Psyche.
Both films include the ancient tradition that the sacrifice will be made by a "King for a Day" -- a person who is temporarily "honored" in mock fashion, just as his "authority" is false. But in WICKER MAN the subject is truly played the Fool and doesn't see his Fate aproaching, while in EYE OF THE DEVIL the sacrifice willfully martyrs himself.
We can debate this final point though. It is likely that Philippe de Montfaucon has been drugged, brainwashed -- and even groomed at an early age for this task. This last point hints that the background of this strange society is twisted. The locals of antiquity had established a nobility which is elevated to live in riches but called upon to suffer martyrdom.

Both films have suffered in the public eye. WICKER MAN was poorly distributed but at least it's developed a cult following which has grown to appreciate it.
I don't understand why EYE OF THE DEVIL gets such a bum rap. The leads might be the weak links -- neither Niven nor Kerr seem compelling. But the supporting cast is great, including Donald Pleasance, David Hemmings, Sharon Tate, and Flora Robson.
Also EotD seems to be variously admired or derided depending on how you feel about the frenetic camera/editing -work. I usually prefer a more fluid style that doesn't call attention to itself, but it really does work here for me. Flash-and-dash editing can be a mind-numbing blur, like in the artless MOULIN ROUGE, but here the pacing moves the story along in a sane fashion but also creates some subtle comments. (Near the end Kerr chases after the doomed Niven, but the cuts back and forth include other characters and other locations. This creates an almost subconscious connection between the young siblings and the older generation; the young boy and girl become a parallel to their grandfather and great-aunt. This hints that the ritual will continue forever.)

Director J. Lee Thompson had a formidable assignment that had run through three other directors. Besides difficulties of running through various writers and directors, there were other bizarre events that took place behind the camera. It seemed jinxed with weird accidents, including a crewmember who was crushed by a car, and Kim Novak who suffered a riding accident and had to drop out of the film after completing 80% of her scenes. All of that footage had to be reshot with her replacement, Deborah Kerr. Then there's the final irony of the witchy cult-member, Sharon Tate, who of course suffered a terrible fate from a very real cult.

While I'm leery of the WICKER MAN remake, I wouldn't mind a new take on EYE OF THE DEVIL -- many details could be expanded upon or tweaked. For one, they could better highlight the relationship between the villagers and the nobility (as I described above).
Also, Sharon Tate was to entrance and groom the children for the roles they would assume as adults. It would be interesting if the boy had been a little older, which would have broadened Tate's character into more of a temptress, a la Britt Ekland in WICKER MAN.

(Btw, our last view of Tate is of her standing in the rain. So aren't we to assume that the sacrifice was ultimately successful? Like magic, the drought has ended.)


||||||
||||||

reply

Swift-12 wrote:

"We can debate this final point though. It is likely that Philippe de Montfaucon has been drugged, brainwashed -- and even groomed at an early age for this task.

Drugged or brainwashed doubtful; I'm sure he's been groomed for this. There's no reason to come back otherwise. It's his sacred duty. The only one as a noble he really only has left.

"This last point hints that the background of this strange society is twisted. The locals of antiquity had established a nobility which is elevated to live in riches but called upon to suffer martyrdom."

The concept that there was an obligation that went both ways between the peasantry and the nobility was something that was lost in the christian era. Obligation then became one sided and exploitive and has led to wholesale disolution of monarchy and nobility.


"I don't understand why EYE OF THE DEVIL gets such a bum rap."

Try the title. It's totally inappropriate to the story and detracts from it. The book, 'the day of the arrow' title's far more accurate. It sets an unrealistic tone about what the movie is about.

reply

"The concept that there was an obligation that went both ways between the peasantry and the nobility was something that was lost in the christian era. Obligation then became one sided and exploitive and has led to wholesale disolution of monarchy and nobility."

As compared to what? Was there even a pre-Christian nobility in France?

reply

"Try the title. It's totally inappropriate to the story and detracts from it. The book, 'the day of the arrow' title's far more accurate. It sets an unrealistic tone about what the movie is about."

Nothing wrong with the title. The "eye of the devil" being referred to is the pendant that's shown throughout the movie and that the child kisses at the end (there's also a scene where one can clearly discern a big eye painted on the wall of a ritual chamber).

reply

What most posters on all the threads seem to miss, especially when comparing this one to "The Wicker Man," is how "Eye Of The Devil" is actually very much and specifically related to Roman Catholicism. The scenes that were cut before the film was released were mainly, in fact, of "mass" in the village church and related displays of devotion.

Yes, it is Catholicism that is being pilloried here, and don't think for one moment that didn't terrify its producers and MGM. Albeit a sort of dualistic, Cathar-like offshoot of Catholicism. This is much more evident in the novel, where Alain (David Niven's "cowardly" father) tells Deborah Kerr of "certain beliefs" that even then could be found in the great seminaries of the Church. The movie has little to do with a contemporary survival of paganism a la "The wicker Man,", more to do with the idea of a Christlike figure being condemned to die while his apostles (the 13 robed and hooded locals on horseback) stand by. Additionally, the novel and subsequent film owe much to the almost totally discredited today witchcraft theories of Margaret Murray, in particular those elaborated on at great length in her last look at witchcraft (which is virtually impossible to find today), "The Divine King In England." There Murray posited that almost every king of England from the time of William Rufus (William II) was either ritually killed for the good of the realm or had someone die in his stead for the same purpose. (Joan of Arc is even supposed to have been one of these saintly stand-ins, to show how far Murray's theories really go when she's warmed up.)

"Eye Of The Devil" simply transposes this concept to the French wine country, and overlays on this the idea (not found even in Murray) that such practices have been nurtured by higher-ups in the Catholic church, who have themselves never quite given up the paganism that Margaret Murray apparently abscribed to virtually all upper-class Europeans from 1066 on. Sadly, most of this is gone from the movie (which is still pretty good) but I assure you, it is extremely evident in the novel, and even in the movie if one troubles to read the book (original title: "Day of the Arrow") first.

reply

Thank you, and sorry I didn't reply sooner. Great observations. Sounds like DAY OF THE ARROW is worth seeking out ... wish I could find Margaret Murray too, but that sounds tough.

||||||
||||||

reply


Indeed I can see the influence of this movie not only in the Wickerman but also in Rosemary's Baby and other satanic fare from Brotherhood of Satan to Tombs of the Blind Dead etc. Great atmospheric film.


"often times immaturity is a sign of a frustrated ego"

...

reply

Castles also figure strongly in Polanski's Cul-de-Sac and Fearless Vampire Killers, all made around the same time.


------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
----------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nec spe,nec metu

reply

About a third of the way into the movie, I thought it was going to end like Wicker Man and that Wicker Man must've borrowed heavily from it. However, it didn't turn out the way I had predicted and there are some notable differences between the stories. If this movie had been a dead ringer for Wicker Man, it would've been the wife, Catherine de Montfaucon, and not her husband, who'd have been the sacrifice. I'm sure Wicker Man was influenced by this movie, but I wouldn't call it a knock-off.

You didn't like David Niven in this? I thought he was perfect in the role.

The editing was a bit rough at times, with transitions between camera angles not being smooth, and sometimes I found myself wishing that the cameraman had slowed down a bit and spent a little more time on some shots, but overall, the cinematography was good.

I don't understand why this hasn't been officially released on DVD.

reply

Was anyone else annoyed that at the beginning of the movie the harp player's hand movements didn't match the music? And who was playing bass? Stuff like that is gay.

reply

Sorry I didn't reply sooner ... somehow missed the "reply" alerts.
Re Niven: I guess I should say I'm a disappointed more in the character, and even that is just a limitation from the P.O.V. treatment they used. I mean, since the story is all through Kerr's eyes, you don't see as much of Niven. The character is AWOL, and to aid the mystery he's -- what? -- enigmatic? He's hiding secrets, I suppose, but I'd also like to see more into him. I do think the character's a little drugged ... or perhaps numb ... or in denial of some kind... "whatever gets [him] through the night."

||||||
||||||

reply

Seems like it might have some influence on Eyes Wide Shut.

reply

Interesting -- in what way? (I'll have to rewatch EYES WIDE SHUT -- enjoyed it but don't remember much of it.)

||||||
||||||

reply

Just in the general theme of aristocratic people who unbeknownst to others, are involved in secret societies who practice spooky occult rituals dressed in hooded garb etc

reply

Gotcha. Good to know I didn't somehow miss a full frontal scene with Deborah Kerr.

||||||
||||||

reply

To me it sort of seemed like The Wicker Man meets Rosemary's Baby. The Gothic atmosphere sort of reminds me of Dark Shadows as well. This was a wonderful movie, though. It's the most I've enjoyed a movie in a long time and I can't wait to watch it again.

reply