So I finally watched this film with my buddy and we had a discussion/debate about whether or not Hopkins was supposed to be a good guy or bad guy. On the one hand, tracking down and punishing witches is an honorable endeavor, on the other, Hopkins seems to have been motivated primarily by money.
shareAre you serious?
"dark, depressive, volatile: the film buff who lost the plot"
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've always thought of him as the hero, but must admit the film is a little ambiguous.
shareWait, are we talking about the same Matt Hopkins? The sadistic, hypocritical, cowardly, lying, lynching, opportunistic rapist that appears in the film? How is there any doubt whatsoever that he is the villain? Price's fantastic performance is certainly the one that drives the film, but as far as the story is concerned he's clearly the antagonist (vs the hero Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy)). Since I can't imagine anyone seeing Hopkins as even a CONFLICTED character, let alone a heroic one, I'll have to assume that by the film's "hero" you mean "star." Which Price certainly is.
share[deleted]
I think it's pretty clear that Matthew Hopkins is the hero - I don't agree with "Maxlorenz67" that it's ambiguous. But that's just my opinion.
shareIf people really think Matthew Hopkins is the hero of this movie than I don´t have to wonder ever again about the numerous atrocitites people are still doing to other people in this world ...
shareThese posts are ridiculous. How the hell is Hopkins a hero? Do you actually believe these victims were real witches who deserved to die? That the witch trials were justified? There's nothing ambiguous about this movie.
shareCould'nt agree more. it makes you wonder about the mentality of anybody who would consider scum like Hopkins as heroic.
shareTo those who consider him a hero - what did you make of the scene where he suggests to Stearn that they accuse the soldier of witchcraft purely to get him out of the way?
shareMathtew Hopkins, both Vincent Price's interpretation and the real person, was a total bastard. He was not appointed by any 'authority' to search for 'witches'. There were no actual 'witches' anyway. Most of the women Hopkins tortured a confession out of and then hanged were simply midwives or herbalists. None were involved or 'in league with Satan'.
hopkins was solely motivated by financial gain and his own sadism.
No he is not the 'Hero' of this film, Ogilvy's character is.
Right let's get one thing clear Hopkins didn't burn witches he burned innocent women who were targets of his rather sick and obsessive mind set.
Matthew Hopkins can only ever be considerd as a mnetaly ill tyrant and nothing more.
No he is not the 'Hero' of this film, Ogilvy's character is.
You wrote: "Oglivy's character is no hero either to be honest."
While Richard Marshall (Ian Oglivy) may be a flawed hero, he's still a hero.
While Sara Lowes (Hilary Dwyer) is not a pure heroine, she's still a heroine.
Notwithstanding their errors, they attempt to act upon a moral level far above
that of Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne. Does a hero have to be perfect?
You wrote: "a man more interested in 'revenge' than his own traumatised wife?"
Richard Marshall does not seem interested only in seeking revenge upon Matthew
Hopkins for forcing Sara to submit to sexual intercourse in a vain attempt to
save her uncle's life. He also seems interested in preventing Matthew Hopkins
and John Stearne from ruining more lives besides Sara's and her uncle's.
Should Richard Marshall simply have "turned the other cheek" and allowed
Matthew Hopkins and John Stearne to continue persecuting other people?
The film's concluding scene was intended to invoke horror. Must that ending
be unworthy of a hero? On a historical note, some people regard Boudica, a
queen of the Iceni, as a British national heroine for wreaking bloody revenge
upon the Romans in Britain after (according to Tacitus) Roman soldiers had
flogged her and made her watch while they raped her daughters many times.
[deleted]