MovieChat Forums > The Wicker Tree (2012) Discussion > An Open Letter to Robin Hardy -

An Open Letter to Robin Hardy -

posted 15 years ago by wolfe-pack
61 replies | jump to latest

First off, I'd like to say I enjoyed your film, "The Wicker Man". The plot was well constructed and in general, the film was well written and directed.
My main criticism comes in however, in regards to your persistent misrepresentation of pagan beliefs. While I understand that much of your sources came from Frazer's Golden Bough - both a classical sourcebook, and more lately found to contain gross generalizations and fictionalizations of historic pagan folk beliefs and practices - and many statements contained within the Wicker Man are truly in line with actual Pagan beliefs, the actual and real sacrifice of humans, or for that matter, even animals, in modern pagan ritual is completely untrue.
I am a Pagan. As a Wiccan, I believe that the nature is sacred and interacts with man in the forms of the god and goddess. Our sacrifices are ones of thanks - incense, libations of wine or ale or water, offerings of cakes or the fruits of the harvest, Even the Wicker man himself as a straw effigy. In ancient times, Julius Cesar (hardly an unbiased source on British culture) tells of the druids burning condemned criminals in a wicker man - an assertion that has little other evidence to confirm it. Modern Pagans however, do not, and have never practiced human sacrifice in their rituals. To do so is against the very tenants of our faith: that all of life is sacred. Thus we "harm none" as it says in the Wiccan Rede.
Because of the richness of many details in your original film, I and many other Pagans overlook the misrepresentation and enjoy the film for its other thematic elements. However, I begin to question your motives when I find that your sequel film, "Cowboys for Christ" rehashes the theme of murderous heathens killing Christians, apparently without even the semi-sympathetic treatment given in the first movie.
Pagans have labored over the past 60 years against ingrained prejudice and open hostility from "mainstream" society due to misconceptions of our beliefs, often perpetrated by popular media. Our rights to openly hold and practice our beliefs have been hard-fought. Though Wicca has been recognized as an official religion in the United States in 1986, we continue to struggle even for the most basic rights granted to any other religion. Certainly, movies that portray members of our faith as insane murderous fanatics does nothing to advance an open and honest discussion of our rights in the public forum.
Please consider the repercussions of your fiction before you make the film. Certainly the Christian religion is not blameless on the score of murdering others in the name of their religion. See also: The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Burning Times.

Wulfric
[email protected]

[–] junk-mail-4 15 years ago

TL;DR

[–] kwalstedt-1 15 years ago

Open letter to "Wulfric" and his ilk:

First of all, it's not a documentary on neopagans. It's a fictional film that is the creation of its writer, director and producer and they have creative license to make it about anything they like in any way they like with whatever depiction of so-called pagans real or imaginary. Second of all, "neopaganism" is a modern construct invented from whole cloth and cobbled together from a dim understanding of the faint historical traces of dozens of different distantly related ancient non-Christian cultures, few of which even knew of each other or existed at the same historical period. "Pagan" simply means "belonging to the country people." It is a generic term that does not pinpoint any one culture, time period or place. To put Greek, Celtic, Persian, Egyptian, Germanic and other ancient mythologies spanning thousands of years of history into one tradition can only have been done in modern times by people who have no direct knowledge of these traditions. So called neopagans have created a completely new religion out of a patchwork of ancient practices for which there is little historical documentation. .01% of neopaganism consists of the tiny grains of fact from third hand accounts written years after they occurred and venturesome interpretations of archeological objects, and the other 99.99% consists of the romantic imaginings of 20th century hippies.

In this light there is no "tradition" for you to defend that you have any more right to than Robin Hardy has. Both he and you and all of your fellow neopagans and anyone else who wants can take the same traces of ancient cultures and interpret and embroider them in whatever way they like. There's no standard, no body of work that defines what you believe. The straws you grasp at can be grasped by all and sundry and frankly, Hardy et al have made a much more interesting story out of them than you have, "Wulfric."

[–] wolfe-pack 15 years ago

Clearly you're coming from a position of biased arrogance, believing you are the ultimate authority on what constitutes a "genuine" religion and what doesn't. True, the modern neo-pagan movement is a new synchronistic religion, often drawing for inspiration upon ancient mythos and what little we do know of "authentic" pagan religions. True, much of Wiccan tradition was developed by Gerald Gardener and his group, which borrowed from Crowley and Golden Dawn sources, and modern Wiccan tradition is often adapted from Gardenerian tradition. None of this however, makes Wicca any less of a valid religion than any other. Mormonism was invented out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith. Christianity itself is nothing more than an amalgamation of various Mithraic and Attic cults cobbled together, painted over with a faint Hebrew verneer. Almost every Christian holiday and tradition has pagan roots, borrowed from the same tree that modern Pagan traditions draw inspiration from.
Ultimately, who are you to say what is a valid belief system or not? And just as the Jewish Anti-Defamation league and many Christians and Muslims actively seek to defend the defamation of their beliefs in the popular media, so too do neopagans have the right to do the same.
What interests me is how quickly you switched from defending the creative license of robin hardy and moved to an ill-concieved character assasination of all pagans in general. It sounds like you are too blinded by your own personal prejudices to even carry on a conversation, let alone make a genuine contribution to this debate.

[–] Lokisgodhi 15 years ago

The premise of TWM 1973 was that Summerisle was a pagan reconstruction created in the mid to late 1800s. As such it's a representation of what Victorian culture believed their pagan forefathers paganism to be.

It falls under what Isaac Bonewits defines as mesopaganism.

".....attempts to recreate, revive or continue what their founders thought were the best aspects of the Paleopagan ways of their ancestors (or predecessors), but which were heavily influenced (accidentally, deliberately and/or involuntarily) by concepts and practices from the monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or early Buddhism. Examples of Mesopagan belief systems would include Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, etc., as well as those forms of Druidism influenced by those movements, the many Afro-Diasporatic faiths (such as Voudoun, Santeria, Candomble, etc.), Sikhism, several sects of Hinduism that have been influenced by Islam and Christianity, Mahayana Buddhism, Aleister Crowley’s religion/philosophy of Thelema, Odinism (some Norse Paganism), most “Family Traditions” of Witchcraft (those that aren’t completely fake), and most orthodox (aka “British Traditionalist”) denominations of Wicca."

http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html

Read the early works of William Butler Yeats for examples of it.

[–] wolfe-pack 15 years ago

I'm familiar with Bonewit's definitions of Paleo, Meso, and Neopaganism. I agree that the paganism portrayed in The Wickerman drew much of its inspiration from Mesopagan sources - however, it's no coincidence that the movie came out at a time when the Neopagan movement was picking up steam and generating public interest. Hardy's newest movie cannot claim to come out of ignorance to the modern pagan movement, but instead re-enforces the barbarous stereotypes from the first movie, without even the cultural richness or conceptual originality to make it anything but a slanderous strawman of Pagan people.

[–] Escarpe 14 years ago

Exactly how do you know so much about Mr Hardy's film when it hasn't been released yet? And lets say that it does as you say cast pagans in a bad light, well sorry but suck it up, every film needs a antagonist otherwise film in general would be pretty boring and there have even been fads of baddies throughout the history of film, the Germans are a perennial favorite, the Russians, Terrorists (and by extension unfair or not Muslims) got a great workout after 9/11, The Catholic Church, Vampires, Robots, Aliens, Communists, and for years anyone with an English accent. The antagonist is typified by "The Other" the unknown Pagans are still an unknown quantity in society and therefore good fodder for "The Other" role. Who would you prefer brought the brunt of this unfair casting or is this a cry of anyone but me!". If the film offends you can take comfort that it's not documenting your exploits on the screen. Right-minded people will be able to separate this fiction from the reality that most Pagans are nice people who happen to have a minority belief system. Anyone else? Well they will never be interested in the truth just their own biased opinions and why do you care anyway?
If the film offends you can take comfort that it's not documenting your exploits on the screen.

"I'm in favor of taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of idiots, lets start with computers."

[–] paulfny 12 years ago

Just to clarify, I do believe the author of that post was trying to illuminate the origins and history (briefly) of paganism in the past and how it's been extrapolated to the present. He made no mention of any other religion having ascendancy over yours.

'Mormonism was invented out of whole cloth by Joseph Smith. Christianity itself is nothing more than an amalgamation of various Mithraic and Attic cults cobbled together, painted over with a faint Hebrew verneer. Almost every Christian holiday and tradition has pagan roots, borrowed from the same tree that modern Pagan traditions draw inspiration from.'

I find your argument here to be flawed in the extreme. You seek to receive validation by seeming to say 'my religion/belief system is just as cobbled together and 'stolen' or interpreted from whatever sources I like as any other', which is really just the same as saying your belief system is as irrelevant as any other.

'And just as the Jewish Anti-Defamation league and many Christians and Muslims actively seek to defend the defamation of their beliefs in the popular media, so too do neopagans have the right to do the same.'

To then seek to claim clemency because Jews, Christians and Muslims do, just makes you sound a bit foolish. You have just 'torn' down these religions (Christian mostly as was the pagans wont), then you seek to elevate yourself to their company as an equal.

Please try to be consistent in your arguments, people may respect you more.

Just for you info. I am an atheist.

[–] sincerity77 8 years ago

The word you are looking for is "syncretistic", not "synchronistic".

[–] sincerity77 8 years ago

It wasn't about whether it was a valid religion or not, it was about whether it constituted a tradition. Anyhow, I'll tell you what constitutes a genuine religion, it's real easy: one in which the claims it makes about reality are factual. Good luck finding one!

[–] martang66 15 years ago

Oh, dont be so silly Wulfric!

[–] zarathustra2k1 12 years ago

I know. What a boring, pompous blabbermouth.

It's a comedy, Wulfpric, you overblown windbag.

LOLOLetc., ad nauseam...

I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush

[–] pkstr11 15 years ago

First, Caesar is not the only source for human sacrifice among the ancient Celts, in fact the earliest source is Posidonius Trogus, who was himself a Celt.

Second, modern Wicca has as much to do with ancient Celtic beliefs as football does with gladiatorial combat.

Third, if you decide to identify yourself, your beliefs, and your practices with a civilization that came to an end some 2000 years ago, and then find there are aspects of that civilization you find distasteful, please realize that despite your claims to the contrary you are not a Celtic pagan, you are a modern pagan, and simply because someone correctly points out that the ancient Celts commonly practiced human sacrifice, it does not mean they are discriminating against you, nor are they to blame if you find reality to be less than your liking.

[–] wolfe-pack 15 years ago

I attempted to look up Posidonius Togus, but couldn't find anything. The two references most Celtic Studies scholars cite are Strabo in his Geography (4.1.13), and Julius Caesar in De Bello Gallico (6.16). The point is that these authors are from a forgiegn and antagonistic culture with every cultural and political reason to paint the Celts in as bad a light as possible. If it were as common an occurance as you say, then it would be referenced in Celtic mythology and record. That being said, there is some evidence (such as the "bog man" of Lindow) of ritual sacrifice - we do know that if a chieftan grew old and incapable of leading his people he would willingly sacrifice himself.
That being said, I never claimed to follow an exact reconstruction of the ancient Celtic pagan religion. Yes, I am a modern Pagan. As I stated previously, if you had taken the time to actually read my post, that modern Paganism and Wicca are new, synchronistic religions, drawing inspiration and guidance from our Pagan fore-bearers.
We are not the only ones who don't copy every custom from ancient times and blend our religon with modern cultural beliefs and customs - Most Christians and Jews have stopped stoning people for adultery and disobeying their parents. In fact, the father of both religions, Abraham, most certainly did practice human sacrfice - the ritual murder of his own son - unless you really believe a ram "miraculously" appeared at the nick of time to sacrifice instead.
My point of contention is that Robin Hardy in The Wicker Man and now with his new movie in production is not making a historical film about ancient Pagans, but instead, a real live Modern Pagan Community which abducts, seduces, and murders Christians - sensational and slanderous hogwash.

[–] Lokisgodhi 15 years ago

wolfe-pack, formerly Wulfric, wrote:

"I attempted to look up Posidonius Togus, but couldn't find anything. The two references most Celtic Studies scholars cite are Strabo in his Geography (4.1.13), and Julius Caesar in De Bello Gallico (6.16). The point is that these authors are from a forgiegn and antagonistic culture with every cultural and political reason to paint the Celts in as bad a light as possible."

I think you're greatly overemphasizing Roman foreignness from the Celts. Roman Paganism isn't that much different from Celtic. They certainly would have recognized similar rituals to those they currently did or had done within their memory.

Tacitus wrote favorably on many aspects of Germanic Paganism and if there ever was hate at first sight, it was between the Germans and the Romans. The biggest objection I find with Roman writing of other cultures is their insistence on equating their gods with Roman ones.

Romans disliked human sacrifice but resorted to it during the general panic following Roman defeat at Cannae. Roman gladiatorial games can certainly be viewed as de-facto human sacrifices.

Wulfric

[–] sincerity77 8 years ago

> I attempted to look up Posidonius Togus, but couldn't find anything.

That's probably because it's Pompeius Trogus.

[–] pkstr11 15 years ago

I apologize first off, I conflated the names of two sepparate historians. Pompeius Trogus was a Celt from the area around Massalia who wrote about Celtic practices, including aspects of human sacrifice and the severed-head cult. Posidonius was a Greek historian writing around the 2nd century BC who likewise wrote about Celtic human sacrifice. Sources on pre-Roman Celtic society include Strabo, Pliny, Diodorus Siculus, Julius Caesar, and Timagenes, all of whom seemed to use Posidonius in one way or another. Posidonius was in no way hostile to the Celts or Celtic religion, nor is it a simple matter to say the Romans and Greeks that followed Posidonius inherently wanted to paint them in a negative light and gloss their works in such a blaise way. Caesar for example was allied with and depended on many of the Celtic tribes in Gaul, and elevated many of his Celtic friends and allies to the Senate upon becoming dictator; it was hardly in his best interest to paint his friends and political allies as bloodthirsty savages. The same goes for your reference to the sacrifice of Isaac; many scholars do see a reference to human sacrifice and the turning away from said practice in the myth, but by no means is it as clear cut as you would like it to be.

Religions and religious practices absolutely evolve over time, but that is no reason to get all upset over the fact that Hardy has, correctly, identified human sacrifice as a central element to Celtic paganism. Hardy's communities are not "Modern Pagans", they are pagans engaging in pagan practices in the modern world. Is it sensational? Absolutely, hence why it is being made into a movie; the average every day life of Joe Shmoe rarely makes for compelling cinema. Slanderous? Hardly. The fact of the matter is ancient Celts practiced human sacrifice, and human sacrifice played a central role in Celtic divination especially. The ancient Celts are all long dead, their religious practices along with them. You are not a Celt, nor is there anything in any of Hardy's works pertaining to your belief system, so get over it.

Some good, non-sensationalist works on Celtic religion in general include Kendrick 1927, the first to try and break away from sensationalism and treat druidism in a scholarly fashion, Piggott 1968, Chadwick 1966, Brunaux 1988, Le Roux and Guyoncarc'h "Les Druides", and various works by Carole Crumley.

[–] andrewharper-1 15 years ago

The information available about the film doesn't seem to indicate that the protagonists are involved with Wicca at all. I suggest you save your complaints until you've seen the film and I'd remind you that it's fiction and not intended to portray any reality.

[–] BrianSewell 15 years ago

I don't wish to alarm you....sit down.....deep breath.....IT'S A FILM you knobend........

Read this quick before IMDB delete it.

[–] Doris_Wildthyme 14 years ago

I hope you're the real Brian Sewell, because I want to imagine "you knobend" being said in Mr. Sewell's wonderful plummy voice!

[–] guarnot 14 years ago

a real live Modern Pagan Community which abducts, seduces, and murders Christians - sensational and slanderous hogwash.

Oh, how disappointing.

[–] desimonici-898-584421 9 years ago

No such thing as a celt. Never was. Type of pottery yes but people and culture no.

[–] paul-2136 15 years ago

A gentle note to wolfe-pack:

(1) I think you mean "tenets," not "tenants" in your letter to Robin Hardy: tenants are occupants; tenets are beliefs.

(2) I think you mean "syncretic," not "synchronistic" in a later note describing neopaganism: synchronistic means "occurring at the same time"; syncretic means "drawn from many sources."

(3) While you may indeed have a global, comprehensive, and accurate knowledge of every single cult that falls under the general rubric of "neopaganism," as your various declarations imply, it is still the case that certain cults that might not be classified strictly as neopagan deny the practice of human sacrifice, all the while certain possibly distorted sects in fact appear to practice it. I am thinking of certain strains of some Afro-Caribbean religions as practiced, for example, by members of drug cartels.

[–] alixmage 15 years ago

Hello there,

I am an ordained Wiccan Minister. I have been a practicing Wiccan for over fifteen years. I take my religion very seriously, and have devoted years of study and sacrifice to it, culminating in my initiation into one of the older traditions in the UK.

That being said. Lighten up. The original Wicker Man is a classic, and I look forward to seeing the new film.

Thank you and Blessed Be.

[–] Elspode 14 years ago

You know, I believe Robin Hardy has been often quoted as saying that TWM was intended as a horror film, a work of fiction. I'm a Pagan, and nothing about it bothers me. In fact, as a Pagan, I think I enjoyed the shock of the ending that much more when I saw TWM for the first time.

Patrick

[–] Sparrowhawk 13 years ago

Actually, Robin Hardy has said many times that he never saw TWM as a horror film, but rather a suspense tale along the lines of Hitchcock. The movie got labeled "horror" by Cinefantastique Magazine, that devoted an entire issue to it in 1973.

[–] spinneyhex 14 years ago

What has TWM got to do with Wicca? Im a pagan certainly NOT Wiccan.
BTW its a film.