Medieval Philosophy - Bryan Magee & Anthony Kenny
14 hours ago
The Witches (1966)
is one of Hammer’s lesser-known productions.
Lacking the Gothic trappings most commonly associated with the studio’s
horror output, it was designed as a star vehicle for Joan Fontaine (an Oscar-winner for her performance in Hitchcock's Rebecca over a quarter of a century earlier), who had acquired the
rights to film a novel called The Devil’s
Own by Peter Curtis, a pseudonym employed by bestselling historical
novelist Norah Lofts.
The Devil’s Own has
been reissued in paperback as The Witches by the renascent Hammer, as part of
a series of movie tie-ins and novelisations (it has also previously appeared as
The Little Wax Doll under Norah Lofts’
own name). Unfortunately, Hammer has chosen
to saddle the book with an embarrassing generic cover which bears no relationship to its contents and is evidently designed to mislead fans of Twilight and similar 'young adult' sagas. Anyone seeking ‘supernatural romance’ in The Witches is in for a cruel disappointment;
a more sexless tale could not be imagined; the novel, first published in 1960 and set in 1959, is a relic of an era in
which an unmarried woman in her forties had to accept that she was
a hopeless ‘spinster’ and destined for a solitary life. The compensation was that she was allowed to pursue
a career; hence Miss Mayfield’s willingness to take on the role of headmistress
at the remote East Anglian village of Walwyck.
Miss Mayfield is a quietly idealistic character who has not
long returned from a twenty year stint teaching at a mission school in Africa. She wishes to escape from the drudgery and
squalor of working at her most recent appointment in an inner-city school and living
in ‘digs’ with another woman teacher. As
the story progresses, we learn that she has survived an unspecified mental breakdown
in Africa which led to her return to England.
Apart from a chilling reference to ‘the Mau Mau oath’ (colonial
ethnopsychiatry held Kenya’s Mau Mau rebels to be ‘an irrational force of
evil, dominated by bestial impulses and influenced by world communism’, which aided the killing of more than 20,000 of them and the torturing of suspects by the British) much less is made in the novel of African
voodoo than in the film. In his newly commissioned
introduction, Cyril Franke, the film’s director, proudly refers to his ‘production
of Man of Africa and first-hand
experience of witchcraft among the natives’.
It therefore seems likely that Franke was responsible for emphasising this
element, which is crudely-presented and adds nothing to the film apart from an unpleasant and
unnecessary injection of racism.
Another difference to is that Canon Thorby (Bax in the film), who
runs the private school to which Miss Mayfield is appointed, is a genuine
cleric, rather than an eccentric imposter. Unlike the ruin depicted in the film - so
reminiscent of The Wicker Man - the
village church is intact and still functioning as a site of Christian worship
(alongside the occasional Black Mass).
Thorby’s sister Isabel is eventually revealed to be the coven leader; could
it be that Hammer shied away from depicting a churchman so closely implicated
in Satanism, for fear of censorship from the BBFC? The Canon and his sister are much more boring
characters in the novel, with the latter hardly seen until the climax.
The film suffers from a preposterous conclusion in which
Miss Mayfield is finally invited along to the human sacrifice by Thorby's sister for no apparent
reason and then manages to sabotage the proceedings via supernatural means. By
way of contrast, the novel’s ending is plausible enough but dull. Besieged in the church tower with the
hypnotised girl, Miss Mayfield finally realises that ’she was, in a fashion,
the victim of her own faith’ and that the witches are without any supernatural capabilities;
‘if they had any power other than their own, they wouldn’t throw themselves
against the door.’ Miss Mayfield saves Ethel
by human means, Isabel Thorby bangs her head against the font
and dies and, in a final ‘twist’, the girl destroys out of modesty the cine
film that her rescuer has made of the ritual so that no record remains of
Walwyck’s lurid Satanic revels.
As we have seen, The
Witches doesn’t really count as supernatural fiction, although Ms Lofts was not averse to including spooky passages in her 'modern gothic' novels such as Gad's Hall (1977) and even published an entire collection of ghost stories; Hauntings (1974). Written
prior to the mainstreaming of Wicca and modern paganism, the story’s depiction
of witchcraft comes straight from the pages of Malleus Maleficarum, although in Miss Mayfield’s sensibly modern, rationalistic
brand of Christianity, witchcraft is seen as an atavistic survival rather than
an active force of evil and most of its adherents are to be pitied rather than condemned:
So what can have inspired such a tale? In the mid-1950s, witchcraft and murder had
been linked in the public mind with the publication of Detective-Superintendent
Robert Fabian’s sensational memoirs Fabian
of the Yard (1955). In these, he
offered a grippingly embellished account of an unsolved murder that had taken
place in 1945. In a case which became
known as ‘the Lower Quinton Witchcraft Murder’ an elderly Warwickshire farmworker named
Charles Walton was found savagely slain in a manner described by Fabian as ‘like
the kind of killing the Druids might have done in ghastly ceremony at full moon’.
Alternatively, the manner of Walton’s
death, pinned to the ground by a pitchfork through the chest and slashed across
the throat with a billhook, closely resembled the 19th Century
execution of a suspected witch by a mentally deranged young man in the same
area. Fabian found his investigations
blocked by obstructive villagers and reported an eerie encounter with a ‘Big
Black Dog’ that related to local legendry involving Walton. He secretly concluded that the murder was
committed by a farmer with a financial motive (he could not record this while
the suspect still lived due to libel laws) but the idea of a present-day
hideous crime linked to the survival of ancient beliefs in a backward rural community
is a powerful one that may well have provided an impetus for The Witches.
Hammer horror, the romance of travelling by steam train; what can possibly go wrong?
I quite enjoyed
the framing sections which convey the "feel" of Hammer reasonably well,
although there are a couple of sloppy mistakes. Nigel Hawthorne was
never in a Hammer film and Ingrid Pitt didn't join the roster until
1971. Also - I can't imagine a writer who had previously worked for the
notoriously miserly Roger Corman making the mistake of turning out a
script that would go over budget for Hammer. Overall, there is so much more could have been done with the setting of the studio and the wonderful people who worked there. Fowler employs one of his characters to make observations about the company's declining fortunes and how these related to changes in society; but these do not go beyond the journalistic insights reflected in a work such as Sinclair McKay's A Thing of Unspeakable Horror.
Dr Ravelin is decidedly unforthcoming about the origin of his mysterious charges.
ething invisible to us."
The BBC’s Ghost Story for Christmas series originally extended from 1971 to 1978. Highly esteemed by supernatural fiction enthusiasts, it is mainly remembered for its adaptations of classic tales by M.R. James, although 1976’s atmospheric version of Dickens’ The Signalman is often considered to be the finest. In recent years, attempts have been made to revive the series, with new productions of James’s A View from a Hill and Number 13 appearing in 2005 and 2006. Whilst these are enjoyable exercises in television nostalgia, there is an air of pastiche about them which means that they fall short of the original series’ level of excellence.
d chairs wearing identical white gowns, is not explained. To a critical viewer, however, the answer is obvious. This is not one of the quaintly observed social locales we might expect as a background to the chilling goings-on in a Ghost Story for Christmas; this is Generic Horror-Land. And thereby hangs the weakness of this production. James’ finely crafted tale has been hollowed out and used as the vehicle for another, different story entirely; a markedly inferior one. You wonder how this came about; presumably the piece needed the cachet of the original to reach production and attract a talent of John Hurt’s calibre. Surely, however, it can only suffer from comparison with the original?
nexplained banging on the bedroom door while Parkin is trying to sleep. This scene is reminiscent of Robert Wise’s The Haunting, but that is rather a classy reference for this production. The pre-screening publicity suggests that this scene was intended to evoke memories of axe-wielding Jack Nicholson from The Shining. Unfortunately as Parkin cowers beneath the postcodes, the response is more likely to be “Why doesn’t he just open the bloody door?”
have to be about crude horror. This story could have concluded in a heartwarming manner, offering consolation to individuals and families afflicted by dementia.
-quality production were there in terms of casting and cinematography, but it foundered on the rocks of a dumbed-down screenplay. Considering the rich tradition of British horror, it is difficult to see the relevance of referencing works such as Ringu. Presumably the intention was to be “with it” and fashionable, but the Japanese horror craze was ages ago now, probably when the people who produced this were still at university. This demonstrates the weakness of the whole thing; it was made by people with no sensitivity or feel for their source material, who clearly felt they could improve on the original. Given the story’s warning against hubris, this is ironic to the extreme.