Over the last decade, I've always assumed this film was nothing but superstitious exploitation -- a credulous look at "real" witches, a "documentary" in name only, promoting paranormal claims in a more naive era. Still, the idea of a silent documentary about witches was creepy enough for me to add it to my Netflix queue, whether it's bullshit or not.
I couldn't have been more wrong about the film. As it opened, it quickly became clear that this was as close to a scholarly study as you're likely to get from a 1922 silent film. There are elements of shock and exploitation in the film, especially for its era, as we see some semi-nude women, some sac-religious images, and re-creations of medieval torture. But, the point of the film isn't to thrill the viewer with the possibility that witches and witchcraft are real, but to examine why medieval people believed in it, what might have really been going on to cause these beliefs, and why it's dangerous to allow these beliefs to impair mankind's judgement.
Basically, it's a skeptical film, which is great.
Yes, it's a little simplistic and out-dated by today's standards (the issue of sexism is never directly addressed), but it appears to be very forward-thinking for the time in which it was shot. It even goes so far as to indict the then modern idea of clinics and asylums as not much better than medieval torture. The film explains why the superstitions of the past were dangerous and unfounded in fact, but doesn't let present day superstitions off the hook, either, drawing effective parallels between the way deformed, afflicted and hysterical women were treated in medieval times with the way they were treated in 1920.
The film starts off with a review of the history of images of the devil in medieval paintings, drawings, wood-cuttings, etc, but then moves into reenactments using actors and actresses showing different examples of how women were persecuted in medieval times, and how witch hunters and religious leaders extracted confessions using torture.
In 1922, the film must have been effective partially due to the sensationalistic nature of the subject matter but also because of its structure, unique to the time as it avoided traditional narrative story and plot. Today, it's effective for different reasons -- modern audiences are accustomed to seeing the most depraved, sensational and exploitative images in the most mainstream films, so that aspect of this film won't thrill them. What is interesting about the film, as viewed today, is that we're seeing people from almost 100 years ago reenacting scenes frmo medieval times, instead of what audiences in 1922 saw, which was contemporary people reenacting these scenes. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the inherent creepiness factor of a movie this old, combined with the creepiness of the subject matter, puts an added prism on top of the movie itself that modern audiences view it through. To someone in 2009, viewing these medieval reenactments may as well be actual documentary footage from medieval times.
The other thing about the film as viewed by a modern audience is that it not only shows how attitudes of the 1920s weren't all that far removed from medieval attitudes, but also goes to show how almost 100 years later we're still dealing with a lot of the same problems. People are still persecuted for being different, misunderstandings are still exploited for personal gain, and religion is still a powerful force that can be used for evil. Writer/director Benjamin Christensen is careful to point out that humankind still has its problems, but I think he lets religion off a little too easily. Maybe that's because this is more of a European view than an American one. Or, maybe we've regressed since 1920, and superstition has made a comeback.
This is one of those films that gets more interesting the more you know about it. On its own, it can be difficult for a modern audience to sit through, like most silent films. If you want to watch it, I suggest you check out the Criterion Edition DVD, which is crammed with so much information about the film that it becomes impossible not to appreciate it as a historical artifact and important moment in filmmaking.
One insight I particularly liked in the film reflected a thought I've often had when considering some of these issues, and that's the idea that the more fervently you believe in the devil, the more the devil becomes real to you and the more power he has. This theme runs throughout the movie, implying that the intense belief in demons and devils in the middle ages caused so much fear and anxiety that it eventually caused nervous breakdowns and hysteria among desperate people with little or not control over their own lives and led to disaster.
I've often thought, over the years, that the best way you can combat supposedly evil supernatural forces is to simply not believe in them. There's nothing to prove they exist anyway, so why allow them to control your life when you can simply believe that they don't exist? Is it better to teach your kids that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, Ouija boards and HARRY POTTER really have black-magical properties that can open gateways to hell? Or, is it better to teach them that that's ridiculous and the natural, scientific world simply doesn't have time to waste on black-magic? You want your kids sitting around worrying about Satan, or would you rather have them disregard him out of hand and not waste a second thought on him?
I know, to some the very idea that you can take power away from a demon by simply not believing in him is a dangerous, naive notion.
But, there is nothing more empowering than truth and knowledge, and in the search for truth and knowledge there is no time to waste on the supernatural.
No comments:
Post a Comment