I believe it is fair to say that Paganism, as a religion, has been represented poorly throughout cinema's history. When they are not frolicking round trees, or dancing naked over a roaring fire, they are sending good, Christian men to their deaths or raising their dark overlord, Satan. It has always been the case that horror cinema has been overwhelmingly traditional, with Christianity, more often than not, saving the day. So during the late sixties and early seventies, as a reaction to the counterculture of the time, especially with the rise of the hippie era and Wicca's sudden spike in popularity, there were new targets at which traditionalists could aim. The/Blood on Satan's Claw (it was released under both titles) dabbled in the same paranoid reaction that The Wicker Man (1973) would enlarge upon a few years later, only less successfully. However, to be fair, while those who practise Wicca and Paganism may be offended by the treatment of their respective religions, the only reason these horror movies existed was due to the confusion and fear that people in the general public had towards these countercultures.
These types of films are often set in the mid-1700s in rural England, due to the obsession with witchcraft during that time, and the devil is out to get the locals when they least suspect it; corrupting the children of the village with his mischief and generally being a nuisance. Our story opens with farmer, Ralph Gower (Barry Andrews), who excavates a strange, gnarled corpse that is neither human or animal while ploughing the earth. He attempts to alert his employer, Mistress Isobel Banham (Avice Landone) and her suitor, the local Judge (Patrick Wymark), but when the Judge inspects the spot himself, the body is gone. After the Judge dismisses Ralph's claims as ridiculous and declares, "Witchcraft is dead and discredited," he leaves the quaint country village for London. In his absence, an infection spreads among the children, turning them from sweet natured innocents, into a devil worshipping cult of witches, killing and corrupting those who are not yet turned.
If Blood on Satan's Claw has one thing in its favour, which makes it memorable from the slew of other films of its ilk, it is its stout conservatism. Unlike Witchfinder General, where the antagonist is the greatest authority in the land, and those accused of witchcraft are innocent all along, with their confessions tortured out of them. Or, unlike The Wicker Man, where the lawman and protagonist has no authority over the people he is investigating. Here, those in a place of authority are examples of unquestioned decency and goodness. Other than the Judge, there is also Reverend Fallowfield (Anthony Ainfield), a man charged with not only teaching the children of the village the word of the Bible, but also being a symbol for religious decency in the village; especially with The Judge gone. One scene, for example, sees the Reverend turn down the sexual advances of Angel Blake (Linda Hayden), the leader of the Satanic cult, despite being clearly tempted. He is incorruptible, and director Piers Haggard has no interest whatsoever in challenging or subverting these roles, especially of those in power. However, the witches are simply witches, and that is the end of it. Once the children are turned, they are turned for good, and then it is only a matter of time before they are raping and murdering the innocent; in between attempts to raise Satan from hell, of course.
In fact, sexuality in all its forms is represented as having a direct link to devilry, often being the first thing which leads the innocent astray before they are either killed, or converted to members of the cult. However, when has sexuality not been judged in such a way in horror cinema? The stereotype that those who are sexually promiscuous are the first to be killed is supported here, with characters with even the vaguest interest in sex being punished. However, none of these things are particularly bad things. Conservatism in horror has been a fact of the genre since the days of folklore, often being used as a scare tactic to steer impressionable youths away from destructive alternative lifestyles and urging them towards the virtues of Christianity. Fans of horror simply have to accept the fact for the most part, it is not terribly subversive as a genre.
However, there is plenty to recommend here. Firstly, this particular sub-genre of horror began because people were growing tired of the camp, brightly coloured films that Hammer Horror was releasing; especially since Hammer's best days were long behind them. So instead of unnaturally bright scenery (Hammer would often paint individual leaves and blades of grass to make them brighter), here we have a constantly overcast sky looming over a grey-brown farmland. Another fine point on the technical side of the film is the photography, often filming scenes from very low angles, creating a sense of dread. A fine example of this is the opening title sequence, where the credits play over a raven sitting on a perch. It is shot from below, making the bird seem less like a natural animal and more like some ominous demon.
It is an extremely atmospheric film, which no doubt helped it gain its reputation as a minor cult classic; even being featured on Mark Gatiss' A History of Horror on BBC4 in 2010. It is a shame then that I personally feel it in no way deserves that status. Firstly, the structure seems to be all over the place, with plot lines and characters being dropped or forgotten about in favour of other story lines. Most notably, after Ralph first finds the corpse, Mistress Banham's nephew arrives home with his wife to be, much to the Mistress' distress. Not allowing her nephew to sleep in the same room as his betrothed, the Mistress makes her sleep alone in the attic. While in the attic she is attacked by a demon, which infects her and makes her a demon herself. As the Mistress comes in to attempt calm her down, she scratches the Mistress with her newly acquired claws which results in her being sent to a madhouse. That is the last time we see either the Mistress or her nephew's fiance for the rest of the film, and they are never mentioned again. While this may be the most egregious continuity error in the film, there are several others like it, making the film very messy, with little attention to detail. It is also painfully boring at times, with nothing interesting happening for long stretches, and when something does happen, it is extremely silly.
I know I may be a lone voice here, but I would say that other than its aesthetics, it is fairly unessential, except for those wishing to watch everything they can related to witchcraft and devilry. There is some fun to be had here, but there is more fun to be had watching Witchfinder General, The Wicker Man and, so I am informed, Race With the Devil. In the end, it simply does not live up to its reputation, and is best watched with one's tongue in one's cheek and a big cup of cynism.
5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment