GOD, NOT THE BEES: The Wicker Man, then and now.
Posted by Richie on December 2, 2007
As a fan of the original 1973 The Wicker Man, I was planning on giving the remake a fairly wide berth. Then I saw this and figured it was probably worth renting.
Good God this movie hates women. We’re not talking about a subtext or some kind of feminist reading, it’s literally just ninety minutes of paranoid misogyny, occasionally interrupted by chase sequences where Nicholas Cage is pursued by a swarm of CGI bees. This is almost, but not quite, as stupid as The Day After Tomorrow, in which Jake Gyllenhall is chased up a corridor by global warming and stops it by shutting the door behind him. I digress. Obviously this post contains spoilers for both the 1973 and 2006 versions, although so does the DVD cover. It’s got a wicker man on it and everything.
In the original, our protagonist / sacrificial victim is a fundamentalist Christian police officer, specifically chosen as the May Day sacrifice because he’s fundamentalist Christian police officer and thus meets the sacrificial requirements: He’s in a position of authority, he’s a virgin, he’s hostile to paganism, and his profession makes him easy to manipulate using red herrings.
In the remake, he’s still a police officer, but he’s a down-to-earth everyman kind, and only chosen because some man-hatin’ broad used him to get pregnant before dumping him. She then reappears out of nowhere years later and uses the kid to manipulate him into going to Evil Lesbian Island. You know those MRA stories about women deliberately getting pregnant in order to live the life of Riley off some innocent guy’s child support payments and take his kids away? It’s that. But with CGI bees.
In the original, the motives of both sides are cast into doubt, with Sergeant Howie initially coming across as a stubborn bigot and the pagan community as nice, if slightly off-centre. By the end, Howie hasn’t become any nicer a person, but it’s the pagans who end up burning him alive as a May Day sacrifice. This obviously isn’t the most tolerant depiction of paganism, but at least the story looked like it could go either way up until that point.
In the remake, Sergeant Malus is a nice guy who becomes increasingly appalled at the antics on Evil Lesbian Island, but keeps soldiering on because he’s just so damn concerned about his daughter. Had Malus been written as a paranoid misogynist (rather than by one) and the separatist women as superficially pleasant, the film might have managed to generate some suspense about who was right and who was wrong. Instead, we get a matriarchy where the men are speechless and referred to as ‘drones’, while the women live in a hive-like building full of hexagonal yellow windows and attend to the needs of their queen. The director seems to have been going for kind of symbolism here, but… no, sorry, it was just too subtle for me. Oh, did I mention the island’s economy is entirely dependent on making honey?
In the original, the sacrifice is a purely religious offering designed to ensure a good harvest the following year.
In the remake, the sacrifice is half a religious offering and half a paranoid MRA fantasy about what feminists do when nobody’s looking. They’re positively salivating at the death of Malus and chanting “THE DRONE MUST DIIIIEEE!” while the wicker man burns, except for the one who used him to get pregnant, who has a moment of regret about it. Because even evil separatist lesbians secretly crave cock. You know they do.
In the original, the film ends with the a closeup of the sun as the burning wicker man collapses.
In the remake, oh Christ in the fucking remake, we get a little coda where two of the hot evil women from the island to go the mainland and pick up two guys at a bar. The implication is that they’ll deliberately get pregnant and then use those children at some point in the future to lure their fathers to the island in order to burn them or beat them to death with copies of Intercourse or whatever floats their man-hating boat that day. I can picture Neil LaBute fighting the studio executives for this scene to be included: “No, it’s vital! The audience might not realise that women are manipulative and evil yet!”.
This could possibly have worked as a satire, in a “Guys, how would you like it if you were treated as a second class citizen because of your gender?” way. It… didn’t. It didn’t work because it didn’t try to work, it’s just 90 minutes of paranoid castration anxiety, created by somebody who’s scared that women in power might treat men in the way that men in power treat women. The greatest tragedy, though, is that the “OH GOD, NOT THE BEES!” scene was removed from the Australian DVD release, meaning I sat through the entire shitfest with no payoff.
They also never explained how a matriarchal pagan tradition was formed around insect colonies nobody knew were matriarchal until relatively recently.
Or why they had a fucking wicker man in the first place.

tigtog said
I saw the end of this on cable earlier this year sometime. Paranoid misogyny fantasy sums it up perfectly.
Debs said
I am a huge fan of the original, and refused to see the remake just on principal; plus it got terrible reviews. So, well done to you for getting through it! Seems like the whole world would have been better off if they’d just not bothered with a remake at all…
tomeoffinland said
Killing me won’t bring back your goddamned honey, Richie.
You’ll just have to find another way to win her back.
Richie said
No! I’m a lovable jerk who she needs to learn to appreciate because I’m nice on the inside >:|
MaggieCat said
Ellen Burstyn was in this?! I think my soul just died a little.
tomeoffinland said
And it was Some-Quaid-Or-Another (the one from Independence Day) that was chased down a hallway by global warming. Unless you consider the escaped zoo wolves an allegory for global warming, much as some blogger claimed that the Compies from Jurassic Park were an allegory for unwed Mexican illegals crossing the border in order to drop off an anchor baby and thusly crash the old order and creat a new society. Or something.
Bug Girl said
Cripes. This is even worse than I feared. They malign women AND bees!!
purtek said
…can’t. stop. laughing.
Except that I wish it were because you were making it up. Thanks, though. I needed that.
Richie said
I think that paragraph should be the blurb on the DVD case.
Celluloid Sally’s » 2007 » December » 03 said
[...] GOD, NOT THE BEES: The Wicker Man, then and now. « Crimitism Send us a link! [...]
betacandy said
Do I look silly! Here I thought it was an allegory for what happens with paranoid misogynist cousins marry.
Djiril said
I am a big fan of the original as well. I agree that the remake was pretty awful. After seeing the remake, I rented “In the Company of Men” (another of LaBute’s films) for comparison, and now I’m just puzzled. “In the Company of Men” was actually a very good, disturbing, and seemingly anti-misogynist film. I also read some articles that said LaBute described his remake as having “feminist overtones.”
It makes me wonder if the movie he ended up making was a complete accident. I mean, I wouldn’t think so, but then again I wouldn’t think that anyone would consider this a good enough movie to release at all, regardless of ideological perspective.
My other theory is that Neil LaBute simply hates Robin Hardy (the original director), and wanted to destroy his reputation with a crappy remake.
Anyway, have a fan video for the original: