When we heard there was a remake being shot of our favourite high-camp Pagan creepfest The Wicker Man, we were concerned. Recent remakes of classic films haven't made us dance round the Bizarre maypole in delight. But when we found out that Neil LaBute (In The Company Of Men, Nurse Betty) was directing, Nicolas Cage was playing the lead, and that Lord Summerisle had been turned into a woman, we were intrigued. So we thought it only right to get Mr LaBute on the phone to explain...
When did you first see the original version of The Wicker Man?
In about 1979 or 1980 - I was 17 and just about old enough to understand the movie. Actually, I'm not sure you're ever old enough to understand the film, but I could appreciate the singular oddness of it. I was working at an arthouse cinema, and I remember seeing the poster and thinking "What on earth is this movie about?" And that was no clearer by the time I saw it. It was very strange.
How did it affect you?
The thing is, it always gets lumped in with horror films. It's seen as the gold standard of horror, but the horror elements are precious few. It's closer to being a musical in the first half! It has a celebrated horrific ending, but along the way it's more unsettling and creepy than horrific, and I think we've managed to maintain that. It was never going to be a movie that made people jump out of their seats, with a mad killer running around, you know? It's more about the atmosphere of dread you create and the tightening of the noose around the lead character. In our version we've replaced the Christian-versus-Pagan battle of wills with a male-versus-female struggle. I think all the things this character walks into the film with - his easy sense of authority and patriarchy, being a male police officer carrying a gun - start to fall away and become no use to him in this community. The panic that engulfs him is pretty powerful, I think.
So the Christopher Lee character is now female [played by Ellen Burstyn]. And you've toned down the Paganism. Does anything remain?
It's still Pagan-based. But I think what's at the heart of the original picture, and also this movie, is a doubt about extremism, whether that be Christian or Pagan - that the fervent, zealous approach breeds a terrifying kind of person. We don't hit the Pagan and Christian issue as obviously as [director] Robin Hardy did in the original film, but the roots are still there.
Religious groups of all types seem to be more extreme now than they were when the first film came out, especially in the US. Are you worried about the reception you might get?
In terms of the movie, the biggest complaints we expect to get are from people who don't think we should be remaking the film at all, and also from journalists who love the original picture and are suspicious of remakes in general. Those are the people who'll probably give the film more lumps than Christians.
What would you say to those people? After all, it is a well-loved film...
Yes, it is. Sometimes to a fault. But you have to be well-informed to have an opinion that makes me turn my head. I look on the internet to see what people are saying, and I'll often see something that says, "I don't care if this is good or bad, I hate remakes." You've already lost that person if they're not willing to give it a chance. I think people that give it a chance will see we respected and loved the original film, and that's why we're there. We legitimately have a different take on it. We're not there to remake it for the money or to bastardise it. Here's a film that retains the spirit of the original but goes off in a different direction. But we've kept a lot of the elements that made it so well-loved in the first place.
What's your attitude to remakes in general?
I have no qualms about them as long as the product is good and someone is approaching it in an artistic way, not just to turn a buck. Coming from the theatre I have fewer reservations as I'm so used to new productions of plays being mounted. It's like going back to Shakespeare and reimagining that - I'm not as precious about it as some people. But I understand it might be strange for people like Christopher Lee or Robin Hardy to have something they're associated with remade in their lifetime. If, 20 years from now, someone wanted to remake In the Company Of Men, I'd think, "Well, that's interesting." Of course I'd go to see it. I go and see productions of plays of mine and sometimes I'm absolutely thrilled, but other times I think, "Oooh, that really hurt, that wasn't that great." But in the end, the original remains what it is. And the newer film is a reinterpretation.
Would you call yours a remake?
Yes, there's no connection to the first one - it doesn't continue from there. Although we snuck in a 'missing' poster for Edward Woodward. It follows the same approach - the thumbnail sketch of a policeman who gets a letter from an island asking to help find a missing girl. The connections are a little different; in the original he had no connection to the island but had always been curious about it, and in this one he's connected to the child's mother. There's also the matriarchy that differs from the patriarchy, and the industry the community is centred around. In the original it was apples, in this incarnation it's honey, and so there are bees. This made more sense to me in terms of the matriarchy and also in terms of the overlay of a colony I was using. Also, it ups the danger factor - apples, outside of being poisoned by witches or dropping on your head, are not dangerous. Whereas with bees, if you're allergic to them - as we made our lead character - every step you take is potentially dangerous.
I guess what happens at the end of your film is one of the main concerns of diehard fans.
Of course, that's one of the main things you'll read on the internet. People saying "Well, of course they'll make him live and he'll come out with all guns blazing." However, we've been true to the original ending, which I think they'll be happy with. I think it's become our own because of the way we've reimagined it, but we're not going to sell anyone short on what happens. I think the original people who were involved - Nicolas Cage and myself, plus the producers - always felt we couldn't have the ending altered in any significant way. That was one of the things we remembered so vividly from the original film, and that set it apart from a lot of other pictures.
Did you keep any of the music from the film?
Well, I had an excellent composer, [David Lynch regular] Angelo Badalamenti. We talked about the music and the songs from the original film, and came to the conclusion they were very much of that period, so we wanted to stake a claim in something else. So I actually went in a completely different direction and had no source music, even in places where you might legitimately have music, like in a diner or something. I think Angelo has done a really beautiful job.
Did you approach anyone from the original about making guest appearances?
There was a moment when we thought about it, but the way I approached the film meant there were fewer speaking parts for men. I thought it might be interesting to have Edward Woodward as the seaplane pilot, but I wasn't sure if it was the right thing to do. And Christopher Lee - where would you put him? He's such an interesting, imposing character. He can't exactly be the police chief of some small town. I couldn't do it without it being some kind of tricky gag. So in the end, the original movie remains what it is. This isn't a competitor. It has its own life. For me, even things like changing the gender of Lord Summerisle was important - I didn't want anyone to have to compete with Christopher Lee.
*The Wicker Man is in cinemas 1 September
MORE FILM AND MUSIC
