Being able to see snippets of what life was like decades ago is still one of the things I love most about the Janus Collection films. This film presented medieval life from a 1920′s European point of view. It’s hard to know how accurate the depictions are, but I think they might be closer to the truth than the images that we would create today, almost 100 years later.

The sepia tone of the footage of the “witches at work” was quite lovely. It lent an air of safety and comfort to their shop, versus the cold black and white filming of the other segments in this documentary showing the consequences of being accused of being a witch, or being a kleptomaniac. The dead things hanging up in the witches’ shop were creepy, but the warm color of the film made them somehow less so.

We loved the bit about the bundle of sticks being brought into the witches’ shop. Phillip was ad-libbing quite a bit throughout the movie, and he quipped, in his best gruff old lady witch voice, “Ahhh, thank you for these nice sticks! I needed these sticks. I’ve been looking for them!” or something along those lines. So it was a nice little twist to find out, Eek!, that there were dead body parts in amongst the sticks.

I was surprised at the (non-frontal) nudity and the risque images. From a 1920′s European point of view, I don’t know how shocking, or not, the nudity and suggestive images may have been. But from a 1920′s American point of view, I imagine that this film would not have been shown other than in a pornographic context. Even as a “documentary” with a scientific slant, I can’t think that this film would have been shown in America.

One subtle touch that I liked was being led to believe that the more senior priest/monk was getting an eyeful of the front of the half-nude elderly witch, when she was being given the poke-her-back test. (Sheesh! I can’t come up with anything else. Sorry!) This has to do with a physical phenomenon whereby areas of the back become desensitized. We “learn” from the documentary that this has been seen in women who become hysterical. Apparently this test was used in medieval times to help prove whether someone was a witch. So this poor old woman is nude from the waist up, with her back exposed to the camera, and a second younger priest/monk is conducting the test by poking her back with a pencil-like stick. She is facing the senior monk, who is talking to her. So it looks like her front is exposed to the senior monk. Then, when she turns toward the camera, we see that all this time, she was holding enough of her garment up to cover herself. But the whole time until she turns, it sure doesn’t look that way from our view!

Once again, I am wondering if the Monty Python troupe also borrowed from this movie for The Holy Grail. The sink-or-float test especially comes to mind. (To test whether someone is a witch, throw her in the water. If she floats, she’s a witch, and she’ll be killed. If she sinks, she’s not a witch, but she’s then a dead not-a-witch.)

Not-so-subtle touches: How insanely funny was the butter-churning devil? No doubt about the references there. And actually showing the witches kissing Satan’s butt? How gross, and yet hilarious! The lack of “manners” while eating was quite gross, as were the couple of spitting-up scenes. But we couldn’t get enough of the totally unnecessary pointer/pencil that would come into view on the still pictures, to point out the obvious. We began to wait in anticipation for the pointer-man.

I just can’t decide if this film was supposed to be: 1) a serious and shocking documentary, using film to educate us on the plight of those accused of witchcraft in the Middle Ages; 2) an exercise in naughtiness under the guise of said documentary; 3) an all-out romp that was meant to be funny, as we found it to be; or 4) some combination of the above.

I’m looking forward to reading Jason’s background and insight into this unique film, for further enlightenment!

[Written after reading Jason and Matt's comments:]

Slut! I almost forgot how hard we laughed when that final word came on the screen!! (It does mean “the end” in Danish.)

I didn’t get into a discussion of the movie’s obvious comments about the oppression of women through: 1) the accusation of witchcraft and subsequent punishment by religious leaders, and 2) the diagnosis of hysteria and subsequent treatment by doctors, for the reason that, well, it was obvious.

The color changes were very interesting, and Rick and Phillip commented on how everything was either red or blue.

Jason, I am so glad you took the time to list out in your review so many of the lines from the movie. I started laughing out loud all over again!

Matt, I’m glad that you made a Monty Python connection, too!

Yeah, the pee-toss was a new one on me. Wait–not on me–to me. Jesus’ Holy Cross and Wounds!

In trying to recall (it’s a bit of a blur now) – I did not see many redeemable women in the film, certainly there was oppression and, certainly, there was oppression by the church but I didn’t get that there was a subtle (or not so subtle) implication that there were good women and bad women and some happened to be witches. Seems to me there were just, uh, witches (and/or wanting to be witches). Which, of course, could have been the church’s take at the time to control women (maybe I’m making your point here…): “All women want to be witches and kiss the devil’s ass and throw urine and ride brooms in the night, better control them with torture.”

Of course, all the devils, if I recall right, were men – and you mention the sorceress…but that’s just my gut feeling.

All-in-all, though, a stunning film for its time. Quality fantastic, loved the color wash for certain scenes – Criterion really out did itself (other than the tacked on music).

But, unless I completely misinterpreted the film (not without precedent, I’ll admit), most of the women being persecuted weren’t actually witches at all (except for the one crazy sorceress). I thought the film was pretty explicit that the accusations of witchcraft were used to control and oppress women (religion has a long history of this, I might add…), and that most of the “confessions” were obtained under duress and therefore meaningless.

Weirdly, I read the position of the film as exactly the opposite of what you described; I thought Christensen was trying to – albeit with a moderate amount of gratuitous nudity and urine-throwing – expose the abuse of women by the church, and to document the ways in which belief in the supernatural (e.g. religion) can drive people crazy… not to accuse women of actually being witches.

Regardless of whether the film was undermining or re-inscribing misogyny… what about that butter-churning Beelzebub, eh?

Well, well, well – what do we have here? Is it a 1922 documentary? Is it a “docu-drama” with re-enactments? Is it the silent version of “torture porn?” For some reason while I watched this I kept thinking: “I’ll bet David Lynch watches this movie A LOT.”

The film is told in 7 parts and it basically starts out with some concepts about witchcraft in, I think, the Middle Ages. I could be wrong but we’re soon into what Monty Python made fun of in “Holy Grail:” “She turned me into a newt! If she sinks she’s a witch!” And as the little documentary rambled on for the first 10 minutes I wondered: “uh, are we going to get into anything with, you know, actors…acting?”

Next thing we know we’re getting into some re-enactments of some, I assume, “true stories!” Okay, maybe not, but we’re seeing images of hell, people dying of witchcraft and curses and old ladies eating horribly.

As I watched, all these things kind of blurred into the other. The fact that the director chose to use the same actors for many of the scenes added a bit to the confusion for me. Wasn’t she a witch? Wasn’t that guy in the earlier scene with the love potion?

Then things got kind of, well, weird (as if they weren’t from the beginning). In 1922 Germany you can get away with a lot of stuff including nudity and devils masturbating (okay, not really – but it’s SURE IMPLIED). Oh, and lets not forget the ass-kissing scene. Yummy. Oh, and the scene with the witches peeing (?) into pots and splashing the urine on the door of “Martin the Writer” who ends up dying…THE VERY NEXT DAY!

The stories involved revolved around, 1. A love potion. 2. Some guy sick and it’s a witch’s fault (and then, when she’s captured – she says all the other women are witches – after some early century “good-cop/bad-cop” questioning). 3. Some woman is a witch but a monk wants to have sex with her (while another monk wants her “making thunder out of water” spell) while the other monks try to capture both of them (?) or something, 4. Various torture devices – including a shot of one of the actresses willing to use a thumb-screw and the director saying something like: “I can’t tell you what she revealed to me.” 5. Scenes where the Devil is seducing young women. 6. Masturbating devils “churning butter.” 7. Then the director “talking” to the viewer about an older actress saying that the Devil shows up on her bed and then a scene with that. And then it kind of ends.

SLUT! (no, seriously, that’s how the film ends – I’ll assume “Slut” is German for “OVER!”)

What I liked:

Above all the quality of the film and the different color tones was AMAZING.

Some of the scenes were genuinely creepy and some of the special effect usage was done very well.

There was a little bit of nudity (always a plus in my camp).

What I didn’t like:

The rest of it.

I really did not like the whole undertone that women are bad witches. There’s not a woman in the film that doesn’t seem to come off as THIS close to being a witch on a broom. The implication that all women are just waiting to bring death and chaos I found quite disturbing.

Yes, some of the men don’t come off that great, but most of the men are there to save the women from their sinfulness…and that’s it. Oh, and to have sex with them. One scene where a woman is being “tested” to see if she has feeling in her back – after her shirt has been ripped off – to prove she’s a witch.

The stories were disjointed to me and I did not care for the changes of themes (first it’s a documentary, then it’s a story, then it’s a DIFFERENT story with the same actors, then it’s back to a documentary type and then confessionals by the director…heavy sigh).

Plus…the acting was WAY over the top as was the fashion for silent films.

Bottom line:

I assume it was cutting edge for the time, disjointed and disturbing in 2009 (as it may have been in 1922). The contents don’t really add up to a whole, for me. Interesting in the way that looking at a car accident is interesting.

Addendum:

The music used seemed “tacked on” as it was all classical pieces of music and not written for the film. If there WAS original music written for the film, I hazard to guess the feel would have been different. It looks, to me, like many films from this era – if the original soundtrack can’t be found – slap some Beethoven on it and call it good.