British horror doesn't have too many gems in its war chest to rival 'Witchfinder General' for either genuine shocks or bleak intensity. Looked at from any angle it just feels different compared to other classics of the genre. This could be down to the shockingly graphic violence (for the time), the eerily understated star turn from Vincent Price, or the gritty, raw horror of the subject matter. However, it is much more than the sum of its quality, bloodstained parts.
The first relatively unique aspect to
'Witchfinder' is that it has its roots in documented fact. It
is based on a biography of the real Matthew Hopkins, an actual
persecutor of witches during the English civil war; so although the
events in the film are themselves fictional the roots of the story
are in the soil of historical reality. In any event, Hopkins did
execute women for alleged witchcraft on a scale that was practically
unheard of even at the time, and in a particularly brutal manner. So
part of the horror we see in the film is that of recognition - that
the rural English village idyll that we recognise was a scene of
appalling brutality and cruelty.
The second facet of the film is that it
is not about the persecution of actual witches. This film is really
about the persecution of women that are accused of being
actual witches. We would be doing the film a disservice if we saw it
in terms of a battle between Christianity and Paganism (specifically
the persecution of the latter by the former), although there is of
course an element of truth in that. The definition of witchcraft used
by Hopkins was wide enough to cover not just the actual practice of
witchcraft (which had some following at the time but not at the level
Hopkins suspected) but also Catholics, dissidents, in fact any woman
or man who got a bit lippy and stepped out of line.
When we look with 21st-century eyes
upon the events in the film we can also see that the perceived
reality of witchcraft was fundamentally false; yes, there were
witches, but the black magic they were accused of spreading did not
exist, and never has. So the central truth of the film is that a
semi-legal framework of persecution can be invented, with a
remit and methodology that is also invented, to serve a purpose that
is constantly stretching to meet the perceived needs of the
persecutors – and all in the name of an 'absolute truth'.
This is a very modern sentiment for us
from our viewpoint in 2014 – that after the Holocaust, the gulag,
the Cultural Revolution, McCarthyism, Year Zero, Srbenica and
countless other examples we can recognise that every absolute
political certainty is essentially invented, relative, and a tool for
the abuse and exercise of absolute power.
Which leads to the third element of the
film – the backdrop of the civil war. In 'Witchfinder' the
source of political legitimacy depends on who is controlling a
particular territory – a field, farmhouse, village or river. Who
rules these areas – is it Cromwell, Hopkins, or the King? And as
the belligerents move, so does the source of authority.
In a way, none of these three have any
inherent legitimacy - Cromwell has created an army by himself,
claims to represent parliament, but is in a sense his own invention;
Hopkins is a self-appointed judge on behalf of a typically silent
God, and even Charles I loses his legitimacy if he loses the support
of the people. Essentially all of these forces derive their authority
from their military or political power and their current position in
a constantly shifting conflict. Their power is entirely arbitrary –
so the villagers and soldiers in the film find themselves at the
mercy of competing, contradictory and arbitrary sources of absolute
power. And without being guided by anything other than abstract certainties
these powers cannot help but commit atrocities. And in England, at
that!
All of which represents a refreshingly
contemporary scenario for the viewer, albeit one which as recent
developments in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the
Ukraine demonstrate, shows no sign of ceasing to repeat itself in
history.