Search this Topic:
Mar 3 17 10:56 AM
I mean, I don't believe in vampires or werewolves or ghosts, but here I am on a Horror Film Board. I can watch the silliest damn things and ... just accept. They're fictions. They're movies. Bring on the next one.
Mar 3 17 11:19 AM
yendor1152 wrote:What's the difference between being "pagan" and "wiccan?" When I was a little boy, I went to Catholic school, and the nuns always took up a fund for the "pagans." I had no idea what that meant, but I automatically thought of native kids out in Africa!
In modern parlance, a "pagan" (or, perhaps more accurately, "neo-pagan") is one who follows pre-industrial, putatively pre-Christian polytheistic (or animistic) spiritual practice. Most neo-pagans will admit that the specifics of the "old ways" have been lost and that their beliefs and rituals are reconstructions aligning with contemporary spiritual resonance. Some pagans follow the "classic" pantheons; I've known pagans who venerated both Medieval Norse and Ancient Egyptian deities, for example. Most pagans, however, observe a more "earth-centered" or nature-centered paradigm.
Wicca is probably the largest "denomination" of paganism, based largely on pre-Christian religion of Northern Europe. The ostensible founder of the creed was 1950s writer Gerald Gardner, but he doesn't hold the same position in Wicca that Gautama holds in Buddhism or Jesus (or even St. Paul) hold in Christianity. Though there are certain central rituals that are common to most Wiccans, such as Drawing Down the Moon and the salutation to the four elements and their corresponding cardinal directions, Wicca (along with paganism in general) has a very strong "do it yourself" mentality. There really isn't a Wiccan catechism common to all groups, and common beliefs and rituals usually serve the purpose of collective celebration and identity rather than exclusion or shared orthodoxy.
This is the faith in broad strokes. I'm not a pagan, so I'm not the best person to ask. I was a member of several Unitarian congregations for many years, however, and our churches usually had a healthy pagan contingent. I've also dated a few, so there's that.
Mar 3 17 11:23 AM
See my point # 1.
Without this clarification the whole discussion is
meaningless. In the most general way a 'pagan' is any non-Christian. But within the context of the discussion of the film it seems to
be some not wholly defined (or even fictional) surviving Celtic or Druidic sect. The use of the Hand of Glory is not particularly of Druidic origin and instead can be traced to French or Saxon origins. it may also be the one signaler that the movie does have a supernatural element within it (though Howie could have easily been drugged as well.)
Wicca is more precisely a modern Pagan movement as established by Gardner and Doreen Valiente, although the name seems to have been appropriated by numerous subgroups as well. Modern Wiccans do not seem to advocate human sacrifice, quite the contrary.
Mar 6 17 1:22 PM
Mar 6 17 4:12 PM
hermanthegerm wrote:Godziwolf wrote:...His God may not save him, but he doesn't look to his gods for bodily salvation.If we look at mythological films (such as the Harryhausen films) the pagan gods within are real.
Godziwolf wrote:...His God may not save him, but he doesn't look to his gods for bodily salvation.
...His God may not save him, but he doesn't look to his gods for bodily salvation.
Mar 6 17 4:13 PM
yendor1152 wrote:What's the difference between being "pagan" and "wiccan?"
Mar 6 17 6:25 PM
Godziwolf wrote:hermanthegerm wrote:Godziwolf wrote:...His God may not save him, but he doesn't look to his gods for bodily salvation.If we look at mythological films (such as the Harryhausen films) the pagan gods within are real. Not quite how I mean it.Howie can get satisfaction that the islanders' sacrifice is in vain. He doesn't believe in their gods, and the film itself suggests that the sacrifice won't work.However, for while the islanders can get some ironic satisfaction at Howie's plight (and he really is an ass), they can't be satisfied at the failure of his faith in the same way he can of theirs. He gets the martyrdom he's always sort of wanted, and his faith is such that he doesn't expect reward in this (the film's) world. But for the islanders, their faith will very much be put to the literal test. Next year's crop will either succeed or fail, and the next offering won't be an out-of-towner.
Mar 7 17 3:14 PM
I told a wiccan I work with about this thread and asked her what she thought of THE WICKER MAN. She said that she and her friends laugh at the ending of the film because it's so far off from modern practices. However, she allowed that not all wiccans or other pagans would have the same reaction. She also allowed that she understood the dramatic purpose behind ending the film with Howie's death.
She went on to explain that the elements in the film that deal with nature were fairly accurate but that since there is no canon law regarding paganism and because there are so many different sects actual practices and beliefs would vary widely from group to group.
Mar 8 17 2:00 AM
Robert Laughlin wrote:I am profoundly unconcerned with this question. Neither do I care what witches think of Horror Hotel or what Satan worshippers think of The Exorcist.
Mar 8 17 8:58 AM
Mar 8 17 6:13 PM
Mar 9 17 2:15 AM
Mar 9 17 11:25 AM
Robert Summit wrote:I wouldn't want to be the reproductive organs of all those intersexual pagans on Summerisle after a few seasons of their pagan hanky-panky!
I'm not sure you're using the word "intersexual" as it is defined, sir. From what I could tell, Ingrid Pitt and Britt Ekland had very gender-conforming anatomies, albeit exemplary iterations thereof. Likewise the lovers on the green that Howie happened upon.
Mar 9 17 12:44 PM
Mar 9 17 12:45 PM
Robert Summit wrote:Robert Laughlin wrote:I am profoundly unconcerned with this question. Neither do I care what witches think of Horror Hotel or what Satan worshippers think of The Exorcist.Ditto, but mayhap for a different reason. And I still say calling Catholics or anyone who celebrates Communion a "cannibal" is waaaaaaay over the line.
Read my responses and you will clearly see this is not what
I don't really feel the need to expound further as I've
already clarified in addition to the fact that further discussion would become religious discussion. Not
taking the bait on that.
If it is your wish to build a straw man fallacy ('oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version') so that you can be offended
that is your business.
If you'd like me to clarify further, send me a pm.
Mar 9 17 12:58 PM
Grant wrote:...So again, without BEING one, I can't help being A LITTLE concerned about how pagans view a given movie.
I think that analogy (again) goes a long way in addressing
the question. I am a Christian, a Catholic to be specific. I can view a movie
Rapture* (1991), which is based on Christian faith,
but where a specific point (the rapture itself) is not really the central focus
of my own experience. I don't really feel the need to take the event or its
specifics very seriously, and can address instead, what I feel were the
filmmaker's true points.
In the case of The
Wicker Man, siding with the 'pagan' POV kinda destroys the intent of the
film: it turns it into not-Horror (much in the same way that George Hamilton's Dracula is also not-Horror.) But I do not see that a 'pagan' would be offended or upset because the film
might have gotten a specific detail wrong (such as the use of the Hand of Glory. Human sacrifice would probably a different issue altogether.)
*In the discussion of which I asked "It would be interesting to hear what an atheist would find appealing about this movie." Which kinda parallels this dicussion.
Mar 9 17 2:33 PM
Mar 9 17 3:29 PM
Mar 9 17 3:58 PM
Mar 9 17 4:06 PM
Wich2 wrote:...But rebellion is deep in these free-will bearing humans, Stu...
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.