There does not seem to be much information on this film, in terms of web based info or fan sites. This leads me to think that it is does not have as a big following as Wicker Man or other UK cult films do.
Does anyone have any ides on this? Do you feel internet fan sites are an important part of what makes a film 'cult'
-Robbie G.
[deleted]
You might try searching under the U.S.A. title, "The Conqueror Worm"
shareWikipedia has a pretty good, fairly comprehensive article on the movie, with details regarding the film's production, censorship, and critical response. Witchfinder's cult following would be much larger than it currently is if it was widely available in a decent DVD version, but it isn't. The hyped UK release, while uncut, is a hideous eyesore, with previously censored footage having been sloppily inserted into the film at various points, all of it horribly grainy and unwatchable. It also includes the tacky nude scenes shot for the German market; these were never intended by Michael Reeves to be part of the film proper and they greatly cheapen the film.
shareFrom what I've heard they're preparing an all new and (purportedly) beautifully restored print for DVD over in Europe. It will contain the complete theatrical cut and have tons of extras. But I've been hearing that about "House of Dark Shadows" and "Night of Dark Shadows" for years now and they've never been out on DVD. Hopefully I'm right--the fact that TCM showed it is a good sign.
shareI'm not sure I understand the importance of a film's "cult" status. Must movies that fall into the "cult" category are those that either triumphed of their miniscule budget, or were thoroughly *beep* with in post-production, or even during production, or were extremely controversial. A lot of them are simply hard to find in their "prefered" (by the director/writer/producer/whomever) form.
The Wicker Man is a brilliant film, and was certainly controversial in its day, but I can't say with any certainty (and I hate Hollywood for instilling this hesitance in me) that it would have quite the following that it enjoys today, if it hadn't been seriously mucked with and had so many of the people involved being so vocal about that. It would be no less brilliant for that, I'm sure, but I don't know that it would really be a cult film.
In any case, I'm not sure Witchfinder General is actually a "cult" film. The production values weren't exactly lavish, but every penny appears to be on the screen, and the only controversy that I'm aware of was the chilly working relationship of Price and Reeves. Even at that, after seeing the final release cut at the premiere, Price admitted that, though he'd had his doubts, Reeves turned out, in Price's opinion, to have been right every step of the way.
Anyway, I have nothing against "cult" films, except that I think that label limits them, since some folks shy away from "that sort of film". As long as I am entertained, the film has done its job, for good or ill.
The cult status is probably due to CONQUEROR WORM's frequent showings during the 1970s on creature feature horror matinees, where most people over the age of 35 probably first encountered it. Our attachment to the film is more nostalgic than anything else. Comparing it to WICKER MAN is also somewhat short-sighted, since the films come from very different time periods (1968 and 1973) and different studios (WORM is a Tigon production, WICKER British Lion, later Warner Bros.) and completely different stylistic approaches.
And Michael Reeves died of an accidental drug overdose, there is no instance or record of suicidal statements or any kind of a note, his death was a tragic accident that has been embellished by both fans and detractors to find some kind of meaning in the incident.