1968/69 was a tragic year for the arts in England. Pink Floyd's Syd Barrett (1946-2006) lost it, but (barely) survived, Brian Jones lost it and didn't survive. Just like the 25-year old self-taught filmmaker Michael Reeves who had directed only three feature films, yet among them the all-time classic and groundbreaking WITCHFINDER GENERAL.
Others would probably dedicate a short documentary to him, therefore I was more than happy to see his story being the subject of a feature-length one instead. A very well-done film, with friends and co-workers talking very open and honestly about him. It is well photographed and also contains rare clips from Reeves' early work. It is a fascinating story - finally told on camera.
I can't find much to criticize. During the first half the filmmakers maybe didn't trust their own skills enough as there is too much ongoing distracting background music, which rather takes away mood then adding some. The very best documentaries don't rely on a constant sound carpet but grap the attention of the audience through the right pacing. I liked the photo-collages very much, although a bit repetitive. There is not much material available on Reeves, but a few more stills are known and could have been found. A bit strange I find the fact that Susan George is not mentioned with one single word, while later in the film it is said that Sam Peckinpah was sort of influenced by WITCHFINDER GENERAL since he hired DP John Coquillon for his 1971 film STRAW DOGS. I wouldn't go that far. If Peckinpah would have been that "influenced" by WITCHFINDER, he would have hired Coquillon during pre-production. But Coquillon joined the DOGS crew very late: the first DP couldn't handle the job because his wife had just died, the second DP (Arthur Ibbetson) quit after a few days because of the nature of the film (!) and THEN Coquillon stepped in, the 3rd (!) DP hired for the film... However, he and Sam got along great and they made three more films together...
Just some of my thoughts. As stated before, this is a very important and well-done film. Every great artist needs his (good!) feature-length documentary and although Reeves was just starting out, he left a big mark! (What I can't understand is certain people here rathing a wonderful film like this with ONE STAR! What is this? I have the same thing happening to my films here. One doesn't have to applaude or even like our work, but ONE STAR? There must be something involved here, jealousy, meanness or something... I'll give it 10 stars to get a little even with those ONE STAR losers. But 9 anyway)
I can't find much to criticize. During the first half the filmmakers maybe didn't trust their own skills enough as there is too much ongoing distracting background music, which rather takes away mood then adding some. The very best documentaries don't rely on a constant sound carpet but grap the attention of the audience through the right pacing. I liked the photo-collages very much, although a bit repetitive. There is not much material available on Reeves, but a few more stills are known and could have been found. A bit strange I find the fact that Susan George is not mentioned with one single word, while later in the film it is said that Sam Peckinpah was sort of influenced by WITCHFINDER GENERAL since he hired DP John Coquillon for his 1971 film STRAW DOGS. I wouldn't go that far. If Peckinpah would have been that "influenced" by WITCHFINDER, he would have hired Coquillon during pre-production. But Coquillon joined the DOGS crew very late: the first DP couldn't handle the job because his wife had just died, the second DP (Arthur Ibbetson) quit after a few days because of the nature of the film (!) and THEN Coquillon stepped in, the 3rd (!) DP hired for the film... However, he and Sam got along great and they made three more films together...
Just some of my thoughts. As stated before, this is a very important and well-done film. Every great artist needs his (good!) feature-length documentary and although Reeves was just starting out, he left a big mark! (What I can't understand is certain people here rathing a wonderful film like this with ONE STAR! What is this? I have the same thing happening to my films here. One doesn't have to applaude or even like our work, but ONE STAR? There must be something involved here, jealousy, meanness or something... I'll give it 10 stars to get a little even with those ONE STAR losers. But 9 anyway)
