Häxan - Witchcraft Through the Ages

Dir: Benjamin Christensen

1922

*****

Häxan - Witchcraft Through the Ages is an absolute joy from beginning to end. Benjamin Christensen's obsession is clear and thanks to his pioneering techniques and charm, he soon captivates and hypnotizes the viewer into following him down the rabbit hole. There is ‘ahead of its time’ and then there’s Häxan. After finding a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum in a bookshop in Berlin, Christensen spent two years - from 1919 to 1921 - studying manuals, illustrations and treatises on witches and witch-hunting. He actually included a lengthy bibliography in the original playbill at the film's premiere. He intended to create an entirely new film rather than an adaptation of literary fiction, which was the case for films of that day. He once said "In principal I am against these adaptations... I seek to find the way forward to original films”. Christensen obtained funding from the large Swedish production company Svensk Filmindustri, preferring it over the local Danish film studios, so that he could maintain complete artistic freedom. He used the money to buy and refurbish the Astra film studio in Hellerup, Denmark. Filming then ran from February through October 1921. Christensen and cinematographer Johan Ankerstjerne filmed only at night or in a closed set to maintain the film's dark hue. Post-production required another year before the film premiered in late 1922. The film is separated into four separate chapters and feature some of the most iconic scenes in horror history. The first chapter is a scholarly dissertation on the appearances of demons and witches in primitive and medieval culture, a number of photographs of statuary, paintings, and woodcuts are used as demonstrative pieces. In addition, several large scale models are employed to demonstrate medieval concepts of the structure of the solar system and the commonly accepted depiction of Hell. The second chapter features a series of vignettes theatrically demonstrating medieval superstition and beliefs concerning witchcraft, including Satan (played by Christensen himself) tempting a sleeping woman away from her husband's bed and terrorizing a group of monks. Also shown is a woman purchasing a love potion from a supposed witch, and a sequence showing a supposed witch dreaming of flying through the air and attending a witches' gathering. This is followed by a long narrative broken up into several parts; set in the Middle Ages, it concerns an old woman accused of witchcraft by a dying man's family. The narrative is used to demonstrate the treatment of suspected witches by the religious authorities of the time. The old woman, after being tortured, admits to heavy involvement in witchcraft, including detailed descriptions of a Witches' Sabbath, even going so far as to "name" other supposed witches, including two of the women in the dying man's household. Eventually, the dying man's wife is arrested as a witch when one of the clergymen accuses her of bewitching him. Maria, the weaver (one of the persecuted witches) was played by Maren Pedersen, who Christensen allegedly discovered while she was selling flowers on a street corner. During the shoot, Pedersen reportedly turned to Christensen and said, "The Devil is real. I have seen him sitting at my bedside." Christensen was so struck by this confession of modern demonic activity (or at least the belief in modern demonic activity) that he incorporated this anecdote into the film itself. The final part of the film seeks to demonstrate how the superstitions of old are better understood now. Christensen seeks to make the claim that most who were accused of witchcraft were possibly mentally ill, and in modern times, such behavior is interpreted as a disease. His case revolves around vignettes about a somnambulist and a kleptomaniac, the implication being that these behaviors would have been thought of as demonically-influenced in medieval times whereas modern societies recognize them as psychological ailments. There is heavy irony, however, in the observation that the "temperate shower of the clinic" i.e. the treatment of "hysterical women" in a modern institution, has replaced medieval solutions such as burning at the stake. It’s was fairly revolutionary when you think about it but sadly it was overshadowed by F. W. Murnau’s equally great Nosferatu which was released the same year. Audiences in 1922 were confounded by its boundary-crossing aesthetic but the youth of today might describe it as an old-school powerpoint presentation. The truth is that Christensen managed to show shocking imagery and disguise it somewhat as an intellectual question. Christensen originally planned to write the script with the help of historical experts, but that plan fell through after he discovered that most of the experts he had in mind were against the making of the film. He made it all the same and raised a huge amount of money even though pretty much no-one supported his idea. It is the ultimate horror film alongside F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. It’s quite amazing that they were both made at the same time and have both since become hugely influential classics.