Penda's Fen (1973)

You know, after A Field in England, Anchoress, and now this film, I can't help but notice a pattern of British folk horrors that treat the landscape itself as a character, ascribing to it a kind of sentience. The mystery of such films, when done right, is a beautiful thing. Yes, almost from the opening shot and credits, Penda's Fen sets up everything it has to say all in one curious, attention-grabbing sequence.

The film is something of an answer to the age-old claim from censors and crusaders that Britain is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles, and thus should embrace discrimination and shut out the voices of the 'atheists.' If this sounds familiar to American readers, that's because the same is often said of America by the same kinds of people, only I know for a fact that they're wrong: the founding fathers were into Enlightment-era thinkers and philosophy, and the American Revolution only ever happened because they envisioned a place where people could pursue happiness their own way, provided it didn't impede or injure others' similar efforts. So, needless to say, it's a relevant theme and one that's near-and-dear to my heart. And if that sounds kind of bold for a film from '73, rest assured you ain't seen nothing yet. 

There's an insanely progressive streak running through the film. There's the primary thesis, that England is really pagan country just as much as it is Christian, if not more, but there's also this queer subtext that takes the film into some fascinating places. There is nothing dated or offensive about the way it portrays that aspect either, and it certainly doesn't downplay it, which is admirable and quite rare. But even beyond that: this film is confrontational about all manner of far-left talking points. There's this one character, a hippy of sorts, who spends every minute of his ample screentime tearing the country and conservative dogma to pieces, and even for someone who mostly agrees with him, I found it a little heavy-handed as it kept on coming up, again and again, but I digress.

Speaking of dogma, allow me to introduce you to our lead: Stephen. Stevie is basically a golden boy, devout in his faith and disciplined to an almost absurd degree. He's the perfect English gentlemen. Pressed and wrinkle-free. He's also something of a little prick, which makes it fun to watch his ordeal play out. You see, everywhere around Stephen, someone or something is conspiring against him, trying to make him lose faith, and forcing him to reevaluate everything he thinks he knows to be true. The simplest way to describe it would be as a coming-of-age story. Despite a severe hitch halfway through where Stephen stands by and lets a little birdy get squished by a car (though, in fairness, he may have been legitimately tongue-tied,) by the end I began to really enjoy his character and especially his arc. The way he struggles to reconcile his contradictory beliefs and bumps heads with everyone around him because he doesn't understand their arbitrary labels and restrictions on everything is easy to relate to and a joy to witness. At first, I thought Stephen was basically a Lovecraft stand-in, but unlike Lovecraft, he feels freed by a later revelation that he is adopted and of mixed descent. He eventually embraces his complexity and totally rejects society's labels, but also ends up swearing allegiance to a pagan god. It's a ballsy way to conclude a character arc if you ask me, and while those who are privy to the subtext here should understand it, your general viewer would scarcely believe what they were seeing and hearing, and that just makes it all the more satisfying to me.

I love the scene where Stephen meets his favorite composer and discovers that all of the music he ascribes so much personal meaning and grand intent to was actually inspired by quite mundane things, like a dog or the composer's wife. Not exactly divine inspiration, but one can't argue with the results. Which also reminds me: was the film being cheeky at the beginning when, during Stephen's exultant narration about how wonderful and ethereal the music is, the film focuses on the words "COPYRIGHT RENEWED" at the bottom of the page? I don't know, maybe I'm giving the film too much credit, but I'd like to believe it was intentional. Oh, and that scene with the old lady telling Stephen's father to cut the crap basically so she can tell her husband goodbye for good, seeing as she's not a believer, was pure gold. Sort of comedic, but also kind of stark and depressing. Real. Did I mention this film was made in the seventies? It's a bleak, confrontational film through and through. As just mentioned though, the film does an impressive job balancing the satirical moments with serious ones, erotic ones, and especially scary ones. The scene where Stephen wakes up from a wet dream to find a demonic creature sitting over him in bed starts out funny and then slowly becomes genuinely unsettling before ending with no clear resolution, leaving you feeling uneasy. It's a tough balancing act, but the film is up to the task. It doesn't really become a full-fledged horror film until the very end, and even then, not if your only standard for horror is popcorn Hollywood horror; that's likely the reason they unsettle so effectively. The film is cerebral to a fault. It's also very talky, as one might expect from an episode of a show entitled Play for Today, though not entirely without visual storytelling.

It certainly has lots of great visuals, at least. Classic folk horror stuff: shots of the landscape are what this film truly excels at, and it always made me smile, as it reminded me of what a wonderful time I live in, where such obscure films are now out there in pristine Blu-ray quality at an affordable... well, not exactly an affordable price but you know. It's not all perfect, though: the editing completely lost me early on, when the film kept cutting around with ADR voice narration doing all the heavy lifting to create a transition of sorts between two disparate scenes, but besides that, it's well-crafted enough. Well... besides a few pokey performances, that is... ...and some bad effects, specifically of the wound variety: a teenager gets horribly burned, and I honestly couldn't tell if he's been set on fire or had gotten covered in patches of Satan's furry skin ala Blood on Satan's Claw. It's a handsome enough production, especially for something that was filmed quick and cheap to be shown on television, but it certainly shows its limitations and its age in more than a few places. It is worth noting, however, that some of the more dated aspects of the film and its narrative are exactly what makes it so interesting. It's a good old-fashioned narrative that just so happens to be focused on rather progressive subject matter, and yet, actually manages to make it work.

It may be a bit too dry for some, but patient film scholars should be able to get through it with no problem and enjoy the places the film takes you. From a philosophical perspective, it's peerless, and its tale of embracing one's uniqueness is very palatable and intelligently written. The way it throws up shots of poorly-covered male genitalia and celebrates the freedom found in paganism feels very modern, recalling films like Midsommar and The VVitch. It's far ahead of its time, and severely overlooked by history.