BURNED AT THE STAKE (1982)

 

PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *drama*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *metaphysical, psychological*

Back in the 1960s, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created many classic comics using a method in which writer and artist first discussed their impending collaboration in very general terms, after which artist Kirby drew the art for writer Lee to dialogue. Lee once commented that, because Kirby sometimes improvised bits of business, figuring out the thrust of the story was for Lee like solving a puzzle.

Gordon, who both wrote and directed BURNED AT THE STAKE, left behind a puzzle in this movie. I've seen most of Gordon's ouevre, and usually there's some rationale for the movie's main problem, whether it's a man mutated into a giant or a psychopath trying to remember the trauma that warped his personality. STAKE, though, is probably Gordon's most incoherent movie. That makes it a real challenge to figure out what he was trying to get across with his story of a "witch-finder" girl of America's Puritan days whose spirit possesses the body of her modern-day reincarnation. I'm aware of no interviews with Gordon about how he pitched this supernatural-themed flick, though it may be of interest that the executive producer was Alan Landsburg, famous for launching the popular teleseries IN SEARCH OF, which was ending about the same time STAKE was distributed. The availability of starring actress Susan Swift (about 17 or 18 years old in 1982) may have influenced the story Gordon put together, since she'd gained a measure of fame for 1977's successful reincarnation-opus AUDREY ROSE (still Swift's best known credit).

There may be no reminiscences of how Gordon pitched his project or why, but it's irrefutable that he based his script on the story of real-life Salem witch-finder Ann Putnam. Like her fictional counterpart, the historical Putnam began leveling the accusation of witch-hood upon other residents of Salem in the 1600s. Her testimony brought about various fatal persecutions (though not burnings, since in Salem the magistrates hung witches). Toward the end of Putnam's life, she recanted, claiming that those she accused were innocent.

How does Gordon's fictionalized Ann Putnam diverge from the real one? In the frame-story for STAKE, the young witch-finder (Swift) is under the control of a nasty Puritan preacher, Reverend Parris, and he encourages Putnam's feverish testimonies against fellow citizens in order to solidify his religious hold on the community. However, in the movie Putnam and Parris fall out when Putnam begins to grow a conscience. We see Putnam bring about the death of a woman married to Salem citizen William Goode (David Rounds). Parris then encourages Putnam to accuse the same man's five-year-old daughter Dorcas as well. Putnam does so-- just as her historical counterpart did-- but then she begins wanting to save Dorcas from her fiery fate. And in the main body of the story-- taking place in 20th-century Salem-- it's already history that Putnam did accuse the girl and Dorcas was killed. The belatedly repentant witch-finder can only save Dorcas by changing history-- and on that peg hands the story of Putnam's spirit traveling through time to possess her 20th-century reincarnation, middle-school student Loreen Graham (also Swift).

Again, Gordon's script does not make this explicit, and even my interpretation is not absolutely confirmed by all incidents in the movie. But one thing is certain: Gordon seeks to make the film's audience root for the idea of changing history to save a little girl's life. This sort of salvation, incidentally, is not a major aspect of Gordon's works. Usually Gordon's colossal men and the psychopaths are well and truly doomed by their destinies, though in the kids' fantasy THE MAGIC SWORD  the writer-director lets a bunch of slain knights come back to life just to provide a totally happy ending.

Only one character seems to know what's going on when Putnam's spirit manifests in modern Salem, and this is a modern-day witch with the cornball name "Merlina" (Beverly Ross). However, any viewer counting on Merlina for detailed explanations will be disappointed. All the others are clueless: Loreen, her parents, and the local police chief. Further, Ann Putnam is not the only time traveler. At the very instant when the Ann Putnam of  1692 sees William Goode's daughter Dorcas being readied for a pyre, Putnam tries to protest, but is silenced by Reverend Parris. Then some unidentified power hurls Dorcas's dad William Goode bodily into the world of 1982 Salem. 

The first person Goode meets in 1982 is Loreen, whom he mistakes for Putnam. The bereaved Puritan seems prepared to attack the girl who brought about his wife's death-- not that said wife gets mentioned again after her execution-- but Goode fortunately intuits that Loreen is not Ann Putnam. Accosting Loreen gets Goode tossed in the pokey, and that's really all Goode actually does in 1982. My best guess is that Gordon had some notion of the time-traveling Puritan being tied to Putnam's spirit manifesting in Loreen, but the writer didn't really devise anything for Goode to do.  

Loreen for her part is a blank character: an everyday girl who, though not aware of her link to Ann Putnam, reads a fair amount of supernatural literature. Shortly after encountering Goode, the young female visits a Salem graveyard with her class. By herself Loreen seeks out a grave-- I assume that of the 1692 Putnam-- and then Loreen's almost killed when an overhanging tree-branch falls toward her. Loreen's teacher shoves the girl out of the way but is killed in the student's place. After that, Loreen oscillates rather easily between her normal self and her possessed self, with no sense of struggle on her part.

Gordon doesn't depict any agenda on the part of Putnam's spirit, and at times she seems to be a standard horror-movie specter. When a reporter investigates the imprisoned Goode's fantastic story, a magical curse kills him, and Loreen/Putnam is seen looking on smiling. Did she murder the man? Maybe, but later another busybody gets killed in a phone booth, telling a colleague that Reverend Parris is also in 1982. A skeletal hand appears and kills the investigator, but Loreen's nowhere around. One would think that Gordon would have written some explanatory lines for Merlina, who's stalking around in her all-black witch-regalia and giving commands to her big black dog (implicitly a familiar, since the term comes up early in the film). But Gordon does not do so.

Did the spirit of the evil reverend come through time at the same time Putnam did? Gordon must have meant to suggest that possibility, but he didn't sell the idea in any way. Besides, both Putnam and Parris are still alive in 1692, when Dorcas is about to be burned at the stake and when William Goode gets flung forward in time. I could hypothesize that the spirits of both Putnam and Parris, coming from whatever purgatory they occupy after the deaths of their original bodies, might both have been drawn to 1982. (There is a scene in which 1692 Parris tells Putnam that he'll curse her if she spoils his sweet racket.) But if both spirits are around, and the one inside Loreen is supposed to be dominantly good, why does possessed Loreen kill the reporter? Also, in a climactic scene, Merlina invites possessed Loreen into a magic circle to help set things right. Yet Loreen is rejected by the circle, unable to enter until she recites some mumbo-jumbo that helps Merlina's vague project.

What does Merlina do? Hard to say, except that she sends William Goode-- whom she manages to free from jail-- back to 1692. Goode comes back to the moment when Dorcas is about to be burnt, sees Parris restraining Putnam, and pulls the reverend off the girl. Then Putnam admits her deception to the Salem community and personally removes little Dorcas from the pyre and re-unites the child with her father. The film ends there, so we don't know how 1982 Loreen deals with having been the pawn of supernatural forces. 

Maybe both the spirits of Putnam and Parris, imbued with great powers by virtue of being ghosts, did travel to 1982. But here's an explanation I like better. The innocent-looking Ann Putnam is both good and evil, and when she travels to 1982 and takes over Loreen, sometimes Good Ann is ascendant, while other times, it's Bad Ann. 

In my opinion, Ann Putnam is the central character here, with Goode and Parris standing in for the good and bad "angels of her nature." Swift's performance is also the only one of consequence here, with familiar actors like Albert Salmi and Tisha Sterling simply reading their lines reasonably well. Yet I can't fault them. Gordon had the bones of an interesting story about the good and evil impulses in human beings, and the desire to bring about redemption. But he forgot to put any meat on those bones.