Slashdot Mirror
Lo-Tech Cinema
"The Blair Witch Project" is a biting rebuke to Hollywood, which has nearly overwhelmed movies from "Phantom Menace" to "Wild Wild West" with expensive cinematic technology, especially computer-generated special effects.
The BWP, made for roughly $50,000 by two young and unknown filmmakers - Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick - might well spark a new Lo-Tech genre in American cinema. It sure ought to.
As of last weekend, the BWP was the No. 2 money-making movie in America, taking in $30 million. It is pounding the daylights out of big-budget Hollywood clunkers like "The Haunting and "Deep Blue Sea," both of which spent small fortunes on razzle-dazzle effects but forgot to include the rest of the movie.
In fact, the "Haunting" has grossed half as much as the BWP even though it cost at least a hundred times as much to make.
It wasn't that the BWP makers didn't understand or make use of technology. They did.
The movie's website www.blairwitch.com had more than 20 million hits even before the films release this summer in a handful of theaters in a small number of cities.
The site is a model of how to use the Web to capture the style and atmosphere of a film.
The movie is set in a tiny (real) town in Maryland. The (fictional) premise is that three student filmmakers set out into the woods in October of l994 to film a documentary about the Blair Witch, who supposedly has haunted the woods for generations. The kids never come back. A year later their video footage is found. The website presents the story as a literal news event, including newscasts reporting on the kids' disappearance and the search for them and their remains.
Sanchez and Myrick shot the movie with tiny hand-held cameras, one of the many reasons the BWP is so edgily effective. They used Global Positioning Satellite tracking systems to guide the three unknown actors in the movie to their locations in the woods, where they found instructions on the movie's upcoming scenes. The actors weren't told what to say, but required instead to improvise the dialogue and much of the plot. Watching the movie, it's easy to forget you're watching one.
Thus the actors were especially convincing as terrified kids in way over their heads. The WBP is, from the first, permeated with an overpowering sense of gloom and dread reminiscent of the original "Night Of the Living Dead," one of the best and most innovative horror films of its era. I've rarely seen a theater so quiet.
Using technology in this savvy, minimalist way, the BWP reminds us that movies can be much more frightening when they leave some perils to our imagination than when they present them so literally and ultra-graphically (one of the many reasons "Jaws" was so much creepier than its lame sequels).
In fact, the BWP did none of the high-tech things that now seem elemental in contemporary movie-making. It had no score, not a single special effect, almost no lighting, no expensively animated credits.
For the past few years, filmmakers have been drunk on all of their new technologies, from computer-generated characters to numbingly overdone explosions and crashes. The early mythic horror films - "Frankenstein," "Dracula," "The Phantom of the Opera" - were much closer to the BWP than to the gazillion-dollar bombs now produced by the corporatized studios: they were much more frightening for what they didn't show than for what they did.
Sanchez and Myrick may, in fact, have almost single-handedly saved an endangered Hollywood genre. Their movie was made completely outside the Hollywood studio system, discovered when shown out of competition at the Sundance Film Festival (it wasn't even accepted as an entry ).
Had it been a Hollywood project, it would probably have had almost none of the qualities that make it so strikingly original - the realistic, amateurish, herky-jerky home video quality, the restraint and discipline that force us to picture what might be happening.
And a big studio would never have signed Heather Donahue, the previously unknown actress who delivers a grand-slam performance as an obsessive young documentary maker. Nor would a studio have permitted a film to be made without a script.
Yet without sophisticated use of technology, the BWP wouldn't have been nearly as effective. GPS systems permitted the actors to move around without a horde of techs and aides, something which clearly contributed to their performances as increasingly terrified kids alone in the woods. In the first minutes of the movie, the kids are much more worried about returning their car and camera equipment in time than about being lost in the woods with any supernatural skullduggery. That changes quickly.
Digital technology makes possible small and highly portable cameras that can be wielded by actors as well as cinematographers. And the movie's amazing online campaign shows that creativity can do wonders on the Web while giant and overblown corporate ad campaigns stagger and fail. The Web is profoundly anti-hype. The product has to deliver, and Webheads prefer to find it for themselves. People online want to find something good and share it, not be beaten over the head with it. Online marketing reverses the natural laws of conventional media hype. If you make it, and it's good, they will come.
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality. The bad news is that a sequel to BWP has already been contracted by a Hollywood studio.
When you watch BWP you realize that the Lo-Tech stuff is what made it what it is because the setting is actual and the events make it seem at least somewhat plausible (especially if you've been backpacking before). Seeing the film through the eyes of a handheld camera makes it that much more realistic and makes you wonder just how real it is. The actors improvising everything also gave it realism, by making their responses seem more lifelike.
This might work for a few other movies, but not many. Its almost imposible to set a good Sci-Fi thriller with something that would allow this lo-tech to work, and I personally can't think of any other place where this kind of lo-tech would work except in a forest. It is relatively inexpensive to just travel to a forest and walk around taking shots, whereas setting a lo-tech film in a big city will still be expensive, you'll probablly need permission to shoot some of the areas as well as having to rent rooms and such to shoot in. All of this adds money and sense special effects and computer rendering are getting less expensive, its starting to become more cost effective to just render a lot of the stuff, like Squaresoft is doing in their Final Fantasy movie which is going to be completely rendered.
A lot of the BWP was also do to the shock value of seeing a big film that was filmed on a handheld camera.. that's a shock value that is a one time thing.. it might still be around for other movies that do the same thing, but the effect won't be anywhere as great. BWP was also very original in this.. if someone tries to make another lo-tech blockbuster like this, it'll lose all originality and personally I'd rather see a hi-tech non-original movie than a lo-tech non-original movie.
I think the previous poster was refering to the way 'Pi' dealt with those issues. While 'Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land' and 'Good Will Hunting' may be good movies that have math included in their plots, math is an important part of 'Pi' and the movie doesn't shy away from it. 'Pi' also dares to make statements about religion and the connections to math in the world that other movies don't make. 'Pi' isn't for everybody but do yourself a favor and at least see it so you can experience it for yourself. And of course, I recommend seeing it on DVD, if you have the means.
..Blair that is. Erm, I mean our humble Prime Minister Tony Blair. He doesn't look anything like a witch..no, not at all ;)
As for low budget independent films... been making them for years this side of the pond. Some are very very good...some are very very bad. The best ones are almost always better than the best that Hollywood churns out.
Hmm... Which single mind: one or the other of the two writer/directors? The actors, who improvised their own dialogue? The fleet of Web designers? The marketers who put together the riveting ads?
Got a little Y2K bug there Katz? The movie did well because critics liked it in an academic sense. The rest was extreme advertizing.
I went to see this piece of junk because I tought it reflected a brilliant script done with low budget. But let me tell you, this script could have been done by a ten year old. I was specting a Spilberg level script with a $50K production budget, but got a $1.00 script with a $50k budget. I think the whole thing is just another well engineered scam, and they got me.
_ _____
Basically the movie is multiple iterations one after the other of a one line story: "We are lost in the woods, what do we do? Shu, shu, I blame you! Walk (or sit and blame) in the day and boo boo in the night." with a careless attention to details: like infinite film and battery power (well maybe they had some kind of solar powered batteries' yea right, for a 70mm), and no food for almost a week (they could have eaten something in the woods).
In summary, I am ashamed I paid to see this crap, or better yet, one of the largest scams (I wonder how large is the chunk for the critics that gave positive reviews) I have seen.
ps: by the way the general reaction in the theater at the end was, "What, that is it, and I paid for this crap".
_______________________________________________
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality.
And the bad news is that the ad campagin for this movie is a whole lot better than the movie itself. I don't think there was a single person in the theatre that was scared by this flick.
I found it hard to be concered about three dolts who can't even follow a stream to get out of the woods.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
That said, originality ain't everything, and I'm fully prepared for BWP to be a lot of fun.
--
I left halfway through the movie, just after they got lost.
Generally not feeling 100%, drinking the night before, and having some popcorn (don't do that much anymore) didn't help.
The jittery camera was making me nauseous.
However, I've also seen the Sci-Fi Channel documentary. The film was shot 4:3 on video and 16mm, and actually looks better on television! So I'll just rent it when it comes out.
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
I saw the movie last night and wasn't all that impressed. I had (female) friends crying because it was so darn scary. A theater employee that I know poked me last night when the credits came on in an attempt to scare me. Then she couldn't believe how I wasn't jumpy or freaked out at all. On a scale of 1-10 of scariness, I'd give it a 5. Maybe a 4. But what made this movie very interesting was the fact that it's fiction, yet was made out to be true. Even theater employees (in some chains anyway) were told to lie when asked, "Is this for real?!" But what I learned AFTER the movie freaked me out more than the movie itself. The whole GPS factor, the care packages they received, and the true fright involved... In addition to they themselves being taped from far away, unbenownst to them. I will probably go back to see it again just because of these things that were not so obvious. I would have to say that this is the most original movie I've seen in many years.
The only part that was scripted was the beginning of the movie. The interviews and the cemetery, and that was it. The rest of the movie simply had an outline, but no script. That is even more fascinating.
Putting the merits of BWP aside (haven't seen it yet), it's certainly not the first high-quality low-budget film to be made. Each time one comes out, there's always someone declaring the death of the Hollywood big-money system.
Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. Too many people are willing to throw the theater $8 to see things blow up I'm afraid.
Just because some movie makers use GPS' and put up a website about there movie, that doesn't make 'em "tech-savvy" and hip and cool. Just about every movie released these days has a web site. Enough with the hype. Feels like a bad Wired article....
Maybe someone should give YOU to the nearest sex offender....maybe bleeding from your asshole for a few days would make you think a little more about kids getting raped...joke or not it isn't funny you moron.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
I say fsck high tech digital filmaking. It is not art. It is crap.
One of my favorite films is 'Natural Born Killers' and that movie would have sucked had Hollywood and George Lucas or the other hi-tech assholes had got a hold of it. That film was made in 8mm, 16mm, a couple kinds of video, animation ( ala "The Wall" ). You can't convince me that making it "Digital" would have been better.
I also liked Pulp Fiction. Same idea here.
I will do my part for the big high tech films. I will wait for the VHS Video or watch it on TV.
Ken Broadfoot
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
>How can you make a sequel period?
Simple! Just have the US military get word of the mystery of the missing students and they nuke the woods.
Well if you like that, check out 'Evil Dead' and 'Evil Dead 2'. They've got the action at night / lull in the day type scenario. Then watch Army of Darness (Evil Dead 3 in everything but name) to finish things off. Couple weeks ago a bunch of us had a day long Evil Dead marathon... (which for some reason we ended by watching 'Seven', just cause we had plenty of time and it was there). I'd never seen ANY of them before. Now THOSE are good movies!
| The hi tech movies being compared to BWP may
| have expensive effects but are likely lacking
| in something else: an intelligent, sensible
| script. Put BWP and Matrix out at the same time
| and see who wins. My vote is on Matrix.
Given all other things equal, the movie with the best special effects wins - especially during the summer.
But, I think you give *both* films a little too much credit for having intelligent scripts. The premise of Matrix was simply laughable (hurt the overall movie for me, anyway), though it did score a bit on the "cool" factor. The script for BWP - well, what script? The good thing about BWP would have to be that the actors actually got the point across.
BWP reminded me somewhat of some Lovecraft stories - takes plave some time after the "horror" has occured, you never really *see* the "horror", etc. Worth the student-ticket price at any rate, just for the suspense. Even if it *was* filmed with HurlCam (tm).
-- Rick
We've moved a bit away from the low-tech cinema, but ...
:)
[The Matrix]
| I donno... I kinda liked it. At least it was a
| little more towards the 'strange science
| fiction' type stuff. Granted it didn't
| make sense, but it coulda been a helluva lot
| less original and more 'hollywood'.
Well, it couldn't have been *much* less original unless they tried really really hard.
(Anyone but me think they ripped some of the final scenes of The Matrix right out of "never show a good movie right in the middle of your crappy movie" _Overdrawn at the Memory Bank_?
Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed seeing _The Matrix_. And it may have been slightly less "hollywood" than most of the sci-fi coming out lately, but only slightly.
As a side note, it's quite easy to define what the Matrix really is. The Matrix is Elvis.
-- Rick
The movie had a good amount of suspense, sure...
Scary? Not at all...
The thing about the guy throwing the map away was totally unbeliveable...
The ending had to be the worst though -- all of a sudden, everyone is dead and the credits come up... I would have at least liked to have seen interviews with the same townspeople the kids interviewed to get their reactions after the tapes had been found -- even if they were during the credits or something...
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is a far superior movie to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. If they had copied, it would have been a blessing.
CH begins with a professor being hired by a New York City TV station to go down to Colombia to look for a missing documentary film crew. The crew is clearly modeled after an Italian mondo film crew, but the setting is changed to America (although it's an Italian movie- pretty common, actually).
He heads down South and after a journey finds their film and the remainder of their remains. He assumes they were killed by bloodthirsty savages.
He takes their footage back to NYC and assembles some of it for the TV guys to watch. It's grisly, but the big revelation is that the crew, in order to make a more juicy film, tortured and abused the natives. They were killed in revenge.
CH plays with the ideas of movie reality versus "real" reality. If the crew had made it back OK, they would've edited their movie to reflect what they were trying to show. The raw footage was more truthful.
It also was made as a criticism of mondo film and even news programs that are allowed to show anything they want because it's true, while fiction is heavily censored. Well, in Italy in 1979 at least.
TBWP didn't have that much to say and didn't frame the recovered footage as well. You could edit the "Curse of the Blair Witch" TV special and the movie together into a better feature- and one that would look a lot more like CH.
For more about CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, read KILLING FOR CULTURE, or buy the laserdisc. You can get the book from Amazon and the disc from houseofhorrors.com.
Nobody seen any Ken Russell movies ? "Ladybird, Ladybird" (for example) was filmed without the main actors knowing what comes next, and similarly has a very real, very gritty feel. Uncle Ken's been at it for years, but I don't see Hollywood crumbling. Do his movies even get released in the USA, or is it the art-house circuit only ?
... spare me.
As for one posters comments about "Saving Private Ryan"
The difference between Lucas and Spielberg is that at least Lucas knows when he's making it up / hamming it up (cf Used Car salesmen and Computer salesmen).
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
> why couldn't these people use a goddamn steadicam
because steadicams are expensive, heavy, and unlikely to be in the possession of a student film crew?
I had a similar incidence with Children of the Corn. In the beginning of the book (not the movie), they are trying to find a town called Lowell, Nebraska when they get lost and thus encounter "the children". When I read this, I about shit, as I was living in the middle of nowhere (in the middle of miles of corn country even) about 4 miles west of Lowell, Nebraska. I was only about 14 when I read the book and it scared the hell out of me. I did not get much sleep that night, I stayed awake listening to scary noises - the wind in the corn, the coyotes howling, etc. Even worse, there was this red-headed kid I went to school with, who lived a couple miles away from me, who looked almost exactly like Malachi!
While i haven't seen Blair Witch Project, the shooting style (put actors in situation, improvise dialog and, to lesser degree, plot) reminds me of director Rob Nilsson's "Direct Action Cinema" technique. When done by people who are good at it, this can produce amazing results. I'd especially recommend his 1987 film, "Heat and Sunlight", a searing look at the last twelve hours of a relationship.
I'm not that big a fan of horror films, but the film that scared the socks of me was "Dead Calm".
mahlen
I'll agree with that assertion. I liked the film, but I can see how someone who doesn't like to or can't empathize with the characters wouldn't like it. With no empathy, there's no interest in the characters, and there's not much left after that.
I'll bet the people who didn't like this film didn't much like scary campfire stories, either. I try not to look down on them too much, though. :)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
- Was it really the Blair Witch, or some effective psycho loon?
:-)
It was the Witch. The magic forest (they walked in circles wich is a old-story symptom of magic forests.
The Guy throwing away the Map and everything else implied magic.
- Was it really Josh yelling from the basement? Or was it a recording? Or was it the Blair Witch mimicing his voice?
It doesn't matter in the story, they probably all died.
- How did Mike end up in the corner? Physically forced? Possesed? Already dead and propped up?
Magically forced. He was knocked down remember, and yet was standing 15 seconds later.
- Did they really die? No bodies were found.
Since they were supposed to find the cameras one year later, the bodies could heve been in the same location.
- What were those children's voices? What were the other sounds?
That were the childrens souls crying.
- What caused the tent to flap like that?
Magic
- How did they end up going in a circle? Maybe it's like those magic forests in Zelda.
Yep, magic forest.
- What was that slime?
Just some neat idea the produces had, it doesn't realy matter in the story. It's only purpose is to add creapy atmosphere to the movie. It has absolotely no other purpose in the movie.
- ad infinitum....
I guess you didn't read enough scary stories as a kid. Those are all classical examples from those.
- No questions, huh? Maybe you were looking at it differently than I but I really enjoyed it and am waiting for the DVD.
It will fit nicely righ beside "striptease" and "Higlander II" on your shelve.
- Maybe you should go rent Navy Seals
Never heard of it (the movie). Is is much different from BWP ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I don't get it, I realy don't.
I went to see this film last weekend and I was mildly dissapointed. It's not a bad movie, but clearly below average.
And it leaves absolutely nothing, *nothing*, when you walk out of the cinema there are no unansvered questions and the movie isn't making any point.
If I told you that you realy don't see anything horrible in the movie, I would have spoiled all the film for you, it's that bad. The only thing that holds up the film the whole time is that it is making the surroundings look creapy with the help of music and sound effects. And even that gets bored after 30 minutes.
I doubt there are many people who will want to watch this file the second time.
And my question is : What realy generated all this hype ?? C'mon if a unknown website got millions of hits even before the opening, it's got to be professionally planned and engineered hype !
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Look up between the trees and you will see that there aren't any more trees 20-or-so meters from where the actors are standing.
Not a big mistake but it quite annoyed me while I watched the movie.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
The movie already is in urope . Saw it last weekend here in Paris. But the movie realy isn't *that* bad. It's just to long for it's simple story and you will never want to see it again.
(apart from some deep-forest-scenes obviously taken behind just a few trees).
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
The movie is OK but it's definitely not great, in the sense that I will get absolutely nothing out of a second screening.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
But why the hype ? The film basically just tells an camp-fire ghost story.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I guess we've all seen movies where some guy is blown up by 500 tons of dynamite and still walks away from it.
But the BWP is supposed to be a "true" movie and as such, those kind of things don't happend, we know how kids used to be killed in pairs in that cellar. One standing in the corner, facing the wall, that was the last bit of information the film gave. It was all supposed to fit togeter and we are expected to figure out that the kids will die. But how do we know that ?? The film doesn't explicitly *state* that, now does it ?
The film has absolutely no *details*. whatsoever, the audience can figure out on the way home.
It leaves nothing for the intelectual audience.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
The best way to avoid motion sickness with this movie is just to sit towards the back of the theater. That way you can still see the wall around the screen, and your body won't get as confused about what is actually happening.
As for clerks, I agree with you. That was another very good independent film. I was pleasantly surprised when a friend of mine had me watch the movie.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
I've rarely seen a theater so quiet.
I've rarely heard a theater so full.
Now all Mr. Katz needs to do is to draw the parallel between independent filmmaking and independent musicmaking with MP3s, and argue for web-, ftp-, and IRC-based distribution of these films and he's on to something here.
--
QDMerge -- data + templates = documents.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Indy filmmakers have been using age-old (read: cheap) film techniques, innovative ideas, and good stories to make good movies for a long time. That doesn't that there's anything lo-tech about it. The Blair Witch Project people used the most hi-tech tools available for their budget. Have you checked the prices of all that stuff in the credits? I am glad that The Blair Witch project got the recognition (and the money) it deserved, but to think that it hails some kind of a 'lo-tech' revolution in cinema is a bit effrontery.
I very seriously doubt that any major movie studios will begin producting movies with digital camcorders and cutting them on Media100 workstations because of the success of this one movie. Maybe now the studios will take a more serious look at indy films, indy screenplays, and more traditional moviemaking techniques. Hopefully we'll get to see a few more decent movies in the theaters.
~John
Jon katz not only misses the point of real horror, he misses it on media as well.
Old Time Radio shows like ESCAPE and SUSPENSE used the spoken word and some sound fx to make the audience feel these emotions, to sit on the edge of thier seats. They used WORDS to spark the minds eye, not a visual stream to spoon feed the audience.
If Katz were truly into touting the real ways of Low-Techo he would have at least mentioned this, but hhe is once again found empty of real substance.
For more on Old Time Radio, where to find it on the net and even a few files to listen to head over to The WSMF OTR site
And Use Your Own Imagination once in a while.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Jon Jon Jon.... You want so much to be hip, it hurts. If you had a real eye on low budget movies of worth rather than fluffing you Hip Cyber Feathers you would have doen this article years ago about "El Mariachi" by Mr Rodruiguez or the 1980s film "Liquid Sky" or "Down by Law" etc etc etc. You also would have seen what happens when a indi film maker gets Hollyweird backing ("Desperado" "Dusk Till Dawn"). But instead of a real article on Low Budget films you simply pander to the NOWNOWNOW hip set and turn a blind and dumb eye to the real meat of the story. Ouchie Mr katz, even as a movie reviewer you are lacking. Whats next? "Cyber Kitty Boxes, Freind or Foe"?
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
The movie cost little to make
...Congrats you are all dupes of another BWP style scam.
BUT
The marketing hype that made you aware of it cost MILLIONS
So for all you folks who think this is a win for the low budget film makers or the Katzians who follow the hipbuzz speak with thier heads up the pundints anus
suckers
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
You missed the point.. I think if anybody went to see this movie hoping to see a documentary on natural numbers, they decidedly ended up dissapointed. The movie simply used the character's obsession with mathematics as a tool to explore the psychological issues of having an essentially one-dimensional, shallow life. The character's mentor(sorry, cant bring the name to mind, I have a very very bad problem with names)spent his whole life trying to find patterns in Pi and came to the conclusion that it was essentially not worth it.
The movie's point is NOT wether there are patterns in Pi, or wether the stockmarket can be predicted, but what happens to an individual when they become blind to everything but one goal. In the end, Max (I think that's the character's name), starts seeing patterns everywhere, in coffee, in the guts of a squished bug, in the stock market, in the Torah - and you can pick apart his brain at that moment and really understand the kind of psychosis he is affected by.
The movie is not about math, it's about life, the point of life, and about balance.
-Laxative
Pi? bad? Oh my god! I thought that Pi was one of the best movies I have seen in my entire life.. it was SO beautifully done, the grainy film, the absolutely lovely music, the message it conveys so clearly. Everything about that movie pointed to the fact that someone put SO much thought into exactly what went into the film.. rather than most hollywood flicks, which rather point to the laborious amount of time making it glitzy and perfect product placement.
You have no taste.
-Laxative
Can you point me to a place where I can get good info on the good movies coming out? I love independent films, and I've loved most of the independents I've seen, but I've only seen a scarce few.. is there a place on the net which is reliable as a good source of what's good and what's bad?
I thought Pi was a BEAUTIFUL film, Rushmore was great, Trainspotting kicked butt (though i dont know if it's 'independent' or not). That's about all the independent movies that I can list off the top of my head right now. I've been searching for a place where I can get info on films like these, and the only thing I've found so far is the onion's AV-club movie review section.. do you know any other place?
-Laxative
With marketing, TBWP's budget came out
at 1.5 million. That's thirty times what
they claim the film actually cost. Ever
get the feeling you've been cheated?
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
I haven't seen BWP> yet, but I have read the Dream Park novels. I loved the books and find the concept very interesting. Perhaps as our technology gets better, we will see concepts like these be brought to fruition.
In essence, this is what is happening with Ultima Online and Everquest. Quake leagues are springing up all over the place. As the technology driving these games gets better, the distinction between game and real will blur.
On a related note: Have you read Synners by Pat Cardigan? In it the Synners (synthesizers), channel human emotions in sync with music videos to people with sockets (i.e. connections with the brain). A must read if you want a glimpse at where technology is heading.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
While it's always nice to see someone realise that there are wonderful films being made outside Hollywood, to say that BWP is the start of some sort of new renaissance in non-Hollywood filmmaking is to dismiss decades of filmmakers. Sure, I had a similar `ah ha!' experience more then ten years ago when seeing Atom Egoyan's Family Viewing (which was made for a similar cost) for the first time, but I didn't jump to the conclusion that this was the start of a new trend, rather than the continuation of one I'd fallen into the middle of.
Sure, low-budget, non-Hollywood filmmaking is new to this corner of the Internet, and sure, this is the first film that's become a massive success based on Internet interest and hype (forged or otherwise: see Salon's Did "The Blair Witch Project" fake its online fan base?), but that's no excuse not to do one's background research before writing an article like this, and making a realistic assessment of where this film fits in the recent history of filmmaking.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
The blair witch project was just what I needed. None of the bloatedness of other recent movies. It was very nice to see a movie do so well with so little a budget.(I heard around $$40,000) I hope more people take notice to how a story is presented not just how much eye candy they can shove in your face.
Whose fault is it that the whole "expectation" game gets played anyway?
Stop being led around by the big marketing hook in your nose. Watch a movie and judge it on it's own merits, not what the public (who, by the way have made wrestling shows some of the most popular on TV, so fuck them anyway), media and marketing machines tell you to.
If you saw the movie and didn't like it as a matter of taste, that's fine, not everyone is going to like the same things. But if you dislike it for failing to live up to your *expectations*, then you're an idiot for playing that game in the first place. Plus, you are doomed to be disappointed by everything, since expectations are seldom met in this day and age.
Plot? There was no plot. There were "events," but certainly not a plot. And after a while, these "events" became very predictable. The typical mix of hysteria with insanity permeated through to each of them until it became humorous.
I think they were screaming at the end becuase they dropped their $15,000 camera; the most expensive piece of equipment on the set.
Poor choice of words, "Real Legend" makes more sense. That is, that this a real story told by people who live in that region, rather than something made up by the film makers.
Independent movies will be seen more and more in movie theatres. The Haunting sucked so horribly that I'm ashamed I payed $8 to see it. If only they'd make some good, well written movies. Until then, it'll be the low-budget independent movies that will be the really good ones.
IIRC clerks was made for $2000. Not bad imho.
-matt
Try sitting as far back in the theater as possible.
Well, the sequel plots that they've talked about involved stories about the man that murdered the seven children, and more about the woman that was cast out of the village who may have become the Blair Witch. So they aren't really sequels in the sense that they take place after BWP just in the BWP universe.
Loved it? Yeah, ok, if you're into watching three really stupid people who can walk into a "forest" on the eastern seaboard for a day, but CAN'T WALK OUT IN THREE DAYS. I would call it excruciatingly boring. CNN had it right...it should have been called The Blair Insomnia Project. I thought that the shaky cameras and "you are there" style of filming went out with Homicide.
I think that this movie proves nothing more than that with a good marketing machine and plenty of hype, along with a lot of screaming, running and cursing, it's possible to sucker a few million people into parting with their money.
The Blair Witch Project did nothing more than strain the audience's credibility and present yet another telling of some tired old summer camp ghost story. The only time that I got scared was when I realized that the stuff that was sticking to my shoe wasn't a spilled Coke, but bubble gum.
Not only was the movie completely un-scary, but the ending was PURE cheese. I mean, I could see it coming a mile away. My prediction? This movie is going to fade from the scope very quickly. All that has been proven is that with a very low budget, it's possible to rake in a very large amount of money. At least the accountants will walk away happy.
=h=
I honestly have to wonder how you can call me a dolt in one sentence, then actually be able to state that an obvious ending is a component of suspense. No, I say that this was a movie about three very stupid people who didn't have enough sense to follow a river back to civilization.
Further, having spent a fair amount of time in Maryland, I'll also postulate that anyone who cannot find their way out of one of those woods after three days deserves what they get.
By the end of the movie I was cheering for the witch.
I'm perfectly used to the fact that this movie has made more money than other movies. But I think that it's very clear that receipts != quality. This is a great case of how well marketing works. It's a bad movie...deal with it!
=h=
Sure I've been lost in the woods. I live in Idaho...over half the state is wilderness. And even with a compass and WITHOUT a map, I never had a problem getting out. Yeah, it's easy to get confused if you spend your time in panic.
I can suspend my disbelief. I love movies. But just because the camera jiggles and everybody acts really scared doesn't mean that I'm going to jump up and down and bow to some new paradigm in filmmaking. This would have been a good movie from a couple of guys studying film at UCLA, or maybe it deserves a place in that low budget "art" film niche, but as a mainstream movie, all I can determine is that everyone went gaga because it received great reviews from a film festival and cost less than a bedroom in San Jose. But the premise was tired, the plot was weak and the ending was so anticlimactic that as soon as I saw the house I told my friend what was about to happen. All that was left was to scrape the popcorn off my shoe.
Yeah...I can suspend disbelief. But that doesn't mean that any old crap that flickers and jiggles on the screen will catch my eye.
=h=
Are you kidding? Sometimes it seems like two of those three form the basis of most films. And even the third one (math) appears from time to time. Disclaimer: I don't know what you mean by "tackling" so you probably won't agree with my list of movies that "tackle" these subjects.
Religion: The Last Temptation of Christ, The Crucible, The Apostle, The Exorcist, all of the movies that just came out about the Dalai Lama, The Mission, Sister Act, Oh God, Witness, Yentl, The Ten Commandments.
Math: Contact, Good Will Hunting, Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land, Moebius, N is a Number, Stand and Deliver, Sphere, Sneakers, I.Q.
Psychosis: ummm...just about any movie with a "bad guy" and plenty more that don't.
I haven't seen Pi, so I won't comment on whether it is good or not. But you seem to be implying that it is outre or avant garde or some other French phrase in that it deals with issues Hollywood normally doesn't. Just because a movie was good doesn't mean it has to be unique. This is the kind of unwarranted hyperbole that makes people who haven't even seen the movie dislike it.
This is the best thing I've seen here from Katz. He is clearly well within his element here (not over his head with technical issues) and his review definitely made me want to see the movie (which I wasn't all that interested in before).
I haven't seen BWP yet, but I did see The Sixth Sense this past weekend, and thought it was fantastic. Please, go see it before anyone spoils it for you.
I don't think I'll be spoiling The Sixth Sense by saying that the special effects are almost nonexistent; as I've heard about BWP, more happens off screen than on. I think Sixth Sense edged out BWP for highest gross on this incredibly crowded (5 major studio releases) weekend. I hope that the success of these films will spark more cerebral, psychological horror flicks. I'd much rather see this type of movie than self-referential, over-the-top slashers like Scream or cheesy CGI fests like The Haunting (although Sleepy Hollow looks like it might be good).
As far as The Haunting goes, I've heard that there is another movie from the same original source coming out later this year, called The House on Haunted Hill or maybe The Haunting of Hill House. The rumor goes that this one will depend more on auditory than visual effects for its scares. I can only hope the rumor is true.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
I just have to agree to this (and I also missed out on the marketing). I'm happy for Jon Katz if BWP has opened his eyes to independent low-budget movies though, but it's nothing new and I doubt BWP will create a new trend in Hollywood cinema.
There are always some low-budget independent-movies from new and exciting filmmakers that manage to stand out from the crowd to the more cinema-aware. Just off the top of my head, people might want to check out these flicks: El Mariachi, Man Bites Dog, Clerks, La Haine, Evil Dead, Nightwatch, Junk Mail... If you take a look at the Hollywood-remakes made of some the above movies you will understand why Hollywood won't be able to take advantage of a trend towards low-budget independent movies. It is probably impossible to create such movies inside the Hollywood studio system.
They are extremely different types of movies, one played off of the tradition american sentimentality for soldiers lost in a war. The other scared the living sh*t out of me and everyone else who was in the theatre that friday night. No one even got up for a good minute after the lights went on. If you ask me it came directly from it being the opening night (sometimes its nice to be in manhatten), no one really knew what to expect, and atleast i hadn't heard that much hype about the movie at that time.
With saving private ryan you knew that there was going to be a happy ending or atleast happy enough, with the BWP no one knew what was coming until they turned on the lights.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was utter garbage, I just hated it that much more because I was hoping it would be fresh, original and scary.
However, not having expectations is pretty unrealistic, don't you think? Can you honestly go into every movie not knowing anything about it, and not expecting a good movie? Pretty cynical approach if you ask me.
Let me start by saying that when I saw the preview of Inspector Gadget, my brain went into CGI overload. Hard. I started to look at all of these movies just crammed with this stuff and I just shut down my nervous system, not wanting to see another 80 foot spider or mutant shark.
BUT...
The Blair Witch was in my opinion absolutely horrible filmmaking. "Road Rules goes horribly wrong." And it was so funny as to be unfunny. As a friend pointed out, they got lost in the woods with a map, compass, river AND the sun in the sky? Sounds to me like it was nature weeding out bad genes to me. But anyway, an utterly wretched film, with no suspense at all. Just because it was cheap and different doesn't mean it's good. Last time I checked characters were still fairly important and I couldn't give a rat's behind about any of them. So, if characters aren't there, most filmakers will attempt to blind you with visuals or at least a good plot. No such luck here; it's like they were relying so heavily on trying to sell this as a true story and the fact that it is about as un-Hollywood as you can get they forgot to do anything like entertain us. Godzilla sucked and no matter how much money they put on the screen that wasn't going to change. Same principal here. No amount of money would have made this story entertaining.
Go watch The Iron Giant. It won't make near as much as The Insipid Witch, but it is light years better and will still be around in 100 years whereas Blair Witch will be spliced onto a reel America's Funniest Home Videos and Fox's Most Shocking Moments Caught on Tape.
Now, to be fair I will have to say that they marketed this film BEAUTIFULLY. Web site, Sci-Fi channel preview, everything to make you think it was real. Plus all the buzz about how scary it was; to me that is what drew me to the film because how many people can be shocked or scared by a movie after the trememdous amount of scary movies we have all seen in our lives? I have to give it credit for trying, I am not shooting the concept full of holes, it's quite noble actually, it's just that the execution was as big a failure as any failed endeavor in the history of filmmaking.
As far as I know it was #2 on it's opening weekend 2nd to The Runaway Bride...
BUT... it opened in less theaters and averaged $20,000 per screen where the #1 movie only hit about $15,000 per screen. (i think that's how they should rank movies, but nooo big-ass-hollywood guys need the big numbers).
Anyways, my personal review is Here
- dc.
It's just Crap.
I'm from Montréal and we are lucky enough to have the "festival des films du monde" and "Fantasia". with these two, you can find out about lots of répertoire and weird movies.
Of course, You have to be here to enjoy Daniel Langlois(Softimage's dad)'s latest toy : ExCentris
Gog
but I have some problems with this point:
Most people I know have very good ideas what they want, but when they go to see it or praise it, they're told that this director is uncool or that actor has sold out, and they should not watch it. More to the point, what we see is dictated by what the mega-cinema chains will show.
When I was growing up, my city (washington, DC) had many independent movie theaters, many of which showed various movies of questionable commercial appeal. theaters like the Apex, Biograph, Key, and The circle would all show repertory, Anime', off-color drama (Caligula's a perfect example -- not porn, but damned close), and foreign. Most of these places are now gone, some of which have been razed to the ground and replaced by synthetic megaliths of corporate or commercial intent...I think the CVS chain accounts for at least three former movie theaters in town.
My point in this ancient history is that I think many more people know what they want to see, but their vote at the box office is curtailed by major chain theater options and whoever is keeping stats of rentals (and the Monica Lewinsky scandal showed us someone must be) is not correlating them to what should be shown in movie houses.
Doubtless, this has more to do with profit centers than taste. That leads me to wonder...are we perpetually doomed to following the accountants when it comes to what we can see? I liked Pi, but found it difficult. I admire those who make movies on the cheap, but I don't think that should be a criterion for excellence, any more than star name power or special effects.
If virtue is its own reward, jsut imagine what vice offers!
What they need to do is found more independents, market them adequately, and give them wider screen access, as they do their formula films. I am sure they would make back there investments if not make a killing like with the BWP.
"I am made as HELL and I am not going to take it anymore!" -Network
-slams
-slams
Try $20,000.
Well, while not *HUGE*, "Mallrats" was made for $6 million. "Chasing Amy" was made for $250,000.
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
I disagree totallly with Jon Katz. I happened to see BWP on Sunday at 5:25 pm. This is usually not a peak time for movie going, but the large theater I was in was nearly sold out. This, combined with all that I had heard about the film, really got my hopes up.
Boy, was I disappointed. Frankly, I think the movie was horrible. I don't want to bash the film makers, they did a great job with only $50,000. I must say that I'm no film maker myself. This movie simply didn't appeal to me.
First of, it simply wasn't scary. I saw The Haunting early, and loved it. That movie got my heart racing. BWP didn't. I know that the camera work wasn't supposed to be perfect, but it just made me sick. Lastly, I think the use of a certain four letter word was so frequent that it became obvious there was no written script. Improv is good, but too much is too much.
I have run into many people that loved the movie, and I'm happy that it has been so successful without spending millions. I just didn't like it.
Josh
I don't care too much, since I'm already into the Next Big Thing. I'll find it weeks before the cattle catch up. The Megacorps can follow along right behind me if they like. It's not like they have a clue where we're going ('course, I don't either, but that's what makes life fun). They just follow up behind geek.culture innovations as best they can in a reactive mode. I don't think any other "net-setters" are looking over their shoulders either. Bitching about what the rest of the world is doing is pointless; that's no way to live your own life.
jaz
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Picture this: The Making of the Blair Witch Project
You've got the crew running around, making piles of sticks and sliming stuff, and a crew's following them around making a documentary on these relatively unknown film techniques. Shoot it more professionally, but still not big-budget (ie: not their first time making a documentary, but it's still a documentary). Then weird stuff starts going on -- the crew of the original movie actually does disappear. The rest of the movie follows the search parties who are trying to find these kids.
Kind of Scream 2 meets The Fugitive, but keep the standard Hollywood practices out so it can try and capture a fraction of what the original has. Part of the reason for suggesting this is that a documentary about The Blair Witch Project would be really cool to see, anyway -- lots of the reviews and interviews touch on some of the entertaining stuff the crew did.
So, any bids? :)
Come, read, watch Katz pillory the media while covering the big-media issues. Like Star Wars. And Littleton. And The Blair Witch Project. Such a media rebel... truly a revolutionary. He doesn't even waste his time by drawing attention to worthwhile subjects; instead, he draws our attention to the shows we've already been watching. Keep an eye on this rising star. A man who can sell you things you already own... he's going places. MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Can't say anymore, you already said it.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
As has been pointed out countless times, it's not very difficult to find your way out of a small woods when you have a major geographical feature -- like a stream, for God's sake -- to follow.
Even schoolchildren up north can navigate the woods by using the sun, the stars, and the light pollution at night from nearby towns and cities.
The prospect of adults getting lost for almost a week in the woods around residential communities, in this day and age, is patently ridiculous. It's just not scary. It's like a movie about big hairy monsters coming out of my closet and eating three adults in the middle of the night.
And all you can say is "haven't you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?" Okay, but suspension of laughter? Please...
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Katz is lame and so is BWP. How about suggestions for alternatives?
I suggest "Das Boot" for those interested in the real meaning of fear and realism in cinema.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
The first thing I thought of when I saw the intro into Katz's article is that there have always been low tech, low budget movies...
They're called B movies, and most of them suck.
The Blair Witch Project was unique, and done for a tiny budget, but doesn't mean that all movies should use the same techniques to make their movies cheap as well.
The movie got away with grainy, out-of focus shots from handheld cameras held by amateur camera operators because part of the premise was that it was done by film students as a documentary. Because of this the problems with the camerawork actually made the movie better and more realistic. Unfortunately this won't work in all other movies because in most movies the camera is supposed to be a window into the movie world, so grainy, out-of-focus shots interfere with the "gods-eye-view" effect. I'm afraid good cameras and good camera operators will have to remain part of making a good traditional movie.
The same goes for the lack of score, lack of special lighting, etc. All these things enhance the experience of most movies, but would take away from this one -- but only because it would make it seem like it wasn't a documentary. This doesn't mean that music and lighting are necessary otherwise, but nor does it mean that because TBWP got away without them that all other movies can too.
And finally, how is it that GPS enabled the actors to avoid having aides and techs??? GPS is a replacement for a map and compass, not for an aide or tech. GPS is about as relevant to the filmmaking process as is what the actors ate for lunch.
TBWP does prove that it doesn't take a big budget to make a great movie, but don't get carried away. Not all movies can get away with filming the way they did.
your thoughts are a little unclear to me (you first said you get tired of the same type of games, then you state that you'd rather go see a movie done in the traditional, over done way), but i happened to really enjoy the perspective that BWP was filmed. it helped isolate the kids, so you get the feeling they are actually lost in the woods.. not at all like you'd get, knowing that there is a huge production crew following them around
The real part that bugged me about the movie was that my girlfriend got a headache from the cameras jumping around. I loved it, though :)
As a side note, I saw Sixth Sense yesterday, and the people next to me were talking all the way through it, somewhere in the back there was a little baby that kept crying and getting smacked, a guy in front of me was crinkling some candy wrapper until his wife took it away... Man, that's one of the benefits of DVD -- you sit at home, the quality's just about the same, and you don't have a bunch of stupid-ass interruptions. (Unless ofcourse you're in a dorm room.(
-S
Artisan purchased the movie after seeing at sundance, they got $1 million on the spot (somewhat of a ripoff actualy, I wonder if there getting any royaltys...)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I don't know, unless you've got a kickass home theater, it might suck. small screen, less overwhelming. My sister saw an ASF file of the movie before she saw it in the theater, and it probably made it suck for her (she knew what was going to happen in the theater, and the ASF file looked like crap). But, VHS isn't that bad.
:)
I would recomend seeing it in a theater, Even thogh it isn't an FX epic, it would still look better. Plus it rackets up BWPs box office take. Vote with your dollars
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The entertainment industry knows that it can get guaranteed financial returns if it sticks to its 'calculated production decisions'. Even waterworld made money in the end. For every BWP or Clerks there must be a dozen fairly good indie flicks that won't make it off the ground, leaving their makers with a hefty bill to pay.
The rules are different for each category. An indie film should be made for the satisfaction of making something you want to see, or more likely to advance the careers and skills of those involved. A hollywood film is made to produce a return on an investment.
+++++
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
In fact Hollywood went ahead and made a big-budget remake/sequel of El Mariachi, with lots of big stars and impressive explosions. Can't wait to see the Hollywoodized BWP.
Well, I think your idea of what makes a good movie is awfully limiting. Also, the jerky cameras were not for faux-realism, it's how the actors actually worked the cameras. The whole point of the movie was that it was created without the direct intervention and control of the crew.
I think that by keeping your mind closed to different types of narrative you are losing out on some amazing art. One of my other favorite movies is Slacker, which had absolutely no plot but I was so engrossed in it that I watched it several times in a row.
It could also say that their sensibilities are not refined enough to appreciate it. Given that you seem to believe that "alot" is a word, perhaps meaning something akin to "a lot", I am inclined to believe that for you this is most likely to be the case.
Once again I really do have to wonder, why do people like you put so much effort into telling everyone how bad you think BWP is? It's almost as if you believe that by actively disliking it, you place yourself above those who do so you can look down upon them with disdain. You remind me of people with no jobs who sit around in coffee houses and complain about how Throbbing Gristle sold out.
If you didn't like the movie, fine. If you want to say so, fine. If you want to say so repeatedly, well, that's kind of weird, but OK, whatever. If you want to sit around and insult anyone who liked it, then maybe you should seriously look into getting a life or something.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
/. nobody would understand this. Since those bastards at OSU closed the cinema department I was forced into computer-geekdom and I see a lot of similarities.
Yes, these people were ill-prepared to do any serious camping or hiking. Yes, maybe they made stupid decisions and spent too much time bickering. Remember, these characters were film students, as in artists, as in people whose nature it is to bicker because they're used to being hyperfocused on their own work and fighting to get their vision across in the collaborative medium of film, and that behavior naturally extends into just about everything else. I used to be a film student, and I know.
Another thing about being a film student is that when you're working on a project it is really hard to think about anything else, like bringing enough food for your camping trip (though you'll definitely pack extra film). Their primary purpose for being in the woods at all was to shoot that documentary, not have a nice time camping. I've done projects in which I engaged in (in retrospect) really stupid, life-threatening behavior. Once I was driving on a busy freeway by the eyepiece of a Super-8 camera because I wanted to get some "in traffic" shots and didn't want to mess around with finding someone else to drive. Looking back, Gods, that was a really stupid thing to do, and I'm lucky I didn't have an accident, but when that hyperfocus mentality is going and the camera is rolling you just don't think about stuff like that.
You do this kind of stuff because you get so focused on making film that you really just don't think about anything else. You know, it amazes me that on a site like
Imagine you were in a marathon coding session, only instead of sitting at a desk all the time you were going on a camping trip. If you got into coding the way I do, you'd probably forget the toilet paper and get lost under the big EXIT sign too.
Also, I thought a really important aspect of the film that explained a lot of the behavior was that they kept filming it. Josh even said something about it to Heather. When you're behind the camera it really doesn't feel quite like reality, and you feel like you're somehow in control. Didn't anyone else catch that it was Heather who was filming the most, and Heather who was the most determined to press on when the others wanted to go back? And of course they kept filming in the house. They were out of their minds with fear and exhaustion, and filming is a psychological defence mechanism because it separates you from reality (in your mind only, as they found out).
But in spite of all of that, if you still think they were just a bunch of bickering idiots, surely you do not really believe that bickering idiots deserve to be terrorized and exhausted to the point of delirium, then brutally murdered. If you do, you're a sociopath and should be locked up. Or you're Jerry Pournelle, which is about the same thing.
I just saw the movie yesterday, and remembering it being mentioned on /. a week ago I decided to go back and read what other people thought of it. It was really interesting to see the wide range of opinions on the matter, and confims my belief that no truly great art (or even good art) is loved (or even liked) by everyone.
It seems to me (and I apologize in advance for how arrogant this is going to sound) that those who didn't like The Blair Witch Project are saying more about themselves than they're saying about the movie. I guess you could say the same for those who praised it, but it really hit me when reading the negative comments. I kept thinking, when reading the comments of the people who strongly disliked it, that if we were to meet we would probably have absolutely nothing to talk about and that we would probably dislike eachother very intently.
It's very strange, for me to think something like that. I try to make it a practice to not judge people by their likes and dislikes in music, film, literature, etc., but for some reason I can't avoid it here. I really wonder why that is.
I find your opinion to be presumptuous, pretentious, and without merit. The fact that you did not like the movie does not make it a "bad movie". For example, I thoroughly despise improvisational jazz and would rather listen to fingers against a chalkboard but I can definitely respect it as a sophisticated form of music and refrain from insulting the perfectly intelligent people who do enjoy it.
It is really interesting how the people who did not like this movie are going out of their way to say so, to the point of participating in a discussion forum and revisiting their comments enough to reply in turn to those who've replied to them. When I see a movie I dislike, and then run across a discussion of it on the internet, I generally just find something else I'm interested in. Why are you so obsessed with this "bad movie" that you'd spend so much time on it?
This isn't meant as flame, it's just really strange! Why do you insist that the movie was bad and that everyone should "just face it"? Why do you care? What do you stand to lose if everyone else likes it? Are you afraid of what that says about you?
I mean it, I really don't understand. I'd be truly grateful for any insight you could provide.
Zentropa?! You've got to be kidding. That movie was nothing like Pi, except that it was in black and white.
And Solaris? I've admin'd many Sun boxen in my life but I have no idea what that has to do with Pi or TBWP.
*grumbles*
BWP was very amusing in the beginning, but it really wore on my nerves when people kept laughing at the gradual breakdown of the characters and the tradgedy of their very obvious heightening insanity. It seems like everytime a certain word beginning with f was uttered there would be a giggle somewhere in the audience. Insistent laughter actually degraded my enjoyment of the movie. Bah. But naturally people have to laugh at everything they think is supposed to be a joke.
Having a low budget does tend to make a better movie in some ways however, because it forces creativity. Well. Assuming the people involved are talented. Otherwise you get a B horror movie.
Probably all the people out there who don't really have Net access, and even some that do. One friend of mine was trying to tell me how the backstory was true, because she read it somwhere on the net. =)
Obviously noone's going to believe that the film students really died, but one would be surprised by how many people will believe that the Blair Witch is a real myth.
How can you make a sequel period?
There's no plot continuation to make.
I suppose you could send more film students out, but it would be the same thing and thus not as effective.
There's just nothing to build on... except showing more of the Blair Witch herself.. which defies the point of the movie.
Lo-Tech in the horror genre is excellent. I don't think anyone's scared of big scary monsters at this point. Or blood. Or gore. Or any of that. Repulsed? Yes. Scared? No. Our imaginations have the greastest capacity to frighten us. More than anything else in the universe. By leaving the exact nature of the beast unsaid in Blair Witch it allows our own mind to come up with something far worse than what any CGI team could produce.
While this is true a low budget often causes higher creativity in how things are done. Star Wars for example. If Lucas had a huge budget would it have turned out more like Ep.1? *shrug*
Oh I wish that was the case where I saw it.
*grin*
Unfortunately only one theatre in my *state* carried the movie and it was selling out all week so there were a lot of people there who didn't know really what to expect from the movie (other than what they've come to expect from the horror genre). In fact one person immediately behind myself and my friend said after the movie ended, "That's what we've been wating for? That's stupid."
Grrrr... I wanted to slap them silly.
My theatre, unfortunately, had a large number of semi-rowdy teenagers, who annoyed the h*ck out of me by shouting out how lame they thought the movie had been while I was sitting, quietly stunned, through the credits.
The Blair Witch Project, was, however, the only movie I can remember which has inspired me to strike up a long, in-depth conversation with the stranger in the seat next to me. I can't say it was a great movie, but it left me with a lot to talk and think about.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. -- G.K. Chesterton
If I see another Deep Blue Sea ad, I will kill someone.
"In the least intelligent movie producer's office in the world... A movie producer takes a film with no plot and bad acting, and adds digital effects. As a side effect, the movie sucks."
There was no Highlander 2... And yes, I'm in a state of denial.
Every few years, an independant filmmaker comes up with a brilliant idea such as this, it acheives unforseen success, and tongues start to wag about the revolution in moviemaking. The filmmakers get a bigger budget the next time, expectations rise, and the success is hardly ever repeated. In a market that's always demanding the next film, it's extremely rare that an artist can duplicate the inspiration that made the first one work.
More power to the Blair Witch producers; it's great to see imaginative filmmaking receive recognition. But it's not going to turn the film business upside down.
actually; if i recall correctly myself; Kevin Smith was on one of the talk shows a few days ago saying that dogma was going to be out within the next 2 months; and when he went back talking abou this older movies; he said he'd spent 20k on clerks, not 2k...but also said that dogma was going to be reminiscent of clerks due to the bigger budget'd "mallrats" sorta flopping... ... about an hour after i left the theatre.)
(BTW:LOVED BWP -- scared the hell out of me
BTW, I think there should be some spoiler warnings above this feature. Katz tells us what is real and what is fake, which is detrimental to the effect if one isn't sure.
Joe Rabinoff
Is it possible that BWP represents
the future of interactive gaming more than the future of non-interactive entertainment?
Yes and No. I hope to see greater competition for my entertainment dollar. Comp. games, movies, TV, cable, all competing for that buck. It did seem more like an interactive game, and I certainly felt the characters were MUCH more realistic than those in any other movie I've seen in a while. How long has it been since a horror movie didn't use stuff jumping out of the shadows to scare you?
As to the marketing of it (Aside from the competitive aspect (there is some
sort of huge international LARP league), the best games are recorded and marketed.) I'm all for it. The BWP might have had a $50,000 production budget, but the marketing has to be in the millions.
Anyway, I thought BWP was entertaining, scary and it was quite nice to see something original (to me)
+&x
The discussion with the Plumber(?) about the moral implications of destroying a full functional Death Star vs one under construction (ie. SW vs RotJ). Great stuff, that movie is so full of one-liners. Great viewing for anyone who hasn't seen it.
+&x
I have coughed up scarier things than that movie.
Just goes to show that writing, premise, and performance have more to do with success than effects, budget, and known actors. Look at the first Star Wars, sure it was high tech at the time but it also had a new premise that had not been explored to that level previously. Same as BWP, a novel idea on how to give me the chills. Unfortunately we'll now have to live with the excesses of it being successful. Namely a sequel and clones that aren't as good as the original. :(
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I loved the idea it was supposed to be 'real' just because I knew this would be much more scary to me than the typical slasher movie. After the movie I checked out the MD map to see where the town is. Turns out I'd driven through there once without noticing. However, the map also made it clear that you couldn't walk more than 2.5 miles in any one direction without hitting a major road. It should have been set in a more rural area IMO.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I thought the lies in the Sci-Fi show were pretty transparent--especially the bit about where and how the file footage was found. I had not heard anything about the movie when we watched it, and my wife only knew that some movie was coming out about these film students that were missing after shooting a documentary. So, The Curse of the Blair Witch had us going for a while, despite the interviews with the "locals" that seemed too scripted, the "newsreel" footage that looked like regular film churned through some kind of "old movie" filter, and the "local TV" news clips that just looked staged. The cheesy 70s In Search Of-style TV show clips were effective, as were the "woodcuts" and maps that were shown.
Unfortunately, they went too far and made the claim that the film footage and equipment were found by archaeologists in "undisturbed soils" underneath the remains of a colonial-era structure. As an ex-archaeologist myself, I know that there is no way this could happen, short of some supernatural intervention. That told me immediately that it was all a hoax. Had they said the stuff was found scattered in the woods somewhere, I would at least have simply doubted the story, but as it was, I knew it was not true. (Unless I see some sort of supernatural phenomenon in front of my own eyes, I refuse to believe it--and I have yet to see any, drug-induced hallucinations not withstanding.)
It was a very good device for garnering interest in seeing the movie, though. I knew it wasn't true, but it looked like it would be a good time--and it was!
[ insert your own witty .sig here ]
How about:
:-)
- Was it really the Blair Witch, or some effective psycho loon?
- Was it really Josh yelling from the basement? Or was it a recording? Or was it the Blair Witch mimicing his voice?
- How did Mike end up in the corner? Physically forced? Possesed? Already dead and propped up?
- Did they really die? No bodies were found.
- What were those children's voices? What were the other sounds? What caused the tent to flap like that?
- How did they end up going in a circle? Maybe it's like those magic forests in Zelda.
- What was that slime?
ad infinitum....
No questions, huh? Maybe you were looking at it differently than I but I really enjoyed it and am waiting for the DVD.
Maybe you should go rent Navy Seals
It also leaves a lot for nitpicky people to debate endlessly and pointlessly about.
Change "nitpicky" with "imaginative" and "debate endlessly and pointlessly" with "hypothesise" and you might understand that people view things differently.
Lemme guess, you hated Lost Highway. I loved it. I laughed once during "the Waterboy." And that was because of Rob Schneider (sp?), I found the rest pointless, inane and stupid. I hate intelligence-insulting laugh-tracks, except when used for actual wit (such as the "friends" episode of Duckman).
Am I right? Well, a lot of people loved the waterboy. Maybe they were seeing something in it I wasn't.
So I'm not exactly right. I'm not exactly wrong either. People are individuals, and I'd rather it stayed that way.
I thought this was one of the lamest movies I've ever seen. Was very close to walking out, I was so bored. I saw it in a packed theatre, and I'd have to say from the crowd reaction afterwards that it seems everyone thought the same.
Plus the characters were totally annoying and unengaging.
Two thumbs down.
Radical new departure for Hollywood?
:), so I know why BWP sucked - because it's a god awful movie!!
Hmm.. but it wasn't made in Hollywood, and Cinema Verite has existed as a genre for ages.. What is new about BWP is that it's an indie film that made it out of the arts cinemas without having won any awards, as usually needs to happen (e.g. "Shine").
I do go to the alternate theatres
If you want a good recent no-tech "arts movie", try John Sayles' "Limbo", or if you don't mind subtitles, "Autumn Tale" (french).
November 12 (unless they change it again). I can't wait-- I read the script that was floating around a while back, and this one looks like it's going to be at least as good as Clerks...
--
Speaking of Pi... was anyone else really messed up for a few days after seeing that, or was it just me? =^)
--
I though the part about the metric system was good.
So that's why there was stuff in the beginning that allows you to sort of get to know them better and know that they're real people and not acting when they're cracking jokes and occasionaly getting their speech jumbled etc.
~Kevin
:)
Dude! Right *on*! When I *PAY* to see a movie there sure as hell better be some wicked FX. Otherwise how would I know that I'm watching a movie? I can't handle all that talking bullshit, that's like, why I only talk to people on the internet now anways. Like fer sure.
-nme! is a bastard.
Is this your first exposure to independent cinema? Your points about technology, while valid, are old hat. People have been making very good movies cheaply for a long time. Seems to me that the real story is the marketing (which I missed out on, how did that happen?). -nme!
The thing about PI was:
It was completely hackneyed and cliched, and yet marketed and hyped as 'totally groundbreaking'. Have you ever seen ?:
a) Eraserhead (or Blue Velevet, or other Lynch)
b) Begotten
c) The Kingdom (Or Zentropa)
d) Stalker (or Solaris)
&c.
Problem being that everything 'groundbreaking' in PI had been done before, and better. I've found that those people who were so impressed by PI were people who were used to Hollywood movies.
That's what *I* think was wrong with PI. Don't go all fanboy on me now.
-nme!
Hey, Halloween was the highest grossing "independent" film up until TBWP. That didn't stop Waterworld and Titanic from being made.
-nme!
PS Good to know I wasn't the only one seriously dissapointed by PI
Bleh.
Yeah dude, people should be watching real movies like 'The Haunting', where staircases, like, eat people and shit. Or like, 'Scream' with all those hot chicks. Way fuckin' more realistic, Dude!!!!
-nme!
It's a Myth about a myth. Or a "Meta-Myth", if you will. Keep in mind that none of these 'Myths" meet the classical definition of 'Myth'.
-nme!
What Hermit? The one that was given the chair in the late '40s? Or the one that you just invented? Either way, I like, totally freaked here, man.
-nme!
Terror? I thought it was a funny movie. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved MBD, but I personally thought of it as a funnier 'Natural Born Killers'-type 'social commentary'. Well, It just sows to go ya.
-nme!
If you knew *anything* about it, other than something you had heard from a friend of a friend, you would not have made that statemnt. At this point, I'm just going to call you a troglodyte and get on with it.
-nme!
Last I checked I can't drive anywhere or watch
a TV show without seeing a BWP ad. So they're
not relying on the Internet... there's a huge
non-Internet ad campaign. As far as Internet
ad campaigns go, check out www.starwars.com as
an example. Just about every movie released in
the recent past has had a significant web
presence.
Bolie IV
Highlander 2
K Smith managed the same with Clerks in terms of originality and enthusiasm in a film. Mall rats was a little to 'tied' and Chasing Amy was great but a little over edited. Now Dogma soon arrives and he will be using CGI. From Clerks to Dogma I wonder how well the story will be presented.
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
All of the movies that keep geting put on screen in place of those that should be there are much like the over existence of the gaming world. Yes I play the games but I do get tired of them quite quilckly. For instance look at Wolfenstein to Doom to Quake to Unreal to Half Life to Quake 3, all virtually the same game with related plot and better graphics. Personally I would rather see Sixth sence as it should be a better film without having to take dramamine to watch it.
Is this what the movie seen is all about, Who can make a better clone of already done that type of cinematics? hell lets redo Blade Runner and give it a different name.
Ya like i'd believe me if I was you!
OTOH, like most movies, there wouldn't be any plot/conflict/action if the main characters weren't so dumb
You can filter out the Jon Katz articles if you have an account. Check out the "Preferences" page. That way you can avoid his Non-news for Non-nerds and his Stuff that Doesn't Matter. As for me, I'll filter it out the old fashioned way -- by keeping it available but using my finely-tuned bullshit detectors to determine what I should spend a lot of time on reading.
-- $SIGNATURE
There is a minimalist cinema dogma in Europe called Dogme 95 started by Lars Von Triers. The dogme disallows almost every Hollywood trick. The result so far is two movies, The Celebration, and the Idiots. The Celebration is devastating.
Check out
http://www.dogme95.dk/
The American film industry is not what needs to be
saved. Studios make films based on their
expectation of profit. To that end, when they
deliver a movie, it's usually what they think the
public wants, and in fact they are often right.
As much as we like to bag on Hollywood, the fact
of the matter is that by and large the main stream
movie going audiences of the U.S. wants what
Hollywood gives them. They want the special-
effects laden action adventures. They want the
Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks romantic comedies. etc...
From reading slashdot, it's pretty evident that
most readers here are critical of the product
Hollywood gives them. To interperate that
sentiment as representative of the general public
would be a mistake. By and large the readership
of slahdot is college educated (or has some sort
of education beyond high schoo), and involved
with the technology industry in some way. This
instantly puts the majority of the readership here
a step up the ladder when it comes to viewing
films with some degree of intelligence and
appreciation for the various crafts involved.
That's not to say everyone here loves indie
films by default, either.
In all of the large cities I've been in, there
have been many art house theaters. On any given
week I have my choice of just about any indie
film in circulation, and then some. Outside of
large cities, indie theaters and art house
theaters are far and few between. Why? Because
they aren't commercially viable, because not enough people will go watch foreign
or small-studio films.
My point is this:
Where people have had a choice, I've
noticed that consitently, people still choose
to go to the Hollywood cineplexes by and large.
That's why I don't see this situation as being
bogged down in a "chicken or the egg" situation,
where one can argue that until Hollywood changes,
Hollywood's audiences won't change.
Before Hollywood can give moviegoers something
better, American audiences need to increase
their awareness of what film is, and what can
constitute a good movie. However, to a certain
degree that implies people start thinking for
themselves and watching films with more effort.
In my estimation, the odds of that happening
are slim. Which is sad because films like
"Six String Samura," BWP, and others really
deserve more attention and appreciation.
-Rob
"The premise of Matrix was simply laughable"
I donno... I kinda liked it. At least it was a little more towards the 'strange science fiction' type stuff. Granted it didn't make sense, but it coulda been a helluva lot less original and more 'hollywood'.
Have you read any of the comics/short stories that happen in the 'same world' as the Matrix... very interesting. I suggest you follow some of the links from www.whatisthematrix.com
As for Clerks, which is also discussed in this thread, I found it very enjoyable, but I thought the female acting was a little weak (or maybe it was just the script when it came to the women *shrug*) I still liked it anyway.
I should make a point of watching more indy movies. If I ever get around to it I should try making my own too.
...when it was called The Last Broadcast.
An independent film that premiered in Portland, and other places, it was presented as a mockumentary just like BWP. LB was about three independent filmmakers who had a weekly show about the occult on public tv. They decide to do a show on location in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, in search of the Jersey Devil. As in BWP, they disappear, but their footage is found. The footage is played back to finish out the plot. They even had a website to flesh out the pieces of the "documentary", which was filmed entirely on handhelds. I won't give away the ending except to say it was interesting.
The movie reviewer at Salon (I forget her name) says that BWP was developed at about the same time as LB, and that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the BWP guys thieved the idea from LB, but I don't believe her.
My disturbed friend says there's a movie even before that called the Cannibal Holocaust (three NYU film students, Amazon tribe, no one makes it out, footage found after the fact) that uses the same plot device. It's not new to BWP, and that should be mentioned.
I can generally stand Katz articles, but in this case, I've read too many other reviews of BWP that offer the same breathless hype (and also forget to mention the previous films that formed the prototype of BWP). To me, reviews like this prove that their authors are too focused on the mainstream, Blockbuster/Cineplex marketing hype to have any kind of street cred.
What makes a movie reviewer a movie reviewer is usually that they've seen thousands more films than you or me; I'd be willing to bet that Jon Katz could not pass that test, and until he can, his opinion of a movie isn't any more worthy of notoriety than is yours or mine.
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Its Nov 12, just announced recently, check out
www.newsaskew.com for all Kevin Smith related film news
Did you actually read the post you're responding to, or did you just skim the numbered questions? I wasn't *asking* these questions, I was summarizing what questions were being discussed most commonly.
So thanks for your answers, but let me spell out the "nearly-obvious" point of my post: The movie isn't really a "thinking" movie just cause you have to make up for yourself what happened. And enjoyment of the movie is mostly based on how much you enjoyed making it up for yourself. My opinion of that: Makes for a decent and somewhat entertaining movie, but spare me the "it was soooo scary" and "what a fabulous movie cause there was no blood" comments. It was Ok. Nothing more.
And, btw, none of your answers to the questions are obvious, or even correct, IMO. The hermit? What hermit? He's been dead. Saying Heather died at the end doesn't exactly answer the question, "what happened"? It's about as insightful as saying the camera fell to the ground. Ditto saying Mike stood in the corner to foreshadow Heather's death.
It appears my post left too much for the imagination.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Moderate this up PLEASE! People need to get a grip about this movie.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
>> Though really you don't lose much from keeping your eyes closed through the entire movie
The fact that this is true seems to indicate a problem. Perhaps radio would have been a better medium for BWP.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
The BWP makes people think. That's what we're all saying. But I ask, what does it make us think about? Some common questions people are "thinking" about:
1. Was it fiction or non-fiction?
2. What happened in the end?
3. What was in the bundle of sticks?
4. What were the noises at night?
5. What were the piles of rocks?
6. Why didn't the students do (insert intelligent action here).
7. Who or what killed them?
It seems to me, the movie, and people's enjoyment of it, are more a product of puzzle-piecing than anything else. Watching the movie, there was no way to know what was going on at any given time. They screamed a lot. I never saw anything to hint at what they were screaming at. There was a background story, and there was a creepy woods. But nothing really there. People who enjoyed the movie and who enjoyed thinking about it later, are probably people who like to piece puzzles together. This is fine. Makes for a pretty good movie, and entertainment.
But it doesn't make for a scary movie (not even a little - if you were scared by BWP, then you are they type to be scared by sitting in the dark and "imagining" stuff. I love the whole argument that if you weren't scared it means you have no imagination. I don't think people even understand what they are saying - it's just a line they're passing on. If you can scare yourself silly sitting in the dark, and you _like_ doing that, then BWP was probably a scary movie for.)
And, it doesn't make it a great movie. Just decent.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
....it would have been a zillion times better.
Think about it. They sent three actors into the woods and didn't tell them what was going to happen. They're given base instructions as they go, and the filmmakers do wacky shit at night around their tent. Cool boy-scout prank, you might say.
Now imagine Hollywood does this, and add three 0's onto the budget (30 million for the math impaired). Those three actors they sent out aren't coming back sane. Not after what Hollywood could put them through. Now that would be entertaining!
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
I'm not a Katz-basher, I usually think he has something creative and insightful to say, but unfortunately, it seems this essay isn't a party to that pattern.
Jon, this essay didn't tell me ANYTHING I didn't already know! I know the movie was made for the "cost of a fully-loaded Taurus". I know that the movie is supposedly the revitalization of a genre. I know they used their website to extensively hype the film -- God knows I visited it about 5 times before seeing the film. I also know that the psychological and improvisational nature of the film are its major strengths. I also know this isn't the way Hollywood usually works.
And I swear to God if I hear/read the premise of the film one more time I'm going to go postal.
I could go on, but I think I'll stop here.
Jon, if your essay was a post, it'd be moderated down for "redundant." Next time, don't forget to add the content, please?
The principle of aggrandizement is the fundamental law of every government. - Frederick the Great
Westworld with Yul Brunner, I think.
BWP is not entirely original: if you want to see what seems to be an inspiration for BWP (though it can be coincidental), hunt down Man Bites Dog, original title C'est arrivé près de chez vous, from Belgium. MBD follows a trio of film students wanting to make a documentary on a serial killer living in their town, so they follow him around, slowly being drawn into his madness and lust for blood.
In a way, Man Bites Dog is more unsettling than The Blair Witch Project, because there is no supernatural terror, only the fascinated terror of man's own madness. And if people walked out of BWP crying, I can tell you that most people walk out of MBD way before the end, trying to shake a spell of terror from their minds.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I personally quite enjoyed BWP, and it did spook me, but what I found brilliant and enjoyable is that somewhat, this movie has a broad appeal while staying a student movie made on a dirt-poor budget. It also tries very honestly to reinvent the genre, and for that it should be commended.
As for being scary, that's just the Hollywood crowd that's reacting, and I don't think that matters a lot. I also heard of people calling The Haunting scary, Virus an enjoyable flick and Bruce Willis an actor.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Fiction. They never claimed it was non-fiction.
2. What happened in the end?
Heather died after seeing Mike standing in the corner. As the villagers said, the hermit who worked for the Blair Witch's ghost would stand one child in the corner, so he could not see the other being killed. Thus, Mike was stood in the corner, foreshadowing Heather's quick demise.
3. What was in the bundle of sticks?
Fingers or body parts, just something to freak Heather out. My favourite theory is that it was his tongue, and that when the guy screamed, it was actually the witch putting her own tongue in his mouth... Heh heh.
4. What were the noises at night?
The hermit, freaking them out.
5. What were the piles of rocks?
Nothing, but they symbolised the graves of the children (there were seven children victims, and seven piles of rock.) The three piles of rock around the tent were a threat to our heroes.
6. Why didn't the students do (insert intelligent action here).
Because they were normal, freaked out people, and not some tightly-scripted Hollywood scream queens. You know, you're bound to act irrational when you're lost, hungry, afraid, cold and out of cigarettes.
7. Who or what killed them?
The hermit.
These sorts of questions don't make for an "intelligent" movie. Unless you consider that an intelligent movie is one that doesn't spell everything out to you like you were a 6 year-old recovering from lobotomy.
And it's sad that people think a movie is sub-par because they feel that if they couldn't figure out the nearly-obvious, then the movie was dumb.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You've got to be kidding me. "Grow up in Jersey for a while?"
Very insightful. Thanks.
Um, that's what it's like growing up just about anywhere.
I mean, everyone thinks their town is the most boring place in the world. "There's nothing to do, man. There's nothing here." Or: "I'm getting out one day. I'm gonna blow this joint."
My point is that while that sort of sense is undeniably true -- I felt it myself growing up in small-town Illinois ("Man, there's nothing to *do* here...it's just flatland and cornfields...") -- Kevin Smith doesn't do much to make it any less cliched.
Kevin Smith? Bwahahahahahahaha.
Kevin Smith makes movies full of Generation-X angst. Phoney angst, I might add.
He's like Tarantino: the movie is about hipness and if you don't get it -- you lack it (hipness, that is) -- and, ha ha, the joke's on you.
Chasing Amy was a joke. Plot-wise, yeah, it was interesting: but story-wise? The characters were dudes, plain and simple. That, and the fact that any film with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are films to be feared.
But I know Smith has a huge following. A cult following. Like Tarantino. But when you cash in your hipness what's left? I mean, where's Tarantino now? (I'm serious: what's the next Tarantino project? Does anyone know?)
BWP had a great plot and even better story. The characters, yeah, were a little whiny -- all the nagging, the crying, the "you said this, no *you* said that" stuff -- but they worked. Ditto for PI -- a film which I thought was a bit indulgent but visually pretty damn cool.
Another great indie I just caught last night: "Niagra, Niagra." Bleak as hell, but interesting: real glimpse into what seemed like real lives. BWP was the same thing: a good glimpse. But Kevin Smith?
Bwahahahahahahahahah. A glimpse into one writer's half-hearted attempt at narcissism.
... go read Misantropic Bitch's take on TBWP. I just hope that the movie makes it's way to Europe so I can make up my own mind.
-- Martin
Great movie, just saw it last night. Refreshing to see a truly scary movie with no cheesy ending.
I haven't seen BWP yet mostly for one reason: I get motion sickness, and being filmed on a handy cam I have been warned away from this movie. I have also heard of a lot of people leaving the theater with the same problem. It would be interesting to find out the number of ticket refunds for that reason.
Also on the indy side of things, what about Clerks? That wonderfully quirkly little flick that was originally done on someone's credit card (read $5000 or less) and that included buying the camera equipment. Then Sony got their hands on it, slapped a soundtrack on it, and made tons of cash off it. Personally I loved the movie and without that kind of distribution I wouldn't have seen it, or bought it.
The hi tech movies being compared to BWP may have expensive effects but are likely lacking in something else: an intelligent, sensible script. Put BWP and Matrix out at the same time and see who wins. My vote is on Matrix.
Ask about the alternatives. There's always alternatives.
Yeah, but what the original reply-ee said still holds true. You're not going to discover the answers to these questions by watching the movie again and noting every detail. These things were left ambiguous intentionally, sort of a "Choose-your-own-adventure" style of horror. It also leaves a lot for nitpicky people to debate endlessly and pointlessly about.
Wah!
It's got a happy ending though, so don't worry about bringing your 'sensitive' friends. By the way, you should know one of the plot secrets. Bruce Willis is *BLAM* ... ... ...
Wah!
Yea... I thought it was a pretty good movie, but not nearly as good as I had hoped. Too many holes. I entertained the thought that perhaps the witch was screwing up their direction so they would stay lost, but they didn't even try to follow the stream! Remember them talking about trying east since south didn't work? What a bunch of idiots. They should have just left the stream out of the movie if they were going to do that. Also, did anyone notice the electric wire and Light switch in the part of the wall that was knocked out? How old is this house supposed to be? It was a typical light switch, not even one of those old time push button ones! Hmmm, does the blair witch have solar power? -capt.
When I returned for my second viewing, the camera stumbles and shakes, and the cursing and the lack of a surprising ending did annoy me, and I left quite disappointed. But I liked it enough the first time to want to see it again.
The first time I saw this, I saw it alone, and it did scare me. I felt a close connection to the chaacters, and I liked them. When you see three characters ONLY through the entire movie, you have the chance to develop them to a much greater extent.
Really, did you feel more when Josh disappeared or when Freddy Krueger's 15th movie victim is sripped and slashed (obvious horny male comments excluded)?
This movie is more like a psycological case study of people when they get lost and start losing it.
This is true. This is WHY it was frightening. I'm not scared by the high-tech boogiemen that haunt Elm Street, Crystal Lake, or other places in other super-slasher films. They're obviously phoney. TBWP is god because it's believable. Granted, I don't believe in vampires, hocus-smokus, the wicked witch of the west, or any of that BS, but I believe that there are homicidal loonies who are insaine/stupid enough to believe that they are a witch or a vampire, to the degree that they collect children for sacrifice, mutilate people and animals, and leave bloody entrails as "gifts" to nonbelievers.
You didn't have to believe in witchcraft to get into this movie. You only had to believe that (a)there was someone who was enough of a loner to take refuge in that house and those woods, however temporarily, who would have used violence to ward off trespassers and (b) there was someone in the woods (human, wierdo would have worked as well as wicked witch) who really didn't want you there.
If this kind of stuff happened to me on a camping trip, it would have scared the fool out of me. Imagine being alone in the woods, without any way to call home, lost, tired, and hungry, with some sicko freak trying to mess with your head. Now imagine one in your party disappearing. Now imagine hearing that person's moans and screams from some ambiguous direction.
I can see this movie being viewed in some crowds as a psychological study. It plays on natural fears: darkness, solitude, persecution, things that jump out from shadows in the night...
Obviously, you have never been lost in the woods before. Even with a compass and maps (I don't know what they used in the movie, I haven't seen it) it is very easy to get confused. Why? Because it all looks the same after a while and you end up going around in circles.
Jeez, haven't you ever heard of suspension of disbelief? You must not ever have much fun at the movies. . .
The posts I'm reading here are mostly lambasting Katz for pulling a Katz, which is reasonable and endorsed by yours truly. On the other hand, I think he may be right in the short term, where "short" is defined as "next years' blockbuster season".
TBWP certainly did not reinvent the genre, and it pulled no stunts that aren't at least as old as the spooky campfire horror-story, but it did manage to accomplish something rarely (dare I say never) seen on the indie landscape: it pulled millions of plaid-wearing college kids into independent theaters. Without question there have been fiscally successful independent films shot in black and white with a wobbly lens, but none that so clearly appeal to the demographic hollywood desperately wants to please.
My prediction is that we will be seeing quite a few cinema verité productions from large studios next summer. The majority of them will be wretched and highly regrettable, a few will be quite good. But after the box offices close and the season rolls back to winter, the market for this sort of "novelty" will have dwindled.
I'm sure we've all noticed that the major studios attempt to dilute each other by producing movies with similar themes. E.g Armageddon/Deep Impact, Deep Blue Sea/Lake Placid, etc. This will be a similar phenomenon. But, contrary to what Katz apparently believes, it will enjoy only a brief season of fruitfullness before the Powers That Be decide we are no longer sufficiently enthusiastic.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
In this case, it is a damn good movie, though.
(A little overhyped, but, well, that's to be expected.)
Jon Katz's essay up there is just another example of what I consider the very worst of the press. This burning desire to turn absolutely everything into an "important event". It is as if every member of the media had dreams of catching the important "turning point" in history. And so they report every goddamn minor cultural burp as if it was the start of the industrial revolution.
This may kill this movie for some people because while the story is good, the acting great and the directing impressive, this is not the second coming of Hitchcock that some of those more interested in the "story" then what is really happening seem to want to make it.
This crap is why I no longer read "news" magazines or the newspaper. I'd rather just read it off the wire where I don't get distracted by people trying to tell me what it all means when I'm just trying to find out what happened.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't an anti-Katz flame. He has written some interesting, thought provoking stuff. I just he didn't succumb to the old media disease of trying to find deep meaning out of every little thing.
This movie isn't a precursor of the fall of Hollywood. It is a couple of guys with an idea and some credit cards trying to break into Hollywood. Hopefully they won't make the kind of crap Romero did. Given this movie, I am optimistic. But you can bet that their next movie will have a budget more like The Haunting.
The cake is a pie
It's not just Katz. It is the media in general. They seem to teach it at journalism school. For all Katz's "new media" pretensions, most of his stuff would fit right in at "Time" or "Newsweek".
The cake is a pie
The Sundance Film Festival, not the Internet, made the movie.
The cake is a pie
Very few people actually attend the Sundance festival, and many films there are well received by the critics but go nowhere.
It was the Internet that built the buzz.
Whether you love it or hate it, BWP does mark an important turning point. Not because of the low budget (that's been done before), but because this is the first movie that owes its (massive financial) success to the Internet.
Piles of money certainly get Hollywood's attention... it might not affect the way movies are made, but it will have a big impact on how they are marketed and promoted. The Internet will get a bigger chunk of movie advertising budgets.
That'll be a good thing overall... lots of small sites could use a cash infusion to stay afloat. Better still, movie advertising is mostly "impression-based advertising"... you're not trying to get people to buy anything on the spot, you're just trying to get their attention, build buzz, and grab a piece of their mindshare. Per-impression advertising is much better for websites than per-click or per-sale ads, which create a conflict of interest... you don't get any revenue unless you get people to leave your site, destroying the incentive to create rich content.
For anyone old enough to remember a time before MTV, music videos were just a novelty in the early 80s until stars were "made" by MTV and the music industry caught on to their importance. That was a turning point, and so is this.
Amazon.com is heavily promoting The Last Broadcast
Similar concept to Blair Witch (low-budget, eerie things happen in a dark forest), but this one was filmed entirely with digital cameras for a grand total of $900!
Blair Witch at $65,000 might be called a "low-budget" film, but that's still a ton of money. But if you can make a film digitally for less than $1000, then we're on the brink of something big... the greatest explosion of creativity since the invention of the printing press.
Don't let it stop you from seeing the movie.
I have bad motion sickness, I've thrown up on planes and buses when everyone else was fine, but was perfectly OK with this movie.
Just sit at the back of the theater, preferably in a cinema that doesn't have an overly large screen.
Katz wants more films shot on Radio Shack camcorders? more films starring people like Heather Donahue? More movies that EXPECT you to visit the website beforehand for the vital information to fill in the holes in the plot?
I've already posted my comments on the movie itself, but I feel the need to post on Katz's article.
The camcoders were horrible. I think, yes, movies can use footage shot by the actors themselves for great effect, but not the entire movie! For a higher budget hidden cameras could be installed in the forest to film them from above as they passed by.. possibly from the viewpoint of whoever was after them for great effect. Even if they couldn't do that, for god's sake they could have gotten a steadycam.
Heather Donahue was another annoyance. Not only did she have a grating scream and nagging voice the whole movie, she had a permanent sour look even when she was smiling at the beginning of the movie! I know nobody looks good after days in the woods, but they could have gotten someone who looked better than that. Everyone talks about her acting skills as well, but all she did was overreact to everything. They weren't really scared when they were lost, or when they came around to that same place again, because they were going to where they were supposed to. Those reactions were about as 'genuine' as any other movie.
I'm not the kind of person who will see a film because it is an "indie" film or because it had either a very large or a very small budget. I judge all films equally, and the BWP wasn't the great film everyone thinks it was. Too high a budget can be bad, but too low of a budget can be equally devastating.
The video cameras would have been dumped early, if only to lessen the weight to make moving easier. Water and food would be the only things in my pack (unless I was carrying the tent).
This shows that you aren't thinking very clearly as it is. What use would you have for a tent? It's a paper thin piece of plastic. It's no protection against anything you are worried about, it only prevents you from seeing your surroundings. I'd have tossed the tent, the big camera, my clothes (Except for what I was wearing), and the sound crap first. And kept the little camera so that once I got the hell out of there I'd have some proof that those woods needed to be carpet bombed into dust.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
No kidding! I spent ALL DAY Saturday trying to tell one of my Girlfriends brothers friends (Heh, what a line) that the myth was made up by the film makers. I FINALLY got him convinced!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
> When it comes to art, the average consumer doesn't know what he or she wants"
/he/ liked painting was ultimately a more enriching cultural offering.
... because often I feel thats what seperates the artists from the non artists. It's not the ability to draw well, to hit the keys quickly or to know the appropriate artistic techniques (though obviously these skills are required during the process). It's the ability to think outside the box - to come up with something no one's seen/heard/thought of before, and package it appealingly.
/are/ heavily influenced by their limited choices available for consumption. Perhaps you are right, and that public demand would be far more varied if their cultural intake was more varied. But I still maintain that artists are more in it to do things no one's done before - not repackage other things with their own style. And that the results of such an approach are far more interesting on the whole, anyhow.
/you/. Seeing blockbusters these days makes me feel like I've been insulted personally - it'd be easier to swallow if I knew if the artists involved were only after their own artistic vision.
I get in trouble alot when I say stuff like this. Obviously, its not a universal truth or anything, but I think many people forget that movies, just like paintings, are works of art. You could have found thousands of people who would have liked to hang paintings of flowers up on their walls, but imagine if they all asked Dali to do it - sure, people might have enjoyed his flowers, but what
I was alluding a little more to the idea that if I strolled up and asked people what movie they think should be made, I'll bet a sizable chunk would request a movie based on a story they already knew, or characters familiar to them; like the movie equivilent of a cover band. I think the far more interesting movies come from artists with their own visions and their own insights.
As a musician, it's my job to push the art forward. People say my music doesn't sound enough like
I respect that the demands of the people
Even if such a project fails, at least it doesn't take you down with it, since it wasn't specifically made for
SirSlud
"Old man yells at systemd"
The ironic thing is that the entertainment industry thinks entertainment is a thing you 'produce' through 'calculated production decisions'.
/they/ wanted to see.
If hollywood thinks it can just go low tek now, they're missing the point. We want movies by movie makers who want to see their own movies - not movies by producers who want to make a movie people want to see.
When it comes to art, the average consumer doesn't know what he or she wants - and while he or she might often cry for a remake of a beloved show from his or her past or some adaptation of their favorite comic, generally a completely new movie without a previous social context will entertain far more. Its time hollywood drops this "make what the people want to see" attitude and do what the makers of "The Blair Witch Project" did - make a movie
Hightek or lowtek, I don't think thats the issue (although invariably everyone will think it is, and as such, yay, new fad time). It's the attitude and approach to making movies - make it for love, not money.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I'm very much in agreement here. Even 3 films later (Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma), he's still not eating up huge budgets, and still making great films.
This Anon Coward makes a very good point, although to do lowtek successfully in horror is a more impressive feat than comedy methinks.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Estimated Production Cost for BWP:
:)
$40,000 - $50,000
Price Paid To Makers 0f BWP by Film Company For Distribution Rights:
$100,000 (Estimated)
Projected Total Gross Box Office Receipts:
$30.5 - $50.5 Million in less than 30 days.
...Anyone know where I can get a digital video camera and a Media 100 setup for cheap?
-jm
Jon, when in the hell are you going to talk from your own experience and not just repeat shit that's already publicly known? your posts are boring as all hell. jeeze. who cares. btw this was already talked about by rob and misc others. get some new material. original material.
Actually, I noticed while watching it that the giggling tended to be a very nervous giggling, people convincing themselves that it all was just a movie. I still had trouble driving home at night that night...just a real well done piece of movie making.
No joke...
I saw it on a Sunday Afternoon..just a small smattering of people (all adults)...and it did a great job of freaking me out. It's the only movie I can recall that I had to convince myself was fake. While watching it my rational side kept saying it was fake, but dammit they did such a convincing job with it that I just couldn't be totally SURE, what a great job.
Then that should cover at least 3 sequels.
can't wait!!!
Well, both movies started out stating the ending.
We knew at least one person surviced SPR, and we knew that the kids were never heard from again in BWP. Did you really ever think they "might make it"?
BWP scared me... but only because I let my imagination run. The idea of going off to war really scares the shit out of me though. I was damn scared in 1990 when the Gulf War was starting, and the idea that I might be drafted.
But yeah... they really have nothing to do with each other. I just wanted to comment on how another movie affected its watchers to even more of an extent than BWP.
Off topic here...
While people did leave the BWP mostly quietly (even the large group i went with did not say a word until we had gotten well outside), I have never seen a movie effect people the way Saving Private Ryan did.
People left that movie like they were walking out of a funeral. Many were crying.
That was impressive, and moving. And, that was definitely a big budget film.
Nto sure what my point is, but I guess I am saying that big budget films are not necesarily "unmoving" (except when it comes to Titanic.
...... Josh is still OUT there!!!
This seems to set up a function of film quality that is inversely proportional to budget.
f(10k) = Clerks (spectacular)
f(6Mill) = Mallrats (crap with some bright spots)
f(25k) = Chasing Amy (very good, but not on par with Clerks.)
> Like how they miss the fact that the stream they were following CHANGED DIRECTIONS and started flowing UPHILL.
Magic, dude. If they were walking straight south all day (and it's pretty hard to make an exact circle when you're following a compass), how else could they have gotten back to their starting point?
> Or why they didn't just start a HUGE fire and WAIT for the search and rescue team to get them?
It was pretty obvious they weren't too experienced in the woods. They made a lot of mistakes. (In fact, they made all the typical horror-movie mistakes, but the acting was so good I didn't even notice until it was finished.) One mistake, BTW, is that they weren't following the stream, just heading out in a random compass direction. (And you thought you were watching so closely.)
> Or why they didn't kill and eat Mike after he admitted trashing the map?
Overreacting just a bit, don't you think? They screamed at him for a good long time.
> Anyone else notice the electrical wiring in the house? It certainly wasn't from the 40's. How about the beer bottle on the fireplace?
So they goofed. There are goofs far bigger in big-budget movies, it doesn't make them suck. (Take a look at the Star Wars blooper list some time. You could argue that Star Wars sucks, but it's not because of the bloopers.)
>Or the fact that people are running around in an unknown house, in the dark with CAMERAS in front of their faces.
Well, okay. Here you have a valid complaint. If you can't suspend your disbelief enough to ignore the cameras, you won't enjoy the movie. Or any movie, really - I can't think of any that don't need at least this much suspension of disbelief. Just stay away from movies, TV, and books, and these little inconsistencies won't annoy you anymore.
(That said, I think it would have been better if they swung the cameras around more, as if they were dangling by their sides and they just hadn't dropped them. But it was hardly necessary.)
> Or how their unknown assialant could have clubbed Mikey, ripped off his back pack, propped
> him up in the corner and gotten back into position before she could make it down stairs?
Unknown assailant? The whole point of the ending is that something seriously weird is going on - just like with the stream. Of course it couldn't really happen - in a completely rational world.
>This movie SUCKED!!!
I don't think the reasons you've given are petty. Really, I don't.
...but not because of the horror; it wasn't really that scary. What made me queasy was the camerawork. Sure, low-tech production value is all the rage now, but why couldn't these people use a goddamn steadicam? All that tromping through the woods with the camera bouncing up and down gave me motion sickness, and I'm not the only one. I heard several others complaining of this as I exited the theater. All in all, it was a decent movie, but not really worth my $7 or waiting for 3 days to get tickets. To summarize: Great marketing, decent movie, horrid camerawork. Anyone else agree?
paranoid.android
I must be completely missing something. BWP had to be one of the worst, most boring movies i've ever seen. there wasn't anything scary about it at all. All i could think was "the real world" goes camping. No cheesy ending? how about no ending at all? in other words, a lame cop-out.
Why is everybody so against the high expense high tech movies, i would have thought they would be popular here. even a bad movie can be fun to watch if a bazillion dollars is spent on it. high tech effects are a good thing in my book!
jump off the bandwagon
Actually, "Clerks" was shot over the course of about twenty-some days. Kevin Smith talks about this in the commentary on both the laser disc and the new DVD release. Cheers
Many of the comments I have read, including this one, seem to be from people who lack the ability to convey any sense of empathy. Empathy is a requirement NOT of "horror," which is more concerned with shocking the sensibilities of the viewer/reader with vivid or violent detail, but of "dread," which does so by forcing us down an inevitable path that leads to a sort of "unspeakable" climax which we cannot help but allow our minds to enumerate, at once against, and by, our own will.
The root of dread in a film, short story, novel, etc. that taps the mass unconscious mind is first and foremost its ability to explore and magnify this concept. Dread cannot be appreciated if one is not willing to first empathize beyond the bounds of one's own personal experience. Furthermore, empathy is only gained by testing through extremity. Empathizing with someone on a shopping trip is considerably less substantial than empathizing with someone trapped alone in a stopped elevator with no lights.
I certainly would not be very interested in tracking down an urban myth based on half-baked recollections of a child murderer, or a colonial-era witch. I would not feel drawn to filming a hiking trip as if it were some novel approach to documenting the history of the myth. I certainly wouldn't go hiking in the first place without a number of prior arrangements (and, for pete's sake, a cell phone).
But I can *imagine* what someone who was drawn to do these things would feel like. I can imagine their energy and their enthusiasm for a project they believe in. I can imagine the mounting stress and tension as they realize they have lost control of their situation. I can definitely imagine their terror at things that go bump in the night. (Wait -- don't tell me -- you were never five years old, right?) ;)
Second, dread relies on our willingness to complete a half-drawn picture with the worst possible details drawn from imagination. If one is unwilling or unable to allow one's imagination to fill in these details, then one will never be truly frightened by a dreadful story (visual or otherwise).
Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Casks of Amontillado" is a perfect example. What frightens us most is not the interment of the narrator behind the wall of brick, but rather, our imagination of the hideous nights of utter darkness, starvation, madness, and ultimate death that await him. None of these elements are described at all by Poe, but they are the most vivid image left by the story.
TBWP is thus a film not of conventional "horror" (which consists usually of a predominant amount of gore and/or special, makeup, and visual effects) but of dread. It is not fairly judged against such films as "Halloween" or "Hellraiser," but rather "Picnic at Hanging Rock" or "Angel Heart."
Actually, I rather identify with the comment. I feel I wasted the $4.00 admission fee. I was very disappointed (probably because I disbelieve every frame of it). However, the guy standing in the corner in the end when she got wacked was a nice touch.
Remember that bloatmobile analogy? Well here's another... there can be good stuff without the bloat!
On the other hand, who didn't enjoy Star Wars?
:-)
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
According to Corona's Coming Attractions (http://corona.bc.ca/films/mainFramed.html - terrific site), Dogma is scheduled for a mid-October release.
I can't wait for it, anyway. Should be a great film.
Tort
Um... seriously doubt you could classify this movie as low budget... They paid bruce willis to act in it, how low budget is that?
ian@3r33t.net http://3r33t.net
yeah, when is dogma coming out anyway?
"There is nothing more intimidating than an idiotic smile worn by a manifest non-idiot." --unknown
The best part can't be seen in the theaters. I have it on pirated DVD, and if you slow down the frames- just after he's in the corner and she drops the camera- you can see the witch full on!!
They did a great job of hiding it, and if you play it back at full speed, the lighting masks everything.
I found it sorta by accident. I freezed on the shot of all the little handprints and lo, a message scrawled: Look for the witch
Very sneaky and clever those guys are for sure!
Thats my favorite part.
-Sleen
I agree. It was just a bunch of people running around in the woods and saying "fuck" alot.
I saw BWP yesterday and I was torn on the decision. I went with a friend and while I walked out stunned in utter silence, my friend complained on and on. My generation (I'm 19) was rasied on horror; Freddy Kruger, Jason, and the like. I was never scared of these, yet this movie scared the ever-living snot out of me. I have to say that I am proud of the fact that there is a scary movie out there that does not consist of stereotypes and cliche death scenes (read Scream, and I Know What you did Last Summer). I felt like I didn't know what was going to happen next, just that it'd be bad. For once, there were no crappy, unrealistic looking ghosts to make you raise the fromage factor.
:o)
Overall, the movie played off your fear and the general built in sense of compassion and hysteria. Those of you who didn't like it have no personalities..
Diji
"I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"
Actually, it was mental independence that made this movie almost impossible to watch.
Realism scares people. Sharks attack people in shallow water. Jaws was scary. People go insane and hack up their families. The Shining was scary. Being able to put yourself in the shoes of the central characters and saying "What if this happened to me?" is what good horror is all about. We can all imagine how our hearts would thump if the cops said they traced the calls and they're coming from inside our house.
I find it hard to believe that people consider the Blair Witch Project scary - how frightening is it to watch a bunch of idiots stand in the woods and argue for an hour? I can't relate with these morons for several reasons....
1. The first time I heard strange sounds in the middle of the night and realized I didn't have a weapon for self defense, I'm turning around and going home.
2. If I'm lost in the woods, I don't spend all my time standing around arguing and swearing a rediculous amount. I walk and walk and walk until I can't move anymore.. then I walk another few miles.
3. Follow the damn creek downstream, how tough is that?
As for the camera shaking - my wife had to leave half-way through because it made her sick. I didn't really have a problem with it, but I found it quite unrealistic that they would continue to film once they had been lost for several days. If someone would have stuck a camera in my face come day 3, I would have put it down their throat.
People are putting an awful lot of blame on Hollywood for making big-budget movies. It's not Hollywood's fault - it's the viewers. People actually like dumb shit like "Independence Day" and "Armegeddon" - completely unrealistic rubbish with big booms and lots action. Nobody thinks twice when Jeff Goldblum uploads a virus to an alien computer, because it's followed with a loud explosion and neat special effects. Plots have become irrelevant, not because Hollywood doesn't want to include them, but because viewers have stopped requiring them.
The Blair Witch Project isn't much better. Its success isn't derived from its quality, it's derived from hype. Ask yourself this - how did you hear about this movie? Did a friend say, "Ah dude, you just got to check out this flick, it rocks!" Or did you see something about it on the internet? Did you catch the pseudo-documentary on The Sci-Fi channel? This movie has received tons of internet exposure - and therein lies its success.
You certainly can't argue a strong plot. The dialouge was painful, the pace was molasses, and the realism factor was a big fat zero. And those of you who think this movie had good acting need to go rent "Saving Private Ryan."
Pehaps had I been able to check my brain at the door, I might have been scared by this movie. Maybe most people do such, and that's why so many of them like this movie. But for someone who has mental independence, this movie was awful.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
>>Your Brain is a Lump of Sod That has been programmed to be scared at certain "cliche" hollywood routines
I would hardly call "The Shining" Hollywood "cliche routines." The movies that appeal to me are intellegent, realistic, and interesting. The Blair Witch Project fails in all three categories.
>>Its a horror movie
Its is the plural possessive of it
It's is a contraction short for "it is"
>> It made 40 million dollars, so someone is watching it
I already explained why people are watching it - it's been hyped all over the internet. Lots of people saw Titanic, too. But what was a better movie, Titanic or Shawshank Redemption?
>>Your problem is that you couldn't leave certain things behind in your approach to the film that made watching it (and being scared of it) necessary.
If common sense is one of the things I had to leave behind, then you're absolutely correct.
>> But without that convention the film was impossible, you twit.
This is my favorite. How typical of our society t o result to name-calling. But let me understand your "logic." Without the bouncing camera, the "convention" of this film would have been impossible? That is to say, it is okay to ignore plain common sense in order to present a particuliar "convention?" Ever see Austin Powers? Remember the joke about elaborate escapable schemes to kill Powers? The reason that parody works is because such scenes in movies really are stupid. Bam! Just kill the guy already. Hey! Don't go upstairs, just get out of the house!
I suppose that watching movies involves a little bit of suspended reality - it's a movie, and certain things must be taken with a grain of salt. But if the "convention" of a movie is to put the viewer in the first person, then how can you expect the viewer not to use their brains? Who would possibly continue to tape this? The video cameras would have been dumped early, if only to lessen the weight to make moving easier. Water and food would be the only things in my pack (unless I was carrying the tent).
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
What if it started to rain? Although they could deal with it, being soaken wet would make things a lot more uncomfortable. But then again, my goal would be to make it back out in one day, period. So you're right, I wouldn't need the tent.
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
I made the mistake of going to see BWP at a
Saturday matinee at the local Cinema-super-mega-plex
stadium seating super-Dolby-sound -- you get the
idea. Anyway, the theatre was packed and I was
surrounded by parents who brought their crying
little toddlers (can you say "babysitter"?)
and on the other side of me was a group of plus-size
women trying to break a world record for loudest
comsumption of three buckets of popcorn, in front
of me was a 7-foot tall guy with a weak bladder
jumping up to go to the restroom every 10 minutes.
I loved BWP! It was the only movie I had seen in
my adult life that actually freaked me out, but
my best advice is see it at a small theatre late
at night with very few people to get the maximum
effect, or wait for it to come out on video.
The key to enjoying BWP is to watch it with
absolutely no distractions because the whole
story is told from first-person point of view
so you sympathize with the chracters and their plight.
This post contains SPOILERS so read beyond
it if you haven't seen BWP:
The ending was brilliant: How do you know the 3
kids are dead? All we know is that they're missing. Yes, Josh dissappears and hints are made
that he was mutilated but is he dead? Are any of
them dead? You can assume that but then again like
any good book or film it's left to the audience to
figure it out the details -- it makes you think.
Look kids, it's JonKatz again. This time he is trying to perform opinion-fellatio on the movie-going segment of /. readership. Yet, somehow he manages to say nothing that isn't obvious.
Indie films have been around for ever. Most are lo-tech, due to lack of funds. BWP is no different. The producers begged, borrowed and quite probably stole, to make this film a reality. The amazing thing is that they somehow showed it to the right people who decided to take a risk by taking the film to the screens. Makes you wonder how many other independent gems got lost along the way.
Katz, once again, misses the point. The movie isn't a huge hit because it's frightening beyond the means of FX. It's a hit because it's completely different than what the movie going public is used to. It's the product of a single mind, rather than a committee... Unlike Katz articles. But now that we've seen it, a sequel just won't cut it. Not even if it's done as gamelan or kabuki. We've seen the original, any sequel will be shunned for being a fad, a recipe and a Zircon. We'll pay $8 to see something original - after that it damn better look fancy.
The really cool thing about BWP, that Katz of course glances off of and proceeds away from the point tangentially, is that the BW legend was planted and took root in the cultural gulibility. Had the release waited for the myth to spread, the movie would have been an even greater success. The triumph of BWP is in the meme contagion it caused. They created a Yeti. People were driving through Maryland LOOKING FOR THE WITCH!! Katz never mentions this once.
When will JonKatz have an original thought? When will he say something that actually makes people think? When will he spawn a mutant meme, rather than spraying us with a homogenized culture of engineered ones?
Well, with the apparent upsurgence of creativity outside of Hollywood (ain't that right Jon?), maybe someone will make a short film about a pundit who isn't trying to suck off the mainstream majority, but rather synthesizes something new from the cultural gestalt... Now THAT would be a great work of fiction.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I finally remembered what the filming of BWP reminds me of. I'm sure a lot of you have read Dream Park by Larry Niven and Stephen(?) Barnes, and possibly the sequels, The Barsoom Project and The California Voodoo Game. For those of you haven't, the books take place in the ultimate high-tech theme park. One of the park's biggest draws is its full-immersion Live Action Role-Playing games (LARPs). Some of you have probably played some of White Wolf's Mind Eye Theatre games, or been in a LARP at a con. Maybe some of you fight in the SCA or other reenactment groups. Now, imagine a fantasy LARP played on a giant soundstage with full special effects. You live in the game for days, stay in character except maybe during rest periods, fight holographic monsters and live NPC actors, solve puzzles, etc. Aside from the competitive aspect (there is some sort of huge international LARP league), the best games are recorded and marketed.
The making of BWP seems more like a low-tech Dream Park LARP than true moviemaking. While I haven't seen the movie yet, Donohoughe and the others sound more like game players than actors. I can imagine that some people would be interested in taking part in something like this more for the experience than for the sake of making a film. Is it possible that BWP represents the future of interactive gaming more than the future of non-interactive entertainment?
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Inferring from the specific to the general is always a bad idea, and Katz has done just that here (disclaimer: haven't seen TBWP, and know nothing about it)
Remember when El Mariachi was made for sixteen cents and packet of chewing gum? That wasn't the end of the hollywood blockbuster, and nor will this be.
Style over substance will always be Hollywood's signature.
btw, from Jon's description, TBWP sounds remarkably similar in style to Pi, one of the worst fucking movies I've ever seen. Just because it hasn't got a budget, don't assume it's good.
I agree. What really got me was how the movie wasn't dumbed down in any way. You have to really pay attention to understand what the last 5 seconds of film really means. In fact, I had to explain the significance to a few of my friends. What really gets me is that Hollywood would NEVER do anything that requires anything above the intelligence of a rock.
Also, in the Hollywood version of BWP, one of the guys would have screwed Heather. No question about it.
That's exactly what I was thinking reading this article. Both Pi and El Mariachi received critical acclaim and achieved a cult following. Both were made on shoestring budgets. And both used unusal camera techniques.
So why has Blair Witch received so much attention, while these movies, though successful, remain in relative obscurity? Better marketing? Better talent? Succesful use of digital technology?
Whatever. It's because every idiot teeniebopper can identify with a horror movie. Subtitles and heavy themes confuse and bore the MTV crowd. No such problem with a low budget horror movie, because they're so cliched. The suprising thing about this one is it just happens to be done well. That make it's unique and different, therefore it's cool. That's why it's stomping The Haunting and that fish movie.
(And Pi is one of the best fucking movies ever made! What is wrong with it, aside from the technical innacruacies?)
Exec: Kids are all into scary movies these days. But what with all these crazy shootings, theaters aren't letting kids in to see scary movies. So we need a PG-13, or we've got no audience.
Pitchman: They said the f-word a lot in the first one. We tone down on the f-word and we'll get you your PG-13.
Exec: Excellent thinking. So tell me about our sequel here.
Pitchman: Picture this--a team of Army commandos goes into the woods to investigate the missing film students. They've got satellite hookups on their helmetcams so we can watch what they're doing.
Exec: Helmet cams! Good angle! Very high tech. We can have a command center like in Armageddon. Can we get Bruce Willis for the head commando?
Pitchman: I understand he's very interested.
Exec: But those jiggly cameras are such a headache. Can we lose the bouncy-wowncey cameras?
Pitchman: Don't worry--all the running with night vision goggles will be done with dollies.
Exec: Night vision! Very Desert Storm! Very high tech! Now, what about computer generated special effects? Without computer generated special effects, you don't have a scary movie.
Pitchman: The witch is some serious special effects! She's got spells that shoot fireballs and lightning and whatnot, and the commandoes are all shooting back with grenade launchers.
Exec: Computer fireballs! And grenade launchers! Very high tech! How are we on helicopters?
Pitchman: Would you believe an Apache attack helicopter shooting rockets down on the witch's fortress? How's that for fireballs?
Exec: That's some serious fireballs!
Pitchman: We were thinking this for act two: Helicopter gets shot down by witch's fireballs, crew survives, race is on! Who gets to the chopper first, the witch, or the team of commandoes?
Exec: Very suspenseful! You've got your suspense! Can you make it a female pilot? I've always thought Laura Dern would make a great damsel in distress.
Pitchman: I understand she's very interested.
Exec: So her character and Bruce's character, they have a history?
Pitchman: And he suddenly realizes he's got to save her to win her love back!
Exec: We've got our love interest! Tell me about the witch.
Pitchman: You know how scary it was without the witch? Imagine how scary it will be when you could actually see the witch! She's computer generated! She can float, she can shoot fireballs, she can fly through trees! She can become trees!
Exec: Very high tech! Very special effects! So what's her look, you know, when she reveals herself?
Pitchman: That's up in the air--we're debating between etherial and demonic.
Exec: Or you know, you've got this all beautiful, this seductive ghost, seducing commandoes and whatnot, then boom! Demonic! Morph her!
Pitchman: We can morph her!
Exec: Like in Raiders!
Pitchman: Like in Raiders!
Exec: There's our tie-in!
Pitchman: We've got synergy!
Exec: Synergy! Oh and speaking of synergy, how are we on racial balancing? Do we have racial balancing?
Pitchman: The commandoes are all sorts of races. We've got African-American commandoes; we've got Hispanic commandoes. We were thinking a Hopi Native American commando, kinda half-mystic, half-warrior, who can sense the witch's presence when noone else can.
Exec: How mystic are we talking here? Can he shoot fireballs?
Pitchman: He can have a final fireball duel with the witch! Beat her at her own game!
Exec: The duel's gotta be with the main lead. You think Willis can pull off a Native American?
Pitchman: I think of Willis as more of a John Wayne in that whole cowboys-and-Indians schtick, pardon my French.
Exec: What about that kid from La Bamba? Lou Diamond-something.
Pitchman: Yeah, that guy. He could save Bruce and Laura at the very last minute!
Exec & Pitchman: With a computer fireball!
Exec: We've got our surprise ending!
Pitchman: He's claiming his powers in his ancestral forest!
Exec: Very mystic! Very high tech! We gotta get him for the fireball! You think we could get him?
Pitchman: I understand he's very interested.
--
This is not my sandwich.