Blair Witch Project

Open Discussion

August 3, 1999

Return

26543. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 7:50 AM PT

Rask,

I didn't want to imply my take *wasn't* common--in fact, the guy I was with had the same take. I was just thinking of the passionate conversations that would take place if all this hype wasn't around the movie.

In other words, it is not a movie in which you realize, while you're watching it, that it is open to interpretation. Like the middle section in Dreamsnake, you unconsciously make your choices early and go with it.

Niner,

Oh, no. They're dead. They just weren't killed.

I should also mention that I had trouble sleeping last night. This confused me. Had the movie scared me after all?

All of a sudden I figured it out. No, the movie hadn't scared me. But the anecdote about the psycho serial killer had triggered my old fear. Spawn being at his father's, I locked the bedroom door and turned the light on, and eventually got to sleep.

26544. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT

what do you mean, "they weren't killed?"

26545. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT

******Minor Spoiler for Blair's Witch******

CalGal --

I liked your interpretation of the film, but how is it that you are so sure of this line: "Oh, no. They're dead. They just weren't killed." After all, isn't Niner's new take just as valid. How do you know they're dead?

26546. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT

I too demand a response.

**** SPOILER *****

The only plausible explanation other than death at the hands of another (supernatural or not) is hoax.

But if they are for sure dead, the options are

1) at the hands of the Blair Witch

2) at the hands of something they perceive to be the Blair Witch (the 'Deliverance" theory)

3) exposure

One and two means they were killed.

26547. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:11 AM PT

Niner -- ****SPOILER****

3) seems, to me, out of the question, considering the last scene and the noises and the lack of bodies.

26548. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT

Pincher

Did you see the Sci-Fi Channel's documentary on the Blair Witch last night?

They mocked up an entire documentary on this made-up curse and the fate of the filmmakers. It wasn't bad.

26549. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:23 AM PT

I refused to watch it before the film came out, but I might try to catch it now.

also, (SPOILER) you forgot option #4, that Josh killed them.

26550. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT

Niner --

I didn't. Does it have something to do with your #3?

I'll be out out for an hour; I'll respond to your answer when I get back.

26551. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:38 AM PT

Pm

No. Nothing to do with #3. I was just curious and they are re-running it. It is pretty clever.

Rask

Josh would fall under #2.

26552. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:42 AM PT

Pincher,

"After all, isn't Niner's new take just as valid. How do you know they're dead?"

Oh, I don't. But everyone creates their own reality in seeing the film. In *my* reality, they are dead--they died of exposure, starvation, whatever.

SPOILERS:

Step back and examine all the options--not the one that my reactions gave me at the time of viewing, and I think you only have the supernatural possibility left.

1) They hoaxed it? They would have faked it better, I think. Made things less ambiguous.

2) Deliverance, non-supernatural? The murderer would have needed light to see by in the final scenes, and there is no way that Michael would have just stood politely in the corner without being forced to.

3) Josh killed them? Same limitation as the Deliverance scenario.

I'm not adamantly against any of them, but that's my first take.

26553. Jenerator - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT

Rask,

How did Josh make Mike stand in the corner if he was the killer?

26554. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:54 AM PT

Exposure? Starvation?

If this is psyche bedding, please don't answer. (g)

But if not, how dod you gte exposure and starvation given -

SPOLER

SPOILER

1) Jen's point

2) No trace

3) the wrapped up entrails

I agree with your hoax, non-supernatural, Josh theories.

It's the freaking Blair Witch, hands down.

26555. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT

dod-do

gte-get

26556. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:59 AM PT

Spoiler:

The wrapped up "stuff" (what was it, anyway?) is the toughest thing to explain. So leave that out for a minute, since I have *got* to get to work--in the short term, see my review where I ask why the explanation has to be supernatural?

As for the rest--who is to say that the two of them died right there? Who says that they didn't get out of the house alive, with broken cameras?

26557. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 8:59 AM PT

SPOILERS

Cal: why would the killer have needed light to stand in the basement waiting for a guy wielding a lighted camera to come running down the stairs? As to what could have made Mike stand in the corner, that is what I find the most terrifying thing about the film. It could be the supernatural, but I prefer the explanation that he was scared soshitless that he lost all volition.

Jen, that answers your question to. But it is obvious that if it was Josh doing the deed, that he couldn't have been alone. Something was out in the woods harassing them when Josh was in the tent. Was he possessed, driven mad by practical jokers? I don't know. I don't even know that he did it, but it is a possibility. But I think the simplest answer is that whatever killed them, either tortured Josh to get his screams, or tape recorded his screams before killing him.

26558. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

It is the Blair Witch people.

1) Men were gutted and tortured in lore; Josh is gutted here

2) Children stood in the corner in lore/same with Mike

3) Children were killed/children's handprints were on the wall

4) the crackling noises was clearly something flying about hitting branches

5) The girl saw the mist/the lore has it that the witch is a mist

6) The search party disappeared in lore/the three filmmakers vanished

7) The compass didn't work, to the point of taking them to the same spot - verdict: witchcraft

8) piles of stones/stick figures - this is the work of a witch

There are of course, more.

But you 20th century know-it-alls always have to be dissing the supernatural.

Maybe you should go camping.

26559. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT

"But I think the simplest answer is that whatever killed them, either tortured Josh to get his screams, or tape recorded his screams before killing him."

As I heard it, he was screaming "Heather!"

Which is what he would have been screaming if he were lost. But not dying, I'm thinking. Now, if he wasn't screaming Heather, I will mull.

The other stuff when I GET TO WORK SO STOP POSTING STUFF. I mean it. I have to go. Now, dammit!

 

26560. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:11 AM PT

Cal

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

"As for the rest--who is to say that the two of them died right there? Who says that they didn't get out of the house alive, with broken cameras?"

They didn't die right then, maybe not even right there.

The Blair Witch carved them up, messed with their entrails and then - poof - made them disappear.

26561. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:43 AM PT

I have no explanations to offer, but I can clear up two things:

SPOILER!

SPOILER!

The bundle of sticks was tied together with pieces of the shirt Josh had been wearing the night before, and inside was a bloody piece of shirt, inside of which were several adult human teeth, roots and all. (At which point, I immediately remembered that Josh hadn't just been calling out, he'd been screaming.)

If you can, see the mockumentary on the SciFi Channel. By all appearances, the filmmakers had *some* stuff in mind, but not everything they would eventually build into the myth, when they made the movie. The mockumentary gave them the chance to go back and plant more seeds of the myth. (The mockumentary itself scared me so badly I had to watch it with the lights on and my cats very nearby.) They also go out of their way to eliminate the possibility of a hoax, like revealing that the bag was found in a location that suggests it could not possibly have been placed there by mortals.

And just to add to the madness, I will bring in another theory I heard: It was the fisherman they met the second day.

26562. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT

Kate,

I actually considered the possibility that that was Josh's shirt, and asked several people if they knew. Two said, yes, it was his shirt. Four said, "that was *Josh's* shirt?"

Thereby proving that if we were supposed to *know* that it was his shirt and that those bloody things inside *were* specific body parts (I've heard heart, entrails, fingers, now teeth)--then the movie was, actually, flawed. It was by no means clear enough.

26563. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT

I think the lack of clarity was purposeful. I also think that it added to the film. Everything was snippets, and "maybe, maybe not" and faulty remembrances. It complemented the obscured view we had (through the lens of the documentarians) and the flashes of information we received from their terror. Had the girl whispered to herself, "Oh my God. Josh's guts (or teeth)," I don't think it would have helped.

26564. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:57 AM PT

Kate

The mockumentary was pretty clever and certainly heads and tails above "Ghosts, Warlocks and Haunted Castles of Devonshire" or similar A&E fare.

26565. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT

Niner (SPOILERS!!)

"1) Men were gutted and tortured in lore; Josh is gutted here"

No evidence of that. We don't even know for sure if the body parts were his. And even if it is, so what? It could be a copy cat, or a nut who thinks he is possessed by the Blair Witch.

"2) Children stood in the corner in lore/same with Mike"

The guy who did that was a man who lived in the woods, not the Witch. He claimed that an old woman told him to do it. Again, was he nuts, or possessed? The film doesn't say. Charles Manson said that the Beatles told him to do his killings, but no one thinks the Beatles possessed him.

"3) Children were killed/children's handprints were on the wall"

It was the house of the guy mentioned in item two. A serial killer, not a witch.

"4) the crackling noises was clearly something flying about hitting branches"

This is a hell of a logical leap. I give credit to your imagination, but I assumed something was breaking branches, either by walking on them, for firewood, to make a bundle with which to contain severed body parts, or to make those weird stick figures.

"5) The girl saw the mist/the lore has it that the witch is a mist"

I missed this. Who saw mist? And even if so, fog in the woods isn't all that uncommon naturally.

"6) The search party disappeared in lore/the three filmmakers vanished"

So every disappearance is because of a witch?

"7) The compass didn't work, to the point of taking them to the same spot - verdict: witchcraft "

The supernatural is *an* explanation for this, but there are others. The movie "The Edge" *also* has the characters walking around in a circle using a compass, and science is used for the explanation instead of magic. Cal even raises the point that it may not have been the same spot. My personal take is that Heather was using the compass, and she was c

26566. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 9:59 AM PT

SPOILERS! Continued

The supernatural is *an* explanation for this, but there are others. The movie "The Edge" *also* has the characters walking around in a circle using a compass, and science is used for the explanation instead of magic. Cal even raises the point that it may not have been the same spot. My personal take is that Heather was using the compass, and she was clearly an incompetent when it came to orienteering (which I have a merit badge in, from my boy scout days, by the way). My guess is that she mis-used the compass, didn't check it often enough, or even knew she had screwed up with the navigation, and didn't want to tell the guys to avoid blowing any leadership credibility she had left.

8) piles of stones/stick figures - this is the work of a witch

You remind me of the guys trying to burn the witch in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". "She has a wart!" "She turned me into a newt!". Anyone who makes stick figures and piles stones is a witch? In what universe? My first impression is that it was done by an artist who considers himself avante garde. My last visit to MOMA had an exhibition which consisted of nothing more than piled rocks.

26567. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:01 AM PT

It was Josh's shirt. Just because some audience members weren't paying attention when it was shown on screen doesn't mean that it is subject to interpretation.

26568. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:03 AM PT

Rask

"No evidence of that. We don't even know for sure if the body parts were his. And even if it is, so what? It could be a copy cat, or a nut who thinks he is possessed by the Blair Witch."

Ha ha ha. Yeah. They belonged to Bambi.

"The guy who did that was a man who lived in the woods, not the Witch. He claimed that an old woman told him to do it. Again, was he nuts, or possessed? The film doesn't say. Charles Manson said that the Beatles told him to do his killings, but no one thinks the Beatles possessed him."

In The Exorcist, Regan is the Devil's vessel. The m.o. is there, whether by Blair Witch or by Blair Witch proxy.

Unless, of course, Mike was taking a piss. In all that excitement . . .

26569. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT

"It was the house of the guy mentioned in item two. A serial killer, not a witch."

See proxy argument.

"This is a hell of a logical leap. I give credit to your imagination, but I assumed something was breaking branches, either by walking on them, for firewood, to make a bundle with which to contain severed body parts, or to make those weird stick figures."

Ha ha ha. They weren't up against Paul Bunyan.

"I missed this. Who saw mist? And even if so, fog in the woods isn't all that uncommon naturally."

When she was running, very quickly.

"So every disappearance is because of a witch?"

Exactly.

"The supernatural is *an* explanation for this, but there are others. The movie "The Edge" *also* has the characters walking around in a circle using a compass, and science is used for the explanation instead of magic."

Alec Baldwin is a dumb fuck.

26570. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT

I'll go a step further than 'Niner: The movie was as clear as it could be without sacrificing its realism. Heather, Josh and Mike had to act like real people in that situation, which means they couldn't go around clearing stuff up. They had to react to everything, not describe it.

Moreover, it is my very strong feeling that the Entertainment Powers that Be spoonfeed us far too much information and I am delighted that here is an all-too-rare example of something which requires our full attention to follow and comprehend. So what if our flabby minds don't get every little detail the first time? Do we ask "The Simpsons" to slowly unroll every single sight gag, film parody and inside joke to make sure we get it all? As in real life, we'll have to either have to ask someone else for more info or watch it again. And since I caught the teeth and the shirt, I'm prepared to vouch for the fact that if you really bore down on this movie, you could glean a lot of information.

26571. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT

Rask

"Anyone who makes stick figures and piles stones is a witch? In what universe? My first impression is that it was done by an artist who considers himself avante garde. My last visit to MOMA had an exhibition which consisted of nothing more than piled rocks."

That's it. It was an avante garde artist.

That explains the sparsely attended opening.

26572. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:15 AM PT

"It was Josh's shirt. Just because some audience members weren't paying attention when it was shown on screen doesn't mean that it is subject to interpretation."

It was a plaid shirt. It *may* have been Josh's. I did think--as most people did--that it was possible it may have been Josh's shirt. Some people didn't recognize the shirt at all. In any event, unless it had a nametag with "JOSH" on it, I think we can figure that more than one person in the woods might wear a plaid shirt.

26573. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:19 AM PT

Niner: what proxy argument? There is no argument about it being the devil in The Exorcist. Supernaturality is clearly demonstrated. BWP offers no such thing. Assume that there is a non-supernatural wacko running around in the woods, who enjoys terrorizing the hell out of people, causing them to do stupid, self destructive things, and then he traps them and kills them. Now consider that instead of a wacko, you have the ghost of a witch engaging in many of the exact same activities as the wacko, but using magic to get the people to do stupid things as well. There is nothing in the film to indicate which version is a more valid explanation of the events.

Based on the "Mikey against the wall" ending, and how it echoed the story of the man in the woods who killed children, at the request of the Witch, the movie clearly hints that there is a human instrument in the demise of the three filmmakers. Whether that instrument was guided, and aided, by the witch is a completely open question. The supernatural is one explanation, but ordinary psychology is another.

26574. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:19 AM PT

Niner,

The events are ambiguous. Truly. Your brain resolved the ambiguity and didn't let you in on the process. ("Bullshit. Meredith is a MAN!").

26575. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT

Cal: it wasn't just a plaid shirt. It was a plaid shirt of the same pattern and color as Josh's.

Barring an incredible coincidence, it was Josh's shirt.

26576. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT

I don't buy either of the "murder" interpretations, whether natural or supernatural.

26577. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT

Cal

"It was a plaid shirt. It *may* have been Josh's. I did think--as most people did--that it was possible it may have been Josh's shirt. Some people didn't recognize the shirt at all. In any event, unless it had a nametag with "JOSH" on it, I think we can figure that more than one person in the woods might wear a plaid shirt."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No, I'm pretty sure it was Kurt Cobain's shirt. You guys are killing me.

Rask

"What proxy argument? There is no argument about it being the devil in The Exorcist. Supernaturality is clearly demonstrated."

Not so. In fact, Satan withholds certain of the necessities for allowance of an exorcism under Catholic doctrine. And the doctirs still cling to a medical cause. They are like you guys and the Blair Witch.

"Assume that there is a non-supernatural wacko running around in the woods, who enjoys terrorizing the hell out of people, causing them to do stupid, self destructive things, and then he traps them and kills them. Now consider that instead of a wacko, you have the ghost of a witch engaging in many of the exact same activities as the wacko, but using magic to get the people to do stupid things as well. There is nothing in the film to indicate which version is a more valid explanation of the events."

Nah. Not that it matters to the film, but it's witchcraft, I tell ta', withcraft!

26578. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT

Rask,

"it wasn't just a plaid shirt. It was a plaid shirt of the same pattern and color as Josh's."

I am woefully ignorant of plaid. But three female members of my family bought the same shirt at different stores at different times and wore it to the same family event.

This was fishing and hunting country. I'm thinking more than one person might have the same shirt. Remember, they weren't *that* far from civilization.

Besides, did the murderer leave that there for them to find? Did he or she know that Heather would open it? What if they didn't find it?

26579. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:30 AM PT

That said, when the Redskins lose, I'm pretty sure witchraft is involved as well.

 

26580. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT

Seriously--if it *was* murderers, how did they lead the kids around? How did the murderer know that they'd end up at the house? How did the murderer know they'd end up in the basement? How did the murderer know they'd be stupid enough to run into an empty house in the middle of the fucking night? How did the murderer know that a light wouldn't be necessary, because they'd be running around in the middle of the fucking night with cameras that had lights?

Naw. A non-supernatural murderer couldn't have relied on all the coincidences necessary--he'd have just killed them in their tents. A witch is more likely, but in that case pretty much would have had to manipulate their compasses to ensure, no matter what, they ended up at the house. Or magically move the house to where they were that particular night, make sure that they wanted to run into the house, end up at the basement, and so on.

26581. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:46 AM PT

First of all, the logic of the story kind of demands that it's not some stranger's shirt or a rag from the Salvation Army bin or whathaveyou. I think if you can remember that Josh was wearing a plaid flannel shirt the day before, you can infer that it's the same shirt. It is a story, after all, not a scientific experient requiring all kinds of authentication. (Although if approaching it that way makes the movie less disturbing, please be my guest.) We never see Jocasta give birth to Oedipus, but the anecdotal evidence is conclusive enough for most audiences, isn't it?

Secondly, my own theory is that the BW or whoever could give a rat's ass if Heather found the bundle or not. I think of the BW as a force of nature, almost beyond human reason, and so acts as she is compelled to act--must circle the intruders with piles of rocks, must rip teeth out of my victim, must ritually bundle them with a bunch of rocks. This is another way of saying that the Antagonist--who or whatever it was--had a motivation so purely cruel and evil as to be utterly inscrutible to me, so at some point, I stopped trying to understand it, which could also be read as an admission of a flaw in the movie. We're supposed to believe one pissed off witch did all this? After 200 years, shouldn't she be over it by now?

26582. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:56 AM PT

kate

Kiss me.

Okay. That out of my system . . .

It's a witch.

26583. cllrdr - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:56 AM PT

Isn't it obvious who the murderer is? Bill Clinton, of course.

26584. cllrdr - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT

Isn't it obvious who the murderer is? Bill Clinton, of course.

26585. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT

kate

I swear those were guts, not molars. This also follows the lore on the disemboweled search party. And Josh's screaming through torture (I mean, taking a tooth out hurts, but slowly pulling out (and snipping) entrails produces a longer, more sustained misery). Unless you're thinking this is a "Marathon Man" rip-off.

26586. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT

Kate,

"First of all, the logic of the story kind of demands that it's not some stranger's shirt or a rag from the Salvation Army bin or whathaveyou. "

Not from *my* vantage point. My vantage point says that the whole thing was these kids inadvertently mindfucking themselves. In that scenario, it is instantly believable that she jumped to the conclusion that it was Josh's shirt.

As for the rest--I say unto thee what I told the numbers man. The story is ambiguous. There is no guarantee that an Antagonist exists. Had they established, in the framework of the movie, that there was such an Antagonist, great. But there was no such establishment. As such, I think my interpretation is as valid.

26587. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:12 AM PT

All --

I think a witch is the most likely explanation, but one can't dismiss outright the possibility of nonsupernatural killers.

However, I don't buy that it wasn't Josh's shirt. Even if we, the audience, couldn't tell, surely his two friends who had been with him the past three days would have known the difference.

Also, whether it is a witch or nonsupernatural killers, clearly the idea was to torture the poor saps for a couple of days before offing them. From the first night, whatever-it-was knew the kids were out there and proceeded to scare the shit out of them. In support of the nonsupernatural killers theory, nothing strange happened during the day (were the killers sleeping?). By the last night Heather and Mike were so screwed up that Mike was certainly suggestible to anything anybody told him, including standing in a corner.

26588. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT

"My vantage point says that the whole thing was these kids inadvertently mindfucking themselves."

So Mike was taking a much needed piss and they did eventually just starve and it was Bambi's teeth/guts (sent there by no-one) and the screams were made up and blah blah blah?

Don't answer, but I think you've either over or under-read. (g)

26589. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT

CalGal --

"There is no guarantee that an Antagonist exists."

You lose me here. What bumped into their tent that night, or made the noises, or slimed Josh's equipment, if it wasn't an antagonist? Sure it might be possible to say Josh was in collusion with someone else, but someone else was definitely out there, that much is not ambiguous.

26590. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT

Pincher

You mean, he gets down there and is told to stand in the corner.

He would listen to 1) someone with a weapon or 2) the Blair Witch.

26591. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT

It is the witch.

It could be a proxy of the witch.

It possibly could be psycho killer aping the legend of the witch.

Nothing suggests that it is a figment of their imagination and they died of exposure.

26592. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT

Niner --

It's possible. Not likely, but possible, even if the person didn't have a weapon. Mike was clearly losing it that last day, with both Heather and him not even bothering to sleep. He was rocking back and forth, eating leaves, extremely hungry and cold, and you got to remember that he wasn't the strongest-willed guy to begin with.

26593. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:22 AM PT

Niner --

"Nothing suggests that it is a figment of their imagination and they died of exposure."

I agree. Which was why I was confused when you listed it was one of your original choices ;-)

26594. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:23 AM PT

"What bumped into their tent that night, or made the noises, or slimed Josh's equipment, if it wasn't an antagonist?"

A deer, woodland animals, and everytime I go camping everything gets *real* slimy.

I also thought it was extremely amusing that they spend a good *minute* flailing around getting their pants on, grabbing the camera, undoubtedly throwing everything around madly, run outside half dressed, stay outside all night and then come back and say, "Hey! Who's been messing with our stuff? It's thrown all over the place!" Their tent has been open all night. In the woods. I am a suburban girl, but don't they have animals in the woods?

26595. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT

"Nothing suggests that it is a figment of their imagination and they died of exposure."

Horseshit. Lots of things suggest both, to me.

Another good point was at the beginning of their troubles. Michael is saying, "Look. We *know* they are coming back, right?" And Heather says, adamantly, "No, we don't *know* that they are coming back! The first night they weren't here!" And they agree to keep all the lights off.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting there mentally yelling at them, "You not only don't *know* they are coming back, you don't know that there is a *they*!"

26596. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT

Cal

You mean, it was Yogi and Boo Boo looking for a pic-i-nic basket?

26597. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT

In the Maryland woods (or any woods, I guess), what could possibly have slimed Josh's equipment in particular while leaving the rest of the equipment unslimed?

Don't get me wrong. If you need to believe this possibility (that Meredith is female), then it's okay.

26598. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT

Cal

Everyone's prism is different, I guess.

26599. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT

CalGal --

"No, we don't *know* that they are coming back! The first night they weren't here!"

They *were* there the first night. Heather was just a heavy sleeper. Josh -- that suspicious character -- heard two noises, one that he thought was an owl and the other which wasn't (I think he said it was a baby crying or some such thing).

 

26600. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT

PM

Actually, the kind of animal that could fuck up your stuff like that (a bear or a Yeti) is not prevalent in the Maryland woods. There are deer, and I don't know deer (nor do I - or will I - camp or hunt). Do they get in your shit like that?

I did see a deer beat a man up in a Fox "When Animals Attack". It was pretty funny.

26601. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT

"So Mike was taking a much needed piss and they did eventually just starve and it was Bambi's teeth/guts (sent there by no-one) and the screams were made up and blah blah blah?"

Mike was out of energy, and probably flipped for the moment. No one can even agree on what the bloody thing was. It could have been a skinned small animal. It wasn't sent there, it was there. For all I know, it's some weird hunter shit. God knows what those gun people are like.

Screams? Other than Josh's, they were noises. Again, I have been camping, and animals can make some weird fucking noises. (and some weird noises, fucking. But that's a different matter.) As for Josh, the camera wasn't on until they said, "Josh hasn't come back." We don't know how long he was gone, what happened. I figured that he got lost. At which point, he's screaming his fucking lungs out looking for his friends.

If he was being killed, he wouldn't be hollering "Heather!"

26602. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:35 AM PT

Pincher,

That's not the point. Christ, you might as well be Heather. The point is that none of those noises are guaranteed to be anything other than animals.

26603. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT

Niner --

"I did see a deer beat a man up in a Fox "When Animals Attack". It was pretty funny."

LOL!

But CalGal's right. There is a lot of ambiguity in the film. But I think she has taken it a bit too far.

26604. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT

Pm

Didn't he say it sounded like cackling?

26605. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT

Pincher,

"In the Maryland woods (or any woods, I guess), what could possibly have slimed Josh's equipment in particular while leaving the rest of the equipment unslimed? "

His was the only equipment left there, wasn't it? The other two had their stuff with them. Alternatively, their stuff may have been covered up by sleeping bags and the animals and dew didn't get to it.

As for my interpretation--the whole point is that Meredith *is* female. It's not that I'm fooling myself. Vonda McIntyre didn't put any pronouns in it. Likewise, the filmmakers didn't make it perfectly obvious that it was some supernatural force. Any interpretation is valid. And anyone who has ever had a camp trashed by animals and *hasn't* been starved and lost for three days would think of that possibility first.

Have you guys ever read the literature on people who are lost in the woods, and the things they do?

26606. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT

CalGal --

"That's not the point. Christ, you might as well be Heather."

LOL!

"The point is that none of those noises are guaranteed to be anything other than animals."

No, the point is that the film gives us alot of hints that whatever is out there is not a figment of their imagination. If you choose to see Josh's equipment getting slimed (by God knows what animal) as a coincidence, that's fine. I understand. But I think that most people see it as one of two possibilities. The reason that I appreciated your input on this film is that I hadn't even seen the other possibility until you brought it up.

26607. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT

Niner: It's you and me against the world, baby!

(Kate takes deep, cleansing breath, repeats softly to self: Not all Fray conversations must become jihads. Not all Fray conversations ...)

Okay. I see now the larger interpretation CG is putting forth. I salute you (with my tongue absolutely nowhere near my cheek, I swear) for your incredibly innovative interpretation of what has been widely described as the scariest movie in 20 years. As one woman a few rows ahead of me in the theater asked as the credits rolled: "She just fell right?" Sure, if you like. (Four minutes later I found another woman in the ladies' bathroom panting and holding on to the sink counter as if a gale force wind was trying blow her into the next county.)

Niner again: Maybe it's entrails AND teeth? Regardless, we're both shot in the foot by our mutual declaration that just because a movie goes over someone's head doesn't mean it's flawed. The obvious solution is to watch it again. No fucking way. At least, not this month. In defense of your claim, I will admit I was sitting in the second-to-last row.

26608. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT

Cal

"His was the only equipment left there, wasn't it? The other two had their stuff with them. Alternatively, their stuff may have been covered up by sleeping bags and the animals and dew didn't get to it."

No. In fact, the characters underscored the fact that only his stuff got slimed and messed up. The other two did not take the time to pack up all their stuff and, in fact, Heather states as she is frantically running "I haven't laced my boots."

26609. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT

Niner --

It may have been cackling.

Actually, CalGal has me so fucked up now that I'm going to have to go see the film again much sooner than I thought.

"His was the only equipment left there, wasn't it? The other two had their stuff with them. Alternatively, their stuff may have been covered up by sleeping bags and the animals and dew didn't get to it."

It's possible. I'll have to see the film again to be sure, but I thought they mentioned that it wa strange that Josh's gear was the only gear slimed (maybe it was my imagination, because I often didn't hear alot of what was said clearly).

"Have you guys ever read the literature on people who are lost in the woods, and the things they do?"

No, how is it relevant?

26610. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT

Well, I hope you see I was kidding about the Heather comment.

"No, the point is that the film gives us alot of hints that whatever is out there is not a figment of their imagination."

Oh, I disagree. It gives us a great deal of detail that can be interpreted in many different ways. They were exhausted, hungry, and flipping out. The noises--except for Josh's shouting--are garden variety scary shit wood noises. Which sound like anything your brain decides that they sound like.

The only truly difficult things to explain are the bloody thing and the ending. The ending, though, makes just as much sense if you assume that .05 seconds after the camera broke, Mike turns and says, brokenly, "I can't take this shit anymore."

The bloody thing--and much of the other "evidence"--seems like it could have any number of explanations. Including the possibility that civilization was only ever 2 miles away and people were doing their thing in the woods throughout, oblivious to these lost kids.

26611. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT

kate

Confession (nothing unsettling or uncomfortably personal like "I've been watching you wash yourself with lemons")

I watched the mocumentary, but switched channels when they showed the snippet from the film of her tearful apology. Went straight to line-dancing on TNN.

26612. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT

Cal:"I am woefully ignorant of plaid. But three female members of my family bought the same shirt at different stores at different times and wore it to the same family event."

So you use one coincidence in real life as an argument that it occurs elsewhere in a specific incidence? A shirt identical to Josh's is wrapped around some bloody body parts after he disappears. Why the hell use a shirt at all if you aren't trying to tie the bundle to Josh? It is Josh's shirt. Live with it. :)

"Besides, did the murderer leave that there for them to find? Did he or she know that Heather would open it? What if they didn't find it?"

It was right in front of the entrance to their tent. They couldn't have missed it.

26613. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT

Cal

I do have to say, I'm neginning to wonder if maybe you aren't the Blair . . .

Hey.

Wait a minute.

26614. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT

CalGal --

"The ending, though, makes just as much sense if you assume that .05 seconds after the camera broke, Mike turns and says, brokenly, "I can't take this shit anymore."

The bloody thing--and much of the other "evidence"--seems like it could have any number of explanations. Including the possibility that civilization was only ever 2 miles away and people were doing their thing in the woods throughout, oblivious to these lost kids."

LOL!

I have to say this is the most fun I've had in some time on the Fray!

26615. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT

Niner,

"In fact, the characters underscored the fact that only his stuff got slimed and messed up. "

It was his equipment that got slimed. The other two had their equipment, I believe, and as for the fact that Josh's stuff was strewn about--they truly hustled about for a minute, getting dressed, listening for that noise, desperately looking for the stuff they needed. You ever hauled ass out of a tent in the middle of the night, after frantically looking for your clothes?

Had they even *considered* the possibility that it was them, and then dismissed it because of evidence, fine. But they didn't. They walked back to a mess that was conceivably caused by their own panic and an assist from woodland wild and instantly said, "My GOD! Who was here and was messing with our stuff?" And *then* they look for patterns, clues, similarities. In other words, they picked their own frame of reference.

Or, as my brother says, they forgot to consider the possibility that the lamp wasn't actually talking.

26616. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT

Seriously--if it *was* murderers, how did they lead the kids around? How did the murderer know that they'd end up at the house? How did the murderer know they'd end up in the basement? How did the murderer know they'd be stupid enough to run into an empty house in the middle of the fucking night? How did the murderer know that a light wouldn't be necessary, because they'd be running around in the middle of the fucking night with cameras that had lights?

I'm not sure the kids *were* led around. They are harassed for about 7 nights straight, and then they hear Josh's screams in the woods. It is quite possible that the killer just waited for them to be within earshot of the house before setting their trap. The rest of it really doesn't matter. The killers *didn't* know that the kids would run into the house. But Josh's cries were quite vivid, and the killers weren't out a whole lot if the kids hadn't shown up. They could have still killed them in their sleep whenever they wanted to.

The Blair Witch idea does provide some sort of supernatural coercion, as a motivation, but I don't think it is required to explain anything in the film.

The problem with your thesis is that it makes no sense as an alternative. It *can't* just be a mind fuck, given what we see and hear on tape.

26617. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT

Cal

I cannot fashion a response to your theory, I find it so unique.

26618. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT

Rask,

"So you use one coincidence in real life as an argument that it occurs elsewhere in a specific incidence? A shirt identical to Josh's is wrapped around some bloody body parts after he disappears. Why the hell use a shirt at all if you aren't trying to tie the bundle to Josh? It is Josh's shirt. Live with it."

I don't have to argue anything at all. Is it possible? Hell, yes. Your entire question set makes the assumption that the bundle was set there by the bad person in order for them to find it. I'm saying that there is no such guarantee that this possibility is the only one.

26619. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT

Cal

"I'm saying that there is no such guarantee that this possibility is the only one."

This kind of lowers the bar a bit, doesn't it, from a theory to the possible?

It could have been red gummy bears.

 

26620. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT

Rask,

"I'm not sure the kids *were* led around. They are harassed for about 7 nights straight, and then they hear Josh's screams in the woods. It is quite possible that the killer just waited for them to be within earshot of the house before setting their trap. The rest of it really doesn't matter. The killers *didn't* know that the kids would run into the house. But Josh's cries were quite vivid, and the killers weren't out a whole lot if the kids hadn't shown up. They could have still killed them in their sleep whenever they wanted to"

And you are saying that this, these murderers who waited to plan until they knew if their victims were going to show up with a light, somehow, is more plausible than the possibility that they weren't harassed, imagined it because the woods are shit scary at night and no city kids know what animals sound like, they were lost, exhausted, terrified, and not as far from civilization as they thought?

Sorry.

Mind you--I saw both the supernatural and natural interpretations. I had to--they were screaming them out at every turn.

"It *can't* just be a mind fuck, given what we see and hear on tape."

You're not serious. Christ, no one can even agree on what the bloody thing is. None of the sounds are definitive except Josh's yelling. Of *course* it can be a mindfuck.

26621. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT

Rask --

"if it *was* murderers, how did they lead the kids around? How did the murderer know that they'd end up at the house? How did the murderer know they'd end up in the basement? How did the murderer know they'd be stupid enough to run into an empty house in the middle of the fucking night? How did the murderer know that a light wouldn't be necessary, because they'd be running around in the middle of the fucking night with cameras that had lights?"

I can't explain how they were led around (if they even were). Clearly some of the things that contributed to their being lost in the movie were not all the Blair Witch's (or nonsupernatural murders') doing. The so-called lost map, for example.

But the final scenes could be the nonsupernatural murderers' doings. After all, this wasn't a high-tech lynching requiring anything more than cleverness and an art for stick molding. In the final scenes, it is Josh's voice (or what they think is Josh's voice) which leads them to the house, and also leads them through it. It doesn't require anything more than waiting at the bottom with anything other than a taperecorder or a damn fine mimic. They could probably see the kids coming with their cameras long before they reached the house and they therefore knew they wouldn't need to do anything other than watch the lights and continue to make Josh-like noises until the kids made their way to the bottom. The murderers obviously could have had flashlights to make their way around the woods until they were ready to go.

I still prefer the Blair Witch explanation, but the nonsupernatural theory is plausible. I disagree with CalGal that a series of coincidences led some spooked kids through that ordeal we, the audience, witnessed.

26622. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT

Niner,

I was referring to the assumption that the bundle is set there for them to find.

Or that the three piles of stones were created after they showed up.

And so on.

26623. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT

Pm

I don't think you need to go with Josh as a tape-recorded voice. A non-supernatural psycho could have kidnapped Josh, disemboweled him, tortured him to make him scream . . . the whole nine yards.

26624. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:08 PM PT

Pincher--that's my quote, not Rask's.

26625. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT

He would *not* have screamed Heather's name if he were being murdered.

Or was he not screaming "Heather!"?

26626. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:11 PM PT

CalGal --

You're willing to believe that it *could* be a series of coincidences, but that it *couldn't* be nonsupernatural killers!?!? I mean, you discount the theory out of hand?

26627. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT

Pincher,

The majority of incidents weren't coincidences, they were (in my interpretation) the result of exhaustion, starvation, and predisposition to certain conclusions.

26628. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT

"He would *not* have screamed Heather's name if he were being murdered.

Or was he not screaming "Heather!"?"

Well, at this point, I'll believe anything.

Personally, I didn't hear him scream "Heather!", but I do remember Josh saying the first night that they heard the screams that it couldn't be Josh, because Josh would tell them where he was (I know it's a classic rationalization by a guy probably wanting to sink back into the safety of his tent, but he did say it).

26629. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT

"As for my interpretation--the whole point is that Meredith *is* female. It's not that I'm fooling myself. Vonda McIntyre didn't put any pronouns in it. Likewise, the filmmakers didn't make it perfectly obvious that it was some supernatural force. Any interpretation is valid. And anyone who has ever had a camp trashed by animals and *hasn't* been starved and lost for three days would think of that possibility first."

All interpretations are *not* equally valid. They have to be able to explain what we see and hear on camera. Your explanation is not valid because there are too many things it does not explain:

1) The three piles of rocks outside their tent, identical to the piles in the cemetary. Clearly, something intelligent has set the rock piles up to scare them. How would you like opening your front door and seeing a tombstone with your name carved on it set up on your front lawn. This is the equivalent of what happened to them.

2) The bundle of sticks. It isn't completely clear what they contain (it looked to me like bits of severed flesh, and some teeth, - my friends insisted that they also saw teeth), but they are left in front of their tent, and they are tied together with Josh's shirt. Something has left it there.

3) The noises and the night attacks. We hear a child's laugh at one point, Josh says he heard a cackle (I actually assume he was pulling their legs - he awfully straight faced), and something unidentified attacks their tent. While animal behavior is a possibility, given #s 1 and 2, we know something smart is fucking with them, so why assume that it is just animals?

4) The house. They hear Josh's cries, and run through the house. We see child handprints and strange symbols on the walls. They run into the basement. On each camera, we hear two thuds, and the cameras drop. Our last shot is of Michael faced against the wall, in direct imitation of one of the murder methodologies heard in town. It is extremely

26630. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT

Pincher,

I don't discount any of the theories out of hand. It is the insistence on any one interpretation of evidence that I discount. I originally described the reason I thought the non-supernatural killers are unlikely--mainly because there is no light source that they could rely on. Those questions I asked (that you quoted) are the ones that I think are unanswered and make it very unlikely. Rask's explanation is the one that would cover it--but as I said, that leaves the theory *more* farfetched than mine. Very odd killers.

26631. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT

It is extremely unlikely that they both happened to drop their cameras and record no more just after entering the basement. And what explains Mike's odd behavior after running around so frantically?

No, something nasty got them. Whether the nasty something was Josh, the Witch, a serial killer, a bunch of inbred mountain men, or Bigfoot, is an open question.

"Have you guys ever read the literature on people who are lost in the woods, and the things they do?"

Yes, which explains much of their odd behavior.

26632. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:19 PM PT

I was disappointed there weren't more musical numbers in the film.

26633. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT

"And you are saying that this, these murderers who waited to plan until they knew if their victims were going to show up with a light, somehow, is more plausible than the possibility that they weren't harassed, imagined it because the woods are shit scary at night and no city kids know what animals sound like, they were lost, exhausted, terrified, and not as far from civilization as they thought?"

Given the physical evidence left outside their tents, my explanation is *much* more plausible.

26634. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT

Niner: Did you turn away from the mockumentary because that scene turned your stomach or you didn't want to relive the moment or what?

To Whom It May Concern: Everyone I saw the movie with thought the bloody thing was one or more teeth. Just because people diagree on this point doesn't mean that some of them haven't hit upon the real answer.

Cal: In the movie, one or more of the kids mentions that he or she goes camping for fun. Also, all three of them have equipment which looks neither new nor borrowed (which is hard to do with those packs anyway, since they're sold by the height of the wearer.) So yeah, some of them probably do know what they're doing.

Also, while logically I cannot disprove your thesis that it's *possible* that TBWP is a film about three very frightened kids driving themselves insane, I have to say that given all the backstory and the mockumentary, it's clear the directors had no intention of telling a story of human efforts gone horribly awry (as in "The Edge", for example.) They want the audience to imagine terrible peril waiting for these three kids, and frankly, hysteria doesn't cut it as a terrible peril. An angry, vengeful, tremendously powerful witch does cut it.

I once caught an old episode of 90210--not a show I watched regularly--in which all the kids were abuzz about this nutty new girl. From their descriptions of her, I concluded that she must be some kind of prodigy or genius, and they in their trendy way were incapable of perceiving this. At the end of the episode, the girl--Emily, I think?--sets fire to a house or a car or something, and the final scene has all the kids mourning Emily's breakdown. Now, I can continue to believe that Emily was a brilliant-but-misunderstood performance artist, or I can accept that in Aaron Spelling's world, when cute teenagers with pricy haircuts say someone is crazy, she's crazy. And frankly, I still cling to the first interpretation, but I know that's not what

26635. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT

We know they didn't imagine the stones, or the nasty little present left on their doorstep.

26636. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT

I also heard the voice call "Heather!"

26637. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT

Cal

"The majority of incidents weren't coincidences, they were (in my interpretation) the result of exhaustion, starvation, and predisposition to certain conclusions."

This is akin to saying that while "Titanic" suggests the boat may have been hit by an iceberg, we should not be too hasty.

The predisposition of the students was one of mockery of the Blair Witch, and, given their venture, certainly no fear.

The coincidences were many, and impressive, no doubt.

Exhaustion and starvation does not take into account a failure to find the bodies. The fact of Maryland is that it is small. Ruling out a killer (supernatural or not), they would have been found.

26638. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:26 PM PT

Rask

"We know they didn't imagine the stones, or the nasty little present left on their doorstep."

Or the noises that sounded like Josh leading them to a house that was remarkably like the one in the Blair Witch legend.

26639. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:27 PM PT

kate

I didn't want to relive it. I found her performance very authentic, and that scene particularly gut-wrenching and sympathy evoking.

 

26640. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT

Well here's my take on the odds of the different possibilites of TBWP; I would like to see yours.

The Blair Witch did it: damn likely

Nonsupernatural killers did it: Possible, but not likely

Some coincidences mixed in with a couple of scared lost kids: Not at all likely

26641. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:30 PM PT

What I was trying to say when the Fray cut me off:

And frankly, I still cling to the first interpretation, but I know that's not what the episode was about.

There's also the Occam's Razor approach, which I may be misusing because I fell asleep in the middle of "Contact": The simplest explanation is more likely to be true.

A) It was a force of pure malevolence, driven by rage to act via various supernatural means (piles of rocks, bundles of sticks, laughter, etc) to punish intruders in its territory.

B) It was some scared kids. And some wild animals. And a performance artist. And some hunters with a strange ritual involving shirts bought in bulk from the Salvation Army and bloody bits of something or other. And a loose floorboard. And a house that the owners, in a rage over small children painting the walls with dark handprints, decided to burn down.

26642. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT

Rask,

Rocks--Two possibilities: they *were* in the same place, or the piles had been there all along. Support of first possibility--they were already lost and possibly walking in circles. They got to three and quit counting. They didn't look for any more. Support of second: they were *not* sure if they had been there the night before or not.

Sticks--We don't know it's Josh's shirt. And for all I know, this is some hunter thing. (I plead ignorance of woodlore). Animals could have dragged it. And we *don't* know what it is, nor does she *say* what it is. Truthfully, as I've said before, this is the toughest thing to explain. But it also seems to me that there are any number of explanations where we'd hit our heads and go "Doh!" Oh, THAT'S what it was.

Noises and night attacks--no, you heard a noise that you decided was a child's laugh. I didn't. Lots of animal noises sound like both child's laughs and cackles. Deer brush up against tents, so do other animals. You say that *given* 1 & 2, we must assign a sinister meaning. Not so. First off, 1 and 2 aren't guaranteed to be bad things. Two, even if they *were* bad, the noises could still be animals. You can't draw any connections between the two. You are primed to believe bad things, so you do.

The house: It is a deserted house in the middle of the woods. Campers and hunters find it, scrawl shit on the walls. Kids leave handprints, probably after happily dipping their hands in mud to make a better mark.

As for the rest, yeah. Previous problems with Mike just patiently standing in the corner noted. If it was the Blair Witch, fine. Anything is possible, including the possibility that all *my* interpretation was the right one until the end, when they stumbled into her house and she (up to then unknowing of them) decides to kill them.

All the interpretations require some element of "oh yeah, sure".

26643. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:38 PM PT

Have any of you visited the official Blair Witch website. It has some interesting background in the section called Mythology, some of which isn't in the movie.

Here it is: The Blair Witch Website.

26644. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT

"It is extremely unlikely that they both happened to drop their cameras and record no more just after entering the basement. And what explains Mike's odd behavior after running around so frantically?"

Well, we don't know what caused them to drop their cameras. The cameras broke, obviously, in my interpretation. As for Mikey, why is it any odder that he freaks and runs out of gas than it is that he waits patiently in a corner--in the dark--for a bad guy to kill him?

"No, something nasty got them. "

Truly, there is only your assumptions for that. And, quite frankly, you may be right. I just don't see any greater degree of "yeah right" to *my* interpretation.

"Yes, which explains much of their odd behavior."

Exactly. And much of *your* interpretation is based on their description of what they heard and saw. Which means that you are basing your interpretation on the reactions of people who were shit scared, lost, and starving, and exhausted.

26645. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:44 PM PT

Pm

My response to 26640 is 26591.

26646. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT

Niner --

"My response to 26640 is 26591."

Does this mean you're dropping the "CalGal is the Blair Witch" interpretation?

26647. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT

Niner,

"Exhaustion and starvation does not take into account a failure to find the bodies. The fact of Maryland is that it is small. Ruling out a killer (supernatural or not), they would have been found. "

All those states over there are miniscule, I agree. So what? I can't believe that these are the only missing campers ever not found in the state of Maryland, much less in the U.S.

"The predisposition of the students was one of mockery of the Blair Witch, and, given their venture, certainly no fear."

That has nothing to do with it. They were starved, exhausted, hungry. Spooked out of their mind by being lost. I was not talking about their prior emotional predisposition.

26648. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT

"Rocks--Two possibilities: they *were* in the same place, or the piles had been there all along. Support of first possibility--they were already lost and possibly walking in circles. They got to three and quit counting. They didn't look for any more. Support of second: they were *not* sure if they had been there the night before or not. "

They noticed them pretty damn quickly in the morning, spaced evenly around the tent. Not only must this be a coincidence, they have to have not noticed them when they were setting the tent up the night before, a task which requires looking very closely at the ground trying to find a nice level area with *no rocks* to ruin your sleep. The characters in the film completely reject the possibility that they missed the rocks the night before. I do too.

"Sticks--We don't know it's Josh's shirt. And for all I know, this is some hunter thing. (I plead ignorance of woodlore). Animals could have dragged it. And we *don't* know what it is, nor does she *say* what it is. Truthfully, as I've said before, this is the toughest thing to explain. But it also seems to me that there are any number of explanations where we'd hit our heads and go "Doh!" Oh, THAT'S what it was."

OK, a shirt *identical* to Josh's is found *right* outside the tent entrance, the day after Josh disappears. It contains body parts. Is it:

A) a threatening message from someone, trying to make them think that the body parts are Josh's, or

B) an amazing coincidence, involving the accidental arrival of the bundle on their doorstep, a shirt identical to Josh's, and some weird religious habits of hunters (I do know more about hunters - good flannel shirts are expensive and you don't use them to tie up a bundle of animal parts).

Now tie this together with the rocks a few nights earlier, and the events in the house, and *now* ask yourself which is considerably more likely.

26649. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT

kate

I have withdrawn that theory on fear of disembowelment, or a mighty strong, self-induced hysteria.

26650. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:51 PM PT

"Exactly. And much of *your* interpretation is based on their description of what they heard and saw. Which means that you are basing your interpretation on the reactions of people who were shit scared, lost, and starving, and exhausted."

No, my interpretation is based on what is *shown* and *heard* by the cameras. (except the finding of the rocks, which occurred well before they were shit scared, etc.). The cameras are objective, unless you think it was a hoax.

26651. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT

Kate,

I go camping for fun, too. I don't go out into the middle of the wilderness and get lost on a regular basis. I'm betting they weren't used to it, either. I didn't say they were ignorant. I just said that they were unprepared for being lost. Experienced campers can get seriously fucked in the woods.

"I have to say that given all the backstory and the mockumentary, it's clear the directors had no intention of telling a story of human efforts gone horribly awry"

My God. You know that PseudoErasmus is on vacation and tried to sneak in this bullshit about artistic intent because he wasn't here to yell at you? Alas, I can't scathe like he does, but I have the same feeling about intent. Fuck the back story, fuck the mockumentary, and fuck their intent. What's on the screen, baby.

26652. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT

"Well, we don't know what caused them to drop their cameras. The cameras broke, obviously, in my interpretation. As for Mikey, why is it any odder that he freaks and runs out of gas than it is that he waits patiently in a corner--in the dark--for a bad guy to kill him?"

Their camera broke after entering the basement, after working for seven days in wilderness conditions. Truly, you are imagining the grandmother of all coincidences. If you had applied this faith in coincidences to the OJ trial, you would think that justice was done by the verdict.

I find it odd that Mikey would run out of gas and stand in the corner if not for some external circumstance. Whether this external factor was the witch, or a killer pointing a gun at a terrified, exhausted, hungry man, is an open question.

26653. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT

I'll agree with Cal Gal involving using what is on the screen to judge the film. The Sci fi channel documentary may be interesting on its own, but the film stands or falls on its own.

26654. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 12:57 PM PT

I'll agree with Cal Gal involving using what is on the screen to judge the film. The Sci fi channel documentary may be interesting on its own, but the film stands or falls on its own.

26655. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:04 PM PT

Rask,

"They noticed them pretty damn quickly in the morning, spaced evenly around the tent. "

That would be when it was daylight? Which it wasn't before when they made camp?

"OK, a shirt *identical* to Josh's is found *right* outside the tent entrance, the day after Josh disappears. It contains body parts."

Or a small, skinned, dead animal.

As for what it was--I've *agreed*, cheerfully, that it's the spookiest thing in the movie. But suppose that you were out camping, knew where you were, and the next morning woke up and there was a bundle of sticks. Assuming you even looked twice at it, would you unwrap it? Assuming you unwrapped it, and found some horrifyingly bloody thing in it, would you say, "My GOD! A witch must be trying to kill me?"

You put all the these little things together and say BAM! It must be this. But it mustn't be anything. Weird shit happens. Take three kids who are in a lousy state of mind, throw in a couple of things that would fuck with you at the *best* of times and you might be prone to think it's a witch.

26656. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT

" No, my interpretation is based on what is *shown* and *heard* by the cameras. (except the finding of the rocks, which occurred well before they were shit scared, etc.). The cameras are objective, unless you think it was a hoax."

Right. There is, literally, nothing in what the cameras *see* and *hear* that is unambiguous. You've already agreed that the only reason you think the noises weren't animals is because of the other "evidence". Yet the rocks are disputable. The worst thing is the bundle, and if *that* were the only thing, would it be enough? No. Yet all the rest of the stuff you point to is ambiguous. So it is cyclical. You want me to believe the noises are people because of the rocks, but the rocks aren't definite.

That leaves the sticks, and you want me to believe the sticks because of all the rest of the stuff. But the rest of the stuff is open to interpretation.

Besides--if it was Josh, and he was killed, then he wasn't screaming for Heather. No way. And the one thing that *was* unambiguous, I am pretty sure, was his voice was saying "Heather".

26657. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT

CalGal --

I admire your creativity in putting together a possibility that lets you sleep at night, but you shouldn't invoke PE's name to justify it. While he would agree that only what is on the screen matters, you -- so far -- are the only one who sees what is on the screen as having this possibility, and you have come up with some pretty amazing offscreen possibilites to back them up (hunters dropping the shirt -- that looks like Josh's, but isn't -- wrapped around entrails in front of the tent, animals sliming particular items and not others, cameras breaking in near unison). Four others (Niner, Rask, KateWrath, and myself) here have seen it, and no one agrees with your interpretation, even remotely.

Isn't it possible that your taking this multiple-interpretations interpretation too far?

26658. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT

Rask,

"Their camera broke after entering the basement, after working for seven days in wilderness conditions. Truly, you are imagining the grandmother of all coincidences."

No. They fell. The cameras fell. They broke.

" I find it odd that Mikey would run out of gas and stand in the corner if not for some external circumstance. Whether this external factor was the witch, or a killer pointing a gun at a terrified, exhausted, hungry man, is an open question."

The witch is fine--but as I said, the witch could have been independent of the whole movie until she found these these two sillies messing around in the house and offed them. A killer pointing a gun at a man--A killer who was standing there in the dark, with a gun, on the offchance that Michael will come down the stairs with a light. Just to that very place. Who then relies on the fact that Mikey will be exhausted and stand there, patiently, in the dark waiting for Heather to show up.

And then, you have the problem that *this* killer would not be the killer of all those years ago. He'd be a different killer. One who was agile enough to keep up with them while they were wandering around--agile enough to stay out of sight. But, somehow, still interested in killing people just like his dad did--in the corner of a living room or basement. And so he'd have to figure out a way to make *sure* the kids got to that house. Or no? He was just killing them in whichever way was convenient?

Then having Mike stand in the corner was....coincidence?

26659. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT

You might as well "interpret" the ghost in Hamlet to occur entirely within his own imagination. This presents other problems, like the fact that some of the guards see the "ghost" too, and that this figment of Hamlet's imagination delivers accurate information to Hamlet about the circumstances of his father's death.

It's a fun game to play, I guess, but the ghosts in Hamlet are real, and based upon the argument here, the supernatural bugaboo in BWP is real, too.

 

26660. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:18 PM PT

...but since I advanced the "Keyser Sosa is Dean Keaton (Gabriel Byrne)" hypothesis, my glass house is too fragile to be throwing stones.

26661. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT

Pincher,

You are not reading very well if you somehow think I am asserting that PseudoErasmus would agree with me on my interpretation. You are also assuming that I am asserting my interpretation is correct because without the mockumentary, my interpretation is the only one that stands up.

Rather, I made a simple statement--trying to prove interpretation by referring to artistic intent is verboten. Period. No matter what you're trying to prove. I invoked Pseudo's name because his dislike of this is well-known.

26662. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT

The Blair Coincidence Project . . .

By the way, Ace, the last 100 or so posts are really loaded with SPOILERS.

26663. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT

Niner:

Yeahp. I noticed that some of you were good about marking them as such, and some others weren't.

But I got the skinny from a friend, anyway, so I don't care.

But I'll never forgive Pincher for revealing that Qui Jonn dies in Star Wars: TPM. A bad movie, true, but very poor form, old man.

26664. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:22 PM PT

Ace,

Actually, there is considerable debate about whether or not the subsequent appearances of the ghost in Hamlet are anything other than a figment of the Prince's imagination. But that's besides the point.

In *this* case, we aren't allowed to see the witch. If we saw the witch, your point would stand. As it is, we are debating interpretation of what *was* seen.

26665. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT

CalGal --

"A killer who was standing there in the dark, with a gun, on the offchance that Michael will come down the stairs with a light. Just to that very place. Who then relies on the fact that Mikey will be exhausted and stand there, patiently, in the dark waiting for Heather to show up."

Yes, a killer standing in the dark waits as he sees lights coming down the stairs, but it isn't by chance that he knows they will come down. He either has a recording of Josh's voice or mimics the voice to lure them down the stairs. Knowing the Blair Witch legend, he puts tired, hungry, exhausted and suggestible Mike in the corner and tunrs back as the next light comes down the stairs.

I agree this scenario isn't likely, but I prefer it to spooked kids and a series of coincidences.

"And then, you have the problem that *this* killer would not be the killer of all those years ago. He'd be a different killer. One who was agile enough to keep up with them while they were wandering around--agile enough to stay out of sight. But, somehow, still interested in killing people just like his dad did--in the corner of a living room or basement."

This is only a problem if it is one killer (not likely given the noises that were all around the tent at night. MOre likely, it would have to be several people.

"And so he'd have to figure out a way to make *sure* the kids got to that house. Or no? He was just killing them in whichever way was convenient?"

Again, the kids are wandering around lost. This group of killers knows the woods and knows when they would finally come near the house so they could lure them there. Obviously, whoever it was, they were not in a hurry to kill these kids. Whether it was the seventh night, fourth night, or tenth night (presuming they hadn't starved yet) wouldn't have mattered.

26666. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT

"In *this* case, we aren't allowed to see the witch."

You saw organic material wrapped in Josh's shirt, yes? Unless Maryland squirrels have taken to wrapping up the bodies of expired humans and presenting them to their next of kin, I'd say what you've got on your hands is a witch.

Or Keyser Sose. Either/or.

26667. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT

Ace

We are not really debating what was seen so much as what are the more plausible explanations for the series of events that befall the three filmmakers in the context of the film.

26668. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:29 PM PT

CG: Aargh. What was on the screen?

I was scared shitless by what was on the screen. As you point out, it's also possible that the movie could also have been about three people unnecessarily scaring themselves. But if that was on the screen, I never saw it, because if I had, I wouldn't have been scared. Human stupidity and hysteria bore and anger me, as I've learned from watching "A Simple Plan", "The Edge", and even many conventional horror movies.

Can I illustrate the scariness of TBWP sufficiently to scare you after the fact? No. Can you do the reverse? Possibly, but I don't want you to. I like being scared because it feels really good when I stop. Which leads me to conclude that this debate is just the teeniest bit pointless.

26669. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:29 PM PT

Niner:

Yes, I've read enough of the discussion to understand that. You're not exactly dealing with a chimp, you know.

Bloody orts wrapped in Josh's shirt = killer or witch

Unless, as I said, the woodland creatures of Maryland forests gather up the remains of dead humans and deliver them to the corpse's buddies.

26670. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT

CalGal --

"You are also assuming that I am asserting my interpretation is correct because without the mockumentary, my interpretation is the only one that stands up."

I haven't seen the Mockumentary, but I did read the official Website, if you think that might have had an effect.

"Rather, I made a simple statement--trying to prove interpretation by referring to artistic intent is verboten. Period. No matter what you're trying to prove. I invoked Pseudo's name because his dislike of this is well-known."

And I was joking with you, that bringing up Pseudo's aname in this context is alot like saying that milions and millions agree with me. Pseudo is a legion unto himslef.

Ace --

"But I'll never forgive Pincher for revealing that Qui Jonn dies in Star Wars: TPM. A bad movie, true, but very poor form, old man."

I agree that it was bad form, and I apologized for it, but I'm not so old that I couldn't kick your mewling, puking sorry ass around whenever I wanted to.

26671. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT

Ace

I apologize for my teaching.

I guess I'm kind of angry that you rejected my red gummy bear theory out of hand.

26672. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT

Speaking of stacked stones:

This echoes a joke in Ghostbusters, where Ramis and Aykroyd see stacked books in a library. Ramis says, "Compulsive poltergeist stacking activity." Aykroyd says: "Just like the stacked playing cards in the Taubman haunting of 1924."

Bill Murray says, sarcastically: "Yes, no humans could have possibly stacked books like this."

26673. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT

Ace

Ha ha ha ha ha. I remember that.

26674. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT

"but I'm not so old that I couldn't kick your mewling, puking sorry ass around whenever I wanted to."

As Clubber Lang (Mr. T) says in Rocky III: "Pincher don't fight with no real man. He fights with hisself."

26675. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:37 PM PT

Pincher,

"Four others (Niner, Rask, KateWrath, and myself) here have seen it, and no one agrees with your interpretation, even remotely."

Well, yes. And we've all seen how much majority opinions matter to me throughout the years. (g)

Seriously--The majority of people assume Meredith is a man. And yet, in the end, there were no pronouns referencing Meredith. It was not obvious at all--no one who has read the book ever noticed it until it was pointed out. Lots of people have read it and never knew there was anything odd about it.

So this is a movie, and I'm perfectly willing to believe that the directors *intended* to make a ghost story and just didn't realize there were people like me in the world.

But as a larger point, I think it's worth realizing that a lot of us assume that things are completely obvious, when they aren't. You all took it for granted that the noises *were* people, that someone *was* attacking them. Yet when it comes right down to it, all you have to go on is something gunky wrapped in a shirt and an ending that reminds you of the legend they told us about. The rest of it is scared, hungry, tired, lost kids, noises, and rocks.

So if all I did was shake it up a little, that's fine. I'm not faking it--I truly watched the movie as a sad story of what can happen when you get lost in the woods. I really don't think that just because everyone *else* saw it another way that this means that my coincidences are any less valid than yours.

26676. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT

Ace --

"As Clubber Lang (Mr. T) says in Rocky III: "Pincher don't fight with no real man. He fights with hisself.""

Hahahahaha.

26677. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT

"Unless Maryland squirrels have taken to wrapping up the bodies of expired humans and presenting them to their next of kin, I'd say what you've got on your hands is a witch."

Actually, you don't know that it's human--or that the human is expired. And, in fact, you don't know it's a squirrel. There is little doubt it was formed by human hands, obviously.

26678. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:40 PM PT

And Cal:

The accumulated series of very improbable random occurences-- capped by the bloody bits of organic material in a shirt just like Josh's -- makes your thesis much less likely than a nonrandom intelligence acting against the kids in Blair Witch. As Phillip Marlowe said one time (approximately), "It's not a physical impossibility, but it's a moral impossibility. Coincidences just don't stack up like that."

26679. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT

Cal

This Meredith is a man approach strikes me as inapposite, like you're forcing a square peg in a round hole come hell or high water. You yourself stated that there are no pronouns in this Meredith gig. Okay. That's plausible.

Nothing you've postulated on the "It's all in their heads and they died of exposure" theory has struck me as even approximating a foundation of no pronouns.

That said, this tiger has been chased around the tree for a while now. It's butter.

 

26680. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT

Half of the events I've read about here could be explained by overactive imaginations. But the rest of it you just explain away by saying "it's all a coincidence." Stacked stones, bloody bits in a shirt, nonfunctioning compasses, etc., can only be explained by "random shit that 'just happened' and just coincidentally happens to reinforce the hikers' overactive imaginations."

A moral impossibility, "shit just happening." Certainly not the stuff that *stories* are made of.

26681. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:45 PM PT

Kate,

Heavens. I don't want you to change your perception of the movie.

I just find it fascinating to chew on the different interpretations and maybe get people to wonder if they saw what they saw.

To me, the ability to be terrified is independent of reality.

26682. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT

CalGal --

"Seriously--The majority of people assume Meredith is a man. And yet, in the end, there were no pronouns referencing Meredith. It was not obvious at all--no one who has read the book ever noticed it until it was pointed out. Lots of people have read it and never knew there was anything odd about it."

I thought you made a good case for your point of view, with one exception. Your explanation of the shirt wrapped around some kind of entrails after Josh's disappearance seems very weak. That it is possible to posit that something that looked like Josh's shirt shows up outside their tent the night after Josh's disappearance, and it contains some kind of entrails ( and they happened to hear someone who sounded like Josh screaming that very night) and that this is all just a coincidence is possible, I suppose, but that is a very, very weak case. Except for that, your case doesn't make any other *large* leaps, I agree.

26683. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT

Niner said it best: It's butter.

26684. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT

CG: I'm stunned, but I'll get over it. There is a question I have to ask, though: How often does your imagination play tricks on you? This movie made my brain go into overdrive to believe and/or construct stuff that was never spelled out or shown to me, but it didn't have the same effect on you. I can't help wondering why that would be.

26685. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT

Niner,

"Nothing you've postulated on the "It's all in their heads and they died of exposure" theory has struck me as even approximating a foundation of no pronouns."

Obviously, I disagree. But I wasn't drawing any conclusions of the sort you imagine. The reason I use the Meredith example is because in that case it *was* demonstrable that we were open to make any assumptions we liked. There were no pronouns. Intent was irrelevant (although McIntyre did so intend). So that when people first realized that not everyone agreed on Meredith's gender, there was nothing tangible to *prove* one case or the other.

But how do you liken the lack of pronouns to an interpretion of noises in a tent? How do you *prove* ambiguity?

In the end, you come down to the fact that, upon detailed discussion, no one knows what the bloody stuff was, no one definitively heard voices except Josh screaming "Heather", and all of the interpretations have serious probability issues.

So if all this discussion did was show people that something that was irrefutable was, in the end, still the best solution for them but not quite as certain as they'd like--then I went some distance towards showing there weren't any pronouns.

26686. judithathome - Aug. 3, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT

Jeez, I wasn't planning to see this movie but after reading all this, I won't rest til I do so...

26687. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT

This is similar to James Thurber's "Macbeth Murder Mystery."

Yes, indeed, there CAN be a mystery about who the murderers are in MacBeth, if you're willing to subscribe to unlikely theses like Macbeth & Lady M. didn't really kill anyone, but that the "murders" they're shown committing occurred only in their superheated imaginations.

Unlikely, but you can't "prove" differently.

Very unlikely that indeterminate organic matter would show up in a Josh's shirt UNLESS he'd been murdered, but hey, it's *possible.*

26688. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT

Cal

That's all well and good on a thematic level.

But, in the nuts and bolts world of discussing interpretation, if your crutch is that nothing is definitive, I have no qualms.

But you take it further. Because nothing is definitive, then all interpretations become equal and all facts become malleable. The bloody goo in Josh's shirt can become red gummy bears in Kurt Cobain's trunk wear.

Why?

Because it did not come with a notarized placard stating "THIS IS JOSH'S TEETH AND GUTS WRAPPED IN HIS FLANNEL SHIRT."

The rock piles? Well, they must have missed the, and it was coincidence that they camped near 3 rock piles (and there are three of them).

The stick figures? Macrame.

The noises? Woodsy the owl, growling stomachs.

The turn to the wall? A pee, a pensive moment.

The children's hand prints? A day care center.

If these interpretations were arrived at irrespective of vessel, okay. But they are in the context of a story. In your analysis, the story seems to have been missed.

26689. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT

Pincher,

If you remember, I began by saying the bloody gunky thing was the most problematic. See my response to Rask, as well. I offered up possibilities not so much as alternatives that required acceptance or rejection but as deliberately wild answers. Why? Because my interpretation is reasonable, but it requires leaps and bounds to deal with the bloody gunk and shirt. The other two interpretations are quite unreasonable (given a horror film that doesn't spell it out), but once you accept the interpretations, then it requires no leaps and bounds to accept the bloody gunk and shirt.

Yet are there not tons of utterly wild and seemingly improbably things that happen? If you weren't primed to believe in the murderer or witch theory, and each thing happened separately, would you instantly jump to "It's a witch!" or would you figure something else?

I believe it was Jefferson who said, "Once you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth." (or something to that effect.) Everyone who sees BWP as a witch movie or a murder movie believes that they've eliminated all the other possibilities.

I am saying that you can't eliminate all possibilities. *None* of the interpretations are perfect--all require a stretch somewhere along the line. At that point, you can't tell *me* that a weird explanation for a bloody shirt is more improbable than a murderer who would be needed in order to fit the "natural" bill. And other than that, we're into the supernatural. A weird explanation for a bloody shirt is more improbable than a witch?

But in *all* cases--including my own--we missed the movie version of lack of pronouns and filled in the blanks in the manner most suited to our nature.

26690. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT

I'm with Niner's Message #26688. Why couldn't those be gummy bears, etc? Hell, as long as nobody is spelling it out, anything goes.

I mean even if Heather had seen Josh written in the shirt, there could have been another Josh who wore that same shirt, but used it (and some sticks) to wrap entrails in a hunting expedition in those very woods. I mean, it's possible, right?

26691. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT

Ack.

In saying the interpretations were "unreasonable", I meant that they relied on a wild psycho killer or a witch, whereas mine rely on the real world. Not that the other interpretations were unreasonable, given the movie.

26692. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT

"The other two interpretations are quite unreasonable (given a horror film that doesn't spell it out), but once you accept the interpretations, then it requires no leaps and bounds to accept the bloody gunk and shirt."

How is the possibility of a witch unreasonable?

26693. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT

Niner,

Excluding all your sarcasm, you are correct in your assertion that I saw a non-horrific explanation for everything. You are incorrect in then saying that this interpretation means there is no story at all. Not so. There is the story I created. Which is as valid as yours, which requires a mean old warty witch that goes Boo!

26694. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT

About the gummy bears: No. Heather's reaction is entirely appropriate to take into consideration, and I'm willing to buy off on the fact that she wouldn't have a meltdown if it were gummy bears. In fact, given how hungry she was, she might have eaten them. No, it was something horrific wrapped up in the shirt. Was it human? I submit that a skinned creature would have freaked her out as badly. In fact, I think it's *conceivable* that it *wasn't* human, just because she continues to think that Josh can be found. It is also conceivable, of course, that she just blanked it all out, which would explain why she didn't mention it to Mike.

26695. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT

CalGal --

"I saw a non-horrific explanation for everything. You are incorrect in then saying that this interpretation means there is no story at all. Not so. There is the story I created. Which is as valid as yours, which requires a mean old warty witch that goes Boo!"

In a movie, why is the "nonhorrific explanation" preferable?

26696. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT

Cal:

The likelihood of random events all occurring can be found by simply multiplying each respective probability.

Assign each of your suggested "random events" a probablity and then multiply them out. The product will be the likelihood of your thesis being the correct thesis.

Then let us compare that hideously unlikely chain of events to the likelihood of a hostile intelligence of some kind NONrandomly causing the events in question.

26697. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT

Pincher,

None of them are "preferable".

As for "movie like this"--I'm supposed to agree that it's a horror movie because the directors say it is? That's the intent issue again, isn't it?

26698. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT

God Damn It! I just spent 10 minutes posting yet one more attempt at churning butter, and Slate ate it. I won't retype it, but I will re-post my best line.

I imagine Cal arguing "I admit that it is tough to explain away all of the witnesses and the bullet wounds, but you have to agree that aside from those, my argument that Lincoln died of a brain aneurysm, and wasn't assassinated, is extremely plausible"

26699. PincherMartin - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT

CG --

I meant preferable for you.

 
 
1