Saw The Blair Witch Project this weekend, before reading *any*
Fray discussion of it. I expected it to be a scary movie and I
prefer to watch them in particular uncontaminated.
My wife did not go with me, because she guessed (after a
conversation she had with her brother) that the movie would
seriously disturb her. When I came home, I told her to go see it--it's
pretty novel to a coupla Hoosiers, and there's nothing too scary
about 3 kids who got themselves very scared, very lost, and died
of exposure.
When the movie started I was just rolling along, waiting for the
witch to wreak havoc, when it occurred to me: there is really no
reason to believe there's a witch out there. I don't necessarily
believe any interpretation, and don't really care about choosing
an explanation that fits the observables. The "death by
machinations of a supernatural creep" interpretation is
certainly not impossible if one is willing to suspend disbelief,
which I am.
It's just not necessarily implied by the events, and to me, that
was the point of the movie, whether the makers intended it or not.
There are a few observables consistent with several different
unobservable stories, and the combination of context expectation
can make the vast majority (as far as I can tell) of moviegoers
pick one interpretation over all others. The context of the movie--the
documentary, the title--are the only things that create any
ambiguity about the role of the supernatural being.
That very context then fills in all the gaps that it created, for
without the context, the supernatural being does not figure in.
Maybe exposure killed them, maybe garden variety loony, but not a
witch. The context takes perhaps the most far fetched
interpretation and makes it the natural one.
None of the events of the movie seems out of whack with the
behavior of an animal and/or a frazzled Josh. I got home and per
her conversation with her brother, my wife asked me about the
bloody bag of teeth and eyes, the abduction of one of the campers,
the attack in the basement of the house, etc. Of course I knew
where by BIL thought he saw these things, but in the movie they
are not so clear cut. They are just suggested by the belief that
a witch wants to get the campers.
I find it highly implausible that Josh was abducted, as the
campers were very sensitive sleepers. Mike and Heather weren't
clearly attacked in the basement. I don't know what was in that
flannel, but it didn't really look like teeth and/or eyes. Say,
Josh, in his temporary hunger and dementia, gutted a mouse and
wrapped it in a piece of his shirt, before he sought some "space,"
wandered off, and got himself separated.
So, I don't know what happened and don't care. Many things could've
happened and that is the interesting part.
As for cellar's remark, that this movie just proves everything is
marketing: well, that's kind of a throwaway comment. Hasn't there
ever been a movie that failed in spite of a marketing blitz, or
one that succeeded without it? (Of course one can then just say
the marketing wasn't done *properly* on those failures, which
makes this point of view that marketing is everything into an
useless and unfalsifiable religious stance.) Anyway, maybe other
people see something interesting about the movie or the way it's
shot, even if cellar's friends don't.
as for the actors, they were certainly believable. *They* thought
they were being fucked with, that much is clear.
I don't know whether that makes them good actors. Heather may be
either a good actor or an excitable and supercilious city gurl.
Same for Mike and Josh.
I don't think it's possible to tell whether someone is a good
actor, in the sense of being able to convey things outside their
own natural range of feelings by the vehicle of a character,
until you've seen them in at least two productions. If you only
see one, there is an identification problem.
