Now we are going to delve into one of the scariest, independent movies ever made, “The Blair Witch Project,” released in 1999. We’re automatically afraid of natural things (snakes, barking dogs, and the dark) but have to be told to fear walking into traffic or touching an electrical wire. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says, “Horror films that tap into our hard-wired instinctive fears probe a deeper place than movies with more sophisticated threats.” A villain is only an actor, but a shark is more than a shark.
“The Blair Witch Project,” an extraordinarily successful horror film, knows this and uses it. It has no fancy special effects or digital monsters, but its characters get lost in the woods, hear noises in the night and find disturbing sick figures hanging from trees. One of them finds slime on his backpack. Because their imaginations have been irritated by talk of witches, hermits and child murderers in the forest, because their food is running out and their smokes are gone, they (and we) are way more scared than if they were simply being chased by some guy in a ski mask.
Ebert said, “The movie is like a celebration of rock-bottom production values--of how it doesn't take bells and whistles to scare us.” It’s shown in the form of a documentary. We learn from the opening credits that in 1994 three young filmmakers went into a wooded area in search of some kind of a banshee: “A year later, their footage was found.” The film’s style and even its production strategy improve the fantasy that it’s a real documentary. The characters have the same names as the actors. All of the footage in the film was shot by two cameras – a color video camcorder operated by the director, Heather (Heather Donahue), and a 16-mm. black and white camera, operated by the cameraman, Josh (Joshua Leonard). Mike, played by Michael Williams, does the sound. The three carry backpacks, and are prepared for two or three nights of sleeping in tents in the woods. It doesn’t work out that way.
Ebert mentioned, “The buried structure of the film, which was written and directed by Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, is insidious in the way it introduces information without seeming to.” Heather and her friends arrive in the small town of Burkittsvile (“formerly Blair”) and interview locals. Many have loosely heard of the Blair Witch and other threatening legends. One says, “I think I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel or something.” We heard that children have been killed in the woods, that bodies have disappeared, that strange things happened at Coffin Rock. However, the movie smartly doesn’t give this information as if it can be trusted. Ebert said, “It's gossip, legend and lore, passed along half-jokingly by local people, and Heather, Josh and Mike view it as good footage, not a warning.”
Once they get into the woods, the situation increasingly turns threatening. They walk in circles. Something happens to their map. Nature itself begins to seem oppressive and dead. They find threatening sings. Collections of sticks, unsettling stick figures. These simple objects are scarier than more complicated effects. They look like they were created by a being that disturbs the woods, not by someone playing a practical joke. Much has been said about the practical photography – how every shot looks like it was taken by a hand-held camera in the woods (as it was). However, the visuals are not just a technique. By shooting in a cold season, by reducing the color palette, the movie makes the woods look unsociable and desolate. Nature is seen as a hiding place for horror secrets.
As fear and desperation grow, the personalities of the characters appear. “We agreed to a scouted-out project!” one guy complains, and the other says, “Heather, this is so not cool!” Ebert mentions, “Heather keeps up an optimistic front; the woods are not large enough to get lost in, she argues, because "This is America. We've destroyed most of our national resources."” Eventually her brave attitude diminishes into a remarkable shot where she films her own apology (Ebert said, “I was reminded of explorer Robert Scott's notebook entries as he froze to death in Antarctica”).
At a time when digital techniques can show us almost anything, “The Blair Witch Project” is a reminder that what really scares us is what we can’t see. The noise in the dark is almost always scarier than what makes the noise in the dark. Any child will tell you that. Not that he believes that all the time.
This movie is either that you think is scary or think that it’s a cheap looking movie. For me, I go with one of the scariest movies I have seen, especially since when I saw it, I thought it was completely real. Then, my cousin said that everyone believed that until Heather was interviewed by Craig Kilborn back when he hosted “The Late, Late Show.” Now, I would say that you should definitely check this movie out because I think you will like it.
If you can believe it, they actually made a sequel to this movie. How did this movie leave us on any note that there would be a sequel? That is beyond belief. Which is why we have come to the 2000 sequel, “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.”
Ebert started his review out by saying, “To direct a sequel to their phenomenal "Blair Witch Project," Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez made an unexpected choice: Joe Berlinger, co-director of the documentaries "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and "Paradise Lost 2: Revelations." Those two films make a persuasive case that three innocent young men from Arkansas are in prison, one on Death Row, because of local hysteria over teenagers who wear black and listen to heavy metal music. Meanwhile, a person who seems to be the real killer does all but confess on camera.”
Ebert then goes on to say, “The movies are deadly serious because they make the case that injustice is being done. Lives are at stake. I wondered earlier why Berlinger would want to make a fiction film on witchcraft and black magic, but suspended judgment: He is one of the best documentarians around. But now that I've seen "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2," I'm disturbed.”
The movie shows no special coming that made it necessary for Berlinger to direct it. It’s confused, sometimes-atmospheric effort that could have come from many filmmakers. At the same time, because of the loaded characters and dialogue, “Blair Witch 2” gives ammunition to think the Arkansas prisoners are guilty. Ebert said, “I can imagine a preacher thundering from his pulpit: "This Berlinger comes down here and makes a couple of propaganda films making us look bad, and then what does he do? Makes a film glorifying black magic and witches."” If the film had argued against the attitude that basically trapped the West Memphis Three, that would be one thing. However, it doesn’t. This is not one of the Joe Berlinger’s proudest days.
However, what about the movie itself – apart from Berlinger’s involvement? It opens nicely as a documentary about the effect that the first movie had on the (fictional) town of Burkittsvile, MD, where the Blair Witch was rumored to disturb the nearby woods. Tourists have descended on the town, locals are on eBay selling stick-figures like those in the movie, and the frustrated local sheriff tours the woods with a bullhorn, shouting, “Get out of these woods and go home! There is no Blair Witch!” We meet a group of Witch fans who have signed up for an overnight tour in the woods. The Blair Witch Hunt, as it is called, is led by a tour guide, played by Jeff Donovan, who, we will learn, is a former mental patient, and now recovered, apparently. Others include Erica, played by Erica Leerhsen, a witch who practices Wicca, which is the white-magic form of witchcraft. Stephen (Stephen Barker Turner) and his girlfriend, the pregnant Tristen (Tristen Skylar), who are writing a book on the madness caused by the film, and Kim (Kim Director), who dresses in black and says, in an indirect reference to the “Paradise Lost” movies, “Where I come from, people believe because I dress in black, I’m some kind of killer.” (In keeping with the “Blair Witch” pseudo-realistic approach, all of the actors play characters who have their names.) The group pushes into the woods, where they begin to argue about their different advances to the experience. Ebert admitted, “I liked Erica's cautionary Wiccan lore: "The first rule of Wicca is, do no harm, because whatever you do will come back to you threefold." This sounds like "Pay It Forward" in reverse.” Soon they have an argument with another tour group, which leads to an unsuccessful shoving match. The other group is advised to look out Coffin Rock, with deadly results, and eventually the sheriff, played by Lanny Flaherty, gets involved, and the movie intercuts interrogation parts as the Witch Hunt group is tested by the law.
Like the first movie, this one has two visual styles (but not nearly as much of that hand-held photography that forced some regulars to recycle their popcorn bags). Most of it is in 35mm. The rest is video footage shot by the main characters. The 35mm footage may or may not exactly reflect how the characters remember what happened. The video footage may or may not be an objective record of some of the same events. Also…is there really a Blair Witch? The answer, if any, may come in “Blair Witch 3,” which has fallen into development the moment it was thought up.
“Book of the Shadows: Blair Witch 2” is a not a very clear piece of filmmaking (and contains no Book of Shadows). Ebert said, “I suppose it seems clear enough to Berlinger, who co-wrote it and helped edit it, but one viewing is not enough to make the material clear, and the material is not intriguing enough, alas, to inspire a second viewing.” The characters are not strongly and colorfully established, there is no convincing story line, and what planet does that sheriff comes from? He breaks the reality with every appearance.
“The Blair Witch Project” was perhaps one of a kind. Ebert said, “Its success made a sequel inevitable, but this is not the sequel, I suspect, anyone much wanted.” The opening scenes – the documentary showing the townspeople affected by the first film – is a more promising approach, because instead of trying to repeat the same thing, it goes outside the first film and makes its own style.
In the end, do not see the sequel. It’s one of the worse sequels ever made, and it clearly shows. There is nothing in this movie that is likable, but instead makes you scratch your head and think why it was made. No one should ever think about seeing such a horrendous sequel that is just made for people to make money.
Thank goodness that is out of the way. Heads up: I’m going to see the new “Goosebumps” movie later today, so you will get a review tonight. Stay tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment