26700. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:28
PM PT
Kate,
Long ago, back when this discussion started, I mentioned an
example of something that scares me. As I said then, I scare *ridiculously*
easily, so I'm not sure why this movie didn't get me.
I will say that generally, my deepest fears are based on random
bad things. The Exorcist terrifies me because she didn't do
anything bad, the devil just showed up and entered her. Psycho
serial killers that come to the house and kill people when they
are asleep. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, you don't
have any say in the matter--it has been decided, you are selected.
So something like TBWP is not the sort that, by definition, hits
my buttons. Stay in the tent. Don't go into the fucking house. Go
down to the river and follow it--you are guaranteed not to be
going in a circle. And once the people involved keep doing things
that have me thinking, "Are you out of your *fucking* mind?"
(which I started thinking the first time Heather said she knew
exactly where she was going and the guys sighed but agreed to
continue)--I start to look for reasons why they'd be such idiots.
If there *are* no reasons, then it's just a flawed movie. If
there *are* reasons (general group dynamics at first,
aforementioned hunger, exhaustion as time goes on), then my
reference point shifts. That's what happened for me in BWP.
26701. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:30
PM PT
Rask,
Unfair. We're pretty much down to the bloody shirt vs. your very
weird murderers.
26702. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:32 PM PT
and Ace said almost exactly what I initially wrote anyway. Thanks.
By the way, I don't think it *is* conclusive that the organic
material belonged to Josh. But it is certainly likely. I think it
is possible that Josh killed them, and got the organic material
from a dead animal.
Whether a witch is likely or not depends on your belief in the
supernatural, and your belief in the supernatural in the context
of a fictional film. If I had seen the exact same movie, with
conclusive evidence that it was a *real* documentary, I still
would not believe a witch was behind the whole thing, and that a
killer copycatting the killings from the 1940s was more plausible.
But given that it is a fictional film, yeah, a witch certainly is
a real possibility given the evidence.
26703. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:36 PM PT
Rask:
You know, I've been making good posts for a half hour now, but
all anybody ever says is "Niner said it best" or "Pincher
makes a good point."
Thanks. And fuck them.
I'll hold them down and you kick the shit out of them.
26704. PincherMartin - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:39 PM PT
Ace --
I did think you made several good points, but I'm still pissed
off you called me "old man".
You know I'm younger than Niner, don't you?
26705. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:40
PM PT
Pincher,
Why is it preferable for me? Beats me. Most of this goes on well
below radar. Why did you, Kate, and Niner decide that it was a
witch? Why did Rask decide it was murderers? Why do some people
think Meredith is a man and others a woman?
I explained some of what I think happened in *my* case to Kate in
the above post. But in the end, I have no idea why I looked at it
and said, Jesus, these kids are a mess.
But we all create our own reality. Most of the time, we all agree
on what reality is. Some of the time, in art *and* in life, we
will all *think* we know what reality is, and then BAM! reality
shift. No, it's over here. It's always a shock when that happens.
Then in some cases, there is no BAM! moment of resolution when we
all see the light. And there is also no agreement on what reality
is. If no one can prove their own interpretation of reality is
definitive--without saying, "Because it just IS"--then
no one wins, and the most interesting thing is to realize that
there are cases when everyone's interpretation is equal.
I realize that, taken to extremes, this results in things like
the creationist battle--where the creations equate two "theories".
And I'm sure that some people here think that *their*
interpretation is so obviously superior to mine that it may as *well*
be the creationist battle. Fine by me--provided you don't use the
artist's intent or the number of people who see the same
interpretation to assert the superiority of the vision, I'm
willing to accept that lots of people think I'm loopy.
26706. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:41
PM PT
Good point Pincher.
26707. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:44
PM PT
Ace,
You forget--there is only one random event that has to be
explained. Not a bunch of them. That one random event against a
very improbable murderer.
26709. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:44 PM PT
"Unfair. We're pretty much down to the bloody shirt vs. your
very weird murderers."
Hardly unfair, if all interpretations of evidence are equal. You
*cannot* explain the shirt, except for an astronomical
coincidence. My "non-supernatural killer" theory has
problems, but they are not logical flaws At least they are not *as
illogical*. I still require some coincidences, but they aren't
nearly as severe, in that they involve a lot of bad luck on the
part of the filmmakers, being at the wrong place at the wrong
time. You require these same coincidences, and much more.
The main problems with my theory are motivational flaws, of the
"why would a killer behave in a such and such a way"
variety. Given that any such killer would be a head case, I don't
have a huge problem with them.
26710. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:45
PM PT
I think Cal's interpretation of Blair Witch is every bit as
plausible as a medical interpretation of Linda Blair's affliction
in The Exorcist. I'm not being sarcastic. They both fly in the
face of the direction and themes of the film, but, other than
that, it is equally plausible to believe the kids just freaked
out under stress and starved to death and Blair had a nasty case
of multiple personality, raging psychoses, super-human head-swivelry
and the heebie jeebies.
26711. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:46 PM PT
Pincher:
I don't know if you're kidding or not, but "very poor form,
old man" is a Briticism which does not imply that the "old
man" in question is actually an "OLD man."
"Old man," used here, is the equivalent of "dude."
26712. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:47 PM PT
"I realize that, taken to extremes, this results in things
like the creationist battle--where the creations equate two
"theories". And I'm sure that some people here think
that *their* interpretation is so obviously superior to mine that
it may as *well* be the creationist battle. Fine by me--provided
you don't use the artist's intent or the number of people who see
the same interpretation to assert the superiority of the vision,
I'm willing to accept that lots of people think I'm loopy."
Here endeth the argument.
26713. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:47
PM PT
I don't understand this "butter" thing, but all I was
doing was answering the questions.
26714. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:48 PM PT
109: nice point about The Exorcist. You said it best.
26715. PincherMartin - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:49 PM PT
Ace --
"I don't know if you're kidding or not, but "very poor
form, old man" is a Briticism which does not imply that the
"old man" in question is actually an "OLD man."
"Old man," used here, is the equivalent of "dude.""
Is that right?
Can you say it to a kid?
26716. 109109 - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:49
PM PT
Cal
Announcing that there is "one" random event to be
explained does not make it so. People have repeatedly set forth
several such events. Now, to be fair, you were quicker in
offering coincidences for some (rocks, noises, stick men, dude in
the corner) than others (the red gummy bears), but a quick draw
doesn't erase them from consideration.
26717. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:50 PM PT
Its a reference to Little Black Sambo (109 is so lovably un-PC in
his choice of references). The Tigers run around the tree so many
times that they turn to butter. Sambo then makes pancakes with
them. Really trippy story.
26718. PincherMartin - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:50 PM PT
CalGal --
I think "butter" means we have whipped this subject
around for all it's worth, but I don't know for sure.
26719. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 2:50 PM PT
"there is only one random event that has to be explained.
Not a bunch of them."
Incorrect. As I understand the plot, you must also account for
the random coincidences of malfunctioning compasses, stacked
rocks outside the camp (three times), a wooden effigy, bloody
bits of organic matter in a shirt which is a replica of Josh's,
and a denouement in which Heather and Mike ACT as if they're
being hunted/attacked in a old house, and yet really aren't being
hunted or attacked, and then later, having realized that they
weren't being hunted or attacked, lay down on the side of a hill
to peacefully die of exposure.
26723. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 2:58
PM PT
Niner,
The difference being that The Exorcist gives you definitive proof--in
the framework of the movie--that there is something beyond the
physical. The look on Miller's face when it enters his body, the
turning the head all the way around. The *movie* gives evidence
that it thinks she is possessed.
I'm saying TBWP doesn't give that same evidence.
Rask,
Your murderers *are* as unlikely as the gazillion different
possibilities for the gunky bloody thing in the sticks.
Whether I'm loopy or not, you're left with the task of explaining
a totally unbelievable murderer *not* to someone who chose to
believe in witchcraft, but to someone who saw nothing at all
extraordinary in the movie and is kindly patpatting you on the
head, "Yes, Raskol, you go right on ahead and believe in
that mean old bad guy who doesn't need lights and hangs out in
dark places hoping that people with lights will come. It *was* a
horror film, after all, I can see you leaping to that conclusion."
In other words, pal, I outflanked your interpretation on the
reality plain and you're just miffed. Well, deal with it. Neener
neener.
26724. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:00 PM PT
Pincher:
I'm surprised you've never heard it before. "Old man"
is an upper-crusty way of saying "my good fellow" or
what not.
Gomez Addams also uses the expression "Very poor form, old
man" in the Addams Family when someone cheats at fencing.
26725. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:01 PM PT
I would like to apologize to anyone for spoiling any aspects of
the film. THings flew fast and furious, others stopped, so I
stopped. I recommend not reading the last hundred posts or so
until after you have seen the film.
But I will say that nothing discussed here is likely to ruin the
film. The film really contains no surprises in faithfully
following its premise of the disappearance of the filmmakers, and
it will scare the piss out of you anyway (assuming you are scared
by spooky things in the woods).
Slate needs a way to isolate conversations like this, so those of
us who want to have them can partake without ruining things for
casual viewers who might be assiduously avoiding the conversation
but catch a spoiler when they pop in to see if it is over.
But I am still sorry.
26726. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:01
PM PT
Ace,
I've been through all that, and I'm not going through it again.
But yes, I think most everything is explainable with no real
stretch except the shirt and the bloody thing.
26727. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999
- 3:04 PM PT
CG: I should stop posting into this, but somehow I can't stop
myself: All of your posts suggest that you were in the movie,
constructing alternative explanations for everything. Isn't that,
in itself, a kind of tweaking with what's on the screen? In a
darkly lit, unknown environment, various threatening things keep
happening; my brain leaps immediately to assume to worst. If your
brain is finding nothing threatening in these same things--in a
bundle of bloody rags and guts, for the love of Pete!--surely you
must have it on some kind leash, must be forcing it to find the
non-scary explanation for everything that happens?
The first words on the screen explain that the students were
never seen again. If you believed what you were about to see was
non-fiction (a snuff film), I think you would have left. So you
must have accepted it was a fictional story about people
disappearing. And yet, in this framework, with all that unfolds,
you never see any fatal threat to the students beyond exposure
and their own foolishness? I can't believe there wasn't some fast
and furious rationalisation going on when you were sitting in
that movie theater.
26729. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:05
PM PT
The reason I stopped with the spoilers is because at a certain
point the discussion became thorough enough that there is just no
way to read the thread, period. Maybe we should ask Irv to put a
warning in the Header?
26730. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:06 PM PT
"I've been through all that, and I'm not going through it
again. But yes, I think most everything is explainable with no
real stretch except the shirt and the bloody thing."
That's not the question. Everything may well be "explainable,"
i.e., physically possible.
The question is: How likely are these purely coincidental events
to all occur together?
How likely is it that they'd discover a pile of *already* stacked
stones outside their camp which they'd hadn't noticed the day
before? Let's say it's, oh, one in three. We'll be generous. Now,
how likely is this to occur three times in a row? 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3
= 1 in 27.
malfunctioning compass? Let's say one in five. So we now have 1/27
x 1/5, or 1 in one hundred thirty five.
Wooden effigy, which they also hadn't noticed previously? Let's
be generous again and say 1 in three.
So now we're all the way up to 1 in four hundred and five, and we
haven't even gotten to Josh's apparent murder/gory bits in shirt
or the denouemount in which the protagonists BELIEVE they're
being stalked, but really arent.
26731. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:06 PM PT
"Your muderers *are* as unlikely as the gazillion different
possibilities for the gunky bloody thing in the sticks. "
hardly.
"Whether I'm loopy or not, you're left with the task of
explaining a totally unbelievable murderer *not* to someone who
chose to believe in witchcraft, but to someone who saw nothing at
all extraordinary in the movie and is kindly patpatting you on
the head, "Yes, Raskol, you go right on ahead and believe in
that mean old bad guy who doesn't need lights and hangs out in
dark places hoping that people with lights will come. It *was* a
horror film, after all, I can see you leaping to that conclusion."
You just don't get it. It was a trap. The killers (or the witch),
used Josh's voice to lure them into the house, and waited
patiently in the basement for them to come down to where the
screams were coming from. He may have had a flashlight which he
turned off when he heard them coming. He knew they had lights
because he saw them in the woods several times. While there are
some problems with my theory (and all of the theories), this is
not one of them.
"In other words, pal, I outflanked your interpretation on
the reality plain and you're just miffed. Well, deal with it.
Neener neener."
That reminds me, can I borrow some of your crack? I am having a
party.
26734. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:10
PM PT
Kate,
Did you read my review? As I mentioned, I'm perfectly willing to
believe my psyche is fucking with me to let me sleep nights.
I don't see how my interpretation leads to the possibility that I
insisted on seeing it as non-fiction. I thought it was a superb
horror movie. I just found the horror in a different place than
you did.
26735. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:11
PM PT
Rask,
(pat pat)
Yes, yes. It is all as you say.
26736. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:13 PM PT
I won't mind being condescended to, as long as I get scratched
behind the ears as well.
26737. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:17 PM PT
On tv last night, a news segment showed a bunch of teenagers who
believed the events in question actually happened, and that the
documentary footage is real. When asked what she found scariest
about the film, one teenaged girl replied, "Well, because it's
real. It's a documentary. It's not just a movie."
The end-credits (I'm assuming their were some) apparently did not
cause her to question her belief that this was a real documentary.
Kids really are fucking stupid, aren't they?
26738. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:18
PM PT
Oh, and Rask--don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming my
interpretation is better than yours. I've already cheerfully
admitted that you all can think I'm loopy. But your
interpretation is not, in fact, the one most grounded in realism,
and I betcha you weren't planning on that.
So you're the one arguing for a psychopathic murderer with who,
um, traps (yeah, that's it!) his victims by hoping they'll find
the house and run up and down and around and then wait in a
corner in the dark.....
and I'm the one saying, people, people, get a grip. Do we *need*
to go that far? Isn't there a rational explanation? Other than
the shirt, is there anything really there? Couldn't the noises
just be noises?
Meanwhile you're sputtering, nonplused because you weren't
expecting an argument from the "there's nothing there"
flank, "but there's the ROCKS! and the....and the noises!
and..." all the while having to insist on all the SCARY
things, rather than pointing out the things that ground it in
reality.
And I'm sorry, but that's pretty funny.
26739. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:29 PM PT
"and I'm the one saying, people, people, get a grip. Do we *need*
to go that far? Isn't there a rational explanation? Other than
the shirt, is there anything really there? Couldn't the noises
just be noises?"
You continue to avoid the point that while each odd occurrence
could be purely coincidental, a *series* of odd occurences, all
occurring randomly and without a hostile intelligence causing
them to occur, is so incredibly unlikely as to approach the
impossible.
Toss ten quarters in the air. If they all come up "heads,"
it's *possible* you tossed them fairly and that they're not trick
quarters. But if you toss them in the air again and they all come
up "heads" again, I'd say you've got to begin
suspecting that something is CAUSING them to come up all heads.
26740. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:33 PM PT
This is similar to the mob-hit JFK conspiracy theory.
Basically, the theory goes like this: The mob hit JFK. And then
the US Government "just happened" to botch the
investigation and cover up the fact that there were multiple
assassins.
Now, I've no problem with the first part. But when you ask me to
accept that the mob hit JFK AND the government COINCIDENTALLY
decided to botch/cover up, then I've got problems. You've got two
unlikely occurrences here, either of which I can accept singly,
but when you combine the two, it begins to stink of
ridiculousness.
26741. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:36
PM PT
Ace,
You're missing the point of what I'm laughing at Rask about, so
chill.
26742. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:37
PM PT
By "chill" I mean, don't assume that I'm mocking Rask
for his flights of fantasy.
26743. katewrath - Aug. 3, 1999
- 3:39 PM PT
CG: I didn't say you believed it was non-fiction, I said the
opposite, that you had to believe it was fiction going into it. (Or
maybe you'd knowingly watch a snuff film, what do I know? But I
assumed not.) And given that it was a fiction about disappearing
kids, you took a lot of very obvious perils and made them
harmless, prefering to attribute their disappearance to exposure
and panic-induced stupidity. I call this tweaking with what's on
the screen.
(Never mind that the kids were cold and hungry, but still fairly
healthy, plus able to operate sophisticated machinery,the last
time we saw them, suggesting that they were a long way from
succumbing to the elements.)
You cheerfully admit that your psyche might be fucking with you,
but what you neglect to add is that this really means you have
spent several dozen posts doing the very thing you upbraided me
for: ignoring or adding to what's on the screen.
And as for whether you or Rask is more grounded in reality? When
you're sitting in a movie theater with, very likely, giant, super
intelligent sharks attacking Samuel Jackson in the next room over
and a lesbian Selma Hyeck fleeing talking lamps in the other, you've
clearly entered a playing field calling for suspension of
disbelief, in which either a crazed murderer, or a emphemeral
witch, are just as likely to be fatal as cold weather and
hysteria. (If not more so because a movie where people drop dead
from cold and hysteria would be a tedious waste of time, telling
us nothing that a back issue of Boy's Life couldn't have spelled
out in some detail.)
26744. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 3:43 PM PT
Cal:
As Goldfinger said to Bond:
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time
it's enemy action."
What's occurring in Blair Witch would seem to be enemy action.
26745. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 - 3:49
PM PT
Kate,
As I've said twice now, I am not saying that I am more grounded
in reality than Rask is. The mind boggles at the mere thought.
But of the three interpretations (supernatural, non-supernatural
with a psycho killer, and non-supernatural and no psycho killer)
mine is the one that resists efforts to introduce any external
factors for explanation. In that sense the interpretation is more
"grounded" (based) on realism. That's all. It does not
speak at all to the value of *any* interpretation.
"And given that it was a fiction about disappearing kids,
you took a lot of very obvious perils and made them harmless,
prefering to attribute their disappearance to exposure and panic-induced
stupidity. "
What obvious perils? The noises? The bumping tent? I truly don't
understand what I am making harmless. I am making a pile of rocks
harmless? The pile of rocks is just....there.
"You cheerfully admit that your psyche might be fucking with
you, but what you neglect to add is that this really means you
have spent several dozen posts doing the very thing you upbraided
me for: ignoring or adding to what's on the screen."
No, those are two different things. My psyche decides how it will
translate the input. It doesn't change it. I have neither ignored
or added to what I saw on screen. I'm not even sure my psyche *is*
fucking with me--I'm just willing to consider it. What it would
be doing, in that case, is reminding me of interpretations that I
might otherwise miss.
"Never mind that the kids were cold and hungry, but still
fairly healthy, plus able to operate sophisticated machinery,the
last time we saw them, suggesting that they were a long way from
succumbing to the elements.)"
Who on earth said they were succumbing to the elements right that
second? They could have sat out and starved for days or weeks
before they died.
26746. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 8:51 PM PT
"Oh, and Rask--don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming my
interpretation is better than yours. I've already cheerfully
admitted that you all can think I'm loopy. But your
interpretation is not, in fact, the one most grounded in realism,
and I betcha you weren't planning on that."
What do you mean, "grounded in realism"? The only thing
I will conclusively say about the film is that something or
someone was deliberately fucking with them. Whether it was
killers or the Blair Witch is an open question.
"So you're the one arguing for a psychopathic murderer with
who, um, traps (yeah, that's it!) his victims by hoping they'll
find the house and run up and down and around and then wait in a
corner in the dark"
Did you even see the film? They hear Josh's screams in the middle
of the night, occasionally calling out "Heather!". They
were *lured* into the house looking for their friend.
"and I'm the one saying, people, people, get a grip. Do we *need*
to go that far? Isn't there a rational explanation? Other than
the shirt, is there anything really there? Couldn't the noises
just be noises?"
But that exception, as well as the rocks, blows your entire
theory out of the water. It is impossible for your theory to
satisfactorily explain the facts, so your theory is rejected. It
is not grounded in the reality of the facts as presented in the
film.
Meanwhile you're sputtering, nonplused because you weren't
expecting an argument from the "there's nothing there"
flank, "but there's the ROCKS! and the....and the noises!
and..." all the while having to insist on all the SCARY
things, rather than pointing out the things that ground it in
reality.
I am sputtering because I am utterly amazed that someone who
usually has a pretty good perception of movies is devoting so
much time and effort to a counterfactual explanation. The one
thing that never fails to frustrate the hell
26747. Raskolnikov - Aug. 3,
1999 - 9:03 PM PT
The one thing that never fails to frustrate the hell out of me is
the inability to accept logic.
"But of the three interpretations (supernatural, non-supernatural
with a psycho killer, and non-supernatural and no psycho killer)
mine is the one that resists efforts to introduce any external
factors for explanation. "
So? Why is resisting external factors a good thing? If I were to
attempt to explain gravity as a mass hallucination, I would be
resisting an external factor as well. An external factor is *necessary*
to explain the facts.
26748. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 9:19 PM PT
Douglas Adams, author of the Hitchhiker's Guide series, had a
relevant observation on this point in "Dirk Gently's
Holistic Detective Agency," which is a great read, btw.
Basically, Dirk is on a case wherein fifteen highly improbable
things have happened to his client. His client, a computer
programer and rationalist, maintains that "nothing odd is
going on" and that there are "reasonable explanations"
to explain the increasingly bizarre occurrances. He then quotes
Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible,
the remaining possibility, however unlikely, must be the correct
explanation."
Dirk Gently replies: "Sherlock Holmes was all wet. There
comes a point at which a very unlikely explanation becomes so
ludicrous that a simple, non-coincidental *impossible*
explanation becomes infinitely more preferable."
26749. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 9:21 PM PT
...and, of course, it ultimately turns out that old Dirk Gently
is right. Given the impossible explanations of a time travelling
Oxford don, an alien spaceship crash-landing on earth ten
millions years ago, and a ghost wishing to have the circumstances
of his murder known to the living world, the solution becomes
simple and logical.
26750. ACEofSPADES - Aug. 3,
1999 - 9:28 PM PT
...although, for the life of me, I've never understood why Bach's
music was playing on the moon.
26751. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 -
10:49 PM PT
Rask,
"Why is resisting external factors a good thing? "
Please read *exactly* what you quoted again:
"But of the three interpretations (supernatural, non-supernatural
with a psycho killer, and non-supernatural and no psycho killer)
mine is the one that resists efforts to introduce any external
factors for explanation. "
Point out where I say that any of them are better than the other.
It's not me who is saying that my interpretation is better. You
are saying that *yours* is better, and you're pissed at me for
not agreeing. Too fucking bad--don't assume that I'm playing *your*
game.
"But that exception, as well as the rocks, blows your entire
theory out of the water. "
Your murderer is fucking ludicrous. Makes no sense at all. In
fact, the only reason a murderer makes sense as an interpretation--as
does the witch--is because it's a movie. Which is FINE. That's
the interpretation your brain, or imagination, or whatever sprang
to--and heaven knows, it's the most common one.
If I called my interpretation a "theory" anywhere, I'll
be surprised. I had no more control over my interpretation than
you do over yours with your unbelievable murderer. I didn't build
any theory--it's just how the movie appeared to me. You ask why I
spend so much time and energy explaining a "counterfactual
theory"--I'm just explaining how the movie appeared to me. I
didn't try to prove it to anyone--THAT'S HOW IT PRESENTED ITSELF
TO ME.
26752. CalGal - Aug. 3, 1999 -
10:50 PM PT
I sincerely doubt that while you were watching the movie you
accounted for all the possibilities I did--you were too busy
building your case for a non-supernatural murderer. Me, I wasn't
trying to build a fucking case; this is just how my weird brain
saw the movie. The two things you saw as "proof" I didn't.
You're perfectly willing to overlook your ludicrously illogical
murderer and piss and moan about my illogical "theory".
It's absurd.
Hell, I saw your interpretation *and* the witch interpretation.
You just happened to miss one.
"The one thing that never fails to frustrate the hell out of
me is the inability to accept logic."
Yeah, well, deal with it a bit better, because I'm tired of you
being a jerk about this. I even tried to goof with you about it,
but no, you had to go on record about how terrible this is, my
lack of "logic".
26754. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4,
1999 - 8:03 AM PT
"I sincerely doubt that while you were watching the movie
you accounted for all the possibilities I did--you were too busy
building your case for a non-supernatural murderer. Me, I wasn't
trying to build a fucking case; this is just how my weird brain
saw the movie. The two things you saw as "proof" I didn't.
You're perfectly willing to overlook your ludicrously illogical
murderer and piss and moan about my illogical "theory".
It's absurd."
Oh come on, I am a supreme skeptic. I made no conclusions about
their being a murderer or a witch until the evidence led me there.
During their first night, I was thinking, "it could just be
animals". But after the stones showed up on the 2nd night, I
rejected that explanation, and knew that something was fucking
with them. It was just a question of "what". Unlike you,
when I watch a movie I try to figure out what is going on, not
letting my mind get cluttered with every unsupported "interpretation"
that pops into my head.
You assume that because your interpretation is rejected out of
hand, that it wasn't considered. That isn't the case. Its just an
interpretation that is refuted by the last half of the movie.
You want to end this. Fine. I deflected your last condescending
attempt at closure with a joke, but you brought the subject back
up again. Post your mandatory response, and barring any new
arguments, I'll shut up.
26774. vonKreedon - Aug. 4, 1999
- 4:55 PM PT
Regarding TBWP:
1) I have not and will not see this movie. My wife,
coincidentally named Blair, gave me a detailed retelling of the
movie and I felt ill about three times and had trouble sleeping.
I do not like being scared and have not seen several excellent
movies (Silence of the Lambs for example) as a result.
2) From the descriptions it appears to me that there is certainly
an active agent terrorizing the kids. The piles of stones, the
bloody package, the "woods chapel", which (witch?)
noone as mentioned yet, all cannot be explained as happenstance.
However, much of the rest can be explained as normal events when
lost in the woods.
For example, the first time that I hear coyotes howling in the
woods I was certain that someone was torturing women. I was _certain_!
I jumped out of my sleeping bag, pulled on my pants and was
wondering how I was going to find this maniac and what I was
going to do if did, when my partner woke up and clued me in. A
bit later they started to bark and I was finally convinced and
could go back to sleep.
Another example, desending a mountain in a snow storm my partners
and I got off route. We had a compass, knew how to use it and
also knew what direction we wanted to go in. We would shoot a
reference with the compass, put the compass away and start for
the reference. twenty minutes later we would do the same exercise.
To really use a compass when lost you actually have to have the
last person in line orienting with the compass at all times. So
it is not necessary for the compass to have screwed up for the
kids to have walked in a circle.
26775. vonKreedon - Aug. 4, 1999
- 4:55 PM PT
So, my guess is that a combination of bad things happened to
Heather, Josh, and Michael. They got really freaked out by being
lost in the woods at night and they were stalked by someone/thing.
I will not test this guess by further research thank you very
much.
But on that note, I cannot believe what some people are using for
brains! I have read that people are showing up in the Maryland
town where the story takes place believing that the film is in
fact a documentary. This is loony enough, but they are also
wandering around in the woods!??!
26776. vonKreedon - Aug. 4, 1999
- 4:58 PM PT
My example about the compass may not have been clear is stating
that twenty minutes later we would be nowhere closer to where we
were attempting to go. Eventually we gave up trying to get to the
east side of the mountain and followed the fall line out the
north side of the mountain where we found some drunk fishermen
who gave us a ride to town.
26777. Raskolnikov - Aug. 4,
1999 - 7:06 PM PT
VK: I have used compasses as well. I didn't at all find it
implausible that they could get lost using one. My big "duh!"
comment was "why the hell didn't they just follow the creek
downstream?"
26779. CalGal - Aug. 4, 1999 - 11:19
PM PT
Yeah, I kept on telling them to go downstream, although I don't
think I said it aloud. I certainly wanted to, though, in the
hopes they might hear me.
Especially if you figure that in going south they crossed the
stream. This means--assuming that they checked the compass
against the sun--that the stream was going east/west. West,
presumably, would take them inland, which would probably be the
way they wanted to go. At least I'm assuming that Maryland's
oceanside is east.
vK--you are posting on what you *think* the movie means based on
second hand info? A POX upon thee! Being a wuss is fine--being a
wuss who wants to comment on the action is a dreadful sin. Go
check it out.
26780. vonKreedon - Aug. 5, 1999
- 7:20 AM PT
Sorry Cal, second hand is as close as I will get to that movie. I
recognize the illegitimacy of my commenting on something I did
not see, but hey I comment on things that I read or was told, but
did not see on a regular basis.
26784. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 - 9:40
AM PT
Commenting on movie interpretations is in an entirely different
league. vK, I think you should see it. Plus, I need another INTP
assessment. So far it is 2:1 in favor of boy, those kids were
mindfucked. None for Rask's interpretations.
26785. vonKreedon - Aug. 5, 1999
- 9:43 AM PT
Sorry, I simply don't go to movies whose description makes me
feel ill and impacts my ability to sleep.
Mind you, my wife and her sister are adamant that I should see
Blair Witch, but the only remotely possible way that that is
going to happen is on video with much fast forwarding....no, not
even then.
26786. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 - 9:46
AM PT
Hey, that almost exactly describes my reaction to the Exorcist.
And I saw *that*, dammit.
In any event, you *do* realize that you are basing your reaction
entirely on your wife's reaction. And yet, this entire discussion
should demonstrate to you that three people can see the same
ambiguity and resolve it seven different ways. So who is to say
that what your wife saw is what you would see?
6788. Raskolnikov - Aug. 5, 1999
- 9:53 AM PT
"None for Rask's interpretations."
My interpretation is simply that *something* got them in the
woods. So far, you are the only one who disagrees.
26789. Raskolnikov - Aug. 5,
1999 - 9:57 AM PT
Ack, I promised I would shut up. No new arguments, so no need for
a response. sorry.
26790. vonKreedon - Aug. 5, 1999
- 9:58 AM PT
Right, what I might see might scare me even worse than my wife's
description of what she saw! In fact there is an excellent chance
of that. Plus, the reviews and the web site scared me. Sorry, I
haven't seen the Exorcist either.
26791. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 -
10:11 AM PT
Rask--I didn't mean that as a slam at all. I thought you were
arguing for the psycho killer; apologies if I misunderstood.
And no one online agrees with me--I was referring to the person I
saw the movie with, who did in fact see it as I did.
26792. Raskolnikov - Aug. 5,
1999 - 10:14 AM PT
OK - But in clarity, I wasn't arguing in favor of a psycho killer.
I was arguing that it was a possibility. I don't believe that the
film can be definitely intrepreted beyond "Something got 'em".
26793. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 -
10:48 AM PT
I have a question--in fact, it's been on my mind while reading
the Table Talk debate as well:
Is it agreed that artistic intent doesn't matter? If not, why?
Apart from Rask and Pincher, I don't get the impression that
everyone is agreed on this and I pretty much take it as a given.
For example, let's look at the three basic interpretations--with
mine admittedly being the loopy one that no one else saw:
1) It was a supernatural force that killed them
2) It was a non-supernatural force that killed them.
3) They weren't killed, and they didn't die at the end of the
movie. There was no other force.
Okay, so we're arguing away about it. Someone comes in and says,
"Well, the directors made the movie with 1 in mind."
Is that the end of the matter? If there are moments of *genuine*
ambiguity in the film, is it artistic flaw or part of the art? Is
the director's intent relevant to answering that question?
26794. vonKreedon - Aug. 5, 1999
- 10:54 AM PT
Cal - You ask two questions:
1) Generally, should the intent of the artist matter to the
perception of the viewer? I would say no, if I have to know the
intent of the artist to interpret the art then the art is lacking.
Also, one of the great things about art is that it is open to
interpretation. So, the artist may come right out in public and
say, "This means X!" and I am still within my rights to
take whatever I happen to take away from the experience
regardless of what the artist intended.
2) I the directors of Blair Witch intended there to be no
ambiguity in the film then it appears they did a piss poor job of
that. From everything I have heard the ambiguity was well done
and purposeful.
26795. vonKreedon - Aug. 5, 1999
- 10:55 AM PT
Ooops, #2 should start "2 - I[f]..."
26796. CalGal - Aug. 5, 1999 -
10:56 AM PT
Definition of terms:
Niner earlier mentioned an Exorcist interpretation in which the
two priests were gay and they had to kill the woman to blah blah
blah. Okay, let's scratch that kind of stuff from the discussion.
That is a conceivable interpretation of the film's *symbolic*
meaning. But I'm talking literal meaning.
Example: what is in the bundle of sticks? SPOILER ALERT:
If Heather had screamed, called Michael, they looked at the teeth/fingers/whatever,
held them up for review, looked at the shirt and said my GOD, it's
Josh's shirt because look, here's the cigarette burn from the
other night
Unambiguous. Anyone who wanted to quibble meaning would be doing
so on the film's symbolism (why teeth? why his shirt? should Josh
have quit smoking and would he still be alive if he had?)
Or: Heather opens the bundle, sees whatever it is, holds it up
for inspection. We all *see* what it is. She doesn't tell Michael.
In that case, the *what* is settled--legitimately. Her reason for
not telling Michael is up for grabs--legitmately.
Instead, she sees something bloody, there is no agreement on what
it is, she doesn't tell Michael, meaning we don't even know what
*she* thought it was. There is relatively little question that *she*
assumed it was Josh's shirt.
But the directors, I contend, left this wide open. Is it
legitimate to go back to them and ask them what they meant?
Should their intent matter? Or could they have liked the effect
of the ambiguity--and not realized that in leaving it ambiguous,
they have ceded their control over interpretation?
Incidentally, I am *not* using this as a means of arguing the
legitimacy of my interpretation. I am genuinely curious about
artistic intent and its relevance. I chose the bundle of sticks
because it is vague and there is disagreement even about what is
*seen*, much less what is interpreted. But any example--even from
another film--is up for grabs.
Next
Prev
