26923. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Slackjaw --
Well, that makes you and CalGal as the only two people in the
Fray who think it was natural.
I have seen the movie three times now and there is no doubt
something got them. There are enough "observables"
there for the story to fit together, but you have to be observant
(even the third time, I still was picking things out that I hadn't
seen the first two). Certainly, that they died of exposure takes
too much contrivance on the part of whoever is making it to fit.
26935. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
2:51 PM PT
PincherMartin--
First, as I said, I do not subscribe to any particular
interpretation. I don't really care what happened. What I said at
the beginning of Message #26919
was what I said to my wife to try to induce her to see the movie.
Second, I believe Rask also noted a natural (i.e., non-supernatural)
possibility--the psycho killer. That is an easier interpretation
than the death by exposure, but it's still "natural."
Third: "There are enough 'observables' there for the story
to fit together, but you have to be observant (even the third
time, I still was picking things out that I hadn't seen the first
two)." As I said, I agree. (Incidentally, there are plenty
of observables even in an unobservant 1st viewing for some
version of a foul play story to hang together--fewere observables
means fewer constraints on the underlying story, so at least as
many stories are possible.) The "witch" story hangs
together, the "psycho killer/deliverance" story hangs
together, the "murder at Josh's hands" story hangs
together, and, from my viewing anyway, the "exposure"
story hangs together.
You mentioned that the bodies weren't found, that this is trouble
for the exposure interpretation. I presume you are referring to
the after-story about the manhunt? The bloodhounds and helicopter
search? Well, considering that the bloodhounds and searchers
missed the campers' equipment and footage in the dilapidated
house (it was found by U of M anthropology students a year later),
the search couldn't have been that intense. Conditional on this
oversight, it's not hard for me to believe a search could have
missed the bodies completely.
26936. judithathome - Aug. 9,
1999 - 3:08 PM PT
I think Al Gore should hire these filmmakers to run his campaign.
They know how to get people talking and can make anything seem
plausable.
26937. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Slackjaw --
My apologies. I thought you were agreeing with CG's take on the
film.
"You mentioned that the bodies weren't found, that this is
trouble for the exposure interpretation. I presume you are
referring to the after-story about the manhunt? The bloodhounds
and helicopter search? Well, considering that the bloodhounds and
searchers missed the campers' equipment and footage in the
dilapidated house (it was found by U of M anthropology students a
year later), the search couldn't have been that intense.
Conditional on this oversight, it's not hard for me to believe a
search could have missed the bodies completely."
Well, we are getting outside the parameters of the film, but okay.
Apparently, the search was intense enough for 33,000 man hours
and a satellite flyby, among other things. No trace of the bodies,
their camping equipment (except for the camera equipment and DAT
that the students found under the foundation of the house a year
later), or the like was ever found, even after the family
arranged an independent search.
But that wasn't what I was referring to in my message to you.
26939. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 - 6:08
PM PT
PM,
Well, save the context and the title--i.e., given only the
sequence of events in the woods--I think CalGal's interpretation
is as natural as any other.
About the search--my point is, in spite of the number of man
hours, searchers/hounds did not find presumably large pieces of
equipment under a house not far from the last night's camp site.
Hounds did not find any scent trail leading there. If they can
miss that, can't they miss decomposing bodies under a tree/house/riverbed
etc.?
In any case, what were you referring to in your post?
26940. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
6:10 PM PT
by the way, I find very interesting the idea that the people
involved in this movie made this hit happen or know how to make
it happen again somewhere else. Intuitively I do not think it
works that way, and I think the way hits happen is not well
understood, despite the drum beats of Wexxford1 and cllrdr about
marketing machinations.
My prediction is that each of the principals involved in TBWP
will get a few projects hoping to capitalize on their popularity
from this movie, but they will all fizzle and you won't hear much
of anything from them again.
26941. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 - 6:14
PM PT
PM,
Actually, Slack's take on the film seems identical to mine. His
own take was that it was three kids who probably died of exposure,
and he was also struck by the way that we fill in gaps--and that
most people fill in the gaps based on context.
I've also said that the witch and murder interpretations seem as
likely. In general, our debate has been over arguing how *unlikely*
my own take was, so we've been debating which is more likely--a
murderer who can see without lights or a random bundle with
bloody gunk in it.
Slackjaw is far clearer than I am at the best of times, and he
wasn't describing his interpretation in the midst of 10 doubters.
(g)
26942. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
6:14 PM PT
Price-Waterhouse-Coopers has a division called the Emergent
Solutions Group that uses nonlinear dynamics and complex systems
theory to try to understand things like how hits are made. Bottom-up
type models and all that.
The econometrically inclined will enjoy knowing that after lots
of money spent by movie studios on contracts with these people,
they found that simple linear regression with basic demographic
variables and marketing variables is a better predictor of a
movie's overall success, and the trajectory of its success, than
all the cellular automata and genetic algorithm models they came
up with.
26943. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 - 6:16
PM PT
Slack,
See, now. I knew that.
26944. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
6:16 PM PT
and yes, if I had to pick an interpretation to tell a friend, it
would be "death by exposure."
26945. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 6:36 PM PT
Slackjaw, CG --
Your interpretation of the film depresses me for one very big
reason. It suggests that American filmgoers -- even extremely
intelligent filmgoers, as the two of you are -- have to be hit
over the head with the point, motive, and/or plot of every story
to accept it. A film cannot obliquely refer to things and still
make a coherent story that has little doubt as to the final
meaning?
If a flannel shirt wrapped in a wood bundle is left outside the
entrance of a tent the night after the man wearing it has been
heard screaming in the distance, and this shirt contains some
kind of entrails, which the person handling it clearly is upset
to see, how do you plausibly explain that this could still be
about three people getting lost in the woods, given the context
the film has provided to that point?
You know, if you want to take it that far: Even if the directors
had stuck with the film of the witch chasing the three kids on
the fourth night, you could still explain it as what? A white
bear? A fluke? Someone dressed in white who appeared that night,
chased them, and then disappeared after that?
I don't see how I can convince you otherwise without some
definite reference in the film that makes it clear a person
appears, claims to be the witch, does some supernatural thing on
film, and then clearly kills the three kids.
You have taken what is a wonderful device for creating tension --
ambiguity -- and drawn conclusions that aren't supported by most
of the events that happen the last two days, and many that happen
that before that.
Yes, if you want to believe that starvation and death from
exposure is what happened in _The Blair Witch Project_, then
there is little I could do to disabuse you of that notion.
26958. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
7:05 PM PT
Pincher:
"It suggests that American filmgoers -- even extremely
intelligent filmgoers, as the two of you are -- have to be hit
over the head with the point, motive, and/or plot of every story
to accept it."
Your use of the word "even" is specious. The vast
majority of moviegoers, including my nitwit brother in law, have
not even considered that it was anything but the Blair witch.
see Pincher, it is your interpretation that I find depressing.
Even an intelligent moviegoer such as yourself is dead sure that
there was a bogeyman, that it can't be *anything* except what the
circumstantial evidence alone has led you to believe. You are a
sheep, man! Baaa!
I took the context dependent resolution of uncertainty to be the
point of the movie because it was so conspicuous that there wasn't
necessarily anything out there with them.
As for Josh's shirt, I commented on that in my original post. But
if "which the person handling it clearly is upset to see"
counts in your book as evidence or some observable a story must
explain, it's no wonder you've falled so hard for the lumpen
interpretation. The campers had no orienteering skills at all,
were lost, and had spooked themselves for several days. Heather
would've been freaked by a racoon at that point.
As for the ghost, if it had been left in the movie, I'd have
immediately surmised that it was just a stupid, campy comedy
movie. But it wasn't in there, so it's irrelevant.
26959. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 - 7:07
PM PT
Pincher,
I think that is quite unfair, although I know you didn't mean it
as such. I am not someone who demands everything be spelled out.
So why not figure instead there is something about the ambiguity
in the movie that is different---that's a litmus test of sorts?
It's like that "eny" question in Language.
26960. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
7:10 PM PT
rask,
the Emergent Solutions Group does not yet have a web site (lovely
little irony there--PWC computer jocks lag on web site creation),
and the study itself is proprietary.
However, the leader of that group, a guy named Win Farrell, has
writte a book called How Hits Happen in which he explains the
general approach. Haven't read it (and haven't heard good things
about it), so I don't know what he says about the movie
prediction in particular. I imagine he puts the best face on it
if any at all. The info I posted above comes from a conversation
with one of the movie project team members.
26962. Raskolnikov - Aug. 9,
1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Slack: How do you explain the bloody bundle and still have a
valid potential "exposure" interpretation?
I do agree with you on the general ambiguity of the film, though.
I keep telling people that it works better if the explanation is
natural.
26964. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
7:14 PM PT
oh, a demented Josh gutted a mouse and wrapped it in his own
shirt. Heather, having never seen a gutted anything, feared the
worst and freaked out. Wasn't that obvious?
26966. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 7:24 PM PT
Slackjaw --
"see Pincher, it is your interpretation that I find
depressing. Even an intelligent moviegoer such as yourself is
dead sure that there was a bogeyman, that it can't be *anything*
except what the circumstantial evidence alone has led you to
believe. You are a sheep, man! Baaa!"
I was sure at first, but when CalGal gave her interpretation, I
went back for another look, and I tried to watch the movie the
scond time form her perspective. It doesn't work. There are
probably a few different ways to watch this film - you and CG
have picked one which doesn't work. If you think the rest of us
are sheep and the two of you have deftly managed to find an
interpretation that works just as well, so be it.
"I took the context dependent resolution of uncertainty to
be the point of the movie because it was so conspicuous that
there wasn't necessarily anything out there with them."
Yes, you seem to have an empirical bent to movie watching. You
need to see it, to believe it. The fact that when both cameras
enter the cellar, they pan the room and have a full two second
count before they go down hard is coincidence, right?
"As for Josh's shirt, I commented on that in my original
post. But if "which the person handling it clearly is upset
to see" counts in your book as evidence or some observable a
story must explain, it's no wonder you've falled so hard for the
lumpen interpretation. The campers had no orienteering skills at
all, were lost, and had spooked themselves for several days.
Heather would've been freaked by a racoon at that point."
continued...
26967. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 7:25 PM PT
Yes, it is evidence. Anybody who watches a story or reads a book
knows this. Reactions and emotions are not trivial to the story.
In large part, they are the story. There is no way to explain
that shirt, and her subsequent actions without knowing that
whatever was in it disturbed her profoundly, and more importantly,
*we* are disturbed to see it even though we aren't in the woods.
*We* see Josh's shirt, wrapped in some kind of wood bundle that
an animal couldn't have made, and in turn wrapped around
something else which Heather (before she opens it) says is blood.
"As for the ghost, if it had been left in the movie, I'd
have immediately surmised that it was just a stupid, campy comedy
movie. But it wasn't in there, so it's irrelevant."
You're not answering my question: what in the movie would have
convinced you that a witch was behind their disappearance?
26968. Raskolnikov - Aug. 9,
1999 - 7:25 PM PT
OK, that works for me. I have been leading more and more toward
"Josh Freaking Out" as an explanation. I still think
that an inbred mountain man/ serial killer is "cleaner",
but Josh is certainly plausible.
26969. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 7:32 PM PT
Slackjaw's explanation of Josh's behavior is implausible because
he has confused the happenings of two different nights with one.
This is taken from his Message #26920
"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."
Josh disappeared the fifth night.
Josh was heard screaming the first time, the sixth night.
For Slackjaw's idea to work, Josh would have to have searched out
his "space" one night, then found and killed a mouse,
wrapped it in his shirt, and tied it in a bundle, found the tent
the next night while screaming (which he might have done
considering the screams that the other two made for him), and
placed the bundle in front of the tent without the other two
hearing him approach and depart in the dark.
26970. 109109 - Aug. 9, 1999 - 7:35
PM PT
You people.
Red gummy bears, goddamnit.
Or Josh removing his own teeth like Neve Campbell in "Wild
Things."
I'm not going to say it again.
Goodnite.
26971. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:22 PM PT
Pincher,
As Slack and I both said, we resolved the ambiguities in a way
that allowed us to enjoy the movie and with a story that worked
for us. To me, it is a fascinating Rorschach (sp?) test (which I
like better than litmus).
But if instead you insist that our interpretation is wrong and
flawed and not as good as yours, then your rationale can *only*
be that the movie should be perceived as the directors intended
it--it's a witch! baaaaaaaa.
Okay. So the movie presented ambiguities that were so wide open
that someone who wasn't particularly suggestible or had a mind
that was too flexible and didn't resolve the ambiguities within a
sufficiently limited construct would completely miss the point of
the movie. The only *reliable* way to ensure that someone
resolved the ambiguities properly is to have them read the
canonical website. Of course, in *that* case, there is no
ambiguity--everyone is just going ooh, ah! at the way the movie
scares them without actually showing them the witch and calling *that*
ambiguous.
Fine. So the movie was meant for the suggestible norm. Everyone
else, who is sitting there thinking the kids were lost, hungry,
and scared will, when faced with the bloody gunk in the shirt,
construct a rational reason for it--no matter how odd--because
that is what works in their story. And we will be scoffed at by
the rest of the folk, who had bought the witch from the beginning.
The alternative, is for that type of viewer to realize *at that
moment* that no, the directors actually intended that this movie
be unambiguously about a witch.
Had I realized that, during the movie, I would have laughed my
ass off all the while saying FUCK YOU, YOU IMBECILIC SHITWADS.
Wasting MY TIME like that?
26972. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:24 PM PT
What you seem to want, Pincher, is for us to see it as you did.
But we can't--due to the very ambiguities that allow you to be
all shivery squealy about a witch that no one can see.
That doesn't happen. Either we're allowed our bloody gunky shirt
improbability as given equal time with the witch and the
improbable murderer, or the movie flat out sucked.
I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed my interpretation of it. I got no
sense of getting one over on the folks who saw a witch, because I
genuinely believed it was open to any number of interpretations
and I saw the possibilities, the pros and cons of each one.
But if you want me to think it's about a witch, or a murderer,
because those interpretations are more *reasonable* because of
the bloody gunk in the shirt, then the movie was a lousy horror
movie with a laughably amateur attempt at suggesting
possibilities that they had no means of controlling.
26973. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:30 PM PT
PincherMouton:
"You need to see it, to believe it." No, not really. I
would have no trouble with the witch interpretation if it wasn't
so easy to see something else.
"Yes, it is evidence. Anybody who watches a story or reads a
book knows this. Reactions and emotions are not trivial to the
story. In large part, they are the story." I fully endorse
the last two sentences. The first, however, does not follow from
them. Indeed those reactions are important on several levels in
any story. But they do not prove that some particular thing has
happened or is happening or that circumstances are as grave as
the reactions indicate. Indeed, that fact is illustrated by works
such as Romeo and Juliet or Othello. It is important in the scene
you're talking about in TBWP (though obviously not so focal to
the whole story as R&J).
So it does not follow that, because Heather had a grave reaction
to the bloody satchel, that a reasonable story must explain why
this is an appropriate or rational reaction. She *overreacted*
because she had been scared, hungry and tired for days.
As for the ghost, if it had appeared in the movie, one is still
left with several interpretations. First, a few local yokels got
dressed up and spooked the earnest young college kids, who then
quite unrelatedly died of exposure. Second, said yokels spooked
the campers, and then killed them, first Josh and then the other
two. Third, said yokels spooked the kids, and then Josh went
bananas and killed the two and then himself/he wandered out alive.
Fourth and finally, the ghost was in cahoots with the actual and
extant Blair Witch, and this dastardly pair teamed up to torture
and kill the campers. This presumably would be your preferred
interpretation.
I acknowledge that I may be confused about the order of events. I
thought that Heather discovered the bag o' bloody bits the same
day Josh turned up missing. Are you saying that's not true?
26974. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:38 PM PT
Correction:
"The alternative, is for that type of viewer to realize *at
that moment* that no, the directors actually intended that this
movie be unambiguously about a witch. "
to
"The alternative is for that type of viewer to realize *at
that moment* that no, the directors actually intended the
audience to think that someone (natural or supernatural) was out
to get the kids."
(I forgot to allow for the murderer possibility when I was
writing that sentence.)
26975. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 11:45 PM PT
Slackjaw --
"I acknowledge that I may be confused about the order of
events. I thought that Heather discovered the bag o' bloody bits
the same day Josh turned up missing. Are you saying that's not
true?"
For an accurate chronology, start at Message #26828.
This was written after my second time watching the film, when I
went back to see if I could watch the movie through CalGal's
perspective.
26976. PincherMartin - Aug. 9,
1999 - 11:46 PM PT
CalGal --
"But if instead you insist that our interpretation is wrong
and flawed and not as good as yours, then your rationale can *only*
be that the movie should be perceived as the directors intended
it--it's a witch! baaaaaaaa."
Since I'm the only one to go back and try to see the film through
another person's perspective, I don't think characterizing me as
the sheep here is accurate.
26977. CalGal - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:50 PM PT
Oh, heavens. I was playing on Slack's comment. It was a joke.
Besides, you started this by criticizing us and *completely*
misreading our interpretation as proof of the overall degradation
of moviegoer intelligence. I thought both of us took that rather
nicely.
Besides, you appear to have missed the point of my response.
26978. Slackjaw - Aug. 9, 1999 -
11:59 PM PT
PincherMouton:
One thing about your chronology: you have seven nights worth of
terror and/or impending terror. The movie's website says they
were only out there from October 21 to October 25. Are you sure
you have it right?
In any case, if Josh did disappear on a different day than the
one on which the mangled tri-tip on flannel was discovered, it
could easily have been left by some previous camper wearing blue
flannel. Josh isn't the only one to own that, let alone wear it
while camping, after all. Just guessing. A number of
possibilities could fit, actually. What's the probability it was
Josh's, given that it was blue flannel? It's a simple problem in
Bayesian belief updating.
26979. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:00 AM PT
CalGal --
From your point of view, can a filmmaker make a movie *ambiguously*
about a subject without it being a Rorschach test?
From your point of view, can you see a movie that doesn't have a
unambiguous particular point of view or motive or story, and
still see that it's more than Rorshach test?
Or is a movie or story lacking in these things simply up for
subjective interpretation with each interpretation of equal value?
Do you feel from your point of view that _The Blair Witch_ is --
inadvertantly -- such a movie? Any interpretation is equally
valid in this case?
26980. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:03 AM PT
Slackjaw,
Hey. I said that about the shirt five days ago.
Of course, I didn't include the part about Bayesian belief
updating.
Instead, I attributed it to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
26981. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:08 AM PT
Jeez. As you can see, while I have tried to read most of the
previous discussion since posting my initial thoughts, I have
missed a few posts. I did not see where you said that.
If they were to take a vote on where the bloody flannel came from,
Arrow's theorem would definitely be a contender.
26982. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:12 AM PT
I'm trying to find the Official Blair Witch site to answer your
question on the discrepancy.
26983. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:14 AM PT
Pincher,
I'll answer your question, but I'd like to be sure you understood
what I was saying about the movie.
26984. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:15 AM PT
Slack,
It was hundreds of posts ago, so of course you didn't see it.
That post of mine with the Arrow stuff was *damn* funny, which
was the only reason I said it. I'm crushed you didn't laugh.
26985. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:18 AM PT
Pincher,
"From your point of view, can a filmmaker make a movie *ambiguously*
about a subject without it being a Rorschach test?"
Give me an example. I tend to think the BWP is fairly unique in
the nature of its ambiguity. I've mentioned the difference
between *literal* interpretation and *symbolic* interpretation.
It is fairly uncommon for a movie to be so ambiguous in its
literal interpretation. I had to go all the way back to Vonda
McIntyre in a *book* to come up with another example.
"From your point of view, can you see a movie that doesn't
have a unambiguous particular point of view or motive or story,
and still see that it's more than Rorshach test? "
Ditto.
"Or is a movie or story lacking in these things simply up
for subjective interpretation with each interpretation of equal
value?"
I don't think *all* interpretations have equal value. I think the
ones under discussion have equal value in that they all rely on
something improbable--a leap--but other than that, they hang
together.
Yes, I do think that BWP's ambiguity was inadvertent. I am quite
sure that it wasn't *consciously* their intent.
26986. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:18 AM PT
Pincher,
Addendum:
While I also don't think it was *unconsciously* their intent, I
wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that possibility. If you read the
articles on the making of it, they got very excited with the
footage that was shot out in the woods and decided to cut out all
the documentary stuff explaining about the witch and the hunt and
so on.
Who is to say that even though their conscious mind was happily
seeing the remaining footage as witch related, their unconscious
mind wasn't going "YOW! Man, look at the possibilities we've
created NOW!"
That, to me, is the interesting part of art. When the artist's
work has an effect that is entirely valid (IMO) and had nothing
to do with his conscious intent.
Which is a different subject entirely, so don't let my maundering
about it distract you from my *real* answer, which is that yes,
it was inadvertent in any conscious sense.
26987. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:24 AM PT
oh, I laughed.
PincherMouton: the mythology page of the official site
contains a chronology. Scroll to the bottom of the page.
Evidently their first night of camping was October 21. The APB
goes out October 25, but it doesn't say they died that day. The
search starts on October 26. Presumably if they were still alive
that day, the general aerial sweep that would precede any such
search would have located them.
26988. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:28 AM PT
Yeah, but see--when you start using the dates, the whole thing
gets weird. All we know when seeing the movie is that their film
was found a year later. We don't know how long they were gone,
truly, before the last scenes on the film. I think some people
have estimated 7 nights.
Again, using *that* knowledge--that it was 7 nights and the
search started on October 26, then they should have been found.
That they weren't suggests that the big bad witch got them. But
none of that was known while watching the movie.
26989. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:29 AM PT
CalGal --
I'm with you on this one. If the filmmakers inadvertantly make an
ambiguous film, and that the film seems to have several possible
meanings because of it, then that is the way it is, regardless of
their intentions.
However, my point has been that death from exposure is not
plausible given what we see on the film -- that it is, in fact,
not an equally valid interpretation, but a lesser one.
26990. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:34 AM PT
Slackjaw (what is Pincher "Mouton" anyway?) --
"Presumably if they were still alive that day, the general
aerial sweep that would precede any such search would have
located them."
I counted seven nights. The chronology is correct. Once again,
you have misread the details. Perhaps before you decide whether
to use the Bayesian belief updating or Arrow's Impossibility
theorem, you could make sure your basic chronology is correct.
That was something I did before discounting CG's (and now yours)
perspective.
26991. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:35 AM PT
even if it is known, I'm inclined to believe the searchers were
really a bunch of slackers. They missed all the scent trails and
found none of the evidence buried under the house.
Perhaps the witch has a deodorizing effect and erased all scent
trails.
26992. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:37 AM PT
Pincher,
Actually, I think you've gone back and forth on points. You seem
to be arguing that our interpretation isn't valid, but then you
also seemed to imply that we were foolish for seeing it that way.
There are two ways we can approach it. One is to argue
probabilities. Is my bloody gunky stuff in the shirt less likely
than a witch? As I said before--if you stepped out of your tent
one morning and came across a package like that, opened it, and
saw something bloody and gunky, would you howl and say "OH
MY GOD! IT'S A WITCH!!!!"
The other way we can do it is for you to accept what I said in Message #26971
and following. If you think the leap is impossible, then the
movie was lousy.
26993. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:38 AM PT
one does not "decide" to use Bayesian belief updating.
It's just right. Anyway, as I made clear, that detail of the
chronology isn't critical to any of these interpretations.
26994. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:39 AM PT
but re. the chronology, CalGal is right, it's not part of the
film, or known while watching the film, so strictly speaking it's
irrelevant.
26995. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:39 AM PT
There are seven nights. No maybes about it.
If you two can't even get that straight, then you need to go back
and watch the film again.
Also, Slackjaw, you have said that it was possible Josh was
suffering from dementia. Do you remember Josh's state of mind
before he disappeared? The last conversation he had?
26996. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:41 AM PT
well, "mouton" is kind of lame if I have to explain it.
go to this page, select "French to English,"
and type "mouton."
26997. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:42 AM PT
Pincher,
Re your questions to Slack:
Remember--it is not necessary to convince you of the specifics of
how our interpretation works. Just like it's not necessary for
you to convince us of how the witch made their compass break.
Given the construct of reality, is it possible? Yes. Not
incredibly likely. But possible.
26998. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:43 AM PT
No.
Do you remember before he disappeared, how he needed his space
for a few minutes? The guy was teetering.
26999. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 12:44 AM PT
"construct of reality"
uh oh
27000. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:44 AM PT
Isn't it sheep?
I thought it was funny.
But I should have laughed, given my demands for my Arrow joke.
27001. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
12:49 AM PT
Hey. I got the millenial!!!
About "construct of reality"--I already got in trouble
about that with Rask, and I'll cheerfully retract if I said it
badly.
BTW--I keep on mentioning that we don't know how Josh disappeared,
when, or what happened. I would be very surprised if he snuck out
while they were sleeping. He may have decided to go off for help,
in which case they may have waited a very long time. There is no
information given, I think. And if they didn't film him leaving,
there is no telling how long the cameras were off.
27002. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:53 AM PT
CalGal --
"Actually, I think you've gone back and forth on points. You
seem to be arguing that our interpretation isn't valid, but then
you also seemed to imply that we were foolish for seeing it that
way."
I tried to see things your way. And the first time I saw it, I
missed some things. You have said several things which are not
supported by the movie, including one I came across when
backtracking this evening. You said it wasn't clear that "Heather"
was shouted out that last night, but it's crystal clear.
"There are two ways we can approach it. One is to argue
probabilities. Is my bloody gunky stuff in the shirt less likely
than a witch? As I said before--if you stepped out of your tent
one morning and came across a package like that, opened it, and
saw something bloody and gunky, would you howl and say "OH
MY GOD! IT'S A WITCH!!!!""
Context is everything. A man wearing a particular shirt
disappears. The next night you hear what you think are his
screams. The next morning his shirt appears on your doorstep with
blood and entrails in it wrapped in some kind of wood bundle. You
haven't seen anybody the last six days, but you're afraid that
something is after you, because of strange noises you have heard
at night. The next (and last) night you hear Josh calling out to
you, you go down to the basement of what is certainly Rustin Parr's
home, the hermit who was hanged for killing seven children in his
basement. Both cameras fall with a thud in the basement, with the
final camera panning on Mike standing in the corner, similar to
the manner in which children were made to stand in the corner,
while one was killed. This is the last thing we see. Now given
this strange turn of events, you and Slackjaw say -- why, of
course!!! -- it's death from exposure. The idea holds up the
first five nights pretty decently, but it falls apart when you
start trying to come up with reasons of how that bloody
27003. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:54 AM PT
continued...
but it falls apart when you start trying to come up with reasons
of how that bloody bundle finds it's way to the entrance of a
tent after a night of screaming.
27004. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:03 AM PT
Pincher,
"You said it wasn't clear that "Heather" was
shouted out that last night, but it's crystal clear."
Quite the opposite. I said I *did* hear "Heather!". See
Message #26559.
Later on, when there was question about that, I allowed for the
possibility that he didn't say it just to cover every possibility.
Nothing in your last paragraph contradicts me. The fact that
someone is scared is irrelevant to what happened. The shouting
could have been Josh screaming "Heather!" because he
was lost and looking for the two of them, which is what I thought
from the start. There is nothing that says the house is the
murderer's. But even if it is--so what?
The *only* thing that is extremely tough to explain in this
theory is the bloody gunky shirt. Mike standing in the corner is
the next toughest, but I still think he could have just flipped.
27005. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:04 AM PT
bloody gunky stuff in the shirt, I mean.
27006. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 1:05 AM PT
CalGal --
"Re your questions to Slack:
Remember--it is not necessary to convince you of the specifics of
how our interpretation works. Just like it's not necessary for
you to convince us of how the witch made their compass break.
Given the construct of reality, is it possible? Yes. Not
incredibly likely. But possible."
No, in a movie specifics are everything. Specifics matter. They
are not incidental to the interpretation of a movie. If you are
guessing that a character is suffering from dementia, then you
should be responsible for demonstrating it using what is in the
movie.
Slackjaw is right about the timing of Josh's need to be alone. It
was after the fourth night when Josh's gear got "slimed"
(and his gear alone) Then that evening as they set up camp at the
very same place they had been the night before, Josh had his
monologue when he pointed the camera at Heather and said "Here's
your motivation!" But that night as they were in their tent,
Josh apologized to Heather, and appeared to be quite lucid just
before they turned off the cameras. The next morning he was gone.
Slackjaw's idea may still be valid, but it has to take into
account that Josh became demented enough in the next few hours to
disappear without any of his gear, go kill a rat (a mouse would
be too small for what was inside the bundle), scream the next
night, find his friends' tent in the dark, deposit his gift, and
leave in the night without anyone noticing him
And I never said that the witch made their compass break. You're
confuisng me with someone else.
27007. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:06 AM PT
And remember, Pincher--just because that's the last thing we see,
it doesn't mean they died right then.
27008. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:13 AM PT
Pincher,
No, I'm not confusing you with someone else. I just gave an
example of a witch thing--didn't have to be your example.
And you are missing my point--is it *impossible* that what Slack
says about Josh could have happened? No. Are there other
extremely unlikely things that could have resulted in that bundle
being there, that had nothing to do with Josh shouting Heather?
Yes. My favorite is still the small woodland animal.
But not as small as a mouse. And, btw, I dispute that it couldn't
be a mouse--not that I care, but still. There is no knowing what
the hell that gunky thing was.
The point is that there is no way of knowing how or why that
package got there. If Slack's explanation *relied* on Josh having
done it--in order to explain something else--then specifics would
matter. But if you just say hey--there are any number of weird
things that could have got it there--here's one, for example.
Then it is no more required that it be *proven* than it is that
Niner prove to me that witches can magically deposit packages in
a tent.
I am not speaking for Slack, here, btw. It just seems to me that
since each theory has an element of unlikelihood, you have to
deal with that. The witch is unlikely, the murderer is unlikely,
and a non-hostile explanation for the shirt package is unlikely.
Such is art.
Now--if the movie showed Josh levitating, I'd go with the
supernatural explanation.
27009. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 1:15 AM PT
"Mike standing in the corner is the next toughest, but I
still think he could have just flipped."
This is a possibility, I agree. It isn't so much any particular
thing that happens as the mass of coincidences. Yes, Mike could
have flipped out and turned to the corner after dropping his
camera. Heather could have flipped out when she saw Mike in the
corner and dropped her camera. They both could have lost their
minds and wandered out of the house until they fell dead of
exhaustion or hunger, and then their bodies could have been eaten
by animals before a search party found them. Likewise, their
equipment might still be in some hidden glen now, awaiting future
discovery. All of this is possible. But given the evidence that
the movie presents us with, how likely do you think that is?
Bloody shirts of friends, screams in the house that seem so close
but really never respond to anything that Heather or Mike shout
back, two cameras falling in the same location in the basement,
Heather's tentativeness before going after Mike in the basement
as well as her bloodcurdling screams before going down as if she
knew and yet was stil compelled to follow.
27010. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:22 AM PT
Pincher,
"But given the evidence that the movie presents us with, how
likely do you think that is?"
I watched the movie and this is how I interpreted it. The movie
presented me with a sequence of events. Your "mass of
coincidences" is my "two kids are beserk with fear and
exhaustion, Heather didn't hesitate, she just didn't know where
the hell Mike was, it's impossible to tell where the hell voices
are coming from in the woods, and clearly there was some obstacle
that they both tripped over".
27011. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 1:26 AM PT
"But not as small as a mouse. And, btw, I dispute that it
couldn't be a mouse--not that I care, but still. There is no
knowing what the hell that gunky thing was."
There are three components to that package. A finger-like shape.
Something that could be a heart or liver or, yes, a dead animal.
And finally, something that she sees only after opening it the
second time, which looks like it could be a jawbone with teeth (and
when she sees it, she immediately drops it). All three of those
things together are bigger than any field mouse and probably
bigger than a rat.
"The point is that there is no way of knowing how or why
that package got there. If Slack's explanation *relied* on Josh
having done it--in order to explain something else--then
specifics would matter. But if you just say hey--there are any
number of weird things that could have got it there--here's one,
for example. Then it is no more required that it be *proven* than
it is that Niner prove to me that witches can magically deposit
packages in a tent."
Here's what we know.
There is a shirt remarkably like Josh's inside the bundle.
It was deposited that sixth night directly in front of the tent
entrance, and it wasn't there the night before.
Inside the shirt is bloody gunk.
That previous evening, screams had been heard, including one
"help".
Now, given this, give me a plausible explanation of how it could
have gotten there without Josh or some other third party that was
fucking with the group.
As was mentioned earlier about the supernatural, witches don't
need an explanation. If you accept that possibility as one of the
possibilities that could have happened, then any appeal to sanity
in action by the witch is irrelevant. The supernatural does what
the supernatural must do. She doesn't require a motive.
27012. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:33 AM PT
Pincher,
Technically, we don't know the shirt was Josh's.
We don't know what is in the shirt at *all*.
We don't know who built the package.
We don't know when the package was built--only if Josh built it
does it have to have been built that night.
We don't know *how* it got there--some animal might have found it
and dragged it there. A person might have been wandering around
with it (god knows why, but I still think it's some weird hunter
thing) and tossed it away, not having seen the tent. Remember, we
don't *know* that they were all that far from civilization.
I don't *have* to explain it, given all that we don't know. I can
just say that *any* reason for that damn package being there is
unlikely. Mine are more unlikely than yours, I agree. But not
absolutely impossible.
As for the witch--you are quite right. In fact, the biggest
problem with the witch scenario is that she would be, in that
case, the Keyser Soze of the BWP.
Keep in mind again--if you want to demand that I should have
known, at the moment I saw the package, that it was therefore a
witch--then the movie was fucked up badly. Utterly flawed.
27013. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 1:34 AM PT
CalGal --
"...Heather didn't hesitate, she just didn't know where the
hell Mike was, it's impossible to tell where the hell voices are
coming from in the woods, and clearly there was some obstacle
that they both tripped over"."
Mike announced to her that Josh was down in the basement and he
was going to get him. After Mike annouces that and rushes down
the second story stairs (they both were on the second floor of
the house at the time), watch the hesitation of the second camera
on the steps above the basement and the literally bloodcurdling
screams that come out of Heather at this time. Heather's screams
were so bloodcurdling, the first time I heard them I actually
thought that they might be the witch's screams for a moment.
There was absolutely no obstacle they tripped over. None. Zero..
Both cameras were steady when they were hit. They were not going
down the stairs and they were not going forward when they went
down. Mike's might have panning the basement when it was hit, but
Heather's was focused on Mike, dead still for a good two count,
and then BAM, the camera falls.
27014. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:42 AM PT
Pincher,
Sorry. Nothing you say in Message #27013 has
me thinking, "yeah, you're right. Must be a witch."
I'm not even sure *what* your explanation is of those events, but
to me it makes sense that they were both beserk, that she was
screaming like a banshee from fear, that she was afraid to go
into the basement, that she stops upon seeing Mike, and just as
she starts to move forward, she trips and falls on whatever Mike
caused Mike to do the same thing.
Otherwise, you are suggesting that the witch hoodoo voodooed them
down there? Okay. It was certainly not obvious, and I was not
ever thinking there was anyone in the house with them.
Again--if you say that my interpretation can't be supported, then
the movie was fucked badly. Because what you all seem to want is
for us to wildly brainstorm all the terrible and unlikely things
the witch might be doing to them--but only the witch can do these
things! If it was unlikely and *not* the witch, be gone!
And in this case, I think my explanation works just fine, btw.
The only iffy part is Mike flipped out in the corner, but I think
his beserker energy of earlier could have worn off when he
realized his camera was broken, he was stuck in this house in the
dark, and Josh was nowhere around. Crack.
27015. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 1:48 AM PT
CG --
I wrote a long response to you, but I dumped it.
I hope you at least do me the courtesy I did for you which was go
back and see the movie again.
Goodnight.
27016. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
1:55 AM PT
Pincher,
???????
I already *see* your interpretation. I saw it when I watched the
movie. I could see how people would think that. There is no need
for me to go see the movie again. I don't think your
interpretation is wrong. I'm not attacking your interpretation,
you are attacking mine.
You have yet to acknowledge what I said--that if the movie was *supposed*
to convince me that it was a witch, it was fundamentally flawed.
There is no getting around that, no seeing it a second time. It
is just a bad movie. The directors failed, in assuming that they
could be ambiguous and control how the ambiguity was viewed. So
if you are right--if the bloody stuff in the shirt *must* be
interpreted as a malignant force out to get them, then....the
movie was a bad movie. It's that simple.
I don't see any reason to get upset.
27017. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:00 AM PT
actually a weird hunter thing isn't bad. Do hunted carnivores
live around there? Coyotes maybe? Feral dogs? Maybe it was some
sort of bait, possibly crude and created by someone like me who
doesn't hunt.
So Mike "announced" that Josh was in the basement.
After he "announced" that Josh was upstairs but he wasn't,
perhaps Heather stopped before descending the stairs so as to
listen again to see if the yelling was possibly even outside the
house.
We were all pretty fixated on the bloody sack, I think. It
appeared at the very largest no bigger than the guts of your
average cottontail.
I do not find Josh's behavior on camera the night before his
disappearance bothersome at all. As far as we know they woke up
like regular in the morning and he wanted to take just a little
space like the day before, and wound up taking a little too much.
27018. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:06 AM PT
"Maybe it was some sort of bait, possibly crude and created
by someone like me who doesn't hunt."
Yeah, or the type of thing that some super-purist hunter type
might create. I was thinking that--like they want to attract the
animal, but don't want them to destroy the bait. Just the smell,
and when the animal is trying to get at the good stuff, BAM!
"As far as we know they woke up like regular in the morning
and he wanted to take just a little space like the day before,
and wound up taking a little too much."
The thing that is weird--we really have *no* idea why Josh went,
where he went, what they had discussed before he went.
27019. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:06 AM PT
obviously, though, what happened in the basement is that the
witch tripped Mike as he came down, then stood him up in a corner
right quick and told him to keep quiet so she could then also get
in position to trip Heather. Either that or the ghost bonked them
both on the right as they came down the stairs and the witch
stood Mike back up at a more leisurely pace.
27020. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:09 AM PT
In fact I thought and think it fairly unlikely that Josh was
abducted by malevolent vapors under cover of darkness. Presumably
they cannot get his corporeal body to disobey the laws of physics
so they'd have had to unzip the tent. Given the noises that woke
them up the first night they had trouble--not at all out of the
ordinary for camping; in fact it seemed fairly quiet--they'd have
noticed for sure.
27021. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:12 AM PT
Yes, and then she backed up Heather's tape, went back up to the
top of the stairs, made awful screaming noises and taped the trip
back down the stairs.
Then she killed them both, took Mike's camera, went back up to
the top of the stairs.....no, that won't work. How would she have
made Heather's screams seem to be in the background of Mike's
camera?
Well, she's a witch. It could happen.
27022. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:15 AM PT
27021 is to 27019.
Oh, yes, about Josh. I can't think *anyone* thought that he
disappeared in the night.
What I meant was that people seem to assume he just disappeared,
when for all we know they had a long conversation about how he
was going to go off and check *this* direction for a while, and
wanted them to stay put--he'd be back in an hour.
Or maybe he just needed some space and went off for what should
have been just a bit and couldn't find his way back.
Or the witch got him. Or he went manic and started hiding from
them and driving them wild crying "Heather!"
27023. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:15 AM PT
especially with the help of an enterprising young ghost.
27024. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:17 AM PT
Well, yes. Josh was a *very* young ghost, and eager to impress
his new boss. Who was certainly no more of a witch than Heather (hyuk,
hyuk).
27025. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:23 AM PT
hey! is this thing on?
take my wife...
27026. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:25 AM PT
Be careful, dude. I've seen your wife. You'd get a *lot* of
takers.
Unintended consequences.
Which is a lovely way of summing up the mistakes made by the
directors of The Blair Witch Project.
27027. CalGal - Aug. 10, 1999 -
2:28 AM PT
Or.....
It's Skeptics Night at the Improv!
27028. Slackjaw - Aug. 10, 1999
- 2:30 AM PT
ha. I quite agree about the Mrs. Luckily I carry a rapier and
will do a Dante-meets-Muhammed maneuver on any suitors.
Yes. Summing up. 'Night.
27030. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:38 PM PT
CalGal --
"I'm not even sure *what* your explanation is of those
events, but to me it makes sense that they were both beserk, that
she was screaming like a banshee from fear, that she was afraid
to go into the basement, that she stops upon seeing Mike, and
just as she starts to move forward, she trips and falls on
whatever Mike caused Mike to do the same thing."
No, you aren't basing your interpretation on what is on the film.
Both you and Slackjaw are making fundamental errors in your
chronology
and interpretation of key events. Watch the movie again. Heather's
camera doesn't move forward at all. It is focused on Mike. And
then, whack, it falls quickly to the ground.
"Otherwise, you are suggesting that the witch hoodoo
voodooed them down there? Okay. It was certainly not obvious, and
I was not ever thinking there was anyone in the house with them."
Something got them, that much is clear. I lean towards the witch.
"Again--if you say that my interpretation can't be supported,
then the movie was fucked badly. Because what you all seem to
want is for us to wildly brainstorm all the terrible and unlikely
things the witch might be doing to them--but only the witch can
do these things! If it was unlikely and *not* the witch, be gone!"
It's not just unlikely. It's damn near inconceivable. I don't
want you to brainstorm, but is asking you and Slack to get the
chronology right, and observe the importance of some of the
details you missed brainstorming? The movie subtly points towards
a certain cause. Were the movie less subtle, the movie would be
less interesting and creepy. However, you and Slackjaw want
something more definitive, a hairy arm swooping out of the
darkness to knock Heather's camera down, a computer-generated
witch hovering in the distance, a narrator at the end carefully
explaining details of the search that definitely point towards a
witch.
27031. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:38 PM PT
The movie would be the lesser for that, but because it isn't so
explicit, you believe the inadvertant point of ambiguity -- You
see natural causes; I see the Witch; Rask sees crazed killers --
as the point. The fact that your interpretation has several large
holes doesn't bother you. Apparently, it's better than believing
in witches. Mine on the other had starts from two easy premises:
1) the kids are not serious outdoorsmen (this is established
early when Heather shows the camera her books for staying alive
in the woods) and 2) the possibility of a witch or someone else
in the woods fucking with them. If you allow those two premises,
everything else in the movie works.
"And in this case, I think my explanation works just fine,
btw. The only iffy part is Mike flipped out in the corner, but I
think his beserker energy of earlier could have worn off when he
realized his camera was broken, he was stuck in this house in the
dark, and Josh was nowhere around. Crack."
Fine, Mike breaks his camera at the foot of the stairs and
wanders in the dark over to the far corner, doesn't respond to
Heather's cries, and when she shines her camera lights on him for
a full two seconds, he doesn't turn around but maintains his
position in the corner, after which Heather's camera falls.
27032. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:40 PM PT
CalGal --
"What I meant was that people seem to assume he just
disappeared, when for all we know they had a long conversation
about how he was going to go off and check *this* direction for a
while, and wanted them to stay put--he'd be back in an hour."
For Christ's sakes girl. Now you're making up conversations that
didn't take place in the film to supply motives for what did.
27033. PincherMartin - Aug. 10,
1999 - 12:49 PM PT
CalGal --
"Or the witch got him. Or he went manic and started hiding
from them and driving them wild crying "Heather!""
It's established early that the Blair Witch -- if she exists --
has supernatural capabilities. The power of suggestion as she
used on the hermit, Rustin Parr, when she wanted him to kill the
children; great strength, as the myth of Coffin Rock shows, when
she tied sevral men together while they were all alive and
struggling; and perhaps the power of voices, such as the cry of
the baby the night of the tent attack, and later the voice of
Josh; the power to be noisy or quiet depending on the desire. All
of this material is from the movie, and it all plays in to later
scenes.
Josh standing in the corner
First Page
Prev
