Weird movie, maybe a little underrated? - The Mothman Prophecies (2002) Discussion

[–] db20db (16228) 6 years ago

I agree with you that it's underrated. The first time I saw it, I was kind of blown away by it. That compelled me to rewatch it at least a couple of times more. And also as a result, it motivated me to watch a couple of documentaries about the event which were equally as creepy.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

I'll probably spend some time doing research today on the true story behind the film.

Any documentaries that you remember well enough to recommend?

reply

[–] db20db (16228) 6 years ago

Not offhand, but if something comes to mind....

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

What's your take on the true story? Do you think something truly supernatural actually happened or is it all bullshit?

reply

[–] db20db (16228) 6 years ago

Well, based on what I remember of the documentaries, something extraordinary and inexplicable occurred but it remained an unresolved mystery, just like the movie.

I'm open minded, analytical, weighing the pros & cons until I finally come to a personally satisfactory conclusion. For instance, not long ago I watched a doc about the Yeti which seemed to really make sense to me. There was an enormous amount of scientific evidence to support that it's actually a species of bear long thought to be extinct.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Cool, thanks for your take on it.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

Check out this 2.5 hour documentary on the topic: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810856/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Awesome, I'll have to give that a look. I appreciate the heads-up.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

"The Mothman Prophecies" is not a monster or slasher horror; it's a creepy supernatural/mystery story with loads of mood & atmosphere. People watching it for the first time might have a "meh" response because they thought it was going to be the former, which is what the later TV horror flick "Mothman" (2010) was.

Sensitive viewers will note an undeniable reverent, beautiful quality to "The Mothman Prophecies." The ending is strangely touching.

One critic claimed that the mysteries presented in the story are not supposed to be figured out and CANNOT be figured out. This is untrue. The film is smart and intricate. Questions are raised with varying possibilities. The answers are there, but you may have to watch it a few times to discover them. I appreciate the fact that the director and writer refused to spell everything out for the viewer, even allowing room for complete misinterpretation. If the viewer wants answers s/he will need "ears to hear" and be willing to work for them.

My initial interpretation was that the mothmen are good spiritual beings that are trying to help humankind by predicting great calamities but can be easily misunderstood because they are so far beyond the plane of humans. In a nutshell my interpretation was that the "mothman" brought Gere's character to Point Pleasant to meet and save the future replacement for his dead wife, who died due to a pre-existing condition that only the mothman knew about. This explanation obviously suggests that the "mothmen" are benign in nature.

I've come to see that this interpretation is false; a brilliant red herring.

At the end, the saved police woman, number "37," is still a victim in that her previous views that the mothmen are evil could now flip-flop into the deception that the they are somehow agents of good. Of course we never find out if this happens because the tale potently ends the two protagonists in shock sitting in an ambulance, just glad to be alive.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Thanks for your input.

So your final determination was that the mothmen were evil?

I definitely think they are portrayed as more evil than good. In the film, they seem to take joy in fucking with people. For instance, they give just enough information to know that something tragic is going to happen but they don't give the specifics necessary to prevent the tragedy. And it's not like they somehow aren't able to do so. They were very specific when Gere's character was testing them and asking about his watch, the line in the book, etc.

They also seemed to take joy in tormenting him with the stuff about his wife and repeating the line about her being "sorry she ruined everything." Furthermore, they seem to have somehow been responsible for Gordon's death.

Then again, on the other hand, their message to Laura Linney's character did seem to be benevolent.

I guess I agree with the guy in the film who says that ultimately we cannot know. But the mothmen seem to be more negative than positive to me.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

From the evidence in the movie I conclude that the mothmen are evil spirits or fallen angels. This is clear when viewing eye-witness drawings of the creatures: These pictures never show beautiful angel-like beings, but rather disturbing, obviously-malevolent winged-creatures.

A 'mothman' CAUSED the auto accident that injured Mary (Debra Messing). Would a GOOD angelic being cause such a tragedy (regardless of the fact that she ultimately dies of a pre-existing problem)?

The bible calls Satan the "prince of the power of the air," hence, his filthy underlings (demons) are spiritual and electro-magnetic in nature. They can thus speak through a phone that's not plugged in or perhaps manipulate a traffic light. They can mimic the voices of dead loved ones or even take human form, like Indrid Cold, Mary or the male nurse who insists Mary's drawings are of "angels" and then mysteriously vanishes.

The researcher from Chicago reveals that the mothmen are from "hell," aka the spiritual underworld that underpins the earth, and they send out mixed messages to ruin peoples lives. They may seem to be benevolently warning humans but, at the same time, are obvious instigators of human tragedies (the car crash, Gordon's job loss, insanity & ultimate demise and the researcher's loss of his family, career & a respectable social life, etc.). Also consider the fact that they refuse to reveal their true selves and intentions. They are highly skilled masqueraders.

The reclusive researcher also points out that they have been around for millennia and therefore see things at least 2 or 3 moves ahead of humans; they naturally use this vantage point to manipulate, deceive and destroy.

The saved woman at the end, Connie (Linney), WOULD have been the 37th victim. Thirty seven was historically a numerical symbol of the Christ and Connie's submersion & salvation was a type of the death/resurrection of Christ. The mothmen (evil spirits) were ineffectual against her.

Of course this is a commentary on the data supplied in the movie and therefore doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the real-life story.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Hmm, interesting. . .

Well you've definitely thought it through and broken everything down.

That seems like a pretty good explanation so, in light of me not having a better one, I'll roll with it.

Like I said in my last post anyway, they struck me more as negative entities than positive ones by a fairly wide margin.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

It's a smart mystery/haunting film that respects the intelligence of the viewer: The director and writer threw in enough ambiguity to allow for total misinterpretation; and they didn't care (!). Like I said, the first couple of times I watched it I misinterpreted it.

I haven't seen it for like seven years so I'll give it a re-watch tonight. If I discover any fresh insights I'll share them.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Yeah, like I said in the OP, I think it's a better film than I initially gave it credit for. It could be tightened up a bit and the third act could be a little more focused, but I'd say I generally agree with your impression.

If your rewatch inspires any new thoughts then let me know.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

Some additional observations after re-watching the movie:

• If you freeze-frame the actual appearances of the mothman (like during the car crash) it’s obvious that it’s a fallen angel, sorta resembling a bat-like Dracula.
• The mothmen (evil spirits) don’t cause the calamities that occur, but they foresee them due to their spiritual vantage point, as the researcher theorized.
• Since their presumed M.O. is to “kill, steal and destroy,” they feed on death, destruction & torment and therefore venture to the places where they foreknow great tragedies will transpire, like the Silver Bridge collapse. “Odd Thomas” (2013) is the best movie I’ve seen to illustrate this theme.
• Mental illness issues are linked to the manipulations of the mothmen, e.g. Gordon’s gradual descent into insanity and premature death. Klein starts moving in a similar direction but ultimately rejects the manipulative forces by pulling the phone out of the wall in Georgetown and going back to Point Pleasant to celebrate Christmas with Connie.
• The movie emphasizes how humans can’t fully understand everything from the limitations of this mundane plane.
• I like the subtext on loss, grief and the longing to see your loved one again.
• The film takes the low-key route with weird things taking place without always drawing attention to them, which can be missed if you’re not paying attention.
• The Special Edition DVD includes the documentary “Search for the Mothman,” which interviews several participants of the strange events of Point Pleasant 1966-1967, including eyewitnesses of the mothman & UFOs and those who encountered men-in-black, as well as survivors of the bridge collapse. At 43 minutes, this documentary is more streamlined than “Eyes of the Mothman” (2011), which runs 2.5 hours.
• The documentary addresses the real-life phenomena observed in the movie, like the red eye condition and a woman having a precognitive dream about bodies & Christmas presents floating in the river.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

• The director is interviewed in a couple of featurettes where he details his ambition for cinematic art vs. the producers’ push for commercial viability. Whether people like the slow, haunting story or not, few can deny the film’s artistic merits. Personally, I find the story fascinating and gripping, even on repeat viewings. It helps to use the subtitles in order to catch all the dialogues and keep track of names/places/things.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 6 years ago

Interesting. Thanks for the additional write-up.

Since you mentioned the documentary on the DVD, I went out to see how much the Blu-Ray was (assuming it would have the same documentary). To my surprise, the film has been released on Blu-Ray internationally but not in the US. That seems very odd to me. I wonder what's up with that.

So I went to see what was available on Amazon regarding docs and found that both Eyes of the Mothman as well as one other is available for Prime members (of which I am one).

Sine Eyes of the Mothman is so damn long and I'm not yet prepared to invest 2 1/2 hours, I went ahead and watched the other one that was available since it's only 67 minutes long.

Here it is:

https://www.amazon.com/Mothman-Point-Pleasant-Lyle-Blackburn/dp/B072DVVYT4

I thought the production values were surprisingly high and it was a good production overall, though I will probably still check out Eyes of the Mothman to get a different perspective.

One thing I noticed with the story--or at least in the way that this doc tells the story--is that the legend seems to grow over time. For instance, from what I can tell, most of the early witnesses simply described seeing a "large bird." Then the bird gets bigger. And then eventually it's not a bird at all but some unknown creature.

I am open to the potential reality of the supernatural, but this does make me wonder if we're just dealing with a legend that grew out of purely natural and explainable events.

Also, I know the film and John Keel's book was called "The Mothman Prophecies," but I'm unclear on where the "prophecy" element enters into the true story.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8157) 6 years ago

I'm unclear on where the "prophecy" element enters into the true story.

It's conveyed in the movie: When John Klein goes to Chicago to pick the brain of recluse Alexander Leek he asks him about the nature of the mothman (or mothmen), to which a concerned Leek responds, "Where is it appearing?" He then informs Klein that the creature is spotted just before great catastrophes all over the world and has various names. Thus the appearance of mothman (and Indrid Cold) in Point Pleasant was a foretelling of some horrible tragedy, which Klein mistook to refer to the chemical plant up the river but, of course, turned out to be the Silver Bridge collapse.

The aforementioned 43-minute documentary "Search for the Mothman" goes into this in more detail than the movie did.

Your question is: How does this relate to the true story? It's conjecture from John Keel's 1975 book "The Mothman Prophesies." Probably elsewhere too.

I kinda liked how the producers chose to title the movie "The Mothman Prophecies" (from Keel's book, of course) because it suggests that it's not a conventional monster flick like the later "Mothman" (2010) turned out to be. The focal point is the tragedy that the appearance of the mothman foretells rather than the mothman itself.

The documentary "Eyes of the Mothman" is so long because it's basically four documentaries rolled into one. The four parts deal with (1.) Hokoleskwa, aka Cornstalk, etc. of the colonial period (which the aforementioned TV movie "Mothman" interestingly links the creature to), (2.) the appearances of the mothman, (3.) UFOs & men-in-black and (4.) the Silver Bridge tragedy.

reply

[–] TexasJack (12515) 6 years ago

Good stuff! Thanks for sharing these insights.

reply

[–] seal412 (335) 6 years ago

I just saw it a few months back and despite the slightly slow opening, I was shocked I hadn't heard more about it. I really enjoyed it and feel I could dissect it~

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8309) 5 years ago

Re: being shocked you hadn't heard more about it, I asked a friend today if he had seen the film. He didn't even know what it was. I was surprised by that because I remember it being a fairly high-profile movie when it was released.

reply

[–] TexasJack (12515) 6 years ago

Definitely underrated. I would give it 8/10.

reply