MovieChat Forums > The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2016) Discussion > Could've been a classic

Could've been a classic

posted 8 years ago by Tacky187
150 replies | jump to latest

But instead we got an average horror movie with the stupidest ending in recent memory. I *loved* the ambience, the dialog, the dialect, the acting and the gist of the story. It was powerful and painted a picture of what life was really like back then (read: very difficult.) And the mom's hatred for the "new country." It truly could have been brilliant.

But then this happened.. (spoilers)

* Black Philip morphing and becoming...a pirate? Errr, ok?
* The main girl on a whim deciding she wants the power of the devil, contrary to fighting it the entire movie
* A bunch of witches on all fours naked around a camp fire
* The main girl joining them naked and then elevating 30 feet in the air.

I mean what the actual F.

Here is what I would've changed to make it much better (IMO)

* Do NOT show an actual witch. It wasn't needed. The baby could've gone missing as she woke up from a nap early on, and the little brother could've returned in his comatose state after some off screen scenes with screaming. Leave the horror to our minds!
* Keep the final sequence, including her killing her mother in self defense, but as she stands up, show a group of people from their old town/commune showing up to check on her, only to find the horrific scene. She falls to the ground crying, knowing what it looks like.
* The final scene shows the girls face in fear, and there are flames dancing around the screen. The flames increase and we the audience see that she is being burned at the stake for being a witch. THAT is the true horror. The beliefs and thoughts of the time and how so many people were killed because of fear. The Witch.

That would have been amazing and haunted my thoughts for awhile. Instead the movie's ending made it utterly forgettable.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

What does the title card say? "A New England Folktale". It's not meant to be ambiguous or complicated. Think of it like you're being told a story at bedtime or in a classroom. The movie has a very straightforward lesson.

What's the first scene in the movie? William think he's better and more pious than the village counsel, and says he's happy to be banished. This leads directly to his baby being kidnapped. He ignores this and ignores that his wife is beside herself with misery because of his actions.

The movie is mostly a catalogue of his lies and hypocrisy and how his poor example spreads to the rest of the family. He lies constantly, about the cup, about hunting, and encourages also his son to lie, even as he tells him to memorize how his soul is riven with sin. Even his baby is filled with sin, in his mind, yet the sin we witness is his constant hypocrisy.

Things spiral out of control. The children accuse each other, but only because they've learned how to lie for their own safety when convenient, and out of a sense of real danger that their parents will harm them if they're found to be consorting with the devil. They're right to turn on each other! It's only natural in a house as mad as this.

The father dies, killed by Black Phillip. Why does he accept his death? "Corruption, thou art my father".

And so Thomasine, left with nothing, turns to the only source of authority and shelter left to her: the evil present in the house. But they had every chance to turn away from evil, to scorn hypocrisy. They didn't.

So what's the moral of the story? False piety is no substitute for moral substance. Very straightforward, very unambiguous.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

Tacky187, I completely agree. Been watching horror flicks my whole life. I've seen more than my fair share.....probably the genre I've seen the most. I can honestly say that might have been the most unsatisfying ending to a horror film I've ever seen.

[–] mkohary 8 years ago

Very well said, I think you've hit the heart of this movie. What the original poster has proposed is banal. The ending was great payoff and had high impact; this movie truly felt like a folktale.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

High impact? She visits a campfire and floats into the air.

Riveting.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

It's the sabbath, according to folklore, that's what witches were doing. It's not a campfire.

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

There's always Grown Ups 2.

[–] songod-95003 8 years ago

My question was "What has that got to do with wearing pretty dresses, eating butter, and seeing the world?" From what we've seen two witches, or one appearing old then appearing youthful, simply live in a hut in the woods. Hardly "seeing the world" unless of course through astral projection.

The ending was, as so many movies today especially in the horror genre, ambiguous. What really happened? She apparently came onto a coven around a fire, no one noticed, and she flew into the air but did not fly among them. Where they really there or did she, after everyone was dead and having to kill her mother, suffer a psychotic break?

What would have been a nice epilogue would have been to see her in London dressed to the nines with a handsome man of means arm in arm; a knowing smile as she walks down the bustling street. As is for all we know she is living in a tree.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

You didn't understand this film, child lol. Time to move on.

[–] Craig-Ashley 8 years ago

'lol'?

The Witch is a garbage film patently made to push people onto online culture as they (investors, marketing people) see online culture as a boundless source of revenue for the future, and cinema - they hope - will die. It's not a film. It's a strategy, similar to the way that advertising works.

That's why yt has become so key. They pluck at various genres to test the ground and this one, this project/strategy... happened to be 'horror'.

Other recent examples of this strategy? Neon Demon (see the link?) and It Follows.

(who says 'lol' ffs)

[–] Tacky187 8 years ago

Respectfully disagree. My problem with the ending wasn't the folklore, it was that the movie had spent 95% of its story showing a strong Thomasine, who wouldn't blindly accept anything or bend her will to anyone, almost instantly acquiesce to a force that killed every member of her family. The same thing she vehemently thrashed against the entire movie.

It's muddled story telling that is getting a free pass because well, folktale.

[–] maz89 8 years ago

That's the brilliance of the narrative then - showing how Thomasine is forced to become the very thing her family constantly accuses her of, in a twisted self-fulfilling prophecy, to survive. She was 'strong', sure, but by the end, she had been called everything from a witch to a whore, she had seen her father and siblings be killed or taken away, and she had killed her own mother out of self-defense. Why wouldn't she like to live deliciously in this godforsaken world? No one chooses to be a witch - or evil. Evil is born out of circumstance.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] aliasbrush 8 years ago

It's hardly brilliance. If they wanted to go down the self-fulfilling prophecy road, they could have developed it with a much subtler and more thought-provoking arc than than the character basically saying to herself, 'Ah *beep* it. I may as well turn into the exact opposite of everything I've strived to be my whole life because... reasons.'

[–] jidici 8 years ago

It was subtle. There are several clues that show that her becoming a witch was in development throughout the movie not out of the blue. She already said that she has sinned in thought many times. There was also a scene where she just dropped her shovel and ran out to where Samuel had been stolen and just stared into the woods. It was also shown how she, more than anybody else knew that going into the woods was a bad move, when she lingered at the hearing while everybody else filed out. In the end she basically said *beep* this *beep* Christianity creates morons. And who could blame her?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_longhouse 8 years ago

I respectfully disagree with the statement that "the movie had spent 95% of its story showing a strong Thomasine." She lies to the twins about being a witch because they annoy her, she goes with her brother into the forest at night even though it's a bad idea and she throws the twins under the bus (accuses them of being witches) to protect herself. Hell, she doesn't even discourage the unhealthy sexual tension between her and her younger brother.

Thomasine does not act like a typically "strong" final girl heroine and she honestly does very little to resist the temptations and evils lurking in the background. Heroines from other horror movies might "vehemently thrash" against the forces of evil"; however, Thomasine needs to be judged by her actions within this movie. The only "thrashing" she does is against her parents accusations and the illusion of her strength only comes mainly from the fact that she is a stronger character than her grief-stricken mother. That, and she is the last person standing...but only because the witch/witches don't confront her in the same way as the others.

The movie uses beautifully haunting visual imagery. The ending allows there to be one more haunting image...and answers a question I didn't even know I wanted answered: who becomes a witch in the first place? Clearly- it's young people like Thomasine who have a strong desire for self-preservation and a relatively weak moral compass. She is the kind of person an evil force would want. Watching the movie, I got the sense that the witch/witches left her alone because she/they know she could be turned.

[–] lazyoli 7 years ago

^this (tacky)

[–] Tacky187 8 years ago

Ok, so maybe my ending was off the mark. But his was still terrible.

What's the first scene in the movie? William think he's better and more pious than the village counsel, and says he's happy to be banished. This leads directly to his baby being kidnapped. He ignores this and ignores that his wife is beside herself with misery because of his actions.

The movie is mostly a catalogue of his lies and hypocrisy and how his poor example spreads to the rest of the family. He lies constantly, about the cup, about hunting, and encourages also his son to lie, even as he tells him to memorize how his soul is riven with sin. Even his baby is filled with sin, in his mind, yet the sin we witness is his constant hypocrisy.

Good breakdown.

So the actions of the witches (kidnapping and killing a baby, seducing and mind screwing the little boy, and killing more children) were be to viewed were allegorical punishments for his sins. That's what I think too; except that the execution wasn't good. The witches were straight out of room 237 cheesy and simply WAY too literal. We needed the fear of the witches/devil, not the actual witches/devil. As presented, kidnapping and killing a baby, seducing and mind screwing the little boy, and killing more children in a literal sense is MORE evil than a man struggling with false piety. It muddied up the story telling.

And so Thomasine, left with nothing, turns to the only source of authority and shelter left to her: the evil present in the house. But they had every chance to turn away from evil, to scorn hypocrisy. They didn't.

So what's the moral of the story? False piety is no substitute for moral substance. Very straightforward, very unambiguous.

I agree that's what the director probably intended. I disagree that he executed it well. Folktales are laced with allegory (do the right thing or the devil will get you); I just think he made the witches too literal to add "spooky" moments that ultimately significantly took away from the moral of the story. And they simply weren't needed.

And, sorry, but the nearly instant switch from strong willed Thomasine fighting to have her own identity to signing up with the devil himself to a naked witch flying 30 feet in the air was just asinine.

This is all, IMO, of course. :)

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

Respectfully disagree. My problem with the ending wasn't the folklore, it was that the movie had spent 95% of its story showing a strong Thomasine, who wouldn't blindly accept anything or bend her will to anyone, almost instantly acquiesce to a force that killed every member of her family. The same thing she vehemently thrashed against the entire movie.

And, sorry, but the nearly instant switch from strong willed Thomasine fighting to have her own identity to signing up with the devil himself to a naked witch flying 30 feet in the air was just asinine.

The movie doesn't show her doing those things. In fact, through most of the movie she does the things you say she doesn't, she does accept things blindly, she does bend her will. It's only near the end of the movie where she openly voices her displeasure to someone about her being sent to another family, and not being asked aout it etc. Before that it's subtly hinted that she "wants to see the world" etc. but doesn't do it.

She can do that by making a deal with the devil.

So the actions of the witches (kidnapping and killing a baby, seducing and mind screwing the little boy, and killing more children) were be to viewed were allegorical punishments for his sins. That's what I think too; except that the execution wasn't good.

That's not what I was saying. The actions of the witches weren't allegorical punishments for sins. They just used the family's weaknesses against them.

The witches were straight out of room 237 cheesy and simply WAY too literal. We needed the fear of the witches/devil, not the actual witches/devil.

I just think he made the witches too literal

What you're writing her makes no sense. How can you have the fear of the witches/devil in the movie without the actual witches/devil?

And what do you mean by "made the witches too literal"? What does that even mean?

As presented, kidnapping and killing a baby, seducing and mind screwing the little boy, and killing more children in a literal sense is MORE evil than a man struggling with false piety. It muddied up the story telling.

I have no idea what you tried to say here.

And they simply weren't needed.

I fail to see how witches weren't needed in a movie where witches are the antagonists.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

I just think he made the witches too literal to add "spooky" moments that ultimately significantly took away from the moral of the story.

I could not put my finger on it, and I would have disagreed to the idea of not showing anything, as that just is another horror trope and in a way takes away the ambivalence on a different level (because at some point the audience can recognize that nothing is going to be shown, which annihilates the suspense as much as showing everything). But that line pretty much nails it: it is not that something is shown, it just is shown in the boring preenlightenment way, where the story hinted at something more. Instead of some larger than life power which could or could not be something, it is just like what pop culture has made from the myths of witches as previously seen.

Her change reminded me of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequel crapfeast: It feelt a bit too much like signing a phone contract.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

The director based the movie on historical texts and folklore about witches etc. Everything that's shown in the movie is what people back then believed witches were doing.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

And everyone who is watching it and is not some backwards religious moron knows that what those texts are telling is pure rubbish. To treat this rubbish as a measure to put something into words people did not understand would be an interesting way to look at it and would be an interesting exercise in allowing the audience to take the point of view of those witnesses. But just to show what those texts are already telling anyway does not add anything and therefore makes the result less meaningful.

The way it is done, the movie places itself between the chairs: it is not a gory horror slasher but it lacks the intellectual height to be considered as an artistic observation. And its a shame as that witch-kitsch just happens in a few shots.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

But just to show what those texts are already telling anyway does not add anything and therefore makes the result less meaningful.

So, you want the movie show witches as ordinary women who are accused of being witches. This movie isn't something like Witchfinder General, it's a folktale. It tries to portray accurately the kind of tale people back then used to tell.

it is not a gory horror slasher but it lacks the intellectual height to be considered as an artistic observation.

Just your opinion, to others it is intellectual.

Also, some slashers are not gory.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

So, you want the movie show witches as ordinary women who are accused of being witches.

Nope. Else I would have written that.

Just your opinion, to others it is intellectual.

For some people sesame street is intellectual quality tv as far as opinions go. However, inserting witch kitsch and defining that way the reality shown reduces the possible interpretations beyond a obvious representation of superstition. So while it might still seem challenging to you - after all it doesn't suddenly become utter nonsense - there is significantly less to think about after watching that movie, which by every possible way of seeing it, decreases the intellectual height of the work.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

How intellectual the movie is isn't defined by how much interpretations it can possibly have. That's a very limited way of looking at it, it's also limiting cinema itself, you're making everything really obstructing, you're destroying creativity.

For no reason you have a problem that a movie shows witches being witches. Why?

Despite you saying otherwise you constantly show signs of wanting a different story and symbolism than what the movie gave you.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

How intellectual the movie is isn't defined by how much interpretations it can possibly have. That's a very limited way of looking at it, it's also limiting cinema itself, you're making everything really obstructing, you're destroying creativity.

Nope. First know the rules, then play with the rules. Else you end up with a pile of "creativity" biting your own arse. Nothing is as limiting as not knowing what effect a creative choice really has.

For no reason you have a problem that a movie shows witches being witches. Why?

The reason I gave: there are no witches in real life. All the texts were written by people who lacked the ability to understand what was going on. By just buying into the idea that they existed exactly as described, the film neither acknowledges the true circumstances behind the folklore, nor does it explore new variations of that theme.

Despite you saying otherwise you constantly show signs of wanting a different story and symbolism than what the movie gave you.

The story would not have been that much different but what of it gets shown would have been. And the symbolism fall flat when in the end the movie just commits to being a fairy tale.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

Satan doesn't exist in real life either, but that doesn't make Rosemary's Baby less effective or less scary.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Satan with two horns and a horsefoot does not exist, but as a metaphor he has been very much alive all the time. As long as the movies does not show him, the "what if...?" still makes it work. What if a demon exists, but not in the shape some medieval morons describe him? We know that the image of witches is pure superstition. But what if that image is based on something people did miss when discribing it? Without the witches flying away (or the child with the glowing eyes in Rosemary's Baby, or the catholic exorcism in The Exocist) this option would be left open. But the moment it is shown, one does not just have to buy into a grey area of unknown, but instead accept the moronic folklore already proven wrong, something which was not necessary for the movie up to that point.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

What an insane, pedestrian notion of art you have. Art present reality that means something; this image of witches is something the characters obviously take very seriously, and the art presents this perspective to us. We'd never have The Exorcist, The Matrix, Nosferatu, or anything that deals in metaphor to describe emotional reality if everyone thought about art the way you do. Thank God virtually no one does.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Yes, because you think The Matrix is really, really deep, right?

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

Did you roll your eyes at the creation of the android in Metropolis? The child in 2001? The haunted hotel in The Shining? Do you see how stupid it is to judge art on the plausibility of its specifically fantastic premises?

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Neither Robotmaria nor the child in 2001 are copied from an outdated superstition. And talking about 2001: Would you consider it a better movie, if a wingend creature had carried David into the light at the end? Because that is pretty much what The Witch did to its story on the last meters. It might have gone over your head, but we are not talking about the fantastic or premises beyond the known reality, we are talking about kitsch elements. Where in The Shining's Overlook Hotel do you think you see those?
With a little bit of reading comprehension you'd already have the answer to your last question. But I guess keeping track of a discussion is too much to ask for someone who considers The Matrix the peak of artistic creation.

[–] solidturtle 8 years ago

You're an idiot who doesn't understand that films aren't literal.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

The reason I gave: there are no witches in real life. All the texts were written by people who lacked the ability to understand what was going on. By just buying into the idea that they existed exactly as described, the film neither acknowledges the true circumstances behind the folklore, nor does it explore new variations of that theme.

So, the reason you didn't want the witches to be shown is because.....Witches don't exist in real life?
And since this film is real life.....They shouldn't be shown? lol
Sarcasm aside. This film is not a fact based drama.
It is a fiction horror film based on factual testimonies.

We're NOT saying that witches used to exist in real life......They existed FOR THE SAKE OF THIS HORROR FILM.

And THAT is why the witches WERE shown.....Because they were real lol.....IN THE FILM. Understand?
You've basically just proved yourself wrong with that comment.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

I see, it is a bit too complicated for the average "It's not a documentary movie, so it can do what it wants" crowd.

Every rule of reality can be broken, but every rule break is a statement.
The problem is not the fantastic element as such, just like I previously stated. The problem is, that it is shown exactly the moronic and unimaginative way the backwards people of that time depicted it. What could have been a nice play with imagery between the lines became a low budget horror flick at that point.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

I see, it is a bit too complicated for the average "It's not a documentary movie, so it can do what it wants" crowd.

That isn't what I am saying. But you are acting like this film was a fact based drama. We are shown the witch because it is not that. It is a horror film.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Yep and everyone who is watching also knows that they aren't watching documentary footage lol.

That isn't what I am saying.

Hmm. Any further comment needed?

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

That was my response to a completely different comment, mate lol.

I am not saying that because it isn't a documentary, the film can do what it wants (although, thinking about it....It totally can)
But you said that you don't think the witch should have been shown because witches don't exist in real life....To which my response is THIS ISN'T REAL LIFE lol.

Which is pretty reasonable, no?

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

That was my response to a completely different comment, mate lol.

Yep, and depending on what comment you are answering, you opinion changes 180°. Seems you have thought that through very well.

The question also never was, what a movie can do, but what it tells when making a creative choice.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

My opinion hasn't changed at all, mate. You are obviously misinterpreting me.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Indeed, your opinion did not change at all, and I had never any doubts you consider it a great movie, even though you totally fail to find good reasons. But since the OP was not discussing an opinion but a creative choice, your opinion isn't really what matters anyway.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

How do you know I fail to find good reason? You haven't even asked me why I liked the film.
What a strange assumption to make...

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Oh right, of course there is the option that you like a movie because it has obvious flaws. In that case, no reason needed. But at some point you have to grow up and get out of the "leave britney alone" mode. Else this gets really boring.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

WTF are you even talking about? lol
What are these obvious flaws??

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

And everyone who is watching it and is not some backwards religious moron knows that what those texts are telling is pure rubbish.

Yep and everyone who is watching also knows that they aren't watching documentary footage lol.
It is a fictional horror film based on folktales.
OF COURSE, there were no real witches back then, despite what people believed.
But for the sake of this HORROR film, the witches were real.
I have no idea why so many people have trouble comprehending this...

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

OF COURSE, there were no real witches back then, despite what people believed.

And here a better film could have asked: what if? How could a witch have looked, had it been real and played in our world? What if there is something behind the stories, but it is never so clear that one can be sure?
Something this movie does masterful most of the time. I am not saying it isn't a nice little horror flick. But just like the OP I think it could have been more.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

Fair enough, if you personally wanted it to go differently.
But you do understand that it's not a psychological drama about a family of crazy people, right?
And that this is a fantasy horror film about an actual witch?

And here a better film could have asked: what if? How could a witch have looked, had it been real and played in our world?

That is exactly what this film did, no?

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

The film did this until he showed the witches exactly the way they are in the fairy tales.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

That's because it is a fairy tale.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Right. Could have been a classic. But ended up as a fairy tale.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

"Fairy Tale" is a form of story like "romance" or "noir". The director chose to tell the best story he could in this manner, taking the material and form seriously. The chosen template doesn't affect the inherent quality of the product.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Indeed, a pure fairy tale might have worked better, if he had taken the form seriously, he would not have understated the influence in the other parts of the movie.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

You keep explaining why it's good and concluding that it's bad. The subversion of the movie is creating a folklore story heavily grounded in emotional reality. The supernatural aspects are a vessel for a family's emotional descent. These are positive qualities.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

I keep explaining why it is inconsistent. The plain sillyness of the depiction works against the much more ambiguous nature of the whole movie.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

There's nothing ambiguous about the nature of the movie. In the first ten minutes, the witch consumes an infant and smears its viscera on her. Everything flows very naturally and consistently from there.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Nope. That might be what you think you see. But the movie just shows how a woman kills an infant. Not a fairy witch: no gingerbread house, no flying on a broomstick. It could be some mad woman.

That you jumped to that conclusion just shows how ambiguous the scene was.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

Here's an interview with Robert Eggers explicitly explaining the scene: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/23/the_witch_director_robert_eggers_on_the_real_history_behind_the_movie_s.html

The witch is specifically performing a ritual common to superstition at the time, requiring the smearing of gore of an unbaptized infant to enable flight. A mad woman didn't in an instant snatch an infant from Thomasine's care; a supernatural creature required the infant for a specific purpose. No other meaning is implied by the scene.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Well, where is the magic? Does she fly? Does anything happen which would not happen if there was nothing supernatural? No flying? There is no fantastic element at all.

You can be as convinced as you want, that there is something beyond an old woman murdering a child in that scene, fact is: nothing else is shown. So it could be, it could not be. And maybe look up the word "ambiguous".

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

The fantastic element is presented 15 seconds previously, when Thomasine looks away for a a heartbeat and the infant has disappeared, stolen by the witch consuming it.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

And once again the fantastic element you are talking about is *not* shown by the movie.

I am quite fascinated how you don't see a difference between witches floating in a ritual within the picture and images merely suggesting a supernatural background. The world must be a magical place for you.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

Of course it's fantastical. One moment the baby is there, the next it's not. Did it run away?

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

In you head, but not on the screen. There is no explicitly shown supernatural element. Even the timing is chosen long enough to make the situation just slightly irrational. Enough to suspect more, but not enough to prove it.

So how is that the same as seeing witches floating in the picture?

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

What a bizarre notion you have of watching movies. An infant disappears quite obviously by magic, and then in the next scene a woman is performing a ritual with the same infant with an explicitly magical meaning, but no magic is implied, right? It's really not that complicated.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

You constantly mix your interpretation with what the movie really shows. I am not surprised you fail to discuss the creative choices the movie makes, when you aren't even capable of acknowledging what is shown on the screen you look at.

We are discussing how the movie gets stylistically incoherent by showing the supernatural and you keep on mentioning scenes, which do not show the supernatural. Even if you believe very strongly that rubbing yourself with baby intestines would give magic powers, this is not what the movie shows. Even if you are very convinced that some fairy tale creature snatches the baby, neither the camera nor the people in the scene see it.

I am not saying it could not be supernatural. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite: It could be or it couldn't. Ambiguity. The scene you base your whole argumentation upon shows the *exact* opposite of what you claim. Ambiguity. A concept you don't seem to understand entirely.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 8 years ago

You write with a lot of piss and vinegar for someone making such idiotic points. Ambiguity doesn't mean "not explicitly depicted onscreen". Film conveys information through editing; nothing about the editing between the scenes of the baby disappearing in front of of Thomasine and the next scene of the same infant consumed by the old woman in a specific ritual is meant to convey anything besides the literal meaning of what it depicts. Thomasine was watching the baby, then it was gone. The woman is smearing herself with the gore of the baby. To act like there's some other meaning or explanation of those scenes is stupid, because their meaning is made unambiguously clear to the audience. How much handholding do you need? Do you not believe that a robbery occurred in Reservoir Dogs? Do you not believe that Tom Hayden had a horse's head put in Jack Woltz's bed? What an innocent understanding of cinema you have, it's very fascinating.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

nothing about the editing between the scenes of the baby disappearing in front of of Thomasine and the next scene of the same infant consumed by the old woman in a specific ritual is meant to convey anything besides the literal meaning of what it depicts.

Except of course the fact that we simply do not see the measures by which the witch aquired the baby. They are not shown, not suggested, they are entirely undefined. All the movie says is: something is not right.

To act like there's some other meaning or explanation of those scenes is stupid, because their meaning is made unambiguously clear to the audience.

The only thing made clear is that an old woman follows a ritual. That is what is told. Everything else just takes place in your head. This could happen in real life. It might surprise you, but when an old woman in real life smears herself with baby intestines, it does not me an that she can float. Not all rituals work. Actually very few do.

How much handholding do you need?

Considering that I understood the scene for what it was while you immediatly took the bait and drifted into the lala-world of fairies and dragons, where nothing matters anyway, I would guess I need a lot less than you. I just need better movies.

Do you not believe that a robbery occurred in Reservoir Dogs?

You don't get the difference at all. In Reservoir Dogs, there is no point in denying the robbery took place. We see several hints which make us conclude that what the characters are telling is in line with the facts. However, after your method of watching movies, they could have ridden on dragons to the robbery. It is just not shown. We know they moved a distance. Should be evidence enough for you to claim that this is what the scenes show. Explicitly. By never mentioning it and showing something else.

Do you not believe that Tom Hayden had a horse's head put in Jack Woltz's bed?

What alternative theory would be possible? Hayden admiring the horse, need for a threat, a horse head in the bed. If Tom Hagen had horns in the next scene and would float, wouldn't that be totally incoherent with what we have seen before? No, because according to how you watch movies, the horse head would explicitly show that Hagen comitted a satanic riutal off-screen and that there is no other possible explanation for what we have seen.

And you also fail to acknowledge a most important creative choice: while the baby vanishes quickly, it is by far not a quick as it could be. Why do you think did they make that choice? Why did they leave this open for theories? Maybe because they wanted to leave the option open? Or was it just a mistake and they simply failed to make it obvious enough? Do you think they are such bad filmmakers?

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

How would the witch steal the baby in the blink of an eye like she did without using witchcraft or magic?
There was supernatural in the film within the first 5 minutes and people act like nothing supernatural happened until the last scene.
You say every scene before the ending could have been explained rationally.
HOW?
Explain them rationally, one by one.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

How would the witch steal the baby in the blink of an eye like she did without using witchcraft or magic?

That is the question asked by the scene, not answered. If there was one reasonable and obvious answer it would not be ambiguous either. The point is *not* getting one clear answer. That is the interesting part of the movie: between knowing what can be real and the justified suspicion that there could be more.

And when it gets shown what it is and it is the same fairy tale ending, it is a let-down. At least if you bothered to play along until then and did not flip into consumer mode, accepting all fairies and dragons thrown at you.

You say every scene before the ending could have been explained rationally.

Did I say that? I am not surprised you failed in understanding what the OP was talking about right from the start.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

I understood what the OP was saying from the start n have no idea why you keep insinuating I didn't.

You say every scene before the ending could have been explained rationally.

You didn't say it but if you think the ending was completely out of place by being supernatural, then you must think the events before that were not supernatural. Otherwise, how would it be out of place?
I think there were supernatural events from the start of the film (because there were...lol), hence why the ending completely worked for me.

You're suggesting that up until the last five minutes, the film was ambitious.
To which I say no it wasn't.....If it were, then the strange events that occurred earlier in the film, would be able to be explained rationally and they cannot be.
Unless you can explain how they can be?

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

You didn't say it but if you think the ending was completely out of place by being supernatural,then you must think the events before that were not supernatural

And once more something I did not say. In fact I stated to opposite when I used the word "ambiguous". And i already told that for exact that same reason I used that word. How often do I have to say the exact same thing until it gets into you skull?

The suspicion of the supernatural is there all the time. It is an essential ingredient. If we knew from the beginning they were not there, it might become a nice thriller, but the option of horror lurking in the unknown will lack on the other end. We know the myth of the witches, we know the fairy tales. But it isn't in the picture. It is *not* in the picture. Apart from the moment the OP mentiones, it *could* be real. But when the ending shows witches floating in some carbon copy of the old trope, the idea that there could be something more, which makes the movie run, is annihilated. It adds nothing to the myth, there is no variation. It is another forgettable horror flick. Well executed but as soon as the next flick with medieval witches comes out, totally redundant.

If it were, then the strange events that occurred earlier in the film, would be able to be explained rationally and they cannot be.
Unless you can explain how they can be?

When you cannot explain how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, do you really believe it is gone? I mean - so you seriously think it is real magic, because you have immediate explanation?
That is the thing here: the baby disappears. Maybe the boy snatched it out of revenge. Maybe someone else who hates the family. Maybe someone wants to drive them into madness. Or maybe it even is what people later thought would be a witch, but it is totally different from a witch and just described as such for the lack of having a better explanation. Like people thought lightening was caused by Zeus throwing bolts: meanwhile we know Zeus does not exist, but lightening still happens. So what if the boring medieval witches don't exist, but still there is something lurking? That horror gets thrown out of the window when reverting to the old and boring images only simpletons are scared of.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

How often do I have to say the exact same thing until it gets into you skull?

lol Okay, you need to calm the **** down and not act like a condescending douche bag.
Is this how you talk to strangers in person? No, so don't do it on the net.

Anyway, I did not say it was something you said, I said it was what you were suggesting.
If I misinterpreted it then my bad, but don't be a c u n t about it lol.

And David Copperfield was a magician......So, no obviously I don't believe that is real magic. Why would I? lol
The thing is.....There aren't any magicians in The Witch.
So, that's a pretty poor example.
The events that happen in The Witch simply have no logical explanation.
Hence, why when I ask you what they could be, you don't answer.

You can say "just because we can't explain it, doesn't make it magic"

Well, for this fictional horror film......Yes, it does. UNLESS there is another explanation?

Maybe the boy snatched it out of revenge. Maybe someone else who hates the family. Maybe someone wants to drive them into madness. Or maybe it even is what people later thought would be a witch, but it is totally different from a witch and just described as such for the lack of having a better explanation.

No, no and no again lol.
You can say maybe this or maybe that if we were talking about real life.
But this a film and if it didn't happen on the screen, it didn't happen at all, again UNLESS there is some kind of indication that it did happen.

Also, those explanations don't work anyway, I'm sure you know that!
A boy snatched him? What with cloak of invisibility on?
Can you remember the scene? It was supernatural, mate lol. Just accept it.

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Is this how you talk to strangers in person?

The moment I know I cannot get through to them I indeed talk to them that way. Or not at all. Which in fact seems to be indeed the better alternative.
Fact is: you don't want to understand the OP, and you don't want to understand my reasoning. You either do it on purpose, or you are amazingly stupid.
In both cases I think this discussion is beyond the point at which it got futile, which is most likly the reason why the initial poster has given up on it.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

I understood what you were saying, for the love of God lol
And well done for completely ignoring all my other points.
It sounds like you're the one who is failing to understand me since you keep ignoring my questions.

Where did you get the assumption that I don't understand the OP?
The OP basically wanted this to be a completely different film.
And it is pretty obvious from the things he has said that he didn't even properly understand it.
A film is not flawed simply because it did not turn out how you wanted it to.
Do you understand that?

I am not saying it could not be supernatural. In fact, I am saying the exact opposite: It could be or it couldn't. Ambiguity.

We GET this is what you are saying!
But MY point is......How could it NOT be supernatural?
How can this or the other events in the film be explained rationally?
They cannot. Hence the film was supernatural from the start.

And don't you dare use your terrible David Copperfield example lol because again, there are no magicians in this film so obviously it is not the same.
Now take a deep breath and let's see if you can reply WITHOUT being a condescending prick.
Cheers.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

That's just your opinion, man!

And for the record, there are plenty of classic fairy tales.

[–] maz89 7 years ago

And everyone who is watching it and is not some backwards religious moron knows that what those texts are telling is pure rubbish. To treat this rubbish as a measure to put something into words people did not understand would be an interesting way to look at it and would be an interesting exercise in allowing the audience to take the point of view of those witnesses. But just to show what those texts are already telling anyway does not add anything and therefore makes the result less meaningful.

The way it is done, the movie places itself between the chairs: it is not a gory horror slasher but it lacks the intellectual height to be considered as an artistic observation. And its a shame as that witch-kitsch just happens in a few shots.

So basically, your complaint boils down to "I wanted an acknowledgement that witches are fake and that people's perceptions in those times were woefully distorted". Okay but this movie isn't about that. You can't fault it for not having a theme that you wanted. As for the film lacking "intellectual height", you clearly missed all the nuances, visual and thematic, that surround the family's descent into madness, particularly around the notion of the female virgin ultimately being branded as the source of evil. Not to mention, the authentically rendered setting and dialogue lending a genuine eeriness to the proceedings - not sure at all when it ever tried to position itself as a "gory horror slasher".

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] tb-sch 7 years ago

So basically, your complaint boils down to "I wanted an acknowledgement that witches are fake and that people's perceptions in those times were woefully distorted".

No, already wrong and therefore you are pretty much arguing into the empty room. But maybe you were just too busy finding "all the nuances" between the lines to read the actual lines.

[–] lazyoli 7 years ago

yup. i don't need to watch a movie to tell me that religious bigots are a bad thing. it's not that deep.

[–] je2000 8 years ago

The person I watched this with missed her expressions at the ending. Take a look again.

Just as the baby who goes back and forth between sheer dread and fright to happiness and joy during a peek-a-boo game, Thomasine exhibits the same facial expressions. She is joyous, she looks down and you can see in her face that she knows this is wrong. It happens 2 or 3 times.

I thought the movie was brilliant in that it brought together several of Grimm's Fairy Tales into one slate gray movie. When the mother was pleading that the family will starve, I was convinced the whole thing was going to be a Hansel and Gretel tale, which is very very similar. People forget that the parents are the ones who attempted to abandon the kids in the woods.

[–] leybadana 8 years ago

the best post on this board. well done :)

Moderators are Nazi's....

[–] mligorio-78270 8 years ago

William think he's better and more pious than the village counsel, and says he's happy to be banished.

Let's not forget that the village thinks that THEY are better than William, and that THEY are happy to get rid of William. Moreover, As William CORRECTLY pointed out at the very beginning, the Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom.

https://ulozto.net/live/!dvTfwz9EA/excommunication-mp4

[William] What went we out in this wilderness to find, leaving our country, kindred, our father's houses? We travailed a vast ocean, for what? For what?

[Counsel] We must ask thee to be silent.

[William] Was it not for the pure and faithful dispensation of the Gospels and the Kingdom of God?

[Counsel] No more! We are your judges, and not you ours.

[William] I cannot be judged by false Christians, for I have done nothing save preach Christ through gospel.

So, it seems that William has a difference of opinion with the Puritans in regards to who knows the word of God best. But, there isn't any objective reason to believe that the Puritans are the ones who are right. In fact, the evidence is to contrary. All parties involved have one point in common; all seek religious freedom. But, if the Puritans believe that religious freedom is good, aren't they being selfish to only permit themselves such a liberty? And, in fact, the Puritans DID hang heretics for preaching on their lands. A practice that doesn't seem to agree well with 'love thy neighbor'

This leads directly to his baby being kidnapped. He ignores this and ignores that his wife is beside herself with misery because of his actions.

And the Puritans had nothing to do with this affair??? Would this tragedy have ever happened if they hadn't excommunicated William?

The movie is mostly a catalogue of his lies and hypocrisy and how his poor example spreads to the rest of the family. He lies constantly, about the cup, about hunting, and encourages also his son to lie, even as he tells him to memorize how his soul is driven with sin. Even his baby is filled with sin, in his mind, yet the sin we witness is his constant hypocrisy. Things spiral out of control. The children accuse each other, but only because they've learned how to lie for their own safety when convenient, and out of a sense of real danger that their parents will harm them if they're found to be consorting with the devil. They're right to turn on each other! It's only natural in a house as mad as this.

From my point of view, the youngest children, Samuel and the twins are only innocent victims. However, all the adults (Caleb included) are guilty of cardinal sin, namely, they bear false witness. Their habit of pointing the accusing finger at one another reiterates the events at William's trial. This dissension is a major cause of the destruction of William's family. The silver cup, however, is a special case. It represents the family's dependence on practical necessities. William steals the cup for the simple reason that the family must eat. Since the members of William's family are only too human, they are all forced to commit sin.

The father dies, killed by Black Phillip. Why does he accept his death? "Corruption, thou art my father". And so Thomasin, left with nothing, turns to the only source of authority and shelter left to her: the evil present in the house.

William will have plenty of company in his grave. Quite simply, he accepts his death, because he must. Nothing lives for ever. Except Thomasin, of course, since she sided with Satan. Perhaps if God had been willing to answer her prayers just once, events might have turned out differently. But, inexplicably, God simply stood and watched while the Devil destroyed William's family and raped his daughter.

So what's the moral of the story? False piety is no substitute for moral substance. Very straightforward, very unambiguous.

So, let me get this straight. William and his family are expected to obey God's commandments to the letter, under penalty of death, but God doesn't have to follow his own tuition??? If William was sick and his whole family were lepers, why didn't God heal them?

1 In the beginning Man created God;
and in the image of Man
created he him.

2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of
names,that he might be Lord of all
the earth when it was suited to Man.

3 And on the seven millionth
day Man rested and did lean
heavily on his God and saw that
it was good.

4 And Man formed Aqualung of
the dust of the ground, and a
host of others likened unto his kind.

5 And these lesser men were cast into the
void; And some were burned, and some were
put apart from their kind.

6 And Man became the God that he had
created and with his miracles did
rule over all the earth.

7 But as all these things
came to pass, the Spirit that did
cause man to create his God
lived on within all men: even
within Aqualung.

8 And man saw it not.

9 BUT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE HE'D
BETTER START LOOKING!!!

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

* Black Philip morphing and becoming...a pirate? Errr, ok?

People need to stop writing this. He's Satan and looks exactly like how people were dressed in the opening scene and how father is dressed in certain scenes.

Did people forget that's how some men were dressed in the movie?

* The main girl on a whim deciding she wants the power of the devil, contrary to fighting it the entire movie

Actually, there are several scenes which indicate that she's not happy with her life and that she wants to be free.

The praying scene where she confesses how much sinful she is. The scene where she pretends to be a witch to scare Mercy, there's almost some sincerity in her voice, like she's being serious.

The scene where she listens how her mother and father will take her to another family. Later, she calls out he father on that and her voice almost sounds like the one of a raging animal.

When they're locked in a barn she asks the twins if Black Philip really talks to them.

She lost everything in the end and wasn't OK mentally as well. She didn't ask for power, Satan's words were very specific.

He asks her if she wants to live deliciously, to see the world. That's not something she could've done, she was almost like a servant to the family, doing chores, living ultra religiously, was going to be given to another family and she didn't even voice her opinion about that (hell, one of the things she says while praying, if I remember correctly, is that she wasn't doing her chores properly).

So, the ending doesn't come out of nowhere.

* A bunch of witches on all fours naked around a camp fire

* The main girl joining them naked and then elevating 30 feet in the air.

I don't remember them being on all fours, besides, that scene shows that the director did his research. It's called the Witches' Sabbath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witches%27_Sabbath

About the rest of what you wrote there:

That would have been amazing and haunted my thoughts for awhile. Instead the movie's ending made it utterly forgettable.

What you're suggesting would've made the movie more forgettable. There's plenty of movies about people killing persons they accuse of being witches.

One notable one is "Witchfinder General". It's precisely about what you wrote there.

The witches are underused creatures when it comes to horror movies. They're not featured as antagonists in a lot of them. There's more movies about witch burnings actually, where people who do said burnings are the antagonists.

This movie is unique because it shows the witches as the antagonists for a change. I don't care if it's true horror, yes, people were doing stuff like that before, but that doesn't really make it that scary imo. I've seen plenty of movies where that sort of thing happens, it's nice to see something different.

Like other poster said, this is supposed to be a folk tale and the director did a very good job, there's plenty of things that only make sense if you know about such things as familiars, the sabbath etc.

Also, the whole "there was no witch" thing and how it shoudln't have been shown. There's plenty of movies where it turns out that there were no monsters and that the characters were just crazy.

Again, you're saying that the ending made it forgettable, your suggestions sound much more cliched and forgettable.

If you wanted a movie like that, then just watch Witchfinder General, don't project. If you want a movie where the witch is left to the imagination, watch The Blair Witch Project.

Don't go into the movie with the expectations that you'll see your own movie, the one you imagined in your head. Go in with an open mind and respect something different, respect uniqueness, the director's vision.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brian-931 8 years ago

But then this happened.. (spoilers)

* Black Philip morphing and becoming...a pirate? Errr, ok? = Clearly you don't know the relation of the name Black Phillip to that of the devil.
* The main girl on a whim deciding she wants the power of the devil, contrary to fighting it the entire movie = not really a whim since shes been fighting it the entire movie, not to mention there is nothing left for her. Her family is dead and this is not a time period where young women set out to become hard chested entrepreneurs.
* A bunch of witches on all fours naked around a camp fire = Sabbath: 2.
a supposed annual midnight meeting of witches with the Devil.
* The main girl joining them naked and then elevating 30 feet in the air. = *see Sabbath*

I mean what the actual F.

The actual "F" is that you know nothing about witch lore.

* Do NOT show an actual witch. It wasn't needed. The baby could've gone missing as she woke up from a nap early on, and the little brother could've returned in his comatose state after some off screen scenes with screaming. Leave the horror to our minds!

Cliche and done to death in other horror movie.

* Keep the final sequence, including her killing her mother in self defense, but as she stands up, show a group of people from their old town/commune showing up to check on her, only to find the horrific scene. She falls to the ground crying, knowing what it looks like.

Beyond pretentious and cliche.

* The final scene shows the girls face in fear, and there are flames dancing around the screen. The flames increase and we the audience see that she is being burned at the stake for being a witch. THAT is the true horror. The beliefs and thoughts of the time and how so many people were killed because of fear. The Witch.

*see Beyond pretentious and cliche*.

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

Exactly. Some people are pissed this movie wasn't like 80 percent of horror movies. It was all in their mind! Now they'll be burned as witches!

Sheesh.

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

It was all in their mind!

NO! It was not all in their minds!
Understand? Good.

[–] TheManInOil 8 years ago

I agree completely. Without that ending (even if they left the witch scenes in - which could be taken for fantasies in the minds of the characters), it would have had a much stronger, ambiguous ending that allows for multiple interpretations.

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

it would have had a much stronger, ambiguous ending that allows for multiple interpretations.

And it needs to have such an ending because...?

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

The explained ending (Sabbath, etc) does not make it any more enjoyable, at least not for me. Felt a bit like a cop-out ending, which several film critics have noted...even those who enjoyed the film overall. The ending also went against the girl's personality and experience for the entire film and rang false.

Seemed more like the director's desire to have a "clever ending" than anything else. Reading many comments here, multiple entire audiences in the theater apparently left angry or unsatisfied by the ending. I don't blame them. If I had seen it in theaters, I might have booed.

Does good have to triumph over evil every time? Not at all, and that's not what I'm talking about. I didn't even desire a dramatic "showdown" like others are implying we want, we who dislike the ending.

It doesn't surprise me that the director has primarily worked as a Production Designer. The look and atmosphere of the film are absolutely nailed and flawless. That's about it, though.

The director is young, talented, and learning. One day he'll make a "complete" film.

Overall, there are no intellectual explanations of witchcraft or evil goat mythology that will increase my like of this film. Though....I'm sure some will try.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

Felt a bit like a cop-out ending, which several film critics have noted...even those who enjoyed the film overall.

And others say that it was building up to that ending the whole time.

The ending also went against the girl's personality and experience for the entire film and rang false.

She's shown multiple times to be unsatisfied with doing chores around the farm, bossed around, planned to be given to another family against her will and she even says how much such things make her angry and how unfair it is.

She specifically asks Black Philip what he can offer to her and he asks her if she wants to "live deliciously, to see the world" and she's interested in that, hell, when she starts flying she seems really happy, she's finally free. There's no more boundaries for her, both literally and figuratively.

Overall, there are no intellectual explanations of witchcraft or evil goat mythology that will increase my like of this film. Though....I'm sure some will try.

It's a discussion forum, expect discussion.

It doesn't surprise me that the director has primarily worked as a Production Designer. The look and atmosphere of the film are absolutely nailed and flawless. That's about it, though.

The director is young, talented, and learning. One day he'll make a "complete" film.

Just your opinion, other people seem to think he did a very good job with other aspects.

Like, what was wrong with the story and characters?

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

Like, what was wrong with the story and characters?

Characters felt very wooden, with the exception of the kids. Parents were stereotypes for the age. Dialogue was over-written and didn't flow with the film.

As I've said previously, felt more like a student film project rather than a fully-realized, naturally developing film.

To each his/her own. You're entitled to your own opinion.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

haracters felt very wooden, with the exception of the kids.

Define "wooden".

Parents were stereotypes for the age.

To be expected considering the premise of the movie and I wouldn't call them stereotypes since they do have depth, they're human beings and not cliches.

Dialogue was over-written and didn't flow with the film.

I'm assuming that you're talking about the way the characters speak?

felt more like a student film project rather than a fully-realized, naturally developing film.

I guess I need to watch more of those then if they're like this. The development was natural in this movie.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

I'm assuming that you're talking about the way the characters speak?

I'm talking about the screenplay.

The rest of your questions are self-explanatory. If I say the characters are wooden, that is my reaction. They lacked depth and were very one-note performances/characters.

Again, to each his/her own. Glad you enjoyed the film.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

I'm talking about the screenplay.

I noticed what you wrote in another thread and here's the problem.

You think the dialogue is silly, ornate, overwritten etc. well, it's stated that most of the dialogue comes directly from the literary sources and other things the director used for research.

Therefore, the dialogue you complain about, which you claim was the same style of Star Wars prequels, is simply realistic. That's how people talked back then.

Reality is unrealistic I guess and George Lucas is from another century.

I don't want to sound rude, but those kind of statements are kind of ignorant. It may sound unnatural to us now but the way people talk, think etc. changes with time. Therefore, it's not silly, ornated, overwritten etc.

They lacked depth and were very one-note performances/characters.

You wrote "except the kids", what's the difference?

The mother and the father are not stereotypes. They do show depth. The father shows the love for his kids and despite how much he follows his religion, he cares more about his children, he's also shown to be a hypocrite etc.

Same with the mother, she's shown to love her children, accuses her husband of sin but is shown to be sinning herself, she's not so different.

They would lack depth and be stereotypes if, for example, they were just utra religious and that's it. There would be nothing more to those characters, they'd just talk about faith, the wouldn't show any emotion etc.

If I didn't explain it well (and I'm really not satisfied with that explanation, so don't get me wrong, I don't think you're stupid) I'll use this: We have a character who's a jock, he's very good at sports and is popular with girls. That's it.

That's a character who lacks depth.

If that same jock is revealed to be shy around girls, if he's also very smart, if he goes through development and becomes more confident, is able to talk about his fears and insecurities to others instead of just holding it all in then we have a character with depth.

Mother and father are not the first jock example, they're the second one.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

You do understand these are opinions, no? There is no wrong or right. You seem dismayed that anyone can criticize this apparently perfect film. You're the one who's ignorant.

You must be the director's sister/brother.

Regarding the dialogue, for example, "Game of Thrones" uses elevated dialogue that might befit the time, but still manages to be fresh, original, and even humorous. "The Witch" doesn't have any fun or variance with its period dialogue. I don't care particularly how loyal it is to the period. The point is to make it relatable to an audience. And yes, I understand the difference.

You need "proof" of everything. There is no proof, son. There's opinions. I would say, "the film is..." and you would say, "Define film. What is a film?". You need everything spelled out for you.

I suggest you take a film class and also a class in philosophy.

You're either a troll or Black Phillip himself, so I'm putting you on Ignore.

You: "Define ignore".

😀

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

There is no wrong or right.

Then I suggest you don't write statements that are not opinions.

"The Witch" doesn't have any fun or variance with its period dialogue. I don't care particularly how loyal it is to the period. The point is to make it relatable to an audience.

The Witch isn't Game of Thrones, it doesn't have to put humorous dialogue. If you want something like Game of Thrones, watch that.

Also, you should care about how loyal it is to the period so you stop making ignorant statements.

Relatable to the audience? Sometimes that's just impossible to achieve. I can't relate to the way of thinking these people have in The Witch because I don't think the way they do. I can understand that's how people acted before and even appreciate how the director showed it and I can like the characters.

The director doesn't need to dumb it down to appeal to what, in most cases, turns out to be the lowest common denominator.

suggest you take a film class and also a class in philosophy.

I suggest you don't write stuff like that when you write stuff like this:

You must be the director's sister/brother.

You're either a troll or Black Phillip himself, so I'm putting you on Ignore.

You: "Define ignore".

Other people pointed out how some posts you wrote don't make much sense. You also gave the movie a 1/10.

You said you liked the movie's atmosphere and directing. Therefore, it's absurd that you gave it a 1.

This is what you wrote in another thread:

that was one of the most unsatisfying, "bleh" endings I've seen in a horror flick....and I've seen my fair share.

What makes me think that you're simply exaggerating and haven't seen much of them.

What about Monster A Go-Go? Girl in the Photographs? The Cavern? Most of the endings in Holidays?

And I see you wrote the same thing about The Forest....and you actually thought the ending of The Forest was better? You can't be serious.

I really have to think that you write "most unsatisfying" ending thing quite a lot and you're acting like a drama queen in general.

Here's something else you wrote in another thread:

It gets points for its originality and creep factor

What points? You gave it a 1. If you were actually serious you wouldn't give it the lowest rating possible. You wouldn't even make so many posts here if you hate it that much too.

Don't use fals pretense and talk to me about opinions etc. when your view on things is extremely limited and not opinion based, despite you desperately trying to claim it is.

You're lying, you change your statements depending on the situation, whatever suits your needs best. You agree the most with people who share your dislike of certain aspects of the movie and don't really aknowledge the other pov.

And you now insult me and call me a troll? I never called you a troll. Again, despite your claims of "hey, opinions are opinions" your posts are very limited and self centered.

You just seem like a hypocritical, lying drama queen. I don't care if you put me on ignore, I see now that conversation with you is impossible and what you write is trash.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

Ms. Malinkovia or whatever, I ignored you so I can't read what you wrote.

Some closing comments: if you're not a troll, you're worse....a CONTRARIAN. You voice opposition to ANYTHING anyone says that doesn't fit with your viewpoint. I've seen you do it to many members in this forum. And you ask for "proof". There is no proof, sister. These are opinions. I think a character was flat or poorly-acted and you would say, "prove to me why you thought it was poorly-acted". You can't prove opinions about art. You can only say what you think. There's nothing I could say to make you understand, so why bother trying, right?

The perfect example is when I said the film was ambiguous until its ending, which is actually a compliment to the film. The film maintained a sense of mystery until the end, when it finally tried a nice "bow tie wrapped" ending, which was ludicrous. A far more interesting and compelling ending would have been to leave it up to your imagination. How much more satisfying it would have been to leave a question mark at the end.

But, we've already established, ignorant viewers such as yourself want everything spelled out for them in the end.

Finally- if you read any film criticism (and I doubt you're educated enough to), critics DON'T attempt to prove every single point they make. "The characters are poorly conceived and wooden" is all a critic would say. They don't say "because".

Stop trying to look for easy explanations to every comment. They're called opinions.

I hope you've learned something today. I feel a bit sorry for you.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] jinx_malone 8 years ago

I can't believe this.

This person that you're having an issue with? Is an ass who's been on my ignore list for longer than I care to think. They are trollish and asinine, and yes, they are being contrary for the sake of it. They are not interested in real discussion.

Block them as soon as you can because they'll start to follow you around to other threads or boards and keep trying to engage you by sending you idiotic point for point rebuttals that never stop.

Believe me, they aren't worth your time or words.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

And this person appears to be following me instead of adding something of substance, misunderstands the films they watch etc.

You know, you put a lot of effort in mentioning me, considering you put me on ignore and all.

It's stupid stuff like this that's worthy of an ignore list, but I didn't block you nor the poster you respond to.

And if you bothered to read a little more you'd see that person indeed put me on ignore list.

Once again you jump to conclusions a little too soon.

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

Oh, you're nuts. This was mesmerizing. You think those parents were cliche???

[–] lazyoli 7 years ago

so someone kills off your entire family even the innocent baby and in the end you join him because the movie already hinted you were some kind of rebel? you seriously find this character development believable??? c'mon it was a cop-out to give the message (zealots are bad) more power and the director failed with the ending! just admit it! it doesn't take away from the rest of the film. it still is a good movie but don't try to explain that away just because you liked the rest of the movie so much!

[–] xiphos480 7 years ago

Overall, there are no intellectual explanations of witchcraft or evil goat mythology that will increase my like of this film. Though....I'm sure some will try.

why should anyone give a *beep* what you like you massive narcissist?

[–] whale123456 8 years ago

I don't quite get what people mean that it was so out of character that Thomasin went with the witches at the end. I had a gut feeling that she was going to become involved with the witch from the beginning. One example: her jesting about being a witch to her younger sister had an intensity and fervor that implied (to me) a kind of fascination with the subject matter that she was trying to scare her sister with.

The film is a fantasy/folk tale. It attempts to accurately portray supernatural events as they would occur in the folk tales of this time. Should films not portray supernatural events as truly occurring (as opposed to portraying them as being caused by mass hysteria, hallucinations, madness, paranoia, etc.)? The film is also a great experiment in tone and atmosphere with great cinematography and an ambitious effort to recount historical details. Does it need a clear-cut moral message on top of that? I certainly don't think so.

[–] speling_errer 8 years ago

It was a film like a huge constipation journey, we waited for the stool to appear for so very long- and it just shat on itself and everyone went oh what was the point of that then.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

Very well said, speling. The movie had a build-up....I'll give it that, clumsy though it was (and a bit silly). Don't think the film evoked quite the sense of menace many are crediting it with. But still, I wanted to see where it lead.

Too bad where it lead was one of the most disappointing endings in horror film history. Didn't know whether to laugh or boo. It sounds like that was the predominant feeling in most theaters as well.

Think Black Phillip should have said, "would you like to live stupidly?"

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] BeOneOfUs 8 years ago

Too bad where it lead was one of the most disappointing endings in horror film history.

You're such a provocative, little douche bag that you have to make false statements just to try and annoy people lol.

Seriously, that must be the most exaggerated statements I've ever read.

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

No way. This film is destined to be a classic as is. This, It Follows and The Babbadook are the best horror in years.

[–] moviefool09 8 years ago

I can see this being a "cult" classic. The ending has turned off too many audiences to maintain popular longevity in the mainstream.

"This is dead air, Barry....dead air."

[–] jinx_malone 8 years ago

I think that It Follows deserves to be on that cult classic list, but not The Babadook and sadly not this film. I thought it was a beautifully paced, shot, acted and written, but the ending of it is just so polarizing.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] icikte 8 years ago

imdb is brimming with the dumbest mufks alive.

black philip was satan, and then he took human form.

these boards are the absolute worst place to discuss movies. you're part of the problem, bud.