Uh
You fell asleep during the movie.
No I didn’t.
Well that was a big fat spoiler. I guess i should have taken Tom’s advice.
I think I’m with Cathcart here.
S00PER FOR SERIOUS SPOILER
That wasn’t berry juice the witch was rubbing on herself in the beginning of the movie.
-Tom
Thanks for the answers. Sorry for not realizing it might spoil this for someone.
There probably isn’t enough that we can say to praise Egger’s direction in this movie. It’s an incredible effort for a first time director, I think. I’m no scientist so I’ll trust others’ judgments there. The Canadian wilderness masquerading as New England was wonderful, all the more so for the exact chosen location: the wide open farm that abruptly ends in a wall of forest, made all the more foreboding and ominous thanks to Egger’s efforts. I don’t know if he used some special lens or filter or what but the impression I got was that he deliberately went for a slightly muted look and it certainly served the proceedings well. The New England wilderness in this amazing world Robert Eggers has created is a dark and terrifying place. It is a place “far from the things of man”. A place where God (using the parlance of the film) is diminished.
I’ve never seen a movie where a director has wrung so much creepiness from two kids while dressing it all up as the things that kids do. I mean they run around spastically, sing nonsensical songs, tease, and disobey orders from older siblings. Nothing new under the sun there. But they’re singing songs about a black goat named “Black Pete” and you listen to it and just sort of want to curl up into a ball in a corner and pray the storm passes quickly. Their teasing seems innocuous at first but then it becomes sinister. By the time you get to “I can’t remember the words” you are both terrified for them and terrified of them.
I read a little bit about how Eggers originally had trouble getting this made because the initial pitch was too weird and he had to make it more conventional. I feel like knowing this has sort of helped me solidify my thoughts on the movie, actually (I n fact spent a significant amount of time yesterday evening reading about the movie because it stuck with me that much). I don’t think it’s a conventional narrative, not quite. It’s nothing like e.g. a Fincher movie granted, and the narrative is certainly linear. In a conventional narrative, there would be more cause and effect; Chekov’s thises and thats. The “alternate” method of worship the family employs (I didn’t catch everything said in this scene so I was unsure if something specific was mentioned but it was such a brief scene that I don’t think there was) would have somehow been central to the plot (beyond the banishing, I mean). Family tensions would have dated back to something bad that happened years ago, with it all spilling over on the new farm. There is none of that here. William tells Caleb in that first foray into the forest that we’re all sinners. But this isn’t a movie about sinners being too weak to resist temptation, or being punished for their sins. There’s no message here, no warning to be heeded. There is no amount of faith that could have saved the family. The New England wilderness was waiting to swallow whoever came along.
Of course there’s always room for willing recruits.
I know what it was.
It’s hilarious that you are using spoiler tags Tom
My comment about “immediately gruesome” was intended to mean “you don’t have to literally watch a kid get hacked up”. Which is not what was happening in that scene. It’s an awful and unambiguous scene in terms of what happened to the baby, but the baby was already dead at that point. Or perhaps I should say “sacrificed at that point”, since the actual sequence of events would have been “ritual killing” followed by “let’s be economical and use all the leftovers for spells!”.
There are people for whom the lack of watching the kid get killed might be fine. I don’t think mixuk is one of them. I could have worded it better. OTOH, you might have considered alternatives besides “oh you forgot an entire sequence in the movie”.
I know what it was.
It’s hilarious that you are using spoiler tags Tom
My comment about “immediately gruesome” followed by “watching a kid get hacked up” perhaps could have been worded better but it seems like the meaning got through. It’s not what was happening in that scene, though. It’s an awful and unambiguous scene in terms of what happened to the baby, but the baby was already dead at that point. Or perhaps I should say “sacrificed at that point”, since the actual sequence of events would have been “ritual killing” followed by “let’s be economical and use all the leftovers for spells”, with the extra awfulness that is entailed in that.
There are people for whom the lack of watching the kid get killed might be fine with the whole thing, but I don’t think mixuk is one of them.
This movie really didn’t work for me. I spent more time heaping scorn on the outright sadness of centuries of human beings living under such a dark cloud of Christian mythology than I did being anything close to scared; the thought of living under that cloud of doubt, fear, and paranoia made me sick to my stomach. The film also would’ve worked better for me had it been more of a religiously-driven psychological thriller wherein the family’s belief system forces them to turn on one another, with the ending’s reveal being whether or not the threat did indeed exist. But the film immediately shows us there’s a very real external threat, one that rarely materializes between long bouts of pious bleatings from these demented fundies, and does so in ways that aren’t particularly frightening. Those f’n twins, though. . .those little bastards would’ve been off my farm day one.
The two oldest siblings were well portrayed though, and for a directorial debut it’s a solidly constructed film.
P&R is down a few subforums. And thanks for reminding me why I don’t go there anymore.
That said, it’s too bad you have too much baggage to enjoy a movie about people who don’t live, think, behave, or believe like you do. A lot of good storytelling relies on empathy with others. Intolerance tends to be at odds with that.
-Tom
You’re trying to score an internet zinger here, but I actually freed myself from the baggage of my childhood’s environment; those characters in the film, they’re the ones psychologically burdened, not me. And it’s impossible to discuss this film or its characters without the overt religiosity on full display for its entire length. I could’ve forgiven some of it if this horror film had actually been even remotely scary, but a heavily foreshadowed, “oh, witches and the devil actually do exist,” probably won’t cut it for a lot of other people either.
You have this really long history of going after people when they disagree with your opinion, particularly when it comes to movies. You don’t have the first clue about how I live or behave, yet you don’t hesitate to go all judgmental because I find the level of religious histrionics demonstrated in the film to be unpalatable in the extreme. We could talk about the rank child abuse it engenders but, oh no!, you’re apparently too busy having the vapors over me mocking the mindset of Puritanical fundamentalism.
Funny, because it sounds exactly the opposite. And, no, I’m not trying to score an internet zinger. I’m making an important point. If I was trying to score an internet zinger, I’d post an animated gif.
Is it also impossible to discuss this film without using it as a platform to advertise your ignorance and intolerance? I often hear stories about characters who feel and believe very differently than me. I don’t feel the need to insult those people when I discuss their stories.
Ah, I see where this is coming from! I confess I can’t keep straight who the holdouts are. I was hoping most of you had left.
At any rate, your claim is absurd. I love discussions with people who have different opinions. But, uh, “going after people”? Is that what you call it when someone doesn’t ignore an offensive comment in an inappropriate situation? Here’s a hint, John: I couldn’t care less how you feel about the movie, which isn’t the least bit relevant to your outburst in this thread.
When I was in graduate school, I went back to my home state of Arkansas from time to time. I remember talking about movies to a girl I’d known from high school. I mentioned The Color Purple and asked her if she’s seen it.
“Oh, I don’t see movies about those people,” she told me.
That’s exactly how you sound, John.
Hoo boy.
-Tom
I’d love to know exactly how I’m ignorant. Intolerant toward that level of fundamentalism? Oh, definitely. Intolerant toward people of faith. No, not at all. I have a co-worker who reads his Bible every day during his lunch break, sits two desks from me, says I’m still going to heaven because he knows me. I also spent hours this past holiday season helping a local food bank run by the Catholic church unload food from delivery trucks and then breaking down all the trash despite being an ex-Protestant who was raised to believe the anti-christ will be the pope. Rereading my first post, it does come off as harsh, I typed it up rather quickly tired and about ready to hit the bed, but I still stand by my lack of patience and understanding toward the level of fundamentalism on display in the film. That is Dark Age shit that unfortunately is still alive and well in certain areas of the world and, yes, I tend to go Chris Hitchens on that stuff.
I often hear stories about characters who feel and believe very differently than me. I don’t feel the need to insult those people when I discuss their stories.
I confess my empathy diminishes quickly when wounds are self-inflicted. When it drives you to abuse your own family, probably doubly so. You, however, felt the need to insult me because I feel and believe differently, intolerant of my perceived intolerance. You took a discussion about a movie and turned it into personal insults.
Ah, I see where this is coming from! I confess I can’t keep straight who the holdouts are. I was hoping most of you had left.
You know what, Tom, I stayed out of that brouhaha and my opinion on your pattern of behavior was not based on that particular instance (I had to stop and think about what you meant by the above, it didn’t click right away). You’re just basically slyly saying GTFO here, or at least I interpret your word choice to convey that message. I don’t want to leave, I’ve been around since 2002 and enjoy the community that’s been built, but if you feel that I’m a bad member or bad for the overall community just let me know. At this point I don’t think I’m the one having an outburst though and you’re coming off as a bit of a bully here.
At any rate, your claim is absurd. I love discussions with people who have different opinions. But, uh, “going after people”? Is that what you call it when someone doesn’t ignore an offensive comment in an inappropriate situation? Here’s a hint, John: I couldn’t care less how you feel about the movie, which isn’t the least bit relevant to your outburst in this thread.
Again, you had to take a difference of opinion on a movie and its fictional characters and make a personal insult with your broadside of “ignorance and intolerance” and a subtle little stab of “hey, you sound juuuuust like a racist,” toward the bottom of your post. I’ve studied the Bible in both Greek and Aramaic, I’m hardly “ignorant” of its contents or the history of Christianity.
When I was in graduate school, I went back to my home state of Arkansas from time to time. I remember talking about movies to a girl I’d known from high school. I mentioned The Color Purple and asked her if she’s seen it.
“Oh, I don’t see movies about those people,” she told me.
That’s exactly how you sound, John.
Classy. No, nope, not going to respond to that garbage other than to say that it should be beneath you, Tom. I will say I apologize for offending you or anyone if you feel as a person of faith lumped into the group I fired off against. I fully support every person’s free will to live their life how they choose, and I have nothing but respect for people of faith who live good, honest, decent lives. Fundamentalists who engage in mental and/or physical flagellation I pity, in particular their children, and consider borderline clinically ill.
No subtlety intended. I’m calling you a bigot based on your initial post, in exactly the same way I’d call someone out for an inappropriate antisemitic, racist, or homophobic slur. If you feel you misspoke or wrote it out of haste, I’d love for you to clarify what you meant. Because I’m not just trying to be a bully. Read what you wrote. What if you had written that about Judaism? Or Islam?
It seems to me introducing into a movie discussion your own intolerance is kind of a dick move. And it seems to me it’s an even bigger dick move to insist there’s nothing wrong with it and that some of your best friends are religious. I’m sorry if you feel I’m coming on too strong, but I honestly feel what you wrote was inappropriate, offensively phrased, and has no place in a polite discussion.
And for the record, I’m not a “person of faith”. You don’t have to be black to disapprove of racism.
Again, sorry if I’m coming on too strong. But I honestly feel you’re out of line. And I say that not as a guy running this forum but as a guy who would like to talk to people – including you! – about The Witch.
-Tom
EDIT: Edited to try to come across less dickish.
Yes, I’m intolerant toward that level of fundamentalism, be it based on Christianity, Dianetics, Judaism or what have you, on display by fictional radicals ejected by their own kind at the film’s beginning. I’m owning that Tom, I’m being direct and honest with it here. I’m not even really trying to excuse it, but rather to parse it away the appearance of being a person who just loathes religion and those who practice it in general. That family is extremely dysfunctional and abusive toward one another, as a direct result of their religious beliefs (and the narrative’s stressors); I come from a childhood background and environment of abuse that was mired in racism and that brand of religiosity, and I’m sure that colors my reaction to and rejection of it. My previous post made it very clear that I can parse the difference between people of faith and radical fundies, and I certainly wasn’t hiding behind the bullshit of “I’m not a racist because I have black friends” that you seem to be assuming here. Perhaps I should’ve been more careful in making it clear that my harsh comments were directed specifically at the religious zealotry on full display in the movie in my initial post, but it’s not like I didn’t draw that distinction in my last post and apologize if I offended fellow forum members.
Let me ask this: have you ever seen me over the years here at Qt3 attack anyone for saying they belonged to a specific faith, group, club, etc? Because that’s not my nature. I’m kind of worried we’re talking past each other here though.
P.S. I have white friends, black friends, asian friends, conservative friends, liberal friends, catholic friends, protestant friends, agnostic friends, healthy friends, handicapped friends, gay friends, straight friends, ad nauseam. . .and I sincerely hope my rant and this discussion didn’t cause you any aggravation or stress; if so, I really am sorry because the last thing I want is to be a problem/headache for you with the health issues you’ve faced over the last few years. That said, no one likes being told they’re ignorant and if your goal is a forum for polite discussion your approach here probably wasn’t the best if you’re concerned with practical results.
Isn’t it kinda reasonable for him to suggest that you take the discussion to P&R if your primary issue with a movie is your dislike of the religious practices in it? You started with this, after all:
I spent more time heaping scorn on the outright sadness of centuries of human beings living under such a dark cloud of Christian mythology
I’m as atheist as it gets, but that’s a weird review of a horror movie, especially when there are so many great horror movies that feature religion - basically every vampire movie prior to the past 15 years, the Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, Devil Rides Out and a billion other occult movies
Firstly, my apologies for jumping on you. I escalated way too quickly. We both obviously feel strongly about this. But to answer your question, of course I haven’t seen you attacking anyone personally. Instead, you impugned literally billions of people based on their beliefs. That, to me, is a form of bigotry. Just because you feel it comes from a place of intellectual enlightenment doesn’t excuse it.
Anyway, please accept my apologies. If I were inclined to venture into P&R, I’d say I’d be happy to continue over there and I’d try to be more civil. But frankly, it’s a discussion I’d much rather have in person where it’s harder to assume someone’s just being an asshole. So if you’re ever in LA, first round is on me. :)
-Tom
Well, as I’ve tried to clarify in subsequent posts my attitude and comments were meant toward the extremism displayed by fundamentalists, not all people of faith. Hell, I don’t care for political extremism either. And denouncing radicalism is something I feel any person who cares about logical reasoning should do, because it’s basically the antithesis of extremism in almost all its forms. Now, we could get into relativism and that I’m very likely guilty of judging the film’s characters from a too-modern lens, but I’m hardly an expert on the Puritan lifestyle or its mindset and my only defense would be to again cite that even the town rejected that family due to the father’s obdurance.
Anyway, please accept my apologies. If I were inclined to venture into P&R, I’d say I’d be happy to continue over there and I’d try to be more civil. But frankly, it’s a discussion I’d much rather have in person where it’s harder to assume someone’s just being an asshole. So if you’re ever in LA, first round is on me.
No need to apologize, Tom, though I appreciate the gesture. . .my first post reads badly, was thrown out too quickly without any hardly any nuance and does come off as a broadside toward an entire faith. If you ever find yourself tipping cows in Ohio, give me a heads up and I’ll buy you dinner.
I find it interesting – not that I necessarily disagree, mind you – that you characterize the family in The Witch as fundamentalists. That’s a loaded term however you use it, but I’m not sure I’d personally use it in the context of the movie’s historical setting. Because the movie establishes with its very first syllable that their beliefs are rejected by the prevailing religion. They are somehow regarded as fringe, as apostates, as heretics. They are cast out of the community for what they believe. They are, in a way, to the Puritans what the Puritans are to the Christians.
Now I’m not sure what the point is of this set up. I think it’s mainly to set them up as being alone and isolated in the wilderness, which is a fundamental tenet of a lot of horror. But I think it might also be to set up their beliefs as more pure, less institutional, more spiritual, more authentic (?) than what we think of as the quaint heritage of New England Christians. In other words, not to establish them as the type of fundamentalists who would participate in trials to burn witches, but to establish them as even more honestly devout, with a strong personal faith that doesn’t require the Church, or even church. So that when they’re undone, we realize that this particular evil is all-powerful.
It’s like in The Exorcist, the regular doctor and the regular priest are helpless. Even someone with the wisdom and experience of Father Merrin is defeated. This is one bad-ass demon. I think that’s what The Witch is going for with the family’s religion in the context of its historical setting.
-Tom
Strictly speaking, it’s anachronistic to call Puritans “fundamentalist,” since fundamentalism didn’t exist until the late 19th century. We might loosely compare earlier forms of Christianity with today’s fundamentalism, but the similarities are more a matter of where we stand than where they do. Nowadays we tend to just label beliefs we don’t like or find too strict as “fundamentalism,” which papers over a lot of important distinctions and is really just a subtle and pervasive form of religious intolerance. “Look at those fundamentalists, going and taking their religion seriously and acting like it’s true or something!”