![Movies Movies](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/movies_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
Lo-Tech Cinema 345
"The Blair Witch Project" is a biting rebuke to Hollywood, which has nearly overwhelmed movies from "Phantom Menace" to "Wild Wild West" with expensive cinematic technology, especially computer-generated special effects.
The BWP, made for roughly $50,000 by two young and unknown filmmakers - Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick - might well spark a new Lo-Tech genre in American cinema. It sure ought to.
As of last weekend, the BWP was the No. 2 money-making movie in America, taking in $30 million. It is pounding the daylights out of big-budget Hollywood clunkers like "The Haunting and "Deep Blue Sea," both of which spent small fortunes on razzle-dazzle effects but forgot to include the rest of the movie.
In fact, the "Haunting" has grossed half as much as the BWP even though it cost at least a hundred times as much to make.
It wasn't that the BWP makers didn't understand or make use of technology. They did.
The movie's website www.blairwitch.com had more than 20 million hits even before the films release this summer in a handful of theaters in a small number of cities.
The site is a model of how to use the Web to capture the style and atmosphere of a film.
The movie is set in a tiny (real) town in Maryland. The (fictional) premise is that three student filmmakers set out into the woods in October of l994 to film a documentary about the Blair Witch, who supposedly has haunted the woods for generations. The kids never come back. A year later their video footage is found. The website presents the story as a literal news event, including newscasts reporting on the kids' disappearance and the search for them and their remains.
Sanchez and Myrick shot the movie with tiny hand-held cameras, one of the many reasons the BWP is so edgily effective. They used Global Positioning Satellite tracking systems to guide the three unknown actors in the movie to their locations in the woods, where they found instructions on the movie's upcoming scenes. The actors weren't told what to say, but required instead to improvise the dialogue and much of the plot. Watching the movie, it's easy to forget you're watching one.
Thus the actors were especially convincing as terrified kids in way over their heads. The WBP is, from the first, permeated with an overpowering sense of gloom and dread reminiscent of the original "Night Of the Living Dead," one of the best and most innovative horror films of its era. I've rarely seen a theater so quiet.
Using technology in this savvy, minimalist way, the BWP reminds us that movies can be much more frightening when they leave some perils to our imagination than when they present them so literally and ultra-graphically (one of the many reasons "Jaws" was so much creepier than its lame sequels).
In fact, the BWP did none of the high-tech things that now seem elemental in contemporary movie-making. It had no score, not a single special effect, almost no lighting, no expensively animated credits.
For the past few years, filmmakers have been drunk on all of their new technologies, from computer-generated characters to numbingly overdone explosions and crashes. The early mythic horror films - "Frankenstein," "Dracula," "The Phantom of the Opera" - were much closer to the BWP than to the gazillion-dollar bombs now produced by the corporatized studios: they were much more frightening for what they didn't show than for what they did.
Sanchez and Myrick may, in fact, have almost single-handedly saved an endangered Hollywood genre. Their movie was made completely outside the Hollywood studio system, discovered when shown out of competition at the Sundance Film Festival (it wasn't even accepted as an entry ).
Had it been a Hollywood project, it would probably have had almost none of the qualities that make it so strikingly original - the realistic, amateurish, herky-jerky home video quality, the restraint and discipline that force us to picture what might be happening.
And a big studio would never have signed Heather Donahue, the previously unknown actress who delivers a grand-slam performance as an obsessive young documentary maker. Nor would a studio have permitted a film to be made without a script.
Yet without sophisticated use of technology, the BWP wouldn't have been nearly as effective. GPS systems permitted the actors to move around without a horde of techs and aides, something which clearly contributed to their performances as increasingly terrified kids alone in the woods. In the first minutes of the movie, the kids are much more worried about returning their car and camera equipment in time than about being lost in the woods with any supernatural skullduggery. That changes quickly.
Digital technology makes possible small and highly portable cameras that can be wielded by actors as well as cinematographers. And the movie's amazing online campaign shows that creativity can do wonders on the Web while giant and overblown corporate ad campaigns stagger and fail. The Web is profoundly anti-hype. The product has to deliver, and Webheads prefer to find it for themselves. People online want to find something good and share it, not be beaten over the head with it. Online marketing reverses the natural laws of conventional media hype. If you make it, and it's good, they will come.
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality. The bad news is that a sequel to BWP has already been contracted by a Hollywood studio.
Lo-tech made BWP what it is (Score:1)
This might work for a few other movies, but not many. Its almost imposible to set a good Sci-Fi thriller with something that would allow this lo-tech to work, and I personally can't think of any other place where this kind of lo-tech would work except in a forest. It is relatively inexpensive to just travel to a forest and walk around taking shots, whereas setting a lo-tech film in a big city will still be expensive, you'll probablly need permission to shoot some of the areas as well as having to rent rooms and such to shoot in. All of this adds money and sense special effects and computer rendering are getting less expensive, its starting to become more cost effective to just render a lot of the stuff, like Squaresoft is doing in their Final Fantasy movie which is going to be completely rendered.
A lot of the BWP was also do to the shock value of seeing a big film that was filmed on a handheld camera.. that's a shock value that is a one time thing.. it might still be around for other movies that do the same thing, but the effect won't be anywhere as great. BWP was also very original in this.. if someone tries to make another lo-tech blockbuster like this, it'll lose all originality and personally I'd rather see a hi-tech non-original movie than a lo-tech non-original movie.
Re:religion, mathematics, and psychosis (Score:1)
Reminds me of our President... (Score:1)
As for low budget independent films... been making them for years this side of the pond. Some are very very good...some are very very bad. The best ones are almost always better than the best that Hollywood churns out.
Re:There he goes again (Score:1)
Hmm... Which single mind: one or the other of the two writer/directors? The actors, who improvised their own dialogue? The fleet of Web designers? The marketers who put together the riveting ads?
l994 or 1994? (Score:1)
BWP is junk! (Score:1)
Basically the movie is multiple iterations one after the other of a one line story: "We are lost in the woods, what do we do? Shu, shu, I blame you! Walk (or sit and blame) in the day and boo boo in the night." with a careless attention to details: like infinite film and battery power (well maybe they had some kind of solar powered batteries' yea right, for a 70mm), and no food for almost a week (they could have eaten something in the woods).
In summary, I am ashamed I paid to see this crap, or better yet, one of the largest scams (I wonder how large is the chunk for the critics that gave positive reviews) I have seen.
ps: by the way the general reaction in the theater at the end was, "What, that is it, and I paid for this crap".
_______________________________________________
What a yawner (Score:1)
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality.
And the bad news is that the ad campagin for this movie is a whole lot better than the movie itself. I don't think there was a single person in the theatre that was scared by this flick.
I found it hard to be concered about three dolts who can't even follow a stream to get out of the woods.
Re:World outside of the US (Score:1)
That said, originality ain't everything, and I'm fully prepared for BWP to be a lot of fun.
--
Re:BWP made me queasy... (Score:1)
Generally not feeling 100%, drinking the night before, and having some popcorn (don't do that much anymore) didn't help.
The jittery camera was making me nauseous.
However, I've also seen the Sci-Fi Channel documentary. The film was shot 4:3 on video and 16mm, and actually looks better on television! So I'll just rent it when it comes out.
Not what I expected, but intriguing. (Score:1)
Plus, there was no real script (Score:1)
Pick whatever is hot and then latch on for a ride (Score:1)
Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen. Too many people are willing to throw the theater $8 to see things blow up I'm afraid.
Just because some movie makers use GPS' and put up a website about there movie, that doesn't make 'em "tech-savvy" and hip and cool. Just about every movie released these days has a web site. Enough with the hype. Feels like a bad Wired article....
Re:The best part of BWP.. (Score:1)
Amen! Mr. Katz is right on here. (Score:1)
I say fsck high tech digital filmaking. It is not art. It is crap.
One of my favorite films is 'Natural Born Killers' and that movie would have sucked had Hollywood and George Lucas or the other hi-tech assholes had got a hold of it. That film was made in 8mm, 16mm, a couple kinds of video, animation ( ala "The Wall" ). You can't convince me that making it "Digital" would have been better.
I also liked Pulp Fiction. Same idea here.
I will do my part for the big high tech films. I will wait for the VHS Video or watch it on TV.
Ken Broadfoot
Re:Sequel? (Score:1)
Simple! Just have the US military get word of the mystery of the missing students and they nuke the woods.
Re:Timing in BWP (Score:1)
Re:Indy Movies (Score:1)
| have expensive effects but are likely lacking
| in something else: an intelligent, sensible
| script. Put BWP and Matrix out at the same time
| and see who wins. My vote is on Matrix.
Given all other things equal, the movie with the best special effects wins - especially during the summer.
But, I think you give *both* films a little too much credit for having intelligent scripts. The premise of Matrix was simply laughable (hurt the overall movie for me, anyway), though it did score a bit on the "cool" factor. The script for BWP - well, what script? The good thing about BWP would have to be that the actors actually got the point across.
BWP reminded me somewhat of some Lovecraft stories - takes plave some time after the "horror" has occured, you never really *see* the "horror", etc. Worth the student-ticket price at any rate, just for the suspense. Even if it *was* filmed with HurlCam (tm).
Re:Indy Movies (Score:1)
[The Matrix]
| I donno... I kinda liked it. At least it was a
| little more towards the 'strange science
| fiction' type stuff. Granted it didn't
| make sense, but it coulda been a helluva lot
| less original and more 'hollywood'.
Well, it couldn't have been *much* less original unless they tried really really hard.
(Anyone but me think they ripped some of the final scenes of The Matrix right out of "never show a good movie right in the middle of your crappy movie" _Overdrawn at the Memory Bank_?
Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed seeing _The Matrix_. And it may have been slightly less "hollywood" than most of the sci-fi coming out lately, but only slightly.
As a side note, it's quite easy to define what the Matrix really is. The Matrix is Elvis.
Bad Ending... (Score:1)
Scary? Not at all...
The thing about the guy throwing the map away was totally unbeliveable...
The ending had to be the worst though -- all of a sudden, everyone is dead and the credits come up... I would have at least liked to have seen interviews with the same townspeople the kids interviewed to get their reactions after the tapes had been found -- even if they were during the credits or something...
CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (Score:1)
CH begins with a professor being hired by a New York City TV station to go down to Colombia to look for a missing documentary film crew. The crew is clearly modeled after an Italian mondo film crew, but the setting is changed to America (although it's an Italian movie- pretty common, actually).
He heads down South and after a journey finds their film and the remainder of their remains. He assumes they were killed by bloodthirsty savages.
He takes their footage back to NYC and assembles some of it for the TV guys to watch. It's grisly, but the big revelation is that the crew, in order to make a more juicy film, tortured and abused the natives. They were killed in revenge.
CH plays with the ideas of movie reality versus "real" reality. If the crew had made it back OK, they would've edited their movie to reflect what they were trying to show. The raw footage was more truthful.
It also was made as a criticism of mondo film and even news programs that are allowed to show anything they want because it's true, while fiction is heavily censored. Well, in Italy in 1979 at least.
TBWP didn't have that much to say and didn't frame the recovered footage as well. You could edit the "Curse of the Blair Witch" TV special and the movie together into a better feature- and one that would look a lot more like CH.
For more about CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, read KILLING FOR CULTURE, or buy the laserdisc. You can get the book from Amazon and the disc from houseofhorrors.com.
World outside of the US (Score:1)
As for one posters comments about "Saving Private Ryan"
The difference between Lucas and Spielberg is that at least Lucas knows when he's making it up / hamming it up (cf Used Car salesmen and Computer salesmen).
Practicalities (Score:1)
because steadicams are expensive, heavy, and unlikely to be in the possession of a student film crew?
Children of the Corn (Score:1)
Direct Action Cinema (Score:1)
I'm not that big a fan of horror films, but the film that scared the socks of me was "Dead Calm".
mahlen
Re:Interesting dividing line. (Score:1)
I'll agree with that assertion. I liked the film, but I can see how someone who doesn't like to or can't empathize with the characters wouldn't like it. With no empathy, there's no interest in the characters, and there's not much left after that.
I'll bet the people who didn't like this film didn't much like scary campfire stories, either. I try not to look down on them too much, though. :)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Re:F.ex ? WARNING: THIS REPLY IS A SPOILER! (Score:1)
It was the Witch. The magic forest (they walked in circles wich is a old-story symptom of magic forests.
The Guy throwing away the Map and everything else implied magic.
- Was it really Josh yelling from the basement? Or was it a recording? Or was it the Blair Witch mimicing his voice?
It doesn't matter in the story, they probably all died.
- How did Mike end up in the corner? Physically forced? Possesed? Already dead and propped up?
Magically forced. He was knocked down remember, and yet was standing 15 seconds later.
- Did they really die? No bodies were found.
Since they were supposed to find the cameras one year later, the bodies could heve been in the same location.
- What were those children's voices? What were the other sounds?
That were the childrens souls crying.
- What caused the tent to flap like that?
Magic
- How did they end up going in a circle? Maybe it's like those magic forests in Zelda.
Yep, magic forest.
- What was that slime?
Just some neat idea the produces had, it doesn't realy matter in the story. It's only purpose is to add creapy atmosphere to the movie. It has absolotely no other purpose in the movie.
- ad infinitum....
I guess you didn't read enough scary stories as a kid. Those are all classical examples from those.
- No questions, huh? Maybe you were looking at it differently than I but I really enjoyed it and am waiting for the DVD.
It will fit nicely righ beside "striptease" and "Higlander II" on your shelve.
- Maybe you should go rent Navy Seals
Never heard of it (the movie). Is is much different from BWP ?
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Artificial Hype ? (Score:1)
I don't get it, I realy don't.
I went to see this film last weekend and I was mildly dissapointed. It's not a bad movie, but clearly below average.
And it leaves absolutely nothing, *nothing*, when you walk out of the cinema there are no unansvered questions and the movie isn't making any point.
If I told you that you realy don't see anything horrible in the movie, I would have spoiled all the film for you, it's that bad. The only thing that holds up the film the whole time is that it is making the surroundings look creapy with the help of music and sound effects. And even that gets bored after 30 minutes.
I doubt there are many people who will want to watch this file the second time.
And my question is : What realy generated all this hype ?? C'mon if a unknown website got millions of hits even before the opening, it's got to be professionally planned and engineered hype !
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:Other notes about BWP (Score:1)
Look up between the trees and you will see that there aren't any more trees 20-or-so meters from where the actors are standing.
Not a big mistake but it quite annoyed me while I watched the movie.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:If you want another opinion... (Score:1)
(apart from some deep-forest-scenes obviously taken behind just a few trees).
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
F.ex ? (Score:1)
The movie is OK but it's definitely not great, in the sense that I will get absolutely nothing out of a second screening.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
City folks ? (Score:1)
But why the hype ? The film basically just tells an camp-fire ghost story.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Fine end to the story. (Score:1)
I guess we've all seen movies where some guy is blown up by 500 tons of dynamite and still walks away from it.
But the BWP is supposed to be a "true" movie and as such, those kind of things don't happend, we know how kids used to be killed in pairs in that cellar. One standing in the corner, facing the wall, that was the last bit of information the film gave. It was all supposed to fit togeter and we are expected to figure out that the kids will die. But how do we know that ?? The film doesn't explicitly *state* that, now does it ?
The film has absolutely no *details*. whatsoever, the audience can figure out on the way home.
It leaves nothing for the intelectual audience.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Re:Artificial Hype ? (Score:1)
Re:Indy Movies (Score:1)
As for clerks, I agree with you. That was another very good independent film. I was pleasantly surprised when a friend of mine had me watch the movie.
The Big Connection (Score:1)
I've rarely seen a theater so quiet.
I've rarely heard a theater so full.
Now all Mr. Katz needs to do is to draw the parallel between independent filmmaking and independent musicmaking with MP3s, and argue for web-, ftp-, and IRC-based distribution of these films and he's on to something here.
--
QDMerge [rmci.net] -- data + templates = documents.
Lo-Tech, gimme a break! (Score:1)
I very seriously doubt that any major movie studios will begin producting movies with digital camcorders and cutting them on Media100 workstations because of the success of this one movie. Maybe now the studios will take a more serious look at indy films, indy screenplays, and more traditional moviemaking techniques. Hopefully we'll get to see a few more decent movies in the theaters.
~John
Horror and the real sense of mind numbing (Score:1)
Old Time Radio shows like ESCAPE and SUSPENSE used the spoken word and some sound fx to make the audience feel these emotions, to sit on the edge of thier seats. They used WORDS to spark the minds eye, not a visual stream to spoon feed the audience.
If Katz were truly into touting the real ways of Low-Techo he would have at least mentioned this, but hhe is once again found empty of real substance.
For more on Old Time Radio, where to find it on the net and even a few files to listen to head over to The WSMF OTR site [wsmf.org]
And Use Your Own Imagination once in a while.
Wafting More Airballs with Jon Katz (Score:1)
The Great Blair Witch Project SWINDLE (Score:1)
BUT
The marketing hype that made you aware of it cost MILLIONS
So for all you folks who think this is a win for the low budget film makers or the Katzians who follow the hipbuzz speak with thier heads up the pundints anus
suckers
Re:Pi (Score:1)
The movie's point is NOT wether there are patterns in Pi, or wether the stockmarket can be predicted, but what happens to an individual when they become blind to everything but one goal. In the end, Max (I think that's the character's name), starts seeing patterns everywhere, in coffee, in the guts of a squished bug, in the stock market, in the Torah - and you can pick apart his brain at that moment and really understand the kind of psychosis he is affected by.
The movie is not about math, it's about life, the point of life, and about balance.
-Laxative
Pi (Score:1)
You have no taste.
-Laxative
Re:I have to ask... (Score:1)
I thought Pi was a BEAUTIFUL film, Rushmore was great, Trainspotting kicked butt (though i dont know if it's 'independent' or not). That's about all the independent movies that I can list off the top of my head right now. I've been searching for a place where I can get info on films like these, and the only thing I've found so far is the onion's AV-club movie review section.. do you know any other place?
-Laxative
Low budget? (Score:1)
at 1.5 million. That's thirty times what
they claim the film actually cost. Ever
get the feeling you've been cheated?
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
Re:Dream Park (Score:1)
In essence, this is what is happening with Ultima Online and Everquest. Quake leagues are springing up all over the place. As the technology driving these games gets better, the distinction between game and real will blur.
On a related note: Have you read Synners by Pat Cardigan? In it the Synners (synthesizers), channel human emotions in sync with music videos to people with sockets (i.e. connections with the brain). A must read if you want a glimpse at where technology is heading.
Yes, Virginia, There Is Film Outside Hollywood (Score:1)
While it's always nice to see someone realise that there are wonderful films being made outside Hollywood, to say that BWP is the start of some sort of new renaissance in non-Hollywood filmmaking is to dismiss decades of filmmakers. Sure, I had a similar `ah ha!' experience more then ten years ago when seeing Atom Egoyan [imdb.com]'s Family Viewing [imdb.com] (which was made for a similar cost) for the first time, but I didn't jump to the conclusion that this was the start of a new trend, rather than the continuation of one I'd fallen into the middle of.
Sure, low-budget, non-Hollywood filmmaking is new to this corner of the Internet, and sure, this is the first film that's become a massive success based on Internet interest and hype (forged or otherwise: see Salon's Did "The Blair Witch Project" fake its online fan base? [salon.com]), but that's no excuse not to do one's background research before writing an article like this, and making a realistic assessment of where this film fits in the recent history of filmmaking.
cjs
Re:Pi (Score:1)
Good thing he wasn't talking about your mother or something...you might have had to attack his personality for expressing an opinion...
Grow up.
"It's Brazilian"
I think it's great (Score:1)
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
Whose fault is it that the whole "expectation" game gets played anyway?
Stop being led around by the big marketing hook in your nose. Watch a movie and judge it on it's own merits, not what the public (who, by the way have made wrestling shows some of the most popular on TV, so fuck them anyway), media and marketing machines tell you to.
If you saw the movie and didn't like it as a matter of taste, that's fine, not everyone is going to like the same things. But if you dislike it for failing to live up to your *expectations*, then you're an idiot for playing that game in the first place. Plus, you are doomed to be disappointed by everything, since expectations are seldom met in this day and age.
Re:Giggling (Was Re:The best part of BWP..) (Score:1)
I think they were screaming at the end becuase they dropped their $15,000 camera; the most expensive piece of equipment on the set.
"Real" Myth? (Score:1)
As Hollywood comes out with more crap.... (Score:1)
Re:BWP did NOT invent this. (Score:1)
Re:Indy Movies (Score:1)
Re:Bad Ending... (Score:1)
Re:Sequel? (Score:1)
Re:Loved it...NOT (Score:1)
I think that this movie proves nothing more than that with a good marketing machine and plenty of hype, along with a lot of screaming, running and cursing, it's possible to sucker a few million people into parting with their money.
The Blair Witch Project did nothing more than strain the audience's credibility and present yet another telling of some tired old summer camp ghost story. The only time that I got scared was when I realized that the stuff that was sticking to my shoe wasn't a spilled Coke, but bubble gum.
Not only was the movie completely un-scary, but the ending was PURE cheese. I mean, I could see it coming a mile away. My prediction? This movie is going to fade from the scope very quickly. All that has been proven is that with a very low budget, it's possible to rake in a very large amount of money. At least the accountants will walk away happy.
=h=
Re:Loved it...NOT (Score:1)
Further, having spent a fair amount of time in Maryland, I'll also postulate that anyone who cannot find their way out of one of those woods after three days deserves what they get.
By the end of the movie I was cheering for the witch.
I'm perfectly used to the fact that this movie has made more money than other movies. But I think that it's very clear that receipts != quality. This is a great case of how well marketing works. It's a bad movie...deal with it!
=h=
Re:Loved it...NOT (Score:1)
I can suspend my disbelief. I love movies. But just because the camera jiggles and everybody acts really scared doesn't mean that I'm going to jump up and down and bow to some new paradigm in filmmaking. This would have been a good movie from a couple of guys studying film at UCLA, or maybe it deserves a place in that low budget "art" film niche, but as a mainstream movie, all I can determine is that everyone went gaga because it received great reviews from a film festival and cost less than a bedroom in San Jose. But the premise was tired, the plot was weak and the ending was so anticlimactic that as soon as I saw the house I told my friend what was about to happen. All that was left was to scrape the popcorn off my shoe.
Yeah...I can suspend disbelief. But that doesn't mean that any old crap that flickers and jiggles on the screen will catch my eye.
=h=
religion, mathematics, and psychosis (Score:1)
Religion: The Last Temptation of Christ, The Crucible, The Apostle, The Exorcist, all of the movies that just came out about the Dalai Lama, The Mission, Sister Act, Oh God, Witness, Yentl, The Ten Commandments.
Math: Contact, Good Will Hunting, Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land, Moebius, N is a Number, Stand and Deliver, Sphere, Sneakers, I.Q.
Psychosis: ummm...just about any movie with a "bad guy" and plenty more that don't.
I haven't seen Pi, so I won't comment on whether it is good or not. But you seem to be implying that it is outre or avant garde or some other French phrase in that it deals with issues Hollywood normally doesn't. Just because a movie was good doesn't mean it has to be unique. This is the kind of unwarranted hyperbole that makes people who haven't even seen the movie dislike it.
Best Katz contribution to Slashdot yet (Score:1)
Psychological Horror (Score:1)
I haven't seen BWP yet, but I did see The Sixth Sense this past weekend, and thought it was fantastic. Please, go see it before anyone spoils it for you.
I don't think I'll be spoiling The Sixth Sense by saying that the special effects are almost nonexistent; as I've heard about BWP, more happens off screen than on. I think Sixth Sense edged out BWP for highest gross on this incredibly crowded (5 major studio releases) weekend. I hope that the success of these films will spark more cerebral, psychological horror flicks. I'd much rather see this type of movie than self-referential, over-the-top slashers like Scream or cheesy CGI fests like The Haunting (although Sleepy Hollow looks like it might be good).
As far as The Haunting goes, I've heard that there is another movie from the same original source coming out later this year, called The House on Haunted Hill or maybe The Haunting of Hill House. The rumor goes that this one will depend more on auditory than visual effects for its scares. I can only hope the rumor is true.
Re:I have to ask... (Score:1)
I just have to agree to this (and I also missed out on the marketing). I'm happy for Jon Katz if BWP has opened his eyes to independent low-budget movies though, but it's nothing new and I doubt BWP will create a new trend in Hollywood cinema.
There are always some low-budget independent-movies from new and exciting filmmakers that manage to stand out from the crowd to the more cinema-aware. Just off the top of my head, people might want to check out these flicks: El Mariachi, Man Bites Dog, Clerks, La Haine, Evil Dead, Nightwatch, Junk Mail... If you take a look at the Hollywood-remakes made of some the above movies you will understand why Hollywood won't be able to take advantage of a trend towards low-budget independent movies. It is probably impossible to create such movies inside the Hollywood studio system.
Re:Theatre so quiet.... (Score:1)
With saving private ryan you knew that there was going to be a happy ending or atleast happy enough, with the BWP no one knew what was coming until they turned on the lights.
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
However, not having expectations is pretty unrealistic, don't you think? Can you honestly go into every movie not knowing anything about it, and not expecting a good movie? Pretty cynical approach if you ask me.
absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
BUT...
The Blair Witch was in my opinion absolutely horrible filmmaking. "Road Rules goes horribly wrong." And it was so funny as to be unfunny. As a friend pointed out, they got lost in the woods with a map, compass, river AND the sun in the sky? Sounds to me like it was nature weeding out bad genes to me. But anyway, an utterly wretched film, with no suspense at all. Just because it was cheap and different doesn't mean it's good. Last time I checked characters were still fairly important and I couldn't give a rat's behind about any of them. So, if characters aren't there, most filmakers will attempt to blind you with visuals or at least a good plot. No such luck here; it's like they were relying so heavily on trying to sell this as a true story and the fact that it is about as un-Hollywood as you can get they forgot to do anything like entertain us. Godzilla sucked and no matter how much money they put on the screen that wasn't going to change. Same principal here. No amount of money would have made this story entertaining.
Go watch The Iron Giant. It won't make near as much as The Insipid Witch, but it is light years better and will still be around in 100 years whereas Blair Witch will be spliced onto a reel America's Funniest Home Videos and Fox's Most Shocking Moments Caught on Tape.
Now, to be fair I will have to say that they marketed this film BEAUTIFULLY. Web site, Sci-Fi channel preview, everything to make you think it was real. Plus all the buzz about how scary it was; to me that is what drew me to the film because how many people can be shocked or scared by a movie after the trememdous amount of scary movies we have all seen in our lives? I have to give it credit for trying, I am not shooting the concept full of holes, it's quite noble actually, it's just that the execution was as big a failure as any failed endeavor in the history of filmmaking.
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
I just expected better you know? When you expect good things and you are disappointed it hurts worse than usual.
So many people are involved with a film in Hollywood that it is a rare thing for a creative, unique vision to make it's way to the screen and I was hoping that Blair Witch would be it. High expectations dashed to bits.
However, all this talk of a sequel doesn't upset me like you think though...Evil Dead was in my opinion not good but it was innovative and proved that you could make a successful movie very cheaply. Then they followed that up with one of the greated horror/comedy movies ever Evil Dead 2, so I am not going to lose all hope!:)
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
Here's to hoping for a better sequel!
Re:absolutely the worst movie ever (Score:1)
I think the point they were trying to make here is that somehow the witch was screwing with them. Common sense does tell you they wouldn't have been lost on their own.
I'm still not sure what I think of the movie, though I don't think you can really call it the worst movie ever. I mean, come on, some of that 80's stuff... I _was_ disappointed it didn't scare me as much as I expected it to, but then again I grew up out in the country and I've spent a lot of time in the woods.
Besides, you have to admit the final scene was pretty cool.
#2.. I don't think so. (Score:1)
As far as I know it was #2 on it's opening weekend 2nd to The Runaway Bride...
BUT... it opened in less theaters and averaged $20,000 per screen where the #1 movie only hit about $15,000 per screen. (i think that's how they should rank movies, but nooo big-ass-hollywood guys need the big numbers).
Anyways, my personal review is Here [flatlinesystems.net]
- dc.
Re:Psychological Horror (Score:1)
Re:I have to ask... (Score:1)
Of course, You have to be here to enjoy Daniel Langlois(Softimage's dad)'s latest toy : ExCentris [ex-centris.com]
Gog
Re:Commercialize, commercialize, commercialize (Score:1)
but I have some problems with this point:
Most people I know have very good ideas what they want, but when they go to see it or praise it, they're told that this director is uncool or that actor has sold out, and they should not watch it. More to the point, what we see is dictated by what the mega-cinema chains will show.
When I was growing up, my city (washington, DC) had many independent movie theaters, many of which showed various movies of questionable commercial appeal. theaters like the Apex, Biograph, Key, and The circle would all show repertory, Anime', off-color drama (Caligula's a perfect example -- not porn, but damned close), and foreign. Most of these places are now gone, some of which have been razed to the ground and replaced by synthetic megaliths of corporate or commercial intent...I think the CVS chain accounts for at least three former movie theaters in town.
My point in this ancient history is that I think many more people know what they want to see, but their vote at the box office is curtailed by major chain theater options and whoever is keeping stats of rentals (and the Monica Lewinsky scandal showed us someone must be) is not correlating them to what should be shown in movie houses.
Doubtless, this has more to do with profit centers than taste. That leads me to wonder...are we perpetually doomed to following the accountants when it comes to what we can see? I liked Pi, but found it difficult. I admire those who make movies on the cheap, but I don't think that should be a criterion for excellence, any more than star name power or special effects.
Re:Commercialize, commercialize, commercialize (Score:1)
What they need to do is found more independents, market them adequately, and give them wider screen access, as they do their formula films. I am sure they would make back there investments if not make a killing like with the BWP.
"I am made as HELL and I am not going to take it anymore!" -Network
-slams
Re:BWP did NOT invent this. (Score:1)
Re:BWP did NOT invent this. (Score:1)
Re:Other notes about BWP (Score:1)
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
I disagree (Score:1)
Boy, was I disappointed. Frankly, I think the movie was horrible. I don't want to bash the film makers, they did a great job with only $50,000. I must say that I'm no film maker myself. This movie simply didn't appeal to me.
First of, it simply wasn't scary. I saw The Haunting early, and loved it. That movie got my heart racing. BWP didn't. I know that the camera work wasn't supposed to be perfect, but it just made me sick. Lastly, I think the use of a certain four letter word was so frequent that it became obvious there was no written script. Improv is good, but too much is too much.
I have run into many people that loved the movie, and I'm happy that it has been so successful without spending millions. I just didn't like it.
Josh
Hollywood's marketers have caught up with BWP (Score:1)
I don't care too much, since I'm already into the Next Big Thing. I'll find it weeks before the cattle catch up. The Megacorps can follow along right behind me if they like. It's not like they have a clue where we're going ('course, I don't either, but that's what makes life fun). They just follow up behind geek.culture innovations as best they can in a reactive mode. I don't think any other "net-setters" are looking over their shoulders either. Bitching about what the rest of the world is doing is pointless; that's no way to live your own life.
jaz
Re:Sequel? (Score:1)
Picture this: The Making of the Blair Witch Project
You've got the crew running around, making piles of sticks and sliming stuff, and a crew's following them around making a documentary on these relatively unknown film techniques. Shoot it more professionally, but still not big-budget (ie: not their first time making a documentary, but it's still a documentary). Then weird stuff starts going on -- the crew of the original movie actually does disappear. The rest of the movie follows the search parties who are trying to find these kids.
Kind of Scream 2 meets The Fugitive, but keep the standard Hollywood practices out so it can try and capture a fraction of what the original has. Part of the reason for suggesting this is that a documentary about The Blair Witch Project would be really cool to see, anyway -- lots of the reviews and interviews touch on some of the entertaining stuff the crew did.
So, any bids? :)
More Fascinating Katz Stuff (Score:1)
Took the freakin' words outta my mouth... (Score:1)
MJP
Re:Loved it...NOT (Score:1)
Even schoolchildren up north can navigate the woods by using the sun, the stars, and the light pollution at night from nearby towns and cities.
The prospect of adults getting lost for almost a week in the woods around residential communities, in this day and age, is patently ridiculous. It's just not scary. It's like a movie about big hairy monsters coming out of my closet and eating three adults in the middle of the night.
And all you can say is "haven't you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?" Okay, but suspension of laughter? Please...
MJP
Alternatives (Score:1)
I suggest "Das Boot" for those interested in the real meaning of fear and realism in cinema.
MJP
Beat me to it! (Score:1)
They're called B movies, and most of them suck.
It's not as important as you want it to be (Score:1)
The Blair Witch Project was unique, and done for a tiny budget, but doesn't mean that all movies should use the same techniques to make their movies cheap as well.
The movie got away with grainy, out-of focus shots from handheld cameras held by amateur camera operators because part of the premise was that it was done by film students as a documentary. Because of this the problems with the camerawork actually made the movie better and more realistic. Unfortunately this won't work in all other movies because in most movies the camera is supposed to be a window into the movie world, so grainy, out-of-focus shots interfere with the "gods-eye-view" effect. I'm afraid good cameras and good camera operators will have to remain part of making a good traditional movie.
The same goes for the lack of score, lack of special lighting, etc. All these things enhance the experience of most movies, but would take away from this one -- but only because it would make it seem like it wasn't a documentary. This doesn't mean that music and lighting are necessary otherwise, but nor does it mean that because TBWP got away without them that all other movies can too.
And finally, how is it that GPS enabled the actors to avoid having aides and techs??? GPS is a replacement for a map and compass, not for an aide or tech. GPS is about as relevant to the filmmaking process as is what the actors ate for lunch.
TBWP does prove that it doesn't take a big budget to make a great movie, but don't get carried away. Not all movies can get away with filming the way they did.
Re:The way of the first person shooter! (Score:1)
Re:The best part of BWP.. (Score:1)
As a side note, I saw Sixth Sense yesterday, and the people next to me were talking all the way through it, somewhere in the back there was a little baby that kept crying and getting smacked, a guy in front of me was crinkling some candy wrapper until his wife took it away... Man, that's one of the benefits of DVD -- you sit at home, the quality's just about the same, and you don't have a bunch of stupid-ass interruptions. (Unless ofcourse you're in a dorm room.(
who saw it at sundance (Score:1)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
BWP might suck on video.... (Score:1)
I would recomend seeing it in a theater, Even thogh it isn't an FX epic, it would still look better. Plus it rackets up BWPs box office take. Vote with your dollars
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:My theatre was NOT so quiet.... (Score:2)
Saturday matinee at the local Cinema-super-mega-plex
stadium seating super-Dolby-sound -- you get the
idea. Anyway, the theatre was packed and I was
surrounded by parents who brought their crying
little toddlers (can you say "babysitter"?)
and on the other side of me was a group of plus-size
women trying to break a world record for loudest
comsumption of three buckets of popcorn, in front
of me was a 7-foot tall guy with a weak bladder
jumping up to go to the restroom every 10 minutes.
I loved BWP! It was the only movie I had seen in
my adult life that actually freaked me out, but
my best advice is see it at a small theatre late
at night with very few people to get the maximum
effect, or wait for it to come out on video.
The key to enjoying BWP is to watch it with
absolutely no distractions because the whole
story is told from first-person point of view
so you sympathize with the chracters and their plight.
Re: Excellent ending! (SPOILER WARNING!) (Score:2)
it if you haven't seen BWP:
The ending was brilliant: How do you know the 3
kids are dead? All we know is that they're missing. Yes, Josh dissappears and hints are made
that he was mutilated but is he dead? Are any of
them dead? You can assume that but then again like
any good book or film it's left to the audience to
figure it out the details -- it makes you think.
Re:Other notes about BWP (Score:2)
In fact, that's the emergency navigation plan for greater Boston. Keep going until you find 128. Then you'll be okay.
There he goes again (Score:2)
Indie films have been around for ever. Most are lo-tech, due to lack of funds. BWP is no different. The producers begged, borrowed and quite probably stole, to make this film a reality. The amazing thing is that they somehow showed it to the right people who decided to take a risk by taking the film to the screens. Makes you wonder how many other independent gems got lost along the way.
Katz, once again, misses the point. The movie isn't a huge hit because it's frightening beyond the means of FX. It's a hit because it's completely different than what the movie going public is used to. It's the product of a single mind, rather than a committee... Unlike Katz articles. But now that we've seen it, a sequel just won't cut it. Not even if it's done as gamelan or kabuki. We've seen the original, any sequel will be shunned for being a fad, a recipe and a Zircon. We'll pay $8 to see something original - after that it damn better look fancy.
The really cool thing about BWP, that Katz of course glances off of and proceeds away from the point tangentially, is that the BW legend was planted and took root in the cultural gulibility. Had the release waited for the myth to spread, the movie would have been an even greater success. The triumph of BWP is in the meme contagion it caused. They created a Yeti. People were driving through Maryland LOOKING FOR THE WITCH!! Katz never mentions this once.
When will JonKatz have an original thought? When will he say something that actually makes people think? When will he spawn a mutant meme, rather than spraying us with a homogenized culture of engineered ones?
Well, with the apparent upsurgence of creativity outside of Hollywood (ain't that right Jon?), maybe someone will make a short film about a pundit who isn't trying to suck off the mainstream majority, but rather synthesizes something new from the cultural gestalt... Now THAT would be a great work of fiction.
Re:There he goes again (Score:2)
OTOH, committee design seeks to accomplish something that no one finds objectionable. In the movie industry this takes on the shape of 'recipe' films, politically correct, predictable and reliant totally on the 'hot new tech'.
In the case of BWP, the initial mind of the directors and actors (and some post production) was singular. Once people started getting paid 'acceptable' wages for advertising and such, the inspiration is lost and profitability takes over.
The article by Jon Katz, as always, picks up on the 'hot new buzz' of interest to slashdot readers, but fails to contribute to it. He seems to serve as a funnel for opinion, with minimal contribution to the din.
Dream Park (Score:2)
I finally remembered what the filming of BWP reminds me of. I'm sure a lot of you have read Dream Park by Larry Niven and Stephen(?) Barnes, and possibly the sequels, The Barsoom Project and The California Voodoo Game. For those of you haven't, the books take place in the ultimate high-tech theme park. One of the park's biggest draws is its full-immersion Live Action Role-Playing games (LARPs). Some of you have probably played some of White Wolf's Mind Eye Theatre games, or been in a LARP at a con. Maybe some of you fight in the SCA or other reenactment groups. Now, imagine a fantasy LARP played on a giant soundstage with full special effects. You live in the game for days, stay in character except maybe during rest periods, fight holographic monsters and live NPC actors, solve puzzles, etc. Aside from the competitive aspect (there is some sort of huge international LARP league), the best games are recorded and marketed.
The making of BWP seems more like a low-tech Dream Park LARP than true moviemaking. While I haven't seen the movie yet, Donohoughe and the others sound more like game players than actors. I can imagine that some people would be interested in taking part in something like this more for the experience than for the sake of making a film. Is it possible that BWP represents the future of interactive gaming more than the future of non-interactive entertainment?
Reading too much into one film (Score:2)
Remember when El Mariachi was made for sixteen cents and packet of chewing gum? That wasn't the end of the hollywood blockbuster, and nor will this be.
Style over substance will always be Hollywood's signature.
btw, from Jon's description, TBWP sounds remarkably similar in style to Pi, one of the worst fucking movies I've ever seen. Just because it hasn't got a budget, don't assume it's good.
Re:BWP good due to inventive moviemaking, not lo-t (Score:2)
Also, in the Hollywood version of BWP, one of the guys would have screwed Heather. No question about it.
Re:Reading too much into one film (Score:2)
1) Something semi-interesting and out of the norm happens in the world of technology (preferably with a popular culture and new media slant).
2) Katz writes an article heralding it as the dawn of a new era in (new media/pop culture/technology), predicting the demise of the tired, bloated, self-satisfied established (big business/media company/journalism/phone comapnies, whatever).
3) Slashdot readers immediately pounce on it and rip it to shreds describing why this is nothing new.
4) Katz posts a follow-up, citing all the positive e-mail comments he got about his article and posting some of the better examples.
5) Slashdot goes nutz re-hasing the thing again days later and wondering if Katz even read the posts that completely proved his whole premise wrong.
*yawn* Think I'll get another cup of coffee and see what is happening to Dilbert today.
Damn straight (Score:2)
So why has Blair Witch received so much attention, while these movies, though successful, remain in relative obscurity? Better marketing? Better talent? Succesful use of digital technology?
Whatever. It's because every idiot teeniebopper can identify with a horror movie. Subtitles and heavy themes confuse and bore the MTV crowd. No such problem with a low budget horror movie, because they're so cliched. The suprising thing about this one is it just happens to be done well. That make it's unique and different, therefore it's cool. That's why it's stomping The Haunting and that fish movie.
(And Pi is one of the best fucking movies ever made! What is wrong with it, aside from the technical innacruacies?)
What the Sequel will be like (Score:2)
Exec: Kids are all into scary movies these days. But what with all these crazy shootings, theaters aren't letting kids in to see scary movies. So we need a PG-13, or we've got no audience.
Pitchman: They said the f-word a lot in the first one. We tone down on the f-word and we'll get you your PG-13.
Exec: Excellent thinking. So tell me about our sequel here.
Pitchman: Picture this--a team of Army commandos goes into the woods to investigate the missing film students. They've got satellite hookups on their helmetcams so we can watch what they're doing.
Exec: Helmet cams! Good angle! Very high tech. We can have a command center like in Armageddon. Can we get Bruce Willis for the head commando?
Pitchman: I understand he's very interested.
Exec: But those jiggly cameras are such a headache. Can we lose the bouncy-wowncey cameras?
Pitchman: Don't worry--all the running with night vision goggles will be done with dollies.
Exec: Night vision! Very Desert Storm! Very high tech! Now, what about computer generated special effects? Without computer generated special effects, you don't have a scary movie.
Pitchman: The witch is some serious special effects! She's got spells that shoot fireballs and lightning and whatnot, and the commandoes are all shooting back with grenade launchers.
Exec: Computer fireballs! And grenade launchers! Very high tech! How are we on helicopters?
Pitchman: Would you believe an Apache attack helicopter shooting rockets down on the witch's fortress? How's that for fireballs?
Exec: That's some serious fireballs!
Pitchman: We were thinking this for act two: Helicopter gets shot down by witch's fireballs, crew survives, race is on! Who gets to the chopper first, the witch, or the team of commandoes?
Exec: Very suspenseful! You've got your suspense! Can you make it a female pilot? I've always thought Laura Dern would make a great damsel in distress.
Pitchman: I understand she's very interested.
Exec: So her character and Bruce's character, they have a history?
Pitchman: And he suddenly realizes he's got to save her to win her love back!
Exec: We've got our love interest! Tell me about the witch.
Pitchman: You know how scary it was without the witch? Imagine how scary it will be when you could actually see the witch! She's computer generated! She can float, she can shoot fireballs, she can fly through trees! She can become trees!
Exec: Very high tech! Very special effects! So what's her look, you know, when she reveals herself?
Pitchman: That's up in the air--we're debating between etherial and demonic.
Exec: Or you know, you've got this all beautiful, this seductive ghost, seducing commandoes and whatnot, then boom! Demonic! Morph her!
Pitchman: We can morph her!
Exec: Like in Raiders!
Pitchman: Like in Raiders!
Exec: There's our tie-in!
Pitchman: We've got synergy!
Exec: Synergy! Oh and speaking of synergy, how are we on racial balancing? Do we have racial balancing?
Pitchman: The commandoes are all sorts of races. We've got African-American commandoes; we've got Hispanic commandoes. We were thinking a Hopi Native American commando, kinda half-mystic, half-warrior, who can sense the witch's presence when noone else can.
Exec: How mystic are we talking here? Can he shoot fireballs?
Pitchman: He can have a final fireball duel with the witch! Beat her at her own game!
Exec: The duel's gotta be with the main lead. You think Willis can pull off a Native American?
Pitchman: I think of Willis as more of a John Wayne in that whole cowboys-and-Indians schtick, pardon my French.
Exec: What about that kid from La Bamba? Lou Diamond-something.
Pitchman: Yeah, that guy. He could save Bruce and Laura at the very last minute!
Exec & Pitchman: With a computer fireball!
Exec: We've got our surprise ending!
Pitchman: He's claiming his powers in his ancestral forest!
Exec: Very mystic! Very high tech! We gotta get him for the fireball! You think we could get him?
Pitchman: I understand he's very interested.
--