Greetings to all. I am making a Harry Lime-esque emergence from the shadows of lurkersville to add my two cents (or 3.2 pence) to the blair witch debate -- and follow that with (gasp) actual B&S content. First, I would like to thank the brave sinister folk who first stepped forward to slow down the runaway train of hype and cause celébre that is "Blair Witch." My roomate and I always suspected that some day we would become the two most jaded peeps on planet earth, but I never expected it would happen at age 26, and when we feared we were the only people not leaving the big witch film with our pants proverbially scared off we wondered if there was something profoundly off about us. Now we have company. Scott Parker wrote: Has Hollywood conditioned your emotions so much, that you couldn't emerse yourself into this movie and be petrified???!!! I would ask the same question, only in slight reverse: Has a constant stream of Hollywood dreck made anything that a bit different -- especially something whose success rests so much on concept (immediacy of poor film stock, suspension of disbelief, etc.) -- seem grander than it really is through comparison? Or, Have people's ability to judge a work on its execution rather than its concept (which frankly in these box-office scorecard times is what Hollywood usually sells us: Concept over execution) been impaired? Or, Is "Blair Witch" being championed for being different -- especially because the horror genre has run the Scream/"ironic horror" bit so far into the ground that it has probably reached China by now -- or do people really find it a well-done film? I would doubt (and sincerely hope) that any Sinister folk -- or anyone else -- who did NOT like the film had such a reaction because of a lack of emotion-producing soundtrack or stock horror film goobledygook (e.g. amatuer filmmaker has wits scared out of them in a tense moment from small animal running across their path). If that is the case, well then, that's really too bad. I agree with most of the previous criticism, so I won't regurgitate them. I simply did not find the film effective in its execution. The concept was great, but after that I actually think that the much lauded improvisational nature of the film betrayed the work. To me, there is very little development of anything psychological outside of -- again -- the concept. How does the audience know that Joel is losing his mind? Because another character tells us. Boo, that's cheating. Even the best of scenes (Heather's confessional) is undercut by the fact that the actor has no idea what is going on and doesn't know who she should be confessing/apologizing to. To me, the best of what is frightening ("Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer," "Repulsion," even "Taxi Driver" or "Night of the Hunter" and many more) is so because it is based, in part or whole, in a world that any of us could inhabit or stumble into. That would be true of "Blair Witch" were it not undermined -- again -- by the ridculous assertion that this is true. In America, much of the hype and word-of-mouth has been generated by the Web site and the post-film (READ: marketing) claims that the film is true. So, the scariest bit of all to me is that -- in the entertainment/news/soap opera hybrid that is the US of A (encompassing all from JFK to Jon Benet) -- that large portions of the American public actually believe that if three filmakers were lost in the woods and the footage was found years later that an appropriate forum for airing their final days is in a theatrical, commercial film -- and that many are disappointed when they find out it is fiction or refuse to believe this altogether. Now, of course not everyone thinks that, but either way the film is being trumpeted by everyone from reputed critics/magazines/newspapers to the teenagers who drone on and on about the so-called theories on the internet for its marketing technique, which baffles me. I have had multiple conversatoins with people who urge me to consult the film's Web site for further input, and don't seem to understand that the Web site should be independant of the product on the screen. It's almost like saying that a really kick-ass happy meal toy should be allowed to raise one's enjoyment of "Tarzan." (OK, it's not exactly like that; happy meals are ancillary money-making products, but the point is, please let's seperate the marketing and mythmaking from the actual film, OK?) I think simply people are so desperate for anything that smacks of originality that a concept film such as "Blair Witch" receives masterbutary praise for what it is not, both as art and a marketing vehicle. *WHEW* I am *so* incredibly sorry for that dull, rambling missive. Anyway, as promised (I feel like I just pulled a local television news-style scam in anticipation of B& S content -- "Wedding bells may be ringing for a 'Friends' star; after the break, we'll tell you which one!" OK: BELLE AND/OR SEBASTIAN The paper of record -- the New York Times -- managed to mention our favorite scottish pop stars (and spell Stu M.'s name wrong in a caption!) in this Sunday's paper. An essay by Eric Weisbard (Spin/Village Voice scribe) on how rock music no longer RAWKS (unless it is clownish Woodstock 99 buffonery), but rather draws inspiration from the world of electronica (sorry, his word, not mine), French and Brazilian pop, and minimalist pop and sits nicely and intelligently alongside jazz and cabaret instead of rebellling against these less visceral musical forms. Well, B&S were tossed in with Lucinda Williams, Moby, and the Flaming Lips as examples of such and, interestingly, had a taped TV performance on "Sessions" (a US public broadcasted show with eclectic, usually 30-minute musical sets, hosted by David Byrne) turned down for being "too unprofessional." Good for them; as Weisbard points out, it probably is a bit of a compliment. Bad for U.S. viewers, however. GRRR. Again, sorry, sorry, sorry for drawing out the "blair witch" debate; possibly, my droning will make everyone so sick of the subject that it will be forever banished. You're all the bee's knees *and* the cat's pajamas. scott. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the reborn Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail "sinister@majordomo.net". To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to "majordomo@majordomo.net". WWW: http://www.majordomo.net/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "jelly-filled danishes" +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+