Sinister: blair witch AND B&S

[Scott Plagenhoef]

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 thatŠ

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 at majordomo.net". To unsubscribe
   send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
  "majordomo at 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"                   +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+