« Where the Wild Things Are | Home | Gamer Trailer HD »
The Blair Witch Project Review
By admin | August 25, 2009
The Blair Witch Project trailer
The Blair Witch Project Review
COMMENTS The release of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT couldn’t have been better timed . During a summer which served up bloated- budgeted, would-be blockbusters, film goers were faced with a choice — stay out in the hot, boiling, summer sun, or rush to an air-conditioned cineplex for a little R & R, soda, popcorn and a good movie. Most went for the cineplex. But after sitting through dreck like WILD WILD WEST, THE HAUNTING and MYSTERY MEN, many wished they’d stayed out in the heat. A mild case of sunburn would’ve been preferable. If only there had been more, smaller-budgeted fare in the offing like THE SIXTH SENSE, A STIR OF ECHOES and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.
One can only hope that after the summer of ‘99, Hollywood gets the message that bigger isn’t necessarily better. The writing’s been on the wall for the past ten years, but the money men haven’t been reading it. Was nothing learned from WATERWORLD? How about THE LAST ACTION HERO or THE POSTMAN? For every one INDEPENDENCE DAY or MUMMY there’s at least ten WILD WILD WESTs. I don’t know about you, pardner,’ but I’d rather swallow a mouthful of chewin’ tobacco than see Will Smith and Kevin Kline in cowboy hats again.
By the end of August, you can bet execs at the big studios were stretching back in recliners, scratching there heads and saying, ‘I don’t know what the big deal is about this Blair Witch business. Hell, anyone could’ve done that.’ True enough guys, anyone COULD have done it, but you didn’t — someone else did. With a measly budget and three work- for-peanuts actors, a few guys from Florida made THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. Clever advertising and use of the Internet sold it to the public. A film hasn’t had such good word of mouth in years. It’s certain we’ll see a rash of copycat projects poppin’ up in the theaters and on the net real soon — just as soon as the money men can write up checks for millions of dollars, seasoned actors can free up time in their schedules, special effects houses can boot up the computers, and a big name director can sign on. Pathetic, isn’t it? But, hey — imitation is the best form of flattery.
THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT succeeded BECAUSE it was a low budget pic. What a rare thing. The filmmakers used the fact that they had little money to their advantage. By sticking a trio of actors who could double as their own crew out in a forest, they saved on location shooting expenses. They didn’t need to hire lighting techs, focus pullers, best boys, grips or anyone else. The actors could wear whatever was lying around the apartment or house, and the camera equipment couldn’t have been cheaper. They didn’t even need a caterer — just someone to drop a basket of sandwiches in the woods at predetermined locations. If this guerrilla filmmaking idea catches on, Hoffman, DeNiro and Pacino will need ant and mosquito hazard clauses in their contracts.
The film’s measly budget was a blessing. Bouncy hand-held camera work has been used sparingly in Hollywood films for years, usually to bring us down into the action and jiggle us around a bit — for example, during a riot sequence, as in Stone’s BORN ON THE FORTH OF JULY or during a fist fight scene, as in Cameron’s THE ABYSS. It’s often very effective. The hand-held camera is standard issue for the documentary filmmaker and so it was a no brainer to use them for THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. The effect is a bit disorienting, and it takes a while to adjust to. In fact, when the film opened, there were reports of audience members rushing out of the theater, too sick to their stomachs to sit through the film. Apparently, those sitting too close to the screen were made physically ill by the bouncing images (Rrrralph!). When the action really ratchets up and were running with Heather through the forest at night, the bouncing and panning, pitching and rolling approaches that of a bad day of deep sea fishing. Perhaps they should’ve sold little packets of ‘Blair Witch Dramamine’ at the concession stand.
Moments of total darkness and near silence also work well during THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. After scurrying through the woods, the three filmmakers switch off their camera lights (who knows why they had them on in the first place) and whisper in the darkness. In more conventional films we’d have a hammering soundtrack, or some eerie strings, and then BAM! — a red herring — maybe a frightening squirrel or chipmunk leaps out of an oak onto Josh’s shoulder (Eeeeek!). But here, all stays black and quite. We only hear the labored breathing of the terrified filmmakers, rustling leaves and crickets. Nothing needs to jump out, and no music is required to churn up the tension. Again, less is more. We’re far more frightened of the dark and the silence. This is something the studios seem to have forgotten. If sounds are needed to make us shiver, then the giggles, cackles and cries heard outside the filmmakers’ tent do the job. If that’s not enough, how about a bone- chilling, ear-piercing scream — one so loud it distorts the soundtrack. Jamie Lee-Curtis’ scream is nothing compared to that of Miss Donahue.
The actors — Heather Donahue, Michael Williams and Joshua Leonard were given outlines of the script but their dialogue was improvised. The film’s directors didn’t make contact with them once they hit the woods. The footage was shot in sequence to help the improvisers along. We can see the beards growing on Josh and Michael, and we see all three getting dirtier and grungier by the day. They begin to look mighty tired as well. No one was hauling their gear for them — not even across the streams. For the most, all three are fairly convincing in their parts. When credibility IS lost it usually has more to do with the premise of the film, and less to do with acting ability. For example, was I the only one wondering why Heather kept filming right up to the point where she gets clobbered in the abandoned shack? For that matter, why were these folks even carrying all that gear once they realized their lives were in danger? Hell, I would’ve instinctively dropped all that dead weight very early on to make better time. Let the college bill me. At one point, the story tries to address Heather’s need to keep shooting. In anger, Josh turns the camera on her and taunts her. She says she’s still filming because its the only thing she’s got left. This is perhaps her weakest moment in the film because we simply can’t buy her reasoning. Of course, we wouldn’t have a film at all if the characters’ didn’t keep shooting, so we have to suspend disbelief and roll with. The film’s other weakness is the characters’ constant bickering about being lost. There’s too much time devoted to one yelling at the other about poor map and compass reading skills. Indeed, these guys have NO idea what they’re doing if they can walk for an entire day and end up right where they started. What kind of college do they attend anyway? They’re an insult to intelligent filmmakers everywhere.
Regardless of its shortcomings, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT is one scary piece of work. It’s a fresh take — a new variation on an old theme that really works. Instead of using multimillion dollar effects, a hopped up score, and dazzling camera work, writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez use sticks and stones to shiver us to the bone. If you’ve not yet seen THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, you sure got your chance quick enough. Who knows, maybe you won’t even need the Dramamine in your home theater.
SYNOPSIS There’s a great deal of backstory to go along with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, much of which was made available on the Internet prior to the film’s release (BLAIR WITCH PROJECT WEBSITE). We’ll skip the history of the Blair Witch business, and begin where the film does.
Feisty Heather Donahue (Heather Donahue) has approval from the film department of her college to venture to Burkittsville, Maryland (formerly Blair) to shoot a documentary on the two hundred year old legend of the Blair Witch. Her friend Joshua Leonard (Joshua Leonard) scores a camera from the film department, and his friend Michael Williams (Michael Williams) comes along to handle sound recording.
After shooting the documentary’s intro in a cemetery on a hill over-looking the town, the trio rides into town and interviews some of the residence about the legend. A store owner recalls an incident in the forties involving a man who was hanged for murdering seven children. A borderline lunatic woman tells of seeing a hairy witch that floated above the ground. After overnighting in a small hotel, Josh, Michael and Heather drive up into the hills, throw on their backpacks and take off into the woods.
They have a map and a compass, but apparently not a clue about how to read them. They get lost a couple times the first day, but they do manage to find the infamous ‘Coffin Rock’ — a location where, according to legend, a rescue party was found murdered and disemboweled. Eventually, they also stumble across some type of ancient burial ground where small piles of stones mark grave sights. Their first night is peaceful, but from then on each night is accompanied by eerie noises in the darkness. Everyday they venture deeper and deeper into the woods and get hopelessly, helplessly lost. To say more would be unfair to first time viewers.
IMAGE The presentation is a form of 4:3, but not quite. The image is slightly windowboxed — having thin black lines on all four side and rounded corners. So, we have the ‘unaltered’ view one would have when peering through the viewfinder of a camcorder or 16mm camera. When viewing footage shot by the camcorder, we see in color, when viewing footage shot by the 16mm camera, we see in low contrast black and white.
It’s rather difficult to comment on the image quality of this transfer since the ‘raw footage’ indeed looks very raw. The 16mm material is a bit grainy and not always focused. But this is how the film was meant to look, and it certainly did when it ran in theaters. We noted no obvious negatives that we’d attribute to Artisan’s digital transfer. Most evening scenes exhibit deep solid blacks. The only grain we noted during the presentation was in brighter daylight scenes, but again this appears to be an artifact of the 16mm stock. Contrast and brightness levels fluctuate, as you would expect.
The color footage shot with the camcorder looks just like typical home video footage — perhaps a bit worse. Colors are often pale, and edges soft. Many of the nighttime scenes are quite blurry here and there due to what appears to be condensate on the camera’s lens. Again, all of these ‘blemishes’ are the nature of the medium and equipment used to shoot the film. It’s part of the ‘charm.’
We noted no distracting nicks, scars or scratches that could be attributed to the print used by Artisan to strike their master for this DVD. Rest assured, this transfer retains all those qualities that worked in the film’s favor during its theatrical run.
SOUND The key phrase for this Dolby Digital, 2.0 Surround Sound track is ‘center forward.’ Yes there are ambient sounds in the mains and over the shoulders, but only of the low level quality.
The sounds of crickets, rustling leaves, running water, and thing that go snap, crackle, and cackle in the night make it to the surrounds, but not with much volume. There’s also a significant amount of dialogue bleed through into the surrounds. The same can be said for the front mains.
The center channel carries nearly all the sound in the mix. So much so that it would have made very little difference(though a bit, to be fair) if Artisan had transferred the sound in mono. Dynamic range is very limited — anchored in the middle and high middle zone.
Voices, at normal volumes and whispers are clear but often thin and hollow. When tempers flair and voices are raised there’s a great deal of distortion and breakup. This is no different from the theatrical presentation of the film, and again — it’s part of the film’s ‘charm.’ There’s also a bit of background hiss.