And I don't see how terror can work more subtly and intelligently. It is our imagination and our mind that frightens us, suggested by the film. What is frightening about this film is not what we see, but the anticipation, the skillfully constructed tension, the almost certain prospect of a disaster that we don't know when it will happen. simple but scary resources when you're alone, in the middle of a dark place, where anything can happen and no one will know. Children's voices over loudspeakers, the strategic waving of the tent at the right moment, sticks that break without anyone seeing. Stripped of expensive effects, great technical apparatus or other resources, the film bets everything on extremely basic but functional resources, and on an almost military discipline that prevailed throughout the eight days of shooting, in which the actors maintained minimal contact with a production that acted like a "big brother", attentive and watchful but invisible. They are also responsible for all the shooting work, and their poor ability to shoot in 16 mm explains why the film has such shaky and amateurish cinematography, even though this is intentional and something that makes it more genuine in our eyes. This turns out to be something that holds and seduces us to a certain extent, leading us to wish that everything is true, although we do not wish any harm to any of the actors, of course. They weren't acting for us, they were acting for themselves and believing in their acting, giving the characters a real personality, worthy of our compassion and sympathy. They lived the experience, and they believed in it. After reading a bit, I discovered the importance of the way the film was shot for the final result, with the actors alone, isolated in the woods, firmly believing in what they were doing and permanently in the characters. In fact, this film is perhaps one of the best examples to show the importance and weight of publicity for the receptivity and commercial success of a film: even today there are people who believe that the story told in the film is real, that the Witch really existed, that those young people really disappeared. However, the quality is evident and is intelligently associated with the advertising campaign that was put together to sell it and make it profitable. The film was a quasi-experimental production, with a very low budget, with young and unknown actors. It's not an absolutely perfect film, there are some things there that I would change, if I were the director, but they are issues of such little importance that I feel that they do not detract from any merit or quality from the finished work. Even so, I was really pleased with what I found. I was too young to be able to see this movie when it first hit theaters, but I saw it a few days ago at home, although it's obviously not the same thing. Reviewed by filipemanuelneto 10 / 10 One of the smartest and most excellently shot horror movies where what we don't see is what really makes us afraid. Could the nightmarish myth be real?-Nick Riganas Who knows what truly happened during their creepy five-day journey into the mouth of madness? Was there, indeed, an intangible supernatural presence in the dark woods that led to the team's disappearance? Either way, the missing trio must have seen something. Now, one long year later-after that fateful October of 1994-there's still no sign of the student filmmakers, apart from the raw footage they left behind. In search of a local legend, three bold amateur documentarians-director, Heather cameraman, Josh sound recorder, Mike-hike into Burkittsville's gloomy Black Hills Forest to find a shadow: the fabled Blair Witch.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |