The Witch

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
One thing that bums me out about movies like this is that it invariably will provoke claims of "this is why religion sucks" or "this is why Christianity sucks." I sincerely hope that it's common sense that Puritan superstitions were pretty freaking whacko and their methods for dealing with them were hardly based on the teachings of Jesus. There, got that off my chest.

Two things that I've haven't seen made much mention of that I can't get out of my head are:

1. Just that this movie DID give a "voice" to Puritan superstitions. Not just as a "here's what how they behaved and what they were afraid of" but that it basically said "we're presenting the world as they saw it, rightly or wrongly." To *me* it actually had a surprising neutrality on what many would consider to be a dark sub-chapter of both this country and Christianity. It just said "here it is, people behaving in shocking ways but also on account of being pushed farther by supernatural forces than anyone you can relate to." Amazing food for thought, regardless of how we want to categorize the mindset of that specific group of people.

2. The *freaking* twist on isolation and strength in numbers. This one still makes me shudder:

Spoiler Spoiler:
 
Last edited:
I don't see it as anti-Christian at all, and neither does writer/director Robert Eggers. In fact, I think it's pretty darn even-handed. For example, he could have easily made William an over-bearing ogre of a fundamentalist Christian ( especially since he's a devout Calvinist/Puritan) but the movie actually goes to lengths to make him a likable, sympathetic character... and not even in patronizing, condescending way.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it as anti-Christian at all

Nor did I, obviously. It's so neutral in it's telling that it's part of what makes it so disturbing IMO. The family got beaten not because the foundation of their faith was misplaced, but rather on account of the father's pride putting them in harm's way where their more individual and personal sins could be exploited.

The family was clearly trying to "do right" and confess their sins and correct their own behaviors as they happened but they were fighting too uneven a fight and didn't even *know* they were fighting an uneven battle and were simply overwhelmed.
 
Last edited:
One thing that bums me out about movies like this is that it invariably will provoke claims of "this is why religion sucks" or "this is why Christianity sucks." I sincerely hope that it's common sense that Puritan superstitions were pretty freaking whacko and their methods for dealing them were hardly based on the teachings of Jesus. There, got that off my chest.

Two things that I've haven't seen made much mention of that I can't get out of my head are:

1. Just that this movie DID give a "voice" to Puritan superstitions. Not just as a "here's what how they behaved and what they were afraid of" but that it basically said "we're presenting the world as they saw it, rightly or wrongly." To *me* it actually had a surprising neutrality on what many would consider to be a dark sub-chapter of both this country and Christianity. It just said "here it is, people behaving in shocking ways but also on account of being pushed farther by supernatural forces than anyone you can relate to." Amazing food for thought, regardless of how we want to categorize the mindset of that specific group of people.

2. The *freaking* twist on isolation and strength in numbers. This one still makes me shudder:

Spoiler Spoiler:

I don't see it as anti-Christian at all, and neither does writer/director Robert Eggers. In fact, I think it's pretty darn even-handed. He could have easily made William and over-bearing ogre of a fundamentalist Christian ( especially since he's a devout Calvinist/Puritan) but the movie actually goes to lengths to make him a likable, sympathetic character... and not even in patronizing, condescending way.

Well said by both.
 
I liked the film but I think the film should have two endings with two choices made as that is truly how life is, you're never stuck with one single option. You can always choose to defy the overwhelming odds (Guts from Berserk comes to mind).
 
Last edited:
Ex Machina was a great film and the tone and effects were excellent, I don't think it should have been best picture though.
 
She was already questioning her relationship with "God". Then couple that with her extremist parents who ultimately betrayed her...the devil's bargain would sound good to me too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I really, really like the review from The New Yorker:

Spellbound - The New Yorker

160229_r27721-690.jpg

Spellbound
“The Witch.”

BY ANTHONY LANE

A father and his son, a boy of twelve or so, go into a wood. They are out hunting, armed with a gun. As they walk, they engage in one of those ordinary, man-to-man chats that arise on a country stroll. “Canst thou tell me what thy corrupt nature is?” the father asks. “My corrupt nature is empty of grace, bent unto sin, only unto sin, and that continually,” the lad replies. Clearly, he has learned the words by rote, yet they don’t sound tired or hollow in his mouth; he means them. His next task is to help with the traps that have been laid in the undergrowth. We watch his small hands slowly easing wide the iron jaws.

These scenes are from “The Witch,” a film written and directed by Robert Eggers. The father is William (Ralph Ineson), who is tall and roughly bearded, with a hatchet face. Indeed, there is something axelike in his demeanor, and he seems most elemental—most true to his own hard-hewn being—when stripped to the waist and savagely splitting logs. He would make a good executioner. The boy is Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), who looks solid enough, though a flame of fear burns in his eyes. William is married to Katherine (Kate Dickie), and they have four other children: an older daughter, the radiant Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy); twins, Mercy (Ellie Grainger) and Jonas (Lucas Dawson), young and mischievous; and a baby named Samuel. He is tended to, one day, by Thomasin, who plays peekaboo for his delight, in the open air. Three times she covers and uncovers her eyes, and he laughs. The fourth time she uncovers them, he is gone.


The film, bearing the subtitle “A New-England Folktale,” is set around 1630, meaning that William and Katherine, whose heavy accents betray their roots in the North of England, belong to the early generation of settlers. This particular family, though, has been doubly exiled—first across the ocean, and then from the fortified village where they used to reside. In the opening scene, William is brought before a council of his fellow-citizens and accused of “prideful conceit.” What exactly that entails we never know, and he claims to have practiced only “the pure and faithful dispensation of the Gospels,” but the outcome is harsh: he and his kin are banished, with all their possessions piled on a cart. The wilderness awaits.

The rest of the action takes place on the verge of a forest: the classic habitation of a fairy tale. That is where William, Katherine, and their children build a home and try to forge a life, with the dense gloom rustling beside them. When Samuel is snatched, we see him—or think we see him, in a glimpse—being carried through the trees by a scuttling figure, caped in red. We are meant to recall not just the Brothers Grimm but Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t Look Now” (1973), in which the alleyways of Venice were prowled by a similar scarlet fiend. What occurs, after the abduction, is the first of many terrible rites: a female form, naked and unnamed, pounding at something within the rotten trunk of a tree, like an apothecary with a mortar and pestle, and smearing herself with gore.

What is going on here? And is it going on at all? Could we be observing not facts but the fanciful terrors of the devout? The film is certainly stuffed with devilry, and Eggers is not shy of familiar tropes. The family keeps goats, for instance—a white one whose udders spurt blood into a pail when Thomasin milks her, and a villainous brute called Black Phillip, whom the twins both taunt and conspire with in their chanted nursery rhymes. He’s a dead ringer for the billy on the inner sleeve of the Rolling Stones’ “Goats Head Soup,” and Eggers holds him in such careful closeup that his muzzle is blurred while his mad and staring eye remains in focus. As a rule, keep clear of his horns. The question of whether he is the Prince of Darkness or merely a farmyard pest, however, stays unresolved, and “The Witch” feels at once sticky with tangible detail and numinous with suggestion. Katherine dreams of a raven pecking at her breast, in a parody of a suckling child, but when she wakes in the morning there really is a bloodstain on her shift.

Viewers who grew up with the “Scream” franchise, or with the toothless array of “Saw” films, will doubtless fidget and sigh at such ambivalence. They will rightly ask if “The Witch” even deserves to be called a horror flick. Well, it sounds like one; the composer of the score, Mark Korven, doesn’t hold back on the shriek of strings, beefed up by a choir of rising moans. Also, there are just enough jumps to rattle your popcorn. I knew that something was afoot as Caleb approached a mossy hut in the woods, but I didn’t expect an actual foot, bare and tempting, to appear on the threshold. Yet the film is thoroughly stripped of the s******ing ironies that beset, and often wreck, the modern fright fest. You can laugh at the archaism of the dialogue, if you wish, though I happen to like its sturdy lyricism. (“Thou shalt be home by candle-time tomorrow.”) More important, there is no silliness to undercut the menace—nothing to let you off the hook of having to think about these folk, about the leathery toughness of their existence, and about the load that their souls are forced to bear. You believe in their belief.

This is, to put it mildly, an uncommon state of affairs for anyone who frequents the cinema, the theatre, or the opera house. How many people, these days, heading out of “Don Giovanni,” are honestly shaken by the mortal terror of the hero, in his final conflagration? Which of us treats “The Crucible,” set sixty years or so after the events of “The Witch,” as anything but a reflection on the political hysteria of the time in which it was written? The problem is simple: we can’t be damned. One gradual effect of the Enlightenment was to tamp down the fires of Hell and sweep away the ashes, allowing us to bask in the rational coolness that ensued. But the loss—to the dramatic imagination, at any rate—has been immense. If your characters are convinced that a single action, a word out of place, or even a stray thought brings not bodily risk but an eternity of pain, your story will be charged with illimitable dread. No thriller, however tense, can promise half as much.

That is what Eggers is striving for in “The Witch.” It’s the first feature that he has directed; hitherto, he has worked as a production and costume designer, and the legacy shows in the weave of the homespun clothes. The twins are swaddled like dolls, thus acquiring an extra layer of creepiness, and the colors of the outfits, matching the umbers and grays of the landscape, turn any glint of red into an explosion. But period dress is nothing unless shrouded in period emotions—in the qualms and the ragged jitters of the age. That is why we see Caleb, on the brink of puberty, casting sly glances at the swell of his sister’s bosom; incestuous guilt is enough to persuade the poor sap that he is, in the deepest sense, bewitched. Indeed, each person thinks that he or she is responsible for the loss of Samuel, and for the dire events that follow. The entire film is crafted as a kind of spiritual whodunnit. Katherine is afraid that her baby, as yet unbaptized, will be among the lost, denied entrance to Heaven, while William, his authority flaking and peeling away with every scene, admits out loud to being a thief.

And what did he steal? A silver wine cup. Time and again, Eggers adds hints of the Biblical, to thicken the air of piety that these people breathe. One of them, in the wake of a spell, vomits up a whole apple, shiny and intact. When they pray, they are planted squarely in the frame, and viewed either from behind, kneeling on the ground with their hands conjoined and upraised, or head on, at table, as in the Last Supper, with William saying grace. Thomasin, alone, confesses to the Almighty, “I have, in secret, played upon thy Sabbath,” compelling us to wonder what her games consist of and whether they count as play.

Taylor-Joy is remarkable in the role, her wide-eyed innocence entwined with a thread of cunning—proof either of her quick wits, scarcely unusual in a clever and curious girl, or of some fell purpose. One night, in Black Phillip’s stall, we hear a low whisper of temptation in her ear: “Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?” it asks. “To see the world?” There is surely no chance that she—or we, for that matter, even now—could refuse that proposition. And so “The Witch” hastens to its harrowing climax, about which, I predict, you will want to rage deliciously. It borrows from Goya, an artist in his element with demons, and I cannot decide if the sequence unbalances the ambitions of “The Witch” or brings them to full and flamboyant bloom. But this is a scary movie and a serious one, because it lures us into the minds, and the earthly domains, of those who are themselves scared, night and day, that they have forfeited the mercies of God. It takes an original movie to remind us of original sin. ♦
 
Also, after seeing the film for a 3rd time and reading lots of reviews, articles and interviews I've come to the conclusion that...

Spoiler Spoiler:
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Spoiler Spoiler:
but maybe I didn't make that point clearly enough. That the title's twist was that we were supposed to think that it referred to the baby snatcher at the beginning when it couldn't be her because the family was dealing with
Spoiler Spoiler:


It is indeed a
Spoiler Spoiler:
The film's poster has a hidden spoiler as to the title's meaning as well (just another brilliant bit about this movie because there's NO way you'd guess it prior to the film's final scene) what with "The Witch" being right there in plain site under the image of
Spoiler Spoiler:


Freaking brilliant.
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Spoiler Spoiler:
but maybe I didn't make that point clearly enough. That the title's twist was that we were supposed to think that it referred to the baby snatcher at the beginning when it couldn't be her because the family was dealing with
Spoiler Spoiler:


It is indeed a
Spoiler Spoiler:
The film's poster has a hidden spoiler as to the title's meaning as well (just another brilliant bit about this movie because there's NO way you'd guess it prior to the film's final scene) what with "The Witch" being right there in plain site under the image of
Spoiler Spoiler:


Freaking brilliant.

Yep. :rock :rock

Also, I love the great touches like using the 17th Century style of 2 V's to make a W on the title (THE VVITCH). And putting the hyphen in "New-England".

Everything about this film was pitch-perfect.
 
By the way, Robert Eggers had an online Q&A the other day and the only question I could think to ask him was what the lyrics are to the "Black Phillip" song that Mercy and Jonas sing. And he answered! I share now with you :rock

Black Phillip, Black Phillip
A crown grows out his head,
Black Phillip, Black Phillip
To nanny queen is wed.
Jump to the fence post,
Running in the stall.
Black Phillip, Black Phillip
King of all.

Black Phillip, Black Phillip
King of sky and land,
Black Phillip, Black Phillip
King of sea and sand.
We are ye servants,
We are ye men.
Black Phillip eats the lions
From the lions' den.

goat-dancegif.gif
 

:rock We're so gonna oversell this movie for some people here but so what, the rest of you should have caught this movie by now anyway. :lecture :lol

Also, I love the great touches like using the 17th Century style of 2 V's to make a W on the title (THE VVITCH). And putting the hyphen in "New-England".

Everything about this film was pitch-perfect.

Absolutely. I don't even know that I want to call it a "horror" film. Put it next to the freaking Crucible and just call it a high art period drama with supernatural elements.

A thought I've had about the film (and how can I not have thoughts about it, the film is sticky as hell and just won't let go after you see it) is that:

Spoiler Spoiler:
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Spoiler Spoiler:
but maybe I didn't make that point clearly enough. That the title's twist was that we were supposed to think that it referred to the baby snatcher at the beginning when it couldn't be her because the family was dealing with
Spoiler Spoiler:


It is indeed a
Spoiler Spoiler:
The film's poster has a hidden spoiler as to the title's meaning as well (just another brilliant bit about this movie because there's NO way you'd guess it prior to the film's final scene) what with "The Witch" being right there in plain site under the image of
Spoiler Spoiler:


Freaking brilliant.

Great point about the poster.. I thought the same thing :)

:rock We're so gonna oversell this movie for some people here but so what, the rest of you should have caught this movie by now anyway. :lecture :lol



Absolutely. I don't even know that I want to call it a "horror" film. Put it next to the freaking Crucible and just call it a high art period drama with supernatural elements.

A thought I've had about the film (and how can I not have thoughts about it, the film is sticky as hell and just won't let go after you see it) is that:

Spoiler Spoiler:

Yep... It was that very fact of
Spoiler Spoiler:
 
Yep... It was that very fact of
Spoiler Spoiler:


Exactly.
Spoiler Spoiler:
 
Exactly.
Spoiler Spoiler:

I felt that with Thomasin it wasn't so much that...

Spoiler Spoiler:


As for Caleb...

Spoiler Spoiler:


Good catch on the poster.


Jye also mentioned something last night which was absolutely brilliant, and I couldn't believe I didn't catch on to it, it had to do with a characters fate and the pile of wood.
 
I felt that with Thomasin it wasn't so much that...

Spoiler Spoiler:

Right.
Spoiler Spoiler:


As for Caleb...

Spoiler Spoiler:

Possibly.
Spoiler Spoiler:
 
Right.
Spoiler Spoiler:




Possibly.
Spoiler Spoiler:

Absolutely, there are several, as evidenced by the ending bonfire. And man, that Rabbit was creepy as hell!

Did the rabbit...
Spoiler Spoiler:
if so, Monty Pythons HG bunny has nothing on The Witchs' Rabbit. ;)

Speaking of which, this movie ignored so many taboos, and while I hate one of those, you couldn't have this film without it, so it was integral to the story.

I don't think this thread will entice too many people, as it is almost entirely spoiler paragraphs
 
Were the rabbit and raven familiar companions to the witches or the witches themselves in animal form? I assumed it was the latter, at least with regard to the rabbit. That thing oozed evil and seemed to have a real intelligence about it. If the raven was an actual transformed witch then that breast feeding scene just got even more stomach churning...
 
Back
Top