11 March 2016

BLACK MAGIC WOMAN

We're so far along the hype/anti-hype/counter-anti-hype path in regards to The Witch, a year and more after it was the toast of Sundance 2015, that I really don't know what we're "meant" to think about it at this point. I am merely content to therefore claim that I really liked it, anyway. And I do think it's unfortunate that so many people were talking about it for so very long before the vast majority of humans had a chance to see it: it's definitely the kind of movie that deserves to be seen as blind as possible, free from hype, certainly, and also as much as possible, free from plot knowledge. Heck, I'd go as far as to say that it really should be seen free even from knowing its genre, though there's not too much you can do about that with a film titled The Witch. Not too many people are going to meander into the theater to see The Witch and expect that it's a neorealist study of Queens dockworkers, or a frothy Viennese sex comedy, or a depiction of religious mores intersect with social mores and the toll both take on family relationships.

Ha ha, person that I just invented for the purpose of a rhetorical flourish, the joke's on you! In fact, The Witch is exactly a depiction of religious mores intersect with social mores and the toll both take on family relationships, and for an immensely long time, it seems like all of its horror elements are solely there as a flimsy pretext for its real fascination, the wordless tension between a particularly ascetic Puritan father and his pubescent daughter, just far enough into adolescence that it's no longer possible for the family to pretend that it's not happening. In the mid-1600s in New England, mind you, which is the most fascinating and urgently oddball thing that the movie has going on: whatever natural audience might exist for an immensely slow-burning horror picture that depends for its psychological effect in the first half on our suspicion that there is nothing at all paranormal going on and depends for its terror in the second half on our conviction that there is something paranormal, after all, I cannot imagine that this audience overlaps much with the one that cares about films which re-enact the behavioral codes of 17th Century Puritan New England. Hell, I don't even know if that second audience exists in the first place.

All of which is to say, praise be to writer-director Robert Eggers, making his first feature here, for so gingerly balancing a whole bunch of things that should certainly not work together, and for cobbling together a lot of painfully well-worn ingredients into a striking original. The Witch vaguely resembles the kind of foggily-expressed European costume drama horror films of the '70s, the kind made by Jesús Franco, for example, only with the sexuality all sublimated instead of foregrounded; the difference is that The Witch is fully and necessarily American, which changes the feel of it entirely (the other difference is that The Witch is tremendously well-made, something only sometimes true of the impressionistic Euro-horror it resembles, and never ever of Franco). This is a film that seamlessly mixes moments that suggest the whole movie is a psychological projection with scenes of almost tediously straightforward realism. The marriage between these two modes is, perhaps, that the realistic characters it depicts are those of people so obsessed with matters of spirituality that the world itself adopts a psychologically threatening aspect around them.

How about I finally introduce you to those characters? The head of the family is William (Ralph Ineson), who subscribes to such a rarefied, unforgivingly Calvinist expression of Puritanism that he's been making a pest of himself even among the community of Calvinist Puritans where he and his family have settled, many years after leaving England. He is, therefore, excommunicated on the charge of unendurable pridefulness, and so he moves to a field many miles away, to build a farmstead with his wife Katherine (Kate Dickie), and their children: teenager Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), barely-teenage Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw), and young twins Mercy (Ellie Grainger) and Jonas (Lucas Dawson). The newest member of the family is little baby Samuel, and all of their woes spring from him: one day, while Thomasin is playing with him on the edge of the family's fields, right at the edge of a large and unexplored forest, Samuel goes missing in almost the literal blink of an eye. William peremptorily decides that it's the fault of a hungry wolf, Katherine instantly turns ice-cold towards her elder daughter, and we happen to see a short sequence that rather nastily implies that the unbaptised Samuel was ritually sacrificed by a devil-worshiping witch living in the woods.

The Witch with that brief scene is a very different proposition than The Witch without it, and I think to its benefit: while the film plays around with a lot of images that might very well be unreal, and the veracity of the witch in the woods is left pointedly unconfirmed for quite a long time, that's enough to let us know that something is not good, and that leaves an uneasy feeling that casts a pallor over quite a long stretch of movie to follow, in which the family moves through a wholly un-paranormal series of fights and lies and misjudgments. It becomes a chamber drama, in fact, one driven by the gulf of understanding behind Thomasin (very much our protagonist and easily the Only Sane Woman as the behavior of the rest of the family grows increasingly deranged) and her harsh, judgmental parents, driven by an obsession with controlling hierarchies (the film is anti-patriarchy in the most narrowly-defined and literal sense of "patriarchy", though the suggestion hovers over most of the movie that William is taking out on his family the frustration he feels at being emasculated by the patriarchal structure of the community that has rejected), and with a fetishisation of sexual purity that derives from the most unforgiving and loveless extremes of Protestant Christianity. The Witch never bothers to remind us of the sociological theory that witch hysteria is the expression of a fear of female sexuality, but it's quite impossible to forget about it, either.

This increasingly horrid fencing between the daughter and her parents gives The Witch plenty of charge, and the splendid performances by Taylor-Joy (who has an astoundingly cinematic face, and who should get roles in every movie from now on), Ineson, and Dickie make it a captivating human study even when it's at its least genre-apparent. But let us not diminish the fact that this is absolutely a horror film at heart, albeit one that isn't "scary" the way movies typically are - it has no moments at which anything pops up to say "boo", no shocking, terrible images, and I suppose this accounts for much of its backlash. It is filled with the terror that things are going wrong, and you can even tell exactly how things are going wrong, and it is impossible to stop them. The most frightening moments here are ones in which nothing is happening, but it's obvious that something is about to, and everything will be much worse after it does.

In fact, it's almost entirely scary theoretically. Eggers and his outstanding team of filmmakers contribute all of their energy to bringing one very particular kind of moral culture to life in front of us, at one very particular point in history - The Witch is not remotely committed to the idea that People Are People throughout history. The people it depicts are thoroughly unrecognisable to anybody remotely likely to wander into an R-rated indie horror movie. But within the first ten minutes, we have a terrifically clear idea of who these people are, how they think and feel, and how their feelings are still legitimate even if they're being expressed in an alien and even off-putting register. The ingenious, insidious thing that the film then does is to base all of its horror in what the characters themselves would find horrifying: this is a Puritan horror movie as surely as The Exorcist is a Catholic one. The difference being, of course, that more Catholics see movies in 1973 than Puritans do in 2016.

So it's not a grab-you-by-the-throat, viscerally effective kind of horror picture; it is a subtle and intellectual one, based primarily or even exclusively in its ability to generate empathy with the characters, rather than sympathy. That Taylor-Joy is so perfect as Thomasin is crucial to this working out properly; though the film explicitly seems like an exercise in building mood strictly through formal elements - through its isolated, rickety sets, frighteningly still naturalistic sound mix, and the jarring, tuneless score by Mark Korven - it's a character piece first and above all, and finding a path into those characters' heads is critical for the movie having any kind of effect at all. But Eggers and his cast chart a clear path for us to follow, and the result is one of the most stimulating and rewarding films in either of is genres - horror and costume drama - that one could hope to find, doubly so in the first third of the calendar year.

9/10

23 comments:

  1. So I was reading along and nodding in complete agreement and then I get to this bit...

    "it has no moments at which anything pops up to say "boo", no shocking, terrible images"

    ...and I'm like, "Did we watch completely different cuts of this movie, and I got the one that kept all the gross violence in? Because there was a lot of shocking, terrible images, and also at least two boo moments, in my cut."

    ReplyDelete
  2. A fair cop. Not "no" shock moments. But damned few and damned judiciously placed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found this movie to be rather brilliant actually. Back in university I took a survey course about European criminality and a section of it was devoted to witchcraft (not that that makes me an expert or anything) but having read actual witch trials from the day I found the witch to have some of the most historically accurate dialogue I have ever encountered. What I think Egger is up to here is faithfully recreating a psychological state that actually existed in the era he's depicting. People at the time genuinely believed that the events happening in The Witch could take place, which shows how our conception of reality itself has changed over time. I think that is the most horrific element of the movie. It gets better and better the more I ruminate on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I saw this movie completely unspoiled and untainted and it was awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I saw this with a couple friends. We were riveted, though the audience laughed and talked through it. When the lights came up we heard a chorus of groans, and sentiments like:

    "I want my money back."
    "Was that supposed to be scary?"
    "That was the worst movie I've ever seen."

    Meanwhile we're dealing with an immense sense of dread that has settled on us; a terror of religiosity and family and the cultural bonds that stretch across generations. I suppose many folks see horror movies as a security blanket--a vessel to titillate but not truly unsettle. Maybe that's where the complete unwillingness to meet a movie on its own terms comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Audiences HATED this movie, man. Like nobody told them it was actually an arthouse horror film almost specifically designed for cinephilles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "This is a Puritan horror movie as surely as The Exorcist is a Catholic one."

    Maybe I'm not up on my Puritan theology, but I thought what made the movie so unsettling was the modern, secular attitude it brought to the material. It takes the daemonology at face value and gives us a world where the Devil exists but, crucially, God does not. As much as the movie takes pains to help us understand its characters' religious convictions, it never once suggests those convictions will do them any good. Which makes the whole thing far more bleak and horrifying than it otherwise would be. It lets us understand why these stories were ever considered scary in the first place.

    (The baked-in religiosity is why I never found The Exorcist scary. It has assumptions I don't share. I suspect a literal-minded Christian would find The Witch morally repugnant for the same reason.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. SPOILERS, Y'ALL!

    I'm actually surprised - given how we know the movie alternates between suspecting witchcraft and confirming it (though I think the scene we see of Samuel's murder kind of tips its hand, but it's also really discomfiting imagery) - that you didn't remark on the ending, Tim. I'm extremely curious on your thoughts on how the movie goes full throttle on the presence of the supernatural within its final 20 or so minutes and how it affects the movie overall.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a Christian who has a little too much personally invested in the myth and importance of the Puritan origins of America, this movie really disturbed me. As a cinephile and history major, I thought this movie was brilliant. Basically, this is an extremely well-made film that is extraordinarily historically accurate--far too few movies actually try to engage with and understand the worldviews of the people of the past--but the sense of evil in the film, and the strange gleefulness of the ending--and as Benjamin said, the sense that the devil exists but perhaps God does not--left me feeling drained and uncomfortable and conflicted.

    But I also want to watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's more spoilers!


    Did anyone wonder if there was some sort of The Thing-like shapeshifting or body-jumping going on? That is, perhaps the titular witch had possessed first the twins, then Caleb, then Katherine (remember the raven scene--whoops, sorry I reminded you), and then finally Thomasin?

    The AV Club (yes, them again) posited a rather scary interpretation of this movie; that it actually seems to defend the witch-burners at Salem in 1692; that true evil does exist out there, and rigid Bible Belt-style fundamentalism is necessary to fend it off. I made perhaps a mistake in reading their review before seeing The Witch, so my watching was somewhat colored by their interpretation. But then I read Benjamin's comment just now about how the family's rigid Puritanism doesn't actually seem to be benefitting them any ("a world where the Devil exists but, crucially, God does not"), and, thinking of my body-jumping theory, I had another thought; could the theme of this movie actually be about how constantly finger-pointing and accusing others of evil can only bring out the worst frustration in the scapegoats as well as the worst in the accusers.

    In that sense, this movie could be compared with modern-day prisons, right down to the family being exiled and largely forced into close quarters. If you treat people like animals, they become animals.

    SPOILER ALERT FOR Zootopia!



    So it's interesting that Zootopia came out around the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. P.S. Isn't it weird how much the Salem Witch Trials have become a culture war flashpoint 300 years later? I mean in the sense that people only know about and interpret them through a couple narrow political lenses that give them simple allegorical import for today, specifically as hysterical political persecution as depicted in The Crucible, or through feminist (plus Wiccan) theory that sees them as a time of female persecution. Both of these interpretations have a lot of truth to them of course, and I'm not going to go into all the details here, but the only thing people right now seem to know about the trials when you mention them today is a knee-jerk, "Hysterical! False! Theocracy! Patriarchy! Right-Wingers! Proto-feminist heroes!" People always seem to forget that the ones who started the accusations off were teenage girls, and that 6 men were executed as well as 14 women.

    What I find really weird is that there were multiple people coming out of Sundance who seemed really worried that this movie was somehow confirming that the Salem Witch Trials were just and proper, and that modern right-wingers would find in the movie a confirmation of their worldview, and this would be a bad thing. It strikes me as odd that people today would be so invested in seeing witches as false and/or peaceful wiccan mystics that they would be offended on their behalf at a horror movie in 2015. Not to mention the fact that the movie is clearly holding the various beliefs, patriarchal structures, and sexually repressive tendencies of the era under the microscope quite critically. But then again, if you look at Simon Abrams's review on RogerEbert.com, he asserts that the whole movie is an angry feminist statement, and the ending some kind of triumph, which I don't think is true either. Apparently he doesn't care that these witches murder babies and bathe in their blood as long as they aren't sexually repressed! And people who share my conservative Christian beliefs are likely to either never watch the movie in the first place, or to be disgusted by it and see it as an attack on their modern belief system. (Although the father here is clearly shown to be more extreme and rigid than his fellow Puritans, since they kick him out, and we can even see in that brief glimpse of the town, that it is a bustling communal place, with friendly Indians walking about freely.)

    Anyway, what I'm saying is that people seem to want to simplify this movie, and Puritan witch stories in general, into political point-scoring exercises, rather than engaging with the historical period itself and what we can tell about what the people who founded America actually believed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Note: I did not see Andrew Johnson's post until I had published my last one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @StephenM: I don't personally know any Wiccans or know much about the creed, but I don't think actual ones support murdering babies and drinking their blood. That's where Wiccans and people (believers and nonbelievers alike) who thought the trials were an ugly moment in our history (especially when they may have started out as a prank among teenage girls; plus ca change...) were likely a little put off by the movie.

    But yes, based on Benjamin's comment again; I'm not sure now if I buy into the whole "the trials were right" theory. In a sense the film almost seems to subscribe more to Lovecraft's or Stephen King's worldview than Cotton Mather's; there are "rips" between our universe and others, and sometimes..."things" creep in, and there's little we can do about it but try to live our lives and deal with them one by one.

    And now it's fan theory time; what if the family settled near the later site of Arkham or Dunwich?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Andrew Johnson,
    That would be incredible. There should be more high quality lovecraft cinematic adaptations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've known a bunch of Wiccans, and most of them tend to be DEEPLY unsatisfied with how their religion is typically portrayed in movies, especially horror films. The message is usually "yep, turns out that witches are real... and their magical powers inevitably lead to arrogant homicidal madness, and they totally want to either sacrifice you to their dark overlord or brainwash you into joining them". That's been the disturbingly common theme in practically any horror flick which deals with witches, from Rosemary's Baby to The Lords of Salem; rational, realistic takes on the concept like The Crucible are VERY few and far between. And it sadly sounds like The VVitch is more of the same, with its "witches exist, and every single one of them are compleat demons" storyline.

    The most ignorant bit is how fictional cinema tends to treat them as being Satan-worshippers, while real witches are polytheists who don't even believe in any Christian version of the devil. My most memorable anecdote was watching Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow in the theater with a whole row-full of Wiccan friends, and when the evil witch in the movie shrieked "And then, I SOLD MY SOUL TO SATAN~!!!" the disgusted groan which erupted from my buddies was truly epic in volume and disdain.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Andrew Johnson: No, no, of course modern Wiccans don't actually believe that. I wasn't saying that. I was just remarking on the fact that modern Wiccans seem very invested in positive depictions of witches and very offended by the idea of fairy tales with evil witches in them. Which Bryan Nimmon's post just confirmed. (And in case it wasn't clear, I obviously don't believe in witches who sold their soul to Satan to gain magical powers, nor historical witches who bathed in the blood of infants. Those were just things Medieval and Early-Modern Europeans believed in. I don't know why anyone would think I believed in that, but just in case!)

    But I also think there's been quite a lot of modern entertainment in the last 25 years which has made a big deal of depicting witches as persecuted innocents, whether women oppressed by patriarchal power or peaceful wiccan-types oppress by theocratic Christians. You can see that kind of thing in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a couple Scooby-Doo cartoon specials, The Vampire Diaries, Charmed, ParaNorman, etc. As a '90s kid, I felt like that was the message of every piece of children's entertainment that ever brought up witchcraft or early New England history.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stephen:

    Are... you sure you're remembering the Scooby-Doo special right? "Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost" did have a pretty screwy take on Wiccans, but it openly admitted that the titular witch's ghost did in fact get exactly what she deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To join in on the political fun -

    In terms of a political allegory, I read this as a sort of anti-Crucible. To echo Andrew re: prisons, there's no need to decide whether witches are real. Insomuch as any statement about society is being made, it's that the origins of Witch paranoia are not in (modern, mass-society) communal groupthink, but the psychosexual makeup of the (western, christian) family.

    And the Satanic Temple did endorse this movie. I don't have enough information on Comparative Witchcraft Communities to know what that might mean.

    To join in on the aesthetic argument -

    There's a scene here that almost directly apes the Room 237 scene of The Shining. Some Ligeti-esque choral music in the background to really hammer down those Kubrick vibes. I found that annoying. But then again, a lot of people think that horror is some godforsaken genre that is only redeemable when Great Auteurs are involved. I don't count myself among that group.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it's fine that "revisionist witches" are becoming the mainstream, seeing as it's fine for the concept to continue playing a shifting role in our culture, and a lot of the original understanding of "a witch" was rooted in fear of women and jews anyway.

    I can't sympathize much with Wiccans bothered by the representation of witchcraft in movies though, since Wicca is a modern religion deliberately organized around its identity as a "witch-cult" long after the negative Western conception of witchcraft was established.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fritz: the Satanic Temple has nothing to do with Wicca. It's an offshoot of Anton LaVey's take on Satanism, which was essentially a version of agnosticism viewed through the filter of a goth kid who reads too much Nietzsche and Lovecraft. They'd probably regard the idea of real witchcraft as being Nu Age hippie bullshit.

    Arlo: the thing is that Wiccans (and other pagan sects, Wicca is just sort of the Catholicism of polytheism) don't regard their religion as being modern. They see it as a rebirth of ancient pagan faiths that predate Christianity, and were persecuted almost to the point of extinction by the church. And while it's true that a lot of women and Jews who were seen as "uppity" got painted with the same inquisitorial brush, they were only two minorities in a much larger stack of kindling which was all thrown on the same bonfire. Countless thousands of Muslims, gypsies, criminals, the mentally ill, various other undesirables, and lots of plain ol' Christian men were all executed for witchcraft as well. Eight of the dead in the Salem witch hunt were male Puritans, just for one historical group example.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Aye, christians were persecuted as witches, but I'm just thinking of the basis for the cultural image. The hook nose, pointed cap, and the focus on blood libel.

    Wicca is self conscious patchwork-paganism, and its intersection with the long established folkloric witch is essentially incidental and emphasized mainly by Wiccans themselves. A bunch of lapsed christians and agnostics who decide to worship a fertility goat being offended by "inaccurate witches" just seems to me like deliberately cultivating a persecuted identity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This film is hardly a defense of the witch trials. Much of its horror comes from illustrating how easily one can be falsely accused. The actual witch in this film is less scary than the parents who believe in witches and whose belief gives them permission to do harmful things in the name of good.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just saw it last night. Did anyone else have difficulties with understanding the dialogue? Between the sound mix and the accents, I missed a lot.

    Also, while I was absorbed throughout (and the last 15 minutes really packed a punch), I found that my sense of horror was diminished by the fact that I so disliked the parents and the twins--Thomasin and Caleb were the only characters about whose fates I cared. I didn't have any empathy for the others, so I didn't really care about them being menaced.

    That said, something this well-acted, well-shot, and original is something I'm very glad I saw. And the ending was spectacular.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.