brehs what the fukk was the Witch about :beli:

[NZA]

What's a true horror film by your definition?

im just going by what we all know the average film goer is expecting - a movie whose goal is to scare you first, be art second or maybe even third

for instance, the exorcist covers a lot of similar territory, but not only did it deliver more scares, it was more inventive in the scares. it accomplished this while also being a great movie artistically.

the witch comes off more like in the director's mind, being a period piece and a psychological thriller was more important than horror. i feel more moviegoers would have a more positive impression of this movie if they were not expecting a serious commitment to horror movie pacing and payoff. of course, it also means it would have made less money because most horror fans dont willingly watch art house flicks. a lot of people got suckered into watching this movie.

 

[ELESDEE616]

People are used to jump scares and easy pay offs. The slow burn of this and hereditary turns alot of people off

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

But that's all part of the subtext.

Sure, we've had films that tackle patriarchal society, but they generally have very little to with the representation of witches. Because typically films about witches are dramatizations of fiction (casting malevolent spells, riding broomsticks etc), not about gender inequality and womanhood, in general. The entire film should remind you that you're watching a horror, not just the ending, because the horror is in the telling of female stigmatization in a male-dominated milieu.

Same exact theme in Rosemary's baby. This is not a new trope this movie uses

 

[DosCadenaz]

One of my favorite horror movies ever

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

im just going by what we all know the average film goer is expecting - a movie whose goal is to scare you first, be art second or maybe even third.

But how is that true horror? Does the "average filmgoer" even know what that is, or is your definition simply what their palate is used to?

the witch comes off more like in the director's mind, being a period piece and a psychological thriller was more important than horror. i feel more moviegoers would have a more positive impression of this movie if they were not expecting a serious commitment to horror movie pacing and payoff..

Except this film did make a "serious commitment to horror movie pacing and payoff" - it's one of the best horror films in recent memory - I grapple with the notion it's anything but, other than from those who can't digest storytelling, character study, and subtext, because they've been conditioned by popcorn [mainstream] horror.

 

[Figaro]

Was this the film where she follows a fukking Goat..gets naked & starts floating around with other witches

Yeah that shyt was 100% trash

 

[Scottie Drippin]

Still love this movie.

Some peoples negative response to it shows how fukked the horror genre is. Give people a movie without jump scares and they don't know what to do with themselves.

A problem is I think a lot of horror movie fans are at a point of being B-Movie fans where they know its going to be "bad" (thin plot, jump scares, pointless characters) and that's what they're in for. Which isn't bad at all, but there probably needs to be some new sub-genre name to make marketing of these movies easier.

 

[NZA]

But how is that true horror? Does the "average filmgoer" even know what that is, or is your definition simply what their palate is used to?

Except this film did make a "serious commitment to horror movie pacing and payoff" - it's one of the best horror films in recent memory - I grapple with the notion it's anything but, other than from those who can't digest storytelling, character study, and subtext, because they've been conditioned by popcorn [mainstream] horror.

i dont really think there is an absolute answer for what a horror movie is. im sure you can come up with a litmus test and then find movies commonly regarded as horror that dont tick all the boxes, or vice versa. that is why i go with what the average movie goer is into. the audience score for this movie is extremely far apart from the professional reviewer score. i dont really look down on the audience, so i am taking their opinion in consideration. this film only made a serious commitment to mood. it established a horrifying mood but did not use it in the way the audience would expect a horror movie to do.

 

[MartyMcFly]

im just going by what we all know the average film goer is expecting - a movie whose goal is to scare you first, be art second or maybe even third

for instance, the exorcist covers a lot of similar territory, but not only did it deliver more scares, it was more inventive in the scares. it accomplished this while also being a great movie artistically.

the witch comes off more like in the director's mind, being a period piece and a psychological thriller was more important than horror. i feel more moviegoers would have a more positive impression of this movie if they were not expecting a serious commitment to horror movie pacing and payoff. of course, it also means it would have made less money because most horror fans dont willingly watch art house flicks. a lot of people got suckered into watching this movie.

Again all that shyt is subjective. Every single piece of it.

That’s why the whole argument is bugged out for me because a horror movie by definition needs to have certain things, which the witch has. But whether you individually believe it to be horror is purely subjective based on how it scares you. You said the exorcist has more scares, but that’s to you. John landis is an atheist and has said the exorcist never scared him. On the flip side my friends I went to catholic school with will not fukk with the exorcist on any level



I don’t take the general audience too much into consideration because I’m not the filmmaker. Horror should be challenging and not all of it has to be as simple as something like the conjuring. And that’s no diss to the conjuring, a movie I love, but a movie like the witch or the changeling is more challenging and asks more of its audience. And that’s not always a good thing but it doesn’t make the movies less or less effective for the audiences who meet them on that level

 

[NZA]

Again all that shyt is subjective. Every single piece of it.

That’s why the whole argument is bugged out for me because a horror movie by definition needs to have certain things, which the witch has. But whether you individually believe it to be horror is purely subjective based on how it scares you. You said the exorcist has more scares, but that’s to you. John landis is an atheist and has said the exorcist never scared him. On the flip side my friends I went to catholic school with will not fukk with the exorcist on any level



I don’t take the general audience too much into consideration because I’m not the filmmaker. Horror should be challenging and not all of it has to be as simple as something like the conjuring. And that’s no diss to the conjuring, a movie I love, but a movie like the witch or the changeling is more challenging and asks more of its audience. And that’s not always a good thing but it doesn’t make the movies less or less effective for the audiences who meet them on that level

i agree it is all subjective and i dont believe there is an objective way to define the genre for edge cases like this. i think audiences are important; horror was invented for mass audiences first. auteurs got in on this genre later. therefore, the tastes of the average joe helped shape what the word horror means. i think this is the most congruent way to approach it.

 

[MartyMcFly]

i agree it is all subjective and i dont believe there is an objective way to define the genre for edge cases like this. i think audiences are important; horror was invented for mass audiences first. auteurs got in on this genre later. therefore, the tastes of the average joe helped shape what the word horror means. i think this is the most congruent way to approach it.

I feel that. I just don't agree entirely because not every horror film has to work on that level because its primal and innate. What scares me may not scare you and vice versa so it becomes hard to pinpoint what a mass audience will react to especially if you're trying something different

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I feel that. I just don't agree entirely because not every horror film has to work on that level because its primal and innate. What scares me may not scare you and vice versa so it becomes hard to pinpoint what a mass audience will react to especially if you're trying something different

Exactly.

There's an episode of Mark Kermode's Secrets of Cinema that breaks down all the conventions in horror that 'exploit man's deepest, darkest and elemental fears' if you haven't already checked it out. It's worth the watch.

 

[Jammer22]

Loved this movie and just watched it over the weekend.

The part with the abducted baby.
The slow break down of the family.

And the ending scene...

One of the best horror films in recent memory, imo.

 

[YakSpiller]

I thought it was complete trash

Fa real...Turned it off after 30 minutes. Just couldn’t do it.

 

[kdslittlebro]

People are used to jump scares and easy pay offs. The slow burn of this and hereditary turns alot of people off

Hereditary shyts on The Witch imo. The Witch was ok but it’s a real investment to get through