Has anyone watched this movie " The Witch " ??

[TrueBias]

I dont think so because theres lots of dumb people who hate it

I didnt hate but its no great movie.

 

[weich]

From this same source:

"The Witch makes for a stylish and unsettling horror movie, but deeper down it’s also a psychological examination of America’s religious past. Eggers researched the subject of witches in 17th-century New England for four years before production began. When he speaks of “real witches,” it’s a reflection of his belief that the superstitions of history are every bit as real as historical fact. The film has enough respect for its Puritan characters to manifest their fears exactly how they conceived of them: the witch of the film is flesh and blood, it sees through the characters’ religious vanity, it embraces its animal nature and it lives in open defiance of what was deemed appropriate behavior for women of the day. The film reminds us that we are living with the legacy of our forefathers’ insecurities, which they projected onto their neighbors in the form of witch hunts."

I'm also familiar with the Atlantic article, and both of these other attributions are to Anya, not the Director/Writer.

The girl is the witch.

Note the scene in the beginning. Her father is being cast out, but not because he doesn't conform to church standards, but rather because he sees the church as having failed itself, and lacking sufficient austerity. This first note of the movie suggests that the community itself has identified a canker in this man's mind and spirit which is at odds with a rational perception of their condition (not because they don't also believe in witches).

The presentation of the witch as "flesh and blood" is exactly as I have described it to you, here: a manifestation of their superstition. That's just a way of saying that the witch, as she is seen by us, is not presented as some phantom or apparition within the film itself. This is precisely what separates the film from other psychological thrillers with the same theme. It's all about authenticity: even if authenticity isn't real it's imagined to be real so fiercely that it becomes a reality impacting everyday life.

The witches in The Witch are real, physical, beings. They are not hallucinations or shared psychosis.

You are free to interpret the movie as you see fit, but after reading, and watching, interviews with the director it is clear that he intended the witches to be real beings. The witches in the movie are as horrible and dangerous as the puritans assumed they were. That's what they mean when talking about the manifestation, not psychosis.

 

[TheLastSpartan]

Couldn't get through it and I love psychological thrillers.

My 2 cents.

 

[Madmick]

The witches in The Witch are real, physical, beings. They are not hallucinations or shared psychosis.

You are free to interpret the movie as you see fit, but after reading, and watching, interviews with the director it is clear that he intended the witches to be real beings. The witches in the movie are as horrible and dangerous as the puritans assumed they were. That's what they mean when talking about the manifestation, not psychosis.

Except that it isn't.

It's upon you, the viewer, to divine that the "real" "flesh and blood" witches in the film aren't actually real, but as real as the conviction of the Puritans at the time, just as it is upon you, the person, to divine that the women who were stoned or burned during that period for witchcraft weren't, in fact, supernatural beings.

The entire subtext of the film, and everything he is telling you about Anya's character being his discovered protagonist of the film, who is empowered by the very noose of her oppression, doesn't make sense if you do not read it this way.

 

[Mark Cutting]

I saw it has good reviews from my favorite critics for being unconventional and fresh. Yet, at the same time, few of my mates who actually watched it told me that I might find it rather boring. So I'd like to know your opinions if you guys happened to watch the film.

I own it. Love it.

 

[Mark Cutting]

Spoiler

Two hours of nothing and then a ram kills a guy...

I saved you.

* GOAT!!!!.... Black Phillip says you are wicked

 

[Mark Cutting]

Good film, borderline great film. It has one of the most disturbing scenes I've seen in any movie.

The killing of the baby ?

 

[Mark Cutting]

I love horror movies. Don’t mind a slow one that builds up. Thought this movie was trash. The dialogue was unbearable. Im not sure why the dialogue is given a pass in this one ... maybe because it was set in a different period and used the language of that period. But it’s lifetime movie bad (the dialogue) imo

It's true to the period. He used old diaries and periodicals to ensure thus.

 

[Mark Cutting]

These are the imaginative manifestations of our family's superstitious mental illness.

The girl snaps from the stress of everyday life and her father's authoritarian parentage. She murders everyone. She's behind it all. She goes nuts. She embraces the specter of power in her life; the power of that which causes the greatest fear. She embraces this perception of herself as a witch.

She's the Columbine Killer of the 1600's. The movie is the story of her descent into madness, and why.

Not my interpretation. It is a folk tale...witches were the center pieces of folk tales in those days. It's a straight up "monster" movie, i.m.o. Loved it.

 

[weich]

Except that it isn't.

It's upon you, the viewer, to divine that the "real" "flesh and blood" witches in the film aren't actually real, but as real as the conviction of the Puritans at the time, just as it is upon you, the person, to divine that the women who were stoned or burned during that period for witchcraft weren't, in fact, supernatural beings.

The entire subtext of the film, and everything he is telling you about Anya's character being his discovered protagonist of the film, who is empowered by the very noose of her oppression, doesn't make sense if you do not read it this way.

Here, we'll let the director settle it:

there are clues about different interpretations. So, for example, the rot on the corn is ergot, which is a hallucinogenic fungus, so if you wanted to take that route, you could. It’s not necessarily my route, but there are multiple ways in.

Source

So your interpretation is one that the director isn't going to fight against, but it doesn't seem to be how he sees it.

I side with the view that the witches were real, not the result of a hallucination.

 

[Mark Cutting]

also you can clearly hear something land on the roof before the witch destroys the barn and takes the kids. i felt that the daughter was the least sinful one and corrupting her soul at the end would be the greatest triumph for satan and the witches

I thought Thomasin selling her soul was just a release for her from the oppressive religious shackles (remember her getting her period?), honestly. Nothing more.

 

[Madmick]

Here, we'll let the director settle it:

Source

So your interpretation is one that the director isn't going to fight against, but it doesn't seem to be how he sees it.

I side with the view that the witches were real, not the result of a hallucination.

He's not answering the question you're suggesting:

I’m curious whether you have set ideas about what’s real in the movie and what isn’t—in other words, who’s possessed, and who might just be going mad?

I have very clear ideas about this. But I have intentionally tried to keep some mystery and enigma around that stuff, so I won’t share my opinions on it. It was designed with intentions, but also designed to be read in multiple different ways.

So you won’t tell us whether Thomasin was evil all along, or only becomes desperate at the end?

No offense, if that was anyone’s reading, but for people who think Thomasin was evil all along: “Once upon a time there was a story of a witch”—that’s the movie, and that’s not a very interesting story. So I will say that much.

But there are clues about different interpretations. So, for example, the rot on the corn is ergot, which is a hallucinogenic fungus, so if you wanted to take that route, you could. It’s not necessarily my route, but there are multiple ways in.

Indicating that the religious oppression and hardship of everyday life catalyzed a change in the character.

Look, you're trying to voice this interpretation of the film-- very well summarized here:
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/36932/is-the-witch-in-the-witch-2015-real

Yes, in the context of the film's world, the Puritans' idea of witches--and by extension, black magic and the devil--are "real." This is the central twist of The Witch, and why I found it so clever.

Throughout most of the film, undeniably supernatural events happen offscreen, in flashback, and/or witnessed only by a character in severe duress--e.g. the baby sacrifice, or the older brother's encounter with a witch after becoming lost in the woods. Outside of these episodes, we're drawn into the drama of a 17th Century New England Puritan family that's flawed, tight-knit and relatably human, descending into dire straights as their farm slowly fails and they deal with grief.

By playing on our expectations as a modern audience, the film leads us to believe that we're watching a story set in the historical world, detailing a family's fraying psychological state, when we're actually watching a film set in the 17th Century world as the Puritans believed it to be: the devil is an active and powerful participant in human affairs, witches haunt the dark forests, and God turns a blind eye on those who've committed any sin.

I favor the interpretation of those who note that the madness-- awareness of the witch-- is first manifested in the protagonist herself. Her break with reality is the original event. This Vulture article offers a similar reading:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/01/the-witch-review-sundance.html

 

[MusterX]

The killing of the baby ?

Spoiler

Yes because of the way the witch put the baby on the table and unwrapped it like a roast from the local market, then she took a knife to it, then she ground it up mortar and pestle style while nude, to a full moon, then she slathered the ground up baby all over her nude body.

 

[moonwolf]

I saw it has good reviews from my favorite critics for being unconventional and fresh. Yet, at the same time, few of my mates who actually watched it told me that I might find it rather boring. So I'd like to know your opinions if you guys happened to watch the film.

loved it. the ending is a trip.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Loved it but it's not for everyone.

My only complaint was ....

Spoiler

actually showing the devil in human form. I think they should have kept him a goat form. It just felt unnecessary.

.

Loved the acting, pacing, visuals, music and ending. An excellent horror movie but you have to be into the subject. I can imagine a lot of people being bored to tears from it.

 

[weich]

He's not answering the question you're suggesting:

Indicating that the religious oppression and hardship of everyday life catalyzed a change in the character.

Look, you're trying to voice this interpretation of the film-- very well summarized here:
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/36932/is-the-witch-in-the-witch-2015-real

I favor the interpretation of those who note that the madness-- awareness of the witch-- is first manifested in the protagonist herself. Her break with reality is the original event. This Vulture article offers a similar reading:
http://www.vulture.com/2015/01/the-witch-review-sundance.html

I understand your position, and you understand mine. They are mutually exclusive conclusions. I'm okay with that.

 

[Madmick]

I understand your position, and you understand mine. They are mutually exclusive conclusions. I'm okay with that.

Indeed.

The problem with your interpretation is that it empowers the perspective of all the members of the family when the one thing that Director has made unequivocally explicit is that the story is intended to hold Thomasin as the narrative center, and focus of study. The final scene itself invokes and echoes the most disturbing scene in the entire movie which involved the "real" witch. This aft-shadowing is a powerful hint to what is real, and what is merely perceived (unfiltered to our eyes) to be real that isn't.

 

[Bob Gray]

Loved it but it's not for everyone.

My only complaint was ....

Spoiler

actually showing the devil in human form. I think they should have kept him a goat form. It just felt unnecessary.

.

Loved the acting, pacing, visuals, music and ending. An excellent horror movie but you have to be into the subject. I can imagine a lot of people being bored to tears from it.

I agree about the nitpick. Minor detail, but:

Spoiler

Seeing a human form seemed a bit out of place. I cant recall, but did we see the goat hoof or something? Because I thought it would have been cool to just see the hoof going up to an inverted knee and thats it.

 

[Hearse Lightning]

I remember thinking that they showed The Witch way to early

They take away the suspense by showing it. I would have liked it better if they waited till the end so we as an audience could wonder if the Witch was real or if this family was crazy

When I first went to see it I was worried that there wouldn't be a witch at all. Then we see her early on and I was like oh thank God.

 

[blaseblah]

Indeed.

The problem with your interpretation is that it empowers the perspective of all the members of the family when the one thing that Director has made unequivocally explicit is that the story is intended to hold Thomasin as the narrative center, and focus of study. The final scene itself invokes and echoes the most disturbing scene in the entire movie which involved the "real" witch. This aft-shadowing is a powerful hint to what is real, and what is merely perceived (unfiltered to our eyes) to be real that isn't.

There's no problem with his interpretation. You're arguing over subjectivity at this point.

The movie works perfectly well as a literal interpretation.