“The following is a
fictionalized re-enactment of events that occurred after the release of The Blair Witch Project. It is based on
public records, local Maryland TV broadcasts, and hundreds of hours of taped interviews.
To protect the privacy of certain individuals, some names have been changed.”
-Opening Card for Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.
Book
of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
(2000) followed hot on the heels of The Blair Witch Project’s (1999)
record-breaking box office engagement, no doubt hoping to strike again while
the iron was still hot.
The
result is a horror film with moments of fleeting intelligence and promise, but one
that feels, overall, half-baked. Perhaps this is a case in which a little more
development time would have benefited the creative team, and allowed for a
re-consideration of some of the dodgier moments and ideas.
This
horror sequel was directed by Joe Berlinger, a thoughtful documentary filmmaker who has
helmed such worthwhile efforts as Brother’s Keeper (1992), Paradise
Lost (1996) and Metallica: Some Kind of Monster
(2004).
Berlinger is not a hack, and the fact that Book of Shadows often
looks very much like the product of a hack is likely the (unfortunate) result
of heavy creative interference.
Still,
the second Blair Witch picture suffers from a terrible and unenviable
burden: the desperate need to successfully follow-up a surprise and innovative
hit movie, and yet somehow not seem like a rerun or cash-grab.
Accordingly,
the decision was made not to repeat the found footage formula of the Myrick and
Sanchez original. Frankly, the film’s many deficits
may all stem from that single creative decision, because going from BWP’s
hyper-reality to Book of Shadow’s traditional “movie”
reality is a jarring, and often distasteful experience.
One cannot escape the sense that reality, or verisimilitude,
has been lost, even sacrificed, in the transition from the first film to the second.
Because
of its notable stylistic differences from The Blair Witch Project, the sequel
feels like it takes place in another universe all-together. It is shot in lush, vivid color, features conventional horror special effects, and casts nubile young
women as “eye candy.” Even the familiar 1980s “vice
precedes slice-and-dice” paradigm is reinstated for this film as the young
attractive characters smoke weed, booze it up, and get frisky by moonlight…just
in time to be manipulated by the Blair Witch.
Frankly,
the film looks and feels very much like a 1997-1999 Wishmaster or Hellraiser sequel, and
one that might have gone direct-to-video, skipping theaters all-together. There is nothing visually distinct about the film; nothing to mark it as the next chapter in the Blair Witch mythos.
To
describe this another way, Book of Shadows plays out like a
very conventional, very generic turn-of-the-century horror film, even though one
can pinpoint moments that attempt to ascend to the brilliant “meta”-reality of
the source material.
But
for every one of those moments Book of Shadows offers up poorly
calibrated performances, non-persuasive quick-cuts of gore (meant to up the
film’s “visual violence” quotient) and confusion about how this installment interacts
with its famous (infamous?) predecessor.
Again,
one can argue that Berlinger and the other filmmakers made the only choice
possible under the circumstances, deciding not to recreate the unique alchemy of The Blair Witch Project.
But
just look at the results. This is a
sequel that feels like a fakey Hollywood movie, and doesn’t really offer
anything coherent in terms of philosophy, or even in terms of “in-franchise”
universe development.
Book
of Shadows is
a total misfire, even considering the no-doubt sincere efforts of Berlinger, and the decision to
move the franchise in a new and original direction.
We
can say now, with sixteen years of retrospect, that the new path offered by the
Blair
Witch sequel was also the wrong one.
“Perception
is reality.”
Less
than a year after the release of the hit horror film, The Blair Witch Project
(1999), the town of Burkittsville is
under siege by tourists and fortune-seekers.
One
such fortune seeker is former mental patient, Jeffrey Patterson (Jeffery
Donovan), who has started a tour company dedicated to exploring the Black
Hills, called Blair Witch Hunt.
On
his latest excursion, Jeffrey takes two writers -- Stephen (Stephen Ryan
Parker) and his girlfriend Tristen (Tristine Skyler) -- who are doing research
on the Blair Witch and mass hysteria to the foundation of Rustin Parr’s house,
which burned down years earlier. It is there, however, that Heather Donohue’s
footage was found, setting off the Blair Witch Craze.
Along
with a Wiccan, Erica (Erica Leerhsen), and a Goth, Kim (Kim Director), the trio
stays the night in the Black Hills.
The
next morning, however, no one can account for hours of missing time, the destruction
of Stephen and Tristen’s research, or the destruction of Jeffrey’s video
cameras.
Worse,
a group of tourists are discovered dead -- murdered -- at Coffin Rock, and the
local Sheriff, Cravens (Lanny Flaherty), suspects Jeffrey and his group.
Jeffrey
brings his clients back to his house, an abandoned factory in the Black Hills,
and, after finding his footage, attempts to recreate the mystery of their
missing time.
Meanwhile,
the spirit of a little girl comes to them, and warns the cursed souls they have
brought something back from the woods with them; possibly the Blair Witch
herself.
“We’re
all virgins on this bus.”
The
film quote above -- “we are all virgins
on this bus” -- is a good shorthand, actually, for78 summing up the deficits and
challenges of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.
After
The
Blair Witch Project, none of us are virgins on this particular bus ride.
We’ve all been to the woods, and encountered
young people cursed by a reality-bending supernatural entity. We’ve seen the
Burkittsville town sign (now ensconced on a wall in Jeffrey’s house), and we’ve
been to the Burkittsville-Union Cemetery too.
We’ve been lost in the woods, and we’ve contended with altered states of
reality.
So,
with the knowledge that there are no virgins on this bus, how does a filmmaker make
this story seem fresh and new again, especially after some moments in the
original -- including Heather’s close-up confession -- ascended immediately to
the level of pop culture touchstones?
Book
of Shadows
doesn’t really offer a coherent solution for that challenge, so it provides
several different alleyways which become, finally, dead ends.
For instance, the film opens with a title
card, which establishes that this is movie a “fictionalized” re-enactment of
real events. That means that the film acknowledges, up front, that the
individuals in the story, like Jeffrey, are being played by actors. That’s what
the term re-enactment means.
Yet
when the film purports in its opening scenes to show the audience “real” footage of Burkittsville
locals, who shows up there but Jeffrey, played by the same actor (Jeffrey
Donovan)?
The
two moments, taken in tandem, generate creative dissonance. Either Jeffrey is an actor playing a role in
a fictionalized “re-enactment” or a real individual caught on tape in
Burkittsville as the newscast footage indicates.
So which
is it? Because he can't be both.
Secondly,
if this is a re-enactment, one wonders why some moments are presented in a
highly-stylized, two-dimensional, horror-comic-book nature, and others are
not. The youngsters, for example, all
seem generally “real,” not exaggerating their reactions or roles.
But
just look at the (godawful) scenes showcasing Jeffrey's stay in a mental hospital.
They are rife with cockeyed angles, strangely made-up nurses, and doctors, and so
forth, all suggesting not any concept of reality, but rather heightened, comic-book reality. Again, would a re-enactment attempting to
recreate a real event adopt this particular visual approach? More to the point, would it tread, at all,
into Jeffrey’s incarceration and treatment by doctors?
And
then consider the performance of Lanny Flaherty as Sheriff Cravens, who plays a
stereotypical “hick” law enforcement official.
He is such a walking, talking cliché, it is impossible to consider him “real,”
and so again we face a crisis suspending disbelief. No re-enactment would portray a sheriff in such a fashion. A re-enactment
wants to seem real; only a horror movie tries up the ante with such stylized
performances.
The
Blair Witch Project
ran on parallel realities, in a sense. In one interpretation of reality, something supernatural chased down
Heather and her friends in the woods. In
another, three kids out in the wild got lost, scared themselves silly, and
eventually died, leaving behind a testament not to the supernatural, but to
their own hysteria.
all, the cameras saw nothing, really, or at least
nothing that pointed, definitively, to a witch.
To
its credit, Book of Shadows attempts to recreate this meta-reality formula or dynamic through the characters of Stephen and Tristen.
Stephen believes that the Blair
Witch story is indeed one “created by
hysteria,” and he even likens Burkittsville to the Bermuda Triangle. By
contrast, Tristen thinks the story of the Blair Witch exists in a “place of truth.”
They
keep arguing, and that’s the point. As
the film’s dialogue points out, “perception is reality," and each of us
possesses different perceptual sets. We select those things that seem to conform to our previous life experience, after all. Therefore, we each experience life a little differently. This idea was
clearly intended to be the through line of the film, and yet it doesn’t really
come through successfully.
At
the beginning of the film, for instance, we see “real” life people Kurt Loder,
Roger Ebert, Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien talking (on their respective TV
programs) about The Blair Witch Project.
Then we meet the locals of Burkittsville and the tourists there. All of these individuals perceive a different
reality. For the townspeople, there is a
sense of annoyance and bemusement with the tourists. For the tourists there is a promise of
encountering something truly new, something truly different. For the TV personalities, it's all an abstract exercise in either criticism, news reporting, or humor.
The
idea, again, is that those on the Blair Witch Hunt are the product of these
roiling differences in perception and conflicted psychologies. They go out into the woods,
and commit murder. But they commit
murder because either they are hysterical -- worked up into a froth by the movie’s
popularity -- or because a witch now controls them.
Overall,
Book
of Shadows vets its dual reality in a scattershot, incoherent fashion.
The skeptic, Stephen, for instance, actually sees a backwards-walking child ghost on the
bridge to Jeffrey’s house, and she tells him, literally, that he has brought
something back from the woods.
Stephen
never tells anyone about this encounter, and stubbornly clings to his belief
that the Blair Witch is just hysteria.
Because
who is he going to believe: his masters’ dissertation, or his lying eyes?
The
film boasts other problems as well. A key plot point is the murder of tourists
at Coffin Rock. We meet these doomed
characters just once (and quite briefly at that), so their deaths mean virtually nothing in terms of the
story or in terms of audience identification. There is no drama surrounding their deaths, no feeling of loss. Nothing at all.
We
also never see, recreated in much meaningful detail, the protagonists murdering
them. Instead, all we get are these
violent quick cuts of gore close-ups.
These same shots could have been used to
establish anybody killing the tourists, so they are not exactly persuasive, or
memorable. We see these cuts from the very beginning of the film (even during
the opening credits), in intrusive insert shots, and they don’t really connect
in a way that carries emotional resonance.
We don’t know the victims, and since we have seen a ghost literally warn
the characters about the existence of something evil, we never interpret the
crimes, as the filmmakers hope, as an act of mass hysteria or madness.
Another
“track” going in Book of Shadows is surely one of social critique. We meet Jeffrey, who
runs a Blair Witch store on-line that sells hats, T-shirts, stick figures, key
chains and so on. He talks about E-Bay,
etc. The point seems to be that there is
a sucker born every minute, and that The Blair Witch Project isn’t so much as a
movie but rather a 75 minute advertisement for licensed merchandise.
Perhaps
this commentary is supposed to be amusing, but I’m not convinced that an official sequel to
The
Blair Witch Project is the right place for it as a major theme. Ostensibly, people seeing this film want to
see the property treated in a respectful fashion, and learn more about its
universe (and central, if unseen, figure: the witch).
Instead, this movie has the bad taste and temerity to
suggest that The Blair Witch Project is responsible for inspiring the
(fictional) murders at Coffin Rock. But
we all know from Scream (1996), of course, that horror movies don’t make people
killers. They make killers more inventive.
Even
in terms of pure plausibility, Book of Shadows comes up a bit
short. Every character begins to get a red rash on their torso that just happens to look
exactly like the letters of the Pagan Alphabet, and nobody seems really
bothered by it.
I would surely be more concerned.
Love
it or hate it, The Blair Witch Project was an immersive experience. You were
dropped into the woods with those characters, and your hopes and fears rose and
fell with each new discovery. Book of
Shadows never casts an aura like that. It never creates a coherent reality. And without that structure underlying it, the film is never frightening.
The
film is smart enough to know that “people just want to see something,” but this
sequel never decides, really, what it should show, or what it shouldn’t show. It doesn’t even really, decide, I fear, what actually happens in the film.
It’s either a
re-enactment or not. It’s either mass hysteria or not.
Unfortunately,
there are two things we can decide Book of Shadows never is: scary or good.
"Frankly, the film looks and feels very much like a 1997-1999 Wishmaster or Hellraiser sequel, and one that might have gone direct-to-video, skipping theaters all-together. There is nothing visually distinct about the film; nothing to mark it as the next chapter in the Blair Witch mythos."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the sequel was adapted from a more generic horror script floating around Hollywood, revised and buffed up with Blair Witch touchstones. We've seen it before. At least one of the Hellraiser sequels (Hellraiser: HellWorld) is known to have been adapted from an unrelated script. Why not Blair Witch, especially if they were pressed for time.