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:

The movie is called "The Witch." Naturally you assume it's the nasty lady that takes the baby at the beginning. Naturally you assume that while separated from their congregation the family is still a group of "good" Christians who can unite against this one witch out in the woods. And then exquisitely, yet horrifyingly, we learn that all along, *all along* it was the family that was oh so alone in a battle against Lucifer himself and an army of witches. Those poor folks, cut from the herd and then savagely devoured by an entire pride of supernatural lions. They never had a chance.

I know some people might see this as an anti-Christian movie, particularly if you think Thomasin's choice was a "victorious" one for her, but if this truly was a New England folk tale in spirit then I can't look at it as anything other than cautionary in nature, caution to never think you're strong enough to overcome Satan with your strength alone.
 
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:

The movie is called "The Witch." Naturally you assume it's the nasty lady that takes the baby at the beginning. Naturally you assume that while separated from their congregation the family is still a group of "good" Christians who can unite against this one witch out in the woods. And then exquisitely, yet horrifyingly, we learn that all along, *all along* it was the family that was oh so alone in a battle against Lucifer himself and an army of witches. Those poor folks, cut from the herd and then savagely devoured by an entire pride of supernatural lions. They never had a chance.

I know some people might see this as an anti-Christian movie, particularly if you think Thomasin's choice was a "victorious" one for her, but if this truly was a New England folk tale in spirit then I can't look at it as anything other than cautionary in nature, caution to never think you're strong enough to overcome Satan with your strength alone.

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...

The title of the film is actually referring to Thomasin. The witch that steals Samuel in the beginning and the one that seduces Caleb are not the same one (though the one that snatches the twins at the end is the one that stole Samuel). The end reveals that the woods surrounding them are actually home to a COVEN of witches. But the title isn't arbitrary. It's THE Witch. Singular. And Thomasin is clearly the heart and soul of this piece. This is her story. So, ultimately, the story is an origin one... about how this girl, seemingly pure and kindhearted, is driven to make an eternal pact with Satan. That's just the plot, of course, there is a whole strata of interesting themes spun underneath... which is another reason why this is such a masterpiece.
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Thomasin
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
a coven.

It is indeed a
witch origin story and if it were directed by Nolan it would have been called "The Witch Begins" with Thomasin in the title role.
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
Thomasin's naked silhouette. Of course, once again, you don't know it's actually her on the poster until you see the final scene of the film.

Freaking brilliant.
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Thomasin
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
a coven.

It is indeed a
witch origin story and if it were directed by Nolan it would have been called "The Witch Begins" with Thomasin in the title role.
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
Thomasin's naked silhouette. Of course, once again, you don't know it's actually her on the poster until you see the final scene of the film.

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:

If the family had moved out to the edge of the forest minus Thomasin that the witches would just have slaughtered them outright and cooked their kids, etc. But Satan had other plans. First and foremost he wanted Thomasin. He probably couldn't care less about whether his "ladies" looked young or could fly. He just wanted HER. So I imagine that they were following Black Phillip's very calculated plan of psychological warfare. Taking just the baby at first, sparing the others, setting Caleb free (and even to the point of retaining his Salvation) just to sow more seeds of distrust and strife within the family. He needed the parents to turn on Thomasin and since to her they were a surrogate voice for God he needed her to think that He had forsaken her too.

So the kids were taken at specific times to mess with the parents, then the parents got so messed up Thomasin turned against them and at that point his work was complete.

Satan was a living, breathing member of the family the entire film, and it was all about him recruiting a new prize. HE was the "phantom menace" all along. Can you imagine if Anakin's turn had been conducted with even a fraction of the craftsmanship on display in this film?
 
I thought I had already indicated that I believed that the title referred to
Thomasin
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
a coven.

It is indeed a
witch origin story and if it were directed by Nolan it would have been called "The Witch Begins" with Thomasin in the title role.
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
Thomasin's naked silhouette. Of course, once again, you don't know it's actually her on the poster until you see the final scene of the film.

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:

If the family had moved out to the edge of the forest minus Thomasin that the witches would just have slaughtered them outright and cooked their kids, etc. But Satan had other plans. First and foremost he wanted Thomasin. He probably couldn't care less about whether his "ladies" looked young or could fly. He just wanted HER. So I imagine that they were following Black Phillip's very calculated plan of psychological warfare. Taking just the baby at first, sparing the others, setting Caleb free (and even to the point of retaining his Salvation) just to sow more seeds of distrust and strife within the family. He needed the parents to turn on Thomasin and since to her they were a surrogate voice for God he needed her to think that He had forsaken her too.

So the kids were taken at specific times to mess with the parents, then the parents got so messed up Thomasin turned against them and at that point his work was complete.

Satan was a living, breathing member of the family the entire film, and it was all about him recruiting a new prize. HE was the "phantom menace" all along. Can you imagine if Anakin's turn had been conducted with even a fraction of the craftsmanship on display in this film?

Yep... It was that very fact of
Satan pulling the strings the entire time and the psychological attack he had on the girl that really had the film stick with me.
 
Yep... It was that very fact of
Satan pulling the strings the entire time and the psychological attack he had on the girl that really had the film stick with me.


Exactly.
Thomasin couldn't be seduced outright, she had to be broken down and also have all of the people she loves taken from her. It was methodical and insidious, just like the Devil should be.
 
Exactly.
Thomasin couldn't be seduced outright, she had to be broken down and also have all of the people she loves taken from her. It was methodical and insidious, just like the Devil should be.

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

The Devils pact was enticing to her, it's that she had been broken down and betrayed over and over by those she loved the most, that she had nothing left for her but a horrible death, she felt that because of t
What had transpired, that she was already damned

As for Caleb...

I think it was the first Witch that had grabbed the baby that was seducing Caleb, you'll notice while the woman is quite beautiful, as she touches Caleb her right hand comes to Caleb's face and it is disgusting and old

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...

The Devils pact was enticing to her, it's that she had been broken down and betrayed over and over by those she loved the most, that she had nothing left for her but a horrible death,

Right.
She really wasn't left with much choice by then.

As for Caleb...

I think it was the first Witch that had grabbed the baby that was seducing Caleb, you'll notice while the woman is quite beautiful, as she touches Caleb her right hand comes to Caleb's face and it is disgusting and old

Possibly.
But there ARE several witches in the woods. And we know there were at least 2 that had animal familiars (the Hare and the Raven). The Hare was obviously the witch that seduced Caleb. And since the Raven was the one who tricked Katherine into thinking she was breastfeading Samuel I tend to think she's the one who took him.
 
Right.
She really wasn't left with much choice by then.



Possibly.
But there ARE several witches in the woods. And we know there were at least 2 that had animal familiars (the Hare and the Raven). The Hare was obviously the witch that seduced Caleb. And since the Raven was the one who tricked Katherine into thinking she was breastfeading Samuel I tend to think she's the one who took him.

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

Did the rabbit...
Rip apart the dog like that, or did the rabbit lure the dog to the Witch that then killed it?
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