The Blair Witch Project (1999) -- first review

Think of a time where you are sitting alone in the late hours of the night, preferably in an old house. You sit there quietly in the silent darkness before you start to hear unexplained creeks around the house, rustling of the tress in the wind outside, and all of a sudden, without any reason whatsoever, the tension inside you starts to build up, your mind at times causing your imagination to run wild. There is indeed a distinct level of creepiness that can occur being isolated in the quiet hours of night, and this is even amplified when outside, something which the characters of the ground-breaking horror film “The Blair Witch Project” have to face. And you face this creepiness, among other forms of terror, with them as you experience the film. 

While not the first horror film to utilize fictional “found footage” -- the immensely violent exploitation film “Cannibal Holocaust” being one of the very first -- “The Blair Witch Project,” an extremely low-budget horror film from 1999, was the first mainstream horror film to use this technique. Despite being quite the polarizing film which has received quite a harsh backlash, it was a true phenomenon when first released, and it has succeeded in making itself ingrained in recent American pop-culture. With a sequel and multiple other pseudo-documentary/”found footage” films like it, such as J.J. Abrams blockbuster mega-monster film “Cloverfield,” its influence is clearly felt. However, some argue that its influence is not a good one, for the gimmick of hand-held, shaky “found footage” type films is not appealing filmmaking -- and perhaps in the wrong hands it isn’t. However, when examined as its own film, “The Blair Witch Project” is in fact a remarkably effective and well-made horror film, championing the limitations of small budget and the ability to work with restraint. With what on the outside I thought looked to be gimmicky garbage is actually, in fact, genuinely great filmmaking.

We begin the film learning about these three young amateur filmmakers who supposedly are still missing, and the only evidence of what possibly could have happened to them is seen on these tapes found in the woods -- hence, “found footage.” These tapes document a paranormal investigation led by these three young people of a supposed urban legend, located in the deep woods of rural Maryland. The three characters, lead by the director, Heather, and her two friends and assistants, Josh and Mike, take to this project as a light-hearted camping trip in the woods. But once they start to get lost and have the paranoid feeling of being stalked, their journey turns into something terrifying. The opening 10 to 15 minutes of the film is straight exposition, but it is necessary in establishing plot, back-story, characters, and, in general, the feeling of this being a low-budget amateur documentary. Yes, it isn’t extremely interesting stuff, but it is handled quite economically, if anything. Some of the back-story about the urban legend, in particular, is important in understanding some of the elements later on in the film.

Much has been made about the controversy of how people were literally duped into believing that these tapes were real footage, partially because the filmmakers apparently advertised it as being “real.” It’s also fairly understandable (although obviously unlikely under a critical light) to have possibly believed this because the production, despite the minuscule budget, is quite remarkable in how believable and convincing it is. Sure, the characters can be a bit obnoxious and heavy-handed at times, but the performances are very good. However, the main reason that the film works is that it takes a bit of an unconventional and refreshing approach in its attempt to scare its audience. “The Blair Witch Project” doesn’t merely work on just realism to achieve its horror -- it is, in fact, most impressive in how it utilizes its setting to ultimate effect to create a subtly overbearing atmosphere that just continues to creep into the film.

Part of the setting’s effectiveness is that I deeply identify with the actual setting. Living in the United States and on the Pennsylvania/Maryland boundary line, I am extremely familiar with the type of woods the characters traverse. In fact, anyone who has lived in rural, forrest areas or who perhaps has experienced camping in the woods can probably relate. Additionally, I love films set in the wilderness, especially ones which heavily emphasize their environment in order to tell the story. This film is a perfect example. The cold and desolate nature of the forests help supplement the feeling of dread within the film. People have criticized this film as boring and that nothing happens. Ironically, a lot of the intrigue I find in the film is when supposedly nothing (visually) is happening. Visually, the film at times reaches the level of being entrancing. The endless shots staring into the woods -- staring into the darkness. What is heard, but what isn’t seen. The silences. Yes, according to traditional narrative standards, barring a few encounters and events along the way, little to nothing (on the surface) actually happens. It’s a film which works in tremendous restraint in showing very little, and instead allowing the audiences’ own imagination to do the scaring. It's not horror that works on gore or masked murderers. It doesn't even work on being afraid of ghosts or monsters or the supernatural. It's the tremendous feeling of isolation and vulnerability in the cold, desolate forest. The feeling of being alone and lost and stalked. 

Consequently, because of the pseudo-documentary technique of telling the story (which some dismiss as being merely a gimmick), the film actually invites us to become more involved in the setting and immersed in the characters’ immense frustration, panic, and terror in being lost, starving, and hunted. Not only is this despair felt psychologically within the conflict between the characters, but we also can share the characters’ experiences just as they are. The film works on an interesting dynamic of putting the viewer as a central observer of the action, due to the filmmaking technique being used. Whenever the camera stares off into the distance, we stare with it. Whenever the characters become silent in order to listen, we listen with them. A brilliant sequence deep into the film has the characters stumble across these bizarre stick figures hanging from trees. On its own the images are quite eerie in the way they are photographed, but what makes the scene most disturbing is the characters’ reaction to these stick figures. There isn’t anything too inherently scary or disturbing about this scene if witnessed on its own. However, at this point of the film, the characters’ and audience has already witnessed some creepy occurrences, and as an audience member you can connect with the feeling that the characters have of being lost and completely disoriented. So, furthermore, when the already growing insane characters‘ freak out over these relatively harmless stick figures, this allows the opportunity for the audience to become freaked out. After-all, sometimes there is nothing more unsettling then seeing other people freaked out. Here, the characters and audience feed off each other and experience things together. This is the ultimate goal of filmmaking, and it is achieved here so simply but at the same time so brilliantly. The scares are not created artificially, but come with context, and they are slowly built up through the setting, the atmosphere it creates, and the tension and emotions of the characters. The end result is at times intensely disturbing, exhausting, and mostly quite convincing.

So convincing, in fact, that some of the film was actually, in some ways, technically real. By “real”, I mean that some of the emotions and reactions of the actors were not fake but indeed genuine. Much of the film was improvised, and, in addition to the filmmakers literally giving the actors less food to eat each day (thus having them experience the feeling of going hungry), some of the sequences of the film, including one of the most terrifying, were actually staged by the directors, unknowingly to the actors, in order to draw out real frightened reactions and emotions from the actors. Additionally, in order to add to the realism in the film, the directors wisely chose to have the film remain ambiguous as to what is actually happening to the characters. This is a sign of good horror, for it retains intrigue all the way throughout. Like how in much of “The Exorcist” the story allows for as much rational explanation for the possession as possible, or in “The Shining” where we do not know exactly if the hotel is haunted or if it is just the family going insane -- these are horror films which deal with the supernatural, but do so in a relatively ambiguous way, helping people who are skeptical of ghosts, monsters, and demons find other things to be interested and afraid of within the story.  

I still personally remain very inexperienced within the horror genre, having seen mostly only a handful of the big classics and a few more recent gems like this film and “The Descent.” However, despite being very skeptical of this film at first, I must applaud the achievement filmmakers Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, not to mention performers Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Michael C. Williams for what was ultimately achieved here. As divisive as it may be, I reckon this to be a modern horror classic and genuinely great filmmaking. I wouldn’t call it a perfect film by any means, but its tremendous skill under low-budget, with great use of restraint, and expert use of setting, environment and character-audience interaction is something that I strongly admire and found very effective.