Talk:The Witch (2015 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reception section needs to be added[edit]

This article is missing information on the film's reception, there was plenty of reviews on the film from its Sundance release which should be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be renamed[edit]

The article needs to be renamed back from The VVitch (2015 film) to The Witch (2015 film), the film is specifically titled The Witch, only stylized as The VVitch, officially by the film studio A24 and the filmmakers. (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.75.45 (talk) [reply]

Themes[edit]

There should be a themes section in this article. The film has been said to carry elements of coming-of-age, religion, family values and everything that comes along with it, I think there should be a part where all of this is discussed as they are in reviews and blurbs. --Matt723star (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to watch every witch way Tamiann12 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to add credit[edit]

Leaving a note to remind myself to find RS and add credit for Sarah Stephens as the young version of the witch. JamesG5 (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section is too literal[edit]

Here are some reviewers:

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. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/the-witch-review
there are plenty of ways to interpret the events and themes of The Witch, the mark of a good, heady horror film. http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/witch-fear/Content?oid=6045292
we glimpse a disturbing image of the boy’s fate in the form of some unspeakable blood rite, though it’s unclear whether something satanic is actually taking place, or whether these are merely the nightmarish visions of William and Katherine, who fear that their unbaptized son is not just lost but damned. http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/sundance-film-review-the-witch-1201411310/
As writer-director Robert Eggers has said, he wanted the movie to feel like “a Puritan’s nightmare,” like what would happen “if I could upload a Puritan’s nightmare into the audience’s mind’s eye.”
[When asked] "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?"
[Eggers says] "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. ... 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" http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/23/the_witch_director_robert_eggers_on_the_real_history_behind_the_movie_s.html

All this indicates that the Plot section should make it clear we are not sure if we are seeing paranoia or ... what an actual witch is actually doing. (for example, if the witch is real, why no back story? A rather important figure -- tormenting, kidnapping, killing, stealing from the story's characters. We never hear her say a word. Living in the middle of the wilderness, dressing and otherwise appearing to be a European at a time (circa 1630) when the few Europeans in North America are recently arrived and living in fortified settlements. And at the end we see several witches. How did they get there? What do they do when there are no banished, isolated European settlers to prey on? Strong arguments for hallucination IMHO.

That last question is pertinent to many horror movie monsters. "What's the ecology here, exactly?" An undefined amount of time elapses as we cut from one shot to the next, and this is routinely exploited by film makers to hide or create ambiguity. Both Thomasina and the baby appear to be happy and relaxed playing peekaboo. There is no prima facie reason to suppose that the cuts are not continuous. But then the abduction can hardly have happened; the woods are too far away for the abducting entity to clear T's line of sight. Unless T has some sort of (hunger-induced?) absence during the last eye shut (a longer period of time which is hidden from us by the cut), giving the abductor ample time to make off with S. Or unless T is complicit, and what we see is the lie she tells later (clues for the it was all T theory: he was lying on that same red robe that the "witch" is seen wearing; and brother Caleb felt tempted by his sister). Eggers deliberately tries to frame the entire film on the knife-edge between two interpretations, as he states clearly, and perhaps we should not attempt to force the issue one way or the other. What we see is: the woods are menacing; girl and baby brother play happily; suddenly he is gone; an old crone runs through the forest, holds a knife to the baby, there is blood, she floats (and is lit so as to look like a Goya drawing of a witch). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4A4:92EC:C797:8C5C (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

Change

One day, while Thomasin is playing with Samuel, a witch who lives in the forest abducts Samuel. The witch kills him and uses his blood and fat to make a flying ointment, which she rubs over herself.
to
One day, while Thomasin is playing with Samuel, the baby disappears. We see a red-cloaked figure running away through the woods carrying the baby, and later killing the baby and using his blood and fat to make a flying ointment, which she rubs over herself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change

The plot follows a Puritan family encountering forces of evil in the woods beyond their New England farm.

to

The plot follows a Puritan family encountering forces of evil in the woods beyond their New England farm, forces that may be either real or imagined. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic Temple mention[edit]

Someone removed this edit so I went ahead and re-added it because it is worthy of being on this page. It's properly sourced and is mentioned throughout most reviews and blurbs written about the film. If it happens again I suggest a debate, because their reason was it was from "an obscure group", which, in my professional opinion, is complete bias. --Matt723star (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre editing[edit]

Is it plausible to change the genre from horror to maybe period horror? Does that the director have to come out and say it's that kind of genre or can we go by all of the reviews that mention vividly the period film parallels? --Matt723star (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Witch (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the edition employed to hide horror from the main sight[edit]

That's not really English, is it? Are we talking about editing here?2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:4A4:92EC:C797:8C5C (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The VVitch[edit]

The film should continue to be referred to in the article as The Witch, not The VVitch, in my opinion. I don't believe Wikipedia has to follow the typographic oddities used in promotional material from filmmakers. And I'd point to MOS:TITLECONFORM, "Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works, including ... conversion of various emphasis techniques", and MOS:CONFORM, "A quotation is not a facsimile and, in most cases, it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved". I checked several of the more reliable secondary sources cited in the article, and they have also opted for The Witch. Meticulo (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur wholeheartedly. A title does not change just because a graphic designer has had their way with it. There are no V's in this title, just as there are no numerals in Thirteen Ghosts. Trying to match to graphical treatments is ridiculous and terribly ill-advised. Just imagine if Wikipedia readily accepted articles with such nonsense—do you know how to type that backwards Cyrillic letter in KoЯn or the infinity symbol in H∞bastank? 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is ample historical precedent for this particular stylisation. see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discoverie_of_Witchcraft 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3194:A34E:7146:EE90 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that the stylization is invalid. I support mentioning in the opening sentence that the film's title can be stylized as The VVitch. It is about how to present the title in the article body after the opening sentence. The stylization here for this proprietary work is more a trademark issue, and MOS:TMRULES says, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration... unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name." Many reliable sources simply write The Witch, and Wikipedia can follow these sources and write The Witch throughout the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

The plot section still misrepresents important parts, essentially giving one person's POV, even worse, interpretation, going so far as decribing things that are not even shown on screen. --Echosmoke (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Wouldst thou like to live deliciously? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § Wouldst thou like to live deliciously? until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Witch_(2015_film)&oldid=1209443683"