"The Witch" --- my honest opinion. *Spoilers possible*

[Landon D. Parks]

Just got back from an 11:00 screening of 'The Witch' (second time I saw it, wanted to give it a fair chance), and I must say: I really don't see the hype with the movie. It's painfully slow, and lacking in anything 'scary' except in a few select parts, and then the scares and eeriness are reduced by the heavy hitting score and sudden change to fast cuts...

I think the movie is trying to make the point that if you call someone a witch long enough, they might just decide to become one. However, much of the story made little sense.

 

The cinematography was pretty good, though I felt the look they choose did not help the film, given it's slowness. The other people leaving the theatre seemed to be in agreement with me on this: The film is way to dark to be as slow as it is.

Finally, I noticed an issue with the film that seems to really scream at me: It's painfully obvious that they shot the film at 1080p, and decided to leave the pillar-boxing in place for the DCP release. Most people probably did not notice this, but from someone who knows what to look for - I found the off-black pillar-boxes on the side to be very distracting. I wonder what their motive behind this was? It would have been pretty easy to do a few % blowup on the image to take care of it, and I don't really remember seeing any other 1080p-shot movies shown with the pillar-boxing...

 

I'm interested in hearing what others opinions on the film are. Perhaps it was just me, though many in the audience seemed to share much of my sentiments about the film.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Freya Black]

They wanted a 1.66 aspect ratio. Perhaps to reference European cinema or something but in any case 1.66 was their intention.

[Freya Black]

I saw the trailer for this some time ago and thought it looked like a great movie I might really like...

 

...apart from the overall visual look of the film which I though looked like complete ass and like they didn't bother to grade the movie at all or something. I guess it's not as bad as those adverts for floor cleaning products and laundry powder in that sense but it isn't working for me.

 

Still want to see the movie tho.

[Alex Lindblom]

Well as Freya said it was shot in a 1.66 ratio that's how it supposed to be seen. Thank goodness the pan and scan days are mostly over these days.

 

Interview with the cinematographer http://gocreativeshow.com/the-cinematography-of-the-witch-with-jarin-blaschke-gcs083/

[Landon D. Parks]

Well, thanks for that explanation. They may have wanted it, but I still think it was too distracting from the film. I hate any sort of letter boxing or pillar boxing, and in reality I doubt a few hundred pixels on each side would have changed the framing much... But I digress....

 

As for the cinematography - like I said earlier, it's okay - but it's not groundbreaking. It has that typical 'I'm a 16th century film' look to it. Muted colors, contrasty (pretty much a bleach bypass). If there had been more action, the look of the film might have served it better. But given that there each scene was painfully long and full of old-English dialogue that was hard to follow - combined with the dark theatre and dark mood of the film - it nearly put me to sleep several times - BOTH times I watched it.

I wanted to like it --- but apparently it just wasn't my cup-o-tea. I still can't see how it got such a high tomato rating, and is even sitting at 8/10 on IMDb... It's just average at best.

[Freya Black]

As for the cinematography - like I said earlier, it's okay - but it's not groundbreaking. It has that typical 'I'm a 16th century film' look to it. Muted colors, contrasty (pretty much a bleach bypass).

 

 

I would have said it was more low contrast and desaturated. For me it's not a good look although it sort of works on this frame:

 

 

[Freya Black]

A whole movie that looks like that would quickly tire my eyes. The trailer already made me feel that way.

[Miguel Angel]

Hi!

I went to watch it tonight and I actually loved the movie.

 

The pace is absolutely brilliant, every single thing is super measured and the framing is quite perfect for the type of movie that "The Witch" is.

 

In my opinion, the 1.66 ratio is a great election for the movie because it makes you feel a bit disorientated at the beginning, as the family is and then it becomes part of the story and gives the visual look of the movie its strength.

 

Again, I am the very first one who doesn't like flat images but the cinematography of "The Witch" is full of subtleties and tones and yet very monochromatic which helps sell the idea of it being in New England at that time.

 

The interiors of the movie are brilliantly done and although they have a really naturalistic approach, you can see that every single frame was very well thought and lit.

 

I remember one sequence where the older girl is praying and the texture and quality of the image introduces you in "The Witch's" world.

 

As for the directing part, I definitely think that it is very well directed.

The director knows exactly what to not show and what to show and where to guide the viewers within the frame.

The actors are just fabulous and the older fella is by far the best one in the movie.. the way he looks at his older sister, the way he follows his dad, everything!

 

There is also a lot of tension, helped by the pace of the movie, which is released at the end, creating a massive sense of discomfort.

 

The only thing I would have changed is the idea of the witch, as opposed as showing it and letting the viewer know that there are witches, that they are real, I would have played with the character's psychology a bit more, but that's just a really minor point :)

 

Have a good day!.

[Landon D. Parks]

I agree it was a descent movie.... Though I really didn't enjoy it. I found that the slow nature of 'getting to the point' was torture, and a lot of it was what I would consider 'filler'. It had its chilling moments, but it just didn't 'work' for me. The 1.66:1 was okay, but in the theatre I saw it in, it was distracting having the grey bars on the side - just seemed out of place. Honestly, would 1.85:1 been so different from the 1.66:1 ratio that it was worth the trouble.

 

I still think the film was just too dark. It suffered from the same effect as Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, which was a good movie - though the constant darkness and lack of color was tiring on the eyes.

[Miguel Angel]

Well, to each its own! :)

It is good that we have different opinions! It would be very boring otherwise ha!

 

I saw the movie with black bars on the side too as I was expecting it and maybe because I saw it in a small screen the black bars weren't distracting me.

 

I think that if you enter the world of the movie at the beginning, then you are just amazed by it, if you don't, you just get tired and bored!

 

Same case as with Lost River! :)

 

Have a good day!

[Freya Black]

It really looks like a good movie!

One of the first that has had me excited in a long time.

However I really don't like the look of it.

Maybe it works when you see it all in context but I suspect I just don't like this kind of look and other people are okay with it.

I've never been able to get my head around that but I've had discussions about it with people and can only conclude that it is a problem with my personal taste as plenty of other people have no issue with this kind of look.

 

On the upside I saw High Rise and liked the way it looked and really enjoyed the movie too in spite of the fact it turned out to be a lot like I was worried it might be, only about 1000 times more full on. Actually the full on from start to finish part of it helped the movie I felt. So that was also good news on the cinema front. :)

 

Anyway...

Edited April 5, 2016 by Freya Black

[Jarin Blaschke]

I'm strangely pleased that the look of the film is as divisive as the rest of it. Rob wanted the film to feel visually oppressive, and we were constantly chasing the weather to keep the exteriors gloomy. There is less done in the grade than you think- that is real gloom. However, the cyan color and "under exposure" startles even me when I see it on a computer out of context, as opposed to settling in to the world in a theatre where you mentally recalibrate to what you're looking at over the 90 minutes. Another circumstance to remember is that of the wild variation in projection quality across a wide release. Sadly our darker scenes must surely be scarcely visible when projected from ill maintained projectors. It will be even worse across TV screens and computers which are "calibrated" all over the place. There is great pressure to grade things safely in the middle of the tonal range for this reason, and the lack of standardization in presentation is severely limiting the expression of craftspeople who do what we do. Nonetheless I took a little bit of a risk in sticking to my guns rather than play it safely toward the middle, where it wouldn't look like our movie.

 

As far as 1.66, we just find it more pleasing and harmonious to compose, as well as more timeless. I consider 1.85 as a frame a very contemporary arrival to the arts in general, and always gives a tinge of the contemporary when you look at an image within that frame. So 1.66 was not supposed to evoke another kind of cinema, quite the contrary- we hoped to help move an audience to a time before cinema in a subtle way. And it was a pleasure to compose, too.

 

J

[Miguel Angel]

Thanks for coming in and writing about the movie Jarin!

 

I rewatched it today and still think that it is a beautiful movie with a very well thought look, thanks for not grading it on the safe side.

 

By the way, buena suerte en Barna!!

[Gregg MacPherson]

I was wondering about this film, after the opinions showed up here. I was really glad that the cinematographer spoke up. Also, Im glad that Miguel is such a neutral, or by default optomistic element in the dance.

 

Hope to see it soon.

[Freya Black]

Gregg, are you suggesting that it's not good to have opinions?

 

The reason I'm asking is because I think it's really important to have opinions and for people to discuss them.

I have noticed a slide in certain sections of society towards only being able to really discuss a very limited subset of subjects where there is an agreed consensus in their group.

I do not see this as a good thing for the people involved themselves or the world in general.

 

In the past it's been okay to have strong opinions about music for instance and it thankfully maintains a lot of that although I'm noticing a severe slide even there at this point.

Fine Art has always been a more difficult area in the past but I would like to think that film and movies could be more like music than fine art in this regard.

 

Jarin wins lots of points with me for having the right attitude in this regard!

 

Big up to Jarin!

 

Freya

[Gregg MacPherson]

Freya..."..Gregg, are you suggesting that it's not good to have opinions?"

 

No. I'll read myself carefully and look for this apparent social misstep.....didn't get it.

[Freya Black]

Probably more to do with me and what's going on in my head right now Gregg.

I should probably try to stave off posting so much for a while.

 

Freya

[Gregg MacPherson]

Freya, stop worrying.

 

I started watching The Witch. The photography and the language make it feel quite immersive. There is some real potencey. I have to admire it.

 

I'm noting that almost every image is taken from the observable environment. The abstract states existing in the mind or heart are expressed that way. So, though it is obvious to say, and obvious to all, I suppose, it is a sort of exquisite photoplay. Is it those roots, the photoplay, that make the film makers ignore the full range of observable, expressive objects in the environment. For example, what does terror look like when expressed in a tiny part of a human iris. I often imagine these kinds of things, but I seldom see them in a film.

[Miguel Angel]

Rewatched it again today. Beautifully shot and directed!

 

I wonder if the following scenes were lit just with the candles or if Jarin had something else (for the close-ups I mean).

Hopefully he comes back to the post and says something about them because they are absolutely impressive! :D

 

Scene 1

 

 

 

 

Scene 2

 

 

 

 

 

Scene 3

 

 

Scene 4

 

 

Have a good day!

[Jay Young]

I read that they did shoot all candle lit, but some shots had extra candles on stands that could be brought in; a large Kubrick. Having just watched this for thexample first time a few weeks ago, I was interested to read up on it.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Jay Young

[Dom Jaeger]

I loved The Witch, one of my favourite films from last year.

 

Mostly shot on a 32mm Cooke Speed Panchro, I believe.

 

Jarin shared some lens test stills with Filmmaker Magazine, where he compared a whole stack of vintage lenses from Panavision during the prep for The Witch, quite interesting I thought:

 

https://filmmakermagazine.com/97621-the-witch-dp-jarin-blaschkes-lens-tests-with-stills/

[Miguel Angel]

Thanks for the link Dom!

 

Have a good day!

[Jarin Blaschke]

Miguel:

 

As to the scenes you posted, yes, they were all shot exclusively by some sort of flame. Triple-wick candles, supplemented by a cluster of tea-lights can serve you as wide as a medium shot, if you are fine with a -1 1/2 stop to -2 exposure, which felt right for our dim interiors. Such is the case with the medium shot in "Scene 4." Sneaking the source right up to the edge of frame, there was actually enough light to use our usual lens, the T2.3 Cooke Speed Pancho, and not the rare 35mm T1.4 Baltar used for other wider candle-lit shots such as in "Scene 1." That shot of the kids around the candle in the garrett may be my favorite in the film. I'm a fan of omnidirectional, fast fall-off light sources and will use bare bulbs in contemporary pieces for the same effect.

 

The campfire in the woods is an effects department gas flame. The flame was ridiculously high to light the scope of the shot, so I had to put William in front of it.

 

A long gas flame slinky lit the hearth in scenes 2 and 4.

 

Seeing the shot of the twins here, it shocks me how I screwed that up. Why did I hide the extra tea lights off frame right? They all belong behind that block of wood in the center of frame. Instead, Mercy's light is pasty and flat.

 

 

I'm shooting a 1.85 film right now, reiterating how perfect I find the 32mm focal length... I almost need a special reason not to use it...

 

-Jarin

[Miguel Angel]

Hi Jarin!

Thank you very much for the kind answers!

 

My favourite shot in the film is the wide from "Scene 2", it is so powerful!!

Also, the moment where we see the older daughter in the cabin at the end, after all the things that happened.

 

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to answer the questions! :)

Have a lovely day!

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Hello Jarin, thanks for sharing info here.

I'm very curious about the 35mm T1.4 Baltar lens you have mentioned. From what I read at the time of release, I thought that you mixed old Cookes and "regular" Super Baltars for certain shots. But Super Baltars aren't T1.4. Maybe you used something different?