Robert Eggers “can’t stand” rewatching The Witch
Well, this just makes us want to watch the director's dazzling debut film all over again
Aux News Robert Eggers
With his third film on the way, director Robert Eggers is revealing a his true feelings about his 2015 debut The Witch. “Honestly, I can’t stand watching The Witch now,” Eggers tells The Guardian in an interview.
“It’s not that it’s bad, and the performances are great, but I was not skilled enough as a filmmaker to get what was in my brain onto the screen,” he continues.
The Witch earned strong reviews, and it marked a stellar debut for Eggers as well as Anya Taylor-Joy, who would move on to become a household name with Netflix sensation The Queen’s Gambit. The feature helped launch both of them—as well as distributor A24—into the big time. Eggers would follow up The Witch with the surrealist sailor feature The Lighthouse, starring Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe.
“In The Lighthouse, I was able to do that,” Eggers continues. “And The Northman, I’m proud of the movie, but not everything is quite what I hoped it would be. So I would like to do something with the scope and scale that I can actually get what’s in my imagination onto the screen.”
Eggers and Taylor-Joy have linked up once more for The Northman, a Scandinavian-set Viking revenge tale also starring Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Ethan Hawke, Dafoe, and Björk. It’s Eggers’ biggest production yet, which meant that for the first time he faced the hassle of dealing with test screenings and pressure from big production companies.
“My first two films were all tested for marketing, but I didn’t have to change anything. So this was new, and as much as I didn’t like that process, I did learn something from it,” Eggers said. “But more than that, this is the film I wanted to make. This is my director’s cut. The studio pressure made the film what I originally pitched to them, which was the most entertaining Robert Eggers movie I could make. Honestly, without their pressure, I couldn’t have done that. It’s hard for me to tell a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end, for goodness’s sake.”
Next, Eggers wants to go back to his indie roots and create something on a much smaller scale than the expansive The Northman.
“I certainly want to do something smaller, and not just because of the pressure and the pain, which is super real,” Eggers added, “but also because I learned so much on ‘The Northman,’ which was really a film that was way too big for my britches. And I finally feel like I actually know how to make a movie now, you know?”
98 Comments
From all the reviews of The Northman, it’s looking like it’s going to be great, so I don’t know why Eggers is going on the press junket like “this movie is so bloated and the studios fucked around in it all the time”, even if he ultimately concludes he likes it
He’s just hard on himself. He’s still only 3 movies deep, and his first was better than most seasoned directors… but at least he’s humble about still learning the craft. It’s rare.
It’s an odd kind of humble-brag, to be sure.
That’s my favorite kind.
I don’t know if it’s a brag. He seems like a perfectionist with an absolutely meticulous attention to detail, so I can imagine him being a bit sore about not having 100% control over the final product.
I mean, its a pretty valid reason to be upset about when studios fuck around with your movie.
Something I find interesting about his response is not that they “fucked around with my movie”, which is NOT what he said. But that he got notes. And it was focus tested. From which he *learned* things.Everybody shits on studio execs and studio notes. What most people don’t understand is that most studio notes don’t COME from execs. The execs disseminate them, and the asshole ones might take credit for them, but 9.9 times out of 10, those notes come from professional story analysts. People whose JOB is to read scripts and provide feedback. That’s what they do professionally, and most come from film educations, not business educations. Basically execs take the notes provided by analysts, which are generally substantive, and add their own business-related thoughts. Which are generally the kinds of things people bitch about online.
I’d be really curious to hear more about where The Witch failed to meet his vision. That jumped to the top of my favorite horror movies of recent memory. The only problem is that it’s so damn hard to understand what anyone is saying.
The very end was mleh
This. It’s phenomenal until the last 15-20 minutes, where it basically devolves into a slasher film. I liked the final few minutes, but the slasher bits were uninspired.
Given that he specifically mentions that his new movie has a beginning, middle, and end, that was my first thought. The very ending of the Witch was solid, but the fifteen minutes before it was standard-issue “chase/bloodbath in place of actual tension.”
I disagree – I felt like the way everything hits the fan at the end is the payoff for the slow build up to it, and the Black Philip scene was creepy and fun at the same time. I mean, it became a meme. I’ve seen the quote on T-shirts. The ending is what sticks around with you after you’ve forgotten everything else that happened in the movie.
I thought it was just right, and also earned. It may not be the kind of ‘feminist’ moment a lot of viewers want, but there is no doubt that our Girl is having the absolute time of her life – during a time when there wasn’t much of either, and certainly not much deliciousness. I know that isn’t the message soI Want A Sequel!
I have gotten into so many online arguments about that ending. I love that ending, but I see a lot of people reading it as hopeful/positive/feminist in a way that betrays everything leading up to it. With a modern eye/sensibility, and assuming that it is purely metaphor and not literal, it IS hopeful/positive/feminist. But taken as the consequence of the actual events of the actual narrative, it is horrific almost beyond comprehension. She’s not “free” of the “yoke” of her family/religion, she has been maneuvered by the literal Devil into a pact for her soul in exchange for earthly power. Everything she was afraid of happening as a devout girl (even with her straining and doubts, she WAS earnest in her faith) happened. How is that hopeful or positive? It just drives me nuts when some 2020 Wiccan Earth Mother praises that ending for being “uplifting” or whatever.
I don’t think they are considering what has come before because the subject and ‘theme’ appear to reward the conclusion that it’s feminist. Maybe that’s an intentional subversion. Eggers himself has been ambiguous about this. That’s smart, but now he says it isn’t the film he wanted. Ambiguity is still such a great device, but I don’t think a lot of film makers really get how it works; audiences either.
Well, without getting into another bugaboo of mine that has caused me a lot of argument, I think a fair bit of that whole ending discussion is Death of the Author shit.**Which is a fine and perfectly valid critical philosophy so please don’t any fucking Lit academics get shitty with me.
In his original ending, Black Phillip tells everyone, “I have to go now. My planet needs me.” Then he flies off.
The only problem is that it’s so damn hard to understand what anyone is saying.When I first saw it I smarmily thought to myself “heh, if this was really 17th century New England we wouldn’t understand much of their English” and then low and behold I had to turn subtitles on lol
Is this like when the straight A student does nothing but complain about how bad they are, and how they are just sure they are going to get a failing grade?
Pretty much.It’s an incredibly annoying impulse… and it’s also often the impulse that drives them to be straight A students in the first place, so it’s hard to argue with even if it’s annoying to listen to.
I really don’t know how someone like Eggers is supposed to respond to gushing praise. I mean, what’s the correct response to a question like: “Everyone thinks the VVitch is just so great and it launched Taylor-Joy AND A24… how did you get it so right for your very first movie?”
Not really? It’s Art so there’s not some official and largely objective assessment of the work. And even if that were the case the movie is 7 years old now plenty of people can look back work they did that long ago and cringe at the cracks in it they can see.
I think the feeling that he’s describing, that he wasn’t able to properly get what was in his head on to the screen because of his own inexperience and limitations is an absolutely fair self assessment. Plenty of professionals can do what they’re good at and still be dissatisfied with something they’ve done even if other people are perfectly happy with it. And in this industry in particular, it’s not altogether unheard of for actors to dislike watching their own movies, so I don’t see why a director couldn’t have similar misgivings when watching their own work.
So a filmmaker who has since completed two more feature films and now feels that he could have done an even better job with his first one than he did…isn’t allowed to, because it is already so good as it stands? We’re going to ridicule someone for citing that he had a vision that he feels he didn’t quite land on and would do a better job of now? Yeesh, the internet can be a lousy place sometimes.
What a wonderfully honest man. We should all aspire to this level of artistic transparency.
For some of us (possibly a lot!), this level of artistic transparency begins in the head and stops productivity. I don’t think we should aspire to that. We should aspire to his level of *pushing through*. Self-awareness can be a goddam curse.
Moar Black Phillip! Moar deliciousness!
Wouldst thou like the taste of upvotes?
I enjoy rewatching The Witch more than The Lighthouse. Everyone is so good in that film, even the kids, and while The Lighthouse has good performances I think The Witch is creepier and, weirdly, more assured in its directing.
I mostly agree, though I would say that the issue with The Lighthouse has more to do with the writing than the directing.
I’m in automatically for The Northman, because of The Witch. He can claim “lack of skill as a filmmaker,” but his first movie was a “how to” on making a horror movie. Most movies of the horror genre are horror-ble.
Apparently, it’s really hard to make a good one. And Eggers beat the odds, not only make a good horror movie, but making an excellent one!
Spoken like someone who doesn’t actually watch horror films.
Spoken like someone who thinks I give a fuck about their opinion.
Enough to swear at me 3 weeks later.
I thought The Witch was truly great, but The Lighthouse sucked.I studied and taught film, writing and literature for a long time and feel fine saying that sometimes artists should just stfu about their work. Don’t malign yourself or your projects; there are plenty people out there to do that.
the one thing The Lighthouse has going for it, is no real story. It’s freeing. I’d rather watch that, than be distracted by a poor story. Movies are atmosphere anyway, draped over one of a few possible structures.
That’s one way of describing a film – and I like it. But instead of replying, I’ll link this review which I was relieved to find after I’d made up my own mind (because I went to school with “Film Kids” too): https://www.popdust.com/the-lighthouse-review-2641321075.html
Hilarious review. Ironic subtext too, given the author.
I did read that review, it’s certainly a well-written point of view. I’m just more of a “did I like it” kind of movie watcher. I think I laughed a lot more than most people at this movie. (I thought it was a comedy…)
That’s weird, I read the review and found it terribly written – and saw almost nothing actually about The Lighthouse, outside of a few off-hand compliments? I dislike artsy-for-artsy’s sake shit as well, and I never attended any kind of schooling so I’ve never met a Film Kid, and I have zero interest in black and white shots AND I honestly disliked what I saw on the trailer – still enjoyed the movie. Appreciated what it brought to the table.It was tense, stupidly well acted, charismatic, visually striking, and it never felt like it dragged. I probably didn’t like it as much as I liked The Witch, but that was an easier movie to like.Being a well regarded black and white film doesn’t make it inherently pretentious. Especially when it’s depicting an era that pre-dates color photoraphy. It felt fitting and after a few minutes, is completely irrelevant.
That review does betray a bit of pique. It was written by a woman who – I’m afraid, like me – is weary of the same old guy-paradigms that make male-centered dramas so popular: competition and dominance, primarily. But as I watched it I recalled my first lit class where the professor intoned the three kinds of dramatic conflict: Man against nature, man against man, man against himself. The Lighthouse’s pacing was good, there were nice dynamics in terms of intensity, moments of humor and those three classical modes. But that was it for me. I’ve seen/read so many of the same they’re all starting to look alike.
I don’t get it. Disney has made the exact same movie now like 25 times, and they are universally beloved everytime.How many black and white semi-horror period character studies are you guys watching where you’re worn out on this? I wouldn’t mind watching some of them actually, this one surprised me with how much I liked it – again as I was expecting it to be a real slog.
The kinds of things you didn’t notice, by your own admission because you aren’t versed, are what make it inherently pretentious. Which doesn’t take away from anyone’s enjoyment, it just means that when discussing the film’s merits from a critical POV it’s hard to avoid the subject of what Eggers was aiming for with his directing technique and screenwriting. As a screenwriting wonk variety of Film Kid, I look at The Lighthouse as leaning pretty hard into pretentious territory. He’s more interested in the Act of Arting than he maybe should be. IF you care about narrative in film.
I’ve never understood why people try to force boxes around all films. To “care about narrative in film” implies it is necessary for all films to revolve around (or even contain) narrative…why must that be the case? It’s the same thing I see all the time when a movie I enjoy is stamped as “slow” in a bad way…not “I found it slow, so not really for me” but “this movie isn’t good because it’s so slow”. We get it, lots of people don’t care to have movies breath or contain quiet moments…I hold zero umbrage over anyone not preferring that in film, but I can’t stand when that is simply declared bad. News flash: some of us appreciate the variety of differing efforts. I care about narrative in film, but I don’t demand it if the film gives me enough other worthwhile stuff. I also don’t demand that my narrative always be clearly locked in place, as opposed to open to interpretation.
That review totally crushed it out. Thanks for sharing.
You’re welcome.
Exact same boat. Loved Witch, jazzed for Lighthouse, thought it sucked. There was a Q&A after the movie with the actors and Eggers that I was hoping would enhance it in some way but Eggers kinda came off as not really knowing what he was doing and sorta dumb. Just sort of about research and mimicry over insight and interpretation, which sounds like it might describe the Northman. Dunno, still open to it tho. Dafoe seems like a delight.
I’ve seen the trailer and it has some Witch vibes. Like Lighthouse, it’s very stylized, but it also looks like a very grand music video: the ‘realism’ of Viking life raised to an unrealistic pitch. You can tell that it wants to be ‘Epic’. My personal peeve is that I’m tired of Kidman’s “I’m too lovely-yet-spooky af, look at me” and the Skarsgards get larger than life roles just because of their brand. I really want to see some new talent. Also, I’m done with all the macho hacking and conquering and revenging. I guess we’ll see what Eggers can do with 60 million.
Kidman’s “I’m too lovely-yet-spooky af, look at me” She’ll have some competition if she’s on the same set as Björk.
So true.
I’ll take macho hacking and conquering and revenging from an A24 period flick over the absolute slog of a nothingburger that was The Green goddam Knight. It’s a gorgeous movie but holy fuck, what a waste of my time. How on earth did A24 manage to make a TTRPG out of that?
I was unable to feel anything about The Green Knight’s protagonist or his journey. Beautiful woodland shots, but the film felt like that very sad, soggy sandwich left on the tray at the close of a reception. I was not nourished.
The problem, I think, is that Lowery decided to turn Gawain and the Green Knight into an origin story instead of what it originally was, which was a lesson for an already-existing knight. The point of the original poem was that Gawain needed to be humbled, to be reminded that he’s just a man like any other. Movie Gawain is a bit of a shiftless layabout who needs to learn how to be a knight. And compounding that (imo) miscalculation is having SO FEW of those very episodic sequences (seriously, it was like a goddam road trip comedy sometimes) teach him a chivalric lesson. Getting his stuff stolen and then imagining himself dead because he was standoffish to the woodland thieves *seemed* like a good start. But then… kinda nothing for a huge stretch. The lake ghost gave me hope but then he moved on from that moment and it seemed like he just completely forgot about it. The trailers really pushed that sequence when he stands on the cliff shouting at the giants but shouting is fucking ALL HE DOES. (I know I’m preaching to the choir so the caps is weird, I just get worked up.)That’s why I think it’s weird that they made a game out of that. TTRPGs of the sort that A24 was clearly aping in their design (classic D&D) are all about, you know, STUFF happening. ADVENTURES. Imagine if a season of Critical Role was just Matt Mercer telling the players, “You stand on the side of the road while a raiding party of orcs marches by in beautiful slow motion technicolor, reminding you of the serving girl who bathed you only last week.” “Should we roll for initiative?” “No, you aren’t going to fight them. You only observe wistfully, in the artfully gloomy fog.”
Lol, Owing to your reply I’m actually able to remember the movie’s details now. So, you’re not preaching to the choir; that’s some good Gospel.
That scene with the giants is a good example of how easily one could miss the many things loaded into that film: besides beautiful visuals and sound, Gawain is prepared to “hitch a ride” to his destination, illustrating once again his willingness to seek short cuts in his quest of honor and chivalry. Plus, beyond that direct test, we could also read between the lines and ask: in his enthusiasm to embrace the short cut, did he blindly risk death at the hands of the giants? Did the fox ward off the giants to shoo away a short cut, or to save Gawain from a threat he wasn’t even seeing?The entire film examines the nature of honor and chivalry while also representing the personal struggle of an individual (meaning a lot of internal struggle). Yeah, that’s no straightforward adventure film…why is that a mistake? Does all adventure have to be external?The biggest mistake is that the marketing of the film fooled a lot of people into seeing a typical modern medieval adventure flick at a time when moviegoers we’re starved for both new product and quality escapism due to the pandemic…when it actually aligns much more with actual medieval storytelling, which tended to be much more concerned about internal rather than external struggle.I recently read The Mists of Avalon…while that book was badly in need of more editing to cut down on repetitive elements, that celebrated book was all about personal and internal struggle. Variety is good!
I’ll explain the intent behind The Green Knight and see what that does for you: it better represents the source material (both in terms of direct storytelling and larger purpose) than anything we’ve ever gotten before beyond the page regarding Arthurian tales. It revolves around heroic struggles and notions of chivalry and so on, and like the specific source material for the Green Knight tale it is heavily open to interpretations. We (modern society) prefer our Arthurian adaptations to be more about external heroism and chivalry, telling straightforward stories of conflict and resolution, but that isn’t what we get from where it all comes from.Adapted in keeping with what it is, most Arthurian source material does not align with expected modern entertainment. The Green Knight lives up to its source material magnificently…if you didn’t care for it, that suggests you also don’t care for the source material either, which is neither wrong nor demanding any apology. But I and plenty of other people loved it for that, and I will push back hard against any claim that it was a “waste of time” to make the most well-aligned adaptation of an Arthurian story we’ve ever seen. It was worth it for the attempt alone, assuming capable filmmaking (and it was loaded with capable filmmaking, even if one does not care for the end result in that case).It also blows my mind that anyone would refer to it as a “nothing burger”. If one didn’t “get” the purposes of the film or didn’t even try to get it, fair enough, but failing to get it is very different than believing “it” is not even there. That’s pretty inexcusable…it’s obviously doing a lot, whether that something works for a given viewer or not.
I ultimately like and respect the hell out of The Lighthouse, but I feel like it allowed Eggers to indulge his worst subtext-as-text, metaphor-worship instincts. Which is not uncommon among more “art-minded” filmmakers. One of the things I love so much about The Witch is that it *can* be viewed through the lens of metaphor but it can also be viewed perfectly straight. I think The Lighthouse doesn’t entirely work without leaning into the subtext, which imo makes it a “lesser” film. And he has been pretty upfront about the fact that he made a horror movie first because it was an easier point of entry into features. Which tracks for the “horror” elements of The Lighthouse. I don’t think he’s really devoted to the genre and only threw in some of the cosmic horror elements into The Lighthouse because he felt obligated.Which is fine and is his right, but as a horror devotee I’m always disappointed when talented filmmakers get weird about the genre.
To me, The Witch was just another retelling of the Puritan-era witch story that we’ve seen over and over again. It wasn’t badly done, but nothing particularly new. The Lighthouse was something new. Yes, it was a story about madness derived from isolation, which isn’t that new, but the actual setting kind of was. It was like something Melville could have written on acid or something.
“Melville on acid.” That’s good. Moby Dick is kinda freaky though. Other Puritan tales – are you thinking of The Crucible or The Scarlet Letter? Can you mention some others that I’m not recalling? The Witch is one of the creepiest takes on Puritanism that I think I’ve seen: a family cast out because they were actually too Puritan. Madness must always be a feature, but the baby – smooshing, nipple-ripping and the seduction of Thomasin still give me the occasional nightmare.
Hocus Pocus? (ducks thrown objects). But seriously, while The Crucible was the probably the best of the lot (even if despite Miller’s protests to the contrary it was more about McCarthyism than Puritans), there have been others such as the 1985 miniseries Three Sovereigns for Sarah, the 2014 series Salem, and the 2019 series Witches of Salem.
Thanks for the titles.
I agree- it’s tough to compare them because they are two very different films! I like them both but for different reasons.
I love the Lighthouse. It’s fantastic and ridiculously entertaining. Maybe not qui6e as good as The VVitch, but very good.
I didn’t hate The Lighthouse but I do find it quite overrated. My main problem is that it all felt quite surface level. None of it really got under my skin or freaked me out. Felt like Eggers got two actors and a location he liked, and didn’t really have much more than that.
Reviews are all over the place. This is interesting.
I think the problem is that Eggers was really focused on delivering the symbolism and not so much concerned with the actual narrative. There is story in the film but it kinda exists mostly to serve up metaphors.
I think there’s something a bit off-putting about someone trashing their own work that others love. Like Elaine’s dad on Seinfeld when George praises him. I don’t know that Eggers quite rises to that level, because I don’t get the sense he’s saying that his opinion of it is the way others should think? Like, if an artist/director/writer/etc. can truly let their work be what the audience wants it to be, I think it’s fine that they can also discuss that work from a similar remove. Like, this isn’t JK Rowling, which is an extreme example, but still.
Yes. Artists have every right to talk about their work, and promotion is a key part of bringing in new viewers/readers/listeners. But this kind of apologetic self-dissatisfaction is off-putting and strange. Maybe it’s a new strategy. Perfectionists can be annoying.
Oy. I always eagerly grant people their personal take, and The Lighthouse demands that it will land strong for some and weak with others and loopy with still more. But to just state “it sucks” makes me wonder whether someone who “studied and taught film” actually did either *well*. Nothing personal.If you strongly disliked it in general, fair enough. If you hated certain elements, fair enough. Would be great to see your particular thoughts on that, in fact. But what about what it does objectively well? The stark cinematography? The painstaking recreation of period setting and dialogue (my personal favorite aspect of both Eggers films thus far)? The acting performances he gets from his two leads? The mindbending examples of that acting being used to overlap two unreliable narrators? At a minimum, aren’t those worth praise and make for a film worth taking in even if not enjoyed? No?
The Witch is one of my all-time favorites. A lot of artists would struggle their whole career to create something only approaching The Witch, so holy hot damn this guy is hardcore.
Hmm. I might have to do a VVitch/Lighthouse rewatch. Double feature night!And yes watching Northman by default, first chance I get (ie stream)
I recall seeing The Witch at the theater, and the later quality of the BLU RAY was a bit lacking. As for the film, I liked it…but felt that the children in the film had far too much dialogue. The Lighthouse is a better piece of filmmaking, but The Witch is the better story. The Lighthouse essentially has no real story, it’s all atmosphere. Perhaps Eggers should novelize The Witch at some point? In any event, I hope the Nosferatu and Rasputin projects eventually come to light.
“And how do YOU like those very same apples, Eggers?!”
I had to scroll way too far to find this
Maybe I should revvatch it but I don’t remember exactly being blown away by The Witch. Kinda boring.
For me, Eggers is hands-down the best and most intriguing “new” director out there.
I’m going to give him a close second after Panos Cosmatos.
Respect. I think Mandy is an expert piece of craft with exquisite performances. I was unable to fully appreciate Black Rainbow, in part because of the strobe sequences (epileptic filmgoer here). But I am excited to see what he does next.
The first time I watched Beyond the Black Rainbow, I got *incredibly* pissed off and shut it off. It was the second angriest I’ve ever been at a movie. (The first was and remains House of the Devil.)But.Something about it kept picking at my brain so I went back and finished. And then watched it again.I still find it an enormous test of patience and I fundamentally disagree with his approach to the narrative (in reading about the movie I discovered that there was more of a script/story and they even filmed it but he thought it went against what he was trying to do so he just cut out sections). But I at least understand why he did it. And for as slow and deliberately annoying as the fucking thing is, I also kind of love it. The weirdness pays off.
I’m probably expecting way too much from Nekrokosm, but… Cosmatos + A24? That ticks some pretty important boxes.
I prefer Ari Aster, but only because he hasn’t been so weird in interviews about the horror genre. Eggers *almost* seems embarrassed to have had to start in horror.(That said, I think The Lighthouse is a much more interesting and better made sophomore effort. I bounced off Midsommar pretty hard. I didn’t think it was *bad*, but I did find it extremely predictable and kinda dull.)
See, I’m just the opposite. Despite it being well made/acted, I *hated* Hereditary, was expecting to feel the same about Midsommar, and was blown away by it.
Aster and Eggers hit right about the same time, and for that we are all very lucky, I think. But I hate to forget that Jeremy Saulnier is out there somewhere…
My issue with Midsommar was that I’d seen the superior original Christopher Lee Wicker Man.
a lot of first time filmmaker’s films are made by experienced and underappreciated DOPs. That could be part of the discomfort hes feeling. either way super excited to see this. Anyone criticizing him for his statements here should probably get a life or a better target for their snark
“get a life or a better target for their snark”- THE AV CLUB (hyperfocus on Barsanti)
Ok, just being picky but he didn’t say he ‘can’t stand The Witch’ but that he ‘can’t stand watching The Witch’. It’s different. He says he knows it’s got good stuff in, but it’s more to do with his approach to the film than the film itself.
Yeah I was definitely getting the vibe of “I hate watching my past stuff, all I see is the stuff I’d do differently now.” Which is a valid response for an artist, even if obviously their earlier efforts are what led to (hopefully) their more refined artistic expression in the future.
Yeah. A.V. Club is by far not the only ones doing this, though. I’ve read similar headlines from several horror sites.
One of my least favorite creator things is when they dismiss their most popular or most critically acclaimed work. It’s very difficult for me to see it as anything other than false modesty ego stroking.
There could be some false modesty in his remarks for sure. But, to me it read more as humility about his limits. Sort of like if you’re in a band and play a show. You remember every little missed note or cue, but the crowd never notices it. His Northman comments read to me that he appreciated the constructive nature of how the studio ‘managed’ him, even if he chaffed at it in the process.
I don’t disagree, but I think a lot of the issue with Eggers is that he is a little embarrassed by the horror genre. He’s been pretty upfront about the fact that he only made The Witch because horror is an easy genre to break into features.
The VVitch was terrible, but The Lighthouse was a-MAH-zing.
I agree with you, Robert. I cannot stand to rewatch it, either. The Lighthouse was a massive chore, too.
I made the mistake of watching The VVitch just after my first was born. And yeah….that first bit early on just kinda killed my ability to get in to it afterwards.
Have fun going on report, Eggers!
dunning-kruger.txt
What does teaching film and literature have to do with anything? Does that mean your opinion on a film should be taken more seriously than others? I think you suck and should stfu. Have you never looked back at something you’ve done and thought… I wouldn’t do that again. Or is your existence just that perfect? Pretty sure that how we grow as individuals.
The Witch was awesome, one of my favourite horror movies. It’s what the film does to one psychologically that makes it such a good film. Filling in the blanks to this film puts it on a whole new level completely. Never had a film do this as strongly as The Witch did. Everything to me felt right with what Robert Eggers was portraying. The whole mood of the film, the unnerving audio, the feeling of isolation and hopelessness, the family’s demise and the feeling of the family being trapped, it just all worked so well together how he filmed it all. Truely a masterpiece in my eyes. The Lighthouse was confusing for me and I wasn’t that impressed by it at all really. I liked how it got my curiosity going. I wanted to know what was going on as I watched it. After I watched it I was confused about it all. What was this film all about… A Lovecraftion monster? A film about someone going mad because of the situation they are in? After I watched the film I sat there mulling it all over. I was that confused by it I actually researched what the film was about, which I rarely do! When I found out it had some Greek mythology story or something going on, I was even more confused and overall disappointed.