Connect with us

Editorials

Genesis 31:52: ‘The Blair Witch Project’, Puritans, & the American Wilderness

Published

on

As an adolescent growing up in a rural area of Putnam County, New York, I would often lead my friends and family on woodland expeditions in search of spooky happenings. Whether it be a sweltering summer or a quiet snow day, we would go exploring. Popular spots included the broken-down car several acres behind our house, the quaint boulder-lined babbling brook, and, most importantly, the circular stone structures underneath a giant tree just a few acres from our front door. Though some friends have doubted me, this structure was in place when my family first moved into our house, and the geometric pattern of the stones excited me. Was it the work of local teenagers trying to freak out anyone who found the stones, or, were the stones placed there centuries ago for sinister reasons? I didn’t care. I was thrilled regardless because they reminded me of one of my favorite movies: The Blair Witch Project.

Like other semi-elder millennials, I learned of The Blair Witch Project’s existence from the movie Juno (2007), when Paulie scolds Juno for excusing their sexual encounter as something she initiated because she was bored, despite The Blair Witch Project airing later that day. After seeing Juno in theaters (twice), I watched The Blair Witch Project for the first time. I was totally taken by the characters and the eerie location, which, to me, felt very similar to my backyard. This is why The Blair Witch Project cemented itself in my psyche, and I’ve been nervous and thrilled by the woods ever since.

While at the State University of New York at New Paltz, coincidentally the same college attended by actor Michael C. Williams who plays Mikey, my professor John Palencsar stressed the significance of the wilderness to the social formation of the United States of America. Puritan settlers were terrified by the existence of the woods. The new woods of the Americas were uncharted by British settlers and represented opportunity and discovery for those brave souls who dare venture. However, the earliest Puritan settlers, once they learned of the existence of indigenous people who looked quite different from themselves and were therefore deemed wicked, viewed the woods as ungodly, and one could be punished for entering. Stories of “satanic magic” and kidnapping from indigenous people frightened most Puritans, and they associated the woods with the Devil himself. If you lived too far away from a church or moved to the frontier to escape religious conformity, deaths that occurred in your life were supposedly punishment by God for straying from the faith. This did not stop some Puritans from venturing into the woods despite knowing nothing about the new land. Unfortunately, many did not survive their journeys, much like the three documentary filmmakers of The Blair Witch Project.

The filmmakers, who knew nothing about the woods they were entering beyond the map (which swiftly becomes useless), were punished for their lack of knowledge and arrogance. When they happened upon several stone piles, Josh knocks one over, unleashing a cascade of horrors upon the group. These stones were referenced by Mary Brown, the wacky Burkittsville resident who claimed to have seen the Blair Witch. The stones directly related to a Bible verse, to which Heather paid no attention because she thought Brown was “a fucking lunatic.” Ignoring the religious roots of the area, the filmmakers effectively signed on for God’s punishment. Despite being prepared for the harshness of a New England autumn in the wilderness, they were ignorant – they did not heed the advice of the locals who swore by the legend of the Blair Witch and went into the woods anyway for the sake of their college documentary. They got lost after one day.

In the July 1999 Seattle publication The Stranger, film reviewer Charles Mudede describes the allure of The Blair Witch Project for folks like me: “Panic is exactly what the stunning, extremely unsettling new film The Blair Witch Project is all about – panic charged by fear of the unseen, of unreason; the monster lurking behind the trees, the spirits among the leaves, the dead under the stones, the souls in the river.” Nature is at the forefront of The Blair Witch Project, though the lingering fear of God’s punishment lies just under the surface. Mary Brown, clutching her Bible and speaking to deaf ears, warned of the stone piles. Genesis 31:52 states, “They stand between us as witnesses of our vows. I will never pass this pile of stones to harm you, and you must never pass these stones or this monument to harm me.” The arrogant filmmakers desecrated the piles, went beyond their boundaries, and God smote them. Later in the film, Heather films a dead rat on the ground, “What killed this dead mouse? Witchcraft?” “How ‘bout God,” asserts Josh. When I found the rock formation in my backyard, you better believe I refused to touch it, even though I am agnostic. Just as the townsperson proclaimed in her interview when asked if she believed the legend of the Blair Witch, “I am afraid enough not to go up there.”

Advertisement

Abigail Waldron is a queer historian who specializes in American horror cinema. Her book "Queer Screams: A History of LGBTQ+ Survival Through the Lens of American Horror Cinema" is available for purchase from McFarland Books. She resides in Brooklyn, New York.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

The Final Girl Was Never Me, Rewriting Survival in Black Horror

Published

on

I learned early on that I was not supposed to make it to the end of a horror movie. As a kid, I was drawn to slashers before I fully understood them. The VHS covers promised danger, chaos, and a kind of freedom that felt transgressive. Horror was loud, bloody, and thrilling in ways other genres were not. But the longer I watched, the clearer the rules became. The girl who survives is careful. She is observant. She is often white. She is someone the camera stays with, someone whose fear is treated as meaningful, even noble. Everyone else exists to prove the stakes. Black characters, especially Black girls, rarely make it past the first half of the movie.

The Final Girl as a Moral Framework

The final girl is not just a character archetype, she is a moral system. In classic slashers, survival is tied to innocence, restraint, and respectability. The final girl is allowed to be scared, but not unruly. She can scream, but only when it is justified. She can fight back, but only at the climax, after enduring enough suffering to earn it. Her survival reassures the audience that order can be restored. Those values were never built with Blackness in mind.

When Black characters appear in these films, they are rarely framed as people the story wants to protect. We are friends, sidekicks, background figures, or early warnings. Our deaths are fast and functional. Sometimes they are shocking. Sometimes they are played for humor. Rarely are they treated as losses the film wants us to mourn. The camera does not linger. The narrative does not slow down to grieve.

Watching Yourself Disappear as a Black Horror Fan

As a Black horror fan, I learned to accept this without ever being asked to. Loving the genre meant learning how to watch myself disappear. Horror trained me to identify with survivors who did not look like me, whose fear was treated as universal, while Black pain was treated as inevitable. Even knowing it was fiction, the pattern settled in. Who gets to live tells you who is expected to matter. This is why the final girl feels fundamentally different when she is Black.

When Black filmmakers and writers began reshaping the genre, the shift was not cosmetic. Films like Candyman, Get Out, and later Black-led horror did not simply place Black characters into existing formulas. They questioned the formulas themselves. The threat was no longer just a masked killer or a supernatural force. It was history, memory, and systems that follow Black characters no matter where they go. In these stories, survival is not about purity. It is about awareness.

Advertisement

Survival Through Awareness, Not Obedience

Black final girls do not survive because they obey the rules. They survive because they recognize the trap. Their fear is layered with cultural knowledge and lived experience. When danger appears, it is rarely surprising. It is familiar. The horror comes from seeing it made literal.

When a Black woman runs in a horror movie now, she is not just running from a monster. She is running from everything that has told her she should not be there, that she is disposable, that her fear does not deserve space. Her survival feels radical because it contradicts the genre’s long history of erasure.

Complexity, Joy, and Humanity in Black Horror

What makes this evolution powerful is that Black horror does not limit itself to suffering. Even when it confronts violence and trauma, it also makes room for humor, desire, anger, and joy. Black characters are allowed to be complex without being punished for it. They can be loud, flawed, scared, and still deserving of survival.

For me, the first time I saw a Black character positioned as someone the story wanted to protect, it was disorienting. I did not realize how much I had internalized until that moment. I was used to bracing myself for disappointment, for the early exit, for the confirmation that this ending was not meant for me. Seeing a Black woman make it to the final frame did not just change how I watched horror, it changed how I understood its power.

Survival as Defiance in Black Horror Cinema

Horror has always been about fear, but fear is shaped by context. For communities that already live with heightened vulnerability, survival fantasies carry a different weight. Black horror understands this. It treats survival not as a reward, but as an act of defiance.

Advertisement

When Black creators take control of the genre, they do more than add representation. They reframe what horror is allowed to care about. The final girl no longer exists to reassure the audience. She exists to endure, to remember, and to refuse erasure.

Loving Horror While Watching It Change

I still love classic slashers. I still enjoy their excess and chaos. But I watch differently now. I notice who the camera follows, whose pain is given time, whose death is treated as unavoidable. Horror did not always love us back, but Black creators are teaching it how.

The final girl was never me, until she was. And the genre is stronger for it.

Continue Reading

Editorials

Choosing Shock Value Over Writers Is Very Telling

Published

on

There is a huge difference between a movie being remembered for being good and a movie being remembered because it’s controversial. As a writer, I can forgive an okay film with an amazing script. However, I find it frustrating when it feels like no one believed in the project, so just leaned into the controversy. Stunts were pulled, shock value was sought after, and I am now wondering when the creatives stopped believing in their project.

Animal Cruelty as Shock Value in Horror Cinema

Cannibal Holocaust, a pivotal step toward found footage horror films as we know them today, is remembered for all of the scenes of sexual assault and the murder of actual animals. This takes away from its historical significance because the first thing I remember about it is watching a turtle get murdered and ripped apart. I have a similar issue with Wake in Fright. It’s hard to remember Donald Pleasence, Gary Bond, or the queer implications of this thriller because the filmmaker had kangaroos executed for this film. The scene feels like it goes on forever, and I’m yet to understand why murdering animals needed to be part of the process. 

I finally watched Megan is Missing a couple of years ago, and the exploitative nature of the assault of a fourteen-year-old is what stays with me. Whatever Michael Goi’s intentions were, they were lost because the shock factor of that moment outweighs everything else.

When Shock Value Replaces Meaningful Horror

It feels gross and like yet another male filmmaker mishandling assault on camera. Meanwhile, the film was serving its purpose and had other truly disturbing imagery that would have gotten a reaction out of audiences. It also would have allowed for more discussion about the film as a whole, instead of that scene that becomes the conversation. It’s another instance of male filmmakers mishandling the weight of sexual assault on film.

Things Aren’t Getting Better

However, the movies mentioned above are from different eras. We’d like to think filmmakers by now understand that shock factor doesn’t equal a quality movie. We would be wrong to assume that, though, because Dashcam (2021) didn’t stop at basing a character on an awful person. They actually cast the Trump-loving, anti-vax, and very vocal bigot Annie Hardy to play the character. This led to horror fans familiar with her brand of ignorance being turned off before the movie was even released. It also undid a lot of the goodwill that director Rob Savage earned with his previous movie, Host. To make matters worse, Savage repeatedly defended the choice all over the internet. At one point, he tried to blame her behavior on mental health, and people pointed out that doesn’t excuse racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.

Advertisement

Some of Annie’s Infamous Tweets

This is an especially head-scratching situation in this case. The team was riding the steam of a very popular found footage film. They were also primed to make a video game called Ghosts that had a successful crowdfunding campaign. People would have shown up for this before casting for shock value became the priority. We have had multiple films similar to this that sidestepped using known monsters. What was the reason? The idea came about because of her show, but any actress could’ve pulled that off. It was irresponsible to attempt to give this woman an even bigger platform . It was also the ultimate sign that no one was serious about this project.

Have We Tried Trying?

While making chaotic choices is one way to be memorable, is it worth it? In theory, someone(s) spent a lot of time and energy writing these stories. Wouldn’t actual storytellers prefer people to compliment their work instead? Celebrating their imagination, uniqueness, and skill instead of yelling about controversy and shock value. This isn’t a censorship thing. I’m used to being unimpressed with movies and asking,What was the reason?As a writer, I also know that there are ways to elicit responses from people without traumatizing them. We are literally tasked with putting characters and situations on the page that make people think and feel. Which is why going through the process of getting an idea greenlit and then leaning into something ghoulish like animal cruelty is baffling. Instead of casting a known Twitter bigot, you could just write a character based on assholes of that ilk. 

Whenever I see films coming out that seem more interested in courting controversy than trying to find their audiences, I pause. I cannot help but wonder who really decided this. Clearly, someone didn’t believe in the script and felt that upsetting people for the wrong reasons was the move. That outdated idea that any press is good press snuffed out whatever spark initially got people on board for the film. It is sad that someone(s) didn’t believe in the power of the written word. They doubted the effectiveness of storytelling and decided to go big in the wrong ways. Instead of stepping it up in the script department and figuring out if the proposed stunt is a band-aid for something missing on the page, they decided to go nuclear. They shocked us in the worst of ways, and now we are stuck on impact rather than intention.

How Did We Get Here?

I’m not trying to sound like a boomer, but the rise of social media has made this worse over the years. Studios seemingly want controversial content rather than actual art. The pursuit of going viral has replaced the idea of trying to actually do or say something. It’s all about adding AI to movies to spark outrage and make it trend. The worst people you know are getting cast in movies, so they can cry witch hunt when accountability enters the chat. Shocking the people for the wrong reasons seems to sadly be at main goal too often. 

How did we get here? I’m seriously asking. I mean, we know capitalism and people who don’t value art buying studios are a huge part of it. However, I feel like there is a missing piece of this puzzle. Maybe it’s just collective brain rot, and I want it to be more than that because I know the power of a good script. Hell, I know the power of a mid script in the hands of the right person. I want to believe in writers even if their vision is in the shadows of a circus. 

Advertisement

Is The Shock Value Worth It?

What do I know, though? I’m just a girl, sitting in front of a computer, asking the industry to believe in writers again. Back scripts that actually say something instead of figuring out how get them canceled. Make movies that spark conversation for legitimate reasons instead of incredibly head-scratching decisions that pull focus. Some of us deserve smart movies that challenge us for the right reasons. That’s why we flock to the original ideas, live for international films, and look to indie filmmakers. We crave disrupters who manage to break the cycle of crap we constantly get spoon-fed.

That’s what inspires me to keep beating my head against the wall. It’s what gives me hope that I’ll get to make things one day. Maybe I’m naive, but I want to at least try because I love writing. I don’t want to just cast a real bigot and call it a day. Not when I can write characters based on bigots and hopefully prompt actual conversation. I want my people discussing my dialogue and metaphors, instead of animal cruelty that makes people sick. In a perfect world the system would allow more room for that. We deserve scripts that can stand on their own without shock value leading TikTok to talk.

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement