|
|
Post by darktruth on Aug 15, 2011 8:09:54 GMT -6
The five were trapped in a series of collective, induced hallucinations from (at least) the moment that they arrived at the foundations of Rustin Parr's house.
One of the major mysteries of the film revolves around Erica Geerson. In the later half of the film, Erica disappears and Jeff calls the Episcopal church where her "father" supposedly works as a minister. It is discovered that the minister has no children. This event is witnessed by both Kim and Stephen.
The film never explains who she really was and why she gave them a false name/background.
The difficulty with assuming that she really did provide a fake identity is that the three people who witnessed the "phone call" to the Minister were all trapped in a massive hallucination at the time, one of the main purposes of which was to turn them against one another. It is easily arguable that the phone call was part of the hallucination.
However, there are two problems with that theory:
1) By this time, Erica was already murdered. Therefore, there would be no reason to try to turn the others against her. However, it's possible that the purpose of this would have simply been to further confuse/frighten them. It would also serve to give Jeff's paranoia a target (Erica) that would cause a serious rift between him and Kim (who liked Erica).
2) There is nothing in the final, interrogation scenes that suggests this incident was a hallucination. In fact, there is even evidence in those scenes to support the idea that the police were not able to confirm that her name was "Erica".
During Jeff's interrogation, the interrogating officer says:
And, um...what about the redhead? She was a real pretty girl. She wouldn't put out or something?
Why is she addressed as "the redhead" and not "Erica"?
When Kim's interrogator brought up the convenience store murder, his first sentence was:
"Let's talk about... Peggy"
Now, the police were aware that Jeff knew Erica. However, they had no way of knowing that Kim knew or recalled a name she would have only seen on a name tag for several seconds. The name "Peggy" would have less of a psychological effect on Kim than the name "Erica" would have on Jeff.
Another strange aspect of the film that relates to this is the files that were found in Jeff's drawer and later found to be police files. While the files of Stephen and Kim are opened, we never see inside Erica's file. Would it establish her true identity?
Does anyone have any ideas as to why Erica provided the group with a fake identity?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrtnflmngak on Aug 17, 2011 9:40:27 GMT -6
Good question. I think there is a couple of plotholes in BoS. I think "Erica" was possibly expecting something supernatural witchy to happen. She was a serious Wicca and did freak the hell out when the video showed her swinging around the tree. Because of this, I think she maybe has a dark past which is why she would be using an alias.
|
|
|
|
Post by twana on Apr 18, 2012 21:15:17 GMT -6
All the words that form the secret message are found right next to Erica.. "Seek me no further or .." Erica said she wished to "commune" with Elly "a mis-understood good witch" .. Then Erica was the first to die. Her character is a mystery and well worth delving into further. But her last name is Leerhsen.  |
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Apr 21, 2012 12:46:53 GMT -6
All the words that form the secret message are found right next to Erica.. "Seek me no further or .." Erica said she wished to "commune" with Elly "a mis-understood good witch" .. Then Erica was the first to die. Very good points. That's the name of the actress. However, her name in the film was Geerson. At least, that was her apparent alias (taken from an Episcopal Minister Geerson in a "one-church town back in Munnsville, Illinois." Munnsville, Illinois, by the way, appears to be a fictional town. Can't find anything about it on the Internet or on Google Maps. As with the first movie, the characters used their real names. However, this time, they used fake surnames while keeping their real first names. All of the movie surnames were similar, though, to their real surnames. As a series fanatic, I've always tried to fit the plot holes into some kind of consistent theory as to what actually happened in the films. I like your theory about her dark past. That would explain why her cover story involved her being disowned by her parents. Being the "black sheep" of her family means that there are no aspects of her background that the others could really probe into. Can't ask her about her relationship with her father and the rest of her family if she has no relationship with them. I should have also added in my original post that in the Shadow documentary, an unnamed victim's parents are interviewed about their opposition to the creation of a theater movie about the Black Hills murders. We only see silhouettes, but the woman looks similar to Erica. If these are her parents, they seem to have cared about her. And you would think that Erica would not have done her hair in a way so similar to her mother's if she had really been the rebellious black sheep of her family. |
|
|
|
Post by Anarchist86ed on Apr 21, 2012 15:56:12 GMT -6
Analyzing that movie is about as pointless as analyzing the end of mass effect 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by twana on Apr 21, 2012 17:38:28 GMT -6
You're just too simple minded to bother with it.
These hidden meanings and secrets
are what give Book of Shadows some
real entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Apr 21, 2012 20:08:28 GMT -6
These hidden meanings and secrets are what give Book of Shadows some real entertainment value. Completely agreed. And the film followed the example of the first in that it kept the antagonist in the shadows, making it very analyze-able. In fact, the film is heavily fertile for analysis from obsessives like myself simply because it's really trippy, yet there's a method to it's madness. IMHO it's one of the most underrated movies of it's time, but I suppose the fact that I take the time to make these postings kind of gives that away. |
|
|
|
Post by twana on Apr 21, 2012 20:36:55 GMT -6
If the director had control over the
final cut, it would have been better.
But the studio ruled with an iron fist.
Watch the DVD commentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainspalding on Apr 22, 2012 14:15:27 GMT -6
Analyzing that movie is about as pointless as analyzing the end of mass effect 3. lmao |
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Apr 22, 2012 20:36:42 GMT -6
being funny:
ERIKA is a trollin witch
being serious:
no clue whatsoever
|
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Aug 30, 2012 12:25:31 GMT -6
That's the name of the actress. However, her name in the film was Geerson. At least, that was her apparent alias (taken from an Episcopal Minister Geerson in a "one-church town back in Munnsville, Illinois." Munnsville, Illinois, by the way, appears to be a fictional town. Can't find anything about it on the Internet or on Google Maps. Interestingly, there is a Munnsville, New York where the events of Joe Berlinger's Brother's Keeper took place. Guess that explains where he came up with the name. The events of Brother's Keeper highlight the clash between modern city life and rural country life. This conflict figures prominently in the events of Blair Witch 2, though the tables are turned and it is the 'country folk' persecuting the very modern tourists. Kim: Hell of a town you got here. What century are they living in?Jeff: The gene pool is a little shallow here. Dive in, you'll crack a skull open.Some criticized Berlinger for stereotyping country folk in the movie, and effectively doing exactly what he was speaking against in Brother's Keeper. However, I think that Blair Witch 2 was simply a reverse of the situation. Instead of city folk persecuting 'rednecks', we see five people who symbolize modern life: an ivy league couple, a goth, a Wiccan, and a tech savvy stoner. They find themselves together in a graveyard in the middle of rural America, beginning a journey that is so much higher over their heads than they could ever have began to imagine. While their supernatural enemy will be the primary antagonist, a formidable secondary can be found in the locals, whose animosity toward the five creates a menacing backdrop for all of these events. |
|
|
|
Post by darktruth on Aug 30, 2012 13:06:54 GMT -6
Good question. I think there is a couple of plotholes in BoS. I think "Erica" was possibly expecting something supernatural witchy to happen. She was a serious Wicca and did freak the hell out when the video showed her swinging around the tree. Because of this, I think she maybe has a dark past which is why she would be using an alias. Very good points -- one of my friends suspects that she "awoke" the curse with that spell she cast when they first arrived at the ruins of Rustin Parr's home. Like Twana said, she was making a deliberate attempt to "commune" with Elly. Perhaps the events occurred as they did because she opened lines of communication that should have stayed closed. This would explain the entire spell scene, where Erica executes a ritual while they prepare for camp. Immediately before this scene, she tells Tristen that about her plan to commune with Elly. Her spell: Evil intent in the ground,
may your release soon be found.
And peace release the energy
that be from my magic.
So mote it be.
Evil intent in the ground,
may your release soon be found.
And peace release the energy
that be from my magic.
So mote it be.
Is it possible she released some very evil intent from the ground? A pagan writer appears to have similar suspicions about this chant: Then again, Kim - with her psychic intuition - said that Erica had nothing to do with what was going on and rebuked Jeff for accusing her. Is it possible, though, that while Erica wasn't the perpetrator, she had opened the 'gateway' between themselves and the Blair Witch? Perhaps this is why Erica was, as she herself predicted, the first to die. Perhaps it is why she was 'possessed' by the Blair Witch during the scene where the bridge collapses. Or was that just an apparition? Then again, why would "lines of communication" have to be opened in the first place? Heather, Josh, and Mike didn't open any lines of communication, nor did Robin Weaver, Eileen Treacle, or the others who have come into contact with the curse. Or did they? Perhaps they were in the clutches of the unspeakable force within those woods as soon as they entered. Goodness knows. |
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 8, 2012 8:11:55 GMT -6
Its tricky on how to have a theory on someone that either did it didn't exist. Here are some ideas:
1. The police might not have known the identity of erica because she was an outsider but peggy was a local.
Actually that's all I got
|
|
|
|
Post by Anarchist86ed on Sept 8, 2012 10:48:52 GMT -6
She was sent by the gods to lead Humanity to a new home. Or something...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Sept 8, 2012 13:59:08 GMT -6
I say Erica was exactly who she said she was. There. That was easy.
|
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 8, 2012 14:12:05 GMT -6
But if she was who she said she was then why didn't get story check out
|
|
|
|
Post by twana on Sept 26, 2012 15:03:53 GMT -6
She at least lied about who her parents were.
|
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 27, 2012 21:58:01 GMT -6
This is true but what strikes me is how no one can corroborate the story she gave. Idk
|
|
rewak
rock pile disturber
Posts: 51
|
Post by rewak on Sept 28, 2012 1:28:12 GMT -6
I think it's being way over-analyzed, although the book doesn't help matters with the webchat transcript. Personally i think they didn't even call her parents, it was all part of the hallucination, just like them seeing her outside after she had been killed. ALSO, remember, Erica only told Tristen who her parents were, and Tristen is the one who suggest she may have called someone, and Tristen is the one spinning the hallucination on in the others heads. So, that fits right in with them all hallucinating and Tristen eventually becoming "the witch" to them.
She was probably meant to be a red herring in the movie, but it either didn't work at all (remember how rushed it was) or it didn't work out because of the cuts that were made.
|
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 28, 2012 8:24:25 GMT -6
Ah. But you forget that she told tristen at the campfire who's to say that others didn't hear that
|
|
rewak
rock pile disturber
Posts: 51
|
Post by rewak on Sept 28, 2012 14:06:14 GMT -6
They were all trashed?  Jeff was busy hitting on Kim and Steven was stoned off his ass. |
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 28, 2012 16:00:43 GMT -6
That's true but if we remember tristen (even while pregnant) was drinking as well so why should she suddenly remember oh hey guys by the way erika lived here and her father was this?
|
|
rewak
rock pile disturber
Posts: 51
|
Post by rewak on Sept 29, 2012 2:30:12 GMT -6
Well you also have to remember they're hallucinating as soon as they get to the Parr foundation (maybe even before that, but that's the main moment it starts), with the big tree that doesn't exist? So Tristen actually drinking alcohol is completely up in the air, it might have been bottled water, she might not have been drinking anything.
|
|
gator
rock pile disturber
Alive and seeing
Posts: 234
|
Post by gator on Sept 29, 2012 7:18:46 GMT -6
I keep forgetting that that movie isn't real (as it is all a hallucination)
|
|
rewak
rock pile disturber
Posts: 51
|
Post by rewak on Sept 29, 2012 7:52:47 GMT -6
I think it would all be a bit clearer if Artisan hadn't fucked with it, i do hope Lionsgate are prepping a BluRay (read the BR thread in the main section for the movie to see why i think they are) and i do hope they at least include the deleted scenes. The best thing we could hope for would be for them to include both the theatrical and directors cut.
|
|
Jeff was busy hitting on Kim and Steven was stoned off his ass.