"The Blair Witch Project"
REVIEWED BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS (07/13/99)

Ever since "The Blair Witch Project" was screened at Sundance, I've been reading notices at Internet fan sites describing it as the scariest flick ever made. But the curtain is coming up on their product, and "The Blair Witch Project" doesn't even come close to living up to its hype.

Two weeks ago I attended a preview screening in a packed theater. When the lights came up, people actually chuckled. There was a palpable sense of "That's it? That's all?" in the air. Somebody came down to the front row and asked, "Gee, was it scarier down here?"

I understand the film was conceived as a spoof of the old "In Search Of..." TV series, with interviews and video clips detailing the story of the witch and the search for the missing filmmakers. Somewhere along the way, the directors decided to drop all that good stuff and stick with the footage showing the filmmakers lost in the woods. This was a disastrous mistake. There are a couple of mildly creepy episodes at night, but the film loses what little steam it has when the audience figures out that nothing bad is going to happen during daylight. The bulk of the film is dull improv -- think of a John Cassavetes sleepaway camp -- with variations on twentysomethings yelling, "We're in the middle of the woods!" The conclusion is supremely unsatisfying.

The result is a mildly clever student film that simply doesn't stand up as a feature release. The most frightening film ever made? I've made sandwiches that are scarier than this flick! Anybody who claims to have been spooked by "The Blair Witch Project" must be a very nervous and fretful individual.

-- Steven Hart
Highland Park, N.J.

In answer to Williams' question, "Why does Heather pack a book called 'How to Stay Alive in the Woods' and then never use it?"-- I simply assumed it was because her edition did not contain a chapter on how to survive attacks by an unknown and possibly supernatural assailant. A foolish oversight by an amateur camper.

-- Michael Clausen

Method madness
BY CHARLES TAYLOR (07/14/99)

Why wouldn't Salon's reviewer have a difficulty with the mistreatment of actors? Isn't it part of a critic's job to question this sort of unethical trend in filmmaking? I recall a friend refusing to see "9 1/2 Weeks" years ago after he'd heard about Kim Basinger's mistreatment on the set (presumably to help her get into the mind-set of the film's sexual power plays). Hasn't "The Blair Witch Project" simply traveled further down the same troublesome route? Yes, it's terrible to watch someone else be genuinely scared on film. And it was fun to scare the shit out of our little brothers by creeping up behind them when we were 10. But is there anything transcendent or artistic about this?

I'm not going to say that it's indicative of problems in our culture that we increasingly trust "reality" as a form of entertainment -- this sort of waxing nostalgic reeks of neo-con posturing. Nonetheless, there is something troubling when we vicariously enjoy others' misfortune and mistake it for entertainment. Films that use "extreme" methods to evoke real reactions on screen seem to me filmmaking's answer to prime time's "Cops." Perhaps there's a larger point to be made about the increasing public demand for art that blurs fiction with reality, but I leave this for another issue of Salon. But this blurring for its own sake simply patronizes the viewer and diminishes the potential of art to move and transform.

-- Paul Zakrzewski

Is Red Hat becoming Linux's Microsoft?
BY ANDREW LEONARD (07/14/99)

The idea that competition means "loss of innocence" shows a misunderstanding about the "open source" community. Before open source, the Free Software Foundation had the goal of keeping software free for use and modification, and not much else. This goal grew partially from the loss of community that was felt when programmers at universities went on to private companies (where they were not permitted to share their work), but the main purpose was to keep software evolving freely.

One idea often missed behind licensing source code as "permanently open," as GNU licenses do, is that people can still make money -- for example, through support or distribution. Other models don't demand that you open your alterations to the code, just that you acknowledge the original copyright. The possibility of making a good living, or even a huge pile of cash, appears to me to have been purposefully and carefully included even in the most restrictive GNU model. I've made good money supporting GNU software, and like any business it's competitive; I have to offer better service and expertise for the same money as the other consultants, or underbid them.

There should be no surprise that there is competition among Linux companies. They're all selling something, and they all hope that their way is best, or at least best suited to making money. The fact that they're competing for dollars is a healthy sign of growing acceptance of the software and licensing models that they support.

-- Joseph Balsama

Selective service
BY JOE CONASON (07/13/99)

While it is true that George W. Bush and Dan Quayle "avoided" going to Vietnam by joining the National Guard, and that they probably had help in getting appointed, Joe Conason's characterization of Clinton as a "fatherless young man from a poor family ... who didn't want to fight in a war he believed was terribly wrong" is misleading.

Clinton, while not rich, was not without influence. He got accepted to and managed to afford both Georgetown and Yale. In addition, he fondly lists Sen. Fulbright, from whom he received a Fulbright scholarship, as a mentor. While in England, he managed to afford trips abroad (to Russia et al.) and to various anti-war protests.

When Clinton returned from Oxford, the "fatherless young man from a poor family" was offered Conason's "honorable method of evading Vietnam" reserved for fortunate sons in the ROTC. Clinton accepted this politically brokered appointment rather than be sent to Vietnam -- an acceptance for which Conason derides both Bush and Quayle.

The difference between these three men lies in the fact that when the roll was called for the Texas Air National Guard, George W. Bush was there to answer it. When the roll was called for the Indiana National Guard, Dan Quayle was there to answer it. When the roll was called for the University of Arkansas ROTC, William Jefferson Clinton, who had promised to report for duty, was off somewhere not inhaling.

As Conason points out, Al Gore did enlist in the Army and did go to Vietnam. But, according to Salon, "Gore served as an Army journalist assigned to an engineering brigade near Saigon. In seven months' duty he never saw one American casualty." Conason never subjects Gore to the same speculation to which he subjects Bush and Quayle. Did the powerful Sen. Albert Gore Sr. exert any influence to make sure that Al Jr. was stationed well away from danger?

Only Bob Smith and John McCain have room to make an issue of any other candidate's Vietnam record.

-- Robert Smyre
San Francisco

For any person who followed the Vietnam War, it is clear that the majority of those who went, fought and died came from the wrong side of town. It is clear that all those rich boys used their families' influence to enjoy safe and cushy jobs in their states' National Guards. Did they receive preferential treatment? Yes. Was George W. qualified to be accepted to the officers school? No. Was it right that he jumped over other 100,000 young man with better qualifications than his? No.

I would be happier and more confident in his character if he admitted to the special treatment he received, a form of affirmative action that I doubt voters will reverse. I would be happier if he could come clean and declare "There is no difference between me and Bill Clinton. I am a draft dodger, too." What a bunch of hypocrites.

-- Maria J. Swanson

To Paris Las Vegas, with love
BY SARAH VOWELL (07/14/99)

I was raised in the United States and France by an American father and French mother, and for all my life, I've tried to explain each country to the people I know in the other, a task all-too-frequently complicated by blinkered "journalism" on both sides of the Atlantic. But Salon is the last place I would expect to find as dismal a piece as "To Paris Las Vegas, with love."

Part press release (Vowell even included the phone number), part juvenile "what I did on my summer vacation," part catalogue of standard anti-French jibes apparently culled from the nation's playgrounds (she really told those Nazi-occupied frogs! the French are so rude!) the article is packed with "observations" that reveal only the author's ignorance and her terrific satisfaction with it. The city of pointlessly rude shopkeepers, unreliable technology and filthy streets she describes bears little resemblance to the Paris I know.

-- Olivier Knox

City slickers
BY JAKE TAPPER (07/13/99)

Why are cities that are suing gun manufacturers and also selling guns any more hypocritical than cities that are suing gun manufacturers and also buying guns?

I know what you'll say: Cops have special training that render guns safe in their hands. But I've already completed police firearms training and know that it is minimal and not up to the standards of civilian classes I've taken. Cops have a universal reputation at public shooting ranges for being unsafe, poor marksmen when compared to their civilian counterparts; stories appear almost daily describing police officers' unintentional discharges, mistaken targets or missed targets.

Differentiating between police firearms and civilian weapons makes the implicit admission that it is not the gun that determines safety, but rather the character of the person who wields it. It directly contradicts the suit's premise that it is the presence of guns that causes crime, discounting the intentions of the people (including criminals) who buy them.

Cities that buy guns for their officers with one hand, while suing manufacturers for selling them with the other, are saying in effect "Guns are dangerous and cause crime ... unless they're our guns." If that isn't hypocritical, what is?

-- Eric Williams
Richmond, Calif.

I was stunned to read of a California official explaining in all seriousness that he was destroying valuable firearms because "if a gun's been used to kill someone, they don't want it out there where it could kill someone else."

But that is precisely what we do with the people who actually use them to commit violent crimes, is it not? We seem to be more intent on punishing their guns than on punishing them. Why shouldn't the police melt down all of their own guns before they "go bad" and "kill someone"? We seem to lack any prima facie way to distinguish a "good gun" from a "bad gun."

This is nothing short of cultural insanity. If gun control dogma promotes this kind of degenerate animism, we need to pause and consider if we all really want to go where this bandwagon is headed.

-- C.D. Tavares