In Williamsburg, there has been a long history of magic persecution. Since the early days of the town, individuals with magical abilities have been marginalized and targeted by the community. This persecution has had a significant impact on the lives of those practicing magic, leaving them isolated and fearful. The main reason for this discrimination can be attributed to the deeply ingrained beliefs and superstitions held by the townspeople, who view magic as a threat to their society. The origins of this magic persecution can be traced back to colonial times when the townspeople were highly religious and held strict puritanical beliefs. At that time, anyone suspected of practicing magic was seen as consorting with the devil and faced severe consequences, including banishment or even execution.
The original had the better ending, no question. I mentioned earlier that it was surreal to see the wife's story confirmed, and it was very memorable to see a fly turned more into a man after seeing the man turn into a fly. The remake's ending was effective and an ode to classic monster movies.
I can excuse Brundle falling for Veronica in a short time because he s supposed to be a reclusive nerd though a handsome and shredded one , but Veronica is harder to believe, especially since she just got out of a relationship. To start off, I want to say that both films were good, and I appreciated that the remake attempted to make a new story and forge its own path a little.
At that time, anyone suspected of practicing magic was seen as consorting with the devil and faced severe consequences, including banishment or even execution. This atmosphere of fear and suspicion led to a secretive underground community of magical practitioners who lived in constant fear of discovery. As time passed, and the world became more modern, the beliefs and attitudes towards magic in Williamsburg did not change significantly.
The Fly (1958) vs. The Fly (1986)
I just finished The Fly ('86) and wanted to do a little comparison and verdict. Spoilers are probably inbound.
To start off, I want to say that both films were good, and I appreciated that the remake attempted to make a new story and forge its own path a little. I'm not keen on the idea of shot for shot remakes.
The films were essentially different genres: the original being a suspense thriller/horror and the remake being a romance and body horror.
The original was structured non-chronologically, and was structured better overall. The idea of showing the "murder" first and what lead up to it after was a good way to hook in the audience for the murder mystery. The end felt surreal confirming the wild story told by the murder suspect, the wife. The remake was told chronologically and was more about developing the romance (I'll get into this later) and seeing the relationship getting strained due to miscommunication and the accident with the fly. The original has the edge in structure, feeling more deliberate and meaningful, while the remake is very meandering; part of this is the editing.
The original is edited like many of the great old movies were: every scene having a purpose. Everything was tight and moved along nicely. The remake could've been a little more refined. Things like the gymnastics and the arm wrestling went on a little too long, while the romance and interaction before the accident could've used more time.
As far as pacing, the original is far better in this regard. It was never too slow or too fast. The remake was all over the place, though. I was shocked how early Brundle went into the teleporter because I knew that the rest of the movie was about Veronica seeing Brundle, whom she loved, deteriorate. Like I mentioned earlier, the romance needed more time to develop. A few sex scenes happened, and now Brundle and Veronica were supposed to be in love. Maybe, but the fact that Veronica just got out of a relationship with her boss (he still had her apartment key) really strains believability.
Effects-wise, I won't compare them directly because the technology had advanced a lot in 30 years. The original wasn't impressive, even for the 50s. Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney, Sr. and Jr. had better effects decades earlier. The effects weren't bad, just a little unimpressive. The actor, Al Hedison, admittedly elevated them with his performance (looked like there were two minds battling in one body), and the script used them intelligently (hiding the head and arm to invoke curiosity). The remake had great effects. The progression and leprosy of them were very cool. But, as with many 80s movies, it sometimes went over the top and focused more on gross-out rather than moving the story forward (melting Stathis's leg).
Acting-wise, they are both good. The original has the legend, Vincent Price, and everyone else was good, Al Hedison, Patricia Owens. It's been a while, but I remember that I quite liked Hedison as The Fly because he really showed the fly vs. the man and was sympathetic. The remake had Goldblum in an intense nerdy performance that was fascinating to watch even before the makeup. I think Hedison and Owens had a better chemistry than Goldblum and Davis.
Cinematography-wise, I can't weigh in on either side. Both were effective. Who can forget the Phantom of the Opera moment and then the Fly-eye view of the wife in the original, and what about the wall-crawling in the remake?
The original has the better characters. They were, as far as I remember, all somewhat well-developed and consistent with themselves. In the remake, there were much less main characters, only 3. Brundle was good, though he was a little shredded for a nerd. Veronica wasn't very realistic. She decides to go into a stranger's home, and then she falls in love with that guy after a few nights together. I can excuse Brundle falling for Veronica in a short time because he's supposed to be a reclusive nerd (though a handsome and shredded one), but Veronica is harder to believe, especially since she just got out of a relationship. Stathis wasn't consistent. He goes from sleazy creep to sensitive protector for no reason at all. He's just there to indirectly make Brundle jealous early on and then bring a shotgun in the end of the movie, and his inconsitency reflects that. Nothing else he does with Veronica has a purpose, despite taking up a decent chunk of time.
The original had the better ending, no question. I mentioned earlier that it was surreal to see the wife's story confirmed, and it was very memorable to see a fly turned more into a man after seeing the man turn into a fly. The remake's ending was effective and an ode to classic monster movies.
My vote goes to the original. The original was more deliberate and punchy. I don't get why people call it schlocky; even though the effects are dated, it gets very tense, and death is not treated lightly. The remake was also good, but it suffered from being more style than substance. It needed a better foundation, but it was decided to spend more time showing the decay of the relationship rather than the actual relationship.
Effects-wise, I won't compare them directly because the technology had advanced a lot in 30 years. The original wasn't impressive, even for the 50s. Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney, Sr. and Jr. had better effects decades earlier. The effects weren't bad, just a little unimpressive. The actor, Al Hedison, admittedly elevated them with his performance (looked like there were two minds battling in one body), and the script used them intelligently (hiding the head and arm to invoke curiosity). The remake had great effects. The progression and leprosy of them were very cool. But, as with many 80s movies, it sometimes went over the top and focused more on gross-out rather than moving the story forward (melting Stathis's leg).
Even though science and reason were becoming more prevalent, the townspeople clung to their traditional beliefs. This led to an environment where anyone associated with magic was seen as an outcast or a threat. The discrimination faced by magical practitioners in Williamsburg extends beyond societal exclusion. In some cases, individuals suspected of practicing magic have been the victims of violence and hate crimes. Instances of magical practitioners being attacked or their properties vandalized have been recorded, further perpetuating a culture of fear and secrecy within the magical community. Despite the adversity faced by magical practitioners in Williamsburg, there have been recent efforts to foster understanding and acceptance. Magical advocacy groups have formed to educate the community about the realities of magic and dispel the myths and misconceptions surrounding it. These initiatives aim to promote dialogue and cooperation between magical practitioners and non-magical residents, in the hope of fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society. It is clear that the history of magic persecution in Williamsburg has had a lasting impact on the lives of those with magical abilities. The deeply ingrained beliefs and superstitions of the townspeople have perpetuated a culture of fear and discrimination, leaving magical practitioners marginalized and isolated. However, recent efforts towards understanding and acceptance provide hope for a future where magical abilities are embraced rather than feared..
Reviews for "The Witches of Williamsburg: Uncovering the Dark Past of Magic Persecution"
1. John - 2 stars - I was really excited to read "Magic persecution in Williamsburg" as I love fantasy and historical fiction. However, I found the book to be quite disappointing. The plot was extremely predictable and lacked depth. The characters felt one-dimensional and I struggled to connect with any of them. I also found the writing style to be dull and lacking in creativity. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone looking for an engaging fantasy read.
2. Sarah - 1 star - "Magic persecution in Williamsburg" was a complete letdown for me. The concept of magic and persecution in a historical setting seemed intriguing, but the execution fell flat. The pacing was sluggish, and I often found myself bored and uninterested in the events unfolding. The characters were poorly developed, and their motivations were unclear. The world-building was also lacking, leaving me confused about the rules and limitations of magic within the story. I was hoping for a captivating and immersive read, but unfortunately, this book failed to deliver.
3. David - 2 stars - I had high hopes for "Magic persecution in Williamsburg," but I ultimately found it to be a lackluster read. The writing felt amateurish and lacked sophistication. The dialogue was stilted and unnatural, making it difficult to engage with the story. Additionally, the plot was predictable, with no real surprises or twists. The author had an interesting concept at hand, but they failed to execute it effectively. Overall, I was left disappointed and unimpressed by this book.
4. Emily - 2 stars - While I found the premise of "Magic persecution in Williamsburg" intriguing, the execution left a lot to be desired. The pacing was uneven, with long stretches of nothing happening followed by abrupt action scenes that lacked proper build-up. The characters felt flat and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. The writing style was also inconsistent, fluctuating between overly descriptive passages and rushed dialogue. Overall, I felt the potential of the story was wasted, and I was left unsatisfied by the end.