Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

theagitatedapricot t1_j6b88dt wrote

People really say that? Her performance is incredible.

128

Archamasse t1_j6b8wnv wrote

I really think BWP is as superb a drama as it is a fun horror, about Heather realizing she's gotten herself and her friends killed by something they can't possibly understand, and her performance is such a huge part of that.

The method camping-in-a-forest stuff can only get so much credit, the whole movie lives or dies on her central performance.

87

theagitatedapricot t1_j6bbax1 wrote

Yes, thank you. It is specifically her performance that still gives me shivers with every rewatch. The banging on the tent, the children's laughter, the pouch of teeth, etc. are all creepy moments for sure, but it is Heather's reactions, her descent into a breakdown, that makes it all truly scary.

34

ithinkther41am t1_j6bd46r wrote

Not just that. The Razzies even nominated her for it. Absolute lunacy. She nailed that despair so well.

78

DoomGoober t1_j6d9lce wrote

The more I hear about the Razzies the less I like it.

26

IFapToCalamity t1_j6daz7b wrote

An award based on all but literally shitting on artists is fucking stupid.

It also diverts potential blame from executives and production companies who are more at fault for releasing “bad” products. The fact that children can be nominated is disgusting.

23

acethesnake t1_j6bxp1l wrote

Wow really? I always think she does an amazing job of acting genuinely terrified every time I watch Blair Witch.

17

ihave10toes_AMA t1_j6cyscx wrote

The marketing for that movie was so famous, and spoofed a lot. I remember a scene where she’s snotty crying in the film was popular to mock. I agree that she was great. I think the Razzies must have nominated her to grab attention because of just how widespread the attention to that scene was.

11

autoposting_system t1_j6bdafx wrote

That's too bad. I thought Blair Witch was great and she did a terrific job.

It's too bad she's having some issues. I'm glad she seems to be a success these days.

93

outbound_flight t1_j6bg0mz wrote

I really hope she hasn't spent that long thinking her performance was just an incidental part of something that was already going to be successful. People legit thought they were watching a snuff film at the time because her performance was about as intense and realistic (and iconic) as you can get.

Especially considering this was the cast's first big project in their careers. I think all three of them were fresh out of college.

81

ProjectDirectory t1_j6bmdwt wrote

I remember sitting in a packed theater and some dotard sitting next to me was telling me that it was real.

13

MissDiem t1_j6bhdtd wrote

This is fascinating thread through the tapestry of movie history.

That film was a milestone and kicked off the found footage genre.

Someone posted an interview from 25 years ago where she details the gruelling and experimental process and where she and the other actors improvised huge elements of it.

The broader context is it sounds like even after the huge and unexpected financial success of the film they didn't go back and reward the actors beyond their initial stipends.

It seems she now makes videos that are maybe metaphysical self help related? Regardless, one of those people who has made our brief time here more interesting.

52

DoomGoober t1_j6daay1 wrote

>The broader context is it sounds like even after the huge and unexpected financial success of the film they didn't go back and reward the actors beyond their initial stipends.

This is common for small budget films that suddenly make it big. The actors sign a contract that grants them a lump sum instead of residuals. Sometimes the contract even gives them a choice: do you want more in your salary or do you want residuals? If the actors don't believe the film will make a lot of money, salary is the better choice.

I don't know the specifics of BWP contracts but industry wide that's pretty common.

10

fierceindependence23 t1_j6d0s3i wrote

Why was she not paid for this voicework?

8

hollywooddouchenoz t1_j6d9v95 wrote

I would imagine her original performance was non-union and their contracts likely equated to a work-for-hire agreement in which their up front payment represented a whole “buy out” and no further royalties would be paid. (Quick googling of articles written on the topic of their compensation seem to allude that is is true).

In that case I would imagine the production company owns the footage and the performances and so when it is licensed, all the money paid goes to the owner, with no residuals due to the performers.

14

fierceindependence23 t1_j6dapbz wrote

I see. That makes sense. And IF that is the case, wouldn't that render any complaints moot?

In other words, when you sign over the rights to your image or voice for a film, for full payment up front (I seem to recall James Earl Jones doing this for the voice of Darth Vader, 10k in cash rather than residual payments) there is nothing to complain about later.

Or am I missing something?

4

hollywooddouchenoz t1_j6dbb2e wrote

Well, to be clear, the actor didn’t seem to be behind this video— some internet person took upon themselves. I’m sure Heather knows the terms of the agreement she signed; if there was grounds for her to have legal remedy, I’m sure she would have perused them already. But that doesn’t stop an interested internet fan from complaining on her behalf.

Again, all this is a best guess based on my experiences in this field. I have never personally investigated the terms of licensing for the Blair Witch Project.

7

HalpTheFan OP t1_j6eo7jz wrote

But what if there was no credit to the production company either?

1

hollywooddouchenoz t1_j6fahkc wrote

As long as they paid to license the material they might not be contractually obligated to provide screen credit. It varies based on company requirement and guild rules.

I mean I’d find it really difficult to believe a large production like Tar didn’t negotiate full worldwide clearances and their E&O insurers didn’t go through the film with a fine tooth comb— but stranger things have happened. In which case it’s up to the controlling entity to seek compensation.

1

HalpTheFan OP t1_j6fbbz0 wrote

I think that's more than reasonable, I just know that sometimes they do at least credit Sound/Stock Companies such as Getty or Shutterstock in the credits. Didn't see anything like that. I also just highly doubt that something iconic like that scream would not have a copyright or a company tied to it.

I've spoken with Rei since and apparently she has reached out to lawyers around the rules regarding copyright or about using her voice specifically and if someone may have licensed it since.

1

hollywooddouchenoz t1_j6fe7vl wrote

Let me say although I saw Tar, I don’t know the context where this clip was used. If it was just the audio worked into the sound design— it’s possible it was slipped in by an editor without being officially noted (was it the screams she heard in the park?). In which case there could be a lawsuit here.

Also, I have no doubt there IS a copyright covering the sound and visuals of the original film; and they definitely should have paid a licensing fee to the controlling entity for using it in their production.

In the case of a traditional production made under guild agreements; actors, director, composer would be compensated as part of that licensing agreement process (if the clip used involved visuals or the music).

In the case of licensing materials that were produced outside of those guild agreements, there is often no requirement to pay the talent involved. So even if there was money properly paid, there’s a very good chance that none of it would go beyond the corporation owning the rights (Live entertainment?)

2

HalpTheFan OP t1_j6fhxmy wrote

It was also used in the trailer too. So in both instances, it was in the trailer (promotional material) and the final film. Yes, the scene is the screams she heard in the park. It's in the clip I've shared above.

I'm also not sure if Rei is apart of any guild - at least any more but at the time of recording, she may have been.

Also thank you for having a reasonable and forward argument on this, instead of just defending a company that is likely in the wrong. I do genuinely appreciate that.

1

hollywooddouchenoz t1_j6fp3s3 wrote

The interviews I’ve seen with the cast and producers specifically point out the film could never have been made under SAG rules (since they basically were “working” 24 hours per day). So I’d imagine this film was made outside of any union contracts, and if I were a betting man I’d guess they were paid $1000/day as a full buy out.

That doesn’t mean a good lawyer couldn’t claw back some dough for her: but if she wasn’t able to renegotiate at the height of the film popularity I can’t imagine the $$$$ would be worth the legal fees now.

2

alette42 t1_j6bvze8 wrote

Why did she change her name?

5

jcb1982 t1_j6byzry wrote

I just watched some of her YouTube content and it’s… well… a bit kooky. Definitely some issues going on there… I’m very curious who the people telling her that her performance wasn’t integral to the success of TBWP are. Because they’re dead wrong… I KNEW those screams in Tár sounded very familiar. And I’m sure some entity got compensated for that audio. But probably due to rights issues it wasn’t her.

26

zeroanaphora t1_j6dqqtr wrote

Last I knew she was a pot farmer. Hope she's doing alright. Fun cameo but she should get her share for it.

4

filmpatico t1_j6gdmqs wrote

Wow, I can't believe I didn't catch this in the theater after how many times I've seen Blair Witch. I guess I was just so confused by what was supposed to be happening in this scene that it went over my head. Nice catch. Someone should add this to her imdb page as an uncredited role.

2

MrDirector23 t1_j6bywbj wrote

Are we 100% sure the screams in Tár are the same from the Blair Witch Project? I’ve seen TBWP probably 15 times and I know that scream very well and it didn’t even register to me while watching Tár.

−19

Fukshit47 t1_j6c0dxs wrote

There’s literally a link to the comparison video posted by OP in the description under the headline.

20

MisterZacherley t1_j6brioo wrote

It's almost like she wasn't supposed to be a good actress because she wasn't really playing a character in a documentary style student film...crazy how that works.

−60

Sparrowsabre7 t1_j6c80wx wrote

It's almost like that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether someone should be compensated for their work.

28

MisterZacherley t1_j6ca4tg wrote

It's not, I'll give you that. I was actually complimenting her, though. It takes a good actor to play the part as it's needed. She's a film student making a documentary. Her being a polished actor wouldn't lend to the credibility the movie was trying to create.

−27