Cinema and Movie Thread: flickering images

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, the_dog_days said:

Doesn't Lost Girls Wendy engage in incest?

Probably. 

20 minutes ago, Amentep said:

20 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Lot of Peter Pan schlong riders in this thread, I see. 

In Lost Girls, Peter Pan rides the schlong.

[Keyrock]

16 minutes ago, Fire Walk with KP said:

In Lost Girls, Peter Pan rides the schlong.

In Soviet Neverland the schlong rides Peter Pan.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

14 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

In Soviet Neverland the schlong rides Peter Pan.

For real though, Alan Moore hates adaptations of his work and all that but I'd much prefer to see bizarre and profane deconstructed takes on fairy tales than Disney's overly grey reconstruction of their classic animation in cgi liveaction.

[Bartimaeus]

Taking out many of the weirdest, darkest, and most interesting elements of stories, which are often times pretty foundational to what those stories are trying to say, always strikes me as pretty wrong. But more importantly, I want to see the keeds cry when Ariel can't bring herself to murder her prince and kills herself instead. Yeah, that sounds like a good time. Well, you know, I'm not sure that The Little Mermaid was originally written for children in the first place...

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Keyrock said:

Lot of Peter Pan schlong riders in this thread, I see. 

Traditionally Peter Pan had no schlong, as he was usually played by a woman.

[Keyrock]

41 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

Traditionally Peter Pan had no schlong, as he was usually played by a woman.

It's 2023, it's been scientifically proven* that gender is but a construct fabricated by the evil patriarchy as a means of control. Get with the times.

* Scientific proof not actually available

Edited March 2, 2023 by Keyrock

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Well, you know, I'm not sure that The Little Mermaid was originally written for children in the first place...

If it's the Hans Christian Andersen version of The Little Mermaid, it was published in Fairy Tales Told for Children collection (1837). If the title is anything to go by, it was aimed at a younger audience.

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Gorth said:

If it's the Hans Christian Andersen version of The Little Mermaid, it was published in Fairy Tales Told for Children collection (1837). If the title is anything to go by, it was aimed at a younger audience.

have mentioned previous how the goal o' many stories written for kids is to teach 'em bout death and/or to make 'em weep. why? dunno. steinbeck's red pony, patterson's bridge to teribithia, yawlings yearling and too many others to list has a beloved pet, animal companion and/or dear friend die. in fact, disney added the death o' gurgi to their black cauldron 'cause old disney had some weird rule that kids need weep at least once in their earlier films? 

how many theatres over the years went nuts with kid wails when bambi's mother were shot? 

it is not difficult to make kids cry, so am always having been curious as to why a goal o' many writers o' children's fare is to generate tears. suppressed sadism? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[bugarup]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

it is not difficult to make kids cry, so am always having been curious as to why a goal o' many writers o' children's fare is to generate tears. suppressed sadism? 

Maybe to prepare kids in controlled environment with suckitude of life? Like, if you bawl your eyes out when Atreyu's horse drowns then it'll be a bit less horrible when your own dog dies or something, which shouldn't work if a kid is smart enough to tell fiction from life. And it only can be applied to kids with normal family/environment situation anyway, kids with sh†tty family and bad places learn that life is not all sunshine and roses not from fiction. 

Aaaaanyway. I'm happy about derail, never liked Peter Pan anyway. I found the character himself kinda creepy, and the concept silly because who'd want to stay a kid forever when adults get to so much more fun? 

[Chairchucker]

Sometimes the goal might be to teach kids really terrible lessons like, idk, never long for more than you've got or you'll die reaching for it, you loser.

[Keyrock]

Burning Paradise (1994) - Hong Kong cinema kung fu goodness. It's got all the tropes of classic wuxia with the Shaolin as the good guys and the Manchus as the villains. There are pervy monks, we got a hilariously oversized sword, a flying guillotine, a death temple/prison lined with skulls and corpses and with enough traps to make Indiana Jones consider a trip to China. There's plenty of quality gore and the main villain is wonderfully cartoonishly evil. There's even a token romance plot. This movie's got it all.

[Bartimaeus]

Mulholland Dr. (2001). @Fire Walk with KP I finally enjoyed a David Lynch film! You're the first to know, just like I promised!

Spoiler

Well...for the first ten minutes when "Rita" was simply wandering around after having suffered massive brain trauma. Then the rest of the movie happened, and while I did enjoy some of the lighter/goofier stuff between the two female leads even though none of it was particularly groundbreaking or spectacular, that's...about it. I can see why @majestic tried to convince me not to watch this based on what he knows of my tastes.

There are certain types of media in this world that are always going to appeal to those who are very adept at finding their own meaning in works like this (or to those who are able to simply enjoy the "wild ride" without feeling any need to think too deeply about it). I'm not against some things needing interpretation, but any time you get to Revolutionary Girl Utena levels of deciphering meaning for it to work, I just...eh. Well, it's not for me, I'll let those who enjoy it do so.

Also, what the crap was up with the stock sounds? They're so excessively loud and used so badly - is that like some kind of practical joke by David Lynch or something? This is a 2001 film, there's no reason for the different audio elements to sound so poorly mixed. Like, is this a comedy scene? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/w3kpiwmcjlmn4re/mpc-hc64_oV0ByzJ8cc.mp4 Should've added some banana peel slip sounds while we're at it. Small potatoes issue I know, but really.

[LadyCrimson]

I think most fables/fairy tales that are currently ostensibly for children are kind of like some of the tales in the Bible or other religious texts*. They are attempts at teaching morality lessons or behavior lessons. Philosophy or rules or "religious" lessons couched in more crowd-pleasing or relatable entertainment fantasy trappings (vs. a "thou shall not covet..." lecture) .  On the flip side, you also have some that are the reverse and not punishment related (be good/bear with it and great rewards will come...even if it's only in the afterlife). Or some that are a sort of mixture of both (Little Mermaid feels like that to me - it's dark, but it's still a reward in the end since she doesn't put her life first and gets a chance to earn a soul). Whether they were originally for adults or not, who knows.  Cinema has just stayed within that course, even if they then soften or give them happy ever after endings instead.

*no offense to any religion/texts intended

Edited March 4, 2023 by LadyCrimson

[majestic]

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Mulholland Dr. (2001). @Fire Walk with KP I finally enjoyed a David Lynch film! You're the first to know, just like I promised!

  Reveal hidden contents

Well...for the first ten minutes when "Rita" was simply wandering around after having suffered massive brain trauma. Then the rest of the movie happened, and while I did enjoy some of the lighter/goofier stuff between the two female leads even though none of it was particularly groundbreaking or spectacular, that's...about it. I can see why @majestic tried to convince me not to watch this based on what he knows of my tastes.

There are certain types of media in this world that are always going to appeal to those who are very adept at finding their own meaning in works like this (or to those who are able to simply enjoy the "wild ride" without feeling any need to think too deeply about it). I'm not against some things needing interpretation, but any time you get to Revolutionary Girl Utena levels of deciphering meaning for it to work, I just...eh. Well, it's not for me, I'll let those who enjoy it do so.

Also, what the crap was up with the stock sounds? They're so excessively loud and used so badly - is that like some kind of practical joke by David Lynch or something? This is a 2001 film, there's no reason for the different audio elements to sound so poorly mixed. Like, is this a comedy scene? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/w3kpiwmcjlmn4re/mpc-hc64_oV0ByzJ8cc.mp4 Should've added some banana peel slip sounds while we're at it. Small potatoes issue I know, but really.

The power of expectations at work. I went into the film expecting to feel like the posters from the image you linked, and ended up feeling cheated out of my precious time. Worse, I never shook the feeling that the emperor is naked, and nobody is talking about it because everyone expects a Lynch film to be a masterpiece, so it just has to be one.

Spoiler

As for interpreting the film, I am somewhat unsure why people insist on analyzing it so much, it basically throws it's topic in the watcher's face, what with showing - comically overexaggerated, perhaps, but directly showing - Diane being cheated out of her chances in back room dealings. In contrast with Revolutionary Girl Utena, where uncovering the, to borrow the term, "layers" enhanced the viewing experience for me (particularily for the first arc, but also for the excessively repetitive Black Rose arc, even to a much lesser degree, and finally with the movie), that did nothing for me when watching Mulholland Drive. 

The difference between Mulholland Drive and Lost is that I will accept that Lynch didn't just start rolling without having an idea of what the ending should be, but I wonder if there's an overlap between people who enjoyed Mulholland Drive and people who complained about the ending of Lost. These are not as far apart as that might initially seem, even if Lost is more steeped in (predominantely Eastern) religion and mythology and not just an examinaton of Hollywood realities disguised as intellectually challenging material. Lost at least had the problem of being saddled with a Jar Jar Abrams mythology start and the writers writing themselves into a corner over six seasons. *snort*

 

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Also, what the crap was up with the stock sounds? They're so excessively loud and used so badly - is that like some kind of practical joke by David Lynch or something? This is a 2001 film, there's no reason for the different audio elements to sound so poorly mixed. Like, is this a comedy scene? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/w3kpiwmcjlmn4re/mpc-hc64_oV0ByzJ8cc.mp4 Should've added some banana peel slip sounds while we're at it. Small potatoes issue I know, but really.

I see you still have some layers to uncover. Think about it for a while.

As for practical jokes, we could interpret Muldholland Drive as the same type of joke that we could interpret Rebuild of Evangelion as: the directors making fun of the audience while they gobble it up and talk endlessly about it. I am not convinced that was either Anno's or Lynch's intention (fairly certain that Shinji ending up with Mari was), but viewed as such these films are still not enjoyable to watch, but they do get a fun meta element.

Edited March 5, 2023 by majestic

[Bartimaeus]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

As for interpreting the film, I am somewhat unsure why people insist on analyzing it so much, it basically throws it's topic in the watcher's face, what with showing - comically overexaggerated, perhaps, but directly showing - Diane being cheated out of her chances in back room dealings. In contrast with Revolutionary Girl Utena, where uncovering the, to borrow the term, "layers" enhanced the viewing experience for me (particularily for the first arc, but also for the excessively repetitive Black Rose arc, even to a much lesser degree, and finally with the movie), that did nothing for me when watching Mulholland Drive. 

Probably because it gets so muddled with all the typical Lynchian extracurricular, leading to much more open interpretation and different levels of interpretation. Which, again, isn't necessarily a bad thing...but I can't help laugh at those screenshots of comments that I took, knowing that their and everyone else's interpretations are all probably perfectly valid yet still feeling like the lot of them largely come across as total crackpots. For me, as with Utena, I shan't delve too deeply into something I did not particularly like in the first place, which I guess means I'm really just a hater, .

6 hours ago, majestic said:

I see you still have some layers to uncover. Think about it for a while.

6 hours ago, majestic said:

As for practical jokes, we could interpret Muldholland Drive as the same type of joke that we could interpret Rebuild of Evangelion as: the directors making fun of the audience while they gobble it up and talk endlessly about it. I am not convinced that was either Anno's or Lynch's intention (fairly certain that Shinji ending up with Mari was), but viewed as such these films are still not enjoyable to watch, but they do get a fun meta element.

Not for us they ain't, but a lot of people clearly do, Mulholland Drive is considered one of the best films of all time and I think a lot of people really enjoy interpreting it. That's okay, I don't much enjoy all-time greats Citizen Kane or Metropolis as films either - interesting curiosities at best. I'll never be considered a film buff, and that's just fine with me.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

19 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Mulholland Dr. (2001). @Fire Walk with KP I finally enjoyed a David Lynch film! You're the first to know, just like I promised!

  Reveal hidden contents

Well...for the first ten minutes when "Rita" was simply wandering around after having suffered massive brain trauma. Then the rest of the movie happened, and while I did enjoy some of the lighter/goofier stuff between the two female leads even though none of it was particularly groundbreaking or spectacular, that's...about it. I can see why @majestic tried to convince me not to watch this based on what he knows of my tastes.

There are certain types of media in this world that are always going to appeal to those who are very adept at finding their own meaning in works like this (or to those who are able to simply enjoy the "wild ride" without feeling any need to think too deeply about it). I'm not against some things needing interpretation, but any time you get to Revolutionary Girl Utena levels of deciphering meaning for it to work, I just...eh. Well, it's not for me, I'll let those who enjoy it do so.

Also, what the crap was up with the stock sounds? They're so excessively loud and used so badly - is that like some kind of practical joke by David Lynch or something? This is a 2001 film, there's no reason for the different audio elements to sound so poorly mixed. Like, is this a comedy scene? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/w3kpiwmcjlmn4re/mpc-hc64_oV0ByzJ8cc.mp4 Should've added some banana peel slip sounds while we're at it. Small potatoes issue I know, but really.

I don't know who that is.

Spoiler

I didn't reccomend it to you for a reason. As someone who can find my own meaning and also can also just enjoy the ride so to speak, I think that's probably how you should jointly approach Lynch films particularly. As far as I can tell, that's not how you watch things.

Mulholland Drive was originally going to be a tv pilot but it got rejected so David Lynch just decided to cut it into a movie. That could explain the stock sounds in terms of budget/post production, but I took it as the exaggerated effects of action (comedy) sequences as part of the first act sort of being an idealized caricature of Hollywood. I thought that scene was hilarious.

 

6 hours ago, majestic said:

Worse, I never shook the feeling that the emperor is naked, and nobody is talking about it because everyone expects a Lynch film to be a masterpiece, so it just has to be one.

Maybe the emperor is naked. Maybe we are all naked. Silencio!

Spoiler

In a lot of ways I don't think David Lynch's work is hard to get. Mulholland Drive is about the facade and reality of Hollywood, Eraserhead is about unease with becoming a father, Blue Velvet is about the dark underbelly of the idealized Americana, etc. I think that his frequent use of surrealism is less of producing layers for people to decipher and more to add flourish to the films. That's not to say that there isn't anything to decipher in his films or that you should solely take everything straight forward, but I think some folks over analyze to the point they create a black hole in reality and end somewhere very strange.

I never kept up with Lost so I don't have a strong opinion on it.

 

[Bartimaeus]

40 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

I didn't reccomend it to you for a reason. As someone who can find my own meaning and also can also just enjoy the ride so to speak, I think that's probably how you should jointly approach Lynch films particularly. As far as I can tell, that's not how you watch things.

It's complicated. I think of Tarantino and his films generally being slick and enjoyable enough yet ultimately coming away not liking them, usually because I don't appreciate how he conveys themes, characters, story, dialogue - there's nothing lasting for my brain to grasp onto, they're all the quintessential "wild ride" films for me, and that's just not enough. With Lynch, it's...well, even with Mulholland Drive, for probably the first half of the film I was thinking "why is everyone acting like they all came from slightly different planes of existence?". His weird and surrealist style unfortunately takes me out of the experience rather than pulling me deeper in even when he's being relatively straightforward in presenting events and characters, and by the time I get over that, I start getting shoved into the really weird stuff and I'm pretty ready to resign. I've seen Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, and Mulholland Drive now, and none of them seemed to ever want to click for me on even the most basic elements of film-making, and I think that is probably what is hurting me the most with his films. I'll probably try The Elephant Man as one last attempt for Lynch - if I can't enjoy that, I think I should give up.

40 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Mulholland Drive was originally going to be a tv pilot but it got rejected so David Lynch just decided to cut it into a movie. That could explain the stock sounds in terms of budget/post production, but I took it as the exaggerated effects of action (comedy) sequences as part of the first act sort of being an idealized caricature of Hollywood. I thought that scene was hilarious.

I guess it is difficult for me to grasp what Lynch is attempting to do in any given scene - I don't know exactly what I should be taking seriously and trying to read into or not. Maybe if I watched all of his films like 10 times I would finally start to get his style, .

Edited March 5, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

It's complicated. I think of Tarantino and his films generally being slick and enjoyable enough yet ultimately coming away not liking them, usually because I don't appreciate how he conveys themes, characters, story, dialogue - there's nothing lasting for my brain to grasp onto, they're all the quintessential "wild ride" films for me, and that's just not enough. With Lynch, it's...well, even with Mulholland Drive, for probably the first half of the film I was thinking "why is everyone acting like they all came from slightly different planes of existence?". His weird and surrealist style unfortunately takes me out of the experience rather than pulling me deeper in even when he's being relatively straightforward in presenting events and characters, and by the time I get over that, I start getting shoved into the really weird stuff and I'm pretty ready to resign. I've seen Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, and Mulholland Drive now, and none of them seemed to ever want to click for me on even the most basic elements of film-making, and I think that is probably what is hurting me the most with his films. I'll probably try The Elephant Man as one last attempt for Lynch - if I can't enjoy that, I think I should give up.

For me, Tarantino is someone who I think has a lot of talent but bland ideas. There are certainly iconic moments in his films but I don't think any of his films (san jackie Brown) really resonate with me on an intellectual or emotional level, nor are any of them truly crazy in a way that pushes the envelope off the edge. Except maybe for his feet thing, but that's not quite what I'm talking about. In some ways I don't think Tarantino is that much different from any big studio filmmakers, he likes the violence and the foul language, but his movies feel very safe to me.

With Lynch's films I tend to get entranced by the surreal and weird aspects and that ends up helping me enjoy the film more. Whether they're stylistic flourishes or building layers that send people down into some rabbit holes is immaterial to me enjoying them, the result for me is that stuff like the monster outside the diner or the lip synching to In Dreams makes me pay more attention and enjoy films more.

4 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I guess it is difficult for me to grasp what Lynch is attempting to do in any given scene - I don't know exactly what I should be taking seriously and trying to read into or not. Maybe if I watched all of his films like 10 times I would finally start to get his style, .

Let's test that theory.

Really though, if it's not for you it's not for you. If someone has to make you a guide on how to watch something in order to enjoy it then I'd say that you probably shouldn't watch it. Different things work for different people, generally I find David Lynch ****ing hilarious and a low-key comedic genius, I'm sure someone out there things I'm a [insert denigration of choice] for not treating Lynch's work as completely serious and finding humor in it alongside the terror and disturbing parts.

[Lexx]

Watched Free Guy. Surprisingly not that bad. The last few Ryan Reynolds movies I've watched were kinda boring, but this one kept me awake till the end.

[bugarup]

Watched Branagh's "Death on the Nile". Wish he'd leave Poirot alone already. Also, it's amazing how Gal Gadot can't act for sh†t. I mean, she stood out in the cast where everyone were hamming it up like middle-school's drama club. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by bugarup

[Gromnir]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:04 AM, Bartimaeus said:

That's okay, I don't much enjoy all-time greats Citizen Kane or Metropolis as films either - interesting curiosities at best.

citizen kane wasn't a box office smash in 1941 and is even more difficult for a 2023 audience to appreciate. bartimaeus didn't begin watching movies in the 1930s, and is unlikely his movie viewing were entire chronological based. your viewing history makes it difficult to appreciate how movies changed with citizen kane. the thing is, both from a storytelling and cinematography pov, citizen kane altered the manner in which films were crafted. (fixed)orson welles' flick were revolutionary but not in ways you might immediate recognize as a 2023 viewer and maybe not even in 1941. 

years o' marriage covered in a minute and a half o' screen time. kane weren't the first to do montage, but it fundamental changed how it were used, but for a 2023 viewer, is something you even notice?

deep focus weren't pioneered in kane, but again, the filming changed the way stories were told. above is a scene where kane loses his empire and in the span o' a few seconds we see kane, who woulda' been literal larger than life on a movie screen, shrink. 

'bove is only a couple examples. unlike Gromnir, the real film students may wax rhapsodic for hours 'bout kane. like it or not as entertainment, citizen kane is one o' those few genuine revolutionary films. how many films literal changed the way subsequent films were made? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Gromnir

[majestic]

18 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

orwell's flick

Uhm... yeah, happens to me too, all the time.

[Bartimaeus]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

citizen kane wasn't a box office smash in 1941 and is even more difficult for a 2023 audience to appreciate. bartimaeus didn't begin watching movies in the 1930s, and is unlikely his movie viewing were entire chronological based. your viewing history makes it difficult to appreciate how movies changed with citizen kane. the thing is, both from a storytelling and cinematography pov, citizen kane altered the manner in which films were crafted. (fixed)orson welles' flick were revolutionary but not in ways you might immediate recognize as a 2023 viewer and maybe not even in 1941.

'bove is only a couple examples. unlike Gromnir, the real film students may wax rhapsodic for hours 'bout kane. like it or not as entertainment, citizen kane is one o' those few genuine revolutionary films. how many films literal changed the way subsequent films were made? 

Reading about the ways in which it was way ahead of its time and how it changed cinema was practically the only reason I was in any way tempted to watch Citizen Kane in the first place, as I'd already seen two Orson Welles films before I watched Citizen Kane and I came away with an extremely negative impression of the heliocentric director. Film language devices and techniques like the ones you pointed out are interesting, but neither art nor entertainment do they make by themselves for me (and anyways, what one personally values from both sides of that aisle will vary greatly from person to person). Call it a lack of appreciation for the art of cinema by all means - I did say that I'll never be a proper film buff, didn't I? Unfortunately, I find it impossible to detach myself from what I value and enjoy vs. what I don't, and you simply cannot be that way if you wish to see the entire history of a medium with an open mind. If nothing else, I can at least say that I am equally harsh to both old and new, so it's hardly an issue specific to him. But I think I'd rather go delve more into 1920s silents than I would anything else in Welles' filmography.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[Gorth]

Speaking of old films... I think I need to go looking for two Charlie Chaplin films that I remember from a long time ago and could use watching again. The Great Dictator and Monsieur Verdoux. The latter being a very "atypical" Chaplin movie (he plays a serial killer, justifying his actions as being just a small scale version of what national leaders do).

[Keyrock]

Challenge of 5 Gauntlets (2018) - I'm back for another film from Pennsylvanian schlock auteur Len Kabasinski. A desperate father of a daughter who fell ill with a mysterious sickness that no modern medicine can cure turns to an archaeologist/martial arts master to track down a mythical relic that purportedly has the power to heal. He must defeat 5 keepers tasked with protecting the relic which leads him on a globetrotting adventure. By "globetrotting" I mean Pennsylvania dressed up to look like foreign lands.

Of the 4 Len Kabasinski movies I've seen, this is the only one where he plays the lead. In the other 3 movies of his that I've seen he was either a villain or just had a cameo. For better or worse, this is the most competent movie of his I've seen. The cinematography was clearly done by someone who knew what they were doing (there is a bit of shaky cam, but it's used very sparingly) and the sound mixing is solid throughout (something I can't say for some of his earlier works). There are also very very few terrible digital effects, again, for better or worse. This movie also has Leo Fong, known to RLM watchers as "Low Blow". The movie's relative competence does deprive the viewer of some of the humor of Len's older terrible movies. It's by no means good, but it's not bad enough to be hilarious, unfortunately. There are some decent fight scenes, though, all things considered.