MST3K: Anti-cinema?

With me, if it wasn't for work and job applications consuming so much of my life, I'd likely have more time to write reviews. Of course, if I pick a day or two each week where I cut back on film and instead focus on reviews, that might help as well.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Trust me, you don't.


It should be. It's hard for everyone. It wouldn't have any value if it was easy.


The key is not overthinking it. You can always tell when someone overthinks anything and it's never good. You've only got to sit and wonder a bit. Start small--one scene, one line of dialogue, a single look an actor gives, a musical cue--sometimes the most simple or banal of things can open up a whole world of thoughts. Put those down, and then work out from there.


I never grasp metaphors. I never respond to symbolism. I usually don't have enough understanding of anything to expound on an analogy. These things aren't irrelevant, but I definitely think what school expects us to talk about makes us believe these are much more important than they actually are.


I doubt I've ever fully, or even partially, understood very many movies at all. I try to, and I'd like to, but understanding the movie isn't the destination for me. I only try and understand my relationship to the movie, and through that, sometimes I get close to what it maybe actually means...but don't ask me, because I never have the slightest idea. And I'm at peace with that. Just like I'm at peace with not having the answers for any of the bigger questions in life either, but I'll still keep appreciating it anyways. At least, most of the time.

Overthinking seldom works. What is overthinking? I can't define it but like a lot of things, including porn, I know it when I see it. I'd take a counter position, that, if "you" (whoever you are) don't understand a movie, maybe it just isn't communicating very well. It becomes IRS income tax instructions, not entertainment, education or enlightenment.

A movie has 90 minutes, maybe sometimes two hours or a bit more (except epics) to introduce characters and situation and setting, expose a plot line and then, if all goes well, resolve the plot. It's intended for people like me, who expect simplicity and directness. If it's a puzzle, it loses the audience.

Dialog is terse, detailed exposition is rare.

It's "over" when the credits roll. If I walk out wondering what the heck just happened, the movie is a failure.

Movies are intended for you?

Is this the moment where the narcissism kicked in?

Yes,yes, I'm sure your going to clarify that this is the way people like you would like a movie to be. But it's a fun kinda Freudian slip to point out.

What is wrong with folks describing themselves as being in the target demo for a specific movie?

I watched a 5 hour movie the other night. Happy Hour. It was fantastic. Jeanne Dielman was also over 3 hours long. Also fantastic. Being over 90 minutes or 2 hours isn’t a deal breaker for me

Happy Hour is actually 5 hours and 20 minutes

Because he consistently thinks he's always the target demo for movies, and I think it's funny the way he worded that (this is what a movie is....they are 90 minutes...they aren't a puzzle...they are intended for me). It's pure, undiluted Skizzerflake.



And, yes, I know what he meant, which I pretty clearly mentioned in my previous post. But please don't let that get in the way of you asking me to explain what I said yet again.

Yes, absolutely, if I'm the guy who's paying for a ticket. They need me more than I need them. There's a lot of other things I can do with that two hours.

No movie needs ten dollars that much.

I much prefer to discuss them in person, but outside of Takoma, there isn’t anyone in my area to do so with. I was at her place this past weekend, and we watched Late Night with The Devil and Lake Mungo. We discussed the issues with Late Night (the beginning gives away too much, and the ending is a tad jumbled), And why Lake Mungo worked so much better.

We even watched Jeanne Dielman. I can’t imagine anyone else willing to watch that with.

Can't wait for you to come up with some kind of philosophical objection to someone simply saying, "that movie's not for me!"

And I can't wait for you to ask me to explain it twice.

Well, Takoma is definitely the gold standard when it comes to taking the time to try and actually pay attention to what a movie is trying to do, and then articulating their feelings as honestly as possible. In a way where there is actually something left over to discuss. Also, my interactions with her over the years, the only proof you need that you don't always have to agree with someone's ultimate verdict to realize their opinion is still as valid or even better than yours (oh, please, let someone now swoop in and take me to task on calling someone's opinion better, don't disappoint me everyone!)



I don't know a lot of people in the flesh who really are too great talking about these things either. Maybe a couple, but they only have little pockets of interest I can even bother asking them about. I guess if I did have that, I wouldn't have really had a great need to come to these boards in the first place. And it's why I get impatient around here when there is so frequently so much indifference (and most particularly) such open hostility and mocking attitudes towards anyone who pushes for more. I already get this kind of indifference about movies from friends, it starts feeling redundant to come online to get more of the same.

For me, the question is about just WHO movies are intended for and why? Are they long, intellectualized puzzles to be unscrambled only by people who have enough erudition to "get it", or are they popular entertainment to be viewed or streamed by people who have plenty other media that compete for their attention?

When you look at movie history, it's clear (to me at least) that most movies are compact and direct. Nobody will ever make a movie version of Finnegan's Wake. They are also popular entertainment and hopefully, for the backers at least, can make a profit. In that sense, they are an investment too.

Again, looking back, you can see that it's pretty darn rare that big-long-complex works in movies, probably the best example being the LOTR trilogy, which really was remarkable in that respect but definitely an exception. Looking at the upcoming movie schedule, I see that nothing there is doing more than a little to violate the 2 hour rule, which allows theaters to have a 6-8-10 or a 7:30-9:30 schedule, just minor adjustments to that formula. Having an neighbor who actually runs a theater, I can tell you that they get very nervous at the thought of a 3 hour movie, since it only puts one set of butts in seats in an evening. It has to be a sure hit.

There is a Finnegan's Wake movie. And there is a long history of all sorts of post modern and experimental writers having their work adapted for film. You know, because movies can be lots of things. They dare to exist even where you're not looking, and will never look, because you're probably too busy wiping popcorn butter on your pants.



Also, the world still exists when you close your eyes.

At this point, I think maybe Skizzerflake and FilmBuff need to start a secret movie profit club. They can set up shop in an abandoned treehouse. FilmBuff can wear one of those money counting hats with the green visors and tap away on a vintage adding machine, while Skizzerflake can pace back and forth, wondering if the movie they were planning to see that night is going to turn a big enough profit to be worth his time. Maybe occassionally nervously blurting out a John Waters anecdote, where he approves of movies where people eat dog poop, as long as it can be a financial success.

"Give the people what they want", they will occassionally shout out in unison. Their mantra.

Just make sure you put the "No Cinephiles...OR GIRLS" sign on the door to keep out the riffraff.

So you're getting the same thing... twice?

Yeah, sure, because simply understanding how the world works must mean a person is obsessed with something you don't want to know anything about.

It should be abundantly obvious at this point that there's zero disagreement about whether the business side of movies influences what it gets made. I defy anyone to come up with a single example of someone saying otherwise. What is being said is that some people are uninterested in that side of things and don't find it relevant as it relates to the quality of any given film.