When you binge on a specific director...

Tools    





If you're watching a 90 minute movie while constantly stopping to answer a message board, there's probably some concentration issues involved. 90 minutes is not a lot of time to ask for an undistracted viewing.

Well, to be fair, replies take one-to-three minutes. It's not the same thing as making a meal.


I think the best comparison should be between movies and songs. Stopping a song every time it moved towards ita chorus would be detrimental to its impact. Movies arent that different in how they build emotionally, each scene adding to what came before. To constantly stop a film while watching, breaks it's spell. And, obviously, that can make it less effective.

Yeah, and even though it's not a perfect comparison, it's more like stopping an album.


Better yet, it's more like putting a bookmark in a novel. Jurassic Park was 400 pages, so I read it over a three day period.



It might be. I only discovered him through his only MST3K entry, The Castle of Fu Manchu.
Mm-mm. OK, let me ask: do you have much familiarty with this sub-genre of horror? Because I have to repeat the basic imperative that you should have some understanding of what the film is attempting to accomplish, and I don't see this understanding reflected in your criticisms. Are you familiar with Anthony Margheriti (Castle of Blood, Long Hair of Death, Web of the Spider)? I mention Jean Rollin, who may be the finest example of this style of soft-core evocative horror, anything from him? Joe D'Amato (The Devil's Wedding Night, Death Smiles on a Murderer)? I'll go out on a limb and ask, Walerian Borowczyk (Immoral Tales, The Beast, Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne)? Not to mention if you have much familiarity with soft-core more generally? I think if you knew what you were looking for you may have been able to find a firmer entry point to this kind of material.



So, why Franco? And not someone like a Mario Bava who may make a better introduction to this style of sensual, mood (rather than plot) driven horror? Because MST3K is many things, but it's not the kind of place I'd look for Welles-worthy filmmakers.



I know Letterboxd considers that his worst movie, with the second being Oasis of the Zombies. As far as his best goes, the three options seem to be Vampyros Lesbos, Diabolical Dr. Z, and The Awful Dr. Orloff. I haven't seen the last of those. I also checked out The Girl from Rio, which wasn't utterly horrific like Fu Manchu, just pretty damn boring. I'll be done checking him out onpy qhen I've gone through his absolute best, worst and most popular, but no way I'm getting through all of them or even half. But sides, I can't seem to find some of them online and I don't wanna bother other people for the links.
I'm curious what you expect to get out of this excursion. I honestly don't understand why "worst" is a priority (and "popular"?, wtf?), but in terms of his better efforts, yes, I'd say those three are pretty good, but personally, I might place She Killed In Ecstasy a little higher, and lump Count Dracula and Venus in Furs along with them. Still seems like a rather random exercise.



Well, to be fair, replies take one-to-three minutes. It's not the same thing as making a meal.
I understand how internet psychology works, and it seems more than possible that you may be stewing over these exchanges while looking at the screen instead of paying attention to what you're watching. Maybe not, maybe you have a high-functioning brain that can compartmentalize these things. In that case, I would think that your brain could handle the discipline of making it through a 90 minute film without looking at your phone or whatever.


Jurassic Park was 400 pages, so I read it over a three day period.
If I could read a 400 page book in 90 minutes then I certainly would in one sitting. A 90 minute movie is not a 400 page book.



Mm-mm. OK, let me ask: do you have much familiarty with this sub-genre of horror? Because I have to repeat the basic imperative that you should have some understanding of what the film is attempting to accomplish, and I don't see this understanding reflected in your criticisms. Are you familiar with Anthony Margheriti (Castle of Blood, Long Hair of Death, Web of the Spider)? I mention Jean Rollin, who may be the finest example of this style of soft-core evocative horror, anything from him? Joe D'Amato (The Devil's Wedding Night, Death Smiles on a Murderer)? I'll go out on a limb and ask, Walerian Borowczyk (Immoral Tales, The Beast, Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne)? Not to mention if you have much familiarity with soft-core more generally? I think if you knew what you were looking for you may have been able to find a firmer entry point to this kind of material.



So, why Franco? And not someone like a Mario Bava who may make a better introduction to this style of sensual, mood (rather than plot) driven horror? Because MST3K is many things, but it's not the kind of place I'd look for Welles-worthy filmmakers.




I'm curious what you expect to get out of this excursion. I honestly don't understand why "worst" is a priority (and "popular"?, wtf?), but in terms of his better efforts, yes, I'd say those three are pretty good, but personally, I might place She Killed In Ecstasy a little higher, and lump Count Dracula and Venus in Furs along with them. Still seems like a rather random exercise.

A: I don't watch a lot of porn if that's what you're asking. I've seen a few erotic movies and I'll watch others, but generally, I don't see a point in watching most porn movies.

B: I've already made comments about how Barry Mahon is the worst director I've experienced. But since The Castle of Fu Manchu took the "worst movie ever" slot from the Winer / Mahon collab of Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny, I felt that if this guy directed the worst movie ever, might as well see if he's done anything good or anything else horrible. Obviously, if his movie is THAT BAD, he has some notoriety, so one movie's not enough. This guy has nearly 200, so 10 or so won't hurt. I might even watch 20.


In short, if I want to converse about specific directors, I wanna know what I'm talking about.


C: Checking out the three different kinds of movies ensures I get the most out of the experience of exploring this director, thus I can approach him from multiple sides.


Don't worry. I'll check out Mario Bava someday. I hear some of his movies are raw classics so I'm eager for them (but since I'm working my way through MST3K, I'm saving Diabolik for then).



I understand how internet psychology works, and it seems more than possible that you may be stewing over these exchanges while looking at the screen instead of paying attention to what you're watching. Maybe not, maybe you have a high-functioning brain that can compartmentalize these things. In that case, I would think that your brain could handle the discipline of making it through a 90 minute film without looking at your phone or whatever.

If I could read a 400 page book in 90 minutes then I certainly would in one sitting. A 90 minute movie is not a 400 page book.

But it becomes a three-and-a-half hour movie if you train yourself to speed read. Besides, Jurassic Park was more interesting and frankly, there were parts of Vampyros Lesbos that were a bit boring.



I know you've seen Count Dracula, which you seem to be fonder of than me.
I don't even like it that much! I think it's better than some of the other later Hammer Dracula films, and a worthy Christopher Lee performance in the role.

I mentioned some of my Franco faves above.

Perhaps it may work better for you. At the very least there's a POV shot through a Mickey Mouse mask.
Is it worse than listening to New York Ripper through the POV of a Donald Duck voice?



A: I don't watch a lot of porn if that's what you're asking. I've seen a few erotic movies and I'll watch others, but generally, I don't see a point in watching most porn movies.
Again, my question is what what you expecting to get out of watching these soft-core films then?


I might even watch 20.
You're an animal.


In short, if I want to converse about specific directors, I wanna know what I'm talking about.
You wanna know. But do you know? Do you know what this specific director is about?


C: Checking out the three different kinds of movies ensures I get the most out of the experience of exploring this director, thus I can approach him from multiple sides.
The catagories of "good", "bad" and "popular" are poorly defined, at best. If I were to catagorize the three types of films that are needed to understand Franco, they would be "gothic horror", "soft-core erotica" and "psychedelic/midnight movie". This is how you come to an understanding of what Franco is about.



But it becomes a three-and-a-half hour movie if you train yourself to speed read.
I'm going to nod politely.



Is it worse than listening to New York Ripper through the POV of a Donald Duck voice?
The New York Ripper is overall a much meaner (and better made) movie, so the Donald Duck voice sticks out more than the Mickey Mouse mask in Bloody Moon, if that's what you're asking. As for which is funnier...


WARNING: "Bloody Moon spoilers, but c'mon JJ, you know you wanna read what's inside...." spoilers below
If my memory serves me correctly, the killer tries to get it on with a lady while wearing the mask, only to stab her repeatedly.


The House of Mouse would not approve.



What a Honeymoon (*points to avatar*)
This film must have another name.



Again, my question is what what you expecting to get out of watching these soft-core films then?



You're an animal.



You wanna know. But do you know? Do you know what this specific director is about?



The catagories of "good", "bad" and "popular" are poorly defined, at best. If I were to catagorize the three types of films that are needed to understand Franco, they would be "gothic horror", "soft-core erotica" and "psychedelic/midnight movie". This is how you come to an understanding of what Franco is about.

A. The only reason I watch any movie is if it's a notable movie, typically by a noteworthy director. Never would've checked out Vampyros Lesbos otherwise. All I expect to get is seeing what his most popular movie is all about, and thus one of many glances into what he's known for that I plan on experiencing.


B. Call me a dog, because I'm loyal.


C. That's what I plan on finding out. I'm educating myself in him, and I don't want to stop until I feel like I'm educated enough. Hence 10-20 movies oughta do the trick.


D. The Good, the Bad and the Popular are the three movie classifications I check out for any director I get invested in. I understand the first two are largely subjective (unless you define Good and Bad as highest-rated and lowest-rated based on one or more sources), but popularity is pretty easy to determine.



This film must have another name.
Not that I'm aware of.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9828802/


Apparently it was thought to be unfinished for the longest time, until a restoration a few years ago by the Filmoteca Espanola. No proper North American release as far as I'm aware, but I was able to get my hands on it through...other methods.



A. The only reason I watch any movie is if it's a notable movie, typically by a noteworthy director. Never would've checked out Vampyros Lesbos otherwise. All I expect to get is seeing what his most popular movie is all about, and thus one of many glances into what he's known for that I plan on experiencing.
I'm still not sure why Franco is more noteworthy than the others I've mentioned.


D. The Good, the Bad and the Popular are the three movie classifications I check out for any director I get invested in. I understand the first two are largely subjective (unless you define Good and Bad as highest-rated and lowest-rated based on one or more sources), but popularity is pretty easy to determine.
The first two are entirely subjective, and going by aggregate rating is just meta-subjective, not objective. Popularity is worse than that, it's arbitrary. The categories I listed are based on the substance of the films, not reactions other than my own. I think it's far more important to classify films based on what they are and what they aim to be, and to judge filmmakers based on their singular attributes and voice rather than rote blueprint vis a vis comparisons to films they are not nor ever intended to be (Tarantino and Nolan films, for example).



Not that I'm aware of.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9828802/


Apparently it was thought to be unfinished for the longest time, until a restoration a few years ago by the Filmoteca Espanola. No proper North American release as far as I'm aware, but I was able to get my hands on it through...other methods.
Ah, it's listed as The Gold Bug. Gotcha.



I'm still not sure why Franco is more noteworthy than the others I've mentioned.



The first two are entirely subjective, and going by aggregate rating is just meta-subjective, not objective. Popularity is worse than that, it's arbitrary. The categories I listed are based on the substance of the films, not reactions other than my own. I think it's far more important to classify films based on what they are and what they aim to be, and to judge filmmakers based on their singular attributes and voice rather than rote blueprint vis a vis comparisons to films they are not nor ever intended to be (Tarantino and Nolan films, for example).

A: I never said he was more noteworthy than those others. He's just who I'm interested in checking out right now for several reasons. There are plenty of noteworthy director I plan on researching, but I can't do them all at once so I take it a couple at a time.


So do I. But that begins with deciding which films to watch, and deciding which films to watch is based on recommendations, and what better recommendations are there than collaborative ratings on movie-central websites? Then, you've got a bunch of people recommending these movies. That's how popularity can help. But not all popular movies are good, so specifically looking up the movies with the highest reviews allows me to approach directors in more than one way.



A: I never said he was more noteworthy than those others. He's just who I'm interested in checking out right now for several reasons.
I've asked in a couple of different ways what these several reasons are. Seeing it on MST3K doesn't seem like a very strong reason.



I've asked in a couple of different ways what these several reasons are. Seeing it on MST3K doesn't seem like a very strong reason.

That's not what I said. Go back and read it again. I said I did it because he made the worst movie I've ever seen, and that made me curious about the quality of his other movies.



The trick is not minding
I don’t think MST3K is really his strongest reason, but rather what brought Franco to his attention.
I’m honestly not sure why there is this hang up on MST3K being what introduced him to Franco, in fact. I’ve never seen Keyser tought it as some sort of great window into cinema.

I’m a also not sure why it matters who he watches first. Does he really need to watch Bava, Rollins et all before he watches Franco? Does there really have to be some sort of order he goes through before he begins to binge Franco?

Personally, I started with Bava and Fulci, but haven’t gotten into any others you’ve mentioned. This includes Franco.



I agree this applies to quality blockbuster films, too. It just doesn't always appear to blockbuster films you deem quality.
Right, but obviously I'm trying to tease out what "quality" means here, to determine why some films qualify for this kind of praise and some don't.

There's nothing you must "get" except for good taste.
Just referencing "taste" is kind of a dead end. And if that's really all this is, it ought to have killed the beginning, too, since there's little point in contradicting people for having different tastes, unless those tastes can be cultivated. And if they can be cultivated they can be discussed. So the act of expressing these opinions, particularly a disagreement, presupposes that some kind of meaningful exchange about that taste--say, explaining why something is good, and can be seen as good to people with "taste"--is at least possible.