Leaderboard

Recorded live from Berkeley, CA, Paul, June, and Jason discuss the1986 slasher film Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. They talk about Jason Voorhees’ story leading up to this movie, condom sounds, suspenders under t-shirts, and more. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace (www.squarespace.com/BONKERS code: BONKERS), Betterhelp (www.betterhelp.com/bonkers), Simplisafe (www.simplisafe.com/bonkers), and Amazon Intersect Festival (www.intersectfest.com code: BONKERS). Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul Scheer and Amy Nicholson here: http://www.earwolf.com/show/unspooled/ Check out our tour dates over at www.hdtgm.com! Check out new HDTGM merch over at https://www.teepubli…wdidthisgetmade Where to Find Jason, June & Paul: @PaulScheer on Instagram & Twitter @Junediane on IG and @MsJuneDiane on Twitter

I watched a Friday the 13th documentary where the director of this movie said that the credit card was shown for so long because he wanted to allow time for an audience member to yell out, "Don't leave home without it!" He said that a lot of the jokes in the movie are meant for audience participation.

So, for any one wondering, according to what I could determine through online research, the amount of force it would take to punch straight through a person’s chest and rip out their heart is approximately 50kN (kilonewtons). To put this into perspective, this is about ten times the force exerted by a professional boxer - who average about 5kN per punch - and over twice that of the bite of a Great White Shark (18kN). Furthermore, it would take nearly 1,100 lbs of pressure (far greater than mortal man is capable) to crush a human skull in one’s barehands, and depending on the situation, leverage, and torque, it would take anywhere from 30-200kN to rip a person’s arm from its socket. All this is to say, Jason’s a pretty bad motherfucker. Especially for someone who was, until very recently, a desiccated corpse.

Early in the movie, there is a scene which shows children sleeping in their beds, each with a book laying on their chest, which presumably is the book they are reading before they fall asleep. The last kid apparently has been reading Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1944 existential play “No Exit.” At first, I thought it’s just a gag (kid reading super-serious literature,) but after some googling the synopsis of the play, I feel it might not be the case. The play goes like this: 2 women and a man found themselves in a room after they died. The room has no window and mirror, only a door which cannot be opened. The three characters all did something terrible during their lifetime. Furthermore, Woman A finds herself to be attracted to Woman B, Woman B is attracted to the man. The man initially is not attracted to either of the 2 women, then later succumbed to the seduction of Woman B. But he is only willing to have sex with her if both women say he’s not a coward; the man was executed for desertion, so he wants people to assure him he’s not a coward. Woman B complies, but Woman A refuses, partly due to jealousy and partly because she’s a sadist. Then the door suddenly opens after the man’s several attempts to open the door, but he refuses to leave the room until he convinces Woman A he’s not a coward. However, Woman A tells him she will never give him the approval he so desires. Also, neither of the women wants to leave the room as well for various reasons. This is when the man realizes they are in hell, and what is torturing them is none other than each other. In Jason Lives, after we see the kid with the Sartre play, the movie cuts to a shot of the hamster cage, with a hamster frantically running a hamster wheel, almost like trapped in a loop. Maybe the movie is saying that Jason and the characters in his movies, especially Tommy, are kind of like the characters in the play, trapped in a metaphorical hell. Jason can never stop killing and avenge himself and his mother, as there will always be horny teenagers. Tommy and characters in Jason-verse will forever be haunted by the unkillable monster that is Jason. Oh, if the plot of “No Exit” sounds familiar, maybe it’s because it serves as one of the inspirations for the sitcom “The Good Place,” in which Jason Mantzoukas is a recurring character.

I think the movie is basically a Lovecraftian horror movie (based on my limited knowledge of Lovecraft). It's just a person, or possibly two people, going mad from exposure to isolation and seeing an otherworldly monster. I didn't care much for the movie. I appreciated the look of it. I think the acting was top notch. I'm really glad Robert Pattinson is shedding Twilight and I hope he starts getting the recognition he deserves. But I was bored for a lot of the movie and nothing really came to anything I found compelling.

You wondered who put up a tombstone for Jason Vorhees? The director’s original ending would have answered that. Tom McLoughlin originally intended for the caretaker to live until the end. Then he’d be visited and paid by a man he called “Mr. Vorhees”- Jason’s father!

Ha. I was the male lead in Oleanna once. It was, I suppose, a progressive script at the time in that it got people to talk about the issue but it hasn't aged well. The young female student is "manipulated" into pressing charges against an arrogant young professor who feels entitled to the tenure he is expecting. It probably wouldn't go over any better now than Disclosure does, unless someone did it with a fringe-theatre spin (gender-blind casting, fetishwear costuming maybe). Edited to clarify why I put "manipulated" in quotes there: my memory of the script is that Mamet doesn't give the young woman any real agency of her own, she is convinced to press charges by vengeful feminists or something, allowing the audience to have more sympathy for her. These days I hope the story could be done without such a device. There are certainly still things to enjoy about Mamet's work (especially his books about theatre, True or False and Three Uses of the Knife) but that play, enh, not so much.

Obviously too late for the minisode and the very constructive posts by fellow users about the wider issue of sexual harassment and assault. However, I read an interesting piece of trivia on IMDB that this was one of three major cinema releases in the early 90s to deal with the topic of sexual harassment. This one, which was about a woman being the harasser, Gross Misconduct which was about a woman falsifying a complaint, and Mamet's Oleanna which sort of showed both parties' sides of the story. I think if people tried to get their information about the issue in real life from how it's portrayed in these films, they might get the wrong idea.

Yes, but it has been so misused at this point that it's now acceptable to use it to mean "unimpressed." As far as I'm concerned, as long as people understand his meaning, he is communicating effectively. Languages and definitions tend to evolve over time. From Wikipedia: In recent North American English nonplussed has acquired the alternative meaning of "unimpressed".[1] In 1999, this was considered a neologism, ostensibly from "not plussed", although "plussed" by itself is not a recognized English word. The "unimpressed" meaning is proscribed as nonstandard by at least one authoritative source.[3] From Dr. Internet non·plussed nänˈpləst/ adjective 1. (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react. "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea" 2. NORTH AMERICAN informal (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.