Leaderboard

This was fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fa-fafa-far better... WE watched:

This is what I'm talking about. Now you see them Now you don't (but look at the pattern) She definitely is more active

Yea. Remain In Light is famous for this too. There are some traditionally structured lyrics ("Nothing But Flowers" is on Naked and it has a definite point-of-view) but mostly yea, he wanted to challenge form and what was in a pop lyric.

On Naked, the band wrote the music (and maybe even recorded it). David Byrne just sang words until he found the melody and lyrics he liked. I don't think they are necessarily nonsense but they certainly aren't telling stories.

That's interesting, because David Byrne is famous for basically writing phrases, tossing them in a hat, and picking them out. That may be somewhat apocryphal, but he definitely tapped into a stream-of-consciousness art school vibe for a lot of his songs. He does have some stories though, "Once In A Lifetime," "Psycho Killer," "Big Country," etc. But he's avoided formula as a rule. Brian Eno brought that vibe to Bono too. Eno produced both TH and U2; it isn't Bono's natural tendency to write that way.

The common thinking is great movie, bad soundtrack. The current version of the soundtrack follows the movie now. Apparently the soundtrack was also mixed differently. I can kind of understand a bit of shuffling to fit as many songs as possible into an LP but it seems so dumb to also make more changes than absolutely necessary.

I re-read the review and I slightly mis-spoke about the audience. Ebert's review mentions he was glad there were no (or few) shots of the audience during the concert since the audience's actions were often out of sync with what the band was performing. In other words, since they couldn't have a camera always filming the audience, the cameramen would have to get "pick up" shots of the audience. Those shots would be taken during a later song so it's not a true depiction of the audience's response to the specific song the band is performing. I can agree with the rationale to leave the audience shots out of it. My issue is with the sound of the crowd. It would have been nice to hear more of them, singing or clapping at the end of a song.

I don't understand that either. I was also curious about "consistency" (whatever the movie term is to make sure things are the same on each new take). At one point early on Tina Weymouth loses her long pants (shortly after Slippery People - where everyone jogs on stage). I thought it was an odd costume choice then I'm like "Duh. They filmed four concerts. People aren't going to wear the exact same outfits every night." but the pants stayed off for the rest of the time that I watched. It also seemed like she was wearing some sort of patterned leggings. I saw shadows but then some shadows moved with her legs. I know it's an odd thing to obsess over. It's just I didn't notice anyone else doing any clothing changes (except for David's big business suit of course).

Overall I admit this isn't the movie for me. I made it less than an hour (maybe even before Burning Down the House) the first time. Last night I watched it again from just after Psycho Killer onward and stopped at an hour, a song or so after the Tom Tom Club song. (I vaguely remember The Tom Tom Club on the 80's radio but not the song they sang in the movie.) I do appreciate the lyrics being "grounded", by that I mean, they jump all over but still tell a story. I have never understood how Bono can write songs that sounds like a random phrase generator wrote them. Having the subtitles really helped a lot in letting me enjoy the songs.

I don't think those two things are incompatible, are they? 1. Audience reactions can be out-of-sync to what's on screen (granted, I don't know if this is true) 2. Having an audience helps lift a band's performance

I read on Wikipedia that on the soundtrack the songs are out of order so you don’t get that build up of adding another bad member on every song—which is a bizarre choice to me.

I was reading reviews and one thing made me scratch my head. It needs a little set up. Roger Ebert's review mentions how the cameras focused on the band since the audience reactions would be out of sync with what's on screen. Another review mentions that the band only wanted actual concerts to be filmed, and not to do any studio work since the band would lose the audience energy. It doesn't make sense to me. (I guess the band stopped making sense.) The film works because it ignores the audience but the Talking Heads wanted the movie done this way because they wanted the audience to be there?

That impressed me. For me that feeling of space started by seeing just how large the physical stage was before everything was added in. Whenever I go to a concert I'm seeing the finished product so I have nothing to compare to. Seeing how they filled up the space, but it was still small enough for David to run behind the band, was cool. I like that they spread the band out side-to-side instead of front to back. David jumping back over the middle of the stage to come out front again was neat. The entire stage wasn't built to showcase the builders' skills, it was done to showcase the band.

Here's an almost entirely different live TH experience... I probably love it even more than Stop Making Sense. The camera is right on stage and the crowd is going wild and it feels rawer to me.

I think what makes it feel so large is how it starts out so intimately—just adding one band member at a time. It makes it all larger than life.

One thing that I think is interesting is how big this concert seems. For the time, this was a pretty big stage show for the early 80s. Compared to a modern stage presentation for a commercially successful band, this is kind of quaint. It feels massive though. Maybe it's just the energy of the band and the close ups but this feels like a huge show.

So I thought I was hot stuff when I recognized the credits in the Dr. Strangelove style. Big whoop. That's the credit designer's shtick. (Think Men in Black for instance.) https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/giving-credit-to-the-guy-who-revolutionized-movie-credits/281714/

Stop letting the days go by and start discussing.

I will fight anyone who says this is a bad movie, its an 80s classic!!

I relistened to this episode today and I love Jason’s description of Paul googling Mario Lopez’s chest hair as like a “a character in a movie who is trying to hack a system.” I work in publishing. That is the kind of detail I like! Jason, if you want to write a book, call me.

serious question ... did you know paul played the kid from the santa clause ... true story see .....

I fucking love these people together.

This was probably my favorite episode of the year! Thank you everyone at HDTGM. At the end of the movie everything seems to be finally working out for MJH. Not only does she have the opportunity to exhibit her art, but she actually manages to sell her piece - thereby validating her life choices. However, in the final moments of the movie, she is surprised to learn that the buyer was none other than Dimps! Obviously, this is meant to be a grand romantic gesture, but really, I feel like discovering Dimps bought her art would be far more damaging to her self-esteem than had she not sold her painting at all. Think about it: for a fleeting moment, this hapless loser gets to feel like the work she does is appreciated and that her passion is validated, only to have it all come crashing down when she learns that the piece wasn’t sold because it was necessarily good or well-regraded, but because a loved one bought it for her. It’s the equivalent of a mother telling you you’re handsome or pretty or a friend telling you your manuscript is great. Of course it’s sweet, but ultimately, because those people are biased, it’s always going to feel like hollow praise. I feel like it would have been far more romantic for him to have anonymously showcased her work and then allowed it to stand on its own. It would have shown his faith in her abilities without coming off as patronizing.

I don’t know why the description leaves out June but I had a moment of being bummed before being happy that St Clair was on. And then! She was there! It’s a Christmas miracle

Can we get a spinoff podcast where Paul just tells stories from his bizarre childhood please? Scheer Tales. Like and Subscribe.