JeffreyMcDonald

It would have been a fun verses with "Alice Sweet Alice".

Amy did pose an interesting question. Just because Trek can be in The Canon, should it be in The Canon? My response is a thoughtful "yes". So many tangential thoughts cropped up from this episode. As far as Amy finding this boring, I can see that. Personally I love it, but I love submarine movies. "The Hunt for Red October" is a go-to background movie for me. Again, in a time when so many are throwing up their arms complaining that superhero movies end with cities blowing up, I find the quaint strategy battle of Khan to be quite refreshing. One of the most consistent complaints I've heard from many Trek fans about the JJ-verse is that the JJ films are too exciting. An interesting thing discussed in the Mission Log podcast* is that it isn't until the movies that Spock, specifically, becomes the character that we know. In the first two seasons of TOS, Spock is basically screws up everything because he denies his human side and solely relies on logic**. It's through his merging with V*GER, death, and resurrection that Spock becomes the Spock that we know. So the films are essential for the advancement of the characters and series. (*a podcast where the hosts watch each and every episode of Star Trek in order, including the animated series, to discuss the messages, morals, and meanings and to see if it holds up to the test of time) (**some have interpreted this as an unintentional criticism of Ayn Rand/Objectivism).

Haha, I'm a HUGE Trek fan (religiously listen to the "Mission Log" podcast every week) and I don't know if I'd go that far. I mean, some of those TNG movies...hell, some of the TOS movies are a little...whoa. And, as I said, I'm a super fan. (and as such, it will be a cold day in hell before I want "Beyond" in the Canon, if we're talking "all or nothing".)

I like to subscribe to the that Sci Fi is at it's best when it's slow and dull ("Star Trek: The Motion Picture", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Solaris", etc.) or when it's very exciting ("Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn", "The Matrix", "The Terminator", etc.).

A sip of beer every time they say the title of a movie or an actor's name multiple times in the same sentence. A shot if it's after the first 10 minutes of the episode. "What I like about "Stand By Me" is that in "Stand By Me"..." I'm sure Devin did as well (if you read his heartfelt memorial article). So did every breathing human of every sexual orientation, for that matter ;-)

I was very infrequent with the podcast at first and wasn't a regular listener until soon after the Rollins episode for Apocalypse now. Since Oldboy I haven't missed an episode, but I've been scattershot catching up on older episodes. REALLY curious to see both "Working Girl" and "Chi-raq" after going through this thread. I wonder if I'll join the ouster ranks?

I'd probably go with: Pennies From Heaven Cannibal Holocaust The Grand Budapest Hotel (honestly, too soon) Annie Hall (that's right, I said it) Boyz n the Hood (still laughing at Eazy E calling it an "after shool special") Personally, I do not want an indulgence "vs.". I like when A&D disagree, but an indulgence "vs." argument would probably be too mean and personal and not fun. That said, if Re-Animator goes and that god-awful Pennies stays...then this meaningless list of films will be rendered meaningless. Maybe if one goes then both should go? I mean a lot of people in the thread said they only voted for Pennies because "Devin's indulgence got in so...". Either that, or make the (yearly?) indulgence picks immune? I don't know, I just want to keep the podcast fun.

As a TOS fan, this will be an easy "yes" for me. No matter who does the ranking of the Trek films, Kahn always comes up as #1. But does #1 Trek film mean canon-worthy film? (I'd say "yes", but I'm biased.) Not being able to predict Amy's taste at all, I will be not at all surprised if she comes out against Kahn, and there might be others who feel the same way. A possible interesting discussion is ahead for next week. I wish this could be a vs. with "Into Darkness". Just to solidify that "Into Darkness" would not make it in. And yet I suspect the kind of person who defends the Star Wars prequels while hating on "TFA" would probably be the type of person to defend "Into Darkness" as well.

For me this one is not about impact, historical significance, or anything like that. This film is simply an incredible piece of art, and the acting, directing, etc, are all astounding. Surprisingly the thing I keep going back to after this viewing is not DeNiro or Lewis; but rather the performances of the three main women. Diahnne Abbott, Shelley Hack, and the utterly intense Sandra Bernhard all were so incredible. I kind of want to watch it again (but this isn't my only movie podcast, damn you How Did This Get Made and Greg Proops Film Club. Speaking of, A&D should try to have Proops on some time. All those LA podcasties run in the same circles...). "Yes" for me.

Supplemental: RLM also discussed this recently, for those interested.

I just watched this for the first time in 10+ years. I always appreciated it, but the purposeful cringe of some of the scenes made it difficult to want to go back to. I love pretty much all Scorsese, but especially when he goes somewhat more experimental. On the extras they talked about how a lot of the film (especially Bernhard) was improvised, which adds to that raw-crazy tone. Fun fact*: Jerry Lewis asked for his character to be called "Jerry" because he knew in the outdoor scenes in New York that when they were filming, that random people would yell out "Hey, Jerry!". Scorsese hesitated, so Lewis took him down a block and that was exactly what happened. [*heard this story on Gilbert Gottfried's podcast]

I was thinking that, reading some of the comments from people on this thread who are seeing the film for the first time. Considering how Devin had posted articles dismissing 3-D as a gimmick (I don't disagree), I think a discussion on how the marketing of the film at the time possibly having an effect on audience reception that can't be replicated in the future is a valid discussion point. And is it is worth pondering that if a film event was truly only of that moment would preclude it from being canon worthy or does the film surpass the "gimmick" and stand the test of time and/or history. In the podcast discussion we only got the perspective of three people who had seen the film on its initial run. So they all have the memories of the experience of seeing this film the first time around, and can't really remove themselves from that. Honestly, I'm finding it difficult myself. I haven't seen the movie since its theatrical release, and really don't want to re-watch it because of those memories that I have (but I have made it a point not to vote on a thread unless I've seen the film within a month of the podcast). From the discussion, I did enjoy the nuanced perspective that the somewhat grating characters are what add to the experience rather than distract from it. And agreed, it's very frustrating when people conflate purposefully "annoying character" with "bad acting". In horror especially, there is a fine line between annoying and idiotic/unrealistic (a good reference is Franklin in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", as a perfectly annoying character. Just give your sister the damned flashlight! Yet he's still sympathetic, especially after the hitchhiker cuts him). When I re-watch, I'm curious to see how I react to Heather's clumsy camera work. Two things that frustrate me the most with "found footage" movies are a) the unrealistic camera work (TJ MIller in "Cloverfield", a person would NOT be holding a camera like that!) especially in scenes where a person would not have a camera turned on in the first place and b ) the unrealistic "real" dialog (again, TJ MIller in "Cloverfield" or pretty much all of "Chronicle"). George Romero's "Diary of the Dead" is full of endearing flaws, but it's really one of the only movies after "Blair Witch" that I think used found footage in an interesting way.

I understand why they pre-record (and it's better than no episode) but I do miss the opportunity for a post vote discussion. I kind-of hope they do a one-off mini-episode when they're both back in town where maybe they discuss some of the points, good or bad, brought up in the discussion threads. The past several weeks I've seen many thoughtful arguments on both sides.

Very well put. Cheers

I've posted a few times about my disagreement with gender classification of movies. This week I was thinking of possibly conceding on "Stand By Me" as being a so-called "boy film". Then again remembering how some of the actors were thought of at the time (or soon after)...

...and again, totally willing to admit and mea culpa if I have a shitty argument or if I see that my perspective is wrong. but what's the point of a discussion board if not to have a discussion? I can't reply to everything but am actually enjoying reading other thoughts and even seeing how people are poking holes in what I'm saying. Woo for learning experiences!

Yeah, it was definitely poorly stated on my part. (sometimes it's difficult to get out coherent thoughts tossing off a quick lunch-break message from my desk at work). Trying to clarify, but can't find the correct words to get across what I'm trying to say...which probably is a sign that it's a shitty argument to try to make. I'm trying to talk about basic math. If the majority of films have been made by men, then the majority of films are going to have a so-called male perspective. I didn't say that we can't/shouldn't/won't vote for something that appeals to women or from women filmmakers. I was saying, just by the nature of the pool of films to choose from, the Canon is going to bias in a male perspective regardless, so it seems to me a pointless thing to point out. I mean, what's the gender breakdown of this list? https://en.wikipedia...ilm:_An_Odyssey But, that shitty argument aside, the point I was trying to make with the rest of that post was to say that films like "The Thing" or "Re-Animator" appeal only to basement dwelling asthmatic Dungeons & Dragons playing man-children of the '80s is somewhat baseless and reductive. As I said, I have plenty of awesome female friends (not of the 80s) who adore genre and exploitation films. I just don't agree with the framing of those movies being only made for or only appealing to a specific demographic. Some girls like to play in the dirt and mud just as much as the boys. One of my favorite film watching experiences was watching "Bride of Re-Animator" at a midnight showing and when the characters get attacked by many appendages and my friend Alison yelled out in the theater with glee "Body parts galore!!!". She's not an '80s basement dwelling nerd...well she's a nerd (a biochemist), but she doesn't dwell in a basement and didn't grow up in the '80s. A nerd who likes good movies and doesn't judge them by who she imagines they were made to appeal to.

See, when Amy brings this up I still think this is a non-argument. Dude-oriented I: In the history of cinema the vast majority of films made up to this point have been made by men. It's an unfortunate fact and there are historical and cultural reasons for this, but it's still a fact. By its nature, The Canon is going to be dude oriented regardless, just going off percentages. Dude-oriented II: It's reductive to call certain topics "male" or "female". I have male friends who love musicals. I have female friends who love horror and sci-fi. Most of my friends are open-minded and like both (and both men and women go nuts for fantasy). Especially in our increasingly fluid times, genre need not be tied to a gender. Nerd-bait I: What does this even mean any more? When the MCU is one of the most successful film (for lack of better term) franchises of all time, comics and sci-fi are no longer confined to the nerd realm. They're mainstream. Horror left nerd-dom long, long ago. Nerd-bait II: What if we don't mean stereotypical "basement dwelling" nerd, but rather specifically the "film nerd"? Well, modern film nerds usually take the path of Tarantino where they can enjoy both the schlocky exploitation flicks as well as their 200th required film class viewing of "The Passion of Joan of Arc". And what is the point of a Canon if not to envelop the opinion of film nerds? Tarantino-esque film nerds are specifically why we can have both "Pather Panchali" and "Re-Animator" in the same Canon. (A Mark Cousins film nerd Canon would be enlightening...but far less fun. Lighten up, Mark!)

Yes, if this doesn't get in I wonder if Amy will realize that she hoisted herself on her own pertard (or, if, I fear she will double down on being vicious towards anything nerd/genre fan oriented). I have still abstained up to this point, but I almost want to vote for it because I fear if it doesn't get in that Amy may not take it well and the show will be less fun to listen to. Also, if they have the "removal" episode that they've been talking about, it would mean that poor "Re-Animator" would definitely be on the chopping block. For many episodes Amy's been saying that she's "afraid" to nominate this film. To me that came across a bit like manipulative sympathy baiting...wait...now I finally understand why she identifies with Steve Martin's character! Anyway, Sunday night if it's still close I'll probably vote "yes"; not because I think it deserves to get in (I don't), but rather for the sake of the show that I enjoy hearing every Monday.

Hmm, I like this point. I did not like the film, but I did not think it was a "bad" film. And I can definitely recognize that it was interesting and unique.

I'm still on the fence. I don't agree with Devin on Steve Martin's casting. I actually think his handsomeness and appeal works into the manipulative sociopathy of the character. Honestly, without that innate Steve Martin charm I can't see why either Bernadette Peters' or Jessica Harper's characters would put up with his nonsense. I'm a little disturbed at Amy's identification with Arthur. I don't see him as the unfulfilled dreamer, but much closer as a self-serving jerk who has hardly any consideration for others unless it serves him. They commented on how we saw a little remorse in Arthur after he rebuked the accordion player, but it doesn't last. The diner scene after that was very interesting. It's all about Arthur's ego, how -even though he's not doing well- he has to show off that he's better off than the poor little fellow who was charmed by the woman that Arthur wants to cheat on his wife with. And his hitting on the (underage?) blind girl was outright sinister. What is Amy harboring that she thinks we all share?!?! Agreed that a main character doesn't have to be likable. I enjoy many films without redeeming protagonists. But I feel like what Amy seems to love about this movie is so much better accomplished in other films (such as "Brazil" and "Dancer in the Dark"). Also, I am on board with Devin's point that trying to force sympathy for an irredeemable protagonist really puts me off (which is one of the reasons I can't stand the movie "Blow"). I don't want to rain on Amy's parade so I might abstain from voting, as maybe this is a movie that I'll need to watch again in a few years and I'll possibly get something else out of it. But the fact that I really do not want to ever see this movie again is having me lean "no". I'm curious to read the discussion in this thread before making up my mind. Though: Having a musical where Bernadette Peters (for the most part) lip syncs instead of sings? I understand why, but still...[sad face]

That was...interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Kind of reminded brought up thoughts of "Brazil" at first, with the escapism, but then went way off into its own thing, and ended in "Dancer in the Dark" territory. Interesting that Steve Martin followed this up with "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", another movie with old timey things spliced in with Martin. I'm leaning soft-no, but I'll wait to hear the episode. I was swayed for "A Hard Days Night", maybe I'll be swayed on this as well. Speaking of, Devin and Amy don't give us much credit, saying they were "worried" and "discouraged" by comments in the AHDN homework thread. I think most of us are fairly open minded, and if we're leaning one way or the other, it seems as though the tendency is to wait and listen to the podcast before definitively making up our mind. Especially when we're on the fence (like I am now).

It's at the top of my Netflix queue, so I'll get it before next week. Just to get to see Bernadette Peters perform, I'm already going to be a little biased towards this. I love her as an actress, especially in singing roles. [...and I'll try to hold back my personal grudge for people hating on Re-Animator.]

Definitely a "yes" for me. I watched it again last night for the first time in years and was laughing out loud at many parts. Some of the humor is a little dated, but that's what makes it of its time and still enjoyable. If a 40 year old comedy...hell, if a 3 year old comedy can still make a person laugh after time has passed, that's a beautiful thing. Add to that how daring the film still feels today, that just tops it off as a sure "in" for me. It was a brief point, but I thought it was interesting as far as Mel Brooks' gay jokes at the end of the film. Devin implies that they're not mean or from a place of belittling, and I agree. Growing up watching these films, my best friend (who is gay) laughed the hardest at that final scene from "Blazing Saddles" and loved Bearnaise from "History of the World: Part 1". The over-reactive branch of the left always seem to forget that the people they are "offended for" actually do have a sense of humor. I suppose it's a fine line between having fun or gently poking fun and mean humor that comes from "gay-fear", but a genius like Mel Brooks has the ability to navigate those waters beautifully. [yeah, I'll mix metaphors...always] As far as younger viewers, I wish they could see this in a crowded theater. Comedy seems to work best that way, but I imagine that this film now, more than ever, would be a delight to see with an audience. I think older comedies where some of the humor may be dated benefit from viewings with large audiences with mixed age ranges***. (***except for Monty Python, where you have to resist strangling people sitting around who are reciting the movie line-for-line, usually 0.5 seconds before the actors on screen.)

I just saw that he'r showing it with Q&A in New York and Boston. I'm definitely going to try to make it to one of those shows.