AlmostAGhost

I watch a lot of stuff on my phone, and I know most people mock that, but I kind of enjoy it. It is almost easier for me to immerse myself in the film and filmmaking than if I were just to watch on a tv or laptop. Watching classic or new stuff on a plane is stupid tho, for sure (Still trying to find time / mood to finish Schindler's List, so haven't listened to the ep yet.)

I wasn't planning to go that deep, but I did at one point watch a bunch of Alice In Wonderlands so I may if they're easy to find

Cool! I've been slow-rolling through Disney animated films, and my next up is Cinderella, so this is good timing. I enjoy seeing different versions of the same story

Ah sorry to hear that Cameron. Hopefully some terrible Christmas movies will help you through the grief. Also Gigi don't forget

Man, we could've been watching Jingle All The Way over that

Oh gotcha, mixing up the names. I think I thought she knew Trublue was Miles? They did have a semi-flirty relationship to start with.

I could be totally wrong, because this movie was nonsense, but I think she thought 'trublue' was Bruce Willis and that she was bringing him down for extramarital sexting

Yea no need to apologize for having a life

That's interesting, and something I've been thinking about in all our movies lately. Wasn't Taxi Driver also written one way first, but due to limitations or luck or whatever, it ended up being another (far far better) way? (I'm about to sleep, can't recall the specifics right now.) These sort of coincidences of fortune seem to come up often in these AFI films. So are great movies just a product of luck? Or like, a function of a good director/writer who can notice and adapt? I mean, all along the way of Rocky, it could have fallen apart/been far less great so so so easily, but they continually got to go with the flow in ways that really help it (from minor things like the robe fitting to this scene with Adrian, etc.).

Nah this isn't proof of that. It's proof of social awkardness. It's proof of nerves. It's proof of inexperience, selfishness, a clueless man, a babbling moron. I don't believe it to be a sign of a monster. I get the "she wanted to leave and he kept at her" point, but not this. This is what I meant when I said I thought their weird date felt real to me. It was two socially awkward people having an awkward time, and I don't think we should judge him as if he were some lothario / typical leading man type. Would it make sense at all if Rocky was a total gentleman and wooed her with flowers and intellect? No, he'd talk too much and try to kiss her and tell her to spend the night. I probably shouldn't keep on this, because I support men changing their behavior, 100%. I'm not coming from it from the wrong side. But if we start pulling social awkardness into this, I dunno. *shrug*

Yea I'm torn there. I absolutely think we should reinterpret situations to modern rules, but I also don't think I read it as quite that predatory here. Not for this character, anyway. Thinking about this whole movie from Adrienne's point of view though is certainly fascinating.

I like this description! I'm still listening to the episode right now, but Paul & Amy keep saying stuff that I hinted at in my longish Letterboxd note about the movie, from it not being so triumphant to the lack of "Hollywood" in it. I called it an early 'mumblecore' movie. I really like the realism, from the dirty streets and the dark apartments and train sounds and toilet flushes and even the weird date (I see Amy's flaws in it, but it also feels like how a real guy with no experience would pursue someone - clueless and selfish and inconsiderate). There is no 'gloss' on this movie, and that's kind of cool. I won't pretend to be a giant fan of Rocky, but "kind of cool" is about where I am on it (to piggyback off of grudlian's "kind of feel good movie").

Happy Holidays! 12/13 - Schindler's List [it's being re-released in theatres this week] 12/20 - It's A Wonderful Life [for Christmas] 12/27 - In The Heat Of The Night

this is for @Cameron H. and @grudlian. but we need a group watch of this I mean, here's the description When the bowling alley is snowed in, Teddy (Theodore Barnes) is worried—he’s never missed the Festival of Lights before! However, exchange student Emil (Gavin Lewis), who’s the Prince of Peoria, insists the Christmas moose will save the day.

new Unspooled Swag including this cool poster https://www.podswag.com/products/unspooled-100-sided-die

Outsider music is an interesting phenomenon, and I dig some of it -- love me some Jandek -- but mostly it's people making music for themselves and then people enjoy it as a some sort of expression, not usually as "this is garbage, let's laugh at it." This movie would be much better if it tapped into her outsider-ness, instead of her being everyone's joke.

This is probably a similar point to Cameron and Tom's but basically, I just didn't care. There were some funny moments that made me laugh, but I think for a biopic it just didn't feel like it mattered. Which I think is important for a biopic. I don't know enough about Jenkins, but I think you could make a biopic of her that at least alluded to history or metaphorically related to today somehow. But instead it was just sort of "here's this lady, and a thing she did."

Last year I went to a taping in December and it didn't come out until like May, I think? It was ages. Also when it did come out, it was a bonus ep so I dunno what's up with that one.

Ditto - and if anything, just see me as giving a little push to get some elaboration and better clarity I know we're all capable of

That's true. But I think I read it more "both sides are wrong" and not "government is wrong, thus Alex is right." EVERYONE is being bad here. Focusing down, I think the flaw for me is less the shock/violence, but the statements about violence/morals has become super muddled and it's obviously unclear what's trying to be said. (None of us are really sure.) That's not a good thing for a film. Also, the comedy/irony angles play as ridiculous forms for this message. I was going to wonder if the exploration of violence and morals would be better received (by this forum anyway) if it was done in a more serious, less cartoony manner, but I see that Taxi Driver is running away in the poll above so I guess that answers my question!

Yea for sure. I'm closer to you guys than I may sound. But I myself wouldn't classify it as "glorifying" because I just don't see how he's anyone's hero. I mean these are bad actions in the film, and doesn't the film make that clear? Isn't that why they try to cure him?

I'm not upset in the slightest. We discuss things here! Let's just get that out of the way for now and forever. We're not mad at each other, nor offended, even if we disagree on something or what to focus on something someone in particular said. Well maybe I misread you but you said this: "I hope I'm not stepping out of line or offending anyone when I say this, but I think there is a certain degree of privilege on display when a person is able to look at those scenes and then casually talk about objectivity, art, shock-value, and morality - especially when they may have been fortunate enough in their lives not to have to undergo the horrors presented within. While this might be a fascinating philosophical game for some, for others, it's a grim reminder of how things have always been, and sadly, continue to be." Which is what I was referring to by "unwoke" and not having empathy. I should have used a direct quote, I guess, but you absolutely imply that supporters aren't aware of the horrors of a reality, as a function of their privileges - which is pretty much the definition of 'woke'. My point is that I don't agree with that. And I think it effectively tries to shut off anyone who disagrees. You're saying explicitly "you can't possibly talk about it as art or morality" when that's exactly what we should be doing.

Because you're still pointing it out, and using it here to make a claim. OK so here's my defense of the violence of the film. It is a movie about ULTRAVIOLENCE. There has to be some shockingness in it. I'm not saying everyone has to like shocking violence, or that even the point of the film is interesting at all (it kind of isn't), but I think it does have to be there. I don't take this as gratuitous, or purely shock value. It's there because that's what the characters do. They can't just be like breaking in and stealing silverware. They have to be brutal and gross. Now maybe Kubrick went too far, or it is certainly too triggering for a lot of people, but I do think it has to be there in this story.

That's totally fair re: IMDB rating, but why aren't you dismissing your own anecdotal evidence with the same scrutiny? Is there any actual proof of a gender issue in liking the film? Everyone is confusing me with this line of attack, tbh. I don't love the movie, as I said, but I do support it as a film and an artwork. I don't think it's fair to paint Clockwork supporters as bros who aren't woke enough and lack empathy, and we can't have a fair discussion about the movie if that's what's happening.

A bigger problem in criticism: presenting an obvious bias under the guise of considered thoughtfulness when none is actually taken.