Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Philly Cheesesteak

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    141

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Philly Cheesesteak

  1. Posted

    I really worry about the post-gender argument. I feel like most of the times female character, story or POV have come up on this show a lot of people have been really dismissive of it's relevance. I don't think it's a conscious reflex but the words people use to describe those rare female-centric movies have always really irritated me, doubly so because they act like you're crazy or sensitive for calling it out. Equality does not mean we have to pretend gender isn't completely baked into every part of our culture it just means we need to be more questioning of ideas that might be based on preconditioned ideas.

     

    I could t help but notice that with the Breakfast at Tiffany's episode.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

     

     

    This was exactly how I felt when Re-Animator made it in. After that, I mentioned that I was afraid of the Canon becoming too single minded in it's focus. In the Re-Animator thread here and on BMD, I saw a lot of people saying genre-films shouldn't be dismissed cause of other genre films but I wonder how many of those people would make the same argument for movies with more feminine sensibilities.

     

    This is exactly my point. Well, it's one of my main two points, anyway. Too often it seems to me we wish to believe we're living in a post-gender world, that we vote for films on this forum based on merit... but how can we if we rarely give films geared specifically towards a feminine gendered perspective and experience the time of day? Scrolling through the Canon, i find its telling the few that have been accepted had to be couched in high concept genre (Pan's Labyrinth, Kiki).

     

    The other point was the lack of representation or love for non-geek films.

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

     

     

    I really doubt Amy was being disingenuous when she said she was afraid to nominate this movie. She's offering up her favorite movie, which happens to be really hard to defend, to a forum of strangers. This is a movie that she clearly loves and it obviously means a lot to her and I think we all have films we would be hesitant to debate in this fashion. Amy is not a strict genre fan but she is a film enthusiast and I'm sure she is not so vindictive as to skew future episodes unfairly.

     

    All of this. We're not giving her enough credit.

    • Like 5

  4. Posted

     

    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 it 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!)

     

    I find this slightly disingenuous. I think you know full well what I mean when I say dude-oriented nerdbait and it has nothing to do with whether or not the vast majority of filmmakers are male or the increasing dissolution of the original meaning of the word "nerd." There's no question most films that will make it into the Canon will be directed by men, but we recently inducted Kiki's Delivery Service, a movie made by a man and yet utterly empathetic with female sensibilities. There are filmmakers out there, from all walks of life, capable of conveying more than one viewpoint.

     

    (And I'm pretty sure if you asked the man himself, Miyazaki would say with no small amount of heat that he didn't make it for nerds and geeks)

     

    When Amy expresses concern about nerdbait movies taking over the Canon, she's referring to films that speak only to one viewpoint, films that prioritize fun and visceral thrill over loftier ambitions, films designed to entice true blue (and very often male) 80s-defined nerds over all else. Yes, all films and all media have reached demographics on the periphery (see: My Little Pony and the Brony Phenomenon), but that original intent still matters.

     

    And, yes, these days genre need no longer be constrained to gender, but that's not an applicable argument to be made about GenX nostalgia touchstones like Re-Animator, Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones, among others, these were clearly made for a specific audience in mind. Anyone can like them, as you said, but look at it from Amy's point of view.

     

    She clearly loves cinema. She breathes it just as passionately as Devin does. With that in mind, imagine seeing people swarm over genre faire while neglecting movies (like Pennies From Heaven) that receive nowhere near the same level of cult obsession as movies like Re-Animator receive, despite possessing just as much creativity, passion and possibly greater ambition. I sympathize with her doubling down on genre faire and I say this as someone who loves that stuff. We don't give other genres or schools of thought as much love and attention the same way we do geek-inclined pop culture gems.

     

    There should be room in the Canon for movies that aren't "outwardly" fun but offer at least everything else we value in the arts.

     

    Note: We don't have to agree with Amy, but we should strive to see from her perspective and empathize.

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    Personally, I feel torn.

     

    On the one hand, I don't find Pennies from Heaven is a particularly good movie. All That Jazz, Dancer in the Dark, they've both covered this with faaaar more cinematic competence. Hell, the original BBC Miniseries did this better, but that should go without saying.

     

    But... and it's a big but...

     

    On the other hand, there's something Amy said in the middle of the podcast that's stuck with me. Amy has repeatedly expressed the notion the Canon is in danger of becoming over-swamped with dude-oriented nerdbait than with any other kind of movie. A good majority of us voted in Re-Animator on little to no basis other than it's a damn fun movie, which in theory I have no issue with, but I do find myself sympathizing with Amy's position that we're giving all the attention to these kinds of movies. It does sometimes feel we're giving a pass on films that get by on the fun factor and little else...

     

    When messy yet ambitious movies like this are relegated to footnotes in cinematic history.

     

    If we can give a fun but flawed movie like Re-Animator a pass into the Canon, why not Pennies From Heaven? For all of its faults, you can't deny this was a passion project, bursting with life and ambition. It may not have equated to excellence, but we've forgiven movies (if not canonized them already in some circles) with those qualities. See: how we appreciate the work of Ed Wood today.

     

    ... That said, it falls right smack into Amy's go-to argument about standards. Ironically.

     

    Pennies From Heaven is not a perfect movie. Hell, it's kind of bad. Again, I refer to All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark for covering similar ground and with greater panache. What's the point of a Canon meant to accept only the best, most memorable or important films of all time--paragons of genre, filmmaking schools, an entire artist's body of work, etc.--if we indulge the very idea of an indulgence pick? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Canon if we allow certain movies a free ride based solely on personal feeling and no other criteria?

     

    See what I mean by torn, guys? I want to be sympathetic to Amy's side of the argument, but I just wish she had selected All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark as her "dark musical go-to."

  9. Posted

    Here's a thought.

     

    Shrek vs. Prince of Egypt.

     

    In one corner, the movie that defined DreamWorks' pop cultural identity and aesthetic.

     

    In the other, the underrated cult classic that was controversial at the time, aped Disney's 90's formulas and was banned in multiple countries for its religious overtones.

     

    Some might say one is more emotionally earnest than the other. One might say the other is responsible for propagating some of the worst stereotypes in children's animated movies throughout the Noughties and the New Tens. But doesn't that notoriety warrant Canon candidacy?

     

    Think about it, fellas.

     

    This Vs. episode would be a real underdog story. It's the pop culture juggernaut vs. the little (and semi-serious) movie that could.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    I was thinking a Shrek vs. Shrek 2 would make a good episode. Shrek defined Dreamworks animation's aesthetic, as you say, and created possibly the most recognizable animated characters of the 21st century (kinda the closest thing this generation has to a Bugs Bunny or Micky Mouse, like it or not), not to mention that it's just a really great film.

     

    But I personally think Shrek 2 is the superior film, certainly the superior comedy, and it was the highest grossing comedy of all time at the time of it's release. It's honestly one of my favourite comedies period. The jokes in that film come hard and fast. I would even go so far as to compare it to early Simpsons episodes.

     

    Anyway, I think Dreamworks animation belongs in the canon, but these are the only 2 canon-worthy films they've made.

     

    What about Prince of Egypt? It's the most critically beloved of their pre-3D canon, with a soundtrack composed by the same team that would later compose Wicked, and it's certainly become something of a cult classic for fans of 90's animation.

  11. Posted

    Opening this to the floor: should there be a representative from the DreamWorks Animated Library in the Canon? We've given Disney a fair few chances, so how about DreamWorks? Surely, they've made something of value or significance that should be immortalized in the Canon, but what makes the cut?

     

    Are we going to go with The Prince of Egypt (a popular fan-favourite), or pick out Shrek for single-handedly defining an entire studio's pop culture aesthetic for a whole decade (for better or for worse)? Or how about one of the more refined and polished examples of their post-2010/post-Shrek popularity library, like How to Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda?

     

    What do you guys think?

  12. Posted

     

    Even so, I don't think you can deny Jerry Lewis's place in pop culture. Love him or hate him, he's a fascinating personality, and he was basically THE comedy auteur of the '50s and early '60s. He kind of bridged the gap between the silent writer-director-star comedians like Keaton and Chaplin and later comics like Woody Allen and Mel Brooks (both of whom he collaborated with or nearly collaborated with). NUTTY PROFESSOR is his best film, and has the most recognizable iconography.

     

    I think it would make for an interesting episode of the Canon because, even though he's grating and his films are dated, Jerry's films still hold a weird place in cinematic history.

     

    Also, he practically invented video assist technology.

     

    I second this.

  13. Posted

    Magic Mike, as a film series, is sort of a strange... "dudebro" feminist story. It has all the trappings of a dudebro comedy, but with an upbeat and surprisingly insightful commentary on sex positivity. It's a film that understands, like few comedies of its ilk do, that women have sex drives too. There's a scene in the second movie where one of the dancers sneers at this guy with a "sexy vampire" act and all the women digging it, asking (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here),

     

    "Why do they like that shit?"

     

    This prompts another to respond, "Because they just do."

     

    One of the major "gotcha" criticisms of stuff like Twilight or True Blood has always been this iffy undercurrent of "Ha! Look at these women, young, middle-aged or old oggling this pandered male beefcake bullshit! Ha!" Magic Mike retorts with, "So? What's the problem with that? Everyone needs a sexual outlet."

     

    So, yeah, I absolutely endorse the idea of a vs. episode between these two. One's more sombre, the other upbeat. One deals with working class struggles, the other is sort of fairly apolitical in that area. Both are about male and female sexuality and gender roles, but in their own unique ways.

     

    I remember someone once telling me The Full Monty was a chick flick for guys. Honestly, it's perfectly true.

  15. Posted

    It seems like I would want to say no to short films but Un Chien Andalou does quickly come to mind as a possible canon nominee. But then again why not just discuss the Exterminating Angel instead?

     

    True, true, it's a fair point. But what about short films that weren't remade into full lengthed features? Like Paperman, Trip to the Moon, and Doodlebug?

  16. Posted

    A thought occurred to me just now: is there room in the Canon for short films or is the Canon the exclusive property of fully feature length affairs only?

     

    It's a valid expression in the cinematic arts, isn't it? Certain short films have a reputation for experimenting with form or conveying heady subject matter using concise cinematic language even many regular ol' films still fail to get across with a thousand monologues. Isn't that worth something?

     

    Think of some of the most famous short films in history: La Jetée, Doodlebug, Trip to the Moon, The Cathedral, Geometria, Paperman...

     

    Do any of these deserve a spot in our beloved Canon?

     

    I'd love to hear your two cents on this, fellas. If the Canon is open to all cinema, shouldn't the short film be acknowledged as a legitimate expression of it? Shouldn't it have at least one representative? And if so, what would it be?

  17. Posted

    Not to beat a dead horse, but The Matrix versus Dark City, or The Matrix versus Fight Club

     

     

    There were... so many movies in the mid to late 90's with the same theme: of subversive, malleable and deceptive false realities, usually coated with a little middle class satire, a dash of gnostic subtexts, and a sprinkling of consumerist commentary. Every time.

  18. Posted

    The Matrix stands so well on its own; I like that you can ignore the terrible sequels entirely. It ends on a perfect note. I don't remember walking out of the theater and saying "man, I REALLY want to know more about the convoluted mythology of this world."

     

    I don't think it's possible to overstate just how influential and ubiquitous the cinematography and visual effects of this film were. You can argue about who did "bullet time" first, but The Matrix popularized it to such a degree that it was inescapable in 1999 and 2000, appearing in commercials, parodies, and becoming part of the standard visual language of action films and video games. Other visuals have stayed too, like the cascade of green ASCII characters that represent the code of the matrix itself.

     

    I was a huge HK action nerd in the world 1990s and was excited about The Matrix because genius kung fu choreographer Woo Ping Yuen was on board for it. At that point, western cinema hadn't embraced the stylized fights of wuxia and Chinese kung fu flicks. The very next year, Yuen supervised the high flying wire fu of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and was then tapped by Tarantino for Kill Bill. Along with Jackie Chan, Yuen is one of the most important figures in HK action cinema to make a significant impact in Hollywood.

     

    Thank you.

  19. Posted

    Yeah, just go with Legend of Drunken Master, and have that represent his whole (pre-Hollywood) career. Tangents on other films will be highly welcome. Jackie's goofball masochistic stunt reel of a career deserves more love.

     

    Damn straight.

     

    All in favour of Legend of the Drunken Master, say aye.

  20. Posted

    *yawn*

     

    Call me when they do Cloud Atlas. Now THAT would make for a great discussion.

     

    Nah. What would be more interesting? Russian Ark. Essentially covers similar thematic material, but with greater panache and cohesion.

     

    Besides, I'd like some Russian cinema to make it into the Canon.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    It deserves to be discussed, 1000%, even though I will personally be going into the episode with a "American Beauty"/"Forrest Gump"-style "How was this movie so popular when it came out?" angle.

     

    An odd angle, given it's fairly clear how and why something like The Matrix was so popular. It's the culmination of several geek and non-geek interests coming together (cyberpunk, anime, kung fu movies, John Woo flicks, the BDSM fetish scene, superhero comics, religion, the goth scene, etc) in a then current culture of urban middle class malaise and ennui. It's the inheritor of the likes of Blade Runner, Dune and Star Wars, a perfect blend of every geeky and nerdy love, with all the right conditions set to make it into as big as a phenomenon as its genre predecessors.

    • Like 4
×