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

Weirdlaugh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Weirdlaugh

  1. Posted

    I love watching his films and think many deserve nomination into the Canon. There's already a thread for Holy Mountain, but I prefer El Topo b/w Danza De La Realidad as they tell the same story but from very different perspectives.

     

    I admit that Danza just barely beats out Lego Movie for my favorite movie of all time (a spot once held by Babe and The Straight Story), so this could be an indulgence pick, but Jodorowski's movies feel essential to a discussion on the power of film.

  2. Posted

    I'd prefer Danza de la Realidad to Holy Mountain, especially if paired with El Topo (ET feels, upon numerous watches of both ET and HM, the more truthful of the two films and Danza a perfect compliment to the anger in ET).

  3. Posted

    ...

    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?!?!

     

    I agree that Arthur is a despicable character, but I can understand the identification with him, I think that's part of what the movie was going for (and an aspect that Devin didn't like, hence his arguments regarding the ending). I may disagree with Arthur's view of the world, but I can empathize with it. Here is someone whose motives are laid out on the screen and acts on those dreams. Can we not identify with trying to realize ones dreams? I'm not asking to identify with those dreams or the destructive nature of how he handles their realization (a key flaw is Arthur's self-centered attitude which is taken to such an extreme that he has sociopathic tendencies in his lack of empathy when confronted with other people's lives), but this film bends over backwards to propose a "There but for the grace of God, go I" narrative on Arthur.

  4. Posted

    Did anyone else think that the bar/vaudeville scene was from the perspective of the two men? Hence why the song was so crass and led to their statement that brought Arthur out of his reverie (the song seemed to have just as crass in it, and Steve Martin was doing the most obscene gestures of the three when they weren't synchronized ; the two salesmen's idea of what he really did).

     

    Maybe this ambiguity is a flaw ... But I like the fact that two different reads can come from the same scene.

  5. Posted

    First off, this was a nicely balanced episode where I felt all sides were rather calmly represented (or calmer than usual), so kudos to you two.

     

    My vote ended up being a yes, and it was Devin that pushed the vote in that direction.

     

    This marked the second time watching PFH for me. I remember not carrying a wink for it some 10 years back when I first saw it. This time around, I more clearly understood the juxtaposition between dream and reality, and i dealt with the extreme darkness better as well. I found the play between the different folks' dreams more worthy of my attention and my brain continues to catch surface level allusions to Death of a Salesman in the movie. That said, I still wasn't sure if I would put this film in a Canon.

     

    The line repeated in the episode by Devin and Amy that helped me off the fence was among the lines of "I'm glad I watched this movie again" (and it was mainly Devin so said it). This idea that PFH was a movie that should be seen and discussed is what makes it Canon worthy. That is the idea behind a Canon, or at least a part of the philosophy behind a Canon, the elements of the list should forum a part of our cultural conversation.

     

    What PFH brings to this list is a dialogue between film/music and viewer/listener. Through the conceit, there is an opening to discuss why movies/music hold such sway over us. Plus it brings forth the impact of the early musicals (Busby Berkeley extravaganzas, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, etc.) in a way that works on both the internal narrative and meta narrative.

     

    I may not consider owning this movie, but I can see its importance in the discussion of films. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to revisit this movie.

     

    This is the second time I've voted and is yes for PFH.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    Whoops- I misspoke- by conceit I meant Thematics (I think... yeouch, this isn't helping my argument)

    I meant the musical numbers being the imagination of the characters- and at complete odds with the content of the film. I needed something more than "The 1930's weren't that great, people!"

    and I was totally fine with the lip-syncing

     

    The idea of folks retreating into song to escape ... How often had it been done by 1981? Upon this rewatch, I picked up a giant "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" (the story, not the movie) vibe that I didn't get before. I know, that's really the point of the film, but I was not ready for that idea back then. I wonder if your argument regarding the theme comes from a modern perspective; we're used to seeing this idea of escape presented in movies to avoid reality.

     

    Or, more specifically, I guess I see the theme as what we do to deal with misery and how humans have used pop songs and the movie to transport themselves away from those problems. It's an ode to the power of cinema, especially musicals.

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    I picked up mine at the library.

     

    I'd seen this once before. A friend of mine who wrote movie reviews for a bit said it was her favorite movie. I hated it back then.

     

    Now I'm watching it again and ... is much better than I remembered. Might comment more in a bit, but I'll need to know the rules on spoilers.

  8. Posted

    I'm a huge fan of Mel Brooks, having watched his movies with my mom as a kid. While I love this movie and think it's hilarious, I wonder if this is the Mel Brooks movie to go in the Canon. I realize we don't have to limit it to one Brooks film, but my thought is that though Blazing Saddles is so great, is it his best movie? For me, Young Frankenstein is the ultimate Brooks film, delivering on so many levels and really holding up, ever more then this movie, for me.

     

    Just in my opinion, if I'm thinking of movies that people MUST see or they are really missing out on a masterpiece, Young Frankenstein is the movie I would pick. Blazing Saddles, ehhh, if someone tells me they haven't seen it, I'm not that offended. Blazing Saddles humor is maybe just a little do broad for it to be enduring/timeless for me. So that being said, I'm going to have to go with a no for Blazing Saddles.

     

    Blazing Saddles was not the first Brooks film I saw, but this and The Producers are the two I always go back to. Even more than YF (though I have had spurts of watching/reading tons of horror, classic and modern). Of those two, I think BS is the more important, for ratings why I would probably vote South Park or Team America in; they bring humor to a topic that needs to be discussed and work excellently as satire.

×