|
SlimGoodbody posted:If you think a pretty surface level observation that mildly orbits a basic feminist media critique is more obnoxious than SMG endlessly spamming the same fuckin reading of everything while typing in a tone akin to Bill & Ted's Sigmund Freud, I don't know what to tell you. It's not what you say, but how you say it!!!
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:SMG, your gimmick is creaking under the strain of how far you're trying to stretch it. Oh do gently caress off. The funny thing is your analysis of the monster taking the form of victims or abusers goes right in line with SMGs reading. I really don't understand that the objection that movie about a rape monster might be about something more than "Oh, wouldn't a rape monster be scary?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So, objectively speaking, "It" doesn't function the way the kids believe it does. So how does it function? By appearing whenever Jay thinks about it. On the beach, her friend is calling for her to come into the water. It then appears in the background, looking like her friend. We are seeing both text and subtext, but also neither - the innocent call to come play in the water triggers a nightmare of being grabbed and killed. This is an interesting idea, and I'll keep it in mind on my next viewing. I really don't think the notion you've presented holds water re: "the wind yanked and held Jay's hair for like seven seconds, causing her to claw her friend so hard that he flew twenty feet, and also that friend imagined hitting the entity with a beach chair, and also everyone all hallucinated the exact same thing happening at the exact same time, and also it was one of the friends who kicked a huge hole in the door without realizing it, and also all the friends then hallucinated seeing the door get kicked in a few seconds later, etc." It hops back and forth between text and subtext too conveniently, and an offhanded comment about it being filmed sarcastically doesn't really jive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Oh do gently caress off. Oh, it is definitely about more than a rape monster. I just don't understand the objection that the movie isn't even remotely about a rape monster. Like, imagine you're in a thread about Frankenstein, and someone is saying that the movie doesn't have stitched together undead giant. Like, yeah, we get it, the story is about man's hubris and unethical science and exploitation and so on, but that doesn't mean there ISN'T a big sad zombie walking around in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Whenever discussing the supernatural in a film, imagine how the film works absent that element, and you'll uncover stuff about that movie. This is not saying Frankenstein's monster does not exist. It is making an analogy for Frankenstein's monster.
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
It's just someone looking at the movie differently...I don't get why that's an issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Nothing is true, everything is permitted - Assassin's Creed
Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Oh, it is definitely about more than a rape monster. I just don't understand the objection that the movie isn't even remotely about a rape monster. Like, imagine you're in a thread about Frankenstein, and someone is saying that the movie doesn't have stitched together undead giant. Like, yeah, we get it, the story is about man's hubris and unethical science and exploitation and so on, but that doesn't mean there ISN'T a big sad zombie walking around in it. Frankenstein is about the Victorian uperclass fearing an uprising of an intellectual underclass. Hubris and science is just part of the plot. wyoming fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Okay, fine, whatever, regardless of the popularity politics of this forum, does anyone feel like adding an opinion beyond "magic doesn't real" to my initial post? It is something I'm genuinely curious and spent some effort thinking about, and I posted in earnest, so an earnest reply would be much appreciated. Do you think the movie has anything to say about violent sexuality and victimization with the specific, conscious choice of repeatedly using disempowered, vulnerable people as the presentation for the monster whenever it wasn't a loved one? edit: ^^thank you for the Frankenstein lesson, but that wasn't the point. Also, yes, I am aware of analogies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The point of Craven's film is precisely the opposite: that the police jailed him based on the 'leather jacket & a switchblade' image, when he is actually just a frightened kid who could use some therapy. If your reading is correct and Totally Unequivocally True then they probably jailed him because he was a prime murder suspect and also because he did it. According to you. SlimGoodbody posted:Oh, it is definitely about more than a rape monster. I just don't understand the objection that the movie isn't even remotely about a rape monster. Like, imagine you're in a thread about Frankenstein, and someone is saying that the movie doesn't have stitched together undead giant. Like, yeah, we get it, the story is about man's hubris and unethical science and exploitation and so on, but that doesn't mean there ISN'T a big sad zombie walking around in it. Pretty much this is the only point that needs to be directed at SMG. He brings up interesting discussions but this College Thesis poo poo of "avoiding weasel words" or whatever the gently caress, where any reading you have has to be literal and absolute and you can't say "I believe" or "I think" but rather "this is this and nothing else", kind of kills open discussion and makes the thread entirely about SMG's wild theories. He doesn't present them as theories, he presents them as Absolute Fact, like "there is no Freddy Krueger it's just kids killing other kids and themselves" or "there is no Follower it's just the dorky kid murdering people".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Why who cares. Obviously it's his opinion, why do you need it stated on every post every time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:edit: ^^thank you for the Frankenstein lesson, but that wasn't the point. Also, yes, I am aware of analogies. I wasn't suggesting that you weren't. I'm just saying that straightforwardly, that is a pretty common critical strategy and not at all bizarre. It even stimulated you into countering it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
He's a gimmick and to give credit where it's due, he's usually pretty good at it, but I started posing the simple questions because what he was spouting was nonsensical. The great thing about the Art Critic paragraphs he spouts is that they are really hard to defend against, but when the argument comes down to "Literally nothing you see on the screen happened", that argument can apply to every single film ever and you can't say "that's not true". I brought up the girl in the beginning because there is nothing to tie her in to the other characters, she does not know Jay, she does not know Paul, and she knows what is stalking her because she says goodbye. Oh, I forgot, literally every character is a murderer that no one knows about. Brilliant! It Follows has lots of subtexts, sexuality, STDs, innocence, and so on. It has enough to say about those, why make things up to try and find more stuff that not only isn't there but is directly pointed out that it is there? Oh yeah, because nothing is real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Why do you feel the need to "defend against" what he's saying
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:He's a gimmick and to give credit where it's due, he's usually pretty good at it, but I started posing the simple questions because what he was spouting was nonsensical. The great thing about the Art Critic paragraphs he spouts is that they are really hard to defend against, but when the argument comes down to "Literally nothing you see on the screen happened", that argument can apply to every single film ever and you can't say "that's not true". I brought up the girl in the beginning because there is nothing to tie her in to the other characters, she does not know Jay, she does not know Paul, and she knows what is stalking her because she says goodbye. Oh, I forgot, literally every character is a murderer that no one knows about. Brilliant! On my second viewing, I realized why the girl at the beginning runs out of her house, stands in the street, looks at something offscreen that doesn't seem to be visible as we get her large, panoramic run around her block, goes inside her house for keys, exits, and drives away. With foreknowledge, it's obvious that the entity was in her house. On top of that, the foley gives it away. After she leaves and stands in the middle of the street for a few tense seconds, we hear her front door open and close again. Then it opens and closes again as her dad comes out to ask her what's wrong. There is a phantom exit that none of the visible characters account for. edit: Hat, are you going to add to this thread, or just die defending SMG with every post? He's a smart guy. He'll defend himself if he needs to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:edit: ^^thank you for the Frankenstein lesson, but that wasn't the point. Also, yes, I am aware of analogies. He's not a stitched together monster is my point, he's an embodiment of those fears. The film just shows it as a stitched together monster. NarkyBark posted:He's a gimmick and to give credit where it's due, he's usually pretty good at it, but I started posing the simple questions because what he was spouting was nonsensical. The great thing about the Art Critic paragraphs he spouts is that they are really hard to defend against, but when the argument comes down to "Literally nothing you see on the screen happened", that argument can apply to every single film ever and you can't say "that's not true". I brought up the girl in the beginning because there is nothing to tie her in to the other characters, she does not know Jay, she does not know Paul, and she knows what is stalking her because she says goodbye. Oh, I forgot, literally every character is a murderer that no one knows about. Brilliant! It's not a gimmick, he's just a dude discussing movies, get over yourself. And his reading isn't really crazy or not supported by the movie. We don't know what happened with the first girl, it could just be an urban legend, or a reminder that sexualized crime exists. She has no barring on the story. The movie doesn't cut from Jay seeing a monster to everyone else seeing nothing to remind us that it's supernatural. When the monster pulls her hair on the beach, we see it from everyone else's perspective, there's nothing there but a girl freaking out. The monster had them cornered in a garage, but then disappears when Greg shows up, why? Maybe because there was nothing there. The movie is just about a girl freaking out from sexual assault, that's not a stretch in any means, the movie just portrays this fear, guilt, and anxiety with an invisible rape monster. That only the victim can see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:edit: Hat, are you going to add to this thread, or just die defending SMG with every post? He's a smart guy. He'll defend himself if he needs to. I love SMG and hope to give him a big sloppy kiss!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Why do you feel the need to "defend against" what he's saying You're right we should just follow your lead and play Beavis to his Butt-Head. Heh heh yeah, me too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I do not understand why you can't have a different reading of the movie and acknowledge his as valid. Like, why does he have to be a gimmick/what does it matter if he is if you can't actually find holes in his explanation beyond "Well, everything ever could be a dream". Personally, I do not get it, but hell, Beavis and Butthead are insanely good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
wyoming posted:He's not a stitched together monster is my point, he's an embodiment of those fears. The film just shows it as a stitched together monster. I get that, but he's only that to us, because we have the benefit of existing outside of the book/film's narrative and have the power and distance to deconstruct and criticize the piece as a reader/viewer. I am not only interested in how the characters and creature analogize to us, but how they affect each other in the text. Victor Frankenstein doesn't throw the switch and yell "An analogy... It's an analogy!!!" To him, it is his creature, his son, and his life's work. When the monster throws a little girl in a river, she doesn't scream "Oh no, this analogy is getting me!" The townsfolk don't shout "Burn this analogy!" I am interested in how the characters view things as well, why they view them that way, why the monster "chooses" to present itself as it does, and why the author chose to present those things in those ways. The Frankenstein's Monster is an embodiment of fears AND a stitched together monster AND he is both of them at the same time. quote:We don't know what happened with the first girl, it could just be an urban legend, or a reminder that sexualized crime exists. She has no barring on the story. There is nothing to present her as an urban legend, there is no mention of her ever again, the reading that she never existed is no more or less valid than any of the others, including that she was a victim of Hugh/Jeff. Jay's friend's see her hair being yanked directly up and, in fact, are the ones to ask her what the gently caress is going on with that, and are sure enough of the situation to try fighting an invisible monster with chairs. Yes, the movie is about a girl freaking out from sexual assault, it is about growing up, it is about loss of innocence, it is about sexual politics, it is about reckless sexuality, but it is ALSO about that sexual assault cursing her with the malign attentions of some kind of incubus/succubus demon ghost. Hat Thoughts posted:I do not understand why you can't have a different reading of the movie and acknowledge his as valid. Like, why does he have to be a gimmick/what does it matter if he is if you can't actually find holes in his explanation beyond "Well, everything ever could be a dream". Personally, I do not get it, but hell, Beavis and Butthead are insanely good. Because it, without fail, invites a cadre of sycophants who take his reading as the end-all-be-all, condescend to and shout down all conversation to the contrary, and subsequently refuse to climb off his dick for six straight pages. edit: spelling SlimGoodbody fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Because it, without fail, invites a cadre of sycophants who take his reading as the end-all-be-all, condescend to and shout down all conversation to the contrary, and subsequently refuse to climb off his dick for six straight pages. But that's what you are doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:But that's what you are doing. SMG is the gravity from which none of us can escape, compelling an ouroboros of shitposting in every board his gaze falls upon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:I get that, but he's only that to us, because we have the benefit of existing outside of the book/film's narrative and have the power and distance to deconstruct and criticize the piece as a reader/viewer. I am not only interested in how the characters and creature analogize to us, but how they affect each other in the text. Victor Frankenstein doesn't throw the switch and yell "An analogy... It's an analogy!!!" To him, it is his creature, his son, and his life's work. When the monster throws a little girl in a river, she doesn't scream "Oh no, this analogy is getting me!" The townsfolk don't shout "Burn this analogy!" I am interested in how the characters view things as well, why they view them that way, why the monster "chooses" to present itself as it does, and why the author chose to present those things in those ways. The Frankenstein's Monster is an embodiment of fears AND a stitched together monster AND he is both of them at the same time. Of course not, because what you're describing is plot. Anyone can describe what you see on the screen. You have to dig a bit for Frankenstein, and that includes what Frankenstein's monster is other than what you see. This is not pretending to secret knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Of course not, because what you're describing is plot. Anyone can describe what you see on the screen. You have to dig a bit for Frankenstein, and that includes what Frankenstein's monster is other than what you see. Okay then, so the answer is no, no one is interested in discussing anything beyond the prescribed SMG opinion that the film is strictly about a girl going from perfectly sane to paranoid schizophrenic on account of one sketchy hook-up, and the canny mass murder of people at the hands of a 14 year old high school dork, because metanarrative or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Don't project your persecution on me, I posted about this disasterpiece when it came out. This isn't reddit, you don't need to gin up upvotes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Okay then, so the answer is no, no one is interested in discussing anything beyond the prescribed SMG opinion that the film is strictly about a girl going from perfectly sane to paranoid schizophrenic on account of one sketchy hook-up, and the canny mass murder of people at the hands of a 14 year old high school dork, because metanarrative or whatever. Lying about your identity to drug and tie up a teenage girl, a sketchy hook-up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:He's a gimmick and to give credit where it's due, he's usually pretty good at it, but I started posing the simple questions because what he was spouting was nonsensical. The great thing about the Art Critic paragraphs he spouts is that they are really hard to defend against, but when the argument comes down to "Literally nothing you see on the screen happened", that argument can apply to every single film ever and you can't say "that's not true". I brought up the girl in the beginning because there is nothing to tie her in to the other characters, she does not know Jay, she does not know Paul, and she knows what is stalking her because she says goodbye. Oh, I forgot, literally every character is a murderer that no one knows about. Brilliant! This is a good example of how the movie works, because I didn't write any of that. I did not write that 'literally nothing you see on screen happened'. There is a hole in the door of Greg's shed, for example, and there are clearly multiple conflicting interpretations as to how it got there. Greg blames Jay, and Jay blames a ghost. But there's still a hole in the door. I wrote that the girl in the opening scene was probably killed by a person. I did not say she was killed by one of the characters, though her death is at least thematically linked to Paul's tall tales about his previous girlfriend(s). You imagined things because you were confused. They seemed real to you, but they were not. I do not actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Don't project your persecution on me, I posted about this disasterpiece when it came out. This isn't reddit, you don't need to gin up upvotes. I don't need upvotes, I just wanted someone to talk about my effortpost with me instead of the usual "But SMG already told us what the movie's about," but I now see the error of my ways. wyoming posted:Lying about your identity to drug and tie up a teenage girl, a sketchy hook-up. Yes, but two things. First, this takes the reading that the monster doesn't exist and this is all a figment of Jay's imagination as a foregone conclusion, which it isn't. Second, I am acquainted with many survivors of sexual violence. I am one of them. It is, at best, a pretty dim view to assume that a very bad experience like this is enough to irrevocably turn a person into a psychotically instantiating, violent rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:It is, at best, a pretty dim view to assume that a very bad experience like this is enough to irrevocably turn a person into a psychotically instantiating, violent rear end in a top hat. Well yeah; it's a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well yeah; it's a bad movie. Or your reading is imperfect, but I've never seen you cop to that possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:Or your reading is imperfect, but I've never seen you cop to that possibility. I do not strive for perfection. What I've written is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I do not strive for perfection. What I've written is true. Perhaps you just have poo poo taste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Perhaps you just have poo poo taste. No, you can tell It Follows is a bad movie because critics are like "wow, it's a truly great film! about STIs." The film has nothing to do with STIs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Should've been called poo poo Follows. But yeah, it's not that great of a film, got some cute stuff, but, eh. You don't have to like something to analyze it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
“Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies, and I saw one of the babies, and the baby looked at me!” -Plot synopsis for It Follows 2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, you can tell It Follows is a bad movie because critics are like "wow, it's a truly great film! about STIs." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Outside the very rudimentary concept of sex being dangerous, there is nothing about disease in the film - textually, subtextually, or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Outside the very rudimentary concept of sex being dangerous, there is nothing about disease in the film - textually, subtextually, or otherwise. you're right, there's nothing textually, subtextually, or otherwise about the scene where Maika Monroe stands in front of the bathroom mirror and looks down the front of her underwear in horror after being date raped that could be construed as being about STIs. i mean, where do they get this stuff? clearly these film critics are overthinking things. it's not like the movie is literally about something that is transmitted sexually and then kills you or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:you're right, there's nothing textually, subtextually, or otherwise about the scene where Maika Monroe stands in front of the bathroom mirror and looks down the front of her underwear in horror after being date raped that could be construed as being about STIs. i mean, where do they get this stuff? clearly these film critics are overthinking things. it's not like the movie is literally about something that is transmitted sexually and then kills you or anything. No don't you understand, if you look at it from the perspective that nothing doesn't real, you'll see th
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
How do you get STDs out of a raped girl looking at her body in the mirror? And you know, not fear of sexuality. The movie was about the trauma of rape, no one even mentioned a slight worry of STDs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:35
|
|