|
Lurdiak posted:Actually, the opposite interpretation is true. King Vidiot posted:I thought the first stage of CD was a sane and rational discussion of the motifs and themes of the movie where everybody who loved the film can come and discuss it. The second stage is where SMG comes into the thread and completely derails it and makes it about him, then everybody either gets bored or keeps arguing with a brick wall. What threads did this perception come from? Or have I just written too many essays on Adorno and Horkheimer in my life and gotten irreparable CT brokebrain? and a gif of jordan peele to keep this even minimally relevant for the new page   get out or get in kitty but dont just meow at me 
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Apr 11, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
He writes like a prick but that's subjective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Pigeon guy's posts are funny because they're all "J'accuse! *10 paragraphs where he clearly misunderstood the point he's trying to refute* E: now we're all just posting about posting, only a hop skip and a jump away from forming an obsessive incrowd that buys terrible clan tags & doxxes Derek Smart's goddaughter or whatever Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:and a gif of jordan peele to keep this even minimally relevant for the new page I've always wondered about Keanu, it didn't really seem to make a splash. Will people be talking about it 15 years from now like Super Troopers or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've always wondered about Keanu, it didn't really seem to make a splash. Will people be talking about it 15 years from now like Super Troopers or something? Eh, it was a really solid movie but it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny. I think its main problem was that it wasn't really promoted well. I mean they had that viral marketing thing with the cute cat photoshopped into a bunch of different posters, but that told people gently caress-all about the movie. I just hope it doesn't discourage Key and Peele from making more movies together in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Look I'm genuinely not trying to start a slapfight or cheerlead here (Lurdiak I know you as a good enough poster to give me pause if nothing else) but how does SMG do that other than literally just post fairly standard academic film criticism? maybe standard if you're, like, John B. McLemore, but not any kind of regular person
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
the Nameless Cults podcast released an episode on Get Out a few days ago, hosted by our own Uncle Boogie and it's really good if you're tired of the discussion in this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've always wondered about Keanu, it didn't really seem to make a splash. Will people be talking about it 15 years from now like Super Troopers or something? I grew up code-switching between different friend groups so the movie connected with me somewhat, but it was an okay movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Jesus, okay, so now I realize that [...] that was entirely just meant to be a reconstruction of what I think. Your reconstruction was so bad I didn't realize it was supposed to be one Reading is not 'reconstructing what other people think.' It is the act of interpreting a text. You have come to a false realization. King Vidiot posted:The movie is practically out of theaters now and there's nothing really left to discuss A damning indictment of the film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:42
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Look I'm genuinely not trying to start a slapfight or cheerlead here (Lurdiak I know you as a good enough poster to give me pause if nothing else) but how does SMG do that other than literally just post fairly standard academic film criticism? And pretend to be a chatbot, I guess, although that seems to me a fairly obvious glib statement of his posting gimmick, i.e. egoless, dispassionate insistence on critically reading films as films, not entertainment commodities? I simply feel that his tendency to post gigantic essays on readings of films that are, more often than not, markedly 'off' from either the popular reading of the film or the stated intent of the film-makers tends to derail and dominate conversations about any given piece of work. The fact that he condescends to people who disagree with him and inevitably takes every discussion down to marxism and zizek is also fairly tiresome. I'm not going to state that he absolutely, definitely doesn't actually believe what he posts and that his shtick is simply a personal exercise to see if he can believably subvert the meaning of any given work, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. His takes can feel... clickbaity? Like coming into a thread about a film about race and claiming it's a delusion the main character has about class, or stating Sucker Punch is a feminist film. These are inherently provocative stances, whether they're right or wrong, and I feel that's no accident. Obviously he puts a lot of work into his posts and is really good at making his case, but that isn't necessarily a good thing if the case he's making is beside the point of what the film's about and that work only serves to eclipse any conversation that isn't either agreeing with or refuting his readings. But I mean just look at what happens to any given film thread, including this one, the minute he comes into it. It inevitably turns into an SMG thread, rather than a thread about the film.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I simply feel that his tendency to post gigantic essays on readings of films that are, more often than not, markedly 'off' from either the popular reading of the film or the stated intent of the film-makers tends to derail and dominate conversations about any given piece of work. The fact that he condescends to people who disagree with him and inevitably takes every discussion down to marxism and zizek is also fairly tiresome. I'm not going to state that he absolutely, definitely doesn't actually believe what he posts and that his shtick is simply a personal exercise to see if he can believably subvert the meaning of any given work, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. His takes can feel... clickbaity? Like coming into a thread about a film about race and claiming it's a delusion the main character has about class, or stating Sucker Punch is a feminist film. These are inherently provocative stances, whether they're right or wrong, and I feel that's no accident. he's doing pretty standard undergrad-type lit crit in a forum of people who get super loving mad if you make a post that's "markedly off from the popular reading of the film", and whether it's intended to be or not it's the best troll on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I simply feel that his tendency to post gigantic essays on readings of films that are, more often than not, markedly 'off' from either the popular reading of the film or the stated intent of the film-makers tends to derail and dominate conversations about any given piece of work. The fact that he condescends to people who disagree with him and inevitably takes every discussion down to marxism and zizek is also fairly tiresome. I'm not going to state that he absolutely, definitely doesn't actually believe what he posts and that his shtick is simply a personal exercise to see if he can believably subvert the meaning of any given work, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. His takes can feel... clickbaity? Like coming into a thread about a film about race and claiming it's a delusion the main character has about class, or stating Sucker Punch is a feminist film. These are inherently provocative stances, whether they're right or wrong, and I feel that's no accident. Tldr
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:he's doing pretty standard undergrad-type lit crit in a forum of people who get super loving mad if you make a post that's "markedly off from the popular reading of the film", and whether it's intended to be or not it's the best troll on the forums. That's unfair, I would have killed for my undergrads to write that well. But yeah it's a normal critical vocabulary and perspective and the rage it elicits is funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I simply feel that his tendency to post gigantic essays on readings of films that are, more often than not, markedly 'off' from either the popular reading of the film or the stated intent of the film-makers tends to derail and dominate conversations about any given piece of work. The fact that he condescends to people who disagree with him and inevitably takes every discussion down to marxism and zizek is also fairly tiresome. I'm not going to state that he absolutely, definitely doesn't actually believe what he posts and that his shtick is simply a personal exercise to see if he can believably subvert the meaning of any given work, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. His takes can feel... clickbaity? Like coming into a thread about a film about race and claiming it's a delusion the main character has about class, or stating Sucker Punch is a feminist film. These are inherently provocative stances, whether they're right or wrong, and I feel that's no accident. I am the ultimate killing machine. I have also been writing about the film: the psychologies of every character, homoerotic subtext, the distinction between nightmare and fantasy (why the film is comforting rather than frightening), its context in genre cinema, its sociopolitical context, etc. You wrote that the jump-scare in one scene is too loud. Then you wrote this weird, lengthy post about SMG (who - it bears repeating - does not actually exist). SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am the ultimate killing machine. You're an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:You're an rear end in a top hat. I am many things to many people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am many things to many people. But mainly an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The opposite interpretation is also correct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Extended SNL Skit Produces Limited Discussion
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
We've already gone over the insistence on SMG's unfriendliness that happens to correspond to the film's message that 'friendship is magic'. Of course the best criticism of the film is that the villains are not even characterized as bad because of racism, but because of their unfriendliness (consequently, there is little or nothing antiracist in the film). See the point, earlier in the thread, that the reveal of Rose as an insectoid psycho-slut is a total copout. In the universe of the film, you cannot be a well-meaning 'woke' idiot - a friendly racist - so Rose must suddenly pull out a rifle and start hunting black men as part of her secret ritualistic castration fetish. Only then is the protagonist allowed to choke her to death. My rewrite of the ending of the film: Rose helps Chris escape with the keys and says "thank gosh we got away from my racist family, and back to our comfortable Starbucks apartment!" Then the door opens to loose the tidal-wave of blood from The Shining. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Starbucks apartment! thank you
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:he's doing pretty standard undergrad-type lit crit in a forum of people who get super loving mad if you make a post that's "markedly off from the popular reading of the film", and whether it's intended to be or not it's the best troll on the forums. SMG's undergrad essay would be riddled with the question "evidence???" in all of the margins. Oppositional readings still require using the primary text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Qualia posted:holy poo poo I skimmed over that slam because I have SMG on ignore
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:My rewrite of the ending of the film: Rose helps Chris escape with the keys and says "thank gosh we got away from my racist family, and back to our comfortable Starbucks apartment!" Then the door opens to loose the tidal-wave of blood from The Shining. It should be the ending to Thriller, with Chris comforting Rose, suggesting they go get something to eat, then turning around to reveal reptiloid eyes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It should be the ending to Thriller, with Chris comforting Rose, suggesting they go get something to eat, then turning around to reveal reptiloid eyes. Ya-a-a-a-as
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It should be the ending to Thriller, with Chris comforting Rose, suggesting they go get something to eat, then turning around to reveal reptiloid eyes. Goddamn
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:SMG's undergrad essay would be riddled with the question "evidence???" in all of the margins. Oppositional readings still require using the primary text. If I have written anything inaccurate or false, it should be very easy for you to point it out. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It should be the ending to Thriller, with Chris comforting Rose, suggesting they go get something to eat, then turning around to reveal reptiloid eyes. Ok yeah that's better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It should be the ending to Thriller, with Chris comforting Rose, suggesting they go get something to eat, then turning around to reveal reptiloid eyes. And the end credits slam up over ironic Jewish klezmer music.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
SMG presents two recurring problems: misreading, ignoring, or concocting evidence; and contradicting himself when challenged on outlandish claims. Problem #1 SuperMechagodzilla posted:Chris sincerely believes that 'selling out' in the photography world is as bad as getting Trayvon Martin'd. No textual evidence about Chris "selling out." quote:Chris' reaction when this servant starts crying is to dismiss her as crazy. He later doesn't understand why she reacts badly to losing her home and job. No textual evidence. Chris is scared of her reaction but he never dismisses her as crazy. In fact, he knows she's brainslugged and still tries to save her. SuperMechagodzilla posted:In the logic of the film, he would literally have the brain of a white person, losing his talent in the process. Chris believes, to some extent, that his talent comes from his blackness. No textual evidence about Chris believing anything about racial biotruths or essentialized blackness. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Of course, what I've just outlined is the opinion of Stephen Root's character - his idea that blackness gives Chris a superior 'eye'. He's not like those white dummies; he's inherently better because he's 'from the streets', or something. Root is, of course, a genuine reverse racist. No textual evidence to this claim. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The part where Grandpa never interacts with anyone, or even enters the house? Or the part where Grandma is mentally ill and kept in a room adorned with scrawled drawings, except when she's made to do chores? The part where Grandpa instantly, defensively says 'I brought this on myself', like "I'm here of my own free will"? Or the part where they're both clearly miserable? This willfully ignores parts of the movie in which a) grandpa IS happy and b) both grandma and grandpa are mingling with guests as friends, not servants, during the party. Problem #2: i am the bird posted:like the family being "well-meaning" SuperMechagodzilla posted:"[Chris is] welcomed by the racists with open arms. " Here he is pretending that 'nice racist' and 'well-meaning racist' are somehow different in this conversation But it doesn't matter because a couple posts later he changes his mind: SuperMechagodzilla posted:Even if we foolishly take the film 100% literally and examine it only in terms of its plot: why do you think the bad guys take the time to introduce themselves, explain their motivations - even enter into a long-term relationship with the protagonist? It's because they care. The dad even says outright that he considers this a 'green', 'ethical' alternative to just stuffing guys in trunks. In SMG's claim, the family is not-well meaning but they do care about Chris and the other victims, or at least about making the world a better place (via the eradication of black bodies or blackness). Which is it? SuperMechagodzilla posted:And Root, again, states outright that the victims being black is mostly arbitrary. Here he wrongfully extends Root's personal opinion, about how race is arbitrary to him re: body snatching, to argue that race is not important to the body snatchers. This is in effort to argue that the movie could've had a white protagonist. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Not 'eyes' - eye. Root doesn't want mere eye surgery. Blindness hasn't really held him back in life, you may have noticed. He wants the soul itself - literally, to have a little black guy (trapped as a disembodied gaze) inside him. But here he claims that Root wants an essentialized blackness which not only has no textual evidence but also contradicts the previous post. It's only frustrating because he's also capable of making good points. If he wasn't chained to his outdated Marxist philosophy or the belief that his arguments are Truth, then he'd be interesting. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
But also the kernel of truth and his relentless posting make him a fun troll, at least, so more power to him I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
The quote:quote quote:is quote:formatting "No textual evidence about Chris 'selling out.'" Chris is initially open to working with Stephen Root's big-name art dealer, but then fears Root will steal his art and dumb it down. Root is then burned to death. "No textual evidence. Chris is scared of her reaction but he never dismisses her as crazy." Direct transcription of dialogue from the film: "this Bitch is crazy." Those are just the first two examples of your mistakes. Fix your post. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:I skimmed over that slam because I have SMG on ignore
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"No textual evidence about Chris 'selling out.'" How does this relate to selling out his blackness? quote:"No textual evidence. Chris is scared of her reaction but he never dismisses her as crazy." Sure, you've got me here. I don't think it applies to the rest of the movie in which Chris is aware that something is actually, physically wrong with her and tries to save her, but sure, he does literally say the word "crazy" and I stretched too far. Go on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
drat SMG gets real lazy when backed into a corner. I was hoping he'd double down on the essays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Go on. I am sticking with one point at a time because there seems to be something wrong with your approach. Your first claim was already disproven with a basic plot synopsis, but is now being rephrased as a question: "How does this relate to selling out his blackness?" Chris is initially open to working with Stephen Root's big-name art dealer, but then fears Root will steal his art and dumb it down. Chris comes to agree with Rod, that there is a white conspiracy against him. Root is white and (perceived as) part of the conspiracy. Chris then burns Root to death. Once again, this is a basic plot synopsis. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:And the end credits slam up over ironic Jewish klezmer music. Oh man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
You have to prove that Chris believes his art to be representative of his blackness in order to argue that selling his art to a white man would cause the loss of blackness. You're making this assumption because Chris is black. I have a film you can watch about liberal racism, if you'd like to know more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Ok yeah that's better. I have to admit, one of the reasons I like seeing alternate takes on this movie is because for some bizarre reason people are acting like this is the first socially conscious horror movie with a black lead character, which makes me suspicious about the perspective they're coming at it from. Have they never heard of 'Mind Playin' Tricks On Me'? Welcome Home, Brother Charles? New Jack City?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I have to admit, one of the reasons I like seeing alternate takes on this movie is because for some bizarre reason people are acting like this is the first socially conscious horror movie with a black lead character, which makes me suspicious about the perspective they're coming at it from. Have they never heard of 'Mind Playin' Tricks On Me'? Welcome Home, Brother Charles? New Jack City? I FEEL LIKE IM THE ONE THAT'S DOIN DOPE
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:44
|
|