Lets just be clear about one thing, Dos started this war. He coined the term "Inceptiongate." I was getting sick of arguing about it too, but wanted to see it to the end. Well, at least to the end of the week. Dos is right though, I have no problem with him posting whatever he wants. Especially if I post weird videos of a guy singing at church and an old Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen video. Yeah, I actually posted those.
Next week will bring more interesting topics. Not that this week wasn't interesting. Perhaps just a little repetitive? I would like custody to be retained by both of us. We will go to blog counseling. Mediation. Whatever it takes. We do not want to let our loyal readers down. All one or two of you. So prepare yourselves for next weeks exciting journey!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Call and Response
I liked the word jazz song I heard and posted the lyrics. I thought they were interesting. If Doc can post videos, why can't I do this? I may have expressed disinterest in his Doritos commercial video, but I never expressed that I wished it was taken down, or that I was ashamed of it.
I still hate Inception. I thought we were moving past this. Why does Doc keep bringing it up?
I do like the Last Emperor. I was just tired of fighting about movies, when it is clear Doc and I have different tastes. He favors action and I favor substance.
My mom read the blog. She then commented on a post. I do not really understand this constant need of Doc to reveal to the blog things that are not a very big deal in the first place.
I, also, do not understand how this blog turned into a non-stop call and response fight. I thought we were purposely moving past the Inception fight for a reason. Doc, I have no problem playing the fight back and forth game. I just thought we were trying not to do this. Perhaps, if you want to do the fight back and forth thing, we should do some more controversial topics. The movie thing is starting to bore me a bit, to be honest. I kind of feel like Doc's last post was more serious than the Inception fight. Doc seems peeved. He also said that my post of lyrics to a song and the fact that I did not spend more than a few sentences on The Last Emperor, somehow, proved him right. Right about what? I do not get it.
Doc, I hope your next post explains all of this and the direction in which you think the blog should go in. I am a very lazy man, and if any of this leads to a blog split, I would like custody of this blog, so I do not have to create another one. Doc, as always, you have the floor to react to my comments. I am curious about what they will be.
I still hate Inception. I thought we were moving past this. Why does Doc keep bringing it up?
I do like the Last Emperor. I was just tired of fighting about movies, when it is clear Doc and I have different tastes. He favors action and I favor substance.
My mom read the blog. She then commented on a post. I do not really understand this constant need of Doc to reveal to the blog things that are not a very big deal in the first place.
I, also, do not understand how this blog turned into a non-stop call and response fight. I thought we were purposely moving past the Inception fight for a reason. Doc, I have no problem playing the fight back and forth game. I just thought we were trying not to do this. Perhaps, if you want to do the fight back and forth thing, we should do some more controversial topics. The movie thing is starting to bore me a bit, to be honest. I kind of feel like Doc's last post was more serious than the Inception fight. Doc seems peeved. He also said that my post of lyrics to a song and the fact that I did not spend more than a few sentences on The Last Emperor, somehow, proved him right. Right about what? I do not get it.
Doc, I hope your next post explains all of this and the direction in which you think the blog should go in. I am a very lazy man, and if any of this leads to a blog split, I would like custody of this blog, so I do not have to create another one. Doc, as always, you have the floor to react to my comments. I am curious about what they will be.
Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room.
Well, we are at weeks end and Dos has proven again why Doc is always right. First off, what the fuck is the post below? I am ashamed that something with so many colors has found its way on to this page. I want to remove it, but I will respect Dos's co-ownership status in the blog and leave it be. Can we get an explanation why this is on the blog though Dos?
I believe deep down Dos loves Inception. He wrote a few long posts about it. He is just ashamed to admit it and just can't turn back at this point. I gave him a chance to argue about a movie he loves (The Last Emperor) and he didn't take the opportunity to write a well thought out post about something he claims to love. Perhaps he really doesn't even like it, but because it is in his DVD collection he has to defend it? I guess we will never know. You might have noticed there was one comment that The Last Emperor was a "beautiful" movie. Will this comment was written by Dos's mom. Having your mom fight your battles for you, eh Dos?
I believe deep down Dos loves Inception. He wrote a few long posts about it. He is just ashamed to admit it and just can't turn back at this point. I gave him a chance to argue about a movie he loves (The Last Emperor) and he didn't take the opportunity to write a well thought out post about something he claims to love. Perhaps he really doesn't even like it, but because it is in his DVD collection he has to defend it? I guess we will never know. You might have noticed there was one comment that The Last Emperor was a "beautiful" movie. Will this comment was written by Dos's mom. Having your mom fight your battles for you, eh Dos?
Faces in the Jazzmatazz by Ken Nordine
What do they mean?
The faces, in the night,
looking, into the antique mirror, of jazz?
By what insistent instinct,
do we crowd the smoking dark?
And watch, with our sea shell ears,
the pounding truth, break against the huge
inchoate spirit of this biggest of the little cities.
And why do the stars of this spirits music,
Shine with such intensity?
Upon the double zero of our blinking eyes?
The questions multiple the mysteries.
Are we the face of get away from it all?
Have another drink baby! Live it up!
Lets have a ball .... before the great big all,
goes up in fire and brimstone.
Make mine a double and short on the soda,
clap hands in the reeling darkness
and play lusty animal with the
yeah, yeah, yeah, of drowning night.
You should have seen me when I stood on the table.
And the bouncer came with his tuxedo,
And the alcoholic air rocking with rolls of laughter after,
While the ghost of dixie land gone white are
crashing through the changes inside
Saints Go Marching In.
One for the road and hiccup home to hangover.
Are we this face?
Are we the face of get there, get there, get there?
Whose at the Blue Note? Whose at the Southerland?
Somebody's opening at the London house?
Grab a cab and seize upon the tock ticking, ticky tock.
Should I wear the mink?
Someone said something is happening at the Cloister Inn.
And the long lines form, in front of the revolving door,
of the spinning now, now, now.
Do I look all right? Keep the change,
I read in Down Beat,
and the smoke rises above above the hub-bub
as the cash register LP’s come alive.
Mr. & Mrs. Face, face up to an evening on the town,
Twelve conventioneers accompanied by a driving
rat ta ta tat become disciples of punch line pornography.
And expense accounts rise, in the falling jazz.
and a waiters feet hurt.
Something ends, and the applause begins.
This clapping reward is bridge for the blues.
Aren’t you glad you came? Aren’t you?
Are we this face?
Are we the face of I wonder, as I wander?
Looking with the look that little children have,
for that loving something?
For that joyous, what ever it is?
For that delightful, I don't know what next?
Tired of playing run sheepy run.
And Follow The Leader.
The game where looking for is looking for us.
And its called One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten Green Light.
A great big huge unbelievably infinitely big Go Sign
For the biggest of the Littlest sleep walking cities.
Where the dreamed we dream is just around,
the imagined nightmares corner.
Come on along to renaissance,
Which is anywhere you want it.
Hope swings eternal and that's where everything is
in the Jazzamatazz Chicago.
Don Quixote rides across the sprawl of us,
in a crazy movie called the Mid Westerner.
Gallops across jumping night
where everyone waits to see where the real action is.
And we strike our matches against old Chicago midnight against anywheres midnight.
Somewhere below the non-stop jets from New York to Hollywood
Hi stranger, are we this face?
All these faces and more and more we are.
And the Truth is right in front of us,
when our backs our turned.
So pick up your trumpet and play this.
Doomsday boys and girls of dust,
come blow your horn for Mr. Must.
Full circles roll in spiral down,
into the fright of the thinnest town.
The faces, in the night,
looking, into the antique mirror, of jazz?
By what insistent instinct,
do we crowd the smoking dark?
And watch, with our sea shell ears,
the pounding truth, break against the huge
inchoate spirit of this biggest of the little cities.
And why do the stars of this spirits music,
Shine with such intensity?
Upon the double zero of our blinking eyes?
The questions multiple the mysteries.
Are we the face of get away from it all?
Have another drink baby! Live it up!
Lets have a ball .... before the great big all,
goes up in fire and brimstone.
Make mine a double and short on the soda,
clap hands in the reeling darkness
and play lusty animal with the
yeah, yeah, yeah, of drowning night.
You should have seen me when I stood on the table.
And the bouncer came with his tuxedo,
And the alcoholic air rocking with rolls of laughter after,
While the ghost of dixie land gone white are
crashing through the changes inside
Saints Go Marching In.
One for the road and hiccup home to hangover.
Are we this face?
Are we the face of get there, get there, get there?
Whose at the Blue Note? Whose at the Southerland?
Somebody's opening at the London house?
Grab a cab and seize upon the tock ticking, ticky tock.
Should I wear the mink?
Someone said something is happening at the Cloister Inn.
And the long lines form, in front of the revolving door,
of the spinning now, now, now.
Do I look all right? Keep the change,
I read in Down Beat,
and the smoke rises above above the hub-bub
as the cash register LP’s come alive.
Mr. & Mrs. Face, face up to an evening on the town,
Twelve conventioneers accompanied by a driving
rat ta ta tat become disciples of punch line pornography.
And expense accounts rise, in the falling jazz.
and a waiters feet hurt.
Something ends, and the applause begins.
This clapping reward is bridge for the blues.
Aren’t you glad you came? Aren’t you?
Are we this face?
Are we the face of I wonder, as I wander?
Looking with the look that little children have,
for that loving something?
For that joyous, what ever it is?
For that delightful, I don't know what next?
Tired of playing run sheepy run.
And Follow The Leader.
The game where looking for is looking for us.
And its called One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten Green Light.
A great big huge unbelievably infinitely big Go Sign
For the biggest of the Littlest sleep walking cities.
Where the dreamed we dream is just around,
the imagined nightmares corner.
Come on along to renaissance,
Which is anywhere you want it.
Hope swings eternal and that's where everything is
in the Jazzamatazz Chicago.
Don Quixote rides across the sprawl of us,
in a crazy movie called the Mid Westerner.
Gallops across jumping night
where everyone waits to see where the real action is.
And we strike our matches against old Chicago midnight against anywheres midnight.
Somewhere below the non-stop jets from New York to Hollywood
Hi stranger, are we this face?
All these faces and more and more we are.
And the Truth is right in front of us,
when our backs our turned.
So pick up your trumpet and play this.
Doomsday boys and girls of dust,
come blow your horn for Mr. Must.
Full circles roll in spiral down,
into the fright of the thinnest town.
- Ken Nordine (1959)
Bad Blog Post
I will respond to Doc only based on the movies I have seen. I like the Last Emperor. I found the film to be quite interesting and entertaining. However, there is not much violence and it is not a comedy, so I could see where Doc would not like it. Blade Runner was, indeed, incredibly boring. I think that there is more to Little Miss Sunshine than meets the eye. Some of the dialogue is loaded with interesting observations about modern family life. I enjoyed the movie and think it is, at least, original in parts. I think the point of the Rocky Horror Picture Show was not to be a good story. It is an homage to bad movies and how they can still be enjoyable, as well as other things. It achieves its goal here. Everything else I agree with Doc on.
Oh wait, that is not necessarily so. The Last Samurai. I HATE this movie. Never has a movie been so inaccurate on so many things. Most of this I can forgive if someone says, "well, it was an entertaining movie, back off." Except for the fact that the ending is bizarrely wrong. The ending of the movie insists that the samurai continued to flourish and as did the government in power at the time. In reality, Japan was attempting to make way to modernize and compete with the west for commercial interests, as well as a say in world politics. They, thus, repressed the samurai and the shogun was replaced with an emperor to make way for modernization. Man, what a dumb movie. What was the point of the movie now? Who knows? Glorification of violence probably.
Man, short post. Doc didn't really give me much to work with. What to write about now? I think coming out of Inceptiongate, I should find a movie Doc and I agree on to talk about. Eh, screw it.
Oh wait, that is not necessarily so. The Last Samurai. I HATE this movie. Never has a movie been so inaccurate on so many things. Most of this I can forgive if someone says, "well, it was an entertaining movie, back off." Except for the fact that the ending is bizarrely wrong. The ending of the movie insists that the samurai continued to flourish and as did the government in power at the time. In reality, Japan was attempting to make way to modernize and compete with the west for commercial interests, as well as a say in world politics. They, thus, repressed the samurai and the shogun was replaced with an emperor to make way for modernization. Man, what a dumb movie. What was the point of the movie now? Who knows? Glorification of violence probably.
Man, short post. Doc didn't really give me much to work with. What to write about now? I think coming out of Inceptiongate, I should find a movie Doc and I agree on to talk about. Eh, screw it.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Doc VS Overrated Movies
I believe the Inception debate has gone as far as it can. Dos and I will not be swayed one way or the other. I love it, he doesn't. He thinks it was overrated. I and almost the rest of the human population, do not. Now if I wanted to speak about a movie that was overrated and horrible, I would talk about The Last Emperor. Man, what a boring movie that was! I have nothing against historically factual movies as I find them interesting and entertaining. In fact, The Last Samurai* is one of my favorite movies! So that proves I have no problem with historically accurate movies.
The Last Emperor was slow, boring and there were no characters I cared about. Honestly, I was just hoping everyone would be assassinated so the movie would end. I make a point to never stop a movie. Once I start it, I always see it to the end. The Last Emperor was one of the hardest movies I ever had to get through. The best way to sum up the movie is from a quote in the New York Times by Vincent Canby:
The Last Emperor is like an elegant travel brochure. It piques the curiosity. One wants to go. Ultimately it's a let-down.
Another quote from Rita Kempley of The Washington Post:
We need more than elegant parallels and lavish production values. We need tension, characterization, drama.
She said it better than I could. The biggest problem with the movie was that there was ZERO tension or drama. I just didn't give a shit about anything going on the whole time. The story is much more interesting than it was portrayed in the movie.
I am sure a lot of our readers never saw or even heard of The Last Emperor. So lets get more modern. A more recent overrated movie I had trouble getting through was Scott Pilgrim VS The World. Was this movie supposed to be a comedy? Comic book action film? Drama? Video game come to life? I have no fucking idea. It started off good enough, but as it went on, I just wanted him to battle the evil exes, defeat them, get the girl and for the movie to be over with already. It was just incredibly boring. If it was supposed to be a comedy, it just wasn't very funny. There were a few chuckles here and there, but that was it.
Another problem I had with the movie is I am sick of Michael Cera playing the same awkward teen over and over again. He needs to take a break from movies for a while and then come back with something completely different. And, catch 22, once he started fighting the evil exes I didn't find him believable as an action star. So he has already screwed himself and will forever be stuck playing those types of roles.
Some other movies that are completely overrated and a brief reason why:
Blade Runner - Slow pacing. Boring. Read the book, way more entertaining.
Little Miss Sunshine - Good for one viewing. Nothing more than an interesting road trip movie. Not very original.
Rocky Horror Picture Show - Weirdness overshadows the story. You are nothing without a good story.
Avatar - One of the most overrated movies of all time. Generic story. Too much hype on 3D and effects.
Scarface - It is good, don't get me wrong. But it is way too long and does not seem very believable. If you want to watch a great gangster movie with Pacino, watch The Godfather. Unless you are a rapper (Y'all are obsessed with this)
The Departed - While good, not as great as you are led to believe. Unbelievable plot and overly long.
Children of Men - Very cliched. Interesting plot, but overall more of a mess than anything.
I'm sure there is a lot of other overrated crap out there, but those are the ones that come to mind right now. If anyone wants to chime in on what they think is overrated feel free!
* I am aware The Last Samurai is no where near accurate, but damn, what a great movie.
And Now a Musical Interlude: Blue Rondo à la Turk
While I am fully aware of the fact that no one reads this blog, and that the 3184blog is experiencing a crisis like no other, I would like to take a moment out for an interlude and to try to sell you something. I would like to sell you a song. It is free or, depending on you morals, 99 cents. If there are profits, they do not go to me. So, please understand that my goal here is not financial gain. My goal doesn't even have to do with today. It has to do with something down the line. Something that will happen to you later. It has probably already happened to you, but it will happen to you again and maybe next time this will make it easier. I was walking today, a bit stressed for various unnecessary reasons, and the day was rather nice to be honest. Furthermore, my stresses were nothing of great concern. They were something I built up too much in my head. However, I did not see any of that. All I saw was complaining. I saw myself complaining about idiotic notions that had no influence on anything I was doing.
Now, it has upset me that I have yet to mention music yet, at all, in this blog. I do think that music is rather important, perhaps more important than movies. You probably see where I am going with this, so I will cut to the chase. Yes, the song cheered me up and made me realize how annoying and moany I can be. But I don't want you to think that this was just any song. This was a special song. This was Dave Brubeck's
Blue Rondo à la Turk
Now, comes the hard sell. There are no words. The song has no words. Even worse, for those less adventurous among us, it is a jazz song. Ugh I could hear you moaning. You know, I knew you would be like this. That's why I did the big cheesy intro. But give us a chance here. I don't want to poorly describe the song, as it is impossible to describe a song as it is. I want to convince you to get the song. I don't want you to listen to it on youtube. You will not give it a chance. I just want you to get the song somehow. You don't even have to listen to it. Just get it, put it on your computer, ipod or whatever. Don't think about it after you have done this. Don't even listen to it. Just put it somewhere and forget about. The best thing about this song is that it is just going to come to you at the right time. When it does, you will listen to it, all the way through. It will help you, I swear it will. Just do it. I am begging you here. Get the song and the rest will work out itself. I promise.None of this makes any sense to you I'm sure, don't worry it will someday.
Did he just quote American Beauty? Remember the bag scene, that was cheesy looking back. Or was it meaningful? Discuss. Oh, before you discuss get the song.
I now take you back to the Inception fight. This was a nice interlude, eh? Much better than that dumb movie....
12 Angry Remarks (well, one is positive....the first one)
1. I Love 12 Angry Men, now that is a meaningful movie.
2. Sexist
3. How is me using someone else's review admitting defeat?
4. Doc did put a lot of effort into his previous post. He should be commended for that. However, as I stated in my last post, he just showed that the movie was complex. He did not show that it was smart or meaningful.
5. My joke was that because he responded with so many words, I would respond with the fewest to show that more words do not equal a better argument. I am not syaing it was a good joke. I am just saying I don't know why posting it here was so revealing.
6. I am sick about talking about inception, the movie is so bad it does not deserve this much thought or time, and I did just copy a review I agreed with and posted it on to the blog. At no point did I deny this.
7. In doing so, that was an dirty easy trick. I used someone else's words to express my own and it took much faster than writing an entry of my own. Agian, I admitted this.
8. I, indeed, still dislike the film and did take the easy way out using someone else's review.
9. What truth did Doc reveal that I did not admit in my previous post?
10. I already came back from Doc's post as he did not bring anything novel to the debate.
11. I am not waiting for Doc to do anything, I am responding quickly to his lack of accusations. All he did was repeat things that were already abundantly clear.
12. Inception is a meaningless film that is walking around pretending it is smart and meaningful. It had a needlessly complex plot to give the feeling that it is about something when it isn't. The point of all the complexity is to have some really cool action scenes. To say the film is about loss or anything serious is a ridiculous argument because the film spends most of its time on action. It does not have a lot of interesting dialogue, plot or do anything to make the audience think. The story is clearly explained out for you. The audience is not allowed to judge the characters, action or philosophy of the film. The director tells the audience what to feel and when to feel it. I do not enjoy being a sheep. Some people do. I am not saying that some people do not enjoy this film, but they should admit why they enjoy it. It has some cool action scenes. I was planing on coming to the blog today and find some way to give Doc the win. I am tired of talking about Inception and I was planning on coming on here and saying I concede to Doc because...and make up a loop hole for Doc to easily get out of and have the win. However, Doc's previous post, which claims to be so revealing and novel is just like the film Inception. It acts like it is giving out important information when in fact, it isn't. It is just empty for these numbered reasons you are reading now. I could not let this stand. I had to be honest, even at the risk of talking about this dumb movie some more. To sum up, I did take the easy way out by posting someone else's words. This is not worng in itself, as I admitted it, and it was just a lazy thing to do. However, I still agree with all those words I have posted and Doc has in no way proved that Inception is anything but a complex action film. Now, here is what I want. I want Doc to write a post saying "Inception is nothing more than a complex action film that I happen to enjoy because I think action films are really entertaining. It is not meaningful, challenging or intellectually stimulating. It does not have to be, it is just entertainment." That is an argument I will accept. I'll make this easy for you Doc. Just copy and paste the quote into your next post. You do not have to write anything else. Then I will start a new topic of debate and everything will go back to normal. Until then, the world waits....
2. Sexist
3. How is me using someone else's review admitting defeat?
4. Doc did put a lot of effort into his previous post. He should be commended for that. However, as I stated in my last post, he just showed that the movie was complex. He did not show that it was smart or meaningful.
5. My joke was that because he responded with so many words, I would respond with the fewest to show that more words do not equal a better argument. I am not syaing it was a good joke. I am just saying I don't know why posting it here was so revealing.
6. I am sick about talking about inception, the movie is so bad it does not deserve this much thought or time, and I did just copy a review I agreed with and posted it on to the blog. At no point did I deny this.
7. In doing so, that was an dirty easy trick. I used someone else's words to express my own and it took much faster than writing an entry of my own. Agian, I admitted this.
8. I, indeed, still dislike the film and did take the easy way out using someone else's review.
9. What truth did Doc reveal that I did not admit in my previous post?
10. I already came back from Doc's post as he did not bring anything novel to the debate.
11. I am not waiting for Doc to do anything, I am responding quickly to his lack of accusations. All he did was repeat things that were already abundantly clear.
12. Inception is a meaningless film that is walking around pretending it is smart and meaningful. It had a needlessly complex plot to give the feeling that it is about something when it isn't. The point of all the complexity is to have some really cool action scenes. To say the film is about loss or anything serious is a ridiculous argument because the film spends most of its time on action. It does not have a lot of interesting dialogue, plot or do anything to make the audience think. The story is clearly explained out for you. The audience is not allowed to judge the characters, action or philosophy of the film. The director tells the audience what to feel and when to feel it. I do not enjoy being a sheep. Some people do. I am not saying that some people do not enjoy this film, but they should admit why they enjoy it. It has some cool action scenes. I was planing on coming to the blog today and find some way to give Doc the win. I am tired of talking about Inception and I was planning on coming on here and saying I concede to Doc because...and make up a loop hole for Doc to easily get out of and have the win. However, Doc's previous post, which claims to be so revealing and novel is just like the film Inception. It acts like it is giving out important information when in fact, it isn't. It is just empty for these numbered reasons you are reading now. I could not let this stand. I had to be honest, even at the risk of talking about this dumb movie some more. To sum up, I did take the easy way out by posting someone else's words. This is not worng in itself, as I admitted it, and it was just a lazy thing to do. However, I still agree with all those words I have posted and Doc has in no way proved that Inception is anything but a complex action film. Now, here is what I want. I want Doc to write a post saying "Inception is nothing more than a complex action film that I happen to enjoy because I think action films are really entertaining. It is not meaningful, challenging or intellectually stimulating. It does not have to be, it is just entertainment." That is an argument I will accept. I'll make this easy for you Doc. Just copy and paste the quote into your next post. You do not have to write anything else. Then I will start a new topic of debate and everything will go back to normal. Until then, the world waits....
I do mind. The Dude minds. This will not stand. This aggression will not stand, man.
First off, yeaok, I am gonna take a review by a woman seriously. Come on! The post below is basically Dos admitting defeat. This is as close to an admittance of being wrong as we are gonna get from him. Further proof comes from a string of texts he sent me just a little while ago. I would like to share them with you, our loyal readers, so you can see the type of man you are dealing with. You might not like what you see, but it is my duty to share it.
These have not been edited. The names have been changed to protect the guilty:
Dos: Haha u did put effort in it and i thnk the best way to respond for me is with as few words as possible lol - Received: 10:43PM, Feb 16
Dos: So sick of talking about ibception just copied a review and posted it - Received: 10:52PM, Feb 16
Dos: Fact and now i am using easy dirty tricks to win - Received: 10:55PM, Feb 16
Dos: Huh? i still dislike the film but admit i took the ez way out by using someones elses review - Received: 10:58PM, Feb 16
Well sir, your "easy dirty tricks" can only take you so far. Our readers deserve to know the truth. And the truth they shall get, courtesy of Doc! Your move Dos. Your move.
Will Dos be able to come back from this? Will he ignore it and start a new topic all together? Or will he wait for Doc to begin a new topic before him? Tune in tomorrow to find out. Same 3184 time. Same 3184 channel.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Crapception
Doc has certainly proved that the film is complex. Complexity does not prove intelligence or meaning. Inception stinks. But, you have heard enough from me and I am tired of saying things that are correct and hearing the response of "but it is really cool." Here is a reprint of a review from http://www.movieline.com/2010/07/review-is-inception-this-years-masterpiece-dream-on.php it is by Stephanie Zackarek and she hits the nail on the head:
If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we’ve entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn’t nearly the same thing.
If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we’ve entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn’t nearly the same thing.
In Inception, Nolan does the impossible, the unthinkable, the stupendous: He folds a mirror version of Paris back upon itself; he stages a fight sequence in a gravity-free hotel room; he sends a train plowing through a busy city street. Whatever you can dream, Nolan does it in Inception. Then he nestles those little dreams into even bigger dreams, and those bigger dreams into gargantuan dreams, going on into infinity, cubed. He stretches the boundaries of filmmaking so that it’s, like, not even filmmaking anymore, it’s just pure “OMG I gotta text my BFF right now” sensation.
Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie?
But that urgent simplicity, that directness of focus, is beyond Nolan: Everything he does is forced and overthought, and Inception, far from being his ticket into hall-of-fame greatness, is a very expensive-looking, elephantine film whose myriad so-called complexities — of both the emotional and intellectual sort — add up to a kind of ADD tedium. This may be a movie about dreams, but there’s nothing dreamlike or evocative about it: Nolan doesn’t build or sustain a mood; all he does is twist the plot, under, over, and back upon itself, relying on Hans Zimmer’s sonic boom of a score to remind us when we should be excited or anxious or moved. It’s less directing than directing traffic.
Nolan’s aim, perhaps, is to keep us so confused we won’t dare question his genius. The movie opens with Leonardo DiCaprio being washed up on a beach somewhere — mysteriously, there are two little blond children cavorting around, though we can’t see their faces. Then some Japanese soldiers drag him into a menacing-looking seaside castle nearby. Then he sits down at a table, opposite some mysterious old guy, and proceeds to eat some gruel. What, you might ask, is going on here, as bits of runny porridge drip from the haggard-looking DiCaprio’s lips? You’re supposed to be perplexed — it’s all part of the movie’s puzzly-wuzzly structure.
Before long we learn that DiCaprio’s character is an “extractor,” meaning he’s a skilled craftsman who can enter others’ dreams to draw out valuable information, useful, particularly, in corporate espionage. His name is Dom Cobb — which is, I guess, better than being called Com Dobb — and not only does he have the ability to enter others’ dreams; he actually builds those dreams, with the help of his number-two man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), plus an architect, who had better know what he or she is doing. The architect working for Cobb at the beginning of the movie (he’s played, all too briefly, by Lukas Haas) meets a bad end after installing the wrong kind of shag carpeting in an important dream. Perhaps these dreams need interior decorators, too, to prevent future faux pas, but let’s not get off-track.
Luckily, Cobb’s replacement architect, an earnest young student named Ariadne (Ellen Page), is more on the ball, and she senses that Cobb has some dark, painful secret buried deep in the basement of his subconscious. (Later, Nolan will show us an actual elevator going down into that basement, to reinforce the metaphor.) Cobb’s secret has something to do with those two little blond kids we keep seeing in his subconscious and his extremely pissed-off wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who haunts his dreams dressed mostly in an assortment of evening gowns. Cobb’s personal trauma has become intertwined with his latest assignment: A onetime mark who has become an associate (or something — the relationship is never made clear), Saito (Ken Watanabe), has suggested that Cobb may find a way back to his wife and family, if only he can penetrate the dreams of a young man, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), who’s just inherited his father’s business empire.
That “way back” can be summed up in one word — Inception! — which is incanted again and again, like the name of a Calvin Klein perfume. (Every time Cobb hears it, his ears perk up like a Doberman’s.) Inception is even more pretentious and overstuffed than Nolan’s last picture, The Dark Knight, a feat I’d not have thought possible. It also shows the same lack of regard for visual logic. (I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how Heath Ledger’s Joker got off that building ledge, which is where we last saw him.)
But Nolan serves up great visuals, you say. Just look at that folded-up, upside-down Paris, all those fantastic slow-motion explosions, the way that van takes 1,762 seconds to veer off a bridge and into the water. It’s all so cool, right? But that’s not the same as arranging those images coherently so that the viewer always knows who’s coming from where, and why. In the movie’s climactic scene — or, rather, one of its numerous climactic dream-within-a-dream scenes — a character gets chased around a snowy mountain by guys with automatic weapons. Who are they, and where did they come from? There are other characters on that mountain, too, but we have no idea where they are, or what they’re doing in relation to one another.
Because Nolan can’t connect his visuals, he has to use words, and lots of them, to let us know what characters are doing and why we should care. Every scene is packed with helpful explanatory dialogue like “Killing him would just wake him up” and “Pain is in the mind.” “A closed loop will help you control the levels of the dream you create,” one character explains matter-of-factly to another, and she responds as if she’s just heard the music of the spheres. There’s more: “As we go deeper into Fischer, we’re also going deeper into you. And I’m not sure we’re going to like what we find.” (Don’t go in the basement.) You’ll find one instance of the ever-popular “Trust me — he’s hiding something, and we need to find out what it is.” I hope you’re not too shocked to learn that “She had herself declared sane by three different psychologists.” And last but not least, pay close attention to this pithy solution to a grave problem: “As soon as Arthur’s music kicks in, just revive him with the defibrillator.” Of course! Why didn’t I think of that?
When Nolan fears things might be getting a little slow, he pumps up the Zimmermusik, much of which sounds derivative of old James Bond scores, only bigger, louder and less melodic. This isn’t an actors’ movie: None of Nolan’s movies are — the most they demand are stunts and gimmicks, or at best a constipated expression that suggests a character is suffering deeply repressed pain. DiCaprio is pretty good at wearing that expression here, but he’s not called upon to do much else. And Levitt, a versatile performer who’s always interesting to watch, is completely wasted in a colorless role. Similarly, Page is required to do little more than blink her enormous eyes, like a carnival Kewpie. And Michael Caine’s appearance is so brief, he may as well be a mirage in this vast desert.
Inception is nice enough to look at; the DP is Wally Pfister, who frequently collaborates with Nolan, and he makes those Parisian streets, in particular, look very pretty and bright. But the deeper you get into the movie, the more its polished visual surface feels like a deception. Nearly every moment in Inception is so big, so fattened-up, that nothing has any weight; because every little thing is of the gravest importance, there’s nothing at stake. Nolan keeps the story whirring, all right — he’s the man behind the curtain, feverishly pushing levers and operating dials. He uses his figurative bullhorn to ask allegedly deep questions, like “What’s real, and what’s illusion?” (He’s the Doug Henning of filmmakers.) But although Inception gives the appearance of being a work of intelligence and complexity, it’s really just an ungodly tangle. There’s no elegance in Nolan’s vision, only sweat. He’s the dream architect who thinks he’s doing us a favor by giving us a shag rug.
Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war!
This war has reached it end. This is the last I will speak of Inception. I honestly cannot muster the strength to argue with a man who can be on the fence about something, but rather than give it another shot, is persuaded by an email. I agree with Dos that Inception should not be as high on IMDB's list as it is, but that is not the result of stupidity. That is due to the simple fact that older movies get short changed on lists like those because IMDB was not around when those movies came out. As simple as that.
DISAGREE. The use of violence in Inception moves the story along. They are being constantly attacked by Fischer's mind when they are discovered. This is just a part of the plot. And a cool part at that. Now, this type of action/violence is not Dos's cup of tea. But can you honestly call it pointless?? It is part of the story and the world they live in. Fact. And that hallway fight scene was just awesome. Definitely the coolest fight scene I had scene in a while.
The movie absolutely makes you think. What a ridiculous comment. Dos... dos... dos. Just today Conan O'Brien posted a tweet about Inception:
ConanOBrien: Whoa! I I think I finally just got INCEPTION. Now can someone please explain BRIDE WARS?
There is just so much Dos doesn't understand and it is hard to explain it to him seeing as how he only saw the movie once and the rest of the info he will just briefly skim online. One complex element of the film involves Hans Zimmer's score. Zimmer used the Édith Piaf song “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" as it was sampled and manipulated to create a very specific mood in the film. Each time they slip into the next level of Fischer's dream, the piece is slowed down. I will let Zimmer explain it, as he can do it better than myself:
If you were to see this movie a second time, you realize the last note you hear in the movie is the first note in the movie. It’s a Möbius band. But the next thing you hear over the logos is actually telling a story. You realize that the elements that we’ve extracted from the Piaf song are the way you get from one dream level to the next. When the movie starts, some action has already happened.
From a different article, he goes on to say...
Just for the game of it, all the music in the score is subdivisions and multiplications of the tempo of the Édith Piaf track. So I could slip into half-time; I could slip into a third of a time. Anything could go anywhere. At any moment I could drop into a different level of time.
Im betting Dos did not know any of this. It is just disappointing he would argue with me about something for the sake of arguing. The dreams and each level can also be quite confusing upon first viewing. The complexity of the dreams in the film is even more relevant in the infographic below.
Another element of the film, like the Édith Piaf track, that people do not notice upon a single viewing, is the fact that Cobb's totem is in fact not the spinning top, but his wedding ring. So Dos being annoyed about the top spinning at the end has no relevance, because the scene itself is insignificant to the wise viewer. Upon a second or third viewing you will notice that Cobb is sometimes wearing the ring and sometimes is not. He wears it during dreams. So during that last scene, when you see he is not wearing it, you know he is not dreaming. So Dos can not be upset about the final scene.
Dos said he felt the film was meaningless. This makes me feel sorry for him. The point of the movie was that it was about Cobb's journey to be reunited with his children. On top of that, it is about overcoming the loss of his wife. Meaningless? I don't think so. It is also about Fischer hoping his father would return his love. Now to Dos, all this might be meaningless, but to anyone with a soul, it is quite meaningful. It just so happens that these stories coincide with the more extraordinary circumstances.
I think the problem Dos has with the movie is he just did not understand it. Until he watches it again, he will never fully appreciate it. I will gladly lend it to him as I have it both on DVD and Blu Ray. I will watch it with him and explain everything that is going on. Hopefully in time, and with a a bit of a miracle, Dos will fully understand the film and why it has received the acclaim* it has. Say a prayer for Dos.
*Inception was nominated for four Golden Globe Awards, including Best Picture (Drama), Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Original Score.
The film was nominated for nine British Academy Film Awards, including Best Film, Best Direction, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Film Music and won three for Best Production Design, Best Special Visual Effects and Best Sound.
Inception was also nominated for eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Crisis in 3184land
...and the posts rage on. It has been three days since Dos has changed his views on the film Inception and the blogosphere has been watching and praying for a peaceful end to this crisis. However the fact remains; Inception sucks.
Doc has referred to this crisis as "misguided man seeks attention by trying to argue something he doesn't understand or bother to give a fair shot to." I would like to refer to it as "Doc likes action movies and won't come to terms with the fact that they pretend to have meaning, but are in reality pretty shallow and believes that because a movie is popular that means it is good." The movie is number 8 on imdb because people are dumb and it goes by votes. Only an insane man would believe that Inception is a better film than Dr. Strangelove and Casablanca.
Yes Doc, Godfather II is a film about loss. I agree. It is a very different type of loss that you are trying to portray is in Inception, but about loss nonetheless. However, what you are wrong about is the amount of violence and action in Godfather II. I am willing to bet that less than 20 minutes of that film is violence and action. Godfather II is a mostly talking movie. The dialogue is amazing as is the suspense. The violence is, indeed, memorable, but there is no way that it makes up even half of the picture. The use of violence in Godfather II is to movie the story along. The use of violence in Inception is the point of inception. It is cool to see a fight with a room spinning around. I defy Doc to show me one moment in Godfather II with a long extended action scene and one that did not move the story along. That room was spinning for way to long to advance the plot.
I do value and enjoy the reviews of Mr. Ebert. However, this does not imply that I have to agree with everything he says. Here, I disagree with him. I would also like to point out that in the review he says that he liked the movie because it was different. I agree it was a different type of action film. However, in my mind that does not mean that the story is filled with meaning, which was my original complaint.
I also do not think that the movie makes one think. It does not allow me to elaborate on anything in my mind. What does the movie ask you to think about? How cool dreams are in action scenes? If that was Doc's point I agree with him. However, it does not make one think about anything but that.
I have no complaints about the film's score. I do not specifically remember it, but I am a fan of Hans Zimmer.
It is NOT clear that Inception is a great, smart movie. That is the argument. I started the debate because I was mad at myself for claiming it was good, and I now realize it isn't. I am merely trying to help Doc toward the same realization, or at least get him to the point where he admits that the film is rather meaningless. I did not want to talk about the film Everything is Illuminated, for the record. If I wanted to do so I would make a post about. I was just trying to find a movie about loss to illustrate my point. Doc has never heard of the film because he stays with those films that are on top of the box office records as opposed to finding more interesting and less popular films. The average American movie goer does not have good taste in films. I think Doc would agree with that, which is why I find it strange that he aligns himself with them. I have a good track record when recommending movies because I never claim that a movie will be the best one ever, only that a film that I recommend is fascinating and, hopefully, challenging, like all great works of art should be. If Doc wants to admit that he settles for non-challenging movies because he enjoys them, that is fine. You can e-mail him to help him feel okay with his conformist and average taste in movies at justoneofthesheep@gmail.com.
Doc, I have given you several ways out of this mess. Please admit something about your taste in movies or the film Inception itself and save us from more Inception posts. Good night, and good luck.
Doc has referred to this crisis as "misguided man seeks attention by trying to argue something he doesn't understand or bother to give a fair shot to." I would like to refer to it as "Doc likes action movies and won't come to terms with the fact that they pretend to have meaning, but are in reality pretty shallow and believes that because a movie is popular that means it is good." The movie is number 8 on imdb because people are dumb and it goes by votes. Only an insane man would believe that Inception is a better film than Dr. Strangelove and Casablanca.
Yes Doc, Godfather II is a film about loss. I agree. It is a very different type of loss that you are trying to portray is in Inception, but about loss nonetheless. However, what you are wrong about is the amount of violence and action in Godfather II. I am willing to bet that less than 20 minutes of that film is violence and action. Godfather II is a mostly talking movie. The dialogue is amazing as is the suspense. The violence is, indeed, memorable, but there is no way that it makes up even half of the picture. The use of violence in Godfather II is to movie the story along. The use of violence in Inception is the point of inception. It is cool to see a fight with a room spinning around. I defy Doc to show me one moment in Godfather II with a long extended action scene and one that did not move the story along. That room was spinning for way to long to advance the plot.
I do value and enjoy the reviews of Mr. Ebert. However, this does not imply that I have to agree with everything he says. Here, I disagree with him. I would also like to point out that in the review he says that he liked the movie because it was different. I agree it was a different type of action film. However, in my mind that does not mean that the story is filled with meaning, which was my original complaint.
I also do not think that the movie makes one think. It does not allow me to elaborate on anything in my mind. What does the movie ask you to think about? How cool dreams are in action scenes? If that was Doc's point I agree with him. However, it does not make one think about anything but that.
I have no complaints about the film's score. I do not specifically remember it, but I am a fan of Hans Zimmer.
It is NOT clear that Inception is a great, smart movie. That is the argument. I started the debate because I was mad at myself for claiming it was good, and I now realize it isn't. I am merely trying to help Doc toward the same realization, or at least get him to the point where he admits that the film is rather meaningless. I did not want to talk about the film Everything is Illuminated, for the record. If I wanted to do so I would make a post about. I was just trying to find a movie about loss to illustrate my point. Doc has never heard of the film because he stays with those films that are on top of the box office records as opposed to finding more interesting and less popular films. The average American movie goer does not have good taste in films. I think Doc would agree with that, which is why I find it strange that he aligns himself with them. I have a good track record when recommending movies because I never claim that a movie will be the best one ever, only that a film that I recommend is fascinating and, hopefully, challenging, like all great works of art should be. If Doc wants to admit that he settles for non-challenging movies because he enjoys them, that is fine. You can e-mail him to help him feel okay with his conformist and average taste in movies at justoneofthesheep@gmail.com.
Doc, I have given you several ways out of this mess. Please admit something about your taste in movies or the film Inception itself and save us from more Inception posts. Good night, and good luck.
INCEPTIONGATE: DAY TWO
Dos refers to our argument as "Inceptiongate." I would like to refer to it as "misguided man seeks attention by trying to argue something he doesn't understand or bother to give a fair shot to." If the movie is number 8 on IMDB's top list it is there for good reason!
Movies about loss do and can include fight scenes! That was such a ridiculous comment by Dos and shows how little he knows about film. A perfect example is one of Dos's favorite movies... The Godfather: Part II. This is a movie about loss, and yet it includes a number of violent scenes as well as "action." Like I said earlier, what Nolan did here was disguise a smart movie as a big summer blockbuster. Nothing wrong with that. It was a smart story, great script and on top of that very impressive special effects. It was one of the top rated movies of the year. Im gonna go for the gut here, but Dos very much values the thoughts and reviews of a Mr. Roger Ebert. Here is what he had to say of the movie, which he gave 4 out of 4 stars:
The movies often seem to come from the recycling bin these days: Sequels, remakes, franchises. "Inception" does a difficult thing. It is wholly original, cut from new cloth, and yet structured with action movie basics so it feels like it makes more sense than (quite possibly) it does. I thought there was a hole in "Memento:" How does a man with short-term memory loss remember he has short-term memory loss? Maybe there's a hole in "Inception" too, but I can't find it. Christopher Nolan reinvented "Batman." This time he isn't reinventing anything. Yet few directors will attempt to recycle "Inception." I think when Nolan left the labyrinth, he threw away the map.
On top of being a smart film that makes you think, and that fact that we are even having an argument about the movie, proves the fact that it makes you think, it had great acting and an AMAZING soundtrack. In fact, Hans Zimmer should just score every movie. The man never disappoints. I look forward to his score as much as I do to the movies that accompany them.
It is clear that Inception is a great, smart movie. That is no longer the argument. The argument is: why did Dos start such a trivial debate he knew he would lose in the first place? The answer is that he obviously wanted to talk about the film Everything is Illuminated. A movie I, like most, have never heard of nor care about. Dos has a bad track record recommending movies. And I will assume this is no different. I am going to sat Inceptiongate is now over. Dos, if he really wanted to take this seriously, would watch the movie again. A movie you are on the fence about always deserves a second chance in the comfort of your own home. If one of our loyal readers wants to send Dos an email about how awesome Inception is, and thus such an email will result in him changing his mind about the film again, he can be reached at easilypersuaded@aol.com.
![Inception (Two-Disc Edition) [Blu-ray]](http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B002ZG981E&tag=widgetsamazon-20)
A Movie About Loss
I don't normally encourage the blog to use more than two entries on one topic. However, there are sometimes when it is necessary. For all of our non-readers out there, please be aware that this is serious. That's right, Inceptiongate is threatening to tear the blog right apart.
As I said in my previous post, the e-mail was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I have always had an issue in my mind about Inception but could never express it. Apparently I am not the only one. The Internet Movie Database lists Inception as the eighth highest rated movie of all time. That is number eight! The movie beats out Dr. Strangelove and Casablanca! What the hell is this? The time has come to set the record straight and I shall do so in responding to Doc's thoughts
Doc's best argument is that the film is about loss. Indeed, to an extent it is. However, and this is the point, no one is seeing the movie to watch a character study about loss. They are using the ideas of loss as an excuse to have some really cool action scenes. This was the point of my previous post. Movies about loss do not include over ten minutes of fighting, they just don't. This is because the movie is trying to focus on the emotions and intellectual development of the character. Case in point is the film Everything is Illuminated. I purposely selected this film because it is not only about loss. It is about a man whose grandmother dies and he is, thus, inspired to travel to where his grandparents grew up and learn about their lives. Here, we find no action scenes. We see a lot of dialogue and pensive moments for the main character as he tries to adjust his life and understand why he made this trip to Europe. The movie contains elements of comedy at time, although this decreases as the film goes on, but all of this comedy stems from the main character dealing with loss. No rooms spinning, no cars flying off bridges, just characters dealing with their emotions.
I do not believe that it is a film with brains, but a film that gives the illusion of brains while showing some neat action scenes. Doc's statement even makes this clear: "(The action scenes) were absolutely NOT pointless and all served a purpose. I also can't remember the last time I was so blown away by a scene as I was during the hallway fight scene." If Doc was to say that the movies was great because of its innovative use of action and that not all movies need to have a direct point, some can just be visually stunning, then I could not argue with him. If anything, I am being a snob by claiming that all movies have to have some meaning. It is an interesting argument to see if a movie needs meaning or can just exist as visual stimuli. However, that is not the argument at hand.
"I guess if there are no muppets or Disney characters dropping pianos on each other it is "pointless." - Doc
Yeah, I do enjoy Disney films and muppet films. Some of which have a lot of meaning and some which do not. First, it is wrong to imply that just because a movie is marketed for children that it has no meaning. Second, this argument is more for the debate on if a movie has to have a lot of meaning to be a good movie. We are here to show that Inception was meaningless and just an excuse to have action scenes. Which, again, could be argued as being fine if one would try to go this route.
Doc's Robert Fischer argument was fair. While I do not agree with it, I can not deny that he has a point. I am not sure how much of this was a driving force behind the movie or not, but still his point is well taken. However, I feel like we should compare how much time was spent on this versus the action scenes to judge how meaningful it was. As I said, Everything is Illuminated spends most of its time with such emotional issues.
I wonder if Inceptiongate is over or not. Will Doc respond again? Is Dos, as usual, beating a dead horse? Will anyone ever read and comment on the blog just to ask us to shut up about Inception? Does Inception have the power to destroy the blog? Find out on the next episode of The 3184 Blog.
As I said in my previous post, the e-mail was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I have always had an issue in my mind about Inception but could never express it. Apparently I am not the only one. The Internet Movie Database lists Inception as the eighth highest rated movie of all time. That is number eight! The movie beats out Dr. Strangelove and Casablanca! What the hell is this? The time has come to set the record straight and I shall do so in responding to Doc's thoughts
Doc's best argument is that the film is about loss. Indeed, to an extent it is. However, and this is the point, no one is seeing the movie to watch a character study about loss. They are using the ideas of loss as an excuse to have some really cool action scenes. This was the point of my previous post. Movies about loss do not include over ten minutes of fighting, they just don't. This is because the movie is trying to focus on the emotions and intellectual development of the character. Case in point is the film Everything is Illuminated. I purposely selected this film because it is not only about loss. It is about a man whose grandmother dies and he is, thus, inspired to travel to where his grandparents grew up and learn about their lives. Here, we find no action scenes. We see a lot of dialogue and pensive moments for the main character as he tries to adjust his life and understand why he made this trip to Europe. The movie contains elements of comedy at time, although this decreases as the film goes on, but all of this comedy stems from the main character dealing with loss. No rooms spinning, no cars flying off bridges, just characters dealing with their emotions.
I do not believe that it is a film with brains, but a film that gives the illusion of brains while showing some neat action scenes. Doc's statement even makes this clear: "(The action scenes) were absolutely NOT pointless and all served a purpose. I also can't remember the last time I was so blown away by a scene as I was during the hallway fight scene." If Doc was to say that the movies was great because of its innovative use of action and that not all movies need to have a direct point, some can just be visually stunning, then I could not argue with him. If anything, I am being a snob by claiming that all movies have to have some meaning. It is an interesting argument to see if a movie needs meaning or can just exist as visual stimuli. However, that is not the argument at hand.
"I guess if there are no muppets or Disney characters dropping pianos on each other it is "pointless." - Doc
Yeah, I do enjoy Disney films and muppet films. Some of which have a lot of meaning and some which do not. First, it is wrong to imply that just because a movie is marketed for children that it has no meaning. Second, this argument is more for the debate on if a movie has to have a lot of meaning to be a good movie. We are here to show that Inception was meaningless and just an excuse to have action scenes. Which, again, could be argued as being fine if one would try to go this route.
Doc's Robert Fischer argument was fair. While I do not agree with it, I can not deny that he has a point. I am not sure how much of this was a driving force behind the movie or not, but still his point is well taken. However, I feel like we should compare how much time was spent on this versus the action scenes to judge how meaningful it was. As I said, Everything is Illuminated spends most of its time with such emotional issues.
I wonder if Inceptiongate is over or not. Will Doc respond again? Is Dos, as usual, beating a dead horse? Will anyone ever read and comment on the blog just to ask us to shut up about Inception? Does Inception have the power to destroy the blog? Find out on the next episode of The 3184 Blog.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling
It is fitting that today is Valentine's Day (a day of love) based on the relationship I have with Dos. It is a love/hate relationship. And right now, I hate him. The post below is just utter nonsense. As you can see, all it took was for one email for Dos to be completely influenced in the wrong direction. He was unable to see the light on his own. Gullibility is not something I want this blog to be about. Had Dos understood the movie, he would not have had to rely on an email from an unnamed source. If he was on the fence about it, he should have watched the movie again.
Dos claimed Inception was meaningless. Well, this may be what the person who sent Dos the email got from the movie, but they are wrong. Inception is about loss, being unable to let go, redemption and hope. All of this is at the forefront while the big spectacle of the dream world is actually the backdrop. Christopher Nolan has created a movie that looks and acts like a big summer blockbuster, but is so much more than that. Like The Social Network, it is a movie with brains. Dos understood this about TSN, so it amazes me Inception goes over his head.
Dos states that the movies "goes nowhere." Well, to me that is a mind bogging statement. The problem is that Dos was unable to see deeper, past the action scenes. Which were absolutely NOT pointless and all served a purpose. I also can't remember the last time I was so blown away by a scene as I was during the hallway fight scene. Like I said above, the point of the movie was dealing with loss and having to move on. Cobb lost his wife and was unable to move on. This is why she always appeared in his dreams. It was the whole point of the movie!
The secondary characters weren't developed as much as Cobb, but the other character in the movie given an emotional arc was Robert Fischer. He is a man that wanted nothing more in life than the love of his father. By planting in his mind the thought of this (his father kept a toy of his sons in his safe) he is able to find the bond he always wanted with his dad. Huge emotional moment and driving point of the film. But Dos believes the movie has no meaning. I guess if there are no muppets or Disney characters dropping pianos on each other it is "pointless."
A lot of people were pissed about the screen cutting to black while the top was still spinning, but I loved it. It made you go back and notice things you didn't notice the first time around. If Dos took the time to revisit the movie, he might have realized the top wasn't even Cobb's totem, his wedding ring was. A very smart idea and completely missed by Dos.
I just want to apologize to everyone that read the mess below. Rather than letting an outside source influence what he likes and doesn't like, Dos should have took the time to watch the movie again if he wasn't sure what he thought about it. Dos in fact gave in to peer pressure by being influenced in such a way. After what he said, it will be hard to take anything he writes ever again with more than a grain of salt. But I believe in time we will heal, like Cobb and Fisher were able to. Perhaps this was the point Dos was trying to convey with what he wrote?
Dos claimed Inception was meaningless. Well, this may be what the person who sent Dos the email got from the movie, but they are wrong. Inception is about loss, being unable to let go, redemption and hope. All of this is at the forefront while the big spectacle of the dream world is actually the backdrop. Christopher Nolan has created a movie that looks and acts like a big summer blockbuster, but is so much more than that. Like The Social Network, it is a movie with brains. Dos understood this about TSN, so it amazes me Inception goes over his head.
Dos states that the movies "goes nowhere." Well, to me that is a mind bogging statement. The problem is that Dos was unable to see deeper, past the action scenes. Which were absolutely NOT pointless and all served a purpose. I also can't remember the last time I was so blown away by a scene as I was during the hallway fight scene. Like I said above, the point of the movie was dealing with loss and having to move on. Cobb lost his wife and was unable to move on. This is why she always appeared in his dreams. It was the whole point of the movie!
The secondary characters weren't developed as much as Cobb, but the other character in the movie given an emotional arc was Robert Fischer. He is a man that wanted nothing more in life than the love of his father. By planting in his mind the thought of this (his father kept a toy of his sons in his safe) he is able to find the bond he always wanted with his dad. Huge emotional moment and driving point of the film. But Dos believes the movie has no meaning. I guess if there are no muppets or Disney characters dropping pianos on each other it is "pointless."
A lot of people were pissed about the screen cutting to black while the top was still spinning, but I loved it. It made you go back and notice things you didn't notice the first time around. If Dos took the time to revisit the movie, he might have realized the top wasn't even Cobb's totem, his wedding ring was. A very smart idea and completely missed by Dos.
I just want to apologize to everyone that read the mess below. Rather than letting an outside source influence what he likes and doesn't like, Dos should have took the time to watch the movie again if he wasn't sure what he thought about it. Dos in fact gave in to peer pressure by being influenced in such a way. After what he said, it will be hard to take anything he writes ever again with more than a grain of salt. But I believe in time we will heal, like Cobb and Fisher were able to. Perhaps this was the point Dos was trying to convey with what he wrote?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Happy Fuel The Economy Through Insincere Emotion Day!
Yeah! It's Valentine's Day and it is still a stupid holiday. What does it say about our society that we have to take a day to prove that we love our loved ones? Plus, if your are forced to get a gift for someone because it is a holiday, that does not seem like a very sincere motive. However, it is fueling the economy and celebrating consumerism. So, to continue this commitment to insincerity and consumerism, I would like to talk about two movies (a 3184 blog post about movies...this is shocking and new) and how the way people talk about them are insincere.
Let's get rid of the one that Doc would agree with first. I just purchased the Social Network and feel like it is an excellent movie on many levels. However, I do not wish to praise the movie here. I want to talk about how people do not like it because it was highly praised and created by two famous and talented people. I have spoken to several people I know who dislike it because it was made by famous people. How does that even make sense? Fincher and Sorkin are clearly talented and I was quite impressed by their work. It is impossible to view the movie with out knowing about the people who created it, but I would like to think that I would still enjoy it if I did not this fact. It was really a fascinating, smart and entertaining film.
Now, on to opening a fight with Doc. Inception. I sat through this movie. I was rather unmoved by it, but felt the need to say it was good. However, I could never explain why it was good. I thought the story was empty, the effects were decent and the characters were terrible. Yet, I kept saying to everyone how it was good, even thought I usually do not go for movies with big special effects. Then I read an e-mail from someone who distilled my exact reaction to the movie. I am no longer walking around claiming that it was a good movie. It wasn't. It was a bad movie and here is the e-mail;
"Inception: Real or fake? Dream or reality? Dream or dream-within-a-dream? What does it all mean? None of it matters when you're too bored to care. My memory of this film is a hazy, incoherent jumble of natural disasters, men in suits, the Leo scowl ®, and poor Juno hurtling through a post-partum no-man's-land somewhere between fantasy and a Cisco commercial. If there's one thing Americans enjoy more than an idiotic action movie, it's an idiotic action movie freighted with ponderous dialogue and laced with a self-congratulatory patina of faux-philosophical depth."
It's true! It is all rather meaningless! I am not even annoyed at the dream concept. I like the whole idea of going into someone else's dream. It is what the writer and director does with the concept. He takes it nowhere. It explodes into pointless action scenes. Why was that guy in a fortress in the dream? It made no sense! It was about nothing. I defy Doc to tell me what that movie was saying about anything. And that ending is a perfect example of how much I hate that movie. Yes, the top kept spinning. However, it was clear from the rest of the movie that the ending was not a dream. If it was a dream the movie would make no sense. Yet, people walk away from that film talking about the amazing ending and how meaningful it was. It was not meaningful it was falsely dramatic and made little sense. It was all just an excuse to show some cool action scenes but make the audience feel like it meant something. The actions scenes were creative at times. However, a movie needs substance over visual effects. The effects fall flat when they have no meaning. More like crapcetption.
I would like to thank the fellow who wrote me the e-mail for saving me from peer pressure. I take it all back, inception was not a good movie. Doc, I would love a rebuttal from you.
Remember that simpsons episode about love day? Well, it gave me my favorite image of Valentine's Day. The Simpsons buy a lot of crap when the card companies create a second yearly Valentine's Day called love day. When the celebrations are over Homer is trying stuff a teddy bear called Sir Huggington in the trash with a lot of other love day garbage. The bear is constantly saying "i wuv you" as Homer tries to fit all of the trash in the garbage. This hilariously illustrates the lack of sentiment that Valentine's Day brings. It is also a perfect metaphor for Inception. Allow me to explain as simply as I can, the teddy bear was ultimately trash, just like Inception is ultimately garbage.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Listen to me very carefully, my friend...
I would like to concur with Dos and say that this blog is a good creative outlet for both of us. Also, I would like to remind anyone that reads this of the poll in the blog below! Come on, you know you wanna admit to reading this site. There is no shame. Do it. Do it!
Yesterday the X-Men: First Class trailer premiered online and I would like to discuss. I have to admit, it looks like it will be very good. I love that the backdrop of the whole movie is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looks very cool. Dos, I would like your opinions on the trailer as well, which is below.
Yesterday the X-Men: First Class trailer premiered online and I would like to discuss. I have to admit, it looks like it will be very good. I love that the backdrop of the whole movie is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looks very cool. Dos, I would like your opinions on the trailer as well, which is below.
Creativity
You know, I am sitting here at work and I have a lot of things that I could be doing, but all I am doing is thinking about doing a blog entry. So, I figured I would do one. Hopefully, it won't take too long and I can get back to work. Here is the thing though, I don't want to get back to work. I would rather be doing a blog entry than doing work. Why is this? Well, I have a theory. Actually, Karl Marx had a theory and I am going to steal some stuff from him.
I do think most people are walking around, at least, a little annoyed about their daily life. I don't mean like hate it and want to kill yourself annoyed, I mean just a bit frustrated by the banality of things. Or maybe it is just me. I don't know. Anyway, the question at hand is why do I like writing this blog? I think it is because it gives me a creative outlet that I am yearning for. I sincerely do not think I am alone in this. I can come on here and talk about anything I want and I can assume that there is at least one person listening. Thank you Doc. But it is more than just the listening factor. It is all about being free to create. Thank you Mr. Marx. Marx said that all human beings are stifled by society, the need to have a job to make money, or just the banality of daily human activity. You are then forced to do work that can seem repetitive or boring or just something you don't want to do. However, in a new age there are plenty of creative outlets for those who are seeking it. We see this in games which are about daily activity. For the longest time I could not get why people play farmville. I think I get it now, it is there way of being creative. They might not be aware of it, but that is what it is. Perhaps I am over analyzing this, but let's take it a step further.
Why am I so obsessed with movies and other works of art? Is it envy of those people who are creating them? Possibly, but furthermore it is a place where I can have an opinion. I can say what movies please me and why and, in doing so, I am thinking about creative works and how I can change them, or why they are so good or bad. I do think that all of us crave creativity. Designing this blog, writing this blog and thinking about this blog are all creative outlets for me. It is a basic human desire to create. I don't truly care if any one reads it I think. I am just happy to come one here write some nonsense and I feel better after it. Maybe my explanation is incorrect and there is something else going on here. Like the peculiar American need to preform and get attention. Perhaps this is part of it. I do believe that Americans are a rare breed who can be very dramatic.
Allow me to explain. I was once watching a travel show about an Englishman traveling around the world. When he made it to the United States, he kept commenting on how he felt all Americans acted as if they were constantly preforming. He walked down a boardwalk near a beach and saw a man rollerblading and doing tricks. The Rollerblader was not with anyone, he was doing tricks for himself or perhaps it was for the other people around him. The traveller was on a train to New York City and saw some elderly women travelling there to go have a night on the town. They were screaming and yelling about how excited they were and everyone on the train could hear them. Where they really this uncontrollably excited? Were they putting on a show? Were they just fulfilling the role of the excited women? I don't know, but I do think his observation about how it feels like Americans are always preforming quite true.
So, maybe I am fulfilling my need to preform through this blog. Even so, this would still be craving a creative outlet. In a world of blogs, facebook and twitter, has the need for a creative outlets been fulfilled? Does the capitalist system not have to be taken down to give people the creativity they desire? Mr. Marx would probably still say no to that question. However, I still think he was quite right about creativity. That is what has brought me here today and I think that has been what has fueled the Internet. Well, I guess I should be getting back to doing work. Even after I have done this post, there is still work to do. However, I think it may be a little easier getting myself to do it now than it was before I wrote this post.
I do think most people are walking around, at least, a little annoyed about their daily life. I don't mean like hate it and want to kill yourself annoyed, I mean just a bit frustrated by the banality of things. Or maybe it is just me. I don't know. Anyway, the question at hand is why do I like writing this blog? I think it is because it gives me a creative outlet that I am yearning for. I sincerely do not think I am alone in this. I can come on here and talk about anything I want and I can assume that there is at least one person listening. Thank you Doc. But it is more than just the listening factor. It is all about being free to create. Thank you Mr. Marx. Marx said that all human beings are stifled by society, the need to have a job to make money, or just the banality of daily human activity. You are then forced to do work that can seem repetitive or boring or just something you don't want to do. However, in a new age there are plenty of creative outlets for those who are seeking it. We see this in games which are about daily activity. For the longest time I could not get why people play farmville. I think I get it now, it is there way of being creative. They might not be aware of it, but that is what it is. Perhaps I am over analyzing this, but let's take it a step further.
Why am I so obsessed with movies and other works of art? Is it envy of those people who are creating them? Possibly, but furthermore it is a place where I can have an opinion. I can say what movies please me and why and, in doing so, I am thinking about creative works and how I can change them, or why they are so good or bad. I do think that all of us crave creativity. Designing this blog, writing this blog and thinking about this blog are all creative outlets for me. It is a basic human desire to create. I don't truly care if any one reads it I think. I am just happy to come one here write some nonsense and I feel better after it. Maybe my explanation is incorrect and there is something else going on here. Like the peculiar American need to preform and get attention. Perhaps this is part of it. I do believe that Americans are a rare breed who can be very dramatic.
Allow me to explain. I was once watching a travel show about an Englishman traveling around the world. When he made it to the United States, he kept commenting on how he felt all Americans acted as if they were constantly preforming. He walked down a boardwalk near a beach and saw a man rollerblading and doing tricks. The Rollerblader was not with anyone, he was doing tricks for himself or perhaps it was for the other people around him. The traveller was on a train to New York City and saw some elderly women travelling there to go have a night on the town. They were screaming and yelling about how excited they were and everyone on the train could hear them. Where they really this uncontrollably excited? Were they putting on a show? Were they just fulfilling the role of the excited women? I don't know, but I do think his observation about how it feels like Americans are always preforming quite true.
So, maybe I am fulfilling my need to preform through this blog. Even so, this would still be craving a creative outlet. In a world of blogs, facebook and twitter, has the need for a creative outlets been fulfilled? Does the capitalist system not have to be taken down to give people the creativity they desire? Mr. Marx would probably still say no to that question. However, I still think he was quite right about creativity. That is what has brought me here today and I think that has been what has fueled the Internet. Well, I guess I should be getting back to doing work. Even after I have done this post, there is still work to do. However, I think it may be a little easier getting myself to do it now than it was before I wrote this post.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way
Well, mystery solved. Dos has returned. I appreciate all of the insight he brought to topics discussed while he has been MIA. While he wasn't completely honest about where he was (Muppet convention. He dresses up as the Cookie Monster and showers little kids with gifts) he is back. And we greet his return with some changes to the site. You (all 2 of our readers, who are myself and Dos) may have noticed some changes this week. After much internal conflict and dissension we have finally come to a conclusion on the way the site should look. We are happy with its current format and plan to stick with it for a while. There might be a few minor tweaks here and there, but they will only be done if they are in the best interest of our readers.
The biggest addition to the site is the recommendations section on the right side of the page. It this section we will recommend movies and whatever else we discuss on the site. Or just little things Dos and I enjoy ourselves that we want to share with our readers. Hope you all enjoy.
When Dos returned, he took it upon himself to compare me Sylvester. Well, thank you sir. I take that as a compliment. Sylvester never gave up on catching that stupid little bird. Despite bad luck, he kept going. Perseverance is a very good quality, so Dos, I thank you for bestowing that trait upon me. And since I know all, I will tell you how the Sylvester/Tweety saga ends. After years of trying to murder Tweety, Sylvester eventually needs his help and the two team up. They become close friends and remain so for years. The time comes though when Sylvester betrays Tweety and eats him in his sleep. Thats how it ends kids. And this is how the Dos and Doc relationship will end as well. So I would just like to take this time to apologize in advance for murdering you in your sleep Dos. Man, if Dos really gets murdered at some point I am fuckeddddddddd.
I believe the site is finally rolling on all cylinders and I would like to take this time to conduct a brief poll about who our readers are. If, in fact, there are any of you. If you all can be so kind as to mark which age group you fall into so we can better enhance our site, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, I can't speak for Dos, but I promise this is the last time I will use a Sylvester and Tweety picture. Thank you.
Am I Tweety or Sylvester?
I applaud Doc on his recent output. He has produced some excellent posts. However, I do not think that his recent surge in output should place my commitment to the blog in question. I would like to say that I am here and ready to complain about or applaud things in popular culture and banal things that occur in my life to the endless void that is the internet and the one person who is obsessed with honeymooners and keeps doing a google search for it and ends up here. Don't call it a comeback I've been here for years.
I do have a question, however, I wonder if I am more often Tweety or Sylvester. Meaning who is the winner of most arguments on the blog? Do Doc and I just switch and sometimes each of us is, at times, the smart Tweety out witting the dumb Sylvester? The hardest thing about writing a blog that nobody reads is that we don't get any feedback. So while your sitting there, wishing I was talking about the Honeymooners, think about the dynamics of Dos and Doc. Is one of us Tweety or Sylvester more often than the other?
Anyway, the task at hand, as I see it, is that I have to respond to Doc's posts, in order and under the banner of his post titles, and maybe place a few jabs at him while I am at it. Sounds good to me, here we go:
THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT. EH, MAYBE IT IS.
There are somethings you should know about me. I am not one of these people that take things as they come and can enjoy things for what they are. Things annoy me quite often and I am proud of this fact. The next thing you should know is that two things that I dislike are sporting events and advertising. Please do not get me wrong, I enjoy playing sports, both virtual and real. However, the idea of going to a sporting event seems pointless and painful. For one thing, who cares if anyone wins? No matter what happens a year from now we are back at the same point. The struggle of being a sport fan appears to have no end and no gain. Yes, there is the presumed joy of watching on the edge of your seat to see a team you want to win be down and out in the first half and victorious in the second. However, I do believe that the world of fiction and non-fiction art holds much more fascinating and entertaining scenarios than just a team that was losing eventually winning something. In other words, my interests lay else where. Furthermore, the superbowl is no exception to this.
Perhaps this is why it blows my mind to see people who are not sport fan watch the Superbowl and then claim to me that they are doing so to watch the fascinating advertisements. Didn't he say advertisements annoy him too? Yeah, I did. What is the joy in watching a message about how I should buy something? Even if there is a clever joke, and I would like to state for the record that I do not view that Doritos commercial as being clever, the point is still the same; to sell me something. Think of the crazy amounts of advertisements you see everyday and imagine if they were replaced by art, if they just let nature be or they just didn't exist. We are constantly surrounded by advertisements and it kind of does my head in. People are trying to sell you things, to make a profit off of you. That is what it is going on and it is a little beyond me that people are excited to watch them. Sure there are a few that I enjoy, but most have the value of being cheesy and I am watching them and laughing at them because they are so bad.
I KNOW THEY WERE JUST KIDS...BUT MAN WE BEAT THE FUCK OUT OF THEM
Doc, do not cut yourself down. I am going to proudly state that I like the way you connected Chevy Chase to 3D media. You did a good job and you should know it. Walk down the street proud---OK, I already took this too far. But you know what? I hate 3D too. Doc did an excellent job speaking about how it is an unnecessary, if not annoying, frill to movies and how they have nothing to do with the quality of a film. Anything else I say on this topic will merely be repetitive as Doc did a good job with it.
THE HONEYMOONERS - WHY IT ENDURES
I did not read this whole post. I do feel like I have to be honest. It was long and, worse of all, it was all about Honeymooners. I know this may offend the previously discussed "honeymooner reader" of ours, but I feel like we have built up a relationship during this post and it would be wrong of me to lie to you. These shows bore me and there is much better out there. Please see my Twilight Zone post for more information and feel free to consult your local library about good versus bad taste.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS DOS?
Like any good mystery, one must examine all of the theories, in order, and disprove them until we arrive at the correct one. Where, indeed, was Dos? Try to see if your guess was correct.
Theory # 1: The Honeymooner Impact
Oh Doc, you can not get rid of me that quickly. I have to admit that I was impressed by the length and, at least the initial writing of the post. It seemed pretty "tight" as the kids say now a days. Unfortunately, you made one huge error. The Honeymooners are boring and kind of stink. Next time pick a better topic and then I might, indeed, be forced to retire at the sight of a post that is so good. I am talking about laughter, tears and fascination here. I issue you the challenge and wish you the best of luck with it.
Theory # 2: The Rebel Muppet Blogger
If only Doc, if only. I have to admit that I am intimidated by this prospect due to the website www.ToughPigs.com. Which, for the most part is my one stop shop for a Muppet blog and I dare not compete with such masters.
Theory # 3: The Sweet Smell of Success and Chevy Chase
Yeah, my Chevy Chase post was awesome. I just know I haven't peaked yet. When I peak with my blog posts you will know Doc. The whole world will know. I will build a race of super humans and then everyone will know and fear my wrath. The ground will shake and the whole world will bow down to their blog master. The day of wrecking is neigh.
Theory # 4: Disney DVD Distraction
Excellent theory, just happened to not be true. But good job gumshoes. Carmen Sandiego was nearly in your grasps.
Theory #5: Doc is Victorious
See my earlier remarks about Tweety and Sylvester. However, I would like to add that it is of my belief that there are two types of people in this world; Doses (Dosi?) and Docs. I hope an pray that someday there will be an equal amount of both in the world to prevent fighting and create a stalemate, or I can never see peace arriving on earth in our lifetime.
Theory # 6: The Be Human is to be Lazy
Another excellent theory and I would say half of the truth.
Theory # 7: Complaining Can Only Last So Long
Not true, there will always be some topic to complain about.
Theory # 8: Action Figure Play-date
I WISH!
Theory# 9: Blogs Are More Fun Than Life, But Sometime Life Wins
DING! DING! We have a winner! If only life was just blogs, movies and action figures....
Well, was your theory right? Did you figure out who was Tweety and who was Sylvester? Well if you didn't don't worry because you will always get another chance here at The 3184 Blog Mystery Dinner Theater. Please remember to tip your waitress and have a good night.
P.S. I'm always Tweety! I do the outsmarting. How could Doc ever be the victorious Tweety? What a Sylvester that guy is!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Where in the world is Dos?
It is very rare for me to do 3, now 4, posts in a row without Dos chiming in on something or other. But Dos has been missing the past few days so it begs the question... where is Dos? I have a few theories...
- He was so blown away by my Honeymooners post that he knew there was no way he could top it and decided to retire from the blog game.
- He has betrayed me and started his own solo blog about Muppets, puppets and everything in between.
- He peaked with his Chevy Chase post.
- He got some new disney dvds and has been busy watching them.
- He knows our readers side with me and can't take the humiliation anymore.
- He has taken a page out of Doc's book and has just been lazy.
- He can't think of any interesting topics to discuss.
- He found his old action figure collection and has been busy with them.
- He is just plain busy.
Those are all my theories for now. Perhaps Dos will reappear one day with an explanation. We can only hope. I will try my best to fill the void while Dos is gone. Perhaps I will even write about Muppets??? Ok, I won't be going that far.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Honeymooners - Why it endures...
Heyyyy, Ralphie Boy!
A few months ago, I wrote about why I thought The Honeymooners was a better show than I Love Lucy. I still maintain that stance, but would further like to talk about why The Honeymooners is such a great show that has stood the test of time and continues to influence media today. I intend to cover as much information about the show as I can (without relying on copying too much from Wikipedia, hopefully). Welcome to Honeymooners country!
Bang, zoom!
The Honeymooners began on the DuMont Network's "Cavalcade of Stars" until it moved to the CBS Network's "Jackie Gleason Show."
The sketches ran from 1951 to 1955 until it debuted as a half hour series on October 1st, 1955. Despite being a rating success, the show would last for only one season and 39 episodes (the Classic 39). Many attribute this to the fact that Gleason believed they could not maintain the quality of the 39 episodes produced and would rather go out on top then produce episodes of lesser quality. In explaining his decision to end the show with $7 million remaining on his contract Gleason said, "the excellence of the material could not be maintained, and I had too much fondness for the show to cheapen it." The Honeymooners would return though in the form of sketches and hour long specials on and off until 1978. I will admit, however, that the color episodes and more specifically the ones without all of the core four cast members (Jackie Gleason, Art Carney, Audrey Meadows and Joyce Randolph) are not up to the caliber of the older episodes. That is just a personal opinion though.
Hamana-hamana-hamana-hamana.
The show began in 1950 when Jackie Gleason took over as host for the variety show: Cavalcade of Stars. Drawing upon experiences growing up as a youth, he and his writers created a show about a poor husband and his wife living in Brooklyn, NY. The first skit to air was only 6 minutes long. Art Carney appeared in this skit not as Ed Norton, but as a police officer.
Alice was played by Pert Kelton for the first seven episodes until being replaced by Audrey Meadows. It is said that Kelton was replaced due to being blacklisted. Eventually added to the cast were Ed and Trixie Norton. Trixie was played by Elaine Stritch for just one episode until being replaced by Joyce Randolph. And thus, The Honeymooners we know and love were born and the start of a great sitcom began.
How sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason rarely liked to rehearse as he felt it would often kill the spontaneity of his performance. Carney, Meadows and Randolph would often rehearse without him. The result was that while the cast was able to bring a fresh approach to the material, mistakes were often made. Lines were either recited incorrectly or forgotten altogether, and actors did not follow the scripted action. To compensate, the cast developed visual cues for each other.
Gleason would pat his stomach whenever he had forgotten his line. Meadows would glance at the refrigerator when someone else was supposed to retrieve something from it. This, in my opinion, was not a bad thing. In fact, the complete opposite. Watching the scenes were they ad lib or you can tell they messed up a line are even funnier than the written material. This spontaneity led to many classic moments.
A mere bag of shells.
The bulk of The Honeymooners took place within the apartment building in Brooklyn, NY where Ralph and Alice Kramden and Ed and Trixie Norton lived. The apartment building's address was 328 Chauncey Street in Brooklyn, New York City. This was Jackie Gleason's childhood address. The apartment he grew up in served as the model for the set. Although it is stated that the characters live in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn the address is actually in Bushwick. Gleason believed that Bensonhurst sounded more like a Brooklyn neighborhood to viewers outside of New York City. It was here that Ralph hatched his schemes to provide a better life for himself and Alice. Often dragging his best pal Norton into his scheming.
Har har, hardee har har!
Ralph Kramden worked for the fictional Gotham Bus Company. He makes very little money and is often shooting for the stars to provide more for Alice. And that is where the heart of the show lies. Despite being very short tempered and often turning to hollow threats, Ralph was a man that had a soft heart and wanted nothing more than to provide a better life for Alice. However, his plans more often than not backfired and ended with hilarious results (feeding his boss dog food, shooting a television commercial where everything goes wrong, buying a parking lot for what he thought would be a movie theater (turned out to be a drive in theater), selling a story to the trades believing he is dying when it fact the doctors report was for his mother in laws dog). And the list goes on and on.
One of these days... One of these days... POW! Right in the kisser!
Alice Kramden is Ralph's wife of fifteen years. She is the only one able to stand up to Ralph's insults with quick quips of her own.
Ralph: Peanuts! Peanuts, Alice! What am I supposed to do with peanuts?
Alice: Eat 'em, like any other elephant!
She is the level headed one of the bunch often seeing the error in Ralph's plans before he realizes them himself. (It is not until Ralph goes against Alice's wishes and attempts his scheme that he realizes she was right, as usual). Alice's mother is more sharp tongued than her daughter and always puts Ralph down for not being able to provide more for her daughter. Despite this, Alice stands by Ralph and says those things do not matter. She is with him because she loves him.
Well, if I was asked to describe your build, I'd say you have, uh, very well developed muscles, uh, a good bone structure, very good bone structure, fine frame... and the whole thing is covered with fat.
Ed Norton is Ralph's upstairs neighbor and is a sewer worker. He and Trixie are the Kramden's best friends. Despite making the same amount of money as Ralph, Norton lives in a nicer apartment than Ralph and is able to afford more luxurious items, such as a television set. Despite less desire for get rich quick schemes, Norton continually gets mixed up with Ralph and his plans. This is because they are devoted best friends. Whether it be pool, bowling, the Raccoon Lodge or trying to a get rich quick scheme, Ralph and Ed were best friends through and through.
Ralph: Me and my silly pride. Well, I promise you this, Norton: I'm gonna learn. I'm gonna learn from here on out how to swallow my pride.
Norton: Well, that ought not to be too hard, you've learned how to swallow everything else.
I’ve got a BIG MOUTH!
On top of the four main cast members, the show often featured "Gleason Players." These were actors that would often portray a number of different characters throughout the shows run. The two main "players" were George Petrie and Frank Marth. I liked this element of the show and it often showed the range of these actors. I wish more shows would employ this method today. It brings out a good sense of continuity. (A modern example of this being used is Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies and the roles Bruce Campbell played in them).
One of these days Alice, straight to the Moon!
The Honeymooners have influenced a variety of shows since it originally aired included The Flinstones and The King of Queens and pretty much every comedy in between. Ed Norton was the original wacky next door neighbor. Seinfeld's Kramer takes a lot from Norton. The show endures because it is still relatable and despite premiering over 60 years!! ago does not feel dated. It is a show anyone can appreciate. It will be remembered for many, many years to come because of its common themes of friendship, love and loyalty. And most importantly, its comedy.
Baby, you're the greatest.
Monday, February 7, 2011
I know they were just kids...but man we beat the fuck out of them!
Let me say that I agree 100% with Dos's Chevy Chase post. Chase is still hilarious and that can be seen by watching Community. Hands down one of, if not the best, comedies on tv right now. But like most great things, it is too smart for the masses. But anyway, since apparently this blog is becoming a movie topic site, I would like to discuss my feelings on 3D. Which, unlike something smart like Community that doesn't attract a lot of viewers, people seem to enjoy. Like how I connected those two things to jump into my topic? Eh? Eh? Yeah ok, me neither.
I fucking hate 3D! It is just a god damn gimmick. And you fucking idiots out there eat it up. Fuck is wrong with you? Ten dollar movie tickets weren't enough for you? Now we gotta pay fifteen dollars to see some movie that most likely won't live up to the hype anyway (Hollywood sucks now-a-days). 9 times out of 10 I will pick 2D over 3D. First off, two hours wearing those glasses hurts my head and often results in a headache. Is that what I am paying extra money for?
I recently rented Resident Evil: Afterlife (you want to fight about it?) which was a movie that was designed for 3D. And I have to admit, the scenes they shot for 3D might have looked pretty cool on the big screen, but watching at home in 2D made it quite distracting seeing things that were obviously done strictly for the 3D aspect. Hence: gimmick. It did nothing for the story (granted, it was Resident Evil, so the story was going to suck no matter what) other than add more limbs and bullets flying towards the screen. Big fucking whoop. One compliment I can give is that Resident Evil was a movie that was at least designed specially with 3D in mind and shot using 3D cameras. So it is not the worst of all evils.
Movies converted in post are public enemy number one. These are strictly cash grabs by the studios. No artistic merit whatsoever. Clash of the Titans and the Last Airbender, I am looking at you. And you dumb mother fuckers out there paid to see these crap movies in 3D. Perhaps I am being a lil harsh because I assume everyone should know the facts before going in and seeing a movie. The Last Airbender was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But I was smart enough to at least see it in 2D. (If I was really smart the 5% it had on Rotten Tomatoes would have kept me away altogether. Sigh). 3D would have served no purpose whatsoever other than getting more money out of my pocket.
Who do I blame for this 3D nonsense: James Cameron. Alright, Mr. Cameron. Special effects are cool. But this day and age they don't have the same appeal they once had. Seeing Star Wars when it first came out was huge because no one had never seen effects like that before. It blew people's balls off. Now though, people are so used to it they aren't as blown away as they used to be. So again, just a gimmick. First and foremost the script and story should be perfect. Anything done in post does not matter as much. If you do not have a perfect script, don't even bother. I was EXTREMELY excited for Avatar before it came out. And yes, the effects were very cool and the 3D did look nice, but I didn't care for the movie because it was just such a generic story. No surprises there. So i paid fifteen dollars for effects and 3D. This is not why I go to the movies! Sure, it counts for something, but it is not the main reason.
I would like to end this rant with an open invitation to Mr. Cameron. You fucked us dude. Now just admit you were wrong. That is all I want. For the most part, 3D serves no purpose in telling a story. The script should be your number one priority. Once that is perfect, move on from there.
I fucking hate 3D! It is just a god damn gimmick. And you fucking idiots out there eat it up. Fuck is wrong with you? Ten dollar movie tickets weren't enough for you? Now we gotta pay fifteen dollars to see some movie that most likely won't live up to the hype anyway (Hollywood sucks now-a-days). 9 times out of 10 I will pick 2D over 3D. First off, two hours wearing those glasses hurts my head and often results in a headache. Is that what I am paying extra money for?
I recently rented Resident Evil: Afterlife (you want to fight about it?) which was a movie that was designed for 3D. And I have to admit, the scenes they shot for 3D might have looked pretty cool on the big screen, but watching at home in 2D made it quite distracting seeing things that were obviously done strictly for the 3D aspect. Hence: gimmick. It did nothing for the story (granted, it was Resident Evil, so the story was going to suck no matter what) other than add more limbs and bullets flying towards the screen. Big fucking whoop. One compliment I can give is that Resident Evil was a movie that was at least designed specially with 3D in mind and shot using 3D cameras. So it is not the worst of all evils.
Movies converted in post are public enemy number one. These are strictly cash grabs by the studios. No artistic merit whatsoever. Clash of the Titans and the Last Airbender, I am looking at you. And you dumb mother fuckers out there paid to see these crap movies in 3D. Perhaps I am being a lil harsh because I assume everyone should know the facts before going in and seeing a movie. The Last Airbender was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But I was smart enough to at least see it in 2D. (If I was really smart the 5% it had on Rotten Tomatoes would have kept me away altogether. Sigh). 3D would have served no purpose whatsoever other than getting more money out of my pocket.
Who do I blame for this 3D nonsense: James Cameron. Alright, Mr. Cameron. Special effects are cool. But this day and age they don't have the same appeal they once had. Seeing Star Wars when it first came out was huge because no one had never seen effects like that before. It blew people's balls off. Now though, people are so used to it they aren't as blown away as they used to be. So again, just a gimmick. First and foremost the script and story should be perfect. Anything done in post does not matter as much. If you do not have a perfect script, don't even bother. I was EXTREMELY excited for Avatar before it came out. And yes, the effects were very cool and the 3D did look nice, but I didn't care for the movie because it was just such a generic story. No surprises there. So i paid fifteen dollars for effects and 3D. This is not why I go to the movies! Sure, it counts for something, but it is not the main reason.
I would like to end this rant with an open invitation to Mr. Cameron. You fucked us dude. Now just admit you were wrong. That is all I want. For the most part, 3D serves no purpose in telling a story. The script should be your number one priority. Once that is perfect, move on from there.
This is not an endorsement. Eh, maybe it is.
I would like to kick off the blog this week by sharing with our readers (Dos) my favorite commercial of the 2011 Super Bowl. Enjoy!
Friday, February 4, 2011
You are Not Chevy Chase and He Is: A Tribute to Chevy Chase, Who You Are Not
Once in a while, there comes a man. A man who knows that he is Chevy Chase and that everyone else is not Chevy Chase. This man, let's call him Chevy Chase, is my hero. He doesn't know that he is my hero, but he is. I have been a Chase fan as long as I can remember. On SNL, he fell down. That made me laugh. In Spies Like Us, he was a spy, like us. In Funny Farm, he lived on one very funny farm. In the vacation films, he went on vacation. Well, in Christmas Vacation he did not really go any where, but I am guessing they wanted to keep it aligned well with the two previous films. In that movie with Jonathan Taylor Thomas whose name I could never remember (father of the pride? maybe? I am sure it was some pun about parenting and nature), he blew the acting pants off of JTT and did a really funny dance.
Then something happened...no Chevy Chase. Where was Chevy? I missed him! This was a time of great darkness and I was forced to watch Innerspace with Martin Short. This was, indeed a dark period. Martin Short made a very good Martin Short. But I can tell you this; he was no Chevy Chase. Who else could be Chevy Chase, but Chevy Chase?
THEN THERE WAS COMMUNITY!
Chevy Chase was back, and he was amazing. Last night he stole the show in an amazing episode.
Now, you might be saying; "Dos, Chevy was really good last night in Community, but you are kind mocking his movies before. I don't get it. Are you having a go at Chevy or do you really enjoy his work?" The truth is this: I do not know myself, but I do know this; I legitimately love Chevy Chase and have the DVDs to prove it.
This humble entry to the 3184 blog is just to welcome Chevy Chase back into my life. I wasn't sure if it was for good after the first season of Community, but after last night's episode I know it is. The renaissance is here and it is starring Chevy Chase. This is his time, for you see, he is Chevy Chase and no one else is. We have to remember that fact. For I fear that if we don't, we may lose him again. So let's all cherish the fact that he is Chevy Chase, and we are not, because it is not just a funny one-liner to introduce a segment making fun of the news, it is a fact that should stay with us all our lives.
Chevy, welcome back, you have been missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)