The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Psychology of Movies
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As an old market researcher turned movie reviewer, it has always seemed obvious to me that different kinds of people like different kinds of movies, and that that’s perfectly reasonable. This is not, however, a common view among film critics, most of whom became critics because they have strong views on which movies people should like (i.e., the ones they like).

So, I was pleased to see this new academic study at PsyArXiv by some marketing psychologists:

We Are What We Watch: Movie Plots Predict the Personalities of Those who “Like” Them

Gideon Nave, Jason Rentfrow, Sudeep Bhatia

They’ve merged a vast amount of data from Facebook on which 846 popular movies were “liked” by several million people who filled out a Big Five psychological quiz. The OCEAN model of personality asserts that there are five main dimensions:

openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/callous)
neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

Here is the paper’s table of correlations among the Facebook movie fans, with positive correlations in blue and negative correlations in red:

The Metadata variables that show significant relationships with AFPP dimensions are quality ratings, popularity (i.e., box office revenue), and budget. Liking of high-quality movies is most strongly associated with Openness, consistent with higher aesthetic sensitivity that characterize high Openness individuals. High Openness movies also tended to be less popular, in line with the trait’s association with a greater need for uniqueness. On the other hand, fans of popular movies are higher on Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, reflecting these traits’ links with conformity. Box office revenue also has a positive relationship with Extraversion.

IMDB offers a huge number of keywords for each movie. For example, The Big Lebowski’s IMDB entry features 379 keywords, beginning (not surprisingly) with “rug” and “nihilism.”

Liking of movies from eight genre categories has significant relationships with AFPP dimensions, typically with medium effect sizes. Crime movies

E.g., The Dark Knight, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, Se7en.

have more Extroverted and less Agreeable fans, mirroring these traits’ links to actual criminal behavior. Liking sci-fi [Inception, Matrix] and fantasy [Lord of the Rings, Star Wars] movies is related to higher Openness, lower Extraversion, and lower Conscientiousness, indicating that fans of these genres are imaginative, reflective, and spontaneous.

More Agreeable fans like family movies [e.g., Pixar films], and horror movies [The Shining, Alien, Psycho] have fans that are less Agreeable and Extraverted and more Neurotic.

One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet. Hence, I almost never go to horror movies. That strikes me as pretty sensible. On the other hand, most people don’t seem to see it that way.

Surprisingly, the genre most strongly associated with all AFPP dimensions is sports, whose fans are lower on Openness and Neuroticism, and higher on Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. The latter two traits were previously found to be higher among sports fans (Donavan, Carlson, and Zimmerman 2005). Of note, liking for sports movies was not assessed in any previous studies of personality and media preferences.

The most voted-on sports movie is The Big Lebowski, which isn’t exactly a sports movie, followed by a whole bunch of boxing and other fighting movies, such as #3 Rocky.

Here’s a wonderful table of the most Openness keywords (e.g., cigarette smoking, shaving, record player) and the least (helicopter, scene during end credits, singing in a car):

Table 2.The top 20 plot keywords with the strongest positive and negative associations with each dimension of the Big Five traits, controlling for demographic and metadata variables. Values represent the predicted difference between the aggregate fan personality trait of a movie that only includes the corresponding keyword and the average movie in the dataset.

Here are the Top Ten and Bottom Ten for Openness:

Supplementary Table 1. Movies with the top/ bottom 10 values of the aggregate fanpersonality profile, for each of the Big Five traits.

The Top 10 for Openness are dominated by extremely white directors:

Texan ballplayer/artiste Richard Linklater for his philosophical animated films Waking Life and his Philip K. Dick movie A Scanner Darkly.

Darren Aronofsky for Pi, which is a quite good early work about a genius grad student who has built a mainframe computer to solve a math problem, and The Fountain.

Wes Anderson for The Darjeeling Limited and the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

David Lynch – Mulholland Drive

Michel Gondry – The Science of Sleep, which I found delightful.

Spike Jonze – Charlie Kaufman’s script of Being John Malkovich.

And a documentary “The Buddha” featuring Richard Gere and the Dalai Lama.

Mostly these are films that appeal to fans of the director but not as much to outsiders, although Mulholland Drive is probably peak David Lynch. For example, I don’t like Wes Anderson movies as a rule, but he won me over with the extremely Wes Adersony The Grand Budapest Hotel and the more Wilson Brothery Bottle Rocket. I’d recommend you start with one or the other. If you like it, move on to the ones on this list.

In other words, most of the these top and bottom 10 movies are too extreme to be widely appealing.

The low Openness movies are mostly pretty lowbrow ones, although I liked Shrek Forever After more than I liked the other Shrek movies.

The high extraversion movies are fairly heavily black, such ATL, The Wood, Love & Basketball, Baby Boy, Friday, and Juice. The introvert movies are heavily East Asian. It’s almost as if African Americans tend to be more extraverted than Japanese.

High Agreeableness movies are feminine, low Agreeableness movies are masculine:

One interesting aspect of movies is seen in the classic Taxi Driver being one of the ten least Agreeable movies. Objectively, the message of Taxi Driver that highly cultured individuals such as Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro, Jodie Foster, and Paul Schrader want you to take away from the movie is, “Don’t be like Travis Bickle.”

On the other hand, the message that John Hinckley Jr. and, evidently, a lot of viewers took away from Taxi Driver is, “Hell, yeah, be like Travis Bickle.”

I don’t know how to measure this statistically, but my guess is that most people want movies to vindicate their own personalities. They want to see on screen people who are like them in personality, only much, much better looking.

 
Hide 301 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch’s other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    @BB753

    1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDilD3wAxt8

    2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZowK0NAvig

    3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmFgO2fJQuI

    Probably the greatest movie of all time.

    Replies: @BB753, @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @Hun
    @BB753

    You may like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0zb_baTzkk

    , @theMann
    @BB753

    Oh don't even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    Replies: @jamie b., @HA, @dfordoom

    , @Ganderson
    @BB753

    Try “The Straight Story”. A very non-David Lynch David Lynch movie.

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @BB753

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @theMann, @Polynikes, @dfordoom

    , @Neuday
    @BB753

    If you don't like Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Elephant Man or Mulholland Drive, you are simply stating you suffer from Low Openness. Those are great and also critically acclaimed films.

    , @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    , @jamie b.
    @BB753


    ...I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.
     
    This is either asking to prove that Lynch is objectively unwatchable, or that you personally don't actually find him unwatchable. Neither request is reasonable.

    AAR, these sort of negative comments about weird or surreal things always make me think of a teen girl revealing the astonishing fact that she doesn't like spiders.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @Anonymous
    @BB753

    Most of the people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they're sophisticated. He's one of the go-to directors to cite when people wish to appear to be above the normies and proles and more mainstream movies, but at this point citing him for that purpose is cliche and pedestrian.

    I wouldn't say his movies are unwatchable, except perhaps Inland Empire. He's a good craftsman of individual scenes, moods, bits of dialogue, short sequences, dreamy digressions, etc., but lacking as an architect and constructor of a coherent, full narrative and film. He masks these shortcomings by playing up quirkiness and obscurity, which seems to have worked well for him and his career. He's ultimately better as a cinematographer than a screenwriter or director.

    Replies: @jamie b., @SunBakedSuburb

    , @Rahan
    @BB753

    David Lynch, not unlike Quentin Tarantino, has vintage lower-budget Italian director doppelgangers, whom I recommend to everyone.

    David Lynch's doppelganger is Dario Argento. All one has to do is watch the first 5-10 minutes of Suspiria, 1977 (not to be confused with the ghastly remake); Deep Red, 1975; Phenomena, 1985; to see that in terms of atmospherics and skill Argento and Lynch are blow-for-blow equals. Only Argento does more pulpy adventure horror things, with less pretentiousness. As much as that's possible for an Italian director.

    Compare the opening scenes of Phenomena or Suspiria with the opening scenes of Twin Peaks. Same level, different budgets, different cultural baggage, different goals (pseudo pulp vs turbo pulp).

    Inferno and Tenebre are also magnificent Dario Argento films, which are again, "Pulpy David Lynch with testosterone, Italian style".

    Quentin Tarantino's dopplegangers are spread across a very wide spectrum in the genre adjacent to the Giallo genre--the Poliziotteschi genre. To enjoy a "proto-Tarantino" experience from the 1970s, I would recommend the following films:
    Live Like a Cop Die Like a Man, 1976 (a lesson in stylish over-the-toppery)
    Kidnapped, 1974 (a lesson of how to set tension in an enclosed space)
    Almost Human, 1974

    It is great that back in the day American pop culture was still vital enough to let through the filters directors like Lynch and Tarantino. But outrageous 1970s Italian horror, giallo, and Poliziotteschi flicks are delightful turbo pulp experiences I would also recommend to everyone who wants something stylish and sleazy and macho to counteract current year. It's an endless treasury over there. One could spend years evening after evening checking out these cheap thrills over a favorite beverage.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @BB753

    David Lynch creates fascinating characters, and shoots fascinating scenes. But his movies are somehow far less than the sum of their parts. So, you aren't wrong about that.

    , @SFG
    @BB753

    Sailer said it himself--different kinds of people like different kinds of movies. You ain't a Lynch fan--nothing wrong with that.

  2. Seems reasonable and simple. I agree with most of it, Pi being my favorite 90s indy flick.

    But it’s a good thing I didn’t have a full coffee cup in my hand when they call The Big Lebowski a sports movie, I’d have spewed on screen and keyboard both.

    Getting high is a sport? John Goodman and Jeff Bridges were athletes because they hung out at a bowling alley?

    Love them eggheads. Can’t get their categories straight.

  3. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    1)

    2)

    3)

    Probably the greatest movie of all time.

    • Thanks: Coemgen
    • Replies: @BB753
    @Pat Hannagan

    OK, thanks, I've never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Replies: @FPD72, @dfordoom, @Peter Akuleyev, @Sebastian Max

    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Pat Hannagan

    I love the driving scene. Loggia's character is absolutely right about tailgaters.

    That said, the road manners have been excellent this Thanksgiving.

    My theory is that the people cowering at home are the same people who are terrible drivers.

  4. “People want to go where they wanted to be led.”
    — Edward L. Bernays

  5. I read The WEIRDest People in the World recently. It is claimed that the Big Five traits only really work with WEIRD people.

    Does anyone know how well these personality tests work on African Americans?

  6. this new academic study at PsyArXiv

    PsyArXiv = Privy sax.

    he won me over with the extremely Wes Anderson[e]y The Grand Budapest Hotel

    Anthony Perkins did a very Keith Carradiney performance alongside Geraldine Chaplin in Remember My Name four decades ago. Indeed, I always misremember it as Carradine’s. Keith and Oona’s spawn did several other films with Alan Rudolph; perhaps that’s why.

    I bring it up because it was an intentionally boring story about colorless people, and the only thing that sticks in the mind after 42 years are the news reports every time a character passed a TV or radio. While all this was(n’t) going on in L.A., two million people were killed in an earthquake in Budapest.

    (Which doesn’t even have two million.)

    Adding to the general creepiness is the fact that Mrs Perkins, the Italian-Swiss-French-Egyptian-Lithuanian-Jewish-American Berry Berenson, also had an important role in it. Years later, long a widow, she boarded a plane in Boston. With Mohammed Atta. Ouch.

    Another misrememberance that wasn’t Carradine either is Brad Dourif in Wise Blood. That wasn’t Rudolph’s, but John Huston’s.

  7. Movies that appeal to African American women rank high in Conscientiousness. I suspect that has to do with blacks expressing their opinions less diffidently than other races.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Steve Sailer

    Does this mean AA women rank high in conscientiousness? I confess I don’t see the connection with expressing opinions confidently.

    , @jamie b.
    @Steve Sailer


    ...blacks expressing their opinions less diffidently...
     
    It's always been my experience that blacks are extremely consensus-driven within their in-groups.
  8. “One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet.”

    Most of the mentally fragile leftie girls I’ve known were scary/bloody movie fans, I could never understand it. They’d watch some slasher pic then talk about male violence in the same week. Or was that the connection?

    But back in my youthful days, an awful lot of people never went to the cinema. I think in three years around age 21 I only saw two films (Star Wars and Close Encounters, and I was pretty intoxicated for the latter). My student cohort weren’t big movie fans. But first VHS, then DVD and now streaming, means that the programming is relentless. My daughter at 20 has probably watched two or three times as many films as I’ve seen in my life. Mostly romcoms, admittedly.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Most of the mentally fragile leftie girls I’ve known were scary/bloody movie fans, I could never understand it. They’d watch some slasher pic then talk about male violence in the same week. Or was that the connection?
     
    Horror movies typically present us with some appalling threat to the social order but by the end of the movie the threat is destroyed and the social order is restored. So in a way they're reassuring

    To quote Chesterton: "The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable; they are alarmed at this world, because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that Agnostics worship it--because it is a fact. Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon."
  9. @Pat Hannagan
    @BB753

    1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDilD3wAxt8

    2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZowK0NAvig

    3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmFgO2fJQuI

    Probably the greatest movie of all time.

    Replies: @BB753, @The Wild Geese Howard

    OK, thanks, I’ve never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    • Replies: @FPD72
    @BB753


    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.
     
    Two specifically Christian movies with good production values that I’ve seen in the last five years were Risen (directed by Kevin Reynolds) and Paul, Apostle of Christ. There are several that have come out of a Baptist church in Georgia but I wouldn’t consider any of them good.

    If you’re willing to go back forty years for major studio films with cast members you would recognize, Chariots of Fire, Shadowlands (starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger) and Luther (with Joseph Fiennes in the title role) are good.

    If you have Amazon Prime, all of these movies are available, though three of them are not free.

    In 2021, Fellowship for Performing Arts is dropping a movie based on the one man play, C.S. Lewis; God’s Most Reluctant Convert. A film version of the play is sometimes available on Prime or Netflix, but this movie is a real production, shot on location in England, with a good cast and Max McClean playing the older, mature Lewis. The play/movie traces Lewis’ intellectual journey from atheist to theist to Christian.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @dfordoom
    @BB753


    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies
     
    How about those of us who don't care for Christian movies?

    Wholesome and inspiring is fine, but again I'd like there to be a choice. Wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies for those who like such things and other kinds of movies for those with different tastes.

    I do admit that at the moment those who want wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies are missing out somewhat.

    Personally I don't watch any contemporary movies. There's no need to.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @BB753

    Lynch, unlike most contemporary filmmakers, takes the presence of evil in the world seriously. Arguably that makes him more Christian than a lot of the trite “wholesome” entertainment that presents Christ’s message as simply one of love and feeling good about yourself.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    , @Sebastian Max
    @BB753

    I think the reason Lynch has chosen to include what you might perceive as elements of the occult, is precisely because of the diminishment of the supernatural in Western religions - that it has vanished from society's institutions and daily lives, but not from our imagination or consciousness, where it still wields a lot of power.

    If you think about the social power of religion - what is it actually a tool for? To inculcate a standard morality in the population, to propagate those values that ultimately produce a stable and compliant population.

    In the Western religious tradition, man has this "personal relationship with God", but this is very much a form of self-deception. Sure, some of it is pushed by the churches, and the messages consist of a kind of "fear porn" - Western churches focus on what you (and the rest of humanity) have done that is wrong, an offense to God, and how that can be mitigated - pass the collection plate, brethren!)

    It's an odd racket because it relies both on this external element that is developed through a sense of impending doom or grave personal and global spiritual (and physical) peril but can only really be imposed internally. There isn't any Torquemada overseeing a band of church secret police and inquisitors, nobody is going to force a confession, and you won't be subjected to trial by fire.

    Most of this is achieved via direct exposition (the Fall of mankind, God's wrath, the deliverance and Covenant, and in the sequel the persecution of Jesus to permit the salvation of the sinful, and the Redemption of all faithful through Judgment Day and rapture) and enforced through parable and allegory. All of the stories of sinners being smited (smitten?) and turned into pillars of salt and other such creative punishments from above. But it really is about creating a sense of guilt and repentance and striving that is a sort of Mobius strip of offenses and responsibility and consequences, which pushes people to fixate on maintaining an invisible ledger of good/bad so that they will not be denied a pleasant afterlife. It's an interesting phenomenon because absent this internal element, the external one lacks any power whatsoever. Western Churches push the idea of an all-knowing God that is constantly surveilling all and knows not just what you did, but what you THOUGHT about doing. This is why salvation through works isn't the basis of Western religion, but rather, salvation through faith, through God's grace.

    However, since nobody is actually preaching "Our God is an angry God" anymore and even seminal religious figures like Cotton Mather are today scorned by the very denominations they once led , it became popular to substitute a plethora of self-flagellating beliefs..kind of like putting yourself on trial every day.

    It truly is a fascinating psycho-pathology.

    And as Americans have gradually shed their Puritanical superstitions, become more rational and secular and less fundamental, I think that fear of the unknown, that possibility of some divine watchman, or otherwordly threat (of temptation, of punishment, of eternal damnation, etc) has taken on an even more powerfully memetic quality.

    It used to be that people would frankly admit to being cursed or hexxed or whatever it was, and this was not considered to be aberrant behaviour. The idea of being beset by witches or demons wasn't seen as ludicrous or histrionic or delusional - rather it was generally accepted that this was as real a phenomenon and as genuine of a concern as, say, Indian attacks (which were certainly real and physically deadly). Indians couldn't send your soul to Hell like sinning could, but they could easily kill you and run off with your scalp, after defiling your body. On the other hand, this would surely put you in the grace of God, if you'd been a properly observant Christian and a good person who didn't sin. People got comfort from that. The idea of salvation through faith was augmented by a healthy sense of personal fear.

    The official message was - forget your body, its your spirit that is in danger.

    But a modern secular society sends the opposite message - focus on your physical being and let your body experience all the pleasure you can order up on Tinder or cram up your nose - don't worry about going to hell, there is no God and in any case what's the problem, "love is love", "right to choose", etc and so forth.

    Lynch's take on the darkness within man is very much a throwback to history and allows us the luxury to flirt cinematically with our abandoned supernatural identity. And he has mastered the ability to deploy all the standard archetypes in his depiction of this constant struggle for the balance and destiny of the soul. "What does the ledger say? Lookin up, you say? Well, how bout NOW?! "

  10. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    You may like this one:

  11. and horror movies [The Shining, Alien, Psycho] have fans that are less Agreeable and Extraverted and more Neurotic.

    So does this explain why horror movie fanboys are among the failed director category than the working director category? Being both neurotic and less agreeable along with introverted seems to stunt your professional progression. I assumed the relationship might simply be due to how easy it was to make your own horror film and so they tried to get into film school more than fans of other genres since they’d had a go at making their own.

    It also describes Quentin Tarantino to a tee, the seemingly only hardcore horror fanboy who has seen major success despite his odious personality.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Altai

    I thought the model there was Sam Raimi, making a dirt cheap jumpfest with some thought and riding it to better success than a "real" movie, but then that's also similar to George Romero and Tobe Hooper. And John Carpenter.
    I'm not into horror, but considered that a failing rather than sensible. A lot of "horror" is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate. Often it starts atheist and then becomes highly moralistic, not out of conviction but as a result of writing itself into a corner.
    ------
    Sorcerer is an awesome movie, a movie so good it compels you to gratefully forgive the two (2!) times its special effects completely fail (it has these dummies that are clearly dummies, but the momentum carries you right past). Where does it qualify?

    Replies: @JMcG, @syonredux, @jamie b.

    , @Nathan
    @Altai

    I think your second theory- that it's easy to make your own horror movie- is probably closer to the truth. But what makes you say that horror movie fanboys tend to be among the failed director category? Is that the case?

    If I had money to put up to produce movies, it would be horror, all the way. It gives you a much, much better chance of turning a profit off of a smaller initial investment. Horror movies are also more likely to turn into enduring intellectual property, with schlock sequels and remakes after 20 years being almost guaranteed for successful movies. Yes, if given the option I would have put my money behind the young Wes Craven and not the young Wes Anderson.

    But then again I spent last night watching Castle Freak on Joe Bob Briggs' Last Drive-In, so maybe I'm biased.

    Replies: @Anon87

  12. The best sports movie was “The Monty Stratton Story,” with Jimmy Stewart.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Father O'Hara

    "The best sports movie"

    Either Slap Shot (1977) or Number One (1969). Brian's Song (1971) is the gay man's pick for best sports movie. All baseball movies are gay.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @njguy73

  13. Grand Budapest Hotel, much like the memoirs and stories of Stefan Zweig that inspired it, is putatively a liberal anti-fascist film, and of course Anderson has even added a “person of color” as a hero, Zero Moustafa (an arab-ish character played by a Guatemalan actor).

    Ironically though in today’s “woke” climate the film reads more like a tribute to the glories of a now lost well-ordered European civilization, and is very harsh in its treatment of Soviet-style Communism in Central Europe. The Moustafa character is an assimilationist who adopts and cherishes the superior values of his European teacher, and does not go about preaching the glories of his shithole country.

    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best “conservative” cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven’t caught on to that yet.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Peter Akuleyev

    And it is unforgivable (and wierdly un-Adersony) that at one point the secondary protagonist breaks the fourth wall to bark at the audience that they have no right to reject "refugees." I thought the most Adersony one was Moonrise Kingdom. Hotel has a cartoonish version of charm and right under that layer is the crudest hate letter you could write. People are fooled by extra words. It's like how Obama "isn't" saying he hates America when he says he wants to fundamentally transform it.

    , @Jtgw
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI. I suppose it could in fact allude to the later Communist period after WWII but I don’t think the timeline works out (chronological gap too big).

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Abe, @Peter Akuleyev

    , @Abe
    @Peter Akuleyev


    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best “conservative” cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven’t caught on to that
     
    I check Amazon at least a couple times a week for coveted Kindle“cheapies”- prestigious books I’ve always wanted to own but never have on the off chance they might be heavily marked down according to Amazon’s inscrutable pricing algorithms- snatched up GRAVITY’S RAINBOW this year for only $3.99- yeah!

    Anyway, during my many browsings I’ve noticed the hate-the-smart-sensitive white guy coefficient going through the roof lately. For example, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has a new novel out called ANT KIND. As you may recall Kauffman, during his late-90’s through mid-00’s hot streak of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, & ADAPTATION, was pretty much the STUFF WHITE PEOPLE LIKE “It Boy”, part of a sort of self-congratulatory hipster Holy Trinity circle jerk along with the likes of Spike Jonez and Bansky.

    While Kauffman was never quite my cup of tea (as with Wes Anderson, there is too much self-willed “wow, this is clever and ambitious so I’m going to force myself to delight in it”, rather than actual- you know- spontaneous, feelings of delight) I certainly appreciate his great talent. So I was reading the reviews of ANT KIND to see if this was something I’d want to buy eventually and- gosh- very first review I read the customer-reader is sneering about what a piece of postmodernist white male navel gazing this is. Seen like hate on recent reviews of Rick Moody, David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen books as well.

    These guys were culture heroes a decade ago, aesthetically and politically impeccable I’m sure, but the era of the great white male hero, even in the mode of great white rebel against his great white father, is so over and problematic. White guys must now be “allies”, which means standing at the back of the room silently until asked to go fetch coffee.

    Anderson’s works, which if I could assign a single meaning to I’d say represent a sort of collective dreamscape for smart, sensitive, talented white boys rejoicing in this amazing Earth and all that is of interest in it- is the sort of primordial ooze out of which every once in a while an Elon Musk is made. That is why very soon Wes Anderson will have to be destroyed.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  14. This is a related concept to Warne’s myth #35, “Everyone’s about as smart as I am” belief, an inability by the elite to comprehend that normal people don’t think like they do.

  15. Me: Grosse Point Blank

    Long range rifle
    Range
    Time-bomb
    Man wears glasses (???)
    Assassin
    Reunion
    High school reunion
    High school
    Suburb
    Hitman

    Based on those top ten keywords, the best I can come up with is Low Neurotic, but based on the ex-GF ex-BF relationship and Proposal tags later in the list, also High Extraversion and High Conscientiousness.

  16. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    Oh don’t even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @theMann


    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.
     
    Meaning what? That you can't convince them that they're 'wrong' to like something odd or surreal?

    Replies: @theMann

    , @HA
    @theMann

    "There is no positive way you can engage crazy."

    Since you're a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don't like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

    Actually, the above sentence goes a long way towards explaining your output on this site.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @dfordoom
    @theMann


    Oh don’t even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.
     
    I enjoyed Mulholland Dr. I have no idea what it was about.
  17. Where do Whit Stillman movies fit in?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @James Braxton


    Where do Whit Stillman movies fit in?
     
    Good question. Probably high on openness like other 80s and 90s Indie flicks. Those were great movies, though. He deserves more renown.

    But the bigger question is why no rating of Woody Allen movies? According to Steve's theory, those should be off the chart as a marker of neuroticism.
  18. NOTABLY, all DNNs [Deep Neural Networks] face the issue of overfitting as they learn, which is when performance on one data set increases but the network’s performance fails to generalize (often measured by the divergence of performance on training vs testing data sets). This ubiquitous problem in DNNs is often solved by experimenters via “noise injections” in the form of noisy or corrupted inputs. The goal of this paper is to argue that the brain faces a similar challenge of overfitting, and that nightly dreams evolved to combat the brain’s overfitting during its daily learning. […] Finally, it is worth taking the idea of dream substitutions seriously enough to consider whether fictions, like novels or films, act as artificial dreams, accomplishing at least some of the same function.

    • Thanks: duncsbaby
  19. Gosh, where to begin:

    1. Do most modern movies have “plots” anymore? If so , could have fooled me.

    2. Let us assume, for the moment, that the OCEAN Personality Model is not complete gibberish.

    There remains central problems with the analysis:

    Going to the movies is typically a group, or at least dual, activity. The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone, as otherwise there is a lot of compromise in choosing which movies to see. As an example, I got dragged off to see both Pitch Perfect and LaLa Land and really liked both films. Even so, I would have never seen them on my own, as Musicals just aren’t my thing. OTOH, I once got my Aunt to watch Enemy at the Gates with me, which I am pretty sure she wouldn’t have seen on her own. And won’t watch again.

    Then there are the problems with internet date collection: people are far more likely to rip a film they hated than praise one they loved, and positive reviews, especially on Social Media, are so Bot influenced as to make data point collection completely worthless. Unless this analysis took great pains to insure it was getting actual human input, the whole thing is major league GIGO. (Most everything on Social Media is.)

    So, assuming proper controls were used, one can safely say that there is a relationship between one’s personality and the films one likes. It is a subset of the reality that there is a relationship between your personality and everything you like, so…….

    back to GIGO.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @theMann

    "The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone, as otherwise there is a lot of compromise in choosing which movies to see."

    The study is focused not on whether you've seen a movie but whether you've Liked it on Facebook.

    That's a pretty crude yes-no measure (with the No's including both people who never saw it and people who saw it but didn't like it, or people who saw it, liked it, but didn't bother to search it out to Like it on Facebook, as you might not have done with those musicals you were surprised to like, both of which are good movies, by the way), compared to, say, rating each movie on a 1-10 scale.


    But their sample size is so immense that they get plausible results anyway.

    , @Anon
    @theMann


    The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone
     
    That is what is called "noise" in statistics. And there is a statistical law that as n (sample size) approaches infinity, the distorting power of noise approaches zero. This is why they are using years of education as a proxy for IQ in the big million genome GWAS studies without worrying about how closely the correlation is: It doesn't matter at that sample size. The rank order of people's IQ and people's years of education is, on average, the same when you get that many people.
  20. @Peter Akuleyev
    Grand Budapest Hotel, much like the memoirs and stories of Stefan Zweig that inspired it, is putatively a liberal anti-fascist film, and of course Anderson has even added a "person of color" as a hero, Zero Moustafa (an arab-ish character played by a Guatemalan actor).

    Ironically though in today's "woke" climate the film reads more like a tribute to the glories of a now lost well-ordered European civilization, and is very harsh in its treatment of Soviet-style Communism in Central Europe. The Moustafa character is an assimilationist who adopts and cherishes the superior values of his European teacher, and does not go about preaching the glories of his shithole country.

    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best "conservative" cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven't caught on to that yet.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jtgw, @Abe

    And it is unforgivable (and wierdly un-Adersony) that at one point the secondary protagonist breaks the fourth wall to bark at the audience that they have no right to reject “refugees.” I thought the most Adersony one was Moonrise Kingdom. Hotel has a cartoonish version of charm and right under that layer is the crudest hate letter you could write. People are fooled by extra words. It’s like how Obama “isn’t” saying he hates America when he says he wants to fundamentally transform it.

  21. I was just thinking about this the other day: who do these “dark comedies” appeal to? I don’t mean the ones with a lot humor, or that contain strong fantasy elements, like supernatural stuff. I mean the more down-to-earth ones that just seem to be about serial killers, like Heathers (1989), the German movie Funny Games (1997), or Better Watch Out (2017).

    Regarding Asian films: Korean and Chinese movies have censors. Sometimes you wouldn’t know it, but they are there protecting the morals of the youth. I bet if you went back to when the Hays Code was actually enforced, Hollywood movies would similarly became less affected by openness. Though, I am not sure Japanese films have strong censorship, and I definitely get a unique impression from them. Like, they either have more shy characters, or are just better at depicting shyness. Maybe, it is just something more relevant to animation.

    I’ve often thought that good censors would have certain traits which are missing from creative types – more impulse control, greater sense of disgust.

    • Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki
    @songbird


    I mean the more down-to-earth ones that just seem to be about serial killers, like Heathers (1989), the German movie Funny Games (1997)
     
    At least among people who have bothered to formulate an opinion on this question at all, I suspect you are one of the very few people who would characterize HEATHERS and FUNNY GAMES as being part of the same genre. FUNNY GAMES is typically regarded as a horror film. No one regards HEATHERS as a horror film.
  22. @Altai

    and horror movies [The Shining, Alien, Psycho] have fans that are less Agreeable and Extraverted and more Neurotic.
     
    So does this explain why horror movie fanboys are among the failed director category than the working director category? Being both neurotic and less agreeable along with introverted seems to stunt your professional progression. I assumed the relationship might simply be due to how easy it was to make your own horror film and so they tried to get into film school more than fans of other genres since they'd had a go at making their own.

    It also describes Quentin Tarantino to a tee, the seemingly only hardcore horror fanboy who has seen major success despite his odious personality.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Nathan

    I thought the model there was Sam Raimi, making a dirt cheap jumpfest with some thought and riding it to better success than a “real” movie, but then that’s also similar to George Romero and Tobe Hooper. And John Carpenter.
    I’m not into horror, but considered that a failing rather than sensible. A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate. Often it starts atheist and then becomes highly moralistic, not out of conviction but as a result of writing itself into a corner.
    ——
    Sorcerer is an awesome movie, a movie so good it compels you to gratefully forgive the two (2!) times its special effects completely fail (it has these dummies that are clearly dummies, but the momentum carries you right past). Where does it qualify?

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @J.Ross

    Sorcerer the Roy Schneider movie? I remember being impressed with it when I finally saw it. Pretty bleak though. For some reason I pair it with Lost Command in my mind.

    Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS

    , @syonredux
    @J.Ross


    A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate.
     
    Yeah, the "sadism porn" genre (the FRIDAY THE 13TH flicks, the Italian Giallo genre, the SAW series, etc)......loathsome stuff. True horror is more delicate and subtle.....I always recommend the films that Val Lewton made at RKO. THE SEVENTH VICTIM is an atmospheric masterpiece....

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @jamie b.
    @J.Ross


    A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate.
     
    Actually, a lot of slasher movies work hard at getting you to dislike the victims.
  23. That table of correlations (“Supplementary Figure 1”) has a bunch of unintentionally interesting pairings. For example,

    • The longer, bigger budget, or newer a movie, the less that people in relationships like it, perhaps suggesting they have better things to do.

    • People in relationships also skew heavily more open, neurotic, old and female. This may confirm the impression that Facebook is mainly anxious married women having whatever is the female equivalent of d**k-measuring contests.

    • People not in relationships are younger, more male, more conscientious, and like movies more. So maybe a secondary Facebook demographic well-meaning young loners caught in a web of social media and confected Hollywood reality.

    • Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?

    • Movie rating correlates well with runtime. Is this a case of Ben Franklin’s advice that to get someone to like you, make them do you a favor: after donating so much of your time to watching that movie, you have to justify that it was good?

    • There is a strong correlation between the recency of the movie and the size of the budget. This may be a sign of the approaching Blockbuster Singularity, or (more likely) it is just currency inflation.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Almost Missouri

    They're all Facebook people though, right?
    That pretty much makes it useless for me.

    Also, when did "extrovert" become "extravert"? Seems weird.
    Has "introvert" likewise become "intravert"? Also weird.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Almost Missouri

    "• Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?"

    Right.

    Although my guess is that size of budget correlates with predictability of box office gross. There used to be a lot of big budget box office bombs, but there seem to be fewer in the 21st Century as movie studios have gotten things down more to a science with franchises, pre-existing intellectual property, and the like. Low budget movies have some small hope for a stratospheric ROI, while high budget movies don't.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  24. Anonymous[415] • Disclaimer says:

    From a decade or more when I was interested in this… openness correlates fairly strongly with IQ. Disagreeableness with testosterone. I am a very open, conscientious but disagreeable bastard. 😉 Hence why I like to argue on Unz with randos on the internet. Doesn’t everyone?

    A few things jump out… movies like Pi, sure. No wonder there. Movies that reward thinking. Surrealism. Dark comedies. Hallucination. Smart people like highly rated stuff. Maybe more savvy people rate stuff too.

    Oh, and meet a Wes Anderson protagonist…

    Never gets old!

    • Thanks: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfDIAZCwHQE

    Replies: @Anonymous

  25. Big Lebowski isn’t a sports movie? So now you’re trying to tell me bowling isn’t a sport. C’mon man.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    @Jimbo in OPKS

    I forgot who it was, but someone once said that an activity cannot qualify as a sport if you can smoke while doing it.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  26. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    Try “The Straight Story”. A very non-David Lynch David Lynch movie.

  27. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    What!? To each their own I suppose. The scene where Gene Hackman argues with Danny Glover is a riot.

    , @theMann
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I thought Tenenbaums stupid, inane, pointless, and trying way to hard to achieve way to little, but it is hardly Myra Breckinridge.

    Come to think of it, I wouldn't rate it any worse than Knives Out, which was complete garbage.

    , @Polynikes
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    That’s how I feel about Wes Anderson and Quinten Tarintino. I understand they’re both god filmmakers, but they both bore me with very few exceptions. Otoh, I do like Lynch stylistically.

    , @dfordoom
    @Hapalong Cassidy


    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.
     
    The only Wes Anderson movie I've seen is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and I only watched half of it before falling asleep. Did I miss anything?

    I didn't think so.
  28. Fascinating. I’d like to see this type of study run with TV series, which usually fit more neatly than movies into specific genres and categories, and provide a smaller universe of possibilities with more common ground. Would people’s TV-show habits reveal more than their movie-watching habits?

    I’m skeptical here because my own taste runs to extremes — I prefer dark conspiracy movies such as Parallax View but also cheerful kiddie cartoon stuff like the Minions. I like sports much more than sports movies (except for Rollerball, which is really a conspiracy flick). My wife would be easier to nail down — she likes anything “heart-warming” or “life-affirming.”

  29. “Patch Adams” sucks. SUCKS. ]I know you’re dying of a horrible disease, and there isn’t anything medicine can do for you so…laugh!!! THANKS,Doc.

    Recall Robin Williams got his Oscar for “Good Will Hunting”, the only movie he put away the manic over the top crap for 90 minutes.

    Have a soft spot for “Party Monster” because the retired detective in the very last scene was a mutual friend, hung out at a bar we used to frequent in our misspent youths. Had a hot PR girlfriend .

  30. Based on a sample size of one (myself) it seems fairly valid. I’ve seen all of the Low Extroversion movies and none of the High Extroversion ones; most of the High Open to New Experience ones and none of the the Low; all but three of the Low Agreeableness ones and none of the High Agreeableness ones. The other two categories Conscientiousness and Neuroticism haven’t been listed with movies here.

    It’s funny how all but Aliens in the Low Extroversion (introverted) list of movies are Japanese (Ghost is a remake of the anime original).

    I was amused by ‘gay slurs’ being Highly Extroverted which of course makes perfect sense. It strikes one as odd that NYC and Manhattan show up so often under the High Conscientious elements category – is it down to movies about moral decisions involving cops and mobsters in that setting such as Prince of the City?)

  31. I suspect The Shining, Alien, and Psycho can appeal to neurotics because they have a lot of psychological tension and trigger self-exploration. As opposed to jump scare or slasher movies. But that’s just a guess.

    It’s ironic that liberal film critics aren’t open-minded enough to realize their worldview is not the only legitimate way to look at things.

  32. Meanwhile, back in the real world, is there any truth to the rumor (that I’ve just started) that Biden’s first official act will be the purchase of Epstein’s Lolita Island to be the new Camp David?

  33. Film criticism is really easy.

    Good film: Life of Brian.

    Bad film: nearly all the others.

    Only genius of film: Buster Keaton.

    And there you have it.

  34. While we are talking about sports movies, if you are about my age (mid-60’s) try to convince me that Bang the Drum Slowly is not the best movie ever made about sports.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @Jimbo in OPKS

    But the guy who wrote it had a strange fixation on Richard Nixon. At one point (In IIRC the early 1960s) he confessed in print that he considered killing him while he was following him around as a journalist. A nutcase who thought Alger Hiss was innocent? It's a good thing he didn't live to see Trump the politician.

    , @J.Ross
    @Jimbo in OPKS

    This and I would also offer The Damned, United. Both are about the money-making aspect opposing the sport itself, with the first managing to justify grabbing as big a deal as you can, and the second advocating for a kind of anti-New England Patriot, pure, unadorned play, seeing how well you can do by yourself as opposed to seeing how well you can do with all the little modern helps.

  35. I always like those movies featuring one man going against the system or one man taking a stand, and Taxi Driver is indeed one of those movies as well as the original, “Death Wish” ( the only “Death Wish” that was even close to watchable), “Dirty Harry” ( the original and best of the bunch), “Serpico” with Al Pacino, “And Justice For All” with Pacino as well. We have a common theme here, one guy going against scum, corruption, the status quo. Like Travis Bickle said one man who wasn’t going to take it anymore. Even though the Billy Jack movies were anti-White to the core, I equate the Billy Jack character as sort of a leftist Dirty Harry. The original movie featuring the Billy Jack character, “The Born Losers” wasn’t so anti-White and I found it the most enjoyable. Watching it now, it is extremely dated and even laughable because of the dated dialogue, nonetheless I still watch it for the theme of the big heart loner vs. the corrupt world script.

  36. I’ve done a little pro book and movie reviewing and, back in my NYC media days, I knew a lot of pro reviewers. One thing I can testify: it takes a special kind of person to think that he/she deserves to be paid for expressing reactions to books and movies. A few were generally sensible people who were grateful to have a groovy gig, but most were fuckin weirdos.

    One thing that makes Steve’s pieces about books and movies valuable and enjoyable is the way he de-emphasizes the opinion-and-reaction dimension of reviewing and foregrounds instead reflections, issues, observations and information. He’s genuinely interested in other people and the larger world, and he wants to give readers material that other reviewers aren’t coming through with. Value added!

    In my own case, I was MUCH happier blogging about movies and books than I’d been publishing conventional reviews in pro outlets. The main reason was that as a blogger I could play a role that suited me: being a dinner host who’s setting off a conversation. Everybody join in! As a pro reviewer, you aren’t hosting a party, you’re more like someone at a podium addressing a passive audience, carrying on like a Big Brain and hoping to impress. I’d always been uneasy with that understanding. Why am I up here and why are you readers down there? Let’s circulate and compare notes instead. Opinions and reactions can be cool, but let’s treat ‘em not as ends in themselves but as the beginning of much more interesting conversations.

    • Thanks: vhrm, Abe
  37. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    If you don’t like Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Elephant Man or Mulholland Drive, you are simply stating you suffer from Low Openness. Those are great and also critically acclaimed films.

    • Agree: jamie b., fatmanscoop
    • LOL: BB753
  38. As an old market researcher turned movie reviewer, it has always seemed obvious to me that different kinds of people like different kinds of movies, and that that’s perfectly reasonable. This is not, however, a common view among film critics, most of whom became critics because they have strong views on which movies people should like.

    Roger Ebert agreed with your assessment. People always asked why he would give a thumbs up to a Steven Seagal movie, and he said he was not comparing it to Terms of Endearment, it was just that it delivered what it advertised it would and, for people who want to see that kind of movie, he felt that they would enjoy it.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    @Mike Zwick

    Ebert also praised to high heaven that awful film, "The Motorcycle Diaries," that glorified the communist murderer homosexual Che Guevara.

    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Zwick

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Mike Zwick

    A lot of weekly movie reviewing is just whether or not a movie "works." E.g., among Oliver Stone movies, "JFK," no matter what else you think about it, works as a movie in terms of rhythm, propulsion, and so forth. In contrast, "Alexander" doesn't much work. I got an uneasy feeling during the opening credits that "Alexander" wasn't going to be very good and it wasn't.

    Replies: @Mike Zwick

  39. I usually find that movies that are highly hyped are movies that I don’t care for. “The Shape of Water” is one recent example. Anything by Quentin Tarentino follows the same theme, blood porn and Spike Lee makes movies that I find to be unwatchable. I liked one movie by Guy Ritchie, “Snatch” and his first Sherlock Holmes movie was good, but then he turned out junk like “RocknRolla” and “The Gentlemen.” My opinion and no one pays me to watch movies and then write a review. I also never go to the movies, everything I watch is on TV.

    • Replies: @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey
    @Buffalo Joe

    "I usually find that movies that are highly hyped are movies that I don’t care for. “The Shape of Water” is one recent example. Anything by Quentin Tarentino follows the same theme, blood porn and Spike Lee makes movies that I find to be unwatchable"

    Yes. The opposite of what movie critics say is closer the truth.

    Spielberg

    Jurassic Park - mawkish dinosaur fancying
    Shark - mawkish shark fancying
    (Slave film) - mawkish numinous negro fancying
    Schindler - mawkish simple-minded slave morality - victims are lovely good humoured angels, Euros are all thuggish blonde brutes (same with Karate Kid tho don't think he did that)

    A lot of swarthy looking south Italians in movies are really rat surrogates. Lot of the famous ones - stallone , karate kid, Pacino are v semitic looking, prolly HG-J.

    Ireally hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    Replies: @Anonymouse

  40. @Steve Sailer
    Movies that appeal to African American women rank high in Conscientiousness. I suspect that has to do with blacks expressing their opinions less diffidently than other races.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @jamie b.

    Does this mean AA women rank high in conscientiousness? I confess I don’t see the connection with expressing opinions confidently.

    • Agree: Polistra
  41. @Peter Akuleyev
    Grand Budapest Hotel, much like the memoirs and stories of Stefan Zweig that inspired it, is putatively a liberal anti-fascist film, and of course Anderson has even added a "person of color" as a hero, Zero Moustafa (an arab-ish character played by a Guatemalan actor).

    Ironically though in today's "woke" climate the film reads more like a tribute to the glories of a now lost well-ordered European civilization, and is very harsh in its treatment of Soviet-style Communism in Central Europe. The Moustafa character is an assimilationist who adopts and cherishes the superior values of his European teacher, and does not go about preaching the glories of his shithole country.

    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best "conservative" cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven't caught on to that yet.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jtgw, @Abe

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI. I suppose it could in fact allude to the later Communist period after WWII but I don’t think the timeline works out (chronological gap too big).

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jtgw

    Those weren't border guards, they were cartoon Nazis ("ZZ" instead of "SS"). Interestingly, an accurate class element is left in, with a dirty twentieth-century morlock finally pummeling the degenerate fin de siecle eloi who had humiliated him.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    , @Abe
    @Jtgw


    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.
     
    One of the few (sole?) examples of the very thin veneer of intellectuality on the HOWARD STERN SHOW (like an inch-deep slick of mountain spring water atop a Great Lake-size accumulation of pond scum) was Howard’s frequent goofing on his own father for Stern Pere’s voluble fascination with the fact that WWII-era Hungary’s semi-fascist strongman leader was an admiral. An admiral! In famously landlocked Hungary!

    Yet to anyone with even a basic education the paradox quickly resolves itself. Hungary. Once Austria-Hungary. Encompassing Trieste, the Dalmatian Coast, and hundreds of miles of Blue Danube. It was of course in the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy where old Admiral Horthy made his bones, and so the impossibility quickly dissolves and in its place you find standing a mere absurdity. Absurd as the Hapsburg Empire itself, where German royals were constantly lecturing the Magyar nobility to ease up on THEIR ethnic chauvinism towards the Slavs lest the Empire burst apart over it (“Ja, Herr Attila-son. Try zum ov this diverzity, inkluzion, und ekquality. Die DIE.”)

    It was on one of these Hasburg riverine absurdities that Wittgenstein served out his first tour of duty during WWI. Yes, Wittgenstein the most playful, boyish, and therefore Wes Anderson-ish of all major 20th Century philosophers, patrolling the Vistula on the look-out for Cossacks all the while writing the first few chapters of TRACTATUS among shipmates so course and swinish he could barely hold down his disgust. Wittgenstein, rich as Midas in 1913 (his family fortune was such that his father would be the modern day equivalent of a Walton heir, if not- eventually- one of the Bezos kids), getting badgering letters from Cambridge University on his Viennese gunboat about that fellowship he had expressed interest in (not for him to receive, but for him to endow). Wittgenstein, the three-quarters Jewish German nationalist Cathlolic pietist who’d eventual give away his fortune to his brothers, three-quarters of whom would kill themselves.

    If Wes Anderson is not to be liquidated from Hollywood for the crimes of both whiteness and maleness (terms to be served consecutively, not concurrently) THIS is the movie he was born to make. The life aquatic. Everything-is-illuminated philosophizing. Funny-looking yet stylish Mitteleuropa clothes and headgear. GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST was a near-great film, but ultimately only a journeyman’s work compared to this masterpiece (a crazy mix of all his previous films plus APOCALYPSE NOW crossed with MY DINNER WITH ANDRE crossed with AGUIRRE WRATH OF GOD). Let GRAND HOTEL become his mere LED ZEPPELIN III.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jtgw

    I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.

    It does. The anti-Communist elements are more subtle, and are seen in the flash forwards in the 1960s and 1980s where you see the Moustafa character trying to keep the hotel alive in a drab decaying environment that is clearly Soviet style Socialism. It is quite likely that people who no longer remember the history of Central Europe don't make the connection.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Steve Sailer

  42. Steve has now wasted an incredible amount of time on movies, one of the main propaganda vectors of the enemy.

    a sign of the Boomer i’m afraid. one of several reasons that Boomers were doomed to lose the country to leftists. no matter how openly the left attacks Boomer America, Boomers just can’t quit television, movies, or pro sports leagues.

    Boomers WERE able to give up music, or at least current music, but that’s only because it’s normal for old people to stop paying attention to new music. well, they aren’t missing anything here at least.

  43. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    I find Lynch’s movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy’s defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway–many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn’t follow the plot, wasn’t sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn’t understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an “internet search”, which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else’s subjective reality. I don’t mean, ‘gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party’, I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person’s rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer’s perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist’s head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist’s view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie’s reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I’m generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don’t like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn’t seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    • Thanks: JMcG, Charlotte, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Kylie
    @SimpleSong

    I love Mulholland Drive. It's exactly like one of my dreams, only more visually beautiful. It's as if David Lynch got into my subconscious and said to me, "You know, this space has real potential. Let me spruce it up a little and I think you'll be really pleased with the result." It's the most personal (to me) and comfortable movie I've ever watched.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @JMcG

    , @Jasper Been
    @SimpleSong

    I first watched MD about 6 years ago. I was irritated that I couldn’t figure it out. Then I read some analysis and watched again a couple weeks ago. It’s great once you understand what’s really going on. I would guess even the most astute among us would not be able to figure it out the first time around. I would recommend it to others!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux

    , @Thoughts
    @SimpleSong

    The only thing I remember about Mulholland Drive was someone (or herself) cupping Naomi Watts white titty

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @SaneClownPosse
    @SimpleSong

    Speaking of Mulholland, "Mulholland Falls" is interesting.

    Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @SimpleSong

    It is interesting how people differ....

    That's what I wrote about Twin Peaks, but is more about Lynch.

    Lynch is fascinated by style & he is good at it. But, there is not much substance in his work. I am not saying he is “shallow”; he is a creative stylist, so to speak. But not more, I guess. Even a clumsier director like Woody Allen has a world-view which can be articulated; Lynch does not have one.

    I think that Lynch cannot be categorized along conservative & liberal lines. He is a visual artist, in this genre- and yet, he doesn’t possess a developed national consciousness. He’s socio-culturally dumb.

    He’s a rootless cosmopolitan, whether one likes it or not. Let me repeat-his work cannot be dissociated, completely, from his life. And he is a lifelong practitioner of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation. I’ve been initiated into TM when I was in my early 20’s, practiced it for 3-4 months, had very good experiences (positive altered states of consciousness etc.), and dropped it soon after I realized it’s just a diluted neo-Vedanta with added quantum mysticism mumbo-jumbo plus fakery. Basically, they sell mantras or sacred words for meditation. The story is that you get some special mantra, a word to repeat when meditating, and that mantra is specifically designed to match your psycho-spiritual profile.

    So far, so good.

    But- it’s all fake. I’ve gotten a list of mantras, and have found mine. These are just names of Hindu gods categorized into time segments of two years: you’ll get one mantra if you are initiated when you’re in the 17-19 years old category; another if you are 20-22 & so on. Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

    Plus, there are genuine wisdom traditions operating with images, sounds, breathing,.. (Hermetism, Christian contemplative traditions, Sufism, Taoism, Kabbalah, ancient Greek traditions, Buddhism, Vedanta, …) that make TM basically a joke.

    And Lynch has stuck, uncritically, with TM for decades. If I appreciate him as a visual artist/fantasist- how can I take him seriously if he has shown to be so uncritical in one significant matter which colored all his life? Or his attitude towards cultural & historical traditions of his own country?

    I don’t expect filmmakers to be thinkers, but if we discuss Lynch’s case, my position is that he just doesn’t have a cognitive ability to see what’s right & what’s wrong re some social, cultural, let alone existential crucial issues.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Etruscan Film Star

    , @Steve Sailer
    @SimpleSong

    Well said. "Mulholland Drive" is a movie that sticks in your mind, in part for innate reasons, in part because it tends to stick in the mind of other articulate people, so they cite it a lot.

    , @fatmanscoop
    @SimpleSong


    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I’m generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don’t like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn’t seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.
     

    I love that film so much, and definitely the best work of art i've ever experienced. it describes the misery of unreciprocated obsession/love so vividly. It's such an unusual emotion to concentrate on. Absolutely outstanding and should be recommended to everyone
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @SimpleSong

    "That is, you see a person’s rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up."

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel - viz: the unreliable narrator. It's a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too, ba-dum tzzzz.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Peter Akuleyev

  44. @Steve Sailer
    Movies that appeal to African American women rank high in Conscientiousness. I suspect that has to do with blacks expressing their opinions less diffidently than other races.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @jamie b.

    …blacks expressing their opinions less diffidently…

    It’s always been my experience that blacks are extremely consensus-driven within their in-groups.

  45. I have a fondness for sleazy, badly-dubbed Indonesian action movies:

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Stan Adams

    Best of the Worst: Lady Terminator, Lost in Dinosaur World, and Low Blow
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPfamikeU3E


    Colin from Canada joins the gang to watch a terminator film, a film about a theme park filled with dinosaurs, and a movie where an old man punches people.
     
    , @dfordoom
    @Stan Adams


    I have a fondness for sleazy, badly-dubbed Indonesian action movies:
     
    Lady Terminator is awesome. "First she mates, then she terminates."

    I've seen half a dozen Indonesian movies. Fabulous stuff. Mystics in Bali (which despite the title is a horror movie) is an absolute must-see movie.
  46. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    …I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    This is either asking to prove that Lynch is objectively unwatchable, or that you personally don’t actually find him unwatchable. Neither request is reasonable.

    AAR, these sort of negative comments about weird or surreal things always make me think of a teen girl revealing the astonishing fact that she doesn’t like spiders.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @jamie b.

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch's movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @jamie b., @anon, @Peter Akuleyev

  47. The thing is, re: movies on the list for high agreeableness, and other high traits, most if not all of the films on the list did not perform spectacularly at the box office. If they’re all that regarding desirable traits/characteristics, then why didn’t they find a mass audience? Why were many of them flops?

    Someone should create a list of high/low traits of movies that actually, you know, turned a massive profit. I’ve never quite understood how such critically acclaimed and award winning directors have created works where the majority of them have not turned a decent profit, much less have scored a box office credible smash hit.

    Example: An art house hit that was critically acclaimed and actually, you know, did do well at the box office, Joker. Where would that film rank on the list of high/low traits? I would also ask Steve, where would the globally successful DC & Marvel franchise films rank/place on these lists?

    Sometimes it is best to examine the films that actually have had an audience and didn’t tank, or at least were smash hits during the years of their original release.

    Unless it comes down to “You can study Shakespeare and be quite elite, and you can charm the critics and have nothing to eat.”

    “The Public is never wrong”–Paramount head (during Hollywood’s golden age) Adolph Zukor

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The Top and Bottom 10 lists tend to be movies that polarized audiences, although that includes in the sense of not going to see them. E.g., Aronofsky's "Pi" about a math genius who may have discovered a secret to the universe desired by Wall Street and ultra-orthodox kabbalist Jews has mostly only been seen by above average IQ males who like math. It's well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was "interesting" but wouldn't go out of the way to Like it on Facebook.

    Huge hit movies tend to appeal more broadly: e.g., Gone With the Wind is a women's movie, but features leading man legend Rhett Butler in his most famous role. Titanic was a women's movie, but it also revealed that Leonardo DiCaprio, who had seemed like a teenybopper pretty boy, was going to be a major movie star in guy movies.

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Anonymous
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Part of makes it difficult to create a great movie is that it has to be unique enough for the public to find it compelling. After it has been done once everything after that is derivative. So you are not too much looking for the formula but looking to break the formula, at least enough to trigger the appropriate dose of dopamine etc.

    https://youtu.be/6zpvlMp04D0

    The other thing to remember is that after 30-50 years the classics can be given a retread in some cases, much like magazine content, and no one cares enough that it impacts the bottom line. See Joker.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  48. One way I measure a movie is how long I continue thinking about it afterwards. Some movies leave absolutely no impact and I forget about them as soon as I am done watching (which sometimes is before the end). Other movies stay with me for a few days, like a sun tan. The most impactful ones leave something permanent.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Prof. Woland

    Well, by that measure Calvary, which had Brendan Gleason in the lead role, is the movie which I’ve given the most thought to over the years. I’m still not sure what to make of it. Local Hero is my favorite movie though.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

  49. I consider myself fairly extroverted, but I must have a strong internal dimensional because I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki’s Delivery Service, but when you’re first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke and you and your friend spend an entire hour watching it before realizing yes, this movie really is just about a young girl and her delivery service when you were expecting a rip-roaring, and psychologically and culturally deep experience, it’s a bit of a let down) and I haven’t even heard of the extroverted list.

    Major Wes Anderson fan…but I’ve watched Dredd, the 13th Warrior, and Monster Squad so many times…

    • Replies: @Half Canadian
    @Boomthorkell

    Kiki was my first Ghibli film. It looked like a cute film my young children (3 & 4) would enjoy. I was impressed with the point of conflict being solely internal rather than having external elements.

    I agree that Spirited Away and Mononoke are better films, but I still love Kiki.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    , @dfordoom
    @Boomthorkell


    I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki’s Delivery Service, but when you’re first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke
     
    I adored Spirited Away and Kiki’s Delivery Service, and also Porco Rosso. But I loathed Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. When Miyazaki gets preachy he really gets preachy! And I don't react well to preachy movies.

    I'm a huge anime fan but I guess my tastes run more to the darker sort of anime. I'm besotted by the whole Ghost in the Shell franchise (although I haven't seen the American remake and don't intend to).

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Boomthorkell

    Spirited away and Castle Cagliostro (and maybe Totoro) were the only gibli films that felt finished, the rest all mostly felt like longwinded excuses to show off visual setpieces with an often nonsensical story tacked on.

    Take Howl's moving castle for example, there's some great visuals and interesting concepts but for most of the film the antagonist isn't clear, the subplot of him "swallowing a star" just didn't make sense or have any relevance overall, and the ending was a pretty absurd deus ex machina. Likewise Nausica and Mononoke started off impressively but end up not making much sense at all by the halfway point, have unfinished plot threads and have pretty childish and weak "morals".

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

  50. I speak as someone who is neurotic, less agreeable, and introverted. Conducting studies like this might help researchers stay away from drugs and off-brand sex to compensate for their meaningless lives. Might.

  51. There’s a subgroup of the population that isn’t much taken with movies in general. It includes several members of my family.

    It would be interesting to know the size of that subgroup and whether its members share any personality characteristics.

    Does anyone know of any research?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @odin

    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  52. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    I love Mulholland Drive. It’s exactly like one of my dreams, only more visually beautiful. It’s as if David Lynch got into my subconscious and said to me, “You know, this space has real potential. Let me spruce it up a little and I think you’ll be really pleased with the result.” It’s the most personal (to me) and comfortable movie I’ve ever watched.

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Kylie

    Exactly, the plot has the logic of a dream, both a literal dream (like REM sleep) but also a metaphorical dream or aspiration.

    , @JMcG
    @Kylie

    That comment makes me want to watch it again. Really well done. Thank you!

    Replies: @Kylie

  53. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    I first watched MD about 6 years ago. I was irritated that I couldn’t figure it out. Then I read some analysis and watched again a couple weeks ago. It’s great once you understand what’s really going on. I would guess even the most astute among us would not be able to figure it out the first time around. I would recommend it to others!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jasper Been

    The story behind "Mulholland Drive" is that David Lynch signed with ABC to do a TV series. He delivered a TV movie to kick it off, but it seemed to ABC executives so self-indulgently nonsensical that they opted out of the subsequent TV series. Lynch responded constructively to this career setback: he took the TV movie footage, cut it down, made it into the first hour of the feature film MD, and then wrote a new second hour to (sort of) make sense of the first hour.

    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch's ideal ratio.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @syonredux

    , @syonredux
    @Jasper Been

    RE: Mulholland Drive,

    Try watching it back-to-back with Lynch's favorite film, The Wizard of Oz.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  54. The OCEAN model of personality asserts that there are five main dimensions:

    The OCEAN model of personality is a spook project. I presume they aren’t paying you anything. Giving them free promotional space is not a great idea.

    My favorite bit is from Timothy Leary who claimed (he told many baloney bits) that when they locked him up in Vacaville they gave him a personality test to help determine how to manage his incarceration and he tested as a model prisoner because he had actually written the test back when he was at Harvard.

  55. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    The only thing I remember about Mulholland Drive was someone (or herself) cupping Naomi Watts white titty

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling. There was nothing more to it than that.

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Thoughts

    The only thing I remember about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was Eve's white titties when she was kicked out of the Garden.

    The ceiling was nothing more than an excuse for some realistic T&A. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Buffalo Joe

    , @jamie b.
    @Thoughts

    Funny, I don't remember that at all. Probably says more about you than the movie. For almost all other humans who saw the movie, this scene probably stands out...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o

    Replies: @jamie b.

    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Thoughts


    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling.
     
    Similarly, I've always felt that Blue is the Warmest Colour is largely an excuse to see if it was possible to put some hardcore lipstick lesbian scenes in art house theaters.
  56. I was a little surprised that the “Openness” factor predicted my tastes so successfully. Among the top ten for “Openness”, I’ve seen (and generally liked, in some cases loved) eight of them (PI, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, and MULHOLLAND DRIVE I actually went to see at the cinema). Whereas I’ve never seen any of the bottom ten for “Openness”. And would actively choose to avoid nearly all those films (except for a couple that I don’t know anything about).

  57. @Kylie
    @SimpleSong

    I love Mulholland Drive. It's exactly like one of my dreams, only more visually beautiful. It's as if David Lynch got into my subconscious and said to me, "You know, this space has real potential. Let me spruce it up a little and I think you'll be really pleased with the result." It's the most personal (to me) and comfortable movie I've ever watched.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @JMcG

    Exactly, the plot has the logic of a dream, both a literal dream (like REM sleep) but also a metaphorical dream or aspiration.

  58. Here’s a question for anyone familiar with the OCEAN system of characterizing someone’s personality by their rating in five traits: Are there any personality traits that are not closely correlated with these five? For example, let’s consider Religiosity, that is, the degree to which religion is important in a person’s life. Is this trait R decomposable into the other five traits by some formula like
    R = 3O – 2.5C + .7E -2A + .1N ? If R is independent of all the other traits, a person’s personality profile would be less maritime and more ocular: the six CORNEA traits.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    OCEAN isn't any mysterious master key to the universe. It's just when you give personality quizzes to Westerners,they are the first five factors that usually tend to emerge from factor analysis. But there are other dimensions that are also useful. You could use more or fewer dimensions, depending on your splitter vs. lumper needs. Five dimensions is just a reasonable compromise. I don't believe there was some Freud-like prophet pushing OCEAN, it was more like a whole bunch of empirical psychologists argued over a couple of decades and eventually a consensus emerged that these five factors were a pretty good compromise of splitting and lumping. But 50 years from now psych majors might learn a 3 or 7 factor model.

    Other models have been suggested, such as OCEAN + IQ. "Pi" might turn out to be less weighted on Openness if you included IQ in a 6 factor model. I'm guessing "Mulholland Drive" would still rank high on Openness in a 6 factor model including IQ.

  59. The new imprimatur of truth is the same as the old — censorship.
    From the new news aggregator feature:
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/11/27/johns-hopkins-study-saying-covid-19-has-relatively-no-effect-on-deaths-in-u-s-deleted-after-publication-n1178930

    The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”
    Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.

    This was a political power grab and not a plague.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  60. @Peter Akuleyev
    Grand Budapest Hotel, much like the memoirs and stories of Stefan Zweig that inspired it, is putatively a liberal anti-fascist film, and of course Anderson has even added a "person of color" as a hero, Zero Moustafa (an arab-ish character played by a Guatemalan actor).

    Ironically though in today's "woke" climate the film reads more like a tribute to the glories of a now lost well-ordered European civilization, and is very harsh in its treatment of Soviet-style Communism in Central Europe. The Moustafa character is an assimilationist who adopts and cherishes the superior values of his European teacher, and does not go about preaching the glories of his shithole country.

    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best "conservative" cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven't caught on to that yet.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jtgw, @Abe

    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best “conservative” cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven’t caught on to that

    I check Amazon at least a couple times a week for coveted Kindle“cheapies”- prestigious books I’ve always wanted to own but never have on the off chance they might be heavily marked down according to Amazon’s inscrutable pricing algorithms- snatched up GRAVITY’S RAINBOW this year for only $3.99- yeah!

    Anyway, during my many browsings I’ve noticed the hate-the-smart-sensitive white guy coefficient going through the roof lately. For example, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has a new novel out called ANT KIND. As you may recall Kauffman, during his late-90’s through mid-00’s hot streak of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, & ADAPTATION, was pretty much the STUFF WHITE PEOPLE LIKE “It Boy”, part of a sort of self-congratulatory hipster Holy Trinity circle jerk along with the likes of Spike Jonez and Bansky.

    While Kauffman was never quite my cup of tea (as with Wes Anderson, there is too much self-willed “wow, this is clever and ambitious so I’m going to force myself to delight in it”, rather than actual- you know- spontaneous, feelings of delight) I certainly appreciate his great talent. So I was reading the reviews of ANT KIND to see if this was something I’d want to buy eventually and- gosh- very first review I read the customer-reader is sneering about what a piece of postmodernist white male navel gazing this is. Seen like hate on recent reviews of Rick Moody, David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen books as well.

    These guys were culture heroes a decade ago, aesthetically and politically impeccable I’m sure, but the era of the great white male hero, even in the mode of great white rebel against his great white father, is so over and problematic. White guys must now be “allies”, which means standing at the back of the room silently until asked to go fetch coffee.

    Anderson’s works, which if I could assign a single meaning to I’d say represent a sort of collective dreamscape for smart, sensitive, talented white boys rejoicing in this amazing Earth and all that is of interest in it- is the sort of primordial ooze out of which every once in a while an Elon Musk is made. That is why very soon Wes Anderson will have to be destroyed.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Abe

    SWPLs and SJWs have increasingly less and less overlap.

    Replies: @Jtgw

  61. @Jtgw
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI. I suppose it could in fact allude to the later Communist period after WWII but I don’t think the timeline works out (chronological gap too big).

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Abe, @Peter Akuleyev

    Those weren’t border guards, they were cartoon Nazis (“ZZ” instead of “SS”). Interestingly, an accurate class element is left in, with a dirty twentieth-century morlock finally pummeling the degenerate fin de siecle eloi who had humiliated him.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @J.Ross

    Well in any event you confirm my understanding that he was referring to the interwar nationalist-fascist period, not Communism.

  62. @Buffalo Joe
    I usually find that movies that are highly hyped are movies that I don't care for. "The Shape of Water" is one recent example. Anything by Quentin Tarentino follows the same theme, blood porn and Spike Lee makes movies that I find to be unwatchable. I liked one movie by Guy Ritchie, "Snatch" and his first Sherlock Holmes movie was good, but then he turned out junk like "RocknRolla" and "The Gentlemen." My opinion and no one pays me to watch movies and then write a review. I also never go to the movies, everything I watch is on TV.

    Replies: @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey

    “I usually find that movies that are highly hyped are movies that I don’t care for. “The Shape of Water” is one recent example. Anything by Quentin Tarentino follows the same theme, blood porn and Spike Lee makes movies that I find to be unwatchable”

    Yes. The opposite of what movie critics say is closer the truth.

    Spielberg

    Jurassic Park – mawkish dinosaur fancying
    Shark – mawkish shark fancying
    (Slave film) – mawkish numinous negro fancying
    Schindler – mawkish simple-minded slave morality – victims are lovely good humoured angels, Euros are all thuggish blonde brutes (same with Karate Kid tho don’t think he did that)

    A lot of swarthy looking south Italians in movies are really rat surrogates. Lot of the famous ones – stallone , karate kid, Pacino are v semitic looking, prolly HG-J.

    Ireally hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey

    >I really hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    Come on! Streep was radiant in The Deer Hunter. How 'bout as the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg in Mike Nichols directed Angels in America? I grant that she has been in a good many crappy movies. But so has Di Nero. So who is the best American actor? Possibly Leonardo di Caprio although his aging face has betrayed him.

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

  63. @Almost Missouri
    That table of correlations ("Supplementary Figure 1") has a bunch of unintentionally interesting pairings. For example,

    • The longer, bigger budget, or newer a movie, the less that people in relationships like it, perhaps suggesting they have better things to do.

    • People in relationships also skew heavily more open, neurotic, old and female. This may confirm the impression that Facebook is mainly anxious married women having whatever is the female equivalent of d**k-measuring contests.

    • People not in relationships are younger, more male, more conscientious, and like movies more. So maybe a secondary Facebook demographic well-meaning young loners caught in a web of social media and confected Hollywood reality.

    • Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?

    • Movie rating correlates well with runtime. Is this a case of Ben Franklin's advice that to get someone to like you, make them do you a favor: after donating so much of your time to watching that movie, you have to justify that it was good?

    • There is a strong correlation between the recency of the movie and the size of the budget. This may be a sign of the approaching Blockbuster Singularity, or (more likely) it is just currency inflation.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Steve Sailer

    They’re all Facebook people though, right?
    That pretty much makes it useless for me.

    Also, when did “extrovert” become “extravert”? Seems weird.
    Has “introvert” likewise become “intravert”? Also weird.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @Polistra


    Also, when did “extrovert” become “extravert”? Seems weird.
    Has “introvert” likewise become “intravert”? Also weird.
     
    And very cis-sexist. Should be intrxvert and extrxvert.
  64. I used to love movies but now I hate them.

    Looking back….I can clearly see how movies and popular music (as well as a liberal arts education) had a HUGE impact on my psyche and thought process. At one time I was actually a virtue signaling liberal and I spouted whatever narrative the media was feeding me at the time.

    In fact I am extremely embarrassed as to how much the media had control of my mind….the power of the media is astonishing.

    Now if I see a film that I used to love, I will see glaring anti-white/anti-Christian/pro-gay themes throughout.

    As a kid I thought The Graduate” was cool….it’s garbage. I liked “Midnight Cowboy.” Garbage.
    I loved Deniro….a human piece of garbage.

    Hard to think of movies that held up for me. I still like “Shrek” and “The Lion King.”
    I love the old standards like “The Wizard of Oz” and “It’s A Wonderful Life.”

    I quit going to movies about the time they started making those ultra-horror serial killer garbage movies and “Brokeback Mountain.” That’s when they really jumped the shark.

    I’ve mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved’s “Hollywood vs. America.” It’s a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    • Agree: Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Robert Dolan


    I loved Deniro….a human piece of garbage...



    I’ve mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved’s “Hollywood vs. America.” It’s a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

     

    Medved said he could understand the appeal of nudity and violence to audiences, even if he didn't share them. But he couldn't imagine anyone ever walked out of a movie complaining that there wasn't enough swearing.

    I think he included DeNiro along with Joe Pesci as actors who inserted their own cussing when it wasn't in the script.

    Ad-libs have sure gone downhill since Orson Welles slipped the cuckoo clock into Graham Greene's lines.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cydkTy6GmFA&t=6s
    , @Marty
    @Robert Dolan

    Finally, someone who echoes my long-standing hate for both Graduate and MC. Thought I was weird.

    , @James Braxton
    @Robert Dolan

    You would probably like Barcelona. It contains a takedown of the Graduate that will make you say amen.

    , @Sebastian Max
    @Robert Dolan

    The Graduate is a very subversive film that typifies the hostility of Hollywood Jewry towards WASP culture.

    You're not alone in being entranced - it was an innovative film and certainly captivated the public when it released, but I doubt that many people back then, aside from academics, film students, and the occasional free thinker, could have articulated very eloquently how it functioned subversively.

  65. God, what a bunch of utter “statistical” claptrap. Just a bunch of numbers and words cobbled together. Yeah, psychology is a “science.” Like your ass is a science.

    The message of Looking for Mr. Goodbar is “Don’t quit being a slut or some closeted homosexual will kill you.”

    The message of American History X is “Don’t quit being a Nazi or some black guy will kill you.”

    Most viewers of Archie Bunker thought he was right. Which goes along with the plan. Such “liberal” TV shows are put on by such “liberals” in order to further define and concentrate and refine mostly non-existent differences between us so that we can more avidly fight with each other over these differences–instead of fighting against them.

  66. @Thoughts
    @SimpleSong

    The only thing I remember about Mulholland Drive was someone (or herself) cupping Naomi Watts white titty

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @The Wild Geese Howard

    The only thing I remember about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was Eve’s white titties when she was kicked out of the Garden.

    The ceiling was nothing more than an excuse for some realistic T&A. There was nothing more to it than that.

    • Agree: jamie b.
    • LOL: JMcG
    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
    @SimpleSong

    Bro, check out the knockers on this Venus chick. I was at the Uffizi and thought I was at a dang titty bar.

    https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/birth-of-venus

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @SimpleSong

    Simple, one of the funniest comments ever here at iSteve.

  67. Science today leaves much to be desired.
    They seem to only “prove” what they want to hear nowadays.

    The pretentiousness of PC is sickening to behold.
    An inversion of morality portrayed as some sort of new “piety”.

    Much like hypocrites of the past, these new “moralists” do not follow their “principles”.
    They do not “tolerate” any diversion from their “pieties”.

    Movies no longer are made for audiences to actually enjoy.
    Much like television, they are programming for the gullible.

    Not getting with the program is a GOOD THING.
    The inverted morality makes all things normal a “phobia”.
    It makes all things aberrant and abnormal a “right”.

  68. Or, as The Last Psychiatrist said, “If you’re watching it, it’s for you.”

    https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

    It’s a pity he stopped blogging. I miss his insights.

  69. My personal favorite movies

    Vertigo
    Raging Bull
    Godfather I
    Godfather II
    Umbrellas of Cherbourg
    Brooklyn
    Wild Strawberries
    2001
    Slap Shot
    Hud
    The Dead
    Age of Innocence
    Goodfellas
    Roman Holiday
    The Third Man
    Dr Strangelove
    Barry Lyndon
    La Strada
    The Entertainer
    War and Peace (Bondarchuk version 1968)
    Phantom Thread
    Ladybird
    Casablanca
    America, America
    The Last Picture Show
    Paper Moon
    The Cat’s Meow
    Tender Mercies
    Knight of Cups
    Tree of Life
    Metropolitan
    The Last Days of Disco
    Excalibur
    Play Misty for Me
    History of the World Part I
    Spaceballs
    The Big Libowski
    O Brother, Where Art Thou
    Burn After Reading
    This is Spinal Tap
    Best In Show
    Waiting for Guffman
    Chinatown
    The Last Detail
    Five Easy Pieces
    One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
    The Great Santini
    This Boy’s Life
    A River Runs Through It
    The River
    Room With a View
    A Streetcar Named Desire
    Last Temptation of Christ
    Kundun
    Dersu Uzala
    Zorba the Greek
    Spartacus
    Ben Hur
    Tom Jones
    Dr Zhivago
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Satyricon
    Juliette of the Spirits
    The Leopard
    Zulu
    The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
    Night of the Iguana
    The Seventh Seal
    Black Narcisus
    The Red Shoes
    In the Name of the Father
    Blackhawk Down
    Gladiator
    Two Lovers
    Master and Commander
    One-Eyed Jacks
    She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
    Rio Grand
    Ray
    Walk the Line
    The Talented Mr Ripley
    American Hustle
    That Thing You Do
    Meet the Fockers
    Casino
    The Aviator
    L.A. Confidential
    Black Swan

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Single malt

    There is a MORE feature here so your posts don't take up too much space. You should learn to avail yourself of it.

    , @Etruscan Film Star
    @Single malt

    Thanks for your list making. Ask me if I care. No, better not.

    Are you a "tweenager"?

    Replies: @Single malt

    , @john cronk
    @Single malt

    Some of my favorites:
    Manhattan Murder Mystery
    Wheelman
    The Reader
    The Object of Beauty
    The Triplets of Belleville
    4 Month, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
    Scenes From the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills
    Local Hero
    The Death of Mr. Lazarescu
    My Dinner with Andre
    The Guard
    Black Sabbath
    The Grey Zone
    Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
    Repo Man
    Eating Raoul
    Pandora's Promise
    Numb
    Two Lovers and a Bear
    A Most Violent Year
    When Day Breaks
    Remember
    The Girl with All the Gifts
    The Dead Room
    Backtrack Movie
    The Trip
    The Evil Dead
    The Wild Pear Tree
    EVA La Pelicula
    Burn After Reading
    Finding Vivian Maier
    Backcountry
    The Orphanage
    The Canal
    The Artist and the Model

  70. @songbird
    I was just thinking about this the other day: who do these "dark comedies" appeal to? I don't mean the ones with a lot humor, or that contain strong fantasy elements, like supernatural stuff. I mean the more down-to-earth ones that just seem to be about serial killers, like Heathers (1989), the German movie Funny Games (1997), or Better Watch Out (2017).

    Regarding Asian films: Korean and Chinese movies have censors. Sometimes you wouldn't know it, but they are there protecting the morals of the youth. I bet if you went back to when the Hays Code was actually enforced, Hollywood movies would similarly became less affected by openness. Though, I am not sure Japanese films have strong censorship, and I definitely get a unique impression from them. Like, they either have more shy characters, or are just better at depicting shyness. Maybe, it is just something more relevant to animation.

    I've often thought that good censors would have certain traits which are missing from creative types - more impulse control, greater sense of disgust.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki

    I mean the more down-to-earth ones that just seem to be about serial killers, like Heathers (1989), the German movie Funny Games (1997)

    At least among people who have bothered to formulate an opinion on this question at all, I suspect you are one of the very few people who would characterize HEATHERS and FUNNY GAMES as being part of the same genre. FUNNY GAMES is typically regarded as a horror film. No one regards HEATHERS as a horror film.

  71. @Mike Zwick

    As an old market researcher turned movie reviewer, it has always seemed obvious to me that different kinds of people like different kinds of movies, and that that’s perfectly reasonable. This is not, however, a common view among film critics, most of whom became critics because they have strong views on which movies people should like.
     
    Roger Ebert agreed with your assessment. People always asked why he would give a thumbs up to a Steven Seagal movie, and he said he was not comparing it to Terms of Endearment, it was just that it delivered what it advertised it would and, for people who want to see that kind of movie, he felt that they would enjoy it.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Steve Sailer

    Ebert also praised to high heaven that awful film, “The Motorcycle Diaries,” that glorified the communist murderer homosexual Che Guevara.

    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Robert Dolan


    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

     

    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.

    Ebert was a mad Kraut from a college town. An altar boy-gone-bad. A lot of that going around.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Mike Zwick
    @Robert Dolan

    Good thing he only reviewed movies!

  72. This is huge news if true. Over 1 million fraudulent Biden votes in PA.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @anonymous

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332559770461609985

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332567772291883009

    Replies: @anonymous, @J.Ross

  73. @jamie b.
    @BB753


    ...I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.
     
    This is either asking to prove that Lynch is objectively unwatchable, or that you personally don't actually find him unwatchable. Neither request is reasonable.

    AAR, these sort of negative comments about weird or surreal things always make me think of a teen girl revealing the astonishing fact that she doesn't like spiders.

    Replies: @BB753

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @BB753

    No. But he is an authentic visual fantasist with a shallow world-view. To say it in an old-fashioned way, his soul doesn't weight much. But, he can be entertaining if you have enough of real life & want to relax with visual firecrackers & a mix of the sentimental & the unexpected.

    , @jamie b.
    @BB753

    "Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable..."

    Yes!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD6vm2HWK2s

    As well as grotesque...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztmuNDfBYQ

    ..and terrifying...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o

    ....and beautiful...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id75c8HGAxw

    ...and touching.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjeCNnbVYAQ

    "...coherent..."

    Nope. Not at all. Is that a bad thing?

    "...and absolutely not pretentious."

    Quite the opposite: his stuff comes across as folksy and heartfelt, just like Lynch himself. Surreal, to be sure, and his dialog always comes across as weirdly stilted, but I can hardly imagine how anyone can see it as 'pretentious.'

    Replies: @BB753

    , @anon
    @BB753

    Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    That's not a question.
    Are you unhappy that others do not share your tastes in entertainment?

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @BB753

    I will say this. All his films will make much more sense on second or third viewing. I didn't think much of Lost Highway the first time, but recently rewatched it and discovered it makes more sense than you think, and is also pretty funny.

    Lynch is not pretentious. He is not trying to prove his superior intellect, appeal to viewers who have degrees in comparative literature, or make people feel stupid. He is basically trying to tell stories according to dream logic, which for whatever reason seems to appeal to him. It is quite possible for an intelligent high school graduate to enjoy most Lynch movies if they are open to a different way of story-telling.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  74. Mostly these are films that appeal to fans of the director but not as much to outsiders, although Mulholland Drive is probably peak David Lynch.

    Definitely agree that it is. After that, Inland Empire is endless and full of all the noir cliches. He can’t even seem to resist ‘prostitutes in Pomona’, and still trying to ‘demystify’ Los Angeles, when that helicopter in bright, cold air hovering above the HOLLYWOOD sign seems to already do that, as well as explain and declaim that that’s why and where noir came to be, and is the only great location for that genre. But I think it was the apotheosis of noir and that it now is basically non-existent. The Black Dahlia proved that (for me, at least; I thought it was awful, but then I think all the adaptations of Ellroy’s novels are bad. He’s one of the few novelists who don’t seem to care if their work is twisted and torn apart.)

    The earlier ones were often good, as Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Lost Highway, but MD is surely his best. He’s sort of a cult, though, I’m not in it. But not as bad as Tarantino, all of whose movies I despise–but that’s just me.

  75. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Speaking of Mulholland, “Mulholland Falls” is interesting.

    • Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS
    @SaneClownPosse

    Yes! Jennifer Connolly pre breast reduction is worth the ticket price alone. Plus Nick Nolte playing Nick Nolte like no one can.

  76. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @BB753

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @theMann, @Polynikes, @dfordoom

    What!? To each their own I suppose. The scene where Gene Hackman argues with Danny Glover is a riot.

  77. I found this essay of Steve’s incomprehensible. I wonder what percentage of his readers understood the argument much less the charts. The charts sport undefined labels. ROI what is that? Or log gross or log budget.

    Discussions of overt and implied meanings in ambitious dramatic movies are interesting to me and others in this forum. Why should we care that movies that move us and leave lasting traces in our memories are not much liked by children or football game enthousiasts or the hoi polloi in general? High brow reviews (the best IMO are those of Variety Magazine) are usually useful in picking movies to watch.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anonymouse

    Basically, it is the old stuff: tell me what you like, and I'll tell you what kind of person you are.

    Just, it doesn't work that way.

    And it is not worth the trouble:

    a) person's predilections change over time

    b) there are too many social/cultural/aesthetic/taboo/...elements that influence out viewing of a film. So, you may enjoy a film that is, basically, not "real you", but are temporarily zombified, robotized.

    The big 5 are not very scientific; a study conducted 4-8 years ago among Indians somewhere in Central America has shown that they cannot be assessed by OCEAN tests. In short, this test is not universally applicable to all humans.

    And, as I've said- it is purely constructed, without any solid ideas of human personality. Agreeableness is another world for conformism. For instance, a promising test by Roberto Assagioli- which has theoretical structure behind it- cannot be "translated" or interpreted by OCEAN, as Universal wave function or Pilot wave interpretation of QM can be analyzed through standard Copenhagen.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11089-017-0753-5


    Without tests, we know what kind of people watches martial arts films; or rom-coms; or spy-thrillers; or drama films; or comedies; or sci fi technically interesting films; or horrors; or slashers; or westerns; or political films; or ...

    Anyway, I'd been liking it all.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymouse

    ROI is Return on Investment

    Log gross is the log of the North American box office gross receipts: e.g., $1 million, $10 million, $100 million, $1 billion.

    Log budget is the same for the production budget.

    RoI is calculated from gross minus budget.

    The 58 page paper is available for free at the link I included in my post.

  78. I don’t buy it.

    1. the big 5 is a personality test not universally accepted (there is none, as far as I know). But, the weakest thing about OCEAN is that it has no theory of psyche or personality behind it. It is just semi-empirically concocted test.

    2. we just don’t know what random people will like when it comes to experience (movies, music, sport, literature,..). If we test a random person, I am certain we will not know whether that person would like or dislike certain types of movies, let alone specific films.

    Tastes differ, and I don’t think there is a reliable way to predict anything. Moreover, cultural codes may make many films absolutely incomprehensible to viewers. For instance, most Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus… will not understand Christian-themed movie like Russian masterpiece “The Island” (nor most secular Westerners).

    Even those who understand it, will object to some aspects of it. A friend of mine, who belongs to an Orthodox family but has converted to a very liberal version of Islamic Sufism, perceived the film as a great artistic & spiritual achievement, but objected that main character’s internal suffering was “too much” because God is more loving than wrathful. So, in his view- because he is essentially healthy-minded – the protagonist’s suffering was a bit morbid & too masochistically self-flagellating.

    My response-which he understood & accepted- was that we do not react to the world according to formulas, or even according to our general world-view, but that dominant trends of our psyches’ unconscious make us feel & behave this- and not that way. Psychic energies are not reducible to some arithmetic of our crystallized world-view (if we have one).

    The same could be said about reception of other forms of art/amusement. Why did Tolstoy so completely dismiss Shakespeare? Why was Gyorgy Lukacs so wrong in his assessment of Solzhenitsyn, whom he considered to be a pinnacle of Socialist Realism?

    Why do many “artistic” people find Chantal Akerman’s films liberating? Why does Jonathan Rosenbaum adore Welles & Kiarostami, and denigrates Bergman & Kieslowski?

    There are no answers to these questions.

    Personally, I’ve found most films too schematic to watch them anymore. I’ve ceased reading science fiction when I was 25, and high imaginative literature when I was 36. Now, I don’t watch movies anymore, just parts of them- I find them a waste of time.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Bardon Kaldian

    "But, the weakest thing about OCEAN is that it has no theory of psyche or personality behind it. It is just semi-empirically concocted test."

    Or maybe that's an advantage. OCEAN didn't emerge out of some cult of the great genius like Freudianism did. It was just a bunch of Big Ten university psychology professors endlessly crunching numbers, and this is, more or less, what they happened to come up with.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  79. @Boomthorkell
    I consider myself fairly extroverted, but I must have a strong internal dimensional because I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki's Delivery Service, but when you're first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke and you and your friend spend an entire hour watching it before realizing yes, this movie really is just about a young girl and her delivery service when you were expecting a rip-roaring, and psychologically and culturally deep experience, it's a bit of a let down) and I haven't even heard of the extroverted list.

    Major Wes Anderson fan...but I've watched Dredd, the 13th Warrior, and Monster Squad so many times...

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @dfordoom, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Kiki was my first Ghibli film. It looked like a cute film my young children (3 & 4) would enjoy. I was impressed with the point of conflict being solely internal rather than having external elements.

    I agree that Spirited Away and Mononoke are better films, but I still love Kiki.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Half Canadian

    That is completely fair and understandable. I also believe if I had gone into the movie with the knowledge of what it was, rather than the expectation of what it was not, I would have enjoyed it myself.

  80. @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey
    @Buffalo Joe

    "I usually find that movies that are highly hyped are movies that I don’t care for. “The Shape of Water” is one recent example. Anything by Quentin Tarentino follows the same theme, blood porn and Spike Lee makes movies that I find to be unwatchable"

    Yes. The opposite of what movie critics say is closer the truth.

    Spielberg

    Jurassic Park - mawkish dinosaur fancying
    Shark - mawkish shark fancying
    (Slave film) - mawkish numinous negro fancying
    Schindler - mawkish simple-minded slave morality - victims are lovely good humoured angels, Euros are all thuggish blonde brutes (same with Karate Kid tho don't think he did that)

    A lot of swarthy looking south Italians in movies are really rat surrogates. Lot of the famous ones - stallone , karate kid, Pacino are v semitic looking, prolly HG-J.

    Ireally hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    Replies: @Anonymouse

    >I really hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    Come on! Streep was radiant in The Deer Hunter. How ’bout as the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg in Mike Nichols directed Angels in America? I grant that she has been in a good many crappy movies. But so has Di Nero. So who is the best American actor? Possibly Leonardo di Caprio although his aging face has betrayed him.

    • Replies: @Sebastian Max
    @Anonymouse

    Meryl is certainly overrated - I don't know if I would go so far as to call her a mediocre talent as in my opinion, some of her work is quite memorable.

    But her singing - oh my - have you heard her sing? She's fantastic.

    Best LIVING American actor, or best WORKING American actor?

    I would nominate a fairly small group for consideration of best working actors.

    Tom Hanks
    Tom Cruise
    Matt Damon
    Matthew McConaughey
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Christopher Walken


    If its best LIVING, the list has to expand to include guys like

    Harrison Ford
    Jack Nicholson
    Gene Hackman
    Sean Penn
    Daniel Day-Lewis*
    DeNiro
    Pacino
    Clint Eastwood
    Mel Gibson

    *not American but we can claim him!

    The list of the latter shrinks every year, of course. Within the next five years, that list above will probably be cut by half.

    Replies: @James Braxton

  81. Movies I have disliked the most, or, in my opinion, are overrated

    My Dinner With Andre
    Youth Without Youth
    Restoration
    Inglorious Basterds
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Maps to the Stars
    The Great Beauty
    A Winter’s Tale
    Movie 43
    Orlando
    Gigi
    The Shining
    Miss Julie
    Atonement
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    Something’s Gotta Give
    Terms of Endearment
    The Crying Game
    The Birdman
    Boyhood
    Godfather III
    Raiders of the Lost Ark
    The Sacrament
    Field of Dreams
    Interstellar
    Revolution Road
    Ex Machina
    The Great Gatsby (both recent versions)
    Gangs of New York
    August: Osage County
    Ricki and the Flash

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Anon87
    @Single malt

    Interesting list, I agree with a lot of them. BUT Raiders of the Lost Arc??? Wow.

    , @theMann
    @Single malt

    Only seen about half the films on your list, but every one of those is, in fact, wildly overrated.

    Especially Raiders, on two levels:

    1. As TBBT pointed out, Indiana Jones is completely superfluous to the events: with or without him, the Nazis find the Ark, take it to the island and die.

    2. Some films bend history, Raiders craps all over it. A group of Nazis, in uniforms not yet adopted, are running around British Protectorate Egypt, in a marked aircraft, using a u-boat years away from development, leaving RPG's lying around for Indy to use, when they a decade in the future, and this theater of the absurd is played straight.



    Raiders is an insult to our intelligence.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    , @Anonymouse
    @Single malt

    Of those I have seen that you list, I agree. Yet those movies got made and made money. Just shows there is a degree of congruence among Steve's readers.

  82. 4310361

    Holly smokes! I’ve been looking for that song. I thought that it was by Curve, which was probably why I couldn’t find it.

  83. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    It is interesting how people differ….

    That’s what I wrote about Twin Peaks, but is more about Lynch.

    Lynch is fascinated by style & he is good at it. But, there is not much substance in his work. I am not saying he is “shallow”; he is a creative stylist, so to speak. But not more, I guess. Even a clumsier director like Woody Allen has a world-view which can be articulated; Lynch does not have one.

    I think that Lynch cannot be categorized along conservative & liberal lines. He is a visual artist, in this genre- and yet, he doesn’t possess a developed national consciousness. He’s socio-culturally dumb.

    He’s a rootless cosmopolitan, whether one likes it or not. Let me repeat-his work cannot be dissociated, completely, from his life. And he is a lifelong practitioner of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation. I’ve been initiated into TM when I was in my early 20’s, practiced it for 3-4 months, had very good experiences (positive altered states of consciousness etc.), and dropped it soon after I realized it’s just a diluted neo-Vedanta with added quantum mysticism mumbo-jumbo plus fakery. Basically, they sell mantras or sacred words for meditation. The story is that you get some special mantra, a word to repeat when meditating, and that mantra is specifically designed to match your psycho-spiritual profile.

    So far, so good.

    But- it’s all fake. I’ve gotten a list of mantras, and have found mine. These are just names of Hindu gods categorized into time segments of two years: you’ll get one mantra if you are initiated when you’re in the 17-19 years old category; another if you are 20-22 & so on. Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

    Plus, there are genuine wisdom traditions operating with images, sounds, breathing,.. (Hermetism, Christian contemplative traditions, Sufism, Taoism, Kabbalah, ancient Greek traditions, Buddhism, Vedanta, …) that make TM basically a joke.

    And Lynch has stuck, uncritically, with TM for decades. If I appreciate him as a visual artist/fantasist- how can I take him seriously if he has shown to be so uncritical in one significant matter which colored all his life? Or his attitude towards cultural & historical traditions of his own country?

    I don’t expect filmmakers to be thinkers, but if we discuss Lynch’s case, my position is that he just doesn’t have a cognitive ability to see what’s right & what’s wrong re some social, cultural, let alone existential crucial issues.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I'm not any kind of film expert (although I watched a lot of blu-ray boxsets this year because of the coronavirus lockdown, and have a Lynch blu-ray boxset).

    You can see how Lynch has some interesting references to older Hollywood films, by directors like Billy Wilder ("Sunset Boulevard") or Charles Vidor ("Gilda"). Mulholland Drive will make sense for people who know the world and atmosphere of those Hollywood 1940s films.

    I wouldn't criticize Lynch's films for "rootless cosmopolitanism", as they are part of a Hollywood tradition. Although perhaps you could criticize him for "formalism". He makes films about films, and is trying to revive some of the traditional Hollywood iconography.

    But of course, Lynch's are minor and unambitious, and are less interesting than the original 1940s film noir world that they reference to. Lynch's films are like minor, pleasant, improvised codas on certain Hollywood mythologies.

    -
    But why waste too much time talking about it, when there are so many interesting directors? 20th century also produced many more humanistic and ambitious films.

    Netflix and streaming sites can encourage provincialism, as they exclude most of the good films of the 20th century.

    But if you don't mind ordering boxsets of DVDs and blu-rays, never before can our generation so easily access the 20th century cinema.

    We have better televisions then before (a perfect OLED television can be bought for less than a couple thousand dollars).

    And nowadays the work on restorations is improving. For example, how much skilled labour was applied to try to restore the "Apu Trilogy" for blu-ray:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5zib042hEs

    Replies: @syonredux

    , @Etruscan Film Star
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

     

    Bravo.

    One theory about mantras is that they give you something to concentrate on, helping to let go of mental chatter, which over time is conducive to transforming consciousness. Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling. Anybody who joins a cult or pays for a mantra is digging deeper into the material world.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jim Don Bob

  84. @Thoughts
    @SimpleSong

    The only thing I remember about Mulholland Drive was someone (or herself) cupping Naomi Watts white titty

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @The Wild Geese Howard

    Funny, I don’t remember that at all. Probably says more about you than the movie. For almost all other humans who saw the movie, this scene probably stands out…

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @jamie b.

    ...or this scene...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_WYKhDRkc

    ...or this scene...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHQnb3HS4hc&t=50s

    ...or this scene...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzRgkD4l7Xs

    But I guess that you see this sort of stuff all the time, right? Titties, in contrast, are hardly ever seen.

  85. @jamie b.
    @Thoughts

    Funny, I don't remember that at all. Probably says more about you than the movie. For almost all other humans who saw the movie, this scene probably stands out...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o

    Replies: @jamie b.

    …or this scene…

    …or this scene…

    …or this scene…

    But I guess that you see this sort of stuff all the time, right? Titties, in contrast, are hardly ever seen.

  86. @Jimbo in OPKS
    Big Lebowski isn’t a sports movie? So now you’re trying to tell me bowling isn’t a sport. C’mon man.

    Replies: @Alfa158

    I forgot who it was, but someone once said that an activity cannot qualify as a sport if you can smoke while doing it.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Alfa158

    That's one of those quotes that seems to be apocryphal, but John Kruk was once upbraided by a fan who caught him smoking. She said that athletes shouldn't smoke, but Kruk retorted that he wasn't an athlete; he was a baseball player.

    Replies: @njguy73

  87. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    Most of the people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they’re sophisticated. He’s one of the go-to directors to cite when people wish to appear to be above the normies and proles and more mainstream movies, but at this point citing him for that purpose is cliche and pedestrian.

    I wouldn’t say his movies are unwatchable, except perhaps Inland Empire. He’s a good craftsman of individual scenes, moods, bits of dialogue, short sequences, dreamy digressions, etc., but lacking as an architect and constructor of a coherent, full narrative and film. He masks these shortcomings by playing up quirkiness and obscurity, which seems to have worked well for him and his career. He’s ultimately better as a cinematographer than a screenwriter or director.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Anonymous


    ...people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they’re sophisticated....
     
    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart. Appeals to mind-reading are liable to backfire. They're more likely to tell us something about you than the intended target. Believe it or not, some people genuinely enjoy surreal things.

    Replies: @Thoughts, @Anonymous

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Anonymous

    "people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows"

    David Lynch is incredibly sincere. He is quite funny. Both are middlebrow qualities. Middlebrow: It's where life exists. Homes begin in the mid 500,000s!

  88. @Jtgw
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI. I suppose it could in fact allude to the later Communist period after WWII but I don’t think the timeline works out (chronological gap too big).

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Abe, @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.

    One of the few (sole?) examples of the very thin veneer of intellectuality on the HOWARD STERN SHOW (like an inch-deep slick of mountain spring water atop a Great Lake-size accumulation of pond scum) was Howard’s frequent goofing on his own father for Stern Pere’s voluble fascination with the fact that WWII-era Hungary’s semi-fascist strongman leader was an admiral. An admiral! In famously landlocked Hungary!

    Yet to anyone with even a basic education the paradox quickly resolves itself. Hungary. Once Austria-Hungary. Encompassing Trieste, the Dalmatian Coast, and hundreds of miles of Blue Danube. It was of course in the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy where old Admiral Horthy made his bones, and so the impossibility quickly dissolves and in its place you find standing a mere absurdity. Absurd as the Hapsburg Empire itself, where German royals were constantly lecturing the Magyar nobility to ease up on THEIR ethnic chauvinism towards the Slavs lest the Empire burst apart over it (“Ja, Herr Attila-son. Try zum ov this diverzity, inkluzion, und ekquality. Die DIE.”)

    It was on one of these Hasburg riverine absurdities that Wittgenstein served out his first tour of duty during WWI. Yes, Wittgenstein the most playful, boyish, and therefore Wes Anderson-ish of all major 20th Century philosophers, patrolling the Vistula on the look-out for Cossacks all the while writing the first few chapters of TRACTATUS among shipmates so course and swinish he could barely hold down his disgust. Wittgenstein, rich as Midas in 1913 (his family fortune was such that his father would be the modern day equivalent of a Walton heir, if not- eventually- one of the Bezos kids), getting badgering letters from Cambridge University on his Viennese gunboat about that fellowship he had expressed interest in (not for him to receive, but for him to endow). Wittgenstein, the three-quarters Jewish German nationalist Cathlolic pietist who’d eventual give away his fortune to his brothers, three-quarters of whom would kill themselves.

    If Wes Anderson is not to be liquidated from Hollywood for the crimes of both whiteness and maleness (terms to be served consecutively, not concurrently) THIS is the movie he was born to make. The life aquatic. Everything-is-illuminated philosophizing. Funny-looking yet stylish Mitteleuropa clothes and headgear. GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST was a near-great film, but ultimately only a journeyman’s work compared to this masterpiece (a crazy mix of all his previous films plus APOCALYPSE NOW crossed with MY DINNER WITH ANDRE crossed with AGUIRRE WRATH OF GOD). Let GRAND HOTEL become his mere LED ZEPPELIN III.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Abe

    Anyway, I’ve been fascinated with Austria Hungary ever since I read John Biggins’ “A Sailor of Austria” as a teenager. Last gasp of the medieval, pre-national Europe, where your main loyalties were to the king and the church, not the nation state.

  89. @theMann
    @BB753

    Oh don't even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    Replies: @jamie b., @HA, @dfordoom

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    Meaning what? That you can’t convince them that they’re ‘wrong’ to like something odd or surreal?

    • Replies: @theMann
    @jamie b.

    Meaning, among other things, that you can't convince fan boys that just because you like a film, it is therefore a good film. It is ok to like a film that is basically garbage, it is not ok to pretend it is a masterpiece because you like it.

    Replies: @jamie b.

  90. @Jimbo in OPKS
    While we are talking about sports movies, if you are about my age (mid-60’s) try to convince me that Bang the Drum Slowly is not the best movie ever made about sports.

    Replies: @fnn, @J.Ross

    But the guy who wrote it had a strange fixation on Richard Nixon. At one point (In IIRC the early 1960s) he confessed in print that he considered killing him while he was following him around as a journalist. A nutcase who thought Alger Hiss was innocent? It’s a good thing he didn’t live to see Trump the politician.

  91. @Anonymous
    @BB753

    Most of the people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they're sophisticated. He's one of the go-to directors to cite when people wish to appear to be above the normies and proles and more mainstream movies, but at this point citing him for that purpose is cliche and pedestrian.

    I wouldn't say his movies are unwatchable, except perhaps Inland Empire. He's a good craftsman of individual scenes, moods, bits of dialogue, short sequences, dreamy digressions, etc., but lacking as an architect and constructor of a coherent, full narrative and film. He masks these shortcomings by playing up quirkiness and obscurity, which seems to have worked well for him and his career. He's ultimately better as a cinematographer than a screenwriter or director.

    Replies: @jamie b., @SunBakedSuburb

    …people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they’re sophisticated….

    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart. Appeals to mind-reading are liable to backfire. They’re more likely to tell us something about you than the intended target. Believe it or not, some people genuinely enjoy surreal things.

    • Replies: @Thoughts
    @jamie b.

    Liberals always meet me and assume I'm a liberal and finish my sentences...

    The best one was...

    "....you would abort the baby!"

    I'm still scratching my head on how Comment A got to abortion

    But the liberal mind is a mystery

    The Usual ones I get are ....

    Me: 'I'm a bit upset over...'
    Liberal Answer A: Brexit...I know..
    Liberal Answer B: Trump...I know...
    Liberal Answer C: Boris surviving Covid
    {Liberal Answer D that actually happened when no one was pregnant: An abortion!?!? Are you getting an abortion?!?!?!}
    Me: Ummm....no....my dishwasher broke

    , @Anonymous
    @jamie b.


    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart.
     
    Incidentally, there's lots of overlap between the "I f*cking love science!" crowd and people who say they like Lynch a lot.
  92. @jamie b.
    @Anonymous


    ...people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they’re sophisticated....
     
    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart. Appeals to mind-reading are liable to backfire. They're more likely to tell us something about you than the intended target. Believe it or not, some people genuinely enjoy surreal things.

    Replies: @Thoughts, @Anonymous

    Liberals always meet me and assume I’m a liberal and finish my sentences…

    The best one was…

    “….you would abort the baby!”

    I’m still scratching my head on how Comment A got to abortion

    But the liberal mind is a mystery

    The Usual ones I get are ….

    Me: ‘I’m a bit upset over…’
    Liberal Answer A: Brexit…I know..
    Liberal Answer B: Trump…I know…
    Liberal Answer C: Boris surviving Covid
    {Liberal Answer D that actually happened when no one was pregnant: An abortion!?!? Are you getting an abortion?!?!?!}
    Me: Ummm….no….my dishwasher broke

  93. @theMann
    Gosh, where to begin:

    1. Do most modern movies have "plots" anymore? If so , could have fooled me.

    2. Let us assume, for the moment, that the OCEAN Personality Model is not complete gibberish.



    There remains central problems with the analysis:

    Going to the movies is typically a group, or at least dual, activity. The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone, as otherwise there is a lot of compromise in choosing which movies to see. As an example, I got dragged off to see both Pitch Perfect and LaLa Land and really liked both films. Even so, I would have never seen them on my own, as Musicals just aren't my thing. OTOH, I once got my Aunt to watch Enemy at the Gates with me, which I am pretty sure she wouldn't have seen on her own. And won't watch again.


    Then there are the problems with internet date collection: people are far more likely to rip a film they hated than praise one they loved, and positive reviews, especially on Social Media, are so Bot influenced as to make data point collection completely worthless. Unless this analysis took great pains to insure it was getting actual human input, the whole thing is major league GIGO. (Most everything on Social Media is.)


    So, assuming proper controls were used, one can safely say that there is a relationship between one's personality and the films one likes. It is a subset of the reality that there is a relationship between your personality and everything you like, so.......


    back to GIGO.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    “The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone, as otherwise there is a lot of compromise in choosing which movies to see.”

    The study is focused not on whether you’ve seen a movie but whether you’ve Liked it on Facebook.

    That’s a pretty crude yes-no measure (with the No’s including both people who never saw it and people who saw it but didn’t like it, or people who saw it, liked it, but didn’t bother to search it out to Like it on Facebook, as you might not have done with those musicals you were surprised to like, both of which are good movies, by the way), compared to, say, rating each movie on a 1-10 scale.

    But their sample size is so immense that they get plausible results anyway.

  94. @BB753
    @jamie b.

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch's movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @jamie b., @anon, @Peter Akuleyev

    No. But he is an authentic visual fantasist with a shallow world-view. To say it in an old-fashioned way, his soul doesn’t weight much. But, he can be entertaining if you have enough of real life & want to relax with visual firecrackers & a mix of the sentimental & the unexpected.

  95. @Almost Missouri
    That table of correlations ("Supplementary Figure 1") has a bunch of unintentionally interesting pairings. For example,

    • The longer, bigger budget, or newer a movie, the less that people in relationships like it, perhaps suggesting they have better things to do.

    • People in relationships also skew heavily more open, neurotic, old and female. This may confirm the impression that Facebook is mainly anxious married women having whatever is the female equivalent of d**k-measuring contests.

    • People not in relationships are younger, more male, more conscientious, and like movies more. So maybe a secondary Facebook demographic well-meaning young loners caught in a web of social media and confected Hollywood reality.

    • Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?

    • Movie rating correlates well with runtime. Is this a case of Ben Franklin's advice that to get someone to like you, make them do you a favor: after donating so much of your time to watching that movie, you have to justify that it was good?

    • There is a strong correlation between the recency of the movie and the size of the budget. This may be a sign of the approaching Blockbuster Singularity, or (more likely) it is just currency inflation.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Steve Sailer

    “• Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?”

    Right.

    Although my guess is that size of budget correlates with predictability of box office gross. There used to be a lot of big budget box office bombs, but there seem to be fewer in the 21st Century as movie studios have gotten things down more to a science with franchises, pre-existing intellectual property, and the like. Low budget movies have some small hope for a stratospheric ROI, while high budget movies don’t.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Steve Sailer


    There used to be a lot of big budget box office bombs, but there seem to be fewer in the 21st Century as movie studios have gotten things down more to a science with franchises, pre-existing intellectual property, and the like.
     
    I thought the intellectual property thing would be much more of a problem now that piracy is so much easier than in the 20th century.
  96. @Half Canadian
    @Boomthorkell

    Kiki was my first Ghibli film. It looked like a cute film my young children (3 & 4) would enjoy. I was impressed with the point of conflict being solely internal rather than having external elements.

    I agree that Spirited Away and Mononoke are better films, but I still love Kiki.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    That is completely fair and understandable. I also believe if I had gone into the movie with the knowledge of what it was, rather than the expectation of what it was not, I would have enjoyed it myself.

  97. Anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @theMann
    Gosh, where to begin:

    1. Do most modern movies have "plots" anymore? If so , could have fooled me.

    2. Let us assume, for the moment, that the OCEAN Personality Model is not complete gibberish.



    There remains central problems with the analysis:

    Going to the movies is typically a group, or at least dual, activity. The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone, as otherwise there is a lot of compromise in choosing which movies to see. As an example, I got dragged off to see both Pitch Perfect and LaLa Land and really liked both films. Even so, I would have never seen them on my own, as Musicals just aren't my thing. OTOH, I once got my Aunt to watch Enemy at the Gates with me, which I am pretty sure she wouldn't have seen on her own. And won't watch again.


    Then there are the problems with internet date collection: people are far more likely to rip a film they hated than praise one they loved, and positive reviews, especially on Social Media, are so Bot influenced as to make data point collection completely worthless. Unless this analysis took great pains to insure it was getting actual human input, the whole thing is major league GIGO. (Most everything on Social Media is.)


    So, assuming proper controls were used, one can safely say that there is a relationship between one's personality and the films one likes. It is a subset of the reality that there is a relationship between your personality and everything you like, so.......


    back to GIGO.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anon

    The entire set of research only really has much value if you isolate out all the instances where people are going to see a movie alone

    That is what is called “noise” in statistics. And there is a statistical law that as n (sample size) approaches infinity, the distorting power of noise approaches zero. This is why they are using years of education as a proxy for IQ in the big million genome GWAS studies without worrying about how closely the correlation is: It doesn’t matter at that sample size. The rank order of people’s IQ and people’s years of education is, on average, the same when you get that many people.

  98. @Mike Zwick

    As an old market researcher turned movie reviewer, it has always seemed obvious to me that different kinds of people like different kinds of movies, and that that’s perfectly reasonable. This is not, however, a common view among film critics, most of whom became critics because they have strong views on which movies people should like.
     
    Roger Ebert agreed with your assessment. People always asked why he would give a thumbs up to a Steven Seagal movie, and he said he was not comparing it to Terms of Endearment, it was just that it delivered what it advertised it would and, for people who want to see that kind of movie, he felt that they would enjoy it.

    Replies: @Robert Dolan, @Steve Sailer

    A lot of weekly movie reviewing is just whether or not a movie “works.” E.g., among Oliver Stone movies, “JFK,” no matter what else you think about it, works as a movie in terms of rhythm, propulsion, and so forth. In contrast, “Alexander” doesn’t much work. I got an uneasy feeling during the opening credits that “Alexander” wasn’t going to be very good and it wasn’t.

    • Replies: @Mike Zwick
    @Steve Sailer

    All of what you said can describe the reviews for Hillbilly Elegy. The reviewers who trashed the movie because of the politics behind what J.D.Vance had written and how it was surgically removed, had it all wrong. The reviewers who said that the characters lacked any depth and that some of the dialog seemed like it was from a Twitter self help group were right about it. One tells us what movies they think we should like, the other talks about if the movie worked.

  99. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Well said. “Mulholland Drive” is a movie that sticks in your mind, in part for innate reasons, in part because it tends to stick in the mind of other articulate people, so they cite it a lot.

  100. @BB753
    @jamie b.

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch's movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @jamie b., @anon, @Peter Akuleyev

    “Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable…”

    Yes!

    As well as grotesque…

    ..and terrifying…

    ….and beautiful…

    …and touching.

    “…coherent…”

    Nope. Not at all. Is that a bad thing?

    “…and absolutely not pretentious.”

    Quite the opposite: his stuff comes across as folksy and heartfelt, just like Lynch himself. Surreal, to be sure, and his dialog always comes across as weirdly stilted, but I can hardly imagine how anyone can see it as ‘pretentious.’

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @BB753
    @jamie b.

    I get it: you're a Lynch fanboy.

    Replies: @jamie b.

  101. @Jimbo in OPKS
    While we are talking about sports movies, if you are about my age (mid-60’s) try to convince me that Bang the Drum Slowly is not the best movie ever made about sports.

    Replies: @fnn, @J.Ross

    This and I would also offer The Damned, United. Both are about the money-making aspect opposing the sport itself, with the first managing to justify grabbing as big a deal as you can, and the second advocating for a kind of anti-New England Patriot, pure, unadorned play, seeing how well you can do by yourself as opposed to seeing how well you can do with all the little modern helps.

  102. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The thing is, re: movies on the list for high agreeableness, and other high traits, most if not all of the films on the list did not perform spectacularly at the box office. If they're all that regarding desirable traits/characteristics, then why didn't they find a mass audience? Why were many of them flops?

    Someone should create a list of high/low traits of movies that actually, you know, turned a massive profit. I've never quite understood how such critically acclaimed and award winning directors have created works where the majority of them have not turned a decent profit, much less have scored a box office credible smash hit.

    Example: An art house hit that was critically acclaimed and actually, you know, did do well at the box office, Joker. Where would that film rank on the list of high/low traits? I would also ask Steve, where would the globally successful DC & Marvel franchise films rank/place on these lists?

    Sometimes it is best to examine the films that actually have had an audience and didn't tank, or at least were smash hits during the years of their original release.

    Unless it comes down to "You can study Shakespeare and be quite elite, and you can charm the critics and have nothing to eat."

    "The Public is never wrong"--Paramount head (during Hollywood's golden age) Adolph Zukor

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    The Top and Bottom 10 lists tend to be movies that polarized audiences, although that includes in the sense of not going to see them. E.g., Aronofsky’s “Pi” about a math genius who may have discovered a secret to the universe desired by Wall Street and ultra-orthodox kabbalist Jews has mostly only been seen by above average IQ males who like math. It’s well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was “interesting” but wouldn’t go out of the way to Like it on Facebook.

    Huge hit movies tend to appeal more broadly: e.g., Gone With the Wind is a women’s movie, but features leading man legend Rhett Butler in his most famous role. Titanic was a women’s movie, but it also revealed that Leonardo DiCaprio, who had seemed like a teenybopper pretty boy, was going to be a major movie star in guy movies.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Steve Sailer

    Siskel & Ebert - Pi review (1998)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4hC19kDWbk

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "It’s well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was “interesting” but wouldn’t go out of the way to Like it on Facebook."

    Then by definition, that film is a borderline flop. Films such as these won't do a studio much good when attempting to remain in the black, especially considering at how fickle the movie public can be from decade to decade.

    Film must be run like a business or it will never survive long as an art.

    There are many examples of massive hits that appeal to broad range of audiences and are not dependent upon one gender. The films of classic filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, one of the rare filmmakers who's appeal to both genders, tended to offer something for both: Adjusted for inflation, The Ten Commandments, ranks among the top 5-10 most commercially successful films ever made. It's not a chick film, but neither is it exactly an all male film either. Gibson's The Passion, is also a massive unquantified hit. It's not a chick flick either.

    The other massive hit of 1939, The Wizard of Oz, is not a chick hit per se. It does tend to offer something for everyone: women, some men, and of course families and children in particular.

    Unlike Scorcese's Taxi Driver, (which flopped during its initial run, or at least did not turn a profit), the "other" film of 1976, Rocky, finished first at the box office, won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and launched sequels that spanned multi-generations. Rocky, while it does tend to have elements that appeal to women, is certainly not concerned with primarily appealing to women. Same with the Godfather franchise. Most of the James Bond films, one of the world's most commercially successful franchises for over half a century tends to market itself to both women and men.

    The fact does tend to remain: many of critically acclaimed filmmakers tend to have a small audience. If they ever have a commercial hit, its almost by accident. Why aren't they making a conscious effort to craft their images and work in order to increase a larger share of the paying public? If Joker could do it, then it puts the lie to the idea that 'In order to be considered a true artiste, you can't possibly attempt to appeal to the public at large'. That is bolderdash. It used to be done in Hollywood, and fairly regularly. Perhaps the fault lies with the filmmakers themselves.

    One of the most commercially successful franchises in the world remains the Marvel Franchise. There must be a reason why that is the case. They aren't chick flicks per se, and special effects can only take one so far, especially if there's no compelling story with interesting characters behind it. Because many of the Marvel/DC characters first enjoyed success in the comic format before appearing on the screen is no guarantee that they would (or have) perform(ed) beyond expectations at the box office. After all, there are many big budgeted flops that litter Tinseltown's celluloid screens that "everyone" thought were destined to be massive hits but failed.

    In other words if a studio has too many flops it soon finds itself in bankruptcy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bardon Kaldian

  103. @odin
    There's a subgroup of the population that isn't much taken with movies in general. It includes several members of my family.

    It would be interesting to know the size of that subgroup and whether its members share any personality characteristics.

    Does anyone know of any research?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Steve Sailer


    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.
     
    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler's favourite movie. Make of that what you will.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jamie b.

  104. @Single malt
    Movies I have disliked the most, or, in my opinion, are overrated

    My Dinner With Andre
    Youth Without Youth
    Restoration
    Inglorious Basterds
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Maps to the Stars
    The Great Beauty
    A Winter's Tale
    Movie 43
    Orlando
    Gigi
    The Shining
    Miss Julie
    Atonement
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    Something's Gotta Give
    Terms of Endearment
    The Crying Game
    The Birdman
    Boyhood
    Godfather III
    Raiders of the Lost Ark
    The Sacrament
    Field of Dreams
    Interstellar
    Revolution Road
    Ex Machina
    The Great Gatsby (both recent versions)
    Gangs of New York
    August: Osage County
    Ricki and the Flash

    Replies: @Anon87, @theMann, @Anonymouse

    Interesting list, I agree with a lot of them. BUT Raiders of the Lost Arc??? Wow.

  105. @Robert Dolan
    @Mike Zwick

    Ebert also praised to high heaven that awful film, "The Motorcycle Diaries," that glorified the communist murderer homosexual Che Guevara.

    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Zwick

    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.

    Ebert was a mad Kraut from a college town. An altar boy-gone-bad. A lot of that going around.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar


    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.
     
    I once saw S&E's review of Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Siskel thought it was very good. Ebert panned it. Among Ebert's criticisms was that the first half of the movie had nothing to do with the second half, and that the fighting in the second half took place in a city not a jungle. I.e., Ebert got everything wrong. The first half of the FMJ showed, as few movies ever have, what a lot of military training is about - overcoming normal people's aversion to aggression, brutality, and killing - turning regular guys into killers. As such, it had everything to do with the second half of the movie. And the fighting was in a city because it was supposed to be during the battle of Hue, which is a city. Does Ebert imagine that all of Vietnam is jungle? That it has no cities?

    When I was younger, I agreed with Ebert's reviews more. As I got older, I found I agreed more with Siskel. And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole. That said, Ebert's commentary on Citizen Kane is pretty interesting.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Sam Malone

  106. @Jasper Been
    @SimpleSong

    I first watched MD about 6 years ago. I was irritated that I couldn’t figure it out. Then I read some analysis and watched again a couple weeks ago. It’s great once you understand what’s really going on. I would guess even the most astute among us would not be able to figure it out the first time around. I would recommend it to others!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux

    The story behind “Mulholland Drive” is that David Lynch signed with ABC to do a TV series. He delivered a TV movie to kick it off, but it seemed to ABC executives so self-indulgently nonsensical that they opted out of the subsequent TV series. Lynch responded constructively to this career setback: he took the TV movie footage, cut it down, made it into the first hour of the feature film MD, and then wrote a new second hour to (sort of) make sense of the first hour.

    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch’s ideal ratio.

    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    @Steve Sailer

    True. And a certain portion of the dreams we have will always be incomprehensible.

    , @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer


    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch’s ideal ratio.
     
    Whereas Inland Empire is the reverse ratio.....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  107. @BB753
    @Pat Hannagan

    OK, thanks, I've never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Replies: @FPD72, @dfordoom, @Peter Akuleyev, @Sebastian Max

    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Two specifically Christian movies with good production values that I’ve seen in the last five years were Risen (directed by Kevin Reynolds) and Paul, Apostle of Christ. There are several that have come out of a Baptist church in Georgia but I wouldn’t consider any of them good.

    If you’re willing to go back forty years for major studio films with cast members you would recognize, Chariots of Fire, Shadowlands (starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger) and Luther (with Joseph Fiennes in the title role) are good.

    If you have Amazon Prime, all of these movies are available, though three of them are not free.

    In 2021, Fellowship for Performing Arts is dropping a movie based on the one man play, C.S. Lewis; God’s Most Reluctant Convert. A film version of the play is sometimes available on Prime or Netflix, but this movie is a real production, shot on location in England, with a good cast and Max McClean playing the older, mature Lewis. The play/movie traces Lewis’ intellectual journey from atheist to theist to Christian.

    • Thanks: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    @FPD72

    Thanks for the tips. Of the films you mentioned, I was fortunate enough to catch Paul, Apostle of Christ on Netflix, and I found it excellent, with Caviezel playing Timothy (who was not Greek, BTW, as mentioned in the film) with a great screenplay, acting and tempo. That film should have made it to the Oscars.
    I'll try to watch Luther though I'm not a fan of Reform, though Calvin was more odious as a historical figure and wrong on theological grounds than Luther. That's not to say that Rome were the good guys.

  108. @Anonymouse
    I found this essay of Steve's incomprehensible. I wonder what percentage of his readers understood the argument much less the charts. The charts sport undefined labels. ROI what is that? Or log gross or log budget.

    Discussions of overt and implied meanings in ambitious dramatic movies are interesting to me and others in this forum. Why should we care that movies that move us and leave lasting traces in our memories are not much liked by children or football game enthousiasts or the hoi polloi in general? High brow reviews (the best IMO are those of Variety Magazine) are usually useful in picking movies to watch.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer

    Basically, it is the old stuff: tell me what you like, and I’ll tell you what kind of person you are.

    Just, it doesn’t work that way.

    And it is not worth the trouble:

    a) person’s predilections change over time

    b) there are too many social/cultural/aesthetic/taboo/…elements that influence out viewing of a film. So, you may enjoy a film that is, basically, not “real you”, but are temporarily zombified, robotized.

    The big 5 are not very scientific; a study conducted 4-8 years ago among Indians somewhere in Central America has shown that they cannot be assessed by OCEAN tests. In short, this test is not universally applicable to all humans.

    And, as I’ve said- it is purely constructed, without any solid ideas of human personality. Agreeableness is another world for conformism. For instance, a promising test by Roberto Assagioli- which has theoretical structure behind it- cannot be “translated” or interpreted by OCEAN, as Universal wave function or Pilot wave interpretation of QM can be analyzed through standard Copenhagen.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11089-017-0753-5

    Without tests, we know what kind of people watches martial arts films; or rom-coms; or spy-thrillers; or drama films; or comedies; or sci fi technically interesting films; or horrors; or slashers; or westerns; or political films; or …

    Anyway, I’d been liking it all.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Bardon Kaldian

    "The big 5 are not very scientific; a study conducted 4-8 years ago among Indians somewhere in Central America has shown that they cannot be assessed by OCEAN tests. In short, this test is not universally applicable to all humans."

    Or the Big 5 is pretty valid for the people it was validated upon: American college students. Who also tend to overlap with people who like to rate which movies they like online.

  109. Anonymous[721] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    The thing is, re: movies on the list for high agreeableness, and other high traits, most if not all of the films on the list did not perform spectacularly at the box office. If they're all that regarding desirable traits/characteristics, then why didn't they find a mass audience? Why were many of them flops?

    Someone should create a list of high/low traits of movies that actually, you know, turned a massive profit. I've never quite understood how such critically acclaimed and award winning directors have created works where the majority of them have not turned a decent profit, much less have scored a box office credible smash hit.

    Example: An art house hit that was critically acclaimed and actually, you know, did do well at the box office, Joker. Where would that film rank on the list of high/low traits? I would also ask Steve, where would the globally successful DC & Marvel franchise films rank/place on these lists?

    Sometimes it is best to examine the films that actually have had an audience and didn't tank, or at least were smash hits during the years of their original release.

    Unless it comes down to "You can study Shakespeare and be quite elite, and you can charm the critics and have nothing to eat."

    "The Public is never wrong"--Paramount head (during Hollywood's golden age) Adolph Zukor

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    Part of makes it difficult to create a great movie is that it has to be unique enough for the public to find it compelling. After it has been done once everything after that is derivative. So you are not too much looking for the formula but looking to break the formula, at least enough to trigger the appropriate dose of dopamine etc.

    The other thing to remember is that after 30-50 years the classics can be given a retread in some cases, much like magazine content, and no one cares enough that it impacts the bottom line. See Joker.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Anonymous

    'After it has been done once everything after that is derivative."

    Basically, from a creative standpoint, everything in film had been done by about 1927. And then sound came along. After Citizen Kane (1941), everything has been done. Nothing new under the sun that can't be found in the past in world film somewhere at sometime.

    What it really boils down to then, is a compelling story with characters that the public cares about. At a basic level, filmmakers are storytellers. How successful their stories are, the one clear consensus measure is the box office. Do people enjoy the story well enough to buy what they're being sold on the screen?

    Sometimes it really is best to take the film away from the filmmakers and let the studios decide on how the final cut should look. After all, 99% of the time, it's their money that's funding the budget and not the filmmaker. It's not a soup kitchen, not a charity case. It's a business, and the art won't survive long if the medium isn't run accordingly like a business.

  110. @Steve Sailer
    @Jasper Been

    The story behind "Mulholland Drive" is that David Lynch signed with ABC to do a TV series. He delivered a TV movie to kick it off, but it seemed to ABC executives so self-indulgently nonsensical that they opted out of the subsequent TV series. Lynch responded constructively to this career setback: he took the TV movie footage, cut it down, made it into the first hour of the feature film MD, and then wrote a new second hour to (sort of) make sense of the first hour.

    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch's ideal ratio.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @syonredux

    True. And a certain portion of the dreams we have will always be incomprehensible.

  111. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Here's a question for anyone familiar with the OCEAN system of characterizing someone's personality by their rating in five traits: Are there any personality traits that are not closely correlated with these five? For example, let's consider Religiosity, that is, the degree to which religion is important in a person's life. Is this trait R decomposable into the other five traits by some formula like
    R = 3O - 2.5C + .7E -2A + .1N ? If R is independent of all the other traits, a person's personality profile would be less maritime and more ocular: the six CORNEA traits.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    OCEAN isn’t any mysterious master key to the universe. It’s just when you give personality quizzes to Westerners,they are the first five factors that usually tend to emerge from factor analysis. But there are other dimensions that are also useful. You could use more or fewer dimensions, depending on your splitter vs. lumper needs. Five dimensions is just a reasonable compromise. I don’t believe there was some Freud-like prophet pushing OCEAN, it was more like a whole bunch of empirical psychologists argued over a couple of decades and eventually a consensus emerged that these five factors were a pretty good compromise of splitting and lumping. But 50 years from now psych majors might learn a 3 or 7 factor model.

    Other models have been suggested, such as OCEAN + IQ. “Pi” might turn out to be less weighted on Openness if you included IQ in a 6 factor model. I’m guessing “Mulholland Drive” would still rank high on Openness in a 6 factor model including IQ.

  112. @J.Ross
    @Jtgw

    Those weren't border guards, they were cartoon Nazis ("ZZ" instead of "SS"). Interestingly, an accurate class element is left in, with a dirty twentieth-century morlock finally pummeling the degenerate fin de siecle eloi who had humiliated him.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    Well in any event you confirm my understanding that he was referring to the interwar nationalist-fascist period, not Communism.

  113. @Abe
    @Peter Akuleyev


    It goes to show how far left we as a society have moved, that this movie is probably the best “conservative” cultural achievement of the last decade. It is also interesting that most hipsters haven’t caught on to that
     
    I check Amazon at least a couple times a week for coveted Kindle“cheapies”- prestigious books I’ve always wanted to own but never have on the off chance they might be heavily marked down according to Amazon’s inscrutable pricing algorithms- snatched up GRAVITY’S RAINBOW this year for only $3.99- yeah!

    Anyway, during my many browsings I’ve noticed the hate-the-smart-sensitive white guy coefficient going through the roof lately. For example, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has a new novel out called ANT KIND. As you may recall Kauffman, during his late-90’s through mid-00’s hot streak of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, & ADAPTATION, was pretty much the STUFF WHITE PEOPLE LIKE “It Boy”, part of a sort of self-congratulatory hipster Holy Trinity circle jerk along with the likes of Spike Jonez and Bansky.

    While Kauffman was never quite my cup of tea (as with Wes Anderson, there is too much self-willed “wow, this is clever and ambitious so I’m going to force myself to delight in it”, rather than actual- you know- spontaneous, feelings of delight) I certainly appreciate his great talent. So I was reading the reviews of ANT KIND to see if this was something I’d want to buy eventually and- gosh- very first review I read the customer-reader is sneering about what a piece of postmodernist white male navel gazing this is. Seen like hate on recent reviews of Rick Moody, David Foster Wallace, Jonathan Franzen books as well.

    These guys were culture heroes a decade ago, aesthetically and politically impeccable I’m sure, but the era of the great white male hero, even in the mode of great white rebel against his great white father, is so over and problematic. White guys must now be “allies”, which means standing at the back of the room silently until asked to go fetch coffee.

    Anderson’s works, which if I could assign a single meaning to I’d say represent a sort of collective dreamscape for smart, sensitive, talented white boys rejoicing in this amazing Earth and all that is of interest in it- is the sort of primordial ooze out of which every once in a while an Elon Musk is made. That is why very soon Wes Anderson will have to be destroyed.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    SWPLs and SJWs have increasingly less and less overlap.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Steve Sailer

    How many hipsters in Portland are starting to realize that their bike lanes and craft beer depend on rough men tear gassing Antifa rioters and jailing black rapists?

    Replies: @Alden, @duncsbaby

  114. @Jasper Been
    @SimpleSong

    I first watched MD about 6 years ago. I was irritated that I couldn’t figure it out. Then I read some analysis and watched again a couple weeks ago. It’s great once you understand what’s really going on. I would guess even the most astute among us would not be able to figure it out the first time around. I would recommend it to others!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux

    RE: Mulholland Drive,

    Try watching it back-to-back with Lynch’s favorite film, The Wizard of Oz.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @syonredux

    Nawwwwww, be a real lynchmob: get two TVs and sync 'em.

    Replies: @syonredux

  115. @Steve Sailer
    @Jasper Been

    The story behind "Mulholland Drive" is that David Lynch signed with ABC to do a TV series. He delivered a TV movie to kick it off, but it seemed to ABC executives so self-indulgently nonsensical that they opted out of the subsequent TV series. Lynch responded constructively to this career setback: he took the TV movie footage, cut it down, made it into the first hour of the feature film MD, and then wrote a new second hour to (sort of) make sense of the first hour.

    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch's ideal ratio.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @syonredux

    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch’s ideal ratio.

    Whereas Inland Empire is the reverse ratio…..

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @syonredux

    Lynch should release his intellectual property rights to "Inland Empire" to film students to try to see what they could re-edit it into.

  116. @Anonymouse
    I found this essay of Steve's incomprehensible. I wonder what percentage of his readers understood the argument much less the charts. The charts sport undefined labels. ROI what is that? Or log gross or log budget.

    Discussions of overt and implied meanings in ambitious dramatic movies are interesting to me and others in this forum. Why should we care that movies that move us and leave lasting traces in our memories are not much liked by children or football game enthousiasts or the hoi polloi in general? High brow reviews (the best IMO are those of Variety Magazine) are usually useful in picking movies to watch.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer

    ROI is Return on Investment

    Log gross is the log of the North American box office gross receipts: e.g., $1 million, $10 million, $100 million, $1 billion.

    Log budget is the same for the production budget.

    RoI is calculated from gross minus budget.

    The 58 page paper is available for free at the link I included in my post.

  117. @Bardon Kaldian
    I don't buy it.

    1. the big 5 is a personality test not universally accepted (there is none, as far as I know). But, the weakest thing about OCEAN is that it has no theory of psyche or personality behind it. It is just semi-empirically concocted test.

    2. we just don't know what random people will like when it comes to experience (movies, music, sport, literature,..). If we test a random person, I am certain we will not know whether that person would like or dislike certain types of movies, let alone specific films.

    Tastes differ, and I don't think there is a reliable way to predict anything. Moreover, cultural codes may make many films absolutely incomprehensible to viewers. For instance, most Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus... will not understand Christian-themed movie like Russian masterpiece "The Island" (nor most secular Westerners).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz-vegualMg

    Even those who understand it, will object to some aspects of it. A friend of mine, who belongs to an Orthodox family but has converted to a very liberal version of Islamic Sufism, perceived the film as a great artistic & spiritual achievement, but objected that main character's internal suffering was "too much" because God is more loving than wrathful. So, in his view- because he is essentially healthy-minded - the protagonist's suffering was a bit morbid & too masochistically self-flagellating.

    My response-which he understood & accepted- was that we do not react to the world according to formulas, or even according to our general world-view, but that dominant trends of our psyches' unconscious make us feel & behave this- and not that way. Psychic energies are not reducible to some arithmetic of our crystallized world-view (if we have one).

    The same could be said about reception of other forms of art/amusement. Why did Tolstoy so completely dismiss Shakespeare? Why was Gyorgy Lukacs so wrong in his assessment of Solzhenitsyn, whom he considered to be a pinnacle of Socialist Realism?

    Why do many "artistic" people find Chantal Akerman's films liberating? Why does Jonathan Rosenbaum adore Welles & Kiarostami, and denigrates Bergman & Kieslowski?

    There are no answers to these questions.

    Personally, I've found most films too schematic to watch them anymore. I've ceased reading science fiction when I was 25, and high imaginative literature when I was 36. Now, I don't watch movies anymore, just parts of them- I find them a waste of time.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “But, the weakest thing about OCEAN is that it has no theory of psyche or personality behind it. It is just semi-empirically concocted test.”

    Or maybe that’s an advantage. OCEAN didn’t emerge out of some cult of the great genius like Freudianism did. It was just a bunch of Big Ten university psychology professors endlessly crunching numbers, and this is, more or less, what they happened to come up with.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Steve Sailer

    I know, but this is as weak as Wolfram's New kind of science. Simulation is not explanation; observing patterns is not understanding anything.

    Historically, this not unlike Ptolemy & his universe. He got regularities. But, he did not have a theory, gravity, mass, force etc.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  118. @J.Ross
    @Altai

    I thought the model there was Sam Raimi, making a dirt cheap jumpfest with some thought and riding it to better success than a "real" movie, but then that's also similar to George Romero and Tobe Hooper. And John Carpenter.
    I'm not into horror, but considered that a failing rather than sensible. A lot of "horror" is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate. Often it starts atheist and then becomes highly moralistic, not out of conviction but as a result of writing itself into a corner.
    ------
    Sorcerer is an awesome movie, a movie so good it compels you to gratefully forgive the two (2!) times its special effects completely fail (it has these dummies that are clearly dummies, but the momentum carries you right past). Where does it qualify?

    Replies: @JMcG, @syonredux, @jamie b.

    Sorcerer the Roy Schneider movie? I remember being impressed with it when I finally saw it. Pretty bleak though. For some reason I pair it with Lost Command in my mind.

    • Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS
    @JMcG

    Sorcerer, which is brilliant, is a remake of a French movie, The Wages of Fear. Love both.

  119. @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer


    MD winds up being about 80% comprehensible, 20% still incomprehensible, which is, apparently, Lynch’s ideal ratio.
     
    Whereas Inland Empire is the reverse ratio.....

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Lynch should release his intellectual property rights to “Inland Empire” to film students to try to see what they could re-edit it into.

  120. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @BB753

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @theMann, @Polynikes, @dfordoom

    I thought Tenenbaums stupid, inane, pointless, and trying way to hard to achieve way to little, but it is hardly Myra Breckinridge.

    Come to think of it, I wouldn’t rate it any worse than Knives Out, which was complete garbage.

  121. @BB753
    @jamie b.

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch's movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @jamie b., @anon, @Peter Akuleyev

    Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    That’s not a question.
    Are you unhappy that others do not share your tastes in entertainment?

    • LOL: Muggles, BB753
  122. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anonymouse

    Basically, it is the old stuff: tell me what you like, and I'll tell you what kind of person you are.

    Just, it doesn't work that way.

    And it is not worth the trouble:

    a) person's predilections change over time

    b) there are too many social/cultural/aesthetic/taboo/...elements that influence out viewing of a film. So, you may enjoy a film that is, basically, not "real you", but are temporarily zombified, robotized.

    The big 5 are not very scientific; a study conducted 4-8 years ago among Indians somewhere in Central America has shown that they cannot be assessed by OCEAN tests. In short, this test is not universally applicable to all humans.

    And, as I've said- it is purely constructed, without any solid ideas of human personality. Agreeableness is another world for conformism. For instance, a promising test by Roberto Assagioli- which has theoretical structure behind it- cannot be "translated" or interpreted by OCEAN, as Universal wave function or Pilot wave interpretation of QM can be analyzed through standard Copenhagen.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11089-017-0753-5


    Without tests, we know what kind of people watches martial arts films; or rom-coms; or spy-thrillers; or drama films; or comedies; or sci fi technically interesting films; or horrors; or slashers; or westerns; or political films; or ...

    Anyway, I'd been liking it all.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “The big 5 are not very scientific; a study conducted 4-8 years ago among Indians somewhere in Central America has shown that they cannot be assessed by OCEAN tests. In short, this test is not universally applicable to all humans.”

    Or the Big 5 is pretty valid for the people it was validated upon: American college students. Who also tend to overlap with people who like to rate which movies they like online.

  123. @anonymous
    This is huge news if true. Over 1 million fraudulent Biden votes in PA.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332552283553476608

    Replies: @MEH 0910


    [MORE]

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @MEH 0910

    Do you think Trump is deliberately trying to look like a fool?

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @J.Ross
    @MEH 0910

    Right but why are all Biden's winning votes showing up in one piece, after voting was illegally stopped, after observers were illegally ejected? There's no dispute about observers getting ejected and there's no questions about why you would do that. All ballot-specific points are pseudo-vulnerable because we don't see the actual ballots until we get to a particular point in the process, but the observer ejections are not disputed. Call people names all you want, there is no way to legitimize this fraud. But, Republicans were idiots for not seeing how Democrats would use the lockdown to force through massive changes (mail-in) and are idiots if they do not impose the DeSantis rules.

  124. @Prof. Woland
    One way I measure a movie is how long I continue thinking about it afterwards. Some movies leave absolutely no impact and I forget about them as soon as I am done watching (which sometimes is before the end). Other movies stay with me for a few days, like a sun tan. The most impactful ones leave something permanent.

    Replies: @JMcG

    Well, by that measure Calvary, which had Brendan Gleason in the lead role, is the movie which I’ve given the most thought to over the years. I’m still not sure what to make of it. Local Hero is my favorite movie though.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @JMcG

    Calvary (2014) has a tricky tone that some may find confusing. Irish films strike a chord in me, and Brendan Gleeson is always interesting. It's a film I've recommended to an ex-wife but no one else.

  125. @Kylie
    @SimpleSong

    I love Mulholland Drive. It's exactly like one of my dreams, only more visually beautiful. It's as if David Lynch got into my subconscious and said to me, "You know, this space has real potential. Let me spruce it up a little and I think you'll be really pleased with the result." It's the most personal (to me) and comfortable movie I've ever watched.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @JMcG

    That comment makes me want to watch it again. Really well done. Thank you!

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @JMcG

    "That comment makes me want to watch it [Mulholland Drive] again. Really well done. Thank you!"

    You're so welcome and I hope you enjoy it! I'm a lifelong movie buff and am always thrilled when I say anything that prompts someone to enjoy/revisit/reflect on a movie.

  126. @Abe
    @Jtgw


    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.
     
    One of the few (sole?) examples of the very thin veneer of intellectuality on the HOWARD STERN SHOW (like an inch-deep slick of mountain spring water atop a Great Lake-size accumulation of pond scum) was Howard’s frequent goofing on his own father for Stern Pere’s voluble fascination with the fact that WWII-era Hungary’s semi-fascist strongman leader was an admiral. An admiral! In famously landlocked Hungary!

    Yet to anyone with even a basic education the paradox quickly resolves itself. Hungary. Once Austria-Hungary. Encompassing Trieste, the Dalmatian Coast, and hundreds of miles of Blue Danube. It was of course in the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy where old Admiral Horthy made his bones, and so the impossibility quickly dissolves and in its place you find standing a mere absurdity. Absurd as the Hapsburg Empire itself, where German royals were constantly lecturing the Magyar nobility to ease up on THEIR ethnic chauvinism towards the Slavs lest the Empire burst apart over it (“Ja, Herr Attila-son. Try zum ov this diverzity, inkluzion, und ekquality. Die DIE.”)

    It was on one of these Hasburg riverine absurdities that Wittgenstein served out his first tour of duty during WWI. Yes, Wittgenstein the most playful, boyish, and therefore Wes Anderson-ish of all major 20th Century philosophers, patrolling the Vistula on the look-out for Cossacks all the while writing the first few chapters of TRACTATUS among shipmates so course and swinish he could barely hold down his disgust. Wittgenstein, rich as Midas in 1913 (his family fortune was such that his father would be the modern day equivalent of a Walton heir, if not- eventually- one of the Bezos kids), getting badgering letters from Cambridge University on his Viennese gunboat about that fellowship he had expressed interest in (not for him to receive, but for him to endow). Wittgenstein, the three-quarters Jewish German nationalist Cathlolic pietist who’d eventual give away his fortune to his brothers, three-quarters of whom would kill themselves.

    If Wes Anderson is not to be liquidated from Hollywood for the crimes of both whiteness and maleness (terms to be served consecutively, not concurrently) THIS is the movie he was born to make. The life aquatic. Everything-is-illuminated philosophizing. Funny-looking yet stylish Mitteleuropa clothes and headgear. GRAND HOTEL BUDAPEST was a near-great film, but ultimately only a journeyman’s work compared to this masterpiece (a crazy mix of all his previous films plus APOCALYPSE NOW crossed with MY DINNER WITH ANDRE crossed with AGUIRRE WRATH OF GOD). Let GRAND HOTEL become his mere LED ZEPPELIN III.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    Anyway, I’ve been fascinated with Austria Hungary ever since I read John Biggins’ “A Sailor of Austria” as a teenager. Last gasp of the medieval, pre-national Europe, where your main loyalties were to the king and the church, not the nation state.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    @Abe

    SWPLs and SJWs have increasingly less and less overlap.

    Replies: @Jtgw

    How many hipsters in Portland are starting to realize that their bike lanes and craft beer depend on rough men tear gassing Antifa rioters and jailing black rapists?

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Jtgw

    There was a riot yesterday between black power for blacks BLM and White anti fa troops in Portland. BLM wants the Whites to drop out of the cause. Or at least move to the back, be silent and let BLM rule the revolution.

    , @duncsbaby
    @Jtgw

    Preciously few apparently.

  128. Let’s see, Openness Top 10:

    WAKING LFE: Pretty good.

    PI: Perfect for a high IQ 18-year old (I was 18 when I saw it; I liked it, but I’ve never felt the urge to watch it again).

    A SCANNER DARKLY: Maybe the most faithful PKD adaptation. Not as good as the book, though.

    THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP: Makes a good double bill with WAKING LIFE.

    THE FOUNTAIN: Maybe Aronofsky’s best film. It’s certainly the one that I’ve re-watched the most often.

    MULHOLLAND DRIVE: Lynch’s masterpiece.

    DARJEELING LIMITED: Meh. Nowhere near as good as GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL….And GBH is not as good as the film that inspired it, Lubitsch’s magnificent THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER.

    BEING JOHN MALKOVITCH: Extremely good…But I prefer ADAPTATION

    THE BUDDHA: Never seen it.

    THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU: I like it better than DARJEELING…but it’s still not as good as GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL.

    High Openness Bottom ten:

    Haven’t seen any of them.

  129. @Steve Sailer
    @Bardon Kaldian

    "But, the weakest thing about OCEAN is that it has no theory of psyche or personality behind it. It is just semi-empirically concocted test."

    Or maybe that's an advantage. OCEAN didn't emerge out of some cult of the great genius like Freudianism did. It was just a bunch of Big Ten university psychology professors endlessly crunching numbers, and this is, more or less, what they happened to come up with.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    I know, but this is as weak as Wolfram’s New kind of science. Simulation is not explanation; observing patterns is not understanding anything.

    Historically, this not unlike Ptolemy & his universe. He got regularities. But, he did not have a theory, gravity, mass, force etc.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Bardon Kaldian

    That is the dirty secret of science. There is no "explanation" or "understanding". There are mathematical equations that describe and predict behavior. That's what modern mathematical science is, and it is basically what Ptolemy was doing:

    https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2014-08/001530.html


    There is no theory behind Maxwell's equations: the equations are the theory. To the extent they produce the correct results when experimental conditions are plugged in, and predict new phenomena which are subsequently confirmed by experiment, they are valuable. If they err, they should be supplanted by something more precise. But they say nothing about what is really going on—they only seek to model what happens when you do experiments. Today, we are so accustomed to working with theories of this kind: quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics, that we don't think much about it, but it was revolutionary in Maxwell's time. His mathematical approach, like Newton's, eschewed explanation in favour of prediction: “We have no idea how it works, but here's what will happen if you do this experiment.” This is perhaps Maxwell's greatest legacy.
     

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  130. @jamie b.
    @theMann


    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.
     
    Meaning what? That you can't convince them that they're 'wrong' to like something odd or surreal?

    Replies: @theMann

    Meaning, among other things, that you can’t convince fan boys that just because you like a film, it is therefore a good film. It is ok to like a film that is basically garbage, it is not ok to pretend it is a masterpiece because you like it.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @theMann

    So nobody can call a movie 'good' or a 'masterpiece,' or just people who like movies that you don't?

  131. @SimpleSong
    @Thoughts

    The only thing I remember about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was Eve's white titties when she was kicked out of the Garden.

    The ceiling was nothing more than an excuse for some realistic T&A. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Buffalo Joe

    Bro, check out the knockers on this Venus chick. I was at the Uffizi and thought I was at a dang titty bar.

    https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/birth-of-venus

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Lockean Proviso

    The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: The Birth of Venus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fbD0btGvBE


    Uma Thurman's entrance as Venus in the 1988 film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
     

    Replies: @JMcG

  132. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The Top and Bottom 10 lists tend to be movies that polarized audiences, although that includes in the sense of not going to see them. E.g., Aronofsky's "Pi" about a math genius who may have discovered a secret to the universe desired by Wall Street and ultra-orthodox kabbalist Jews has mostly only been seen by above average IQ males who like math. It's well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was "interesting" but wouldn't go out of the way to Like it on Facebook.

    Huge hit movies tend to appeal more broadly: e.g., Gone With the Wind is a women's movie, but features leading man legend Rhett Butler in his most famous role. Titanic was a women's movie, but it also revealed that Leonardo DiCaprio, who had seemed like a teenybopper pretty boy, was going to be a major movie star in guy movies.

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Siskel & Ebert – Pi review (1998)

  133. @Altai

    and horror movies [The Shining, Alien, Psycho] have fans that are less Agreeable and Extraverted and more Neurotic.
     
    So does this explain why horror movie fanboys are among the failed director category than the working director category? Being both neurotic and less agreeable along with introverted seems to stunt your professional progression. I assumed the relationship might simply be due to how easy it was to make your own horror film and so they tried to get into film school more than fans of other genres since they'd had a go at making their own.

    It also describes Quentin Tarantino to a tee, the seemingly only hardcore horror fanboy who has seen major success despite his odious personality.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Nathan

    I think your second theory- that it’s easy to make your own horror movie- is probably closer to the truth. But what makes you say that horror movie fanboys tend to be among the failed director category? Is that the case?

    If I had money to put up to produce movies, it would be horror, all the way. It gives you a much, much better chance of turning a profit off of a smaller initial investment. Horror movies are also more likely to turn into enduring intellectual property, with schlock sequels and remakes after 20 years being almost guaranteed for successful movies. Yes, if given the option I would have put my money behind the young Wes Craven and not the young Wes Anderson.

    But then again I spent last night watching Castle Freak on Joe Bob Briggs’ Last Drive-In, so maybe I’m biased.

    • Replies: @Anon87
    @Nathan

    Agree 100%. And one hit with a huge ROI can grant someone a long career behind the camera, justified or not. Worst case you collect autograph money from conventions for a few decades.

    I'm hoping Shudder lets JBB pick a few more titles himself, versus forcing their garbage on him. You always know when the breaks are infrequent and not as informative as usual. Looking at you, Haunt.

    Replies: @Nathan, @SunBakedSuburb

  134. @jamie b.
    @Anonymous


    ...people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they’re sophisticated....
     
    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart. Appeals to mind-reading are liable to backfire. They're more likely to tell us something about you than the intended target. Believe it or not, some people genuinely enjoy surreal things.

    Replies: @Thoughts, @Anonymous

    When I was a kid I had a babysitter who insisted that I only pretended to have an interest in science so as to look smart.

    Incidentally, there’s lots of overlap between the “I f*cking love science!” crowd and people who say they like Lynch a lot.

  135. @Father O'Hara
    The best sports movie was "The Monty Stratton Story," with Jimmy Stewart.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “The best sports movie”

    Either Slap Shot (1977) or Number One (1969). Brian’s Song (1971) is the gay man’s pick for best sports movie. All baseball movies are gay.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @SunBakedSuburb


    All baseball movies are gay.
     
    C'mon. What about Major League?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @njguy73
    @SunBakedSuburb

    "All baseball movies are gay."

    Two words: Bull. Durham.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  136. @Stan Adams
    I have a fondness for sleazy, badly-dubbed Indonesian action movies:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx_agCH3xmk

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @dfordoom

    Best of the Worst: Lady Terminator, Lost in Dinosaur World, and Low Blow

    Colin from Canada joins the gang to watch a terminator film, a film about a theme park filled with dinosaurs, and a movie where an old man punches people.

  137. @SimpleSong
    @Thoughts

    The only thing I remember about the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was Eve's white titties when she was kicked out of the Garden.

    The ceiling was nothing more than an excuse for some realistic T&A. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Buffalo Joe

    Simple, one of the funniest comments ever here at iSteve.

  138. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The Top and Bottom 10 lists tend to be movies that polarized audiences, although that includes in the sense of not going to see them. E.g., Aronofsky's "Pi" about a math genius who may have discovered a secret to the universe desired by Wall Street and ultra-orthodox kabbalist Jews has mostly only been seen by above average IQ males who like math. It's well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was "interesting" but wouldn't go out of the way to Like it on Facebook.

    Huge hit movies tend to appeal more broadly: e.g., Gone With the Wind is a women's movie, but features leading man legend Rhett Butler in his most famous role. Titanic was a women's movie, but it also revealed that Leonardo DiCaprio, who had seemed like a teenybopper pretty boy, was going to be a major movie star in guy movies.

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “It’s well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was “interesting” but wouldn’t go out of the way to Like it on Facebook.”

    Then by definition, that film is a borderline flop. Films such as these won’t do a studio much good when attempting to remain in the black, especially considering at how fickle the movie public can be from decade to decade.

    Film must be run like a business or it will never survive long as an art.

    There are many examples of massive hits that appeal to broad range of audiences and are not dependent upon one gender. The films of classic filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, one of the rare filmmakers who’s appeal to both genders, tended to offer something for both: Adjusted for inflation, The Ten Commandments, ranks among the top 5-10 most commercially successful films ever made. It’s not a chick film, but neither is it exactly an all male film either. Gibson’s The Passion, is also a massive unquantified hit. It’s not a chick flick either.

    The other massive hit of 1939, The Wizard of Oz, is not a chick hit per se. It does tend to offer something for everyone: women, some men, and of course families and children in particular.

    Unlike Scorcese’s Taxi Driver, (which flopped during its initial run, or at least did not turn a profit), the “other” film of 1976, Rocky, finished first at the box office, won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and launched sequels that spanned multi-generations. Rocky, while it does tend to have elements that appeal to women, is certainly not concerned with primarily appealing to women. Same with the Godfather franchise. Most of the James Bond films, one of the world’s most commercially successful franchises for over half a century tends to market itself to both women and men.

    The fact does tend to remain: many of critically acclaimed filmmakers tend to have a small audience. If they ever have a commercial hit, its almost by accident. Why aren’t they making a conscious effort to craft their images and work in order to increase a larger share of the paying public? If Joker could do it, then it puts the lie to the idea that ‘In order to be considered a true artiste, you can’t possibly attempt to appeal to the public at large’. That is bolderdash. It used to be done in Hollywood, and fairly regularly. Perhaps the fault lies with the filmmakers themselves.

    One of the most commercially successful franchises in the world remains the Marvel Franchise. There must be a reason why that is the case. They aren’t chick flicks per se, and special effects can only take one so far, especially if there’s no compelling story with interesting characters behind it. Because many of the Marvel/DC characters first enjoyed success in the comic format before appearing on the screen is no guarantee that they would (or have) perform(ed) beyond expectations at the box office. After all, there are many big budgeted flops that litter Tinseltown’s celluloid screens that “everyone” thought were destined to be massive hits but failed.

    In other words if a studio has too many flops it soon finds itself in bankruptcy.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The top ten and bottom ten for each personality dimension are likely to not garner a huge audience because they are too extreme in their appeals. For example, "Pi" made one million dollars at the North American box office in 1998, which isn't bad for a super low budget black and white movie with no stars in it and a conceptually difficult screenplay about math. But if the amount of good filmmaking that went into Pi had been applied to a more broadly appealing property, it would have made a lot more money.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @(((Owen)))

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Perhaps film is intrinsically limited, as German theorist Heinrich Wölfflin speculated: Film is a picture book of life for the illiterate.

    It is first & foremost an entertainment; then, possibly, it may become a work of art-for some time. It has two weaknesses: a) it is a product of too many people plus budget constraints, so it cannot be fully authorial, b) it depends too much on technology, so most older movies become absurd or inadvertently funny. Or boring.

    One can listen to a piece of music 50-100 times; one can read a piece of literature 50-100 times. Just, I don't think one can watch a movie 50-100 times.

    Movies have wider appeal, but this form of entertainment is much more limited than others.

    Replies: @theMann

  139. @Steve Sailer
    @Mike Zwick

    A lot of weekly movie reviewing is just whether or not a movie "works." E.g., among Oliver Stone movies, "JFK," no matter what else you think about it, works as a movie in terms of rhythm, propulsion, and so forth. In contrast, "Alexander" doesn't much work. I got an uneasy feeling during the opening credits that "Alexander" wasn't going to be very good and it wasn't.

    Replies: @Mike Zwick

    All of what you said can describe the reviews for Hillbilly Elegy. The reviewers who trashed the movie because of the politics behind what J.D.Vance had written and how it was surgically removed, had it all wrong. The reviewers who said that the characters lacked any depth and that some of the dialog seemed like it was from a Twitter self help group were right about it. One tells us what movies they think we should like, the other talks about if the movie worked.

  140. @syonredux
    @Jasper Been

    RE: Mulholland Drive,

    Try watching it back-to-back with Lynch's favorite film, The Wizard of Oz.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Nawwwwww, be a real lynchmob: get two TVs and sync ’em.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @J.Ross

    Maybe do it Ozymandias style....


    https://www.destructoid.com/ul/530524-watchmen.jpg

  141. @Anonymous
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Part of makes it difficult to create a great movie is that it has to be unique enough for the public to find it compelling. After it has been done once everything after that is derivative. So you are not too much looking for the formula but looking to break the formula, at least enough to trigger the appropriate dose of dopamine etc.

    https://youtu.be/6zpvlMp04D0

    The other thing to remember is that after 30-50 years the classics can be given a retread in some cases, much like magazine content, and no one cares enough that it impacts the bottom line. See Joker.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    ‘After it has been done once everything after that is derivative.”

    Basically, from a creative standpoint, everything in film had been done by about 1927. And then sound came along. After Citizen Kane (1941), everything has been done. Nothing new under the sun that can’t be found in the past in world film somewhere at sometime.

    What it really boils down to then, is a compelling story with characters that the public cares about. At a basic level, filmmakers are storytellers. How successful their stories are, the one clear consensus measure is the box office. Do people enjoy the story well enough to buy what they’re being sold on the screen?

    Sometimes it really is best to take the film away from the filmmakers and let the studios decide on how the final cut should look. After all, 99% of the time, it’s their money that’s funding the budget and not the filmmaker. It’s not a soup kitchen, not a charity case. It’s a business, and the art won’t survive long if the medium isn’t run accordingly like a business.

  142. @Nathan
    @Altai

    I think your second theory- that it's easy to make your own horror movie- is probably closer to the truth. But what makes you say that horror movie fanboys tend to be among the failed director category? Is that the case?

    If I had money to put up to produce movies, it would be horror, all the way. It gives you a much, much better chance of turning a profit off of a smaller initial investment. Horror movies are also more likely to turn into enduring intellectual property, with schlock sequels and remakes after 20 years being almost guaranteed for successful movies. Yes, if given the option I would have put my money behind the young Wes Craven and not the young Wes Anderson.

    But then again I spent last night watching Castle Freak on Joe Bob Briggs' Last Drive-In, so maybe I'm biased.

    Replies: @Anon87

    Agree 100%. And one hit with a huge ROI can grant someone a long career behind the camera, justified or not. Worst case you collect autograph money from conventions for a few decades.

    I’m hoping Shudder lets JBB pick a few more titles himself, versus forcing their garbage on him. You always know when the breaks are infrequent and not as informative as usual. Looking at you, Haunt.

    • Replies: @Nathan
    @Anon87

    Such is the nightmare/blessing of digital streaming. I'm sure Shudder would let JBB host whatever he wanted, if they could. I can't even keep digital movies that I've bought and theoretically "own." I routinely have movies in my Amazon Prime account become unavailable after I've paid for digital copies. It's infuriating, and I'm sure that it's no better for streaming platforms like Shudder and it's owner AMC.

    Replies: @Anon87

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Anon87

    "Shudder"

    The paltry $4.99 per month I pay for Shudder is money well-spent. This month the service added nearly all of Mario Bava's 1960s films and Richard Stanley's adaptation of the Color Out Of Space (2016). Shudder is basically TCM for the cinema of the weird.

    Replies: @Anon87, @Known Fact

  143. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "It’s well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was “interesting” but wouldn’t go out of the way to Like it on Facebook."

    Then by definition, that film is a borderline flop. Films such as these won't do a studio much good when attempting to remain in the black, especially considering at how fickle the movie public can be from decade to decade.

    Film must be run like a business or it will never survive long as an art.

    There are many examples of massive hits that appeal to broad range of audiences and are not dependent upon one gender. The films of classic filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, one of the rare filmmakers who's appeal to both genders, tended to offer something for both: Adjusted for inflation, The Ten Commandments, ranks among the top 5-10 most commercially successful films ever made. It's not a chick film, but neither is it exactly an all male film either. Gibson's The Passion, is also a massive unquantified hit. It's not a chick flick either.

    The other massive hit of 1939, The Wizard of Oz, is not a chick hit per se. It does tend to offer something for everyone: women, some men, and of course families and children in particular.

    Unlike Scorcese's Taxi Driver, (which flopped during its initial run, or at least did not turn a profit), the "other" film of 1976, Rocky, finished first at the box office, won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and launched sequels that spanned multi-generations. Rocky, while it does tend to have elements that appeal to women, is certainly not concerned with primarily appealing to women. Same with the Godfather franchise. Most of the James Bond films, one of the world's most commercially successful franchises for over half a century tends to market itself to both women and men.

    The fact does tend to remain: many of critically acclaimed filmmakers tend to have a small audience. If they ever have a commercial hit, its almost by accident. Why aren't they making a conscious effort to craft their images and work in order to increase a larger share of the paying public? If Joker could do it, then it puts the lie to the idea that 'In order to be considered a true artiste, you can't possibly attempt to appeal to the public at large'. That is bolderdash. It used to be done in Hollywood, and fairly regularly. Perhaps the fault lies with the filmmakers themselves.

    One of the most commercially successful franchises in the world remains the Marvel Franchise. There must be a reason why that is the case. They aren't chick flicks per se, and special effects can only take one so far, especially if there's no compelling story with interesting characters behind it. Because many of the Marvel/DC characters first enjoyed success in the comic format before appearing on the screen is no guarantee that they would (or have) perform(ed) beyond expectations at the box office. After all, there are many big budgeted flops that litter Tinseltown's celluloid screens that "everyone" thought were destined to be massive hits but failed.

    In other words if a studio has too many flops it soon finds itself in bankruptcy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bardon Kaldian

    The top ten and bottom ten for each personality dimension are likely to not garner a huge audience because they are too extreme in their appeals. For example, “Pi” made one million dollars at the North American box office in 1998, which isn’t bad for a super low budget black and white movie with no stars in it and a conceptually difficult screenplay about math. But if the amount of good filmmaking that went into Pi had been applied to a more broadly appealing property, it would have made a lot more money.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Coincidentally, 1998 was the same year that "The Blair Witch Project" was released. It was made by a few film school students for about 50k, basically the budget was put on credit cards. It was picked up, I believe, by Warner Bros. Worldwide, it grossed at the time, somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 million (in 1998 dollars).

    So it is possible for a low budget/art film to become a runaway commercially successful hit.

    , @(((Owen)))
    @Steve Sailer

    I saw Pi at Sundance. The room was packed.

    It was one of the smaller screenings, not a giant theatre, but there must have been well over 100 people.

  144. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    @Steve Sailer

    I know, but this is as weak as Wolfram's New kind of science. Simulation is not explanation; observing patterns is not understanding anything.

    Historically, this not unlike Ptolemy & his universe. He got regularities. But, he did not have a theory, gravity, mass, force etc.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That is the dirty secret of science. There is no “explanation” or “understanding”. There are mathematical equations that describe and predict behavior. That’s what modern mathematical science is, and it is basically what Ptolemy was doing:

    https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2014-08/001530.html

    There is no theory behind Maxwell’s equations: the equations are the theory. To the extent they produce the correct results when experimental conditions are plugged in, and predict new phenomena which are subsequently confirmed by experiment, they are valuable. If they err, they should be supplanted by something more precise. But they say nothing about what is really going on—they only seek to model what happens when you do experiments. Today, we are so accustomed to working with theories of this kind: quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics, that we don’t think much about it, but it was revolutionary in Maxwell’s time. His mathematical approach, like Newton’s, eschewed explanation in favour of prediction: “We have no idea how it works, but here’s what will happen if you do this experiment.” This is perhaps Maxwell’s greatest legacy.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anonymous

    This is a post-modernist talk Bohr & other quantum guys had been selling from the 20's on to the wider audience. Einstein was right in ditching it.

    Of course physical models describe the universe, and these models are based on our concepts on the world "out there" and "in here". These concepts did not arise out of blue, but reflect our understanding of the world. The entire edifice of physical sciences in based of our perceptions of the world: force, energy, mass,... These concept are rooted in our experience of the world, but to become scientific, they had to be defined (mathematically) and then re-defined etc. But they mean something to us, and we can intuitively grasp their meaning. They didn't appear out of blue.

    With agreeableness, neuroticism,...- it is the same, but they are not as basic concepts of human existence as are emotion, thinking, imagination etc. At best, they are similar to thermodynamics which is, basically, statistical physics. So, OCEAN is simply a rough sketch which does not possess "aha!" element, the building block of any sustainable theory.

    Maxwell's equations describe the EM world according to Faraday, who has in words described the state of nature perfectly understandable to a layman.

  145. @Anonymous
    @BB753

    Most of the people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows trying to signal that they're sophisticated. He's one of the go-to directors to cite when people wish to appear to be above the normies and proles and more mainstream movies, but at this point citing him for that purpose is cliche and pedestrian.

    I wouldn't say his movies are unwatchable, except perhaps Inland Empire. He's a good craftsman of individual scenes, moods, bits of dialogue, short sequences, dreamy digressions, etc., but lacking as an architect and constructor of a coherent, full narrative and film. He masks these shortcomings by playing up quirkiness and obscurity, which seems to have worked well for him and his career. He's ultimately better as a cinematographer than a screenwriter or director.

    Replies: @jamie b., @SunBakedSuburb

    “people who claim to enjoy Lynch are midwits and middlebrows”

    David Lynch is incredibly sincere. He is quite funny. Both are middlebrow qualities. Middlebrow: It’s where life exists. Homes begin in the mid 500,000s!

  146. @Reg Cæsar
    @Robert Dolan


    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

     

    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.

    Ebert was a mad Kraut from a college town. An altar boy-gone-bad. A lot of that going around.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.

    I once saw S&E’s review of Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. Siskel thought it was very good. Ebert panned it. Among Ebert’s criticisms was that the first half of the movie had nothing to do with the second half, and that the fighting in the second half took place in a city not a jungle. I.e., Ebert got everything wrong. The first half of the FMJ showed, as few movies ever have, what a lot of military training is about – overcoming normal people’s aversion to aggression, brutality, and killing – turning regular guys into killers. As such, it had everything to do with the second half of the movie. And the fighting was in a city because it was supposed to be during the battle of Hue, which is a city. Does Ebert imagine that all of Vietnam is jungle? That it has no cities?

    When I was younger, I agreed with Ebert’s reviews more. As I got older, I found I agreed more with Siskel. And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole. That said, Ebert’s commentary on Citizen Kane is pretty interesting.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Mr. Anon

    While I enjoyed all of Full Metal Jacket, Ebert is hardly the only one who found the first half of the movie superior to the second half. After all, the two most compelling characters are not in the second half.


    And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole.
     
    If you watch any of their appearances on talk shows, you will see the opposite is true. Siskel always came across as the Ivy League snob, while Ebert was the man of the people. Of couse, Siskel's brain turned to pudding, so we never got to read his memoirs. Then again, he was always the more stoic of the two, with Ebert wearing his heart on this sleeve.
    , @Sam Malone
    @Mr. Anon

    I think Scarlet is right about Ebert being much more likeable in real life and Siskel being the complete asshole. If you doubt it, watch the outtake below where Siskel has clearly had a liquid lunch and can't keep from bellowing out his personal hates even though they're trying to film some promos. You can see that Ebert is humoring him to the degree necessary to keep things on track but would prefer not being around him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALFpRJKnK2U&ab_channel=hotmonger

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  147. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Father O'Hara

    "The best sports movie"

    Either Slap Shot (1977) or Number One (1969). Brian's Song (1971) is the gay man's pick for best sports movie. All baseball movies are gay.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @njguy73

    All baseball movies are gay.

    C’mon. What about Major League?

    • Disagree: SunBakedSuburb
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mr. Anon

    Well, Charlie Sheen is a switch hitter.

    I must confess I liked the use of the pejorative gay. It has been quite a long time since I used the term in that way, but it was generally used for school work or requirements that felt pointless, onerous, unrealistic and inapplicable in real life.

    e.g. "I don't mind my humanities breadth requirement as I can take some quasi-useful stuff like Econ, but the ethnic studies requirement is gay. 3 credits of liberal propaganda, thanks a**holes."

    The word filled a niche. I think it was used in the 1990s and probably earlier in obvious response to the repurposing of the word "gay" that once meant among other things, a swell old time - into homosexual. Which may as well have salted the earth with the former definition. Of course, there were no funerals held by the PC police over the wanton destruction of this quaint little word. (We'll get back to this, but first a diversion.)

    Apparently the word has meant homosexual in some circles prior to the 20th century even. I wonder if famous homosexual Noel Coward meant "gay" in this lyric in that sense as well, with a dual meaning, or just the old sense.

    https://youtu.be/CSPPI3r9LeE

    "Gay" was promoted over the accurate "homosexual", for the PC reason of re-branding a frowned-upon practice into something that tried to incorporate the various predelictions of homosexuals that weren't specifically phyiscally homosexual into an overall concept that wasn't immediately associated with a pejorative such as "fruity". So for example so-called "gay pride march" featured campy dancing and singing, homosexuals doing stuff they love but not engaging in sex acts in the process, generally.

    So it was unsurprising that "gay" began to take on the same pejorative tones that adjectives like "fruity" used to hold, only with a general pejorative aspect that by association put down homosexuality not necessarily involving anything homosexual.

    In any case, I suggest checking out Ninja Sex Party's "If we were gay" video that lampoons the gay lobby's branding of "gay" to be all that homosexuals like to do sans the act, to including all of those... plus references to the act itself. I won't link it directly here because Steve may not find it iSteve kosher, but as a fan of comedy it's pretty hilarious as is most of their stuff. Ironically one or both of the duo are almost surely at least bisexual and probably gay (i.e. Dan).

    Also interesting if you follow them, Dan has kind of gone back in the closet about his Jewishness, before he had the red star of David on his midsection, now it is a 5 sided star.

  148. @Single malt
    Movies I have disliked the most, or, in my opinion, are overrated

    My Dinner With Andre
    Youth Without Youth
    Restoration
    Inglorious Basterds
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Maps to the Stars
    The Great Beauty
    A Winter's Tale
    Movie 43
    Orlando
    Gigi
    The Shining
    Miss Julie
    Atonement
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    Something's Gotta Give
    Terms of Endearment
    The Crying Game
    The Birdman
    Boyhood
    Godfather III
    Raiders of the Lost Ark
    The Sacrament
    Field of Dreams
    Interstellar
    Revolution Road
    Ex Machina
    The Great Gatsby (both recent versions)
    Gangs of New York
    August: Osage County
    Ricki and the Flash

    Replies: @Anon87, @theMann, @Anonymouse

    Only seen about half the films on your list, but every one of those is, in fact, wildly overrated.

    Especially Raiders, on two levels:

    1. As TBBT pointed out, Indiana Jones is completely superfluous to the events: with or without him, the Nazis find the Ark, take it to the island and die.

    2. Some films bend history, Raiders craps all over it. A group of Nazis, in uniforms not yet adopted, are running around British Protectorate Egypt, in a marked aircraft, using a u-boat years away from development, leaving RPG’s lying around for Indy to use, when they a decade in the future, and this theater of the absurd is played straight.

    Raiders is an insult to our intelligence.

    • Thanks: FPD72
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    @theMann


    Raiders is an insult to our intelligence.
     
    Secret of The Incas—which Raiders is almost a remake of—is the better movie. But Raiders does have a few beautiful iconic scenes while Secret is more cynical and thoughtful.

    The most iconic scene is usually considered to be Yma Sumac singing. Not much compared to the boulder with the golden icon in Raiders. Or the truck scene.

    In Secret's favor, Charleton Heston is one of the few who can out-star-power Harrison Ford.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K02U0CVoutE
  149. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Father O'Hara

    "The best sports movie"

    Either Slap Shot (1977) or Number One (1969). Brian's Song (1971) is the gay man's pick for best sports movie. All baseball movies are gay.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @njguy73

    “All baseball movies are gay.”

    Two words: Bull. Durham.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @njguy73

    Five words.

    The Pride of the Yankees (1942). Gary Cooper was Oscar nominated for the performance. Awesome family film.

    Replies: @njguy73

  150. @theMann
    @jamie b.

    Meaning, among other things, that you can't convince fan boys that just because you like a film, it is therefore a good film. It is ok to like a film that is basically garbage, it is not ok to pretend it is a masterpiece because you like it.

    Replies: @jamie b.

    So nobody can call a movie ‘good’ or a ‘masterpiece,’ or just people who like movies that you don’t?

  151. @Jtgw
    @Steve Sailer

    How many hipsters in Portland are starting to realize that their bike lanes and craft beer depend on rough men tear gassing Antifa rioters and jailing black rapists?

    Replies: @Alden, @duncsbaby

    There was a riot yesterday between black power for blacks BLM and White anti fa troops in Portland. BLM wants the Whites to drop out of the cause. Or at least move to the back, be silent and let BLM rule the revolution.

  152. @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar


    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.
     
    I once saw S&E's review of Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Siskel thought it was very good. Ebert panned it. Among Ebert's criticisms was that the first half of the movie had nothing to do with the second half, and that the fighting in the second half took place in a city not a jungle. I.e., Ebert got everything wrong. The first half of the FMJ showed, as few movies ever have, what a lot of military training is about - overcoming normal people's aversion to aggression, brutality, and killing - turning regular guys into killers. As such, it had everything to do with the second half of the movie. And the fighting was in a city because it was supposed to be during the battle of Hue, which is a city. Does Ebert imagine that all of Vietnam is jungle? That it has no cities?

    When I was younger, I agreed with Ebert's reviews more. As I got older, I found I agreed more with Siskel. And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole. That said, Ebert's commentary on Citizen Kane is pretty interesting.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Sam Malone

    While I enjoyed all of Full Metal Jacket, Ebert is hardly the only one who found the first half of the movie superior to the second half. After all, the two most compelling characters are not in the second half.

    And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole.

    If you watch any of their appearances on talk shows, you will see the opposite is true. Siskel always came across as the Ivy League snob, while Ebert was the man of the people. Of couse, Siskel’s brain turned to pudding, so we never got to read his memoirs. Then again, he was always the more stoic of the two, with Ebert wearing his heart on this sleeve.

  153. Scrolling through the comments, why is everyone discussing so much about David Lynch here? (I guess it is the effect of Netflix parochialism). It’s like if you were talking about art history, but somehow everyone is talking only about Barnett Newman, when there is a world of Van Gough or Michelangelo to explore.

    We can find (and somewhat easily access) dozens of more interesting directors, just in a society like postwar Japan. For example, in 1950s Japan, there were about 20 interesting film directors.

    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix. But it’s not excessively difficult to order some DVD or blu-ray boxsets from more interesting film directors. It’s just a few dollars to buy the “Apu Trilogy” by Satyajit Ray.

    • Replies: @Nathan
    @Dmitry

    Yes, these absolute plebians that didn't take in all 9 hours of The Cremaster Cycle while it was on display at the Musée d'Art Moderne.

    https://preview.redd.it/jum9zr9dxz051.jpg?auto=webp&s=e0b4431e8232029e15485ee63fab4b9b464af9f8

    , @Anonymous
    @Dmitry


    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix.
     
    The movie selection on Netflix and the other major streaming services Amazon and Hulu is absolutely terrible. The vast majority of the movies on there are literal B-movies and Straight-to-Video movies that you've never heard of. Most of the stuff on there is unwatchable. You spend more time endlessly scrolling through the film list looking for something tolerable to watch than actually watching stuff. And most of the Netflix Originals are geared towards women viewers and tend to have lots of SJW and Wokeness stuff added in.

    It wasn't always like this. When Netflix was a DVD by mail service and early on in its streaming service, it had a good catalogue. But once streaming became big, I think the studios pulled a lot of the good movies available from Netflix. Blockbuster and the other old video rental places had a better selection than Netflix does now.

    Replies: @jamie b.

  154. @SaneClownPosse
    @SimpleSong

    Speaking of Mulholland, "Mulholland Falls" is interesting.

    Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS

    Yes! Jennifer Connolly pre breast reduction is worth the ticket price alone. Plus Nick Nolte playing Nick Nolte like no one can.

  155. @Single malt
    My personal favorite movies


    Vertigo
    Raging Bull
    Godfather I
    Godfather II
    Umbrellas of Cherbourg
    Brooklyn
    Wild Strawberries
    2001
    Slap Shot
    Hud
    The Dead
    Age of Innocence
    Goodfellas
    Roman Holiday
    The Third Man
    Dr Strangelove
    Barry Lyndon
    La Strada
    The Entertainer
    War and Peace (Bondarchuk version 1968)
    Phantom Thread
    Ladybird
    Casablanca
    America, America
    The Last Picture Show
    Paper Moon
    The Cat's Meow
    Tender Mercies
    Knight of Cups
    Tree of Life
    Metropolitan
    The Last Days of Disco
    Excalibur
    Play Misty for Me
    History of the World Part I
    Spaceballs
    The Big Libowski
    O Brother, Where Art Thou
    Burn After Reading
    This is Spinal Tap
    Best In Show
    Waiting for Guffman
    Chinatown
    The Last Detail
    Five Easy Pieces
    One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
    The Great Santini
    This Boy's Life
    A River Runs Through It
    The River
    Room With a View
    A Streetcar Named Desire
    Last Temptation of Christ
    Kundun
    Dersu Uzala
    Zorba the Greek
    Spartacus
    Ben Hur
    Tom Jones
    Dr Zhivago
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Satyricon
    Juliette of the Spirits
    The Leopard
    Zulu
    The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
    Night of the Iguana
    The Seventh Seal
    Black Narcisus
    The Red Shoes
    In the Name of the Father
    Blackhawk Down
    Gladiator
    Two Lovers
    Master and Commander
    One-Eyed Jacks
    She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
    Rio Grand
    Ray
    Walk the Line
    The Talented Mr Ripley
    American Hustle
    That Thing You Do
    Meet the Fockers
    Casino
    The Aviator
    L.A. Confidential
    Black Swan

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Etruscan Film Star, @john cronk

    There is a MORE feature here so your posts don’t take up too much space. You should learn to avail yourself of it.

  156. @JMcG
    @J.Ross

    Sorcerer the Roy Schneider movie? I remember being impressed with it when I finally saw it. Pretty bleak though. For some reason I pair it with Lost Command in my mind.

    Replies: @Jimbo in OPKS

    Sorcerer, which is brilliant, is a remake of a French movie, The Wages of Fear. Love both.

  157. @JMcG
    @Prof. Woland

    Well, by that measure Calvary, which had Brendan Gleason in the lead role, is the movie which I’ve given the most thought to over the years. I’m still not sure what to make of it. Local Hero is my favorite movie though.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    Calvary (2014) has a tricky tone that some may find confusing. Irish films strike a chord in me, and Brendan Gleeson is always interesting. It’s a film I’ve recommended to an ex-wife but no one else.

  158. @Steve Sailer
    @Almost Missouri

    "• Movie ROI correlates with almost nothing, except negatively with movie budget. Is this a confirmation of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (except with the footnote to producers not to let your spending get out of control)?"

    Right.

    Although my guess is that size of budget correlates with predictability of box office gross. There used to be a lot of big budget box office bombs, but there seem to be fewer in the 21st Century as movie studios have gotten things down more to a science with franchises, pre-existing intellectual property, and the like. Low budget movies have some small hope for a stratospheric ROI, while high budget movies don't.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    There used to be a lot of big budget box office bombs, but there seem to be fewer in the 21st Century as movie studios have gotten things down more to a science with franchises, pre-existing intellectual property, and the like.

    I thought the intellectual property thing would be much more of a problem now that piracy is so much easier than in the 20th century.

  159. @Bardon Kaldian
    @SimpleSong

    It is interesting how people differ....

    That's what I wrote about Twin Peaks, but is more about Lynch.

    Lynch is fascinated by style & he is good at it. But, there is not much substance in his work. I am not saying he is “shallow”; he is a creative stylist, so to speak. But not more, I guess. Even a clumsier director like Woody Allen has a world-view which can be articulated; Lynch does not have one.

    I think that Lynch cannot be categorized along conservative & liberal lines. He is a visual artist, in this genre- and yet, he doesn’t possess a developed national consciousness. He’s socio-culturally dumb.

    He’s a rootless cosmopolitan, whether one likes it or not. Let me repeat-his work cannot be dissociated, completely, from his life. And he is a lifelong practitioner of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation. I’ve been initiated into TM when I was in my early 20’s, practiced it for 3-4 months, had very good experiences (positive altered states of consciousness etc.), and dropped it soon after I realized it’s just a diluted neo-Vedanta with added quantum mysticism mumbo-jumbo plus fakery. Basically, they sell mantras or sacred words for meditation. The story is that you get some special mantra, a word to repeat when meditating, and that mantra is specifically designed to match your psycho-spiritual profile.

    So far, so good.

    But- it’s all fake. I’ve gotten a list of mantras, and have found mine. These are just names of Hindu gods categorized into time segments of two years: you’ll get one mantra if you are initiated when you’re in the 17-19 years old category; another if you are 20-22 & so on. Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

    Plus, there are genuine wisdom traditions operating with images, sounds, breathing,.. (Hermetism, Christian contemplative traditions, Sufism, Taoism, Kabbalah, ancient Greek traditions, Buddhism, Vedanta, …) that make TM basically a joke.

    And Lynch has stuck, uncritically, with TM for decades. If I appreciate him as a visual artist/fantasist- how can I take him seriously if he has shown to be so uncritical in one significant matter which colored all his life? Or his attitude towards cultural & historical traditions of his own country?

    I don’t expect filmmakers to be thinkers, but if we discuss Lynch’s case, my position is that he just doesn’t have a cognitive ability to see what’s right & what’s wrong re some social, cultural, let alone existential crucial issues.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Etruscan Film Star

    I’m not any kind of film expert (although I watched a lot of blu-ray boxsets this year because of the coronavirus lockdown, and have a Lynch blu-ray boxset).

    You can see how Lynch has some interesting references to older Hollywood films, by directors like Billy Wilder (“Sunset Boulevard”) or Charles Vidor (“Gilda”). Mulholland Drive will make sense for people who know the world and atmosphere of those Hollywood 1940s films.

    I wouldn’t criticize Lynch’s films for “rootless cosmopolitanism”, as they are part of a Hollywood tradition. Although perhaps you could criticize him for “formalism”. He makes films about films, and is trying to revive some of the traditional Hollywood iconography.

    But of course, Lynch’s are minor and unambitious, and are less interesting than the original 1940s film noir world that they reference to. Lynch’s films are like minor, pleasant, improvised codas on certain Hollywood mythologies.


    But why waste too much time talking about it, when there are so many interesting directors? 20th century also produced many more humanistic and ambitious films.

    Netflix and streaming sites can encourage provincialism, as they exclude most of the good films of the 20th century.

    But if you don’t mind ordering boxsets of DVDs and blu-rays, never before can our generation so easily access the 20th century cinema.

    We have better televisions then before (a perfect OLED television can be bought for less than a couple thousand dollars).

    And nowadays the work on restorations is improving. For example, how much skilled labour was applied to try to restore the “Apu Trilogy” for blu-ray:

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Dmitry

    Satyajit Ray is overrated. Now, if you want to talk about a non-Occidental filmmaker that more people should be watching, Yasujirō Ozu is the guy. An Autumn Afternoon is a genuine masterpiece:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azHij1r_Q1M

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  160. @JMcG
    @Kylie

    That comment makes me want to watch it again. Really well done. Thank you!

    Replies: @Kylie

    “That comment makes me want to watch it [Mulholland Drive] again. Really well done. Thank you!”

    You’re so welcome and I hope you enjoy it! I’m a lifelong movie buff and am always thrilled when I say anything that prompts someone to enjoy/revisit/reflect on a movie.

  161. @Anon87
    @Nathan

    Agree 100%. And one hit with a huge ROI can grant someone a long career behind the camera, justified or not. Worst case you collect autograph money from conventions for a few decades.

    I'm hoping Shudder lets JBB pick a few more titles himself, versus forcing their garbage on him. You always know when the breaks are infrequent and not as informative as usual. Looking at you, Haunt.

    Replies: @Nathan, @SunBakedSuburb

    Such is the nightmare/blessing of digital streaming. I’m sure Shudder would let JBB host whatever he wanted, if they could. I can’t even keep digital movies that I’ve bought and theoretically “own.” I routinely have movies in my Amazon Prime account become unavailable after I’ve paid for digital copies. It’s infuriating, and I’m sure that it’s no better for streaming platforms like Shudder and it’s owner AMC.

    • Replies: @Anon87
    @Nathan

    Another counter intuitive "advancement" of technology. With digital, you should have access to almost literally any film in existence on demand. But instead you have a continuously changing list of movies that are frankly less impressive than the old run of the mill Mom-and-Pop video store used to have. Let alone the libraries some of the better rental stores had to choose from.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  162. @Dmitry
    Scrolling through the comments, why is everyone discussing so much about David Lynch here? (I guess it is the effect of Netflix parochialism). It's like if you were talking about art history, but somehow everyone is talking only about Barnett Newman, when there is a world of Van Gough or Michelangelo to explore.

    We can find (and somewhat easily access) dozens of more interesting directors, just in a society like postwar Japan. For example, in 1950s Japan, there were about 20 interesting film directors.

    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix. But it's not excessively difficult to order some DVD or blu-ray boxsets from more interesting film directors. It's just a few dollars to buy the "Apu Trilogy" by Satyajit Ray.

    Replies: @Nathan, @Anonymous

    Yes, these absolute plebians that didn’t take in all 9 hours of The Cremaster Cycle while it was on display at the Musée d’Art Moderne.

  163. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The top ten and bottom ten for each personality dimension are likely to not garner a huge audience because they are too extreme in their appeals. For example, "Pi" made one million dollars at the North American box office in 1998, which isn't bad for a super low budget black and white movie with no stars in it and a conceptually difficult screenplay about math. But if the amount of good filmmaking that went into Pi had been applied to a more broadly appealing property, it would have made a lot more money.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @(((Owen)))

    Coincidentally, 1998 was the same year that “The Blair Witch Project” was released. It was made by a few film school students for about 50k, basically the budget was put on credit cards. It was picked up, I believe, by Warner Bros. Worldwide, it grossed at the time, somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 million (in 1998 dollars).

    So it is possible for a low budget/art film to become a runaway commercially successful hit.

  164. @njguy73
    @SunBakedSuburb

    "All baseball movies are gay."

    Two words: Bull. Durham.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Five words.

    The Pride of the Yankees (1942). Gary Cooper was Oscar nominated for the performance. Awesome family film.

    • Replies: @njguy73
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Yes, that too, and I could name five more baseball films that are the opposite of "gay" as SunBakedSuburb so charmingly put it.

    Seriously, using "gay" as an insult? I'm not a PC cop, but using that as an insult is just lazy.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

  165. @Dmitry
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I'm not any kind of film expert (although I watched a lot of blu-ray boxsets this year because of the coronavirus lockdown, and have a Lynch blu-ray boxset).

    You can see how Lynch has some interesting references to older Hollywood films, by directors like Billy Wilder ("Sunset Boulevard") or Charles Vidor ("Gilda"). Mulholland Drive will make sense for people who know the world and atmosphere of those Hollywood 1940s films.

    I wouldn't criticize Lynch's films for "rootless cosmopolitanism", as they are part of a Hollywood tradition. Although perhaps you could criticize him for "formalism". He makes films about films, and is trying to revive some of the traditional Hollywood iconography.

    But of course, Lynch's are minor and unambitious, and are less interesting than the original 1940s film noir world that they reference to. Lynch's films are like minor, pleasant, improvised codas on certain Hollywood mythologies.

    -
    But why waste too much time talking about it, when there are so many interesting directors? 20th century also produced many more humanistic and ambitious films.

    Netflix and streaming sites can encourage provincialism, as they exclude most of the good films of the 20th century.

    But if you don't mind ordering boxsets of DVDs and blu-rays, never before can our generation so easily access the 20th century cinema.

    We have better televisions then before (a perfect OLED television can be bought for less than a couple thousand dollars).

    And nowadays the work on restorations is improving. For example, how much skilled labour was applied to try to restore the "Apu Trilogy" for blu-ray:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5zib042hEs

    Replies: @syonredux

    Satyajit Ray is overrated. Now, if you want to talk about a non-Occidental filmmaker that more people should be watching, Yasujirō Ozu is the guy. An Autumn Afternoon is a genuine masterpiece:

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @syonredux

    Floating Weeds (both versions) as well. And Tokyo Story.

    Sansho the Bailiff by Kenji Mizoguchi shouldn't be overlooked either.

    But of course, when a Westerner thinks of Japan's golden age of filmmaking, the one filmmaker who prominently stands out is Akira Kurosawa. From Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai to minor classics like Ran, Kurosawa stands alone (or on his own) in the annuals of Japanese filmmakers.

    Replies: @syonredux

  166. @MEH 0910
    @anonymous

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332559770461609985

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332567772291883009

    Replies: @anonymous, @J.Ross

    Do you think Trump is deliberately trying to look like a fool?

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @anonymous

    He has had an awful lot of practice, say, several decades so by now he's a master at it. Behaving as if stupidity is a virtue. And The Donald is one spectacular virtuoso.

  167. I don’t think that I’ve seen any of the movies on the lists. I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @MBlanc46


    I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.
     
    Strange, this is the only mention of that movie in this thread. It's also one of my all-time favourites.

    I see watching a movie as entertainment. I don't think you should have to make some kind of effort to appreciate it, the way you would when reading literary classics that were written centuries ago.

    My two criteria for rating a film highly: Does it linger in my mind for a long time after I've watched it? And, would I like to watch it again some time?

    I never argue with anyone who praises a film I hate, if they genuinely think it's worth 100 minutes or whatever of their time to sit down and watch it. I'd be embarrassed to name some of the films I've enjoyed, for fear of being accused of having no taste.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Curle

  168. One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet. Hence, I almost never go to horror movies. That strikes me as pretty sensible. On the other hand, most people don’t seem to see it that way.

    I, too, like Steve, am jumpy and thus avoided horror movies for a long time. But then things changed, largely thanks to Scream.

    Although I was lukewarm on Scream and thought it was far overrated (and these days, I realize it was pushed to the moon because its creator was a gay man), the film launched a lot of serious discussion about slasher/ horror/scary movies, making more mainstream terms like “Final Girl” and describing the formula to most slasher movies—things that had eluded me in my jumpiness.

    The internet was also beginning then, too, and I was a teenager, and thus I was able to read a lot about this formulaic approach during my formative years, as well as the fact that some folks watched horror movies as comedies, cheering when characters died.

    So I ended up reading a lot of commentary about slasher films that demystified them and made them less scary and more ironic and scrutable. I also dated a girl who was a film major, and she watched a lot of horror movies for her thesis, so I ended up watching them and becoming a bit inured to it.

    And then the streaming services and YouTube kicked in about 10 years ago, making it easier to view a lot of horror movies in the safety of the home with the lights on. And then review shows like the Red Letter Media guys (i.e. the Mr. Plinkett guys) and Rob Ager made reviewing horror films either funny or scholarly, and not scary.

    All in all, since Scream , horror/slasher movies have been mainstreamed from the ghetto they once existed in (e.g. Paramount wanted really badly to cancel the Friday the 13th Series by # 3 because they were so embarrassed by them, but they kept making money, so Paramount kept churning them out, to the chagrin of critics of the time). Nowadays, horror is meta.

    I’m still a jumpy guy, but flipping on a low-budget new horror film at night is good entertainment for me, as I can see the seams, make fun of the bad acting, see the special effects (or lack thereof), and appreciate when one on a shoestring manages to make me care or make me a scared. Blumhouse churns them out and makes a steady profit by keeping the formula intact and getting quality out of their modest budgets.

    P.S. There’s a notable split in horror movies: pre-1970 and post-1970. The death of the Hays Code and the rise of shock cinema, especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, really created the modern horror film. Pre-1970 horror films are far more watchable and less bloody (if any blood is there at all). The post-1970 rise of gore in movies made low budget horror films more profitable, since some cheap special effects went a long way to grossing out/scaring the audience.

    • Replies: @Nathan
    @R.G. Camara

    "There’s a notable split in horror movies: pre-1970 and post-1970. The death of the Hays Code and the rise of shock cinema, especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, really created the modern horror film."

    Not so sure I agree with you there. That's the accepted narrative, but I think it's wrong. Sure, films got nastier in the later quarter or the 20th century, but I think things had started to shift far earlier. The 1960s gave us Eyes Without a Face, Peeping Tom, Blood Feast, Witchfinder General, and a few other dozen truly gory and nasty films. Earlier films were probably a little edgier thank they're given credit for now. In particular, the Universal Frankenstein movies and The Creature From the Black Lagoon still hold up. The bottoms line is, there is something in human nature that wants to confront the darkest and most terrible aspects of life, and that impulse knows no era.

    For my Jennifer Connnely fans from earlier in the thread, here's her prototype from 40 years earlier in the form of Julie Adams in The Creature From the Black Lagoon. Times might change, but people don't.

    https://i2.wp.com/universalmonstersuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/annex-adams-julie-creature-from-the-black-lagoon_01.jpg?fit=2066%2C1382&ssl=1

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  169. @Single malt
    My personal favorite movies


    Vertigo
    Raging Bull
    Godfather I
    Godfather II
    Umbrellas of Cherbourg
    Brooklyn
    Wild Strawberries
    2001
    Slap Shot
    Hud
    The Dead
    Age of Innocence
    Goodfellas
    Roman Holiday
    The Third Man
    Dr Strangelove
    Barry Lyndon
    La Strada
    The Entertainer
    War and Peace (Bondarchuk version 1968)
    Phantom Thread
    Ladybird
    Casablanca
    America, America
    The Last Picture Show
    Paper Moon
    The Cat's Meow
    Tender Mercies
    Knight of Cups
    Tree of Life
    Metropolitan
    The Last Days of Disco
    Excalibur
    Play Misty for Me
    History of the World Part I
    Spaceballs
    The Big Libowski
    O Brother, Where Art Thou
    Burn After Reading
    This is Spinal Tap
    Best In Show
    Waiting for Guffman
    Chinatown
    The Last Detail
    Five Easy Pieces
    One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
    The Great Santini
    This Boy's Life
    A River Runs Through It
    The River
    Room With a View
    A Streetcar Named Desire
    Last Temptation of Christ
    Kundun
    Dersu Uzala
    Zorba the Greek
    Spartacus
    Ben Hur
    Tom Jones
    Dr Zhivago
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Satyricon
    Juliette of the Spirits
    The Leopard
    Zulu
    The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
    Night of the Iguana
    The Seventh Seal
    Black Narcisus
    The Red Shoes
    In the Name of the Father
    Blackhawk Down
    Gladiator
    Two Lovers
    Master and Commander
    One-Eyed Jacks
    She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
    Rio Grand
    Ray
    Walk the Line
    The Talented Mr Ripley
    American Hustle
    That Thing You Do
    Meet the Fockers
    Casino
    The Aviator
    L.A. Confidential
    Black Swan

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Etruscan Film Star, @john cronk

    Thanks for your list making. Ask me if I care. No, better not.

    Are you a “tweenager”?

    • Replies: @Single malt
    @Etruscan Film Star

    My list-making was something like attempting idle chat with a few friends. Funny that it should bother you so much. Actually, I was surprised that our host didn’t throw it away.

    Tell me, what films have you starred in? I’m sure they must be terribly esoteric.

  170. @Bardon Kaldian
    @SimpleSong

    It is interesting how people differ....

    That's what I wrote about Twin Peaks, but is more about Lynch.

    Lynch is fascinated by style & he is good at it. But, there is not much substance in his work. I am not saying he is “shallow”; he is a creative stylist, so to speak. But not more, I guess. Even a clumsier director like Woody Allen has a world-view which can be articulated; Lynch does not have one.

    I think that Lynch cannot be categorized along conservative & liberal lines. He is a visual artist, in this genre- and yet, he doesn’t possess a developed national consciousness. He’s socio-culturally dumb.

    He’s a rootless cosmopolitan, whether one likes it or not. Let me repeat-his work cannot be dissociated, completely, from his life. And he is a lifelong practitioner of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation. I’ve been initiated into TM when I was in my early 20’s, practiced it for 3-4 months, had very good experiences (positive altered states of consciousness etc.), and dropped it soon after I realized it’s just a diluted neo-Vedanta with added quantum mysticism mumbo-jumbo plus fakery. Basically, they sell mantras or sacred words for meditation. The story is that you get some special mantra, a word to repeat when meditating, and that mantra is specifically designed to match your psycho-spiritual profile.

    So far, so good.

    But- it’s all fake. I’ve gotten a list of mantras, and have found mine. These are just names of Hindu gods categorized into time segments of two years: you’ll get one mantra if you are initiated when you’re in the 17-19 years old category; another if you are 20-22 & so on. Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

    Plus, there are genuine wisdom traditions operating with images, sounds, breathing,.. (Hermetism, Christian contemplative traditions, Sufism, Taoism, Kabbalah, ancient Greek traditions, Buddhism, Vedanta, …) that make TM basically a joke.

    And Lynch has stuck, uncritically, with TM for decades. If I appreciate him as a visual artist/fantasist- how can I take him seriously if he has shown to be so uncritical in one significant matter which colored all his life? Or his attitude towards cultural & historical traditions of his own country?

    I don’t expect filmmakers to be thinkers, but if we discuss Lynch’s case, my position is that he just doesn’t have a cognitive ability to see what’s right & what’s wrong re some social, cultural, let alone existential crucial issues.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Etruscan Film Star

    Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

    Bravo.

    One theory about mantras is that they give you something to concentrate on, helping to let go of mental chatter, which over time is conducive to transforming consciousness. Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling. Anybody who joins a cult or pays for a mantra is digging deeper into the material world.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Etruscan Film Star

    All great wisdom doctrines are based on some grand theory. Their practices did not arise out of nothing.

    For instance, one way to think is to consider a word/sound as a focus of concentration which will eliminate the chaos of inner chattering. This is both modern approach & is rooted in some aspects of traditional, Patanjali's Yoga.

    The other is a form of primitive magical identification of subject & object, in essence- you become what you think. According to that approach, images or sounds are considered conduits to higher, invisible realities. Regarding mantras, it is a magical linking of name with the existence of being. The name represents the very being of the thing. So, in this theory, if you repeat the name of something representing higher, invisible reality, you will, in time, become, existentially, the being that lives or has a life in supra-physical world (of course your body will not be transformed thus, but your inner mind will).

    That's why in many religions it is forbidden to utter a deity's name, because name represents the very deity & in the scheme of magical identification- it is deity.

    One may add that this invisible being could act when you focus on them- for instance, in Orthodox Christian prayer Kriste eleison, kyrie eleison, they think that not only will the repetition of the mantra prayer calm their other thoughts & urges, but Christ will "pour down" his energies, his grace on their hearts because he will "see" them striving to get into contact with him.

    As regards Lynch, Eastwood etc. & Transcendental meditation- it is not bad they practice it for their well being etc. Just, Lynch has bought into TM's paraphysical "theories" which had been empirically proven to be wrong. For instance, TM claims that if the square root of 1% of the population meditates in unison, the whole community will be better because mental waves-so to speak- will calm down all surrounding populace & the crime rate will drop off. They tried it in Washington DC, with a number of the meditators exceeding sqrt of 1% of DC's population.

    The result?

    The crime rate had risen.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Etruscan Film Star


    Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling.
     
    It's the eastern version of prayer, just without the God part.
  171. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    David Lynch, not unlike Quentin Tarantino, has vintage lower-budget Italian director doppelgangers, whom I recommend to everyone.

    David Lynch’s doppelganger is Dario Argento. All one has to do is watch the first 5-10 minutes of Suspiria, 1977 (not to be confused with the ghastly remake); Deep Red, 1975; Phenomena, 1985; to see that in terms of atmospherics and skill Argento and Lynch are blow-for-blow equals. Only Argento does more pulpy adventure horror things, with less pretentiousness. As much as that’s possible for an Italian director.

    Compare the opening scenes of Phenomena or Suspiria with the opening scenes of Twin Peaks. Same level, different budgets, different cultural baggage, different goals (pseudo pulp vs turbo pulp).

    Inferno and Tenebre are also magnificent Dario Argento films, which are again, “Pulpy David Lynch with testosterone, Italian style”.

    Quentin Tarantino’s dopplegangers are spread across a very wide spectrum in the genre adjacent to the Giallo genre–the Poliziotteschi genre. To enjoy a “proto-Tarantino” experience from the 1970s, I would recommend the following films:
    Live Like a Cop Die Like a Man, 1976 (a lesson in stylish over-the-toppery)
    Kidnapped, 1974 (a lesson of how to set tension in an enclosed space)
    Almost Human, 1974

    It is great that back in the day American pop culture was still vital enough to let through the filters directors like Lynch and Tarantino. But outrageous 1970s Italian horror, giallo, and Poliziotteschi flicks are delightful turbo pulp experiences I would also recommend to everyone who wants something stylish and sleazy and macho to counteract current year. It’s an endless treasury over there. One could spend years evening after evening checking out these cheap thrills over a favorite beverage.

  172. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I’m generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don’t like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn’t seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    I love that film so much, and definitely the best work of art i’ve ever experienced. it describes the misery of unreciprocated obsession/love so vividly. It’s such an unusual emotion to concentrate on. Absolutely outstanding and should be recommended to everyone

  173. @Alfa158
    @Jimbo in OPKS

    I forgot who it was, but someone once said that an activity cannot qualify as a sport if you can smoke while doing it.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    That’s one of those quotes that seems to be apocryphal, but John Kruk was once upbraided by a fan who caught him smoking. She said that athletes shouldn’t smoke, but Kruk retorted that he wasn’t an athlete; he was a baseball player.

    • Replies: @njguy73
    @ScarletNumber

    Ballplayers used to smoke in the dugout. Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, and others. But they didn't have a cigarette dangling from their mouths in the batter's box. Golfers will take a drag in their backswing.

  174. @R.G. Camara

    One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet. Hence, I almost never go to horror movies. That strikes me as pretty sensible. On the other hand, most people don’t seem to see it that way.
     
    I, too, like Steve, am jumpy and thus avoided horror movies for a long time. But then things changed, largely thanks to Scream.

    Although I was lukewarm on Scream and thought it was far overrated (and these days, I realize it was pushed to the moon because its creator was a gay man), the film launched a lot of serious discussion about slasher/ horror/scary movies, making more mainstream terms like "Final Girl" and describing the formula to most slasher movies---things that had eluded me in my jumpiness.

    The internet was also beginning then, too, and I was a teenager, and thus I was able to read a lot about this formulaic approach during my formative years, as well as the fact that some folks watched horror movies as comedies, cheering when characters died.

    So I ended up reading a lot of commentary about slasher films that demystified them and made them less scary and more ironic and scrutable. I also dated a girl who was a film major, and she watched a lot of horror movies for her thesis, so I ended up watching them and becoming a bit inured to it.

    And then the streaming services and YouTube kicked in about 10 years ago, making it easier to view a lot of horror movies in the safety of the home with the lights on. And then review shows like the Red Letter Media guys (i.e. the Mr. Plinkett guys) and Rob Ager made reviewing horror films either funny or scholarly, and not scary.

    All in all, since Scream , horror/slasher movies have been mainstreamed from the ghetto they once existed in (e.g. Paramount wanted really badly to cancel the Friday the 13th Series by # 3 because they were so embarrassed by them, but they kept making money, so Paramount kept churning them out, to the chagrin of critics of the time). Nowadays, horror is meta.

    I'm still a jumpy guy, but flipping on a low-budget new horror film at night is good entertainment for me, as I can see the seams, make fun of the bad acting, see the special effects (or lack thereof), and appreciate when one on a shoestring manages to make me care or make me a scared. Blumhouse churns them out and makes a steady profit by keeping the formula intact and getting quality out of their modest budgets.

    P.S. There's a notable split in horror movies: pre-1970 and post-1970. The death of the Hays Code and the rise of shock cinema, especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, really created the modern horror film. Pre-1970 horror films are far more watchable and less bloody (if any blood is there at all). The post-1970 rise of gore in movies made low budget horror films more profitable, since some cheap special effects went a long way to grossing out/scaring the audience.

    Replies: @Nathan

    “There’s a notable split in horror movies: pre-1970 and post-1970. The death of the Hays Code and the rise of shock cinema, especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, really created the modern horror film.”

    Not so sure I agree with you there. That’s the accepted narrative, but I think it’s wrong. Sure, films got nastier in the later quarter or the 20th century, but I think things had started to shift far earlier. The 1960s gave us Eyes Without a Face, Peeping Tom, Blood Feast, Witchfinder General, and a few other dozen truly gory and nasty films. Earlier films were probably a little edgier thank they’re given credit for now. In particular, the Universal Frankenstein movies and The Creature From the Black Lagoon still hold up. The bottoms line is, there is something in human nature that wants to confront the darkest and most terrible aspects of life, and that impulse knows no era.

    For my Jennifer Connnely fans from earlier in the thread, here’s her prototype from 40 years earlier in the form of Julie Adams in The Creature From the Black Lagoon. Times might change, but people don’t.

    https://i2.wp.com/universalmonstersuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/annex-adams-julie-creature-from-the-black-lagoon_01.jpg?fit=2066%2C1382&ssl=1

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Nathan

    Perhaps you're right on the timing. But I think the 1970s with its "porn chic" also had "horror chic", whereas the pre-1970 gore fests weren't as big a hits.

    But there was also definitely a move to a specific very recurrent, near-dominant theme in horror movies from the 1970s onward: city/suburban folk going to the country and being overwhelmed by whatever was out in the woods/on the edge of civilization: either (1) the locals or (2) monsters.

    E.g. Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp, The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.

    I believe these very common theme spoke to specific fears by the children of Boomers that, unlike their parents and grandparents, they had no survival skills for actual rural living and were just LARPing at it. So the woods really were terrifying to them, and it made them feel weak, especially next to Dad who grew up on a farm in the woods and then killed Nazis/Commies and then married their mom.

    That, and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies out to kill (((everyone))) from the city.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  175. @Robert Dolan
    @Mike Zwick

    Ebert also praised to high heaven that awful film, "The Motorcycle Diaries," that glorified the communist murderer homosexual Che Guevara.

    Ebert was insanely PC and always promoted marxist crap.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Mike Zwick

    Good thing he only reviewed movies!

  176. @syonredux
    @Dmitry

    Satyajit Ray is overrated. Now, if you want to talk about a non-Occidental filmmaker that more people should be watching, Yasujirō Ozu is the guy. An Autumn Afternoon is a genuine masterpiece:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azHij1r_Q1M

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Floating Weeds (both versions) as well. And Tokyo Story.

    Sansho the Bailiff by Kenji Mizoguchi shouldn’t be overlooked either.

    But of course, when a Westerner thinks of Japan’s golden age of filmmaking, the one filmmaker who prominently stands out is Akira Kurosawa. From Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai to minor classics like Ran, Kurosawa stands alone (or on his own) in the annuals of Japanese filmmakers.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Kurosawa's OK, but I prefer Ozu.

  177. @anonymous
    @MEH 0910

    Do you think Trump is deliberately trying to look like a fool?

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    He has had an awful lot of practice, say, several decades so by now he’s a master at it. Behaving as if stupidity is a virtue. And The Donald is one spectacular virtuoso.

  178. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    Scrolling through the comments, why is everyone discussing so much about David Lynch here? (I guess it is the effect of Netflix parochialism). It's like if you were talking about art history, but somehow everyone is talking only about Barnett Newman, when there is a world of Van Gough or Michelangelo to explore.

    We can find (and somewhat easily access) dozens of more interesting directors, just in a society like postwar Japan. For example, in 1950s Japan, there were about 20 interesting film directors.

    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix. But it's not excessively difficult to order some DVD or blu-ray boxsets from more interesting film directors. It's just a few dollars to buy the "Apu Trilogy" by Satyajit Ray.

    Replies: @Nathan, @Anonymous

    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix.

    The movie selection on Netflix and the other major streaming services Amazon and Hulu is absolutely terrible. The vast majority of the movies on there are literal B-movies and Straight-to-Video movies that you’ve never heard of. Most of the stuff on there is unwatchable. You spend more time endlessly scrolling through the film list looking for something tolerable to watch than actually watching stuff. And most of the Netflix Originals are geared towards women viewers and tend to have lots of SJW and Wokeness stuff added in.

    It wasn’t always like this. When Netflix was a DVD by mail service and early on in its streaming service, it had a good catalogue. But once streaming became big, I think the studios pulled a lot of the good movies available from Netflix. Blockbuster and the other old video rental places had a better selection than Netflix does now.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Anonymous


    It wasn’t always like this. When Netflix was a DVD by mail service and early on in its streaming service, it had a good catalogue.
     
    Good lord, yes. It was once so easy to find new and interesting things in the Netflix catalog. Now it's exactly as you say: no better than Blockbuster was.
  179. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Single malt

    Thanks for your list making. Ask me if I care. No, better not.

    Are you a "tweenager"?

    Replies: @Single malt

    My list-making was something like attempting idle chat with a few friends. Funny that it should bother you so much. Actually, I was surprised that our host didn’t throw it away.

    Tell me, what films have you starred in? I’m sure they must be terribly esoteric.

  180. @Anonymous
    @Dmitry


    The better cinema of the 20th century is not available on Netflix.
     
    The movie selection on Netflix and the other major streaming services Amazon and Hulu is absolutely terrible. The vast majority of the movies on there are literal B-movies and Straight-to-Video movies that you've never heard of. Most of the stuff on there is unwatchable. You spend more time endlessly scrolling through the film list looking for something tolerable to watch than actually watching stuff. And most of the Netflix Originals are geared towards women viewers and tend to have lots of SJW and Wokeness stuff added in.

    It wasn't always like this. When Netflix was a DVD by mail service and early on in its streaming service, it had a good catalogue. But once streaming became big, I think the studios pulled a lot of the good movies available from Netflix. Blockbuster and the other old video rental places had a better selection than Netflix does now.

    Replies: @jamie b.

    It wasn’t always like this. When Netflix was a DVD by mail service and early on in its streaming service, it had a good catalogue.

    Good lord, yes. It was once so easy to find new and interesting things in the Netflix catalog. Now it’s exactly as you say: no better than Blockbuster was.

  181. @Jtgw
    @Steve Sailer

    How many hipsters in Portland are starting to realize that their bike lanes and craft beer depend on rough men tear gassing Antifa rioters and jailing black rapists?

    Replies: @Alden, @duncsbaby

    Preciously few apparently.

  182. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    David Lynch creates fascinating characters, and shoots fascinating scenes. But his movies are somehow far less than the sum of their parts. So, you aren’t wrong about that.

  183. @Anonymous
    From a decade or more when I was interested in this... openness correlates fairly strongly with IQ. Disagreeableness with testosterone. I am a very open, conscientious but disagreeable bastard. ;) Hence why I like to argue on Unz with randos on the internet. Doesn't everyone?

    A few things jump out... movies like Pi, sure. No wonder there. Movies that reward thinking. Surrealism. Dark comedies. Hallucination. Smart people like highly rated stuff. Maybe more savvy people rate stuff too.

    Oh, and meet a Wes Anderson protagonist...

    https://youtu.be/trWLY6NrS2Q

    Never gets old!

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    • LOL: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @(((Owen)))

    That was funny - and Ed Norton was fantastic - at first I thought it was a rip off, but then now I see it is a homage to Screen Junkies, with the Alec Baldwin nod etc.

  184. @James Braxton
    Where do Whit Stillman movies fit in?

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Where do Whit Stillman movies fit in?

    Good question. Probably high on openness like other 80s and 90s Indie flicks. Those were great movies, though. He deserves more renown.

    But the bigger question is why no rating of Woody Allen movies? According to Steve’s theory, those should be off the chart as a marker of neuroticism.

  185. @SimpleSong
    @BB753

    I find Lynch's movies to be borderline unwatchable, but also great works of art. (I should also note that I usually rise to the guy's defense because his art is clearly quite conservative, even reactionary, and cuts against the narrative that great artists tend to be leftist.)

    Anyway--many years ago I had a lot of time on my hands and rented Mulholland Drive. Watched it. What the hell was that? Couldn't follow the plot, wasn't sure if there was a plot. At any other time in my life when I was busy with 1000 other things I would have returned the movie to the video store and that was that, but, again, a slow time for me, so I watched it again. Even without understanding the plot I had thought a lot of the imagery was compelling so, hey, why not. Second viewing: still didn't understand what was going on.

    At this point I had the idea to do an "internet search", which at the time was a relatively newfangled thing, about what this was all about. Again, had a lot of time on my hands. I was able to find some fairly credible analysis of what Lynch was going for, and watched it again with this in mind, and was pretty blown away with what he had done.

    What I think Lynch was going for in MD was to make a movie that, instead of providing an objective window into another reality, provides a window into someone else's subjective reality. I don't mean, 'gives you insight into their subjective reality by observing as a sympathetic third party', I mean that it is literally their reality and nothing exists outside it. That is, you see a person's rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up. The viewer's perspective is not that of a fly on the wall as is the case in 99.99% of movies, rather, the viewer is stuck inside the protagonist's head, and never leaves, not even for a moment. Even when you are seeing events that directly involve the protagonist, they are shown as the protagonist thinks an outside observer would have (or should have) seen them, not as they actually were. The plot is so difficult to follow because the protagonist's view of reality is so warped that there are only a few subtle hints as to what objectively happened in reality (or at least, the movie's reality.)

    To do this with words would be one thing; to do it with film, which by its very nature provides a superlative facsimile of the real world but no window into inner human thought, immensely more challenging.

    Did I enjoy Mulholland Drive in the conventional sense? If you had measured my brain dopamine levels as I was watching it, probably not. But here I am 20 years later and can describe not only the plot but the viewing experience because the damn thing was so unique. I'm generally not someone who likes things that are different just for the sake of being different. I don't like Jackson Pollack or Damien Hirst or even Picasso for that matter. But Lynch tried to make something genuinely new and different in an art form where it doesn't seem like there is much new under the sun, and in my opinion he pulled it off.

    Having said that, while I love the movie, I have never once recommended it to anybody, and likely never will.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Jasper Been, @Thoughts, @SaneClownPosse, @Bardon Kaldian, @Steve Sailer, @fatmanscoop, @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    “That is, you see a person’s rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up.”

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator. It’s a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too, ba-dum tzzzz.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen


    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator. It’s a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too,
     
    That is so true about women -- it's like the Gell-Mann effect where you hear them discussing something that you know about, and it's just pure fiction.

    Unreliable narrator is as much fun as a novel can get, but it doesn't translate so well for movies (though I'm sure someone here will have a good example) or work with actual relationships. Sci-fi writer Barry Malzberg, the master of unreliable narrators, said Pale Fire was his own favorite novel so I went ahead and read it -- twice!

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator.

    Not the earlier novels he wrote in Russian though, interestingly. Maybe he felt like he was a fraud writing in a foreign language and that leaked into his novels.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  186. Before this thread sinks too low, where would “Bushwick” (2017) fit on that chart?

    It’s an action picture with the wrestler Dave Bautista which should put it somewhere in the “Rambo” category. Lots of gunfire, chaos, and the sort of fighting you’d expect of Bautista from his world wrestling years.

    Except, as somebody pointed out, it’s sort of “Red Dawn” for the Antifa crowd. The enemy consists of white guys invading New York City to secede from the union, which somehow don’t make much sense. The heroes are the diverse locals who… never mind. Maybe it’s just too idiotic to be considered for anything.

    It’s the earliest anti-Trump movie I know of, though.

  187. A while back I did some number crunching on political party and movie popularity. Democrat: City of God (Cidade de Deus), Lost in Translation. Republican: The Hunger Games, Twilight. Spielberg had an eerie ability to land in the dead center.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Anon

    Which was probably why he was seen as such a family-friendly, all-American film-maker. Just enough liberalism to make Hollywood happy (Nazis are bad!) but still with positive views of family, America, and even masculinity in Indiana Jones.

  188. @MBlanc46
    I don’t think that I’ve seen any of the movies on the lists. I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.

    Strange, this is the only mention of that movie in this thread. It’s also one of my all-time favourites.

    I see watching a movie as entertainment. I don’t think you should have to make some kind of effort to appreciate it, the way you would when reading literary classics that were written centuries ago.

    My two criteria for rating a film highly: Does it linger in my mind for a long time after I’ve watched it? And, would I like to watch it again some time?

    I never argue with anyone who praises a film I hate, if they genuinely think it’s worth 100 minutes or whatever of their time to sit down and watch it. I’d be embarrassed to name some of the films I’ve enjoyed, for fear of being accused of having no taste.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Rob McX

    Seconds is the film that has lingered in my mind, even though it's none too pleasant to watch at times. Sinister organization gives unhappy people new faces and new lives -- aging executive John Randolph is reborn as handsome young artist Rock Hudson, but all does not go well. Hudson is amazingly good, plagued by a who's who of ominous character actors -- Will Geer, Jeff Corey etc. Frankenheimer directed and James Wong Howe did the gripping photography.

    Far more fun is Three Strangers -- Lorre and Greenstreet do their thing with hot/crazy Geraldine Fitzgerald as the catalyst. Writer John Huston was just warming up for Treasure of Sierra Madre with this little ditty on greed, luck and fate. Arthur Edeson -- of Casablanca fame -- handled the cinematography. Catch it if you can find it.

    , @Curle
    @Rob McX

    Truck Stop Women (1974).

    Replies: @Rob McX

  189. Are you going to review Ron Howard’s “Hillbilly Elegie”? Why do the critics hate it so much?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @International Jew

    1. The guy who wrote the book was a conservative.

    2. It focuses on a white male character.

    3. The guy escapes poverty through hard work.

    4. See number 1.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @International Jew

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/hillbilly-elegy-class-conflict-mercy/

  190. @jamie b.
    @BB753

    "Does anybody find Lynch’s movies fun, enjoyable..."

    Yes!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD6vm2HWK2s

    As well as grotesque...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztmuNDfBYQ

    ..and terrifying...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o

    ....and beautiful...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id75c8HGAxw

    ...and touching.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjeCNnbVYAQ

    "...coherent..."

    Nope. Not at all. Is that a bad thing?

    "...and absolutely not pretentious."

    Quite the opposite: his stuff comes across as folksy and heartfelt, just like Lynch himself. Surreal, to be sure, and his dialog always comes across as weirdly stilted, but I can hardly imagine how anyone can see it as 'pretentious.'

    Replies: @BB753

    I get it: you’re a Lynch fanboy.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @BB753

    A: Does anybody really like Lynch?

    B: Yes, I really like Lynch.

    A: Well then you're just a fanboy.

  191. @FPD72
    @BB753


    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.
     
    Two specifically Christian movies with good production values that I’ve seen in the last five years were Risen (directed by Kevin Reynolds) and Paul, Apostle of Christ. There are several that have come out of a Baptist church in Georgia but I wouldn’t consider any of them good.

    If you’re willing to go back forty years for major studio films with cast members you would recognize, Chariots of Fire, Shadowlands (starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger) and Luther (with Joseph Fiennes in the title role) are good.

    If you have Amazon Prime, all of these movies are available, though three of them are not free.

    In 2021, Fellowship for Performing Arts is dropping a movie based on the one man play, C.S. Lewis; God’s Most Reluctant Convert. A film version of the play is sometimes available on Prime or Netflix, but this movie is a real production, shot on location in England, with a good cast and Max McClean playing the older, mature Lewis. The play/movie traces Lewis’ intellectual journey from atheist to theist to Christian.

    Replies: @BB753

    Thanks for the tips. Of the films you mentioned, I was fortunate enough to catch Paul, Apostle of Christ on Netflix, and I found it excellent, with Caviezel playing Timothy (who was not Greek, BTW, as mentioned in the film) with a great screenplay, acting and tempo. That film should have made it to the Oscars.
    I’ll try to watch Luther though I’m not a fan of Reform, though Calvin was more odious as a historical figure and wrong on theological grounds than Luther. That’s not to say that Rome were the good guys.

  192. @Anonymous
    @Bardon Kaldian

    That is the dirty secret of science. There is no "explanation" or "understanding". There are mathematical equations that describe and predict behavior. That's what modern mathematical science is, and it is basically what Ptolemy was doing:

    https://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2014-08/001530.html


    There is no theory behind Maxwell's equations: the equations are the theory. To the extent they produce the correct results when experimental conditions are plugged in, and predict new phenomena which are subsequently confirmed by experiment, they are valuable. If they err, they should be supplanted by something more precise. But they say nothing about what is really going on—they only seek to model what happens when you do experiments. Today, we are so accustomed to working with theories of this kind: quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics, that we don't think much about it, but it was revolutionary in Maxwell's time. His mathematical approach, like Newton's, eschewed explanation in favour of prediction: “We have no idea how it works, but here's what will happen if you do this experiment.” This is perhaps Maxwell's greatest legacy.
     

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    This is a post-modernist talk Bohr & other quantum guys had been selling from the 20’s on to the wider audience. Einstein was right in ditching it.

    Of course physical models describe the universe, and these models are based on our concepts on the world “out there” and “in here”. These concepts did not arise out of blue, but reflect our understanding of the world. The entire edifice of physical sciences in based of our perceptions of the world: force, energy, mass,… These concept are rooted in our experience of the world, but to become scientific, they had to be defined (mathematically) and then re-defined etc. But they mean something to us, and we can intuitively grasp their meaning. They didn’t appear out of blue.

    With agreeableness, neuroticism,…- it is the same, but they are not as basic concepts of human existence as are emotion, thinking, imagination etc. At best, they are similar to thermodynamics which is, basically, statistical physics. So, OCEAN is simply a rough sketch which does not possess “aha!” element, the building block of any sustainable theory.

    Maxwell’s equations describe the EM world according to Faraday, who has in words described the state of nature perfectly understandable to a layman.

  193. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    Lynch has made a lot of fine movies (esp Blue Velvet, Mulholland, and Elephant Man) but his finest moment, the one shot that sums up his entire work, and is also one of the best shots in any movie, is Patricia Arquette in Lost Highway saying “You’ll never have me.”

    That’s his entire work, right there.

    • Replies: @Polynikes
    @Anonymous

    I find his treatment of Arquette in that movie among his finest work.

  194. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

     

    Bravo.

    One theory about mantras is that they give you something to concentrate on, helping to let go of mental chatter, which over time is conducive to transforming consciousness. Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling. Anybody who joins a cult or pays for a mantra is digging deeper into the material world.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jim Don Bob

    All great wisdom doctrines are based on some grand theory. Their practices did not arise out of nothing.

    For instance, one way to think is to consider a word/sound as a focus of concentration which will eliminate the chaos of inner chattering. This is both modern approach & is rooted in some aspects of traditional, Patanjali’s Yoga.

    The other is a form of primitive magical identification of subject & object, in essence- you become what you think. According to that approach, images or sounds are considered conduits to higher, invisible realities. Regarding mantras, it is a magical linking of name with the existence of being. The name represents the very being of the thing. So, in this theory, if you repeat the name of something representing higher, invisible reality, you will, in time, become, existentially, the being that lives or has a life in supra-physical world (of course your body will not be transformed thus, but your inner mind will).

    That’s why in many religions it is forbidden to utter a deity’s name, because name represents the very deity & in the scheme of magical identification- it is deity.

    One may add that this invisible being could act when you focus on them- for instance, in Orthodox Christian prayer Kriste eleison, kyrie eleison, they think that not only will the repetition of the mantra prayer calm their other thoughts & urges, but Christ will “pour down” his energies, his grace on their hearts because he will “see” them striving to get into contact with him.

    As regards Lynch, Eastwood etc. & Transcendental meditation- it is not bad they practice it for their well being etc. Just, Lynch has bought into TM’s paraphysical “theories” which had been empirically proven to be wrong. For instance, TM claims that if the square root of 1% of the population meditates in unison, the whole community will be better because mental waves-so to speak- will calm down all surrounding populace & the crime rate will drop off. They tried it in Washington DC, with a number of the meditators exceeding sqrt of 1% of DC’s population.

    The result?

    The crime rate had risen.

  195. The OCEAN model, of course, is un-replicable horse shit. Whatever applicability it has is limited to basic WEIRD types who take psychological tests while in college. Dipshit psychologists blame translation problems when it consistently refuses to work on non WEIRD people. I think Cattell’s 16 factor test measures more important and actually measurable things, but unlike OCEAN and Japanese blood type theories of personalities, it’s fairly complicated and has too many moving parts for pea brained psych major types to keep in their heads.

    FWIIW I like Mel Gibson movies and Taxi driver and hate everything else on the agreeable/disagreeable axis.

  196. @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar


    Siskel was way more down-to-earth.
     
    I once saw S&E's review of Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Siskel thought it was very good. Ebert panned it. Among Ebert's criticisms was that the first half of the movie had nothing to do with the second half, and that the fighting in the second half took place in a city not a jungle. I.e., Ebert got everything wrong. The first half of the FMJ showed, as few movies ever have, what a lot of military training is about - overcoming normal people's aversion to aggression, brutality, and killing - turning regular guys into killers. As such, it had everything to do with the second half of the movie. And the fighting was in a city because it was supposed to be during the battle of Hue, which is a city. Does Ebert imagine that all of Vietnam is jungle? That it has no cities?

    When I was younger, I agreed with Ebert's reviews more. As I got older, I found I agreed more with Siskel. And Siskel seemed like a likeable guy, whereas Ebert always came across as an A-hole. That said, Ebert's commentary on Citizen Kane is pretty interesting.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Sam Malone

    I think Scarlet is right about Ebert being much more likeable in real life and Siskel being the complete asshole. If you doubt it, watch the outtake below where Siskel has clearly had a liquid lunch and can’t keep from bellowing out his personal hates even though they’re trying to film some promos. You can see that Ebert is humoring him to the degree necessary to keep things on track but would prefer not being around him.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Sam Malone

    Thank you for your kind words, Sam. I always liked you in Cheers.

  197. @Nathan
    @R.G. Camara

    "There’s a notable split in horror movies: pre-1970 and post-1970. The death of the Hays Code and the rise of shock cinema, especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, really created the modern horror film."

    Not so sure I agree with you there. That's the accepted narrative, but I think it's wrong. Sure, films got nastier in the later quarter or the 20th century, but I think things had started to shift far earlier. The 1960s gave us Eyes Without a Face, Peeping Tom, Blood Feast, Witchfinder General, and a few other dozen truly gory and nasty films. Earlier films were probably a little edgier thank they're given credit for now. In particular, the Universal Frankenstein movies and The Creature From the Black Lagoon still hold up. The bottoms line is, there is something in human nature that wants to confront the darkest and most terrible aspects of life, and that impulse knows no era.

    For my Jennifer Connnely fans from earlier in the thread, here's her prototype from 40 years earlier in the form of Julie Adams in The Creature From the Black Lagoon. Times might change, but people don't.

    https://i2.wp.com/universalmonstersuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/annex-adams-julie-creature-from-the-black-lagoon_01.jpg?fit=2066%2C1382&ssl=1

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    Perhaps you’re right on the timing. But I think the 1970s with its “porn chic” also had “horror chic”, whereas the pre-1970 gore fests weren’t as big a hits.

    But there was also definitely a move to a specific very recurrent, near-dominant theme in horror movies from the 1970s onward: city/suburban folk going to the country and being overwhelmed by whatever was out in the woods/on the edge of civilization: either (1) the locals or (2) monsters.

    E.g. Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp, The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.

    I believe these very common theme spoke to specific fears by the children of Boomers that, unlike their parents and grandparents, they had no survival skills for actual rural living and were just LARPing at it. So the woods really were terrifying to them, and it made them feel weak, especially next to Dad who grew up on a farm in the woods and then killed Nazis/Commies and then married their mom.

    That, and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies out to kill (((everyone))) from the city.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @R.G. Camara


    So the woods really were terrifying to [millennials,] ... and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies.
     
    This stereotyping of rural people is annoying on mainstream TV as well as horror/slasher pics. When McGarrett or Mannix leaves the big city to crack a case out in the boonies, the townsfolk and deputies are inevitably tight-lipped, corrupt bigots ready to string up some innocent POC. Leslie Nielsen played an evil rancher who literally was out to lynch a native Hawaiian kid.

    So it's funny how TV ads -- say, for beer and pickup trucks -- portray rural small-town people in a rosy slo-mo glow, as strong, hard-working family folks rather than ignorant hayseeds. You do occasionally get a movie shot in this style e.g. Field of Dreams

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

  198. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "It’s well enough made that if somebody else got roped into watching it, he or she would likely reply that it was “interesting” but wouldn’t go out of the way to Like it on Facebook."

    Then by definition, that film is a borderline flop. Films such as these won't do a studio much good when attempting to remain in the black, especially considering at how fickle the movie public can be from decade to decade.

    Film must be run like a business or it will never survive long as an art.

    There are many examples of massive hits that appeal to broad range of audiences and are not dependent upon one gender. The films of classic filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, one of the rare filmmakers who's appeal to both genders, tended to offer something for both: Adjusted for inflation, The Ten Commandments, ranks among the top 5-10 most commercially successful films ever made. It's not a chick film, but neither is it exactly an all male film either. Gibson's The Passion, is also a massive unquantified hit. It's not a chick flick either.

    The other massive hit of 1939, The Wizard of Oz, is not a chick hit per se. It does tend to offer something for everyone: women, some men, and of course families and children in particular.

    Unlike Scorcese's Taxi Driver, (which flopped during its initial run, or at least did not turn a profit), the "other" film of 1976, Rocky, finished first at the box office, won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and launched sequels that spanned multi-generations. Rocky, while it does tend to have elements that appeal to women, is certainly not concerned with primarily appealing to women. Same with the Godfather franchise. Most of the James Bond films, one of the world's most commercially successful franchises for over half a century tends to market itself to both women and men.

    The fact does tend to remain: many of critically acclaimed filmmakers tend to have a small audience. If they ever have a commercial hit, its almost by accident. Why aren't they making a conscious effort to craft their images and work in order to increase a larger share of the paying public? If Joker could do it, then it puts the lie to the idea that 'In order to be considered a true artiste, you can't possibly attempt to appeal to the public at large'. That is bolderdash. It used to be done in Hollywood, and fairly regularly. Perhaps the fault lies with the filmmakers themselves.

    One of the most commercially successful franchises in the world remains the Marvel Franchise. There must be a reason why that is the case. They aren't chick flicks per se, and special effects can only take one so far, especially if there's no compelling story with interesting characters behind it. Because many of the Marvel/DC characters first enjoyed success in the comic format before appearing on the screen is no guarantee that they would (or have) perform(ed) beyond expectations at the box office. After all, there are many big budgeted flops that litter Tinseltown's celluloid screens that "everyone" thought were destined to be massive hits but failed.

    In other words if a studio has too many flops it soon finds itself in bankruptcy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Bardon Kaldian

    Perhaps film is intrinsically limited, as German theorist Heinrich Wölfflin speculated: Film is a picture book of life for the illiterate.

    It is first & foremost an entertainment; then, possibly, it may become a work of art-for some time. It has two weaknesses: a) it is a product of too many people plus budget constraints, so it cannot be fully authorial, b) it depends too much on technology, so most older movies become absurd or inadvertently funny. Or boring.

    One can listen to a piece of music 50-100 times; one can read a piece of literature 50-100 times. Just, I don’t think one can watch a movie 50-100 times.

    Movies have wider appeal, but this form of entertainment is much more limited than others.

    • Disagree: James Braxton
    • Replies: @theMann
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Pretty sure I have seen:

    Jason and the Argonauts
    Big Trouble in Little China

    At least 50 times, and

    Amarcord
    Ghostbusters
    Dr Strangelove

    At least 25 times.

  199. @Lockean Proviso
    @SimpleSong

    Bro, check out the knockers on this Venus chick. I was at the Uffizi and thought I was at a dang titty bar.

    https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/birth-of-venus

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: The Birth of Venus

    Uma Thurman’s entrance as Venus in the 1988 film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @MEH 0910

    I’ll never forget seeing that in the movie theater. My girlfriend, who was lovely, was as transfixed as I was. Very fun movie.

  200. Movies you should watch, but won’t.
    The Glamorous Life of Sachiko Hanai
    Wired
    Kick-Ass
    Dr.Strangelove
    Rancho Deluxe
    Sideways
    Little Fauss and Big Halsey.
    You’re welcome (not a movie).

    • Replies: @profnasty
    @profnasty

    Censored by the Nazis?!?!
    Wow.
    I'm a victim of circumstance!

  201. @BB753
    I can understand the appeal of Twin Peaks, but not of Lynch's other movies, which I found unwatchable. Prove me wrong.

    Replies: @Pat Hannagan, @Hun, @theMann, @Ganderson, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Neuday, @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @Anonymous, @Rahan, @Hypnotoad666, @SFG

    Sailer said it himself–different kinds of people like different kinds of movies. You ain’t a Lynch fan–nothing wrong with that.

  202. Sorry to repeat (I’m sure someone’s already commented this, just don’t want to read through, currently, 191 comments): “The Big Lebowski” was categorized as a sports movie? Just because the Dude et al are recreational bowlers? That’s quite mystifying. TBL would be categorized as a comedy, obviously.

  203. @Anon
    A while back I did some number crunching on political party and movie popularity. Democrat: City of God (Cidade de Deus), Lost in Translation. Republican: The Hunger Games, Twilight. Spielberg had an eerie ability to land in the dead center.

    Replies: @SFG

    Which was probably why he was seen as such a family-friendly, all-American film-maker. Just enough liberalism to make Hollywood happy (Nazis are bad!) but still with positive views of family, America, and even masculinity in Indiana Jones.

  204. @International Jew
    Are you going to review Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegie"? Why do the critics hate it so much?

    Replies: @SFG, @Jim Don Bob

    1. The guy who wrote the book was a conservative.

    2. It focuses on a white male character.

    3. The guy escapes poverty through hard work.

    4. See number 1.

  205. @Polistra
    @Almost Missouri

    They're all Facebook people though, right?
    That pretty much makes it useless for me.

    Also, when did "extrovert" become "extravert"? Seems weird.
    Has "introvert" likewise become "intravert"? Also weird.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    Also, when did “extrovert” become “extravert”? Seems weird.
    Has “introvert” likewise become “intravert”? Also weird.

    And very cis-sexist. Should be intrxvert and extrxvert.

  206. They clearly intended to study Most Effective Date Movies, until being informed that no one actually “dates” anymore. So research into the Mel Brooks Effect and the Redford-Streisand Coefficient remains sadly anecdotal

  207. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @SimpleSong

    "That is, you see a person’s rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up."

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel - viz: the unreliable narrator. It's a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too, ba-dum tzzzz.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Peter Akuleyev

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator. It’s a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too,

    That is so true about women — it’s like the Gell-Mann effect where you hear them discussing something that you know about, and it’s just pure fiction.

    Unreliable narrator is as much fun as a novel can get, but it doesn’t translate so well for movies (though I’m sure someone here will have a good example) or work with actual relationships. Sci-fi writer Barry Malzberg, the master of unreliable narrators, said Pale Fire was his own favorite novel so I went ahead and read it — twice!

  208. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @njguy73

    Five words.

    The Pride of the Yankees (1942). Gary Cooper was Oscar nominated for the performance. Awesome family film.

    Replies: @njguy73

    Yes, that too, and I could name five more baseball films that are the opposite of “gay” as SunBakedSuburb so charmingly put it.

    Seriously, using “gay” as an insult? I’m not a PC cop, but using that as an insult is just lazy.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @njguy73

    Correction: All Kevin Costner baseball films are gay. Kevin's Robin Hood was similarly gay.

    "just lazy"

    I would describe myself as incredibly lazy. I use "gay" as a pejorative because I have never really left the 6th grade.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Ray P

  209. @Rob McX
    @MBlanc46


    I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.
     
    Strange, this is the only mention of that movie in this thread. It's also one of my all-time favourites.

    I see watching a movie as entertainment. I don't think you should have to make some kind of effort to appreciate it, the way you would when reading literary classics that were written centuries ago.

    My two criteria for rating a film highly: Does it linger in my mind for a long time after I've watched it? And, would I like to watch it again some time?

    I never argue with anyone who praises a film I hate, if they genuinely think it's worth 100 minutes or whatever of their time to sit down and watch it. I'd be embarrassed to name some of the films I've enjoyed, for fear of being accused of having no taste.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Curle

    Seconds is the film that has lingered in my mind, even though it’s none too pleasant to watch at times. Sinister organization gives unhappy people new faces and new lives — aging executive John Randolph is reborn as handsome young artist Rock Hudson, but all does not go well. Hudson is amazingly good, plagued by a who’s who of ominous character actors — Will Geer, Jeff Corey etc. Frankenheimer directed and James Wong Howe did the gripping photography.

    Far more fun is Three Strangers — Lorre and Greenstreet do their thing with hot/crazy Geraldine Fitzgerald as the catalyst. Writer John Huston was just warming up for Treasure of Sierra Madre with this little ditty on greed, luck and fate. Arthur Edeson — of Casablanca fame — handled the cinematography. Catch it if you can find it.

    • Thanks: Rob McX
  210. @ScarletNumber
    @Alfa158

    That's one of those quotes that seems to be apocryphal, but John Kruk was once upbraided by a fan who caught him smoking. She said that athletes shouldn't smoke, but Kruk retorted that he wasn't an athlete; he was a baseball player.

    Replies: @njguy73

    Ballplayers used to smoke in the dugout. Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, and others. But they didn’t have a cigarette dangling from their mouths in the batter’s box. Golfers will take a drag in their backswing.

  211. @theMann
    @Single malt

    Only seen about half the films on your list, but every one of those is, in fact, wildly overrated.

    Especially Raiders, on two levels:

    1. As TBBT pointed out, Indiana Jones is completely superfluous to the events: with or without him, the Nazis find the Ark, take it to the island and die.

    2. Some films bend history, Raiders craps all over it. A group of Nazis, in uniforms not yet adopted, are running around British Protectorate Egypt, in a marked aircraft, using a u-boat years away from development, leaving RPG's lying around for Indy to use, when they a decade in the future, and this theater of the absurd is played straight.



    Raiders is an insult to our intelligence.

    Replies: @(((Owen)))

    Raiders is an insult to our intelligence.

    Secret of The Incas—which Raiders is almost a remake of—is the better movie. But Raiders does have a few beautiful iconic scenes while Secret is more cynical and thoughtful.

    The most iconic scene is usually considered to be Yma Sumac singing. Not much compared to the boulder with the golden icon in Raiders. Or the truck scene.

    In Secret’s favor, Charleton Heston is one of the few who can out-star-power Harrison Ford.

  212. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The top ten and bottom ten for each personality dimension are likely to not garner a huge audience because they are too extreme in their appeals. For example, "Pi" made one million dollars at the North American box office in 1998, which isn't bad for a super low budget black and white movie with no stars in it and a conceptually difficult screenplay about math. But if the amount of good filmmaking that went into Pi had been applied to a more broadly appealing property, it would have made a lot more money.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @(((Owen)))

    I saw Pi at Sundance. The room was packed.

    It was one of the smaller screenings, not a giant theatre, but there must have been well over 100 people.

  213. @profnasty
    Movies you should watch, but won't.
    The Glamorous Life of Sachiko Hanai
    Wired
    Kick-Ass
    Dr.Strangelove
    Rancho Deluxe
    Sideways
    Little Fauss and Big Halsey.
    You're welcome (not a movie).

    Replies: @profnasty

    Censored by the Nazis?!?!
    Wow.
    I’m a victim of circumstance!

  214. @Etruscan Film Star
    @Bardon Kaldian


    Basically, mantra yoga does work, differently, but it is irrelevant how the sound sounds; also, it is mostly a good relaxation practice when done during 20-30 minutes. After that, it becomes either irritating, or boring, or simply you fall asleep. And nothing truly transformative happens.

     

    Bravo.

    One theory about mantras is that they give you something to concentrate on, helping to let go of mental chatter, which over time is conducive to transforming consciousness. Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling. Anybody who joins a cult or pays for a mantra is digging deeper into the material world.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Jim Don Bob

    Certain badthinkers say you could just as well repeat any word out of the dictionary or focus on a knothole in the wood paneling.

    It’s the eastern version of prayer, just without the God part.

  215. @International Jew
    Are you going to review Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegie"? Why do the critics hate it so much?

    Replies: @SFG, @Jim Don Bob

  216. @Jtgw
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI. I suppose it could in fact allude to the later Communist period after WWII but I don’t think the timeline works out (chronological gap too big).

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Abe, @Peter Akuleyev

    I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.

    It does. The anti-Communist elements are more subtle, and are seen in the flash forwards in the 1960s and 1980s where you see the Moustafa character trying to keep the hotel alive in a drab decaying environment that is clearly Soviet style Socialism. It is quite likely that people who no longer remember the history of Central Europe don’t make the connection.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Ah gotcha I had forgotten those scenes.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Right, in the flash forward scenes under Communism, the Grand Hotel Budapest looks like a high school gym now.

    That raises the question of where the Grand Hotel is: is it in Budapest or is it in Vienna? My assumption was Vienna, but that wasn't Communist, other than maybe from 1945-1955 (did the Soviets occupy part of Vienna?).

    Replies: @Ray P, @Peter Akuleyev

  217. @BB753
    @jamie b.

    Ok, let me rephrase the question. Does anybody find Lynch's movies fun, enjoyable, coherent and absolutely not pretentious.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @jamie b., @anon, @Peter Akuleyev

    I will say this. All his films will make much more sense on second or third viewing. I didn’t think much of Lost Highway the first time, but recently rewatched it and discovered it makes more sense than you think, and is also pretty funny.

    Lynch is not pretentious. He is not trying to prove his superior intellect, appeal to viewers who have degrees in comparative literature, or make people feel stupid. He is basically trying to tell stories according to dream logic, which for whatever reason seems to appeal to him. It is quite possible for an intelligent high school graduate to enjoy most Lynch movies if they are open to a different way of story-telling.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I suspect if the researchers expanded their model from the Big 5 personality dimensions to the Big 5 plus IQ, you'd see a bunch of movies ranked high on Openness rank lower on Openness (e.g., "John Malkovich"). But Lynch's movies would probably still rank high on Openness.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  218. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    @SimpleSong

    "That is, you see a person’s rationalizations, justifications, etc., of their own sins and weaknesses not as a third party, but rather through their eyes, and thus truth and falsehood are all jumbled up."

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel - viz: the unreliable narrator. It's a pretty old device. Poe dabbled in it too. Describes a lot of my girlfriends, too, ba-dum tzzzz.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Peter Akuleyev

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator.

    Not the earlier novels he wrote in Russian though, interestingly. Maybe he felt like he was a fraud writing in a foreign language and that leaked into his novels.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Nabokov's "Despair" from the 1930s in Russian is about a protagonist who meets a hobo who strikes him as his identical dead-ringer. He then sets about framing his double for a murder he wants to commit. The joke is that nobody else notices any likeness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despair_(novel)

    Replies: @Not Edmund Wilson

  219. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @syonredux

    Floating Weeds (both versions) as well. And Tokyo Story.

    Sansho the Bailiff by Kenji Mizoguchi shouldn't be overlooked either.

    But of course, when a Westerner thinks of Japan's golden age of filmmaking, the one filmmaker who prominently stands out is Akira Kurosawa. From Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai to minor classics like Ran, Kurosawa stands alone (or on his own) in the annuals of Japanese filmmakers.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Kurosawa’s OK, but I prefer Ozu.

  220. @J.Ross
    @syonredux

    Nawwwwww, be a real lynchmob: get two TVs and sync 'em.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Maybe do it Ozymandias style….

  221. @J.Ross
    @Altai

    I thought the model there was Sam Raimi, making a dirt cheap jumpfest with some thought and riding it to better success than a "real" movie, but then that's also similar to George Romero and Tobe Hooper. And John Carpenter.
    I'm not into horror, but considered that a failing rather than sensible. A lot of "horror" is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate. Often it starts atheist and then becomes highly moralistic, not out of conviction but as a result of writing itself into a corner.
    ------
    Sorcerer is an awesome movie, a movie so good it compels you to gratefully forgive the two (2!) times its special effects completely fail (it has these dummies that are clearly dummies, but the momentum carries you right past). Where does it qualify?

    Replies: @JMcG, @syonredux, @jamie b.

    A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate.

    Yeah, the “sadism porn” genre (the FRIDAY THE 13TH flicks, the Italian Giallo genre, the SAW series, etc)……loathsome stuff. True horror is more delicate and subtle…..I always recommend the films that Val Lewton made at RKO. THE SEVENTH VICTIM is an atmospheric masterpiece….

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @syonredux

    "an atmospheric masterpiece"

    The Val Lewton/RKO films are beauties. For a recent example of atmospheric horror filmmaking try The Witch (2015).

    Replies: @J.Ross

  222. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @BB753

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @theMann, @Polynikes, @dfordoom

    That’s how I feel about Wes Anderson and Quinten Tarintino. I understand they’re both god filmmakers, but they both bore me with very few exceptions. Otoh, I do like Lynch stylistically.

  223. @syonredux
    @J.Ross


    A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate.
     
    Yeah, the "sadism porn" genre (the FRIDAY THE 13TH flicks, the Italian Giallo genre, the SAW series, etc)......loathsome stuff. True horror is more delicate and subtle.....I always recommend the films that Val Lewton made at RKO. THE SEVENTH VICTIM is an atmospheric masterpiece....

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “an atmospheric masterpiece”

    The Val Lewton/RKO films are beauties. For a recent example of atmospheric horror filmmaking try The Witch (2015).

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @SunBakedSuburb

    I somewhat recently saw Mask of the Demon (or Black Sabbath), Night of the Demon ("It's in the trees! It's coming!"), and (forgetting the title but it's English from the 30s and aristocrats are forced by a bit of weather to take refuge in a decaying mansion inhabited by a Lovecraftianishly decrepit family), all of which are wonderfully atmospheric despite also being dated in the best sense. There's a bit of body horror in the first one but it's largely notable how much they accomplish without rubber masks, one-off jump scares, perverted sadism, or just being gross.

  224. @njguy73
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Yes, that too, and I could name five more baseball films that are the opposite of "gay" as SunBakedSuburb so charmingly put it.

    Seriously, using "gay" as an insult? I'm not a PC cop, but using that as an insult is just lazy.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    Correction: All Kevin Costner baseball films are gay. Kevin’s Robin Hood was similarly gay.

    “just lazy”

    I would describe myself as incredibly lazy. I use “gay” as a pejorative because I have never really left the 6th grade.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Wasn't Bull Durham a Kevin Costner baseball movie with a famously not gay scene featuring Susan Sarandon?

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @Ray P
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Are you an extrovert?

  225. @Anon87
    @Nathan

    Agree 100%. And one hit with a huge ROI can grant someone a long career behind the camera, justified or not. Worst case you collect autograph money from conventions for a few decades.

    I'm hoping Shudder lets JBB pick a few more titles himself, versus forcing their garbage on him. You always know when the breaks are infrequent and not as informative as usual. Looking at you, Haunt.

    Replies: @Nathan, @SunBakedSuburb

    “Shudder”

    The paltry $4.99 per month I pay for Shudder is money well-spent. This month the service added nearly all of Mario Bava’s 1960s films and Richard Stanley’s adaptation of the Color Out Of Space (2016). Shudder is basically TCM for the cinema of the weird.

    • Replies: @Anon87
    @SunBakedSuburb

    I'm not certainly not cancelling my subscription any time soon. But I expect over time they will get bigger, have more original programming, start to up that monthly cost, and eventually toss JBB to the side in a classic corporate move. That's when I cancel.

    , @Known Fact
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Bava's Caltiki the Immortal Monster was on TV all the time and absolutely transfixed me as a little kid -- it's like The Blob gone wild!

  226. @Pat Hannagan
    @BB753

    1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDilD3wAxt8

    2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZowK0NAvig

    3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmFgO2fJQuI

    Probably the greatest movie of all time.

    Replies: @BB753, @The Wild Geese Howard

    I love the driving scene. Loggia’s character is absolutely right about tailgaters.

    That said, the road manners have been excellent this Thanksgiving.

    My theory is that the people cowering at home are the same people who are terrible drivers.

  227. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Perhaps film is intrinsically limited, as German theorist Heinrich Wölfflin speculated: Film is a picture book of life for the illiterate.

    It is first & foremost an entertainment; then, possibly, it may become a work of art-for some time. It has two weaknesses: a) it is a product of too many people plus budget constraints, so it cannot be fully authorial, b) it depends too much on technology, so most older movies become absurd or inadvertently funny. Or boring.

    One can listen to a piece of music 50-100 times; one can read a piece of literature 50-100 times. Just, I don't think one can watch a movie 50-100 times.

    Movies have wider appeal, but this form of entertainment is much more limited than others.

    Replies: @theMann

    Pretty sure I have seen:

    Jason and the Argonauts
    Big Trouble in Little China

    At least 50 times, and

    Amarcord
    Ghostbusters
    Dr Strangelove

    At least 25 times.

  228. @BB753
    @jamie b.

    I get it: you're a Lynch fanboy.

    Replies: @jamie b.

    A: Does anybody really like Lynch?

    B: Yes, I really like Lynch.

    A: Well then you’re just a fanboy.

    • LOL: BB753
  229. @Thoughts
    @SimpleSong

    The only thing I remember about Mulholland Drive was someone (or herself) cupping Naomi Watts white titty

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling. There was nothing more to it than that.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @jamie b., @The Wild Geese Howard

    The movie was nothing more than an excuse for some well-filmed well-lighted breast fondling.

    Similarly, I’ve always felt that Blue is the Warmest Colour is largely an excuse to see if it was possible to put some hardcore lipstick lesbian scenes in art house theaters.

    • Agree: Curle
  230. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jtgw

    I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.

    It does. The anti-Communist elements are more subtle, and are seen in the flash forwards in the 1960s and 1980s where you see the Moustafa character trying to keep the hotel alive in a drab decaying environment that is clearly Soviet style Socialism. It is quite likely that people who no longer remember the history of Central Europe don't make the connection.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Steve Sailer

    Ah gotcha I had forgotten those scenes.

  231. @J.Ross
    @Altai

    I thought the model there was Sam Raimi, making a dirt cheap jumpfest with some thought and riding it to better success than a "real" movie, but then that's also similar to George Romero and Tobe Hooper. And John Carpenter.
    I'm not into horror, but considered that a failing rather than sensible. A lot of "horror" is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate. Often it starts atheist and then becomes highly moralistic, not out of conviction but as a result of writing itself into a corner.
    ------
    Sorcerer is an awesome movie, a movie so good it compels you to gratefully forgive the two (2!) times its special effects completely fail (it has these dummies that are clearly dummies, but the momentum carries you right past). Where does it qualify?

    Replies: @JMcG, @syonredux, @jamie b.

    A lot of “horror” is actually sadism, a kind of porn where the plot is an excuse to see suffering inflicted on people you do not hate.

    Actually, a lot of slasher movies work hard at getting you to dislike the victims.

  232. @theMann
    @BB753

    Oh don't even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    Replies: @jamie b., @HA, @dfordoom

    “There is no positive way you can engage crazy.”

    Since you’re a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don’t like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

    Actually, the above sentence goes a long way towards explaining your output on this site.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @HA



    “There is no positive way you can engage crazy.”

     

    Since you’re a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don’t like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

     

    Powerade is a Coke product. It's cheaper than Gatorade, which has roots in the South but is now Pepsi's. What is a sectionalist to do? Stop and use the toilet like some Yankee priss?

    Mr Mann has precedent:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy00DxzmEZE&t=0m25s

    Replies: @HA

  233. @Robert Dolan
    I used to love movies but now I hate them.

    Looking back....I can clearly see how movies and popular music (as well as a liberal arts education) had a HUGE impact on my psyche and thought process. At one time I was actually a virtue signaling liberal and I spouted whatever narrative the media was feeding me at the time.

    In fact I am extremely embarrassed as to how much the media had control of my mind....the power of the media is astonishing.

    Now if I see a film that I used to love, I will see glaring anti-white/anti-Christian/pro-gay themes throughout.

    As a kid I thought The Graduate" was cool....it's garbage. I liked "Midnight Cowboy." Garbage.
    I loved Deniro....a human piece of garbage.

    Hard to think of movies that held up for me. I still like "Shrek" and "The Lion King."
    I love the old standards like "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's A Wonderful Life."

    I quit going to movies about the time they started making those ultra-horror serial killer garbage movies and "Brokeback Mountain." That's when they really jumped the shark.

    I've mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved's "Hollywood vs. America." It's a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Marty, @James Braxton, @Sebastian Max

    I loved Deniro….a human piece of garbage…

    I’ve mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved’s “Hollywood vs. America.” It’s a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    Medved said he could understand the appeal of nudity and violence to audiences, even if he didn’t share them. But he couldn’t imagine anyone ever walked out of a movie complaining that there wasn’t enough swearing.

    I think he included DeNiro along with Joe Pesci as actors who inserted their own cussing when it wasn’t in the script.

    Ad-libs have sure gone downhill since Orson Welles slipped the cuckoo clock into Graham Greene’s lines.

  234. @HA
    @theMann

    "There is no positive way you can engage crazy."

    Since you're a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don't like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

    Actually, the above sentence goes a long way towards explaining your output on this site.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    “There is no positive way you can engage crazy.”

    Since you’re a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don’t like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

    Powerade is a Coke product. It’s cheaper than Gatorade, which has roots in the South but is now Pepsi’s. What is a sectionalist to do? Stop and use the toilet like some Yankee priss?

    Mr Mann has precedent:

    • Replies: @HA
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Mr Mann has precedent"

    I'm thinking his FBI handlers (I'm not sure he's figured out who in his militia is responsible for liaising with them) might want to at least have “There is no positive way you can engage crazy” engraved on his headstone once they're finally done with him, or once one of his highway "targets" figures out what he just got hit with and ends him in a fit of road rage.

    In the latter case, they might need a few extra biohazard sponges to mop up that incident.

  235. Funniest thing about Lost Highway is that it’s actually quite straightforward and its biggest notability comes from being as ideologically un-Hollywood as Red Dawn or Conan the Barbarian. To spoil it, if it didn’t click, consider Incident at Owl Creek Bridge (this is the coda about the teenager) and consider that the protagonist is a bad guy. He’s not a human beast or a misunderstood rebel like would be movie-normal, he’s exactly what Lynch has very straighforwardly shown. I’m sure this is not the case, but it is tempting to consider that what led Lynch to think Hollywood needed to be educated about bad guys who deserve to be executed for murdering their wives in 1997 was something which took place in 1994.

  236. @Rob McX
    @MBlanc46


    I wonder what it says about me that my favorite movie, by a wide margin, is Fargo.
     
    Strange, this is the only mention of that movie in this thread. It's also one of my all-time favourites.

    I see watching a movie as entertainment. I don't think you should have to make some kind of effort to appreciate it, the way you would when reading literary classics that were written centuries ago.

    My two criteria for rating a film highly: Does it linger in my mind for a long time after I've watched it? And, would I like to watch it again some time?

    I never argue with anyone who praises a film I hate, if they genuinely think it's worth 100 minutes or whatever of their time to sit down and watch it. I'd be embarrassed to name some of the films I've enjoyed, for fear of being accused of having no taste.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Curle

    Truck Stop Women (1974).

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Curle

    Thanks, I might enjoy that - I'll just try not to think of the fact that it was partly financed by Phil Gramm.

  237. @Curle
    @Rob McX

    Truck Stop Women (1974).

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Thanks, I might enjoy that – I’ll just try not to think of the fact that it was partly financed by Phil Gramm.

    • LOL: Curle
  238. @SunBakedSuburb
    @njguy73

    Correction: All Kevin Costner baseball films are gay. Kevin's Robin Hood was similarly gay.

    "just lazy"

    I would describe myself as incredibly lazy. I use "gay" as a pejorative because I have never really left the 6th grade.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Ray P

    Wasn’t Bull Durham a Kevin Costner baseball movie with a famously not gay scene featuring Susan Sarandon?

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @J.Ross

    He meant gay in the middle-school-insult way, not in the homosexual way.

  239. @SunBakedSuburb
    @syonredux

    "an atmospheric masterpiece"

    The Val Lewton/RKO films are beauties. For a recent example of atmospheric horror filmmaking try The Witch (2015).

    Replies: @J.Ross

    I somewhat recently saw Mask of the Demon (or Black Sabbath), Night of the Demon (“It’s in the trees! It’s coming!”), and (forgetting the title but it’s English from the 30s and aristocrats are forced by a bit of weather to take refuge in a decaying mansion inhabited by a Lovecraftianishly decrepit family), all of which are wonderfully atmospheric despite also being dated in the best sense. There’s a bit of body horror in the first one but it’s largely notable how much they accomplish without rubber masks, one-off jump scares, perverted sadism, or just being gross.

  240. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    That describes pretty much every Nabokov novel – viz: the unreliable narrator.

    Not the earlier novels he wrote in Russian though, interestingly. Maybe he felt like he was a fraud writing in a foreign language and that leaked into his novels.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Nabokov’s “Despair” from the 1930s in Russian is about a protagonist who meets a hobo who strikes him as his identical dead-ringer. He then sets about framing his double for a murder he wants to commit. The joke is that nobody else notices any likeness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despair_(novel)

    • Replies: @Not Edmund Wilson
    @Steve Sailer

    And a pretty entertaining film too. Dirk Bogarde is the demented chocolatier Hermann Hermann. Fassbinder directed, Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay.

    Probably not a film to rank high on the "agreeableness" scale, however.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077421/

  241. @Peter Akuleyev
    @BB753

    I will say this. All his films will make much more sense on second or third viewing. I didn't think much of Lost Highway the first time, but recently rewatched it and discovered it makes more sense than you think, and is also pretty funny.

    Lynch is not pretentious. He is not trying to prove his superior intellect, appeal to viewers who have degrees in comparative literature, or make people feel stupid. He is basically trying to tell stories according to dream logic, which for whatever reason seems to appeal to him. It is quite possible for an intelligent high school graduate to enjoy most Lynch movies if they are open to a different way of story-telling.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    I suspect if the researchers expanded their model from the Big 5 personality dimensions to the Big 5 plus IQ, you’d see a bunch of movies ranked high on Openness rank lower on Openness (e.g., “John Malkovich”). But Lynch’s movies would probably still rank high on Openness.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    You mean, create a new Openness measure that is completely orthogonal to IQ? Maybe so. I guess it depends on how truly there is an orthogonal component in the first place.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience

    Ok, so O is only correlated 0.3 to 0.45 with IQ, and that is mainly with crystallized, not fluid intelligence. I would have thought it was the latter. However upon reflection it seems likely to me that a high crystallized IQ is evidence that you've explored the search space, through openness.

    In a way, the IQ relation makes sense for a trait of intellectual fearlessness. A cat or a squirrel need not fear heights as they can land safely - terminal velocity is not a concern for them. They can be open to exploring heights. Similarly, the high IQ suits an Open personality. If you can make sense of the novel, then it's a lot less dangerous than for someone who is better off wandering along the well worn ruts of people who have been there, done that, through either experience or intellect.

  242. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jtgw

    I thought those final scenes where they were stopped by border guards alluded to the end of the multicultural Habsburg empire and replacement by hostile nationalist republics after WWI.

    It does. The anti-Communist elements are more subtle, and are seen in the flash forwards in the 1960s and 1980s where you see the Moustafa character trying to keep the hotel alive in a drab decaying environment that is clearly Soviet style Socialism. It is quite likely that people who no longer remember the history of Central Europe don't make the connection.

    Replies: @Jtgw, @Steve Sailer

    Right, in the flash forward scenes under Communism, the Grand Hotel Budapest looks like a high school gym now.

    That raises the question of where the Grand Hotel is: is it in Budapest or is it in Vienna? My assumption was Vienna, but that wasn’t Communist, other than maybe from 1945-1955 (did the Soviets occupy part of Vienna?).

    • Replies: @Ray P
    @Steve Sailer

    According to The Third Man, yes.


    I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better.

    [Cut to scenes of black market goods changing hands]

    I really got to know it in the classic period of the black market. We'd run anything if people wanted it enough and had the money to pay. Of course a situation like that does tempt amateurs

    [Cut to shot of a dead body seen floating in the river]

    but, well, you know, they can't stay the course like a professional.

    Now the city is divided into four zones, you know, each occupied by a power: the American, the British, the Russian and the French. But the centre of the city that's international is policed by an international patrol. One member of each of the four powers. Wonderful! What a hope they had! All strangers to the place and none of them could speak the same language. Except a sort of smattering of German.

    Good fellows on the whole, did their best you know. Vienna doesn't really look any worse than a lot of other European cities. Bombed about a bit.

    Oh, I was going to tell you, wait, I was going to tell you about Holly Martins, an American. Came all the way here to visit a friend of his. The name was Lime, Harry Lime. Now Martins was broke and Lime had offered him, some sort, I don't know, some sort of job.

    Anyway, there he was, poor chap. Happy as a lark and without a cent.

     

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Steve Sailer

    As Ray notes, the Soviets occupied part of Vienna, and part of Austria, until 1955, but never imposed a Soviet style economic system.

    The quaint feel of the town and proximity to mountains would suggest the Grand Budapest Hotel is in some minor Habsburg regional capital like Ljubljana/Laibach or Czernowitz. Vienna and Budapest are both big cities, and were even bigger (relatively) back then.

  243. @MEH 0910
    @anonymous

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332559770461609985

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1332567772291883009

    Replies: @anonymous, @J.Ross

    Right but why are all Biden’s winning votes showing up in one piece, after voting was illegally stopped, after observers were illegally ejected? There’s no dispute about observers getting ejected and there’s no questions about why you would do that. All ballot-specific points are pseudo-vulnerable because we don’t see the actual ballots until we get to a particular point in the process, but the observer ejections are not disputed. Call people names all you want, there is no way to legitimize this fraud. But, Republicans were idiots for not seeing how Democrats would use the lockdown to force through massive changes (mail-in) and are idiots if they do not impose the DeSantis rules.

  244. @Single malt
    Movies I have disliked the most, or, in my opinion, are overrated

    My Dinner With Andre
    Youth Without Youth
    Restoration
    Inglorious Basterds
    Slumdog Millionaire
    Maps to the Stars
    The Great Beauty
    A Winter's Tale
    Movie 43
    Orlando
    Gigi
    The Shining
    Miss Julie
    Atonement
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    Something's Gotta Give
    Terms of Endearment
    The Crying Game
    The Birdman
    Boyhood
    Godfather III
    Raiders of the Lost Ark
    The Sacrament
    Field of Dreams
    Interstellar
    Revolution Road
    Ex Machina
    The Great Gatsby (both recent versions)
    Gangs of New York
    August: Osage County
    Ricki and the Flash

    Replies: @Anon87, @theMann, @Anonymouse

    Of those I have seen that you list, I agree. Yet those movies got made and made money. Just shows there is a degree of congruence among Steve’s readers.

  245. @Anonymous
    Lynch has made a lot of fine movies (esp Blue Velvet, Mulholland, and Elephant Man) but his finest moment, the one shot that sums up his entire work, and is also one of the best shots in any movie, is Patricia Arquette in Lost Highway saying "You'll never have me."

    That's his entire work, right there.

    Replies: @Polynikes

    I find his treatment of Arquette in that movie among his finest work.

  246. @Nathan
    @Anon87

    Such is the nightmare/blessing of digital streaming. I'm sure Shudder would let JBB host whatever he wanted, if they could. I can't even keep digital movies that I've bought and theoretically "own." I routinely have movies in my Amazon Prime account become unavailable after I've paid for digital copies. It's infuriating, and I'm sure that it's no better for streaming platforms like Shudder and it's owner AMC.

    Replies: @Anon87

    Another counter intuitive “advancement” of technology. With digital, you should have access to almost literally any film in existence on demand. But instead you have a continuously changing list of movies that are frankly less impressive than the old run of the mill Mom-and-Pop video store used to have. Let alone the libraries some of the better rental stores had to choose from.

    • Agree: James Braxton
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anon87

    Your mistake is letting the technology use you.

    Replies: @Anon87

  247. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Anon87

    "Shudder"

    The paltry $4.99 per month I pay for Shudder is money well-spent. This month the service added nearly all of Mario Bava's 1960s films and Richard Stanley's adaptation of the Color Out Of Space (2016). Shudder is basically TCM for the cinema of the weird.

    Replies: @Anon87, @Known Fact

    I’m not certainly not cancelling my subscription any time soon. But I expect over time they will get bigger, have more original programming, start to up that monthly cost, and eventually toss JBB to the side in a classic corporate move. That’s when I cancel.

  248. @Reg Cæsar
    @HA



    “There is no positive way you can engage crazy.”

     

    Since you’re a militia-kook who, while driving, collects your urine into Powerade bottles that you then throw at cars you don’t like, I guess you might know a thing or two about that.

     

    Powerade is a Coke product. It's cheaper than Gatorade, which has roots in the South but is now Pepsi's. What is a sectionalist to do? Stop and use the toilet like some Yankee priss?

    Mr Mann has precedent:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy00DxzmEZE&t=0m25s

    Replies: @HA

    “Mr Mann has precedent”

    I’m thinking his FBI handlers (I’m not sure he’s figured out who in his militia is responsible for liaising with them) might want to at least have “There is no positive way you can engage crazy” engraved on his headstone once they’re finally done with him, or once one of his highway “targets” figures out what he just got hit with and ends him in a fit of road rage.

    In the latter case, they might need a few extra biohazard sponges to mop up that incident.

  249. @MEH 0910
    @Lockean Proviso

    The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: The Birth of Venus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fbD0btGvBE


    Uma Thurman's entrance as Venus in the 1988 film The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
     

    Replies: @JMcG

    I’ll never forget seeing that in the movie theater. My girlfriend, who was lovely, was as transfixed as I was. Very fun movie.

  250. @SunBakedSuburb
    @njguy73

    Correction: All Kevin Costner baseball films are gay. Kevin's Robin Hood was similarly gay.

    "just lazy"

    I would describe myself as incredibly lazy. I use "gay" as a pejorative because I have never really left the 6th grade.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Ray P

    Are you an extrovert?

  251. @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Right, in the flash forward scenes under Communism, the Grand Hotel Budapest looks like a high school gym now.

    That raises the question of where the Grand Hotel is: is it in Budapest or is it in Vienna? My assumption was Vienna, but that wasn't Communist, other than maybe from 1945-1955 (did the Soviets occupy part of Vienna?).

    Replies: @Ray P, @Peter Akuleyev

    According to The Third Man, yes.

    I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better.

    [Cut to scenes of black market goods changing hands]

    I really got to know it in the classic period of the black market. We’d run anything if people wanted it enough and had the money to pay. Of course a situation like that does tempt amateurs

    [Cut to shot of a dead body seen floating in the river]

    but, well, you know, they can’t stay the course like a professional.

    Now the city is divided into four zones, you know, each occupied by a power: the American, the British, the Russian and the French. But the centre of the city that’s international is policed by an international patrol. One member of each of the four powers. Wonderful! What a hope they had! All strangers to the place and none of them could speak the same language. Except a sort of smattering of German.

    Good fellows on the whole, did their best you know. Vienna doesn’t really look any worse than a lot of other European cities. Bombed about a bit.

    Oh, I was going to tell you, wait, I was going to tell you about Holly Martins, an American. Came all the way here to visit a friend of his. The name was Lime, Harry Lime. Now Martins was broke and Lime had offered him, some sort, I don’t know, some sort of job.

    Anyway, there he was, poor chap. Happy as a lark and without a cent.

  252. @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfDIAZCwHQE

    Replies: @Anonymous

    That was funny – and Ed Norton was fantastic – at first I thought it was a rip off, but then now I see it is a homage to Screen Junkies, with the Alec Baldwin nod etc.

  253. Anon[761] • Disclaimer says:

    A person likes a cultural artifact that they can relate to.

    Some examples:

    Female teenagers were big fans of the Twilight novels. Females like romance novels, and the major female character in Twilight was a high school student for much of the story.

    The science fiction novel Ready Player One is about a Generation Xer who will give his company to the person who wins a virtual reality game which has 1980s pop culture references. If you look at review sites like goodreads, the novel tends to get its highest ratings from Gen Xers, those who were adolescents in the 1980s.

    My impression, from personal and online interaction, is that males like the James Bond movies. The Bond movies are wish fulfillment for heterosexual males: the protagonist is an action hero who beds beautiful women.

  254. @YetAnotherAnon
    "One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet."

    Most of the mentally fragile leftie girls I've known were scary/bloody movie fans, I could never understand it. They'd watch some slasher pic then talk about male violence in the same week. Or was that the connection?

    But back in my youthful days, an awful lot of people never went to the cinema. I think in three years around age 21 I only saw two films (Star Wars and Close Encounters, and I was pretty intoxicated for the latter). My student cohort weren't big movie fans. But first VHS, then DVD and now streaming, means that the programming is relentless. My daughter at 20 has probably watched two or three times as many films as I've seen in my life. Mostly romcoms, admittedly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Most of the mentally fragile leftie girls I’ve known were scary/bloody movie fans, I could never understand it. They’d watch some slasher pic then talk about male violence in the same week. Or was that the connection?

    Horror movies typically present us with some appalling threat to the social order but by the end of the movie the threat is destroyed and the social order is restored. So in a way they’re reassuring

    To quote Chesterton: “The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable; they are alarmed at this world, because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that Agnostics worship it–because it is a fact. Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.”

  255. @BB753
    @Pat Hannagan

    OK, thanks, I've never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Replies: @FPD72, @dfordoom, @Peter Akuleyev, @Sebastian Max

    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies

    How about those of us who don’t care for Christian movies?

    Wholesome and inspiring is fine, but again I’d like there to be a choice. Wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies for those who like such things and other kinds of movies for those with different tastes.

    I do admit that at the moment those who want wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies are missing out somewhat.

    Personally I don’t watch any contemporary movies. There’s no need to.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    How about those of us who don’t care for Christian movies?
     
    If only those poor unfortunates had some way to escape from the Christian domination of popular entertainment...

    Even when Christian morals were unambiguously dominant and taken for granted in film there was never a dearth of darker pictures which weren't meant to be explicitly positive and inspiring, they just mostly weren't actively corrupting of morals, which it would be stupid of anyone to argue in favour of. Even in those times there wasn't a great shortage of films whose message was morally dubious, you're arguing for the need to escape something that has never existed, nonetheless now.
  256. Songbird:
    ‘Funny Games’ is one of the most disturbing movies I’ve seen. It could have been my state of mind at the time, but I actually was unable to continue watching it because the bad guys in it were so realistic. It didn’t seem like watching a movie, but rather like having to see something terrible actually happening.
    I skipped to the end and watched that, but couldn’t take the realistic unfolding of events in real time. There must be a line somewhere delineating a cathartic experience from a traumatizing one.
    Anyone reading this will probably expect something much worse than it is, but that’s the way it hit me at the time.

  257. @theMann
    @BB753

    Oh don't even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    There is no positive way you can engage crazy.

    Replies: @jamie b., @HA, @dfordoom

    Oh don’t even bother with Lynch, or his fans. His films are incoherent garbage and his fans are certifiable.

    I enjoyed Mulholland Dr. I have no idea what it was about.

  258. @Single malt
    My personal favorite movies


    Vertigo
    Raging Bull
    Godfather I
    Godfather II
    Umbrellas of Cherbourg
    Brooklyn
    Wild Strawberries
    2001
    Slap Shot
    Hud
    The Dead
    Age of Innocence
    Goodfellas
    Roman Holiday
    The Third Man
    Dr Strangelove
    Barry Lyndon
    La Strada
    The Entertainer
    War and Peace (Bondarchuk version 1968)
    Phantom Thread
    Ladybird
    Casablanca
    America, America
    The Last Picture Show
    Paper Moon
    The Cat's Meow
    Tender Mercies
    Knight of Cups
    Tree of Life
    Metropolitan
    The Last Days of Disco
    Excalibur
    Play Misty for Me
    History of the World Part I
    Spaceballs
    The Big Libowski
    O Brother, Where Art Thou
    Burn After Reading
    This is Spinal Tap
    Best In Show
    Waiting for Guffman
    Chinatown
    The Last Detail
    Five Easy Pieces
    One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
    The Great Santini
    This Boy's Life
    A River Runs Through It
    The River
    Room With a View
    A Streetcar Named Desire
    Last Temptation of Christ
    Kundun
    Dersu Uzala
    Zorba the Greek
    Spartacus
    Ben Hur
    Tom Jones
    Dr Zhivago
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Satyricon
    Juliette of the Spirits
    The Leopard
    Zulu
    The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
    Night of the Iguana
    The Seventh Seal
    Black Narcisus
    The Red Shoes
    In the Name of the Father
    Blackhawk Down
    Gladiator
    Two Lovers
    Master and Commander
    One-Eyed Jacks
    She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
    Rio Grand
    Ray
    Walk the Line
    The Talented Mr Ripley
    American Hustle
    That Thing You Do
    Meet the Fockers
    Casino
    The Aviator
    L.A. Confidential
    Black Swan

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Etruscan Film Star, @john cronk

    Some of my favorites:
    Manhattan Murder Mystery
    Wheelman
    The Reader
    The Object of Beauty
    The Triplets of Belleville
    4 Month, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
    Scenes From the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills
    Local Hero
    The Death of Mr. Lazarescu
    My Dinner with Andre
    The Guard
    Black Sabbath
    The Grey Zone
    Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
    Repo Man
    Eating Raoul
    Pandora’s Promise
    Numb
    Two Lovers and a Bear
    A Most Violent Year
    When Day Breaks
    Remember
    The Girl with All the Gifts
    The Dead Room
    Backtrack Movie
    The Trip
    The Evil Dead
    The Wild Pear Tree
    EVA La Pelicula
    Burn After Reading
    Finding Vivian Maier
    Backcountry
    The Orphanage
    The Canal
    The Artist and the Model

  259. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @BB753

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    Replies: @Jasper Been, @theMann, @Polynikes, @dfordoom

    That’s pretty much how I feel about all of the Wes Anderson movies I’ve seen. Overly dry humor combined with stilted unrealistic dialog. The Royal Tenenbauns ranks as one of the worst movies I’ve ever sat through.

    The only Wes Anderson movie I’ve seen is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and I only watched half of it before falling asleep. Did I miss anything?

    I didn’t think so.

  260. Anon[221] • Disclaimer says:

    “One interesting aspect of this is that the Neurotic like scary movies. In contrast, I’m rather jumpy, so I don’t like loud noises, much less serial killers jumping out of the closet. Hence, I almost never go to horror movies. That strikes me as pretty sensible. On the other hand, most people don’t seem to see it that way.”

    Until about the age of 12 (and with indulgent parents) I loved horror films. But now, as a very low neuroticism adult, they bore me rigid. I suspect that is what is at work here. To be scared you need to be at least somewhat neurotic.

  261. Anonymous[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I suspect if the researchers expanded their model from the Big 5 personality dimensions to the Big 5 plus IQ, you'd see a bunch of movies ranked high on Openness rank lower on Openness (e.g., "John Malkovich"). But Lynch's movies would probably still rank high on Openness.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    You mean, create a new Openness measure that is completely orthogonal to IQ? Maybe so. I guess it depends on how truly there is an orthogonal component in the first place.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience

    Ok, so O is only correlated 0.3 to 0.45 with IQ, and that is mainly with crystallized, not fluid intelligence. I would have thought it was the latter. However upon reflection it seems likely to me that a high crystallized IQ is evidence that you’ve explored the search space, through openness.

    In a way, the IQ relation makes sense for a trait of intellectual fearlessness. A cat or a squirrel need not fear heights as they can land safely – terminal velocity is not a concern for them. They can be open to exploring heights. Similarly, the high IQ suits an Open personality. If you can make sense of the novel, then it’s a lot less dangerous than for someone who is better off wandering along the well worn ruts of people who have been there, done that, through either experience or intellect.

  262. I wonder where wolf of Wall Street would fall on this spectrum.

  263. @Stan Adams
    I have a fondness for sleazy, badly-dubbed Indonesian action movies:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx_agCH3xmk

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @dfordoom

    I have a fondness for sleazy, badly-dubbed Indonesian action movies:

    Lady Terminator is awesome. “First she mates, then she terminates.”

    I’ve seen half a dozen Indonesian movies. Fabulous stuff. Mystics in Bali (which despite the title is a horror movie) is an absolute must-see movie.

  264. @Boomthorkell
    I consider myself fairly extroverted, but I must have a strong internal dimensional because I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki's Delivery Service, but when you're first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke and you and your friend spend an entire hour watching it before realizing yes, this movie really is just about a young girl and her delivery service when you were expecting a rip-roaring, and psychologically and culturally deep experience, it's a bit of a let down) and I haven't even heard of the extroverted list.

    Major Wes Anderson fan...but I've watched Dredd, the 13th Warrior, and Monster Squad so many times...

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @dfordoom, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki’s Delivery Service, but when you’re first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke

    I adored Spirited Away and Kiki’s Delivery Service, and also Porco Rosso. But I loathed Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. When Miyazaki gets preachy he really gets preachy! And I don’t react well to preachy movies.

    I’m a huge anime fan but I guess my tastes run more to the darker sort of anime. I’m besotted by the whole Ghost in the Shell franchise (although I haven’t seen the American remake and don’t intend to).

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @dfordoom

    AKIRA really was something. Also the first Ghost in the Shell. I was glad I had the roommate I did in college, to show me such things.

  265. @Steve Sailer
    @odin

    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.

    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie. Make of that what you will.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @dfordoom

    Supposedly JFK didn't love movies, he would leave the White House theater to talk to somebody. Of course he's not quite in the same league but if we expand the group we still see lots of movie lovers. Fall of Berlin, allegedly Stalin's favorite movie, is painfully boring, but it has some interesting details in it, like triumphing Soviets enjoying undisguised American jeeps, or Goering dressed as some kind of Wagnerian character.

    , @jamie b.
    @dfordoom


    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie.
     
    I read someplace that King Kong was his favorite movie. Possibly neither rumor has any basis...

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/king-kong-investigating-hitlers-bizarre-hollywood-obsessions-1244456

    Replies: @dfordoom

  266. @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Right, in the flash forward scenes under Communism, the Grand Hotel Budapest looks like a high school gym now.

    That raises the question of where the Grand Hotel is: is it in Budapest or is it in Vienna? My assumption was Vienna, but that wasn't Communist, other than maybe from 1945-1955 (did the Soviets occupy part of Vienna?).

    Replies: @Ray P, @Peter Akuleyev

    As Ray notes, the Soviets occupied part of Vienna, and part of Austria, until 1955, but never imposed a Soviet style economic system.

    The quaint feel of the town and proximity to mountains would suggest the Grand Budapest Hotel is in some minor Habsburg regional capital like Ljubljana/Laibach or Czernowitz. Vienna and Budapest are both big cities, and were even bigger (relatively) back then.

  267. @BB753
    @Pat Hannagan

    OK, thanks, I've never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Replies: @FPD72, @dfordoom, @Peter Akuleyev, @Sebastian Max

    Lynch, unlike most contemporary filmmakers, takes the presence of evil in the world seriously. Arguably that makes him more Christian than a lot of the trite “wholesome” entertainment that presents Christ’s message as simply one of love and feeling good about yourself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Peter Akuleyev

    You owe it to yourself to watch Bill Paxton's Frailty. It is a cult classic that demands several viewings.

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Have to agree, the Twin Peaks movie struck me as one of the most intensely spiritual films I'd ever seen. The angel of mercy's very obvious, but more than that was Laura's struggle with vice and evil (along with being beset by a loteral demon).

    This is why I always feel that any film dealing seriously with evil always contains an implicitly religious (if not implicitly Christian) moral. The "problem of evil" is the most nonsensical of all the favoured pop-atheist arguments, it starts out admitting the reality of evil which invalidates their own position. If evil is real, then morality is real; if morality is real then materialism is false and there is a super-physical source or author of morality. Christianity would be totally nonsensical if there weren't evil in the world.

    Replies: @jamie b.

  268. @Peter Akuleyev
    @BB753

    Lynch, unlike most contemporary filmmakers, takes the presence of evil in the world seriously. Arguably that makes him more Christian than a lot of the trite “wholesome” entertainment that presents Christ’s message as simply one of love and feeling good about yourself.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    You owe it to yourself to watch Bill Paxton’s Frailty. It is a cult classic that demands several viewings.

  269. Where are all of the top Action movies?

    Why no Jason Statham, The Rock, Sylvester Stallone, Fast & Furious? This is a study by and for effete intellectuals. Come on, man.

  270. @Sam Malone
    @Mr. Anon

    I think Scarlet is right about Ebert being much more likeable in real life and Siskel being the complete asshole. If you doubt it, watch the outtake below where Siskel has clearly had a liquid lunch and can't keep from bellowing out his personal hates even though they're trying to film some promos. You can see that Ebert is humoring him to the degree necessary to keep things on track but would prefer not being around him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALFpRJKnK2U&ab_channel=hotmonger

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Thank you for your kind words, Sam. I always liked you in Cheers.

  271. @J.Ross
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Wasn't Bull Durham a Kevin Costner baseball movie with a famously not gay scene featuring Susan Sarandon?

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    He meant gay in the middle-school-insult way, not in the homosexual way.

  272. @dfordoom
    @Steve Sailer


    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.
     
    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler's favourite movie. Make of that what you will.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jamie b.

    Supposedly JFK didn’t love movies, he would leave the White House theater to talk to somebody. Of course he’s not quite in the same league but if we expand the group we still see lots of movie lovers. Fall of Berlin, allegedly Stalin’s favorite movie, is painfully boring, but it has some interesting details in it, like triumphing Soviets enjoying undisguised American jeeps, or Goering dressed as some kind of Wagnerian character.

  273. @Anon87
    @Nathan

    Another counter intuitive "advancement" of technology. With digital, you should have access to almost literally any film in existence on demand. But instead you have a continuously changing list of movies that are frankly less impressive than the old run of the mill Mom-and-Pop video store used to have. Let alone the libraries some of the better rental stores had to choose from.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Your mistake is letting the technology use you.

    • Replies: @Anon87
    @J.Ross

    You could be assuming I'm a slave to tech subscriptions. I actually prefer physical media.

    Torrents closely fulfill the prophecy of the infinite library. And frankly decentralized seeding might be the only outlet for a free and open internet in the future.

  274. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Anon87

    "Shudder"

    The paltry $4.99 per month I pay for Shudder is money well-spent. This month the service added nearly all of Mario Bava's 1960s films and Richard Stanley's adaptation of the Color Out Of Space (2016). Shudder is basically TCM for the cinema of the weird.

    Replies: @Anon87, @Known Fact

    Bava’s Caltiki the Immortal Monster was on TV all the time and absolutely transfixed me as a little kid — it’s like The Blob gone wild!

  275. @R.G. Camara
    @Nathan

    Perhaps you're right on the timing. But I think the 1970s with its "porn chic" also had "horror chic", whereas the pre-1970 gore fests weren't as big a hits.

    But there was also definitely a move to a specific very recurrent, near-dominant theme in horror movies from the 1970s onward: city/suburban folk going to the country and being overwhelmed by whatever was out in the woods/on the edge of civilization: either (1) the locals or (2) monsters.

    E.g. Last House on the Left, Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp, The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc.

    I believe these very common theme spoke to specific fears by the children of Boomers that, unlike their parents and grandparents, they had no survival skills for actual rural living and were just LARPing at it. So the woods really were terrifying to them, and it made them feel weak, especially next to Dad who grew up on a farm in the woods and then killed Nazis/Commies and then married their mom.

    That, and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies out to kill (((everyone))) from the city.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    So the woods really were terrifying to [millennials,] … and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies.

    This stereotyping of rural people is annoying on mainstream TV as well as horror/slasher pics. When McGarrett or Mannix leaves the big city to crack a case out in the boonies, the townsfolk and deputies are inevitably tight-lipped, corrupt bigots ready to string up some innocent POC. Leslie Nielsen played an evil rancher who literally was out to lynch a native Hawaiian kid.

    So it’s funny how TV ads — say, for beer and pickup trucks — portray rural small-town people in a rosy slo-mo glow, as strong, hard-working family folks rather than ignorant hayseeds. You do occasionally get a movie shot in this style e.g. Field of Dreams

    • Agree: R.G. Camara
    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Known Fact

    Not for nothing the famous Rural Purge on CBS happened at the same time, where many successful rural-themed, family-oriented shows were jettisoned in favor of shows more youth/urban/single/broken home oriented (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, cheap game shows, etc.) ABC and NBC followed suit.

    E.g. In the 1950s and 60s you could throw a rock and hit a successful prime-time Western. By 1980, there wasn't a single one left.

    Almost like it was all coordinated, and money wasn't the prime mover.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

    Replies: @dfordoom

  276. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon
    @SunBakedSuburb


    All baseball movies are gay.
     
    C'mon. What about Major League?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Well, Charlie Sheen is a switch hitter.

    I must confess I liked the use of the pejorative gay. It has been quite a long time since I used the term in that way, but it was generally used for school work or requirements that felt pointless, onerous, unrealistic and inapplicable in real life.

    e.g. “I don’t mind my humanities breadth requirement as I can take some quasi-useful stuff like Econ, but the ethnic studies requirement is gay. 3 credits of liberal propaganda, thanks a**holes.”

    The word filled a niche. I think it was used in the 1990s and probably earlier in obvious response to the repurposing of the word “gay” that once meant among other things, a swell old time – into homosexual. Which may as well have salted the earth with the former definition. Of course, there were no funerals held by the PC police over the wanton destruction of this quaint little word. (We’ll get back to this, but first a diversion.)

    Apparently the word has meant homosexual in some circles prior to the 20th century even. I wonder if famous homosexual Noel Coward meant “gay” in this lyric in that sense as well, with a dual meaning, or just the old sense.

    “Gay” was promoted over the accurate “homosexual”, for the PC reason of re-branding a frowned-upon practice into something that tried to incorporate the various predelictions of homosexuals that weren’t specifically phyiscally homosexual into an overall concept that wasn’t immediately associated with a pejorative such as “fruity”. So for example so-called “gay pride march” featured campy dancing and singing, homosexuals doing stuff they love but not engaging in sex acts in the process, generally.

    So it was unsurprising that “gay” began to take on the same pejorative tones that adjectives like “fruity” used to hold, only with a general pejorative aspect that by association put down homosexuality not necessarily involving anything homosexual.

    In any case, I suggest checking out Ninja Sex Party’s “If we were gay” video that lampoons the gay lobby’s branding of “gay” to be all that homosexuals like to do sans the act, to including all of those… plus references to the act itself. I won’t link it directly here because Steve may not find it iSteve kosher, but as a fan of comedy it’s pretty hilarious as is most of their stuff. Ironically one or both of the duo are almost surely at least bisexual and probably gay (i.e. Dan).

    Also interesting if you follow them, Dan has kind of gone back in the closet about his Jewishness, before he had the red star of David on his midsection, now it is a 5 sided star.

  277. @Robert Dolan
    I used to love movies but now I hate them.

    Looking back....I can clearly see how movies and popular music (as well as a liberal arts education) had a HUGE impact on my psyche and thought process. At one time I was actually a virtue signaling liberal and I spouted whatever narrative the media was feeding me at the time.

    In fact I am extremely embarrassed as to how much the media had control of my mind....the power of the media is astonishing.

    Now if I see a film that I used to love, I will see glaring anti-white/anti-Christian/pro-gay themes throughout.

    As a kid I thought The Graduate" was cool....it's garbage. I liked "Midnight Cowboy." Garbage.
    I loved Deniro....a human piece of garbage.

    Hard to think of movies that held up for me. I still like "Shrek" and "The Lion King."
    I love the old standards like "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's A Wonderful Life."

    I quit going to movies about the time they started making those ultra-horror serial killer garbage movies and "Brokeback Mountain." That's when they really jumped the shark.

    I've mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved's "Hollywood vs. America." It's a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Marty, @James Braxton, @Sebastian Max

    Finally, someone who echoes my long-standing hate for both Graduate and MC. Thought I was weird.

  278. @Robert Dolan
    I used to love movies but now I hate them.

    Looking back....I can clearly see how movies and popular music (as well as a liberal arts education) had a HUGE impact on my psyche and thought process. At one time I was actually a virtue signaling liberal and I spouted whatever narrative the media was feeding me at the time.

    In fact I am extremely embarrassed as to how much the media had control of my mind....the power of the media is astonishing.

    Now if I see a film that I used to love, I will see glaring anti-white/anti-Christian/pro-gay themes throughout.

    As a kid I thought The Graduate" was cool....it's garbage. I liked "Midnight Cowboy." Garbage.
    I loved Deniro....a human piece of garbage.

    Hard to think of movies that held up for me. I still like "Shrek" and "The Lion King."
    I love the old standards like "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's A Wonderful Life."

    I quit going to movies about the time they started making those ultra-horror serial killer garbage movies and "Brokeback Mountain." That's when they really jumped the shark.

    I've mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved's "Hollywood vs. America." It's a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Marty, @James Braxton, @Sebastian Max

    You would probably like Barcelona. It contains a takedown of the Graduate that will make you say amen.

  279. @Known Fact
    @R.G. Camara


    So the woods really were terrifying to [millennials,] ... and Jewish filmmakers and producers felt free to really crap on rural white folks as murderous inbred crazies.
     
    This stereotyping of rural people is annoying on mainstream TV as well as horror/slasher pics. When McGarrett or Mannix leaves the big city to crack a case out in the boonies, the townsfolk and deputies are inevitably tight-lipped, corrupt bigots ready to string up some innocent POC. Leslie Nielsen played an evil rancher who literally was out to lynch a native Hawaiian kid.

    So it's funny how TV ads -- say, for beer and pickup trucks -- portray rural small-town people in a rosy slo-mo glow, as strong, hard-working family folks rather than ignorant hayseeds. You do occasionally get a movie shot in this style e.g. Field of Dreams

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    Not for nothing the famous Rural Purge on CBS happened at the same time, where many successful rural-themed, family-oriented shows were jettisoned in favor of shows more youth/urban/single/broken home oriented (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, cheap game shows, etc.) ABC and NBC followed suit.

    E.g. In the 1950s and 60s you could throw a rock and hit a successful prime-time Western. By 1980, there wasn’t a single one left.

    Almost like it was all coordinated, and money wasn’t the prime mover.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @R.G. Camara


    Not for nothing the famous Rural Purge on CBS happened at the same time, where many successful rural-themed, family-oriented shows were jettisoned in favor of shows more youth/urban/single/broken home oriented (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, cheap game shows, etc.) ABC and NBC followed suit.

    E.g. In the 1950s and 60s you could throw a rock and hit a successful prime-time Western. By 1980, there wasn’t a single one left.

    Almost like it was all coordinated, and money wasn’t the prime mover.
     
    The argument I've heard was that while those shows had high ratings they weren't attracting the younger viewers that advertisers wanted. And also it was supposedly felt that older viewers were less likely to be influenced by advertising when making purchasing decisions.

    But I have no doubt that there were people in high positions in the networks who simply hated those shows because they hated the viewers who watched them.
  280. Extravert movies are basically made for dumb sociopaths. That’s the level on which they function. The entire content of these movies is superficial, which dumb people enjoy because…no thinking required! The popularity of such films in the “black community” perfectly mirrors the average IQ scores of this cohort.

    The interesting thing is that the most creative genre (SF) is also scored as the least conscientious, which I suspect is probably a mischaracterization – a type error.

    These movies are mostly morality plays at some level, so I’d suggest that the scoring of this trait is actually measuring something else, like conformity to authority, or as the new psychobabble might term it “Oppositional Defiance Disorder”.

    The reason this has been erroneously typed is likely that the authors assumed – defiance of established “muh authoriteh” should be equivalent to low conscientiousness. In fact it is not and it is not a forgivable error to make as these are standardized sociological trait descriptions and there isn’t an excuse for getting it wrong, since the authors clearly acknowledge they knew the definition (its in the quote).

    Specifically, the definition of conscientiousness is a scrupulous adherence to “right conduct” (not the same thing as submission to authority or the law), and is marked by high future time preference and highly organized behaviors. This is in stark contrast to the opposite profile – the one typically associated with the “house party” or “Medea” franchise of “black movies”. Movies made by blacks, for blacks, or about blacks are generally either celebrating mayhem, promoting debauchery and criminality, or airing some racial grievance dressed up as a film plot, with plenty of opportunities for black protagonists (or white ones) to shame some BadWhite for BadThink.

    This seems like a thinly disguised attempt to promote the anti-social dimensions of low (black) culture and denigrate the high (white) one.

  281. @Robert Dolan
    I used to love movies but now I hate them.

    Looking back....I can clearly see how movies and popular music (as well as a liberal arts education) had a HUGE impact on my psyche and thought process. At one time I was actually a virtue signaling liberal and I spouted whatever narrative the media was feeding me at the time.

    In fact I am extremely embarrassed as to how much the media had control of my mind....the power of the media is astonishing.

    Now if I see a film that I used to love, I will see glaring anti-white/anti-Christian/pro-gay themes throughout.

    As a kid I thought The Graduate" was cool....it's garbage. I liked "Midnight Cowboy." Garbage.
    I loved Deniro....a human piece of garbage.

    Hard to think of movies that held up for me. I still like "Shrek" and "The Lion King."
    I love the old standards like "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's A Wonderful Life."

    I quit going to movies about the time they started making those ultra-horror serial killer garbage movies and "Brokeback Mountain." That's when they really jumped the shark.

    I've mentioned before an excellent book that had a great impact on me, Michael Medved's "Hollywood vs. America." It's a fascinating and scholarly analysis regarding the garbage that Hollywood cranks out and the effect it has on our people.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Marty, @James Braxton, @Sebastian Max

    The Graduate is a very subversive film that typifies the hostility of Hollywood Jewry towards WASP culture.

    You’re not alone in being entranced – it was an innovative film and certainly captivated the public when it released, but I doubt that many people back then, aside from academics, film students, and the occasional free thinker, could have articulated very eloquently how it functioned subversively.

  282. @R.G. Camara
    @Known Fact

    Not for nothing the famous Rural Purge on CBS happened at the same time, where many successful rural-themed, family-oriented shows were jettisoned in favor of shows more youth/urban/single/broken home oriented (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, cheap game shows, etc.) ABC and NBC followed suit.

    E.g. In the 1950s and 60s you could throw a rock and hit a successful prime-time Western. By 1980, there wasn't a single one left.

    Almost like it was all coordinated, and money wasn't the prime mover.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_purge

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Not for nothing the famous Rural Purge on CBS happened at the same time, where many successful rural-themed, family-oriented shows were jettisoned in favor of shows more youth/urban/single/broken home oriented (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, cheap game shows, etc.) ABC and NBC followed suit.

    E.g. In the 1950s and 60s you could throw a rock and hit a successful prime-time Western. By 1980, there wasn’t a single one left.

    Almost like it was all coordinated, and money wasn’t the prime mover.

    The argument I’ve heard was that while those shows had high ratings they weren’t attracting the younger viewers that advertisers wanted. And also it was supposedly felt that older viewers were less likely to be influenced by advertising when making purchasing decisions.

    But I have no doubt that there were people in high positions in the networks who simply hated those shows because they hated the viewers who watched them.

  283. @Anonymouse
    @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey

    >I really hate that oh so worthy witch Meryl Streep.

    Come on! Streep was radiant in The Deer Hunter. How 'bout as the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg in Mike Nichols directed Angels in America? I grant that she has been in a good many crappy movies. But so has Di Nero. So who is the best American actor? Possibly Leonardo di Caprio although his aging face has betrayed him.

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

    Meryl is certainly overrated – I don’t know if I would go so far as to call her a mediocre talent as in my opinion, some of her work is quite memorable.

    But her singing – oh my – have you heard her sing? She’s fantastic.

    Best LIVING American actor, or best WORKING American actor?

    I would nominate a fairly small group for consideration of best working actors.

    Tom Hanks
    Tom Cruise
    Matt Damon
    Matthew McConaughey
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Christopher Walken

    If its best LIVING, the list has to expand to include guys like

    Harrison Ford
    Jack Nicholson
    Gene Hackman
    Sean Penn
    Daniel Day-Lewis*
    DeNiro
    Pacino
    Clint Eastwood
    Mel Gibson

    *not American but we can claim him!

    The list of the latter shrinks every year, of course. Within the next five years, that list above will probably be cut by half.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    @Sebastian Max

    Can we all agree to give the title to Robert Duvall?

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

  284. @BB753
    @Pat Hannagan

    OK, thanks, I've never watched Lost Highway. It looks as confusing as Mulholland Drive and even more sinister. Lynch has a very dark mind. We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies, not more of this occult stuff.

    Replies: @FPD72, @dfordoom, @Peter Akuleyev, @Sebastian Max

    I think the reason Lynch has chosen to include what you might perceive as elements of the occult, is precisely because of the diminishment of the supernatural in Western religions – that it has vanished from society’s institutions and daily lives, but not from our imagination or consciousness, where it still wields a lot of power.

    If you think about the social power of religion – what is it actually a tool for? To inculcate a standard morality in the population, to propagate those values that ultimately produce a stable and compliant population.

    In the Western religious tradition, man has this “personal relationship with God”, but this is very much a form of self-deception. Sure, some of it is pushed by the churches, and the messages consist of a kind of “fear porn” – Western churches focus on what you (and the rest of humanity) have done that is wrong, an offense to God, and how that can be mitigated – pass the collection plate, brethren!)

    It’s an odd racket because it relies both on this external element that is developed through a sense of impending doom or grave personal and global spiritual (and physical) peril but can only really be imposed internally. There isn’t any Torquemada overseeing a band of church secret police and inquisitors, nobody is going to force a confession, and you won’t be subjected to trial by fire.

    Most of this is achieved via direct exposition (the Fall of mankind, God’s wrath, the deliverance and Covenant, and in the sequel the persecution of Jesus to permit the salvation of the sinful, and the Redemption of all faithful through Judgment Day and rapture) and enforced through parable and allegory. All of the stories of sinners being smited (smitten?) and turned into pillars of salt and other such creative punishments from above. But it really is about creating a sense of guilt and repentance and striving that is a sort of Mobius strip of offenses and responsibility and consequences, which pushes people to fixate on maintaining an invisible ledger of good/bad so that they will not be denied a pleasant afterlife. It’s an interesting phenomenon because absent this internal element, the external one lacks any power whatsoever. Western Churches push the idea of an all-knowing God that is constantly surveilling all and knows not just what you did, but what you THOUGHT about doing. This is why salvation through works isn’t the basis of Western religion, but rather, salvation through faith, through God’s grace.

    However, since nobody is actually preaching “Our God is an angry God” anymore and even seminal religious figures like Cotton Mather are today scorned by the very denominations they once led , it became popular to substitute a plethora of self-flagellating beliefs..kind of like putting yourself on trial every day.

    It truly is a fascinating psycho-pathology.

    And as Americans have gradually shed their Puritanical superstitions, become more rational and secular and less fundamental, I think that fear of the unknown, that possibility of some divine watchman, or otherwordly threat (of temptation, of punishment, of eternal damnation, etc) has taken on an even more powerfully memetic quality.

    It used to be that people would frankly admit to being cursed or hexxed or whatever it was, and this was not considered to be aberrant behaviour. The idea of being beset by witches or demons wasn’t seen as ludicrous or histrionic or delusional – rather it was generally accepted that this was as real a phenomenon and as genuine of a concern as, say, Indian attacks (which were certainly real and physically deadly). Indians couldn’t send your soul to Hell like sinning could, but they could easily kill you and run off with your scalp, after defiling your body. On the other hand, this would surely put you in the grace of God, if you’d been a properly observant Christian and a good person who didn’t sin. People got comfort from that. The idea of salvation through faith was augmented by a healthy sense of personal fear.

    The official message was – forget your body, its your spirit that is in danger.

    But a modern secular society sends the opposite message – focus on your physical being and let your body experience all the pleasure you can order up on Tinder or cram up your nose – don’t worry about going to hell, there is no God and in any case what’s the problem, “love is love”, “right to choose”, etc and so forth.

    Lynch’s take on the darkness within man is very much a throwback to history and allows us the luxury to flirt cinematically with our abandoned supernatural identity. And he has mastered the ability to deploy all the standard archetypes in his depiction of this constant struggle for the balance and destiny of the soul. “What does the ledger say? Lookin up, you say? Well, how bout NOW?! ”

  285. @Sebastian Max
    @Anonymouse

    Meryl is certainly overrated - I don't know if I would go so far as to call her a mediocre talent as in my opinion, some of her work is quite memorable.

    But her singing - oh my - have you heard her sing? She's fantastic.

    Best LIVING American actor, or best WORKING American actor?

    I would nominate a fairly small group for consideration of best working actors.

    Tom Hanks
    Tom Cruise
    Matt Damon
    Matthew McConaughey
    Leonardo DiCaprio
    Christopher Walken


    If its best LIVING, the list has to expand to include guys like

    Harrison Ford
    Jack Nicholson
    Gene Hackman
    Sean Penn
    Daniel Day-Lewis*
    DeNiro
    Pacino
    Clint Eastwood
    Mel Gibson

    *not American but we can claim him!

    The list of the latter shrinks every year, of course. Within the next five years, that list above will probably be cut by half.

    Replies: @James Braxton

    Can we all agree to give the title to Robert Duvall?

    • Replies: @Sebastian Max
    @James Braxton


    Can we all agree to give the title to Robert Duvall?
     
    I have nothing against him but I hate the Godfather films (and just about everything from the genre) and the rest of his stuff I've seen I thought was mediocre (not him but the picture itself).
  286. @Peter Akuleyev
    @BB753

    Lynch, unlike most contemporary filmmakers, takes the presence of evil in the world seriously. Arguably that makes him more Christian than a lot of the trite “wholesome” entertainment that presents Christ’s message as simply one of love and feeling good about yourself.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Have to agree, the Twin Peaks movie struck me as one of the most intensely spiritual films I’d ever seen. The angel of mercy’s very obvious, but more than that was Laura’s struggle with vice and evil (along with being beset by a loteral demon).

    This is why I always feel that any film dealing seriously with evil always contains an implicitly religious (if not implicitly Christian) moral. The “problem of evil” is the most nonsensical of all the favoured pop-atheist arguments, it starts out admitting the reality of evil which invalidates their own position. If evil is real, then morality is real; if morality is real then materialism is false and there is a super-physical source or author of morality. Christianity would be totally nonsensical if there weren’t evil in the world.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    The “problem of evil” is the most nonsensical of all the favoured pop-atheist arguments...
     
    Agreed. However...

    ...if morality is real then materialism is false...
     
    ...to have standards of good/evil doesn't necessarily imply that morality has some sort of metaphysical 'reality.' Furthermore...

    ...there is a super-physical source or author of morality.
     
    ...giving morality a foundation based on authority ultimately implies ethical relativism.

    FWIW, my own take is that while you can't find an objective basis for good, you can identify actions that limit the potential for moral expression (however one chooses to define morality). Sort of a negative definition of morality.

  287. @dfordoom
    @BB753


    We need wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies
     
    How about those of us who don't care for Christian movies?

    Wholesome and inspiring is fine, but again I'd like there to be a choice. Wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies for those who like such things and other kinds of movies for those with different tastes.

    I do admit that at the moment those who want wholesome, inspiring and Christian movies are missing out somewhat.

    Personally I don't watch any contemporary movies. There's no need to.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    How about those of us who don’t care for Christian movies?

    If only those poor unfortunates had some way to escape from the Christian domination of popular entertainment…

    Even when Christian morals were unambiguously dominant and taken for granted in film there was never a dearth of darker pictures which weren’t meant to be explicitly positive and inspiring, they just mostly weren’t actively corrupting of morals, which it would be stupid of anyone to argue in favour of. Even in those times there wasn’t a great shortage of films whose message was morally dubious, you’re arguing for the need to escape something that has never existed, nonetheless now.

  288. @Boomthorkell
    I consider myself fairly extroverted, but I must have a strong internal dimensional because I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki's Delivery Service, but when you're first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke and you and your friend spend an entire hour watching it before realizing yes, this movie really is just about a young girl and her delivery service when you were expecting a rip-roaring, and psychologically and culturally deep experience, it's a bit of a let down) and I haven't even heard of the extroverted list.

    Major Wes Anderson fan...but I've watched Dredd, the 13th Warrior, and Monster Squad so many times...

    Replies: @Half Canadian, @dfordoom, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Spirited away and Castle Cagliostro (and maybe Totoro) were the only gibli films that felt finished, the rest all mostly felt like longwinded excuses to show off visual setpieces with an often nonsensical story tacked on.

    Take Howl’s moving castle for example, there’s some great visuals and interesting concepts but for most of the film the antagonist isn’t clear, the subplot of him “swallowing a star” just didn’t make sense or have any relevance overall, and the ending was a pretty absurd deus ex machina. Likewise Nausica and Mononoke started off impressively but end up not making much sense at all by the halfway point, have unfinished plot threads and have pretty childish and weak “morals”.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Thinking about it like that...I can't say I entirely disagree (Actually, I have not seen Castle Cagliostro yet, apparently I am doing myself a grave disservice.)

    Howl's Moving Castle definitely felt like that...I will defend the the other two on the grounds that they did try to point out the complexities associated with coming to a compromised position. I think though he felt Nausicaä was particularly unfinished though, going on to make an entire manga out of it or something. Nonetheless, they were clearly about beautiful scenes. Princess Mononoke, on a separate note, is one of the few Japanese animated films I prefer in the English, ha ha ha.

  289. Ellen Page is now Elliot Page:

    • Replies: @Nathan
    @MEH 0910

    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can't imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

  290. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Boomthorkell

    Spirited away and Castle Cagliostro (and maybe Totoro) were the only gibli films that felt finished, the rest all mostly felt like longwinded excuses to show off visual setpieces with an often nonsensical story tacked on.

    Take Howl's moving castle for example, there's some great visuals and interesting concepts but for most of the film the antagonist isn't clear, the subplot of him "swallowing a star" just didn't make sense or have any relevance overall, and the ending was a pretty absurd deus ex machina. Likewise Nausica and Mononoke started off impressively but end up not making much sense at all by the halfway point, have unfinished plot threads and have pretty childish and weak "morals".

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    Thinking about it like that…I can’t say I entirely disagree (Actually, I have not seen Castle Cagliostro yet, apparently I am doing myself a grave disservice.)

    Howl’s Moving Castle definitely felt like that…I will defend the the other two on the grounds that they did try to point out the complexities associated with coming to a compromised position. I think though he felt Nausicaä was particularly unfinished though, going on to make an entire manga out of it or something. Nonetheless, they were clearly about beautiful scenes. Princess Mononoke, on a separate note, is one of the few Japanese animated films I prefer in the English, ha ha ha.

  291. @dfordoom
    @Boomthorkell


    I love all those studio ghibli films (except Kiki’s Delivery Service, but when you’re first experience of Miyazaki is Spirited Away, Nausicaa, and Princess Mononoke
     
    I adored Spirited Away and Kiki’s Delivery Service, and also Porco Rosso. But I loathed Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. When Miyazaki gets preachy he really gets preachy! And I don't react well to preachy movies.

    I'm a huge anime fan but I guess my tastes run more to the darker sort of anime. I'm besotted by the whole Ghost in the Shell franchise (although I haven't seen the American remake and don't intend to).

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    AKIRA really was something. Also the first Ghost in the Shell. I was glad I had the roommate I did in college, to show me such things.

  292. @dfordoom
    @Steve Sailer


    Did any major WWII leader not love movies? Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin were pretty close to movie addicts.
     
    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler's favourite movie. Make of that what you will.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @jamie b.

    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie.

    I read someplace that King Kong was his favorite movie. Possibly neither rumor has any basis…

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/king-kong-investigating-hitlers-bizarre-hollywood-obsessions-1244456

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @jamie b.



    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie.
     
    I read someplace that King Kong was his favorite movie. Possibly neither rumor has any basis…
     
    Internet rumours are like really great quotes. Most of them turn out to be fake. It's very depressing.
  293. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Have to agree, the Twin Peaks movie struck me as one of the most intensely spiritual films I'd ever seen. The angel of mercy's very obvious, but more than that was Laura's struggle with vice and evil (along with being beset by a loteral demon).

    This is why I always feel that any film dealing seriously with evil always contains an implicitly religious (if not implicitly Christian) moral. The "problem of evil" is the most nonsensical of all the favoured pop-atheist arguments, it starts out admitting the reality of evil which invalidates their own position. If evil is real, then morality is real; if morality is real then materialism is false and there is a super-physical source or author of morality. Christianity would be totally nonsensical if there weren't evil in the world.

    Replies: @jamie b.

    The “problem of evil” is the most nonsensical of all the favoured pop-atheist arguments…

    Agreed. However…

    …if morality is real then materialism is false…

    …to have standards of good/evil doesn’t necessarily imply that morality has some sort of metaphysical ‘reality.’ Furthermore…

    …there is a super-physical source or author of morality.

    …giving morality a foundation based on authority ultimately implies ethical relativism.

    FWIW, my own take is that while you can’t find an objective basis for good, you can identify actions that limit the potential for moral expression (however one chooses to define morality). Sort of a negative definition of morality.

  294. @J.Ross
    @Anon87

    Your mistake is letting the technology use you.

    Replies: @Anon87

    You could be assuming I’m a slave to tech subscriptions. I actually prefer physical media.

    Torrents closely fulfill the prophecy of the infinite library. And frankly decentralized seeding might be the only outlet for a free and open internet in the future.

  295. @MEH 0910
    Ellen Page is now Elliot Page:

    https://twitter.com/TheElliotPage/status/1333820783655837701

    https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1333825700944510976

    Replies: @Nathan

    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can’t imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.

    • Replies: @Sebastian Max
    @Nathan


    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can’t imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.
     
    Meh. I guess if you are attracted to moody lesbians, she's the bee's knees.

    It is unfortunate she is not getting any effective mental health therapy for her condition. The real downer is that in the most advanced healthcare system on the planet, that patients are encouraged in their delusions and actively aided in harming themselves via mutilation and chemical castration.

    It is disgusting. The Hippocratic Oath is dead and this is a cruel society to allow and facilitate this.

    Replies: @Nathan

  296. @James Braxton
    @Sebastian Max

    Can we all agree to give the title to Robert Duvall?

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

    Can we all agree to give the title to Robert Duvall?

    I have nothing against him but I hate the Godfather films (and just about everything from the genre) and the rest of his stuff I’ve seen I thought was mediocre (not him but the picture itself).

  297. @Nathan
    @MEH 0910

    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can't imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can’t imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.

    Meh. I guess if you are attracted to moody lesbians, she’s the bee’s knees.

    It is unfortunate she is not getting any effective mental health therapy for her condition. The real downer is that in the most advanced healthcare system on the planet, that patients are encouraged in their delusions and actively aided in harming themselves via mutilation and chemical castration.

    It is disgusting. The Hippocratic Oath is dead and this is a cruel society to allow and facilitate this.

    • Replies: @Nathan
    @Sebastian Max

    I more or less agree with you, except what's needed isn't "mental health therapy," it's a much more aggressively heteronormative society.

    And if you're not into this, hey, maybe Elliot Page will be just fine with you:

    https://i.imgur.com/BbXtuJE.jpg

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

  298. @Sebastian Max
    @Nathan


    Real downer. Ellen Page was a very pretty girl, and I can’t imagine the psychological trauma that was inflicted to bring about this outcome.
     
    Meh. I guess if you are attracted to moody lesbians, she's the bee's knees.

    It is unfortunate she is not getting any effective mental health therapy for her condition. The real downer is that in the most advanced healthcare system on the planet, that patients are encouraged in their delusions and actively aided in harming themselves via mutilation and chemical castration.

    It is disgusting. The Hippocratic Oath is dead and this is a cruel society to allow and facilitate this.

    Replies: @Nathan

    I more or less agree with you, except what’s needed isn’t “mental health therapy,” it’s a much more aggressively heteronormative society.

    And if you’re not into this, hey, maybe Elliot Page will be just fine with you:

    • Replies: @Sebastian Max
    @Nathan

    Cute Ellen Page, Lynda Carter or petals from a rose. All things must pass.

    But I think we otherwise agree; its only in a heteronormative society that her disease condition can even be acknowledged. So yes if we had that she would have gotten help.

  299. @jamie b.
    @dfordoom


    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie.
     
    I read someplace that King Kong was his favorite movie. Possibly neither rumor has any basis...

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/king-kong-investigating-hitlers-bizarre-hollywood-obsessions-1244456

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I read somewhere that Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler’s favourite movie.

    I read someplace that King Kong was his favorite movie. Possibly neither rumor has any basis…

    Internet rumours are like really great quotes. Most of them turn out to be fake. It’s very depressing.

  300. @Nathan
    @Sebastian Max

    I more or less agree with you, except what's needed isn't "mental health therapy," it's a much more aggressively heteronormative society.

    And if you're not into this, hey, maybe Elliot Page will be just fine with you:

    https://i.imgur.com/BbXtuJE.jpg

    Replies: @Sebastian Max

    Cute Ellen Page, Lynda Carter or petals from a rose. All things must pass.

    But I think we otherwise agree; its only in a heteronormative society that her disease condition can even be acknowledged. So yes if we had that she would have gotten help.

  301. @Steve Sailer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Nabokov's "Despair" from the 1930s in Russian is about a protagonist who meets a hobo who strikes him as his identical dead-ringer. He then sets about framing his double for a murder he wants to commit. The joke is that nobody else notices any likeness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despair_(novel)

    Replies: @Not Edmund Wilson

    And a pretty entertaining film too. Dirk Bogarde is the demented chocolatier Hermann Hermann. Fassbinder directed, Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay.

    Probably not a film to rank high on the “agreeableness” scale, however.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077421/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS