|
Well, my choice is writing an essay or paying $10 again. Perhaps the mods can just suspend my account for 999 years if they hate me that much.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:The examples you give are both sexual subtexts, and Baron's essay is mandated as being about sexual subtext. Does my Happy Madison essay need to be about sexual subtext too? Sorry, no. Like I said, you can pick any subtext you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Sorry, no. Like I said, you can pick any subtext you want. Perfect, thanks! I'm considering using this opportunity to watch something like Reign Over Me or Funny People, but I feel like that'd be a disingenuous approach to the challenge, so I'mma find the worst loving thing he's got on Netflix and give that a shot. Has The Ridiculous Six come out yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Sorry, no. Like I said, you can pick any subtext you want. Does this include Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison or just the films from Happy Madison themselves? (I know that sounds like a pedantic question but Billy Madison is kinda beggin' for it.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Well, my choice is writing an essay or paying $10 again. Perhaps the mods can just suspend my account for 999 years if they hate me that much. There's much worse things that can happen. Someone else could write an essay and decide your punishment should be that your av gets changed to Adam Sandler in drag from Jack and Jill. Then we all have to see that every time you post and everyone loses. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:I was about to reply that this long anticipated thread I have been looking forward too has quickly become one of the worst on SA right now. GonSmithe has just gone and made everything alright in the world once more. I knew it would get this bad, but I never expected it would get this good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Does this include Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison or just the films from Happy Madison themselves? (I know that sounds like a pedantic question but Billy Madison is kinda beggin' for it.) Dammit I knew I should have checked this. I forgot Happy Maddison wasn't the original company, but yes, you can work with those. Here is a list of films you are allowed to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Madison_Productions As well as Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Crossing fingers for someone's self-reflective essay about the robo-programmer from Grandma's Boy. That and Joe Dirt are the only two movies on that big list that I actually enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Dammit I knew I should have checked this. I forgot Happy Maddison wasn't the original company, but yes, you can work with those. I know I'm way late to the party, but holy poo poo is that a long list of movies ranging from mediocre to outright bad. I think this will be a fun mod challenge, but I think it's wasted on a gimmicky troll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
For people considering doing the optional mod challenge, The Master of Disguise, Anger Management, and Grandma's Boy are all streaming on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I'm going to do Grandma's Boy, and I'm going to make the part about him jizzing on his friend's mom while screaming "I can't stop cumming!" as a metaphor for an extended adolescence. gently caress yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I'll bang out something for The Master of Disguise either later tonight or tomorrow. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
I'm strongly considering Pixels or Zohan, but don't know my upcoming work schedule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
This is amazing. Can't wait to read all the awesome essays 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:poo poo, being for Truth, Justice, and the American Way is an inherently political thing. It means that everything he does is either the right way for an American to act or results in a lesson for America when shown to be wrong. coincidentally this is why the opening to Grounded is so great and the rest is so bad. he says "superman can't just stand for the american way in the 21st century" and renounces his "citizenship", the implication being that superman is for the betterment of all mankind (which, he already was, but it's a good gesture to get that across) then he was jsut a right wing dbag and people hated it so much jms quit in a huff Baron Bifford posted:It's nice to see Superman pay attention to real crimes and social issues. This doesn't happen often in his books. the current run on action comics opens with a couple issues of dirty riot cops loving up his neighborhood and superman, who's no longer invulnerable or godlike but just really strong, trying to do the "turn the other cheek, i'm fuckin superman" poo poo, and when that doesn't work he punches out a cop it happens more than you'd think
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:I was about to reply that this long anticipated thread I have been looking forward too has quickly become one of the worst on SA right now. GonSmithe has just gone and made everything alright in the world once more. I don't understand why they made a thread when the movie is still months and months out. This seems like some Republican Primaries poo poo to me, who cares? But then I scrolled through the thread and holy poo poo look at all these essays, how can you say so much about Batman v Superman sight unseen. e: This isn't the general chat thread! Holy gently caress! Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I want to do I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry but I probably won't have the time between now and Thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:The examples you give are both sexual subtexts, and Baron's essay is mandated as being about sexual subtext. Does my Happy Madison essay need to be about sexual subtext too? You could look at post colonialism and cultural appropriation in Blended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:You could look at post colonialism and cultural appropriation in Blended. Nah, I already know what I'm writing
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Ooh. I might do that because while I have trouble with subtext stuff, Alien was the first time I ever realized a film actually does have deeper themes and ideas below the surface. That and I loving love to talk about aliens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Edit: I see it's only for Sandler. i still might write an alien essay though
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Ooh. I might do that because while I have trouble with subtext stuff, Alien was the first time I ever realized a film actually does have deeper themes and ideas below the surface. Figure out what the hell the subtext in Alien: Resurrection is and do that instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
 ...Oh man, I really wanna do Click, but I worry it's not actively "bad" enough to be fun for anyone but me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:Figure out what the hell the subtext in Alien: Resurrection is and do that instead. The drawbacks of motherhood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:Figure out what the hell the subtext in Alien: Resurrection is and do that instead. that could be fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:
It'll be fun to me, because you'll be writing about a movie you want to write about rather than picking a soft target for yuks. Do whatever movie genuinely floats your boat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
There is a lot going on in Click, it's a good choice. Pick something you're interested in rather than trying to find the most terrible movie you can to fulfill some weird game of ironic one-upsmanship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:I don't understand why they made a thread when the movie is still months and months out. This seems like some Republican Primaries poo poo to me, who cares? But then I scrolled through the thread and holy poo poo look at all these essays, how can you say so much about Batman v Superman sight unseen. Don't talk behind ppls backs...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:There is a lot going on in Click, it's a good choice. Pick something you're interested in rather than trying to find the most terrible movie you can to fulfill some weird game of ironic one-upsmanship. Yeah! I want legit essays here, if you choose to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Christ, Anger Management is an extremely post-9/11 movie I'll have Blood is Compulsory: The Coercive State and Performative Identity in Anger Management written by the end of the week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
This is the best loving forum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
I really want to read some of these essays...
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Blood is Compulsory: The Coercive State and Performative Identity in Anger Management In the early-mid 00's, there was a well-documented tendency for wide-release American movies, especially those set in and around New York City, to semi-intentionally date themselves by championing an optimistic post-9/11 mentality. The most popular example is Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (2004), with its saccharine "You come after one of us, you come after all of us!" camaraderie, but at least that tone makes sense in the broader context of an uplifting superhero narrative with a deep investment in empowering the common man. It's less expected when it comes from a Happy Madison film, when it comes in the form of a screwball comedy's expected elisions of the legal system being pressed into the service of a post-9/11 ultimatum made to white collar culture. But that's exactly what we see in Anger Management (2003), whose opening scene features a flight attendant scolding our protagonist David Buznik (Sandler) for not doing his part in the "difficult time" that the country is going through. From that point on, the films centers on explicating what constitutes "doing his part" , and what our country risks if we fail to follow the same path of aggressive, performative self-empowerment that Buznik undergoes. It's important to note that while Buznik is criticized constantly for being meek, ineffectual, disingenuous, and developmentally stunted, he's far from alone in this position. In the opening sequence on the plane, Buznik is most directly suffering from the obnoxious antics of Dr. Buddy Rydell (Nicholson), but there's a steadily building 'silent majority' among the other passengers looking on in disgust - partially at Rydell's oafishness, but also partially at Buznik's failure to act as their champion. That disgust toward Buznik is the same kind of rationalizing and blame-shifting that Rydell comes to repeatedly criticize as "dissembling", a culture of victimhood that frames our national malaise as a failure to loudly and aggressively take ownership. These are salt-of-the-earth people who are flying coach, and when left to their own devices (as when the flight attendant cuts off their physical connection to financial success and bravado by closing the partition to first class), they demur and dissemble against a lone troublemaker despite their superior numbers and unified will. The theoretical adversaries of this silent majority are Rydell and his loose but seemingly omnipotent state-sponsored cabal (in a throwaway line late in the film, we learn that the legal system effectively works for him, with a judge happy to authorize multiple wiretaps at his request). But as the film ultimately affirm's Rydell's invasion of Buznik's life as a necessary and positive force, the true enemies are the familiar arrangement of others identified in Eco's exploration of ur-fascism. We are under siege by effete, over-educated gladhanders with enormous penises and gentle, rotund Buddhist monks bent on sexually humiliating us. Buznik himself risks falling into this camp - at his introductory anger management meeting, he's sitting apart from the rest of the group, wearing a full suit that contrasts with the more eclectic, blue-collar attire worn by the other Fury Fighters. This distance draws the ire of a PTSD-suffering veteran, who like the sky marshal in the opening scene, rages at Buznik despite being neither a member of Rydell's cabal nor one of the aforementioned eternal enemies. This is where the scope of Buznik's failure becomes clear: far beyond hurting himself, his attitude is letting Our Heroes down. In order to properly help our troops through this difficult national time, Buznik must reject not only his own brand of repression, but the ineffectual serenity offered by the Buddhist monastery that he and Rydell visit. Buznik's former tormentor Arnold Shankman (Reilly) appears to have found peace there, but the warmth and apologies with which he greets Buznik are judged as wholly insufficient. While Shankman gives every indication of being sincere in his reformation, It only takes a slight push for him to revert to juvenile mockery of Buznik's lack of sexual prowess, and once Rydell and Buznik hurl some religious bigotry and declarations of sexual assault against Shankman's mentally ill sister, the monks' edifice of calmness collapses. If a belief system cannot stand against a pair of spiteful toads lobbing deeply personal bile at them for essentially no reason, Rydell sees no place for it in America. Rydell identifies the failing of the monks as their inability to productively embrace their anger - by his own system, they have yet to distinguish "harmful anger" from "righteous anger" and are yet to advance past the first level of self-actualization. While Rydell's techniques involve some level of defusing immediate anger, e.g. the calming "goosfraba" exercise, these are largely tangential to his ultimate goal. Someone who needs goosfraba at least has the potential to harness anger positively, and is thus far less dangerous in Rydell's view than someone like Buznik, whose "implosive anger" is so severe that Rydell must invade his personal space, censor his media intake, and again, wiretap his communications (a brief aside, in case you were still wondering how post-9/11 this film is: near the finale, Rydell offhandedly asks Buznik, "Did you think your phone was the only one I wiretapped?"). This focus on the power of positive anger extends to Rydell's own interpersonal interactions - when speaking a professional, he is polite and gentle to the point of condescension, but he routinely reacts to complete strangers by flipping them off, cursing them out, and assaulting their property. By the way, I just crossed the 900-word threshold with that last paragraph. I will put you in the loving ground, Baron. The distinction that Rydell draws between harmful and righteous anger appears to have little to do with the actual circumstances of vengeance against personal harm, and everything to do with its performative nature. Note that when Buznik accidentally breaks the waitress's nose, it's in response to a man unfairly victimizing and assaulting him, but it's a reactive anger that refuses to own itself. Conversely, when he violently threatens and shakes down his employer, he is immediately rewarded - he has successfully wrapped himself in a "revenge of the little guy" narrative, even though his specific demand is to be given a high-paying, executive position in marketing consumer goods. Despite Rydell's claims, Buznik posed no physical danger prior to their meeting. Even in a situation engineered to bring out his darkest, angriest impulses, the most he did was shout "I'm calm!" before being tased by an overworked agent of the state. When Rydell identified Buznik as a cashier who takes abuse until he snaps and shoots up a store, Buznik countered that he was a customer hiding in the frozen food section and calling 911. Buznik is ultimately correct, but that's the exact problem, according to Rydell's broader claims - he should instead aim to be the superhero bystander who saves the day by committing heroic violence against the bad guy. Hence why the film's climax could only take place in a venue as public and performative as Yankee Stadium. Taking ownership of his career is one thing, but Buznik must still prove conclusively that he is a real man, capable of the kind of aggressive, passionate performance that the state demands. Note the mirrored structure of Buznik's attempts to secure his stadium-wide audience: after personally convincing a drag queen in a position of authority, Gary/Galaxia, of the passion and purity of his quest, he receives an official state sanction for his speech from another drag queen in a position of authority, Rudy Giuliani/Rudia (in case you were still wondering how post-9/11 this film is). These two recognize the value of merging an aggressive, powerful external-facing identity (stadium security guard and tough-on-crime mayor, respectively) with an interiority that requires less masculine posturing, and their enlightened approval signal's Buznik's final ascent. He now throws violent tantrums in order to get his way professionally, makes displays of public intimacy with his out-of-his-league girlfriend, and pranks his friends by having a man pretend to pull a gun on them. Rydell, in his capacity as an arbiter of state morality powerful enough to subsume the courts, has crafted Buznik into a figure that would make Donald Trump proud. And Buznik can even hold onto an interiority where he dotes on overweight cats - who cares about something as silly as that? He has everything now: the rhetoric, the love, and most importantly, the blood. Your pal, Jenny Jenny Angel fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
I don't think it's fair that I was singled out because it takes more than one guy to derail a thread. But I will write an essay, time permitting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I don't think it's fair that I was singled out because it takes more than one guy to derail a thread. It takes a guy to inspire a mod to derail the thread. So in that way you're still to blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Loved it. Thank you Jenny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I don't think it's fair that I was singled out because it takes more than one guy to derail a thread. As a guy who constantly and accidentally derails threads I can assure you that you are 100% wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
When's the last time I did that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Don't ban the Biffer, his posts are hilarious. They function kinda like a public service announcement for nerds; "this is what happens if you turn your brain off - it might not come back on!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:When's the last time I did that? Everything you posted in the Mad Max thread was awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:56
|
|