site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2428 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 19, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The back cover of the DVD described this as “love and idealism triumphing over the forces of corruption and conformity”. Nope. Benjamin Braddock is a whiny asshole with no ideals and is himself a force for corruption. If he does indeed represent a rebellion against the conformity of middle-class life—as he breaks up two marriages and a business partnership—he only serves to make us appreciate squareness. Skip this one.

Isn't that sort of the point of the movie? The famous end scene doesn't end with their romantic runaway from the wedding. They sit on the bus, silently, with an awkward look on their faces, while a sad song plays. I got a strong sense that they had just ruined both of their lives from impulsive behavior, and the reality was sinking in on them. It's an interesting film with a lot of nuance!

Isn't that sort of the point of the movie?

Indeed, see also the critiques of Casablanca, and Gone With The Wind.

The OP doesnt seem to realize that there was a time before current year girl-bosses where in it was kind of expected that the audience would recognize that Scarlett was something of a "see you next thursday" and that this is a major part of why Clarke Gable (Rhett) telling her he doesn't give a damn about her stupid bullshit drama is such an iconic moment.

Ditto Lauren Bacall batting her eyes at Bogie only to be rebuffed and yet still kinda get what she wanted. I want to make it clear that I'm not doing this because you tried to whore yourself out to me, i'm doing this because fuck the Nazis.

Citizen Kane is rated so highly for technical reasons. Orson Welles invented half the shot types that modern filmmakers use when he was making Citizen Kane. For example, deep focus, where the shot is arranged so that both the background and foreground are in focus during the shot. If you watch any modern movie today, you will see shot techniques that were created for Citizen Kane. The problem is that these techniques have been in use for 80 years now, so when you go back and watch Citizen Kane, it looks good, but you won’t notice how revolutionary it was. If you were watching it in 1941 it would look quite unlike anything that came before it.

Indeed, It's a core example of the old "Shakespeare is unoriginal" or "Seinfeld is unfunny" trope. It only appears derivative because everyone has spent the last umptysquat years riffing off of it. When it was new it was genuinely new.

Since it apparently wasn't obvious, the content of these criticisms only seldom aligns with my actual opinions on these films. I love several of these, at least like most of them, and a few more at least get grudging respect. Some of these I actually haven't seen, and others I've only seen bits and pieces of, or watched on a bus trip, or saw in 30 minute increments in school, or saw so long ago I don't remember anything about them. This is just me finding nitpicks for the sake of some Friday shitposting. My criticism of the graduate has nothing to do with the film so much as the bullshit on the back of the DVD cover.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats