White House has settled in

242,675 Views | 4314 Replies | Last: 18 hrs ago by calbear93
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tRump during Chopper Talk:


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal Junkie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

bearister said:

tRump mentioned Obama 20 times in 30 minutes today during one of his high pitched hysterical rants to the press corps in front of the POTUS copter. It gives rise to the question:

Does Obama have his own rent free room in tRump's lard filled head or does he have to share it with Hillary?


Every night he wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and sees Obama standing at the podium at the Correspondent's Dinner laughing at him. Hilary is in the audience pointing and laughing at him and that furry animal on top of his head that he calls hair.
Yee'all should remember that Obummer and Killary had a secret Muslim wedding in Kenya and he only had to shell out 88 pieces of gold. Wild Bill sacrificed a goat and three chickens.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are there any lawyers on here? The following, despite being 100% accurate, has caused me trauma and I would like some compensation.


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Digging this one back up to help clarify T's relationship with Christianity and truth. Any questions?

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Are there any lawyers on here? The following, despite being 100% accurate, has caused me trauma and I would like some compensation.





I'm preparing you some shelter from the storm brother Bearacus.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Predicted TDS handwringing would subside summer of 2019. That's not aging well.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thought Republican ass to mouth would subside by summer of 2019, but after a water break you guys are right back puckering up for the false prophet.

#Rusty Trumpbone
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

tRump during Chopper Talk:



This is blasphemy against our Lord and Savior, The Chosen Individual One.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turns out the economy added about half a million fewer jobs in 2018 than had previously been estimated. More evidence that despite Trump's shameless self-promotion to the contrary, the creation of jobs has slowed since Obama left office.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-created-500000-fewer-jobs-since-2018-than-previously-reported-new-figures-show-2019-08-21

Looking forward to this being ignored or called fake news depending on whether Trump is able to con the media into a different scandal he creates for misdirection.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

tRump during Chopper Talk:



My god, he is the chosen one...he speaks in tongues and other crap...
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump's back to killing the economy and playing the victim. He appointed Powell who was known by all to be an inflation hawk and then now complains he is acting as expected. He could have kept Yellen of course but she was too short and a woman, neither of which are out of 'central casting'.

Trump, and by proxy Republicans who still approve of him at 90% or more, simply can't be trusted with our economy. They used to understand the value of stability but now support a man who prefers to impotently shake his (tiny) fist at clouds and single-handedly drive us into a recession through senseless action where none is needed.
Cal Junkie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With the stock market riding a roller coaster based on tRump's tweets, does anyone else think the tRump Crime Family is making some laser like, on the bullseye, stock trades? Mark my words, the net worth of the tRump Crime Family will be in excess of Putin's $250 billion by the time those scum are ousted from Washington.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?




Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Junkie said:

bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:

1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.

2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
11
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal Junkie said:

bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:

1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.

2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.


Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

sycasey said:

Cal Junkie said:

bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:

1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.

2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.


Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.



Why you getting so bent out of shape? It's a revisionist fable.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

bearister said:

sycasey said:

Cal Junkie said:

bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:

1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.

2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.


Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.



Why you getting so bent out of shape? It's a revisionist fable.


Because Bruce Lee's tears cured cancer. The problem was Bruce never cried.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

sycasey said:

Cal Junkie said:

bearister said:

B.A. Bearacus said:






*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:

1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.

2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.


Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.



I don't agree that he was disrespected. I think that some people are bad at reading cinematic language and want things explained to them.

It's not a biography of Bruce Lee. He appears in like two scenes. It's fine.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Bruce could take Kareem and Chuck, he would whip that meow meow Brad.





Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

If Bruce could take Kareem and Chuck, he would whip that meow meow Brad.







Well, Bruce was the star of those movies... so, yeah.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Maher Appeals Directly to Trump's Ego to Act on Climate Change: Picture the Headline 'Trump Saves Earth!'


https://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-appeals-directly-to-trumps-ego-to-act-on-climate-change-picture-the-headline-trump-saves-earth/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.


Not much is.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.



bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Bruce Lee allowed to live.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.





IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.





IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.





IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.

It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.

The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.

My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.

There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.

My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.

Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.

So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.





IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.

Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.

After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.

And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.

Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.

I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.

That's all I got.

So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.
Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.

If you want to call that my own theory, go ahead. I won't. But I will say it again, people defend what they connect and have an affinity towards. In fact you're doing it right now with QT. Sorry to be blunt, but that was the point.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.