Jump to content

kenmorefield

Administrator
  • Content Count

    2,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kenmorefield

  1. Mark , you clearly haven't been around enough academics to know how deconstruction works! Contrary examples do not defeat the premise, they only give evidence that the author doesn't know the true meaning of his work or is unsuccessfully fighting to hide it--but we see through that muddled charade to the ideological core that is evident to us but so scary to the author that he/they kept trying to suppress it in his/their own work! Thus, any examples that support my working thesis are evidence that I'm interpreting the work correctly, and any examples that appear to refute my thesis are evidence that I'm interpreting the work correctly. Peace. Ken P.S. I'm sure Beth could back me up on this if I can pull her out of the Buffy thread long enough to turn her attention to something, you know, worthy of academic study.
  2. Or Roarke as a cross between God and Jerry Maguire. That works, too. Nah, it's not possible to watch Malcolm McDowell and NOT think he is the devil Peace. Ken
  3. Yes, that's pretty funny, too. Alan, in the interest of efficiency, might as well delete the topic. Sorry! Oooooooooooh, sure. Beth gets extra credit for her Top 100 votes.... Beth gets to delete her superflous threads....
  4. Ken and Darrel move over to breakout room in order to plot their coup d'etat of the FFCC.
  5. Jeffrey: Just for you, a link to my review. I thought I posted this before, but I must have deleted it in the last purge. The soundtrack is all that, but I didn't like the movie as much as you did. Though I welcome any opportunity to say, "I saw before yooooooou did..." Peace. Ken
  6. I received the following in the mail today: Another Chicken-Little, liberal democrat, environmental bogey-man letter from the desk of John McCain. Peace. Ken
  7. kenmorefield

    Lady in the Water

    How'd you pull that off? The book officially releases July 20... I believe he threatened to fire his fresh-out-of-Northwestern second assistant and she got some good looking literary stud who had the hots for her to steal it from his friend who was doing the illustrations.
  8. yank_eh: Is it necessary to know for sure what the compass was pointing at? (Other than, perhaps, as an indicator of how infallible the compass is?) Sparrow's character is revealed by what he does, not by what the compass says he most wants to do. Peace. Ken
  9. It's probably not even as good as Magnolia...which was totally, totally lame and stupid, especially when .
  10. Peter: I'll buy that to an extent. We can no more perfectly protect people from all spoilers in this cultural landscape than evangelical parents can protect kids from sexual temptation by refusing to allow them to watch television. But I do think there are probably reasonable steps we can take to limit or reduce such the probability or frequency of both. Oh, and Voldemort, Hagrid,and Ron Weasley all die in the last Harry Potter book, btw. Peace. Ken
  11. I made a snarky reference in the Lost thread suggesting the castaways there had crash landed on Fantasy Island and nobody took the bait. (Ah, you see through me so well.) And yet.... As I work my way through Fantasy Island: Season 1 on DVD (God knoweth why), I can't quite shake the comparison. I think Lost really is just Fantasy Island with the Mr. Roarke character rendered diffuse and invisible. Well, okay, and with longer story arcs than the guest of the week and better production values and acting, but still... ...both show seem to have as their essence people working out something from the outside life on the Island. Both have hints/intimations of the supernatural, and both judge the characters (sometimes positively sometimes harshly) for the desires they have. Of especial interest to me, from a cultural studies point of view, is which fantasies are undercut and/or deconstructed and which are deemed worthy enough to be fulfilled. (Couple that wants to live in a purer day and age are sent to Salem, where they are accused of being witches--by Leslie Nielsen no less!; guy who wants to be treated like a king is a look alike for actual king who helps the noble queen save her people). While on the surface the show pretends to be about fulfilling dreams or wishes, what it really does is judge those wishes and by doing so, deseminates the values of the culture to the consumer by telling him or her which fantasies are worthy of them and which are ones that reveal them to be bad. Is Roarke the devil? or some sort of Screwtape that is teaching Tattoo/Wormwood how to operate on the human patient in order to mess up their ideologies? The latter,I think, though he's always nice to kids and respects innocence, so that's a bit muddled. Perhaps, like Screwtape, he knows when to lull rather than overwhlem. Peace. Ken P.S. Speaking of Leslie Nielsen, I've now seen him three times this Summer in pre-Naked Gun roles..as the captain in the orginal Poseidon Adventure, as a Purtian leader in Fantasy Island, and as the chief butler in Backstairs at the White House. It was so weird listening to his cadence in the Poseidon Adventure, I couldn't help but laugh because he was doing, well, that serious Leslie Nielsen voice and schtick. Talk about someone who really truly has become trapped by a successful role. It's just not possible to see him say "I am the captain of this ship!" without waiting for "and stop calling me Shirley!"
  12. Link to "Crap film, but check out the locations" thread. Peace. Ken
  13. I dunno, maybe it's just a sign of my moral degeneracy, but I bet there are a lot of -2/DecentFilms (morally problematic) films out there that I would rate +2/DeuceFactor or even higher. Steven: It also occurs to me that I hope the average Decent Films reader would not assign a film a moral rating on the basis of the preview alone and without your review! Is there any significance to the fact that Deuce Factor and DecentFilms both have the initials DF? (Hmmm and "D" and "F" are the two lowest ratings on college papers and can also stand for "Dear Friends"). The truth is out there...or in there...or somewhere... Peace. Ken
  14. Steven: I'm assuming that the Decent Films ratings and Deuce Factor probably calibrate pretty closely if the the former have any validity. Peace. Ken
  15. Matt: The correct handling of the sequel is one of the more debated points in Deuce Studies. The three most commonly held positions are: 1) It has to be a Deuce Push by its nature, since it is virtually the same film. (This position is the most commonly held one, though, oddly, it is not a favorite amongst serious Deucologists. 2) I consulted the oracle about this matter and he gave me a cryptic reply--hey that's what oracles do. Steve (Perlstein not Greydanus) suggested the second film can be added to the first to recalibrate all Deuce Factor ratings--would I rather see this franchise or the Deuce Franchise? This answer caused a Freud-Jung like tension between Perlstein and Morefield, the latter pointing out that not all trailers are for franchises and that following this practice turns each individual LOTR rings movie (+1, +1, +1) into an aggregate Deuce Franchise Factor -1 on the basis of sheer time commitment. Steve and Ken are still friends, they just disagree on this important matter. 3) In his seminal lecture "The Effects of Inferred Running Time on Deuce Factor as 'X' and "Y" Both Approach Zero," the oracle pointed out long ago that a little understood contributor to Deuce Factor was running time. A number of more prestigious films can become Pushes or Deuce -1 by virtue of their running time. A Thin Red Line, for instance, clocks in at a staggering 170 minutes, a full 82 minutes longer than Deuce Bigalow. Whatever marginal improvement the Malick film has to offer over the Schneider film must be measured against having those additional 82 minutes of your life back to do something better than both. Applying that line of reasoning to the sequel, some have suggested that Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo is actuallly a +1 by virtue of its 83 minutes run time in comparison to the original's 88. This is the position that I currently subscribe to. After all, nobody ever got to the end of their life, I think, and said, "You know, I wish I had spent five more minutes watching Deuce Bigalow." Peace. Ken
  16. Three Years Ago Today: Anders wants to know who has seen Laurel Canyon. (Turns out the answer is MLeary and nobody else.) Two Years Ago Today: Clint M shares how someone on another board responded to the death of Jeffersons' Star Isabel Sanford. One Year Ago Today: Josh Hurst announces the Reveal Listening Lounge--and it turns out he lives near another A&Fer.
  17. Ooops, thought I hit "preview" rather than "submit" Well here's a fun feature...what we were talking about on this date in history. (Now if I could only get those back links to work...will try to clean it up...) Three years ago today: Peter T. Chattaway speculates about woman with no eyebrows in The Passion of the Christ trailer. Two years ago today: Jim Tudor discusses the book How Movies Saved My Soul (he didn't like it). One year ago today: Christian links to the Washington Post because he wants to know what happens when Columnists Cry Jihad.
  18. Not sure. The IMDB title says "Male" not "American. Peace. Ken
  19. Or for Primary Colors for that matter.
  20. Dumb southern redneck eventually wins. (Like that?)
  21. I'm sorry Dan, I'm not quite sure what the rules are or which game we're playing or ideas for what? (Another game, one of the games mentioned?) Could you give us a little more direction, please? Ken
  22. Of all the movies you've seen, heard about, or read about, where would you rank this one? Would Jesus watch this movie, you think? Alfred North Whitehead once said that all of Western philosophy was a footnote to Plato. What is this film's philosophical world view, how does it reveal the auteur's (assuming you believe there is such a thing) approach to reality, and how are both informed by and contribute to the Platonic tradition? (Please avoid the use of jargon. Be specific.) Who are the principal actors that appear in this film and how can they be linked to Kevin Bacon in six steps or less? If you were forced to choose between watching this film again and watching Deuce Bigalo: Male Gigolo, which would you choose, and why? Why do all the odd numbered Star Trek movies suck while all the even numbered Rocky films are the weaker of the franchise? Replacing which of the actors with Harry Dean Stanton would most improve this film? What do you think this film's Pirate Name would be? More as I think of them, and please feel free to use them in your movie discussion guide, Jeffrey! Peace. Ken P.S. Do you think this film is one of the 100 most spiritually significant films of all time?
  23. Darrel: I think by definition it would have to be a push. (Though technically speaking what is rated is the trailer, not the film) Peace. Ken
  24. Well, I looked, but there does not seem to be a thread for this film, so in order to post the following, I guess I have to break yet another self-imposed ban on my current iteration of A&F participation (Ken, thou shalt not start new threads since they cannot be deleted.) Anyway, my recent post about Pirates got me to get off my posterior and update my web page to include Deuce Factor ratings for current trailers along with a link to the explanation of Deuce Factor rating (now in it's 7th? year). Peace. Ken P.S. Feel free to use this thread to post your own Deuce Factor ratings or disagree with mine; somehow I think there will be room between all the analysis of the film to allow the other posts to not get lost.
  25. Steven: I'll certainly concede the point, happy to get a general affirmation that I'm not totally off the deep end. FWIW, I was trying to indicate (please remember this was about an hour after having seen the film, so it's gonna be a bit jumbled) at least some (very) vague awareness that the specific pieces that I was reminded of were parts of films that were not necessarily original, so that I experienced them in PotC: DMC (not to be confused with Mel Gibson's PotC) less as a homage to something truly unique and more as knock offs of homages or nods to tradition in other films. Sort of second hand imitation rather than true homage. That I'm muddled on family tree of stock sequences, I'll readily admit. That the average filmgoer (or even me, to the extent I don't consider myself "average") may be as ignorant of Keaton's (or whoever's) influence on Spielberg as they are of Milton's influence on C.S. Lewis, I'll certainly second. I actually was more trying to anticipate someone jumping in and saying, "Oh that wasn't a nod to Indy (or whatever) it was a sequence in the tradition of Burroughs or H. Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines, etc. The line between being creative within a genre or tradition and simply doing a knock off is a fuzzy one to me, and I just know that I felt more of the latter in PotC than the former. Hope that clarifies...and thanks for not immediately excommunicating me from the A&F community for not loving this film. Peace. Ken
×
×
  • Create New...