Ah, finally worthy of note.
“Well frankly it was getting on my nerves.
I mean, the thing kept coming back.
Finally I said to myself, ‘it’s for a worthy cause…put the d@mn thing out of its misery.'”
Ah, finally worthy of note.
“Well frankly it was getting on my nerves.
I mean, the thing kept coming back.
Finally I said to myself, ‘it’s for a worthy cause…put the d@mn thing out of its misery.'”
It’s about how kids have really bad taste in television, and watching too much of it is NOT good for you.
OR
It’s about “infected” hunters that (OMG/OMLG!) find infected.
Either way, there isn’t a single flicker of life in any of the predictable scenes, shapeless characters, or horrible lines.
Incredibly boring. So generic you can’t laugh at it, which would be the only redeeming thing about it.
Time spent watching movie and writing review to make sure YOU DON’T WATCH IT: about two hours.
Grade: F-
‘What’s Inside A Giant Wasps Nest?’
Wasps.
Frame size back to normal.
Grimmsy’s eyes have resumed their normal look; no longer focusing. The way they are drawn indicates perhaps a bit of sadness mixed with a matter-of-fact note that he has accomplished what he set out to.
Man’s body has fallen over (drawn to indicate movement), off the bench, sandwich dropping. He is crumpled on the ground, obviously deceased.
END
Frame is MUCH smaller again, to indicate quick action.
Grimmsy’s eyes narrow as if he’s concentrating, focusing on something. Again, they don’t seem angry or gloating; a bit grim, though more neutral as he focuses.
Man notices Grimmsy and frowns, extreme irritation mixing with surprise/WTF. He starts to speak to him, speech bubble drawn to show mood.
The staff apparently moves forward (gently) JUST a bit…just enough to touch the man. On the lower leg, since it’s not very far off the ground.
DIALOGUE: “WHAT THE-“
Man seems more WTF? now than startled by the sheer absurdity (and unlikelihood) of what he’s looking at.
Grimmsy has appeared about halfway from behind the tree: enough to show that he is holding (somewhere) whatever is now close to the man. His eyes don’t appear gloating or triumphant at all; in fact, if anything they seem a bit grim, as if he’s not happy at all with what he’s doing.
Frame size back to normal.
Man seems startled – he glances toward the ridiculously long staff that is now quite close to him (the base of it), approximately horizontally, and from the end (near him) all the way back to the tree, about a foot off the ground, to scale.
He seems to have completely forgotten his lunch – the suddenness of the new entry (if nothing else) obviously taking his full attention.
Frame is MUCH smaller than the others, to indicate very quick action. Everything is drawn to scale.
Man looks to be in mid-bite as what appears to be an impossibly-long shaft has fallen suddenly and quickly toward him from behind the tree, motion indicated by the way it is drawn and a “swish” through the air drawn from where it was to where it IS; said “swish” is approximately a forty five degree angle. Appearance is uniform throughout the shaft: it is obviously one piece, not a conglomeration.
Man shakes his head slightly as if dismissing his sense as unimportant; his sandwich is much more worthy of his attention, so he raises it to finish consuming it.
Man looks even more annoyed than before, as if he senses SOMETHING but doesn’t know exactly from where. He has stopped eating, again, and has glanced (once again) to HIS left. Again, what had appeared is no longer there.
Basically the same as frame eight: man turns back to his meal, the bottom of what looks like Grimmsy’s scythe (sort of) has emerged JUST A BIT from behind the tree, at the same height and angle as before.
(minor changes, man isn’t sitting EXACTLY the same way, etc, so it appears normal rather than a simple duplicate of frame eight)
Man repeats his look of irritation and attentiveness, pausing eating again as before to look toward HIS left, this time more towards the tree itself, which is drawn slightly “behind” him (in the depth of the frame). What had been at the top of the tree is now gone, and all appears normal.
The valiant and heroic attempt to establish a peaceful, orderly society through vicious and violent repression and control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVZe2qd6xPY
This applies exactly the same to all who pursue this noble cause, by any means. A tyrant is a tyrant: a tyrant of fear, a tyrant of pleasure, a tyrant of reason, a tyrant of tranquility.
Some people need to remember why, exactly, they’re complaining about certain things.
Here is the fictional achievement of said cause:
Ironic that the tyrant, Landru, – thought of as a “God” by the people – is actually a purely logical computer. Just as tyrannical, either way.
And ironic that Spock – quite logical himself – aids in Landru’s destruction.
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – I hold no rights to either clip, they are being used both as things to be criticized and forms of criticism.
“Tsunetomo believed that becoming one with death in one’s thoughts, even in life, was the highest attainment of purity and focus. He felt that a resolution to die gives rise to a higher state of life, infused with beauty and grace beyond the reach of those concerned with self-preservation.” – Wikepedia on Yamamoto Tsunetomo
There’s nothing morbid about this; not when you understand what it really means.
We’re all going to die. Make sure that when you die, your life will have been one worth living.
Man has turned back to focus on his sandwich, raising it to take another bite. If one looks carefully at the top of the tree, what appears to be the bottom of Grimmsy’s scythe (the end of the shaft) has emerged from behind it JUST a bit. It is at a forty five degree angle as if it is being shifted downward thusly. It seems somehow slightly different: if studied it isn’t EXACTLY like the bottom from the first two; VERY slight variations in wood pattern, color, etc.
Man’s head has turned toward HIS left, the far right of the frame. Gaze is at the general area, and he doesn’t seem to be specifically looking at the tree. Areas drawn just before “off frame” indicate in some way there may be other trees about. His expression still “interest/attention perked up a little, very mildly annoyed”.
Man’s head has turned to HIS right (frame left). Sandwich is lowered even more, not quite to his lap. His expression has gone from pleasant and relaxed to somewhat attentive and curious, along with very mildly annoyed.
Man’s eyes narrow slightly along with his brow furrowing slightly, as if he has realized something or perhaps sensed something; unclear which. He has paused his meal, apparently – sandwich lowered just a bit.
Man has taken a sandwich (generic) out of the bag and is munching on it, apparently taking his time, seeming quite relaxed and content.
Man has sat down on the bench, and is reaching into the bag that is now on HIS right, on the bench, as he gazes into it as well, smiling faintly as if he’s feeling pretty good and is ready to relax for a bit.
Man (from 1 and 2, obviously, mildly altered (clothes, etc) as normal) has entered the frame on the far left. He appears pretty much the same as before in terms of “mood”, expression, etc. He seems to have wandered in from just outside the left edge of the frame (position even with the “front” of it), and paused just to look around, take in the view, etc., at least briefly. He has a small bag in one hand, obviously filled (with something)…it looks like the sort of bag that would hold food or something similar; a little mark on it indicating some sort of logo, though it’s not “visible” – it’s drawn so small that it’s only obvious that it’s there, not exactly what it is.
Slightly larger box than the normal ones for strips one and two. Things are drawn in such a way to indicate that the larger box equates to a larger area in scale than before.
Scene background obviously altered from first two…there is a tree on the far right of the frame, drawn showing that it’s “back” just slightly from the “front” of the frame. Tree is fairly generic in appearance, leaves on it indicate spring or summer.
There is a small, plain wooden bench on the far left of the frame.
Distance from the tree to the bench and height of the tree seem approximately the same.
The background is drawn in such a way (besides the solitary tree) that it suggests a somewhat foresty area; perhaps a park, some land set aside for aesthetic purposes, etc…
Daytime is indicated by the Sun, random clouds (no discernible “match” with strip one or two) which seem to be still.
(clouds stillness remains during the course of the strip).
If one studies very carefully, the cloud formation at one point would appear to very roughly and vaguely (and naturally) look similar to a “J” next to a “G”.
“Look, I’m a doctor! I’m a doctor and I want my sausages!” – Fawlty Towers
These are the questions I imagine people would ask about the Grimmsy comic if people asked a lot of questions about the Grimmsy comic.
Q: Are you going to make more?
A: Yes…I have lots of ideas, it’s just a matter of transferring them to proper written form as opposed to jumbles of notes.
Q: When are you going to post the next Grimmsy strip?
A: Well, let me put it this way…no idea. If I had to be more precise, I’d say…SOMETIME between this exact MOMENT…(I guess not) and the moment right before I’m dead.
Q: Why are you going to make more?
A: Because I like it. He’s adorable, and he’s a real (thought out, detailed) character.
Q: Is every comic going to be him trying to take that guy’s soul?
A: No. That’s what I’m doing now, but the comic will NOT become an eternal (haha) Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner bit.
Q: So what else will the comic be about?
A: He’ll develop a (noticeable) personality, things will slowly be worked in, things will build on other things, etc…you know, like how a character develops in a movie. Or a book. Or an illustrated comic strip.
Q: Can you tell me more about Grimmsy?
A: Just read and imagine. He’s not totally one-dimensional.
Q: What exactly does Grimmsy look like?
A: Not having an illustrator, that’s difficult to say. It’s sort of like role-playing…when someone writes a description of what their character is doing, you have to IMAGINE what that description would be in picture form. If the description is good enough, you should be able to come up with a decent picture…and your picture may be slightly different from someone else’s, that’s the beauty of imagination. The basics (pretty much all you should need for a picture) are in frame two of strip one.
Q: So you’re glad you don’t have an illustrator?
A: No, I’m just making the best of it.
Q: So, you still want an illustrator?
A: For the love of God, yes.
Q: Why would someone want to illustrate your comic?
A: Well, if they like the idea…they would get credit for being the illustrator, of course, and that could be good publicity since my website is extremely mildly visited.
Q: Do you really think it’s worth it for that?
A: No, not really, but that’s the best I could come up with.
Q: Does Grimmsy have hands? Or a body?
A: None of your business.
Q: Why are you being so grouchy?
A: I’m NOT…being “grouchy”…I just want to finish my work.
Q: Well, I’ll ask more questions later then.
A: *pause* Random Questioner, let me explain something to you…whenever you ask me questions about the comic, you’re breaking my concentration; you’re dis-TRAC-ting me, and it will then take me time to get back to where I was.
Q: *blink* *freaked out look*
A: Alright…we’re gonna make a new rule…whenever I’m thinking about the comic, and I’m typing. *TYPE* *TYPE TYPE* *TYPE* or whether I’m NOT typing, or whatever the FCK you hear me doing, when I’m thinking about the comic, that means I’m WORKING, THAT means, DON’T ask questions about the comic. Now…do you think you can handle that?
Q: *short, stunned pause* Yes.
A: Fine. Why don’t you start right now and shut the fck up.
Q: *see above* …Ok.
A: *TYPE* *TYPETYPE* *TYPETYPETYPETYPE*
Coming Soon: All work and no play makes Grimmsy a dull soul escort.
*rimshot*
It’s good to have great friends.
Because it’s quality, not quantity. No cliche…truth.
2:26-2:50
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good scene from a very good movie.
Goodness knows it’s not that I can’t enjoy an old movie.
I understand that FX stunk in 1958. I understand that things were different in 1958. I understand that horror films had to have obligatory EXCITING! opening music in 1958.
But I saw a movie released in 1956 called ‘Invasion Of The Body Snatchers’ that was pretty darn good (I think I under-rated it, actually…oops).
The difference between ‘Invasion’ and this?
‘Invasion’ takes a great idea and plays it out well using decent acting, directing, and writing.
This takes a great idea and plays it out badly using wooden acting (except for Patricia Owens, the female lead), and poor directing.
Owens is working by herself most of the time, surrounded by puppets and cliches, and that’s how she looks.
I mean…at the end, when they’re walking away from the camera, the boy LIFTS HIS FOOT AWKWARDLY OVER a croquet hoop, instead of, you know…breaking the “perfect” symmetry of the departing line by stepping slightly to the side, just to keep the “perfect ending” in place.
No need to re-take that.
We’ve come full-circle. In 1986, this was remade to salvage a great idea with: good acting, a much better script, and better directing. The FX are improved too, of course…but that’s not what makes it a good film.
Now, we’re remaking films from about thirty years ago and making them suck with slick, robotic acting and bad scripts; hoping that the GREAT FX and all the AMAZING visuals will hide the fact that they suck.
About 54 minutes in: “Perhaps booze would alleviate this situation…”
A short time later: “This house has sho gone crazy!”
Upped a notch for inspiring the 1986 remake.
Grade: D
4/21/16: Instant re-review – I loved it. Much better than ‘Cats’. I’m going to watch it again and again.
Let’s start with the best of them…critics, that is.
http://www.robertchristgau.com/
“Abba
Arrival [Atlantic, 1977]
Since this is already the best-selling group in the universe, I finally have an answer when people ask me to name the Next Big Thing. What I wonder is how we can head them off at the airport. Plan A: Offer Bjorn and Benny the leads in Beatlemania (how could they resist the honor?) and replace them with John Phillips and Denny Doherty. Plan B: Appoint Bjorn head of the U.N. and Benny his pilot (or vice versa) and replace them with John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Plan C: Overexpose them in singing commercials. Plan D: Institute democratic socialism in their native land, so that their money lust will meet with the scorn of their fellow citizens. C” – Robert Christgau
This is what you call the “so unnecessary you can just randomly mock it” archetype.
Since everyone, by this point, already knew what ABBA sounded like, and since he saw no change in their music, and really no point in them continuing to churn out the same music – which he saw as bad, his “C” does not mean “Average” – he decides to simply indulge himself in mostly-silly musings, incorporating references you may (or may not) get and may (or may not) like. The point is, he does, and he does.
And really…think about it: would you rather read this, or an “in-depth” examination of the music, when that examination would be pretty much exactly the same as an examination of their PREVIOUS album, which would basically say, not in so many words: “This is annoyingly-catchy cr@p.”
I go with this. It’s not one of his best, but it’s an intro.
Grade: B-
The idea is this…
Scour reviews (of books, movies, music, etc) for the BEST and WORST written reviews.
Not reviewing what they’re reviewing…not reviewing what they THINK of what they’re reviewing…
Reviewing the quality of the REVIEW itself.
THINK OF IT!
-Puppy >.< Yip!
There will now be a pause while I work on more of these.
YAY IDEAS!
If you’d like to hurry it along, an encouraging comment might help.
Or a discouraging one. Either way.
The frame is larger than any of the others, showing a very broad area where things could possibly be.
Frame is empty except for the rather normal background and the bird, which has landed and is apparently pecking a bit at the ground.
END
Man is now turning away, apparently his mind switching to other, more important, things.
Grimmsy (and scythe) are moving through the air very rapidly to the left of the frame. Position is still horizontal and gravity-defying, and appearance is unchanged except that the top of the scythe and Grimmsy’s “head” (cowl, at least) are appropriately the furthest-to-the-left parts of him, indicating the manner in which he was flung.
Grimmsy himself seems a bit forlorn as he is hurtling away from the man, apparently having been flung rather strongly. His eyes reflect an appearance of what would be, were he still somewhat land-based, “gazing down”; disappointed, sad. Poor little guy.
Grimmsy remains exactly as he was in the previous frame; nothing has moved, though his eyes have lost a bit of their “command” and “focus” despite his best attempt to remain stoic under the circumstances.
Man blinks in surprise, holding Grimmsy/scythe horizontally, head tilted just slightly in curiosity, as if taking a moment to admire something odd or to recover from a momentary (mild and undisturbing) surprise.
Man’s eyes narrow a bit – expressing that he is expending much more force/effort – as he lifts the scythe, which brings along with it Grimmsy, still firmly “attached” to it, presumably where it disappears into his garment where his “hands” would be, if any. Man seems – very briefly – focused on the situation and non-bored.
Grimmsy’s eyes widen; he seems somewhat surprised, but at the same time attempting to maintain his majesty and dignity whilst being held horizontally in the air.
The law of gravity is clearly violated here – or Grimmsy has some sort of power – as his appearance is EXACTLY as it was before he was lifted: save the expression of the eyes, everything is exactly (proportionally) where it was. Nothing has moved, the cowl is in exactly the same position, the bottom of his cloak merely ends into the sky background as opposed to the grass one in exactly the same shape, etc.
The horizon in the background verifies that he is, in fact, being held quite horizontally.
Frame is smaller than the others (as above) to indicate this action takes place in a very short time.
Man furrows his brow slightly as he obviously attempts to pluck the scythe away, to no avail. Hand and body drawn to indicate the attempt in some way; momentary and slight confusion at his failure.
Grimmsy’s adorable little purple eyes narrow, he seems thoroughly focused and intense, as if putting all his will into something and emerging triumphant.
Man reaches out toward Grimmsy’s scythe and wraps his hand around the shaft of it, as if to pluck it away again. He seems vaguely annoyed and also vaguely bored, almost like he has mentally moved on to “well…what now?” (post-Grimmsy) already.
Grimmsy seems resolute and unphased, and makes no movement whatsoever, though his eyes drop from glancing up at the man’s to glancing at the hand that grips the scythe. He seems quite prepared for this, unphased since he had planned for this contingency!
Grimmsy remains as he was, purple eyes taking on a BIT more of a “commanding” look in shape as they remain firmly on the man’s eyes.
Man seems to roll his eyes slightly, expression becoming that of one resigned to doing something necessary and mildly annoying/unpleasant.
Frame size back to normal, background as above.
Grimmsy finally “speaks” (or “thinks”, or “projects”…as before, his thought bubble is just floating above him). The elegant and elaborate lettering of his thought bubble are almost Calligraphy-quality, retaining formality and composure in the face of the man’s dismissal.
Man is waiting with arms lazily crossed as Grimmsy speaks, expression more towards “get on with it!” now, facial posture slightly changed…mildly annoyed but also verging on boredom/tedium.
DIALOGUE: “Sir, it is my duty to escort you forward from this life and to your next. Your previous behavior was not appreciated, and I must insist that you come with me.”
Frame smaller than the previous ones (to scale, just smaller), as if to indicate that this takes place quickly after the last frame (moreso than normal).
Background as last frame (minor change only).
Grimmsy maintains his solemn, ritualistic politeness, gaze is the same. The man’s words do not seem to have phased him. Their eyes remain on each other, Grimmsy’s eyes glancing quite a bit upward of course. Apparently Grimmsy’s pause is longer than the man is willing to wait for a response…it seems as if the man is speaking very quickly, moreso than Grimmsy pausing eternally; politeness and all.
Man’s frown fades slightly as he seems resigned to another mildly-annoying encounter, and just wants to get it over with. He speaks in a combination of mild irritation, frustration, dismissal, and get-on-with-it!
DIALOGUE: “Well???”
No change in background except the position of the bird’s flight…very peripheral.
Grimmsy has moved to a polite distance from the man; closer but without intruding on his personal space. He apparently has stopped there, somehow drawn in a fashion indicating that. His eyes gaze up at the man and he appears solemn, as before; there is a bit of firmness in his gaze, not quite “anger” or even “irritation”…more “I hope you will behave properly this time…” He seems to pause a moment for “dramatic” effect, seemingly as a matter of formality, politeness, or the like. He seems quietly determined despite the man’s attitude.
Man’s frown is more pronounced, as if shooing away a persistent and annoying fly or somesuch. He speaks as Grimmsy hovers, text bubble normal as before.
DIALOGUE: “Not YOU again…”
In case anyone’s interested, I found this pretty darn good-looking Latin translation site with a pretty darn interesting discussion on what was really “said” in the bottom-residing clip.
(Latin translation site): You’re not so bad yourself, big boy.
Oh, I bet you tell that t- NYAH!
Anyhoo, you may find this informative and/or interesting, as it shows that in Latin the “literal” translation isn’t always the “literary” translation.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/latin-conversation-in-the-movie-tombstone.6909/
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Good scene from an ok movie. (housekeeping)
Background is relatively unchanged; the movement of the bird in the same lazy manner indicates that time is passing, but the background remains firmly IN the background, action obviously taking place in the “front” of the frame.
Grimmsy has floated (or walked, impossible to tell from the drawing and proximity to the ground) in fully, now close to the middle of the frame and apparently still moving from the way he is drawn (moving slowly and steadily, “elegantly” and formally; his best attempt at both at least). He appears pretty much exactly as he did before, scythe “held” (or whatever) at the ready in a manner more indicating elegant, formal “show” than any plans of aggressive use.
Man hasn’t moved from his position, but he has shifted his body toward Grimmsy, eyes now fully on the cute little thing.
He no longer seems curious, or even that attentive; more annoyed (indicated by his eyes, facial expression, etc) in the manner of “Oh no, here we go again…” with a small frown as he watches Grimmsy approach.
Someone found this amusing, so I thought I’d share:
OkC Question (or very close to it)
“In the line ‘Wherefore art thou, Romeo?’ what does “wherefore” mean?”
My Answer:
“Who Cares/WTF”
My Explanation:
Billy Shakespeare: Wherefore art thou overrated?
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Great clip from a good cartoon. (housekeeping)
Bird maintains its leisurely flight pattern.
Man still hasn’t moved his whole body, but his head has turned now about halfway to his right. Eyes appear much the same, perhaps a bit more narrowed and attentive (and curious), brow is still furrowed. Overall posture seems more attentive.
The VERY VERY edge of what could be the bottom (and out)-most part of Grimmsy’s cloak is in the far bottom-left of the frame, obviously there and obviously the exact type that Grimmsy previously “wore”, but barely-there enough that it could POSSIBLY be something else. Drawing makes clear indication it is his cloak, as if he is moving and is just entering the point of view of the frame.
The bird is still in flight, position and the way it’s drawn indicate a slow, leisurely pattern. Type is one common to park settings or suburban areas with lots of trees. (i.e. it’s not a seagull).
Man hasn’t moved position, but his head has lowered slightly. His eyes have narrowed, very slightly, and his brow is a bit furrowed; though his head has yet to turn to HIS right, his eyeballs seem to be leaning slightly in that direction and down, as if something is on the very edge of his vision/sense in some way and his eyes have taken notice but his head hasn’t realized and followed suit yet. The eyes indicate, along with his brow, both a slight change in mood (more attentive) and a bit of confusion.
Cloud pattern is normal, fairly generic. Formation, appearance, and speed of movement of the clouds is obviously different from strip one, though that is not made prominent: it’s there if “studied” but not designed to attract attention.
Partly sunny, a nice day, nothing particularly good or bad: neutral background of grass…again nothing of it made prominent (the bird is drawn/moving in an obviously peripheral manner) or exaggerated, but if studied closely obviously a different day.
Plain box, just like strip one. Grass, “time of day”, everything are close enough that it may be the same place as before (or at least very close) or just a very similar ordinary-looking place somewhere else.
Man from strip one is again on the far right of the strip. His appearance is modified slightly (different clothes, hair not exactly the same but very close) to show that time has passed but close enough that it’s clear this is the same man.
He is in much the same position: just standing there, facing slightly to HIS left, seeming calm, perhaps even a bit bored.
A bird can be seen fairly close by, towards the “back” of the frame (drawn in a way to indicate that distance and direction). Nothing distinctive about it, nothing of note.
Director David Cronenberg is linked to “body horror” films.
The thing is, unlike almost every other director linked to those, he has talent beyond camp cr@p and gore sh1t.
I did a little research (yeah, really!) and the general consensus is that Jeff Goldblum is great in this. I agree.
The way he portrays protagonist Seth Brundle – giving him a personality complete with quirks and mannerisms and an awkward sort of charm – makes you buy the character, and care about him. Always important in a lead, but especially here, where caring about Brundle is absolutely essential in having any interest in the film.
Unless, of course, you just enjoy seeing great creepy make-up and disturbing images. In that case, you may find some things here perplexing, so allow me to explain: the thing that operates throughout the film is called a “script”, the entities with real personalities are called “characters”, and the way in which the whole thing is portrayed is called “intelligence”.
Geena Davis is good as Brundle’s foil and love interest, but quite frankly Goldblum is so good as Brundle that she’s not even necessary: this could be a one-man show in Brundle’s unfashionable “home”/laboratory and it would still be interesting.
Goldblum is so sympathetic that even when he’s morphing he retains more humanity (and personality) than most probably would. And he plays each stage just as well as the original Brundle character, which, again, makes the transformation believable. And, since you care about Brundle, disturbing and creepy.
Again, if you’re just watching for the creepy makeup and images, an explanation: “humanity” in the manner I mean constitutes aspects of compassion, humor, sympathy, kindness, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and so on. Some people tend to look for that in characters, so they can have sympathy for them. If you still don’t understand, see Wiktionary entry “sympathy”.
The whole idea here is creepy, the mood is creepy, Goldblum himself (even as unassuming original-Brundle) has a tinge of creepiness mixed into his appearance and attitude, and the transformation happens slowly enough (and is portrayed convincingly enough, mentally as well as physically) to string that creepiness out over almost the entire movie.
The FX are 30 years old, so come on…it’s gonna be a LITTLE cheezy at times. And there are bits that seem disjointed, or unnecessary.
But I think it’s creepy as HELL.
Inspirational Quote: “Have you ever heard of insect politics?…Neither have I.”
Grade: B
“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ‘It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.'” – Jim Jarmusch
Analysis:
What Jarmusch is saying here is not “take other peoples work and pretend it’s yours.”
He’s saying that there is NO idea that is completely and totally original: that NOONE has ever thought of before. Even if only subconsciously, there are other influences besides just “…it just came to me and I worked everything out on my own”.
Maybe it came to you because you saw something, read something, watched something, felt something, heard something…
As I point out quite clearly in my semi-recent post on the subject, there’s a difference between “homage” (which is what Jarmusch is referring to) and NOT homage.
‘In The Mouth Of Madness’ DIRECTLY takes ideas from H.P. Lovecraft; even quotes his stories verbatim at times. But it EXPANDS on those ideas, it uses them as inspiration, as the origin of a much broader and greater (and authentic) work.
L.F. Dibley…does not.
Every comic has comedians that “influenced” them. So does every writer, every painter, every critic…
“…Comedians borrowed, stole stuff, and even bought bits from one another. Milton Berle and Robin Williams were famous for it. This was different…”
The thing is to BE inspired…to have that inspiration be AUTHENTIC; something that touches you, not something you think is “commercial” or anything else. To be open to that inspiration, to accept it, and to not be ashamed of it – since every artist, to one extent or another, consciously or subconsciously, is using at least one small part of one idea that someone else already thought of.
And then to TAKE that inspiration, and with it, and your own ideas, create something new that is worthwhile; that pleases you artistically and enhances the world in doing so.
Be inspired not greedy.
Be authentic; because you can’t be “original”.
To claim a SPECIFIC work as your own is fine.
To claim an IDEA as your own, that noone else can draw from, be inspired by…is against the very nature of art itself. It’s corporate…and quite frankly if artists get to the point where they’re like corporations (“You can’t use X phrase because I copyrighted it”), that will be a sad day for artists…and the world in general, since it will destroy creativity.
Don’t be fascist about freedom of expression.
Man has left the frame entirely, tiny scythe is back a bit lying on the grass, barely visible. Grimmsy has turned to face the reader, purple eyes deeply sorrowful and disappointed. Poor little guy.
END