Frontpage La Floridiana Movie Review (I Spy) Movie Review (Jackass) Mike's Rant Deadguy's homepage PCR Archives 2002 2001 2000 Crazed Fanboy homepage PCR 2002 Home

Floodgates Open!

You gotta' love it when some jackass comes along and says, "You've got really bad taste in films, you suck."

It's like, "Ok, that would explain why I refer to it as MY taste, rather than yours. Did my opinion harm you, or something?"

Jackass: "Well, the movie (insert cheesy movie name here.. probably "Jason X") really sucked; it was aimed at morons who like fart jokes." (Or, even more so, "Jackass: The Movie"---N)

SO.. I say, "Are you offering me a pearl of wisdom, suggesting that I shouldn't enjoy what I DO enjoy?"

Although I'm a twisted guy, I'm fairly easy to please. I take great pride in being easily amused, despite the groans I hear around me. I like some films simply because I wander into the theater prepared to enjoy it. I find that most films have SOMETHING to offer, it's just a matter of letting yourself be entertained.

This is the basis for the irritation when someone "pooh pooh's" someone else's interests. ESPECIALLY when it concerns an "independence zealot". These are folks that believe that anything of value MUST be something that "the masses" have missed. "MUST", not "may be", or "could be", but their zealot nature REQUIRES them to move away from anything considered popular, or mainstream, because, by extension, there can't possibly be anything of value in it.

I just hate the whole empty elitist attitude that starts with armchair philosophers that regurgitate facts and ideas based on someone else's deductions. They act as though it's exceptionally wise information that anyone with a brain should automatically know about, but since no one could possibly be as cool as them, they are all "left in the dark", as the "all knowing one" looks on with the trademarked all-knowing smirk.

It's just moronic behavior that they feel wraps a layer of impressiveness around them, and perhaps even an air of mystique as everyone bows to their "obvious" superiority.

Can we start hurtin' folks like that? I'd sure like to go grab a claw-hammer and start poppin' into heads right about now. It's not like they don't have a right to their opinion, but I DO require that it be THEIR opinion, rather than a bastardization of someone else's.

It's gradeschool behavior where the slightly older kids lord dominion over the younger one. Mr. Zealot will do whatever it takes to seemingly knock everything down a peg or two, just to make himeself look better in comparison.

He sits and makes fun of folks that he believes allow themselves to be led like sheep. When what he fails to see is how his "anti-establishment" interests are DICTATED by the fact that the majority of people like something else. Therefore, by extension, he himself is not led like a herd of sheep, he is led BY the sheep THEMSELVES!

That doesn't paint a picture of a guy with "refined", or even "Eclectic" taste. It paints a picture of a color-by-numbers moron that can't seem to determine what he himself likes independent of outside opinion, and what "everyone would think of him as". He IS his biggest complaint, and probably has a Jar-Jar pillow at home to cry into when he discovers he likes something that everyone else has already discovered.

The fact that he doesn't like certain things BECAUSE most folks like them, is NOT an indication of indepedence, it's a sign of interdependence. True independence would be the guy that happens to like movies based on their own merits according to their own preferences, maybe his own preconceptions, or maybe even because he thought the main character's shoes looked cool, rather than what any market trends, or general consensus tell him to look for, or expect. Independence is not necessarily better, and certainly doesn't imply more intelligence, it's merely uninfluenced by outside interferences. Kinda' like my fashion sense, I guess, or lack thereof.

On the flip side of the coin, I can see where it can be argued that mainstream supporters don't give anything else a chance, thereby quashing things like independent entertainment. I wouldn't agree with that though. Personally, I like independent entertainment ventures, and as a project is appreciated by it's fans, word travels about the quality, or content, and more fans are spawned. As the fan-base grows, so do the concessions that filmmaker has to make in order to keep it growing further in future films. If he stays 100% true to his guns, he'll alienate most folks with his next film, especially if he's a closet zealot himself.

That's what happened to the band, "Korn". Their first album did great on the charts, but the next one went a direction that the fans didn't like, and was a complete flop. Luckily, they conceded a bit, and went the direction that the fans wanted, and put out two more albums. If you compare each album, you can see that as they progress, they're heading back to something similar to that 2nd album. By doing it gradually, they are able to sustain the fanbase, while still doing the stuff they want to.

True, an independent filmaker will probably never receive the attention that the mainstream filmmakers get, but unless that filmmaker WANTS to be mainstream, and has tried to become "mainstream" by following the "rules" which unfortunately control a bit of his creative freedom, then he gets only what he earns. It's like being your own boss. You really CAN'T be your own boss, because once you're at the top, you're either controlled by your clientelle, or your business fails.

That sucks, but that's life. How does someone determine that it's safe to dump money into the pocket of a relatively unknown entity that wants full control of the work? It's not a safe investment, and therefore not typically an investment that will ever be made without the promise of adherance to rules that may interfere with the "creative vision".

Rob Zombie's "House of 1000 corpses" went thru similar issues, he has made a name for himself as a singer/songwriter, but had no filmmaking experience. Due to his popularity in the other fields, he was able to get funding from a large company to make and distribute his movie, provided he followed certain rules.

Officially, the movie was dropped by the company upon completion, because it violated the part of the contract that called for less than an "R" rating. More importantly though, it was to be targeted at the 13 to 18-year-old market that makes up the core of Rob Zombie's following. The film isn't neccessarily "bad" but it's definitely a niche film that Baby Boomer horror lovers (who also liked "Chainsaw Massacre, Part 2") MIGHT be interested in, but not his contractually-approved target audience. He lucked out, and although it went straight to video, at least it didn't totally die on him.

Pay your dues, THEN whine.

It's similar to the way the Beatles wore suits onstage, and had a specific public image that they were required to adhere to, even including their haircuts and facial hair (or lack thereof, depending upon the Beatle). They didn't like that at all, but that's the nature of the entertainment industry. They saw folks like "The Doors" and were jealous as hell that they (the Doors) could do pretty much whatever they wanted to (including long hair and T-shirts) and still get approval by their record company.

In fact, I'm sure I'm not shocking anyone with this revelation, but the Beatles had an album cover image set up for one of their albums that was "vetoed". I'm not entirely sure which one it was, but I believe it was the one with an image of the band crossing the street. Early printings of this album already had the vetoed picture on the front, and were returned to the assembly line, to have this finalized "band image" album cover pasted over the original one. The vetoed image included the band standing in a room covered in ketchup and surrounded by dismembered baby dolls. Had they actually released that one, they probably would have shocked and offended enough folks that they would have slipped out of the mainstream altogether. It was WAY ahead of its time, and much more shocking in that day than it would be now. Yes, it restricted their "artisic vision" a bit, but it's speculation to say that really lost them anything.
(For a clarification on this part of Beatles' pop history, see this issue's "Mikes Rant".--N)

(NOTE: That particular album is worth quite a bit, but before you start peeling back the face on your album to see if it's one of the dead baby covers, please realize that it's value is considerably higher when the cover picture HAS NOT been peeled back yet. You can apparently see a white "v-neck" sweater THROUGH the covering image, look for that before peeling anything, and get it officially appraised.. it could mean 100s of dollars difference in value.)

Also, why were there thinly-veiled drug references in their songs? It was entirely in contrast to their public wholesome "good boy" image so they were required to keep the references entirely oblique in order to get it through at all. Although some reports that this is actually the opposite of what happened. Some claim that the drug references were there to appeal to the masses of 60's drug users, and that the Beatles themselves didn't like singing about them. I guess it depends on your point of view.

Hell.. as an easier example. Elvis was told he couldn't shake his pelvis on national television. He did it anyways, and the television station had FITS about it, but since it was a live broadcast, there was nothing anyone could do except keep the camera above his waistline. Had it been a film, it would have been an entirely different story. You simply have to do what the executives want you to do in order to graduate to mainstream. You pay your dues, and then perhaps you'll get more amount of leeway to experiment with your ideas as you become less of an unknown entity and more of a known and respected entity that people WILL risk sinking money into.

In any event, I apologize if this article seems as though I targeted specific individuals, but I should point out that being a zealot is OK, if it's something that helps you out, or whatever. I just don't have to like it, and wont. I'm sure most folks immediately think of Terence (i.e., Nuzum, fellow PCR contributor, who has debated these very issues with Mike before.---N) when I mention independent films, but honestly, I respect his opinions, and have even purchased several movies based on his appreciation of them. So far so good, I don't have any issues with them.

My personal issue is that I often see films, or parts of films, getting slammed due to the fact that they were designed to appeal to many people. To be designed to be appealing is permissible to me, because I don't have a problem enjoying stuff. I don't enjoy everything, because I don't even believe that's truly possible. However, I am open enough to recognize when something I DIDN'T enjoy may not be aimed at me, and may hit someone else in a positive way.

In closing, let me suggest that it's a strength to be honest with yourself about what you find to be entertaining. Even if everyone else, or even common sense tells you it's crap, if you enjoy it, you enjoy it. It's worth it to recognize that, even if you don't feel like sharing. No one can take that away but you.

Oh.. by the way. I happen to LIKE my son's fart jokes. Which is a GOOD thing considering my office is next to the bathroom and I get plenty of daily bathroom humor to enjoy. Too much info? yeah, but it's funny anyhow. Life's too short to be a stuffed shirt about anything.