Is there any movie better to watch when you're drunk than

[RevolutionaryActs]

Dazed and Confused? :rofl:


Of course to fully enjoy one needs :smoke: but beggars can't be choosers. :silly:

[begin_within]

1. Maybe Moulin Rouge actually makes sense?

[RevolutionaryActs]

2. That's my favorite movie!

It always makes sense to me. :7

[Danger Mouse]

26. that explains so much.

so so much.

[RevolutionaryActs]

29. I've seen it about 100 times. I can practically recite the whole movie

:D

[Danger Mouse]

35. you frighten me.

:scared:

[RevolutionaryActs]

38. What? The beginning is a little frantic

but it's a great romance story!

[jobycom]

48. It's in my top 20. Sometimes top 20.

Great movie, but not for everyone. I think there's an intelligence threshold you have to rise above to enjoy it. :)

[IntravenousDemilo]

53. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Oh, wait -- you're serious. Are you saying that if you don't enjoy Moulin Rouge, you're not intelligent, or the opposite?

It's a musical for people who hate musicals, and as someone who writes musical theatre, I'm getting a little tired of shows that pander to musical-haters. I'd much rather see a musical written for people who actually like musicals.

So I'm looking forward to Sweeney Todd this Christmas. It's written by my mentor and directed by Tim Burton.

[jobycom]

56. That's a weird view

It's a musical for people who hate musicals, but you like musicals so you hate musicals for people who hate... My head hurts.

My comment was much more clear. Your re-statement of it is a false syllogism. Or maybe it's a false syllogism for people who hate real sylogisms... I'm not sure how that works yet.

[IntravenousDemilo]

58. Your paraphrase of what I said tells me that you got my drift perfectly. Anyway, what I meant was...

...that musical theatre is an artform I've devoted my life to for the last 20 years or so, and when people make musicals expressly for people who hate them, what they're doing is sneering at my artform and the people who love it.

But I'm still not completely sure what you meant by having to rise above a certain intelligence threshold in order to enjoy the movie. Are you saying the IQ bar is set low or high? I can read it both ways. Enlighten me...?

[jobycom]

60. I tried

I tried to enlighten you, but my enlightenment was only for people who don't hate enlightenment, I guess.

But your comment is still backwards. If it's a musical, it's a musical. It can't be for people who hate musicals, or it would expect no one to like it, since it's a musical. Perhaps what you mean is that it's a musical for people who aren't impressed by the old style of musical that faded in popularity some time ago. But that's defining the entire genre of "musical" by only one incarnation of the genre.

My own opinion is that I don't care what label is affixed to it. I do not watch movies because they fit into some classification that some expert somewhere decided was crucial to fit the movie into. I certainly don't judge movies by how well they fit into whatever genre someone has tried to fit it into. I like the movies I like because of some quality within that movie, not because of some quality that some other movies that someone decides are similar shared. If you want to call Moulin Rouge a musical, or a non-musical, or a neo-musical, or a post-neo-non-musical, or whatever, I don't care. I liked the movie, regardless of its failings to fit into your definitions.

Now, since you want me to over-explain the other part--A syllogism is a logical structure in which two premises inevitably lead to a conclusion based on those two premises. For instance, if I say "All musicals are boring. Moulin Rouge is a musical," my inevitable conclusion would be "Moulin Rouge is boring." If, on the other hand, I said "All musicals are exciting. Moulin Rouge is exciting," the conclusion "Moulin Rouge is a musical" is a false syllogism. It does not inevitably follow from the first two premises. Now, reread what I said. I said you have to be above a certain intellectual threshold to like MR. Let's put that in syllogism form: Moulin Rouge requires a person to be above a certain intellectual threshold to like it. IntravenousDemilo does not like Moulin Rouge. I think if you work that one out for a while, you'll see that it would be a false syllogism to conclude that "IntravenousDemilo (or anyone else who doesn't like the movie) is not an intelligent person" based on my statement. Thus, your re-stating of my statement was a false syllogism. Which is what I said.

Now, if you were trying to be snarky and imply that my first statement was ambiguous as to whether people who liked it had to be above or below a certain threshold, presumably to state that I was inferior because I liked it, perhaps you should contemplate the word "above" with a little more concentration. As in "I think there's an intelligence threshold you have to rise above to enjoy it."

We square? My answers are growing exponentially. If you want me to explain further, we may need a server all our own for this. Brevity is not my strength. Hell, it's not something I even like.

[IntravenousDemilo]

62. Hey, I know what a syllogism is.

I'm afraid you may have to try a little harder, then, because I do want to understand what you meant.

But your comment is still backwards. If it's a musical, it's a musical. It can't be for people who hate musicals, or it would expect no one to like it, since it's a musical. Perhaps what you mean is that it's a musical for people who aren't impressed by the old style of musical that faded in popularity some time ago. But that's defining the entire genre of "musical" by only one incarnation of the genre.

Though I'm obviously not one of them, there are people who just hate musicals, period. I have this friend Leah who emailed me the other week saying that she'd just seen Moulin Rouge and detested it, and that it just confirmed her preconception that musicals stink. I explained to her that it was a bad example of a musical, that I hated it too, and that she shouldn't excoriate the entire genre because of it. And it is a bad musical in that the songs were collected from a variety of sources that had nothing to do with the rest of Moulin Rouge. First, there are the pop songs from elsewhere that didn't grow organically out of the plot and character of this particular movie, but instead had been played on the radio as discrete, stand-alone works; theatre songs are written differently from pop songs because they have a different purpose, to further plot and characterization in a theatre piece so that we end up in a different place at the end of the song from where we started, and pop songs don't need to be surrounded by a larger work -- they're fine as they are and beautiful in their own way. But I also recall one song shoehorned into Moulin Rouge that grew organically from the plot of a completely different show, The Sound of Music (which incidentally I find rather saccharine, but that's beside the point). If the songs in Moulin Rouge had been written specifically for the movie, with specific characters in mind, and were part of an integrated work along with the screenplay and design, I would have liked the movie better. The story comes first and is of primary importance, and the songs must come out of the story. To do it the other way around is just bass-ackwards. Come to think of it, I might even have enjoyed it better if Ewan MacGregor had shown us his willy again, as he has done in so many other movies.

As well as writing musicals, I've also made a scholarly study of their history and structure, as well as the function of book, music, and lyrics in theatre. I think any responsible writer should study the works of those who came before him, whatever the genre. Sondheim has been a brilliant innovator in musical theatre, but he is great in large part because he's standing on the shoulders of giants like Rodgers & Hammerstein (his mentor), who in turn stood on the shoulders of giants like Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Sigmund Romberg, and the Gershwins, who in turn stood on the shoulders of Victor Herbert and George M Cohan. There is, of course, some overlapping.

Musical theatre has had a fascinating evolution. In the first period, from the mid-19th century to around the 1920s, musicals were rather crude and primitive affairs, either they were minstrel shows, or a slew of Tin-Pan Alley songs with a sketchy bit of plot and some gags thrown in, like the Cohan shows, or European-style operettas with cardboard characters, like the Herbert shows. I'm not counting, by the way, the very well-written and composed works of Gilbert and Sullivan, because they are considered comic operas rather than musicals. Then Show Boat happened late in 1927, and it was revolutionary in its time as a fairly organic mixture of musical comedy, drama, and operetta, supporting a strong and sweeping story. Meanwhile, Brecht and Weill were blazing trails in Berlin with such serious, experimental work as Dreigroschenoper and Mahagonny. The next big leap forward was in 1943: Oklahoma!. Here, at last was seamless integration of music, lyrics, book, costumes, orchestrations, and acting style, and the show ushered in the Golden Age of the musical, which lasted either until the end of the 1950s (that is, around the time of West Side Story and Gypsy), or the 1970s, depending on which source you wish to believe. All hell broke loose when Sondheim came along with groundbreaking works such as Company, Follies, A Little Night Music, Pacific Overtures, Sweeney Todd, and Sunday in the Park with George, each one of which managed to stretch, without breaking them, the boundaries of what could be accomplished in musicals and push the envelope of the genre. At the same time, fresh ground was being dug with Kander & Ebb's Cabaret and Chicago, plus works conceived by director/choreographer Michael Bennett, like A Chorus Line and Dreamgirls. And of course there were the rock musicals like Hair (which was dated almost before it hit Broadway) and Jesus Christ Superstar, which is more successful in its non-rock parts because they're more nuanced than the rocky bits, and drama requires some nuance.

Then things started to devolve somewhat and Broadway fell on hard times creatively. The most successful shows weren't even homegrown, but ponderous, bloated dreck by writers from across the pond, like Phantom of the Opera, Cats, Les Miz, and Miss Saigon. It was almost as if Broadway was starting to implode, and everyone was predicting the demise of the musical. The Disney shows brought back some hometown spark to this quintessentially American artform, because they were actually written by Americans, but like the British/French imports I just mentioned, they were overproduced and relied more on style and spectacle than substance. The Lion King is a perfect example of this; the music is mostly forgettable and the lyrics are amateurish, but it's amazing to look at. Unfortunately, we're not supposed to leave the theatre whistling the scenery and costumes.

But fortunately, a new crop of serious-minded and dedicated artists have emerged to rescue musical theatre from the relative bland emptiness of the last few decades and push forward with the evolution of the form: Ahrens & Flaherty with Ragtime and Once on This Island, both very well crafted and moving works with truly dramatic songs; Michael John LaChiusa with The Wild Party, Hello Again, and most recently, See What I Wanna See; Jason Robert Brown with Parade; and Adam Guettel with Light in the Piazza (beautiful score), and the astonishing Floyd Collins. The recent Grey Gardens and Spring Awakening are terrific, and the latter especially is introducing a whole new generation of theatregoers to musical theatre, and Broadway is healthy again. I hope eventually to be part of this new wave and a player in the history, but the closest I've come so far is off-off-Broadway.

So in essence, I appreciate innovation. Moulin Rouge is devoid of innovation. If anything, it hearkens back to the first period of musicals where the songs had little or nothing to do with plot and the characters were made of cardboard. It's what I call a Chicken McNuggets musical, where perfectly good meat is diced up into a pulp, breaded, deep fried, and re-served as flavourless, unnutritious, almost inedible pap. We've come along way, baby. Let's not go there again.

Now, when I talk about musicals written for people who hate musicals, I'm referring to works that ignore the history of the artform and discount the substantial changes that have taken place over 150 years, things that are important to musical fans who can be as rabid as extreme baseball fans at times and are in love with the form. Some people, the ones who hate musicals, think they're all like the old-fashioned shows from a faraway yesteryear and don't know about the history involved, nor do they care to know. When folks write shows to cater to these people, they do nothing to advance musical theatre, and they offend people who are trying to do exactly that.

Still, de gustibus non est disputandum, and if you like the movie, you like the movie. I'm just telling you exactly why I hate it.

Now, if you were trying to be snarky and imply that my first statement was ambiguous as to whether people who liked it had to be above or below a certain threshold, presumably to state that I was inferior because I liked it, perhaps you should contemplate the word "above" with a little more concentration. As in "I think there's an intelligence threshold you have to rise above to enjoy it."

Hell no, I wasn't trying to be snarky at all, and I hope I didn't come off that way. I took you to mean that EITHER you have to have intelligence above a certain level in order to enjoy Moulin Rouge, which is kind of offensive to me for reasons I stated above, OR ELSE in order to enjoy it properly, all you have to do is ignore the low intelligence threshold set by the piece, shut off your critical faculties, and appreciate it for the pretty fluff that it is -- in other words, willing suspension of disbelief, the same disbelief that musical-haters can't seem to suspend when someone breaks into song in the middle of dialogue. I'm sure you couldn't have meant both, but then again, you could have meant neither. So you tell me, and I won't be so confused.

[jobycom]

64. First

I explained what I mean rather unambiguously. I'll let my effort stand on its own, since I can add no more to it.

Second, Moulin Rouge was a movie, not a play, so the history of musical theater is not important to it, though obviously it is to you.

Third, it's innovations were in the area of film, not theatrical musicals--a point which coincides with my previous point that you are judging it in comparison to musicals, and I in comparison to other films.

Fourth, there are two types of innovation in art--the first is innovation within a certain framework, and the second is innovation that creates new frameworks. View Moulin Rouge outside of your framework, for what it is, rather than what it is not. No one's claiming it's a perfect film, but those who like it do so for the overall experience of the movie, not for a checklist of criteria it meets or fails to meet. Every criticism I've heard of the film were from people who wanted it to be something else. That's cool, you can't criticize preference.

Fifth, I don't generally like musicals, but I judge each on its own merit. You'll probably be disgusted, but the majority I have enjoyed in my life have been animated Disney films. Sorry, it's a casualty of having young children. Though I did see the Lion King play, and loved it, and I didn't like the movie overly much. And even I can see the greatness of the classics, like "Singing in the Rain," or whatever. I watch movies for story, above all, and don't like movies that wander from the story. So the type of musical I generally like is one where the songs advance the plot, rather than stopping it for a dance routine. For the same reason, I didn't like "Wings of Desire," which I felt stopped the story constantly for poetic readings, adding nothing to the story, and adding nothing to my enjoyment of the poetry, since I prefer to hear my mind's voice reciting poetry. Having said that, I generally try to watch a movie (or play or book) for what the creator intended, so I try not to judge on any outside criteria. I don't always succeed, though. And at times, I just don't like what the creator intended.

Sixth, you did come off as snarky, but hey, I did first, and the Lounge would be no fun without snark. :toast:

[IntravenousDemilo]

55. Now, are we talking about the wonderful Moulin Rouge with José Ferrer as Toulouse-Lautrec...

...or that bucket of swill with John Leguizamo in the same role?

[yellowdogintexas]

76. I like it too, it took my breath away first time I saw it.

the strange juxtaposition of the modern music with the setting and the story was hilarious and beautiful at the same time.

[fizzgig]

3. i can think of a few

anchorman was my movie of choice for awhile...i'd die laughing every time

and then there's my old fall back, the dark crystal

on a tangent, i'm a bad 80s kid because i hated legend...damn that movie sucked. i was really high and you think that would have made it better, but noooooooo

[RevolutionaryActs]

7. Scotchy, scotch, scotch

down in my belly

[fizzgig]

16. scotch is ickie

x(

:rofl:

[RevolutionaryActs]

20. yes, it is

it's like wet socks. ewwie.

[fizzgig]

42. i don't even want to know how you know what wet socks taste

my dad loves scotch (elrond drinks it too), but i can't develop a taste for it

[RevolutionaryActs]

43. ok, I tates like how I imagine wet socks would taste like

my brother drinks it too. He'll even drink Manhattans sometimes when he's out. :puke:

[fizzgig]

44. i know i'm a brat

:P

[Danger Mouse]

57. wet socks? psh. it's glorious liquid fire...

with a smooth flavor.

[fizzgig]

59. uhm...

no

:puke:

:P

[IntravenousDemilo]

63. What I don't get about Scotch is that supposedly it's a good thing if it tastes like oak or peat...

...which is fine, I guess, if you're a termite or like drinking water out of a bog.

[supernova]

18. I like Labyrinth

Nothing like Bowie trying to seduce jailbate when you're Blotto. :crazy:

[RevolutionaryActs]

23. Mmm David Bowie

I've always had a crush on him. :9

[supernova]

30. Have you seen it?

It's what happens when Jim Henson works with David Bowie. :D :crazy:

And Bowie wrote and performed all the music for it too.

I like D&C too. But I gave my soundtrack CDs to my nephew back in the spring since he was in the hospital.

[RevolutionaryActs]

33. Oh yes!

I grew up with that movie. :D

[fizzgig]

27. i love that movie

always freaks me out, though

[Bjornsdotter]

47. Fan Art

[Left Is Write]

4. I love Dazed & Confused. I've seen it dozens of times!

I have never once been :smoke: though.

[RevolutionaryActs]

5. It was my old stoner friends favorite movie.

:shrug:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

6. Haven't seen it.

:hide:

[RevolutionaryActs]

8. Why not?

It's funny. :P

[Starbucks Anarchist]

10. Two reasons:

1) Never got around to it.

2) I can't stand Matthew McConaughey. :P

[RevolutionaryActs]

14. He's not in it that much

:P

[Starbucks Anarchist]

22. Even one minute is too much.

:P

[RevolutionaryActs]

25. Fine, just miss out on a great movie

see if I care. You're only hurting yourself. :P

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. McConaughey is like the Lukas of film.

:hide:

[RevolutionaryActs]

32. That's ok, I always like Toby better

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. Yeah, he sucks, too.

:P

[RevolutionaryActs]

39. MEH!

:P

[AlCzervik]

15. i don't like him either and i really wish he'd out a shirt on. ick.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

21. I wish he would just learn some acting skills.

:P

[AlCzervik]

24. even with that he'd still be a turn off for me. there is just something about him

don't know what but i find him really unappealing.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. He actually reminds me of Bush.

Lack of talent, spaced-out speech patterns, and inexplicable popularity. ;)

[AlCzervik]

37. hmm, never thought about it that way. Of course i try never to think either

one of them.

[jobycom]

49. You're not missing anything. But lay off Matt.

He was great in Lone Star.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

51. No, he sucked in that, too.

[jobycom]

52. Then yer taste is the problem.

:P

[AlCzervik]

9. thats a good one, i also loved Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle.

[RevolutionaryActs]

11. That movie was great.

Did Doogie Houser just steal my fucking car? :rofl:

[AlCzervik]

13. his part was so funny! I had no idea ha was in it until there he was.

[XemaSab]

12. Leaving Las Vegas

:hi:

[RevolutionaryActs]

17. Killjoy

:P

[AlCzervik]

19. oh yeah, i like get depessed first, than drunk and then watch that one.

:+

[Lex]

31. GREAT flick.

It's :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[RevolutionaryActs]

40. Hell yeah

:headbang:

[dropkickpa]

41. What?!?! Not one mention of

Strange Brew???? That movie is freaking AWESOME!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GogRZwFXoA

[tigereye]

45. people really didn't dress quite like that, though

at least not at my high school.


I just felt that I had to have my sartorial say.

:hi:

[Downtown Hound]

46. There's some good ones in this thread...

But I'm going to have to go with: THE BIG LEBOWSKI!

You don't agree with me? You're entering a world of pain. A. WORLD. OF. PAIN. I'll show you what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass!

Actually I'm just kidding. I'm a nihilist. There's nothing to be afraid of.

[jobycom]

The Muppet Movie.

Give it a shot. :)

[IntravenousDemilo]

50. Well, The Lost Weekend might be pretty interesting, though kind of a buzz-kill.

And yeah, for Dazed and Confused, you really do need doobage.

[MrScorpio]

54. The Magic Christian

If you're sober, you won't be for long

[jobycom]

67. MrScorpio, I generally read your posts on music and movies and (though I am ashamed to admit it)

sometimes on the sexual appeal of female celebrities with relish, knowing I will either agree with you or will learn something from your impeccable taste and impressive experience.

But damn, you had to make that up! No way that's a real title! :rofl: (Yes, I IMDBed it, and it scares me worse. Ringo Star and Peter freakin' Sellers?!)

[IntravenousDemilo]

70. I love that movie!

I especially like the part near the end when the whoring capitalists show that they'll do absolutely anything for money, even to the point of jumping into a vat of toxic waste in order to fish out the cash on the bottom.

[Deep13]

61. Yeah, yeah there is. nt

[graywarrior]

65. Yellow Submarine is great on luudes.

Kidding. It's great on acid.

[Ekirh]

66. I don't drink . .

But Dazed and Confused is still a great movie!

[Aristus]

68. Yeah. "Army Of Darkness."

What a ride!

[RevolutionaryActs]

69. For the love of... this is still going?

:o

[yvr girl]

71. Young Lady, what have you been doing?

:taps foot:

:hug:








Love,
Mum

[RevolutionaryActs]

72. YIVVER!

HI! How have you been? I haven't seen you in ages! :hug:

[yvr girl]

73. I've been playing with my invisibility cloak

Up to all sorts of mischief.

[RevolutionaryActs]

74. Have you been TPing Skinner's house again?

Oh dear...

[Rhythm]

75. "The Wall"

I've tried watching it when i'm not 'under the influence' of something, and i just don't get it...