Schlegel chose no better film to show for the last screening in class, truly an end of an era. Considering Tarantino is a *dummy* acclaimed cult film maker, there was tons of hype about him releasing another film that wasn’t a lil’ b-movie production. I was glad to see a Tarantino film on the checklist at the beginning of the year, and that it wasn’t just Pulp Fiction (for god sakes we all get its’ status). My parents have been quoting Tarantino since I can remember, they were obsessed, even pets of mine were named after Reservoir Dogs. Saying so, it’s compelling that my generation was so amped about this film coming to theaters considering that most Tarantino die hards are now my parents age now and not as dedicated film goers.

So the movie- viscerally fantastic, in my opinion he really wrapped up his whole careers motive into Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It was obviously a Tarantino film, his classic tropes were screaming the whole time. He had an extremely large budget, to make all his dreams come true and his imaginary world come to life. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was his chance to pull out all the stops. Gore. Feet. Babes. Hyper stylization. Rewritten history. Drugs. Heists. Seeing actors that repeatedly appeared in older Tarantino films was a real treat for -real- Tarantino fans, and not to mention all the crazy ass cameos… um excuse me Lena Dunham? AND let’s not forget to mention all the dang hotties up in this movie, I nearly popped one. Who thought to put Leo, Margot, Brad, the hot hippie chick in ONE MOVIE and not have everyone absolutely DROOL. The gore in this movie made me want to vomit and grin as wide as I could- at the same time. I mean Tarantino tastefully filmed someone getting bludgeoned to death, in almost a humorous manner. It’s exquisite. He delves into the audiences subconscious and transports them into his own universe. SO Tarantino’s all there but why was it shown in a cult films class????

The only real reason this movie was chosen to be screened was because of Tarantino and his cult status. He has a way of captivating an audience during a film that was unlike no other films. So again Tarantino is cult because of his straight skillz, and he’s aware of the reception, but not all Tarantino is cult! Im not denying facts stated against my point but! I do think that some of his cinematography doesn’t deserve a cult status. I understand he’s rode with the fact that he has a cult following and status in cinema, I just don’t think he should make another film. Another film would be extremely strung out and over worked. His work is done. We understand he’s a fuckin godsend to film history. Tarantino development has been insane, he went from experiencing grindhouse in the flesh, to practically making more tasteful versions of the same. Our reading states it well:

“Indeed, the venues’ shabby confines contributed to the overall viewing experience, attracting eclectic audiences of die-hard cinephiles looking for “edgier” films with controversial or sen-sationalistic subject matter.”

Cont’d on Page 2

Don’t get me wrong, this was a GOOD movie, I one hundred precent understand the appeal, the thing is its just not for me. It has its funny quirky unexpected scenes, which I got a laugh from sometimes, but I just couldn’t relate tot the humor of those dumb ass boys.I don’t understand why anyone would be that aggressive about getting Kiss tickets too, so I didn’t appreciate their hostility. Again it was a great cast! In that sense, I find it hard to speak about it with enthusiasm, so I apologize ahead if time if this post is a lil more cut and dry. Though like said in the podcast, if I watch it again I think I could grow more appreciation for it.

Detroit Rock City was an hour and a half journey of four boys and their obstacles when attempting to see a Kiss concert after school one day. The movie did so so bad initially, only making 4 million when they had a budget of 34 million. Yikes. Again, thanks to DVDs the movie developed a fan base devoted to the nostalgia in the film. The cinematography was spot on, as they spoke about in the podcast. The cast was perfect, the podcast spoke about how the cast wasn’t credited fro the excellent performance in Detroit Rock City, I agree.

Listening to the podcast and reading about Hollywood cult classics have already made me appreciate the film more. The podcast briefly mentions Not Another Teen Movie because I too think it is a masterpiece that’s totally swept under the rug. The two readings paired with he screening well. Especially the Cult and Music one where they state “The importance music plays in cult films often relates to the manner by which films appeal to recognizable subcultures.” These group of teens going to the KISS rock concert, they were outcasts, they were a subculture of the rock era. “This was a period when “youth,” at least when combined with “delinquency,” constituted a subculture in itself. Importantly, music – in the form of rock and roll – was a chief signifier of how youths differed from their elders.” The boys weren’t like Jams Ma. Its all summed up well in the reading here-

The visual nature of rock music perhaps meant that its incorporation into cinema was inevitable. More importantly, this cinema/rock combination created a powerful combined force, directly appealing to fans with particular musical tastes and in the process generating a number of cult films. Rock music, for Grossberg, is a site where ideological and affective maps intersect (2002: 91). If this is the case, the transposition of rock music into films could doubly intensify the ideological and affective power of such music, through not only attaching these sounds to more concrete ideological narratives, but for placing them in a context with particularly affective potentials. According to Kevin Donnelly, non-diegetic sound and music can physically affect viewers; this power relates to its status as something both a part of, yet apart from, the filmic world, imbuing it with a kind of supernatural presence (2005: 13).

<—To all the world events currently.

Shout out- Big thanks to Mary who talked about Jenifers Body, which was extremely compelling to hear about. Also thanks everyone for tuning in for my presentation, I am obviously obsessed with the film, even if I came off nervous and jittery.

The movie passes with such ease; the plot is simple, obviously relatable, and the score and diaolauge are engaging. Featuring slang we all for a fact still use, songs we could sing in our sleep, and outfits all us youth are repeating in style today. Their outfits are to die for the entire time, especially Dons overalls, Jodis jumpsuit, and Pinks big ass white flares. They chose a pretty hot cast as well, exploding Ben Afflak and Matthew McConaugheys career. In my opinion the cinematography was average, that wasn’t what mad the movie special, it was the viscerally embedded nostalgia. We could all point out at least one scene in the film and say “been their done that.”

This article rates the charters on their coolness, it gave me a chuckle, y’all shouldgive it a scan! https://www.wired.com/2016/04/every-dazed-confused-character-ranked-coolness/

So let me start by saying the first time I watched this movie I was not impressed, and even said things like “I hated that.” I know, hot take, and now I take it back. It is a great film, after reading about it, seeing the remake, and watching videos and what not, I decided I really did enjoy it. I also watched the second remake, and god I’m not even going to get into how disappointed I was in that. The screening was directed by Dario Argento who used technicolor in the film, enhancing primary colors and their meaning. Yassa and Averi spoke about the readings and then summarized the reasoning behind the expressionist color theories behind the film. The two readings focusing on Suspiria and the director explained a whole lot, and rationalized my confusion post first viewing.

I was curious about the deal with the different languages and dubbing, it was so spastic I thought it was buffering at first. Thus described well in the reading specifically about the director of the film, Dario Argento, “as an Italian film with an American lead actress and a German setting, Suspiria combines the internationalism of the early gialli with the national specificity of Le Cinque Giornate in a way that … allows the film to reflect on the history of fascism that Germany and Italy share.” Argento was politically, art historically, and mystery fiction driven. He was a mastermind when it comes to cinematography when it comes to Italian horror films. These readings went into depth it seemed just about just every other still, and the lore and compulsion behind it.

I was confused about the movie at first. I couldn’t put together the plot, I was bothered by the dubbing, and the only thing I was struck by was the visual and auditorial aesthetics.

“They are malefic, negative, and destructive; their knowledge of the art of the occult gives them tremendous powers. They can change the course of events and people’s lives, but only to do harm. … Their goal is to accumulate great personal wealth, but that can only be achieved by injury to others. They can cause suffering, sickness, and even the death of those who, for whatever reason, offend them. … [Helena Marcos was] a powerful witch with a tremendous talent for doing evil, a real mistress of magic. … A woman becomes queen if her magic is a hundred times more powerful than the rest of the coven, which is like a circle. Its strength rests with its leader, its head. A coven deprived of its leader is like a headless cobra, harmless. Skepticism is the natural reaction of people nowadays, but magic is ever present … magic is everywhere, and all over the world, it’s a recognized fact, always.”

The above excerpt from the reading allowed me to appreciate the plot line, the underlying story I was unable to grasp, is now clear. The film as a whole, in my opinion, mildly riveting, but visually and auditory gee wiz was it fantastic. This film and the directors logistics will affect my video art making for sure. I will also be litsening to the soundtrack in my spare time from now on, what a mood.

Boy oh boy has this been one hell of a week! But thank goodness Schlegel has this whole teaching through the web hoopala under wraps real well, especially considering some of my classes got straight up canceled. But nonetheless we still enjoyed a completely smooth week of online facetime class presentations by Patrick, Kelsi, Spencer, Avery, and Chris. Kelsi gave a presentation on Buffalo 66, which is also her home town hehe. I had no idea Vincent Gallo was such an asshole, but its understandable then as for how he nailed that role so hard. Chris also gave a very loving presentation of the second Blade Runner, your passion still shone through the audio waves Chris, props. They were engaging even with just audio, so props you guys for being the ginny pigs for the rest of the cyber semester.

Spencer and Patrick summarized the readings, and the Valerie and Her Week of Wonders reading very well. Main points I found important in the readings They made compelling connections that helped me grasp the reading even more, and more deeply connect with though film, so that’s my main topic this week. Needless to say I am in LOVE.

This film was released during the Czech New Wave movement, a result of new directions in the arts generally and the pressure for social and political reform during a communist in Czechoslovakia . Therefore many transgressive ideas are illuminated in these films, such as desire, subjectivity, childhood, social or political authority, the imagination and, in its broadest sense, language. Our reading states a transgressive idea that “like many fairytales, Valerie’s wondrous world is rife with the seductions and aggressions born of family relationships, a factor that continues to give Jireš’ film thematic relevance.”

After watching this film once, I knew I was going to have to view it for a second time to ensure I I grasp all its glory, and again I am greatly enthused that I was introduced to this movie. The avant-garde director Jaromil Jireš “would probably be remembered today as a filmmaker in the satirical vein, with a taste for poetic juxtapositions and vertiginous edits.” Each frame was a perfectly framed photograph– depicting a fantasy nightmare dream utopia. Probably the most entrancing beautifully captured film I have ever seen, and will most defiantly impact my art practice. The use of symbolism and motif

The way Jireš uses the camera and editing alludes to the film following classic fairytale tropes, but with a dreamy-surreal-horror twist. “The movie’s color design is so vibrant,” the campy enigmatic acting, and set design make the film extremely poetic. Repetition of frames and scenes also gives the viewers a sense of a skewed reality. This reminds me of The Great Gatsby and after reading the book and watching the movie it follows a similar poetic manner that mimics the book. I can presume that the book version of Valerie and Her Week of Wonders was written in a poetic manner, considering the author was a poet.

First off I just need to apologize for my awfully rocky start the readings discussion, truthfully I think I blacked out up there and lost all sense of mind… lol. But on the flip I watched the movie for a second time on Tuesday with Tal, Zane, and Mary. I’m obsessed to say the least, and am so glad that I was introduced to this movie. I was attracted the colorful, surreal backgrounds of certain characters and shots and the utopian feel that was done by shooting at night and filming hella fast.

This week the readings were straight to the point as well as the other links Dr. S sent us that gave us even more insight on the film and its background. The reading more specifically based on The Warriors that first spoke about how different the movie was from he book, more importantly it touched on how dreamy and groovy this representation of young boy gangs in New York City in the late &0’s (although it seemed like a different future version due to Walter Hills intentionally stylized atmosphere). The movie has quite the simple plot; hundreds of mini boy gangs from all five boroughs trek to the Bronx to a rally that Cyrus ***a gang god*** is hosting, Cyrus gets shot, and the one group The Warriors are accused of shooting Cyrus, they all try heading home to Coney Island whilst getting jumped by multiple other mini gangs around the city trying to report him to the Riffs. It is basically a big baseball game, subway stations as bases, marking a victory from another team. They eventually have a home run when the Riffs meet them on Coney Island to save them and get themes successful gang in the city. The movie is nothing like any New York City a real person has ever seen. No one else roams the streets unless they are there on purpose, it is foggy and saturated with color, gangs filled of provocative identities, and narrated by an unknown dj. 

When the film was released it had horrible feedback, viewers said it was insightful of violence and was almost even banned in Boston. On the other hand it enticed an immediate cult following due to the luxurious glam-rockeque sense embedded in the film. I respect Hills attempt to represent the youth of America with no moral judgment nor rationalize it through Bourgeois societal standards. I could understand the relation to the Warriors and the reading, Horrors at the Crossroads, which talks about the Rialto and its influence on cult movie goers. The Rialto were densely populated areas in the city that had an all inclusive invite to a huge post war gay culture funhouse. No matter your race, gender orientation, or sexual orientation, those stretches of movie theaters showed films that allowed people to dive into their true identities. Women realized they can kiss their girlfriends and they do not have to be stay at home mom while their husbands are off at a war. Men were cooped up across the sea and they do not need to be secretive about their love and attraction to their solider mates.

Thanks Schlegel for the opportunity to study and analyze this fantastic movie, that will surely impact me for ma whole life. Thanks fellow cult class for putting up with my presentation. I could have gone hard on my person impression and what not from the movie, but I figured that, I presented on the readings this week: why not reference them a tad more this week? xx