March 8, 2018

"If you need to watch a movie more than once to understand it, then you've lost me. That's the definition of a bad movie, in fact."

Writes MadisonMan in the comments to the post about the 20th anniversary of the movie "The Big Lebowski" and the critics who panned it. He agrees with the original reviews, but has only "watched it once, and I'm not rewatching. It's unwatchable to me...."

The subject of rewatching (and rereading) is a big one, I realized as I started to respond to MadisonMan in the thread. I got this far:
I always had to rewatch an episode of "The Sopranos" to understand it. There was too much going on to get it the first time and too much artful ellipsis.

But I'd also have to watch last night's episode of "Survivor" again to understand it, and I know that isn't worth doing.
And then I decided this needed to be on the front page. When do you say, I am not rewatching/rereading that — they had one chance to reach me and I'm not putting my time into unraveling what they failed to make clear? And when do you say, I'm going back in to open up the mysteries that passed me by the first time?

One reason I'm glad not to be a law professor anymore (and glad to be able to follow the precepts of a fine religion) is that I was forced and had to force others to read Supreme Court opinions, and we were required to understand them, and that meant a lot of rereading of aesthetically displeasing and intellectually unrewarding verbiage.

I was bound by the power of the Court to spend twice as much time (at least) trying to read something that they could have spent more time making readably clear. I suspected that the Court deliberately inflated its own power by imposing burdensome reading. Heh, that will keep them busy, and they'll never get to the point where they can criticize us in writing that anyone else will have the endurance to read to the point of understanding.

But I was the Court's taskmaster, insisting to students — over and over — that no matter how incomprehensible you think this is, you can understand if you reread. Read it a second time, and if you still don't understand, read it a third time and a fourth. Empower yourself by discovering the meaning that only rereading will reveal.

I don't do that anymore.

I want to read and watch things that are rereadable/rewatchable. I truly believe that the best movies and writing are better the second time (or third or fourth time). But you can't get to the second time without going through the first, and when do you say, after the first, there will be no second time? Maybe the secret is to walk out of movies and throw aside books when you realize you're just trying to get through this and would never want to see/read it again?

Maybe, with all your first times, if you're not thinking this is going to be better the second time around, you should bail out of the first time. Is this a one-night-stand? If yes, then don't "Cat Person" it, get out.

222 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222
tim in vermont said...

And then the shock comes when you’re adult and you realize that Glinda was the real truly evil character in the movie and that all of Dorthy's adventures were part of Glinda's elaborate plot to seize power in Oz by getting rid of the Witch of the West and the Wizard.

This is where cui bono analysis gets you. It’s like the NFL was an elaborate plot to get Tom Brady five honkin’ diamon rings.

Marcus Carman said...

Started to feel sorry for the guy then realized he's from Madison...

bolivar di griz said...

Intriguing its possible bellocq through sheer luck, (he was based on a vichy anthropologist) might have found the ark and it might have made it to Berlin.

tim in vermont said...

There is no “need” to rewatch a movie, usually, except maybe Mulholland Drive, but re-watching good movies is often rewarding. I think that the real answer is that good movies reward re-watching.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Ah... so Phil 3:14 identifies with the tightly wound Walter Sobczak... going so far as to wonder why others don't - at least when it comes to spouting off like a half-cocked lunatic.

Well allow me to return the favor:

You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your (extremely tightly wound) ass and pull the f ***ing trigger 'til it goes "click."

Now scoot your little butt back on out of here. Bye-bye, and don't let an auto too close to the shoulder knock you on your silly ass as you jog merrily along your way!

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

You've got to wonder about a "physician" whose readings never veer too far from the fucking Bible. Does he tear out pages from the King James to stuff in a patient's chart next to an EKG to help convince auditors that he made the correct diagnosis?

What a loon!

Howard said...

Walter Sobchak played by John Goodman is roughly based on Joel and Ethan's screenwriter pal Hollywood legend John Milius who wrote for Dirty Harry, Jeremiah Johnson, The Life and Time of Judge Roy Bean, Magnum Force, The Wind and the Lion, Big Wednesday, Apocalypse Now, 1941, Conan the Barbarian, Red Dawn and HBO's Rome.

Charlie Don't Surf! I love the smell of napalm in the morning go ahead make my day do you feel lucky, punk?

Known Unknown said...

Milius is one of my writing heroes.

I love his approach to writing.

chickelit said...

Shorter Known Unknown:

Never compromise excellence. To write for someone else is the biggest mistake that any writer makes. You should be your biggest competitor, your biggest critic, your biggest fan, because you don’t know what anybody else thinks. How arrogant it is to assume that you know the market, that you know what’s popular today — only Steven Spielberg knows what’s popular today. Only Steven Spielberg will ever know what’s popular. So leave it to him. He’s the only one in the history of man who has ever figured that out. Write what you want to see. Because if you don’t, you’re not going to have any true passion in it, and it’s not going to be done with any true artistry.
— John Milius

Mark said...

you realize that Glinda was the real truly evil character

You also need to watch The Day the Earth Stood Still (original) a few times before you realize that Klaatu is far from a good guy and really is a bad guy and the grave danger to the security and freedom of Earth that they thought he was.

Mark said...

TKAMB is on now. And what do you know? Atticus is a bad guy too after all.

Ralph L said...

The largely bad recent TV version of OZ has an evil Glinda, or least she seemed to be when I bailed out. Vincent D'onofrio as the Wizard in a horrible wig was too much to watch.

Freeman Hunt said...

Many years ago I watched the movie Blow Up (1966) with a group. When it ended all of us thought we hated it. Then we couldn't stop talking about it. For days. I finally decided I really liked it. There was more to it than there seemed to be initially.

Howard said...

Blow Up is a great picture, good call. Gotta see that one again.

Bad Lieutenant said...


I'd heard that in Indiana Jones:Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy changes nothing -- the action of the movie (Nazi's get ark & then die) would have been the same if Indy had never left his college campus.
I rewatched it. It's true.

3/8/18, 8:10 PM


No, no, no! The first wave of ark-openers would have got it in the neck, yes, but the cleanup crew would have figured it out eventually.


Boy, all this talk about The Big Lebowski really makes me think I should see it.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger bolivar di griz said...

Intriguing its possible bellocq through sheer luck, (he was based on a vichy anthropologist) might have found the ark and it might have made it to Berlin.

I think the Bellocq character was a take-off on anglo-french (and catholic revanchist) writer Hillaire Belloc.

Lewis Wetzel said...

I watched Eragon tonight on Amazon Prime. It's a terrible movie, simple and cliched, completely forgettable. But it did make me think of Tolkien. Tolkien's dragons were like demons. They could converse with humans (and all the characters in Tolkien's novels were humanity disguised, even the orcs and Sauron), but the dragons are completely inhuman. People who write SF about aliens would be wise to review the dialog that Tolkien's dragons have with humans.

dustbunny said...

Lewis Wetzel-I’m still trying to figure out the parable of the Goy’s Teeth

mockturtle said...

Boy, all this talk about The Big Lebowski really makes me think I should see it.

I've never seen it either, BL. You first.

MadisonMan said...

I think we can safely dispense with losing this milquetoast "MadisonMan" guy and take the 85%+ viewers and critics who love the movie instead.

All the Polls that said Hillary!! would be President, too!

Anthony said...

I forever hate Wizard of Oz. Well, scratch that, "hate" is a strong word. It irritates me and I dislike it.

Because when I was a young lad I asked what the ticking thing that the Tin Man got was, and my dad told me it was a bomb.

So I spent the next several years dutifully watching the dumb thing waiting to see the bomb go off or have someone defuse it at the last second or something. I kept assuming I had gone to the bathroom at just the wrong moment and missed it.

Oh. It was a metaphor.

Big whoop.

Zach said...

""If you need to watch a movie more than once to understand it, then you've lost me. That's the definition of a bad movie, in fact.""

I think this ignores the concept of rewatchability, which is a major issue in a movie like the Big Lebowski (which might be the most rewatchable movie of all time). Movies which are more episodic and driven by particular scenes or vivid characters can be very entertaining to watch multiple times. You see a different movie every time, because you respond to different things.

It's not really fair to expect a reviewer who's seeing the movie for the first time and writing on a deadline to realize how funny the "Don't **** with The Jesus!" scene would be the tenth time you see it.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222   Newer› Newest»