Jim's Cafe Saturday January 9 2021

[Atreides]

Here's the answers to my own questions.

If I could eat as much of anything I wanted, it would have to be Chinese food. especially general tso's chicken.

There's a lot of movies and music I've changed my opinion on over time. One movie I had a gigantic change of opinion on was Mulholland Drive. The first time I saw it I thought it was a waste of film. And that's mostly because I didn't understand it. I didn't even understand the main character was dreaming most of the movie. The first time I saw it I thought it was a bunch of meaningless scenes that didn't go together. Over a decade later, I watched the movie again and thought it was one of the most brilliant things I had ever seen. It such a deep and dark exploration of dreams and desires.

 

[JMG]

Tysm for the tags @JDot & @Lane Hope you are both well & that you have a nice day
I tag @RCee @sinking_ship @Innocent Forever @Jolene @lost_in_a_fairytale @Kira

My answer to the first q about the food I'd eat as much as I wanted if I would never gain weight from it is - ONION RINGS!!! Yummm omg I love them so much! Lol. When I'm not eating them, I'm thinking about how much I want to eat them that's how much I love them. Ok that is a bit of an exaggeration but ya I love them a lot. Oh also egg rolls/ Chinese food as some others have said here. Damn it would suck to only be able to pick ONE thing but ya those are almost tied really lol so whoever was granting me the wish I would maybe leave it up to them to pick which one it would be lol :p

2nd q the answer is just "no" sorry lol.

 

[MisterBGone]

Hey @JDot and @Lane thanks for the tag.
If I could eat as much as I wanted? Three things, carbs, pop, salt. All day everyday.
Music or movies I used to hate but have frown to like. No, it's the opposite for me, I used to like supernatural stuff, not so much anymore. Hope everyone has a good day today.

You mean. . . Those three things aren't good for you?? I almost thought, there were no other food groups!! ;D

 

[MisterBGone]

Here's the answers to my own questions.

If I could eat as much of anything I wanted, it would have to be Chinese food. especially general tso's chicken.

There's a lot of movies and music I've changed my opinion on over time. One movie I had a gigantic change of opinion on was Mulholland Drive. The first time I saw it I thought it was a waste of film. And that's mostly because I didn't understand it. I didn't even understand the main character was dreaming most of the movie. The first time I saw it I thought it was a bunch of meaningless scenes that didn't go together. Over a decade later, I watched the movie again and thought it was one of the most brilliant things I had ever seen. It such a deep and dark exploration of dreams and desires.

That's so cool to hear you say and relate that. I find myself in very familiar positions from time to time. And I wonder what it is? The film, or work of art (book, music, etc.) hasn't changed, so obviously we have over time. And sometimes, as is in the case of this particular work by David Lynch (whom I always used to refer to as, "My favorite Living film maker!" ;D ha.. well, after Stanley died (Kubrick), but what's funny - is that when saying it, I wasn't necessarily even meaning him, but more "older,' directors. But anyways--back to this Dr. Mulholland (as my Sister once called it!) um, i remember when it came out.. & then after it was released on video (dvd), showing it to a whole bunch of people. And almost every last one of them flipped their lid- ;D "What? What the heck.." And this was of course before the days of too much activity online & everything. So that was nice - but i do feel that some of the more complex, and comlicated or profound works in motions pictures (or movies_) can tend to take more than one viewing in order to fully/or properly digest. This would be as excellent an example as any! People were / are always so tied &/or wrapped up, in "Plot." I am not. . . & I can't remember because it's been so very long since I've seen the thing, so I can't even recall exactly what my interpretation of it ultimately was, and I only know that there were some blanks left unfilled. Again, using the logic of a dream is nothing new in the cinema. And if you've ever paid any attention to the surrealist Luis Bunuel, then you'll know what I mean by, "not needing to have all those blanks filled in. . : )" more on him in a minute! I think that David, you know coming from the Painting world, was very attracted to more abstract works, even impressionistic? Maybe? I forget, but basically I do know that he doesn't much care for explaining what happens in his films. And like a lot of great directors, doesn't mind leaving the interpretation of them up to the audience. Even if their's differs wildy, or greatly from his. It's like a lyricist who writes open ended lyrics. The audience, the listener can then put whatever they want on it, in terms of their, 'meaning." And I wouldnt' half-doubt, if at the time some of these decisions were made - keep in mind it started out as a pilot, and so some portion of it was recorded for TV. But I believe that there could've been some calls made in the making of the movie in which he didn't even know himself for sure what the answer(s) was, or were. So, it's more of a "feel~" & less of a, "thought?" if that makes sense! It s the mystery that creates the enigma, and the alure- I think, or find. Luis Bunuel's final film, That Obscure Object of Desire, shot in 1977, was mad e with two different lead actresses playing the same part, or role. With no explanation as to this. So, in other words, he shot the entire film with both: meaning both would act out the same scene, in it's entirety. And then in editing, he would, I'd bet half-intuititvely, decide which girl to use in which scene. And so you're watching the thing, and in one scene, here's actress number one. And then later on, in the next... here's actress number two (playing the same character, with the same name) acting opposite the same male lead! : ) Extraordinary, and apparently made when he was half-blind. ( ; ~wish i could do that!

 

[MisterBGone]

Here's the answers to my own questions.

If I could eat as much of anything I wanted, it would have to be Chinese food. especially general tso's chicken.

There's a lot of movies and music I've changed my opinion on over time. One movie I had a gigantic change of opinion on was Mulholland Drive. The first time I saw it I thought it was a waste of film. And that's mostly because I didn't understand it. I didn't even understand the main character was dreaming most of the movie. The first time I saw it I thought it was a bunch of meaningless scenes that didn't go together. Over a decade later, I watched the movie again and thought it was one of the most brilliant things I had ever seen. It such a deep and dark exploration of dreams and desires.

It's like music, with him, more subconscious, than con...)

 

[MisterBGone]

I should also note: some very much LIKED the movie; while some very much DID NOT Like it. . ; ) a lot couldn't handle the uncertainty_

 

[MisterBGone]

Some people think Eyes Wide Shut, S.K.'s "swan-song!" is a Dream. The whole thing. . . (meaning, none of it is real!)
Now, the title would certainly suggest it to be.. but, I'm going to have to go dig up my review of the book I'd read in the spring on these supposed "scholars," who'd made some outrageous claims on his last work. I know I was doing a lot of hair-pulling. . ; ) And whatever I could say about it now, would pale in comparison- that's an understatement, of the highest level. Or is it order? I can't remember any~thing any more? Maybe I am in a bit of a "Dream Story," or novella of sorts.. The source material of course originating from the work of Arthur Schitzler, early 1900's Vienna? Maybe? But obviously adapted -- called Traumnovelle (sp?) . . . I'm recalling or reminded of the story I'd read, of Freud writing him a letter once (A.S.) & saying something to the effect of, "I'd wish to meet/or greet you in person, but for the popular superstition that if you meet your Dopplegangler, you would die!" ;D ha~

 

[MisterBGone]

And then there was when Viggo, played Jung... (that was fun)! Love Cronenberg, though (the guy who gave us, as I used to call it, "The REAL cRaSh!?." ;D but, albeit, a little sick & twisted. I dunno if I could handle it now, I'm going to go with, "No!" History of Violence, maybe. . . Yeah, that one's fine I'm sure. The older stuffs better, though, as is often the case. Age tends to stifle, and cripple. Unless you're Kubrick (but even some would argue this statement/of opinion!). : )

 

[Atreides]

That's so cool to hear you say and relate that. I find myself in very familiar positions from time to time. And I wonder what it is? The film, or work of art (book, music, etc.) hasn't changed, so obviously we have over time. And sometimes, as is in the case of this particular work by David Lynch (whom I always used to refer to as, "My favorite Living film maker!" ;D ha.. well, after Stanley died (Kubrick), but what's funny - is that when saying it, I wasn't necessarily even meaning him, but more "older,' directors. But anyways--back to this Dr. Mulholland (as my Sister once called it!) um, i remember when it came out.. & then after it was released on video (dvd), showing it to a whole bunch of people. And almost every last one of them flipped their lid- ;D "What? What the heck.." And this was of course before the days of too much activity online & everything. So that was nice - but i do feel that some of the more complex, and comlicated or profound works in motions pictures (or movies_) can tend to take more than one viewing in order to fully/or properly digest. This would be as excellent an example as any! People were / are always so tied &/or wrapped up, in "Plot." I am not. . . & I can't remember because it's been so very long since I've seen the thing, so I can't even recall exactly what my interpretation of it ultimately was, and I only know that there were some blanks left unfilled. Again, using the logic of a dream is nothing new in the cinema. And if you've ever paid any attention to the surrealist Luis Bunuel, then you'll know what I mean by, "not needing to have all those blanks filled in. . : )" more on him in a minute! I think that David, you know coming from the Painting world, was very attracted to more abstract works, even impressionistic? Maybe? I forget, but basically I do know that he doesn't much care for explaining what happens in his films. And like a lot of great directors, doesn't mind leaving the interpretation of them up to the audience. Even if their's differs wildy, or greatly from his. It's like a lyricist who writes open ended lyrics. The audience, the listener can then put whatever they want on it, in terms of their, 'meaning." And I wouldnt' half-doubt, if at the time some of these decisions were made - keep in mind it started out as a pilot, and so some portion of it was recorded for TV. But I believe that there could've been some calls made in the making of the movie in which he didn't even know himself for sure what the answer(s) was, or were. So, it's more of a "feel~" & less of a, "thought?" if that makes sense! It s the mystery that creates the enigma, and the alure- I think, or find. Luis Bunuel's final film, That Obscure Object of Desire, shot in 1977, was mad e with two different lead actresses playing the same part, or role. With no explanation as to this. So, in other words, he shot the entire film with both: meaning both would act out the same scene, in it's entirety. And then in editing, he would, I'd bet half-intuititvely, decide which girl to use in which scene. And so you're watching the thing, and in one scene, here's actress number one. And then later on, in the next... here's actress number two (playing the same character, with the same name) acting opposite the same male lead! : ) Extraordinary, and apparently made when he was half-blind. ( ; ~wish i could do that!

I like that you bring up Stanley Kubrick. He used to be my favorite filmmaker. I'm not sure who my favorite is now. But 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. The movie is about everything. It's about where we come from and where we're going. A lot of people tell me they don't like it because it's slow. But to me the slowness is part of the ride. Like any good ride it's slow and then it's fast. And the ships moving to the music at the beginning is like a ballet. The first time I saw the movie, I didn't like it until the psychedelic part at the end. That blew me away the first time I saw it. I didn't understand it, but it blew me away. Then I had to immediately go back and watch the movie again. The second time I watched it I loved it all the way through.

 

[KM76710]

Today's question:
If you could eat as much of one food as you want without getting fat, what would it be?

Chicken fried steak.

Bonus question:
Is there any movies or music you used to hate that you've grown to like?

None that I can think of.

 

[MisterBGone]

I like that you bring up Stanley Kubrick. He used to be my favorite filmmaker. I'm not sure who my favorite is now. But 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite film of all time. The movie is about everything. It's about where we come from and where we're going. A lot of people tell me they don't like it because it's slow. But to me the slowness is part of the ride. Like any good ride it's slow and then it's fast. And the ships moving to the music at the beginning is like a ballet. The first time I saw the movie, I didn't like it until the psychedelic part at the end. That blew me away the first time I saw it. I didn't understand it, but it blew me away. Then I had to immediately go back and watch the movie again. The second time I watched it I loved it all the way through.

Yeah, definitely not one you can watch (for the first time) in the middle of the day with sun shining in through the windows & 8 million other distractions going on. I believe, among other things, he was aiming to achieve something similar to the silent films he grew up loving, with the absence of excessive dialogue. And, as you say, the combination of images & sound, with the way they can penetrate the soul on a much deeper level than either or alone. I don't know which one is my favorite, so I usually just answer with, Barry Lyndon, for the heck of it! but i do think one sign of a good film maker is when you can have a number of people who all tell you a different film of his is their favorite. Amongst the critics, there were those who championed 2001, and Dr. Strangelove, then hated what came later or next; & then, conversely, vice versa~ I think Quentin Tarantino is aiming for something of a similar reputation for his career in terms of his place in film history. As he wants to remembered as somebody who produced quality work, over quantity. Though I don't identify with much of his work, personally, or on a level of having a similar taste, or sensibility... I still always tell everyone who will listen, when they ask (me) who do I think is going to be the one that stands out from this - or his - era, it's him. And it's not even close, in my mind. He is the most original, the most entertaining, and the only one I'd truly consider, "One of A kind~." (there may be others, but they pale in comparison to him; though in their defense, I've hardly done a deep dive into any of their repertoires). Also, like the fact that he is a writer/director. To me, anyway, that makes a difference!

 

[MisterBGone]

I think Sofia Coppola might be my favorite from this time period, (or frame). I believe I've seen all of her pictures, except the first & last (though I could be wrong...) :^) I'm sure I'm forgetting a ton of others -- well... maybe not a ton!