EPISODE 354: REPEAT VIEWINGS by · Published December 30, 2013 · Updated August 7, 2015 In this episode, Tyler and David discuss what repeat viewings can bring to- or take away from- a movie.Related Posts:Tyler Takes On the Oscars and Other Stuff You Might Have…Episode 835: Oscars 2023 (Tyler's Take)Episode 834: Oscars 2023Episode 839: Movies About AmnesiaEpisode 844: Movies About Old HollywoodEpisode 838: Cutting Quasi with Frank McGrathEpisode 845: May FlowersEpisode 840: Michael Snow Share
The film that grows in my estimation more and more with each viewing is Groundhog Day.
I know you guys have mentioned many times on how much you love Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, but have either of you seen the tv series they made before it, Clone High? It shares a lot of the same sort of comic sensibility as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs does. I was probably one of the few who had high expectations going into Cloudy, due knowing what the directors had made in the past. Whhile with 21 Jump Street I had lower expectations because I knew they weren’t responsible for the screenplay.
Everyone I know who has seen Clone High has loved it. I need to put it on the list.
The whole damn thing is on YouTube, incidentally.
Fab episode especially the crocodile anecdote, priceless. As for repeat viewings, I think Wes Anderson and Darren Aronofsky films improve after the first viewing as there’s always a lot to unpack with them. I watch The Fountain roughly every coupla months.
Ps I’m trying to import a couple BnL listeners to the pod but they’re pretty stuck in their ways. They’re also pretty low brow so they may not “get it” anyhow 🙂
I’ll agree that I often dislike Anderson’s movies slightly less on repeat viewings but that’s not much of an endorsement. I’m not really a fan of Aronofsky but I don’t think I’ve seen any of his films more than once.
They can’t be that low brow if they have enough taste to listen to BnL.
WHAT!?! Your saying listeners such as Xarnis, Jake17, Ryguy, and TheOneWhoKnocks wouldn’t get Battleship Pretension? Well, maybe Ryguy wouldn’t, but the rest of them would probably like.
They seem to get by on enthusiasm.
I was talking about my two pals/sparring partners Ryguy and Greg. We’ve each nominated something for the other to watch or listen to in January, I chose for them an episode of BP and I got Lords Of Salem and Madagascar to watch #Jeez!
Which episode? I probably would’ve given them 1999, Asterios Kokkinos, or possibly the recent We Do What We Want
I’ll settle for any, these boys ain’t so reliable, Greg has never even watched a trailer i’ve suggested and Ryan, who claims to have listened to a bit of the most recent episode, i’m convinced walks around not knowing what day of the week it is. What can you do? 🙂
Here’s a fun Florida story – several years ago I heard a news story about a Florida criminal who was fleeing the cops, and, in the process of so doing, was full on killed by an alligator.
Adding to the oddity of that story is that, just now, in trying to find the original story, it appears this exact same thing has happened (to varying degrees; they didn’t always die) many, many times in Florida.
I would LOVE to hear a full episode on “12 Years A Slave.” I was kind of lukewarm on it as well (at least compared to most others), and have had more than one discussion trying to pinpoint exactly why.
This is a subject that I’ve thought of often. Does a film necessarily demand to be rewatchable in order to be a good or great film.
I agree that “Inside Llwelyn Davis” is one of the best films of the past year. Though even when watching it I thought to myself, “this is not a film that I am going to revisit that often.” Aside from the occasional burst of humor it is such a morose and depressing film. Plus I don’t care for folk music. But what was present in the film was a very clear direction the film was going for and a fulfillment of purpose. As was mentioned that final scene really serves as a concluding statement as to where the main character has been and where he is going. (I feel another conversation can be had on whether the ending is pessimistic or optimistic.) I could relate to Llwelyn Davis’s story, in more ways than I wish I could. While its not something I’d like to sit through repeatedly I feel its something I’d have in my head long after watching it.
As for “The Master”, another film brought up in the conversation, that is a film that I’ve watched twice. The only thing that I got out of the second viewing is that the film seemed shorter because I knew what was going to happen. Otherwise I did not feel satisfied with either viewing. I did not receive any pleasure from watching the film and I doubt that any repeat viewings would have any reverse effect. Unlike “Inside Llwelyn Davis”, “The Master” is a film that I find to be less then the sum of its parts. It is repetitive, sterile, self-important. The actors while they give great performances, we get no real insight into the thought processes of the characters. Amy Adams while a strong presence is given absolutely nothing to do. And the ending is ultimately arbitrary.
“Cloud Atlas”, for me at least, is the complete opposite. I find it the most rewatchable 3-hour movies I’ve seen next to Oliver Stone’s “JFK”. That may be because I have no attention span. That may be because I’ve read the book the film is based on, so I know what was going on the first time I watched the film. Of all the talk around the film’s meaning and style, I find nobody talking about how much it is simply pure entertainment! It’s got everything that watch movies for: action, suspense, car chases, explosions, bloody battles, battles of wits, battles of ethics, comedy, romance, gay romance, historical fiction, contemporary fiction, science fiction, meta fiction, all in one movie! In the end I simply find it a celebration of storytelling. To hell with all the little details!
As Roger Ebert stated in his review of the film, “Even as I was watching “Cloud Atlas” the first time, I knew I would need to see it again. Now that I’ve seen it the second time, I know I’d like to see it a third time — but I no longer believe repeated viewings will solve anything… Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. The little world of film criticism has been alive with interpretations of it, which propose to explain something that lies outside explanation. Any explanation of a work of art must be found in it, not taken to it. As a film teacher, I was always being told by students that a film by David Lynch, say, or Warner Herzog, was “a retelling of the life of Christ, say, or ‘Moby Dick.’ ” My standard reply was: Maybe it’s simply the telling of itself.”
For what it’s worth, I rewatch all kinds of films regardless of mood or content (I’ll gladly revisit 12 Years a Slave when I have the time, for example), but The Master so thoroughly eviscerated me, emotionally, on my second viewing that I’ve been extremely cautious in seeing it again, even though I love and admire it very deeply. I’m not sure if any other film has had such an effect; maybe (and I doubt this will much help my case) Synecdoche, New York.
Your response to The Master is very similar to the one I had to Joe Swanberg’s Drinking Buddies. It felt like something amazing by the end but I don’t think I could put myself through that again.
I’m really glad to hear that, actually, even as my experience was quite different – I kind of adore Drinking Buddies, but even as it picks at a lot of negative aspects of people as social creatures (almost all of which I’ve had the displeasure of experiencing directly in myself and friends), I find so much of the film so immensely pleasurable that it’s very easy to slip into again and again (well, just the one “again” at this point, but I’m hanging onto that screener!).