Comments on: Rub

Rub

buriednexttoyou — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:03:26 -0800

When little girls rub their eyes, the face of the man to whom they're destined will become visible in the swirling eddy of light. (a short film from Doc Hammer of Venture Bros. fame)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:18:17 -0800

available in quicktime or windows media, quicktime is 60+ megabytes, didn't try winmedia.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:28:43 -0800

i forgot: [this is good]

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:53:01 -0800

I totally don't get it. What is this other than a bunch of people with bad makeup pretending to be kids?

By: dancingbaptist

dancingbaptist — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:18:56 -0800

so what about little boys, will they see Jacko?

By: astruc

astruc — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:29:16 -0800

This depressed the hell out of me.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:42:57 -0800

I agree with both quonsar ([good]) and astruc (depressing). Thanks for the post. Warning: it takes a hell of a long time to download. But it's worth it.

By: kenko

kenko — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:18:23 -0800

That was good (and I got a decent download speed, too).

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:23:38 -0800

Okay, someone please tell me why that was good. What on earth was good about it?

By: seawallrunner

seawallrunner — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:32:24 -0800

I didn't like it either - stopped watching after 8.30 minutes. It's a very bad silent film, much overacted, and completely uninteresting. Five yawns.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:39:58 -0800

it was good, and i'm now fully confident in doc hammer's abilities (after seeing both this and several episodes of "the venture brothers").

By: emanation

emanation — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:30:49 -0800

Several people have said it was good, but they don't say why. Theme? Symbolism? Cinematography? Acting? Or can't we discuss it because there is some rule about possibly spoiling it for those who haven't seen it?

By: jimmy

jimmy — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:53:27 -0800

Several people have said it was good, but they don't say why. Theme? Symbolism? Cinematography? Acting? sure.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:54:32 -0800

"it was good" == "i liked it". your mileage may vary. why is that hard to get?

By: Plinko

Plinko — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:05:58 -0800

[this is okay]

By: hopeless romantique

hopeless romantique — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:07:44 -0800

I liked the theme, which incorporates acting style, cinematography and overall ridiculousness.

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:34:17 -0800

I'll spoil it. You've been warned. It's a fake silent film that seems to have been shot in someone's grandfather's house. There are two adult women with lots of make up and really bruised up eyes. It looks like they punched each other out a couple of days ago. These two adult women are supposed to be "girls". One girl apparently has tuberculosis or something. The girls rub their eyes and try to see the man they're going to marry. The coughing girl can't see anyone, so she figures she won't get married. For some reason there's a boy in this short who has a crush on their nurse. I don't know what his purpose is in the story. The girls go to sleep and the coughing girl rubs her eyes and sees a slimy-looking guy. It's death, come to take his own. And then in the morning she's dead. It's heavy-handed, badly shot, ugly, and totally mis-cast. If you want to tell a story about little girls, use little girls. The "theme" is hammered home brutally and awkwardly that when it actually happens you're just sort of left with a "that was it?" kind of feeling. It doesn't even have a kitchy feeling, if that's what they were going for. I dunno, I don't get it. If someone can explain why this rates as [this is good], I'd love to hear it.

By: kenko

kenko — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:38:53 -0800

Hildegarde, the coughing girl was the one who saw someone when she rubbed her eyes. If someone can explain why you're so exercised by the use of adult women to portray girls, I'd love to hear why.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:53:08 -0800

If someone can explain why this rates as [this is good], I'd love to hear it. lather, rinse, repeat. poor baby. didn't wike da widdle movie.

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:06:21 -0800

Oh well. Hey, I tried. :)

By: emanation

emanation — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:13:39 -0800

Hildegarde, most of those sick "people with bad makeup" (and the bad, smeared makeup effectively made them look sickly, don't you think?) were unsuccessful at playing a clueless game of a romantic living fate (the boy was a ploy perhaps detracting from the real man of destiny). The nurse was trying to dissuade them by saying they'd go blind and they instead should get more sleep. Ah, but they were already blind, weren't they? They figured the destiny was about romance or marriage, -- well, except for the one who defied authority, refused sleep, and was able to rub her eyes until she saw the "light," gaining a vision of her true final destiny (open to interpretation). Then again, maybe it's just about death -- in which case, Hildegarde, I don't know if you'd call this good, but I guess if you're dying of consumption, being able to conjure up a kiss of death from a mysterious man, slimy-looking though he may be, might be preferable to the Grim Reaper's scythe.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 02:29:17 -0800

Thumbs up. So to speak.

By: kamylyon

kamylyon — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 04:17:03 -0800

All in all it wasn't worthy of an Oscar, but the silent film era produced many that were at least as bad, if not worse. That being said; [this is good] *rubs her eyes and sees...*

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 04:42:01 -0800

*Rubs eyes and sees*...quonsar???? Aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!

By: bendybendy

bendybendy — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 05:51:25 -0800

Um. GothTalk meets Guy Madden. I could forgive the DIY production values if the acting was just a bit better- I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. These Edwardians looked like they had to take out their eyebrow rings to get the kohl on.

By: kavasa

kavasa — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:37:04 -0800

Boy was that over-acted! Not as bad as that metro-whatzit movie, done by that guy - Schlitz Kang or something? It sucked anyways. (thanks for posting the link, would have been a shame to have missed this)

By: ikkyu2

ikkyu2 — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:14:28 -0800

Haha, I liked it. It captured the feel of the old silents - overacting was just how they did it back then.