Rub
December 18, 2004 1:03 PM Subscribe
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)
I totally don't get it. What is this other than a bunch of people with bad makeup pretending to be kids?
posted by Hildegarde at 1:53 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by Hildegarde at 1:53 PM on December 18, 2004
so what about little boys, will they see Jacko?
posted by dancingbaptist at 2:18 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by dancingbaptist at 2:18 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by languagehat at 3:42 PM on December 18, 2004
Warning: it takes a hell of a long time to download. But it's worth it.
posted by languagehat at 3:42 PM on December 18, 2004
That was good (and I got a decent download speed, too).
posted by kenko at 4:18 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by kenko at 4:18 PM on December 18, 2004
Okay, someone please tell me why that was good. What on earth was good about it?
posted by Hildegarde at 4:23 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by Hildegarde at 4:23 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by seawallrunner at 5:32 PM on December 18, 2004
Five yawns.
posted by seawallrunner at 5:32 PM on December 18, 2004
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").
posted by jimmy at 5:39 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by jimmy at 5:39 PM on December 18, 2004
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?
posted by emanation at 6:30 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by emanation at 6:30 PM on December 18, 2004
Several people have said it was good, but they don’t say why. Theme? Symbolism? Cinematography? Acting?
sure.
posted by jimmy at 6:53 PM on December 18, 2004
sure.
posted by jimmy at 6:53 PM on December 18, 2004
"it was good" == "i liked it".
your mileage may vary. why is that hard to get?
posted by quonsar at 6:54 PM on December 18, 2004
your mileage may vary. why is that hard to get?
posted by quonsar at 6:54 PM on December 18, 2004
I liked the theme, which incorporates acting style, cinematography and overall ridiculousness.
posted by hopeless romantique at 7:07 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by hopeless romantique at 7:07 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:34 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:34 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by kenko at 7:38 PM on December 18, 2004
If someone can explain why you're so exercised by the use of adult women to portray girls, I'd love to hear why.
posted by kenko at 7:38 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by quonsar at 7:53 PM on December 18, 2004
lather, rinse, repeat.
poor baby. didn't wike da widdle movie.
posted by quonsar at 7:53 PM on December 18, 2004
Oh well. Hey, I tried. :)
posted by Hildegarde at 8:06 PM on December 18, 2004
posted by Hildegarde at 8:06 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by emanation at 8:13 PM on December 18, 2004
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.
posted by emanation at 8:13 PM on December 18, 2004
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...*
posted by kamylyon at 4:17 AM on December 19, 2004
That being said; [this is good]
*rubs her eyes and sees...*
posted by kamylyon at 4:17 AM on December 19, 2004
*Rubs eyes and sees*...quonsar????
Aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:42 AM on December 19, 2004
Aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:42 AM on December 19, 2004
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.
posted by bendybendy at 5:51 AM on December 19, 2004
posted by bendybendy at 5:51 AM on December 19, 2004
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)
posted by kavasa at 11:37 AM on December 19, 2004
(thanks for posting the link, would have been a shame to have missed this)
posted by kavasa at 11:37 AM on December 19, 2004
Haha, I liked it. It captured the feel of the old silents - overacting was just how they did it back then.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:14 AM on December 22, 2004
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:14 AM on December 22, 2004
« Older Scared of Santa | Got the right genes? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by quonsar at 1:18 PM on December 18, 2004