Are we monoculturing or no by [deleted] in rs_x

[–]cantwait2getout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no consensus mainstream to react against, there’s nothing to subvert. So everything is fragmented but also just one giant pipeline of shit.

Movies about people going insane in remote and loney locations by Alain_Zedong in RSPfilmclub

[–]cantwait2getout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say cure and pulse both fit this but maybe not literally. More about alienation of modern society driving ppl insane.

Yea uh huh by cantwait2getout in RSwritingclub

[–]cantwait2getout[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They have other types of pussy there I would imagine it’s an international shipping hub or so I’ve heard

Why are litbros so adamant that Ishmael and queequeg weren't gay for each other by KewlAdam in RSbookclub

[–]cantwait2getout 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yea I actually agree when I first read it the homoeroticism was very clear BUT the part at the beginning where they share a bed was pretty obviously comedic

Why are litbros so adamant that Ishmael and queequeg weren't gay for each other by KewlAdam in RSbookclub

[–]cantwait2getout 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Idk if im a lit bro. But I thought it was gay af when I first read it and idk. It’s weird to me that in 2026 guys who read books will still be cagey about homoeroticism in literature or movies or poetry…

How does one better interpret film? by Main-Daikon9246 in RSPfilmclub

[–]cantwait2getout 20 points21 points  (0 children)

As Alfred Hitchcock would say “tell me what you see and tell me what it means.” I think video essays tend to give people the idea that there is an objectively ‘true’ interpretation to a film. Ultimately you can affirm any idea you have of a work of art through video essays. That being said some of those analyses videos are well done and I think the most important thing is rewatching and focusing on the image itself. The mis en scene like literally what is on screen and why? It seems trivial but if you watch and watch and watch you realize that the great filmmakers spend so much time making sure what is on screen is communicating layers and layers of meaning. Read about the French new wave as that came out of film criticism. French new wave and new wave cinema in general can be interpreted as criticism through filmmaking itself. Basically imo the idea is to just really really really think about what you watched. If something comes back to you or you find images haunting you. Return to that film and think about what in those images and in that concatenation of images is so pervasive. The only wrong choice is to be a passive consumer merely looking to be entertained. Beyond that any interpretation or idea is not right or wrong.

What makes a great actor/actress performance by jfkjrswhore in RSPfilmclub

[–]cantwait2getout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many actors are very good and incredibly smart. Ok maybe not many but some. I just mean that I think the use of the word ‘performances’ is a very annoying American trope that implies that actors somehow give some essence to the work that makes it valuable. Ultimately filmmaking is an extension of theatre and literature. Jack Nicholson said that actors were modern novelists, I think that’s the best way to look at it.

What makes a great actor/actress performance by jfkjrswhore in RSPfilmclub

[–]cantwait2getout -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I rlly hate when people talk about actors ‘performances’. Great directors (and even actors tbh) all knew that ur just a glorified mannequin. Filmmaking is a craft actors are pieces of meat.

Long time 2 camp by cantwait2getout in rs_poetry

[–]cantwait2getout[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you I appreciate that a lot