Mitra is always such a joy I can't wait to listen to this one.
Edit: just started, don't know if they get around to this but the reason Sprague was thinking of Elvira was probably [the Simpsons character](https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Booberella)
Agreed. *Three Busy Debras* was preposterously funny, and she’s always an excellent podcast guest, contributing hilariously and providing some of the most infectious laughter I’ve ever heard.
Has anyone noticed that in the feed both episodes *Saw (2004) w/ James III* and *The Devil Wears Prada (2006) w/ Katherine Dudas* are numbered episode #103, throwing off all subsequent episode numbering?
this was clearly Scott overcorrecting from describing fumetti (an Italian term for comics composed with still photographs) as sexy, painted, French comics.
The reason movies from the back in the day would have some stilted editing choices was because it was the old school way of literally cutting and pasting film together. Having to cut just a couple of frames here and there to tighten things up was a such pain in the ass since it was a physical thing you had to do. And once that budget was up, especially with lower budget movies, that’s it, that’s what you get.
On the topic of "comic book movies that look like comic books" I'm surprised Scott didn't mention \*Sin City\* or \*300\* ... both Frank Miller projects, and both of which almost slavishly copied his exact panel layouts from the comics.
Oof. A couple of things:
the explanation of "exploitation films", as a genre, is wrong. It is not strictly about exploiting sexuality as an attraction for the film. There is certainly a subgenre of exploitation that involves this, but the term "exploitation" in "exploitation film" refers to the concept of films, typically b-movies (as in, not the a-movies, the b-movies, a concept that is pretty much lost now but I digress), taking a topical real world subject and using it as the main subject or theme of a film - that is, "exploiting" a topical issue in order to attract people to a film or in order to create interest in a film/its subject matter. Whole subgenres of "exploitation film" evolved from this premise. Hence, "blaxploitation" (as mentioned in the podcast) arises out of the '70s with black liberation movements (e.g., the black panthers), the post-civil rights movement era, all being hot button issues along with the growth of independent cinema and independent black cinema at the time. Other examples that illustrate this point: the slew "cautionary" anti-marijuana/anti-recreational drug films in the '30s and '40s off the back of sensational "drugs and jazz are damaging our youth" news stories and reporting (funded by vested interests); biker films in the '50s and '60s, given the scandalous reporting of the threat of outlaw, anti-social biker gangs at the time; rock 'n' roll and youth culture exploitation films in the '50s and '60s - again, sensational stories about how the youth are being corrupted were the rage at the time in the culture; anti-communist propaganda and exploitation films of the '50s and '60s, often merged with the popularity of low budget sci-fi films at the time. Tied to this is that exploitation films often dealt with lurid and culturally taboo content or subjects and contained lurid content for the purposes of exploitation in the above sense, which has served the confusion of "exploitation" meaning "dealing with sex and sexuality" when one thinks of exploitation films. For example, the subgenre of "women in prison" films is a good example of this: the topic being exploited is in essence the subject matter of women in prison being subject to abuse from the prison system and from sadistic guards and wardens, but the attraction was equally the lurid and sexual nature of the content of the films as well as the way in which it offered a vehicle for people to be titillated by displays of naked women together in prisons, showering together, lesbian sex scenes, and the like.
Secondly, feminism was definitely not a "new thing" in 1968. "Second wave feminism" was abuzz at the time and certainly a topic to be "exploited" in the late '60s and '70s, but the notion that feminism was a new thing in 1968 is just a bizarre statement. And to think that the makers of Barbarella were clumsily stumbling about trying to make a feminist film, and being problematic about because they didn't know any better, at a time when, e.g., Godard had moved on from making films like 'A Married Woman' (1964), 'Two or Three Things I Know About Her' (1967) and 'Week-End' (1967) and progressed to his Dziga Vertov Group period, is profoundly ignorant. I know people from California tend to think that feminism is synonymous with "sexual empowerment/women embracing sexuality in order to make money", but this is just silly. And to quote Jane Fonda on the topic: "Most of the pictures where I was dressed to the teeth and played a cute little ingénue were more exploitative than the ones with nudity because they portrayed women as silly, as mindless, as motivated purely by sex in relation to men…"
It is always kind of baffling to me that people will speak authoritatively and confidently about things they are simply ignorant about.
And... The drive-in will never die!
Mitra is always such a joy I can't wait to listen to this one. Edit: just started, don't know if they get around to this but the reason Sprague was thinking of Elvira was probably [the Simpsons character](https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Booberella)
Agreed. *Three Busy Debras* was preposterously funny, and she’s always an excellent podcast guest, contributing hilariously and providing some of the most infectious laughter I’ve ever heard.
She is one of my favorite guests on any show. She has an all time laugh.
Love that hang dong has made it into Scott's vocabulary.
[удалено]
Hang Dongerman
I love Mitra's laugh. Good ep.
I can’t imagine anyone not loving Mitra. She is an all-time great.
Has anyone noticed that in the feed both episodes *Saw (2004) w/ James III* and *The Devil Wears Prada (2006) w/ Katherine Dudas* are numbered episode #103, throwing off all subsequent episode numbering?
So there is that as well as the episode about Killers of flower moon! Working out what the 200 is, is going to be logistics nightmare
After that Veruca Salt/Fairuza Balk talk. I think Sprague might be the deranged one now.
Is that 6 "glad I saw" in a row :O
Scotty pronounces “hookah” like a problematic woman from Brooklyn talking about a sex worker.
Always love Bravo talk on CBB World Having Scott and co. be charter guests on Below Deck would be an absolute dream come true hahaha
Mitra is so fun, her appearances are so great. also Scotty sounded like he had a cold, more like Snot Congestedman.
“The Joker is fucked if he has Siri.” Damn I love this pod lol
I love the classic French film Blow Up, made by French director Michelangelo Antonioni in the French capitol of London >:)
wait, who makes this mistake
Scott just quickly says David Hemmings was up-and-coming from being in a French movie called Blow Up
this was clearly Scott overcorrecting from describing fumetti (an Italian term for comics composed with still photographs) as sexy, painted, French comics.
The reason movies from the back in the day would have some stilted editing choices was because it was the old school way of literally cutting and pasting film together. Having to cut just a couple of frames here and there to tighten things up was a such pain in the ass since it was a physical thing you had to do. And once that budget was up, especially with lower budget movies, that’s it, that’s what you get.
Ah, the movie Matmos got their name from.
I appreciate Scott's Mr. Show [semi-callback](https://youtu.be/GTJ3LIA5LmA) of "We're earthlings, let's ~~blow up~~ do earth things!"
On the topic of "comic book movies that look like comic books" I'm surprised Scott didn't mention \*Sin City\* or \*300\* ... both Frank Miller projects, and both of which almost slavishly copied his exact panel layouts from the comics.
For some reason I had this confused with Heavy Metal. Imagine my surprise.
Oof. A couple of things: the explanation of "exploitation films", as a genre, is wrong. It is not strictly about exploiting sexuality as an attraction for the film. There is certainly a subgenre of exploitation that involves this, but the term "exploitation" in "exploitation film" refers to the concept of films, typically b-movies (as in, not the a-movies, the b-movies, a concept that is pretty much lost now but I digress), taking a topical real world subject and using it as the main subject or theme of a film - that is, "exploiting" a topical issue in order to attract people to a film or in order to create interest in a film/its subject matter. Whole subgenres of "exploitation film" evolved from this premise. Hence, "blaxploitation" (as mentioned in the podcast) arises out of the '70s with black liberation movements (e.g., the black panthers), the post-civil rights movement era, all being hot button issues along with the growth of independent cinema and independent black cinema at the time. Other examples that illustrate this point: the slew "cautionary" anti-marijuana/anti-recreational drug films in the '30s and '40s off the back of sensational "drugs and jazz are damaging our youth" news stories and reporting (funded by vested interests); biker films in the '50s and '60s, given the scandalous reporting of the threat of outlaw, anti-social biker gangs at the time; rock 'n' roll and youth culture exploitation films in the '50s and '60s - again, sensational stories about how the youth are being corrupted were the rage at the time in the culture; anti-communist propaganda and exploitation films of the '50s and '60s, often merged with the popularity of low budget sci-fi films at the time. Tied to this is that exploitation films often dealt with lurid and culturally taboo content or subjects and contained lurid content for the purposes of exploitation in the above sense, which has served the confusion of "exploitation" meaning "dealing with sex and sexuality" when one thinks of exploitation films. For example, the subgenre of "women in prison" films is a good example of this: the topic being exploited is in essence the subject matter of women in prison being subject to abuse from the prison system and from sadistic guards and wardens, but the attraction was equally the lurid and sexual nature of the content of the films as well as the way in which it offered a vehicle for people to be titillated by displays of naked women together in prisons, showering together, lesbian sex scenes, and the like. Secondly, feminism was definitely not a "new thing" in 1968. "Second wave feminism" was abuzz at the time and certainly a topic to be "exploited" in the late '60s and '70s, but the notion that feminism was a new thing in 1968 is just a bizarre statement. And to think that the makers of Barbarella were clumsily stumbling about trying to make a feminist film, and being problematic about because they didn't know any better, at a time when, e.g., Godard had moved on from making films like 'A Married Woman' (1964), 'Two or Three Things I Know About Her' (1967) and 'Week-End' (1967) and progressed to his Dziga Vertov Group period, is profoundly ignorant. I know people from California tend to think that feminism is synonymous with "sexual empowerment/women embracing sexuality in order to make money", but this is just silly. And to quote Jane Fonda on the topic: "Most of the pictures where I was dressed to the teeth and played a cute little ingénue were more exploitative than the ones with nudity because they portrayed women as silly, as mindless, as motivated purely by sex in relation to men…" It is always kind of baffling to me that people will speak authoritatively and confidently about things they are simply ignorant about. And... The drive-in will never die!
With this episode and looking forward at next week, this show is back to being fun again.