So I Watched Some Things


As you can probably tell from my blog posts below, I watched some things. I even tweeted about some of them too. Though I didn’t really get to tweet all of them. You know? Laziness and all.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t read my opinions about them here though.

So on to business.


So the writer portrayed here was a stalker who couldn’t talk to people like a normal person. It was also implied that he was poor. Because writer, that’s why. The writer here is just a creepy white dude who got too deep in with his target. He became a part of the story instead of just making it with the keys of a type writer. He is obsessed with his target for the sake of story. He is repressed and he was only truly happy when he was typing on his antique (now anyway) typewriter. All writers must type at fifteen thousand words a second or else they cannot be the special creative types that pump out content. So largely, it focused on a middle aged unemployed white dude as a stalker, who said he was a writer. Not the most positive interpretation of writers.


I am unabashed Kevin Smith fanboy.

Alright, that’s out of the way.

Jesus fucking christ, Banky, just move on from Holden and date¬†Hooper (See Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back). Wow, writers are insecure assholes. Even comic book writers. One cannot trust a writer to handle anything with any sort of emotional maturity. Same creepy attachment to ideals and the people that can’t possibly live up to their expectations. Hell, when Jay and Silent Bob are the guys who the main characters, in this case, the writers, go to for relationship advice, you know their perspectives are sort of fucked beyond recognition. It sure ends much better than “Following,” as everyone lives and no one goes to jail. Though they seem to be emotionally stunted jackasses who finally grow up when they realize how unfair it is to hoist their unrealistic expectations on partners that can never fulfill them.

Oh god do I love this movie now. More than when I first watched it, but Banky and Holden… Please let Alyssa be Alyssa. Sometimes love just isn’t enough.

If Only They Loved T.V As Much As Kenneth Did.

I watched episodes “Tracy Does Conan,” “The Baby Show,” and “The Rural Juror (Seriously, say this name and not hate yourself).” All portray Liz as the constant parent in charge of her show’s production form the writing staff to the actors. Actors are portrayed as selfish and narcissistic, and are incapable fitting in with reality. Writers are largely the same, but do their best to avoid any actual writing. The most accurate portrayal of writers anyone has ever seen. Writers are slackers and don’t really want to do the writing thing. All of them are white males and one black guy, perhaps as a reference¬†to the diversity requirements for network television.

Across every T.V show and film, writers were usually portrayed as selfish, creepy, and white. That seemed to be largest consistent quality that carried on from media to media. Perhaps writers should consider presenting themselves as not creepy?

If you excuse me, I have to finish writing my billionaire autobiography where I stalk dinosaurs with my creativity.



I watched 30 Rock’s “Tracy Does Conan.”


It felt good to revisit 30 Rock. It really made me appreciate the show again. From Tracy’s hi-jinks to Liz’s futile attempts at maintaining any semblance of control over a cast of lazy writers and psychotic actors, I just loved seeing it again, so I walked in feeling good about the episode.

By the way, here’s the storified version of my live-tweet notes.

Liz, the head writer, is more of a mother figure than anything else. Though like the stereotypical depiction of writers in media, she wants to be alone, she’s sorta awkward socially, and no one appreciates her effort or creativity.

The cast of writers “brainstorm” for ideas. Though they think more about how to do the next real life gag on a co-worker more than they do for the comedy show they should be writing. The actual act of writing is about avoiding writing as much as possible.

It was great revisiting the show again and I hope you all enjoyed my live-tweet notes/commentary on the episode.

Please visit the poll on the previous post if you want to tell me what you think of live-tweeting.

I Watched “Following.”


What I have to say about that? My fingers hurt.

The movie was very early Nolan as well. Constant jumps in scenes with no seeming rhyme or reason that makes the viewer question the continuity of the film. It’s the older cheaper version of Nolan’s “Memento” basically in terms of narrative structure.

Oh before I continue, I took notes, as your twitter timelines will indicate. Sorry about that, but I thought it would be fun and informative and I hope it was for you too. My notes aren’t what purists would say are “correct” or “accurate,” but they’re there. Here’s the link to all of those “Following” tweets in one place for easy access.

What did I learn from this? Well I can tweet 67 times in the span of an hour and not include pictures of food or my dogs. Also my grammar and spelling seem to devolve into that of a twelve year old. The sacrifices I make for art.

It may also be one of the best ways to watch a cerebral movie like this. By thinking aloud to an unseen audience, it allowed me to really think about what I was seeing. Look through that storify, I laid out some great shit in there.

Anyway back to “Following.”

It’s in the noir genre so don’t expect anything life affirming… or good to happen to any protagonist. Especially the writer. Never the writer. Oh and about the writer. Yes, he will be referred to as the writer throughout because he doesn’t have a name. Message much, Nolan?

The writer is just an combination of traits that every writer portrayed in media is. He’s lonely, not clean, lives in a shitty somewhere, has trouble finding that inspirational muse, and he’s desperate. Nolan doesn’t even bother to give him a name because he doesn’t need one, he’s writer, and that is all he is, the movie doesn’t pretend otherwise, though the writer tries to. Nonsense such as names were skipped entirely for known archetypes.

I won’t tackle everything I saw in my notes.

Okay. One thing.

When noir lady asked that question. I did too. When he explains to her using that excuse it was something I asked myself. Does being a writer or self-identifying as a writer mean anything? When the writer asks for people’s stories, they give him one, because he’s identified as a writer.

There are a few ways to take this so I’ll take one.

Yes, if only because he was allowed access to their lives because writer. The writer has found meaning in their story, which becomes his story once he’s apart of it. He takes their story and make it his own even though they take him. He had meaning for that brief adventure.

Whether that was a critique of this particular archetype’s character or of the archetype itself is something I can’t figure out an hour after watching it, but it was interesting to see the pieces.

You can check out the film on Netflix instant streaming and watch it for yourself. If you want to tell me what you thought and saw, the comments are right below.

Thanks for reading the tweets and my post.