[NOTE: The original video on Davis Aurini’s YouTube channel was taken down shortly after the post went up. So I’ve embedded the version that is, as of this moment, up on the director’s YouTube channel. I”d recommend that you download this for your permanent collection.]
Ok, so I’ve been working on a post about the latest ridiculous doings of our friends Davis Aurini and JordanOwen42 — the not-so-dynamic duo who’ve been desperately begging for money to make their Totally Serious documentary about how evil Anita Sarkeesian is. But then I watched this, and it’s too good not to post on its own.
This is Lust in the Time of Heartache, a short “philosophical” film written and produced, and just posted on teh Interwebs, by Mr. Aurini. I’m pretty sure it’s not supposed to be a comedy, but I was laughing at it from beginning to end.
There’s nothing about this film that’s not terrible and ridiculous, from the choice of fonts in the title sequence to the names of the characters as revealed in the closing credits.
Where even to start in criticizing this mess? The, er, “acting?” The pretentious, pseudo-philosophical voiceover, delivered by Mr. Aurini himself? The shrill, frantic — yet somehow also meandering — music that plays almost continuously from beginning to end? The ludicrously unconvincing fight choreography? The ill-fitting suits? The evo psych? The dawning recognition that this whole thing is meant to depict how Aurini sees himself in our “fallen” world?
The fact that this ten minute film credits a “parkour consultant?”
I’m going to borrow a couple of lines from Pauline Kael’s famous review of the legendarily stinky 1970 film Song of Norway because they offer a pretty fair assessment of this one as well:
The movie is of an unbelievable badness. … You can’t get angry at something this stupefying; it seems to have been made by trolls.
She means “under the bridge”-style trolls, not the modern kind.
Oh, and the sound is awful, too. NOTE: Dialogue is supposed to be louder than the background noises.
Anyway, just watch it. It’s only ten minutes long. And definitely stay for the final credits. You’ll see why.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Read this glowing review, from some dude on YouTube:
Excellent writing that encompasses the transitions from one cinematic style to the next. At first I was concentrating on the technical problems and lackluster performances, however, after about 5 mins in, the pacing kicked up a notch. Well done, sir.
The West Side Story vibes are stronger than the Coronation Street ones. I kept expecting dude to sing “I just saw a girl named Maria…but she ignored me, which is why I’m sitting in this diner whinging…”
And then go dance/fight with his friends from Reservoir Dogs. Mr Whiny, Mr Angry, and Mr What The Fuck Am I Doing Here I Was Actually Aiming For Broadway?
I suppose the extreme levels of amateurishness evident in everything they put their hand to can be explained by their equally extreme levels of arrogance. Why should they need to study/learn the first thing about film making/design? They are super awesome geniuses! Look at all those females and manginas at art school! Losers! With my logic man brain I conveniently know everything! Now pass the comic sans and embarrassing screen swipes!
Please, someone make a “directors commentary” version of this.
I haven’t made it through the whole thing yet. I had to stop and watch Moosecock instead.
Still wondering what a ‘land rapper’ is, and also ‘upping the anti’? Spend money making this, can’t open a dictionary?
@kitteh: Hey, is that the 9th doctor’s jacket?
@daintydougal: that actually makes a certain amount of sense. If you disregard all social science, art, and other such “not science” as being a big collective delusion (I really don’t want to work that hard to get into their mental space) then you must need to believe that you could do it all yourself without any training, because otherwise the social science and art majors might actually be learning something you’re not.
So odd that he thinks our species survived because we were selfish and brutal. Where do people get this idea? Humans are naked apes with no claws. We survived by working together. Successful social animals do not murder one another. Empathy is a product of evolution.
Land rapper!
Wouldn’t it be funny if one of us did a shot-for-shot remake of that, except with a setting that actually fits the narrative (dark, noir-type, rather than cute retro diners), good acting, good sound mixing, better choreographed fighting, and weapons that actually fit the settings (butterfly knives, baseball bats, etc.)? Basically, make it a well-made film where the only flaw is the writing. That would annoy him, wouldn’t it?
It seems other have already commented on the film in great detail. Oh well, never stopped me before, so here’s my little movie review:
Oh my god. This short film must be among the most overtly melodramatic, precisely calculated pretentiousness I’ve ever come across. And I’ve seen The Cell.
To a tune ripped straight from a French artsy movie, we’re introduced to our narrator and his overdone. use. of overtly. dramatic. pauses. We all know this is going to be either painful or hilarious. Probably both. For my part, I’m really excited to listen to an self-important cartoon villain preaching about the meaning of love. The speech of course hinting at the importance of gender binary values.
Then the poop really starts hitting the fan. ”Abuser, abused, two sides of the same coin.” Those are his words. This is what the narrator believes. This is a view the film wishes to enforce. Fuck this morally bankrupt asshat. ”A victim for every victimizer, and a victimizer for every victim.” To seal the deal for Aurini’s misogynistic worldview, this line comes within a scene of a woman flirting with a cowboy. Or maybe she and her friends are making fun of him. Maybe they’re trying to get him to buy them drinks. I don’t know. The movie never makes it clear what the whole cowboy scene is supposed to represent. That women shouldn’t have sexual autonomy because then they will start flirting with cowboys? Makes as much sense as the rest of this turgid visual monologue.
The narrator then goes on a tangent about power, and naturally, it’s in a scene where (I assume) a homeless man asking for change gets lectured and ultimately physically assaulted by a wealthy woman. Misandry and hypergamy, I guess. Or an unreliable narrator, more likely. I love how this scene comments on the totally, really really honestly true reality of men showing kindness to men who are worse off than them, while women just despise men who aren’t CEOs and the like.
Speaking of women, in this movie, they act really… weird. It’s like the writing makes them out to be some sort of bizarre alien beings, not full human beings. They don’t seem real and believable at all. Not that the men are much better. Why are almost all of them (except for the cowboy, obviously) dressed as if they’re auditioning for the role of the next Blues Brother? It’s like the writer has no clue how human beings act out in the real world.
We then get to the fight scenes, and I finally, finally get it. The parkour consultant was necessary to the production of this film because the main character jumps over a roadblock and rolls around on the ground for a bit. The fight scenes are utterly hilarious. I love that the narrator blocks his opponents’ attacks by holding his sai blades directly in front of him while the enemy hacks away at them like someone who really, really hates Okinawan weaponry. It’s like they all learned their combat moves by playing Virtua Fighter. The blood effects look like they’re made with Windows Paint.
When the narrator starts ranting about you not being made for a world of luxury while fighting off other men in suits, I can almost hear Tyler Durden going on about soap and how you do not talk about Fight Club. It’s always bad when a crappy movie reminds you of a better one, and how you should be watching that movie instead of wasting your time on this crap.
And where would we be without a healthy helping of evopsych? Violence is okay because cavemen. A life of luxury somehow makes us both soft and cruel at the same time. But where do the fedoras fit in? Did cavemen invent fedoras as well? Inquiring minds want to know!
”What you need is a struggle. An enemy to overcome. It’s pain that defines the masculine.” These quotes pretty much define the narrator’s sad, miserable worldview. ”We’re all just looking for someone to blame our own shortcomings on, since we’re all assholes and no one is interested in actually helping other people. Violence is necessary for the male ideal. Also, while I technically did refer to the viewer as ‘you’ in the general sense, I naturally meant only men. Kind of obvious when you think about it.”
”Crumbling empire.” ”The blood of heroes that runs through your veins.” Oh dear lord, do all of these self-important dumbfucks have to use fantasy terminology? I’m beginning to feel ashamed of ever enjoying the Lord of the Rings. The grandiose tone carries itself over to the credits, where the character names are faux-latin phrases. If they’re a reference to something, I’m glad to have missed it.
There’s one silver lining to this dark cloud of pompous ego masturbation: Aurini’s ridiculously theatrical cigarette lighting maneuver makes a cameo in this movie!
All in all, it’s a fun little movie, but not in the way the producers intended. Would probably be even funnier to watch it drunk. I should really get drunk.
Totally the MRM version of The Room.
“Everyone betray me, I’m fed up with this wurrold!”
I have to say, this film really made me think. I have so many questions. Why is his suit so big? Why are those women wearing cocktail dresses for an afternoon stroll in the park? Where on Earth do women rove around in big hats, lace and fringe suggestively asking strange men if they can “Get things done”? Mae West impersonators conventions, maybe? So many questions.
Also, did he conflate a man pulling a woman down the street by her arm with women flirting and asking a man to buy them drinks as being victim/victimizer situations? What an asshole.
Binjabreel wins one jar of internet chocolate-chip cookies!
I guess it might be from 10’s first episode, ‘cos it’s actually a photo of David Tennant. It is from Who; he’s leaning on the TARDIS, I just changed the colour.
Alternative title: The Secret Life of Walter Shitty
There is one way this could be worse, he could have adapted Billy and Howard.
Man, Anton Lavey’s neo-Latin could use some work. Here’s the names of the roles of everyone in the screenplay translated.
Feminina Pecuniarias – “feminine monetary”…feminina is not a noun
Stultum Prudentum – “foolish careful”, again no noun
Falirum – not Latin or missplellled
Matron Sola – “only married women” (like for a women’s bathhouse or temple)
VIRUM ULTIMATUM (as played by Anton LaVey) – ‘the last hero’, though LaVey may want it read as “the ultimate man.” but man is better expressed with homo than vir; and since literally goes last (and figuratively first) by putting ‘ultimatum’ after ‘virum’ he has written the literally ultimate i.e. the LAST manhero.
Villanus – Peasant
Masochistae – “masochists”, though not really latin but a neologism like ‘bombus atomicus’.
Rusticus – “rural”. Also not a noun.
Hyaena (!) – one of those doglike scavengers you know with the matriarchy
Medea – Greek villainess who poisoned Jason’s children when he abandoned her for a new wife
Venema Nutrix – a figuratively “venemous nurse”
Corruptella – one of Cinderella’s mean-ass stepsisters (not a good term for personified corruption, which is how LaVey wants it read probably)
Viridis Scurra – “Green Joker.” Not sure which character he’s referring to.
Patruus – “Uncle”.
Vipera – one of those snakes, known for tempting Eve to ruin fucking everything
Profuge – O Flight! (It’s in the vocative)
I still haven’t watched it. This somehow makes everyone’s commentary much more entertaining.
I watched the whole thing, I’m familiar with redpill and “dark enlightment” thought, and I still have no idea what the hell that was about. When your movement is so repetetive and unoriginal it practically comes with premade Bingo cards, it shouldn’t be this hard to figure out what your point is. Dude can’t even repeat recycled bullshit coherently.
As for viro: I think “women make the future slaves” might be a reference to childbirth. Like we’re over here just birthing more men to use as disposable ATM slaves? IDK.
I’m still amazed at that anti-logic of conspirancy they attribute to women:
“We only care about teh moneyz! So let’s give all teh moneyz to teh menz, and then steal it back with sex!!”
Why do they act not only like this makes sense, but like it is the VERITAS ULTIMATUM??
@kav p:
I’m pretty sure The Room was the MRM version of The Room.
…
We need to get the MRM to watch The Room.
“Abuser, abused…two sides of the same coin”
NOOOOOOOOO! Shut up! Shut up, read…a book, any book, learn something, anything, and then repeat. Victims are not the other side of the coin. That implies responsibility.
Wait, wait, this guy’s dipshit movie has credits in doggy Latin?
I AM LAUGH
Wait, what word did that “jester’s fool” troll use instead of laugh?
Was it chortle? I seem to recall it was chortle.
Very well then: I AM CHORTLE
Not any book…you’ve clearly read Heinlein. Anything else.
Lmao at this, though. “Your ancestor was the caveman who knew how to kill [the mammoth].”
I feel like I’m getting a glimpse down the mind of someone who’s never touched any cultural product deeper than Dragon Ball Z.
“This is your brain on anime.”