Mutiny on the Meta

 

Hi readers. Time for another movie-related post this week, although not exclusively so. 

Action!

I had the dubious pleasure of watching the 1988 cult classic, Space Mutiny. Mind you, I did not watch the vanilla, original film. I saw the RiffTrax version of the film, which is a filmed screening of the movie, in its entirety, in front of a live audience, with comedic riffing and commentary thrown on top. Anyone familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000 knows what's up. Rifftrax is the modern incarnation of MST3K, created by three of its originators.

I have seen a handful of MST3K episodes in the now distant past, but RiffTrax Live is a new experience for me. The happy and lively atmosphere of the commentators and audience adds a lot of energy and appeal to watching bad films. People having a good time together is infectious, even in a recording. I originally thought I'd use this post to develop my thoughts on movies that are so bad that they are good. It remains a topic near and dear to me, so it might come up again at a later time. 

A somewhat broader topic emerged instead and that is the general category of media that is 'about' other media. There is a lot of media that is somehow responding to other existing media; reacting to it, analyzing and reviewing it, rehashing and re-contextualising it. What I find fascinating about this type of derivative media (NB not 'derivative' in a derogatory sense), is that some of it upstages and overshadows the original.

In the case of low-budget shlock films from decades ago, it is no surprise that today we are most likely to come across them indirectly or second-hand. Arguably, without this new lease on life that derivative content like that of Rifftrax affords these films, all the Space Mutinies of yesteryear would be largely forgotten by now. 

Sticking with bad films, there is a type of content-category I follow on YouTube, which purports to be film review and it is presented as such, but in effect it's often merely a rant or roasting of a bad film. Examples can be found on channels like Double Toasted, YourMovieSucks and RedLetterMedia, to name a few. 

In essence, the reviewers watch shitty movies, so you don't have to. It's a kind of public service! But, you still get entertainment derived from the content of the films and the reactions of the reviewers. I don't have to go see Venom 2 or Space Jam 2, or whatever it happens to be at any given time, but I can revel in the saucy details of why and how these movies are bad and save my money. And here's the kicker: I don't know, or particularly care, whether the reviews reflect what my own opinion would be if I were to see one of these films. Canned opinions and hot takes about things I won't watch are worthy of my time, but the things themselves aren't? What the hell?

Reaction!

Broadening the scope, I'm sure all of you are aware of reaction videos in some form or another as a branch of content. Ranging from staged, cartoonishly exaggerated and overacted to slightly bored, muted, (authentic?); the full gamut is available and the selection of what is being reacted to is ever expanding. Watching other people watch stuff, or listen to stuff, or play stuff, or eat stuff via some media is what we spend a lot of time doing these days. 

Reaction videos are in some way a part of the same thing that reality-tv is. The Finnish tv-show Sohvaperunat, based on the British show Gogglebox, is a show in which you watch people on tv watching tv. Are these people real people? What is the real of reality-tv or reaction videos, as a whole? What are we trying to look for? What are we trying to see? The individual is looking into an artificial collective mirror. Can I see myself in there? Do I want to?