Відео

1:23 "desipe your directions" (sorry)

Masterpiece of Seventh Art

Flim Springfield!

Thank you for this. genuinely. legit cried over some parts. and still doing so as I type.

0:34 this is burger king footage

This is a really well made video with great analysis! Thank you! ❤

well, my english teacher told me it isn’t possible to read into anything too much, the author wrote it that way for a reason

It's a goof, which is fine, but you miss important aspects. First of all, Skinner gets a point by showing off his knowledge of regional expressions in upstate New York. It may be based on a lie, but he is able to display awareness of of the distinctions between Albany and Utica dialects. Chalmers is personally familiar with Utica and reasonably aware of how they talk there, but Seymour presents himself as having superior knowledge of the greater world outside his small experiences. Chalmers can still be suspicious of Skinner's lies, and is quite right to do so, but he cannot keep pushing this line of argument. Chalmers is a guest in this man's house and he is there to enjoy a luncheon. Regardless of the Superintendent/Principal relationship, it would be inappropriate for him to pursue this line of argument. If he was wrong, and Seymour is right about "steamed ham" being an Albany reference to grilled hamburgers, then he would be disrespectful and potentially charged with abuse of his subordinate. It would be far better to drop the argument now and continue to dine on this fine ham Seymour has steamed. Second, why has Agnes not joined this meal her son has cooked for his supervisor? This seems very contradictory knowing how close she and Seymour are. The need for food is a universal requirement for life so she requires nutrients on a regular basis. As is romance, and she had recently been on a date with Gary. Was it just a fun night out that never needs to happen again? Was there an argument? Was her son worried about some new man coming in between his relationship with Mother? We can't see all the details, all we can do is speculate, but then why did Gary come to house he already knew about for a meal with someone whose relationship should stay professional? He was carrying a bottle of wine when he entered the house, is that appropriate for a luncheon? This is entirely a guess, but that may be how they do things in Utica. Regardless, this is a large part of the story that the audience is completely blissful of. Thankfully it does not negatively interfere with what we see on screen. As rich with potential as the respective relationships, real or potential, with Agnes might be, we don't need to know any more. But Seymour knows, and Gary might like to know, that Agnes is always there, keeping a close eye on them. Third, Chalmers is still trying to work through the lies Skinner is telling. The principal is clearly experienced at this and, whatever his weaknesses, has provided a successful defense through this luncheon. But there comes a point where Chalmers really needs to challenge them again, having been informed that he had just seen a brief glimpse of aurora borealis. The effect on Chalmers is twofold and contradictory. On the one hand, it would be truly glorious to get a full view of such a majestic event. It's a moment where you can't waste time with ridiculous questions, you must rush to enjoy it for what it is before it's too late. You may never have this chance again and should thank God that you received this one. However, the superintendent is still a rational man and cannot forget that he has caught his subordinate lying before to hide incompetence. He cannot just unquestioningly believe this. No matter how beautiful the sight, there's a least a slight chance that such a thing might not be happening at this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, and localized entirely entirely within Skinner's kitchen. The superintendent's mind must be bursting all over the place. Yes, he has Skinner caught in a lie. No, Seymour is clearly knowledgeable of things Chalmers doesn't know and should certainly be familiar with what's happening in his own kitchen. Gary has to argue with himself that the odds are of him being right or wrong whichever way he goes, and every second that goes by is less of a chance for seeing such an amazing sight. It's even deeper when you realize that we the audience know the truth, that Skinner is indeed lying and risks getting in a lot of trouble if he gets caught. This is really where good drama comes from, it's not that we care which side wins, so much as we want to follow these characters to the end of their current story and see what happens to them. Seymour is a major character in this ongoing series, so that's also relevant, although he often loses in conflicts with his supervisor. We could be rooting for Seymour, will he win this time? We could be looking for comedy as the superintendent yells at him again. Because we see the characters from our view, we can have internal conflicts that they would be unaware of. How many times have I passed by the aurora borealis and didn't even realize it? I'm not sure it's deliberate, or even conscious, but that's clearly the situation Chalmers is in right now. With no time left, he realizes that argument is not the appropriate decision to make. Do not demand, but ask permission from the rightful man in charge of this luncheon. You could say he's being a coward, or that he's showing his wisdom and peace. You could also say that Seymour is being bitter and revengeful by not allowing him to see it, or defensive of being caught in his lie. Seymour is morally in the wrong for these lies, and for burning his house down, but it's understandable. Not just his personality weaknesses, but that he tried to overcome them at the very least to provide his boss an unforgettable luncheon. I'm not sure that either man really learned anything about themselves from this story, but they're fictional characters, that wasn't the point. The audience learned something and were nourished the way great art should.

The Kevin Macleod music is a brilliant touch

Grrrrr I hate giant corpos who ignore fair use grrrrrr

I'm so sorry, thanks for all your work.

Found your channel from that video a month ago. Just realized I wasn’t subbed on this account.

My dumb ass saw the thumbnail and thought “oh no, my fav video about funny games.” Nope, It was my other fav video about a Naomi watts movie where she’s absolutely miserable. Looking forward to seeing the third draft of the video. I showed a few of your videos to one of my film professors when he was teaching a class all about character development. I used your Mulholland Drive video as a great way of explaining development through the inner mind of a character, and he loved it. I don’t know if he ever subscribed, but he said he looked through the rest of your stuff :)

It happens to all the big UA-camrs. Wishing you luck.

Fair use is always tricky when there are bots involved

Nooo! I really liked this one!

Slight re-edit and re-post. One day it will be the youtube meta to delete old video, slightly retool them and repost them. Because people have not been using the chronological views for a very long time, not re-posting your stuff is just leaving youtube money on the table !

Has anyone had any experience with this? Did you appeal? Did it work? I kind of don't want to risk it. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

I noticed it disappeared :(

The growing flames quickly devouring Skinner's house are symbolic of his burning passion for steamed hams.

oh my god, wirt is literally me

There was ONE THING WRONG- Woody did not in fact leave Buzz outside. That was an accident that just happened to be resolved by itself later. The Woody that did leave Buzz outside is part of the famous Black Friday cut of Toy Story where Woody doesn't act like a jealous friend but a cruel dictator who wants to keep his power. Other than that, the rip-off is to a T and I am convinced

Close. The robot took down the towers actually

jason thunderberger. thats my favorite one since all greg wanted was his brother to help come up with a name aswell. and its a silly name

this was THE video i had searched for far and wide across an seemingly endless sea of youtube videos. you explained his character arc, his flaws and how he overcame them, alongside clips of the show to show it, so so well. i tend to be media illiterate in certain cases, ill admit, and thats why these videos mean so much to me. i saw myself taking a liking to wirt and relating, but i couldnt quite point down why exactly. his cynicism and quick tendency to give up and lose hope, his defensiveness in fear of getting hurt by daring to be vulnerable, believing the lie so many do that by not opening yourself up to others, you'll be protected against any type of pain. though it is that loneliness and feeling of being lost, not having anything going for you, wandering without any aim, is what brings the most painful hurt of all. a slow walk to your death, never having made a chance to the world or the persons around you, just like being a ghost. passing through life. I thank you greatly for this absolute masterpiece of a video, i also like the theory of each episode conveying a type of love. till know ive heard mostly only about the purgatory refrences from dante, which i absolutely adore, though it is nice seeing a different take on this exquisite show. alright that is a lot of text ill go watch the 11 remaining minutes now.

Glad you’re doing another video on Mulholland Drive. Such a magical powerful film.

Next up: The idiot sandwich scene from Hell’s Kitchen but it’s a WAY TO SERIOUS film essay. Coming to a theater near you

Can you please make sense of Videodrome for me because that film is one that I have struggled to gather any meaning whatsoever from and likely the most fundamentally confusing film I'd ever seen and have no idea what it was trying to say. This was another one and you'd likely put some sense into this for me and even if I had a fraction of the understanding I now have of this, of Videodrome then I'd be a far less confused person who commits too much time attempting to make sense of that movie. Just been thinking about that film again lately and had to express how perplexed I'd been ever since I'd watched it and nothing read or watched about such had ever helped make any shape of what was attempting to be said with that film. I may never understand that film but I think this suggests that maybe you could piece it together in a coherent and digestable narrative which the film itself clearly was not. Perhaps this was covered already but didn't want that to slip my mind because that's been a film I just want to understand on some level and it's bothered me for years attempting to put that puzzle together even slightly.

I come back to this every once in a while, this is such an amazing essay. 10/10, Keep making quality content Storygraph.

David Lynch really sucks. And so does this movie.

genius

somehow it's both a legitimate analysands and kind of a goof though i feel like the points you bring up about how the whole thing falls together in the way you portrayed for this video says a lot about how the writing of the early simpsons even without meaning to had deep and complex layers

Sorry but you didn't start the video by recounting the entire history of the Simpsons and hyper-specific context under which '22 Short Films About Springfield' was made, thus totally deviating from your intended topic and tripling the runtime. I'm gonna have to take points off.

I thought the old people was her aunt and uncle or her aunts boyfreind

Strange seeing ppl not noticing how dangerous Greg was meanwhile i noticed it from the beginning and i was thinking that it was because i might be grumpy it something but it was just my senses

Love it. One could say this isn’t even a video essay, but a parody of one. It’s still just steamed hams but thinly veiled as a video essay my God. My God. Oh my dear GOOOOOOOOODDD

This movie fucking sucks

It is, kinda.. Except the fact this series happened in the 1980s.

0:13

The most interesting film I've seen...

Annoying fucking video, editing, and channel

people who say the series 'DARK' is so mysterious ain't got no idea how fu=kd up this movie is . God bless those poor souls!

You're analyse is very much on the money, this sketch was actively still trying to build up the Dynamic of the Super Intendent and Skinner, and affirm pervious episodes. It fulfils the same plot line of every one of their episode. Chalmers arrives, Skinner tries to impress, an understandable incident occurs which could cause Chalmers to look down on Skinner, Skinner is too anxious to let it be known, and tries to cover it up with lies, subterfuge, or otherwise distract the super intendent with attempted excellence, though his attempts to achieve excellence and his promises to the Super Intendent only serve to worsen a situation that would have been better if he just let it play out. But in the end, whether due to the Super Intendents pity, gullibility,m or the skill of an accomplice he does recover or get the smallest amount of gratitude, and things return to as they once were. The house may be burning, but the Fire Engine is on its way. As with most episodes of the Simpson's, it ends as it beings nothing having changed.

honestly, this completely changed my outlook on the bit

I keep realizing what im watching every few seconds and just lwugh at the absurdity Edit: no firetruck at the end :(

This video changed my life.

I think that superintendent Chalmers figured out at some point that principal Skinner was lying to him. Chalmers points out that the burgers were grilled and not steamed so he probably thought if the burgers weren't steamed why was steam coming out of the oven. however despite figuring out that Skinner was lying to him Chalmers doesn't call out Skinner for his lies. I think that the reason is because despite everything going wrong Chalmers recognizes the effort the Skinner is putting in to make this luncheon unforgettable.

#lolsuperman

Kamila is an mk ultra victim, so is the guy that passes out from dumpster guy..

I saw this version of the Finland one too