It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Oh please, stop with the fucking superheroes! The state of film is starting to remind me of the city in Mystery Men.
I swear to god I’m so sick of this comic book bullshit. It’s getting so tired. The only aspect of filmaking that these so-called geeks care about seems to be how “cool” something is. Somebody should pull these adult children aside and tell them that there’s more to filmmaking than trying to mine the cool out of things.
We are now officially recycling the recycled shit, folks. Something’s gotta give.
That’s a good metaphor regarding H-wood’s fixation on superhero films…
I don’t mind the stalwart stuff like the Batman and Spider-man franchises…but stuff like Ghost Rider? Did anyone ask for this film? It kinda all looks very meh. Both versions of the trailer…Peter Fonda musta really needed a pay cheque.
Looks like Daredevil all over again, except with less leather and more skulls.
And, uh, do we really need that trailer nine months early? The film seems awfully complete, as well…
I seem to recall a trailer for The Punisher in front of X-Men 2, 9 months early…and we all recall how well that worked out.
I totally disagree with the both of you. Comics make great literature (yes, I used that word to describe comics and graphic novels) are our version of myth making and make great fodder for film.
You both are bitching about two things:
1. That all you see are comic book movies. You’re both dead wrong. Hollywood puts out umpteen films through their various dependants of many different genres and more dramatic fare. You both are just pissed because they keep spending their “Big” money on comic book movies. God bless them. But don’t complain as if this is the only content you can get. That’s asanine. Don’t like the meal, eat something else. There’s PLENTY of other choices.
2. When you both bitch about the state of recycled narratives and pastice in films and slap a coat of “It’s always those damn superhero movies!” You are both really complaining about the state of postmodern film which has been established since ’75. So to complain as if it’s only the comics they’re recycling is shortsighted.
Hollywood will buy a book before it’s published (the norm nowadays no?), a magazine article, videogame license, any other established form of content – rather than take a chance on an original story. This has been the practice for a long time and to stick it to comics – you sound like “Oh, I just want my ADULT movie, with my ADULT stories!”
How snobby.
Now, is Hollywood making them well?
Batman Begins is a phenomenal film. No one argues there is major quality in the first two X-Men films. There is a lot of quality in the first two Blade films, and Hellboy is a damn fine film. The first two Superman films are classics, and Raimi is kicking ass with Spiderman. And of course there are some major mis-fires. Fantastic Four to name one. And many more to be sure.
Is there credence to the belief that they don’t make them like they used to? Hell yes. Like any age in film or art, it must come to an end. And the Postmodern age had a good run, but it’s coming to an end. It and Hollywood are eating itself up.
This is evident in that Hollywood clearly has more passion and money in the marketing of their movies than the movies themselves. Audiences have caught on, and slowly are diverging their entertainment time and money to other outlets like gaming and the net.
Now we have everyone in LA and WallStreet freaking out. Slump stories are all over the place, Tom Cruise is jumping on couches and faking babies, and the media is on the attack. The Postmodern apocolypse is upon us and we are in for some choppy waters.
But there is a light and the end of the tunnel as digital technology brings tools to aspiring filmmakers. Technology that Hollywood only had the money for and kept them from playing in the big leauges. That is chaning. Distribution is changing, and sooner than later, – when everyone can get content anywhere, anyhow – the value will fall back on content itself.
Like a Phoenix from the ashes, something good will emerge after this postmodern age. What and how? I have no idea. But I am more optimistic than pessimistic.
In the meantime – enjoy the fact that it’s comics they’re pulling from.
It could be worse. It could be a bunch of evangelical Christian themed movies (the market is there)
Or a spate of Merchant-Ivory pictures…..
Here, here to everything THX just said.
And to add to it, one of the few really daring, adult movies about politics and ideas to come out this year was V for Vendetta… shockingly enough, another comic book movie.
Keep your complaints to crappy movies (which actually, Ghostrider looks like it’s going to be), not sweeping statements about entire genres.
Disagree THX, comic book movies (and the form itself) is mostly a joke. Yes there have been a few exceptions and it’s more literate than it used to be. But it’s still pumped up picture books and its never a surprise to me when the movies suck. On the other hand, Ghost Rider looks like some seriously dumb fun and I’ll probably check it out on DVD at least. Mostly because Cage is a weirdo actor that never fails to entertain me. And also because this seems like legitimate fanboy nonsense, and not some pumped-up pseudo-literate bullshit like V for Vendetta was. I doubt Ghost Rider will impress me, but at least it won’t annoy me and act like it’s something it’s not.
Holy crap, that’s Nicolas Cage? I totally didn’t recognize him. I forgot what he looks like with hair.
The flame effects look horrid. I remember when Dream Quest/The Secret Lab aced fire FX for Reign of Fire back in 2002. Can’t SPI bogart some of the people that worked on that pic, considering that The Secret Lab is no mo’?
Hey THX, why did you pick 1975 as the beginning of ‘postmodern’ films? Seems kind of arbitrary.
I think the complaint has more to do with Hollywood being lazy and exploiting second-rate material that they think will appeal to 14-25 year old males than anything else.
The trailer looked surprisingly cool..until the actual GHOST RIDER appeared. As Wrectum said, the flame effects are cheeseball.
Jeff, there are countless second-rate adult dramas, dramedies, and comedies made each year. Do you get as riled up by these films getting made? There’s room for everybody. Why slam comics? While at the same time ignoring all the OSCAR-BAIT BULLSHIT that arrives in theatres each Fall and Winter. Simply put; you and others who share a similar opinion on this one subject are being snobs. Nothing wrong with that sort of noseturning towards a movie featuring Peter Fonda as the Devil. Nevertheless, IT”S a comic-book movie. What’s with the fained outrage? I most state, that I did feel the same way. After I saw that trailer for the new Crudup movie. So, I guess it can work both ways.
I never slammed comic book movies. You have me confused with Crow and Aladdin.
Anyone have any insight as to why Sony picked February for the new release date? Doesn’t seem like too friendly a month for what I’d guess is supposed to be something of an event movie (especially one with a budget supposedly upwards of $100 million); the only two like-minded films I can think of that saw release in February were “Constantine” and “Daredevil,” and I recall “Constantine” did well largely thanks to foreign sales. What the dilly, yo?
And is that Wes Bentley looking all CG-evil in the cathedral?
Jeff my mistake, but it’s still a fair criticism. Would Poland posting a trailer for an adult drama, dramedy, or comedy get the same sort of reaction? The reaction that Hollywood has run out of ideas and needs to stop. Probably not. It would probably only get the proverbial “IT SUCKS” or “IT’S GOOD” treatment.
That assumption aside, yes that is Wes Bentley. He plays Blackheart son to Mephisto–played by Peter Fonda. They are not the only GR characters in that film. There is X3 levels of character cramming in GR.
Didn’t mean to spaz out up there.
Truth be told, this comic book nerd trend will all go the way of the “Die Hard On A _______” sub-genre soon enough when audiences continue to tune it out. And I have no problem with the Batman, Spidey or Superman… but a skull-faced guy ablaze on a motorbike? What 5th grader daydreams of being that crap?
I just think the geek movement preoccupation with attitude and style (what I call “cool”) has worn out its welcome. Spider-Man 2 IS one of the best movies of the decade but rather than get into the details why… the dorks would rather argue about what shade of red his suit is. The point being, storytelling is very seldom the focus in this geek movement. And that’s why they suck more than not.
It’s not snobbery to say Big Summer Movies need a kick in the pants… just look at the UNrecycled stuff on tap these next three months… Cars? Click? Nacho Libre? Snakes on A Plane? THAT’S THE DARING ORIGINAL STUFF WE GET TO LOOK FORWARD TO!
This geek-nostalgic period in cinema is simply well past its expiration date. It’s time to bring in the fresh meat, to throw out the video games, throw out the comic books, toss out Urkel and KITT the talking car… it’s time for the BSMs to start making us feel again.
Crow, your points are yours and yours alone. Your whole argument seems to stem from the point of view, that what you are stating is FACT. While most so-called GEEK films might be weak on storytelling. That does not mean all of those films are weak in the storytelling department.
I also find it a bit funny, that MAIN COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS can continue to have their films. Yet, Ghost Rider, a story about a VENGEANCE DEMON (No 5th graders involved due to VENGEANCE and VENGEANCE DEMON TALES being a part of many myths and folklore before the printing press was invented.) can never have a movie. Even if it’s movie is coming out in the middle of Winter, and most likely will never gross over 100m domestic.
While you are no doubt–entitled to your opinions. I, personally, have a problem with OUTRAGE over a trailer to a midgrossing movie. Go to Quicktime’s website, and notice how many eventual small to middle grossing films have crap trailers. Would they catch your ire as much? Poland did a nice exercise of demonstrating the slight difference in a DOMESTIC and INTERNATIONAL trailer. It could have been any other movie, but SONY made this easy for him.
So it’s a comic book movie. There are trailers to much worse films that you, Crow, probably would not even come close to spewing venom towards on the net. An assumption on my part, of course, but it’s GHOST RIDER. Why all the fuss? If the GEEK trend ends it ends. If not, so, there’s another Marvel Character with a subpar movie out there. Whoopidy doo.
“While most so-called GEEK films might be weak on storytelling. That does not mean all of those films are weak in the storytelling department.”
This is an all-time winner. Care to elaborate?
I’m going to have to side with Crow on this one. I’m not outraged by the trailer . . . I’m just complately tired and bored of this particular type of action film. I feel like I’ve seen this trailer about 10 times before. Everything goes in cycles and (as Crow mentioned, like the Die Hard genre before it) I hope this cycle is nearing the end of its run.
I’m also really worn out on zombie films. Someone please put them back to rest where they can decompose for another decade or so before bringing them back out again. Japanese-style spooks too.
I’m hoping we’ll start seeing less mainstream superhero movies, like DC’s antihero Lobo, or Image Comics’ The Maxx, about some crazy (or not?)homeless guy who thinks he’s a superhero. There are so many comicbook stories that could be told and would make great movies that it’s not even funny.
In other death to the geek news, Sophia “I really love rock music” Coppola gets her hacktacular ass handed to her at Cannes…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060524/film_nm/leisure_cannes_coppola_dc;_ylt=AsI4n4SXuYLQBgclZ9arOYxxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA–
C’est bon!
Antoinette just shot to the top of my ‘guaranteed a great time at a bad movie’ list this year.
And you just know all of the ‘genteel artistes’ involved thought they were making true post modern art after skimming through the index of one book.
As for Ghost Rider, he was actually one of my favourite heroes when I was a child and Cage will be good in the role, although the director does not inspire condidence.
Comic films are indeed a fad that I suspect have reached their apex. They will be around for a few years yet, but the down curve has begun.
Superman’s final numbers will say more on this thought than X-Men’s.
Too bad the modern incarnation of Aquaman will never see the light of day as a feature. He is actually quite gripping.
“Hey THX, why did you pick 1975 as the beginning of ‘postmodern’ films? Seems kind of arbitrary.”
I’m just using the stat my professors gave in my USC days. The idea being, that the Postmodern era in film kicked off in 1975 with Jaws, becoming the first true blockbuster. It was then codified in ’77 with Star Wars, and the escalating need for the blockbuster began. Narratives were recycled and marketed trying to capture that “lightening in a bottle”
Now the recycled and “market driven” narratives are beginning to catch up with itself. Every movie feels homogenized regardless of the genre because of market driven narratives. And now one could argue even the marketing is getting formulaic. (mainly in trailer composition, I would argue)
That why a lot of film academics hate Lucas and Spielberg, because they are credited for kicking off this postmodern era.
I agree that the output of many of these comic movies feels homogenized as well. But there is more gold to be mined for source material in comics than many other sources of content.
The film looks like crap, and most probably will be. The idea that it’s crap *because* of it’s origin as a comic book is painfully stupid. The movie will suck because the guy directing it is an awful filmmaker.
When will you folks get the hint that a film is only as good as the talent behind it, regardless of genre or budget or content? Gee, I can’t imagine why we list Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, and the first two Superman films as good while we shit on Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and Punisher. Hmmm…I’m not sure I see a common denominator. I wonder why The Crow is revered and its sequels dismissed as dreck (the Crow, by the way, was a little-known character with a cult following. It was a film worth being made despite not having a brand-name character in it).
This has NOTHING to do with genre, people. What you’re bitching about is not recycling stuff, because that’s all Hollywood does. What you’re bitching about is the hackdom that is usually responsible for most films today. I’m with you on all of that. What annoys me is that any studio would look at Daredevil and decide that the shithead who made that film deserves another shot.
My issues with this film via this traielr is twofold.
Minor: It looks very much like Daredevil to me… same bad director with great passion who also gave us Elktra.
Major: I loved Ghost Rider as a kid. But of all the characters, besides maybe The Silver Surfer, he is the one that is most built for the page and not the sound stage. A flaming skull on film is just cheesey. You can’t do anything to make it better. And in the imagination, coming off of the page, it was cool as hell.
One of the worst parts of the trailer was the skeletal finger zipping up the leather jacket. It was like a moment from a horror movie parody.
THX, I understand what you’re saying, but I think ‘postmodern’ is not the right word, because Jaws is certainly not a postmodern movie. It’s a 70s blockbuster along the lines of French Connection or Exorcist etc.
Jaws and Star Wars are two very very different kind of blockbusters.
Since when was movie marketing pre-1975 not homogenized and narratives not recycled? I suppose you could argue for the small renaissance between 1969 and 1976ish, but that was a deviation from the norm.
I think, though, that the underlying point is that things are worse now. Modern marketing and hype have made the studios even more cautious in choosing what they consider to be sure things to produce.
Jaws is not a postmodern movie?
Postmodernism in film (and I’m just going by the dates and definitons by my profs at USC filmschool) is using a the familiar to create the new. Recycling narratives and iconography to create familiar emotions. Pastice. Pastice. Pastice.
As for Jaws not being postmodern…WTF?
There is so much Hitchcock in that movie! From the narrative design to the framing to the Vertigo shot of Roy Scheider, when the little kid gets eaten on the 4th of July!
The Hitchcock refrences alone is enough of a recycled narrative, images and iconography to evoke the famiiliar in the new. That is Postmodernism and Jaws definitley fits that criteria.
Jaws and Star Wars both clearly fall into this category. And they are two of my top three favorite films and defining moments that made me want to be in this game. But they are both brilliant postmodern works.
As for the marketing not being homogenized before ’75…The big difference is before Jaws and especially Star Wars, no one had thought of a movie’s ancilliary markets as a means to generate profit. And once those gates were open, it could be argued that ancillary profits and other marketing means began to affect narrative and creativity more and more.
Postmodernism as a movement is much more self-conscious than anything done in Jaws. Think of Tarantino. Jaws is as postmodern as Hitchcock ripping off German expressionism or Italian modernism for his movies. Star Wars is more postmodern because it consciously mashes samurai movies/WWII movies/sci-fi serials into something different, but Jaws is trying to be a seamless, unselfconscious present narrative. I believe you’re mistaken.
Well then you’re saying the USC cinema-television criticl studies department is mistaken, because I’m just quoting old notes. And I’m not saying they’re the end all be all; but they’re not a po dunk institution, especially when it comes to cinema.
But the evidence is on the screen. That vertigo shot of Chief Brody on the beach was INVENTED by Hitchcock and his team, and Spielberg clearly uses it in a Postmodern self-referential way. He kicked off the age. There is nothing wrong with it. And yes Tarantino and others have taken it to the extreme, but Speilberg has been using his influences of Hitchcock, Ford, Disney and the Looney Tunes since day one. That is all pastice.
This is a great discussion, but it feels like you’re having an emotional reaction as if I’m knocking on the film. I’m not, like I said it’s in my personal top three. But to say it’s not Postmodern and that we didn’t go from the Modernist age in film to the Postmodern age with Jaws and the birth of the blockbuster, well, mayber you’re right Jeff and USC is wrong…hmm…anyone?
USC is mistaken and I went there too (grad production) so I know what I’m talking about.
Postmodernism is a relationship between the artist and the audience. Spielberg used that shot not to call attention to itself, in a “check out this reference to Vertigo” way, which is how Tarantino sets up most of his scenes, but rather to heighten the moment by using a technique he learned from Hitchcock. Later Spielberg movies like Minority Report have grown increasinly self-conscious, but Jaws is a movie that does not wink to its audience. There’s a big difference between using appropriation and pastiche.
Like I said, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, all of those are increasinly ‘post-modern’ but to use Jaws as the demarcation point is bad film history and if that’s what USC is teaching (was it Drew Casper? He’s an idiot) they have failed you.
There’s a solid argument to be made that homogenous marketing didn’t come about until the late ’40s or ’50s. A lot of major shifts took place in that time – the effect of television, United States v. Paramount, drive-ins, population redistribution via suburbanization – but the seeds were planted of heeding market research (something Hollywood had typically been wary of, despite the 1946 establishment of the MPAA’s special research division) and addressing segmented publics, i.e. teenagers. “Jaws” was huge partially because that iconic poster image – the shark’s maw headed towards the swimming, nubile girl – was used everywhere and on everything. The image became absolutely iconic and totally inescapable.
Just sayin’. Open to interpretation.
“before Jaws and especially Star Wars, no one had thought of a movie’s ancilliary markets as a means to generate profit.”
Walt Disney did.
Off topic. Anyone else think of another wunderkind who is built up by fans and critics to Godlike levels, all from an interesting debut film. Who then spends more than a year wallowing (who wouldn’t) in all the adulation and comes back with a pretentious and way too ambitious folllowup that takes itself too seriously and proceeds to get kicked in the nuts by all a sundry?
Who else has been down this path before?
My understanding of post-modern filmmaking is constantly changing BUT…isn’t SPielberg in and of himself as a director “Post modern?” JAWS combines a mystery with a thriller with a family drama with an adventure and also visually borrow heavily from the French new Wave as well as Hitchcock. While I agree something like STAR WARS or say, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is a better true definiteion of post modern filmmaking, I think JAWS qualifies because Spielberg can’t help but be post modern.
Jefferey Boam’s:
Orson Welles
Michael Cimnio
Troy Duffy (heh heh heh)
Richard Kelly…or is that who you were referring to.
I like comic books. I’ve got a collection of ’em…but do I think every title I read deserves film treatment? Nope. The audience isn’t always going to be there. And this just smelled like a bad idea from the moment it was announced…but to each his/her own.
But Petaluma, plenty of critics think The Magnificent Ambersons is as good as if not better than Citizen Kane…and it’s not very pretentious.
Spielberg is ‘post-modern’ in that he’s a movie geek, but no more so than Scorsese, Lucas, or DePalma. Worldwide, ‘post-modernism’ launched with Godard and Breathless, but in American cinema the line is much fuzzier. If you’re going to say that Jaws is post-modern because it borrows from other sources, you also have to say that The Godfather is because it borrows from Visconti, or The Conversation because it borrows from Antonioni.
I would say the first post-modern hit movies in America actually came a year earlier than THX suggests, with Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein.
Close Encounters is a much better candidate for Spielberg’s first postmodern film. It directly references Disney and Francois Traffaut in a winking way. Duel and Jaws are not referencing Hitchcock in a postmodern way…they come directly out of the tradition of action thrillers that Hitchcock and Rod Serling spawned.
See…that’s where I get confused on the whole “Post Modern” idea. Is it Post Modern when a director is influenced by a director and tries to get that same “look” as Coppola may have done with Visconti? That’s just like…borrowing a style or theme or what have you. Right?
Does it have to be an intentional “wink-wink, nod-nod” kind of thing? To me it’s post modern if there’s just a smattering of insane references throughout ala DePalma, Tarantino, later Spielberg and Wes Anderson. Isn’t there a pop culture tie-in that needs to be checked off the post-modern checklist as well??
Like I said, it confuses me.
And I was just throwing Welles out there because back in the day, he was this brilliant young man who totally tanked film wise with CITIZEN KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. I think Palmtree is right in that more critics like MAGNIFICENT, but then again Hearst probably would have fired anyone who praised KANE back then.
Look, comic books are and always have been a very visual medium. I grew up on comic books and dreamed of the day when crazy movies about my favorite super freaks could be made. Seeing a Ghost Rider movie on the big screen is going to be a lot of fun for me because I’ve been reading the comic since the 70s. It’s not art, but it doesn’t have to be. I do hope the story and acting doesn’t completely stink, but at least I get the chance to see GR on his flaming cycle. The visuals alone will be worth a matinee for me. I agree that Hollywood had gone super hero crazy, but it will die out soon enough. In the meantime, if super heroes aren’t your thing, there’s plenty of other great stuff out there to see. The Proposition is supposed to be fantastic.
Look, comic books are and always have been a very visual medium. I grew up on comic books and dreamed of the day when crazy movies about my favorite super freaks could be made. Seeing a Ghost Rider movie on the big screen is going to be a lot of fun for me because I’ve been reading the comic since the 70s. It’s not art, but it doesn’t have to be. I do hope the story and acting doesn’t completely stink, but at least I get the chance to see GR on his flaming cycle. The visuals alone will be worth a matinee for me. I agree that Hollywood had gone super hero crazy, but it will die out soon enough. In the meantime, if super heroes aren’t your thing, there’s plenty of other great stuff out there to see. The Proposition is supposed to be fantastic.
By that definition, the first post-modern director was Peter Bogdanovich, who began with TARGETS in 1968 and then solidified it with LAST PICTURE SHOW and WHAT’S UP, DOC?, all of which used ideas he freely admitted borrowing from Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Welles, etc.
Of course, you could also make that case for Chuck Jones!
^^^Targets and Chuck Jones are completely accurate observations, but I don’t think Last Picture Show qualifies; that’s another case where the director is being film literate (Ford, Antonioni) but not putting it in your face, which I consider to be a prerequisite for the label.
Well, you can’t get much more self-referential than casting Ben Johnson in the film and then having him show Ben Johnson movies at his theatre. Also, Peter stated he saw it as a mirror image of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, with poor people–the Timothy Bottoms character being the one who got the “comeuppance” at the end.
Thematic similarities? That’s hardly enough to make the case.
What Ben Johnson movie are you talking about? That’s a good argument, but yes, you can get more self-referential than that.
SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, for one. Forgot the other.