The Shame of Mystery Science Theater 3000

[Rowland]

http://www.hermenaut.com/a152.shtml

I think this article goes a long way towards expressing why the series has never particularly appealed to me.

[Mysterious Dude]

I believe that very few of the films featured on MST3K actually tried "to free themselves from the dominant mode of cinematic realism."

And I wonder when this was written, because the show did have a woman in the cast in the last few years.

[Watashi]

I read that article this morning and found it pretty bad and missing the point. The main reason why MST3K riffs movies like This Island Earth instead of La Dolce Vita is to expose these niche of cinema to the public. It's an ode to the cult classics and unknown cinema undergrounds.

Anyone who doesn't like MST3K doesn't deserve to breathe oxygen.

[Watashi]

And I wonder when this was written, because the show did have a woman in the cast in the last few years.

Mary Jo Pehl starred in the show for seven years and was a prominent cast member when Mike took over the show from Joel.

[Russ]

Not only does the author miss the point, but he seems to have been born without a sense of humor.

[Mysterious Dude]

The author seems to think we shouldn't make fun of bad movies, because there is no such thing as a bad movie. I wonder if he thinks anything is bad (other than "humor").

[Rowland]

The author seems to think we shouldn't make fun of bad movies, because there is no such thing as a bad movie. I wonder if he thinks anything is bad (other than "humor").No, he thinks making a hobby out of mocking "bad" movies engenders a potentially dangerous attitude towards cinema in general.

[Mysterious Dude]

No, he thinks making a hobby out of mocking "bad" movies engenders a potentially dangerous attitude towards cinema in general.Dangerous in what way? He lists a lot of great movies and the reasons why modern people might dislike them. But this is not MST3K's doing. Modern people simply don't relate to old things as much as they do to new things. MST3K is not responsible for this attitude. It's the way things have always been.

Incidentally, I agree with him that This Island Earth was a poor choice for the movie.

[Rowland]

Dangerous in what way? He lists a lot of great movies and the reasons why modern people might dislike them. But this is not MST3K's doing. Modern people simply don't relate to old things as much as they do to new things. MST3K is not responsible for this attitude. It's the way things have always been.

Incidentally, I agree with him that This Island Earth was a poor choice for the movie.Here is an example that comes to mind. Over at RT, I recently had a discussion with poster/moderator Kenporules about Halloween. He grew up renting cheap horror movies and making fun of them with his friends. Now, he says that he doesn't get what makes Halloween good (let alone the masterpiece that it is), because as far as he's concerned, it's no different than any other slasher, and no amount of reasoning can convince him otherwise.

Likewise, I can imagine any number of moviegoers weaned on MST3K being unable to take stuff like, say, Argento's movies seriously. It's not that Argento makes "bad" movies (as far as I'm concerned anyway), but that they will be too busy being distracted by the sorts of things MST3K would make fun of to appreciate the movies on their own terms. The series creates a sort of "holier than thou" remove from these movies that can too easily bleed into one's overall viewing sensibilities.

And dammit, Danger: Diabolik rocks!

[Mysterious Dude]

Here is an example that comes to mind. Over at RT, I recently had a discussion with poster/moderator Kenporules about Halloween. He grew up renting cheap horror movies and making fun of them with his friends. Now, he says that he doesn't get what makes Halloween good (let alone the masterpiece that it is), because as far as he's concerned, it's no different than any other slasher, and no amount of reasoning can convince him otherwise.
I don't believe this phenomenon comes from making fun of bad movies. I know of some people who prefer the special editions of the Star Wars films because the visual effects have been cleaned up, as it were. I did not notice any problems with the visual effects, but when I saw a comparison between the two versions, I could see that in the new version, they had made the blue screen effects less obvious and cleaned up the edges around a few things. I prefer the old effects, though, because I think they have a lot of character, and they remind us that the films are, in fact, getting old (about the same age as Halloween). I can recall when movies from the seventies didn't seem "old" exactly, but that is starting to happen.

Younger audiences won't be able to relate to older movies. It's not because they've been raised to make fun of bad movies. It's because they've been raised on new movies, and truth be told, the technology has improved and the techniques have changed. People raised on certain a style of movies will find other styles strange.

How often do you listen to music from the 1930's? Ever? Does music from that time period sound strange to you, and maybe not as "good" as the music you grew up listening to?

And in any case, MST3K has made fun of new movies, too (great episode: "Future War").

[Rowland]

How often do you listen to music from the 1930's? Ever? Does music from that time period sound strange to you, and maybe not as "good" as the music you grew up listening to?How often do you listen to recordings of people making fun of old music while listening to it?

You are right that perspective and taste and all that evolves dramatically over time, which inevitably colors how we perceive older art. Still, it doesn't strike me as terribly becoming to actively revel in an attitude that embraces this. If MST3K existed solely to expose viewers to movies they wouldn't have otherwise seen, as posited by Wats, I doubt that they'd want to go out of their way to erect an ironic distance from these movies.

I'm reminded of an anecdote I read on a blog from someone who attended a Tarantino-helmed film festival, which Quentin opened by addressing the audience, warning them that if anyone was there to laugh at the movies, he wanted their asses out of the theater before the movies started. That's the attitude that should be encouraged.

[Mysterious Dude]

How often do you listen to recordings of people making fun of old music while listening to it?Never, but I like old music.


You are right that perspective and taste and all that evolves dramatically over time, which inevitably colors how we perceive older art. Still, it doesn't strike me as terribly becoming to actively revel in an attitude that embraces this. If MST3K existed solely to expose viewers to movies they wouldn't have otherwise been seen, as posited by Wats, I doubt that they'd want to go out of their way to erect an ironic distance from these movies.Well, I don't agree with Wats that MST3K is doing us any favors by showing us these films, other than as a source of comedy. Other than This Island Earth, I don't think the movies on MST3K bear very much resemblance to Halloween, Vertigo, Rebel Without a Cause or the works of Dario Argento and Sophocles. The MST3K movies are terrible movies, and I feel no remorse about making fun of them.


I'm reminded of an anecdote I read on a blog from someone who attended a Tarantino-helmed film festival, which Quentin opened by addressing the audience, warning them that if anyone was there to laugh at the movies, he wanted their asses out of theater before the movies started. That's the attitude that should be encouraged.But why must we have that attitude for all movies? There are movies which deserve respect, and movies which don't. I don't think there needs to be a conflict between the Tarantino attitude and the MST3K attitude.

[Rowland]

There are movies which deserve respect, and movies which don't. I don't think there needs to be a conflict between the Tarantino attitude and the MST3K attitude.Who judges what deserves respect and what doesn't? Most MST3K fans watch the show expecting to see terrible movies mocked. They already have the mold for their reaction to these movies (assuming they watch them without the commentaries first) firmly erected.

The conflict arises when people are so weaned on the "MST3K attitude" (itself a form of snark that has been subsumed by most of the culture in some form, which allows the heart of this discussion a wider breadth than MST3K's range of influence) that it irreparably colors their sensibilities. Tarantino was directly addressing people who would be too busy snickering at bad acting/dubbing/whatever else to appreciate the movies he believes contain genuine value. I bet that he laughs sometimes as he watches these movies, but he surely does so divorced from the ironic contempt that some people would default towards.

[Derek]

Who judges what deserves respect and what doesn't? Most MST3K fans watch the show expecting to see terrible movies mocked. They already have the mold for their reaction to these movies (assuming they watch them without the commentaries first) firmly erected.

In the case of MST3K, I believe viewers trust that the research crew has found something terrible, inept, and easy to poke fun at. The fact that every time I've seen it, they've shown a film that I'm certain I would have found devoid of any value without the commentary speaks to their accuracy in picking films. That's not to say they won't occasionally pick a film that some people think is good on its own merits, but I think most people would agree that they're usually scraping from the bottom of the cinematic barrel. I know you're a defender of that bottom of the barrel, or take the perspective that that so-called bottom is only formed by under-informed people not willing to watch films that look like shit and are hated by critics, but it's just not something I can agree with. I've seen one Larry the Cable Guy/Bill Engvall movie and I'll feel safe assuming the next one will most likely be crappy as well.

[Rowland]

In the case of MST3K, I believe viewers trust that the research crew has found something terrible, inept, and easy to poke fun at. The fact that every time I've seen it, they've shown a film that I'm certain I would have found devoid of any value without the commentary speaks to their accuracy in picking films. That's not to say they won't occasionally pick a film that some people think is good on its own merits, but I think most people would agree that they're usually scraping from the bottom of the cinematic barrel. I know you're a defender of that bottom of the barrel, or take the perspective that that so-called bottom is only formed by under-informed people not willing to watch films that look like shit and are hated by critics, but it's just not something I can agree with. I've seen one Larry the Cable Guy/Bill Engvall movie and I'll feel safe assuming the next one will most likely be crappy as well.That's not really the crux of my argument anyway. I'll gladly concede that the majority of what has been shown on MST3K is fairly worthless.

[Derek]

That's not really the crux of my argument anyway. I'll gladly concede that the majority of what has been shown on MST3K is fairly worthless.

Ok, so the crux of your argument is that MST3K causes its viewers to take the same ironic distance into viewing a lot of other films that may carry the same "bad" traits, such as Argento's? Even that's a big stretch that requires a broad generalization and not accounting for the fact that a lot of movie buffs, including lots of posters here, can enjoy both MST3K as well as good low-budget films that may have the same limitations, for lack of a better word.

[Rowland]

Ok, so the crux of your argument is that MST3K causes its viewers to take the same ironic distance into viewing a lot of other films that may carry the same "bad" traits, such as Argento's? Even that's a big stretch that requires a broad generalization and not accounting for the fact that a lot of movie buffs, including lots of posters here, can enjoy both MST3K as well as good low-budget films that may have the same limitations, for lack of a better word.Instead of reveling in the ironic mocking of "bad" cinema, we should be furthering ourselves to distinguish the "good" within the "bad." And in a sense, I'm really just lashing out against snark and the emboldening of easy labels in general, which I think is an ugly approach to just about anything. MST3K strikes me as juvenile and worthless, more so than trash like DOA: Dead or Alive, which Sycophant was recently teased for enjoying, and which I've also seen many people describe as MST3K-primed. MST3K is the poster-boy for the sort of approach to cinema that I believe we should rebel against, especially because its sphere of influence, as the article argues and I too believe, can extend beyond these bad movies. They can instill viewing habits and prejudices that extend far beyond even prime genre cinema like Argento into all-around viewing sensibilities. How many people hate older movies on principal because they are different from modern cinema? MST3K perpetuates a form of this dismissive attitude, albeit indirectly.

[Eleven]

To attack no one but Fujiwara: Frankly, you were as likely to hear value-neutral comments on MST3K, like the resemblance of a character to a celebrity or other pop culture minutiae, as an attack on the film's technique. I've watched plenty of episodes and rarely have they been vicious in their quips. More than a fair share of episodes have also been outright ripoffs of successful pictures, totally lacking "unique aesthetic experiences , strange personal visions, and precious cultural documentation." And "techno-elitism"???! Yeah, a low-budget show homaging Silent Running and countless other human/robot teams that uses found objects and spare parts to design patently ridiculous-looking automatons is "elitist." If the show was obsessed with slamming dated special effects and non-realistic acting, I wonder how Fuji would respond to the fact that, now that the show is over, the cast members have moved onto making fun of the most up-to-date Hollywood blockbusters. The little swipe at Zappa is cute, too, but I'd point towards the fitting title of one of his live albums, tweaked to fit the situation: "Does Humor Belong in Movies?"

And why not snark on stuff like La Dolce Vita? You mean, besides the obvious legal issues and having to get a dubbed version in order to make the very concept work? The show was initially conceived as a way of broadcasting the flicks gathering dust in the local cable station's vault, so just getting them out there was a partial aim. None of the Corman films they'd done have ever been considered good, and I doubt Masque of the Red Death or A Bucket of Blood were ever put up for consideration. They needed something relatively high-profile for the movie, and unfortunately the otherwise decent 50s sci-fi vehicle This Island Earth was picked. And God knows why the cult of camp, MST3K, and the Medved brothers get snowballed into each other, considering there's quite a few major differences among the three, especially the loathsome, reactionary latter.

Everybody I know personally who likes MST also has a fairly wide range of taste than can encompass Hitchcock, film noir, and Japanese monster movies. I've had plenty of arguments with people who hate anything less than the most modern, disposable releases, and most have never heard of MST3K. People have been making fun of cinema, whether rightly or wrongly, pretty much forever, and MST has clear forebears in What's Up Tiger Lily?, the National Lampoon, MAD Magazine, postmodernist writers, et al. Don't blame them because they could only legally make fun of a certain type of film, or that sometimes their choice of target offended your sensibilities.

[Qrazy]

I read about half the article and it's a worthless piece of crap.

Personally I don't enjoy MST3K because I've seen about 3 episodes and I just don't find it funny. I find the commentary too distracting from the original crap film. If I have to watch a piece of crap I'd much rather make my own bile-fueled commentary with my friends, than listen to someone else's snide remarks... unless they're particularly clever snide remarks... and I'm sure the show has it's golden moments but I just don't care enough to stick around to find out.

Although I recently watched Robinson Crusoe on Mars and some friends of mine sneered at the title assuming that it must be an MST3K worthy/unworthy film... which I found fairly obnoxious. I just hope to hell I'll never have to hear their uninformed opinions on the assumed value and status of Forbidden Planet or heads will roll.

[Derek]

Instead of reveling in the ironic mocking of "bad" cinema, we should be furthering ourselves to distinguish the "good" within the "bad." And in a sense, I'm really just lashing out against snark and the emboldening of easy labels in general, which I think is an ugly approach to just about anything.

Considering you agreed that the films MST3K takes on are "fairly worthless", I believe the point is that these films have little to no "good" things about them. Or, to be kind, they don't have enough positives to make them worth discussing in a serious way. I agree this approach can be detrimental if it becomes a common viewing habit, but I think watching the occasional episode of MST3K is unlikely to create bad habits in any intelligent viewer. You refer to the "approach" as if it's a lens through which people view all films, assuming that MST3K somehow taints their ability to see value in any low-budget style film afterwards. This is possibly true for some people, but these are people who don't take film all that seriously nor ever plan to. I'm pretty sure even the most half-arsed film buff isn't going to be forever lost by reveling in the joys of making fun of a bad movie.

[Rowland]

Considering you agreed that the films MST3K takes on are "fairly worthless", I believe the point is that these films have little to no "good" things about them. Or, to be kind, they don't have enough positives to make them worth discussing in a serious way. I agree this approach can be detrimental if it becomes a common viewing habit, but I think watching the occasional episode of MST3K is unlikely to create bad habits in any intelligent viewer. You refer to the "approach" as if it's a lens through which people view all films, assuming that MST3K somehow taints their ability to see value in any low-budget style film afterwards. This is possibly true for some people, but these are people who don't take film all that seriously nor ever plan to. I'm pretty sure even the most half-arsed film buff isn't going to be forever lost by reveling in the joys of making fun of a bad movie.I don't mean to sound so apocalyptic. I'm not suggesting that everyone who likes MST3K is going to be "lost," or that its effect is in any way so black and white. That would be silly and ignorant for me to argue. I just think that MST3K as an institution and the attitude it promotes is overly detrimental to film culture. And hell, if they're going to mock these movies, they could at least be more clever about it.

[Eleven]

Oh, and another thing: a lot of the humor derives from absurdity, association, pop culture knowledge, and yes, even juvenile obviousness, rather than outright scorn. I wonder if some disliking of MST is over a difference in humor rather than in the purpose of the show itself. Not to single you out, Rowland, but you say you wish it could be more clever. It's only one example, but I remember a Hercules movie where Tom Servo said, "Could you have a Platonic relationship before Plato?" I personally think it's a cute observation, and it has nothing per se to do with the movie at all.

So if the show were to really dig into its targets rather than rely on absurdities or softballs, would it be funnier but thus more vindictive and harmful to the movies themselves, providing an even more dangerous example to viewers?

[Rowland]

Oh, and another thing: a lot of the humor derives from absurdity, association, pop culture knowledge, and yes, even juvenile obviousness, rather than outright scorn. I wonder if some disliking of MST is over a difference in humor rather than in the purpose of the show itself. Not to single you out, Rowland, but you say you wish it could be more clever. It's only one example, but I remember a Hercules movie where Tom Servo said, "Could you have a Platonic relationship before Plato?" I personally think it's a cute observation, and it has nothing per se to do with the movie at all.

So if the show were to really dig into its targets rather than rely on absurdities or softballs, would it be funnier but thus more vindictive and harmful to the movies themselves, providing an even more dangerous example to viewers?Being more clever would imply stronger critical faculties, which would benefit viewers more than "oh, look at how fake that looks!" Thinking about this year's Grindhouse, the two halves strike me as two clearly unique sensibilities. I enjoyed both halves about equally for different reasons, but I think it's instructive to distinguish how and why they are so different. Planet Terror is the sort of movie I imagine being birthed from a MST3K perspective to "Grindhouse" cinema, whereas Tarantino's half is from a school of thought that could probably dissect those movies with more wit, respect, and understanding of the material's subtleties, good and bad.

[Watashi]

How many MST3K episodes have you seen, actually? From your arguments, it sounds like very little (like every TV show, they have their hits and misses).

[Rowland]

How many MST3K episodes have you seen, actually? From your arguments, it sounds like very little (like every TV show, they have their hits and misses).Very little. I've never felt compelled to actively seek them out, as what I've seen (and the very concept itself) hasn't appealed to me a great deal. It's a bit too (unjustifiably) self-congratulatory for my taste.

[Eleven]

Very little. I've never felt compelled to actively seek them out, as what I've seen (and the very concept itself) hasn't appealed to me a great deal. It's a bit too self-congratulatory for my taste.

Yeah, this is always the problem. You can conceivably have an argument over a movie because, whether one likes or not, one can take the however few hours it takes to watch it and stand on either side of its quality; it's much harder to make useful debates over entire TV shows or the career of a writer, I've found, without having experienced quite a bit of it.

Admittedly, the concept of the show remains constant throughout, but the range of commentary could be surprisingly vast, in content and in quality.

[Russ]

I just think that MST3K as an institution and the attitude it promotes is overly detrimental to film culture.
Don't you think that the people who are "into" film culture are intelligent enough to distinguish between typical MST3K fodder and good films with "bad" moments (arguably Argento)? I mean, this does seem to be the crux of your concern.

[Rowland]

Don't you think that the people who are "into" film culture are intelligent enough to distinguish between typical MST3K fodder and good films with "bad" moments (arguably Argento)? I mean, this does seem to be the crux of your concern.No no, that was just a more blunt example of a possible manifestation. I don't think it's always a matter of conscious distinguishment. Just as how we can see enough commercials for a certain brand and become unconsciously attracted to purchasing it over different brands of the same product, if someone actively engages the snark of MST3K to too great a degree, I can imagine it infecting their overall sensibilities, probably manifesting itself in minor, mostly imperceptible ways.

For instance, a person who is intimately familiar with MST3K may be more inclined to critically engage a series of oddly timed cuts in some movie from a more negative perspective, whereas someone less exposed to that train of thought may approach it as a distancing aesthetic choice and thusly analyze its effect from that less cynical perspective.

And mind you, I'm not shuffling every MST3K viewer into one category, so don't think that I'm attacking any of you or anything like that.

[Boner M]

I don't 100% agree with Fujiwara, but he's definitely onto something, and has probably articulated my dislike of MST3K better than anything else I've read. That said, he kinda shoots himself in the foot by slamming the 'Golden Turkey'/MST3K method of viewing films (which I loathe) and proposing a new dogma in exchange, that in its own way encourages an equally robotic reaction from the audience, making us dead to what films have to offer. I can just picture watching Night of the Hunter with a college audience, all silent under the Fujiwara doctrine, thinking, "Oh, I can't laugh at the ridiculous acting here, because it's expressionistic, not inept. Remember, it's the intention that counts!".

[Rowland]

I don't 100% agree with Fujiwara, but he's definitely onto something, and has probably articulated my dislike of MST3K better than anything else I've read. That said, he kinda shoots himself in the foot by slamming the 'Golden Turkey'/MST3K method of viewing films (which I loathe) and proposing a new dogma in exchange, that in its own way encourages an equally robotic reaction from the audience, making us dead to what films have to offer. I can just picture watching Night of the Hunter with a college audience, all silent under the Fujiwara doctrine, thinking, "Oh, I can't laugh at the ridiculous acting here, because it's expressionistic, not inept. Remember, it's the intention that counts!".Yeah, I don't mean to sound as though I'm arguing against laughing while watching movies. I just think that there's a huge difference between doing so with snark and doing so with respect. MST3K seems to promote the former approach.

[Eleven]

I keep wondering whether it's the very concept of the show that turns people off, or whether it's just not their type of humor, or what. Because at least from Fujiwara's article, besides cherry-picking from the Amazing Colossal Episode Guide as if it purported itself to be an all-encompassing tome on the movies within rather than an, I don't know, episode guide, he really doesn't cite the show at all. He makes it sound as if destroying the movies for being out of date and non-realistic were all it was, which it certainly is not.

[Russ]

Yeah, I don't mean to sound as though I'm arguing against laughing while watching movies. I just think that there's a huge difference between doing so with snark and doing so with respect. MST3K seems to promote the former approach.

From Freaknolia (http://www.hermenaut.com/a110.shtml)


I knew all too well why Magnolia was on my mind. I had promised the editor of Hermenaut's Web site that I would write about the film, and I was regretting this rashness. To do a responsible job of it, I figured I'd have to see the damn thing again, and if watching it once had subjected my sensibility to an almost unendurable assault, watching it again would be like having my brain sucked out by one of the creatures in Fiend without a Face.Yuk, yuk. Yah, I love how Fujiwara respectfully critiques Magnolia (completely snark-free!)

[Rowland]

Yuk, yuk. Yah, I love how Fujiwara respectfully critiques Magnolia (completely snark-free!)a Winner is You

[Ezee E]

I have no problem with MSTK3 as it simply feels like watching a poorly made movie with your friends, laughing at things as they go. These movies most likely have a bigger audience BECAUSE of MSTK, and would never have seen the light of day otherwise.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was making fun of "bad" movies with my friends before I ever knew what MST3K was. That show was hilarious. That's my two cents.

[Russ]

a Winner is You
Apologies, Rowland. I didn't mean to dismiss your observations out-of-hand. I wonder if the differences aren't more generational in nature than anything -- after all, I'm probably one of the oldest posters on this board (not sayin' when, but pretty close to many of the MST3K posse -- Kevin Murphy (Tom Servo) b. 1956, Trace Beaulieu (Crow T. Robot), b. 1958) and like them, I saw many of these films in their unexpurgated form, and I recognized them for their campiness long before the 'bots were cueing me to make fun of them. The fact that I had a heads up on the films' shortcomings surely played a hand in how much I enjoyed the MST3K treatment of them.

In thinking about it from your perspective, I can understand how the snarkiness doesn't sit well (especially if you've never seen the original films being ridiculed). And I don't always agree with all their choices. Anyway, I hope you take my previous comments in stride and know that I see where you are coming from, just that I don't agree with the author's original treatise.

[Qrazy]

Snark is the spice of life. It gets me through the day.