From moviesonline, CashBack : When art student Ben Willis is dumped by his girlfriend Suzy, he develops insomnia. To pass the long hours of the night, he starts working the late night shift at the local supermarket. There he meets a colorful cast of characters, all of whom have their own 'art' in dealing with the boredom of an eight-hour-shift. Ben's art is that he imagines himself stopping time. This way, he can appreciate the artistic beauty of the frozen world and the people inside it - especially Sharon, the quiet checkout girl, who perhaps holds the answer to solving the problem of Ben's insomnia.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Cashback, you had me at the poster
From moviesonline, CashBack : When art student Ben Willis is dumped by his girlfriend Suzy, he develops insomnia. To pass the long hours of the night, he starts working the late night shift at the local supermarket. There he meets a colorful cast of characters, all of whom have their own 'art' in dealing with the boredom of an eight-hour-shift. Ben's art is that he imagines himself stopping time. This way, he can appreciate the artistic beauty of the frozen world and the people inside it - especially Sharon, the quiet checkout girl, who perhaps holds the answer to solving the problem of Ben's insomnia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Malevolent
2018 ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...
-
I’m sure none of you except for JPX knows that I’m a bit of a germ-a-phobic. It’s annoying, but manageable. Though, since I met JPX and list...
5 comments:
Yep, that's a good poster. I love how an image of a woman in the process of removing her clothing can sometimes be more enticing than an image of a woman who's completed the process.
Ah, lust. So many facets.
By that logic, a fully clothed woman would be most appealing. Highly dubious if you ask me.
And your sweeping generalization doesn't say anything address the circumstances under which the clothes are being removed. Surely a completely naked model in the shower is sexier than a large, smelly woman trying on pants at Walmart.
Ok, I'm done acting like an idiot... for now!
Gee, thanks for dragging my perfectly solid observation through the mud for no reason.
I direct your attention to the word "sometimes" as it appears in my original comment. That's a heckuva word, sometimes. For instance, it turns a statement that could be taken as a sweeping generalization into a much more reasonable comment. It's much easer to claim "I have seen this to be true on occasion." than "this is always, always the case, dammit, and no I won't calm down, I'm not yelling."
Thus, the utterer of the former statement has leeway to apply or not apply certain detials.
"Look," you say, "here's a very short mpeg of Rosie O'Donnell at Sundance, wearing heaps of clothing but removing her hat, perhaps I should leave you alone here in my office -- feel free to use some of that axle grease that I like, the can is sitting atop that plate of week-old tater tots. On second thought, I'll eat those right now."
"Nein danke!" I reply, "for you have grossly misinterpreted what I said. Perhaps you failed to notice my judicious application of the word 'sometimes,' or, being of an argumentative mind today, rudely ignored it. Stop dipping those cold, hard tater tots in that axle grease before noisily eating them and I'll explain it to you. Human lust, which often runs counter to this 'logic' you have such a flimsy grasp of, allows for an array of subtle nuances. Take, for instance, the poster for the movie Cashback. Here you have a young, attractive actress who has unfastened and moved her dress to expose her underwear while shopping. Why is she doing this? What's going to happen next? This is the exciting narrative evinced by the picture, part of the alleged 'thousand words' the picture is worth. This particular implied story is specific to her in-progress act of undressing. Please note that my example features 1) an attractive woman in a state of 2)near total undress. These details are important.
Now, to actually prove that my observation is correct, (something I am not at all obligated to do, since I only mean to point out the narrative excitement specific to the image we have), I would have to see the same picture with the woman completely disrobed. Would this incite a stronger lust? Perhaps it would. But not the same lust, and therein lies my point.
And maybe a woman shopping while naked may just seem hackneyed, like something Madonna did in her book Sex. Because she did stuff just like that. Or maybe this young woman's breasts look like tiny faces of Gilbert Gottfried. Now stop hitting that stuffed otter with that wrench and grunt so I know you understand."
Firstly, I thought I gave sufficient warning that I was going to be annoying today. It was completely intentional for the sole purpose of amusing myself (and hopefully you).
Way to call me on turning "sometimes" into a "sweeping generalization"! It was blatantly uncalled for and I only wish I could say that I wrote it on purpose. (I hope I don't really come across as dogmatic.)
However, I'm confused about your Rosie O'Donnell section and the last paragraph about Gilbert Godfrey, the sea otter and the wrench.
In any case, I completely agree with your initial comment and I would never discourage a woman from shopping naked, partially clothed or even fully clothed!
I was extrapolating your indictment of my logic (a fully clothed woman would be most appealing + model vs. large, smelly woman) into a hypothetical taunt by you, occuring in a hypothetical office of yours that contains axle grease for your use in pleasuring yourself, week-old tater tots that you decide to eat (with axle grease on them) during this conversation, and a stuffed otter for you to strike with a wrench. Not a plush toy otter, mind you, but a real one stuffed taxidermically.
This method of argumentation, in which I heap imaginary attributes on you to make you look dumb, is an extension of that Calvin and Hobbes in which they're trading insults framed as such:
"Oh yeah? Well, this is you: aggle aggle aggle aggle!" etc.
The Gottfried thing was about demonstrating the possiblility that my original idea was true of this specific poster, that the fully bare actress wouldn't 1) elicit as good a lusty response purely on a stylistic level, or 2) might when completely revealed display an earlier unseen physical feature that kills the mood, e.g. GG.
And remember, it's Gottfried. Just think "got fried." Of course you also have license not to care.
Post a Comment