This was a great essay, and as someone who struggles a lot with hyperawareness OCD, I cried reading it. First on a positive note, the example about attention on sex and arousal feeding back on itself and deepening the experience is well described and easy to relate to. But I think the "deepening an experience through attention" phenomenon applies in so many other domains as well - Sustained attention on a film or vid…
I can relate to the muscle tension. No amount of stretching is sufficient, and ignoring it seems to cause it to grow in intensity.
This did not go where I thought it was going, and I'm glad. I enjoyed the read. I'm not versed enough in psychiatry to validate the brain-chemistry stuff but my practical experience lines up. Reminds me of the trick of telling yourself "let's give this my full attention for just 5 minutes, and if I still don't want to do it we can move on". I pretty much always end up wanting to keep doing that thing.
This is how I started working out regularly. "I can quit 5 min after warming up".
Five minutes after warming up I've changed, in the gym and a couple of sets in. I quit maybe 1/20 sessions, and it's shrunk more over the years since, but it was an easy way to fool my brain.
I'm guessing this is different because the main threshold is starting to do the thing. Once you've started it's much less mental effort to keep going and just do the full workout.
You cannot attribute their success simply to repeated TV runs though. Some films are just not that appealing for the cinema, more art than entertainment, and slowly convert each viewer into a fan until it joins the collective consciousness as a classic. It's a story that all of these have in common - some level of critical acclaim before release, flops at the cinemas, slowly builds up a reputation.
> You cannot attribute their success simply to repeated TV runs though I'm arguing that repeated TV runs allowed audiences and critics to deeply ponder and appreciate these films. Sustained attention over time, which caused a re-evaluation of their artistic merit.
I think about music albums on cassette that I listened too in the car. I enjoyed some of those deeper tracks after repeated listening.
Also Sony India is posting older movies on YouTube. I don’t know if there are gems in the rough there but they don’t seem to attract a lot of viewers.
The Shawshank Redemption has a similar story. Didn't do well when released. Its video release fared a little better, maybe because people could re-watch it at home. Then Turner picked up TV distribution rights cheaply and showed it again and again. Now, just like It's a Wonderful Life , it's considered one of the best movies ever made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption#Criti... Groundhog Day is l…
It's funny - I watched the Shawshank Redemption for the first time a couple years ago, after hearing forever about what a great film it is, and thought it was so lackluster I wasn't sure if I was missing something. "Did he die in the end? Was it a dream sequence?" But no, both the intention of the creators, and by far the most common interpretation from viewers, is that it's all literal. I tried watching Groundhog Da…
Same here. I'd never seen parts of it on TV or anything until I watched it for the first time, since I'd seen it was ranked #1 on IMDB. There wasn't anything about it that made me feel like it was the best movie ever. The plot was very conventional, the shots were fine, the performances were pretty good - it seemed like a 7-8/10 movie, there are lots like it. Then I watched Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 and I got the "best movie ever" kind of feeling from them - great cinematography, big themes, bombastic soundtracks. But I can see why Shawshank could be the least controversial movie of all time, it's fine at everything and that helps when there are so many people ranking it.
Part of the reason why it was on 24 hours a day for 20 years is that something got fucked up with the copyright and TV channels were using it as free filler. When I was very young it merely competed with Miracle on 34th Street. And then it was just fucking everywhere. I’m not sure I’m entirely over hating it for never being off the air. Even though it’s been 15-20 years since they stopped playing it every hour of the…
The Shawshank Redemption has a similar story. Didn't do well when released. Its video release fared a little better, maybe because people could re-watch it at home. Then Turner picked up TV distribution rights cheaply and showed it again and again. Now, just like It's a Wonderful Life , it's considered one of the best movies ever made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption#Criti... Groundhog Day is l…
Your summary of the reception of The Shawshank Redemption doesn't seem to fit the wikipied article you linked to
> Leading up to its release, the film was test screened with the public. These were described as "through the roof", and Glotzer said they were some of the best she had seen
> nominated for several Oscars in early 1995
> It went on to become the top rented film of that year
> You cannot attribute their success simply to repeated TV runs though I'm arguing that repeated TV runs allowed audiences and critics to deeply ponder and appreciate these films. Sustained attention over time, which caused a re-evaluation of their artistic merit.
I'm a fan of this theory. You basically have 2 chances: 1: the media hits you like a ton of bricks and enraptures the audience from the start 2: you watch it a few times (or in TVs case you catch a few episodes), think about it, ponder the lore for a bit, and get invested over time Outside of that, media will blow by you and never leave a mark.
I've had other experiences
Saw "Saving Arizona" right after losing my girlfriend. Saw every problem they had as tragic instead of comedy. Didn't like the movie. Some relatively short time later. Saw it again. I was my favorite movie for years after.
It's funny - I watched the Shawshank Redemption for the first time a couple years ago, after hearing forever about what a great film it is, and thought it was so lackluster I wasn't sure if I was missing something. "Did he die in the end? Was it a dream sequence?" But no, both the intention of the creators, and by far the most common interpretation from viewers, is that it's all literal. I tried watching Groundhog Da…
> perhaps it's the repeat viewings and predictability that make these films comfort food. There's a simpler explanation, which is that different people like different things.
people are different people at different times in their live as well.
In my mid 20s I saw Casablanca and was not impressed.
In my mid 50s I saw it again and cried until I trembled. The 20 something me didn't get what the 2 main characters were giving up. The 50 something me with life experience of loves lost by choice and circumstance had a very different reaction.
This did not go where I thought it was going, and I'm glad. I enjoyed the read. I'm not versed enough in psychiatry to validate the brain-chemistry stuff but my practical experience lines up. Reminds me of the trick of telling yourself "let's give this my full attention for just 5 minutes, and if I still don't want to do it we can move on". I pretty much always end up wanting to keep doing that thing.
“Action comes before motivation.” I’ve repeated this to my kids to the point it’s a meme in our house. I find it’s a nice short circuit to “I have no motivation”, b/c “Great, do {thing} and you’ll find the motivation!”
“The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.”
This comes across as manic. It reminds me very much of the types of themes and prose my diagnosed roommate would create.
The writing feels odd in a sort of off putting way. Maybe too much vividness and a kind of pseudointellectual vibe. Or like a bit egotistical? I don't know if that's what you're getting at, but it's what I was getting from it.