16 August 2012
MMT is clearly the product of money and a lack of overall vision.
But at the same time it was made while the principal parties were using drugs quite actively.
I've watched MMT about 20 times. Half the time stone-cold sober and half the time while experiencing the side-effects of a recreational narcotic. During the sober times it was a dreary mess, peppered with occasional brilliance. During the other times it was a funny and engaging bedroom-farce-style road trip peppered with mind-blowing videos.
So my question…:
Is 'MMT' best viewed in its own context (that is to say,"while high"), or should it be seen as an example of the result of directionless drug use? Or something else…? Is it a lark? A tragic mistake? A cry for help? Letting off steam? Pure brilliance?
17 January 2013
5 November 2011
8 November 2012
3 May 2012
I've never seen this film while under the influence of anything and it's okay (for me) if you're not high but it's not my favourite of theirs. It has it's good points and other parts that are a bit of a drag. I have always assumed that it could be enjoyed more if you're in an altered state because of the spontaneity of it, and also because of the time when it was made.
1 May 2011
It might help being under the influence as it doesn't really have much of a strand running thru the film but its not something ive ever done. Maybe it would make more sense, more enjoyable because you simply don't care and love all the weirdness going on. Its a good film with great music.
14 December 2009
Haven't seen MMT myself while high (yet); I'd be more apt to put on Singin' In the Rain or the Led Zeppelin DVD or Yellow Submarine (or Let It Be…some day) if I want altered-senses audiovisual fun. I know if I did, the good parts would indeed seem to make a little more "sense". (I doubt that I'd enjoy the most irritatingly incomprehensible bits any more, however; I honestly find that spaghetti scene pretty near unwatchable.) But isn't that really the nature of dope use in general – to make most things more interesting and some things more seemingly profound?
I really don't think there was any grand design – the Beatles were pretty much just getting high and throwing stuff at the wall to see what would stick. And then viewing the filmed results while high and liking what they saw. But I would assume that they were experienced enough dopers to realize that the goofy stuff only seemed to be meaningful because they were stoned – but that it didn't matter because much of the audience would be stoned anyways!
(Which raises another question: who did they think the audience was going to be?? Did they not realize that being televised meant that the programme would be viewed by Mr. and Mrs. British Public, most of whom were probably not stoners? Were they too stoned to think that through? Or didn't they care? Or did they maybe think that their pro-legalization petition of a few months ago would surely be so effective that the whole country would be toking up by Boxing Day? So many additional questions; glad I'm not stoned or I'd be overwhelmed!)
18 March 2013
I've never watched MMT under anything either ( my solvent abuse days are long over ) but I quite like the film, I showed it to a pair of my friends (one a Beatle fan, the other not) and both of them liked it, they thought it was strange but they liked it. Like Von Bontee I can't really stomach the spaghetti scene, it's disturbing and slightly frightening but sure it probably is better when you're high seeing as that's the way the lads were when they made it.
1 November 2012
"Did they not realize that being televised meant that the programme would be viewed by Mr. and Mrs. British Public, most of whom were probably not stoners?"
I think too much has been made of the Beatles and drugs. They didn't do anything only because of drugs. MMT is in the tradition of zany, cheeky, Dada-ish British comedy (of which there were many shows and individuals before Monty Python came along); and so actually, Mr. and Mrs. British Public would be rather cultured in this brand of humor.
14 December 2009
Oh definitely, they didn't invent Dada or the Goons or music-hall burlesque or whatever. Even the trippy visuals weren't totally new, and of course the notion of "let's get on a bus with a bunch of weirdos and see what happens" stems from two sources in particular. (One of which was Ken Kesey's LSD-soaked Merry Pranksters riding Furthur, of course.) But the way they were all stitched together in no real logical order along with the sheer pointlessness of the spaghetti sequence and other nonsense was pretty largely a product of the druggy milieu that they were embracing at the time.
1 May 2011
I dont think there is that much difference between MMT and the Christmas records from '66 onwards which were pretty much off the wall and very far removed from the earlier xmas messages (im not talking content more the darting all over the place). There was a strand running thru the messages but the links were at times pretty thin. MMT was just even more so due to being able to expand on the ideas and put images to the skits.
21 November 2012
14 December 2009
If you're like me, some parts that that were intended to be funny, and were funny, would indeed be funnier.
And some parts that weren't intended to be funny, would be funny.
But the parts that were intended to be funny yet weren't funny, would be no funnier. Something about laboured, unsuccessful comedy that kills it…more than kills it, in fact, it negates it, makes it anti-comedy – less funny than non-comedy.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: HeyTrud, AppleScruffJunior
Currently Browsing this Page:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
Guest Posters: 87
Newest Members: AceJ, DayInTheLife, AnyTimeAtAll, TomorrowNeverKnows, dam09
Moderators: Joe (2967), Ellie (1), Zig (3092), fabfouremily (2045), mja6758 (1896)
Administrators: Joe (2967)