Deconspiration of niche Ruby and Ed is a strange movie, and the nature of this film is such that it prompts me to engage in acts of violence against culture: I encourage the culture to say what it hides as shameful and hidden in its niches. Nicheness, organizing culture, spreads under the last fabric of history - a system of artifacts originating from a single substrate. Niche cultures of modern times have artifacts that have a local cult status films that become attributes of these cultures. Here we enter the path of intuition, where we begin to intuition the archetype of the cult film, directly relying on our own experience of building a film into a cult. Kitchen and pajama parties that I am happy to practice with friends filled me (us) with this experience - "Marathon zombie", "Succubus", "Night of the hunter", "Arzak", "Meeting place to change ..." and other wonderful ribbons dripped into our piggy banks.
Difficulties in comparing artifacts and association with the seemingly opposite - this, among other things, gives out the potential of the cult in the subject. Trying to compare to something like Ruby and Ed, I find myself in an awkward position - the comparison with other comedies of the eighties and nineties is strained. The most harmoniously associated "Naked" Mike Lee - films about the fact of finding yourself in a particular position, in which the identification of the context determines the identifying person. The details of the context are bare, undisguised, for they are revealed as themselves. Their nakedness and loneliness in relation to each other make up the perceived space. Thus, the experience of perception, in which the naked seek information about what is happening in general, produces the following experience of perception. This is how the plot moves - this movement of the plot is copied by "Nazye" and "Rubin and Ed".
In addition to the written analogy, the film is remarkable by Crispin Glover. His acting, directing and composer projects are characterized as very marginal. And who, and Crispin in the cult status do not occupy, but ...
A film about men who go to the desert to bury a pet, but not really about them, but about how the sequences of days flow, about the years lost a moment ago, about the fact that seminars designed to make you successful and rich, pass by you, ignoring you in all your insignificance, and passing by are broken into dust at the pedestal of your greatness, when you are the king of echoes.
The violence I commit against culture is that I write about this film, about the attributes of its cult status. Here I reveal something, because this attribute does not allow us to distinguish the niche in which this film is consumed. In other words, we do not see the most cult status. But it, meanwhile, cannot be absent, so we understand this cult as extremely niche. The film is smoothly charged with an apocalyptic feeling, it pours into its acid aesthetic, it sets its schizoid manner. And yet, we don't see a niche cult of this film. The emergence of a niche as an outsider of culture makes it possible to map the latter. Only Rubin and Ed is an outsider—the landscape of these realms is constantly hidden.
Why do I bring out this landscape when he wants to hide? I think it's all about his composition. His nakedness is the nakedness of things before their own eyes. Nudity of lonely cripples in the desert at the tip of the coming millennium. Naked and perplexed, they make up the niche of the cult of nudity and bewilderment in the viewer - which is called existence; revealing its property, this cinema allows the culture to look bewildered at its own nakedness, to find itself already shedding its clothes, already in the desert, at the end of the millennium; therefore I speak of this film, because it turns out that I am one of those who watched it.
norating from 10