3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Backrooms

2026, Kane Parsons (The Backrooms) -- cinema

OK, not going to make the same mistake with a few other recent movies -- when something makes me feel something inside (gross, I know), I need to get it down before it goes away. 

This movie chilled me and enthralled me. And I imagine that is what some of the characters in the movie felt as well. 

This movie is an extreme example of the "don't go into the basement" -- you know you shouldn't go down there, and if you do, something bad will happen. But you go anyway, and the audience yells at you (yes, you have an audience as well) for being so stupid. But... what's down there? Danger! Of course. All the horror of the movie could be washed away by just not going down into the basement!! Well, most.

Many?

I have a pretty good sense of direction, generally better than most people I know. When I emerge from the subway, I always know which cardinal direction I am facing. But, put me into one of those underground malls, with all their weird angles, and corridors looping back on themselves and that sense of direction begins to slowly slip away. If you know the Toronto PATH, you might know what I am talking about.

So, when Clark (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kinky Boots) finds the "soft spot" in the basement of the dying furniture which he runs, and in which he lives, and begins to explore the weird connected rooms and corridors looping back upon themselves, every fibre of my being was screaming "DON'T GO ANY FURTHER !" Oh, I know he was expecting this to be reality, that what he had literally stumbled into would follow the rules of architecture and physics, but I saw the trailers, and also, I already knew this place. The further you go into that place the more likely you are going to go beyond a point from which you can remember the way back. You will most definitely become lost; you will most definitely end up being in there for the rest of your life.

This movie is based on a series of YouTube short films by this film's director Kane Parsons. He in turn drew upon the creepypasta that originated on 4chan with a single image of weird empty yellow rooms with terrible wallpaper and terrible carpet, accompanied by a single paragraph description, mentioning a video-game concept of "noclipping" out of reality. To noclip, in a game, is to accidentally (or intentionally, once enough people learn of the "soft spot") through a barrier, such as a wall or floor, into the spaces outside of the game's content. Sometimes you noclip into a space intentionally built by game developers, but most often you are just breaking the game and end up "falling" forever. Sometimes, you are just suspended ... somewhere. I recall one game where I ended up just under the world map, where my character was swimming. I could hear water, see my character's motions of swimming, but I could not see water nor could I go anywhere. I could see the map just above my head but I could not reach it. I was lost forever. I needed to reload.

Clark should have reloaded. He has noclipped into a place which starts by being familiar (abandoned furniture store) but the further he goes, the less familiar, and the more unnerving it becomes. And there is something in there with him, something that he always ends up fleeing. And yet Clark, an angry selfish man, brings his assistant store manager (really, his only employee with a fancy title) Kat (Lukita Maxwell, Shrinking), and her handy-cam bearing boyfriend Bobby (Finn Bennett, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms). It should be mentioned that it is the 1990s but the only bearing it has on the movie is the technology, the desire to use the "found footage" motif and to limit communication.

Clark also involves Mary (Renate Reinsve, Handling the Undead), his therapist, who has been constantly reminding Clark that he is stuck, stuck in his anger, stuck in his self-destructive patterns. As a therapist, who also has a book and video tapes, it is her schtick, her selling point, in that only you can choose other doorways in life, but most people keep on walking the same corridors forever. The comparisons are obvious, but handled really really well. Eventually Mary goes to Clark's store to see what he was going on about, before he disappeared. And she finds the entrance, which Clark has conveniently marked out with masking tape, and she finds Clark. It does not go well for either. Mary has her own personal corridors she has been traversing for years and years; Clark's experience exacerbates these and allows ... some closure? 

I have recurring dreams. In this writing I have probably mentioned The City before, but there was always one aspect, which is probably inherent to dreaming, and lends itself to what this movie is proposing, but there were the rooms and corridors of my dreams. There is The Apartment, which has many many rooms, connected to short hallways and stairwells. The entry room, with its big bright windows, leads to the kitchen, but off the kitchen, you reach the TV room with its 70s sunken floor and walls of VHS tapes. From there is a hallway that leads to The Kitchen, a massive room from a house that would have staff. I have never been through the door at the far end of The Kitchen. There is the underground shopping concourse, a cramped series of hallways and stalls selling all sorts of food stuffs like cured meat sandwiches and spices & herbs in bags, and dried goods I don't recognize. There are no straight lines, everything is jammed in together, people shouting, people hawking goods; I never find what I am there for, but I just love the experience of my visits. And there is The Factory, a falling down abandoned space I enter at the waterfront, but then find my way up but into what, I am never sure. Its always via weird tight hallways, stinking rooms full of junk, jammed doors, crawling over refuse to get ... somewhere.

Backrooms exposits that the rooms are memories of real spaces, but the idea that memories are built on how much you forget. Dreams are built on what you remember, but also .... on much more. The movie never explains what they are, why they are really there, who created them, what created them, but introduces it all without any real satisfying ending. We just wake up when the credits roll, confused, disoriented, disturbed and more than a little excited by it all. 

Thanks for seeing it, again, with me, Kent. Also Kent.

Required viewing: Who Is Killing Cinema

Patrick H. Willems is not just some guy on the internet talking about movies, he's a guy on the internet who has been talking about movies for over a dozen years. That's all it takes to get your credentials, right? Persistence?

Note: Toasty and I have been doing this for pretty much the exact same amount of time.  We're not Patrick Willems.

I'm newish to Willem's work, I only started watching his youtube channel at the start of this year, but I quickly latched on because he is a critical thinker, and his long-form video essays are well produced, well constructed, well researched, well reasoned and entertaining.  Looking back, he started out as a satirist, making short parodies or riffs off films or tropes, but this mode of essayist seems to suit him well.

Recent videos included coining the subgenre of "vibes movies", a dive into A.I. filmmaking, and a beginners guide to film criticism (also mandatory viewing for any amateur film reviewer) but it's his latest video, "Who is Killing Cinema - A Murder Mystery" that is required viewing for anyone who is interested in the health of the film industry.

If you read, listen or watch almost any form of film criticism (even our own) there's can be a lot of bemoaning of the state of the cinema today, how the "purple suits" make decisions that seem less interested in the art form and more about capitalistic greed, not realizing that it's more the art than the form that we're interested in as filmgoers.  I know I have done my fair share of defending Marvel movies over the years as well, as for the half decade they've been typecast as "the Doom that came to Hollywood" when I think it's been an unfair label, and an easy scapegoat.

This new video from Willems, posted above he breaks down the key suspects that are killing Hollywood, and he nails it. Not perfectly 100%, but, like, 92%.

You should watch the video but if you don't have the 85 minutes to spare, I'll do a quick recap...
The culprits are : 

1. Franchise movies
2. The fall of movie stars 
3. Studio Executives
4. Social media
5. Streaming

Spoiler alert: it's all of the above.  It's a perfect storm of calculated self-destruction. The purple suits, Willems notes, have shifted from being film lovers to business people, or, like, lawyers. In the end they care about the bottom line and not really making movies. The executives, in their endeavour to "Moneyball" filmmaking have glommed onto franchises based off existing IP as the most sure-fire way to make money. In doing so, the IP, the characters, have become the stars, not the performers.  Where once we would go see an actor or actress do their thing in different roles, now we want to see the same thing done by different actors or actresses. The purple suits may not have intentionally neutered the power of film stardom, but I bet they're not crying at all about it. Also part of this whole trend, Willems posits, is how studios have trained their audience to watch movies... in moving away from offering and promoting almost anything else, they've trained the audience that the only destination film, the only thing worth going to the theatre for, is a big, expensive blockbuster.

If there's a bigger nail in the coffin than any of the others it's streaming. Willems gets into Netflix's business model over the years and how it destroyed not just rental shops but physical media sales altogether. The decline in physical media sales meant that many films, which would have proven commercial successes on the post-theatrical market from sales and rentals, now just remain bombs. It reinforces their decision to not invest in mid-budget films or in promotion of them, because there's more risk.  Hollywood gets trench-head, and can't get out of their one-route way of thinking.  But Netflix's early success has led all the other major studios and networks to try their hand at a streaming service over the past half-decade and it's absolutely butchered the perceived value of both film and the cinematic experience.

Willems prior essay was on "Content", the term now used to describe everything and anything produced for one's illumination, education, or pleasure. It's all just "Content".  This utter flattening and devaluing of artistic forms, putting an unboxing video on the same playing field as a music video on the same playing field as a guy reacting to backyard wrestling fails on the same playing field as The Office, a tiktok dance video, a thoroughly researched polemic on NFTs, a student film, Love Island, a comic book review, the latest Wes Anderson vehicle.... when it's all "Content" these things all wind up being the same thing... being worth the same amount of one's time and attention and investment.  Netflix's Ted Sarandos, HBO's David Zaslav and even just youtube in general refers to everything being made for their services as "content" no matter how disparate the effort and artistry required.  To them it's all about eyeballs. If you can get the same amount of eyes, or more, by producing a supercut of cats falling off off shit, then why bother spending $25million on a comedy or dramatic film?  Willems glosses over social media and youtube as "competition" for seeing films in cinema, but I think that's primarily because it'd just restate his diatribe on "Content".  It is competition, it does divide attention, and the kids of social media age are less piped into traditional storytelling, so they're not going to the movies.

Willems is absolutely right. Cinema is in a bad state. Certainly in North America. I can't speak for the rest of the world.  I can attest (this blog can attest) that I fell out of going to the cinema for almost anything but a blockbuster film for the past dozen years.  I've put a lot of thought and mental effort into relaying how I feel about those films, and frankly, they are what I wanted to see when I was younger and still what I want to see now. I like my drama and humour and social introspection delivered by way of genre pieces. But I get people bemoaning the loss of the mid-range drama or comedy, and the surprise when one becomes a huge blockbuster. Quote films for grownups unquote.  But Willems may be right that in the proper promotion of a film, in re-establishing film stars, you can entice an audience, you can entice me to see a film that doesn't feature spandex or lasers.

The one major piece of Willems' puzzle that is missing from the video is television. In the past 20 years, TV has absolutely changed. No longer confined by "decency laws", TV shows can swear, have nudity, show all manner of gore or other disturbing images, things that were previously the domain of the movies, subject to audience control under a ratings system.  An in that loosening of constraints, TV got good. Real good. If Hollywood isn't making dramas or comedys for the cinemas, it's in no small part due to the sheer volume of great comedies and dramas and dramatic comedies and comedic dramas that have been on TV and streaming services in the past couple decades.  There's always been some really good TV, but it's never been like this. Especially since streaming started getting into the peak TV game, the investment into these productions is unprecedented.  TV looks cinematic, it drawing in film stars, and it's creating appointment television. Why go to the theatre when you just have to see the latest episode of one of the best shows ever made (as, at any given time now, one of the best shows ever made seems to be dropping a new episode)?

Is this, again a training? Have we been conditioned to view things serially? Is our attraction to franchises also part of our desire for ongoing narrative? Can stand-alone stories have a place?  

The answer is yes to all of these. But the value on stand-alone narratives is a lot less, because the investment is less.  For an audience the perceived value, for both serialized and stand-alone narratives, is in the artistry and the entertainment. If a stand-alone piece, a film if you will, stimulates the audience enough, eliciting a reaction (and it seems the purple suits don't even want any kind of reaction out of people anymore), it can spur interest, conversation, investment. If it entertains enough, people will go back to get that same dopamine hit again and again.  What used to be the Hollywood model was finding this balance between artistry and entertainment, now, it's largely "how do we not shake people up too much. We just want their eyeballs, and their money."

Like other American industries, the capitalists have taken over. For the people at the top, it's become about nothing but money. In their short-sightedness, the purple suits are cutting themselves off at the knees to strap what remains of their legs to fat wads of cash, not realizing that without legs you can't walk very far.  I don't have much hope the major studios, like so many major American industries, will find any value in investing in people and taking creative risks with their money.  When it's all about share value, nobody wins but shareholders.  It'll be the smaller production companies, the Blumhouses and A24s that start to fill the void as the big legless birds flail, wondering what happened.  As we can see the decline in franchise filmmaking already, the dwindling returns on Marvel, the negative returns on DC, repeated failures to resurrect established IP, the current business-minded execs won't think creatively enough to get them out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

I went off, much more than I should have, but it's a fascinating subject and a fascinating video.  If you care about cinema, give it a peek when you have time.

T&K Go Loopty Loo: 12:01 P.M. [trial]

 [Toast and Kent love time loop stories.  With this "Loopty Loo" series, T&K explore just what's happening in that film's loop, and maybe over time, they will deconstruct what it is that makes for a good time loop]

1990, d. Jonathan Heap - youtube
Based on a short story by Richard A. Lupoff.  Aired as part of Showtime's 30-Minute Movie anthology. Was nominated for an "Best Live Action Short Film" Academy Award in 1991.

Things to Think About During a Time Loop

How did the Loop Begin?
[Kent] According to a physicist, as reported upon by the newspaper, the matter and anti-matter universes have collided causing time to become a loop.

[Toast] "Saw him on the news this morning; what a weirdo..." How exactly does one come up with a theory like that? Imagine if Myron decided to take the time to absorb the weirdo scientist's (Dr. Rosenblut) knowledge, to better understand the matter-anti-matter connection.

What was the main character's first reaction to the Loop?
[Kent] We begin the short with Kurtwood Smith's Myron Castleman standing on a median in the center of a very busy street.  Knowing it's a time loop story going into it, it's clear from Smith's expression "not this again".  He mentions a little later that he's been looped 30 or 40 times already.

[Toast] Cool, it's the dad from That Seventies Show. Yeah, mid-loop as they say, but only about a day and a half has passed. So, not yet into that "bound to go mad" stage and yet... I get, it's a short, so the story telling needs to be condensed, but boy does Myron go through all the feelings during the half dozen or so loops we get to join him for.

WHY did the main character get put into the Loop? Can someone else be brought into the Loop?
[Kent] No answers are presented as to why Myron is the only consciousness to maintain awareness in the loop.  The story isn't long enough to learn if there are others or if anyone else can be brought into the loop.

[Toast] I don't know, there is something there, something about the dog? The sunset? The couple sitting on the porch laughing? Is this just Myron pondering what he will never get to experience, or did he Do Something or Not Do Something? Also, Myron admits pretty early on that he has been stuck in a rut for 23 years, same job, same desk, no friends, no family, no connections. He is so very lonely. So, there might be a metaphysical connection to him being the one in the loop. Also, being stuck in a rut -- triggered !! And 2020 has not helped me out, but more embedded me into it. *cough*

[Kent] totally on point... actually digging into the metaphor if it all, it is all about being stuck in a rut, with the message being that ruts are inescapable. How bleak.

How long is this time Loop? What resets it? Can you force the reset?
[Kent] The loop is 1 hour, pretty exactly.  When the clock ticks over to 1:00 PM it resets Myron to that median in the street at 12:01.  The big climax of the short is that Myron shoots himself in the head, unsure of whether it will end things, but hopeful that it will.  It does not.  He comes back to consciousness standing on that median in the middle of traffic.

[Toast] Myron also seems so hyper-aware of the single hour allotted to him that he gets lost in the minutes, constantly just dribbling the minutes away in thousand yard stares. If one thing other loop movies have taught us, is that eventually you learn to play the loop efficiently. Hopefully one day Myron will get there.

[Kent] Good catch on his vacantly staring minutes away... At a certain point there seems to be a hopelessness or futility in even trying.  It sort of speaks to Myron's character...his passivity, especially that he gets the office receptionist to make his calls for him and he just sits there and waits.

How long does the main character stay in the Loop? Does it have any affect on them, their personality, their outlook?
[Kent] Myron having only lived through the time loop for less than two days is already going a little nutty as a result. He certainly isn't taking advantage of the opportunity a time loop presents to better himself or really learn anything valuable... but then again, as this short effectively demonstrates, an hour isn't a very long time.

Myron starts to break out of his meekness, approaches the woman he's drawn to on the bench which is totally unlike him.  In another loop he stands up for the homeless guy getting berated by douchebage business guy types... "Don't you know what it's like to be alone?!" he screams.  He later becomes a complete a-hole to the secretary, calling her a "stuck up, pretentious bitch" for no reason, and then trashing her desk.  In another loop he declares himself a god, then shoots himself in the head.  So yeah, he's kind of affected by it.  Just a little.

[Toast] I think the sub-text is that Myron has finally realized what he has let himself get into, and it's too late. So, Toast, it's not yet too late. It's only 2021. Here's hoping that shot to the head, and probably quite a few after, are temporary, and eventually he will learn to become the unstuck man he should have always been, when he had the chance.

What about the other people in the Loop? Are they aware? Can they become aware?  Does anything happen if they become aware?

[Kent] Myron makes two people aware of the loop but their awareness resets at 1:00. They seem to have compassion for his plight if they believe him, but Myron seems cautious about revealing his...affliction.

[Toast] He still has time. 

*cough* 

He can ask Dolores something only she knows about herself, he can present that detail to her, her can start learning details from Dr. Rosenblut, and he can have friends.

What does the main character think about the other people in the Loop? Are they real? Do they matter?
[Kent] I think he wants them to, but kind of comes to the realization that they don't really matter.  Well, he's fully aware that since he's the only one aware of the loop, he's the only one who can affect reality, in essence making him a god.  A puny, puny god.

[Toast] I think part of Myron's issue was that his rut was self-imposed, that he was in a place of condensed space & time already because he didn't really care about people. How many times are you going to let a stranger get pooped on by an overhead bird? How many times are you going to let a homeless man get abused? How many times are you going to let someone lose their groceries before you understand that you can be the effect in their lives? We are all connected? Are we?

[Kent] You're right, I'm taking the short at face value, but it's clear this is a Twilight Zone-esque nightmare scenario. Otherwise I think Myron would have looked more resolved in the final shot rather than even more deflated. It's not hopeful, just depressing. Extending this narrative in my mind, Myron blows up the world somehow...only I don't tjink it can be done in an hour.

Most memorable event in a Loop? Most surprising event during a Loop?
[Kent] Nothing terribly memorable sticks out. I guess shooting himself in the head, or going from meek to raving misogynist?  I think more surprising is how primitive 1990 feels.

[Toast] Well, for a moment there, I thought brief changes were happening to the loop. It was probably bad editing, but in one loop the bag doesn't rip, the guy doesn't lose his groceries, and yet Myron didn't obviously interact with them.

[Kent] I think the bag not ripping was due to timing, Myron moved through the paces faster, so he moved past the scene before the bag ripped.

How does this stack up in the subgenre?
[Kent] Is this the earliest time loop story?  I mean, it certainly predates Groundhog Day by a few years and the original short story it's based on was published in 1973, so it's surprising how many of the tropes of the genre are already here.  But unlike other time loop stories which seem to have an out for the looper, here it ends with defeat, that there is no end for poor Myron.  There's no sense of mysticism or greater forces at play, but it doesn't have a lot of time to explore either Myron or the reality he's found himself in.

As for the production, it's pretty cheap looking, it's not well acted (it's pretty hammy, though Smith does deliver a couple of little nuances that I liked), and for experienced time loop viewers, it's very rudimentary in what it thinks is going to shock us.

[Toast] I liked how much it was a part of the assumed tropes, making me wonder if the early representations of the subgenre come from a single source. Sure, Cause and Effect from ST:tNG was a year before Groundhog Day but there were a few other examples before this short, and the subsequent feature based on it, came out. 

This being a condensed story, it really can only go so far so I rather like what they did with what they had.

 [Kent] Thinking a bit more about it (after watching the TV movie "remake") it's interesting to me that the standard for a time loop is a full 24 hours, and you can do a lot in 24 hours.  A one hour time loop is a nightmare, always emerging hungry even though mentally you know you just ate, never getting any real sleep, hard limits on how far you can go and what you can do. It's genuinely horrifying and I'd like to see someone remake this one hour loop into a longer, horror narrative.