Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Weird House Cinema. Rewind. My name
Speaker 1: is Joe McCormick. This week, Rob and I are out,
Speaker 1: so we're bringing you an older episode of Weird House
Speaker 1: Cinema for this Friday. This was the feature that we
Speaker 1: did on Panos Cosmodos's The Viewing, which was an entry
Speaker 1: in a short film in Germo del Toro's Cabinet of
Speaker 1: Curiosities series. This episode originally published on August eleventh, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. Let's get right in there. Welcome to Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, welcome to Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 1: This is Rob Lamb and this is Joe McCormick, and
Speaker 1: we've got something a little bit different for you today.
Speaker 1: Today on Weird House Cinema, we're going to be talking
Speaker 1: about The Viewing, directed by Panos Cosmodos, which is not
Speaker 1: a feature film, but an anthology episode in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two Netflix series Germo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities. Rob,
Speaker 1: this was your pick. How did you end up bringing
Speaker 1: us into this zone?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I certainly of modern directors, Panos is
Speaker 2: one of my favorite weird directors and certainly someone who's
Speaker 2: always been in the back of my mind with weird
Speaker 2: house cinema. I think one of the reasons I dig
Speaker 2: this selection so much, though, is that it kind of
Speaker 2: fills a vital gap in modern genre cinema. I don't
Speaker 2: know if this will make sense or if this is
Speaker 2: just like me thinking too long and hard about it,
Speaker 2: but I feel like this, this movie of the viewing,
Speaker 2: is in many ways like a B movie creature feature,
Speaker 2: only without the B movie budget limitations and with everything,
Speaker 2: you know, some being somewhat subjected to a kind of
Speaker 2: like cinematic reduction, you know, and concentration of the flavors.
Speaker 2: As we've discussed on the show before, B movies of today,
Speaker 2: at least to me and I think to us to
Speaker 2: some degree, they lack the luster of those twentieth century
Speaker 2: B movies. And we've discussed some of the possible reasons why.
Speaker 2: You know, is it the technical proficiency or lack thereof
Speaker 2: sometimes in the modern B movies. Is it digital film
Speaker 2: and digital effects versus practical and film, or do these
Speaker 2: recent films just feel too contemporary.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of modern B movies are too
Speaker 1: self conscious and not distinctive enough they kind of lack
Speaker 1: some of the character of the B movies of old
Speaker 1: and have a level of self consciousness that takes some
Speaker 1: of the fun out. Like I don't know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've never gotten deep into the Sharknado series, but is like,
Speaker 1: I don't know how much of a drive I feel
Speaker 1: to watch Sharknado five, but I do kind of want
Speaker 1: to watch Jaws four again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you mentioned fun, and I think that's another key thing,
Speaker 2: Like a lot of B movies from the past, that
Speaker 2: they're fun to watch. This selection. The viewing is, at
Speaker 2: least to my taste, a very fun viewing experience. Every
Speaker 2: time I watch it, I laugh a little bit, I
Speaker 2: geek out over some of the visuals and the sounds,
Speaker 2: and I ponder over some of the strange choices that
Speaker 2: are made, and I think all of those things kind
Speaker 2: of match up with the sort of suite of experiences
Speaker 2: you tend to have with older B movies, though obviously
Speaker 2: to create this nowadays, you've got to spend a lot
Speaker 2: more money. You've got to throw in, you know, sort
Speaker 2: of a mixture of retro esthetics, absurdism. In the case
Speaker 2: of Panos's film, certainly a heightened commitment to style, and
Speaker 2: I guess it's understandable when we don't see more films
Speaker 2: of this nature, because yeah, it's clearly expensive to generate.
Speaker 2: And I guess at the end of the day, there's
Speaker 2: kind of like a who is this.
Speaker 1: For a question? Yeah, I mean, I don't really know.
Speaker 1: I feel like his most recent feature film, Mandy, was
Speaker 1: moderately successful, was it not? Or am I wrong?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah? Yeah, Yeah, Mandy was successful at least as
Speaker 2: far as my understanding of its metrics go. You know,
Speaker 2: it had several different things that sort of propelled it
Speaker 2: and got people into theaters or certainly checking it out
Speaker 2: digitally later, be it you know, the whole you know,
Speaker 2: cage rage aspect of it. You learned to see this
Speaker 2: really walked out performance from Nicholas Cage or certainly the
Speaker 2: face melting visuals and sounds of the of the picture.
Speaker 2: And also it had a very I guess, dependable subgenre
Speaker 2: styling to it. It is a revenge film, which is
Speaker 2: not my favorite genre of film, but it's something that
Speaker 2: you go into a movie like that you kind of
Speaker 2: know what sort of ride you're in for, and that
Speaker 2: helps propel you through it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So maybe the revenge film or other genre trappings
Speaker 1: might explain part of the success there, but I feel
Speaker 1: like there is an audience for Panos Cosmodos, oh and
Speaker 1: for his style driven approach. I mean, so I've seen now,
Speaker 1: I guess, all of the major film projects of Panos Cosmotos.
Speaker 1: So he's done two features Beyond the Black Rainbow from
Speaker 1: twenty ten and Mandy from twenty eighteen, and this Cabinet
Speaker 1: of Curiosities episode. I've seen all three now, and I
Speaker 1: don't know of anything else he's really released. One thing
Speaker 1: I think they all have in common is that they
Speaker 1: are primarily texture driven rather than narrative driven. So whereas
Speaker 1: you assume most filmmaking projects start with the story idea,
Speaker 1: they start with a script or a story concept, and
Speaker 1: then they come up with the audio visual elements that
Speaker 1: are necessitated by that. They come up with sets and
Speaker 1: costumes and lighting schema and music and other visual and
Speaker 1: auditory motifs to serve and enrich the story. I think Panos,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know about the process if it
Speaker 1: really works this way, but it feels like Panos's movies
Speaker 1: start with the texture. They start with maybe a vision
Speaker 1: of a room with sunken couches in a circle with
Speaker 1: a strange sort of pipe organ chandelier hanging above them,
Speaker 1: and a revolving table covered in lines of cocaine, surrounded
Speaker 1: by like mirrored orange radiance and AK forty seven silhouetted
Speaker 1: in gold light. And then there's a specific soundtrack to this.
Speaker 1: You can you know he's hearing it in his head.
Speaker 1: There's like a chord progression playing in a dark, saturated
Speaker 1: moge synthesizer tone. Oh. And then you know, for another movie,
Speaker 1: it's like I'm seeing a biker that's only in shadows,
Speaker 1: surrounded by pink light, covered head to toe in spikes
Speaker 1: like a pufferfish, but they're not spikes, they're made of rebar.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: And there's like a battle between two men wielding ten
Speaker 1: foot long chainsaws, and so forth and so forth. And
Speaker 1: it feels like they start with the images and the
Speaker 1: color palettes, the lighting, the music and all that, and
Speaker 1: they just kind of fell in a story or the
Speaker 1: suggestion of a story to link together all of that texture.
Speaker 1: I'd say, of the three things, maybe Mandy is the
Speaker 1: most story driven of his works, followed by this episode
Speaker 1: somewhere in the middle, and then Beyond the Black Rainbow
Speaker 1: seems the least story driven in the most kind of
Speaker 1: texture driven. But in all cases it seems to me
Speaker 1: like the plot content is secondary to the sites and
Speaker 1: the sounds. And let me know in a minute if
Speaker 1: you disagree with that characterization. But I'll say, at least
Speaker 1: as far as my perception of his style goes, it's
Speaker 1: interesting to me that this is not the only film
Speaker 1: we've covered that feels like it operates this way. But
Speaker 1: in other cases we for one thing, no, it actually
Speaker 1: did operate that way in terms of how the film
Speaker 1: was made, and we know why, and it was because
Speaker 1: of ruthless concerns about budget and efficiency. So maybe Roger
Speaker 1: Corman says, oh, hot Dog, we got some stock footage
Speaker 1: and some leftover sets and costumes from another movie. We
Speaker 1: got them on the cheap. Let's throw together a script
Speaker 1: that can use this footage of a rocket launching and
Speaker 1: these sparkly coats and this rented mansion in La and
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Panos's movies do not feel like
Speaker 1: this at all, to the extent that it is actually
Speaker 1: guided by an ethic of texture first, or production elements first,
Speaker 1: rather than story first, it feels like a result of
Speaker 1: a lavish, indulgent passion for the project, completely opposite from
Speaker 1: the sort of mercenary or efficiency focused attempt to wring
Speaker 1: every last drop of value out of your rentals and
Speaker 1: your commissions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a real commitment to vision with these pictures,
Speaker 2: and I love that it has thus far been sustained
Speaker 2: because when Beyond the Black Rainbow came out, I loved it.
Speaker 2: It's just a film you can just breathe in. And
Speaker 2: then came Mandy, and then came this, and like each time,
Speaker 2: I'm afraid things are going to get less weird, They're
Speaker 2: gonna maybe become more concerned with these other aspects of
Speaker 2: cinematic storytelling. But thus far, no, it's been It's been
Speaker 2: the weirdness, the visuals and you know, the sites and
Speaker 2: sounds well beyond anything you've tested that come first.
Speaker 1: And to be clear, I don't know that this is
Speaker 1: how Panos operates. It's just that's how the product feels
Speaker 1: in the end. I mean it's it's entirely possible. They
Speaker 1: do start with the script and then just something about
Speaker 1: the way, you know, the way he realizes the sights
Speaker 1: and sounds of that story are so strong they sort
Speaker 1: of take take the pilot's chair in the actual viewing experience.
Speaker 1: But then this got me thinking about, well, what are
Speaker 1: the common themes in the narrative content the stories of
Speaker 1: panos Cosmodoss movies, And they seem to me to all
Speaker 1: represent a dual infatuation with, but also deep suspicion of
Speaker 1: the mini strands of the psychedelic and New Age American
Speaker 1: counterculture of the sixties and seventies. So you've got murderous
Speaker 1: cults of Manson type hippies. You've got demonic bikers that
Speaker 1: deal drugs from hell. You have utopian alternative healing institutions
Speaker 1: that turn into psychotic prisons, like the premise of Beyond
Speaker 1: the Black Rainbow is sort of like an Esslin Institute
Speaker 1: workshop took hostages and turned them into psychic assassins. You've
Speaker 1: got hallucinogen use that is portrayed with a kind of
Speaker 1: glamorous horror. It's a double edged sword. It's very alluring,
Speaker 1: but it also causes people to lose their minds and
Speaker 1: sometimes their souls. And the viewing in particular has a
Speaker 1: character who seems to me to be modeled on personalities
Speaker 1: associated with the Stanford Research Institute, which we've talked about
Speaker 1: on the show before, but basically, you know, a sort
Speaker 1: of research program famous for claiming to have found scientific
Speaker 1: evidence of paranormal powers like telekinesis and remote viewing, sometimes
Speaker 1: associated with other figures in the broader New Age movement,
Speaker 1: and this character in the Viewing is explicitly portrayed as
Speaker 1: a charlatan. And in general, it seems like Panos's vision
Speaker 1: is one that's like obsessed with these sort of hippie
Speaker 1: and New Age concepts, but also views mind expansion in
Speaker 1: all its forms as something that is beautiful and appealing
Speaker 1: but often is a false promise that leads to suffering
Speaker 1: and chaos and destruction. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's very fair. I guess some of
Speaker 2: it is also probably rooted in an exploitation cinema, Like
Speaker 2: certainly when you think of Beyond the Black Rainbow, instantly
Speaker 2: reminded of Blue Sunshine, which is very much a you know,
Speaker 2: post hippies sort of aging out hippies, the exploitation film
Speaker 2: about Oh, well, you know that that acid you took
Speaker 2: years ago, Well it turns out it'll make you into
Speaker 2: a bald psychopath. Now, so watch out and think twice
Speaker 2: about all the things you did ten or fifteen years ago.
Speaker 1: We may have to do Blue Sunshine one day on
Speaker 1: Weird House. One of my favorite aspects of it is that,
Speaker 1: if I remember right, doesn't all your hair fall off
Speaker 1: at once? Yes, it happens in an instant. It's like
Speaker 1: a wig that comes off. It's not gradual.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's an interesting film starring Zalman King.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I like that once it becomes clear in
Speaker 1: that movie that it's the acid that's turning people into
Speaker 1: to like kill zombies, then you're trying to do a
Speaker 1: kind of detective thing of weight. Can we remember who
Speaker 1: took the acid at this party like twenty years ago?
Speaker 2: Yeah. The big difference between Blue Sunshine and the works
Speaker 2: of Panos because Modos, though, I think, is that Blue
Speaker 2: Sunshine doesn't really, as I recall, doesn't really do much
Speaker 2: to give you, like even a semi glamorous idea of
Speaker 2: what the psychedelic experience could be like, like not even
Speaker 2: like an exaggerated dreamlike cinematic quality to it. Whereas Panos
Speaker 2: is going to dip into both wells. As you said,
Speaker 2: you know, there's going to be something alluring and other
Speaker 2: worldly about it all, but also there's going to be
Speaker 2: this dark side.
Speaker 1: Though interestingly, at least to me, while the narrative content
Speaker 1: has this kind of tight obsession on like sixties and
Speaker 1: seventies hippie and new age themes, I feel like the
Speaker 1: texture that he's drawing from is time shifted a little
Speaker 1: bit later than that, Like there's overlap, but it goes
Speaker 1: a little bit further into like the eighties. The kind
Speaker 1: of sights and sounds that he seems to be most
Speaker 1: sourcing from sort of a late seventies and eighties club
Speaker 1: lighting and synthesizer bath in a way, kind of a
Speaker 1: tech noir element.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, and you certainly know you're watching a Penisklismatos film,
Speaker 2: certainly thus far based to a large degree on the
Speaker 2: colors and the light and this like searing sense of
Speaker 2: the lights, so like it's like the dead lights, you know,
Speaker 2: shining out of his pictures at you. I think some
Speaker 2: of these are called panos flares. I think that's his
Speaker 2: his I think I picked it up somewhere. That's his
Speaker 2: name for some of these these flares you see in
Speaker 2: his films.
Speaker 1: I don't know specifically what that refers to, but there
Speaker 1: are very distinctive types of panos shots like he loves
Speaker 1: a car racing through the dark in the night with
Speaker 1: the dials illuminated, glowing in the dark, and like synthesizer
Speaker 1: music playing, or like a character in silhouette just like
Speaker 1: just absolutely washed and colored light from behind so you
Speaker 1: can't really see their features, but you just see the
Speaker 1: outline and behind them. It is like an orange sun
Speaker 1: or a pink sun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and another big aspect of is a certainly in
Speaker 2: play and beyond the black Rainbow, and also in play
Speaker 2: in this film to a large extent, is a kind
Speaker 2: of I would say, very like Queludian pacing at times.
Speaker 2: And I think maybe that can be that can maybe
Speaker 2: be a barid entry for some viewers who really want
Speaker 2: something that's gonna really snap and move quickly, like things
Speaker 2: are not necessarily gonna move quickly in one of these films.
Speaker 2: It's gonna it's gonna be like a slow burning feeling.
Speaker 2: There's gonna be maybe some some some time spent like
Speaker 2: watching a weird character actor like calmly emote for a while,
Speaker 2: which which I love, but yeah, may not be everyone's
Speaker 2: cup of tea.
Speaker 1: Oh, I totally agree. No, that's another distinctive panos thing.
Speaker 1: His films, I would say, in comprehensively lack momentum, both
Speaker 1: in terms of the overall plot and in terms of
Speaker 1: the moment to moment experience of the scenes. Like in
Speaker 1: the individual scenes. Uh, there's a lot of so like
Speaker 1: when characters are talking to each other, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of kind of stopping and starting dialogue. A lot of
Speaker 1: dialogue scenes do not really kind of like build an
Speaker 1: intensity and have an exchange of power like you know,
Speaker 1: your dialogue writing coach would say you're supposed to have,
Speaker 1: but they work in a totally different way. They're more
Speaker 1: just kind of painting a weird picture of interactions rather
Speaker 1: than escalating drama. That's not true of every scene, but
Speaker 1: that's very often true. And then I would say overall, yeah,
Speaker 1: there are the movies do build up towards something, but
Speaker 1: they don't have that kind of relentless, snowballing feeling where
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, I've got to see what happens in
Speaker 1: the next scene. You you have to kind of like
Speaker 1: submit to one of these films and say like I'm
Speaker 1: just ready for it, and I think it's a very
Speaker 1: fun and rewarding experience. But it Yeah, they don't pull
Speaker 1: you with that like Page Turner thriller quality, whatever the
Speaker 1: movie equivalent of that is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this one, I have to say. When I saw
Speaker 2: it for the first time, I went in without I think,
Speaker 2: even having seen a screenshot from it. I just I
Speaker 2: knew that it was Panosco's mottos and that I was
Speaker 2: going to be on board for it, but not knowing
Speaker 2: anything about even what the plot was or what the
Speaker 2: viewing referred to, it did feel very unsafe, you know,
Speaker 2: like I just really didn't know what kind of story
Speaker 2: this was going to be, and it's not entirely clear
Speaker 2: for a large portion of the runtime what kind of
Speaker 2: story it's going to ultimately be. It's not really into
Speaker 2: the last say, twelve minutes of the like just less
Speaker 2: than an hour runtime, that things really come to a head.
Speaker 1: I Mean a lot of this thing is just characters
Speaker 1: doing drugs. Yeah, it's true.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that kind of brings me to my elevator
Speaker 2: pitch is that this is essentially House on Haunted Hill,
Speaker 2: except instead of money and ghosts, it's drugs and face
Speaker 2: melting encounters.
Speaker 1: Now, Rob, is this one where you were saying that
Speaker 1: the trailer spoils the ending.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say the trailer spoils anything, per se. I
Speaker 2: just I kind of wanted for you something akin to
Speaker 2: my experience with it, where you didn't know exactly what
Speaker 2: was going to happen.
Speaker 1: Well, based on your recommendation, I did not watch the trailer.
Speaker 1: I just went in cold, and I'm glad I did. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I liked not knowing where it was going. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So this is gonna be twenty five seconds of trailer audio,
Speaker 2: So if you want to skip it, skip ahead about
Speaker 2: twenty five seconds. Let's have a listen, good evening tonight.
Speaker 1: I'm going to gift you in eight Transcendence at the
Speaker 1: greatest expense asmarizing.
Speaker 2: All right now, if you would like to experience the
Speaker 2: viewing before we proceed with the discussion here well as
Speaker 2: of this recording, the only way to experience it is
Speaker 2: as the seventh episode of Germeal Do Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned earlier, on the streaming platform Netflix. But
Speaker 2: I really hope it does get a physical release at
Speaker 2: some point, either on its own or as part of
Speaker 2: this series, which, as we were just talking to JJ about,
Speaker 2: I think it's I think it's it's rather good. It's
Speaker 2: it's varied, it has some has a couple of other
Speaker 2: high points as far as my taste go. And also
Speaker 2: I think there's there's a nice variety. Like some of
Speaker 2: the the episodes are more thoughtful and character driven. A
Speaker 2: couple of them are certainly more tales from the crypt
Speaker 2: ish in their you know, their basic structure. You know,
Speaker 2: here's a terrible person. He's become involved with some sort
Speaker 2: of supernatural element and he's going to get his.
Speaker 1: This is the only episode of this I've actually seen,
Speaker 1: so if I watch more, I may come back to
Speaker 1: it in October. Be good seasonal viewing. I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're going to do another one.
Speaker 2: I don't know that they've said one way or another.
Speaker 2: I think Del Toro has said that he's interested in
Speaker 2: heading it up, but I think I saw a quote
Speaker 2: where it was like, but if it doesn't happen, I'll
Speaker 2: also be a little bit relieved because it's a lot
Speaker 2: of work, So fingers crossed. All right, let's talk about
Speaker 2: the people involved here. So we'll start at the top
Speaker 2: here with Panos Cosmotos, the director and one of the
Speaker 2: writers on this piece. Born nineteen seventy four Italian Canadian
Speaker 2: film director and screenwriter. He's the son of director George P. Cosmotos,
Speaker 2: who lived nineteen forty one through two thousand and five,
Speaker 2: who himself gave us such weird films as nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: threes of Unknown Origin and nineteen eighty nine's Leviathan.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize that connection until right before we came
Speaker 1: into record, but that'll come up again in a minute.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's also he's also he also brought to brought
Speaker 2: us some some mainstream action films like Rainbow Rambow rather
Speaker 2: First Blood Part two. Yeah, Cobra from nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 2: that's another stallone, and Tombstone from nineteen ninety three, the
Speaker 2: popular Western Panos, by the way, who would have been
Speaker 2: I think eighteen at the time, has a credit on
Speaker 2: that film some sort of like assistant video operator in
Speaker 2: the second unit. So, as we've been discussing, Panos's own
Speaker 2: writing and directing debut was twenty ten's Beyond the Black Rainbow,
Speaker 2: followed by the Nicholas Cage helmed revenge horror movie Mandy,
Speaker 2: And then comes the Viewing, which I feel takes a
Speaker 2: slightly more absurdist approach and also dials down like the
Speaker 2: number of things he's trying to accomplish in the picture
Speaker 2: while still going just all in and all out on
Speaker 2: its main set pieces.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say, And this may just be in
Speaker 1: part due to its shorter run time, but the viewing
Speaker 1: takes us on fewer wild turns on the journey than
Speaker 1: his other two movies do, but the turns that are
Speaker 1: taken are just as wild. Yeah.
Speaker 2: As for his next film, I believe it is set
Speaker 2: to be something titled Necrocosm. I don't know that we
Speaker 2: really know anything about what this is going to consist of,
Speaker 2: except that it's supposedly going to be more of a
Speaker 2: sci fi film, So I'm excited to find out what
Speaker 2: it could possibly be.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: His co writer on this is Aaron stuart On. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure about the dates for this writer, but he
Speaker 2: was one of the co writers of Mandy, alongside Panos
Speaker 2: and one Casper Kelly. He was also a staff writer
Speaker 2: on the twenty twenty two series The Witcher Blood Origin,
Speaker 2: and as a director, he directed a couple of Decembrist
Speaker 2: videos as well as a video for Death Cab for Qtie.
Speaker 2: Now getting into the cast here, Yes, heading this up,
Speaker 2: playing the character Lionel Lassiter is Peter Weller born nineteen
Speaker 2: forty seven American actor and director who's acting or goes
Speaker 2: all the way back into the early seventies and he's
Speaker 2: still active today. He started out on Broadway, then did
Speaker 2: some TV, did a little bit of film, and then
Speaker 2: starred in George P. Cosmatos's nineteen eighty three psychological thriller
Speaker 2: of Unknown Origin, a movie I have not seen, but
Speaker 2: I've heard good things about. It's a psychological horror film
Speaker 2: about a man who becomes aest with killing a rat
Speaker 2: that's infesting his home.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That sounds like a premise of like
Speaker 1: a comedy. You know, this guy's like, oh, this rat's
Speaker 1: driving me crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean it's one of those those plots that
Speaker 2: could go either way, but anyway. So that was eighty
Speaker 2: threes of Unknown Origin. Then in nineteen eighty four he
Speaker 2: played the title role in the Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai
Speaker 2: Across the Eighth Dimension, which of course has a deliriously
Speaker 2: weird cast and is a well known weird cult film.
Speaker 2: In nineteen eighty seven, he became a RoboCop, a role
Speaker 2: he would play again in nineteen nineties RoboCop. Two. Other
Speaker 2: films of note, at least to us, include The Yeah,
Speaker 2: the nineteen eighty nine underwater horror sci fi film Leviathan,
Speaker 2: which was also directed by George Picos, Mottos, Cronenberg's Naked
Speaker 2: Lunch in ninety one, Screamers in ninety five that's based
Speaker 2: on a Philip K. Dick short story called Second Variety.
Speaker 2: And he's done more and more TV work in recent decades,
Speaker 2: including Sons of Anarchy, Star Trek Enterprise, He's done some
Speaker 2: Batman voiceover work, and as a TV director, he's been
Speaker 2: rather prolific there as well. Since the mid nineties, I believe,
Speaker 2: directed numerous episodes of such shows as Homicide, Life on
Speaker 2: the Street, Sons of Anarchy, and more.
Speaker 1: You know, I first came to love Peter Weller as
Speaker 1: RoboCop and as Buckery Bonzai, as well as in some
Speaker 1: relatively I think kind of cold performances in B movies,
Speaker 1: like you mentioned the eighty nine underwater horror thriller Leviathan,
Speaker 1: where in that movie, one of the main things I
Speaker 1: remember is he wears a hat so stiff it should
Speaker 1: have still had the price tag stuck to it. Like
Speaker 1: you know, he's playing this like underwater drill rig manager,
Speaker 1: but it's this hat that's like the brim has never
Speaker 1: once been gripped by a human hand. But yeah, in
Speaker 1: a lot of these movies I'm familiar with, he's you know,
Speaker 1: playing the handsome cool as a cucumber leading man. But
Speaker 1: in his later career, Peter Weller has really aged into
Speaker 1: a totally different kind of performer, a sort of reptilian
Speaker 1: character actor who if they were remaking the Super Mario
Speaker 1: Brothers movie today in the style of the one with
Speaker 1: Bob Hoskins, I think Peter Weller would be an excellent
Speaker 1: choice to play Dennis Hopper's King Koopa. This man, he
Speaker 1: so easily inhabits the role of a character who has
Speaker 1: experienced beyond pleasure and pain, beyond good and evil, and
Speaker 1: you could easily make high quality Sawyer family furniture out
Speaker 1: of him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's really fun in this as an immoral, vampire
Speaker 2: esque rich, beyond conscious reclose. It would be benefactor of
Speaker 2: artists and academics. It seems like a role he really
Speaker 2: gets to ease into and have a lot of fun with.
Speaker 1: He plays a living mummy who encourages you to sin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but very convincing and charismatic. And I think we're
Speaker 2: talking we're talking about this beforehand, like how many actors
Speaker 2: today can can use the word daddy O in a
Speaker 2: fixture and it's still come off as cool.
Speaker 1: And suave, you know, Oh yeah, you yeah.
Speaker 2: The comparison to Dennis Hopper, I think is key, Like
Speaker 2: this is a role you could it would have been
Speaker 2: a different Linel Lassiter. It would certainly would have had
Speaker 2: a different energy to it. But Dennis Hopper could have
Speaker 2: played this role as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would have been a more high strong line Lassiter,
Speaker 1: I think, But yeah, I could see.
Speaker 2: That all right. Lionel Lassiter has an attendant. He has
Speaker 2: a couple of attendants, but he has a doctor that
Speaker 2: attends to him by the name of doctor Zara played
Speaker 2: by Sophia Boutella born nineteen eighty two, French Algerian actress,
Speaker 2: dancer and model. If you're not sure who I'm talking about,
Speaker 2: if if you saw picture of her, you would recognize her.
Speaker 2: She's been in twenty fourteen's Kingsman, The Secret Service, twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen Star Trek Beyond. I think she has a lot
Speaker 2: of makeup on in that one. She was in twenty
Speaker 2: seventeen's Atomic Blonde, and she was in twenty seventeens The Mummy,
Speaker 2: in which she plays the Mummy battling Tom Cruise. She's
Speaker 2: the Mummy in that Mummy movie. All right, yeah, so
Speaker 2: she's on posters in all.
Speaker 1: Does she defeat Tom Cruise in the end? I hope so?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, I think so. I think she defeats him,
Speaker 2: wraps him up, stores him away, and takes over the world.
Speaker 2: I never saw it, but that's my assumption because they
Speaker 2: didn't do anything else with that series, so it must
Speaker 2: have wrapped up. She's also going to the star in
Speaker 2: Zack Snyder's upcoming sci fi film Rebel Moon, and looks
Speaker 2: like she's prominently featured on the posters for that. But
Speaker 2: in this she comes off like a like a total vampire,
Speaker 2: a total seductress. In fact, when I first started watching this,
Speaker 2: I just assumed that both Doctor Zara and Line Lassiter
Speaker 2: must be vampires. That must be where this episode is going.
Speaker 2: Turns out that's not the case, but there's still a
Speaker 2: vampire quality to these characters. Yeah.
Speaker 1: She has a clear fascination with power and evil that
Speaker 1: you can sort of almost like feel in her mouth
Speaker 1: when she talks about it all right.
Speaker 2: We also have a character by the name of Randall
Speaker 2: Roth played by Eric Andre born nineteen eighty three American comedian, actor,
Speaker 2: and musician. Probably best known, I guess, depending on your
Speaker 2: age and you know what your interests are, but probably
Speaker 2: best known for Adult Swim's The Eric Andre Show or
Speaker 2: his role on the second season of HBO's The Righteous Gemstones.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, but he's popped up in a lot of
Speaker 2: things over the years, and also, of course he has
Speaker 2: a stand up career, he does music. I think that
Speaker 2: I'm probably, like, not generally the target audience for his comedy,
Speaker 2: So I wasn't sure going into this film for the
Speaker 2: first time exactly what sort of performance we'd be in for.
Speaker 2: But I ultimately thought he was great in this. He's
Speaker 2: able to lean into the more absurd and energetic aspects
Speaker 2: of the script, like when this character is like screaming
Speaker 2: or running, you know, he does a great job with that.
Speaker 2: But I also thought brought a lot of believer ability
Speaker 2: to the character in the quieter moments.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, maybe I am more the target audience of
Speaker 1: his comedy. I don't know. I kept expecting him to
Speaker 1: reply to Lionel lassiter, saying, I don't trust like that.
Speaker 1: It is always surprising to me to see Eric Andre
Speaker 1: in roles where he's actually playing a scripted character. I
Speaker 1: guess because on the Eric Andre Show, his personality is
Speaker 1: like an extreme weather event. It's just totally uncontrollable and chaotic,
Speaker 1: and it seems hard to believe that he could actually
Speaker 1: just like say his lines and be in character. But
Speaker 1: of course he can, and he's quite good at it.
Speaker 1: I really really enjoyed him in season two of The
Speaker 1: Righteous Gemstones, and I think he's great here too. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, A real treat, all right. The next actor of
Speaker 2: note here playing the character Charlotte G is Charlene Yee
Speaker 2: born nineteen eighty six American actor, comedian, musician, and writer.
Speaker 2: I believe they have improv and musical roots. Their first
Speaker 2: film role was two thousand and sevens Knocked Up from
Speaker 2: Judd Apatow, and they worked with him on some other
Speaker 2: projects as well. Their voice work includes such Cartoon Network
Speaker 2: shows as Steven Universe and We Bear Bears.
Speaker 1: I think this character is interesting because it is a
Speaker 1: very modest and socially awkward scientist character who is surrounded
Speaker 1: mostly by hedonists and other various siniesthetes.
Speaker 2: M yep, yeah, yeah, as we'll get to it. There's
Speaker 2: a part where everyone gets their favorite drink, and Charlotte's
Speaker 2: favorite drink is just a ginger ale. But I assume
Speaker 2: a really good one, like one of those that comes
Speaker 2: in a nice bottle and you know, doesn't have a
Speaker 2: lot of like crazy artificial sweeteners in it. We can
Speaker 2: really taste the ginger.
Speaker 1: I too appreciate a high quality ginger ale.
Speaker 2: But anyway, this, yeah, this is a fun Performance's adorable, awkward,
Speaker 2: believable in many many nice ways, like as we'll get into.
Speaker 2: The dialogue in this at times I think has an
Speaker 2: intentional clunkiness to it. Yes, and it's interesting to see
Speaker 2: which performers are able to breathe more life into those
Speaker 2: lines and which and the ones that I'm not going
Speaker 2: to say can't but but don't perhaps due to artistic choices.
Speaker 2: So I tended to believe Charlotte is a character which
Speaker 2: I think pays off in the end.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, all right.
Speaker 2: We also have Steve ag playing Guy Landon, who is
Speaker 2: kind of a grumpy caricature of a popular novelist I
Speaker 2: don't know who in particular. This might be patterned after.
Speaker 2: It's not it's not a Stephen King type character, but
Speaker 2: it's it's some sort of popular novelist who maybe is
Speaker 2: not putting out as successful of work as he did
Speaker 2: in previous years.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm trying to think what novelists in the seventies
Speaker 1: would be showing up on a lot of late night
Speaker 1: talk shows. Is this supposed to be Norman Mahler or something? Maybe? Maybe?
Speaker 2: So Now Steve ag is an actor that's going to
Speaker 2: going to be familiar to a number of view born
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty nine, another noted comedic performer, best known to
Speaker 2: many for his recent work on some of the James
Speaker 2: Gunn DC shows and films. I haven't watched any of those,
Speaker 2: but I think he has a recurring character on those.
Speaker 2: I know him mostly from his role as Steve, one
Speaker 2: of the neighbors I believe on the Sarah Silverman program
Speaker 2: that ran two thousand and seven through twenty ten. He's
Speaker 2: also done a lot of voice work as well, because
Speaker 2: his very distinctive work, and like I say, is definitely
Speaker 2: a great comedic performer and can breathe a lot of
Speaker 2: life into a comedic role.
Speaker 1: He plays a role that conspicuously swears a lot.
Speaker 2: Yes, Yeah, swears a lot, And I think ultimately has
Speaker 2: kind of like a B cinema feel to it because
Speaker 2: this is the character, this is the character where the
Speaker 2: clunkier lines of dialogue feel intentionally clunky.
Speaker 1: Yes, but in a way that.
Speaker 2: Kind of works.
Speaker 1: He talks kind of like a like he was written
Speaker 1: to sound like a detective in a in a hack
Speaker 1: seventies cop movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's definitely one of the performances in the film.
Speaker 2: Every time I watch it, I kind of like, I
Speaker 2: kind of kind of think it over a lot, and
Speaker 2: I'm like, what is what is it about this this
Speaker 2: performance that like why does it feel this way? You know?
Speaker 2: And and I kind of go back and forth onto
Speaker 2: what degree it works, And I think I'm landing currently
Speaker 2: in the area that it that it absolutely works, but
Speaker 2: it is it's supposed to have this kind of B
Speaker 2: cinema clunkiness to it.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: We also have a character by the name of tard Reinhard,
Speaker 2: played by Michael Fario, Canadian actor with extensive Shakespearean theater credits.
Speaker 2: His TV credits include Himlock Grove, Rain and Chucky The
Speaker 2: Child's Play TV series. He has a recurring role on that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: in this he's what a fraudulent psychic? Was that what
Speaker 2: you would say psychic?
Speaker 1: And I think just sort of like a new age
Speaker 1: movement gear, it seems. So. The character is named Targ Rindheart,
Speaker 1: and I think this absolutely must be named after Russell Targ,
Speaker 1: the American parapsychologist and physicist who was famous for being
Speaker 1: one of the researchers affiliated with the Stanford Research Institute
Speaker 1: trying to prove the validity of various paranormal phenomena like
Speaker 1: remote viewing. And so this character seems to me to
Speaker 1: be a caricature of first of all, like a combination
Speaker 1: of paranormal evangelists like Targ and how put off in people,
Speaker 1: but also of their most famous subject, Uri Geller.
Speaker 2: Okay, absolutely, and I think there is some there's there's
Speaker 2: mention of bending spoons with with one's mind, yeah in
Speaker 2: this in this film. But yeah, this this is a
Speaker 2: very pompous and ridiculous, over the top character that's clearly
Speaker 2: here mostly to just be mocked and for comedic effect,
Speaker 2: and is successful in that role.
Speaker 1: He multiple times caught talking about that which he knows,
Speaker 1: not like he's trying to opine on architecture and then
Speaker 1: like he doesn't actually know anything about architecture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of Guy Landon's lines are him just
Speaker 2: you know, poking fun at or calling this character out
Speaker 2: on his bs. We also have a character named Hector,
Speaker 2: who we ultimately don't know much about. He has this
Speaker 2: great moment where it looks like he's going to tell
Speaker 2: us his story, but then he gets cut off and
Speaker 2: doesn't get to tell the story. But Hector is played
Speaker 2: by Sad Sadiki, Pakistan born actor with TV and film
Speaker 2: credits going back to around two thousand and seven. He's
Speaker 2: popped up on such shows as Nikita, Orphan, Black Star, Trek, Discovery,
Speaker 2: The Handmaid's Tale, and DC's Legends of Tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I like his vibe. I like Hector has a lot
Speaker 1: of scenes of just kind of standing there looking at
Speaker 1: the rest of the cast and kind of gently smiling
Speaker 1: or nodding. Yeah, it's a good vibe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's I think low Ki the best humorous character
Speaker 2: in the film. He's used very well.
Speaker 1: Wait does he the one driving the van when he
Speaker 1: tells everybody they have to stop talking and listen to
Speaker 1: the audio program?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I believe he is all right, now, mild spoiler,
Speaker 2: there will be a creature suit in this film, and
Speaker 2: the actor in that creature suit is Kevin Keppi, a
Speaker 2: six ' five character and creature actor whose credits include
Speaker 2: another installment of Cabinet of Curiosities and also the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two movie Smile, in which he plays a character
Speaker 2: credited as Nightmare Mom. So, like I said, if there's
Speaker 2: anybody that is in a creature suit in a picture,
Speaker 2: I always want to call him out because I get
Speaker 2: the impression. I'm not sure what all went into making
Speaker 2: the creature we see later in the film work, but
Speaker 2: it looks like there's some good physical performance at the
Speaker 2: heart of it.
Speaker 1: Well, you said six five character and creature actor. Did
Speaker 1: you mean this actor is six foot five inches or
Speaker 1: you are rating this person six out of five?
Speaker 2: No, he's six foot five. So he's like, based on
Speaker 2: the images I've seen of him, he's like a tall
Speaker 2: slender man, which you know we've as we've seen seems
Speaker 2: to work well for a lot of modern physical horror characters.
Speaker 2: Like back in the old day, in the gorilla suit days,
Speaker 2: which you really wanted was more of like a short,
Speaker 2: thick individual who could really occupy that gorilla suit, and
Speaker 2: then the gorilla suit still has a place in modern monsters,
Speaker 2: I think, but it seems like, you know, past few decades,
Speaker 2: some of the real standouts have been more of the tall,
Speaker 2: lanky sort. Finally getting to the music on this one,
Speaker 2: which is the music is always an important part of
Speaker 2: Penos Cosmatos film. Beyond the Black Rainbow feature the work
Speaker 2: of Sonoia Caves, the solo project of Black Mountain synth
Speaker 2: player Jeremy Schmidt. Mandy featured one of the final scores
Speaker 2: of Johann Johansen, and this one is scored by experimental
Speaker 2: electronic artist Daniel Lopatin born nineteen eighty two. He also
Speaker 2: did the score for twenty nineteen's Uncut Gems, which that's
Speaker 2: the Adam Sandler film that I thought was depressing but
Speaker 2: quite good and had a great, great score.
Speaker 1: It's a downer and it's highly stressful, but it's a
Speaker 1: great movie. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Le Patten also did twenty seventeen's Good Time, twenty
Speaker 2: fifteens Partisan, and twenty thirteen's The Bling Ring. I think
Speaker 2: that was a Sofia Coppola film, and his main solo
Speaker 2: project is one O Trix point never or OPN. I
Speaker 2: believe he's signed a warp. I'm not familiar with his discography,
Speaker 2: but JJ is JJ chimed in here and set a
Speaker 2: straight on how to pronounce this one O tricks point never.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to have to check it out.
Speaker 1: I haven't.
Speaker 2: I haven't really checked anything out beyond his work for
Speaker 2: this particular film, but it's I feel like that the
Speaker 2: score for The Viewing it has some nice range to it.
Speaker 2: At times there's kind of this like an Andy's tape
Speaker 2: loop kind of a thing going on, like some some
Speaker 2: looped flutes playing. Other times it's like a driving eighties
Speaker 2: pot feel, or other times, of course, it's glittering synths
Speaker 2: and much more.
Speaker 1: There's also just kind of an eighties bass club loop
Speaker 1: that plays a bit while they're they're hanging out on
Speaker 1: the couch.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and and and it's varied in part because
Speaker 2: this music also makes up the custom soundtrack that linel
Speaker 2: Lassiter has commissioned for the for his house, so it's
Speaker 2: a lot of fun anyway. You can find a mashup
Speaker 2: of all of his music for The Viewing in the
Speaker 2: track The Viewing Suite, which was released on the Cabinet
Speaker 2: of Curiosity soundtrack. You can stream that wherever you get
Speaker 2: your music.
Speaker 1: Did you ever get the sense that when Lionel Lassiter
Speaker 1: was bragging about the things he had people make for him,
Speaker 1: it was kind of like Panos was in the character
Speaker 1: bragging about the things he had people make for him
Speaker 1: for his movie His House.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess in a sense you could apply that
Speaker 2: to Panos, but also Gamal del Toro. You know, Gama
Speaker 2: de Toros, you know, is well known for being sort
Speaker 2: of like the maestro at the center of the film,
Speaker 2: bringing on a lot of like very talented individuals to
Speaker 2: help craft you know, not only the you know, the
Speaker 2: performance of the roles, but certainly like the all the artistry,
Speaker 2: bringing in you know, well known illustrators and so forth
Speaker 2: to help bring something alive visually. So in a way,
Speaker 2: Lassiter is kind of like this darker vision of a
Speaker 2: Panos or a Guillermo. And in a way though that whereas,
Speaker 2: whereas Panos and Gamaldo Toro are both trying to create
Speaker 2: something for the world to consume, Lionel Lassiter is creating
Speaker 2: something entirely for his own enjoyment at least. I mean,
Speaker 2: he also seems to want to, you know, send people
Speaker 2: off in the world to do great things, but he
Speaker 2: also wants some things just for himself.
Speaker 1: All right, well, I guess this is the part of
Speaker 1: the episode where we would normally talk about the plot.
Speaker 1: But as we talked about earlier, Number one Panos films
Speaker 1: are not especially plot driven, so I don't think this
Speaker 1: This doesn't feel like one where it really makes sense
Speaker 1: to me to recap the plot in minute detail. Maybe instead,
Speaker 1: I think we should like focus on the series of
Speaker 1: sets and set pieces that emerge in succession throughout the
Speaker 1: runtime and discuss how they're used.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have we don't have, well, I said, we
Speaker 2: don't have very many set pieces in this film, but
Speaker 2: the ones that we do have are are pretty splendid
Speaker 2: and we get to spend a lot of time in them.
Speaker 1: Now, at the beginning, we get the characters before they
Speaker 1: go to Lassiter's mansion, gathering in a parking garage, so
Speaker 1: they all the all the main characters, the four main
Speaker 1: characters have been summoned to Lassiter's house house on Haunted
Speaker 1: Hills style with a formal invitation. They don't know each
Speaker 1: other and they don't know him, though it seems they
Speaker 1: I think all know about him. He seems to have
Speaker 1: a reputation for being rich and powerful, though people don't
Speaker 1: know how he made his fortune.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there seems to be. They describe him as being
Speaker 2: someone that used to see on TV one assumes all
Speaker 2: the time, and now he's become more reclusive and more mysterious,
Speaker 2: and yeah, suddenly there's an invitation to attend a viewing
Speaker 2: at his fabulous Sandpiper House, which you get the impression
Speaker 2: is like the house itself is famous because it has
Speaker 2: no doubt been designed by some truly gifted architect, and
Speaker 2: every aspect of it has been tailored to Linel Lasseter's
Speaker 2: a specific taste.
Speaker 1: What do you think about setting the meeting of these
Speaker 1: characters in this dark parking garage at night? Something about
Speaker 1: that just seems like such a powerful allusion to films
Speaker 1: of the eighties that seemed to me very obsessed with
Speaker 1: the parking garage as a threatening atmosphere.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I guess some of that is
Speaker 2: what post Watergate, right, that parking garages are where you know, shadier,
Speaker 2: secretive dealings go on. The parking garage is also the
Speaker 2: it's the underworld that we have created to allow our
Speaker 2: vehicular obsession to take over everything. And it's interesting, this
Speaker 2: is the the main view we get of the outside
Speaker 2: world of this film that we do get a wider
Speaker 2: view at the end of a city of the city scape,
Speaker 2: but the city scape is also going to be very
Speaker 2: Parking Deck esque, you know, like sort of just grimy, dismal, concrete,
Speaker 2: kind of a world devoid of flavor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we meet the characters. They meet I think
Speaker 1: it's when Charlotte the astrophysicist arrives and meets the other characters.
Speaker 1: They sort of introduce each other and they say, what
Speaker 1: do they all have in common? They don't know each other,
Speaker 1: but they say they've all been on late night talk shows,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, oh man, this just seems like so
Speaker 1: much in the Panos lane. This like seventies New Age lane.
Speaker 1: You're imagining people who would show up on a seventies
Speaker 1: late night talk show to talk about how they've you know,
Speaker 1: discovered psychic powers are real or something. I'm kind of
Speaker 1: imagining it's the show where they interview the TV set
Speaker 1: containing Professor Brian Oblivion and videodrome.
Speaker 2: So not even like a second or third guest on
Speaker 2: say Late Night with David Letterman back in the day,
Speaker 2: but like somebody you would see on some other strange
Speaker 2: talk show that is in the even later that comes
Speaker 2: on after Letterman.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if that's a real thing. I
Speaker 1: have an impression that it was that there were like weirder,
Speaker 1: sort of more off brand talk shows that would have
Speaker 1: the like really zany guests and everything. Back then, you know,
Speaker 1: you got your mainstream I don't know, Dick Cavit and stuff,
Speaker 1: and then you've got the stuff that comes on late
Speaker 1: at night. Is that even real? I don't know, but
Speaker 1: Panos has convinced me that's part of part of history.
Speaker 2: I think it may have been the case, especially in
Speaker 2: markets like LA and New York.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, Like what is in Ghostbusters too? Peter Vinkman
Speaker 1: runs a weird talk show, doesn't they? And I feel
Speaker 1: like that must be sort of parodying something that existed. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd be interested to hear from folks who grew
Speaker 2: up in those media markets that can can speak to that.
Speaker 2: So anyway, these are characters who they're used to getting
Speaker 2: the invitation and accepting apparently without really too much thought
Speaker 2: into the matter, and they have accepted. They say, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'll go to the Sam Piper House and neat Line
Speaker 2: Molasseter And so the van has come to pick them up.
Speaker 1: Now the van is being driven by the character Hector,
Speaker 1: and this is the part where they're initially talking as
Speaker 1: they load into the back of the van and drive along.
Speaker 1: But at some point Hector tells them to stop talking
Speaker 1: and they have to listen to it. I think he
Speaker 1: calls it the audio program, but it's like the Lasstter
Speaker 1: has some music that they are specifically assigned to listen
Speaker 1: to on the on the right of the house, more
Speaker 1: synth music. And I don't know that I like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was kind of wondering if at one point
Speaker 2: it was going they were going to have like some
Speaker 2: Peter Weller voice over there and that was gonna be
Speaker 2: the audio program. Then they decided that the synth music
Speaker 2: work better. But yeah, at any rate, I like it.
Speaker 1: No, this is just that this is the music he
Speaker 1: wants them to listen to. And I think it's somewhere
Speaker 1: around here that we also first get our glimpse of
Speaker 1: Peter Weller's character Lionel Lassiter himself, where we see him
Speaker 1: in an environment just flooded with orange light, with his
Speaker 1: head almost looking kind of triangular, surrounded by wispy gray
Speaker 1: or white hair, and he looks like an absolute lizard,
Speaker 1: kind of a vampire, kind of a mummy. Or also
Speaker 1: I thought of a very cific movie analog, which is
Speaker 1: he looks like the witch in the Stan Winston movie Pumpkinhead.
Speaker 2: Hmmm. I think that's that's a strong possibility, because so,
Speaker 2: I mean, Panos loves his weird colored lights, but he
Speaker 2: also includes many homages to different films, and you know,
Speaker 2: this seems kind of like one of those sort of
Speaker 2: rub the fur films, certainly from the you know, the
Speaker 2: decades of interest to this filmmaker.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. And I think we've talked about on the
Speaker 1: show before. Pumpkinhead kind of has some shortcomings in terms
Speaker 1: of storytelling, but has some great visual flare. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of scenes with really excellent horror atmosphere and
Speaker 1: lighting and a good, tall, spindly creature that I think
Speaker 1: you could compare somewhat to this one later on.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good point. That's a good point.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so they are taken to the mansion, to
Speaker 1: the Sandpiper House, and they are summoned to this living
Speaker 1: room with a circle of sunken coaches in the middle
Speaker 1: of the floor. And I think this room, I again
Speaker 1: just get the feeling that the vision of this room
Speaker 1: was a major reason this episode was made, so I
Speaker 1: think we should describe it in great detail. So it's
Speaker 1: like I said, in the middle of the room there
Speaker 1: is a table and it is surrounded by sunken couches
Speaker 1: with sort of leather what do you call that kind
Speaker 1: of stuffed leather backing. And then in the middle of
Speaker 1: the room there is a chandelier of sorts that looks
Speaker 1: like an inverted conical mound of organ pipes or maybe
Speaker 1: like a columnar basalt hanging from the ceiling, so the
Speaker 1: ceiling slopes inward toward it, and then it forms a
Speaker 1: kind of almost like a like a nozzle or a
Speaker 1: nipple in the middle of the ceiling of these like
Speaker 1: pillars all around. On the floor, there is this decorative
Speaker 1: motif that's like these big U shaped bins like giant
Speaker 1: horse shoe magnets with long bars coming out. It seems
Speaker 1: kind of a maybe kind of an Art Deco suggestive design.
Speaker 1: And then the room is a wash in gold and
Speaker 1: orange light. And then on the walls there are these
Speaker 1: backlit circular panels that have guns mounted in them. So
Speaker 1: there's like an AK forty seven that you only see
Speaker 1: in shadow because it's got gold light blasting from behind it.
Speaker 2: Yes, and yet there's a hint of as tech architecture
Speaker 2: to the whole thing, isn't there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's what the character targ says. He's like
Speaker 1: musing about how it's as tech inspired or something, and
Speaker 1: is repeatedly called out for not knowing what he's talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this whole space is just splendid, Like you when
Speaker 2: you first roll into it, and as you roll into
Speaker 2: this this kind of point of view shot, it feels
Speaker 2: like this is a space you're exploring in the film Baraka.
Speaker 2: You know, it feels otherworldly and kind of sacred. It
Speaker 2: also feels like maybe it should be on arracas, you
Speaker 2: know it. Oh man, it's just such a strange and
Speaker 2: lovely set.
Speaker 1: Now when they first arrive, I think it's interesting that
Speaker 1: Lasseter's people start a succession of treats which are like
Speaker 1: it starts with a drink of choice for each person,
Speaker 1: but progresses into alcohol and drugs that there. It's like
Speaker 1: a it's almost like a tasting course of different sort
Speaker 1: of enticements for the mouth, most beverage based and then
Speaker 1: drug based. So the first thing that they see when
Speaker 1: they get there is they're asked to sit next to
Speaker 1: your favorite drink. So for Targ, it is a beer
Speaker 1: that he dubs superb, And I was thinking, is beer
Speaker 1: really Targ's drink? I don't know. But then the funniest
Speaker 1: one for me is Landon sits down. He tastes something,
Speaker 1: He's like, wow, it's the perfect screw driver.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is so strange because a screwdriver. I mean,
Speaker 2: if memory serves screwdrivers just vodka and orange juice.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, that's what it is. That's a I don't
Speaker 1: want to insult. I mean, you know, if people enjoy
Speaker 1: screwdriver or whatever, but I think of it that's a
Speaker 1: utility drink. That's something I think of, like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: college students drinking. It's it's not usually the kind of
Speaker 1: thing where people would be like, oh, it's amazing, superb screwdriver.
Speaker 2: Yeah it's And I guess that's why it's so funny,
Speaker 2: because yeah, I don't even think the proportions are necessary
Speaker 2: for the screwdriver, like on a lark here, I went
Speaker 2: to Imbibe Magazine's website, and I was like, Okay, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna put in screwdriver and see if it comes up,
Speaker 2: because sometimes they have They'll still have some very simple
Speaker 2: classic drink cocktail cocktail recipes listed there, but nothing comes
Speaker 2: up for screwdriver. They're just like, get out of here,
Speaker 2: looking for a screwdriver.
Speaker 1: On this website. Yeah, and so there's that. But then
Speaker 1: also what the other characters get as interesting. Charlotte gets
Speaker 1: just a ginger ale I think we mentioned that earlier
Speaker 1: that says it's a great changerial. And then Frow, Theeric
Speaker 1: Andre's character, gets some lapsong souchong tea. I don't know
Speaker 1: anything about that, But Robbie, do you have an opinion
Speaker 1: on what's the perfect lapsung sou chong?
Speaker 2: This is not a tea I have any knowledge off,
Speaker 2: so I can't. I don't know. There are so many
Speaker 2: teas and I am only familiar with the very slim
Speaker 2: selection of them. But I do like the detail where
Speaker 2: he says it's just the right amount of honey as sweetener.
Speaker 2: So their host, Lionel Lassiter here seems to have just
Speaker 2: a supernatural knowledge of what their exact desires are.
Speaker 1: I just looked it up. It is real. Lapsung sou
Speaker 1: chong is a black tea made with camellia sinense sleeves
Speaker 1: that is smoke dried over a pine wood fire, cold smoked.
Speaker 2: M well, that sounds quite good. That yeah. Targ's beer,
Speaker 2: He's like, it's it's a perfect beer.
Speaker 1: It's so cold. Okay, Well, anyway, but like I said,
Speaker 1: there's sort of a series. It's like it's like a
Speaker 1: tasting course menu, you know, there is a series of temptations.
Speaker 1: So after this they are treating, a lassitter comes out
Speaker 1: and he tells the story of this amazing whiskey from
Speaker 1: Japan that has survived bombings and earthquakes, and then they
Speaker 1: pour it for all of them. And there's a detail
Speaker 1: about the table that you can just see as one
Speaker 1: of these like textural details that was was imagined early
Speaker 1: on that the outer rim of the table rotates around,
Speaker 1: so like as doctor Zara pours these drinks, they just
Speaker 1: sort of like get rolled around the table to their recipient.
Speaker 2: I've also read it the glasses they drink this whiskey
Speaker 2: from are supposedly the same glasses that we see in
Speaker 2: Blade Runner. Oh really, oh, supposedly, I have not I
Speaker 2: have not fact checked it, but it sounds appropriate. It
Speaker 2: sounds like the sort of detail that would be present
Speaker 2: in this film.
Speaker 1: Now, as the characters talk in these scenes, I thought
Speaker 1: that there was something different about the viewing compared to
Speaker 1: the two Penes Cosmatos movies I've seen, which is that
Speaker 1: in this one there seem to be a kind of
Speaker 1: conscious attempt at anti realism in some of the acting
Speaker 1: and dialogue and characterization, Like this was not true of
Speaker 1: the two movies, but characters here sometimes speak like they
Speaker 1: are deliberately avoiding verisimilitude, if you know what I mean, Rob,
Speaker 1: There's a kind of like I found it enjoyable, but
Speaker 1: a kind of awkward, stiltedness and unnatural quality to the
Speaker 1: rhythm of some of the conversations that plays into the comedy.
Speaker 1: And this is not something I would say about either
Speaker 1: of Panos' movies, in which again, in those movies sometimes
Speaker 1: have an unreal quality, but it's more dream like, whereas
Speaker 1: this is more a kind of intentional B movie awkwardness.
Speaker 1: It seems like unique choice here. I don't know what
Speaker 1: you think about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's that seems to be part of
Speaker 2: the intention here that yeah, an intentional B movie awkwardness
Speaker 2: to at least some of the performances, and I you know,
Speaker 2: I think it might also you could also look at
Speaker 2: it from another direction too, and look at like, this
Speaker 2: is ultimately a film about like people and their desires
Speaker 2: and the things that they are grasping for, questing after
Speaker 2: in life. And two of the characters, really, the two
Speaker 2: that often feel the like the clunkiest, are also the
Speaker 2: ones that are the most full of it, Target land
Speaker 2: and you know they're Landon is just there to sort
Speaker 2: of like puff up his chest and take things out
Speaker 2: on Targ. Targ is there to sound brilliant and insightful certainly,
Speaker 2: you know, despite the fact that his whole identity is
Speaker 2: tied up in just a lie and just nonsense. And
Speaker 2: so those are the characters, yeah, that stand out the
Speaker 2: most with this clunky quality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. And it's interesting to see like how
Speaker 1: the characters behave in the scene, like so as they're
Speaker 1: given you know, the drinks and the drugs and stuff.
Speaker 1: So it progresses from this onto them smoking things and
Speaker 1: snorting things. And guy Landon's just like on board, he
Speaker 1: just wants it all and it's interesting targ sort of
Speaker 1: tries to resist but then gives into it. Charlotte seems
Speaker 1: to not naturally have a very indulgent personality, but is
Speaker 1: also just curious in this situation, whereas Roth is an
Speaker 1: interesting character because this is the Eric Andre character. He
Speaker 1: is trying to trying to resist the life of like
Speaker 1: he's trying to quit smoking. He's trying to resist the
Speaker 1: life of drugs and alcohol and all that that he
Speaker 1: is so accustomed to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he knows that that there's a line, and he
Speaker 2: crosses that line. He's not going to be able to
Speaker 2: control his consumption, but he has enough self control to
Speaker 2: sort of stay away from that line, or try to
Speaker 2: to for most of the runtime here.
Speaker 1: But also it's funny throughout this there's this kind of puffery,
Speaker 1: people building themselves up, like Lasseter and Landon and these
Speaker 1: people trying to impress everyone else. Lastener, at one point
Speaker 1: he starts quoting proverbs to encourage everybody else to indulge
Speaker 1: like he He says, every person has two lives, the
Speaker 1: person they were before and the person they were after
Speaker 1: they realized they only have one. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a real proverb, but.
Speaker 2: It sounds convincing coming from Lasseter. You're like, yeah, I
Speaker 2: guess I should have space cocaine because of course, the
Speaker 2: we learned that doctor Zaras like has this, you know this,
Speaker 2: this kind of shady background is involved in essentially like
Speaker 2: mad blood science, and this this space cocaine that she's
Speaker 2: providing everyone with has like some it's like high grade
Speaker 2: and has some sort of like blue additive to it
Speaker 2: that is going to make everyone's experience perfect because ultimately,
Speaker 2: as we learn, is here to yes, to pump everybody
Speaker 2: full of illicit substances, but also to encourage them and
Speaker 2: to get everybody synced up for a singular experience, the
Speaker 2: titular viewing of a particular object.
Speaker 1: And what is that viewing. Well, he gets them into
Speaker 1: the chamber to look at the obelisk. Now, I think
Speaker 1: there are a few rules of the chamber with the.
Speaker 2: Obelisk, or one rule, and that is there's no smoking
Speaker 2: in the obelisk chamber. We do learn this the hard way,
Speaker 2: But other than that, I think it's just whatever goes.
Speaker 2: You're allowed to touch the obelisk apparently, and you're encouraged
Speaker 2: to look at it and to discuss your ideas concerning
Speaker 2: what it might be.
Speaker 1: Well, I like, how did I remember this correctly? That
Speaker 1: really there is no information on what the obelisk is
Speaker 1: or where it comes from. Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Lasstor tells us that he obtained it, like at
Speaker 2: the ultimate cost and at great expense and so forth.
Speaker 2: That you know, but that's it. And when they ask him,
Speaker 2: like what is it, He's like, I have no idea.
Speaker 2: So it's a complete anomaly. There's no if. There's no
Speaker 2: discussion of oh, well this fell from the sky or
Speaker 2: this was discovered you know, on the bottom of the
Speaker 2: ocean or in the deepest caverns of the earth. No,
Speaker 2: here it is. I have obtained it. Take a look
Speaker 2: at it. You tell me what you think it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there is zero information about it except here it is.
Speaker 1: I have it, and now you're looking at it.
Speaker 2: Tests that they've run have been inconclusive. The X rays
Speaker 2: tell them nothing. But for some reason they do have
Speaker 2: this idea that you should not smoke around it.
Speaker 1: That's just common sense. I mean, So what is it.
Speaker 1: It's like a large black object with many different surfaces
Speaker 1: and indentations and projections. In a way, it looks almost
Speaker 1: like a bit of xenomorph biology.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's kind of a geeger s quality to it.
Speaker 2: But also it does look like some sort of strange rock.
Speaker 2: It looks like a space rock, and it's kind of
Speaker 2: described as such, and I think that's the if you
Speaker 2: had to guess, you might think, well, this fell from
Speaker 2: the sky. Clearly, this is some sort of space object.
Speaker 2: And they start talking about it, and they have everyone's
Speaker 2: reaction to it is a little different, you know. Guy
Speaker 2: Linden is like, this is a rock.
Speaker 1: I'm done.
Speaker 2: I don't want to look at this thing where And
Speaker 2: I think most of the other characters, though, I begin
Speaker 2: to see that there is something special about this. There
Speaker 2: is something that is that is sort of calling out
Speaker 2: to them from it.
Speaker 1: And then well everything goes off the rails when eric
Speaker 1: Andre blows some cannabis smoke into it.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, it kind of inhales the smoke, and then yeah,
Speaker 2: things get really crazy really quickly. This is like the
Speaker 2: last twelve minutes of the of the picture. Here it
Speaker 2: starts to clearly there's a psychic effect, and he's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: eric Andre's character is like, I think I broke your rock, dude,
Speaker 2: And it starts crumbling, cracking open, and a strange substance
Speaker 2: is in the middle a creature, a substance, some sort
Speaker 2: of orange gelatinous form, And at this point it reminds
Speaker 2: one a lot of the Blob, especially the early scenes
Speaker 2: in both the original Blob and the remake where this
Speaker 2: hard rocky substance cracks open and a Blob creature emerges.
Speaker 2: Only instead of it being kind of like red in color,
Speaker 2: this one is bright orange.
Speaker 1: It is a giant orange wax clam that then from
Speaker 1: which project a couple of the main features of it.
Speaker 1: These things that are like horns but sometimes don't appear
Speaker 1: to be rigid like. They morph between being flexible arms
Speaker 1: like the arms of an octopus, and then being like
Speaker 1: the rigid corkscrew horns of a mountain goat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the horns of a ram or something. Yeah.
Speaker 2: It the monster in its varied forms. It definitely spoke
Speaker 2: to me in terms of the Blob, the arc of
Speaker 2: a covenant, the horns of Golgadaroth, tentacles, slug, antenna, and yeah,
Speaker 2: some other elements as well. And at the whole time
Speaker 2: that the whole time though, and a lot of this
Speaker 2: is also due to, you know, the sound design, the lighting,
Speaker 2: everything else, but the creature designed too. It feels completely
Speaker 2: under otherworldly with all without seeming too much like anything
Speaker 2: else I've seen in other films. As we've discussed before,
Speaker 2: with modern monster movies, there can be kind of a sameness,
Speaker 2: kind of a built by committee quality to it, and
Speaker 2: this creature or whatever it is feels wholly different. And yeah,
Speaker 2: there's just a strong, like WTF feel for this entire encounter.
Speaker 1: Oh, but there's also so much melting to happen here.
Speaker 1: It's a melt to remember.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they're scanning. Everybody gets scanned. Everyone in the
Speaker 2: room is scanned, and then some people start melting. One
Speaker 2: person's head explodes it and really, ultimately everyone is going
Speaker 2: to either melt, explode, be absorbed by orange slime, or
Speaker 2: run screaming for their lives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and obviously we're deep into spoiler territory here. But
Speaker 1: in the end it is Lassiter who is absorbed by
Speaker 1: the creature. So the creature like sort of slithers, it
Speaker 1: like wounds him psychically, and he collapses on the floor.
Speaker 1: And this is after it has melted. Landing and targ
Speaker 1: and doctor Zar I think and melt. Yeah, did they
Speaker 1: all get melted? By it or they explode, and then
Speaker 1: it goes up to Lassiter and it takes him within
Speaker 1: the mass of the wax and then he sort of
Speaker 1: I guess, becomes the scaffold or the skeleton for this
Speaker 1: creature to become vaguely humanoid.
Speaker 2: Yeah, becomes this And this is where we get the
Speaker 2: creature suit, because we have a tall bipedal creature with
Speaker 2: kind of a zombifide face, and the two tentacles remain
Speaker 2: but on the shoulders, continuing to quest around as if
Speaker 2: continuing to sense and take in data.
Speaker 1: Then Charlotte and Roth they both escape. They make it out,
Speaker 1: though Roth stops to try to do more drugs on
Speaker 1: the way out, but they make it out. Oh, Hector
Speaker 1: comes in. He gets the gold Ak forty seven and
Speaker 1: tries to shoot the monster, but he is like zapped
Speaker 1: electrically and explodes. Yep yeap.
Speaker 2: The creature clearly has just vast reservoirs of power.
Speaker 1: So we see our two survivors like get into an
Speaker 1: eighties or seventies sports car and then drive away and
Speaker 1: drive away with such acceleration that eric Andre's like face
Speaker 1: is rippling like in a wind tunnel. And then they
Speaker 1: make it out, But then we see the creature with
Speaker 1: I guess Lassiter inside it. I don't know if Lassiter
Speaker 1: is thought to in some way still be alive and
Speaker 1: a part of this creature, or if it's just sort
Speaker 1: of like used him, like the thing does maybe as
Speaker 1: a as a format, as like a template. But now
Speaker 1: it walks out of the mansion and then we see
Speaker 1: it like walk into a sewer and then emerge out
Speaker 1: the other end of the sewer line walking into a
Speaker 1: big a big like aqueduct, a big what do you
Speaker 1: call it, like the canals in l A big concrete canal,
Speaker 1: drainage canal, and it just walks out into there and
Speaker 1: is now among the people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this kind of again, this kind of like concrete
Speaker 2: dismal version of LA. And immediately we begin to see
Speaker 2: lights start to go out in the city as if
Speaker 2: like it's immense energy and it's a like electrical disturbance
Speaker 2: is already knocking out power like just by like it
Speaker 2: doesn't it's hard to figure out what the creature thinks
Speaker 2: or or wants to get out of this, like like
Speaker 2: clear it's going to destroy the world, there's no question
Speaker 2: about that. The question is does it want to destroy
Speaker 2: the world or is it just there to record the world,
Speaker 2: to sense the world, and in doing so will inevitably
Speaker 2: destroy everything.
Speaker 1: Is there a reason for the differential fates of the characters,
Speaker 1: like why do Landon, Zara, Lassiter, and Rhinehart melt or
Speaker 1: get absorbed or whatever? And why do Roth and z escape?
Speaker 1: Is it based on something about them individually? Does it
Speaker 1: mean something? Do those two in a sense refuse to
Speaker 1: look at the arc like Indian Marion. I couldn't really
Speaker 1: tell if there was anything like that, but I wonder
Speaker 1: if somebody out there has an interpretation of that sort.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd love to hear what folks think about this
Speaker 2: the best I could come up with. And I also
Speaker 2: have to realize that there may be no reason to it.
Speaker 2: It may just have to do with likability of characters
Speaker 2: and or coolness of characters, like obviously Laster has to
Speaker 2: become the monster that sort of thing. But I was
Speaker 2: also thinking it might ultimate only have to come down
Speaker 2: to desire and grasping. So the creature is an explorer,
Speaker 2: it's questing with its feelers. And so my read is
Speaker 2: that land and Reinhart and Zara they're found wanting there's
Speaker 2: something inauthentic about their relationship with the world and their
Speaker 2: desires in the world. Roth and Charlotte they desire too much,
Speaker 2: or perhaps their desires are very specific and therefore they're
Speaker 2: able to get away. But Lassiter, he's in the Goldilocks
Speaker 2: zone for some reason, perhaps because he has just overarching
Speaker 2: general interest in everything. So he's the perfect fit for
Speaker 2: something that has come to like experience slash record slash
Speaker 2: destroy the entire.
Speaker 1: World perfect it is canon now.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's the viewing, and the lovely thing about
Speaker 2: the viewing, it's the whole picture. Is like going into
Speaker 2: the the the Obelisk chamber. There's no smoking, and it's
Speaker 2: about like, what do you take out of it? What's
Speaker 2: your interpretation of what transpires? An interpretation is not entirely necessary,
Speaker 2: but you know, because it's ultimately a wild, weird ride
Speaker 2: that I enjoyed quite a bit. But but yeah, it
Speaker 2: also raises questions and you might well wonder what comes next,
Speaker 2: And I like a nice open ended, strange like weird
Speaker 2: ending like this where yeah, our main likable characters have escaped,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't seem like escape is in store for
Speaker 2: the world itself.
Speaker 1: Right, there's no smoking in the Obelisk Chamber, which is
Speaker 1: now the entire universe.
Speaker 2: Maybe in the sequel, he's just that the creature's going
Speaker 2: out to find more dope smoke.
Speaker 1: That's that's the whole plot. I'd be down for that, right,
Speaker 1: all right, that's all I got on the viewing.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we're gonna go ahead and close it
Speaker 2: out here, but we'll remind you that Weird House Cinema
Speaker 2: occurs every Friday in the Stuff to Blow your Mind
Speaker 2: podcast feed, and you were you were invited to join
Speaker 2: us each each week for that. We're primarily a science
Speaker 2: podcast with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursday, a short
Speaker 2: form artifact or monster fact on Wednesdays, and on Mondays
Speaker 2: we do a listener mail episode, So writ in, wellst
Speaker 2: We'll read your listener mail and we may read them
Speaker 2: on the program. If you want to check out all
Speaker 2: the movies we've covered on Weird House Cinema in the past, well,
Speaker 2: you can go to letterbox dot com. That's L E
Speaker 2: T T E R B O x D dot com.
Speaker 2: We have a profile there weird House and you'll find
Speaker 2: a list of all the films we've covered, and you
Speaker 2: can do like neat things there like divide them up
Speaker 2: by decade, divide them up by genre, and so forth.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of fun, huge thanks to our excellent
Speaker 1: audio producer, Jjposway. If you would like to get in
Speaker 1: touch with us with feedback on this episode or any other,
Speaker 1: to suggest a topic for the future, or just to
Speaker 1: say hello, you can email us at contact at stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your
Speaker 1: Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from my
Speaker 1: heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows.