Speaker 1: Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all you
Speaker 1: can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in
Speaker 1: just two visits. Sign up now in the Regal app
Speaker 1: or at the link in the show description and use
Speaker 1: code film spot twenty five. That's film Spot twenty five
Speaker 1: to receive your discount. What kind of a show you
Speaker 1: guys putting on here today?
Speaker 2: You're not interested in art?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: No, Look, we're going to do this thing.
Speaker 4: We're going to have a.
Speaker 3: Conversation from Chicago. This is film Spotting. I'm Adam Kempenard.
Speaker 2: And I'm Josh Larson.
Speaker 5: My maker told his tale.
Speaker 2: I'll turn you nine. Guermo del Toros. Frankenstein comes to
Speaker 2: Netflix this weekend. It stars Oscar Isaac as the mad
Speaker 2: doctor and Jacob Elordi as the creature they told their tales.
Speaker 2: Now we have our.
Speaker 1: Review, plus Nia Dacosta's Ibsen update, heada, Sidney Sweeney in
Speaker 1: the boxing biopic Christi, and more.
Speaker 3: It's all ahead on film Spotting now.
Speaker 2: Run.
Speaker 1: Welcome to film Spotting, Josh. I've learned that Mary Shelley
Speaker 1: was living in Bath in the South of England when
Speaker 1: she wrote Frankenstein. That's only a day's drive from your
Speaker 1: current haunt in Saint Andrews, Scotland. I am sure this
Speaker 1: informed your viewing of the new Guermo del Toro adaptation.
Speaker 2: That's just the start of it, Adam. I have to
Speaker 2: give you a little Scotland report here. I had forgotten
Speaker 2: how much of Frankenstein is actually sat in Scotland until
Speaker 2: just rereading the book a couple of months ago. Here's
Speaker 2: how I viewed Frankenstein. Get this so, Dundee, a town
Speaker 2: just a little further from me and in Scotland. Found
Speaker 2: out just last week that is where Mary Shelley would
Speaker 2: go to visit family when she was younger, and that
Speaker 2: site on the River Tay actually inspired some of the
Speaker 2: atmosphere in the landscape and the setting for Frankenstein. Guess
Speaker 2: where Debbie and I along with listener Ben Page. Ben's
Speaker 2: a filmmaker and puppeteer, I met here in St Andrews.
Speaker 2: The three of us went to see Frankenstein Dundee. I'm
Speaker 2: not kidding you, so yeah, I had the local infusion
Speaker 2: in my blood while watching this movie.
Speaker 1: Do you think Mary Shelley also saw movies at that theater?
Speaker 1: I don't think it was around Okay, well, you were
Speaker 1: walking in her footsteps. So that essence, that aura should
Speaker 1: definitely contribute to our conversation about del Toros Frankenstein, which
Speaker 1: is coming up in just a moment. Also Heda another
Speaker 1: nineteenth century literary adaptation. Nia Dacosta's latest is an update
Speaker 1: of Henrik Ibsen's eighteen ninety one play Headed Gabbler.
Speaker 3: Now I didn't see it.
Speaker 1: You're going to talk about that one, But of course
Speaker 1: I've seen productions of a House. I'm pretty sure Peter
Speaker 1: Gint even The Master Builder when I was a student
Speaker 1: in London. Have I seen Head of Gabbler?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: Oh, so close, you are so close, so close?
Speaker 1: Plus Christy starring Sydney Sweeney as boxer Christy Martin and
Speaker 1: Peter Hujar's Day from director Iras Sachs, a two hander
Speaker 1: with Ben Wishaw and Rebecca Hall. That'll be a one hander,
Speaker 1: as I'm the only one who saw that film. A
Speaker 1: quick reminder Film Spotting is now available as a video podcast.
Speaker 1: If you're a Spotify listener, you can toggle between video
Speaker 1: and audio. You can also watch the show on YouTube.
Speaker 1: I believe, Josh, we are supposed to say like, share, subscribe,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that actually works or not, but
Speaker 1: I said.
Speaker 2: It, I mean we can, we can try it. I
Speaker 2: don't know either or if it just annoys people and
Speaker 2: away from doing that because they hear it so often.
Speaker 2: Let's give it a try to see what happens. See
Speaker 2: if we can get a few more likes in some comments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: You can find the video episodes as well at film
Speaker 1: spotting dot Net on the main page, or for past
Speaker 1: episodes go to film spotting dot Net slash episodes.
Speaker 2: But first, franken Stock.
Speaker 1: In the spirit of Baron Victor Frankenstein confessing his twisted
Speaker 1: tale to Captain Anderson. All profess that I struggled to
Speaker 1: engineer an approach for this setup, something related to the
Speaker 1: source material only one small issue. Inexplicably, I made it
Speaker 1: through high school and college without an instructor ever assigning
Speaker 1: Mary Shelley's eighteen eighteen Gothic novel Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus.
Speaker 1: Nor did I ever assign it to myself. Okay, not
Speaker 1: a big book guy. Apparently, maybe I could connect it
Speaker 1: to some of the previous movie adaptations I thought, until
Speaker 1: I visited the Frankenstein in popular culture and listen of
Speaker 1: films featuring Frankenstein's monster pages on Wikipedia and several hours
Speaker 1: of scrolling. Later decided I was way out of my depth.
Speaker 1: My recollections of mel Brooks Young Frankenstein, the underwhelming Kenneth
Speaker 1: Branna's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Tim Burton's Frankenweeny probably weren't
Speaker 1: going to cut it. Surely I could fall back on
Speaker 1: the tried and true o tourist angle. After all, what
Speaker 1: filmmaker has a more fervent relationship with monsters than Guillermo
Speaker 1: Del Toro. Here again, I'm lacking some substance. Sure all
Speaker 1: seven of his features released during the film spotting era,
Speaker 1: from two thousand and six's Pans Labyrinth to his most
Speaker 1: recent twenty twenty two's Pinocchio, were reviewed on the show,
Speaker 1: and I was positive on all six that I considered.
Speaker 1: But fantasy has never been my specialty, and four outstanding
Speaker 1: Del Toro titles remain Cronos, Nmic Blade two and Crimson
Speaker 1: Peak Before or I can call myself a completist. Even
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have to strain, though, to find the symmetry
Speaker 1: between Pinocchio and Frankenstein, or more accurately Geppetto and doctor
Speaker 1: Frankenstein and their respective creations. After the loss of his son,
Speaker 1: aggrieving wood Carver fashions a new boy who comes to life.
Speaker 1: I'm going back to Wikipedia here. Geppetto wakes up and
Speaker 1: is frightened by Pinocchio. He becomes fed up with Pinocchio's
Speaker 1: antics due to his newborn lack of self control. I
Speaker 1: don't know, sound familiar, Josh. It wouldn't have challenged the
Speaker 1: brilliant intellect of doctor Frankenstein, played with mono maniacal brio
Speaker 1: by Oscar Isaac. But think of all the money Christoph
Speaker 1: Waltz's Henrik Harlander, the arms merchant who backs Frankenstein's grand experiment,
Speaker 1: could have saved had he simply gotten his hands on
Speaker 1: a wood sprite to conjure Jacob Elordi's creature to life.
Speaker 1: Then I realized you're the one who put Dizzyis Pinocchio
Speaker 1: on your top ten Greatest Films of All Time list,
Speaker 1: both the twenty twelve and twenty twenty two editions, which
Speaker 1: led me to this lowercase e epiphany. Not only do
Speaker 1: you love Pinocchio, it turns out that you've spent some
Speaker 1: time considering del Toro's work and what his depiction of
Speaker 1: monsters expresses about the human condition. And you've devoted even
Speaker 1: more time to thinking about the creature and how he
Speaker 1: functions as a monstrous mirror, reflecting an image of ourselves.
Speaker 1: Quote doing not what we know we should do, but
Speaker 1: what we know we should not end quote. Of course,
Speaker 1: I'm quoting from your book where you were referring specifically
Speaker 1: to James Wales's nineteen thirty one Frankenstein and other universal
Speaker 1: horror films of the era. So, mister, fear not enlighten
Speaker 1: me watching this Frankenstein? Did you learn anything new about
Speaker 1: our capacity for sin? Or just bite what I understand
Speaker 1: to be some fairly significant departures from both Wales's pre
Speaker 1: code version and Shelley's text. Did del Toro's rendering offer
Speaker 1: plenty of arresting visual flare but little revelation?
Speaker 2: Well, I always love a book plug in a setup, atom,
Speaker 2: So thank you first of all for that. And yeah,
Speaker 2: you're quoting me, and I'm quoting the Apostle Paul and
Speaker 2: Romans there. So I don't want to take too much
Speaker 2: credit about we do what we wish we did not do.
Speaker 2: I did have that in the back of my mind
Speaker 2: surprisingly while I was watching Frankenstein and how it might
Speaker 2: echo in this instance when it comes to the Shelley
Speaker 2: novel and the movie versions, our capacity to play God. Right,
Speaker 2: it's right there in her subtitle essentially, and traditionally. I
Speaker 2: found Del Toro's version interesting on this front because it
Speaker 2: does take to my mind a little bit of a
Speaker 2: twist on this that I'm curious to get your opinion on. Traditionally,
Speaker 2: it is that doctor Frankenstein has chosen to play God,
Speaker 2: specifically by attempting to create life, right, So we're looking
Speaker 2: at the very beginning Genesis here, trying to usurp that
Speaker 2: power of actual life creation, and of course in every
Speaker 2: version it goes disastrously wrong. Overall, I think this Frankenstein
Speaker 2: del Toros Frankenstein on this front. It's not necessarily the
Speaker 2: most interesting thing about the movie. I'll get to that later,
Speaker 2: but on this front, I think this Frankenstein is less
Speaker 2: about the creation of life that urge than it is
Speaker 2: the prevention of death. And that's maybe a subtle nuance,
Speaker 2: but I think a very compelling one for where we
Speaker 2: are in this day and age. Think about the early
Speaker 2: demonstration scene where Victor before his medical colleagues. At this point, right,
Speaker 2: he hasn't really completely gone off the deep end, but
Speaker 2: he's giving a demonstration to them trying to animate. This
Speaker 2: is one of the best scenes in the movie. I
Speaker 2: think these body parts, it's not even a full figure yet,
Speaker 2: that he's kind of stitched together and animate that in
Speaker 2: front of them. During this I think this is where
Speaker 2: he says it. He boldly suggests that quote God is inept,
Speaker 2: and the reasoning there is because he's allowed something like
Speaker 2: death in his creation. So he sees that as a
Speaker 2: flaw that he has the hubris to fix. We also
Speaker 2: have a new figure compared to what we get in
Speaker 2: the book. You mentioned him, Christoph Waltz as Harlan Durr.
Speaker 2: This is the rich patron who is supporting Victor's experiments.
Speaker 2: We learn he's doing this and I don't think this
Speaker 2: counts as a real spoiler, but he's essentially doing this
Speaker 2: because he's dying and he wants get out style Jordan
Speaker 2: Peele's get out. He wants to have his intelligence placed
Speaker 2: in the creature, the monster's bodies. So this was really
Speaker 2: interesting to me. It was different from the book, again
Speaker 2: but timely because think about all the discussion of things
Speaker 2: like artificial intelligence and and the like. We're kind of
Speaker 2: in this new era of transhumanism. We have these billionaires
Speaker 2: who think that they can push science into eternity for
Speaker 2: specifically themselves, not necessarily the rest of us, and so
Speaker 2: we do. We're living with these modern day Harlander figures,
Speaker 2: and so yeah, the capacity for us in here to
Speaker 2: me is not trying to create life, trying to cheat
Speaker 2: death rather than accept it as this condition for our
Speaker 2: fallen humanity. I think Frankenstein del Toro's playing with that here,
Speaker 2: which is, you know, for a property that's been made
Speaker 2: countless times, to find even that little nuance to investigate
Speaker 2: and include. I think it's to the movie's credit.
Speaker 1: So you were a great co host there and film
Speaker 1: critic in that you responded very thoroughly to my actual
Speaker 1: setup question. But now I just really need to know
Speaker 1: whether or not you like the movie, Josh, could you
Speaker 1: do me that favorite?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Sorry, that is one of the many things I
Speaker 2: liked about the movie, Beyond those things you hinted at,
Speaker 2: the style, the production design, the filmmaking. Okay, we'll get
Speaker 2: to that. And as I said, there's another thematic thing
Speaker 2: that I found incredibly compelling, So yeah, thrown it back
Speaker 2: to you. You know, what'd you make on this capacity
Speaker 2: for sin question and the creation of life question? But overall,
Speaker 2: I mean, here's the question, given your setup, did this
Speaker 2: leap the fantasy hurdle for you? You know that you've kind
Speaker 2: of said, is something like it? Maybe it takes something
Speaker 2: a little extra for you to really embrace a movie
Speaker 2: of this nature. Was Franksin able to do it?
Speaker 1: I'm out of my depth again on the question I
Speaker 1: posed to you, which is why I posed it to you.
Speaker 1: I don't have a great answer on the capacity for
Speaker 1: sin question, and I do think you covered it well.
Speaker 1: You're right about the prevention of death element, and I
Speaker 1: can't compare that really to other versions that I don't
Speaker 1: remember very well or haven't seen, or the Shelley text.
Speaker 3: Though I do feel like I remember feeling.
Speaker 1: This as I watched it, and it has been now,
Speaker 1: I think three weeks unfortunately, so I have my notes,
Speaker 1: but I feel like the movie has started to dissipate
Speaker 1: in my memory. I feel like the movie loses that
Speaker 1: psychological bearing.
Speaker 3: For the character.
Speaker 1: And I think you could argue against what I just
Speaker 1: said and say that that's part of the point is
Speaker 1: that as that character loses his way a bit, we
Speaker 1: lose that underpinning, which has to do with his mother
Speaker 1: and how he really is pushed into this field and
Speaker 1: wanting to play god because of not guilt, but really
Speaker 1: because of a loss that he wants to never feel again.
Speaker 1: I really do like what you said about Harland, or
Speaker 1: real quick before I get into more detail, because there
Speaker 1: was a little touch. I don't know if you caught
Speaker 1: it or if I'm reading too much into it, but
Speaker 1: he has an absolutely despicable father, and there is at
Speaker 1: least one scene where del Toro seems to really dwell
Speaker 1: on his father during one of their lessons, and I
Speaker 1: think there's maybe even two instances of it, and his
Speaker 1: father is handing him a glass of milk, and later
Speaker 1: that's that's mirrored by Harlander in two scenes. And the
Speaker 1: thing is Harlander at this point seems to be completely
Speaker 1: on his side, a genuinely sympathetic benefactor. We don't know
Speaker 1: what you said about him until until later in the film.
Speaker 1: And while that's true, we also know that there has
Speaker 1: to be a catch, and he alludes to that early
Speaker 1: on when their deal is struck and the serving of
Speaker 1: the Milk to me was a little bit of foreshadowing that,
Speaker 1: like his father, this this relationship, this partnership, might be
Speaker 1: part of his undoing at some point.
Speaker 3: So I liked I like I like that touch.
Speaker 1: In terms of the fantasy question, that ACTU is a
Speaker 1: nice transition into what I wanted to say about the film.
Speaker 1: I am not as high on it as you, though
Speaker 1: I was very high on it at the beginning, and
Speaker 1: as I've now said a few times, I had no
Speaker 1: real bearing and I didn't know what to expect from
Speaker 1: the beginning of the movie. I remembered so little of
Speaker 1: the brand now that I was a little shocked to
Speaker 1: read on Wikipedia some of the plot details and that
Speaker 1: it apparently did have some of that North Pole Danish
Speaker 1: expedition in it and Frankenstein, doctor Frankenstein narrating his wild
Speaker 1: tale to Captain and Anderson. It had some of that conceit,
Speaker 1: though not to the extent that this movie does. And
Speaker 1: watching it, I thought either del Toro made that up
Speaker 1: or he was being more faithful to the text than
Speaker 1: most adaptations have been, And it turns out the latter
Speaker 1: is mostly true, at least when it comes to that
Speaker 1: framing device and I can say that because I took
Speaker 1: nine of my film criticism students to see this movie
Speaker 1: at the Chicago Film Festival at the Music Box, and
Speaker 1: the student who apparently drew the short straw and had
Speaker 1: to ride home in my vehicle sitting in the passenger seat,
Speaker 1: had read the book very recently, so had a lot
Speaker 1: of thoughts on the movie and had a lot of
Speaker 1: thoughts in relation to the book, and so was sharing
Speaker 1: those thoughts. But I also got to bounce a few
Speaker 1: questions off them, so I got I got a little
Speaker 1: bit of a taste of that. But Josh, at the
Speaker 1: very beginning I was I was hooked in part again
Speaker 1: because of the unexpected for me expanse of the story
Speaker 1: and the expanse I think this is two shows in
Speaker 1: a row. Now we've used the phrase mees on sen.
Speaker 1: I think we've upped our cinophile quotient tier our pretentious quotient.
Speaker 1: But that giant ship trapped in the ice del Toro,
Speaker 1: clearly establishing Captain Anderson's hubris that foreshadows Frankenstein's pushing his
Speaker 1: men past their breaking points labor to release the ship
Speaker 1: in service of his vision, his mission. The imagery of
Speaker 1: the creature in the distance on the horizon. There's a
Speaker 1: shot that is at dusk where you get the blue, yellow, orange,
Speaker 1: black hues and just this tiny figure of the creature
Speaker 1: on that horizon, and then that shot of the creature.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of the shot when it's just covered in
Speaker 1: ice and the ship is now in the distance and
Speaker 1: the creatures in the foreground and there's just enough of
Speaker 1: an angle. I think about the great advice that David
Speaker 1: Lynch's John Ford gives the young Spielberg in the fable
Speaker 1: mids about how you have to have the horizon somewhere
Speaker 1: other than in the middle right, and it's just enough
Speaker 1: of an angle that it gives that frame a real
Speaker 1: dynamism and the color. In the week since I screened
Speaker 1: this at the Chicago Film Festival, I did see a
Speaker 1: social media video where del Toro goes into detail on
Speaker 1: how he color coded. As you would expect, he color
Speaker 1: coded all the sections of the film and all the
Speaker 1: characters of the film. Of course, that provided depth that
Speaker 1: I didn't catch on the first viewing, but the broad
Speaker 1: strokes of those color choices were clear and so striking
Speaker 1: on that first viewing. From how green is used and
Speaker 1: matched to Frankenstein at certain points in places read to
Speaker 1: me a Goths character as the mother and blue to
Speaker 1: her Elizabeth, and in the Arctic those icy white blue
Speaker 1: and gold hues. I found it so enveloping and immersive.
Speaker 1: And I'll go to the red just for a second. Josh,
Speaker 1: there's another shot that is stuck with me so clearly
Speaker 1: from the film, when his mother dies, and even just
Speaker 1: the production design of the casket, the way the white
Speaker 1: almost ivory looking. It looks like a robe folded in
Speaker 1: on her and you only see the outline almost of
Speaker 1: her face and the red around her, almost like it's
Speaker 1: a frozen pool of blood. And there are men standing
Speaker 1: around her, four of them, and with their feet and
Speaker 1: the black robes. It it is almost as if it
Speaker 1: from a composition standpoint, it makes it looks like a swirl.
Speaker 1: It looks kaleidoscopic, and it also draws your eyes downward
Speaker 1: in the frame. It's an overhead shot. But it also
Speaker 1: almost like the Kubrick technique that I'm forgetting the name of,
Speaker 1: when it when it draws your your eye, you know,
Speaker 1: to the end of the frame, except it's doing it
Speaker 1: in a vertical way instead of instead of in a
Speaker 1: in a in a in a way across the the shot.
Speaker 1: It's filled with with frames like that, and exactly like
Speaker 1: the captain before Frankenstein, I sat there before the screen,
Speaker 1: just waiting to receive del Toro's story.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the gorgeousness on display here is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: And what I think about in terms of that coffin
Speaker 2: is what you describe, but also the fact that it's
Speaker 2: there of like this this stone essentially, and there's an
Speaker 2: opening for her face laying in there, the corpse's face
Speaker 2: that is then covered by a stone mask, which I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's you know, drawing on a tradition
Speaker 2: that exists, or if it's an invention of the production
Speaker 2: designers and prop designers here, but it's one of the
Speaker 2: things I'll remember most about this Frankenstein. And yeah, we
Speaker 2: could probably go on and on about the costuming and
Speaker 2: the production design, and especially Mia Goth's character being you know,
Speaker 2: interested in insects, particularly butterflies, and every dress she wears
Speaker 2: mimics the unfurling of a butterfly's wings in some way,
Speaker 2: or even a little head piece she has that curves
Speaker 2: around her face. It's just incredible on that artistic esthetic level.
Speaker 2: Now I'm sensing that you're saying all that but to
Speaker 2: set up an enormous butt and maybe maybe we'll just
Speaker 2: go there and rather than me jump in with something
Speaker 2: different that that I really liked about the movie.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, one point perspective, by the way, is the
Speaker 1: Kubrick shot that I was I was thinking of, and
Speaker 1: this mimics that, but but in a way that's a
Speaker 1: high angle shot. In the back of my mind at
Speaker 1: this point, there was this little asterisk and I and
Speaker 1: I tucked it away, hoping it wouldn't be a concern,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't completely overlook it. And the question was,
Speaker 1: and again, not being familiar with the source material, how
Speaker 1: are we going to get to the Arctic? What series
Speaker 1: of circumstances will justify this journey emotionally, psychologically but also
Speaker 1: physically maneuvering these characters from from Europe to the edge
Speaker 1: of the world in the midi eighteen hundreds. I was
Speaker 1: in and I stayed in for a good portion of
Speaker 1: the movie. But I think I can pinpoint the exact
Speaker 1: moment where del Toro lost me, and I mean the
Speaker 1: narrative lost me. But I do think we may need
Speaker 1: to get into spoilers to really to really make my point,
Speaker 1: so I don't necessarily want to go there yet, but
Speaker 1: there there was suffice it to say there was a
Speaker 1: point where del Toro's narrative lost me, and it felt like,
Speaker 1: I guess the way I could sum it up, Josh
Speaker 1: is it. It felt like even though, of course the
Speaker 1: movie is not made or I doubt the movie was
Speaker 1: made in it was not shot in the order in
Speaker 1: which the narrative unfolds, so it's not as if they
Speaker 1: put all their effort into the beginning of the film,
Speaker 1: though of course it was put together. However it was
Speaker 1: put together even that was probably not put together in
Speaker 1: the order in which the narrative unfolds. It was probably
Speaker 1: put together in pieces. It felt to me like so
Speaker 1: much care and effort and time was devoted to that
Speaker 1: opening sequence which I loved, to the flashback to the
Speaker 1: past which I loved, the one we're referring to with
Speaker 1: mi A Goth as the mother, the backstory of that character,
Speaker 1: to those scenes with Oscar Isaac as the younger doctor
Speaker 1: with all of his brashness and he's trying to upend
Speaker 1: the scientific community, and and even the part where he is.
Speaker 1: He's really trying to create this creature, and the back
Speaker 1: end felt so rushed to me that it undid a
Speaker 1: lot of what I thought the front end was setting up.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's return to that when you can talk about
Speaker 2: it a little more in detail. And yeah, I think
Speaker 2: I know where you're going, and I think I might
Speaker 2: partially agree, and maybe we if her on, you know,
Speaker 2: the fatality of that, maybe instance of disappointment in terms
Speaker 2: of the narrative. Here's the thing that I love most
Speaker 2: about this movie, and it's actually connected, even though I
Speaker 2: saw it about a week and a half ago now
Speaker 2: and have had time to write a rough draft review
Speaker 2: and so forth. But I love that producer Sam's newsletter,
Speaker 2: which is out by now to Film Spotting family members
Speaker 2: I just saw today myself, is touching on this idea
Speaker 2: of the gothic and gothic films connected to Gothic literature.
Speaker 2: He's talking about this in the newsletter in terms of
Speaker 2: Del Toro's output and actually Tim Burton's output, and asking
Speaker 2: you know, readers to choose between the two. If you're
Speaker 2: not a Film Spotting Family member, by the way, you're
Speaker 2: missing out on these newsletters. So you should really join
Speaker 2: Filmspottingfamily dot com. That's how you can get this from
Speaker 2: Sam every week. So I loved that he took this
Speaker 2: tack because here's what I appreciated about Del Toro's Frankenstein, Adam,
Speaker 2: And we're going to go into a little bit of
Speaker 2: literature here, in literary history. But you are a book guy,
Speaker 2: so I think you'll enjoy this, and I think you'll
Speaker 2: have you'll have some thoughts on it. What the movie
Speaker 2: clarified for me in terms of del Toro, who is
Speaker 2: often and rightly thought of as a Gothic filmmaker, is
Speaker 2: this is the instance where something else, another impulse in
Speaker 2: his filmography, was allowed to flower into full bloom. And
Speaker 2: that is Romanticism, the literary attrition tradition of Romanticism, which is,
Speaker 2: you know, somewhat parallel to the Gothic tradition. And of
Speaker 2: course that makes sense it would happen here because when
Speaker 2: you look at how Shelley's novel was born, it was
Speaker 2: born partly out of her time with two Romantic poets,
Speaker 2: Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. And so this is a
Speaker 2: novel that is absolutely Gothic, but swimming in those waters
Speaker 2: and Del Toro is a filmmaker who's absolutely gothic but
Speaker 2: has been swimming in romantic waters, I think probably throughout
Speaker 2: his career. But the first instance I can think of
Speaker 2: we really saw this was the Shape of Water, where
Speaker 2: you have something that is gothic and look but reaching
Speaker 2: for something more sublime, for something more transcendent, which is
Speaker 2: what would be more ascribed to the Romantics. Right. And
Speaker 2: here I'm watching Frankenstein and realizing I should have realized
Speaker 2: this the instance it was announced that he was doing Frankenstein.
Speaker 2: He has pushed Shelley's novel, to my mind, even further
Speaker 2: into the romantic because he's the one you pointed this
Speaker 2: out in your setup. He's the one who looks at
Speaker 2: monsters as lovely creatures. Right. So this has gloomy settings,
Speaker 2: it has macab dismemberments, it has this gothic stuff, but
Speaker 2: it has in its creature, it has a heart that
Speaker 2: yearns for an ecstatic life. And he ends this film
Speaker 2: with a quote from Byron about a broken heart that
Speaker 2: will quote brokenly live on. And so watching this movie
Speaker 2: really actually thinking about it more afterwards, because it's such
Speaker 2: a sumptuous aesthetic movie. I didn't have a lot of
Speaker 2: these thematic considerations while I was experiencing it, but it
Speaker 2: was more thinking about it afterwards that it is this
Speaker 2: flowering of the romantic in his work, and the here's
Speaker 2: maybe where we can move towards performances a little bit more,
Speaker 2: because I think it's all rooted in Jacob Elordi's performance
Speaker 2: as the Creature, which is this romantic expression of this figure.
Speaker 2: I thought he was incredible in what is maybe one
Speaker 2: of cinema's hardest roles to pull off, just because it's
Speaker 2: so unbelievable, it can so easily be silly. There's a
Speaker 2: reason we have spoofs of it. And man, I was
Speaker 2: just kind of enraptured with what a LORDI did with this.
Speaker 2: Following del Torell's lead, I think towards that romantic direction.
Speaker 1: I agreed completely on both counts, and this will allow
Speaker 1: me to transition into praising the film, but it will
Speaker 1: also lead to another frustration. I was skeptical about pretty
Speaker 1: boy Jacob Elordi playing the Creature?
Speaker 3: Was that fair? No?
Speaker 1: Not, I've seen him in exactly two things, Josh Priscilla
Speaker 1: and Paul Schrader's Oh Canada. No, not even saltburn I
Speaker 1: haven't seen it three things if you count his stint
Speaker 1: hosting SNL, and I feel the same mixed to negative
Speaker 1: way about all three of those things I've just mentioned.
Speaker 1: I'll never be skeptical about Oscar Isaac in any role,
Speaker 1: because I think he's one of our great screen actors.
Speaker 1: Yet here I was walking out of the theater, and
Speaker 1: here I am now proclaiming that the best performance in
Speaker 1: this film by far as a Lordi's as the creature.
Speaker 1: He he has his own active creation, he has to
Speaker 1: create most just through movement, this being that is both
Speaker 1: recognizably human and unlike any human we've ever seen. I
Speaker 1: hate to evaluate acting so crudely, but it's so easy.
Speaker 1: I think this is what you're getting at too. It's
Speaker 1: so easy to imagine a performer trying to play the
Speaker 1: creature just like a very overgrown child or Bambi on ice,
Speaker 1: those long, thin legs barely wobbling along. And a Lord
Speaker 1: he conveys all the necessary physical immaturity, but also carries
Speaker 1: such a spiritual weight on those spinley legs. I was
Speaker 1: surprised by the relative fluidity of his movement, whereas it
Speaker 1: would have been more obvious to play it totally jagged
Speaker 1: and choppy. Yeah, that element is still there, but the
Speaker 1: performance isn't overwhelmed by it. And of course the longing
Speaker 1: behind his eyes, his gentleness, You absolutely understand why Elizabeth
Speaker 1: would be drawn to him, separating out any kind of
Speaker 1: romantic attacher. You understand why she is drawn to him.
Speaker 1: But also when he needs to let loose as the
Speaker 1: monster a lord, he also summons the rage very effectively
Speaker 1: as well. And so this praise for a LORDI I agree.
Speaker 1: I think it's the strength of the film, along with
Speaker 1: a lot of what del Toro is doing visually. And
Speaker 1: this disappointment with Isaac, or disappointment with how Isaac is
Speaker 1: directed maybe or conceived with just a bit too much
Speaker 1: Gusto gets it another aspect of what frustrated me. And
Speaker 1: you've said it, but I'm gonna I'm gonna quote you again.
Speaker 1: In your book you said, if anything about the thirty
Speaker 1: one version, you said, if anything, my sympathies lie with
Speaker 1: the poor creature. Given the legendary Boris Karloff's dignified performance,
Speaker 1: all sad eyes and limp limbs, I'm never really afraid
Speaker 1: of Karloff's lost, lurching orphan. Rather it's doctor Frankenstein himself,
Speaker 1: who survives the film, who serves as a haunting reminder
Speaker 1: of my own tendency to think that I can do
Speaker 1: God one better. Del Toro clearly reads the Frankenstein story
Speaker 1: the same way you read that, which isn't surprising. His
Speaker 1: work has always revealed that humans are the real monsters,
Speaker 1: but his affection for this monster is so overwhelming that
Speaker 1: it softens the edges of his vision, simplifying the complex,
Speaker 1: volatile dynamic between creator and creation that should drive the
Speaker 1: film's emotional and dramatic core. I think that's where it's
Speaker 1: undone a little bit. Not only am I not sure
Speaker 1: we need a Frankenstein, A movie Frankenstein where the creature
Speaker 1: actually verbalizes to us, verbalizes to Frankenstein, and by extension us,
Speaker 1: you're the monster. If and when he does say it,
Speaker 1: and he does here, that needs to hit us as
Speaker 1: viewers as as hard as it hits or should hit Frankenstein,
Speaker 1: or at minimum, it has to intensify some existing strong tension.
Speaker 1: And here Frankenstein, by this point, certainly, but even before,
Speaker 1: is so obviously the monster whose moral compromises have ceased
Speaker 1: being compromises that we as audience members, or speaking for
Speaker 1: myself anyway, as an audience member, has been conflicted about
Speaker 1: the creature is just a little bit too angelic, Frankenstein
Speaker 1: is too demonic. There's not enough blurring of those extremes
Speaker 1: to make it as compelling as I think it needs
Speaker 1: to be. Definitely not enough, and this helps get it
Speaker 1: my first point. Definitely not enough to launch the final
Speaker 1: act and the emotional resolution between the two that del
Speaker 1: Toro tries to offer us.
Speaker 2: Okay, so a lot going on there. One thing that's
Speaker 2: supports your point of view is and maybe this came
Speaker 2: up with your student on the car ride back about
Speaker 2: the book, but the creature slash monster in the book
Speaker 2: is more monstrous, takes murderous acts that are far more
Speaker 2: appalling than anything we see here. That supports your point.
Speaker 2: It muddles things a little bit right in our relation
Speaker 2: to him. So I can see that now that would
Speaker 2: not have worked with what I think del Toro is
Speaker 2: doing here in terms of moving this towards the romantic necessarily,
Speaker 2: So personally it doesn't bother me. The Oscar Isaac performance
Speaker 2: is a curiosity. It's entertaining. He's I don't understand the choice, though,
Speaker 2: of making him this cocky heart throb. I mean half
Speaker 2: of his experiments are done shirtless, which you know, fine,
Speaker 2: no complaints there, But in terms of the envisioning of
Speaker 2: this character, I'm trying to understand what they are going for.
Speaker 2: I found the relation to be a little more fruitful
Speaker 2: the relationship between Creature and Frankenstein, however, because there is
Speaker 2: a tenderness that is there from the very beginning, and
Speaker 2: the push and pull for me is watching Victor Frankenstein
Speaker 2: follow that instinct and then follow his instinct to move
Speaker 2: away from the Creature and care for him in any way.
Speaker 2: There's a line in this where I believe he says
Speaker 2: something like I never thought about what would happen after creation.
Speaker 2: And maybe that's the key to this vision of Frankenstein,
Speaker 2: because that is why he is the playboy. The playboy
Speaker 2: doesn't think about being the dad. He just thinks about,
Speaker 2: you know, what it takes to become a dad that act.
Speaker 2: And similarly, this Victor franken Stein is only thinking about
Speaker 2: the consummation the experiment and not necessarily having to wake
Speaker 2: up with an infant in the middle of the night.
Speaker 2: So I think there's some of that that's going on
Speaker 2: I will defend though the third act, and again, maybe
Speaker 2: this will move us into spoilers, because there are some
Speaker 2: exchanges there between Victor and the creature that I found
Speaker 2: quite moving. But I agree with you they're not necessarily
Speaker 2: entirely set up by what we've gotten before in a
Speaker 2: previous section.
Speaker 3: Well before we get to that.
Speaker 1: It's amazing how I suppose after doing the show, as
Speaker 1: long as we have together, we do not discuss any
Speaker 1: of this ahead of time, and yet we seem to
Speaker 1: set up each other with the points we want to make.
Speaker 1: I wanted to say, Josh that where I certainly had
Speaker 1: sympathy for Victor, and where I also was really provoked
Speaker 1: by the film in a way I didn't expect to be,
Speaker 1: is in those first moments after this creation comes to
Speaker 1: life that line that you said, but even without the
Speaker 1: line Frankenstein appearing at the foot of his bed and
Speaker 1: him having to process that range of emotions from fear
Speaker 1: to elation slash pride to them Now what now, Tom
Speaker 1: walking him downstairs, chaining him up? All that work. Think
Speaker 1: about all that work, the emotional, intellectual, financial, the investment,
Speaker 1: your life's work, essentially, and really you can think about
Speaker 1: it as your life's work from the moment you've been born,
Speaker 1: all the training, your mother's passing, right, all of it's
Speaker 1: led to this. All of it's led to you creating
Speaker 1: this and you do it?
Speaker 3: Now what?
Speaker 1: And the thing is it mirrors on a on a
Speaker 1: much grander level, but on that that expansive scale, it
Speaker 1: mirrors what having a baby is like for parents, what
Speaker 1: it is like for parents to have babies, and some
Speaker 1: have a much more difficult time of it than others,
Speaker 1: with a lot more financial investment, right, and and have
Speaker 1: to go through a lot more of a struggle no
Speaker 1: matter how equipped you are. And I've always been grateful
Speaker 1: or felt felt fortunate that I had a wife who
Speaker 1: was an ob nurse. I I couldn't. I couldn't have
Speaker 1: felt more comfortable because I couldn't have had a wife
Speaker 1: who was more comfortable and prepared to take care of
Speaker 1: a baby.
Speaker 3: Sure, so I had.
Speaker 1: I had four younger sisters, so I grew up having
Speaker 1: having babies around me and felt pretty comfortable already in
Speaker 1: that way. But with all of that said, there's still
Speaker 1: a moment where you get discharged the first time and
Speaker 1: go wait now what, oh?
Speaker 3: Now what do I do?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm responsible for this, this thing forever, and I
Speaker 1: hadn't thought of it, as I said, going into the movie,
Speaker 1: but sure enough, this is something the student told me
Speaker 1: when I brought this up on the way home. There
Speaker 1: has been a lot of reading of Frankenstein as a
Speaker 1: postpartum novels, as you would imagine, and Shelley apparently lost
Speaker 1: an infant after childbirth and had multiple difficult pregnancies, So
Speaker 1: that's an element that is there. It's certainly there for
Speaker 1: the interpretation, and it was something that the movie made
Speaker 1: me think about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that's kind of a fascinating twist
Speaker 2: on envisioning this Victor Frankenstein as as the parent, the
Speaker 2: parent figure. I think this is part of the emotionality
Speaker 2: that del Toro is bringing to an unexpected place, you know,
Speaker 2: to a monster movie, which he's done many times before.
Speaker 1: Do you have anything else you want to say or
Speaker 1: do you want to get into spoilers.
Speaker 2: The other interesting thing maybe before we get into spoilers,
Speaker 2: is Mi a Goth. As you mentioned how it wasn't
Speaker 2: a romantic relationship right between her and the creature, and
Speaker 2: I think that's important because me a Goth's Elizabeth in
Speaker 2: some ways the text. Yeah, but it could be, it
Speaker 2: could be the point of the relationship, and I don't
Speaker 2: think it is here. I think she's more importantly a
Speaker 2: foil to Victor, because you know he is. I talked
Speaker 2: about him talking about God being inept, and how does
Speaker 2: Elizabeth describe things? You know, she talks about God's design
Speaker 2: when she starts to see some of Victor's early experiments,
Speaker 2: or when she's talking about insects, right, And I think
Speaker 2: what she shares with the creature is a capacity for wonder.
Speaker 2: And this is what Victor doesn't have, because it's partly
Speaker 2: why he lets go of the rope once the creature
Speaker 2: is is born, is that's the moment for wonder to
Speaker 2: look and stand in awe at this bean. But he's
Speaker 2: just more invested in creating it, right, whereas Elizabeth shares
Speaker 2: the sensibility of well, the sensibility of We see the
Speaker 2: creature in that wonderfully designed basement. I guess it's a morgue,
Speaker 2: but it's also like a butcher shop essentially, where he's chained,
Speaker 2: and it has this gutter running down the middle of
Speaker 2: the floor, mostly for blood, the blood to run out
Speaker 2: of the castle, but occasionally water will stream through it,
Speaker 2: and the creature has this instinct to drop a leaf
Speaker 2: into the flow of water and be delighted by its path.
Speaker 2: That's what he shares with Elizabeth, the fact that they
Speaker 2: take joy and delight in such moments. These are romantic moments.
Speaker 2: So I think her character, who is you know not
Speaker 2: in the novel kind of a variation of a very
Speaker 2: minor figure in the novel. I think her character is
Speaker 2: is key as both the foil to Victor and the
Speaker 2: partner in that way to the creature. So yeah, I
Speaker 2: think I think Goth is instrumental and very.
Speaker 3: Good in this The Great Victor Frankenstein and you made
Speaker 3: a mistake.
Speaker 2: I created something truly horrible, not something.
Speaker 3: Someone with that. Let's get into some spoiler territory.
Speaker 1: I feel like I need to do it anyway to
Speaker 1: explain what ultimately held me back with this film, and
Speaker 1: maybe that's the only reason why we need to get
Speaker 1: into it. I don't know if there's things you feel
Speaker 1: like you need to get off your chest, Josh, I
Speaker 1: feel a little bit like I fear anyway that maybe
Speaker 1: I've now set it up too much and I don't
Speaker 1: know if I can deliver because you're you're expecting me
Speaker 1: to make a case for why this film ultimately doesn't work.
Speaker 1: And it's not like you're gonna agree with me anyway
Speaker 1: on this point, because it sounds like you're all in
Speaker 1: on this movie as a winner for you.
Speaker 2: Are you negative? Are you? Are you going negative on this?
Speaker 1: This is a movie, Josh, where based on the beginning
Speaker 1: of the film and maybe even the first half, I was,
Speaker 1: I was this is this is a movie.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 1: I'm giving a very positive letterboxed rating too, and as
Speaker 1: we sit at this moment, I am a two and
Speaker 1: a half star rating.
Speaker 2: All Right, I'm gonna get that. I'm gonna get that
Speaker 2: half star from you, though though actually I'm probably not
Speaker 2: because arguing with you is not the way to get
Speaker 2: the half star. It's if my cap up to this point,
Speaker 2: you didn't make it, it's hopeless.
Speaker 3: Sure, well here here it is.
Speaker 1: And this is the thing about the movie going experience
Speaker 1: is that we can even agree on things intellectually, but
Speaker 1: if we saw the same movie and by the end
Speaker 1: of it we didn't have the same emotional experience, if
Speaker 1: narratively didn't deliver, That's what I'm left with, and that's
Speaker 1: what I'm thinking about ultimately when I'm doing the superficial
Speaker 1: work of giving it that star rating. And so my
Speaker 1: big issue or the biggest thing holding me back, I said,
Speaker 1: I had that little astiss where I'm thinking and sure, maybe.
Speaker 3: This is just me.
Speaker 1: Maybe I get too caught up a little bit on logistics,
Speaker 1: where I'm I'm thinking early on, wait a second, how
Speaker 1: does this Frankenstein story get all the way to the Arctic?
Speaker 1: How are we even here? Okay, that's in the back
Speaker 1: of my mind. And then as it's going along, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking that it's simplifying this Frankenstein. I don't know at
Speaker 1: this point about any of this stuff that's in the book,
Speaker 1: and that it's way more complicated, and that Frankenstein is,
Speaker 1: you know, murdering people left and right in the text.
Speaker 1: I just know that on screen I felt like it
Speaker 1: was it was too simple, and there wasn't enough of
Speaker 1: that push pull for me to really feel like it
Speaker 1: it delivered in a in a complicated way. Well, those
Speaker 1: two things collide at the exact moment where the creature
Speaker 1: tells Frankenstein, you're the monster, which follows This is a
Speaker 1: point of departure I understand from the book where it's
Speaker 1: doctor Frankenstein who kills Elizabeth and blames the monster. But
Speaker 1: in the in the book, isn't it the creature who
Speaker 1: actually does kill her out of an act of vengeance
Speaker 1: because he's mad.
Speaker 2: He's mad at doctor the figure that she's kind of Yeah,
Speaker 2: the corollary for yeah.
Speaker 1: So this, this in the movie initiates Frankenstein's chase of
Speaker 1: the monster all the way to the Arctic. And even
Speaker 1: if you can get past the suspension of disbelief stuff,
Speaker 1: stop yourself from asking too many but wait, how questions
Speaker 1: which may or may not include how the genius doctor
Speaker 1: frank Stein somehow hasn't fully processed that the creature can't die,
Speaker 1: not from any gunshots anyway, Yet he keeps buying bullets
Speaker 1: and guns and trying to shoot him. Even if you
Speaker 1: can get past that. I only feel this goes back
Speaker 1: to my point. I only feel complete allegiance to the creature,
Speaker 1: and I have no investment in what's driving Frankenstein's pursuit,
Speaker 1: and just purely from a narrative standpoint, my lack of
Speaker 1: investment and those creeping, that creeping suspension of disbelief, those
Speaker 1: issues they stem from how briskly the movie needs to
Speaker 1: get us to the Arctic. And what I felt, Josh,
Speaker 1: I felt like it was rushing to that resolution after
Speaker 1: all that time. I know, I said this, but after
Speaker 1: all that time, that great time has spent the patience
Speaker 1: setting up the story within a story, framing all the
Speaker 1: Danish men, the creature kills, all the time we spend
Speaker 1: back in the past young Victor with his mother and
Speaker 1: the trannical father.
Speaker 2: All the world.
Speaker 1: Building parts and the character building parts that I enjoyed
Speaker 1: so much of the run time is spent there. And
Speaker 1: then the conclusion.
Speaker 3: To put it.
Speaker 1: In in Seinfeld terms, I think del toro YadA YadA
Speaker 1: is the ending. I felt like a YadA YadA is
Speaker 1: the ending. Finally we get these two stories, these two narratives,
Speaker 1: the two perspectives colliding, and that moment on the deathbed
Speaker 1: should be powerful. It should be it should be powerful,
Speaker 1: and I didn't feel it. And I didn't feel it
Speaker 1: for all these reasons I mentioned that just were we're
Speaker 1: taking my investment in the story out of me. It
Speaker 1: sucked all the narrative energy from me. The more the
Speaker 1: film went on, I didn't buy any of the chase.
Speaker 1: I didn't buy any of the chase or how it
Speaker 1: tried to solve it in the end.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm not going to be able to retroactively
Speaker 2: insert that emotional investment in the finale for you. To
Speaker 2: your point, I'll say something heretical too, is I think
Speaker 2: Shelley's novel Is Not is not as expertly constructed in
Speaker 2: this way as maybe the reputation has. It's It's a
Speaker 2: difficult novel in terms of the change of perspectives, the
Speaker 2: level of letters you're you're subsumed in. You know, it's
Speaker 2: the moral question at its heart and the fantastic vision
Speaker 2: at its heart that I think that has held it up,
Speaker 2: held up its reputation, and rightly so. I think it's
Speaker 2: brilliant for those things. But in terms of the plotting
Speaker 2: you're talking about and the narrative makes it one of
Speaker 2: the most difficult properties to adapt. And I don't know
Speaker 2: if that's why it's continually adapted someone's waiting to crack it,
Speaker 2: or if it's because my instinct is it's more that
Speaker 2: vision is so alluring, right, the ideas she had, the
Speaker 2: way she described it, the passion which with which she
Speaker 2: gave the voices to her characters, all of that is
Speaker 2: to the novel's credit, but in terms of this structure
Speaker 2: and the narrative it has, it has always held me
Speaker 2: up when I revisit the novel and given me pause.
Speaker 2: So I don't think you're entirely wrong to react to
Speaker 2: the film adaptation in this way, but I did have
Speaker 2: a different experience with that emotional investment, And for me,
Speaker 2: I did not mind so much that I wasn't as
Speaker 2: invested in Victor Frankenstein, because this movie had gotten me
Speaker 2: so invested in the creature, and so the question for
Speaker 2: me was less about Frankenstein's end and how the creature
Speaker 2: was going to respond to this life that had been
Speaker 2: given to him, what he was, the choices he was
Speaker 2: going to make, And in that sense, I found the
Speaker 2: ending quite powerful. And there is a sense we're doing
Speaker 2: spoilers here. The line for me was not so much
Speaker 2: that you or the monster, but again, a different choice
Speaker 2: del Toro makes Victor I forgive you. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is something that's bringing us in a totally new direction,
Speaker 2: as is the choice for the creature to not leave
Speaker 2: the scene as he does in the book and set
Speaker 2: himself on fire. If my memory or at least say
Speaker 2: he's going to do that, I think about My memory
Speaker 2: is a little fuzzy on that, but we essentially are
Speaker 2: to understand that, you know, he is no more at
Speaker 2: the end here, what does he do? He pushes the
Speaker 2: boat out of the ice, saves the remaining men's lives,
Speaker 2: and the last thing he does, Adham, is a romantic gesture.
Speaker 2: He looks up to the warmth of the sun. And
Speaker 2: I guess that is where I found my emotion was
Speaker 2: in that exce experience, that choice of the creature, that
Speaker 2: romantic expression. It's not a defense of how they handle
Speaker 2: Victor Frankenstein necessarily. I can still see why that might
Speaker 2: have left you wanting. But where I was and where
Speaker 2: my my own heart lay with this creature's experience, it was, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it was pretty enrapturing, actually, yeah.
Speaker 1: And I do love those final moments. I love the
Speaker 1: touch of freeing the ship. I love that that final
Speaker 1: glance and the warmth of the sun. Those really are nice. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I still think the movie thinks it's very important that
Speaker 1: that father and son have that moment together and that
Speaker 1: moment of forgiveness, and the fact that it didn't it
Speaker 1: didn't deliver because there wasn't enough of a complexity to
Speaker 1: their relationship. Yeah, I it it left me wanting, but
Speaker 1: I'm glad. I'm glad that it paid off for you.
Speaker 2: Josh.
Speaker 1: We agree certainly on a Lordie performance in this film,
Speaker 1: and he will be in the running for me as
Speaker 1: well when we talk about the best performances of the year.
Speaker 1: Frankenstein is currently out in limited release and available exclusively
Speaker 1: on Netflix. If you've seen it and agree or disagree
Speaker 1: with our takes, you can email us feedback at film
Speaker 1: spotting dot net. We may share some of that feedback
Speaker 1: on a future show.
Speaker 4: This episode is brought to you by Peloton break through
Speaker 4: the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton
Speaker 4: Cross Training tread Plus powered by Peloton Iq. With real
Speaker 4: time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize
Speaker 4: your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your
Speaker 4: goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push
Speaker 4: and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross Training tread Plus
Speaker 4: at one Peloton dot com.
Speaker 2: Adam I mentioned the film Spotting Family and our discussion there.
Speaker 2: How do you feel about thanking of film Spotting family
Speaker 2: member here for a moment? Should we do that?
Speaker 1: I love it especially when it's international. Those are always fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is great to say. And this is not
Speaker 2: only a Film Spotting Family member, but Clara del Olmo
Speaker 2: from Madrid, Spain is a Family Plus member, so that
Speaker 2: highest tier you can join as part of the Film
Speaker 2: Spotting Family. If you're on Letterboxed as Clara is, you
Speaker 2: can find her at CLZ SPN. Now, we always have
Speaker 2: a questionnaire that new members can fill out if they choose,
Speaker 2: and Clara did that, so we're going to share a
Speaker 2: little bit of that here. She wrote in saying I
Speaker 2: needed something to keep me going through the endless treadmill
Speaker 2: slogs at the gym, so I went on a quest
Speaker 2: to find the Ultimate film podcast. After a deep dive online,
Speaker 2: your show kept popping up like some kind of podcast,
Speaker 2: Holy Grail, figured why not give it a shot. Turns
Speaker 2: out that was probably one of the best decisions I
Speaker 2: made in a while. I've been hooked since episode six
Speaker 2: eighty one Lord of the Rings fifteenth Anniversary slash Top
Speaker 2: five Lord of the Ring scenes the real kicker finding
Speaker 2: out Adam hadn't seen the last two movies. I mean,
Speaker 2: what I had to see, what it was like to
Speaker 2: experience the epicness of LOTR through the fresh eyes of
Speaker 2: someone seeing them for the first time.
Speaker 3: Spoiler.
Speaker 2: It was hilarious and warm at the same time. I
Speaker 2: was laughing for a minute one and just knew I'd
Speaker 2: found my perfect podcast match.
Speaker 1: Now Clara just missed something here. She missed an opportunity
Speaker 1: because she talked about finding some kind of podcast Holy
Speaker 1: Grail that then talks about the Lord of the Rings.
Speaker 1: She could have gone with some kind of Sauron thing
Speaker 1: the Ring that met Josh instead of the true yeah,
Speaker 1: I like this.
Speaker 2: People on their Lord of the Rings references that now
Speaker 2: that you're a yeah.
Speaker 1: Maybe my fantasy bona fides right, I've heard them exactly clearly.
Speaker 1: Clearly Clara has empathy for me, or maybe it's just
Speaker 1: sympathy for me, because when we asked a favorite review
Speaker 1: or segment, she says, I loved the eight twenty four
Speaker 1: draft so much as I felt the pain from Adam
Speaker 1: when mean old Josh, those are her words. I see it.
Speaker 1: I see it there, Old Josh took Ladybird. Since then
Speaker 1: I was very into the draft structure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you might have been doing a little editorializing there
Speaker 2: in Clarence Embellis, but you know what. This does remind
Speaker 2: me that we just did another draft for our film,
Speaker 2: spotting family bonus episode our Cruise. We did draft and yeah,
Speaker 2: family members might have that in their feet already. I
Speaker 2: think they did think I did you dirty? And I
Speaker 2: did you dirty in that one too, didn't.
Speaker 1: I yeah, I don't want to spoil it, but there
Speaker 1: was a Tom Cruise pick that I thought I would
Speaker 1: get in round four or five, and you did some
Speaker 1: homework apparently, and you I mean, I'm glad you love
Speaker 1: this movie now as much as I do. I did
Speaker 1: not think you'd take it. It turns out, though, that
Speaker 1: Zach in Chicago you could call him mean old Zach
Speaker 1: because he took gosh two of your choices that you wanted.
Speaker 2: He was ridiculous. I think we're in process of maybe
Speaker 2: banning him from the family, right. Isn't he maybe considering
Speaker 2: kicking him for his behavior?
Speaker 1: Rescind Yeah, if he wasn't such a nice guy, we
Speaker 1: should definitely do that, you know. And is his money's green,
Speaker 1: so we will We'll still take it. But that was
Speaker 1: that was fun. Zach in Chicago was a fantastic family
Speaker 1: member to have that Tom Cruise draft with it was
Speaker 1: the three of us, plus Sam van Halgrend. I think
Speaker 1: Sam is the one who is currently winning the poll
Speaker 1: because family members get to choose who won the draft. Josh,
Speaker 1: do you have any idea who's in dead last in
Speaker 1: that draft?
Speaker 2: I wait a minute, Sam is winning the pole.
Speaker 1: Sam's winning the poll. Yes, Sam is.
Speaker 2: My memory was he torpedoed? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I kind of thought that too, But the more I
Speaker 1: looked at his picks, his first three are really solid.
Speaker 1: His first three are really solid, and clearly they are
Speaker 1: carrying him to victory.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: So okay, I'm a star.
Speaker 1: Faring as well. You were not fair my last Josh,
Speaker 1: you were in last currently.
Speaker 2: Okay, but that's fine.
Speaker 3: Voting is early, so.
Speaker 2: You know, as I say, in the draft, and I
Speaker 2: took a particular approach me. It was a me first approach,
Speaker 2: not a voter first approach. So I'm glad to see
Speaker 2: that's panning out.
Speaker 3: You go with that.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was a fun draft, and if you're a
Speaker 1: family member, you get that bonus content every month. We
Speaker 1: love doing those drafts, so we hope you seek it out.
Speaker 1: We thank Clara for being a family plus member and
Speaker 1: for listening all those years. In addition to keeping us
Speaker 1: doing what we're doing. Your family membership comes with perks
Speaker 1: like those bonus shows, but also you get to listen
Speaker 1: early in ad free and when we say listen early,
Speaker 1: I mean we don't want to disrupt your routine if
Speaker 1: you're a Friday morning person or maybe a Monday morning person.
Speaker 1: But Sam and Joe, with some help from Joe, of course,
Speaker 1: Sam's been knocking these shows out sometimes like Thursday morning,
Speaker 1: we're dropping them in your feed.
Speaker 2: I have notice that, no kidding, they have been putting
Speaker 2: in the work and they're doing as we said at
Speaker 2: the top of the show, there's video elements involved now,
Speaker 2: yet they're still managing to get these things out quite
Speaker 2: early for our family members. So that is that's like
Speaker 2: a significant benefit for sure.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the weekly newsletter, which you talked about in our
Speaker 1: review of Frankenstein. You also get to be part of
Speaker 1: the Film Spotting Family discord, which is a blast. There's
Speaker 1: over four hundred film spotting listeners, lots of channels there
Speaker 1: devoted to all sorts of subjects. You can learn more
Speaker 1: about joining the Film Spotting Family at Filmspottingfamily dot com.
Speaker 1: And we will remind you that another way you can
Speaker 1: help a show like ours, which, yes, we've been around
Speaker 1: a long time, but we are still an independently produced show.
Speaker 1: We depend on your support via things like membership, but
Speaker 1: also spreading the word, and you can do that by
Speaker 1: taking a minute to give us a review or rating
Speaker 1: us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. It does help us
Speaker 1: reach new listeners.
Speaker 2: Heday, this is what you wanted? Isn't it? Money in
Speaker 2: the House?
Speaker 3: The Partty Tommy, I Love Your Saucy.
Speaker 1: Director Nia DaCosta started her career with the indie thriller
Speaker 1: Little Woods in twenty eighteen. It starred Tessa Thompson. You
Speaker 1: were a fan, Josh. Also, you were a relative fan
Speaker 1: of her forays into franchise filmmaking twenty twenty one's Candy
Speaker 1: Man and twenty twenty three's The Marvels. She's back with Heda,
Speaker 1: which she wrote and directed, also back in the title
Speaker 1: role Tessa Thompson. Heada is Dacosta's adaptation of Heada Gabbler,
Speaker 1: the eighteen ninety one play by Norwegian playwright Henrik Gibson
Speaker 1: about a bored newlywed whose former lover is competing with
Speaker 1: her new husband for a prize academic position. DaCosta updates
Speaker 1: the setting to nineteen fifties England and makes the former
Speaker 1: lover a woman played by the great German actress Nina Hass,
Speaker 1: who you may know from Tar and Christian Petsul's Phoenix.
Speaker 1: I said you were a fan of Little Woods and
Speaker 1: a relative fan of those other two films. If I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken, you can tell me if I am. I
Speaker 1: look this up on your website and Josh, I saw
Speaker 1: the exact same star rating for all three films, three stars.
Speaker 3: Are you going to depart from that? On Heda?
Speaker 1: Is this a film that is going to maybe go
Speaker 1: up to number one on your DaCosta ranking or is
Speaker 1: it right there with the others?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's right there in that universe. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is just a good filmmaker doing interesting stuff reliably across
Speaker 2: a range of genres, with a range of material. I
Speaker 2: don't know that we've seen the best of Nia DaCosta yet.
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to that Hedda. Is you know equally solid?
Speaker 2: I would say, I don't know. I think I did
Speaker 2: rank the her films on Letterbox. I think I might
Speaker 2: have still have Little Woods at the top. The performances
Speaker 2: there are just so good, and the imagery that DaCosta
Speaker 2: gives us in a familiar Indie narrative, I would say,
Speaker 2: are incredibly strong. Had yeah, another good one, Another good
Speaker 2: one from Nia DaCosta. Now you described already the way
Speaker 2: she scrambles, you know, race, gender, and sexuality. Very interesting,
Speaker 2: a lot of implications to that. But what I found
Speaker 2: most compelling about her take on this Adam and I
Speaker 2: have not seen a production of this play. Am not
Speaker 2: that familiar with the source material, so I don't know
Speaker 2: if this is in there at all, But Tessa Thompson's
Speaker 2: head to here is almost demon possessed in her depiction,
Speaker 2: if not downright demonic. Now we know that da Costa
Speaker 2: has delved in horror with her Candy Man remake, right,
Speaker 2: so maybe this shouldn't be shocking. But I noticed early
Speaker 2: on that the soundtrack has these drums that are almost
Speaker 2: like sacrificial type drums. There's this hissing or sign that
Speaker 2: that's very much used in horror films, These insinuating size,
Speaker 2: I would say, And then how does manipulations here of
Speaker 2: everyone around her? They're framed like a tempter so much.
Speaker 2: She's promising sexual favors at one point, another point, she's
Speaker 2: you know, encouraging someone to drink deeply from bourbon even
Speaker 2: though she knows it's going to be disastrous. There is
Speaker 2: an image, a great DaCosta image of a gun how
Speaker 2: offers to a character, and we see it in this
Speaker 2: this close up of their hands, the gun passing hands
Speaker 2: before a roaring fireplace. So all of this is just
Speaker 2: you know, adding to this idea of Heda as this
Speaker 2: almost possessed figure in the way she's manipulating people. Now,
Speaker 2: Thompson's performance, I'm sure it's going to get a ton
Speaker 2: of praise, maybe be considered one of the best of
Speaker 2: the year. I think she's good here. I think it's
Speaker 2: pretty focused on the deliciousness of this evil and playing
Speaker 2: up that part you mentioned Nina Haas. That's the performance
Speaker 2: in this film for me, as in part of the
Speaker 2: gender swapping. As you said, this rival professor to head
Speaker 2: his husband heada former lover man. She arrives at the
Speaker 2: party at Heada's party like this goddess, and it's part
Speaker 2: of a musical moment. I'm not going to detail because
Speaker 2: it might be for our year end rap party where
Speaker 2: we do music moments of the year. It might be
Speaker 2: one of those. For me, but she arrives at the
Speaker 2: party with this air and then head of chips away
Speaker 2: at it as the night goes on, And part of
Speaker 2: the I guess evil deliciousness of this movie is watching
Speaker 2: that fight between them, the back and forth. So I'm
Speaker 2: curious now that I've sat with this had my impressions,
Speaker 2: to see what others think, especially those more familiar with
Speaker 2: both the Ibsen play and those who maybe have more
Speaker 2: nuanced thoughts about the race and sexuality and gender mixing
Speaker 2: that's going on here, Because yeah, I'm sure there's a
Speaker 2: lot to dig into there as well, So how do
Speaker 2: yeah check it out? I think Tessa Thompson will probably
Speaker 2: be coming up, maybe not necessarily on my list the
Speaker 2: best performances of the year, but I bet a good
Speaker 2: number of other folks will have her.
Speaker 1: There is definitely one I will dig into. Before all
Speaker 1: of that end of year talk that is available exclusively
Speaker 1: on Prime Video had a battled social Conventions Josh Boxer,
Speaker 1: Christy Martin literally battled in the ring. Let's get to Christy.
Speaker 2: You must be the lady I've been hearing so much about.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir Son, to meet you, mister King.
Speaker 2: Tell me about youse. Jesse here says that you fight
Speaker 2: an old pink.
Speaker 3: I'm from West Virginia.
Speaker 2: What's that guy to do with pink?
Speaker 3: Nothing, sir, I'm just telling you about myself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, pink was my dear. Christy is director David Michaud's
Speaker 2: biopic about Martin, a professional boxer in the nineties and
Speaker 2: into the two thousands. Sidney Sweeney plays Martin, whose career
Speaker 2: was plagued by abuse and drug addiction. Adam, I know
Speaker 2: that you've been teaching a course on sport and films,
Speaker 2: so you've been immersed in this subgenre of recent months.
Speaker 2: I guess that's where I'd like to start, is just
Speaker 2: to hear where Christy falls among, you know, among the
Speaker 2: stratosphere of these sports films.
Speaker 1: Well, not only just sports films broadly, but most recently.
Speaker 1: In the class, we talked about Million Dollar Baby, and
Speaker 1: we've been talking about the archetypes in sports films so
Speaker 1: very much thinking about female boxers on screens. And one
Speaker 1: of the things we talked about is The Way, And
Speaker 1: there's a lot that's been written about this, but we've
Speaker 1: talked about how well that film portends to be a
Speaker 1: fairly transgressive portrayal of a woman on screen because it's
Speaker 1: about a female boxer and it puts her at the forefront.
Speaker 1: But I don't think this is necessarily controversial for anyone
Speaker 1: who's seen the movie. You can get into the finer
Speaker 1: details about how this is the case, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot to dig into, but it's really the Clint Eastwood
Speaker 1: characters movie, and that undoes a lot of the potential
Speaker 1: transgressiveness of.
Speaker 3: The film Million Dollar Baby.
Speaker 1: Here, it's Christie's movie, and you could say, well, does
Speaker 1: it ultimately in a way become a film that's just
Speaker 1: as much about her husband played by Ben Foster, or
Speaker 1: is her character defined just as much by him as
Speaker 1: the character and Million Dollar Baby Maggie is defined by
Speaker 1: Frankie Eastwood's case character And the answer might be, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's similar. The difference, though, is that Christy is the
Speaker 1: victim of abuse. She's the victim of domestic violence. This
Speaker 1: is a movie in which that's part of what the
Speaker 1: film is detailing. It's about a character who is dominated
Speaker 1: by her husband, and not only is Sweeney's performance very forcible,
Speaker 1: but Ben Foster as Jim is the type of character
Speaker 1: and he gives that type of performance the subtlety it needs,
Speaker 1: where the first time he says to her, just in
Speaker 1: the kitchen of their apartment at this point, before she's
Speaker 1: really hit the big time and made any money, when
Speaker 1: he says to her, if you leave me, I'll kill you.
Speaker 1: He has enough sense as a performer and Mishad has
Speaker 1: enough subtlety as a director not to make that this
Speaker 1: grotesque moment, not to underline it dramatically, because that's just
Speaker 1: another moment to that character. That's as matter of fact
Speaker 1: as him saying I'm gonna go wash the car. And
Speaker 1: that's how the movie treats it, and it becomes something
Speaker 1: that's a refrain that you know, it's something he says
Speaker 1: to her hundreds of times over the course of their
Speaker 1: lives the next decade or two decades that they spend together,
Speaker 1: and we do hear him say it a few more times,
Speaker 1: and it becomes more pointed and more violent, but you
Speaker 1: understand that even though her character might be wrapped up
Speaker 1: in his character. That's the essence of this film, And
Speaker 1: like Christie herself, the movie's redemption comes in the second half,
Speaker 1: when the boxer's focus turns to reclaiming her identity rather
Speaker 1: than winning in the ring.
Speaker 4: My hat on.
Speaker 3: That's Mahaus.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks.
Speaker 1: I've seen a few comments here and there that say
Speaker 1: the movie and some like the movie, Josh, But either way,
Speaker 1: some have commented on how much it does hit sports
Speaker 1: movie or boxing cliches. I think it goes against some
Speaker 1: of those cliches in the way I just mentioned. But
Speaker 1: I think what else is interesting about this film, and
Speaker 1: it goes back to the the quote you heard just
Speaker 1: as we were coming out of the trailer, the idea
Speaker 1: that not only is Sidney Sweeney playing this this character,
Speaker 1: this real life character, Christy, but Christy. It turns out,
Speaker 1: as the movie Portrayser was always playing a character. She
Speaker 1: was playing this character wearing pink. She was playing this
Speaker 1: hetero normative character that she never was. She was portraying
Speaker 1: the character that America needed her to be, her husband
Speaker 1: needed her to be, demanded her to be, that her
Speaker 1: mother demanded her to be.
Speaker 3: And when the.
Speaker 1: Movie is focused on that, of course, the beginning of
Speaker 1: the film is going to follow some of the sports
Speaker 1: movie cliches because it's her pathway out of poverty. She's
Speaker 1: going to have those fight scenes and that feels very familiar.
Speaker 1: But especially in the second half of the film, some
Speaker 1: of those scenes and that reclaiming of her identity, those
Speaker 1: moments are chilling, and that ultimately was what made this
Speaker 1: movie worthwhile for me. And I'll say about David Nishad,
Speaker 1: some of us seeing his name attached to it, not
Speaker 1: that he's a director who I necessarily have seen all
Speaker 1: of his films and thought he's this tremendous oteur. But
Speaker 1: I remember quite liking Animal Kingdom, his debut film, and
Speaker 1: thinking why is he doing this sports biopic movie. This
Speaker 1: doesn't seem like the kind of movie that he would do.
Speaker 1: And then of course, as I am, especially watching the
Speaker 1: second half of the film, I'm thinking, this is the
Speaker 1: guy who made Animal Kingdom, This is the guy who
Speaker 1: made a film about families and family violence and treating
Speaker 1: family violence as if it's a matter of fact and
Speaker 1: an everyday occurrence, and also portrayed a mother character, Jackie
Speaker 1: Weaver in that movie, Yeah, who will do anything she
Speaker 1: has to do to protect her family. In this movie,
Speaker 1: Merrit Weaver plays Christie's mom, and she's a very different character.
Speaker 1: I don't think she's as interesting a character or giving
Speaker 1: his interesting a performance necessarily, but in her mind, she's
Speaker 1: doing everything she has to do to protect her family,
Speaker 1: the pain that she's inflicting on Christy is protecting her
Speaker 1: and protecting her as well and her family projecting the
Speaker 1: image that she believes she has to project. So for me,
Speaker 1: there was a very clear through line from Animal Kingdom
Speaker 1: and some of Mishad's other work through Christy. So ultimately,
Speaker 1: I do think Christy is worth seeing, especially as well
Speaker 1: because you know, Sweeney's gonna come up in discussion of
Speaker 1: best performances of the year, and I understand, I understand why.
Speaker 1: I don't know that she's going to necessarily make the
Speaker 1: cut for me, but it is a.
Speaker 3: Very good performance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I was gonna ask, because I'm despite
Speaker 2: all the you know, publicity she gets. I actually haven't
Speaker 2: seen a lot of her work on screen. I did
Speaker 2: watch I Have Anither. It was like a Netflix movie
Speaker 2: Echo Valley, very small, there was no attention given to it.
Speaker 2: She's opposite Julianne Moore there. I mean, not the greatest movie,
Speaker 2: but she's incredibly good in it. So yeah, I was
Speaker 2: curious to hear how she wasn't something that, as you say,
Speaker 2: is definitely being set up for awards consideration.
Speaker 1: Christy currently playing in wide release next week, we are
Speaker 1: going to get to the latest from your Goos Lanthemos
Speaker 1: and his his muse, his star Emma Stone. It is Bogonia.
Speaker 1: We will also talk about Kelly Reichert's The Mastermind. That's
Speaker 1: another one that I think I saw at least two
Speaker 1: weeks ago. But Josh, you're finally gonna get a chance
Speaker 1: to see it. That once starts Josh O'Connor, So we're
Speaker 1: gonna give it some time. I got a double excited
Speaker 1: that you're going to get to see it.
Speaker 2: Double feature plan for the week. I'm adam, I hope
Speaker 2: I'm doing this right. I'm doing The Mastermind. First little
Speaker 2: meal Break, then Bogonia. So it seemed like the later
Speaker 2: night film to me, Bogonia, But I don't know, I'll
Speaker 2: find out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that might that might be fair.
Speaker 1: Then there are other films opening that we hope to see,
Speaker 1: the new one from Jafar Panahi It was Just an Accident,
Speaker 1: and Lynn Ramsey's new film with Jennifer Lawrence and Robert
Speaker 1: Pattins and that's Die My Love. So it very well
Speaker 1: could be that you will hear talk about all four
Speaker 1: of those films on next weeks show. We just don't
Speaker 1: rest here on film Spotting. We will also have results
Speaker 1: from the current deeply flawed film Spotting poll asking you
Speaker 1: to choose the second best. Just a burning question. Everyone
Speaker 1: needed to know the answer to what is the second
Speaker 1: best Robert Zemeckis movie?
Speaker 2: We're going to decide?
Speaker 1: I gave a sacred col review to the director's first best,
Speaker 1: Back to the Future, on last week's show. If you
Speaker 1: haven't voted yet, and if you haven't left a comment yet,
Speaker 1: you can do that at film spotting dot net. And
Speaker 1: if you would like to see what upcoming shows we
Speaker 1: have planned, you can go to film spotting dot net
Speaker 1: slash episodes.
Speaker 2: Exciting news Adam, It's been a little while since we've
Speaker 2: had an official film Spotting meet up, and I've been
Speaker 2: here in Scotland for a couple months. It's time I
Speaker 2: meet are UK friends. Not going to do the first
Speaker 2: one here in Scotland. I hope to do maybe one
Speaker 2: at some point there, but instead I'm going to be
Speaker 2: down in London in December. And I thought, well, one
Speaker 2: thing I've got to do is put together a film
Speaker 2: spotting meetup. I did one back in twenty seventeen and
Speaker 2: I don't know we probably should never do this, Adam.
Speaker 2: I don't want to offend any of the meetups we've
Speaker 2: had over the years. But if I were to make
Speaker 2: a top five meetups, we've been doing this long enough
Speaker 2: now London twenty seventeen, London would be on it. That
Speaker 2: was such a blast, a great got a little crazy. Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: I would not repeat it. I would not repeat it
Speaker 2: at this age because we started at the BFI, you know,
Speaker 2: very respectable, nice table, everyone around the table talking somehow,
Speaker 2: I mean, memory is hazy. At this point we ended
Speaker 2: up at I believe it was a Puerto Rican bar
Speaker 2: not too far away restaurant slash bar. Continued the conversation
Speaker 2: there and somehow, somehow, I blame this on listeners, we
Speaker 2: ended up at disco far into the night on the
Speaker 2: other side of the city. Irresponsible parents Debbie and I
Speaker 2: had the kids back in the airbnb alone. We did
Speaker 2: not plan to be out that late. Needless to say,
Speaker 2: it was a lot of fun. So yeah, going back
Speaker 2: to London, not to recreate that, to be much more responsible,
Speaker 2: but still to hang out with film spotting listeners. Here's
Speaker 2: the date I do have that now I can give
Speaker 2: to everyone. It's going to be Thursday, December eleven. Location
Speaker 2: is still to be determined. I do know earlier that
Speaker 2: day I'll be checking out. We got our tickets the
Speaker 2: Wes Anderson exhibit at the Design Museum, which I think
Speaker 2: is just opening here in the UK, So I'm going
Speaker 2: to be checking that out earlier, and then that night Thursday,
Speaker 2: December eleven, hanging out with Film Spotting listeners stay tuned
Speaker 2: for those location details. Will probably send them out via
Speaker 2: the newsletter to Film Spotting family members will put in
Speaker 2: the show notes for everyone. And yeah, I'll let you
Speaker 2: know as soon as that is nailed down.
Speaker 1: You know, the gauntlet has been thrown.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I can't let it stand that you're obviously cooler host.
Speaker 1: So the next meetup that I have, whenever that is,
Speaker 1: it's it's gonna be an all timer. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: a rager. Yes, you might go on for days. Okay,
Speaker 1: someone's gonna benefit from everything Josh just said and did.
Speaker 2: It's gonna be crazy, Adam, we want you to survive it.
Speaker 2: So let's let's not get carried away. Who's up for it.
Speaker 2: Let's see what happens.
Speaker 1: Okay, we do have another mention for our mastermind prize pack.
Speaker 1: We're partnering with movie on this. It features items from
Speaker 1: the film's fictional framing Him Museum of Art. For a
Speaker 1: chance to win, all you have to do is send
Speaker 1: a note to feedback at film spotting dot Net. The
Speaker 1: subject line should be Mastermind Prize and in the body.
Speaker 1: All you have to do you don't even need to
Speaker 1: provide any explanation, but we don't mind if you do,
Speaker 1: because we'll probably share it on next week's show when
Speaker 1: we announce the winner. You just have to tell us
Speaker 1: your favorite Kelly Reiker character from any of Kelly Rye movies,
Speaker 1: your favorite Kelly Reicher character. We've gotten some good responses,
Speaker 1: Josh so far, like Kurt will Oldham and Old Joy,
Speaker 1: Lily Gladstone, the Rancher in Certain Women, King Lou, We
Speaker 1: love King Lou from Yeah Kirst Caw as well. All
Speaker 1: you gotta do send that email feedback at film spotting
Speaker 1: dot Net.
Speaker 2: No votes yet for my em in Meeks cut off.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, not yet, Josh, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean they won't come in.
Speaker 3: We'll see.
Speaker 2: Quick note about our sister podcast, The Next Picture Show.
Speaker 2: Looking at Cinema's present via its pass, they have a
Speaker 2: new pairing very exciting. They are looking back at Fellini's
Speaker 2: Eight and a Half in order to pair it with
Speaker 2: raw Do Jude's new film Dracula and Adam. I would
Speaker 2: be over the moon about this. Dracula first of all
Speaker 2: horror related. You know, I'm in Jude, the director of
Speaker 2: last year's Do not expect too much from the End
Speaker 2: of the World, which we both I believe on our
Speaker 2: top ten lists. Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yes, we did.
Speaker 2: The only thing holding me back I've heard this is
Speaker 2: like at least three hours. Have you heard similar?
Speaker 3: That's the problem.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I even I have a link for it,
Speaker 1: and I've had it for a few weeks. The problem
Speaker 1: is I think it's two hours and fifty nine minutes long,
Speaker 1: and as badly as I want to watch it, as
Speaker 1: badly as I need to see the new film from
Speaker 1: Radu Judah, there is just no way right now I
Speaker 1: can see a three hour film. So I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to book the time soon. It's just not going to
Speaker 1: be right now.
Speaker 2: Josh, Well, the next Picture show folks are better critics
Speaker 2: than we are, so they are on top of it.
Speaker 2: If you want to get some talk about Dracula, you
Speaker 2: need to download these episodes, which you can do every Tuesday,
Speaker 2: and you can find them wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: All right. Time now for Mascer Theater. More proof that
Speaker 2: we're not the best film critics or film actors. This
Speaker 2: is where we perform a scene and you get a
Speaker 2: chance to win a film spotting prize. Last time we
Speaker 2: massacred this.
Speaker 3: Scene you're doing here.
Speaker 2: I just came to make sure that you were all right.
Speaker 4: You did not.
Speaker 5: You're trying to horn in on my source.
Speaker 3: How come you get to meet deep through I'm the
Speaker 3: one who actually saw that movie. Hi, I'm Carl Bernstein.
Speaker 2: You're supposed to be checking phone Wreck.
Speaker 1: I didn't give me a headache.
Speaker 3: I'm not whining. I'm exclaining.
Speaker 4: You're whining.
Speaker 2: I'm out talk about That was Will Ferrell and Bruce
Speaker 2: McCullough in nineteen ninety nine's Dick, written by Cheryl Longen
Speaker 2: and Andrew Fleming. Fleming also directed that massacre was part
Speaker 2: of our top five Robert Redford movies. It was a
Speaker 2: show we did a couple of weeks ago. There is
Speaker 2: always a tie in, So why that scene from Dick?
Speaker 1: Here is Glenn Eric Hamilton in Seattle Glenn's first time
Speaker 1: answering a massacre theater challenge. As you said during the show,
Speaker 1: one tie in is obvious Woodward and Bernstein, Redford and
Speaker 1: Hoffman's characters and all the presidents men, or Will Ferrell
Speaker 1: and Bruce McCullough, and Dick's bizarro recounting of Watergate. Beyond that,
Speaker 1: they're contrasts. Maybe the comedy journalist lust for fame contrasted
Speaker 1: with Redford's real life ambivalence about celebrity. Or Redford's willingness
Speaker 1: to share the spotlight with co stars versus Ferrell and
Speaker 1: McCullough constantly trying to cut one another out of the scoop.
Speaker 1: I'm really reaching. This movie is a favorite in our home.
Speaker 1: Everybody loves Dick like Looney Tunes. Educating me on movies
Speaker 1: from Hollywood's golden age. Dick is how our teenager understands Watergate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for such a fantastic tribute to Redford, and congratulations
Speaker 1: on twenty years of excellence. Neither of you smell like
Speaker 1: cabbage writing into Salve Adam's wounded ego. Seriously, these segments
Speaker 1: give me a lot of joy, and I don't write
Speaker 1: in more often only because I assume that everyone's saying
Speaker 1: that already, and I've assumed that the hat's been more
Speaker 1: full than advertised.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Glenn.
Speaker 2: See it's working, Adam, you can I call it a
Speaker 2: wine campaign? Is getting more can massacre theater entries? I
Speaker 2: also like Glenn's approach here have we seen this before?
Speaker 2: We're rather than going with connections, he's going with contrasts.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is opening up the entries are going
Speaker 2: to come flooding in now. This is opening up a
Speaker 2: whole new avenue for massacre THEA sure, all right. We
Speaker 2: also heard from Michael R. Hartman in Brooklyn, New York.
Speaker 2: The scene was from nineteen ninety nine. It's hilarious, Dick.
Speaker 2: The most obvious tie in is it's a parody of
Speaker 2: all the President's Men, which was discussed endlessly. The Robert
Speaker 2: Redford Memorial is one of Redford's best movies, not named
Speaker 2: Three Days of the Condor possible secondary connections stretching here.
Speaker 2: Redford famously played death in an episode of the original
Speaker 2: Twilight Zone, and a number of actors from Dick, Terry Gar,
Speaker 2: Harry Shear, and Dan Hadea appeared in the nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: Twilight Zone reboot. Don't remember this. Don't worry. No one
Speaker 2: else does either. Michael could be making all of this
Speaker 2: up as far as I know.
Speaker 1: No, he's not, because I think during our Top five
Speaker 1: I referenced the Fresh Air conversation with Redford that I
Speaker 1: parts of, and that was either his first TV appearance
Speaker 1: or one of them, and they played a clip from it,
Speaker 1: him playing death, please please open the door.
Speaker 2: They need help.
Speaker 3: You're lying to me.
Speaker 2: I know you.
Speaker 1: You can't flu me. The entire conceit of it, I
Speaker 1: believe is that a woman is so afraid of dying,
Speaker 1: she's afraid death is going to come for her whatever.
Speaker 1: She never opens her door or anything, and then somehow
Speaker 1: he convinces her to let him in her house or something,
Speaker 1: and of course he's actually the Grim Reaper.
Speaker 2: If isn't me you're afraid of, you understand me. What
Speaker 2: you're afraid of is the unknown. Don't don't be afraid that.
Speaker 2: I am afraid.
Speaker 3: The runnings over and that's him.
Speaker 1: Redford's playing death and it's an early episode of the
Speaker 1: Twilight Zone. It sounded fascinating, so I think it's available
Speaker 1: on YouTube. I could be wrong. Here's Sean Means from
Speaker 1: the Salt Lake Tribune. I went looking for other connections
Speaker 1: between Redford and the Dick cast, but didn't find much.
Speaker 1: Dan Hedea, who played Nixon and Dick, did appear in
Speaker 1: a civil action for which Redford was a producer, but
Speaker 1: did not act. There is this though. In twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: Redford and Ferrell collaborated on a humorous video as a
Speaker 1: fundraiser for the Colorado River Project.
Speaker 3: The Colorado River is one of the most loved and
Speaker 3: hardest working rivers in the world, but we've over used it.
Speaker 1: Most years.
Speaker 2: The river drives up even before it reaches the sea.
Speaker 1: Redford recorded a serious PSA encouraging an effort to raise
Speaker 1: the river by releasing more water into the Colorado than
Speaker 1: Ferrell countered with his own PSA, urging instead that engineers
Speaker 1: move the ocean. It's a testament to Redford's environmental advocacy
Speaker 1: and his ability to laugh at himself.
Speaker 5: Hello there, Hello there, I'm William Farrell. Recently we've been
Speaker 5: hearing some talk of a little problem in the Colorado
Speaker 5: River delta. We got a old sun dance riding around
Speaker 5: trying to raise the Colorado River.
Speaker 2: And restore its flow.
Speaker 5: And I say, do we really need more river. I mean, hell,
Speaker 5: we got plenty of otion. Let's move it. Let's reconnect
Speaker 5: these things the old fashioned way, the American way.
Speaker 2: Wow, we listeners are doing some Woodward and Bernstein level
Speaker 2: digging here, some journalistic investigation to make these connections. Let's
Speaker 2: share one more email we got from Chad Sanders. When
Speaker 2: Dick came out, I was baffled as to who this
Speaker 2: movie was made for besides me. Dunstan Williams might draw
Speaker 2: young crowd, but it's doubtful they'd be interested in a
Speaker 2: Watergate movie with serious, deep cut references to a twenty
Speaker 2: plus year old movie they'd never seen. Likewise, I felt
Speaker 2: that folks who lived through the Vietnam era probably weren't
Speaker 2: lining up for what the radio box seems to promise
Speaker 2: is a teen comedy. It felt like I, a high
Speaker 2: school journalism teacher who screened all the presidents Men twice
Speaker 2: a year for my interro students, was the sweet spot
Speaker 2: for this movie's demographic. Not only did I catch every
Speaker 2: nod to all the President's men, they knew I'd go
Speaker 2: bananas every time another Kids in the Hall or snl
Speaker 2: alum would show up, not to mention inga from young
Speaker 2: Frankenstein and Nick Tortully. I can't imagine there are many
Speaker 2: people who've seen Dick as many times as I have,
Speaker 2: and the number of people who've seen all the President's
Speaker 2: Men and Dick as many times as I have got
Speaker 2: to be just one. I know the MESCA Theater answer
Speaker 2: probably twenty five percent of the time, but I usually
Speaker 2: don't email you. This felt like a requirement to take
Speaker 2: the time to submit, even if it meant missing the
Speaker 2: field trip lunch to McDonald's to do it. This is
Speaker 2: a reference to the movie Dick, a scene which people
Speaker 2: who've only seen it seven times or so may not remember. Wow.
Speaker 1: So I don't mean to put you on the spot, Josh,
Speaker 1: but I find that often you don't get some of
Speaker 1: the pop culture references that I make or Sam makes,
Speaker 1: because I don't know. I think I think your parents
Speaker 1: either had great taste and raised you properly, or you know,
Speaker 1: you were just sheltered as a child. You can look
Speaker 1: at it either way. But Nick Tortelli, do you get
Speaker 1: that reference when Chad wrote it?
Speaker 2: I'm picturing they get it, but maybe maybe that's just
Speaker 2: he's already been mentioned.
Speaker 1: Okay, cheers, cheers, Carlo's husband on Cheers.
Speaker 2: The watch Cheers great svery week we watched.
Speaker 1: Check Well you were right, see it was in your brain,
Speaker 1: it was it was back there in the subconscious. Okay,
Speaker 1: each into the film Spotting hat and pick out this
Speaker 1: week's winner.
Speaker 2: Our winner is Matt Price from Pittsburgh.
Speaker 3: Congratulations Matt.
Speaker 1: Email feedback at Filmspotting dot net and we will set
Speaker 1: you up with your very own film Spotting t shirt,
Speaker 1: film Spotting tote, or trial membership to the film Spotting Family.
Speaker 2: The sound goes through the cable to the box. A
Speaker 2: man records it on a bit recoed in wax, but
Speaker 2: you have to talk into.
Speaker 3: The mic first.
Speaker 2: In the bush.
Speaker 1: We move on now to this week's edition of Massacre
Speaker 1: Theater and Josh, we like to joke about all the
Speaker 1: preparation we put in to these little renditions that we do,
Speaker 1: and this time you get to do even less than normal.
Speaker 2: Is that right? We have some technical difficulties, yes, a
Speaker 2: peak behind the curtain. Usually our preparation involves just before
Speaker 2: performing Masacre Theater, watching the scene that Sam in most
Speaker 2: cases has chosen for Mascar Theater. I'm as I've said
Speaker 2: in Scotland, I normally don't have an issue with this,
Speaker 2: but right now I'm being told that I can't watch
Speaker 2: the scene because I'm in the wrong country. I'm a
Speaker 2: certain streaming service. So I'm going and I'm going in
Speaker 2: pretty much blind. We do know there's one, let's just say,
Speaker 2: key performance to this scene, and because you've been able
Speaker 2: to watch it, it falls to you to carry the scene.
Speaker 2: I'm going to do my best in the secondary performance.
Speaker 1: And it is a secondary performance. There's definitely a straight
Speaker 1: man in this scene, and you're going to play that role,
Speaker 1: and I am going to do my best.
Speaker 3: With the other role.
Speaker 2: Lord help you.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm ready if you are. And I don't
Speaker 1: know what's going to come out of my mouth.
Speaker 2: Josh, hopefully at least the words on the script.
Speaker 3: Here we go and hopefully action. Did I do something wrong?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Then why'd you just go cold on me?
Speaker 2: I don't know what you mean? Would you see I
Speaker 2: didn't see anything?
Speaker 3: You're lying?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not.
Speaker 3: Yes, you are, I know because I feel things very deeply.
Speaker 2: Look, I gotta get back to work, all right. I'll
Speaker 2: see you later.
Speaker 3: When what When will I see you?
Speaker 2: I don't know. Ruby, It's just an expression.
Speaker 3: You're not going to take me to Europe? Are you
Speaker 3: tell me the truth? What did I do wrong?
Speaker 2: Nothing? Calm No, Why are you leaving me?
Speaker 3: If I didn't do nothing wrong, I don't understand. I
Speaker 3: thought you liked me.
Speaker 2: I do like ya.
Speaker 3: I just tell me the truth.
Speaker 2: Why are you leaving?
Speaker 3: Why are you leaving me? Would you see? Why'd you change?
Speaker 2: You're scaring me? Ruby and scene? Wow, I don't eat.
Speaker 3: That was intense enough.
Speaker 2: Fate was with us, Adam, the scene technical difficulties. It
Speaker 2: fell to you, and you gave one of your all
Speaker 2: time uh huh Mascar theater performances. Congratulations.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe maybe it's up there.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that people get to watch that too on
Speaker 1: the on the video, we did change. We did change
Speaker 1: the name to try to make it a little more difficult.
Speaker 1: So no, Ruby is not the character's name in the scene.
Speaker 1: We look forward to reading all of the entries. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll have a brimming hat. We think you can come
Speaker 1: up with the tie into this week's show. If you
Speaker 1: know what film we just massacred, email the movie's title
Speaker 1: and your name and location to feedback at filmspotting dot net.
Speaker 1: The deadline is Monday, November seventeenth. We will select the
Speaker 1: winner randomly from all the correct entries and announce it
Speaker 1: in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: I say, is Alan Ginsberg there?
Speaker 3: And he says who's calling?
Speaker 5: And I says, Peter Hoojar, I'm supposed to photograph here
Speaker 5: the Times.
Speaker 2: Peter Hoojar's Day is the latest from director Ira Sachs.
Speaker 2: He made twenty twenty three's Passages and twenty fourteen's Love
Speaker 2: Is Strange. This is an adaptation of sorts. It's based
Speaker 2: on a nineteen seventy four audio taped interview between writer
Speaker 2: Linda rosen Krantz and photographer Peter Hujar. Rosen Krantz is
Speaker 2: played by Rebecca Hall in the movie Hoojar by Ben Wishaw.
Speaker 2: Those are two names, Adam, that I think makes both
Speaker 2: of our ears perk up when we see they've been
Speaker 2: cast in a movie. So I'm assuming they make this
Speaker 2: worth watching. Is there more to this than something that's
Speaker 2: centrally focused on the actors.
Speaker 1: There's more, but there's certainly a big reason why you
Speaker 1: should see it. Calling it a two hander is a
Speaker 1: little bit of a misnomer because Hall's rosen Krantz is
Speaker 1: placed mostly into the role of listener, but very active
Speaker 1: listener who does sprinkle in questions. And I'll get into
Speaker 1: this more and more praise. I will have more praise
Speaker 1: for Hall and how her character is conceived. But I
Speaker 1: will also note that Wishaw Hall's chemistry, but really who
Speaker 1: jar and rosen Krantz's chemistry is an essential element of
Speaker 1: the film. It is Wishaw, though, who carries the movie
Speaker 1: in terms of the dialogue and has such an interesting
Speaker 1: challenge because yes, it was audiotape conversations, but my understanding
Speaker 1: is that the audio tapes never actually surfaced. What was
Speaker 1: found were just transcripts of these conversations. So Wishaw and
Speaker 1: Sacks are recreating conversations just based on words on a page.
Speaker 1: So the level of naturalism that Wishaw has to convey
Speaker 1: is greater than your typical script, and he does it
Speaker 1: with such casual acuity.
Speaker 3: It really is.
Speaker 1: A wonderful performance. And you have to keep in mind
Speaker 1: that rosen Krantz's project was mundane by design. I equated
Speaker 1: to this. I teach a podcasting class most semesters, and
Speaker 1: the heart of the episode is having the students produce
Speaker 1: a pilot episode and they have to do an interview,
Speaker 1: and every semester never fails. I have one or two
Speaker 1: students who propose interviewing a student athlete, and the topic is,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to a student athlete about what
Speaker 1: their everyday routine is like. And when they're pitching those podcasts,
Speaker 1: I or when students are pitching, I always suggest to
Speaker 1: them that they have to know what their big question is.
Speaker 1: What's the underlying question that you're asking every guest. Imagine
Speaker 1: that you're doing this show for the next ten years,
Speaker 1: You're doing two hundred episodes, whatever it is every guest
Speaker 1: you'll ever have on the show. Whether you actually ever
Speaker 1: verbalize this question or not, it's the inexhaustible question that
Speaker 1: justifies your podcast.
Speaker 3: What is that big question?
Speaker 1: And the problem is, the first couple of times students
Speaker 1: did these interviews, as I feared, there wasn't really a
Speaker 1: big question to explore. The interviews were just like journal
Speaker 1: entries without any introspection. It was like I woke up
Speaker 1: at six am, had breakfast, went to practice, I had
Speaker 1: class at eight thirty and so on, and that these
Speaker 1: athletes had lunch at Chipotle was just never compelling to
Speaker 1: me as a listener and rosen Krantz wants her subjects
Speaker 1: to do exactly that, just reflect on, really just chronicle first,
Speaker 1: chronicle what they did that day and see where it
Speaker 1: takes them. So right away, as the movie's beginning and
Speaker 1: I begin to see that, I'm thinking, why, what's the
Speaker 1: big question? What's the big question? Rosen Krantz wants to investigate?
Speaker 1: And by extension, then what is Sax investigating? Will one
Speaker 1: or more big questions emerge? And at one point the
Speaker 1: characters do Josh address it themselves When Hujar acknowledges that
Speaker 1: he shocked at how much he has talked about just
Speaker 1: the first few hours of his day since he woke up,
Speaker 1: he realizes that until he was actually forced to document it,
Speaker 1: he kind of just assumed that what he did every
Speaker 1: day was really innocuous and disposable, that nothing really happened.
Speaker 1: And he says, isn't that interesting? And she says it
Speaker 1: really is. He says, because as soon as I started,
Speaker 1: it's like a whole novel already, and she says, that's
Speaker 1: why I'm doing it. So it's almost like the aphorism,
Speaker 1: the unexamined life is not worth living. But what the
Speaker 1: movie proposes is it's more like life is worthy when examined.
Speaker 1: Is how I would sort of turn it around. And
Speaker 1: other interesting insights emerge. He talks about being disappointed with
Speaker 1: pictures he had taken that day of Alan Ginsberg for
Speaker 1: The New York Times. It's an assignment, a photoshoot, when
Speaker 1: he looked at them, and there's this meta layer because
Speaker 1: he discusses how that matches what the film is doing
Speaker 1: right where he talks about how you only see qualities
Speaker 1: in the photos, positive and negative. When the photo's actually
Speaker 1: printed and you're studying it, you see things then that
Speaker 1: you weren't aware of when you actually staged it and
Speaker 1: took the shot. And so then I started thinking about Rosenkrantz,
Speaker 1: and I started thinking about the way she's looking at him,
Speaker 1: and the way that she adores him, it seems, and
Speaker 1: the precision almost with which she's listening to him, and
Speaker 1: she does kind of become an equal to Ujar in
Speaker 1: terms of the way she fills the space and the
Speaker 1: way Sas has her fill the space even though she's
Speaker 1: not filling it with words, and the way sometimes there's
Speaker 1: a real tenderness between them and they will show affection
Speaker 1: for each other and they'll talk sometimes laying on a
Speaker 1: bed and have real intimacy with each other. And like
Speaker 1: with his pictures, he says at one point that he
Speaker 1: thinks women take better pictures than men do. And so
Speaker 1: then I'm thinking, is she getting better audio from him
Speaker 1: because she's a woman, or is it because they're already
Speaker 1: so comfortable with each other, or is it or is
Speaker 1: it both? So what you realize or what I realized
Speaker 1: any way watching it is that Peter Hujar's day doesn't
Speaker 1: ask big questions.
Speaker 3: It creates an.
Speaker 1: Ephemeral, meditative space that invites them. It turns the quiet
Speaker 1: observation into introspection, and it kind of reveals how meaning
Speaker 1: can emerge from memory and just paying attention to details
Speaker 1: and also also art. I think I think it lies
Speaker 1: in Sachs's conception of this whole project as well, because
Speaker 1: he makes you question everything that you're seeing. Sometimes Linda
Speaker 1: changes within a scene, Josh, It's really interesting, Like her
Speaker 1: costume will change within a conversation. Not only will they
Speaker 1: change positions, but her costume will change, her hair might change.
Speaker 1: The composition will go from something very naturalistic to something
Speaker 1: that is more artistically framed. The opening and the closing
Speaker 1: of the film draw attention to the mechanism of filming,
Speaker 1: like at the beginning, wish if I remember correctly, it's
Speaker 1: getting into an elevator. I think you see the sticks
Speaker 1: as if you know that filming on this project has begun.
Speaker 1: So it's asking these questions like how do we process
Speaker 1: and create meaning out of our lives? How do we
Speaker 1: use art to create meaning? How do we use cameras?
Speaker 1: How do we use frames? That's the intersection of what
Speaker 1: Sax is doing and what Hujar was doing and what
Speaker 1: rosen Krantz was doing. So watching the film, I was
Speaker 1: left thinking about what I was Also here's the questions, right,
Speaker 1: I was thinking about what I tell my students, and
Speaker 1: either they're not Linda Rosenkrantz, or their interviewees aren't Peter Hujar,
Speaker 1: or athletes aren't as interesting as artists. Or maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just wrong and I should let my students engage in
Speaker 1: the process more often.
Speaker 2: Josh, well, we'll leave that to your teacher evaluations. Adam,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to answer that, but Peterhosar's Days sounds fascinating.
Speaker 2: A lot of layers at work. This one is currently
Speaker 2: playing in limited release and Adam. That means, after touching
Speaker 2: on for four movies, I think we are at the
Speaker 2: end of our show. If you'd like to connect with
Speaker 2: us on social media, you can find Adam and the
Speaker 2: show on Instagram, Facebook, letterboxed, YouTube. He's at film Spotting.
Speaker 2: I'm at all those places as well as Larsen on
Speaker 2: film Film Spotting is independently produced and listener supported. You
Speaker 2: can support the show by joining the film Spotting Family
Speaker 2: at filmspottingfamily dot com. That way, you can listen early
Speaker 2: and ad free. You'll also get a weekly newsletter, monthly
Speaker 2: bonus episodes, and access to the entire show archive. For
Speaker 2: show t shirts and other merch go to film spotting
Speaker 2: dot net slash shop.
Speaker 1: In that film Spotting archive, you can find those seven
Speaker 1: Del Toro reviews that I referenced in R. Frankenstein Setup,
Speaker 1: Pinocchio episode nine oh one, Nightmare Alley eight fifty three,
Speaker 1: The Shape of Water six fifty nine, Crimson Peak five sixty.
Speaker 1: That's the one of the seven that you did solo, Josh,
Speaker 1: I still haven't seen it. One of my four blind
Speaker 1: spots Pacific Rim four fifty three, Hellboy two to eighteen,
Speaker 1: and Pan's Labyrinth one forty five. Hell Boy two is
Speaker 1: funny because I had written my entire intro two or
Speaker 1: three days ago, and then I just saw this document
Speaker 1: the Sam put together with these notes in it earlier today,
Speaker 1: and I had to go and rewrite part of my
Speaker 1: intro because I thought I had five blind spots. I
Speaker 1: was sure I had five blind spots, and that Hellboy
Speaker 1: two had not been reviewed on the show. They're only
Speaker 1: six movies that had been reviewed on the show. And
Speaker 1: then I did a search of my Google files and
Speaker 1: guess what, I've seen hell Boy Too. We reviewed hell
Speaker 1: Boy too. I liked hell Boy Too. Sometimes you learn
Speaker 1: new things from your own show.
Speaker 2: It it didn't stick in your imagination though that much, huh.
Speaker 3: It did not?
Speaker 1: Apparently out wide, you can see Christy. You can also
Speaker 1: see Lynn Ramsay's Die My Love, Russell Crowe as Hermann
Speaker 1: Goring in Nuremberg. We haven't talked about that. I don't
Speaker 1: know that we'll get to review it. I am curious.
Speaker 1: I want to see it. I'm a little bit curious
Speaker 1: about Dan Trachtenberg directing Predator bad Lands with el Fanning.
Speaker 1: But next week we do have other films that we
Speaker 1: are more curious about. Like Pogonia, Kelly Reichert's The Mastermind
Speaker 1: and Jafar Panahi's It Was Only an Accident. But Die
Speaker 1: My Love is also on the dockets, so hopefully four
Speaker 1: more movies to hear us discuss.
Speaker 2: Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe Dessou and Sam
Speaker 2: Fan Halgrin. Without saying I'm a Golden Joe, this show
Speaker 2: wouldn't go. Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Special thanks
Speaker 2: to everyone at WBEZ Chicago. More information is available at
Speaker 2: wbez dot org. For film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson.
Speaker 3: And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening. This conversation can
Speaker 3: serve no purpose anymore.
Speaker 1: Then film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting
Speaker 1: Family at film spottingfamily dot com and get access to
Speaker 1: ad free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and,
Speaker 1: for the first time, all in one place, the entire
Speaker 1: film Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: That's a film Spotting Family dot com.
Speaker 5: Panically