Speaker 1: What kind of a show you guys.
Speaker 2: Putting on here today?
Speaker 1: You're not interested in art?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: No, Look, we're going to do this thing. We're going
Speaker 1: to have a conversation from Chicago. This is Film Spotting,
Speaker 1: celebrating our twentieth year. I'm Josh Larson and I'm Adam Kempinar.
Speaker 3: We spend our lives in search of the other half.
Speaker 1: If you think you've found that, don't be so quick
Speaker 1: to let it go.
Speaker 2: What a comforting thought. That's from the trailer for director
Speaker 2: Michael Shanks together with Alison Brie and Dave Franco as
Speaker 2: a couple whose relationship undergoes an unsettling transformation. We've got
Speaker 2: a review.
Speaker 1: Speaking of unusual relationships, how about Joe Gillis and Norma Desmond.
Speaker 1: We'll talk Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard to mark it's seventy
Speaker 1: fifth anniversary, that and more.
Speaker 4: All Right, mister demil, I'm ready for my close.
Speaker 1: Up ahead on Film Spotting.
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: Welcome to film Spotting, Josh, if you count dating, certainly,
Speaker 2: we have both been with our wives for over thirty
Speaker 2: years and still no fusing of the flesh. It seems
Speaker 2: the movies have lied to us yet again.
Speaker 1: Well speak for yourself, Adam. This eyeball on my shoulder,
Speaker 1: that's stubby.
Speaker 2: We do have a review of the new Relationship Body
Speaker 2: horror movie together. We'll also get to our second Billy
Speaker 2: Wilder classic of the Summer Sunset Boulevard, which is seventy
Speaker 2: five this year. Plus I will have a few thoughts
Speaker 2: on Angel Headed Hipster, the documentary about glam rocker Mark Bolan,
Speaker 2: and we will have a new deeply flawed film spotting poll.
Speaker 2: Is there any other kind? We're asking you to re
Speaker 2: litigate the nineteen seventy six Best Picture race, the rare
Speaker 2: case where all five nominated films are legit masterpieces, but
Speaker 2: first together, a long time but unmarried couple make a
Speaker 2: move to the country, which puts a strain on a
Speaker 2: relationship that has already entered a state of complacency. Things
Speaker 2: soon get weird. Notably, their body is becoming one. Here's
Speaker 2: a scene that has them considering drastic measures to free themselves.
Speaker 2: I'd imagine what you're about to do actually happening, and
Speaker 2: tell me that's not going to make things way worse.
Speaker 3: Whiskey for the pain, And as soon as we're separated,
Speaker 3: I'll sprint for the first aid kit.
Speaker 1: We have bandages, disinsect in everything we need. Uh, you're
Speaker 1: right handed?
Speaker 2: Oh God, actually maybe that's enough for that.
Speaker 1: I think I can fill yours.
Speaker 2: Is your right handed?
Speaker 3: Andrew?
Speaker 1: Remember when you said you weren't holding me off?
Speaker 2: Did? Do you think I want to do this? No?
Speaker 1: We are out of time.
Speaker 2: We need to system.
Speaker 1: We have to. We have to. If we don't split now,
Speaker 1: it'll be much harder later.
Speaker 2: There's gotta be another way.
Speaker 1: Body horror is an icky, tricky genre, Adam and not
Speaker 1: for the faint of heart. In my book Fear Not,
Speaker 1: I said that such films are often about what happens
Speaker 1: when the bathroom door is closed and locked. That's another
Speaker 1: way of saying they're extremely personal and our reactions to
Speaker 1: them are personal as well. For my part, I'm unnerved
Speaker 1: but oddly transfixed by body horror. That's not to say
Speaker 1: I love the genre uncritically, just that when I hear
Speaker 1: about a new body horror film, I'm usually queasily intrigued,
Speaker 1: and the good ones make me both physically repelled and
Speaker 1: intellectually invigorated. But what makes a good body horror film?
Speaker 1: This isn't your favorite genre, Adam, but there are movies
Speaker 1: in this mode that you've appreciated. You were a fan
Speaker 1: of Coraley Fargo's The Substance from last year, for instance.
Speaker 1: What makes a body horror movie work for you? What
Speaker 1: makes you glad you sat through the gruesomeness and gore
Speaker 1: and to get to the point, did you find that?
Speaker 1: In the new film Together. The movie stars James Franco
Speaker 1: and Ellison Brie as a longtime couple at an awkward
Speaker 1: moment in their relationship. Things get more awkward when, while hiking,
Speaker 1: they drink from a suspect pond and suddenly their bodies
Speaker 1: have the grotesque urge to merge. And that's not a euphemism.
Speaker 1: In fact, Franco's tim has been avoiding physical intimacy for
Speaker 1: quite a while. So what did you make of Together, Adam?
Speaker 1: In general and as a work of body horror.
Speaker 2: It's true I'm a little squeamish, so, to use your words,
Speaker 2: I'm more queasy than intrigued, I suppose when I hear
Speaker 2: about a new body horror film coming out. But what
Speaker 2: does Dan Levy say in Shit's Creek? I like the wine,
Speaker 2: not the label. It will always be about the movie,
Speaker 2: not the genre or whatever type of movie it is.
Speaker 2: For me, I can tolerate all sorts of unpleasantness if
Speaker 2: it has a purpose and it pays off. And certainly
Speaker 2: if it does in the end pay off, that's in
Speaker 2: the filmmaking, the storytelling overall. So there will always be
Speaker 2: body horror films I like and some I don't. I'll
Speaker 2: tell you a little story, though, Josh, about my experience
Speaker 2: watching Together. It was Monday, it was late afternoon. I
Speaker 2: had the entire theater to myself, and you know, those scarier,
Speaker 2: uncomfortable scenes that we involuntarily react to by covering our
Speaker 2: eyes or maybe watch with our eyes peeking through fingers.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you do that. I do that.
Speaker 2: It's not just a cliche. I do that well. I
Speaker 2: didn't have to maintain any public decorum. I could just
Speaker 2: act like I was in my living room. When I
Speaker 2: got scared or uncomfortable, I could basically fling myself forward
Speaker 2: and cover my entire face with my hands. There was
Speaker 2: one jump scared early on. I think you'll know which
Speaker 2: one I'm referring to here, in a moment during a
Speaker 2: nightmare that Tim is having that got me so bad.
Speaker 2: It's a face with yellow eyes, and longtime listeners will
Speaker 2: know the yellow eyes and movies and horror movies always
Speaker 2: get me. It so unnerved me that, even though I
Speaker 2: knew I was alone, I swear to you that I
Speaker 2: looked over both my shoulders just to make sure that
Speaker 2: nobody saw me freak out for a second. I was
Speaker 2: so embarrassed by how I reacted.
Speaker 1: But there was.
Speaker 2: Only one scene that really flung me forward that for
Speaker 2: the entire run time of that scene, I couldn't watch
Speaker 2: or I couldn't watch without looking through my fingers. And
Speaker 2: I'll give you a hint. It didn't involve any blood
Speaker 2: or stuck body parts. It's the end of the party
Speaker 2: scene where we meet our main characters Tim and Millie,
Speaker 2: and I'm not going to spoil it for those who
Speaker 2: haven't seen it yet, I'll just let you go into
Speaker 2: it and navigate your own discomfort. It turns out I'm
Speaker 2: more averse to people unintentionally humiliating themselves than I am
Speaker 2: body horror, especially well intentioned people humiliating themselves. But that's
Speaker 2: all around about way of saying or trying to illustrate
Speaker 2: that although I might be as conflicted about my relationship
Speaker 2: to this movie as Tim is about his relationship to Millie,
Speaker 2: it's quite subdued as body horror. Even when the knives
Speaker 2: come out, even when it gets a little bloody, the
Speaker 2: gore really is left to the imagination. And while that
Speaker 2: might disappoint fans of the genre expecting more blood and
Speaker 2: guts and conventional thrills, I'm, of course in the other camp,
Speaker 2: And instead of overindulging in the potential gross out elements,
Speaker 2: I do think this movie sincerely wants to reckon with
Speaker 2: the conundrum that a lot of couples that have been
Speaker 2: together a while face. Do we want each other, do
Speaker 2: we love each other? Or have we just gotten used
Speaker 2: to each other? Are we together out of convenience and
Speaker 2: to some degree comfort, Have we developed a kind of codependency, and,
Speaker 2: as horror often does, Together takes a very real, universal
Speaker 2: anxiety and amplifies it to its most absurd degree codependency. Well,
Speaker 2: what happens if we remove the co and you know Milly?
Speaker 2: You think you're sure? Emphasis on think, because the cracks
Speaker 2: are clearly there right from the beginning, and she's aware
Speaker 2: of them. You think you're sure you want to spend
Speaker 2: the rest of your life with Tim. You can't wait
Speaker 2: to be secluded with him out in the countryside. You
Speaker 2: just wish that he was tethered to you as emotionally
Speaker 2: and physically as you seem to be to him. Guess
Speaker 2: what your wish is? Granted, Tim, you're not sure you
Speaker 2: want to spend the rest of your life with Milly.
Speaker 2: You're seeking clarity. You need something that will give you
Speaker 2: that certainty, give you that direction. Guess what your wish is?
Speaker 1: Granted.
Speaker 2: That's that's the premise, that's the concept this movie is
Speaker 2: playing with. And on that level, we'll get into the
Speaker 2: reasons why I'm conflicted about my response. But on that level,
Speaker 2: that's how Together worked for me.
Speaker 1: And I think it would have worked for me similarly
Speaker 1: if it had been more than a premise. But I
Speaker 1: didn't find a progression beyond that in Together, which is
Speaker 1: why I probably began as mixed but ended up negative
Speaker 1: on this film. You said it, Adam, it has a
Speaker 1: purpose and it pays off. I think the movie has
Speaker 1: that clear potent allegory at the start, this anxiety, a
Speaker 1: specific anxiety it sets out to explore or wants you
Speaker 1: to think it's going to explore. I wish it had
Speaker 1: done the work to excavate that throughout, and for me,
Speaker 1: a lot of it had to do with beyond that
Speaker 1: scene you mentioned, which I won't spoil either. Before this
Speaker 1: couple moves to the countryside, we don't get much about
Speaker 1: their relationship, or I didn't get a sense of who
Speaker 1: the they were together, or even a part they were
Speaker 1: probably thinly but effectively sketched. At the start, you get
Speaker 1: the broad outlines as you described, of Tim being quite
Speaker 1: not as committed and Millie perhaps being over committed for
Speaker 1: the situation. And beyond that, I felt the film got
Speaker 1: out in the countryside and became more interested in setting
Speaker 1: up these set pieces of gore. You're right, there isn't
Speaker 1: out and out gore. It's not necessarily what the movie
Speaker 1: wants to spend all its time on, but it wants
Speaker 1: to spend significant sections on and we know we're going
Speaker 1: to get it, and I felt a disconnect between the relationship.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it's the performances. For me, I found both of
Speaker 1: these performances to be pretty flat. In the case of Brie,
Speaker 1: I'm not all that familiar with her. I mostly know
Speaker 1: her from mad Men, where you know she had a
Speaker 1: bit of a school my arm quality, and that's doubled
Speaker 1: down on here. You know, her telling Tim when he
Speaker 1: should show, or that he's using too much data on
Speaker 1: their phone plan, these sorts of things. Again, that's that's
Speaker 1: more of a a repeating of what we've learned at
Speaker 1: the start, and Tim, you know, this idea that he's
Speaker 1: a little unsure about the relationship. It almost reverses after
Speaker 1: this curse falls upon them, where the relational allegory for
Speaker 1: me gets confused because then he becomes I don't think
Speaker 1: this is a spoiler, but he becomes the needy one
Speaker 1: and she starts to become the somewhat distant one. Again,
Speaker 1: there's that a progression. It's to me, it's more of
Speaker 1: a flipping. That doesn't make sense because I don't really
Speaker 1: demand a lot of logic for my horror films, but
Speaker 1: I did find myself wondering, why is Millie not similarly affected?
Speaker 1: If that, if this fundamental curse, which has biological rooting,
Speaker 1: it's related to, you know, this pond water, like, why
Speaker 1: suddenly is she not as compelled to be close to him.
Speaker 1: There's just little things like the first set piece we get,
Speaker 1: which I think counts as body horror, because he's injuring himself.
Speaker 1: Tim is in the shower and Millie is driving away
Speaker 1: and he's suddenly violently thrown about by the turns in
Speaker 1: her car. I didn't quite understand the dynamics there. And again,
Speaker 1: these are minor things, but it was difficult to feel
Speaker 1: the movie was really rooted in this exploring of the
Speaker 1: idea of it as a central relationship. As it went on,
Speaker 1: I thought maybe there were other interesting things that could
Speaker 1: have been examined. I mentioned the physical intimacy Tim's lack
Speaker 1: of physical intimacy with MILLI does the curse represent a
Speaker 1: fear of sex? There's a very simple idea. If the
Speaker 1: movie had committed to and spent more time on that
Speaker 1: might have worked. You mentioned that dream sequence, which I
Speaker 1: agree is very effective. The jump scare there that's related
Speaker 1: to a story we learn about Tim's trauma and his
Speaker 1: mother's mental illness. Might there be a connection to the
Speaker 1: curse there, maybe kind of we get a cult subplot
Speaker 1: here too. There is a lot that for me hinted
Speaker 1: at other movies Together could have been. And really, I'm
Speaker 1: not demanding much from a horror movie like this. I
Speaker 1: just I want exactly what you said at the top,
Speaker 1: a potent allegory. I want a specific anxiety it's going
Speaker 1: to be explored. I just want one idea and it
Speaker 1: to really give service to that. And for me, Together
Speaker 1: was a little bit more going for the gore scenes,
Speaker 1: the body horror scenes, eventually really going off the deep
Speaker 1: end in that direction speaking of the substance, but not
Speaker 1: doing any of the work that I like to see
Speaker 1: put in beforehand.
Speaker 2: I think it did more of the work than you're
Speaker 2: giving it credit for. We'll get into some of the
Speaker 2: ways it may go off the deep end here in
Speaker 2: a bit. But I saw the characters, the performances and
Speaker 2: just the screenwriting and the storytelling around those characters have
Speaker 2: more depth than I think that you're giving them credit for.
Speaker 2: Even with Millie, I never saw her as that kind
Speaker 2: of authoritative or I suppose, kind of mom like figure
Speaker 2: that's scolding the character. And we can talk about a
Speaker 2: couple of lines that you mentioned in particular. But even
Speaker 2: though she's the one who, as I said, is more
Speaker 2: tethered in some ways to him and he has the
Speaker 2: more clear doubts, she is also someone who, from the
Speaker 2: very beginning we see is spiraling a little bit about
Speaker 2: their relationship. And I think the whole premise there as
Speaker 2: well is tied to the fact that it's like the
Speaker 2: struggling married couple who and we hear so many of
Speaker 2: these stories, right who decide that we're really struggling, So
Speaker 2: what are we going to do to save this marriage?
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a baby.
Speaker 2: They think that somehow they're going to solve their problem
Speaker 2: and become closer as a couple by moving out to
Speaker 2: the middle of nowhere and only having each other. This
Speaker 2: is a bit of a last ditch effort. And I
Speaker 2: see in the performance, and I see in the writing
Speaker 2: that Bree's character knows that. So I don't see them
Speaker 2: quite as one dimensional. I think is maybe that you do.
Speaker 2: And I really felt like I understood who they were
Speaker 2: as individuals and as a couple from that opening scene,
Speaker 2: I'm so glad they just kind of threw us into
Speaker 2: it based on the way they talked about each other,
Speaker 2: the way, in Millie's case she's always having to defend
Speaker 2: Tim to her best friend, and in Tim's case, the
Speaker 2: way he's really not talking about her much at all,
Speaker 2: He's just talking about himself and his failed music career.
Speaker 2: That told me enough about who they really are as
Speaker 2: people and how they maybe feel about each other. And
Speaker 2: the way even that they interact with each other Josh
Speaker 2: at the party from across the room and then when
Speaker 2: they're together, the smiles, the gestures. This may be where
Speaker 2: some of the Brie Franco extra textual stuff comes into
Speaker 2: play and really serves the story, where you I got
Speaker 2: the sense that they know each other really well. There's
Speaker 2: a built in familiarity with the way that these two
Speaker 2: characters interact with each other, and I I got that
Speaker 2: sense that, yes, they know each other. There's an intimacy
Speaker 2: where you not only understand that they love this about
Speaker 2: each other, that they know each other so well, but
Speaker 2: it also could be taking its toll on each other.
Speaker 2: So I'm really grateful that we didn't get any more
Speaker 2: fleshing out if you will, to these characters.
Speaker 1: I think it did what good narratives do, thrust us
Speaker 1: right in. Yeah, I agree, the opening section does good
Speaker 1: work in the ways you're describing. I guess I just
Speaker 1: wanted more of that. It's kind of like the movie felt, Okay,
Speaker 1: we did that, now we don't have to do any
Speaker 1: more of it. And it's so funny you mentioned, you
Speaker 1: know the fact that Bri and Franco are off screen
Speaker 1: an offscreen couple, because for me, it's a case of
Speaker 1: that working against them. And I didn't know this until
Speaker 1: after I'd seen the film and had written up a
Speaker 1: review about it and then saw it on social media somewhere.
Speaker 1: And it can go both ways, right, Sometimes offscreen couples
Speaker 1: bring that chemistry that you found, and it's absolutely why
Speaker 1: their performances work together. In this case, for me, it
Speaker 1: was the other way. Once they got out to the countryside,
Speaker 1: I felt like, in fact, some of their scenes together
Speaker 1: were awkward when they're discussing you know, what would your
Speaker 1: last social media post be if you died that there
Speaker 1: was In my experience, I felt I would have guessed
Speaker 1: that these two performers were deeply uncomfortable with each other
Speaker 1: on screen. It was the opposite.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And they had one of these cirstic, cynical sense
Speaker 2: of humor that only people who know each other's sense
Speaker 2: of humor really well would understand. That scene lit to
Speaker 2: you talked about it's here again. I think maybe you're
Speaker 2: seeing Breed through a prism that I don't see her through.
Speaker 2: And I haven't seen mad Men, so I definitely don't
Speaker 2: see her through that that lens. But those lines you mentioned,
Speaker 2: I remember them very vividly, because there's certain line readings
Speaker 2: that I remember pretty vividly in this film, like when
Speaker 2: she she says to him that that maybe he should
Speaker 2: take a shower, and the fact that they are running
Speaker 2: out of data, and I just think there's more to it.
Speaker 2: It isn't a case where it is just about her
Speaker 2: being someone who's chiding him, who has to be telling
Speaker 2: him what to do. That moment with the shower is
Speaker 2: one where it's just followed him. She's gotten out of
Speaker 2: the shower and he's rubbing her back and he actually
Speaker 2: really hurts her. It's a really it's a really weird
Speaker 2: physical exchange, and he wants to go with her, or
Speaker 2: asks if he can go with her, and she really
Speaker 2: clearly wants some distance from him. And the way she says,
Speaker 2: like take a shower is kind of like if you
Speaker 2: were saying to someone like, no, you know you can
Speaker 2: clean the garage, like you've got other things to do.
Speaker 2: It's not so much like take a shower, you smell bad.
Speaker 2: That's that's how I interpreted it. And even even the data, Josh,
Speaker 2: the data is another example of them it. I think
Speaker 2: it's adding to the to the character because it's in
Speaker 2: their relationship, because it's another example of him just casually
Speaker 2: without thinking. She's not saying, don't do that, how dare
Speaker 2: you you? She's just pointing out, we only have so
Speaker 2: much and it's about gone. And what's he doing yet again?
Speaker 2: He's just not thinking about it and he's using it.
Speaker 1: I think it's the I think it's the yet again
Speaker 1: for me, though it's slid up of micro aggressions that
Speaker 1: dip their toll. For me, it's the yet again of
Speaker 1: it is like I knew that about them. I knew
Speaker 1: like she's in this slot, he's in this slot. And
Speaker 1: then yes, the curse seems to reverse that a little bit,
Speaker 1: which you think would be interesting except for the illogical
Speaker 1: nature of it, and that's where I got hung up
Speaker 1: a little bit as well. And maybe as far as
Speaker 1: Brie is concerned, it's just, you know, a brief thing
Speaker 1: for me. I know, people really appreciate her as an actress.
Speaker 1: And again I haven't seen all that much and it's
Speaker 1: not fair to just bring mad men into this if
Speaker 1: that's all I've seen, but it is a quality where
Speaker 1: I don't know, there's there's just like a low energy
Speaker 1: lack of engagement in the performance that seems at odds
Speaker 1: a little bit with the premise and at odds with
Speaker 1: what Franco is trying to do too. I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you this, and I don't know how this played
Speaker 1: in your alone viewing in the theater, but at what
Speaker 1: point did you find this purposely funny? Unsure whether it
Speaker 1: wanted to be funny or not funny. You shouldn't be laughing,
Speaker 1: but you were. And it relates to Franco because the
Speaker 1: level of shouting he's frequently doing here to me feels
Speaker 1: a little bit like sweaty trying to make something funny.
Speaker 1: And it works in one scene the clip I believe
Speaker 1: we heard where they're contemplating with this SASA actually having
Speaker 1: to cut their own flash. This isn't spoiling anything, I
Speaker 1: don't think. And he notices you're right handed, and I
Speaker 1: think she's got it. She has to have it in
Speaker 1: the other hand, and that to me felt like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's a good line. He delivers it with like exasperation.
Speaker 1: It's the ridiculousness of this situation, and can laugh. In
Speaker 1: terms of release. There are a couple other moments, though,
Speaker 1: one involving her hair, which struck me as unintentionally funny.
Speaker 1: I wasn't sure how to how to gauge his performance,
Speaker 1: and I will say too, I think some of the effects,
Speaker 1: the special effects, although they're practical and I always appreciate that,
Speaker 1: were a bit dodgy to me, And that was fell
Speaker 1: into the same bucket of should I be laughing at this?
Speaker 1: Am I meant to be laughing at this? Is it
Speaker 1: because of how it looks? And it shouldn't look that way?
Speaker 1: But anyways, in general, where did you land on, you know?
Speaker 1: Together as a comedy.
Speaker 2: I didn't have any issues with unintentional humor, and I
Speaker 2: didn't have any issues with bad special effects until one
Speaker 2: moment near the end of the film, and without getting
Speaker 2: into spoilers, and I promise we won't. I will mention
Speaker 2: something else about that scene, so you'll know what I'm
Speaker 2: referring to at least there, Josh, and I think other
Speaker 2: listeners who have seen the film will know what I'm referencing.
Speaker 2: And I even have a hard time honestly talking about
Speaker 2: Franco's performance and separating it from Brie. I just see
Speaker 2: them as such a pair in this film, and I
Speaker 2: like the performance. I feel like it's a unified performance
Speaker 2: in this movie. But as far as the comedy, nowhere
Speaker 2: in this marketing of this film have I seen it
Speaker 2: tagged or referenced as a comedy. And that makes total sense.
Speaker 2: But I do think it has a lot of humor
Speaker 2: to it, and I even use the word absurd earlier.
Speaker 2: I think Shanks and company get the inherent humor in
Speaker 2: some of these scenarios. As you said, even a bathroom
Speaker 2: quickie that results in getting stuck together. That's funny you
Speaker 2: mentioned it. I never thought i'd say this about a
Speaker 2: scene involving a sasaw in human flesh. But it's neither
Speaker 2: played for humor or horror. Yet it's both awkwardly funny
Speaker 2: and distressing. I mean, I say, play, Josh. What I
Speaker 2: mean is, I don't feel like and I watched that
Speaker 2: scene again, we played it coming in right, I don't
Speaker 2: feel like it's either ramped up for comedy's sake or
Speaker 2: ramped up for terror and gore sake. They're just letting
Speaker 2: the natural tension of the scene and the suspense of
Speaker 2: are they really gonna do this? Are they really going
Speaker 2: to cut their flesh, and the dynamics of their relationship,
Speaker 2: like how they naturally talk as a couple, the way
Speaker 2: they banter with each other, what they know about each
Speaker 2: other's idiosyncrasies and their failings as people. That's all coming
Speaker 2: to bear in that scene. So without ramping it up,
Speaker 2: it is funny. And if I was in the theater
Speaker 2: with other people, maybe we would have been laughing. I
Speaker 2: was laughing, and yet I was also terrified watching it.
Speaker 2: So I think that's a really effective scene. I think
Speaker 2: it translates to other set pieces too.
Speaker 1: That is, let me just say quickly, that is the
Speaker 1: highlight for me. I think that's I think it's perfectly
Speaker 1: in terms of balancing tone even performance. I'll give you,
Speaker 1: as I said, Franco's line delivery and and the pacing
Speaker 1: and the editing there too. The way that scene comes
Speaker 1: to a conclusion is just Chef's kiss. So yeah, and
Speaker 1: I think I wish the movie I'd had more of that,
Speaker 1: but I do agree that's a great scene.
Speaker 2: Another good one, though, for me, is when they are
Speaker 2: not too long after that, very intentionally sleeping in separate rooms,
Speaker 2: and this force sends them flying towards each other and
Speaker 2: Franco's being dragged across the floor. I really like the
Speaker 2: filmmaking here, and I'll give you one specific instance why
Speaker 2: he's being dragged across the floor. In what I have
Speaker 2: to assume is a very clear homage to The Exorcist,
Speaker 2: Bree is doing a spider walk essentially not downstairs but
Speaker 2: out the door towards him. And it does also seem
Speaker 2: like the way they're being led, the way their bodies
Speaker 2: are being led, it's as if certain pieces are meant
Speaker 2: to fit together intentionally, like buzzle pieces that they're trying
Speaker 2: to fight against. And what I like in particular, Josh,
Speaker 2: is the use of sound here, and I think there
Speaker 2: are some other nice filmmaking touches throughout that show that
Speaker 2: Shanks knows what he's doing with the camera, but the sound.
Speaker 2: The way that sequence starts, they go to bed and
Speaker 2: close the door, and then what happens next. It's darkness,
Speaker 2: and we hear sound. We hear the sound of him
Speaker 2: being dragged, and that cues us in that oh, no,
Speaker 2: something terrible is happening, but we don't know what, and
Speaker 2: so we're anticipating the lights being turned on, so to speak,
Speaker 2: figuring out what's actually happening. But it also makes sense
Speaker 2: because he doesn't know. He hasn't woken up yet, his
Speaker 2: eyes haven't opened yet, right, He's just being dragged across
Speaker 2: the floor. So we're in the same situation as viewers
Speaker 2: that he's in where he has to open his eyes.
Speaker 2: He's just waking up to the sound of him being
Speaker 2: dragged in the dark. So I really do like that.
Speaker 2: I will say, though, Josh, all of that established the
Speaker 2: humor surprised me and surprised me in a good way.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that when you add in all of
Speaker 2: the other elements, and I do want to talk about
Speaker 2: some of these more. When you add in all those
Speaker 2: other elements that are introduced into the plot, I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that they find the right balance.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit of too much for me, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to explain exactly what I hinted at
Speaker 1: this cult subplot, and let's just say that it does
Speaker 1: take on more prominence as the movie goes on. It also,
Speaker 1: to me, it goes back to my simplicity idea. It
Speaker 1: strikes me as wholly unnecessary this movie if it had
Speaker 1: devoted the time it gives to the cult elements, for me,
Speaker 1: to the relationship dynamics, just given all that screen time
Speaker 1: and moved over and given us more scenes of them
Speaker 1: as a couple, even more scenes just being there in
Speaker 1: the countryside before they drink the water. That would have
Speaker 1: enabled the movie to be more focused and richer and deeper.
Speaker 1: So I think that was And the other issue I
Speaker 1: had with a cult element is just some of the
Speaker 1: logic that goes into it as well. Again, not being
Speaker 1: nitty gritty about horror movies, I give them a lot
Speaker 1: of leeway, I know. I think one that we split
Speaker 1: on was it follows and you had many logical concerns,
Speaker 1: some of which were valid, I agree, over arching ones. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I agree it's a valid question. But for me,
Speaker 1: that movie engrossed me to the point where I was like, yeaheah, okay,
Speaker 1: but whatever. Here it became increasingly hard to say, yeah, whatever.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, and so much so Josh, that
Speaker 2: maybe I'm being too apologetic. Though I'm not willing to
Speaker 2: quite go this far, I at least want to throw
Speaker 2: it out there. There's a part of me. I have
Speaker 2: this in my notes. The more I thought about it,
Speaker 2: I wondered, it's so underdeveloped. In fact, the logic is
Speaker 2: so faulty in some ways and so flimsy that I
Speaker 2: actually wonder if that's part of the joke that they
Speaker 2: want us to pick up on. And if it is,
Speaker 2: is it too clever for its own good? Where it
Speaker 2: there's no mystery to it if you think about it.
Speaker 2: A lot of other films would have actually built up
Speaker 2: to the reveal, and there is a bit of a reveal,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong, but this has a prologue. We
Speaker 2: know ahead of what the characters do exactly what's happening,
Speaker 2: and we're not idiots, so that when we see certain
Speaker 2: symbols and everything, and we see what's in that cave,
Speaker 2: we kind of know, just based on other movies that
Speaker 2: we've seen, what has to be happening. And then we
Speaker 2: hear a conversation that occurs and we're like, Okay, we
Speaker 2: know what's going on. It almost feels to me like
Speaker 2: they want us to have a meta experience where we're
Speaker 2: ahead of the characters. We know based on other films
Speaker 2: that we've seen, other horror films, that the joke is
Speaker 2: actually no, nothing's a mystery. It's exactly what it appears
Speaker 2: to be, and we're not even going to build it out.
Speaker 1: It's possible. I don't think the payoff, if that was
Speaker 1: the intent, is worth it. And also I did sense,
Speaker 1: you know, a desire. Without this cult element, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: get the ending we get, which I'll say doesn't go
Speaker 1: substance big, but feels in that vein, feels like it's
Speaker 1: trying to swing that big. I think of other recent
Speaker 1: horror movies like Malignant, or a horror movie like Barbarian.
Speaker 1: We're going to be discussing the director's follow up film,
Speaker 1: Weapons next week, and Barbarian similarly builds to this gonzo
Speaker 1: gorzo climax, and in some ways it feels like together
Speaker 1: at some point the filmmakers wanted to have that direction
Speaker 1: as well, and just having a movie about this couple
Speaker 1: might not have enabled that possibility and the way they
Speaker 1: wanted to. But you add in these elements that the
Speaker 1: cult brings in and maybe we can get there again.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe it was a more holistic process
Speaker 1: as a viewer, that is what it feels like, and
Speaker 1: it's still that's fine if you want to go there.
Speaker 1: But even something like The Substance, which I liked better,
Speaker 1: had some reservations about. At least it had complete focus
Speaker 1: and commitment on what it wanted to be about, right,
Speaker 1: the horrors of aging as a woman in Hollywood. And
Speaker 1: it took that as far as it could go, and
Speaker 1: it was insane how far it took it, but it
Speaker 1: did the work before it got there was my feeling
Speaker 1: on it, and together the work is at the homework
Speaker 1: is a little messy and all over the place.
Speaker 2: So I want to pinpoint a couple things in particular
Speaker 2: when we talk about maybe the world building or some
Speaker 2: of these other elements. And for me it might be
Speaker 2: a downside or a byproduct of actually devoting as much
Speaker 2: time as they do. And it's a positive to Tim
Speaker 2: and Milly in their relationship. I know you see it differently,
Speaker 2: but that world building then doesn't feel quite as robust
Speaker 2: there is that prologue. I mention again, I'm dancing around
Speaker 2: all the details. I promise I'm not going to spoil anything.
Speaker 2: But there's the prologue. There's a cave, there's a missing couple.
Speaker 2: I don't think we've mentioned. There's a pair of dogs.
Speaker 2: This all connects to a cult. They all factor into
Speaker 2: the story in major and in some minor ways. And
Speaker 2: when I do try to envision a version of Together
Speaker 2: that leans into these elements even more, I don't necessarily
Speaker 2: see a better movie. I see one way down by
Speaker 2: a lot of plot. But the version we get also
Speaker 2: does feel, as we've discussed, too flimsy. And there's a
Speaker 2: reveal here's here's a minor one, or actually a bigger
Speaker 2: one for me, I'll get to the minor one.
Speaker 1: There's a reveal near the end involving the.
Speaker 2: Missing couple that only opens up more questions than yes,
Speaker 2: and not the good kind of questions, now the wait
Speaker 2: what variety of questions? The questions where you totally agree,
Speaker 2: you start worrying about the strength of the foundation the
Speaker 2: story is built on, rather than opening up new ideas
Speaker 2: to consider. Did not get that at all. That's also
Speaker 2: the same moment I was referring to earlier when I
Speaker 2: talked about the effects being perhaps questionable. Here's the minor one.
Speaker 2: The only direct reference to the dogs from the prologue,
Speaker 2: which by the way, felt to me like an overt
Speaker 2: homage to the thing John Carpenter. The only direct reference
Speaker 2: to the dogs from the prologue happens about midway through,
Speaker 2: when things are really kind of starting to get truly
Speaker 2: weird for Tim and Millie. She's a teacher and one
Speaker 2: of her young students, this young girl leaves a troubling
Speaker 2: drawing on her desk for Millie to see, and it
Speaker 2: opens the door for us to consider something very traumatic
Speaker 2: involving a character who is otherwise a complete non factor
Speaker 2: that the movie is using just to add a little
Speaker 2: bit of ominousness. And it's not ominous. It doesn't serve
Speaker 2: any purpose. And here again it's a minor issue. It's
Speaker 2: a nitpick a house, but it does connect to a
Speaker 2: larger one for me that I wanted to open up
Speaker 2: and see what you thought of it, Okay, And I
Speaker 2: kind of already know what you think of it, because
Speaker 2: I know that you think overall the movie just has
Speaker 2: too much going on, falls into that Tim's trauma, what
Speaker 2: he is dealing with coming into the issues that they
Speaker 2: start dealing with in the story proper, the recent loss
Speaker 2: that he has suffered, and the grief he is still
Speaker 2: wrestling with. He's lost his parents, we learn, and this
Speaker 2: is information given early on in the movie. This isn't
Speaker 2: uncommon in horror movies dephic character who has recently experienced
Speaker 2: a loss or gone through something painfully traumatic, parental loss.
Speaker 2: I think about Midsummer right away, and it can be
Speaker 2: very effective. It can be powerful. Sometimes the horror they're
Speaker 2: facing is a manifestation or can be read as a
Speaker 2: manifestation of these feelings in this trauma.
Speaker 1: In some way.
Speaker 2: From a relationship standpoint too, this grief adds to Tim's rudderlessness.
Speaker 2: I think it's impacting his sexual desire. Once we get
Speaker 2: some insight, we get more insight into the exact nature
Speaker 2: of what he saw, what he experienced, it becomes clearer,
Speaker 2: and I think it's even articulated at one point in
Speaker 2: the screenplay why he would fear legitimately fear not just
Speaker 2: be skeptical of or be hesitant about entering into marriage
Speaker 2: or long term commitment, but really fear the idea of
Speaker 2: being bound to someone forever and sex sex is going
Speaker 2: to be seen as part of the gateway to that commitment. Still, Josh,
Speaker 2: the scene he describes is grizzly, and I wonder if
Speaker 2: it doesn't undercut the movie and my defense of it
Speaker 2: in some way. The way the filmmakers have stacked the
Speaker 2: deck and this concept is introduced that the movie is
Speaker 2: definitely having some fun with. Plato talks about it in
Speaker 2: the Symposium. Aristophanes raises this whole notion that we all
Speaker 2: were originally creatures that had arms and four legs, and
Speaker 2: Zeus thought we were too powerful and he split us,
Speaker 2: and we're all really searching for our soulmates. That's the
Speaker 2: other main conceit of this film. Really, soulmates isn't just
Speaker 2: a concept that comes from romantic comedies. What if it's real?
Speaker 2: That's what this movie is, basically, that's the question it's posing,
Speaker 2: and that of course ties to this central anxiety about
Speaker 2: commitment as well and the idea of it being real
Speaker 2: and universal. Those are not only enough to build the
Speaker 2: movie around, but arguably that's kind of the entire point.
Speaker 2: We all face loss, sure, but most of us hopefully
Speaker 2: hopefully never go through or never confront anything as horrific
Speaker 2: as he does, which doesn't make Tim then representative of
Speaker 2: all of us. It actually dilutes the power of the
Speaker 2: universality of the concept of the film in some way
Speaker 2: by adding this element of the really horrific.
Speaker 1: Trauma that he's faced. So I'm going to go the
Speaker 1: other way and say that is the one sub plot,
Speaker 1: sub thread that I do think the movie that is
Speaker 1: connected to the movie's main concern, which is relational anxiety
Speaker 1: as you described. I think you described it well. And
Speaker 1: if the movie had spent more time connecting those two
Speaker 1: forgetting about the cult, forgetting about I mean it nods.
Speaker 1: I'll just say it nods to like non binary implications
Speaker 1: here and there, which are also potentially very interesting, but
Speaker 1: if you're not going to really explore them, just don't
Speaker 1: bother with that. But if it had just kept with
Speaker 1: that subplot, which is Tim's trauma, I think you're right.
Speaker 1: It's very directly related the grizzly element. And again I'm
Speaker 1: dancing around spoilers. The grizzly detail we discover is a
Speaker 1: direct parallel for his greatest fear relationally and the actual
Speaker 1: physical reality of what begins happening to them. So I
Speaker 1: think there's a great horror movie there, but the family
Speaker 1: trauma is sort of dropped about halfway through after we
Speaker 1: get that reveal. I don't know if it's even referenced again,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't have to be talked about. I don't
Speaker 1: even think the filmmaking returns to it again. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we get another flashback or a dream sequence again.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's not those aren't the right choices to make.
Speaker 1: Those are kind of cliches. But some way, visually, even
Speaker 1: maybe even the eyes that you mentioned, Adam, somehow bring
Speaker 1: that back so that we're connecting Tim's trauma with what
Speaker 1: we're now seeing in the latter half of the film.
Speaker 1: And that's where I do feel. I'm usually one who
Speaker 1: defends horror trauma. I know a lot of people these
Speaker 1: days roll their eyes as soon as there's a story that, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a horror movie, but it's really about grief. Oh
Speaker 1: it's a horror movie, but it's really, you know, about
Speaker 1: this terrible thing that happened. I think I think those
Speaker 1: are instrumental ways to make a horror movie. The problem
Speaker 1: is if you just drop it in as a device,
Speaker 1: right with any sort of filmmaking device. If you're just
Speaker 1: going to say, well, I'm going to kick start my
Speaker 1: movie and try to give it more importance by referencing
Speaker 1: this and then going to kind of forget about it. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's cheap. It does happen occasionally, maybe more so recently
Speaker 1: than it did before. But I still think there are
Speaker 1: good horror movies being made today that take the trauma seriously.
Speaker 1: It's a through line through the character's experience, and that
Speaker 1: makes them richer. For me, I see what you're saying
Speaker 1: about the particular experience that Tim had not being universal,
Speaker 1: thank goodness, but I think that doesn't bother me as
Speaker 1: much because it does kind of take it into this
Speaker 1: really disturbing realm that horror sometimes can push things. I'm
Speaker 1: okay with that. Again. For me, it's just pair away
Speaker 1: some of these other potential avenues that you kind of
Speaker 1: tiptoe on and instead focus on Tim's asked how the
Speaker 1: body horror reflects that and how it reflects the current relationship.
Speaker 1: I think they could have had a really strong horror film.
Speaker 2: There, and for me, it's more something I'm still considering.
Speaker 2: I'm not really sure where I land on that question,
Speaker 2: but It's not so much a matter of me wanting
Speaker 2: the filmmakers to invoke that trauma more consistently or again
Speaker 2: throughout the film. I always felt like I understood Josh,
Speaker 2: that it was underpinning his behavior and Tim's actions. It
Speaker 2: might come back to that balance question, and even what
Speaker 2: you said about there being a really compelling horror film
Speaker 2: in there, the one you wanted to see, I think
Speaker 2: you're right. Even though I like some elements of the humor,
Speaker 2: there's something about that antithetical nature of the absurdity and
Speaker 2: the cult elements and the flimsiness of some of the areas,
Speaker 2: this film goes against the real terror of that trauma
Speaker 2: it's introduced. And you know what, if the movie had
Speaker 2: actually gone even to go back to your setup question,
Speaker 2: if the movie had really leaned into that even more,
Speaker 2: that might be a film, ironically I'd enjoy even more,
Speaker 2: even though it might actually be.
Speaker 1: A tougher sin Yeah, tougher watch. Yeah. Probably.
Speaker 2: You Know Together is out now in wide release. If
Speaker 2: you see it and agree or disagree with our thoughts,
Speaker 2: or have any other comments you'd like to share, we'd
Speaker 2: love to hear Free mefeedback at film spotting dot net.
Speaker 1: Whiskey for the pain. Listening is the number one thing
Speaker 1: you can do to support an independently produced show like ours.
Speaker 1: There are a couple of other things you could do.
Speaker 1: You could take a minute to give us a rating
Speaker 1: or a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if you're brand new or have been around for twenty years.
Speaker 1: Every new review helps us reach new listeners. Another way
Speaker 1: to support us join the Film Spotting Family at film
Speaker 1: Spottingfamily dot com. Thank you very much to family plus
Speaker 1: member Jake in Indianapolis. If you want to follow Jake
Speaker 1: on letterboxed, his handle is mister Underscore Thurman.
Speaker 2: And as we're going to hear in a moment, he
Speaker 2: really does need to be called mister Thurman. Josh Jake says,
Speaker 2: I found film Spotting in twenty twelve, and I was
Speaker 2: devouring podcasts while remodeling a house in my summer off
Speaker 2: from teaching, and I was instantly hooked. I'm shamefully just
Speaker 2: now signing up for the family. I added film history
Speaker 2: and film criticism to my course load as a high
Speaker 2: school teacher in twenty fifteen, and I've used film Spotting
Speaker 2: as a resource many times. So I guess I also
Speaker 2: kept listening to be better at my job.
Speaker 1: I mean, Jake, it sounds like you should be getting
Speaker 1: your school to pay for your film spotting family membership
Speaker 1: if you're putting it to use at work, I mean,
Speaker 1: come on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, professional development. I'm sure they're very to go go.
Speaker 2: Sure their budget is about as big as mine is.
Speaker 2: Right now, we need to compare our syllabi for film criticism.
Speaker 2: A favorite review or segment. I really enjoy the anniversary
Speaker 2: reviews of older films and the sacred Cows. The longer
Speaker 2: end of year review episodes are also something I always
Speaker 2: look forward to every winter. A review we got wrong?
Speaker 2: The original Roadhouse is a masterpiece and has rarely been
Speaker 2: more wrong.
Speaker 1: A masterpiece. Yes, okay, yes, well I can take it
Speaker 1: if I learned. What did I learn from Roadhouse? What
Speaker 1: pain doesn't hurt, Pain, don't hurt, hurt pain, don't hurt, pain,
Speaker 1: don't hurt. Bring it on, Jake.
Speaker 2: A letterbox top four for mister Thurman, cool hand, Luke,
Speaker 2: do the right thing, Heat and et.
Speaker 1: You can't argue with that. That looks good.
Speaker 2: Favorite movie he revisited recently, Hot Fuzz and it's still perfect.
Speaker 2: A random film or filmmaker. He loves David Lowry and
Speaker 2: both A Ghost Story and Green Knight, a movie Jake
Speaker 2: credits with becoming a cinephile. I fell in love with
Speaker 2: watching movies with et Indiana Jones and Marty McFly as
Speaker 2: a kid in the eighties. Seeing pulp fiction, probably way
Speaker 2: too early at thirteen, was the first time I realized
Speaker 2: that I loved thinking and talking about movies also as
Speaker 2: much as watching them. And finally, a book about movies
Speaker 2: or movie making. This is about as impossible as the
Speaker 2: letterbox four favorites, but I would say that I recently
Speaker 2: read and really liked Adam Nahman's books on the filmography
Speaker 2: of the Coen Brothers and on the filmography of Paul
Speaker 2: Thomas Anderson. Good stuff from mister Thurman. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for writing in and for your support of the show.
Speaker 2: If you like mister Thurman, would like to be a
Speaker 2: family member and support us here on film Spotting, you
Speaker 2: can visit film Spottingfamily dot com and get all the
Speaker 2: details and all the benefits of being a film Spotting
Speaker 2: Family member, including our monthly bonus shows like the recent
Speaker 2: conversation about burn. After reading we just dropped into their
Speaker 2: family feeds Josh, we have upcoming here in August a
Speaker 2: bit of blind spotting. Three candidates that family members are
Speaker 2: voting on right now. It's either going to be Gaslight,
Speaker 2: Stray Dog or Rocky Horror Picture Show. And no we
Speaker 2: didn't just pick those all randomly. There are behind all
Speaker 2: three of those choices. And then in September we've got
Speaker 2: trivia spotting. So always something fun going on with the
Speaker 2: film Spotting Family again, film Spotting Family dot com.
Speaker 3: He was the pine of the Glamorolf movement, Universal Latoy.
Speaker 1: He was the biggest selling poe is he's written, and
Speaker 1: he loved that. It's time for Adam's documentary Corner. I
Speaker 1: don't know you want to we call it Adam's Alcove.
Speaker 1: You like that better documentary Alcove. Yeah, that sounds more pretentious. Exactly.
Speaker 1: You got to have that pipe and the cardigan when
Speaker 1: you're sitting in there. Uh huh. That clip was Ringo Star.
Speaker 1: It comes from the new music doc Angel Headed Hipster,
Speaker 1: the songs of Mark Bolan and t Rex and if
Speaker 1: that name in that band. If you're drawing a blank there,
Speaker 1: I've got three words for you. Bang gone and no
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sing to help you out any further, Adam.
Speaker 1: This documentary, which is currently playing in very limited release
Speaker 1: and is scheduled for a September VOD release. It's both
Speaker 1: a profile of Bolan, who's credited with launching the glam
Speaker 1: rock movement and who died at twenty nine in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy seven, and it's a document of a Bolan tribute
Speaker 1: album that was released back in twenty twenty. Artists as
Speaker 1: diverse as you too, Kesha Father, John Misty, and Nick
Speaker 1: Cave appear. Were you a Bolan fan before this, Adam,
Speaker 1: And if not, did the documentary make you one?
Speaker 2: That fandom or lack of fandom is really what drove
Speaker 2: my interest in seeing Angel Headed Hipster, In addition to
Speaker 2: the fact that I'm just a sucker for documentaries about artists,
Speaker 2: and especially documentaries about musicians. If I want to appear
Speaker 2: credible as a music fan a musician, Josh, I can
Speaker 2: always point to the fact that the first albums I
Speaker 2: ever listened to and loved, the first needle drop I
Speaker 2: ever had on my first stereo as a young kid
Speaker 2: with a record player and a caste deck and speakers
Speaker 2: in my bedroom were my parents' copies of the Beatles
Speaker 2: Rubber Soul and the Wine Album, unquestionably two of the
Speaker 2: greatest albums ever. Of course I didn't really get that
Speaker 2: as that young kid. I just thought the songs were
Speaker 2: really catchy, which of course they were. But it is
Speaker 2: also true that it would be a good eight to
Speaker 2: ten years after that before I would realize that that
Speaker 2: Paul McCartney should be my bass playing idol and not
Speaker 2: Nicky six of Motley Crue.
Speaker 1: But so be it.
Speaker 2: Nicky six of Motley Crue was my first music.
Speaker 1: Explains a lot, and.
Speaker 2: In interviews, it might. In interviews whenever he'd get asked
Speaker 2: because I read all those heavy metal magazines.
Speaker 1: When I was in junior high.
Speaker 2: What were those called again, metal edget Parade, Circus, Circus,
Speaker 2: That's the one I was thinking of. Whenever he'd get
Speaker 2: asked about his biggest influences, Mark Bolan and t Rex
Speaker 2: would immediately come up. And it was true for all
Speaker 2: those hair metal rockers, of course, it was they weren't
Speaker 2: really imitating Bowie. Nobody could really sound or look like
Speaker 2: David Bowie, but with the poofed up hair and the
Speaker 2: makeup and the crunchy guitars, they were all kind of
Speaker 2: doing Mark Bolan. Despite that, I never dug deeper. I
Speaker 2: knew Bangagong and that was about it. Maybe Sam can
Speaker 2: help me out here a little bit and give us
Speaker 2: a little sound underneath the song Twentieth Century Boy.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I even knew the name of it.
Speaker 1: I just know the riff. We all know the riff.
Speaker 2: It's been used in a ton of movies. I think
Speaker 2: it's one of the greatest rock rifts of all time.
Speaker 2: And yet, as I said, I'm not sure I knew
Speaker 2: the name of the song, and if you asked me,
Speaker 2: I probably would have needed five to ten guesses to
Speaker 2: tell you it was Mark Bolan. Somehow, he's just been
Speaker 2: off my radar, despite knowing the great influence he had
Speaker 2: on a lot of my idols as a kid. So
Speaker 2: this was my chance to atone for my adolescent ignorance.
Speaker 2: It's a very straightforward documentary. Bolan's prolificness and eclectic spirit
Speaker 2: beg for a documentary is daring as his look and sound.
Speaker 1: But while the film plays.
Speaker 2: It safe, it reminds us why the rocker poet's influence
Speaker 2: still reverberates. That's what I learned. I didn't know he
Speaker 2: was as prolific as he was. I didn't know he
Speaker 2: was the poet that he was. I wasn't even fully
Speaker 2: aware of the eclectic spirit, Josh. All of those things
Speaker 2: are things I didn't learn ultimately from the documentary. I
Speaker 2: kind of thought he was this flash in the pan
Speaker 2: and this light that was snuffed out too soon, like
Speaker 2: a lot of rockers are. And I didn't know why
Speaker 2: so many musicians revered him the way.
Speaker 1: That they did.
Speaker 2: It's archival footage. It's talking heads mixed with footage of
Speaker 2: the making of an album where they have artists performing
Speaker 2: and recording some of his songs, and that element isn't
Speaker 2: very revealing. You Two, for example, does a cover of Bangagong,
Speaker 2: and unfortunately, there's nothing very interesting or personal about what
Speaker 2: the Edge has to say about Bangagong or what they
Speaker 2: bring to the version of the tune that they do.
Speaker 2: And I'd say that's true for most of the musical
Speaker 2: renditions we get in the movie. But then you also
Speaker 2: get one like the song Nick Cave performs, and it's
Speaker 2: really kind of wondrous. I am glad I saw it,
Speaker 2: and I'm glad Bowlin's getting the exposure he deserves and
Speaker 2: I will say we're dropping this show in people's podcast
Speaker 2: feeds on Friday August eighth. You are in New York
Speaker 2: because this is getting a limited release here just in
Speaker 2: New York in LA. It actually came out in the
Speaker 2: UK a few years back, so some of our listeners
Speaker 2: Josh may have already seen this back in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two or twenty three, but it's just getting released here now.
Speaker 2: And again that VOD release on September fifth, but the
Speaker 2: Roxy Cinema in New York tonight Friday seven point fifteen,
Speaker 2: the director Ethan Silverman is going to be doing a
Speaker 2: Q and A with John Cameron Mitchell of Hedwig and
Speaker 2: the Angry Inch fame, and Mitchell has a performance. He
Speaker 2: has a song on the album in the movie as well.
Speaker 2: That's certainly something I would want to participate in or
Speaker 2: go see if I was in New York, so I
Speaker 2: wanted to make sure I mentioned that with that film
Speaker 2: coming out now New York, LA and rolling out to
Speaker 2: a few other cities over the next week or tenular.
Speaker 1: Next week on the show, Adam, it looks like we're
Speaker 1: doing more horror. Are you up for this? Weapons? It's
Speaker 1: from Abarian? Okay, good, it's from Barbarian director Zach Kreger.
Speaker 1: Reference that film in our discussion of together basic idea
Speaker 1: here talk about just one premise that's going to hook you.
Speaker 1: Kids mysteriously flee their houses late at night and don't return.
Speaker 1: Pretty good cast too, including Julia Garner and Josh Brolind.
Speaker 1: So we'll have a review of Weapons. Also, you're back
Speaker 1: on the music doc Beatids. Yes, Never Over. Jeff Buckley
Speaker 1: is opening in limited releases this weekend. You're going to
Speaker 1: check it out and report back on that.
Speaker 2: Now, that is an artist I can say I'm truly
Speaker 2: a fan of. So that will be a little bit
Speaker 2: of a different viewing experience.
Speaker 1: All right, next week for that, as well as some
Speaker 1: massacre theater and maybe a horror themed top five from
Speaker 1: the archives to pair with Weapons. We're still thinking about that.
Speaker 1: For a current show schedule, just go to film spotting
Speaker 1: dot net slash. Are you ready, Josh for cinema for this?
Speaker 1: I am, believe it or not, I am. I'm not
Speaker 1: doing any more viewing research. All my notes are in order. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to watch the player for what the
Speaker 1: fourth or fifth time in the last three months. I
Speaker 1: will when Interruptus begins on August eleven. That's our first
Speaker 1: day when we watch The Player in its entirety at
Speaker 1: Chicago's Gene Cisco Film Center, and then we're going to
Speaker 1: get back together three days in a row after that
Speaker 1: through the fourteenth to go through the film a scene
Speaker 1: at a time. Anyone can participate with a comment or
Speaker 1: a question. So yeah, it's last call to get your tickets.
Speaker 1: You can purchase a four day package if you want
Speaker 1: to do the whole thing, or if you can only
Speaker 1: make it for one of the days, just pop in.
Speaker 1: Single day tickets will be available again. Cinema interrupt Us
Speaker 1: the Player at the Cisco Film Center August eleven to fourteen.
Speaker 1: Ciscofilmcenter dot org slash interrupt us is where you can
Speaker 1: get your tickets.
Speaker 4: Well, it's time to say that Benny been so nice
Speaker 4: traveling with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Irene. I was so excited, nervous.
Speaker 2: Sure, great to have you to.
Speaker 3: Talk to you.
Speaker 1: Remember I'll be watching for you on the big screen.
Speaker 2: Okay. Irene won the day time for some deeply flawed
Speaker 2: film spotting poll results. Wait, Sam wrote that does that
Speaker 2: mean he's calling our listeners deeply flawed?
Speaker 1: I mean they're voting. It gets dicey between Sam and
Speaker 1: the listeners on some of these polls. They hold him
Speaker 1: to such high standards. Sometimes he's sometimes he's got to
Speaker 1: push back a little bit.
Speaker 2: You know. I don't think there's anything flawed about these results.
Speaker 2: Naomi Watts there in Mulholland Drive. A couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 2: Josh You and guest host Michael Phillips asked listeners to
Speaker 2: choose one and only one actress playing an actress going
Speaker 2: through it. That was inspired by Norma Desmond and this
Speaker 2: week's revisit of Sunset Boulevard. The options we gave you,
Speaker 2: and we gave you many great ones. Betty Davis all
Speaker 2: about Eve, General Rowland's Opening Night, Glorious Swanson, Sunset Boulevard,
Speaker 2: Julia Binoche, The Clouds of sALS Maria, Laura dern Inland Empire,
Speaker 2: Naomi Watts Mullholland Drive, Natalie Portman made December Scarlet, Johanson
Speaker 2: Asteroid City or despite all of those options, you could
Speaker 2: write in other how did it come out?
Speaker 1: Well, Adam, you were worried about Juliette Binotia's chances, and
Speaker 1: indeed she came in behind other in last place, one
Speaker 1: percent for her, two percent for Other, three percent for
Speaker 1: Scarlet Johannson, four percent for Laura Dern, six percent for
Speaker 1: Natalie Portman, and nine percent for Jenna Rowlands. All packed
Speaker 1: together at the bottom, and it was a bit of
Speaker 1: a fight, a closer fight here at the top. For
Speaker 1: the top three, with twenty one percent of the vote,
Speaker 1: it's Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard. Twenty four percent of
Speaker 1: the vote went to Betty Davis for All About Eve,
Speaker 1: which means Naomi Watts won the poll with thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the vote.
Speaker 2: Here's Jeremy Webna Berman. The first person I thought of
Speaker 2: when I saw this prompt was Nami w Her scene
Speaker 2: where she auditions for the film, combined with her jokingly
Speaker 2: doing the bad reading, is some of the best and
Speaker 2: most riveting acting I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: Here's Will a Murderer's Row with representation from two movies
Speaker 1: that might be in my all time top ten, Sunset
Speaker 1: Boulevard and Mulholland. And still it's Betty Davis. Without a
Speaker 1: second thought.
Speaker 2: Dave Allen says a lot of good options, but I
Speaker 2: literally just watch whatever happened to Baby Jane last night?
Speaker 2: So that's all I can think about. Betty Davis is
Speaker 2: so haunting and terrifying as Baby Jane Hudson in this,
Speaker 2: but still somehow evokes empathy for her fragile mental state.
Speaker 2: It's scary and confusing, and I loved it. Josh quick question,
Speaker 2: is whatever happened to Baby Jane possibly a blind spot
Speaker 2: for you?
Speaker 1: Oh? No, I've seen it. I think it's for me
Speaker 1: two times. It's wild, a lot of fun and a
Speaker 1: little disturbing as well. So yeah, happy to revisit if
Speaker 1: we ever want to do a blind coyle of that one.
Speaker 1: Another comment from Daniel here, who's backing up my choice.
Speaker 1: Daniel said, I have an accusation General Ollins isn't getting
Speaker 1: more votes because many have not seen Opening Night, and
Speaker 1: it is the only thing I can think of to
Speaker 1: justify her being so low. Granted, she's behind some legendary
Speaker 1: performances and she's far from last, but I guess I
Speaker 1: just don't care. I'm deciding to be outraged just for
Speaker 1: the heck of it. Go watch Opening Night if you haven't. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to argue with the last part. Go
Speaker 1: watch it if you haven't. Great film.
Speaker 2: Kristen says, I'm going with Natalie Portman. But from her
Speaker 2: performance in Black Swan ooh, her spiral into the darkness
Speaker 2: after getting the role of the Black Swan is mesmerizing,
Speaker 2: definitely worthy of her oscar Win. So maybe going more
Speaker 2: performer than actress, but that could also be semantics.
Speaker 1: Sure, I'd accept it. Here's Nick with another vote. Nobody
Speaker 1: was going through as much as Heather Langenkamp playing herself
Speaker 1: in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Okay nice?
Speaker 2: Nick r MP writes, Honestly, I can't even say if
Speaker 2: Jules Dassen's nineteen seventy eight film A Dream of Passion
Speaker 2: even a good movie, having seen it exactly once in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty two. But and this does sound really intriguing.
Speaker 2: Speaking of blind spots, Josh, the movie has stayed with
Speaker 2: me to this day. Malina McCory is a malaise ridden
Speaker 2: actress trying to find something to interest her in playing
Speaker 2: Medea on stage. She meets with Ellen Burston's Brenda, the
Speaker 2: American wife of a cheating Greek husband, imprisoned in Greece
Speaker 2: for murdering her children and christened the modern Medea by
Speaker 2: the Greek press for an actress going through it. Getting
Speaker 2: in touch with your inner Medea is about as primal
Speaker 2: as it gets.
Speaker 1: WHOA Okay, how about our last comment? Here is another
Speaker 1: burst in performance one listeners are maybe a little bit
Speaker 1: more familiar with. It comes from Aaron He went other
Speaker 1: Ellen Burston in The Exorcist.
Speaker 2: I'd say that counts as going through it a little bit.
Speaker 2: It's definitely an actress. Time for a new poll. Twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five is the fiftieth anniversary of one of the
Speaker 2: great movie years, nineteen seventy five, a greatness that's pretty
Speaker 2: easy to measure with a look at the films nominated
Speaker 2: for the nineteen seventy six Best Picture Oscar. We have
Speaker 2: Josh Kubrick's Barry Lindon, we have Sidney Lmetz, Dog Day Afternoon,
Speaker 2: Jaws from Steven Spielberg, the eventual winner, One Flew Over
Speaker 2: the Cuckoo's Nest, and Robert Altman's Nashville. So we gave
Speaker 2: Jaws the Sacred Cow treatment back in twenty twenty for
Speaker 2: its forty fifth We just talked about Cuckoo's Nest last week.
Speaker 2: Both loved that film. We're going to be talking about
Speaker 2: Dog Day in a couple of weeks. Those three films
Speaker 2: are in the film spotting pantheon. Safe to say we're
Speaker 2: fans of those three films, and then you throw in
Speaker 2: Barry Lindon and Nashville. Pretty formidable roster of films. What
Speaker 2: we're doing is we're throwing out Jaws. We're saying we
Speaker 2: just think Jaws would annihilate the other four as good
Speaker 2: as they are in this poll, especially knowing what we
Speaker 2: think we know about our listeners. So without Jaws, which
Speaker 2: one is the best film? Do you have a clear
Speaker 2: pick here, Josh?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's tough because Barry Linden I watched for
Speaker 1: the first time just a few years ago. It's fairly fresh.
Speaker 1: Cucko's Nest obviously is fresh dog day in Nashville. It's
Speaker 1: been a while, and sometimes the archives I have at
Speaker 1: my lurs and on film website are helpful in this case.
Speaker 1: But I looked at all four of these titles. They're
Speaker 1: all three and a half out of four star movies
Speaker 1: for me, and probably ones I've mostly seen only once.
Speaker 1: So it's really tough. I mean, do I just go
Speaker 1: with recency bias and say Cuckoo's Nest right now? And
Speaker 1: maybe I'll regret that when we do Dog Day our
Speaker 1: review coming up here. But yeah, I guess I lean
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 2: I'm still reeling from the thought of Dog Day and
Speaker 2: Cuckoo's Nest only getting three and a half.
Speaker 1: I knew, I knew you were gonna take this to
Speaker 1: letterbox where they have like a star commissioner, file it
Speaker 1: with File A grievance.
Speaker 2: Actually, that's a position I want to apply for. I
Speaker 2: bet star commissioner sounds great.
Speaker 1: I bet what.
Speaker 2: Benefits come with that, Josh?
Speaker 1: I mean, just the pleasure of annoying people by dissecting
Speaker 1: their star ratings. I think that should be enough.
Speaker 2: I think I would rank them in the exact order
Speaker 2: they appear on my screen at the moment Dog Day Afternoon,
Speaker 2: Cuckoo's Nest, Barry Lindon, Nashville, Nashville could very easily move
Speaker 2: up ahead of Barry Lindon if I gave the film
Speaker 2: a rewatch. I've only seen it once, and it was
Speaker 2: many years ago, twenty years ago. I think I watched
Speaker 2: it back in the early days of this show for
Speaker 2: the first time, and I do have some recency bias
Speaker 2: with Cuckoo's Nest, so it's very tough to choose between
Speaker 2: those two films. But I know I love Dog Day Afternoon,
Speaker 2: So after we talk about that, I'll feel like I've
Speaker 2: given them both the treatment they deserve. Josh, and this
Speaker 2: poll will have already been closed down and it will
Speaker 2: all be for nothing. But right now I'm going to
Speaker 2: go dog Day just slightly ahead of one flow over
Speaker 2: the Cuckoo's.
Speaker 1: Nest to satisfy the Star commissioner. Let me let me
Speaker 1: file something I did give Cuckoo's Nest, and here maybe
Speaker 1: this supports the vote. I just made four and a
Speaker 1: half out of five recently after our rewatch, so it
Speaker 1: is now bumped a little bit ahead of those others.
Speaker 1: And now you're going to say, why isn't it five
Speaker 1: out of five? You know the Star commission doesn't work overtime.
Speaker 1: You're done, Your business is done.
Speaker 2: I was going to move on. Actually I can. I
Speaker 2: can tolerate a four and a half out of five.
Speaker 1: Josh.
Speaker 2: You can vote in that poll and leave a comment
Speaker 2: at film spotting dot net. We will share your results
Speaker 2: and your feedback in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: So they were turning after all those cameras life, which
Speaker 3: can be strangely merciful had taken pity on Norma despoint
Speaker 3: the dream she had plung to so desperately had.
Speaker 1: Sunset Boulevard is ready for its close up? But are we?
Speaker 1: Billy Wilder's Hollywood Noir came to theaters seventy five years
Speaker 1: ago this month, August nineteen fifty, and it went on
Speaker 1: to become the director's most Oscar nominated film eleven nominations,
Speaker 1: including Best Picture, so most nominated but also appropriate for
Speaker 1: a tale about tinseltown disappointment. The Wilder movie with the
Speaker 1: most Oscar losses. It won only three of those eleven
Speaker 1: for score, art, direction, and for Wilder's screenplay, which he
Speaker 1: wrote with Charles Brackett and D. M. Marshman Junior. You
Speaker 1: may be wondering, okay, what picture could have possibly beat
Speaker 1: out Sunset Boulevard. Well makes sense that it was another
Speaker 1: showbiz related tale. The nineteen fifty one Best Picture winner
Speaker 1: was all about Eve.
Speaker 2: You maybe shouldn't feel too sorry for Wilder, though, after
Speaker 2: the relative disappointments of two films released in nineteen forty eight,
Speaker 2: The Emperor Waltz and Foreign Affair, he did before that
Speaker 2: win Best Director, Best Picture and Best Screenplay plus Best Actor.
Speaker 2: Maybe one or two others for the Lost Weekend in
Speaker 2: nineteen forty five, so you know, pretty well respected in
Speaker 2: Hollywood by the time Sunset Boulevard rolls around. As far
Speaker 2: as the plot goes, should we start at the beginning
Speaker 2: Josh or at the end like Wilder does with William
Speaker 2: Holdens down on his lux screenwriter Joe Gillis dead in
Speaker 2: a swimming pool. We then flashback six months earlier with
Speaker 2: Gillis fling repomen when he turns into the driveway of
Speaker 2: a Sunset Boulevard mansion. That's where he meets Gloria Swanson's
Speaker 2: Norma Desmond, a reclusive, silent movie star who is eager
Speaker 2: to boot Gillis from her home until she learns his occupation,
Speaker 2: which conjures up dreams of a career comeback and maybe
Speaker 2: of romance.
Speaker 1: Two. Here's a clip.
Speaker 3: She'd sit very close to me, and she's smell of
Speaker 3: two roses, which is not my favorite perfume, not by
Speaker 3: a long shot. Sometimes as we watch, she'd clutched my
Speaker 3: arm on my hand forgetting she was my employer. Just
Speaker 3: becoming a fan excited about that actress up there on
Speaker 3: the screen. I guess I don't have to tell you
Speaker 3: who the star was. They were always her pictures. That's
Speaker 3: all she wanted to see.
Speaker 1: Still wonderful, isn't it?
Speaker 3: And no dialogue. We didn't need dialogue. We had faces.
Speaker 3: So just aren't junny faces like that anymore? Maybe one
Speaker 3: gobble those idiot produced its those imbeciles. Haven't they got
Speaker 3: any eyes? Have they forgotten what a star looks like?
Speaker 2: I'll show them.
Speaker 3: I'll be up there.
Speaker 2: Again, so help me, so, Josh, I do think this
Speaker 2: is yet another example of those beautiful bits of coincidence
Speaker 2: spotting that we get sometimes totally random, where we review
Speaker 2: a new movie together about codependency the same way we
Speaker 2: discuss Sunset No Kid on this viewing, What did you discover,
Speaker 2: if anything, any revelations.
Speaker 1: I mean codependency. I think it's probably what I realized
Speaker 1: the first time. This is no blazingly new reservation. But
Speaker 1: Sunset Boulevard takes a perversely codependent relationship and blows it
Speaker 1: up to Hollywood proportions. And by that I mean we've
Speaker 1: already described it in a couple of ways, a classic noir,
Speaker 1: a Hollywood noir. It is that it's beautifully that and
Speaker 1: we should talk about the ways it's a noir. It's
Speaker 1: also a backstage studio drama, which is something entirely different,
Speaker 1: and it's brilliantly that and maybe the observation I had
Speaker 1: watching this more towards the beginning, but this is equally
Speaker 1: a Tinseltown Gothic horror. And I'm watching this movie, Adam,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's just because you know, we got Robert
Speaker 1: Egger's No. S Faratu a few months ago now, and
Speaker 1: I'm looking at Norman Desmond sitting like Dracula in this
Speaker 1: high backed chair in the midst of this dark, cavernous room.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really click for me there. But then I
Speaker 1: notice as she's interviewing gillis their first meeting at her
Speaker 1: desk and she's trying to she's trying to hire him basically,
Speaker 1: and her one knee is up on her chair. She's
Speaker 1: clutching her knee.
Speaker 2: This is so funny. I'm going to start with this
Speaker 2: same scene, but maybe go in a different direction.
Speaker 1: Okay, ok to me, it's a No. Sparatu style claw
Speaker 1: And then you've got you've got her servant, you know,
Speaker 1: her servant Max, played by the director Eric von Stroheim,
Speaker 1: closing the drapes so that all sunlight is being shut out,
Speaker 1: and we have her entombing her guest, proposing a deal
Speaker 1: that's going to end with her living on at the
Speaker 1: cost of his life. And I think there are other
Speaker 1: great little touches. There are the rats in her pool.
Speaker 1: There is the coffin for her chimp. You've got a
Speaker 1: coffin even you know, as the movie went on, it
Speaker 1: seemed to drop. Who knows how much any of this
Speaker 1: was intentional, It did seem to drop some of the
Speaker 1: Dracula stuff. Gillis does call her a sleepwalker at one point,
Speaker 1: and then there is that great Bride of Frankenstein's shot
Speaker 1: of her when she stands up in her private screening room.
Speaker 1: She's backlit by the projector she's going off, and I'm thinking, oh,
Speaker 1: this is Bride of Frankenstein. So anyway, the larger point
Speaker 1: I want to make is not that Sunset Boulevard is
Speaker 1: a Dracula movie, but that it is also this gothic
Speaker 1: whore in so many ways the filmmaking. The filmmaking leans
Speaker 1: into this, but it's also these other things. That's the
Speaker 1: brilliance of it is that it can be it can
Speaker 1: explore all of these genres fairly equally and equally well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, part of the brilliance of Wilder is that he
Speaker 2: made films within almost every type of genre, and some
Speaker 2: would argue he made perhaps the best film in all
Speaker 2: of those genres. Are some of those genres, and here
Speaker 2: you've got a film that is kind of not any
Speaker 2: one genre and it wraps up a bunch of different
Speaker 2: ones very well. And as I said, it's so funny
Speaker 2: because we queued into one scene in particular, but are
Speaker 2: going to perhaps use it for different reasons. Even though
Speaker 2: I'm not going to take issue at all with your reading,
Speaker 2: including even the mention of her as a sleepwalker. That
Speaker 2: gothic element is undoubtedly here. But for me, the thing
Speaker 2: that stood out to me this time, or at least
Speaker 2: what I as a viewer tapped into that I never
Speaker 2: had before. And Josh, maybe it was just about me
Speaker 2: opening myself up to this possibility. It doesn't even have
Speaker 2: to be so much about Wilder's filmmaking. It's just about
Speaker 2: me allowing myself to have this experience. I really tapped
Speaker 2: in for the first time to Norma's humanity. It's been
Speaker 2: fifteen years since I've seen this film. I believe it
Speaker 2: was part of a Wilder marathon back in twenty ten
Speaker 2: that corresponded with a gram school class that Maddie and
Speaker 2: I were teaching at the University of Chicago about Wilder
Speaker 2: and part of it, as well as maybe just appreciating
Speaker 2: Swanson's performance even.
Speaker 1: More than Yeah, I want to talk about that did.
Speaker 2: It's so easy to see her again, rightfully, the way
Speaker 2: you're describing her, and to see her as this relic,
Speaker 2: not just figuratively but literally as a sort of object,
Speaker 2: and see her as inhuman that's consistent with being a vampire,
Speaker 2: right the fact that she's always in character, she's in costume,
Speaker 2: it seems it seems like she's always performing that description
Speaker 2: of her as a sleepwalker, well, a sleepwalker in addition
Speaker 2: to conjuring the idea of a vampire. It just makes
Speaker 2: you think of a spirit. And she's not even Norma
Speaker 2: Desmond really. In that same bit where Joe talks about
Speaker 2: her as a sleepwalker, he calls the great Norma Desmon,
Speaker 2: the subject that makes her crazy, her celluloid self, the
Speaker 2: great Norma Desmin. So she's not a person, she's a thing.
Speaker 2: And when he starts reading her lousy screenplay, he says,
Speaker 2: as for her, she sat coiled up like a watch spring,
Speaker 2: her cigarette clamped in a curious holder. And if you
Speaker 2: notice even there, the way he's describing her, the way
Speaker 2: Wilder and his co screenwriters are describing her, they're dehumanizing her.
Speaker 2: They're describing her coiled up like a watch, like an object.
Speaker 2: But I had never paid attention, even though the narration
Speaker 2: is calling attention to it, I had never really paid
Speaker 2: attention to how she is sitting and how odd that
Speaker 2: is for a character of her stature and status to
Speaker 2: be sitting like that. And I almost felt like Josh
Speaker 2: going really the complete opposite direction of a vampire or
Speaker 2: any other creature. I saw her sitting there on almost
Speaker 2: like a little girl, the way a little girl would
Speaker 2: sit in a chair with her, with her legs up
Speaker 2: in the chair, with her knees up by her neck.
Speaker 2: And so she's still on some level performing the role
Speaker 2: of Norma Desmond, but she's also betraying the fact that
Speaker 2: a handsome man is in front of her, and she's
Speaker 2: hoping to impress him because he's good looking, but also
Speaker 2: because it's her script and she wants to impress him
Speaker 2: with that script. And so so the body just kind
Speaker 2: of kind of does that and betrays that fact. So
Speaker 2: that is something that I tapped into this time. And
Speaker 2: I think, you know, throughout, Josh, we can geek out
Speaker 2: and we will about probably some lines and some shots,
Speaker 2: but just to really put a bow on this thought
Speaker 2: about her humanity. My god, that staircase descent at all.
Speaker 1: What a shot and the way she carries the moment.
Speaker 2: Two way she carries it the staging so that the
Speaker 2: police and the cameraman and the reporters all basically freeze.
Speaker 2: So it's like one of her oil canvases of a
Speaker 2: legendary figure or a mythical figure come to life. It's
Speaker 2: Norma though, being Norma, It's Norma being a star. So
Speaker 2: what does that mean? She transcends, She transcends space and time.
Speaker 2: She gets to glide down the stairs past the glued onlookers,
Speaker 2: and that line, her line at the end. It's one
Speaker 2: of those classic Mandela effect moments. Right we all think,
Speaker 2: don't we all think that she says I'm ready for
Speaker 2: my close up, mister de mil But she actually says,
Speaker 2: mister de Mille, I'm ready for my close up.
Speaker 1: And she underplays it, she under sells it. She does.
Speaker 2: You're so right, but that line because of the way
Speaker 2: it's been used overused in popular culture. That is another factor,
Speaker 2: I think in distancing us from Norma as a person
Speaker 2: and seeing her as this capital t tragic figure, but
Speaker 2: we don't really see her as a person, as a
Speaker 2: tragic figure, And so just watching it this time for
Speaker 2: the first time for me as as mad as she
Speaker 2: clearly is, I didn't gawk at her as she walked
Speaker 2: down those stairs, and I didn't think about her in
Speaker 2: a sensationalistic way and her tragic fall. I actually really
Speaker 2: felt I felt sadness. I felt sadness for Norma in
Speaker 2: those final moments in a way, as I said, I
Speaker 2: haven't before even if even if did you notice Wilder
Speaker 2: denies her the close up. He blurs the camera lens
Speaker 2: before she fully moves into the close up, and you
Speaker 2: could read that on some level like a coldness or
Speaker 2: maybe a meanness to Norma. I do know that in
Speaker 2: my research back when I taught this as part of
Speaker 2: that class, that Bracket thought throughout the film that not
Speaker 2: even so much Norma the character, but to Gloria Swanson,
Speaker 2: Wilder was often too mean with how he staged some
Speaker 2: of those shots. The harshness of the lighting, all the mirrors,
Speaker 2: the close ups, that they were too garish, that they
Speaker 2: they emphasized her oldness, and they were maybe too But
Speaker 2: I'll just say at the end it goes back to
Speaker 2: something I talked about during the apartment Josh. It's more
Speaker 2: about just kind of Wilder's clear eyed, matter of factness
Speaker 2: about the world. And it actually kind of for me,
Speaker 2: just further amplifies the tragic nature of the fact that
Speaker 2: even in that last moment, she still she doesn't get it.
Speaker 2: Not only does she not get her film, she doesn't
Speaker 2: even get that close up she's asking for there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I would put it in the category
Speaker 1: completely agree with you about her humanity being at the
Speaker 1: four and I'll talk a little bit about how I
Speaker 1: think the performance is key to that, but I think
Speaker 1: it's key in the direction and the filmmaking too. So
Speaker 1: for me, that final shot, the lack of a extreme
Speaker 1: close up that we might be expecting that's maybe in
Speaker 1: our memories because of how the line is quoted. Choosing
Speaker 1: to go otherwise to me is a bit of deference
Speaker 1: to her and a distinction from what we do get
Speaker 1: earlier in the film, where she does look scary or monstrous,
Speaker 1: you know, rather than using a similar shot and expecting
Speaker 1: Swanson to do all the work of making that distinction.
Speaker 1: The filmmaking here is helping her and then she's doing
Speaker 1: the work, as I said, by underplaying the line. In
Speaker 1: my memory, it's shouted, it's declared, it's this camp moment,
Speaker 1: and it is not. As a matter of fact, it
Speaker 1: stands out. It's one of the only lines that she
Speaker 1: speaks softly where she isn't performing for anyone. And I
Speaker 1: think it's because she has found her space. Now it's
Speaker 1: a false space, but she's found the place she's been
Speaker 1: seeking to be on set in her mind, doing good work,
Speaker 1: and so she can be relaxed and she can be herself.
Speaker 1: And that's why she just says the line quietly. Another
Speaker 1: touch in terms of the filmmaking, the crane, which is
Speaker 1: probably what was used as she comes down the stairway.
Speaker 1: I think it's crucial that the crane follows her because
Speaker 1: we're with her. This again is putting us aligned with her,
Speaker 1: not gawking at her. It's not making her look ridiculous,
Speaker 1: it's making her look regal and noble. Is there some
Speaker 1: irony there, of course, and maybe Wilder means it to
Speaker 1: be sarcastic, but for me on this viewing, it felt
Speaker 1: almost honoring actually, how that final sequence played out.
Speaker 2: I can't go on with the scene. I'm too happy,
Speaker 2: mister Demil, Do you mind if I say a few
Speaker 2: words thank you?
Speaker 1: So it is interesting that you picked that early interrogation
Speaker 1: scene and as the jumping off point for her humanity.
Speaker 1: For me, it came in another sequence that I feel
Speaker 1: is so crucial. This is after Norma has pushed her
Speaker 1: way onto the Paramount Pictures a lot and she's forced
Speaker 1: this meeting with Cecil B. Demill, her former director Demil
Speaker 1: playing himself, of course, while he's on his set, and
Speaker 1: not only in the sequence. Adam is Demil so gentle
Speaker 1: with her, not trying to squash her deluded dreams, but
Speaker 1: finding a way to yes, move her along, but without
Speaker 1: making her feel foolish. But how about the choice Wilder
Speaker 1: and working with cinematographer John f. Sites Here they anoint
Speaker 1: her in this angelic air by having this veteran spotlight
Speaker 1: operator recognize Norma and on the set, and so he
Speaker 1: turns the beam onto her as she sits in a chair,
Speaker 1: and she exults in it. Again, this could be a
Speaker 1: gawking moment. There are gawking moments of Norma in this movie,
Speaker 1: but to me, this is more about her regalness, her nobility,
Speaker 1: her history, her place in Hollywood history. This attracts the
Speaker 1: attention of the crew. They're delighted by the surprise appearance
Speaker 1: of this legend, and then we get after their effusive praise,
Speaker 1: she weeps in gratitude, And there's something I find deeply
Speaker 1: touching and genuine about that moment and not sarcastic or
Speaker 1: even ironic or biting at all. So I think that's
Speaker 1: in the filmmaking the humanity. But maybe another revelation I
Speaker 1: had Adam is in Glorious Swanson's performance. Again, don't know
Speaker 1: how long ago it was that I saw this. Certainly
Speaker 1: had not seen enough movies or thought deeply enough about performing.
Speaker 1: This is something I feel like sometimes I'm still trying
Speaker 1: to get better at what makes a good performance in
Speaker 1: different tones and ranges and styles. And we certainly have
Speaker 1: one of cinema's grand melodramatic performances here from Swanson. But
Speaker 1: I think it works beyond just being entertaining in a
Speaker 1: gawking way. And what helped me is having seen between
Speaker 1: my first viewing of Sunset Boulevard and now a lot
Speaker 1: of the work of Betty Davis and Joan Crawford. Now Swanson,
Speaker 1: I had to remind myself, had already been nominated for
Speaker 1: two Oscars before she was nominated for this. In her heyday,
Speaker 1: she had made silent pictures, she had produced silent pictures,
Speaker 1: So her heyday was before Crawford and Davis were in
Speaker 1: their professional pride, So for them it was like late
Speaker 1: thirties into the forties. So you have to think Swanson's
Speaker 1: early work had to influence them, especially the deliciously vicious women.
Speaker 1: I think of them as playing right and without a doubt.
Speaker 1: Her Norma Desmond is, you know, in that cauldron of
Speaker 1: whatever Happened to Baby Jane, which has Davis an Crawford right.
Speaker 1: And so Swanson is largely remembered for Sunset Boulevard despite
Speaker 1: that earlier career. But it's hard to imagine the careers
Speaker 1: of two other Hollywood legends without the totality of her
Speaker 1: contributions to Hollywood, all of which informs the pathos she
Speaker 1: brings to Norma Desmond. So you have someone here who
Speaker 1: is rooting these outsized gestures and these grandiose expressions which
Speaker 1: she gives, she's rooting them in a real character because
Speaker 1: Norma Desmond feels like every day she's performing in a
Speaker 1: silent movie exactly, And what do you do in a
Speaker 1: silence movie set? Her house is a sid I understand
Speaker 1: not all silent movies did actors perform this way, but
Speaker 1: in there was a certain strain of silent cinema where yes,
Speaker 1: your gestures were broad, your expressions were exaggerated, and that
Speaker 1: is the kind that Norma Desmond, we understand, had made.
Speaker 1: She's still making them to your point in her home.
Speaker 1: And so this is where the melancholy matt for me
Speaker 1: is really rooted in this yes, melodramatic, but also effective
Speaker 1: method where we see her as a person, as a human,
Speaker 1: deluded but once regal, once noble, and perhaps deserving to
Speaker 1: still have more of a shred of that than she
Speaker 1: actually still has.
Speaker 2: Hey, miss Desmond, Miss Desmond, it's me.
Speaker 4: It's hog guy.
Speaker 2: Hello guy, let's get a good look at you. I
Speaker 2: want to touch on a few things that you mentioned there. Reportedly,
Speaker 2: at the movie's premiere, Barbara Stanwick speaking to Swanson, not
Speaker 2: only the performance that she gives here but her standing
Speaker 2: Barbara Stanwick bowed down at her feet at the premiere
Speaker 2: and literally kiss.
Speaker 1: There's another legend.
Speaker 2: But when you mention the end and the way she
Speaker 2: underplays the line about her clothes, it occurs to me that,
Speaker 2: whether intentional or not, on Wilder and Swanson's part, it's
Speaker 2: another little bit of tragic irony, perhaps that she can't
Speaker 2: exist as an actress in this modern age of talkies,
Speaker 2: that she doesn't belong in this space, or they won't
Speaker 2: allow her in because she seems to belong to this
Speaker 2: bygone era where they overacted and as she says, they
Speaker 2: didn't need words right, they had faces. But in that moment,
Speaker 2: just like a great talkie screen actress, she's effectively able
Speaker 2: to modulate her performance and speak the lines to the
Speaker 2: camera exactly the way she needs to. So that occurs
Speaker 2: to me as you were saying that, And I also
Speaker 2: think about the heavy lifting that is done as we're
Speaker 2: touching on this point and the bygone era of her
Speaker 2: former performances, how much heavy lifting is done. By the
Speaker 2: scene where we watch Joe and Norma watch her old movie,
Speaker 2: he in his narration, is disparaging it. He views the
Speaker 2: whole thing as pathetic and pitiful. But Wilder's camera lingers
Speaker 2: on that movie screen, and what do we see on
Speaker 2: the screen. There's nothing pathetic or pitiful about it. We
Speaker 2: see an astonishing face. And I think it reinforces for me, Josh,
Speaker 2: that that what she's hanging on to and what she's
Speaker 2: trying to recapture so badly. It's not even so much
Speaker 2: her youth. I'm trying to think of the words something
Speaker 2: something greater than youth.
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: Is it a life force? Is it a certain vitality
Speaker 2: that she's emanating? And then I realize that, of course
Speaker 2: the word is stardom. It's whatever, it's whatever makes up
Speaker 2: the essence of a star. It's there in that shot
Speaker 2: that we're watching on the screen that she has, and
Speaker 2: you watch it and then you somehow understand, well, of
Speaker 2: course she doesn't want to lose that. That's something she's
Speaker 2: not going to want to give up.
Speaker 1: And what do you need for startup? You need an audience,
Speaker 1: and that's what she's lost.
Speaker 2: You talked about that amazing shot where the light shines
Speaker 2: down on her, the spotlight, and she basks in it,
Speaker 2: and I do think that's so important. I'm really glad
Speaker 2: you said it only because I had a line in
Speaker 2: my notes that you know, this happens sometimes you write
Speaker 2: something and then you look at it later and you go, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm not entirely.
Speaker 1: Sure of what I was referring.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, my line was tough, that the indignity of
Speaker 2: de Mille's denial follows her return, and I had return
Speaker 2: in single quotes. We'll see, I need to take better
Speaker 2: notes that or less oblique or whatever. Her return that
Speaker 2: I'm referring to is that return. The return that she
Speaker 2: gets is that moment where the light is on her
Speaker 2: and the crowd adores her, and to your point, it
Speaker 2: is genuine in that light. In that moment, the audience
Speaker 2: that isn't just for show. They aren't pitying her. They
Speaker 2: those people genuinely do know who she is, and they
Speaker 2: come up to her and they show their gratitude to her,
Speaker 2: and she's grateful for it. So we know that in
Speaker 2: the grand scheme of things, she's not the star she
Speaker 2: once was, that she's a has been, that Max has
Speaker 2: to write the notes. We know all of that's true,
Speaker 2: but two things can be true at once. That in
Speaker 2: that moment she gets the reverence that she probably deserves.
Speaker 2: And so the indignity part is that soon after this,
Speaker 2: of course Demill is going to deny her She's not
Speaker 2: going to get to make this movie. And that's already
Speaker 2: hard enough for Norma to accept, considering what she believes
Speaker 2: about herself, but imagine how much harder it is after
Speaker 2: she's actually felt the basking in the glow of the
Speaker 2: light again and it's real.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And then that's maybe why she falls as far
Speaker 1: as she does mentally, at least is getting a taste
Speaker 1: of it and then not having the rest is you know,
Speaker 1: makes it even worse. So we've talked about, you know,
Speaker 1: a number of shots here, and I do think now
Speaker 1: I haven't seen all of Billy Wilder's films, but this
Speaker 1: has to be one of the more visually ambitious of
Speaker 1: those that I have seen. We spend some time in
Speaker 1: our discussion of The Apartment about how that is visually ambitious,
Speaker 1: but I think this is an area Wilder is sometimes
Speaker 1: not given enough credit for. And man, are there so
Speaker 1: many aesthetic flourishes here. I want to talk about a
Speaker 1: few that aren't related necessarily to Norma Desmond, but just
Speaker 1: the fact that this movie opens with that unbroken reverse
Speaker 1: tracking shot moving down a road and then lifts up
Speaker 1: to reveal these squad cars racing toward her house. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean that the American Beauty shot essentially with the narration, right,
Speaker 2: and I kind of eight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it is. It is definitely echoed there. That's
Speaker 1: not something you know that comes to mind that a
Speaker 1: Billy Wilder movie would open with. And of course you
Speaker 1: reference the shot of Gillis face down in the pool,
Speaker 1: but there are levels of artistry to that shot because
Speaker 1: the camera at the bottom of the pool looking up
Speaker 1: we see his face, and then behind through the water
Speaker 1: we see the police sergeants or investigators standing at the
Speaker 1: pool's edge. It's incredibly unnerving and another great use of
Speaker 1: a crane. As Gillis is walking up the steps to
Speaker 1: her outdoor terrace, the dilapidated terrace, and then we see
Speaker 1: her through this slow zoom, we see Norma behind some blinds,
Speaker 1: creepily watching him. I mean, these are all kind of
Speaker 1: crime and horror techniques that are blended to create something
Speaker 1: that's very eerie, very unnerving. Goes back to the noir idea,
Speaker 1: goes back to the Gothic idea, but it also has
Speaker 1: this faded glamour of old Hollywood to it. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: the filmmaking here is on his top tier level for
Speaker 1: Wilder for sure. Absolutely. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I have a section here on just the filmmaking, but
Speaker 2: then I have a separate section that's just elements I love,
Speaker 2: and they're all part of the filmmaking. They're Wilder touches,
Speaker 2: if you will, I think, really reflect his brilliance and
Speaker 2: his cleverness as a writer and a director. But they
Speaker 2: kind of go above some of the more common things
Speaker 2: that you may notice in the film. For me, those
Speaker 2: elements I love are things like Joe Gillis is a screenwriter,
Speaker 2: and yet he's absolutely horrendous at picking up on foreshadowing
Speaker 2: the fact that he the fact that he shows up,
Speaker 2: and even though it's misdirection or it's a mistake, they
Speaker 2: think he's someone else, the fact that they have been
Speaker 2: expecting him right suggests that there's almost something faded about
Speaker 2: his appearing. The fact the fact that he does show
Speaker 2: up and there's this dead monkey, which the the insanity
Speaker 2: of that we up in a time, right, remember we
Speaker 2: we grew up in that time with Michael Jackson at
Speaker 2: his Neverland ranch and knew about like monkeys, and stuff and.
Speaker 1: Bubbles was it bubbles?
Speaker 2: But like that that to us that was in the eighties,
Speaker 2: and we thought about what that was like to have
Speaker 2: animals around your house and what that said about I
Speaker 2: don't know your state of mind. Well, you know, this
Speaker 2: is the nineteen fifties and here she is with her
Speaker 2: pet monkey. But the fact that that monkey is carried
Speaker 2: out in a coffin, and it suggests, you know, this
Speaker 2: pet monkey is the role he probably is going to fill.
Speaker 2: And the fact that Max says I made your bed
Speaker 2: this afternoon before he's agreed to spend the month, and
Speaker 2: I even love just the fact that he refers to
Speaker 2: himself as a ghostwriter. Ghost writer in this case takes
Speaker 2: on a little bit of extra meaning. I think, especially
Speaker 2: as from the beginning of the film we know that
Speaker 2: he's dead, and then when his car gets taken away,
Speaker 2: that's another moment where the car is almost like the
Speaker 2: monkey's coffin. That's when he's officially being left left behind.
Speaker 2: It's like, Okay, Joe isn't going anywhere. But the other
Speaker 2: little Wilder touches Josh are things like when he goes
Speaker 2: to leave at one point in a huff, and I
Speaker 2: think it might be that that first one on New
Speaker 2: Year's Eve when he gets mad at her and and
Speaker 2: goes his pocket watch. That touch she gives to him, Yeah,
Speaker 2: gets stuck on the door. It's it's only Wilder would
Speaker 2: think of this, right. It's almost like Norma's hand is
Speaker 2: somehow there to just snatch him back for a second
Speaker 2: before he goes.
Speaker 1: But it's the pocket watch they notice that, can I
Speaker 1: can I give you another one? Just like that when
Speaker 1: she's on the Mills set, sitting in the chair. How
Speaker 1: about when the boom bike that boks over her head
Speaker 1: and hits the feather on her hat and she gets
Speaker 1: like a fly. It's like a fly and annoys her.
Speaker 1: You know, the sound Era forced her out of business.
Speaker 1: And now here's this mike hitting hitting her costume.
Speaker 2: The moment she sits down the annoying fly, the microphone
Speaker 2: starts around her.
Speaker 1: It's beautiful.
Speaker 2: And then even from a little editing standpoint, there is
Speaker 2: the moment where he says, just whenever she noticed that
Speaker 2: I was getting bored that she would go back to
Speaker 2: her favorite bit and it was like the Max Sennett
Speaker 2: bathing beauties. And when he cuts on that it's on
Speaker 2: her umbrella. Twirling, and it feels just like one of
Speaker 2: those kaleidoscopic cuts that they got in a lot of
Speaker 2: those old timey movies. And then one other one I
Speaker 2: want to give you is near the end with Betty.
Speaker 2: The meta element here, the screenwriting element that he is
Speaker 2: a screenwriter, the fact that it's all rooted in Hollywood
Speaker 2: and Hollywood lore, the way he finally comes clean with Betty.
Speaker 2: He tells her everything. They're writers together, and he's finally
Speaker 2: he's giving her the backstory. He's filling her in on everything.
Speaker 1: And what does she say?
Speaker 2: The way she phrases it is really interesting. She says, no, no,
Speaker 2: I haven't heard any of this. I never got those
Speaker 2: telephone calls. I've never been in this house. Get your
Speaker 2: things together, let's get out of here. So Betty the
Speaker 2: screenwriter is basically saying, nope, I'm taking these pages right
Speaker 2: been written, I'm throwing them in the garbage can. I
Speaker 2: don't care what we've written before, what you've written before.
Speaker 1: We're starting with.
Speaker 2: A blank page. We can now just walk right out
Speaker 2: of here and we can start a new story. And
Speaker 2: he doesn't say yes to that, because it turns out
Speaker 2: we think in the moment that it's because he feels
Speaker 2: too guilty and that he's succumbing to the fate, the
Speaker 2: hand that he's been dealt. We realize actually that no,
Speaker 2: he is starting his new story. He's just starting it
Speaker 2: alone as a solo screenwriter. But I love the fact
Speaker 2: that she is a writer, is saying we can write
Speaker 2: a new story. Joe, promise, I promise we can.
Speaker 1: There is that meta element with Betty the screenwriter played
Speaker 1: by Nancy Olsen, which I do think is nice and
Speaker 1: feels a bit like a Wilder touch as well. But
Speaker 1: I found on this viewing that their scenes did drag
Speaker 1: a little bit. You know, I don't know if I
Speaker 1: just didn't need as many. You've got to get out
Speaker 1: of the mansion at some point. I understand that. But
Speaker 1: the romance with gillis, I don't know where are we
Speaker 1: on Holden in this film. Let me ask you that,
Speaker 1: because I think I liked his presence best as a narrator,
Speaker 1: his voice and his delivery. And again this is where
Speaker 1: a noir element comes in. I think he evokes that
Speaker 1: well as a screen presence in his scenes with you know,
Speaker 1: Gloria Swanson. He works, I guess, is what i'd say.
Speaker 1: But the power dynamic is not supposed to be equal,
Speaker 1: but the performance dynamic maybe should be a little more
Speaker 1: equal in some way. I did like, though, and here's
Speaker 1: another nor thing I'll throw at you. I did like
Speaker 1: Holden's Joe Gillis is essentially the femme fatale when you
Speaker 1: think about it. He shows up and he he's mysterious,
Speaker 1: and he's maybe useful, maybe not. You can't quite trust him.
Speaker 1: And how about the fact that he's absolutely a sexual
Speaker 1: object that pool scene when he gets out of the
Speaker 1: pool and towels off in front of her. So I
Speaker 1: realized that, Okay, well, this is this is interesting about
Speaker 1: his character, that he's basically playing the femme fatale in
Speaker 1: the noir. Otherwise, you know, I don't know, maybe just
Speaker 1: a little bit more there from Holden might might have gone.
Speaker 1: If you know, A'm nitpicking here. This is this is
Speaker 1: a masterpiece.
Speaker 2: But you know, I like Holden, and I like Holden
Speaker 2: in Wilder movies for the most part. I agree with
Speaker 2: some of the scenes with Betty with Olsen in particular,
Speaker 2: and those moments where, for example, he's kissing her nose
Speaker 2: and we're supposed to believe that they're falling madly in
Speaker 2: love with each other. Something about that dynamic always feels
Speaker 2: a little bit off, and we need to believe that
Speaker 2: they're really falling in love with each other. I never
Speaker 2: really got it. Part of it was I just felt like,
Speaker 2: and I looked this up at one point, but now
Speaker 2: I don't have it in front of me. It felt
Speaker 2: like one of those classic Hollywood cases were just there
Speaker 2: was a dramatic age difference. I don't know if there was,
Speaker 2: but it feels like it on screen, you know what.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought that up. I just I meant
Speaker 1: to throw this out there because I was thinking about
Speaker 1: it while watching and had forgotten. But for those curious
Speaker 1: Gloria Swanson born eighteen ninety nine, Yeah, and William holden
Speaker 1: Bourne nineteen eighteen, so what like twenty years right from
Speaker 1: my maath.
Speaker 2: Yeahs was only fifty when she was making this film.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I felt a disparity in those characters that didn't
Speaker 2: serve those scenes necessarily very well. And I'll agree with
Speaker 2: you that maybe that entire that entire storyline feels maybe
Speaker 2: a little bit more rushed in a way that the
Speaker 2: rest of the film certainly certainly doesn't. We need the
Speaker 2: plot mechanics of their relationship to fuel the end of
Speaker 2: the text. I still love some of those touches, like
Speaker 2: the one I mentioned, and really just the overall the
Speaker 2: cleverness and I'll use that word again, the irony away
Speaker 2: Wilder and Bracket. They've constructed this story the last film
Speaker 2: he worked with Bracket on, where they've constructed this entire
Speaker 2: thing around this notion as we see in the beginning,
Speaker 2: that all Joe wants to do is write something that
Speaker 2: will sell. That's all he's trying to do, and he's
Speaker 2: failing miserably. And then what happens He stops writing and
Speaker 2: he becomes embroiled in a story that's the best, most
Speaker 2: sensational story maybe of all time. Think about how well
Speaker 2: this story is going to play, right. He's not going
Speaker 2: to reap any benefits of it, you know, but but
Speaker 2: it is going to sell like hotcakes and and is
Speaker 2: probably going to get turned into a movie at some point.
Speaker 1: Right, maybe win a couple oscars.
Speaker 2: Who knows, it might even win a couple of oscars.
Speaker 2: How about some of the lines, right, I mean, besides
Speaker 2: the fact that you've got the poor dope he always
Speaker 2: wanted to pool, just of course, and and that goes
Speaker 2: with the shot as you mentioned. And I think they
Speaker 2: used a mirror some kind of effect that they pulled
Speaker 2: off there.
Speaker 1: That was amazing.
Speaker 2: I love the way he describes her still waving proudly
Speaker 2: to a parade that had long since passed her by.
Speaker 2: If you can write lines for that, right, And another
Speaker 2: one later when he's filling Betty in he says, an
Speaker 2: older woman who is well to do a younger man
Speaker 2: who is not doing too well? Can you figure it
Speaker 2: out yourself?
Speaker 1: Is pretty good.
Speaker 2: And even just what he does with the narration the way,
Speaker 2: not only do we have the aspect of a narrator
Speaker 2: who is clearly dead that's telling the entire story in flashback,
Speaker 2: but I like the fact that there's a moment, Josh,
Speaker 2: where the narrator cuts himself off at one point. It's
Speaker 2: as if, even though it's all happening in the past,
Speaker 2: it's as if it's happening in real time.
Speaker 1: He says uh oh.
Speaker 2: He says uh oh and stops himself, and that adds
Speaker 2: just another like bit of excitement to the whole proceedings.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I do like the narration in this quite a bit.
Speaker 1: I'll lend us with one more line, and it brings
Speaker 1: us back to what we started talking about at the beginning,
Speaker 1: which is norma, you know, humanity really which we see
Speaker 1: in this film. And at one point she says, great
Speaker 1: stars have great pride, And I think that's key to
Speaker 1: the performance, because I do think that's something Swanson deeply,
Speaker 1: intimately understood and is able to bring it to the
Speaker 1: fore and make again Norma someone who's maybe has been,
Speaker 1: but her feelings about that are real and genuine, and
Speaker 1: that comes through in the film. Yeah, it does.
Speaker 2: And I want to end with mentioning the iconography which
Speaker 2: you talked about a little bit at the beginning, and
Speaker 2: the way the film is established in this setting. We've
Speaker 2: got schwabs. That's part of the iconography of Hollywood, the storytelling,
Speaker 2: the classic story of the discovery of certain actresses at
Speaker 2: the drug store and the Hollywood pools, which of course
Speaker 2: has to be a key part of this story. People
Speaker 2: who come normal people who come from the Midwest out
Speaker 2: to live their dreams and they do right.
Speaker 1: And of course where is he going back to. He's
Speaker 1: going back to Ohio.
Speaker 2: It's always the Midwest where we come from, right where
Speaker 2: they come from to go out to Hollywood and live
Speaker 2: their dreams, and the beginning of the film, it's not
Speaker 2: like it is in so many Hollywood films that are
Speaker 2: about this dream where you're seeing the Hollywood Sign and
Speaker 2: you're seeing the movie premiere and the studios and all
Speaker 2: the lights and stuff. Right, it is the dingiest street
Speaker 2: you've ever seen, and the abandoned tennis court covered in leaves,
Speaker 2: and it is so dirty and grimy. And the fact
Speaker 2: that the title of the film isn't Sunset Boulevard in
Speaker 2: some kind of radiant way, right, it's just the words
Speaker 2: in writing on the street.
Speaker 1: It immediately clues.
Speaker 2: You in to what kind of movie this is going
Speaker 2: to be, and that it's going to have some fun
Speaker 2: with your expectations. It's going to subvert what we think
Speaker 2: of as the classic Hollywood dream kind of tale. And
Speaker 2: we get that with the fun he has as well,
Speaker 2: with the waxworks, with characters like Keith bringing some of
Speaker 2: these those classic folks. Yeah, that's it, and you just
Speaker 2: you add those elements in with the cleverness and with
Speaker 2: the economy of the filmmaking. Even like we get the
Speaker 2: moment where we learn why there are no door knobs
Speaker 2: on the doors, and then when Joe leaves and she
Speaker 2: goes upstairs, the camera just shows us the door closing
Speaker 2: and focuses on the door, and in that moment, we
Speaker 2: know exactly what's coming next. We don't need anything more,
Speaker 2: we don't need to go inside. We know exactly just
Speaker 2: by that simple establishing of what that door knob means
Speaker 2: and the fact that the camera shows us that as
Speaker 2: she closes it, we know what is coming next. And
Speaker 2: he's just so as I said, economic and smart as
Speaker 2: a filmmaker. And then there are those grand touches like
Speaker 2: we've mentioned as.
Speaker 1: Well, effective use of you know, the lack of doorknobs
Speaker 1: through out with the lighting as well. You know, when
Speaker 1: the light comes on it'll then shine through the open holes,
Speaker 1: or when it goes out it's extra ominous. So yeah,
Speaker 1: employs that motif quite well throughout.
Speaker 2: The last one I just thought of is when you
Speaker 2: were talking about the fact that the whole place really
Speaker 2: is like this silent film set that she's created. At
Speaker 2: New Year's Eve, it feels that way when you've got
Speaker 2: a live orchestra playing. But how about the fact that
Speaker 2: they reference in that early scene that the wind comes
Speaker 2: in and it makes the organ play so it's like
Speaker 2: the whole place is alive, and you get these moments
Speaker 2: of music accompaniment to whatever is happening within the space.
Speaker 2: He just doesn't he doesn't overlook anything. Wilder and actually,
Speaker 2: what we haven't even touched on, I'll just I'll leave
Speaker 2: it here. We don't need to get into it. But
Speaker 2: having just talked about the apartment, and I know the
Speaker 2: Apartment comes ten years after this, but there is very
Speaker 2: direct overlap in the concepts of opportunism, and Wilder very
Speaker 2: directly said everybody in this movie is an opportunist if
Speaker 2: you think about it, even Betty, who's kind of playing
Speaker 2: like the wide eyed naive or she seems like the
Speaker 2: very ideological Well, no, she's in this certainly at first
Speaker 2: because she.
Speaker 1: Wants to get a screenplay published. It takes art her
Speaker 1: her fiance. You get that sense for sure. Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: she wants to move up.
Speaker 2: She doesn't want to be a script reader anymore. She
Speaker 2: wants to be a screen writer. And in the end,
Speaker 2: what Joe shows us I think Josh by leaving, by
Speaker 2: trying to leave, is that he finally figures out what
Speaker 2: Jack Lemon learns at the end of the Apartment. He
Speaker 2: learns how to be a mensch, He learns how to
Speaker 2: be a human being. He finally learns that it's not
Speaker 2: good for him or for her for Norma to continue
Speaker 2: using her. He also knows it's wrong for Betty and Artie,
Speaker 2: his friend, for him to run off with Betty, and
Speaker 2: he decides he's going to be a human being. He's
Speaker 2: just going to leave. He's not going to blame anyone
Speaker 2: else for his problems. He's not going to try to
Speaker 2: cause any more problems for anyone else. He is just
Speaker 2: going to go and he's going to live his life.
Speaker 2: But it's too late, and that's the tragedy of it.
Speaker 2: I think he learns the lesson.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's the added layer in this, you know, and
Speaker 1: it involves suicide, as the apartment does. But there's the
Speaker 1: added layer of what responsibility might he bear for leaving
Speaker 1: at this point, you know, to your point about him
Speaker 1: trying to get what he wants and being a bit
Speaker 1: of a player in all of this and a striver,
Speaker 1: he carries something of a burden even though you feel
Speaker 1: like these aren't empty threats, but there they are threats
Speaker 1: she knows she can make. There is there is a
Speaker 1: level of complication there that I think is interesting, which
Speaker 1: which is it's perhaps the right decision, but maybe not
Speaker 1: necessarily a noble one. I don't know. At the same
Speaker 1: time a little complicated. How can you put that burden
Speaker 1: on him right here? Because she was in this she
Speaker 1: was in this state before he arrived as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Sunset Boulevard is available vod If you agree or
Speaker 2: disagree with us, or have any other thoughts you'd like
Speaker 2: to share about that conversation or the show, we would
Speaker 2: love to hear from you. Feedback of filmspotting dot net.
Speaker 1: That is our show. You can find Adam and the
Speaker 1: show on Instagram, Facebook, or letterboxed at film Spotting. I'm
Speaker 1: at those places as well as Blue Sky as Larsen
Speaker 1: on film We are independently produced and listener supported. You
Speaker 1: can support the show by joining the film Spotting Family
Speaker 1: at film spottingfamily dot com. That way, you'll be able
Speaker 1: to listen early and ad free. You'll also get a
Speaker 1: weekly newsletter, monthly bonus episodes, and access to the entire
Speaker 1: show archive. For show t shirts and other merch you
Speaker 1: can go to filmspotting dot net slash shop.
Speaker 2: We did just discuss the apartment on episode ten twenty two.
Speaker 2: Double Indemnity was on episode eight ninety nine eight eighty
Speaker 2: nine excuse Me, part of the Summer of Stanwick Marathon,
Speaker 2: and back in twenty ten we did that Billy Wilder
Speaker 2: Marathon streaming this weekend. I wasn't that excited to see
Speaker 2: this movie, Josh as I started initially reading the blurb here,
Speaker 2: even though I love Eddie Murphy. Eddie Murphy and Pete
Speaker 2: Davidson are armored truck drivers who get ambushed by a
Speaker 2: group of ruthless criminals. But then I saw who that
Speaker 2: group of ruthless criminals was led by, and it's Keky Palmer.
Speaker 1: I know I was in the same boat. The screening
Speaker 1: invite came for this and I was like eh, and
Speaker 1: then oh, maybe I'll have to go to this couldn't
Speaker 1: make it work, but am intrigued and Keiky Palmer is
Speaker 1: reason enough to catch up with it at some point.
Speaker 2: And you can do that on Amazon Prime. In limited release,
Speaker 2: the new documentary from Amy J. Berg, who made deliver
Speaker 2: Us from Evil and Janics Little Girl Blue. It's about
Speaker 2: the singer songwriter immortalized by his cover of Leonard Cohones Hallelujah.
Speaker 2: Jeff Buckley the documentary is It's Never Over Jeff Buckley.
Speaker 2: My Mother's Wedding is also out. Three sisters return home
Speaker 2: for the third wedding of their twice widowed mother. It's
Speaker 2: directed by Kristin Scott Thomas and stars Scarlett, Joe Nansen,
Speaker 2: and Sienna Miller. In wide release, Freakier Friday, I'm told
Speaker 2: Josh that it's another Freaky Friday, but just a little
Speaker 2: bit freakier.
Speaker 1: I mean, how could it not be.
Speaker 2: Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan team up again. Weapons
Speaker 2: is also out. This is the new one from Zach Krager,
Speaker 2: who did twenty twenty two's Barbarian. Every kid but one
Speaker 2: from the same class vanish on the same night at
Speaker 2: the exact same time. Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, Alden aarn
Speaker 2: Reich and Benedict Wong. We are going to have to
Speaker 2: get to the bottom of why every kid but one
Speaker 2: vanishes from that class on the same night, at the
Speaker 2: same time, and talk about that next week. I'm definitely
Speaker 2: going to see the Jeff Buckley doc. We'll see what
Speaker 2: else comes up on next week's show.
Speaker 1: Film Spotting is produced by Golden, Joe Desso and Sam
Speaker 1: van Hoggren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show would
Speaker 1: it go? Our production assistant is Sophi Kempenier. Special thanks
Speaker 1: to everyone at WBEAZ Chicago. More information is available at
Speaker 1: wbez dot org. For films Spotting Night, Josh Larson and
Speaker 1: I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 3: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
Speaker 1: Good Bye.
Speaker 2: Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting Family
Speaker 2: at Filmspotting Family dot com and get access to ad
Speaker 2: free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and, for
Speaker 2: the first time, all in one place, the entire film
Speaker 2: Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five. That's
Speaker 2: a film Spotting Family dot com
Speaker 3: Panically