WEBVTT - Materialists, The Life of Chuck, Elio 0:00:03.880 --> 0:00:05.720 What kind of a show you guys. 0:00:05.440 --> 0:00:06.360 Putting on here today? 0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:07.520 You're not interested in art? 0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:07.920 Now? 0:00:08.080 --> 0:00:09.399 No, Look, we're going to do this thing. 0:00:09.400 --> 0:00:10.080 We're going to have a. 0:00:10.039 --> 0:00:16.320 Conversation from Chicago. This is Film Spotting celebrating our twentieth year. 0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:17.919 I'm Adam Kempenar. 0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:22.560 And I'm Josh Larson. In the material I'm probably not 0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:25.320 someone you want to date, because the next person I 0:00:25.400 --> 0:00:27.760 date I'm going to marry. Are you hitting on me? 0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:34.760 That's Dakota Johnson maybe hitting on Pedro Pascal in Materialists. 0:00:34.800 --> 0:00:38.360 The ram not so Calm from director Selene Song. It's 0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:41.280 her follow up to twenty twenty three's Past Lives. 0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:44.120 Our Review, plus the Stephen King adaptation The Life of 0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:47.920 Chuck starring Tom Hiddleston. That and more. Who's Chuck Ahead 0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:59.600 on Film Spotting, Welcome to Film Spotting. The audience award 0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:02.920 winner at last year's Toronto International Film Festival, The Life 0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:06.240 of Chuck is now in theaters. Seems like it might 0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:09.240 be having a hard time fighting an audience. It was 0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:13.720 buried in my Multiplex, in the very end of the aisle, 0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:15.040 in the smallest theater. 0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:18.880 Josh, Yeah, I saw it with maybe three or four 0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:21.600 other people, but it was a mid day, weekday showing, 0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.720 so I don't know, it wasn't aware that it was struggling, 0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:27.720 and maybe that's too bad. I guess we'll discuss. 0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:30.440 We will a review of that later in the show, 0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:33.600 and we'll get your thoughts on Pixar's Elo, which is 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:36.840 new in theaters this weekend. Plus we will have a 0:01:36.880 --> 0:01:42.319 little massacre theater, but first materialists. Selene Song's Past Lives 0:01:42.440 --> 0:01:44.440 was one of the stand up films of twenty twenty 0:01:44.440 --> 0:01:48.800 three and an incredibly promising debut. Her latest, which is 0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:52.360 now in wide release, is a love and money triangle 0:01:52.480 --> 0:01:56.200 with Dakota Johnson as a Manhattan matchmaker who's caught between 0:01:56.320 --> 0:02:01.280 rich guy Pedro Pascal and her broke former bow Chris Evans. 0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:03.400 Here's Johnson and Pascal. 0:02:04.280 --> 0:02:06.520 You look about six feet tall. How much money do 0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:06.800 you make? 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:10.880 Just straight up like that? I make eighty grand a 0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:12.679 year before Texas? 0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:14.600 Do you make more or less than that? 0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:16.080 More? 0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:16.800 I know? 0:02:18.160 --> 0:02:20.880 Finance right, private equity? 0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:22.640 Do you want to drink? 0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:23.600 Sure? 0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:24.359 What do you want? 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:26.480 Cochin beer? 0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:31.119 About a week ago on its Instagram, A twenty four 0:02:31.240 --> 0:02:35.480 posted Selene Song's email list of films that were references 0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:39.359 for Materialists. On it you will find multiple movies by 0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:44.840 James Ivory, James L. Brooks, Mike Lee, Mike Nichols, Jane Campion, 0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:48.760 Robert Altman, Joe Wright, Yeah, Both Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, 0:02:49.160 --> 0:02:52.800 a Pta, A Yang, and a few others. Under the 0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:58.400 heading movie about similar job as matchmakers were Jerry Maguire, Hale, 0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:03.160 Caesar and Money, A section that may require its own 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.800 show at some point. Curiously not on the list, well 0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:10.600 curious to me anyway, any mention of Woody Allen, I know, 0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:13.760 I might as well be summoning Voldemort. And while I 0:03:13.880 --> 0:03:16.640 know there are Alan films you appreciate, Josh, my hunch 0:03:16.720 --> 0:03:18.720 is that over the course of your sinophile life you 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:20.600 may not have been as big a fan of his 0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:26.320 work as I am. This prompt may then be quite dissatisfying. Nevertheless, 0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:30.760 the initial level on which Materialists satisfied me was the 0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:35.920 same as many Woody Allen movies, watching smart talkie characters 0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:40.280 saying smart things do each other against the beautiful backdrop 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:42.640 of New York City. With deference to David Wayne, it 0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:46.320 is almost another character, after all, and from the late 0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:52.440 seventies through the eighties, Allen's films, like Materialists, were mostly introspective, 0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:57.720 women centered movies about navigating love and desire and disappointment. 0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:02.120 Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, September, Another Woman, Purple Rosa, 0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:05.680 Cairo Broadway, Danny Rose, Alice. I might even be skipping 0:04:05.720 --> 0:04:08.440 one or two. I would not say everyone in Allen's 0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.240 films are bad people, just as I wouldn't say everyone 0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:14.480 in Songs film are bad people. But there's enough solipsism 0:04:14.600 --> 0:04:18.480 to go around, and sometimes both filmmakers are even in 0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:20.960 on the joke, taking shots at their fellow New Yorkers, 0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:24.440 such as the couple montages we get in Materialists, where 0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:28.560 Dakota Johnson's Lucy the matchmaker, her clients, with no hint 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:32.360 of self awareness whatsoever, tell her exactly what type of 0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:36.400 man or woman they want and deserve. Now, Josh, I'm 0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:39.719 not expecting you to go all in on the song 0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:43.600 Alan model I've attempted to establish here, though, of course 0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:46.560 you're free to accept or reject it. Mostly, I want 0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:51.200 you to tell me the level on which you appreciated Materialists, 0:04:51.640 --> 0:04:53.200 and how you felt about the movie. Overall. 0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:58.200 The Allen comparison is interesting. You are probably right. I'm 0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:01.560 not the person to ask about the validity of that 0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.040 have seen you know, some of his more important movies. 0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:08.280 He was a filmmaker when I first encountered him many 0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:10.680 many years ago before a lot of a lot of 0:05:10.960 --> 0:05:13.360 a lot of hell and stuff I just didn't immediately 0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:16.960 click with. And so by the time I, you know, 0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:19.240 felt like I need to give some films second chances 0:05:19.320 --> 0:05:21.880 or explore other ones, he kind of fell back to 0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:24.800 the bottom of the list of of you know, priorities. 0:05:25.160 --> 0:05:30.880 That said, I have seen Manhattan and immediately recognized it 0:05:30.920 --> 0:05:34.760 as brilliant, And I think that maybe one of the 0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:38.279 key comparison techs if you were going to do that exercise, 0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:40.760 I'll let you tell me Hannah and her Sisters I've 0:05:40.760 --> 0:05:45.480 also seen, but seems a little less a little less 0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:49.920 of a fruitful comparison point. What I think you know 0:05:49.960 --> 0:05:51.960 you're probably onto is one of the things, for sure, 0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:56.280 you said, the smart dialogue Materialists is so sharply written, 0:05:57.240 --> 0:05:59.800 maybe too sharply written for some of its cast, which 0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:02.360 will get to but I definitely think that's one of 0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:05.120 the strengths, and that's surely a strength of Allen's movies. 0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:10.880 I think the view of New York is cynically romantic, 0:06:11.680 --> 0:06:15.120 and you describe those montages well, of the New Yorkers 0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:18.960 exposing themselves and their vapidity in a way that Alan 0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:24.280 frequently would expose his own faults as a narcissistic pseudo 0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.920 intellectual in many ways. So they have that in common 0:06:27.960 --> 0:06:31.560 as well, the one key divergence, and maybe this can 0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:34.600 bring us more towards materialists that from the few Allen 0:06:34.680 --> 0:06:37.080 films New York sete Allen films I've seen is that 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:41.360 I do think over two films now Song has established 0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:45.560 herself as a romantic and I think that impulse is 0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:49.880 there in the Allen rom coms, if you want to 0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:56.479 say that I've seen, But ultimately his characters are incapable 0:06:56.920 --> 0:07:01.279 of sustaining romance. They want it, they desire it, and 0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:03.560 they may find it fleetingly. Again, I'm mostly thinking of 0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:07.160 Manhattan here, but I don't know that we ever believe 0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:10.559 they'll find it. And I think that past lives, while 0:07:10.680 --> 0:07:14.040 acknowledging the messiness and complexities in the same way Alan 0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:19.960 does of relationships, while acknowledging those things, still deeply believes 0:07:20.160 --> 0:07:29.480 in a romantic endpoint Materialists, I think brings us there 0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:32.560 in a way that I didn't find quite as convincing 0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:35.880 as Past Lives did. I think it's a good movie. 0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:39.720 I think it's worth seeing, and there are some limitations 0:07:39.760 --> 0:07:41.280 to it. Why for me it's not on the level 0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:43.880 of Past Lives for that matter, not in the level 0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:45.600 of Manhattan either. 0:07:46.080 --> 0:07:49.360 No, that's interesting. That take on Allan is interesting too, 0:07:49.400 --> 0:07:53.760 because Manhattan for me has maybe as conventionally a romantic 0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:56.800 ending as you could possibly have. And I might believe 0:07:56.920 --> 0:07:59.880 that ending actually more than I believe the ending here 0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:01.600 with material. 0:08:01.400 --> 0:08:03.600 That's key, right, do you believe in it? It's less 0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:08.320 about plotting and what we're left with? And Okay, do 0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:10.560 we believe this couple has a chance, do they deserve 0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:13.600 a chance? Can they possibly make it well? 0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:16.960 And beyond that, do I care? Really? Do I care? 0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:19.600 Is the key question? And this is one of those 0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:21.720 cases I will say, And this is the fun part 0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:26.360 of talking this out. Unlike you, who ninety five percent 0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:30.320 plus of the time you have written out your review 0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:32.520 before you come to the conversation, so you already have 0:08:32.840 --> 0:08:35.000 rated the movie. I have never done that. I have 0:08:35.040 --> 0:08:37.000 a rating in mind, and I usually stick to it, 0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:40.880 but I haven't had that occasion or that reason to 0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:44.840 do so. I usually know how I feel about the 0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:48.320 movie before the conversation, and like I said, I stick 0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:50.600 to that kind of gut reaction that I left the 0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:54.360 theater with. Here's the case, Josh, where overall I feel 0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:57.040 like I'm mildly positive about the movie, and that's how 0:08:57.080 --> 0:08:59.360 I felt coming out of the theater. But all of 0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:02.440 my notes, everything that I have to articulate about the film, 0:09:03.280 --> 0:09:06.319 it's all thoughts about why I'm not more positive about 0:09:06.320 --> 0:09:10.280 the film. And I've got a few negative comments here 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:12.880 and there, not from critics, but just a few commenters 0:09:12.960 --> 0:09:15.880 on social media who mostly seem upset that they got 0:09:15.920 --> 0:09:18.920 sold or expected. Who knows what the marketing was. I 0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:21.719 didn't see the trailer for the film, but they expected 0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:24.600 a rom com and they didn't get one. I have 0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:26.760 no issue with that. Again, I didn't see the marketing. 0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:30.480 I guess I do have a little issue though, with 0:09:30.720 --> 0:09:35.160 not having much rom I don't know. This goes back 0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:37.040 to what we were talking about. I don't know that 0:09:37.120 --> 0:09:41.600 at any point I ever cared whether Lucy ended up 0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:44.560 with either one of these guys. And part of that 0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:47.480 is because we're going to talk about other parts of it. 0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:49.800 But The first one I'll go with is part of 0:09:49.800 --> 0:09:52.800 that is that I never got the sense that Lucy 0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:55.959 herself felt much anguish about that. She never seemed to 0:09:56.000 --> 0:09:57.960 have much anguish about who she ended up with or 0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:00.680 whether she needed to end up with any one at all. 0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:03.240 It really felt more like the plot needed her to 0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:07.040 end up with someone. That's clearly the course the movie 0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:10.760 charted for her. This is partly I think to go 0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:13.640 to Johnson's performance too. But there's a coolness to her, 0:10:13.880 --> 0:10:17.040 There's a detachment to her that that does make her 0:10:17.440 --> 0:10:19.760 kind of mysterious and interesting, one of those kind of 0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:22.480 cool New Yorkers who I don't mind listening to. When 0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:24.920 she's having a conversation with someone, you are drawn to her, 0:10:25.240 --> 0:10:29.760 and it somewhat does heighten the emotional breakdown she has 0:10:29.840 --> 0:10:33.160 later over something that has no connection to her relationships, 0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:35.679 but that whole math thing that she always talks about. 0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:39.920 It makes her very clinical as a character and not 0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:43.599 so romantic, and I found that character in general. I 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:47.160 think I like Johnson's performance. I found the character a 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:49.360 bit hard to get a read on. And some of 0:10:49.400 --> 0:10:52.480 this I will acknowledge it could be me wanting to 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:55.720 simplify a character that actually on the page and on 0:10:55.760 --> 0:11:00.600 the screen is more complex, but she comes off as thisticated, 0:11:01.400 --> 0:11:04.840 very smart New Yorker who's been on the job so long, 0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:07.880 and she's all knowing and she's got that cynicism down. 0:11:09.080 --> 0:11:12.920 And then when she's in Pedro Pascal's apartment, that penthouse 0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:17.400 for the first time, this multimillion dollar penhouse, she acts 0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:20.319 like she's Cinderella who can't get over the chandeliers when 0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:23.840 she steps into Prince Charming's castle. You know, I didn't. 0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:24.840 I couldn't quite. 0:11:24.679 --> 0:11:29.440 Reconcile that this is fascinating because it's something I've been 0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:34.199 wrestling over thinking about materialists in comparison to past lives. 0:11:34.320 --> 0:11:39.960 Because the lead there, Greta Lee, I appreciated that performance 0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:43.839 quite a bit, but it was much more removed and 0:11:43.920 --> 0:11:48.040 in some ways clinical, than the performance of one of 0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:51.560 the male leads, Tail You, who played Heysong. I fell 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:53.920 head and over heels for Heysong, but he was more 0:11:53.960 --> 0:11:59.400 of the pining, romantic figure, right, And Greta Lee playing 0:11:59.800 --> 0:12:03.240 the main character, Nora, she was a little more hesitant 0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:05.800 about their potential relationships, a little more mercy. I think 0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:09.200 I described her even as mercenary and so in a 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:15.200 way we're describing two different types of people who have 0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:21.840 anchored past lives now and materialists. You know, so both 0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:24.960 of these films by Celine Song have women at their 0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:28.160 center who have some similarities. At least as you're describing it, 0:12:28.200 --> 0:12:32.920 I'm recognizing it, and it's starting to help me work through. 0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:36.360 I think that was part of my remove as well, 0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:39.559 with the character of Lucy in Materialists. But then you 0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:42.080 pair that and here's where I think we do differ. 0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:44.559 As I said, I thought Greta Lee gave a very 0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:49.400 good performance. I have long struggled with Dakota Johnson, and 0:12:49.520 --> 0:12:52.840 to my mind, I think why it doesn't work for 0:12:52.960 --> 0:12:55.640 me here in Materialists is because I don't think she 0:12:56.400 --> 0:12:59.360 has the ability to take a character that's a little 0:12:59.520 --> 0:13:02.560 more clin, little maybe more mercenary, a little more removed, 0:13:03.040 --> 0:13:07.200 and hint at the full human underneath, which Greta Lee 0:13:07.200 --> 0:13:10.440 was able to do. And I know some people love Johnson, 0:13:11.880 --> 0:13:19.000 and to me here I just found that the thinness 0:13:19.080 --> 0:13:22.080 that has always existed in her screen presence for me 0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:27.040 was especially stark when she was given such great dialogue 0:13:27.520 --> 0:13:32.160 and you could just hear how it should. In my mind, 0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:34.520 there are some lines she has here, including one I 0:13:34.559 --> 0:13:36.600 won't give away, but it's really the key line in 0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:40.760 the movie where I could hear in my head how 0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:46.200 it should be affecting me, but just Johnson's delivery, it 0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:49.480 was not landing. Now. I know people have defended her as, 0:13:49.880 --> 0:13:53.960 you know, a master of underplane, and I usually appreciate 0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:56.080 that type of acting style, you know, more than the 0:13:56.360 --> 0:14:02.400 in your face obviousness. But for me, she's somewhere in 0:14:02.480 --> 0:14:06.120 between those two, and there's just there's just not Here's 0:14:06.160 --> 0:14:07.760 the way I kind of thought about It's not so 0:14:07.840 --> 0:14:10.280 much about thinking about what she might be doing wrong here, 0:14:10.520 --> 0:14:13.640 but what a few other actors and materialists are doing right. Yes, 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:16.480 Pascal and Evans, I mean they almost carry her through 0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:19.480 this thing, they're so charming. But how about two smaller 0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:23.520 parts of women. These are both Lucy's clients. They only 0:14:23.560 --> 0:14:27.200 get brief scenes in Zoe Winters as a skiddish No, 0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:29.880 it's Louisa Jacobson, I should say, plays a skittish bride, 0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:32.480 and then Zoe Winters plays a client who gets a 0:14:32.480 --> 0:14:36.800 few more scenes than one because it's more complicated subplot. 0:14:36.960 --> 0:14:39.360 But really she's only on the screen. I think in 0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:42.440 maybe three scenes. Both of them. They pop on the 0:14:42.440 --> 0:14:46.640 screen immediately, and their characters you can imagine their entire 0:14:46.760 --> 0:14:50.600 lives with what they're giving you in those scenes. They 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:54.280 are interesting, they're complicated, they're compelling, they're messy. You want 0:14:54.280 --> 0:14:58.080 to know more about their stories. To your point, I 0:14:58.120 --> 0:15:02.360 don't know that I ever was equally invested in Lucy's story, 0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:05.440 even though Materialist is ostensibly her story. 0:15:05.720 --> 0:15:07.640 Yeah, I don't. I see what you're saying. But I 0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:11.800 also don't think that's completely fair because I think that comparison. 0:15:12.560 --> 0:15:17.360 When you have a part that really gives you one 0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:20.720 or two key scenes to dig into, and you know 0:15:20.800 --> 0:15:24.640 that that's all you have on screen, you're going to 0:15:24.680 --> 0:15:27.320 bring everything you have to that scene, and especially in 0:15:27.360 --> 0:15:30.080 the case of one of those scenes, it's it's the 0:15:30.120 --> 0:15:33.640 most emotional scene in the film. Dakota Johnson obviously can't 0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:35.720 bring that to every scene, but could she bring It's 0:15:35.760 --> 0:15:38.280 almost in could bring it to the key So that 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:40.440 that might be the part where we disagree a little bit. 0:15:40.560 --> 0:15:44.800 But but I think overall, we're we're seeing we're seeing 0:15:44.800 --> 0:15:47.560 a failing in the film. I'm just attributing it a 0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:50.320 little more, maybe to a Thinness I see overall in 0:15:50.360 --> 0:15:53.880 the film, and you're seeing it in Johnson. And the 0:15:53.920 --> 0:15:57.000 reason why I'm attributing it less to Johnson is just 0:15:57.000 --> 0:16:00.440 because overall as a performer, I have seen her in 0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:04.640 other parts, and I've given her credit in other parts 0:16:04.680 --> 0:16:08.640 for having such an easily accessible well of emotion. I 0:16:08.640 --> 0:16:12.400 think she is such an intelligent performer usually, and also 0:16:13.000 --> 0:16:15.760 her comedic chops she is such here again, She's such 0:16:15.760 --> 0:16:18.080 a smart performer. I think she can just so easily 0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:22.600 tap in. She has such good instincts usually that I've 0:16:22.640 --> 0:16:26.880 seen on screen. So I'm hesitant. I'm hesitant to put 0:16:26.880 --> 0:16:29.960 that blame for the thinness on her. And this is why, 0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:33.120 because other I have other aspects of that lack of 0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:35.560 romance and the lack of my investment that I think 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:39.440 go back to maybe just something in the screenplay and 0:16:39.640 --> 0:16:41.440 the direction. And I think we may even get at 0:16:41.520 --> 0:16:43.880 the line. I don't know what line you're referring to, 0:16:43.920 --> 0:16:46.840 but I have an idea that well, we'll get to 0:16:46.920 --> 0:16:49.360 here in a second. So you mentioned Evans and Pascal 0:16:49.520 --> 0:16:51.720 here again. Is it a question, josh of is that 0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:55.680 the performers, Is that the script itself? When I said 0:16:56.160 --> 0:16:59.600 that I had no investment in this romance and this 0:16:59.680 --> 0:17:04.840 love try in these relationships. Neither of these men on 0:17:04.920 --> 0:17:08.680 their own are interesting beyond what they represent. 0:17:08.880 --> 0:17:09.040 Right. 0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:13.560 Pascal is a really good actor, and I think he 0:17:13.600 --> 0:17:18.040 probably does everything he can with this character. But after 0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:21.280 his big scene in the restaurant where he gets to 0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:24.840 push back on Lucy and he gets to make his 0:17:24.960 --> 0:17:28.680 pitch to her to see her more seriously, does he 0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:31.679 have does he actually have another Well, except for the 0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.320 scene at the end, there are other big scenes. Does 0:17:34.359 --> 0:17:37.800 he have another scene of substance in the rest of 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:41.879 the film. I don't think he does. He mostly is 0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:44.680 the guy who picks up the beer tab or picks 0:17:44.760 --> 0:17:47.760 up another tab, or is the guy watching Chris Evan's 0:17:47.800 --> 0:17:50.439 play that he doesn't get, or he's just laying in 0:17:50.520 --> 0:17:53.439 bed the entire rest of the film. He doesn't do 0:17:53.480 --> 0:17:56.320 anything else of substance. The rest of the film. He's 0:17:56.359 --> 0:17:58.040 the guy doing all those things I said, or the 0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:00.760 guy offering to take her to ice. He is a 0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:05.640 stereotypical finance bro, and the only thing that makes him interesting, 0:18:06.359 --> 0:18:09.120 as the film puts him forward, is that he doesn't 0:18:09.119 --> 0:18:12.520 seem interested for being a finance bro. He doesn't seem 0:18:12.560 --> 0:18:15.959 interested in dating supermodels, even though, of course Dakota Johnson 0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:18.679 is kind of a supermodel. He is rich guy. He 0:18:18.760 --> 0:18:20.679 is a rich guy, and that's it. And Evans, of 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:23.359 course is poor guy who happens to be an actor. 0:18:23.400 --> 0:18:25.679 And I suppose that inherently makes him a little bit 0:18:25.720 --> 0:18:28.480 more interesting, right to me and probably to you than 0:18:28.560 --> 0:18:31.640 finance dude. But that's just my bias. We don't really 0:18:31.680 --> 0:18:34.679 know much about him other than that he's poor and 0:18:34.720 --> 0:18:37.760 he's an actor, and that he loves Lucy and the 0:18:37.800 --> 0:18:39.479 other thing we know about him. And I think this 0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:42.159 is where Song stacks the deck a little bit and 0:18:42.280 --> 0:18:46.640 also really removes any potential for suspense, if there was any. 0:18:47.200 --> 0:18:50.679 Is that when Lucy gets into some trouble, she doesn't 0:18:50.680 --> 0:18:52.879 go to Harry, she doesn't say anything to him. She 0:18:52.960 --> 0:18:56.040 calls John. And is that really because John is so 0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:59.080 much of a better listener. Would Harry not listen? What 0:18:59.240 --> 0:19:02.159 Harry not offered advice if she was seeking it? Don't know. 0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:06.200 Maybe she's just more comfortable with John, so that's who 0:19:06.240 --> 0:19:08.000 she turns to, right But the fact that she turns 0:19:08.040 --> 0:19:10.040 to him tells us everything we need to know about 0:19:10.040 --> 0:19:10.879 where this is going. 0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:13.959 Yeah, I had a little hiccup over that decision, but 0:19:14.119 --> 0:19:17.560 I do think I think because immediately preceding it, she 0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:21.040 has a conversation with John that is about the same 0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:24.440 topic and he's not on the same wavelength as. 0:19:25.080 --> 0:19:26.320 Ants, and that he's not perfect. 0:19:26.640 --> 0:19:30.480 Yes, yes, And so I did hesitate over that, but 0:19:30.520 --> 0:19:33.159 I do think it makes sense. This is part of 0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:36.800 her processing of what she feels about Harry, and so 0:19:37.119 --> 0:19:41.240 even if it doesn't make necessarily logical emotional sense, it 0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:44.360 makes like the deeper level of emotional sense to her 0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:47.280 to reach out to him. So it was a little 0:19:47.280 --> 0:19:49.600 bit of a hiccup scene. And it's interesting because, you know, 0:19:49.680 --> 0:19:50.960 just to go back real brief that I don't have 0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:52.919 a ton to say about this, but this whole question 0:19:52.960 --> 0:19:54.680 of it's not a rom com, what are they doing 0:19:54.720 --> 0:19:58.639 to us? You know? I think one of the strengths 0:19:58.640 --> 0:20:02.000 of Materialists is the way it bends any romantic comedy expectations, 0:20:02.040 --> 0:20:06.120 not just not just by becoming this serious drama, but 0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:10.680 by bending our expectations towards something more serious. And this 0:20:10.760 --> 0:20:13.600 little moment we're discussing right now as an example of that, 0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:16.560 because that's how we usually watch rom coms, right they're 0:20:16.680 --> 0:20:20.240 very judgy movies. We as the audience are very judgy. 0:20:20.320 --> 0:20:23.880 We're always asking, you know, why should she choose him? 0:20:24.040 --> 0:20:26.600 She should choose him? Wait, why is she doing making 0:20:26.600 --> 0:20:29.480 this decision? Why is she making that decision? And I 0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:32.800 believe that song is after something more subtle and complicated, 0:20:33.880 --> 0:20:40.480 and so she's bending those expectations in little choices like that. Okay, 0:20:40.520 --> 0:20:43.119 I've got to defend these two though, I do want to. 0:20:43.280 --> 0:20:44.960 I know we've referenced their names, but now I do 0:20:45.000 --> 0:20:47.280 want to look on their IMDb page and see if 0:20:47.280 --> 0:20:50.320 they're credited as just rich guy. They could be. 0:20:51.600 --> 0:20:54.840 Harry and John are pretty boring names too. Sorry, tell 0:20:54.880 --> 0:20:57.000 the Harry and John's out there. 0:20:56.800 --> 0:21:03.040 You're not wrong. I think they are types for sure, 0:21:04.160 --> 0:21:06.960 but it's those types are bent in the same way 0:21:07.400 --> 0:21:11.160 the genre is being bent. And here I will credit 0:21:11.280 --> 0:21:14.480 again the writing. I think some of the dialogue is 0:21:14.520 --> 0:21:17.199 pretty exquisite, that each men are given in certain scenes 0:21:17.240 --> 0:21:21.400 and the performances here is where maybe I didn't believe 0:21:21.560 --> 0:21:23.840 in Harry as like a real human in the real 0:21:23.880 --> 0:21:28.120 world or John necessarily, but I wanted to spend more 0:21:28.160 --> 0:21:32.560 time with them. I wanted to see how they did 0:21:32.640 --> 0:21:37.800 respond to Lucy and which relationship would go where? And 0:21:37.880 --> 0:21:40.639 I think, you know, I think you're under selling the 0:21:40.680 --> 0:21:44.639 two key scenes that Pascal has his introduction, which is fantastic, 0:21:45.359 --> 0:21:49.800 That whole the whole meat. It's not even cute, it's 0:21:50.119 --> 0:21:53.560 just meat. Charming at the wedding, I think works and 0:21:53.920 --> 0:21:56.720 establishes him as something more than just rich guy. Okay, 0:21:56.760 --> 0:22:00.440 he does have these other interests, why does he passop 0:22:00.520 --> 0:22:04.399 these opportunities that he has that you're mentioning. There's curiosity 0:22:04.400 --> 0:22:07.080 there at least for me. And then the later scene, 0:22:07.240 --> 0:22:09.560 which does give away a lot, so we don't want 0:22:09.600 --> 0:22:11.400 to get too much into it, but I think that's 0:22:11.440 --> 0:22:15.480 where Harry just opens up into You're right, this guy 0:22:15.760 --> 0:22:18.720 who we thought we had pegged is so much more. 0:22:19.200 --> 0:22:22.000 And in between, is it a lot of you know, 0:22:22.119 --> 0:22:24.639 Richard gear and pretty woman montage? Yes, that's the thing. 0:22:24.680 --> 0:22:27.119 It's a little too late, but you know what, I 0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:29.360 was having fun in that montage. I wanted to see 0:22:29.359 --> 0:22:31.200 what restaurant he was going to take us to next. 0:22:32.119 --> 0:22:38.560 Now Evans. For Evans, I think his character is maybe 0:22:38.600 --> 0:22:42.600 even more thinly written. But there's something about the way 0:22:42.680 --> 0:22:47.399 Evans looks at Dakota Johnson, that makes you believe I 0:22:47.440 --> 0:22:52.560