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.
Speaker 4: We're going to have a.
Speaker 2: Conversation from Chicago. This is Film Spotting celebrating our twentieth year.
Speaker 2: I'm Adam Kempenar.
Speaker 1: And I'm Josh Larson. In the material I'm probably not
Speaker 1: someone you want to date, because the next person I
Speaker 1: date I'm going to marry. Are you hitting on me?
Speaker 1: That's Dakota Johnson maybe hitting on Pedro Pascal in Materialists.
Speaker 1: The ram not so Calm from director Selene Song. It's
Speaker 1: her follow up to twenty twenty three's Past Lives.
Speaker 2: Our Review, plus the Stephen King adaptation The Life of
Speaker 2: Chuck starring Tom Hiddleston. That and more. Who's Chuck Ahead
Speaker 2: on Film Spotting, Welcome to Film Spotting. The audience award
Speaker 2: winner at last year's Toronto International Film Festival, The Life
Speaker 2: of Chuck is now in theaters. Seems like it might
Speaker 2: be having a hard time fighting an audience. It was
Speaker 2: buried in my Multiplex, in the very end of the aisle,
Speaker 2: in the smallest theater.
Speaker 1: Josh, Yeah, I saw it with maybe three or four
Speaker 1: other people, but it was a mid day, weekday showing,
Speaker 1: so I don't know, it wasn't aware that it was struggling,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's too bad. I guess we'll discuss.
Speaker 2: We will a review of that later in the show,
Speaker 2: and we'll get your thoughts on Pixar's Elo, which is
Speaker 2: new in theaters this weekend. Plus we will have a
Speaker 2: little massacre theater, but first materialists. Selene Song's Past Lives
Speaker 2: was one of the stand up films of twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three and an incredibly promising debut. Her latest, which is
Speaker 2: now in wide release, is a love and money triangle
Speaker 2: with Dakota Johnson as a Manhattan matchmaker who's caught between
Speaker 2: rich guy Pedro Pascal and her broke former bow Chris Evans.
Speaker 2: Here's Johnson and Pascal.
Speaker 5: You look about six feet tall. How much money do
Speaker 5: you make?
Speaker 1: Just straight up like that? I make eighty grand a
Speaker 1: year before Texas?
Speaker 5: Do you make more or less than that?
Speaker 1: More?
Speaker 4: I know?
Speaker 1: Finance right, private equity?
Speaker 4: Do you want to drink?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: What do you want?
Speaker 5: Cochin beer?
Speaker 2: About a week ago on its Instagram, A twenty four
Speaker 2: posted Selene Song's email list of films that were references
Speaker 2: for Materialists. On it you will find multiple movies by
Speaker 2: James Ivory, James L. Brooks, Mike Lee, Mike Nichols, Jane Campion,
Speaker 2: Robert Altman, Joe Wright, Yeah, Both Pride and Prejudice and Atonement,
Speaker 2: a Pta, A Yang, and a few others. Under the
Speaker 2: heading movie about similar job as matchmakers were Jerry Maguire, Hale,
Speaker 2: Caesar and Money, A section that may require its own
Speaker 2: show at some point. Curiously not on the list, well
Speaker 2: curious to me anyway, any mention of Woody Allen, I know,
Speaker 2: I might as well be summoning Voldemort. And while I
Speaker 2: know there are Alan films you appreciate, Josh, my hunch
Speaker 2: is that over the course of your sinophile life you
Speaker 2: may not have been as big a fan of his
Speaker 2: work as I am. This prompt may then be quite dissatisfying. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: the initial level on which Materialists satisfied me was the
Speaker 2: same as many Woody Allen movies, watching smart talkie characters
Speaker 2: saying smart things do each other against the beautiful backdrop
Speaker 2: of New York City. With deference to David Wayne, it
Speaker 2: is almost another character, after all, and from the late
Speaker 2: seventies through the eighties, Allen's films, like Materialists, were mostly introspective,
Speaker 2: women centered movies about navigating love and desire and disappointment.
Speaker 2: Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, September, Another Woman, Purple Rosa,
Speaker 2: Cairo Broadway, Danny Rose, Alice. I might even be skipping
Speaker 2: one or two. I would not say everyone in Allen's
Speaker 2: films are bad people, just as I wouldn't say everyone
Speaker 2: in Songs film are bad people. But there's enough solipsism
Speaker 2: to go around, and sometimes both filmmakers are even in
Speaker 2: on the joke, taking shots at their fellow New Yorkers,
Speaker 2: such as the couple montages we get in Materialists, where
Speaker 2: Dakota Johnson's Lucy the matchmaker, her clients, with no hint
Speaker 2: of self awareness whatsoever, tell her exactly what type of
Speaker 2: man or woman they want and deserve. Now, Josh, I'm
Speaker 2: not expecting you to go all in on the song
Speaker 2: Alan model I've attempted to establish here, though, of course
Speaker 2: you're free to accept or reject it. Mostly, I want
Speaker 2: you to tell me the level on which you appreciated Materialists,
Speaker 2: and how you felt about the movie. Overall.
Speaker 1: The Allen comparison is interesting. You are probably right. I'm
Speaker 1: not the person to ask about the validity of that
Speaker 1: have seen you know, some of his more important movies.
Speaker 1: He was a filmmaker when I first encountered him many
Speaker 1: many years ago before a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of hell and stuff I just didn't immediately
Speaker 1: click with. And so by the time I, you know,
Speaker 1: felt like I need to give some films second chances
Speaker 1: or explore other ones, he kind of fell back to
Speaker 1: the bottom of the list of of you know, priorities.
Speaker 1: That said, I have seen Manhattan and immediately recognized it
Speaker 1: as brilliant, And I think that maybe one of the
Speaker 1: key comparison techs if you were going to do that exercise,
Speaker 1: I'll let you tell me Hannah and her Sisters I've
Speaker 1: also seen, but seems a little less a little less
Speaker 1: of a fruitful comparison point. What I think you know
Speaker 1: you're probably onto is one of the things, for sure,
Speaker 1: you said, the smart dialogue Materialists is so sharply written,
Speaker 1: maybe too sharply written for some of its cast, which
Speaker 1: will get to but I definitely think that's one of
Speaker 1: the strengths, and that's surely a strength of Allen's movies.
Speaker 1: I think the view of New York is cynically romantic,
Speaker 1: and you describe those montages well, of the New Yorkers
Speaker 1: exposing themselves and their vapidity in a way that Alan
Speaker 1: frequently would expose his own faults as a narcissistic pseudo
Speaker 1: intellectual in many ways. So they have that in common
Speaker 1: as well, the one key divergence, and maybe this can
Speaker 1: bring us more towards materialists that from the few Allen
Speaker 1: films New York sete Allen films I've seen is that
Speaker 1: I do think over two films now Song has established
Speaker 1: herself as a romantic and I think that impulse is
Speaker 1: there in the Allen rom coms, if you want to
Speaker 1: say that I've seen, But ultimately his characters are incapable
Speaker 1: of sustaining romance. They want it, they desire it, and
Speaker 1: they may find it fleetingly. Again, I'm mostly thinking of
Speaker 1: Manhattan here, but I don't know that we ever believe
Speaker 1: they'll find it. And I think that past lives, while
Speaker 1: acknowledging the messiness and complexities in the same way Alan
Speaker 1: does of relationships, while acknowledging those things, still deeply believes
Speaker 1: in a romantic endpoint Materialists, I think brings us there
Speaker 1: in a way that I didn't find quite as convincing
Speaker 1: as Past Lives did. I think it's a good movie.
Speaker 1: I think it's worth seeing, and there are some limitations
Speaker 1: to it. Why for me it's not on the level
Speaker 1: of Past Lives for that matter, not in the level
Speaker 1: of Manhattan either.
Speaker 2: No, that's interesting. That take on Allan is interesting too,
Speaker 2: because Manhattan for me has maybe as conventionally a romantic
Speaker 2: ending as you could possibly have. And I might believe
Speaker 2: that ending actually more than I believe the ending here
Speaker 2: with material.
Speaker 1: That's key, right, do you believe in it? It's less
Speaker 1: about plotting and what we're left with? And Okay, do
Speaker 1: we believe this couple has a chance, do they deserve
Speaker 1: a chance? Can they possibly make it well?
Speaker 2: And beyond that, do I care? Really? Do I care?
Speaker 2: Is the key question? And this is one of those
Speaker 2: cases I will say, And this is the fun part
Speaker 2: of talking this out. Unlike you, who ninety five percent
Speaker 2: plus of the time you have written out your review
Speaker 2: before you come to the conversation, so you already have
Speaker 2: rated the movie. I have never done that. I have
Speaker 2: a rating in mind, and I usually stick to it,
Speaker 2: but I haven't had that occasion or that reason to
Speaker 2: do so. I usually know how I feel about the
Speaker 2: movie before the conversation, and like I said, I stick
Speaker 2: to that kind of gut reaction that I left the
Speaker 2: theater with. Here's the case, Josh, where overall I feel
Speaker 2: like I'm mildly positive about the movie, and that's how
Speaker 2: I felt coming out of the theater. But all of
Speaker 2: my notes, everything that I have to articulate about the film,
Speaker 2: it's all thoughts about why I'm not more positive about
Speaker 2: the film. And I've got a few negative comments here
Speaker 2: and there, not from critics, but just a few commenters
Speaker 2: on social media who mostly seem upset that they got
Speaker 2: sold or expected. Who knows what the marketing was. I
Speaker 2: didn't see the trailer for the film, but they expected
Speaker 2: a rom com and they didn't get one. I have
Speaker 2: no issue with that. Again, I didn't see the marketing.
Speaker 2: I guess I do have a little issue though, with
Speaker 2: not having much rom I don't know. This goes back
Speaker 2: to what we were talking about. I don't know that
Speaker 2: at any point I ever cared whether Lucy ended up
Speaker 2: with either one of these guys. And part of that
Speaker 2: is because we're going to talk about other parts of it.
Speaker 2: But The first one I'll go with is part of
Speaker 2: that is that I never got the sense that Lucy
Speaker 2: herself felt much anguish about that. She never seemed to
Speaker 2: have much anguish about who she ended up with or
Speaker 2: whether she needed to end up with any one at all.
Speaker 2: It really felt more like the plot needed her to
Speaker 2: end up with someone. That's clearly the course the movie
Speaker 2: charted for her. This is partly I think to go
Speaker 2: to Johnson's performance too. But there's a coolness to her,
Speaker 2: There's a detachment to her that that does make her
Speaker 2: kind of mysterious and interesting, one of those kind of
Speaker 2: cool New Yorkers who I don't mind listening to. When
Speaker 2: she's having a conversation with someone, you are drawn to her,
Speaker 2: and it somewhat does heighten the emotional breakdown she has
Speaker 2: later over something that has no connection to her relationships,
Speaker 2: but that whole math thing that she always talks about.
Speaker 2: It makes her very clinical as a character and not
Speaker 2: so romantic, and I found that character in general. I
Speaker 2: think I like Johnson's performance. I found the character a
Speaker 2: bit hard to get a read on. And some of
Speaker 2: this I will acknowledge it could be me wanting to
Speaker 2: simplify a character that actually on the page and on
Speaker 2: the screen is more complex, but she comes off as thisticated,
Speaker 2: very smart New Yorker who's been on the job so long,
Speaker 2: and she's all knowing and she's got that cynicism down.
Speaker 2: And then when she's in Pedro Pascal's apartment, that penthouse
Speaker 2: for the first time, this multimillion dollar penhouse, she acts
Speaker 2: like she's Cinderella who can't get over the chandeliers when
Speaker 2: she steps into Prince Charming's castle. You know, I didn't.
Speaker 2: I couldn't quite.
Speaker 1: Reconcile that this is fascinating because it's something I've been
Speaker 1: wrestling over thinking about materialists in comparison to past lives.
Speaker 1: Because the lead there, Greta Lee, I appreciated that performance
Speaker 1: quite a bit, but it was much more removed and
Speaker 1: in some ways clinical, than the performance of one of
Speaker 1: the male leads, Tail You, who played Heysong. I fell
Speaker 1: head and over heels for Heysong, but he was more
Speaker 1: of the pining, romantic figure, right, And Greta Lee playing
Speaker 1: the main character, Nora, she was a little more hesitant
Speaker 1: about their potential relationships, a little more mercy. I think
Speaker 1: I described her even as mercenary and so in a
Speaker 1: way we're describing two different types of people who have
Speaker 1: anchored past lives now and materialists. You know, so both
Speaker 1: of these films by Celine Song have women at their
Speaker 1: center who have some similarities. At least as you're describing it,
Speaker 1: I'm recognizing it, and it's starting to help me work through.
Speaker 1: I think that was part of my remove as well,
Speaker 1: with the character of Lucy in Materialists. But then you
Speaker 1: pair that and here's where I think we do differ.
Speaker 1: As I said, I thought Greta Lee gave a very
Speaker 1: good performance. I have long struggled with Dakota Johnson, and
Speaker 1: to my mind, I think why it doesn't work for
Speaker 1: me here in Materialists is because I don't think she
Speaker 1: has the ability to take a character that's a little
Speaker 1: more clin, little maybe more mercenary, a little more removed,
Speaker 1: and hint at the full human underneath, which Greta Lee
Speaker 1: was able to do. And I know some people love Johnson,
Speaker 1: and to me here I just found that the thinness
Speaker 1: that has always existed in her screen presence for me
Speaker 1: was especially stark when she was given such great dialogue
Speaker 1: and you could just hear how it should. In my mind,
Speaker 1: there are some lines she has here, including one I
Speaker 1: won't give away, but it's really the key line in
Speaker 1: the movie where I could hear in my head how
Speaker 1: it should be affecting me, but just Johnson's delivery, it
Speaker 1: was not landing. Now. I know people have defended her as,
Speaker 1: you know, a master of underplane, and I usually appreciate
Speaker 1: that type of acting style, you know, more than the
Speaker 1: in your face obviousness. But for me, she's somewhere in
Speaker 1: between those two, and there's just there's just not Here's
Speaker 1: the way I kind of thought about It's not so
Speaker 1: much about thinking about what she might be doing wrong here,
Speaker 1: but what a few other actors and materialists are doing right. Yes,
Speaker 1: Pascal and Evans, I mean they almost carry her through
Speaker 1: this thing, they're so charming. But how about two smaller
Speaker 1: parts of women. These are both Lucy's clients. They only
Speaker 1: get brief scenes in Zoe Winters as a skiddish No,
Speaker 1: it's Louisa Jacobson, I should say, plays a skittish bride,
Speaker 1: and then Zoe Winters plays a client who gets a
Speaker 1: few more scenes than one because it's more complicated subplot.
Speaker 1: But really she's only on the screen. I think in
Speaker 1: maybe three scenes. Both of them. They pop on the
Speaker 1: screen immediately, and their characters you can imagine their entire
Speaker 1: lives with what they're giving you in those scenes. They
Speaker 1: are interesting, they're complicated, they're compelling, they're messy. You want
Speaker 1: to know more about their stories. To your point, I
Speaker 1: don't know that I ever was equally invested in Lucy's story,
Speaker 1: even though Materialist is ostensibly her story.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't. I see what you're saying. But I
Speaker 2: also don't think that's completely fair because I think that comparison.
Speaker 2: When you have a part that really gives you one
Speaker 2: or two key scenes to dig into, and you know
Speaker 2: that that's all you have on screen, you're going to
Speaker 2: bring everything you have to that scene, and especially in
Speaker 2: the case of one of those scenes, it's it's the
Speaker 2: most emotional scene in the film. Dakota Johnson obviously can't
Speaker 2: bring that to every scene, but could she bring It's
Speaker 2: almost in could bring it to the key So that
Speaker 2: that might be the part where we disagree a little bit.
Speaker 2: But but I think overall, we're we're seeing we're seeing
Speaker 2: a failing in the film. I'm just attributing it a
Speaker 2: little more, maybe to a Thinness I see overall in
Speaker 2: the film, and you're seeing it in Johnson. And the
Speaker 2: reason why I'm attributing it less to Johnson is just
Speaker 2: because overall as a performer, I have seen her in
Speaker 2: other parts, and I've given her credit in other parts
Speaker 2: for having such an easily accessible well of emotion. I
Speaker 2: think she is such an intelligent performer usually, and also
Speaker 2: her comedic chops she is such here again, She's such
Speaker 2: a smart performer. I think she can just so easily
Speaker 2: tap in. She has such good instincts usually that I've
Speaker 2: seen on screen. So I'm hesitant. I'm hesitant to put
Speaker 2: that blame for the thinness on her. And this is why,
Speaker 2: because other I have other aspects of that lack of
Speaker 2: romance and the lack of my investment that I think
Speaker 2: go back to maybe just something in the screenplay and
Speaker 2: the direction. And I think we may even get at
Speaker 2: the line. I don't know what line you're referring to,
Speaker 2: but I have an idea that well, we'll get to
Speaker 2: here in a second. So you mentioned Evans and Pascal
Speaker 2: here again. Is it a question, josh of is that
Speaker 2: the performers, Is that the script itself? When I said
Speaker 2: that I had no investment in this romance and this
Speaker 2: love try in these relationships. Neither of these men on
Speaker 2: their own are interesting beyond what they represent.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Pascal is a really good actor, and I think he
Speaker 2: probably does everything he can with this character. But after
Speaker 2: his big scene in the restaurant where he gets to
Speaker 2: push back on Lucy and he gets to make his
Speaker 2: pitch to her to see her more seriously, does he
Speaker 2: have does he actually have another Well, except for the
Speaker 2: scene at the end, there are other big scenes. Does
Speaker 2: he have another scene of substance in the rest of
Speaker 2: the film. I don't think he does. He mostly is
Speaker 2: the guy who picks up the beer tab or picks
Speaker 2: up another tab, or is the guy watching Chris Evan's
Speaker 2: play that he doesn't get, or he's just laying in
Speaker 2: bed the entire rest of the film. He doesn't do
Speaker 2: anything else of substance. The rest of the film. He's
Speaker 2: the guy doing all those things I said, or the
Speaker 2: guy offering to take her to ice. He is a
Speaker 2: stereotypical finance bro, and the only thing that makes him interesting,
Speaker 2: as the film puts him forward, is that he doesn't
Speaker 2: seem interested for being a finance bro. He doesn't seem
Speaker 2: interested in dating supermodels, even though, of course Dakota Johnson
Speaker 2: is kind of a supermodel. He is rich guy. He
Speaker 2: is a rich guy, and that's it. And Evans, of
Speaker 2: course is poor guy who happens to be an actor.
Speaker 2: And I suppose that inherently makes him a little bit
Speaker 2: more interesting, right to me and probably to you than
Speaker 2: finance dude. But that's just my bias. We don't really
Speaker 2: know much about him other than that he's poor and
Speaker 2: he's an actor, and that he loves Lucy and the
Speaker 2: other thing we know about him. And I think this
Speaker 2: is where Song stacks the deck a little bit and
Speaker 2: also really removes any potential for suspense, if there was any.
Speaker 2: Is that when Lucy gets into some trouble, she doesn't
Speaker 2: go to Harry, she doesn't say anything to him. She
Speaker 2: calls John. And is that really because John is so
Speaker 2: much of a better listener. Would Harry not listen? What
Speaker 2: Harry not offered advice if she was seeking it? Don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe she's just more comfortable with John, so that's who
Speaker 2: she turns to, right But the fact that she turns
Speaker 2: to him tells us everything we need to know about
Speaker 2: where this is going.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I had a little hiccup over that decision, but
Speaker 1: I do think I think because immediately preceding it, she
Speaker 1: has a conversation with John that is about the same
Speaker 1: topic and he's not on the same wavelength as.
Speaker 2: Ants, and that he's not perfect.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, And so I did hesitate over that, but
Speaker 1: I do think it makes sense. This is part of
Speaker 1: her processing of what she feels about Harry, and so
Speaker 1: even if it doesn't make necessarily logical emotional sense, it
Speaker 1: makes like the deeper level of emotional sense to her
Speaker 1: to reach out to him. So it was a little
Speaker 1: bit of a hiccup scene. And it's interesting because, you know,
Speaker 1: just to go back real brief that I don't have
Speaker 1: a ton to say about this, but this whole question
Speaker 1: of it's not a rom com, what are they doing
Speaker 1: to us? You know? I think one of the strengths
Speaker 1: of Materialists is the way it bends any romantic comedy expectations,
Speaker 1: not just not just by becoming this serious drama, but
Speaker 1: by bending our expectations towards something more serious. And this
Speaker 1: little moment we're discussing right now as an example of that,
Speaker 1: because that's how we usually watch rom coms, right they're
Speaker 1: very judgy movies. We as the audience are very judgy.
Speaker 1: We're always asking, you know, why should she choose him?
Speaker 1: She should choose him? Wait, why is she doing making
Speaker 1: this decision? Why is she making that decision? And I
Speaker 1: believe that song is after something more subtle and complicated,
Speaker 1: and so she's bending those expectations in little choices like that. Okay,
Speaker 1: I've got to defend these two though, I do want to.
Speaker 1: I know we've referenced their names, but now I do
Speaker 1: want to look on their IMDb page and see if
Speaker 1: they're credited as just rich guy. They could be.
Speaker 2: Harry and John are pretty boring names too. Sorry, tell
Speaker 2: the Harry and John's out there.
Speaker 1: You're not wrong. I think they are types for sure,
Speaker 1: but it's those types are bent in the same way
Speaker 1: the genre is being bent. And here I will credit
Speaker 1: again the writing. I think some of the dialogue is
Speaker 1: pretty exquisite, that each men are given in certain scenes
Speaker 1: and the performances here is where maybe I didn't believe
Speaker 1: in Harry as like a real human in the real
Speaker 1: world or John necessarily, but I wanted to spend more
Speaker 1: time with them. I wanted to see how they did
Speaker 1: respond to Lucy and which relationship would go where? And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, I think you're under selling the
Speaker 1: two key scenes that Pascal has his introduction, which is fantastic,
Speaker 1: That whole the whole meat. It's not even cute, it's
Speaker 1: just meat. Charming at the wedding, I think works and
Speaker 1: establishes him as something more than just rich guy. Okay,
Speaker 1: he does have these other interests, why does he passop
Speaker 1: these opportunities that he has that you're mentioning. There's curiosity
Speaker 1: there at least for me. And then the later scene,
Speaker 1: which does give away a lot, so we don't want
Speaker 1: to get too much into it, but I think that's
Speaker 1: where Harry just opens up into You're right, this guy
Speaker 1: who we thought we had pegged is so much more.
Speaker 1: And in between, is it a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: Richard gear and pretty woman montage? Yes, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's a little too late, but you know what, I
Speaker 1: was having fun in that montage. I wanted to see
Speaker 1: what restaurant he was going to take us to next.
Speaker 1: Now Evans. For Evans, I think his character is maybe
Speaker 1: even more thinly written. But there's something about the way
Speaker 1: Evans looks at Dakota Johnson, that makes you believe I
Speaker 1: agree with that something there, and b we want to
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen to the two of them.
Speaker 1: So that's just charisma of a sort that this movie
Speaker 1: is is demanding, and I think he delivers. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I guess for me, there was there was hope with Pascal,
Speaker 2: especially after that fun introduction, the meet cute, whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call it. As you said that, I really
Speaker 2: hoped that the first thing he'd say to her after
Speaker 2: he finally does convince her and after they do take
Speaker 2: their relationship to the next level, that the first thing
Speaker 2: he would say to her isn't let me take you
Speaker 2: to Iceland. That basically he wouldn't just continue to buy her,
Speaker 2: which is really what he's doing, you know, And it
Speaker 2: just me suggested to me, Yeah, money, the movie's called Materialists,
Speaker 2: I get it. I know what the central conflict is.
Speaker 2: I wish that that character had a chance to show
Speaker 2: that there was something more to him than that. You
Speaker 2: said you wanted to spend more time with him. I
Speaker 2: did too, but mainly because I wanted to see I
Speaker 2: wanted the movie to prove to me that there was
Speaker 2: something more to them.
Speaker 1: But that scene between I'm near.
Speaker 2: And not saying the one at the end, and I'm
Speaker 2: saying I'm saying yes at that point, just two little
Speaker 2: so you said subtlety. So that's the other. That's the
Speaker 2: other thing that I want to talk about a little bit.
Speaker 2: And up to this point I haven't really made the
Speaker 2: comparison to Pass Lives, though. Both of the key things
Speaker 2: I've brought up could be comparisons to Pass Lives, right,
Speaker 2: not feeling that there was enough of a romantic connection
Speaker 2: between the three main characters, not feeling that there was
Speaker 2: enough of a conflict over who she would end up
Speaker 2: with or who she should end up with, not feeling
Speaker 2: that the characters had enough depth on their own. Those
Speaker 2: were not issues with Past Lives for me, certainly. The
Speaker 2: other non issue with Past Lives that I struggled with
Speaker 2: here a little bit is that was a movie, maybe
Speaker 2: because of everything else that I just mentioned, that was
Speaker 2: a movie that mined the spaces in between, the physical
Speaker 2: spaces in between characters, the space between what said and unsaid.
Speaker 2: We got to do a lot of observing and a
Speaker 2: lot of filling in of blanks. And maybe that's even
Speaker 2: why I didn't mind the detachment so much. Of Greta
Speaker 2: Lee's character in her performance, because that, for me, was
Speaker 2: where I was able to do some of the.
Speaker 1: Fillings the record. I thought, I think Greta's great in
Speaker 1: past last yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So so many of those blanks felt to me
Speaker 2: like they were filled in here and characters told us
Speaker 2: what the takeaways are or what the takeaways were supposed
Speaker 2: to be. There is a key scene early on with
Speaker 2: Lucy and one of her matches, a bride who is
Speaker 2: getting married, and she has to go in and save
Speaker 2: the day and convince her to get married, and she
Speaker 2: performs what I think, I think the movie believes is
Speaker 2: both a bit of a parlor trick that she's pulling
Speaker 2: and the truth in that I think Lucy believes what
Speaker 2: she's selling anyway, and as viewers, we don't know it then,
Speaker 2: but we do come fairly quickly to realize that this
Speaker 2: is going to be a recurring theme in the movie.
Speaker 2: This is actually kind of the theme of the movie,
Speaker 2: and I like the idea behind it, which is this
Speaker 2: idea of value. What do we value in relationships? Goes
Speaker 2: back to the title of the movie. Obviously, how much
Speaker 2: value do we place on material things, things that have
Speaker 2: a practical or market value versus things that don't that
Speaker 2: you can't actually put a price tag on. What does
Speaker 2: it say about about how we then value ourselves? And
Speaker 2: this all ties together what Lucy keeps saying, which is
Speaker 2: that it's all math, right, And I'm gonna come back
Speaker 2: to this maybe here a little bit later too, But
Speaker 2: this this idea that what she does is really just
Speaker 2: all math. You know that there there isn't there isn't
Speaker 2: some alchemy, really, that it's all just about checking boxes.
Speaker 2: She keeps saying over and over again that you know,
Speaker 2: you checked several boxes, so of course they ended up together.
Speaker 2: It's all a really interesting idea, I think, to explore
Speaker 2: in a movie. But Josh, how many times in this
Speaker 2: movie does a character keep bringing up the idea of
Speaker 2: what they're worth and even keep using the same phrases
Speaker 2: over and over again. There's actually there's actually a part
Speaker 2: in the movie where Evans near the end says, do
Speaker 2: you think I'm that disposable? And I loved it. I
Speaker 2: was about ready to stand up and cheer. I loved
Speaker 2: the phrase. It was such a perfect evocation of this idea.
Speaker 2: And then he says, is that all I'm worth to you,
Speaker 2: and I thought, just just put the pen down. You know,
Speaker 2: it's such a it was such a great line on
Speaker 2: its own. There was a bit for me, there was
Speaker 2: there was overwriting with this film following a movie with
Speaker 2: Past Lives that I felt was just you know, it
Speaker 2: just had so much, so much great use of space.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think in comparison to Past Lives that is true,
Speaker 1: though as you just pointed out, there are some great
Speaker 1: lines here as well. Yes, so it might just be
Speaker 1: a point of emphasis, especially for you. I mean I
Speaker 1: found that scene that's that's one of the ones I
Speaker 1: cited with one of the supporting actors who I thought
Speaker 1: was so good, Louisa Jacobson as that bride and the
Speaker 1: line you know, she's asked what makes you most happy
Speaker 1: about your husband? And she says something about that her
Speaker 1: sister's jealous that I have. Yes, that is why she
Speaker 1: would marry him. And I think the phrase she says
Speaker 1: is like that makes me feel like I've won. And
Speaker 1: this gets back to like your Woody Allen thing about
Speaker 1: the complications and the messiness and the cynicism. This is
Speaker 1: where there is some of Allan's cimicism in Materialists, and
Speaker 1: I think that is to its credit. I do want
Speaker 1: to say that one thing I appreciated that song brings
Speaker 1: over from Past Lives is and this has something to
Speaker 1: do with the spaces you're describing for contemplation. Yes, there's
Speaker 1: not nearly as much of that here as there is
Speaker 1: in Past Lives, but she does find some moments to
Speaker 1: give us that, and the camera work is part of it.
Speaker 1: Here she's working with Schabier Kirchner again from Past Lives,
Speaker 1: and there's a very there's a softness to the cinematography
Speaker 1: and also an unhurried camera I think to many of
Speaker 1: the scenes that I found to be contemplative compared to
Speaker 1: what here's another rom com expectation. Rom Coms move very fast,
Speaker 1: right very fast, and here even the montages of Harry
Speaker 1: as Richard gear in Pretty Woman, those aren't hurried. Those
Speaker 1: aren't fast. It's we're able to sit with them quietly
Speaker 1: in these gorgeous soft and yes, maybe it's all a
Speaker 1: play on the same idea that he's spoiling her, but
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of back and forth between
Speaker 1: them in those scenes too, exactly what are we doing here?
Speaker 1: What do you want? What are you looking for? Both
Speaker 1: of them are realists and cynics, to the point that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day they both understand I
Speaker 1: think his wealth is not going to seal the deal,
Speaker 1: so what else is going on here? And I think
Speaker 1: in moments like that, even the camera work allows us
Speaker 1: to sit and think about those questions in a way
Speaker 1: that is more complicated and more patient then you'd get
Speaker 1: in a traditional rom com and more in tune with
Speaker 1: something that we get in past lives.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's fair and I noticed it as well,
Speaker 2: especially in that conversation scene between them where she kind
Speaker 2: of lays out her philosophy and he counters that. And
Speaker 2: the camera is a single shot, a long shot, right.
Speaker 2: We see their whole bodies, We see the table, we
Speaker 2: see the chef's cooking in the kitchen. It's very elegant,
Speaker 2: it is very soft, it's beautiful to look at. It
Speaker 2: matters that we see that entire space and we see
Speaker 2: them existing in that space. And I felt all of
Speaker 2: that and everything you said watching it, And then there
Speaker 2: was also a part of me, Josh, I have to
Speaker 2: admit there was a part of me, a small part
Speaker 2: of me, that also felt a little bit like it
Speaker 2: was giving Pascal's character short shrift because songs withholding from
Speaker 2: him in a way, right as a viewer, the close up,
Speaker 2: the fact that we don't ever get to see him fully,
Speaker 2: you know, use everything in his toolbox on her felt
Speaker 2: like something that we missed out on. Now she uses
Speaker 2: she only uses a close up, as I recall, with
Speaker 2: one of those men later in the film. It's a
Speaker 2: scene with Chris Evans and her in one of the
Speaker 2: big scenes near the end of the movie, and it's
Speaker 2: actually a very it's a very clunky cut, and it's
Speaker 2: completely ineffective, and the movie functions so much better when
Speaker 2: she allows those characters to just be both in the
Speaker 2: frame together. That's my sense anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm trying to remember if if Pascal gets any
Speaker 1: close ups in that opening wedding meeting scene. There may
Speaker 1: be one or two there, But yeah, and the other
Speaker 1: moment we haven't touched on. But I do think as
Speaker 1: key as as far as the John relationship goes, we
Speaker 1: do get an instructive flashback moment. Now maybe too Lucy
Speaker 1: and John's previous relationship. Now, maybe you could say that's
Speaker 1: short cutting because it's not a motif where we get
Speaker 1: more of these later, right, I think it's my a
Speaker 1: standalone flashback. I believe this I'm misremembering, but I did
Speaker 1: think it was quite effective in deepening his character and
Speaker 1: chipping away at the type, you know, the poor guy
Speaker 1: romantic type that he's playing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did want to bring this up. I said,
Speaker 2: I was gonna maybe come back to this idea. Of course,
Speaker 2: this wasn't in my mind at all as I was
Speaker 2: watching the movie, or even as I left the theater,
Speaker 2: because I hadn't yet seen the Life of Chuck. We're
Speaker 2: going to talk about that movie a little bit later.
Speaker 2: And sometimes this happens, right we see two movies. It
Speaker 2: sort of randomly happens that two movies open at the
Speaker 2: same time, and there's a connection between them. And it
Speaker 2: only occurred to me as I was preparing for our
Speaker 2: conversation today. All this talk in materialists about math. She
Speaker 2: brings it up over and over again. The math, the math, math,
Speaker 2: it's all math. Love is just checking the boxes if
Speaker 2: the math works out. The Life of Chuck being an accountant,
Speaker 2: the grandfather character will tell talk about it near the
Speaker 2: end of the film. A great deal of attention is
Speaker 2: paid to this idea of math, and I'm not spoiling anything,
Speaker 2: Nor am I sort of jumping ahead of our conversation.
Speaker 2: I'm just making this connection here. A character in that
Speaker 2: film says, math is truth. It won't lie to you,
Speaker 2: it doesn't factor in your preferences. It's pure that way
Speaker 2: math can be art. So obviously that direct parallel to materialists.
Speaker 2: But what strikes me, and I'm just curious whether or
Speaker 2: not you see what I'm saying here or am I
Speaker 2: just overcomplicating something. She keeps saying that matchmaking and love
Speaker 2: is just math math math? And my question then is,
Speaker 2: so why is she good at her job? Why do
Speaker 2: you even need a matchmaker? Then why doesn't the movie acknowledge, actually,
Speaker 2: like the Life of Chuck does, that math is math,
Speaker 2: but math can also actually be art. If math is
Speaker 2: just math and love is just math, then why not
Speaker 2: just have an algorithm do it? Why not have the
Speaker 2: computer literally just check the boxes and connect people. I
Speaker 2: saw Hollywood Reporter headline for this movie where a matchmaker
Speaker 2: was praising the movie for how it portrays the profession,
Speaker 2: and I was kind of confused. Josh, Actually, I mean
Speaker 2: I get it, but also I was confused because I
Speaker 2: think the movie is a very confused portrayal at minimum,
Speaker 2: because the movie says, or it seems to suggest that
Speaker 2: you need a human being, that she's really great at
Speaker 2: her job, and people like this who care. But then
Speaker 2: the character the human being who's the matchmaker says, basically,
Speaker 2: a machine can do it. It's all just math. Why
Speaker 2: does the movie allow for the art of it.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that gap between her respect for her
Speaker 1: job and the idea of math. I did understand that
Speaker 1: she felt to be able to articulate it to it.
Speaker 2: She never articulates that to anyone else, though. When she
Speaker 2: talks about her job and what she does mean, she
Speaker 2: only frames it in terms of I read that six
Speaker 2: foot tall, two hundred thousands.
Speaker 1: I know that has heard, you know, down plane her contributions,
Speaker 1: because those were like humble brags to me. She's being
Speaker 1: celebrated at the start of the film for what nine
Speaker 1: weddings she's responsible for. She's presented as the star of
Speaker 1: this industry, and that suggests that there is some art
Speaker 1: to it. That you can't just hire someone, plug them in,
Speaker 1: give them the profiles, and they'll add up to get
Speaker 1: the right equation. I always just assumed that it's accepted
Speaker 1: she's the artist of this of this realm, and when
Speaker 1: she was denying that, I felt it was like, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of like it's accepted. You know, I'm good. I
Speaker 1: know I'm good. Just let's not let's not talk about it.
Speaker 1: And and that is where to me, the romanticism is
Speaker 1: still there in the movie, because ultimately it pushes back
Speaker 1: on the math idea, even if she's the one, even
Speaker 1: if she's the one who's constantly touting.
Speaker 2: But that's like the movie ultimately rejects the idea that
Speaker 2: it's all, so she has to hold that idea for
Speaker 2: the movie to reject it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think I think she she has to
Speaker 1: come to that realization if there's you know, and I've
Speaker 1: already I don't think there's much of an interior journey
Speaker 1: for this character. But if there is one, I think
Speaker 1: it's that it's it's the realizing that, you know, there
Speaker 1: is more to the math, which is something she kind
Speaker 1: of already knows, doesn't want to admit, and has to
Speaker 1: at the end if she wants to pursue what she
Speaker 1: thinks will make her happy. Yeah.
Speaker 2: For me, it's it's just emblematic of a character who
Speaker 2: for me overall is a little bit Confused from the beginning.
Speaker 2: Materialists is currently playing in wide release. If you see
Speaker 2: it and agree or disagree with our takes, you can
Speaker 2: email us feedback at film spotting dot net.
Speaker 1: Listening is the number one thing you can do to
Speaker 1: support an independently produced show like ours. A couple more
Speaker 1: things you can do. Take a minute to give us
Speaker 1: a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter if you're a first time listener or you've
Speaker 1: been listening for twenty years. Every new review helps us
Speaker 1: reach new listeners. We want to say thanks to Nahal
Speaker 1: VK for his recent review on Apple Podcasts. Here's Nihal.
Speaker 1: I was a film student years back, but life took
Speaker 1: me on a different track. Listening to the show has
Speaker 1: brought me back on track, as the show is a
Speaker 1: guiding light on what interesting films are out and worth
Speaker 1: the time investment. So thanks to both of you, I
Speaker 1: have lit up my movie passion once again and I'm
Speaker 1: always looking for the next film to enjoy after listening
Speaker 1: to your fabulous lists.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Nahal. This is also the spot
Speaker 2: where we typically feature a member of the film Spotting family,
Speaker 2: but Josh, as we have been over the past few weeks,
Speaker 2: we're highlighting some of those twentieth anniversary messages that have
Speaker 2: come in from Film Spotting listeners. We're going to share
Speaker 2: a few more over the next several weeks, and we
Speaker 2: offered a few different prompts like my favorite show memory is,
Speaker 2: or the thing I value about film Spotting, or maybe
Speaker 2: if you wanted to get really high falutint film Spotting
Speaker 2: kind of changed my life when or of course, listeners
Speaker 2: could just start it however they wanted to and take
Speaker 2: it wherever they wanted to go. We've got a couple
Speaker 2: here from longtime listeners and friends of the show, Devin
Speaker 2: and Amy.
Speaker 4: Hi, I am Sam and Josh. This is Devin and
Speaker 4: Long Island City, Queens, New York. Just wanted to say
Speaker 4: congratulations on twenty years of podcasting. You've been my go
Speaker 4: to podcasts since twenty eleven and I just want to
Speaker 4: thank you for bringing me insightful analysis, some very good
Speaker 4: friends here in New York, and of course constant creative inspiration.
Speaker 4: Here's to twenty more years, guys, Hey.
Speaker 5: Film Spotting. Ames Sullivan here, I've been listening to the
Speaker 5: podcast since Adam first started talking about brick On. Just
Speaker 5: about every episode from the first podcast, I've been struck
Speaker 5: by how the hosts seemed to be including me in
Speaker 5: their conversation. It didn't matter that I didn't know much
Speaker 5: about movies. They just wanted to welcome me into what
Speaker 5: eventually they called the film spawning family and film Spotting
Speaker 5: really is an extension of my family. When I encouraged
Speaker 5: Kat to applied for the PA job, I felt like
Speaker 5: I was sending her to ask a favor of two
Speaker 5: Chicago uncles she didn't know she had. She was worried
Speaker 5: she didn't know enough about movies, but quickly learned that
Speaker 5: at film Spotting it's all about that shared enthusiasm and
Speaker 5: great conversations. For me, trivia Spotting is where I feel
Speaker 5: that sense of family the most. From those quiet, introverted
Speaker 5: newbies to the trivias evants to those of us with
Speaker 5: randomly niche knowledge, everyone gets greeted with that warm welcome,
Speaker 5: like we've known each other forever. I guess my favorite
Speaker 5: thing is that when you listen to film Spotting, your
Speaker 5: family happy twentieth anniversary Film Spotting from the movie Mom.
Speaker 2: Both family members and Devin is someone who I recently
Speaker 2: saw part of that new York Mafia, who I was
Speaker 2: able to catch up with on my recent trip into
Speaker 2: New York City and have a drink with. Also, just
Speaker 2: a big thanks to Devin. We haven't shared these yet
Speaker 2: because we've just been too busy behind the scenes, but
Speaker 2: at some point, not only have we been sharing a
Speaker 2: lot of the audio over the past several months from
Speaker 2: Film Spotting Fest, Devin was part of the video crew
Speaker 2: and he was really volunteer. He just loves the show
Speaker 2: and he's got the production skills and background. He offered
Speaker 2: to help and he brought his camera. We have the
Speaker 2: Koganata conversation, the Ryan Johnson conversation. Actually I think there
Speaker 2: was Devon's camera at least for maybe all the Q
Speaker 2: and as. So I don't know exactly yet what we're
Speaker 2: going to show, but at least Ryan and Koganata we're
Speaker 2: going to put at some point on the Film Spotting YouTube,
Speaker 2: and Devin's a big reason why that's going to happen.
Speaker 2: So thank you, Devin. And then the movie Mom josh
Speaker 2: Amy Sullivan as we call her, who was such a
Speaker 2: treat to have on Trivia Spotting all that time. I'm
Speaker 2: and also the movie Mom because she's Cats Mom, and
Speaker 2: Kat's a long time pa. So such kind words from Amy,
Speaker 2: and it's.
Speaker 1: Always thank you for sharing that.
Speaker 2: In addition to keeping us doing what we're doing, your
Speaker 2: support comes with perks. If you remember the film Spotting Family,
Speaker 2: you get to listen early in ad free, you get
Speaker 2: our weekly newsletter, and you get exclusive opportunities, including checking
Speaker 2: out the film Spotting Family discord, and you get to
Speaker 2: hear monthly bonus shows. Right after we get done taping
Speaker 2: this episode, we are going to record our June Bonus,
Speaker 2: which is our performances of the year so far. Now,
Speaker 2: we did agree we were going to be fairly loose
Speaker 2: about this, maybe not structured lists per se. But you
Speaker 2: want to give me a hint. How did you come
Speaker 2: at it?
Speaker 1: Josh, Yeah, it's just, you know, going back to this
Speaker 1: ongoing list. I keep I start January one every year,
Speaker 1: and if there's a performance that jumps out at me,
Speaker 1: I just make a little note, put that person's name
Speaker 1: down in the categories, and we'll be sharing. At least
Speaker 1: I'll be sharing a couple of those. I think some
Speaker 1: people will not be surprised by because we've gushed over
Speaker 1: these performances and shared reviews. But I have a couple
Speaker 1: smaller choices as well.
Speaker 2: My ritual annually is every year in January, I say
Speaker 2: I'm going to start that list, and then I actually
Speaker 2: start that list. I put all the categories on it
Speaker 2: on a little notepad, and then I start seeing movies
Speaker 2: and I never write any down, and then it's time
Speaker 2: to do the end of year thing and I'm starting
Speaker 2: from scratch. Every time.
Speaker 1: It's awesome. It's so much good. It feels good to
Speaker 1: create the document. But it requires a little more than that.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: Film spotting Family dot Com is where you can learn more.
Speaker 1: This is Elliot Planet Earth.
Speaker 3: All I ever wanted was to find a place to
Speaker 3: fit in. So is there any aliens listening?
Speaker 2: Please come get me here. That's from the trailer for
Speaker 2: Pixar's l e O, which is new in theaters. Eleo
Speaker 2: is a space obsess loaner whose extraterrestrial transmission is received,
Speaker 2: sending him on an intergalactic adventure. Josh Ello is co
Speaker 2: directed by Domi She who made Pixar's very good Turning Red.
Speaker 2: Is Elo any good? And please tell me for town
Speaker 2: makes a cameo?
Speaker 1: Oh wow? I mean that would be amazing, except that
Speaker 1: this movie probably has too much going on already. I
Speaker 1: did like it. It has a lot of those Pixar
Speaker 1: qualities you look for. There's a nice patience for storytelling,
Speaker 1: especially as this movie begins. It settles into itself quietly
Speaker 1: and calmly, compared to some of the other animated and
Speaker 1: nantich kids films we get these days. Of course, it
Speaker 1: has the astonishingly tactile digital animation. I enjoyed the score too,
Speaker 1: by Rob Simonson, so there's some good stuff going on here.
Speaker 1: I did like it, but it is man, it's just
Speaker 1: so packed and works its way, and this might be
Speaker 1: better for you than me. Into like a junior sized
Speaker 1: Guardians of the Galaxy movie. There's just a ton going
Speaker 1: on in terms of interstellar conflict and negotiations. And I
Speaker 1: found that the more characters we got, the more narrative,
Speaker 1: the more the narrative expanded, it was harder to find
Speaker 1: that emotional center that we also look for. And a
Speaker 1: Pixar film, it goes for it, and it might land
Speaker 1: for others more than me. But it didn't quite as
Speaker 1: much as I might have hoped. It's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: to mention Domichi as one of the directors here. You know,
Speaker 1: I Turning Red is incredible, I think, and that was
Speaker 1: largely you know, she was the only director on that project,
Speaker 1: and here here we have her as well as Madeline
Speaker 1: Sharrafian and Adrian Molina. Molina was a co director of Coco,
Speaker 1: and I know Pixar, you know, films have had multiple
Speaker 1: directors here and there, and it's not to say that
Speaker 1: it doesn't ever work out, but this one you sort
Speaker 1: of feel that maybe just again in terms of the
Speaker 1: scope and what it's trying to do and slightly different
Speaker 1: sensibilities in a given scene. My favorite thing about it though,
Speaker 1: and maybe I'll save this for I will I'll save
Speaker 1: this for our bonus episode for film spotting family members.
Speaker 1: We're doing, as we've mentioned, our performances of the year
Speaker 1: so far, and there is a vocal performance in l
Speaker 1: EO that's just incredible. At this early point, I'll probably
Speaker 1: you know, put it on my list as an honorable
Speaker 1: mention to just remember towards the end of the year,
Speaker 1: and I'll share more on that bonus episode, but it is.
Speaker 1: It is one of the reasons why I would give
Speaker 1: a recommendation to Alio. Okay.
Speaker 2: El EO is out wide. If you see it, and
Speaker 2: have a differing take than Josh, or you agree with Josh.
Speaker 1: That's fine too.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear from you feedback at Filmspotting dot Net.
Speaker 2: Next week on the show, we'll have a review of
Speaker 2: Danny Boyle's twenty eight Years Later, which also opens this weekend.
Speaker 2: We will share a top five along with that that
Speaker 2: we did back in twenty seventeen with Danny Boyle. I mean,
Speaker 2: he is, after all responsible for the namesake of our show.
Speaker 2: We shared our top five Danny Boyle characters. And you know,
Speaker 2: if it's been long enough for me to forget my picks,
Speaker 2: never mind Danny Boyle's picks, then it's probably worth replying.
Speaker 1: Sure makes sense.
Speaker 2: I looked at the list this morning actually just to
Speaker 2: remind myself, and yeah, I probably remembered one of those choices, Josh.
Speaker 2: So we look forward to resharing that. Where are you at, Josh?
Speaker 2: As far as rewatching twenty eight days later, we all
Speaker 2: recently revisited, or maybe you didn't because you had revisited
Speaker 2: twenty eight weeks later for your book. I revisited that
Speaker 2: for recent film Spotting Family bonus content along with producer
Speaker 2: Sam because we did a we were wrong once bonus show.
Speaker 2: But I haven't seen Twenty eight Days Later, the movie
Speaker 2: that started at all since it came out or shortly after.
Speaker 2: I didn't see it in the theater. I saw it
Speaker 2: on DBD or maybe even VHS if Blockbuster, you know,
Speaker 2: VHS was still a thing then. So it's been probably
Speaker 2: twenty years wow since I've seen that film, and maybe
Speaker 2: it's worth revisiting before I watched the sequel. Here the
Speaker 2: latest scene.
Speaker 1: It's great, it's pretty Both are pretty fresh for me
Speaker 1: because I wanted to rewatch them both for the book
Speaker 1: For fear Not, I have a zombies chapter there, and
Speaker 1: yes I consider these zombie movies. We won't get into that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think twenty twenty two maybe is when
Speaker 1: I lassed last watched twenty eight days Later, and then
Speaker 1: weeks would have been around the same time at least.
Speaker 1: So very excited for the new one.
Speaker 2: If you would like to see what we have on
Speaker 2: tap for future episodes, go to filmspotting dot Net and
Speaker 2: click on episodes. We do have that twenty eight years
Speaker 2: Later show coming up, and then our best of the
Speaker 2: year so far. We have a top five Jack Nicholson
Speaker 2: scenes coming up. We're going to revisit One Flew Over
Speaker 2: the Cuckoo's Nest for its anniversary? What anniversary is that
Speaker 2: seventy five? So that makes it seventy, It makes it fifty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what it is.
Speaker 2: It makes it fifty nineteen seventy five. Yeah, that should
Speaker 2: be pretty easy for me to do, considering I was
Speaker 2: born in nineteen seventy five and I had to carry
Speaker 2: the one there live on air for everyone to hear.
Speaker 2: How how not bright I am? Let's let's just end
Speaker 2: it here. Filmspoting dot net slash episodes.
Speaker 3: So what's the story twenty five words or less? Okay?
Speaker 3: Movie exec calls rider, Writer's girlfriend says, is that the movies.
Speaker 3: Exec goes to the movies, meets Rider, drinks with writer,
Speaker 3: Writer gets comped and dies in four inches of dirty water.
Speaker 3: Movie exec is in deep shit? What do you think
Speaker 3: that's born? In twenty five words? And it's bullshit.
Speaker 1: That's Tim Robbins and Fred Ward in nineteen ninety Two's
Speaker 1: the Player? So The Player is going to be part
Speaker 1: of the Robert Altman Centennial that's ongoing this summer over
Speaker 1: at the Gene Cisco Film Center here in Chicago, and
Speaker 1: as part of that. Coinciding with that, The Player is
Speaker 1: also going to be our title for Cinema interrupt Us,
Speaker 1: which I'm doing again at the Cisco Film Center. Really
Speaker 1: thrilled after doing Phantom Thread in the winter at the
Speaker 1: ciscle to be teaming up with them again for this,
Speaker 1: and we were talking about titles Adam that might work.
Speaker 1: Looking at their summer schedule, we kind of pinpointed August
Speaker 1: as the time to do this, and I saw they
Speaker 1: had this Altman centennial and thought, what if we just
Speaker 1: kind of piggyback on that. People will be thinking about
Speaker 1: Altman watching a bunch of his movies over the summer,
Speaker 1: and maybe towards the end we will spend four days
Speaker 1: as interrupt Us is watching a day one, digging into
Speaker 1: it scene by seeing anyone can interrupt ask a question
Speaker 1: at any time over the next three days. Let's do
Speaker 1: that with the Player. And I have since watched it.
Speaker 1: It's totally gonna work. It's going to be so much fun,
Speaker 1: not just the cameos and the movie references, but that
Speaker 1: opening single take. I forget how many minutes it is now,
Speaker 1: but a lot of filmmaking stuff to dig into. Is
Speaker 1: the Player one you've seen since it came out at him,
Speaker 1: or do you think it's for me? It was. This
Speaker 1: was the first time I'd watched it since ninety two.
Speaker 2: Well, you again, were a better cinephile than me, or
Speaker 2: you started earlier in me, because I, in ninety two
Speaker 2: was not seeing movies like The Player in the theater.
Speaker 2: They were not playing in my hometown in nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 2: and I wasn't ready for movies like that in nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety two. I still needed maybe about two years before
Speaker 2: I was digging into the films of Robert Altman. So
Speaker 2: I was watching The Player on VHS, you know, I
Speaker 2: was driving tojoin and having to go to like the
Speaker 2: Art House Video store to rent movies like The Player
Speaker 2: and watching them on my TV at home. And so
Speaker 2: it was ninety four ninety five before I saw The Player,
Speaker 2: and of course loved it. And when I was watching
Speaker 2: a movie like that, I understood. I kind of just
Speaker 2: got instinctively that they were up to something with a
Speaker 2: movie reference talking about Wells with that opening take. But
Speaker 2: but I didn't I hadn't seen Touch of You. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't have known the reference right, and that that of
Speaker 2: course sends you down the rack you watch such Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for me, it was probably like my introduction to Altman,
Speaker 1: like had obviously heard of the name, this would have
Speaker 1: been because it was such it put him back on
Speaker 1: the map essentially, right. It was like, this is a
Speaker 1: major filmmaker who's made you know, after you know, being
Speaker 1: somewhat gone for a while, still working, but not in
Speaker 1: the level of you know, attention. Now he's back, and
Speaker 1: so I certainly glombed onto that and started to think
Speaker 1: about Altman a little more seriously. And we're definitely going
Speaker 1: to do that at interrupt us really excited for this.
Speaker 1: The dates I can give you tickets aren't available yet,
Speaker 1: but the dates we know. It's going to be Monday,
Speaker 1: August eleven for that full screening of the Player, and
Speaker 1: then August twelveth through fourteen will go back and start
Speaker 1: working our way through it. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: social and I'll put the word out there when tickets
Speaker 1: do become available, hopefully in a couple of weeks. So yeah,
Speaker 1: just follow me at Larsen on Film.
Speaker 2: This week over on our sister podcast, The Next Picture Show,
Speaker 2: Looking at Cinemas Present via It's Passed. It's part two
Speaker 2: of their musical nautobiography pairing Pavements, which I recommended strongly
Speaker 2: last week. They are pairing that with Todd Haynes. I'm not.
Speaker 2: Their new episodes of the Next Picture Show drop every
Speaker 2: Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Time now for Massacre Theater, where we perform a scene
Speaker 1: and you get a chance to win a film spotting prize.
Speaker 1: Last time we massacred this scene.
Speaker 6: I realized that when I met you at the Turkey
Speaker 6: curry buffet that I was unforgivably rude and wearing a
Speaker 6: reindeer jumper that my mother had given me the day before.
Speaker 6: But the thing is, what I'm trying to say, very inarticulately,
Speaker 6: is in fact, despite appearances, I like you very much.
Speaker 2: Apart from the smoking and the drinking and the volcal
Speaker 2: mother and the verbal diary, I like you very much
Speaker 2: just as you are.
Speaker 1: That was Colin Firth and Renee Zellwegger in two thousand
Speaker 1: and one's Bridget Jones Diary, written by Richard Curtis and
Speaker 1: Andrew Davies, based on the novel by Helen Fielding and
Speaker 1: directed by Sharon Maguire. So, Adam, that was a masker
Speaker 1: I missed out on I hate it when I miss
Speaker 1: a show and you guys do massacre theater. But you
Speaker 1: know what, Yeah, it was so much fun getting to
Speaker 1: hear guest host Ayisha Harris who joined you.
Speaker 2: A little gender switch there, no.
Speaker 1: I know, and that some accent work even, I mean
Speaker 1: you didn't let her off easy. You guys know, No,
Speaker 1: you guys for that show. It was the thirtieth anniversary
Speaker 1: review of Clueless. You also did the top five movie
Speaker 1: quotes in our lexicon, And so why did you do
Speaker 1: that scene from Bridge Jones's Diary.
Speaker 2: Well, here's Ross in Wokingham or Wokingham. I always screw
Speaker 2: that up, UK. I'm sure the latest acting masterclass is
Speaker 2: Bridget jones Diary. The combination of a turkey curry buffet
Speaker 2: and poor taste Christmas jumper is so immersed in British
Speaker 2: psyche I'm immediately transported to the film's toe curling portrayal
Speaker 2: of forced Christmas festivities. However, I'm struggling for the connection.
Speaker 2: Clueless was released in nineteen ninety five, when I would
Speaker 2: have been reading the Helen Fielding Weekly newspaper column that
Speaker 2: preceded the book in film, But that's a tad Niche yes,
Speaker 2: that's not where we're going. We'll hear from some other
Speaker 2: listeners who nailed it though.
Speaker 1: Josh, here's Peter Dockrel from Lura, Australia. You had me
Speaker 1: at turkey curry buffet. As soon as I heard those words,
Speaker 1: I knew this week's Massacre theater scene was from Bridget
Speaker 1: jones Diary. The connection with the episode is, of course,
Speaker 1: Jane Austen. Bridget Jones was loosely inspired by Austin's Pride
Speaker 1: and Prejudice, while Clueless was a somewhat more faithful update
Speaker 1: of Emma. A slightly more obscure connection is the fact
Speaker 1: that Bridget jones Diary has my family favorite movie quote.
Speaker 1: Whenever we want someone to do something, we yell go go, go,
Speaker 1: go go, just like the hapless production assistant trying to
Speaker 1: get Bridget Jones to slide down a pole during a
Speaker 1: remote broadcast from a fire station.
Speaker 2: There you go movie quotes in our lexicon. And of
Speaker 2: course now I'm hearing Aisha's rendition of Colin Firth in
Speaker 2: my head, and it's turkey curry buffet. You can't say
Speaker 2: buffet like we say it. Yes, that's true. Yes, Chris
Speaker 2: George in Chicago says, I'm pretty sure that's Bridget Jones's Diary,
Speaker 2: another mid nineties female centric movie with voiceover.
Speaker 1: That's true. Jenny Mackie from Seattle weigh in with this,
Speaker 1: just like Clueless was a modern retelling of a Jane
Speaker 1: Austin classic. Bridget jones Diary is a modern retelling of
Speaker 1: pride and prejudice. Colin Firth even replays mister Darcy from
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety six BBC mini.
Speaker 2: Series Little Little Added Connection there. Finally, Jessica Klein in Saskatoon,
Speaker 2: Saskatchewan says, it's rare that I know the Masacre Theater
Speaker 2: within the first few words. Yes for me, Turkey Curry
Speaker 2: Buffe was indeed a dead giveaway. Bridge jones Diary is
Speaker 2: one of my formative movies and was a part of
Speaker 2: my Story VHS collection. In fact, I used to watch
Speaker 2: it every time I had relationship troubles and needed a
Speaker 2: little pick me up. Now that I'm going on ten
Speaker 2: years married to the one who loves me just the
Speaker 2: way I am, I haven't had the occasion to watch
Speaker 2: it recently, but hold a soft spot in my heart
Speaker 2: for silly little Bridget in her romantic misadventures. Keep up
Speaker 2: the great work. This podcast is one of my absolute
Speaker 2: favorites and I look forward to it every week. I
Speaker 2: think Jessica is saying she loves us just the way
Speaker 2: we are.
Speaker 1: I'll check you, Jessica.
Speaker 2: Indeed, thank you to everyone who entered a much more
Speaker 2: brimming hat than the week before, the two weeks before
Speaker 2: for Strangers on a Train Josh, which was nice to
Speaker 2: see reach into the hat and pick out this week's winner.
Speaker 1: That would be Evelyn So from New York, New York.
Speaker 2: Evelyn, who has been a listener since at least two
Speaker 2: thousand and six, first time winning Mascer Theater. Congratulations, Evelyn,
Speaker 2: email us you know the address and claim your prize.
Speaker 2: You get the tote bag, you get the t shirt,
Speaker 2: or I'd say you get a trial membership for the
Speaker 2: film Spotting Family, but Evelyn's already a member. Congrats. That
Speaker 2: was the greatest acting I have ever seen. I just
Speaker 2: don't know how you do it.
Speaker 1: Gary.
Speaker 6: How do you make yourself so somber and emotional to
Speaker 6: make everybody cry like that?
Speaker 1: It's not that hard, really, I just think about the
Speaker 1: saddest moment in my life.
Speaker 2: We move on to this expedition of Massacre Theater, and yeah,
Speaker 2: this is some real acting here by two.
Speaker 1: Really good for punishment for criticizing Da Cody Johnson not
Speaker 1: being able to pull off the romantic delivery that Materialists required.
Speaker 1: Now I've been given that job movie.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be not nearly as good as she is.
Speaker 2: I know we are doing this over video. Thankfully. We
Speaker 2: never show this part to listeners, and I'll let them
Speaker 2: in on a little secret. We never actually do the
Speaker 2: non verbal stuff because of course we're terrible actors. My
Speaker 2: part requires an amazing bit of nonverbal acting here near
Speaker 2: the end that I definitely cannot deliver, So I'm not
Speaker 2: going to try.
Speaker 1: That's we're already in our heads trying to keep track
Speaker 1: of the words. Let's not think about mutians.
Speaker 2: And I'm definitely going to ruin the scene even more
Speaker 2: by taking out the names. To change it up a
Speaker 2: little bit, I have inserted pretend names that are gonna
Speaker 2: mess with the flow even more so. It is what
Speaker 2: it is. That's my excuse. I'm messing with the flow.
Speaker 1: Josh. Well, that's why I won't be any good either.
Speaker 2: Okay, are you ready? I'm gonna start it off. You're
Speaker 2: gonna give me the action and action. Hey Einstein, I
Speaker 2: think you're the devil.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not, how because I think we have the
Speaker 1: kind of friendship where if I were the devil, you'd
Speaker 1: be the only one I would tell.
Speaker 2: Well, you were awfully quick to run after Ned's help
Speaker 2: when you wanted help.
Speaker 1: Oh right, fine, yes, and if things have gone well
Speaker 1: for you tonight that I probably wouldn't be saying any
Speaker 1: of this. I grant you everything, but give me this.
Speaker 1: He personifies everything that you've been fighting against. And I'm
Speaker 1: in love with you. How do you like that I
Speaker 1: bury the lead and scene? Well, I went to three
Speaker 1: different registers in that last bet. I don't thought they
Speaker 1: were the correct ones.
Speaker 2: I mean, your your guy, though he really brings it down, Josh,
Speaker 2: I think I think you almost got too high. Hi, Yeah,
Speaker 2: you almost didn't get down into the almost whisper.
Speaker 1: Now, wow, this too bad? But I still a few
Speaker 1: second takes I felt something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't If you know what film we just massacred.
Speaker 2: Email the movie's title and your name and location to
Speaker 2: feedback at filmspotting dot net. The deadline is Monday, June thirtieth.
Speaker 2: We'll select the winner randomly from all the correct entries
Speaker 2: and announce it in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 4: When you look up at the night sky, it can
Speaker 4: tell your stuff about your future. It won't lie to you.
Speaker 1: It's pure.
Speaker 4: That way, you might see a lot more than you wanted.
Speaker 1: That's from the trailer for the Life of Chuck, which
Speaker 1: is currently playing in Whiteish release. The tagline for Mike
Speaker 1: Flanagan's adaptation of the Stephen King novella is an extraordinary
Speaker 1: story about an ordinary man. Tom Hiddleston is that ordinary man,
Speaker 1: Chuck Krantz. As we mentioned at the top, the film
Speaker 1: won the Audience Award at last year's Toronto International Film Festival.
Speaker 1: That's often a bellweather for maybe not box office success,
Speaker 1: but usually awards success. Now, just about every Audience Award
Speaker 1: winner for the last twenty years has been nominated for
Speaker 1: a Best Picture Oscar and several half one A Midsummer
Speaker 1: release from neon On about a thousand screens doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be playing into those Oscar expectations. What do you think, Adam,
Speaker 1: is this one we need to we need to reclaim
Speaker 1: for people to tell them to rush out and see.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they need to rush out to
Speaker 2: see it. I guess I do hope more people see it.
Speaker 2: But I already made one connection to our earlier review
Speaker 2: of Materialists, this notion of math and math as art.
Speaker 2: I'm going to make another connection, which is my conflicted
Speaker 2: reaction to it and the fact that I walked out
Speaker 2: of the theater feeling mostly positive. And the more I
Speaker 2: process my reaction, the more I found myself just writing
Speaker 2: down a bunch of negativity. And I don't know why
Speaker 2: that is. It's a pretty easy movie, or I thought
Speaker 2: it was a pretty easy movie, Josh to recommend to people,
Speaker 2: But after working on my notes, my thumb isn't just teetering,
Speaker 2: it's kind of fallen. So I'm gonna see if you
Speaker 2: can nudge it either farther down or you're gonna help
Speaker 2: boost it back up. In terms of what I liked,
Speaker 2: Hittleston's spontaneous dance sequence is as alive and exhilarating as
Speaker 2: the movie needs it to be. It works, but I
Speaker 2: like it more than that. But once The Pocket Queen's
Speaker 2: rhythm fades, the film never quite regains its momentum. The
Speaker 2: Pocket Queen is a reference to the drummer that's her
Speaker 2: real name, what she goes by the performer in that scene,
Speaker 2: and I'll get into that a little bit more later.
Speaker 2: I think that's the high point of the film. That's
Speaker 2: how much I liked it. I really love seeing MIAs
Speaker 2: Sarah as the grandmother. She's done Sloan, She's done a
Speaker 2: fair amount of TV work. I haven't seen any of it,
Speaker 2: but not much film work since playing Sloan Peterson in
Speaker 2: Ferris Fieler's Day Off. And she just has such a
Speaker 2: regal performance, just such a regal presence, and she gives
Speaker 2: such a regals here she is, and going back to
Speaker 2: that Hittleston number, watching it, I was so keenly aware
Speaker 2: of how they shoot it appropriately, like a really good
Speaker 2: musical number. And then it only makes sense when her
Speaker 2: character in the next act starts busting out the classical
Speaker 2: musical films to show Chuck as a younger boy as
Speaker 2: she's teaching him how to dance. So I really loved
Speaker 2: her presence. I loved her performance, and just seeing me
Speaker 2: as Sarah again. Here's the other thing I liked. What
Speaker 2: a coincidence that last week we were talking about the
Speaker 2: Phoenician scheme and the extent to which it was or
Speaker 2: wasn't Wes Anderson and the most he has dealt with
Speaker 2: or he's dealing with our present circumstances. Well, Mike Flanagan said,
Speaker 2: hold my flaming bottle of milort. Many many of us
Speaker 2: have said many times over the past ten years, but
Speaker 2: especially the past five and really heightened over the past
Speaker 2: year or so, that we feel like the world is
Speaker 2: completely unraveled, that if we're not already in the midst
Speaker 2: of catastrophe, it feels like it's right around the corner.
Speaker 2: Karen Gillian, her character's name is Felicia. I think she's
Speaker 2: quoting I know she's quoting from Yates The Second Coming.
Speaker 2: The Center cannot hold Stephen King in the Life of
Speaker 2: Chuck Here. Obviously, Flannagan, adapting plays out that thought experiment
Speaker 2: in the opening act, starting with part of California just
Speaker 2: falling off and then the Internet going away. And it
Speaker 2: was handled harrowingly but delicately enough, because when I say harrowingly,
Speaker 2: it's not like it's not like we see it occurring right.
Speaker 2: The people on screen aren't experiencing any of this pain
Speaker 2: directly where they are. It's the East Coast. They are
Speaker 2: relatively isolated so far, their homes aren't the ones that
Speaker 2: are falling into the ocean. They aren't the ones who
Speaker 2: are dying of starvation. We hear about some people at
Speaker 2: one point whose cars have fallen into a sinkhole on
Speaker 2: Main Street, and they're probably not coming back from that,
Speaker 2: but we don't see that. We don't see any of
Speaker 2: our main characters directly suffer in that way, but we
Speaker 2: do see their lives completely upended. We see their exhaustion,
Speaker 2: we see the fear that they're living with, the dread,
Speaker 2: the sense of inevitability, and that's really what this film
Speaker 2: was about, the sense of inevitability and fear, and the
Speaker 2: fear of death, the waiting for it, and for most
Speaker 2: of us, fortunately that's what it is. Right These very
Speaker 2: clear dangers may feel imminent but not be present, or
Speaker 2: they're present but for other people around the world and
Speaker 2: haven't come for us yet. And Josh, watching that opening
Speaker 2: act of the film, I felt like I felt like
Speaker 2: I was watching an instructional video for the Apocalypse and
Speaker 2: it sucks, but I needed to process it along with
Speaker 2: these care characters, and I wanted to see how King
Speaker 2: and Flanagan were going to play this all out. I
Speaker 2: wanted to see how they were going to resolve this
Speaker 2: fantastic but not so fantastic, way too realistic seeming scenario.
Speaker 2: I wanted to see how they were going to resolve it,
Speaker 2: how they did ultimately resolve it is part of my
Speaker 2: disappointment with the film, But that is my initial at
Speaker 2: least in my main list of things that I did
Speaker 2: really like about this movie. And so I'm going to
Speaker 2: stop there. I want to know what you also appreciated
Speaker 2: about the film.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that opening section is I would almost
Speaker 1: call it a red herring. I mean, it does there
Speaker 1: is a reason for it that's deeply related to the
Speaker 1: film's central concerns. But coming into this knowing nothing about it,
Speaker 1: haven't read the Stephen King novella, didn't even know the plot,
Speaker 1: and am sorely for a horror fan, sorely ignorant of
Speaker 1: the work of my Flannagan both need too, his television
Speaker 1: work and the features he's made. So really came into
Speaker 1: this not knowing what I was getting, and I thought, Wow,
Speaker 1: is this going to be like a you know, no
Speaker 1: bomb box, White Noise or so, you know, something like
Speaker 1: that that's really interested in commenting on these times filtered
Speaker 1: through King's work, and it's not that at all. It is.
Speaker 1: I can't say what it is because I don't want
Speaker 1: to spoil that, but I do think it's important to
Speaker 1: point out that that's not what this movie. That plot
Speaker 1: is not what this movie is interested in. It am
Speaker 1: I compelled by what it is interested in. I would
Speaker 1: say We've had similar experiences with both of these movies
Speaker 1: this week. Appreciated them while I was watching them, came
Speaker 1: out of them thinking, you know about some of the
Speaker 1: things that just nagged me a little bit. But I'm
Speaker 1: still coming away saying, give it a shot, because there's
Speaker 1: enough goodness here. I think you referenced, you know, a
Speaker 1: couple of those things already. The performances for me are
Speaker 1: our key there is we meet Chuck eventually as a boy,
Speaker 1: a young boy of maybe I don't know, fourth grade,
Speaker 1: fifth grade, something like that, played at this point by
Speaker 1: Benjamin Pajack. That kid just steals your heart. I mean
Speaker 1: in this extended sequence where we get to see where
Speaker 1: some of Chuck's passions but also neuroses are formed, and
Speaker 1: I think that is very movingly handled. This is a
Speaker 1: movie that some people are going to find deeply philosophical
Speaker 1: and thought provoking and others are probably going to find
Speaker 1: sappy and sentimental. I would say that I'm a little
Speaker 1: in the middle, but more forgiving of it. Overall. For me,
Speaker 1: the movie had this. It has a generosity and earnestness
Speaker 1: to it that gives it enough good will that I
Speaker 1: wanted to like it, if that makes any sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know I'm not the easiest guy to get
Speaker 1: to shed a tear in a movie. And I will
Speaker 1: say that happened here. It's related not so much to
Speaker 1: the dance sequence, but to something you were talking about
Speaker 1: when we learn exactly why that dance was so crucial
Speaker 1: to Chuck as an adult. The reveal of that I
Speaker 1: thought was so beautifully handled, performed, and presented that I
Speaker 1: found it genuinely Touching back to the performances, real quick,
Speaker 1: I think Mark Hamill as Chuck's grandfather, though he gives
Speaker 1: a very long, long, long, long speech about math, which
Speaker 1: you referenced. Yes, and what I've read, I have edited
Speaker 1: some pieces on Flanagan's television work, and from that I've
Speaker 1: learned apparently monologues are a Flanagan thing for me.
Speaker 2: And I've heard too, Josh, real quick, it's a king thing.
Speaker 2: A lot of Oky monologues here. They come straight out
Speaker 2: of the novella.
Speaker 1: Which is maybe why he's so enamored with King exactly
Speaker 1: why you know that could be something that maybe doesn't
Speaker 1: work for you. Hammill's performance overall worked for me. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I'll just go back to this idea of
Speaker 1: the goodwill the movie generates made it to me scene.
Speaker 1: I'm glad I did see it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's where I am too, though I missed if
Speaker 2: it's there, and I assume it is. I assume in
Speaker 2: fact that Hamil is given the like with so and
Speaker 2: so and Mark Hamill credit or whatever, but I missed
Speaker 2: it in the credits, and I spent the entire time
Speaker 2: Mark Hamill is on here, he was looking at him going,
Speaker 2: I know, I know who it is, and it is
Speaker 2: killing me. You know, you can even tell the voice,
Speaker 2: even though he's putting on a voice, you can tell.
Speaker 2: And it was just driving me crazy the entire film.
Speaker 2: But I want to go back to something you said
Speaker 2: a little bit for a movie that you know won
Speaker 2: this audience award, and that every time it's brought up
Speaker 2: in any context, and I haven't heard a lot about it,
Speaker 2: but anytime it's brought up, you hear the words life affirming,
Speaker 2: you hear sentimental or schmaltzy associated with it. It's sadder
Speaker 2: and sometimes darker, and actually even weirder than I thought
Speaker 2: it would be. And I don't I don't mean weird
Speaker 2: like David Lynn weird or weird like. It leaves you
Speaker 2: with a lot of ambiguities that you have to parse,
Speaker 2: but structurally taking what I understand to be the novella's structure,
Speaker 2: and it goes in reverse chronological orders. So act it
Speaker 2: starts with act three, it says, and goes to Act two,
Speaker 2: and then to act one, and so just to avoid
Speaker 2: confusion from here on out, it's reverse chronology starting with
Speaker 2: act three. I'm going to refer to them in the
Speaker 2: order we experience them, so I'll say, like the first act,
Speaker 2: second act, third act. Right, there's that part of it.
Speaker 2: The structure is nonlinear. It's a little weird, right. The
Speaker 2: movie is also, and maybe my cism meter is calibrated
Speaker 2: differently than others, but it's not as blatantly heartwarming.
Speaker 1: It's dark, lifting or yeah or.
Speaker 2: Insert synonym for chaltzy here, cloying, as I guess I
Speaker 2: imagined it would be. And I am basing that off
Speaker 2: the little bit of buzz that I heard the Tiff
Speaker 2: Award the poster though as well, and the tagline, the
Speaker 2: tagline every life is a universe all its own, that
Speaker 2: kind of sounds and I'm not saying it's a bad tagline.
Speaker 2: I'm not taking any issue whatsoever with the marketers of
Speaker 2: this film. Marketing of the film is not something I
Speaker 2: spent any time thinking about. I am just saying, based
Speaker 2: on that tagline, it sounds like a terrible movie. It
Speaker 2: sounds like a schmaltzy movie. So based on that, I
Speaker 2: had this sense of it and that's not really the movie.
Speaker 2: I felt like, I got I understand if people have
Speaker 2: that criticism, but I didn't feel that watching it.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's I would say, it's a somewhat sentimental confrontation
Speaker 1: of mortality, and you need both sides of that. It's
Speaker 1: not trying to paper over anything horrifying about the fact
Speaker 1: that everyone will die, but it's finding a way towards
Speaker 1: that realization that is maybe somewhat comforting.
Speaker 2: Yes, And in going for that sense of comfort it
Speaker 2: is to use some of the words you use, there
Speaker 2: is a sincerity, there's an earnestness and those things sometimes
Speaker 2: in film can can be a little uh discomforting. We're
Speaker 2: not used to seeing them on screen, sometimes with the
Speaker 2: level of sincerity we see them with. Right here, there
Speaker 2: is a moment, the dance sequence that is there on
Speaker 2: the poster that we're referring to. A character does something
Speaker 2: that if we saw a character do in our everyday life,
Speaker 2: almost every one of us would walk by and actually
Speaker 2: actively try to walk as fast as we could to
Speaker 2: get away from. Okay, I think that's how most of
Speaker 2: us think, and this movie asks us to take time
Speaker 2: out and pause and take it in as a truly
Speaker 2: magical type of moment. So so I bring up that
Speaker 2: weirdness in the structure, but also in how it doesn't
Speaker 2: go for the syrup the way I thought it might,
Speaker 2: because I think I think it relates to something that
Speaker 2: I respect it for that. And then also there's something
Speaker 2: about it where I wasn't able to connect with it
Speaker 2: quite as much as I wish I could have. Typically,
Speaker 2: a narrative is going to I don't want to get
Speaker 2: into lame screenwriting one oh one stuff here. I like
Speaker 2: when movies take chances, right, But a narrative is typically
Speaker 2: gonna build to its its emotional moment, the CLIMACX and
Speaker 2: you might say we get it here. We have a
Speaker 2: really wonderful moment. The scene that I think effectively serves
Speaker 2: that function here is really lovely, but it is part
Speaker 2: of an act that for me, follows the middle act
Speaker 2: with Hiddleston, that is such an expression of pure joy
Speaker 2: that I think it's a tough sorry for the phrase,
Speaker 2: a tough act to follow, and the movie knows it
Speaker 2: because the voiceover, the voiceover that concludes and Nick Offerman
Speaker 2: does the voice over here, the line that concludes that
Speaker 2: middle act with Hiddleston, it sums it up. It says
Speaker 2: what that it's.
Speaker 1: The heart of the Fray line.
Speaker 2: It's the key line of the movie. And so when
Speaker 2: that's sandwich right in the middle of the film, it's
Speaker 2: hard for movie, I think, to really build from that.
Speaker 2: It's tough when the when the most entertaining and i'd
Speaker 2: argue most emotional part of the film happens at the
Speaker 2: halfway point. What makes it even tougher, though, Josh, is
Speaker 2: when you've got that entertaining, emotional second act right in
Speaker 2: the middle, and the one as we were talking about earlier,
Speaker 2: for me, the one on the front end with Karen Gillan,
Speaker 2: and she would tell Edgy four is probably the most
Speaker 2: inherently fascinating and the one on the back end. Although
Speaker 2: it has its moments, it really does some really tender,
Speaker 2: lovely moments. I think I know which one you're referring to,
Speaker 2: the one that maybe got you teared up a little bit,
Speaker 2: And I agree with you with with Mia, Sarah and
Speaker 2: Mark Hamill. Overall though, I felt like that was the
Speaker 2: weakest and so the trajectory isn't isn't really the one
Speaker 2: you like to follow with the movie where it's progressively
Speaker 2: getting to its weaker and weaker stuff. And then the
Speaker 2: last thing I'll say, Josh is that although that first
Speaker 2: act that we take in is the most fascinating, going
Speaker 2: back to the very beginning of this conversation, it doesn't
Speaker 2: it doesn't deliver on its potential at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, it depends on how satisfied you are with
Speaker 1: what that apocalyptic or cataclysmic opening section represents for the
Speaker 1: movie that the movie becomes. And I appreciated that. I
Speaker 1: did think that was an interesting way to think about.
Speaker 1: To go back to the movie's tagline, you know, the
Speaker 1: you know one person's life is universe unto itself. And
Speaker 1: you know, this is a very literary minded movie that
Speaker 1: the Walt Whitman is all over this about you know,
Speaker 1: I contain multitudes. It's referenced multiple times, and that's very
Speaker 1: much that notion is something the movie is invested in.
Speaker 1: I think I did. I totally understand what you're saying
Speaker 1: about the structure. Clearly, Hidleston is being sold as the star.
Speaker 1: That's the showcase sequence, the dance scene, so I understand
Speaker 1: that is sort of meant to be the high point.
Speaker 1: I think I was just way more invested in that
Speaker 1: third section than you with the younger Chuck. I think
Speaker 1: partly because of the performance, is partly becase because that's
Speaker 1: where the emotion hit me, and and so the structure
Speaker 1: was not quite as much of a hurdle for me.
Speaker 2: Well, I think another struggle I had with the third
Speaker 2: act is that obviously we won't spoil it, but it
Speaker 2: seems to culminate with a reveal. But I can't imagine
Speaker 2: that it's any kind of surprise to anyone watching it.
Speaker 1: So it's a reveal for the character though I suppose.
Speaker 2: I suppose, but the way the movie, it's one of
Speaker 2: these conflicted things again or moments for me watching it
Speaker 2: as a viewer, where it's kind of a non reveal reveal,
Speaker 2: I want to argue that Flannigan isn't trying to surprise us,
Speaker 2: But then the movie gives that moment enough enough weight.
Speaker 2: I understand that it's about the character, but it's also
Speaker 2: the movie. The movie still seems to invest in enough
Speaker 2: time that it's it's kind of like the character is
Speaker 2: learning something fundamentally about that space that I think we've
Speaker 2: caught on too. Ask you so early on.
Speaker 1: In ask you this, did you have a clear idea
Speaker 1: of what he was going to see in there? But
Speaker 1: I thought, so see and that's where I was. I
Speaker 1: had not figured that out. So it was a reveal
Speaker 1: for me exactly what he was going to see, even
Speaker 1: though it was not a reveal in the larger trajectory
Speaker 1: of the narrative, like it, it totally makes sense. So
Speaker 1: I think I was a little more than invested in
Speaker 1: how momentous that was for the character in the moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't feel that momentousness. And the thing for
Speaker 2: me that here we're talking around, unfortunately because we don't
Speaker 2: want to spoil anything, is what you said you felt
Speaker 2: like the payoff of the connection between what we see
Speaker 2: in that first act and the way it connects to
Speaker 2: the things we see after it, the connection the movie makes,
Speaker 2: really that is I think we can say it comes
Speaker 2: back to its tagline that that was something you found
Speaker 2: compelling enough, and for me, I wanted I'm asking maybe
Speaker 2: for too much, Josh, but I was really hoping I
Speaker 2: was going to get something that movies have given me,
Speaker 2: movies have given me before. Certainly I was going to
Speaker 2: get an epiphany. I was going to get something that
Speaker 2: hit me on, hit me like like a stomach punch,
Speaker 2: but also gave me that intellectual type response where it
Speaker 2: made me, It made me think about something in a
Speaker 2: way I had never thought about it before. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: it felt it didn't give me Again. The movie carries disappointment.
Speaker 1: It carries itself as if it will, so I can
Speaker 1: see if it doesn't deliver on that front, it might
Speaker 1: be disappointing.
Speaker 2: But it is a sweet movie and it sounds like
Speaker 2: we are both ultimately recommending the Life of Chuck. Currently
Speaker 2: playing in wide release. If you see it, email us.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear your thoughts. Feedback at filmspotting dot net. Josh,
Speaker 2: that's our show.
Speaker 1: You can find Adam and the show on Instagram, Facebook,
Speaker 1: and letterboxed at film spotting. I'm at those places as well.
Speaker 1: You can find me Larson on film. We are prependently
Speaker 1: produced and listener supported. You can support the show by
Speaker 1: joining the film Spotting Family over at film spotting family
Speaker 1: dot com. You can listen early and ad free. You'll
Speaker 1: also get a weekly newsletter, monthly bonus episodes, and access
Speaker 1: to the entire show archive. For show t shirts and
Speaker 1: other merch go to film spotting dot net slash shop.
Speaker 2: In those archives. Maybe a little bit less Stephen King
Speaker 2: adaptation talk than I expected, But then again, Josh, you know,
Speaker 2: there's been a fair amount of not very good Stephen
Speaker 2: King adaptation work the Mist, going way back to episode
Speaker 2: one eight eight, The Shining and Room two three seven,
Speaker 2: along with our top five Terrifying characters, and of course
Speaker 2: there was some Stephen King originated characters on that top
Speaker 2: five list. Episode four nineteen six forty eight. We did
Speaker 2: it in our Top five Stephen King scares. That was
Speaker 2: a fun on screen, That was a fun one and
Speaker 2: a scary one seven forty three. It Chapter two and
Speaker 2: then recently a Sacred Cow review our discussion of the
Speaker 2: Shawshank Redemption at thirty. Of course, that started as a
Speaker 2: Stephen King novella, just like the Life of Chuck That
Speaker 2: was episode nine eighty three. In limited release, you can
Speaker 2: see a Photographic Memory. This is a film from filmmaker
Speaker 2: Rachel Elizabeth Seed, who constructs a narrative of her celebrated
Speaker 2: photographer mother's life with the archive she left behind when
Speaker 2: she died suddenly at forty one, when Seed was just
Speaker 2: a toddler. This sounds right up, my Ali. It's playing
Speaker 2: at the Cisco Theater in Chicago. Our friend Robert Daniels
Speaker 2: calls it a haunting portrait, nimble and execution and startling
Speaker 2: in its poignancy that introduces her mother to a new generation.
Speaker 2: In wide release, you can see Bride Hard. Rebel Wilson
Speaker 2: is an undercover agent who has to take out a
Speaker 2: group of mercenaries who crash a destination wedding con air.
Speaker 2: Director Simon West helms Bride Hard. Pixar's l e O,
Speaker 2: which Josh does recommend, is out wide as well as
Speaker 2: twenty eight years later. Yes, the boys are back. The
Speaker 2: zombies are back too. Danny Boyle, writer Alex Garland, and
Speaker 2: what's left of Zombie Killee and Murphy. We will talk
Speaker 2: about that next week on the show and share our
Speaker 2: top five Danny Boyle characters that we did with Danny
Speaker 2: Boyle back in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe Desso and Sam
Speaker 1: van Holgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go.
Speaker 1: Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Special thanks to everyone
Speaker 1: at wb e Z Chicago. More information is available at
Speaker 1: wbeazy dot org for film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson.
Speaker 2: And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
Speaker 1: The burn.
Speaker 2: Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting Family
Speaker 2: at film spottingfamily dot com and get access to add
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 panibly