WEBVTT - In the Mood for Love (Archive)

0:00:03.880 --> 0:00:06.360
<v Speaker 1>What kind of a show you guys putting on here today?

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:08.879
<v Speaker 1>You're not interested in armed now? No, look, we're going

0:00:08.920 --> 0:00:10.559
<v Speaker 1>to do this thing. We're going to have a conversation

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>a film spotters Adam and Josh here. You know, the

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>Film Spotting Archive has reviews, top fivees and more going

0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:23.479
<v Speaker 1>back to two thousand and five, and access to that

0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:25.600
<v Speaker 1>archive is just one of the benefits you get as

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 1>a Film Spotting family member. We are sharing our discussion

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:33.000
<v Speaker 1>of In the Mood for Love from our One Car

0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>Why marathon back in twenty twenty one. Why well, there

0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:41.840
<v Speaker 1>are many reasons, including it's the film's twenty fifth anniversary,

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:46.159
<v Speaker 1>and Josh, it did clock in a number four on

0:00:46.200 --> 0:00:49.199
<v Speaker 1>the New York Times list of the best movies of

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:50.600
<v Speaker 1>this Century so far.

0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:53.199
<v Speaker 2>Heartening for me to see that, because I had it

0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:55.840
<v Speaker 2>even higher Adam when we did that list on the

0:00:55.880 --> 0:00:59.600
<v Speaker 2>show right there at number one. For me, my favorite

0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:03.640
<v Speaker 2>film is the Century so Far. Now for Chicago listeners,

0:01:03.960 --> 0:01:07.600
<v Speaker 2>Wang's film is playing at the Music Box Wednesday and

0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 2>Thursday this week, so that's July sixteen and seventeen if

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 2>you want to see it there on the big screen.

0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 2>So let's get to it. Our review of In the

0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:18.959
<v Speaker 2>Mood for Love.

0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 1>In the Mood for Love debuted at the two thousand

0:01:31.400 --> 0:01:33.480
<v Speaker 1>and can Film Festival, where it was nominated for the

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:37.040
<v Speaker 1>Palm Door and start Tony Leung won the fests Best

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:39.560
<v Speaker 1>Actor Prize. It opened here in the States in March

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.840
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and one to pretty universal critical acclaim. But

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:45.880
<v Speaker 1>maybe this is something we can talk a little bit about, Josh.

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:48.720
<v Speaker 1>My feeling is that its reputation has only grown over

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>the last twenty years. For example, back at the end

0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:53.640
<v Speaker 1>of the last decade, in late two thousand and nine,

0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:56.000
<v Speaker 1>the Guardian had In the Mood for Love as its

0:01:56.080 --> 0:01:59.520
<v Speaker 1>forty eighth best film of the decade. Fast forward ten

0:01:59.560 --> 0:02:02.280
<v Speaker 1>years late later, for a Best Films of the twenty

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>first Century list, mood had moved up all the way

0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 1>to number five. And then in twenty sixteen, the BBC

0:02:08.800 --> 0:02:10.880
<v Speaker 1>pulled over one hundred critics for a Best Movies of

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:12.800
<v Speaker 1>the twenty first Century list, and In the Mood for

0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 1>Love landed at number two, right behind No Real Surprise

0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:20.880
<v Speaker 1>to Me, My Beloved Mulholland Drive from director David Lynch,

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:23.919
<v Speaker 1>another film that has probably only grown in esteem over

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:28.400
<v Speaker 1>the years. Quickly the plot It's set in early nineteen sixties,

0:02:28.440 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 1>Hong Kong sort of picks up where Days of Being

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Wild left off. Josh, It's part of an informal trilogy

0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:39.359
<v Speaker 1>with that film and Wong's later film twenty forty six.

0:02:39.440 --> 0:02:42.519
<v Speaker 1>Tony Leung and Maggie Chung are neighbors in a cramp

0:02:42.560 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 1>boarding house. They're both married, they're both lonely, and they

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 1>soon realized that their spouses are having an affair with

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>each other. Leung and Chung bond over this betrayal and

0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:57.799
<v Speaker 1>eventually do get quite close, but never act on their

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:01.000
<v Speaker 1>feelings for each other, this being a wong Y movie

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.680
<v Speaker 1>after all, Josh, give us a little bit of your

0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>history within the Mood for Love and how did it

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 1>play this time for you in the context of the marathon.

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 1>I feel like you Dean Happy Together, the last movie

0:03:14.639 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>we discussed as the high point of the marathon so far,

0:03:17.840 --> 0:03:22.080
<v Speaker 1>maybe even rated it slightly higher than Chunking Express. Have

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:24.480
<v Speaker 1>we gone to yet another level here within the Mood

0:03:24.520 --> 0:03:24.880
<v Speaker 1>for Love?

0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:25.800
<v Speaker 2>For me?

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:26.280
<v Speaker 1>Yes?

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:30.160
<v Speaker 2>And I think you know, thinking back on when I

0:03:30.240 --> 0:03:33.280
<v Speaker 2>first saw this, it's a little murky for me because

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 2>I've seen it a handful of times since two thousand

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 2>but it wouldn't have been within the first you know,

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 2>six months or year of its release, probably because I've

0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 2>never written about it. I didn't have it on my

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:49.920
<v Speaker 2>top ten list that year, which I know. We had

0:03:49.960 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 2>some fun at trivia spotting with my two thousand top

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 2>ten lists. All of them are suspect, but trust me,

0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:58.080
<v Speaker 2>I would not have overlooked this if I had seen

0:03:58.120 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 2>it in time. Why I didn't see it within that

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.880
<v Speaker 2>first year, I can't remember or really explain, but I

0:04:02.920 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 2>remember seeing it fairly soon after loving it then and

0:04:06.040 --> 0:04:09.680
<v Speaker 2>just loving it more the time or two I saw it.

0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:12.680
<v Speaker 2>Since it's been a few years now, and yeah, I think,

0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:16.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, if it's reputation isn't any stronger than it

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:19.839
<v Speaker 2>was initially, it has certainly you cited those lists that

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:23.440
<v Speaker 2>it's made. It's certainly fended off a lot of comers

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:27.480
<v Speaker 2>in the years since it's been released to still stand

0:04:27.600 --> 0:04:31.840
<v Speaker 2>as a monumental achievement, not only you know, for Wong,

0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:34.559
<v Speaker 2>but cinema itself, and as far as Wang's filmography goes,

0:04:35.120 --> 0:04:37.599
<v Speaker 2>I do think it's the pinnacle. I think at this

0:04:37.640 --> 0:04:40.479
<v Speaker 2>point I only have one long film left that I

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 2>need to see, my Blueberry Nights but I don't think

0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 2>that's going to knock this off. Maybe the Happy Together

0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:52.560
<v Speaker 2>distinction for me is that it's just so assured and

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 2>confident and a little I'm trying to think of the

0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:00.800
<v Speaker 2>right phrase that doesn't sound like I'm dismissing the previous films,

0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:08.760
<v Speaker 2>which I've loved. But a little calmer, a little less forced,

0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:11.239
<v Speaker 2>isn't the right word, because if you think about restraint,

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 2>it's all about restraint, and the filmmaking matches that. So

0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:16.520
<v Speaker 2>if you think about, you know, what we had early

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:20.279
<v Speaker 2>on in something like Fallen Angels and the anticness of

0:05:20.320 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 2>that which was really compelling or chunking express those pop

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.920
<v Speaker 2>song rhythms, which I loved. All of those flourishes are

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:30.839
<v Speaker 2>strengths of Wong's filmmaking and his previous films. But here

0:05:31.000 --> 0:05:34.280
<v Speaker 2>you just get something that is dialed down a little bit.

0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:37.039
<v Speaker 2>Even from Happy Together, I would argue, because you know,

0:05:37.120 --> 0:05:41.400
<v Speaker 2>Happy Together has those black and white segments, maybe a

0:05:41.400 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 2>little more ostentatious use of the camera here or there.

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.719
<v Speaker 2>In terms of slow motion, I think it's very familiar

0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 2>from Happy Together. Happy Together is the close. It's like,

0:05:51.560 --> 0:05:54.200
<v Speaker 2>this is just one step further in terms of the

0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:57.560
<v Speaker 2>esthetics from Happy Together, and it's a it's a perfection

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:02.479
<v Speaker 2>of what he was working on in film. I think. So,

0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:05.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, I don't want to waste a lot of time,

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:07.800
<v Speaker 2>you know, saying why it's better than these other wonderful films.

0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:10.760
<v Speaker 2>I just love this movie so much. On another revisit,

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:13.400
<v Speaker 2>it's one that you might think, Okay, there isn't a

0:06:13.440 --> 0:06:16.240
<v Speaker 2>ton of plot here, so how many times can you

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:19.680
<v Speaker 2>watch this before there might not be enough to engage in. Well,

0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:23.120
<v Speaker 2>you know, there'll be a new lamp in the background

0:06:23.160 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 2>that you'll engage with this time because you have the

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:28.520
<v Speaker 2>time now to just sit and appreciate why that lamp

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.640
<v Speaker 2>was chosen, where it's placed in the shot, what colors

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 2>it's it's reflecting or working with. How the typewriter in

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.920
<v Speaker 2>this scene perfectly matches Maggie Chung's dress and all this there.

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 1>Maybe you just didn't pay attention to a certain dress

0:06:42.520 --> 0:06:44.839
<v Speaker 1>the third six four, Yeah, yeah, there's Yeah.

0:06:44.960 --> 0:06:48.280
<v Speaker 2>This is so rich that it's open endless viewings, and

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 2>I certainly enjoyed this most recent one I had.

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:56.880
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'm with you, And when we do ultimately finish

0:06:56.920 --> 0:06:59.800
<v Speaker 1>this marathon, we will culminate with our World of One

0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:02.640
<v Speaker 1>Car Why Marathon Awards, and we were looking for a name,

0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 1>and a listener on Twitter responded to us, and I

0:07:06.480 --> 0:07:08.400
<v Speaker 1>won't get it right. I couldn't find it, So I

0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 1>apologize to the listener. Maybe you can find it, Josh,

0:07:11.240 --> 0:07:14.960
<v Speaker 1>who threw out this suggestion, but we will definitely mention

0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 1>you when we get to those awards. They said, you know,

0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:19.360
<v Speaker 1>you guys keep talking about Tony Leung and how great

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 1>he is and how he's the unsung kind of master

0:07:22.200 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 1>collaborator of this marathon. Maybe unsung's not quite the right

0:07:25.800 --> 0:07:28.560
<v Speaker 1>word because we keep talking about him. The suggestion was

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:31.680
<v Speaker 1>maybe we should call, cheekily, we should call the awards

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:35.120
<v Speaker 1>the Tony's and I know we both like that idea

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:37.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot. But of course, now you watch in the

0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:40.040
<v Speaker 1>Mood for Love and I start to question whether or

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:43.480
<v Speaker 1>not it's really Tony Leong, because maybe it's Maggie Chung

0:07:43.840 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>who's been in multiple films so far, or what about

0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:49.760
<v Speaker 1>Christopher Doyle, who I think has lensed all of the

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.720
<v Speaker 1>movies so far. And maybe my real answer as far

0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>as who is the MVP, the MVP collaborator, the MVC

0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 1>will go with Josh William Chang as the costume designer

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.040
<v Speaker 1>and the production designer. Here I mean well, and.

0:08:05.960 --> 0:08:10.440
<v Speaker 2>That's interesting because those things work so well together. As

0:08:10.440 --> 0:08:12.800
<v Speaker 2>I was already hinting at that, it makes perfect sense

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:15.600
<v Speaker 2>that the same eye is behind.

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Both absolutely, and Chang was at least the production designer.

0:08:19.000 --> 0:08:20.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't have his IMDb yet, but he was at

0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:24.280
<v Speaker 1>least the production designer on every other film in this marathon.

0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:26.560
<v Speaker 1>And we have talked about it a lot. I'm with you, though,

0:08:26.560 --> 0:08:29.760
<v Speaker 1>this is just this is perfection. This is a perfect

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:35.319
<v Speaker 1>end to this marathon. Beyond some of those stylistic flourishes

0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:39.160
<v Speaker 1>and the design and the costume design we're touching on,

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:46.040
<v Speaker 1>this is the ultimate expression of all of the key

0:08:46.080 --> 0:08:51.320
<v Speaker 1>themes and concerns we've discussed so far. Loneliness. When you

0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:55.800
<v Speaker 1>think about it, how this relationship, if we can really

0:08:55.840 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 1>call it that, how it starts is that these are

0:08:58.480 --> 0:09:01.640
<v Speaker 1>just two people who needs somebody to talk to. That's

0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:05.079
<v Speaker 1>really it, right, They are so alone and this idea

0:09:05.280 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 1>of having unfulfilled desire or hopeless love, whatever terminology you

0:09:12.200 --> 0:09:14.960
<v Speaker 1>want to apply to his films, And we've talked about

0:09:14.960 --> 0:09:19.319
<v Speaker 1>how rarely in this marathon we've actually seen sexual passion

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.480
<v Speaker 1>or explicit eroticism. Well, here I mentioned the whole film

0:09:22.480 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 1>was about restraint. It's all built around the conceit of

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 1>Chow and missus Chan not acting on their feelings right

0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:35.400
<v Speaker 1>and maintaining these appearances of propriety. And I've noted that

0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:39.600
<v Speaker 1>Wong seems preoccupied with the notion that love is really

0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:43.240
<v Speaker 1>only good when it's not realized, or maybe to put

0:09:43.280 --> 0:09:46.760
<v Speaker 1>a finer point on it, when it's not consummated. And

0:09:47.280 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 1>the Chinese version, or one version of this movie's title,

0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:55.680
<v Speaker 1>at least according to the Criterion Collection edition notes, is

0:09:56.240 --> 0:10:00.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of like the Most Beautiful Times, And if you

0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:02.679
<v Speaker 1>think about it, it's so appropriate, of course, because at

0:10:02.679 --> 0:10:05.720
<v Speaker 1>the end of this movie, aren't they both trying to

0:10:06.000 --> 0:10:08.440
<v Speaker 1>kind of recapture their past to an extent, or at

0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:10.760
<v Speaker 1>least parts of it, even if they have no intentions

0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:15.520
<v Speaker 1>of actually seeing each other again. They're romanticizing this time

0:10:15.559 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>of their life, despite the fact that it's one in

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:20.719
<v Speaker 1>which both of their spouses were cheating on them and

0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:24.320
<v Speaker 1>they had to completely withhold their feelings for each other.

0:10:24.480 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 1>I also think that the title transitions perfectly to the

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:31.240
<v Speaker 1>next obsession, and it's that use of the words kind

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:37.160
<v Speaker 1>of like Wong's characters love to act, to play, pretend,

0:10:37.720 --> 0:10:41.080
<v Speaker 1>to create scenarios, and to try on other roles in

0:10:41.160 --> 0:10:45.439
<v Speaker 1>order to try to process their feelings and their understanding

0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.520
<v Speaker 1>of the world. And we see these characters here actually

0:10:48.880 --> 0:10:52.840
<v Speaker 1>kind of trace the steps of their spouses and they

0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:55.960
<v Speaker 1>play out and discuss how he's acting like her husband,

0:10:56.040 --> 0:11:00.439
<v Speaker 1>and vice versa. And that line, how devis stating and

0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:05.439
<v Speaker 1>great a line is Maggie Chung's we won't be like them.

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:08.400
<v Speaker 1>She says it's so matter of factly, but it's almost

0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:12.720
<v Speaker 1>as if she by saying it is making it so.

0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:15.640
<v Speaker 1>It's this directive that she's putting out into the world,

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:19.600
<v Speaker 1>and there's just a little bit of hesitation maybe or

0:11:19.640 --> 0:11:22.719
<v Speaker 1>her being unsure when she says that line. But it's

0:11:22.760 --> 0:11:28.760
<v Speaker 1>just devastating because you immediately understand that motivation of not

0:11:28.840 --> 0:11:30.760
<v Speaker 1>wanting to be like these spouses who have made them

0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:33.840
<v Speaker 1>feel this way, and of course you understand the consequences

0:11:33.920 --> 0:11:37.959
<v Speaker 1>of that directive as well, saying will be will be

0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:40.720
<v Speaker 1>better than them, basically, even if it means we're worse off,

0:11:41.400 --> 0:11:43.960
<v Speaker 1>even if it means we have to pretend this very

0:11:44.040 --> 0:11:47.720
<v Speaker 1>real thing is not real, and it's just a fantasy

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:51.400
<v Speaker 1>to us. So they're driven maybe by morality to an extent,

0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:56.839
<v Speaker 1>and also perhaps masochism, but that kind of masochism is real.

0:11:57.400 --> 0:12:00.680
<v Speaker 1>That feeling is real and intense and maybe more intense

0:12:01.600 --> 0:12:06.720
<v Speaker 1>and something more transcendent than actually succumbing to your desires.

0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:09.640
<v Speaker 1>At least that's what they hope, and at least that's

0:12:09.640 --> 0:12:11.920
<v Speaker 1>what it seems Wang is exploring here.

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:14.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't know how much actual pleasure they get

0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:16.959
<v Speaker 2>from it, but they are inflicting more pain on themselves

0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:20.079
<v Speaker 2>than necessary, not only by just being together, but by

0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:23.000
<v Speaker 2>the role plane that you're talking about. And Chung has

0:12:23.040 --> 0:12:26.120
<v Speaker 2>another devastating line and we're going to be citing two

0:12:26.160 --> 0:12:27.960
<v Speaker 2>lines here. Even though there isn't a lot of dialogue

0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:30.239
<v Speaker 2>in this movie. I think a lot of the exquisite

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:33.360
<v Speaker 2>work is done without dialogue. But there is another role

0:12:33.679 --> 0:12:38.640
<v Speaker 2>plane sequence where she's imagining her husband confessing mister Child's

0:12:38.679 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 2>playing the husband here, and she just breaks down when

0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:47.200
<v Speaker 2>he does and says, I didn't expect it to hurt

0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:49.920
<v Speaker 2>so much. And what that reveals is that you know

0:12:50.640 --> 0:12:53.280
<v Speaker 2>they've been doing this role plane as a way of

0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:57.320
<v Speaker 2>building up defenses, as a way of not facing the

0:12:57.360 --> 0:13:03.360
<v Speaker 2>reality and at that point it all falls apart. Oh yeah,

0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:20.679
<v Speaker 2>money Kundos. I think she is so magnificent in this

0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:26.200
<v Speaker 2>movie because she's she has even more reticence than Leung does,

0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.600
<v Speaker 2>at least her character missus Chan. I love going back

0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:32.480
<v Speaker 2>to the dresses here. It's it's built into the costume

0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:35.280
<v Speaker 2>design because these are these I think there are Chung

0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:38.120
<v Speaker 2>Sam dresses. So the neck, the very high neck, and

0:13:38.160 --> 0:13:42.120
<v Speaker 2>it's it's like there's this wall actually built around her

0:13:42.840 --> 0:13:47.360
<v Speaker 2>under her chin, just keeping things out. And that sequence

0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:51.319
<v Speaker 2>is where it does just does all come. It invades,

0:13:51.440 --> 0:13:54.680
<v Speaker 2>like the hurt invades, and we see it on her face.

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:57.560
<v Speaker 2>This is where you know, the implacable expression. We've seen

0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:00.840
<v Speaker 2>her have so much, even even to mister Child. You

0:14:00.880 --> 0:14:04.560
<v Speaker 2>know she only lets him in so far. It does

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:07.320
<v Speaker 2>come crashing down here, and it echoes a later scene

0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:10.480
<v Speaker 2>years later where she's just standing by. She revisits the

0:14:10.520 --> 0:14:13.560
<v Speaker 2>apartment complex and is just standing by a window and

0:14:13.600 --> 0:14:17.840
<v Speaker 2>you see her forcing down those exact same tiers. So

0:14:18.400 --> 0:14:21.320
<v Speaker 2>I think Cheung is amazing in this and it's hard

0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:23.440
<v Speaker 2>to talk about them separately because this is one of

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:27.040
<v Speaker 2>those paired performances where what one does helps the other.

0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:31.360
<v Speaker 2>In the performance, they have this you know, they're in

0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:34.200
<v Speaker 2>perfect rhythm. Her reticence is in perfect rhythm with Leung's

0:14:34.240 --> 0:14:38.280
<v Speaker 2>reserve because he is kind of tapping into something we've

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:41.280
<v Speaker 2>seen before. I think he has more of the resigned

0:14:41.320 --> 0:14:44.240
<v Speaker 2>melancholy we saw as the beat cop in Chunking Express

0:14:44.320 --> 0:14:46.640
<v Speaker 2>than he did in Happy Together, there was more of

0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:49.560
<v Speaker 2>a spurned anger. I think here he's more back to

0:14:49.600 --> 0:14:52.560
<v Speaker 2>this resigned melancholy. I like how he claims at one

0:14:52.560 --> 0:14:57.120
<v Speaker 2>point that he doesn't brood over his wife's infidelities, and

0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:00.160
<v Speaker 2>his friend says, well, all that means is that you're

0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:03.120
<v Speaker 2>quote bottled up right, and so so this is more

0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:06.920
<v Speaker 2>costume design coming into play. His immaculate suits, his perfectly

0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:10.400
<v Speaker 2>combed hair that alsuggests, yeah, he's not rough armor, but

0:15:10.480 --> 0:15:12.920
<v Speaker 2>it's an armor. Yeah, he's pretending not to be ruffled

0:15:12.920 --> 0:15:15.680
<v Speaker 2>by this. But watch Leung's eyes and this goes back

0:15:15.720 --> 0:15:18.280
<v Speaker 2>to the you know we don't need dialogue, how they

0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.960
<v Speaker 2>change every time he looks at her, at missus chand

0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 2>it's like a there's some panicked longing there because he

0:15:26.400 --> 0:15:29.880
<v Speaker 2>it's reminding him of what he's suffering. It's also reminding

0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:32.680
<v Speaker 2>him of the pledge they made together, and how he

0:15:32.760 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 2>really doesn't want to stick to that, because I think

0:15:35.760 --> 0:15:38.320
<v Speaker 2>he makes more moves watching this again than she does

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:41.160
<v Speaker 2>to kind of break that pledge. He's always respectful, but

0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:43.480
<v Speaker 2>he opens the door or at least knocks on the

0:15:43.520 --> 0:15:46.160
<v Speaker 2>door a couple of times, and you see that in

0:15:46.240 --> 0:15:49.480
<v Speaker 2>his eyes as well. So these two are just so

0:15:49.640 --> 0:15:54.120
<v Speaker 2>perfectly in sync in this film that you can't imagine

0:15:54.360 --> 0:15:56.680
<v Speaker 2>it working at all without one of them if you

0:15:56.720 --> 0:15:57.920
<v Speaker 2>substitute a different actor.

0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:01.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, to your point, isn't it his hand We see

0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:03.680
<v Speaker 1>one or two times reaching for hers, I believe, so

0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:07.040
<v Speaker 1>it's never hers reaching for his. But you mentioned that

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:11.640
<v Speaker 1>scene the role playing with the confrontation about the infidelity,

0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:16.200
<v Speaker 1>and what I love about the two big scenes that

0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:20.120
<v Speaker 1>I would call not just role playing scenes but rehearsal scenes,

0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:24.800
<v Speaker 1>or that Wong really employs some fabulous misdirection to just

0:16:24.920 --> 0:16:27.200
<v Speaker 1>add an extra bit of charge to the scene for

0:16:27.320 --> 0:16:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the viewer. So in that scene, because he has made

0:16:30.800 --> 0:16:34.200
<v Speaker 1>a decision from the very beginning to veil the spouses,

0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:38.080
<v Speaker 1>we never see them, we hear them. They're behind closed doors,

0:16:38.120 --> 0:16:40.800
<v Speaker 1>sometimes they're on the other side of a wall. We

0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:43.680
<v Speaker 1>see the backs of their head, but we never actually

0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:47.880
<v Speaker 1>see them. That means that when she is seated there

0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:51.760
<v Speaker 1>and we're looking at her seated to the side and

0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:55.080
<v Speaker 1>he is directly in front of us with his back

0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:58.160
<v Speaker 1>turned to the camera as he sits, there's a second

0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:01.960
<v Speaker 1>where I felt, anyway that oh, the husband's returned and

0:17:02.000 --> 0:17:06.040
<v Speaker 1>she's actually she is confronting him, And of course it

0:17:06.119 --> 0:17:09.399
<v Speaker 1>turns out that it's not. It's the rehearsal. It's the

0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:12.800
<v Speaker 1>rehearsal of that confrontation, and she gets to act through

0:17:12.800 --> 0:17:17.359
<v Speaker 1>it and see and experience those emotions with Tony Leung.

0:17:17.600 --> 0:17:22.000
<v Speaker 1>And then near the end what seems to be their breakup.

0:17:22.840 --> 0:17:26.040
<v Speaker 1>It's the moment where you think they have finally decided

0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:28.639
<v Speaker 1>that this surely isn't going to work. What is inevitable,

0:17:28.640 --> 0:17:31.200
<v Speaker 1>what they even know is inevitable, that they're never going

0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:33.640
<v Speaker 1>to come together. So they say goodbye to each other,

0:17:34.040 --> 0:17:36.280
<v Speaker 1>and we as viewers, at least I did, Josh Again,

0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:39.399
<v Speaker 1>maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. I was watching

0:17:39.440 --> 0:17:41.960
<v Speaker 1>the thinking, oh man, this is it, this is the goodbye,

0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:45.760
<v Speaker 1>and then to find that Leung basically says, no, remember

0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:49.320
<v Speaker 1>that's just the rehearsal, you know, that's just the practice.

0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:51.560
<v Speaker 1>We still we still get to be with each other

0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:54.360
<v Speaker 1>for at least a little while longer. It's really powerful,

0:17:54.359 --> 0:17:57.359
<v Speaker 1>and I think there's really something powerful to that whole

0:17:57.640 --> 0:18:04.119
<v Speaker 1>notion of cinema, I think being this tool. I've argued

0:18:04.160 --> 0:18:06.640
<v Speaker 1>this before, cinema being a tool for us as viewers

0:18:07.600 --> 0:18:11.120
<v Speaker 1>to rehearse how we engage with the world. We see

0:18:11.119 --> 0:18:16.160
<v Speaker 1>how other people act and behave in situations that we

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:19.640
<v Speaker 1>have seen ourselves in, or imagine ourselves could be in,

0:18:20.359 --> 0:18:23.399
<v Speaker 1>or maybe imagine that we could never handle, and we

0:18:23.480 --> 0:18:27.280
<v Speaker 1>see how they go through it, and maybe it informs

0:18:27.280 --> 0:18:29.199
<v Speaker 1>our sense of the world. Well, Now, imagine if you

0:18:29.240 --> 0:18:33.000
<v Speaker 1>were a filmmaker like Wankar, why who is not only

0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:35.560
<v Speaker 1>a passive viewer, but you're the one who's getting to

0:18:35.600 --> 0:18:38.680
<v Speaker 1>sort of act out. You're getting to rehearse, You're getting

0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:43.720
<v Speaker 1>to stage these scenes and act out your deepest fears

0:18:44.040 --> 0:18:50.320
<v Speaker 1>and longings through these mini plays within this larger construct.

0:18:50.840 --> 0:18:53.360
<v Speaker 1>It's just something that really appeals to me. And I don't

0:18:53.359 --> 0:18:54.919
<v Speaker 1>know if I've said it before in this marathon, but

0:18:55.000 --> 0:19:00.520
<v Speaker 1>that infatuation with role playing, I imagine is a reason

0:19:00.560 --> 0:19:03.959
<v Speaker 1>why whether he's articulated it or not, I don't know

0:19:04.000 --> 0:19:06.320
<v Speaker 1>why Quentin Tarantino has always been such a fan of

0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:08.639
<v Speaker 1>One Car, why because they share that same obsession.

0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:13.719
<v Speaker 2>So we're both talking with you know, fair confidence about

0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:16.400
<v Speaker 2>the nature of this relationship and how it ends up.

0:19:16.920 --> 0:19:19.879
<v Speaker 2>And it's interesting because just before we start recording here,

0:19:20.040 --> 0:19:22.240
<v Speaker 2>I had a comment from a listener on my letterbox

0:19:22.280 --> 0:19:27.720
<v Speaker 2>logging of watching this movie Warner West, who basically has

0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:29.600
<v Speaker 2>a question for us about the ending. So maybe we'll

0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:32.879
<v Speaker 2>return to that, and it happens to involve how we

0:19:32.960 --> 0:19:35.640
<v Speaker 2>understand their relationship, So remind me that we'll return to it.

0:19:35.800 --> 0:19:40.639
<v Speaker 2>Speaking of listeners, yes, it was Ellen Chesher at c

0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:43.560
<v Speaker 2>H E s H E l l E N on

0:19:43.600 --> 0:19:47.080
<v Speaker 2>Twitter who suggested the Tonys, which is just so good, fantastic.

0:19:47.240 --> 0:19:51.240
<v Speaker 2>So I think we've probably covered the performances, even though

0:19:51.280 --> 0:19:54.359
<v Speaker 2>there's maybe more we could say, but definitely highlights. I

0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:58.280
<v Speaker 2>want to jump back to the filmmaking and just talk

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:02.760
<v Speaker 2>about some of these mood moments that we get in

0:20:02.800 --> 0:20:06.800
<v Speaker 2>this film where I'm afraid by my talking about this

0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:09.399
<v Speaker 2>being a more reserved movie for someone who hasn't seen it,

0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:13.320
<v Speaker 2>they might think it's more conventional than his other pictures,

0:20:13.359 --> 0:20:15.800
<v Speaker 2>and it's absolutely not like this is this is pure

0:20:15.840 --> 0:20:20.159
<v Speaker 2>wankhar why because we get these mood moments, including the

0:20:20.200 --> 0:20:22.520
<v Speaker 2>montage of them passing each other on the way to

0:20:22.560 --> 0:20:26.399
<v Speaker 2>the noodle stall maybe my favorite sequences in the film.

0:20:26.520 --> 0:20:29.280
<v Speaker 2>It's something that is recurring. It kind of at first

0:20:29.280 --> 0:20:33.320
<v Speaker 2>shows us their loneliness. They're going out to get dinner

0:20:33.480 --> 0:20:35.840
<v Speaker 2>because they are not going to cook it for someone else.

0:20:35.880 --> 0:20:38.440
<v Speaker 2>There's no one else home. They're each in this situation

0:20:38.520 --> 0:20:41.320
<v Speaker 2>and they pass each other a handful of times. And

0:20:41.440 --> 0:20:44.960
<v Speaker 2>this is where the slow motion comes into play. This

0:20:45.040 --> 0:20:50.480
<v Speaker 2>is where that theme music, the shagiro Umbayashis Yumeggi's theme

0:20:50.680 --> 0:20:54.119
<v Speaker 2>comes into play. And even that is interesting, you know

0:20:54.160 --> 0:20:56.800
<v Speaker 2>how it has these lilting violins to it. It's it's

0:20:56.840 --> 0:20:59.840
<v Speaker 2>somewhat similar to the tango music we heard and happy

0:20:59.840 --> 0:21:03.399
<v Speaker 2>to ge other, but also it seems like even a

0:21:03.480 --> 0:21:07.159
<v Speaker 2>step back from that in terms of its pace and

0:21:07.160 --> 0:21:11.080
<v Speaker 2>its rhythm. And it's just the slow motion in here

0:21:11.160 --> 0:21:14.679
<v Speaker 2>is also very judicious. Sometimes it's raining when they're doing this.

0:21:14.800 --> 0:21:19.160
<v Speaker 2>That adds another level to it. And those I could

0:21:19.200 --> 0:21:21.640
<v Speaker 2>have watched them go back and forth to get their

0:21:21.640 --> 0:21:25.399
<v Speaker 2>noodles for the entire running time of this movie. Just

0:21:25.400 --> 0:21:28.160
<v Speaker 2>for the little variations each time and where the camera is,

0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:32.080
<v Speaker 2>how much lighting is allowed in that stairway so that

0:21:32.160 --> 0:21:35.520
<v Speaker 2>they can not really see each other's faces. The next time,

0:21:35.560 --> 0:21:37.960
<v Speaker 2>maybe they do see each other's faces a little bit more.

0:21:38.200 --> 0:21:41.520
<v Speaker 2>And it's all these imperceptible changes that are so important,

0:21:42.480 --> 0:21:47.359
<v Speaker 2>And that is where the emotional element of this just

0:21:47.400 --> 0:21:49.920
<v Speaker 2>hits me the hardest. It's like you're watching these two

0:21:50.000 --> 0:21:52.960
<v Speaker 2>halves of a broken heart throb when they pass each other,

0:21:53.520 --> 0:21:56.960
<v Speaker 2>and it captures everything that you need to know about

0:21:57.000 --> 0:21:59.359
<v Speaker 2>where they are at in that moment, and it carries

0:21:59.440 --> 0:22:03.439
<v Speaker 2>through past where they even go together. So that's that's like,

0:22:04.440 --> 0:22:07.600
<v Speaker 2>that's what their time together was, passing each other on

0:22:07.680 --> 0:22:09.800
<v Speaker 2>those stairways, even if they do end up becoming a

0:22:09.800 --> 0:22:10.960
<v Speaker 2>little closer later.

0:22:11.200 --> 0:22:15.639
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned the veiling technique with the spouses. Everything is

0:22:15.720 --> 0:22:19.119
<v Speaker 1>so secretive here and Wong has so much fun, I

0:22:19.119 --> 0:22:22.360
<v Speaker 1>would say with that tension. As I was jotting down

0:22:22.400 --> 0:22:25.520
<v Speaker 1>some notes when I noticed this the first maybe one

0:22:25.600 --> 0:22:28.840
<v Speaker 1>or two times, I posed a question to myself, Josh,

0:22:28.840 --> 0:22:31.560
<v Speaker 1>you're an expert film critic and note taker. Do you

0:22:31.840 --> 0:22:33.960
<v Speaker 1>do you sometimes just write questions to yourself that you

0:22:34.000 --> 0:22:35.480
<v Speaker 1>know you need to return to you don't know the

0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:38.359
<v Speaker 1>answer to, but you know you need to return to them. Yeah, sure, sure,

0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:42.240
<v Speaker 1>so I wrote down why does the camera hide?

0:22:42.800 --> 0:22:44.760
<v Speaker 2>Oh? I love that, I love that touch.

0:22:45.200 --> 0:22:48.240
<v Speaker 1>And as you it's always down a hall right. Yeah,

0:22:48.280 --> 0:22:50.800
<v Speaker 1>as you keep watching the film, you realize even the

0:22:50.880 --> 0:22:53.800
<v Speaker 1>camera in the mood for love has to steal glances.

0:22:54.400 --> 0:22:58.399
<v Speaker 1>The view was always through a reflection in a mirror,

0:22:58.720 --> 0:23:02.000
<v Speaker 1>or it's under the table, or it's through a window,

0:23:02.200 --> 0:23:04.560
<v Speaker 1>or it's through a curtain, or it's through a curtain

0:23:04.600 --> 0:23:08.359
<v Speaker 1>of smoke. Talk about a movie that makes smoking look

0:23:08.760 --> 0:23:13.560
<v Speaker 1>so glamorous. The way Christopher Doyle's camera captures that haze

0:23:13.880 --> 0:23:16.920
<v Speaker 1>is really pretty magnificent. And just in general, how many

0:23:16.920 --> 0:23:19.720
<v Speaker 1>times do we see them obscure To go back to

0:23:19.760 --> 0:23:22.000
<v Speaker 1>your point too, about the lighting and as they pass

0:23:22.080 --> 0:23:27.520
<v Speaker 1>each other, it's as if you are eavesdropping on them.

0:23:27.600 --> 0:23:30.680
<v Speaker 1>It's as if you are there in the hallway, that

0:23:30.880 --> 0:23:36.480
<v Speaker 1>cramped hallway. Again, it's long relying on a very close technique,

0:23:36.760 --> 0:23:38.600
<v Speaker 1>not a lot of master shots though, of course, when

0:23:38.640 --> 0:23:40.080
<v Speaker 1>we get on the street, and there are some elements

0:23:40.080 --> 0:23:42.320
<v Speaker 1>to the production design where we do kind of take

0:23:42.320 --> 0:23:45.320
<v Speaker 1>in the expanse of the scene but especially when they're indoors,

0:23:45.359 --> 0:23:49.119
<v Speaker 1>when they're in those apartment settings, when they're moving in together,

0:23:49.200 --> 0:23:51.840
<v Speaker 1>he's really emphasizing how close they are. You're always seeing

0:23:51.840 --> 0:23:54.200
<v Speaker 1>them in a medium shot or medium close up or

0:23:54.520 --> 0:23:59.399
<v Speaker 1>a close up, so that eavesdropping sort of effect adds

0:23:59.440 --> 0:24:02.120
<v Speaker 1>to that tension. But then how about this, I'm gonna

0:24:02.119 --> 0:24:05.919
<v Speaker 1>ask you a question here, Josh, And I think the

0:24:06.000 --> 0:24:10.640
<v Speaker 1>fact that there may be isn't one answer or one

0:24:10.760 --> 0:24:13.760
<v Speaker 1>go to answer for one hundred people you pose this

0:24:13.840 --> 0:24:19.159
<v Speaker 1>question to helps signify just how special this movie is.

0:24:19.680 --> 0:24:24.000
<v Speaker 1>But if I asked you, let's skip romantic gestures for now.

0:24:24.200 --> 0:24:27.240
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna get to that eventually. And there are multiple

0:24:27.240 --> 0:24:31.160
<v Speaker 1>in this film, and there's one really amazing one that

0:24:31.640 --> 0:24:34.879
<v Speaker 1>did in fact make your top five from this movie

0:24:34.880 --> 0:24:40.080
<v Speaker 1>back in twenty thirteen. But when we do talk about eroticism,

0:24:40.560 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 1>something something close to sexiness, true sultry sexiness in this film,

0:24:48.400 --> 0:24:54.080
<v Speaker 1>something that actually kind of radiates some real intensity. Do

0:24:54.119 --> 0:24:56.320
<v Speaker 1>you have a moment like that from this movie?

0:24:56.800 --> 0:25:01.120
<v Speaker 2>That one that I jotted down? So my three seconds

0:25:01.800 --> 0:25:04.960
<v Speaker 2>response is maybe a strange one. But how about when

0:25:04.960 --> 0:25:09.640
<v Speaker 2>he says, then I'll spend some time with you here,

0:25:09.800 --> 0:25:12.359
<v Speaker 2>Then I'll wait it out here. When she is caught

0:25:12.359 --> 0:25:16.679
<v Speaker 2>in the rain in the alley under a light, doesn't

0:25:16.680 --> 0:25:19.119
<v Speaker 2>want to get that dress wet, which I completely understand.

0:25:19.200 --> 0:25:21.920
<v Speaker 2>So she's kind of, you know, under an awning, and

0:25:22.000 --> 0:25:26.480
<v Speaker 2>he comes. It's kind of that whole sequence. Actually he's

0:25:26.480 --> 0:25:29.199
<v Speaker 2>coming from another direction, sees her. He's running in his

0:25:29.240 --> 0:25:31.760
<v Speaker 2>suit in the rain, ducks under the awning. Next door,

0:25:32.280 --> 0:25:34.520
<v Speaker 2>offers his jacket to her. She says, we can't go

0:25:34.600 --> 0:25:37.320
<v Speaker 2>in together, or if they see your jacket they'll know.

0:25:37.800 --> 0:25:40.240
<v Speaker 2>He runs and gets an umbrella, brings it back. She says,

0:25:40.240 --> 0:25:43.520
<v Speaker 2>I can't take your umbrella. So after all these romantic gestures,

0:25:43.600 --> 0:25:46.639
<v Speaker 2>he finally just says, and I wish I could remember

0:25:46.680 --> 0:25:48.840
<v Speaker 2>the words, but then I'll just be here with you

0:25:49.000 --> 0:25:51.359
<v Speaker 2>and leans back against the wall. And I love the

0:25:51.359 --> 0:25:55.680
<v Speaker 2>next beat silence that they don't say anything to each other,

0:25:56.520 --> 0:25:59.040
<v Speaker 2>and they just that to me. I don't know why,

0:25:59.400 --> 0:26:05.160
<v Speaker 2>is like credibly sexy. They're just completely comfortable sitting there.

0:26:05.040 --> 0:26:07.800
<v Speaker 1>To gaxy for Josh Larson, there you go, what.

0:26:08.000 --> 0:26:08.680
<v Speaker 2>What did you just say?

0:26:08.920 --> 0:26:12.359
<v Speaker 1>I think you just miss character sexy. Well I just

0:26:12.440 --> 0:26:14.320
<v Speaker 1>think it's yeah, I don't know why.

0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:17.000
<v Speaker 2>There's just something about that shared moment that they have

0:26:17.080 --> 0:26:18.760
<v Speaker 2>together where nothing else needs to be said.

0:26:19.080 --> 0:26:21.280
<v Speaker 1>Okay, well I'm gonna give you mine, Okay. I think

0:26:21.320 --> 0:26:26.359
<v Speaker 1>it's during the dinner that is really their first true

0:26:26.520 --> 0:26:31.000
<v Speaker 1>role playing excursion, kind of a date where they are

0:26:31.240 --> 0:26:36.200
<v Speaker 1>taking on the characters of their spouses or the other's spouse.

0:26:37.080 --> 0:26:41.320
<v Speaker 1>And there's a moment where we see and the camera

0:26:41.560 --> 0:26:44.639
<v Speaker 1>really does emphasize it because it cuts to as I recall,

0:26:44.800 --> 0:26:48.000
<v Speaker 1>cuts to Tony Leung's hand as he grabs what I

0:26:48.000 --> 0:26:51.919
<v Speaker 1>think is probably some hot mustard, and then it follows

0:26:52.000 --> 0:26:54.840
<v Speaker 1>him as he puts it on her plate. Now, even

0:26:54.880 --> 0:26:58.640
<v Speaker 1>before this, I'll just mention, when we're talking about technique,

0:26:58.720 --> 0:27:02.679
<v Speaker 1>this is a movie where the camera is mostly pretty still.

0:27:03.359 --> 0:27:07.119
<v Speaker 1>We've talked about how restrained overall the I where.

0:27:07.000 --> 0:27:08.840
<v Speaker 2>You're going is I love this camera move.

0:27:09.240 --> 0:27:11.160
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. But then all of a sudden, just in this scene,

0:27:11.200 --> 0:27:13.200
<v Speaker 1>there's a couple of quick pans between them.

0:27:13.240 --> 0:27:16.240
<v Speaker 2>It's almost like a slide right, It slides like from

0:27:16.280 --> 0:27:19.359
<v Speaker 2>behind them right up next to them, which is exact,

0:27:19.400 --> 0:27:22.000
<v Speaker 2>as you're saying, like very ostentatious compared to what we've

0:27:22.000 --> 0:27:22.480
<v Speaker 2>been getting.

0:27:22.800 --> 0:27:27.160
<v Speaker 1>But I think it helps just add some electricity. Yes,

0:27:27.480 --> 0:27:30.800
<v Speaker 1>to a scene in a moment that seems like it

0:27:30.840 --> 0:27:34.720
<v Speaker 1>otherwise might be fairly I don't know, harmless. And then

0:27:34.760 --> 0:27:37.960
<v Speaker 1>we get that moment when he he dabs the mustard

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:42.199
<v Speaker 1>on her plate, and you see her considerate, and just

0:27:42.240 --> 0:27:45.159
<v Speaker 1>in that consideration, in her silence, I think it's pretty

0:27:45.160 --> 0:27:48.199
<v Speaker 1>clear to us that this isn't maybe something that she

0:27:48.240 --> 0:27:51.280
<v Speaker 1>would normally eat. She clearly didn't grab it on her

0:27:51.280 --> 0:27:53.119
<v Speaker 1>own and put it on her plate to eat with

0:27:53.320 --> 0:27:56.640
<v Speaker 1>whatever she's eating. But he has put it on her

0:27:56.680 --> 0:27:59.760
<v Speaker 1>plate for her, and she hesitates, and then what does

0:27:59.800 --> 0:28:03.399
<v Speaker 1>she do? She dips her entree into it and then

0:28:03.480 --> 0:28:07.879
<v Speaker 1>eats it as voraciously as as Maggie Chung does anything

0:28:07.960 --> 0:28:10.639
<v Speaker 1>voraciously in this movie. But I swear to you, Josh,

0:28:10.680 --> 0:28:15.320
<v Speaker 1>at the exact moment, I'm thinking to myself, while that

0:28:15.440 --> 0:28:20.520
<v Speaker 1>was hot? He says, do you like it hot? And

0:28:20.880 --> 0:28:24.320
<v Speaker 1>and let's be clear, Tony Leung is not Roger Moore.

0:28:25.200 --> 0:28:28.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that there's any double on Tondra intended.

0:28:28.680 --> 0:28:30.920
<v Speaker 1>There's nothing winking about his performance.

0:28:30.920 --> 0:28:33.040
<v Speaker 2>He doesn't need he doesn't need double on Tandra's.

0:28:33.200 --> 0:28:35.280
<v Speaker 1>No, he really doesn't, right, I mean, he's a walking

0:28:35.359 --> 0:28:39.000
<v Speaker 1>double on Tondre. But but maybe the English translation even

0:28:39.360 --> 0:28:42.800
<v Speaker 1>is sort of misleading because that's not really what he's saying,

0:28:43.120 --> 0:28:45.760
<v Speaker 1>or maybe Wong is winking at us there in that moment,

0:28:45.800 --> 0:28:48.520
<v Speaker 1>even if Leung isn't. But he asks her, do you

0:28:48.840 --> 0:28:53.080
<v Speaker 1>like it hot? In the subtitle? And I'm telling you

0:28:53.120 --> 0:28:55.400
<v Speaker 1>in that moment, before he even said it, I really

0:28:55.640 --> 0:28:58.720
<v Speaker 1>was responding to how charged that scene was. I could

0:28:58.720 --> 0:29:01.560
<v Speaker 1>give you the play by play and really make my point,

0:29:01.760 --> 0:29:03.680
<v Speaker 1>but I think, Josh, it would make you blush, and

0:29:03.720 --> 0:29:05.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to embarrass you here on the show.

0:29:05.480 --> 0:29:09.200
<v Speaker 1>But it is undenied. It's about sexual, It's undeniably sexual

0:29:09.240 --> 0:29:14.120
<v Speaker 1>because it's about it's about power. He doesn't ask, he

0:29:14.160 --> 0:29:16.960
<v Speaker 1>puts it on her plate. He makes the move to

0:29:17.800 --> 0:29:20.920
<v Speaker 1>put it on her plate to basically suggest that he

0:29:21.040 --> 0:29:23.480
<v Speaker 1>wants her to to try that, to eat it, and

0:29:23.520 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 1>she does, she submits to it. It's it's a pretty

0:29:27.360 --> 0:29:28.320
<v Speaker 1>incredible scene.

0:29:28.440 --> 0:29:31.120
<v Speaker 2>I'm so glad you asked this question because it clarified

0:29:31.120 --> 0:29:36.560
<v Speaker 2>another important distinction between us, Adam, I prefer quiet intimacy

0:29:36.680 --> 0:29:37.920
<v Speaker 2>and you like dirty talk.

0:29:38.160 --> 0:29:39.280
<v Speaker 1>So dirty talk.

0:29:39.360 --> 0:29:40.600
<v Speaker 2>I'm glad we know this now.

0:29:40.680 --> 0:29:44.120
<v Speaker 1>And Hot Mustard, I thought you were actually gonna put

0:29:44.160 --> 0:29:46.880
<v Speaker 1>it in this way that I just realized. My epiphany

0:29:47.000 --> 0:29:51.080
<v Speaker 1>was you find silence sexy, I find food sexy.

0:29:51.320 --> 0:29:53.280
<v Speaker 2>Well yeah, it kind of has a mixture of dirty

0:29:53.320 --> 0:29:55.840
<v Speaker 2>talk and food. So I think with that we should

0:29:55.880 --> 0:29:57.960
<v Speaker 2>move on for everyone's sakes.

0:29:58.080 --> 0:30:00.360
<v Speaker 1>So let's go let's go to something every buddy I

0:30:00.400 --> 0:30:00.960
<v Speaker 1>can see him.

0:30:01.120 --> 0:30:05.920
<v Speaker 2>Let's go to something far less sexy and talk about politics,

0:30:06.400 --> 0:30:09.360
<v Speaker 2>because it's something you brought up. I forget if it

0:30:09.400 --> 0:30:13.840
<v Speaker 2>were was with all happy yeah, yeah, totally happy together.

0:30:13.880 --> 0:30:15.840
<v Speaker 2>Maybe you brought this up and I don't have an answer,

0:30:15.920 --> 0:30:17.720
<v Speaker 2>but I have it was in the back of my

0:30:17.840 --> 0:30:20.959
<v Speaker 2>mind since you touched on it, and I have like

0:30:21.440 --> 0:30:24.000
<v Speaker 2>just an inkling from watching this film and where it

0:30:24.120 --> 0:30:26.120
<v Speaker 2>ends up. You know, we have this sequence a couple

0:30:26.120 --> 0:30:28.240
<v Speaker 2>of years later. I think we're about sixty six now,

0:30:29.360 --> 0:30:33.920
<v Speaker 2>and the politics kind of come into play in some

0:30:34.080 --> 0:30:37.720
<v Speaker 2>oblique ways. I think, though it is interesting before this

0:30:38.160 --> 0:30:40.840
<v Speaker 2>last sequence, Adam, you get that comment. I think it's

0:30:40.880 --> 0:30:43.960
<v Speaker 2>when we're back at the apartment building a couple years later.

0:30:44.000 --> 0:30:46.560
<v Speaker 2>It might be like sixty four at that point, and

0:30:46.640 --> 0:30:48.920
<v Speaker 2>a new resident I think says people are leaving Hong

0:30:49.000 --> 0:30:52.640
<v Speaker 2>Kong because things have gotten quote too chaotic, So that's

0:30:52.720 --> 0:30:55.800
<v Speaker 2>kind of like a little hint of some instability. But

0:30:56.200 --> 0:30:59.520
<v Speaker 2>this sequence is in Cambodia at the end nineteen sixty six,

0:31:00.360 --> 0:31:02.760
<v Speaker 2>and yeah, we get this newsreel footage all of a sudden,

0:31:03.800 --> 0:31:05.640
<v Speaker 2>I guess to set, you know, at first, I'm like, okay,

0:31:05.640 --> 0:31:07.280
<v Speaker 2>this is setting the time and place. But it's this

0:31:07.320 --> 0:31:10.760
<v Speaker 2>parade I think, with the prince and princess and French

0:31:10.800 --> 0:31:14.280
<v Speaker 2>President Charles de Gaulle, and so I'm thinking, okay, this

0:31:14.360 --> 0:31:18.360
<v Speaker 2>is sixty six. Did just some brief, very brief research,

0:31:18.440 --> 0:31:20.240
<v Speaker 2>but it looks like that would have been just before

0:31:20.600 --> 0:31:25.680
<v Speaker 2>the Vietnam War kind of destabilized Cambodia and spread into Cambodia.

0:31:26.040 --> 0:31:28.840
<v Speaker 2>Then we get that final sequence in ank or Watt,

0:31:28.840 --> 0:31:33.520
<v Speaker 2>where we're just with mister Chow Leung and he is

0:31:34.520 --> 0:31:35.840
<v Speaker 2>maybe I don't want to spoil all of it, but

0:31:35.880 --> 0:31:40.360
<v Speaker 2>this is the romantic gesture. But he's basically wandering the

0:31:42.560 --> 0:31:46.880
<v Speaker 2>ruined ancient temple complex there, so a lost civilization that

0:31:47.080 --> 0:31:50.760
<v Speaker 2>is no longer It's basically something that tourists go to

0:31:50.840 --> 0:31:53.680
<v Speaker 2>visit at this point. And so I'm realizing that, you know,

0:31:53.800 --> 0:31:59.120
<v Speaker 2>all of these things are suggestions of not only like

0:31:59.320 --> 0:32:04.080
<v Speaker 2>territories that are being destabilized in Hong Kong countries in Cambodia,

0:32:04.520 --> 0:32:07.680
<v Speaker 2>and then an entire civilization that has failed to last.

0:32:08.240 --> 0:32:11.160
<v Speaker 2>And I'm just thinking of, you know, how could he

0:32:11.240 --> 0:32:14.840
<v Speaker 2>have expected that this relationship, first of all, his own

0:32:14.840 --> 0:32:18.720
<v Speaker 2>marriage to last, then this relationship to last when like

0:32:19.000 --> 0:32:23.000
<v Speaker 2>these massive civilizations crumble in the face of what a

0:32:23.040 --> 0:32:27.080
<v Speaker 2>long obsession time. All of these things are suggestions of

0:32:27.200 --> 0:32:31.960
<v Speaker 2>time bearing down, things are about to change the way

0:32:31.960 --> 0:32:37.680
<v Speaker 2>that things always change, and instability is the only constant,

0:32:38.200 --> 0:32:41.440
<v Speaker 2>and as we've seen, unhappiness because of that is often

0:32:41.680 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 2>the only constant. So that's just kind of a vague

0:32:44.720 --> 0:32:48.120
<v Speaker 2>stab at maybe some of the political tie ins. I know,

0:32:48.160 --> 0:32:49.920
<v Speaker 2>it doesn't get into any of the details of the

0:32:49.960 --> 0:32:54.120
<v Speaker 2>realities of Hong Kong during this era or later, you know,

0:32:54.280 --> 0:32:58.880
<v Speaker 2>eventually what thirty years later would have been transferred from

0:32:59.160 --> 0:33:03.120
<v Speaker 2>colonial rule to China. But maybe that's something.

0:33:03.880 --> 0:33:06.479
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think you've said it very well. I think

0:33:06.560 --> 0:33:10.080
<v Speaker 1>there's always a sense, at least in these six films

0:33:10.080 --> 0:33:15.400
<v Speaker 1>that we've watched, of destabilization looming. It's always there, and

0:33:15.440 --> 0:33:19.720
<v Speaker 1>sometimes it is more direct, sometimes it's a little more oblique.

0:33:19.720 --> 0:33:22.400
<v Speaker 1>Here it is interesting that moment when all of a

0:33:22.440 --> 0:33:27.080
<v Speaker 1>sudden we cut to newsreel footage is so jarring compared

0:33:27.160 --> 0:33:31.640
<v Speaker 1>to everything we've seen before, this mood piece where we

0:33:31.720 --> 0:33:37.600
<v Speaker 1>are just enveloped in this world and these dresses and

0:33:37.840 --> 0:33:39.800
<v Speaker 1>the production design that we've touched on, and then all

0:33:39.840 --> 0:33:42.640
<v Speaker 1>of a sudden we're watching Charles Degall. It's like we've

0:33:42.800 --> 0:33:44.840
<v Speaker 1>all of a sudden been thrust into the real world

0:33:45.200 --> 0:33:48.480
<v Speaker 1>and we've been in a fantasy up until this point.

0:33:48.520 --> 0:33:50.240
<v Speaker 1>It reminded me actually in a way, in a completely

0:33:50.280 --> 0:33:52.720
<v Speaker 1>different way, but it took me out of the moment

0:33:53.240 --> 0:33:55.200
<v Speaker 1>in the same sort of fascinating way that the end

0:33:55.200 --> 0:33:58.720
<v Speaker 1>of Kiristami's Taste of Cherry, where all of a sudden

0:33:58.760 --> 0:34:01.520
<v Speaker 1>we get some whole movie footage, and if I'm remembering correctly,

0:34:01.560 --> 0:34:05.440
<v Speaker 1>we see Kiristami himself like making the movie that we

0:34:05.640 --> 0:34:08.760
<v Speaker 1>just watched. So again, very different, but in some ways

0:34:08.760 --> 0:34:13.000
<v Speaker 1>for me, a similar effect, where you are taken out

0:34:13.000 --> 0:34:16.799
<v Speaker 1>of this kind of hypnotic reverie with this movie and

0:34:16.840 --> 0:34:20.120
<v Speaker 1>reminded that, oh, all of this is happening in a

0:34:20.200 --> 0:34:24.919
<v Speaker 1>real world, a much larger world, where they're just one

0:34:25.520 --> 0:34:28.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of tiny speck in the universe, and that of course,

0:34:29.600 --> 0:34:33.080
<v Speaker 1>I think does set up ultimately the grandness of that

0:34:33.200 --> 0:34:35.840
<v Speaker 1>romantic gesture. So maybe that is a nice way to

0:34:35.840 --> 0:34:38.920
<v Speaker 1>get back to the question you posed. And I don't

0:34:38.920 --> 0:34:40.120
<v Speaker 1>know if we want to go ahead and throw out that.

0:34:40.160 --> 0:34:42.920
<v Speaker 1>If people want to not have In the Mood for

0:34:42.960 --> 0:34:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Love further spoiled, they could stop listening at this point.

0:34:46.560 --> 0:34:50.160
<v Speaker 1>But Warner West, I believe Warner West in Atlanta, He's

0:34:50.160 --> 0:34:53.680
<v Speaker 1>in the atl Josh, what's his question? What's his query?

0:34:54.080 --> 0:34:56.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so again this is on letterbox. He said that

0:34:56.800 --> 0:34:58.959
<v Speaker 2>In The Mood for Love is likely my favorite Wang

0:34:59.000 --> 0:35:01.880
<v Speaker 2>Khawaii film. I was interested in the film spotting team's

0:35:01.920 --> 0:35:03.719
<v Speaker 2>take on the ending. I believe I got the same

0:35:03.719 --> 0:35:07.040
<v Speaker 2>interpretation as you in my several watches, but I know

0:35:07.120 --> 0:35:11.560
<v Speaker 2>others interpret their relationship differently, particularly in regards to who

0:35:11.640 --> 0:35:15.040
<v Speaker 2>we see with Maggie Cheung in her final scene. So

0:35:16.440 --> 0:35:18.160
<v Speaker 2>I did not respond to him yet, so I'm just

0:35:18.239 --> 0:35:21.080
<v Speaker 2>kind of guessing what he's hinting at. But towards the

0:35:21.160 --> 0:35:24.719
<v Speaker 2>end is where we see her return to rent an

0:35:24.760 --> 0:35:27.680
<v Speaker 2>apartment in the same complex where they were years earlier,

0:35:27.920 --> 0:35:32.120
<v Speaker 2>and she has a child with her, So I'm wondering

0:35:32.280 --> 0:35:35.560
<v Speaker 2>if what Werner is suggesting I haven't read others takes,

0:35:35.600 --> 0:35:38.600
<v Speaker 2>but that this may be mister Chow's child that they

0:35:38.640 --> 0:35:41.760
<v Speaker 2>did in fact consummate the relationship at some point.

0:35:41.800 --> 0:35:42.319
<v Speaker 1>There is a.

0:35:42.239 --> 0:35:44.960
<v Speaker 2>Scene where they the role playing. They even go to

0:35:45.000 --> 0:35:48.040
<v Speaker 2>a hotel where they believe their respective spouses have been meeting,

0:35:49.160 --> 0:35:51.800
<v Speaker 2>and we don't see anything, but they're there. There's a

0:35:51.880 --> 0:35:55.240
<v Speaker 2>room there, So it could have been something that happened

0:35:55.320 --> 0:36:00.800
<v Speaker 2>off screen and resulted in this child that he doesn't

0:36:00.800 --> 0:36:04.680
<v Speaker 2>know about, right because he happens to be visiting either

0:36:04.719 --> 0:36:07.000
<v Speaker 2>at the same time or a few scenes later, stops

0:36:07.040 --> 0:36:09.640
<v Speaker 2>in front of the door, thinks about knocking but doesn't.

0:36:10.360 --> 0:36:14.240
<v Speaker 2>It's another just great wangkhar WHI, like, you know, time

0:36:14.880 --> 0:36:19.239
<v Speaker 2>shifting in just the wrong way moment. So yeah, I

0:36:19.239 --> 0:36:22.400
<v Speaker 2>mean I definitely considered this as I was watching, is like,

0:36:22.800 --> 0:36:25.840
<v Speaker 2>you know, have we just not seen them take that step.

0:36:26.520 --> 0:36:29.520
<v Speaker 2>I like to think Adam, for the reasons we've been

0:36:29.560 --> 0:36:32.680
<v Speaker 2>talking about that it's in keeping with all of the

0:36:32.760 --> 0:36:35.520
<v Speaker 2>other films he has made that they would not have

0:36:36.840 --> 0:36:39.880
<v Speaker 2>and that retains it's not even really the moral question

0:36:40.080 --> 0:36:44.279
<v Speaker 2>as much as the the auturist question. You know, it

0:36:44.320 --> 0:36:48.200
<v Speaker 2>retains the au tourist integrity of his filmography. But I

0:36:48.239 --> 0:36:51.480
<v Speaker 2>can totally see that reading, and that in fact, would

0:36:51.560 --> 0:36:56.120
<v Speaker 2>add another layer of melancholy and sadness if he did

0:36:56.280 --> 0:37:01.400
<v Speaker 2>not only miss on reuniting with her, but his child potentially.

0:37:01.520 --> 0:37:03.640
<v Speaker 2>But I don't know did Where did you kind of

0:37:03.640 --> 0:37:04.200
<v Speaker 2>come down on that?

0:37:04.840 --> 0:37:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Well? I think anybody watching, no matter the experience you're

0:37:10.080 --> 0:37:12.200
<v Speaker 1>having with the film or how you're interpreting it up

0:37:12.239 --> 0:37:15.200
<v Speaker 1>to that point, I think that moment where you realize

0:37:15.239 --> 0:37:17.719
<v Speaker 1>that she no longer seems to have a husband but

0:37:17.760 --> 0:37:20.200
<v Speaker 1>does have a child, you do instantly wonder. I mean,

0:37:20.239 --> 0:37:23.040
<v Speaker 1>we've seen this trope a million times in other movies,

0:37:23.200 --> 0:37:27.440
<v Speaker 1>right where a couple that had a fling, they separate

0:37:27.600 --> 0:37:32.080
<v Speaker 1>and oh they had a child, and the man doesn't

0:37:32.160 --> 0:37:36.000
<v Speaker 1>know about it but eventually does discover the news. For me,

0:37:36.800 --> 0:37:39.960
<v Speaker 1>I just can't, I can't abide that reading of the film.

0:37:40.000 --> 0:37:45.120
<v Speaker 1>I think it's it's too it's too in conflict with

0:37:46.120 --> 0:37:50.879
<v Speaker 1>everything we've expressed, everything we've seen in this marathon. You're

0:37:50.920 --> 0:37:54.080
<v Speaker 1>right that it does add another layer of melancholy, which

0:37:54.080 --> 0:37:57.360
<v Speaker 1>would seem appropriate, So you could you could go with

0:37:57.400 --> 0:38:01.840
<v Speaker 1>that argument, But for me, the idea that they ever

0:38:02.000 --> 0:38:08.680
<v Speaker 1>did actually act like their spouses that they gave in

0:38:08.680 --> 0:38:11.000
<v Speaker 1>In a way, maybe it makes them more human, But

0:38:11.040 --> 0:38:13.480
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that's what wankar Whi is really interested

0:38:13.520 --> 0:38:16.719
<v Speaker 1>in here. I think he's he's interested in the provocation

0:38:17.360 --> 0:38:20.759
<v Speaker 1>of these people in the philosophical kind of consequences, the

0:38:20.800 --> 0:38:25.239
<v Speaker 1>existential consequences of them making that decision. In sticking to it,

0:38:25.480 --> 0:38:29.800
<v Speaker 1>we won't be like them. So I think my reading

0:38:30.040 --> 0:38:34.160
<v Speaker 1>is the one where she has at some point separated

0:38:34.160 --> 0:38:38.280
<v Speaker 1>from her husband or perhaps he's passed. She did get

0:38:38.560 --> 0:38:43.800
<v Speaker 1>a child from that marriage, and that you imagine allows

0:38:43.800 --> 0:38:46.520
<v Speaker 1>her to be a little less alone in life. But

0:38:46.920 --> 0:38:49.040
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't have to be mister Chow's kid.

0:38:50.360 --> 0:38:53.040
<v Speaker 2>I'm glad you know. We may not Addam, we may

0:38:53.080 --> 0:38:55.239
<v Speaker 2>not agree on hot mustard as a sex toy, but

0:38:55.280 --> 0:38:57.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm glad we agree on the ending of in the

0:38:57.680 --> 0:38:58.279
<v Speaker 2>mood for love.

0:39:10.200 --> 0:39:12.759
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can access the full film Spotting archive going

0:39:12.880 --> 0:39:15.160
<v Speaker 1>back to two thousand and five. By being a film

0:39:15.160 --> 0:39:19.560
<v Speaker 1>Spotting Family member, you get bonus shows, a weekly newsletter,

0:39:19.640 --> 0:39:32.040
<v Speaker 1>and more. Learn more at film spotting Family dot com.

0:39:32.080 --> 0:39:35.080
<v Speaker 1>Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting Family

0:39:35.120 --> 0:39:38.000
<v Speaker 1>at Filmspotting Family dot com and get access to ad

0:39:38.040 --> 0:39:41.480
<v Speaker 1>free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and, for

0:39:41.520 --> 0:39:44.160
<v Speaker 1>the first time, all in one place, the entire film

0:39:44.200 --> 0:39:46.879
<v Speaker 1>Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five. That's

0:39:46.880 --> 0:39:52.080
<v Speaker 1>a film Spotting family dot com panically