Speaker 1: On the Beck Doll Cast, the questions asked if movies
Speaker 1: have women in um, are all their discussions just boyfriends
Speaker 1: and husbands or do they have individualism the patriarchy? Zef
Speaker 1: in best start changing it with the Beck del Cast. Hi,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the Battle Cast. My name is Jamie Loftus,
Speaker 1: my name is Caitlin Dronte, and this is our podcast
Speaker 1: about the portrayal of women in movies. That's right. We
Speaker 1: measure it sort of by the Beck Dold test, or
Speaker 1: that's our jumping off point UM, which for us is
Speaker 1: a test that requires that a movie has two female
Speaker 1: identifying characters who have names, they speak to each other
Speaker 1: about something other than a man, and their conversation has
Speaker 1: to be at least two lines of dialogue. Bar pretty
Speaker 1: easy to do, but some movies really struggle. I would
Speaker 1: say most movies great transition into the movie and really
Speaker 1: the body of work. This is a popular request for us,
Speaker 1: and I would just say movies of this particular filmmaker,
Speaker 1: people get a real freshman year attachment to this is
Speaker 1: a peak, you know, like have you ever had sex
Speaker 1: with a guy that has a French poster of Oh okay?
Speaker 1: Hard to stop in but I've I've you know, I
Speaker 1: feel like many people have had the experience of hooking
Speaker 1: up with someone who has a framed poster of this
Speaker 1: filmmaker in their house, and it is a real red flag.
Speaker 1: I mean, less of a red flag than a lot
Speaker 1: of directors, but yeah, not the biggest red flag, but
Speaker 1: a little, a little, a little waving to say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to explain something to you and soon. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the director we're talking about, of course, is West Anderson.
Speaker 1: The movie we're covering today is The Royal Tenenbombs. First,
Speaker 1: before we get into our heavy discourse, let's know, some
Speaker 1: heavy flow discourse today. Yeah, let's introduce our guest. She's
Speaker 1: a stand up comic. She is an actor, she is
Speaker 1: a writer, and she's so wonderful. Jenny. Yeah, thank you
Speaker 1: for having me, Thanks for being here. Let's do this.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. Okay, So we're taking taking the Wes
Speaker 1: Anderson bullet. No one's been brave enough apparently. But you know,
Speaker 1: The Royal Tannon Bombs was like a movie I used
Speaker 1: to consider one of my favorites. I think that's pretty common.
Speaker 1: I I, well, when did you first see this movie?
Speaker 1: What's your history with the movie. I mean, I feel
Speaker 1: like I saw it in the early adds like everyone else,
Speaker 1: you know, when it came out ish like, but like
Speaker 1: not in the theaters. I forget if I saw it
Speaker 1: in the theaters. I just remember it made a really
Speaker 1: strong impression on me because I feel like I was
Speaker 1: probably already raised so basic with pop culture that, you know,
Speaker 1: to me, seeing a Wes Anderson moving like royal Tannon
Speaker 1: bombs was like it blew my mind. I was like, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: this is so stylized and so artsy, you know, and
Speaker 1: so I I think that was like one of my
Speaker 1: first tastes of something that wasn't just a typical popcorn movie. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And it really made an impression, I think, probably because
Speaker 1: there's such a melancholy in the movie and it's really
Speaker 1: about like a dysfunctional family, which, in a weird way,
Speaker 1: even though I'm like not white, um, I related to
Speaker 1: them somewhat, you know. Was sort of like a messed
Speaker 1: up patriarch kind of a storyline. And I just like
Speaker 1: the sort of droll like irony and sense of humor
Speaker 1: in it because it was still like pretty new and
Speaker 1: like interesting at this point where I feel like a
Speaker 1: lot of people have exhaustion with it now, but oh
Speaker 1: one Wes Anderson, we're talking peak West Andrewson fresh and
Speaker 1: this was one of his earlier ones. Yeah, before this,
Speaker 1: of the features, he did Bottle Rocket and Rushmore and
Speaker 1: I think maybe that's it as far as his like
Speaker 1: notable features. Yeah, but those are like the only the
Speaker 1: movies that like indie film nerds kind of Guilty is Charged.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so I think I also saw this, not
Speaker 1: in the theaters, but shortly after it came out. I
Speaker 1: think it was my first exposure to Mr Wes Anderson.
Speaker 1: At the time, I was like, Yeah, I'm into this.
Speaker 1: I like the production design, the cinema tug, all the
Speaker 1: meson sin. I was all for it. And now I
Speaker 1: go back and I revisit this or I see other
Speaker 1: Wes Anderson movies and I'm reminded that they usually story
Speaker 1: wise for me, this I think we were because we
Speaker 1: watched this movie together. I have seen this movie before,
Speaker 1: I think at some point in college. But and I
Speaker 1: think that this Jenny, I'm interested in your take on this.
Speaker 1: But so far, with people we've talked to, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of Wes Anderson movies that you know you've seen,
Speaker 1: but you cannot remember anything that happens in the movie,
Speaker 1: and you're like, oh, that's the one about camp And
Speaker 1: then if someone's like, well, what happened. We were asking
Speaker 1: Jack O'Brien at how stuff works. He was like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I loved I think he said like of Aquatic. I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, what is that one? He's like, uh, Submarine.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh yeah, I love that, and you
Speaker 1: cannot tell me one thing that happens, but I don't
Speaker 1: know what it is. Most of his movies tend to
Speaker 1: explore kind of the same themes, but it's not like
Speaker 1: they're totally with you. I mean, Darjeeling Limited is just
Speaker 1: straight up a bad one, but like they're not boring movies.
Speaker 1: There's stuff that's happening, but maybe it's just so stylized
Speaker 1: that that's all you can retain, or it's just I
Speaker 1: don't know. I know I've seen at least three Wes
Speaker 1: Anderson movies. Couldn't tell you what happens in one of them.
Speaker 1: It's just like, I feel like, if you've studied music,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of dynamics in a Wes Anderson movie.
Speaker 1: It all kind of just the notes just kind of
Speaker 1: center around this middle part, right, emotional notes, energy, right,
Speaker 1: it just kind of stays right, pretty static. Yeah. Right, So,
Speaker 1: so I feel like and the look of it is
Speaker 1: all kind of in that same kind of like you know,
Speaker 1: early Instagram filter, right and pretty wide, way too much headroom. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like we're living. Yeah, It's it's all just that, right,
Speaker 1: And so that's why I feel like, you know, visually,
Speaker 1: two people will just kind of confuse one West Sanderson
Speaker 1: movie with another. It's like we're living inside of like
Speaker 1: a thrift store diorama, you know, and so and they're
Speaker 1: just swapping out these dioramas. But but for me, though,
Speaker 1: I feel like, maybe, you know, Bottle Rock, it might
Speaker 1: have been a little different, but I feel like it
Speaker 1: was Royal Tannon Bombs that really set the tone for
Speaker 1: like the look of his more commercially successful films after that, right, absolutely, yeah,
Speaker 1: And so I feel like I feel like, no matter what,
Speaker 1: Royal Tannon Bombs might stick out a little more for
Speaker 1: people in terms of being memorable. But yeah, after that,
Speaker 1: it's gets kind of blurry. It's kind of yeah, the
Speaker 1: tone is sort of set with this movie, and then
Speaker 1: you're like visually and I'm sure you know, people who
Speaker 1: know a lot about film know the specifics, but like,
Speaker 1: visually frame from Royal Tannon Bombs and frame from moon
Speaker 1: Rise Kingdom the same fucking things. Like it's like and
Speaker 1: now it's not even a bad thing. It's okay to
Speaker 1: have consistency throughout a body of work. But the Wes
Speaker 1: Anderson theory. If you are listening and you consider yourself
Speaker 1: a fan of Wes Anderson's work, I defy you try
Speaker 1: to uh summarize one of his movies and not just
Speaker 1: have it be like, that's the one about dogs, that's
Speaker 1: the one about camp, that's the one about underwater, that's
Speaker 1: the one about I don't know Bill Murray's in it.
Speaker 1: Like that, Oh, I think that serves as a great
Speaker 1: transition to the recap, which I will try my best
Speaker 1: to do. I just watch the movie twice and I
Speaker 1: still don't. Okay. Basically, we learn about this family of
Speaker 1: Tenant Bombs. The patriarch is Royal Tenant Bomb played by
Speaker 1: Jane Hackman. He's married to Ethelene. They have three kids, Chaz,
Speaker 1: Margot and Ritchie, and they're like a bunch of baby geniuses.
Speaker 1: They're these very accomplished kids who like do a lot
Speaker 1: in their youth and they're very exceptional, and and that's
Speaker 1: pulled um a bunch of different sources. Where the Magnificent
Speaker 1: Anderson's is an Orson Wells film that's referenced pretty heavily
Speaker 1: in this, and then it's also referencing J. D. Salinger's
Speaker 1: Glass Family. I believe you're called so Wes Anderson he's
Speaker 1: pulling from other male ahturs of note of like the
Speaker 1: White family that's really smart but tragic, Like that's he's
Speaker 1: clearly pulling from that sort of stock story, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So it's this family of like exceptional young kids and
Speaker 1: the plarents split up when they're fairly young, and they
Speaker 1: kind of estranged themselves from Royal Tenenbaumb until a few
Speaker 1: things happen where he gets kicked out of his hotel
Speaker 1: room and he's broke and he doesn't really know what
Speaker 1: to do, so he decides to reconnect with his family
Speaker 1: under the ruse of telling them that he is dying
Speaker 1: so they will basically take sympathy on him and be
Speaker 1: more willing to reconnect with him. So this happens for
Speaker 1: a while where the family who had kind of drifted
Speaker 1: apart over the years, gets back together. They're all under
Speaker 1: one roof again where Ethylene lives. Ethylene is considering getting remarried,
Speaker 1: yes to Henry played by Danny Glover right, and then
Speaker 1: all of the kids have kind of they were exceptional
Speaker 1: in their youth, but they've kind of like leveled out
Speaker 1: and they're not that great anymore, or they're just not
Speaker 1: exceptional the way they were when they were kids. So
Speaker 1: they're sort of reconnecting, and over the course of a
Speaker 1: few days or so, um, it comes out the Royal
Speaker 1: is not actually dying of stomach cancer like he says
Speaker 1: he is. Uh, he just made that all up so
Speaker 1: that people would take pity on him and want to
Speaker 1: hang out with him again. So then he gets kind
Speaker 1: of cast away again. But the family is still sort
Speaker 1: of like working through their issues and their relationships with
Speaker 1: each other in that like two of them are in love.
Speaker 1: But it's fine. It's fine because Margot is adopted Paltrow.
Speaker 1: So basically the story ends with the family reconnecting just
Speaker 1: as Gene Hackman's character wanted, but under unusual circumstances, and
Speaker 1: so flash forward, he dies, and then the movie ends
Speaker 1: when the company Goop is is founded. Marco has a
Speaker 1: wild idea. What is she founded the most annoying company possible?
Speaker 1: Then goop starts, Wait does that happen? No, Like I'm
Speaker 1: talking about Gwyneth two snail cream. Oh okay, I am
Speaker 1: aware of Gwyneth and her products, Gwyneth her content. You know,
Speaker 1: I would say live in ignorance with Gwyneth and her products.
Speaker 1: It's a lot okay. Yeah, So yeah, that's basically the story,
Speaker 1: and there are some interesting things to talk about there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess I guess so much, so much, yeah, or
Speaker 1: so little. There's I don't know, Like I have a
Speaker 1: lot of notes for this. It's but it's hard to
Speaker 1: know where to star. Well, so there's two main female
Speaker 1: characters of any note in, Margot played by Gwyneth Patro
Speaker 1: and Ethylene played by Angelica Houston. Right, So the first
Speaker 1: opening sequence of the movie is our introduction of the
Speaker 1: young Tenembombs, and we learn a little bit about the
Speaker 1: children and then the parents as well. So with like Ethylene,
Speaker 1: we learned that her main concern was the children's education,
Speaker 1: and then it pretty quickly cuts away from her it
Speaker 1: goes to Chaz. We learned about him loving finance, he
Speaker 1: bread Dalmatian mice. He was a real estate mogul as
Speaker 1: a small child. Then we learned about Margot. We learned
Speaker 1: that she is adopted. She is a playwright. Um. We
Speaker 1: see her in a dark room, we see her doing ballet. Um.
Speaker 1: She camps out in a library for a while with
Speaker 1: her brother Richie. She's not like the other girls, right,
Speaker 1: she smokes and she's I don't know, there's And then
Speaker 1: we learned about Ritchie, who was a stark tennis player.
Speaker 1: We see him playing with a ham radio. He has
Speaker 1: a drum set, He paints pictures of Margo. He has
Speaker 1: a bird named Mordecai. And then we learned about Royal
Speaker 1: and that he was a litigator until he was disbarred
Speaker 1: in the mid eighties. So we're getting an introduction to
Speaker 1: all these characters. It feels as though the two women
Speaker 1: that we learned about, I don't know, they just feel
Speaker 1: more glossed over or like. The only accomplishment that is
Speaker 1: noted for Margo is that she won like the Braverman
Speaker 1: Grant in ninth grade for a play she wrote. But
Speaker 1: for the boys, it's like, oh, they did this thing,
Speaker 1: and they did this thing, and they did this thing.
Speaker 1: And did, and then Ethelene is like basically just described
Speaker 1: in the context of her being a mother in that sequence.
Speaker 1: So right away, I feel like it's sort of that
Speaker 1: whole thing lays the groundwork for how the female characters
Speaker 1: will be treated throughout the rest of the movie. It's
Speaker 1: interesting because it's it's like the story has like the
Speaker 1: skeleton of female characters that could be well developed if
Speaker 1: the movie was going to like invest time in it.
Speaker 1: Like we know that Ethleene is an archaeologist and a
Speaker 1: really good one, Like she has this career, and and
Speaker 1: there's enough there that we could explore something outside of
Speaker 1: how she behaves as a mother and a wife. But
Speaker 1: that's all the movie really chooses to explore it, which
Speaker 1: is frustrating because she's like, well there's more, there's more there,
Speaker 1: but it just we just don't really get to see it. No,
Speaker 1: we don't, you know. When I was watching, I kind
Speaker 1: of like looked at like when the women said lines,
Speaker 1: and it really wasn't until like a third of the
Speaker 1: way in that, like Ethelene finally talked to her daughter. Yeah, everyone,
Speaker 1: it was like a while, and even before that, each
Speaker 1: of them got maybe one or two lines, right because
Speaker 1: in terms of like the Bechdel tests, like you're like, well,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the scene that would pass if
Speaker 1: we get to see these characters together at all, Like
Speaker 1: and it's just kind of the question of like will
Speaker 1: we get to see them together? And it takes a
Speaker 1: long time, which is kind of a bummer too because
Speaker 1: Ethelene and well, I guess if we start with Royal,
Speaker 1: Royal has medi substantial scenes with all three of his children,
Speaker 1: with some of them more than once. Evelyne kind of doesn't.
Speaker 1: We see her interact with all three of her children,
Speaker 1: but it's not with the same amount of depth. It
Speaker 1: doesn't reveal as much about her character. It sort of
Speaker 1: exists more to tell us about her kids and not
Speaker 1: really anything about her, where the Royal scenes are either
Speaker 1: like equal of like we're learning about him and his
Speaker 1: child or we're just learning about him and like why
Speaker 1: he is a liar or why you're something about his past,
Speaker 1: Where I mean we learn a lot about Royal Tenan
Speaker 1: bombs past, we don't really learn we learned about Ethelyne's
Speaker 1: past as it pertains to Royal. I think that's what's
Speaker 1: messed up about this is that it is about a
Speaker 1: dysfunctional family that is dysfunctional primarily in response to how
Speaker 1: messed up Royal is, right, the patriarch, and so this whole,
Speaker 1: this whole story is surround being sort of royal driving
Speaker 1: what's happening. Right, So he's like wants to get back
Speaker 1: in with the family so that he can intervene and
Speaker 1: really have a relationship. So he's always the one trying
Speaker 1: to instigate something or call one of his kids out,
Speaker 1: whereas Ethylene only serves as like a typical female counterbalance,
Speaker 1: kind of patriarchal counterbalance to that, which is like she's
Speaker 1: the one to soothe, to coax to like yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: she's to clean up the messer. And obviously that's probably
Speaker 1: reflective of their relationship. And I think that it poses
Speaker 1: the same question I always have, which is, if say,
Speaker 1: we do want to talk about how messed up the
Speaker 1: patriarchy is, you know, and we write a story about it,
Speaker 1: how much is that just simply continuing to put a
Speaker 1: spotlight on the men to reflect to you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, rather than really dismantling it or in doing it.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what's tough. You know. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, like if I have a similarly messed up
Speaker 1: kind of patriarchal dad, and I want to write about
Speaker 1: that to dissect it. Does that mean I'm giving more
Speaker 1: power to that person's voice, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: Like like because we're because we're still saying Royal is
Speaker 1: the one taking the action. He's he's getting protagonists. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he gets all the fun scenes. I think, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that that is part of it. Yeah, Like the
Speaker 1: movie isn't critical enough of him where he is, Like
Speaker 1: the way that like misogyny is displayed through Royals is
Speaker 1: like lighthearted and you can imagine a giggle in the
Speaker 1: movie theater cheeky. Yeah, and the same with when he's
Speaker 1: like being racist against Danny Glover's character is like, oh,
Speaker 1: just an old guy being an old guy, and it
Speaker 1: normalizes it pretty quickly in the context of the movie.
Speaker 1: And and then at the end, what what I mean,
Speaker 1: I forgot literally everything that happened in this movie, But
Speaker 1: I definitely forgot the end where I feel like we
Speaker 1: we get close to criticizing Royal when he's kicked out
Speaker 1: of the house and they're like, no, fuck you, you
Speaker 1: can't lie to us anymore. You're you're cast out. But
Speaker 1: then in the end, you know, he does sort of apologize,
Speaker 1: but that was even that was like, did he really
Speaker 1: And then at the end he dies and sort of
Speaker 1: the takeaway of the movie is like, well, if he
Speaker 1: hadn't a lot all those times, the family wouldn't be
Speaker 1: back together. And I was just like, oh, so we should.
Speaker 1: So it ends up being completely uncritical of the patriarchy
Speaker 1: and the patriarch in that they're like, well, yeah, mistakes
Speaker 1: were made, but families chill now, And it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been if he hadn't like faked cancer and gas light
Speaker 1: his whole family. Like I was just like, no, what
Speaker 1: they're like the consequences of this, Uh, the Shenanigans actually
Speaker 1: was kind of good if he worked out. If we
Speaker 1: end this movie with like and we've cast out the
Speaker 1: patriarch who clearly has no respect for us or himself,
Speaker 1: and uh, well we're all here, so let's hang out
Speaker 1: and keep him out of our lives. That's a maybe
Speaker 1: less movie. I mean, it's one of those we talked
Speaker 1: about this. Uh. I think on our How the Grinch
Speaker 1: Stole Christmas episode and on our Muppet Christmas Carol episode
Speaker 1: about the male redemption stories that we see so much
Speaker 1: of where it's like, like, sure, if you want to
Speaker 1: make a movie about a dysfunctional family and how everyone
Speaker 1: is messed up as a result of at least one
Speaker 1: of the parents disservicing their children in some way, great,
Speaker 1: that's an interesting story, but like, why do we have
Speaker 1: to hear it from the point of view of the
Speaker 1: person who did the messing up? Like why can't we?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know there are movies that explore it
Speaker 1: from different points of view, but it's just like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I just I have so little patience to the point
Speaker 1: where the movie is named after the yeah, like yeah,
Speaker 1: it it ends up. There are moments where it approaches
Speaker 1: being critical, but ultimately he's a redumable character. He ends
Speaker 1: up think everything he wanted, which was the relationship with
Speaker 1: his family, which he got after years of lying, and
Speaker 1: then kind of a half past apology. So that's all.
Speaker 1: It takes great lifetime of trauma and therapy. No, no way,
Speaker 1: like just a sorry maybe just like might be like
Speaker 1: what are you talking about? I don't know, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: male redemption story and then there's a lot of men
Speaker 1: who are redeemed in the course of this story. Royal
Speaker 1: is the main one. But I think also with Richie,
Speaker 1: there's sort of like a redemption story told there. Should
Speaker 1: we jump into him and Margot? Now, yeah, this very
Speaker 1: bizarre romantic relationship is established between Ritchie, who is a
Speaker 1: biological tenenbomb, and Margot, who is an adopted Tenan bomb.
Speaker 1: This is the premise of the most searched porn on porn. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: like you see that, You're like, this is this is
Speaker 1: a Wes Anderson thing. There must be a Wes Anderson
Speaker 1: Richie and Margot. I'm gonna go search after this CP incognito.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do it in plain sight. I don't care
Speaker 1: who knows. I'm going to Starbucks right now, gorgeous symmetrical pornography.
Speaker 1: A Kink song is playing in the background this time tomorrows.
Speaker 1: I mean, they have face flopping technology, so who knows.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's you know, kind of a joint. Okay. So
Speaker 1: this this relationship is established where for the most part
Speaker 1: we see Richie like pining over Margot. He's painting pictures
Speaker 1: of her, he's waiting at the bus stop for her. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but then whenever it comes out finally that they basically
Speaker 1: confess their love for each other, and at this point
Speaker 1: we don't really know that Margot had loved him. We
Speaker 1: only find out in that moment because we're seeing most
Speaker 1: of the nature of their relationship through Richie's point of view.
Speaker 1: So one, I find it weird that we don't know
Speaker 1: how she feels about totally. That's her reaction whenever he's
Speaker 1: like I love you, and she's like, I love you too,
Speaker 1: and then they kiss, and then they lie down and
Speaker 1: a tent together, like we didn't know because she is
Speaker 1: married to Bill Murray's character Raleigh, and then also was
Speaker 1: having an affair with Eli Rock and not Eli Rock,
Speaker 1: like so yeah, so she was. She's engaged in multiple
Speaker 1: relationships with men, which means that she is the object.
Speaker 1: I feel like Margot's main purpose in the story is
Speaker 1: to be the object of several men's affection. The same
Speaker 1: for Ethelene, where it's the push and pull between like
Speaker 1: is Royal gonna rope her back in? Or is she
Speaker 1: going to marry Henry? There's no option presented where she
Speaker 1: can be single. Kind of the same for Marco. And
Speaker 1: there's those two montage scenes in regards to those characters
Speaker 1: that I wanted to talk about where there's a lot
Speaker 1: of montage scenes in all of wes Anderson's work, and
Speaker 1: and these aren't the only ones that appear, but the
Speaker 1: two montage scenes that are specific to Marco and to
Speaker 1: Ethylene are almost exclusively about their sexual history. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: in Margot's case, not all meant but mostly right, where
Speaker 1: Like we see highlights from Margot's life and it's like
Speaker 1: she starts to smoke, she leaves school. The rest is
Speaker 1: for sexual right, and then for Ethylene, it's here are
Speaker 1: the men that she's dated since she and Royal tennan
Speaker 1: bomb broke up, and then we get finally to Henry,
Speaker 1: who is the new man in her life. So there's
Speaker 1: no there's really no ambiguity about like what matters to
Speaker 1: the story with these characters, where there are other elements
Speaker 1: of their lives. But that's not what wes Anderson and
Speaker 1: co writer Owen Wilson really want your attention on, right,
Speaker 1: because we don't see any such montages like that of
Speaker 1: characters romantic or sexual histories with any of the male characters,
Speaker 1: noticed only with Ethylene and Margot, which is a very
Speaker 1: deliberate choice and a very glaring they do give. They
Speaker 1: give Ben Stiller's character a different trope, which is the
Speaker 1: good old fashioned dead wife his wife, and they do
Speaker 1: go to see her gravestone, much like in The Rock
Speaker 1: his favorite movies. Yeah, Ben Stillers and the and his
Speaker 1: wife who we never meet, but her death is the
Speaker 1: main thing that defines his character is dealing with and
Speaker 1: how that has manifested in him being extremely overprotective of
Speaker 1: his two sons and being like very overly concerned with
Speaker 1: their safety. That's a part of the movie I didn't dislike.
Speaker 1: I thought it was like kind of nice and a
Speaker 1: little unusual to see a single father definitely being overbearing,
Speaker 1: but being a pretty solid parent throughout the movie, Like
Speaker 1: definitely overprotective, but usually like if you see a single father.
Speaker 1: You don't see a lot of single fathers in movies
Speaker 1: at all, um, but especially like if you do see
Speaker 1: a single father, he's fucking up and he you know,
Speaker 1: he doesn't get it, can't relate with his kids or whatever.
Speaker 1: And I mean to like the Chad's tennem bomb character
Speaker 1: is a good dad who clearly is suffering from PTSD.
Speaker 1: But but I agree, Yeah, but also Ben still is
Speaker 1: just really good at playing nervous. He's great and yeah,
Speaker 1: and then the best visual pun in the whole movie
Speaker 1: is a the end when Royal tenan bomb does Ben
Speaker 1: still learn his son's show up in black track suits
Speaker 1: to the funeral because they have been in red Adida's
Speaker 1: track suits up until that point. They switched it up
Speaker 1: out of respect. These characters do not stray far from
Speaker 1: their costume design solid aesthetic um. Back to the relationship
Speaker 1: between Margot and Richie, I mean, why was the choice made.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not technically an incestual relationship because they're
Speaker 1: not related by blood, but it's weird. I mean, I
Speaker 1: feel like it it introduces, like, in theory, if we
Speaker 1: paid a little more attention to the Marco character outside
Speaker 1: of how she relates to the men, you know, or
Speaker 1: how she furthers the male stories, we don't need that
Speaker 1: romance at all. Really, Like, if if you took the
Speaker 1: time spent on Margot and Richie's not incestual relationship and
Speaker 1: put that into flashing out the background of Margot and
Speaker 1: of Ethylene a little more, you almost like don't really
Speaker 1: need it. I don't hate that it's there, but I
Speaker 1: do think that it just, yeah, it kind of takes
Speaker 1: away from Margot's character quite a bit because it's like
Speaker 1: even the first time you see Margot as an adult,
Speaker 1: it's such a male, like a kind of a comically
Speaker 1: male gazy shot where she gets off the bus and
Speaker 1: it's like slow motion and he loves her, and you're like, wait,
Speaker 1: but he's her brother, and you know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't know where I fall in that
Speaker 1: well for me. So after the family discovers that Royal
Speaker 1: had been lying about having cancer, that's like halfway through
Speaker 1: the movie, which means there's a whole half of the
Speaker 1: movie to go. And where the plot goes from there
Speaker 1: is basically focusing on Richie and Margot's relationship, with a
Speaker 1: few of the subplots like weaved into that, but that's
Speaker 1: largely what the narrative focuses on. Three big things that
Speaker 1: evanced the narrative in this movie are Royal lies to
Speaker 1: his family. That's the first phase. Second phase, which I
Speaker 1: think is done pretty irresponsibly by this movie, is Ritchie
Speaker 1: tries to kill himself. That's what brings the family together
Speaker 1: the second time after they disperse. And the third thing
Speaker 1: that brings everybody together is Ethylene decides to marry Henry,
Speaker 1: and there's a wedding. Those are the three things that
Speaker 1: bring the family together. All of them are pretty intrinsically
Speaker 1: connected to either men or marriage. That's all there is
Speaker 1: the boys. The boys are back in town, or we're
Speaker 1: marrying the boys, right, Because the way that the male characters,
Speaker 1: including the narrator, talk about Margot or the way that
Speaker 1: she serves a purpose in the narrative, well like, for example,
Speaker 1: Richie attempts suicide because he has just learned that she
Speaker 1: had been having an affair with his best friend Eli,
Speaker 1: which I mean, we can get into a whole discussion
Speaker 1: about how this movie does not handle suicidality and mental
Speaker 1: illness well at all, but setting that aside, So him
Speaker 1: discovering that she was having an affair with his friend
Speaker 1: prompts Ritchie to attempt suicide. Then her husband, Raleigh played
Speaker 1: by Bill Murray, goes on this whole tirade where he
Speaker 1: blames Margo for Richie's suicide. This is shortly after he
Speaker 1: has called himself a cook and then he gets up.
Speaker 1: Earlier in the movie, Royal confronts Margot because she doesn't
Speaker 1: he doesn't like the way that she's treating her husband rally,
Speaker 1: because she's so secretive. The different montages that the narrator
Speaker 1: is describing, it's often in the context of who she's
Speaker 1: married to or who she used to be married and
Speaker 1: divorced too, and then we focus on things about her
Speaker 1: husband when we should be learning more about her. So
Speaker 1: even when she's on screen or even when she's being
Speaker 1: talked about, it's still usually in the context of her
Speaker 1: relationship to the men in her life, which is stupid.
Speaker 1: That's my hot, very academic take on that. Marco kind
Speaker 1: of like with athletes character, there's like a glimmer of like,
Speaker 1: why why don't we look at that a little more
Speaker 1: instead of making her marry someone or making her fall
Speaker 1: in love with something like you get that flashback scene
Speaker 1: where Margot looks for her birth family and finds them
Speaker 1: and then is unsatisfied, and you know, like kind of
Speaker 1: a trophy approach to the adopted child story where they
Speaker 1: go to find their origin and then it doesn't answer
Speaker 1: the question that they actually had and like doesn't end
Speaker 1: up solving all their problems. Fine, a pretty interesting scene
Speaker 1: and shows us more of that character and kind of
Speaker 1: like where she's coming from, but then it's kind of
Speaker 1: really not touched one again and and I mean, I
Speaker 1: can't say this with certainty, but it seems like part
Speaker 1: of the reason that I mean, she's made to be
Speaker 1: adopted so that it's weird as an audience, are okay
Speaker 1: with her kissing Luke Wilson, but it goes largely kind
Speaker 1: of unexplored where you see like a little piece of
Speaker 1: it and you're like, oh, that's interesting. But then the
Speaker 1: main takeaway of that is like she's still sad and
Speaker 1: it's actually fine if she makes out with Luke Wilson,
Speaker 1: and that's all really all we're given. I feel like
Speaker 1: the way that the semi incestuous relationship is covered is
Speaker 1: such an indication of how Wes Anderson portrays the depth
Speaker 1: of true relationship dynamics. It's almost like, fundamentally, this family
Speaker 1: is a codependent, dysfunctional family with a very mean and
Speaker 1: narcissistic father figure, right, and that has all of these
Speaker 1: consequences with like all the kids being depressed and probably
Speaker 1: self critical and in some way self harming. And that's
Speaker 1: really deep and like sad and awful, and that's like
Speaker 1: what happens in like a family dynamic like that. But
Speaker 1: like what Wes Anderson does is he like takes a
Speaker 1: story like that, but only skims really the like the
Speaker 1: cute and the quirky and the delightful parts for us
Speaker 1: to look at, you know, which is entertaining, But there
Speaker 1: is something to be desired when it comes to really
Speaker 1: getting into why the relationships are the way they are
Speaker 1: totally right, Like, it's like, oh, we have this sort
Speaker 1: of surface level presentation of this really dysfunctional family. The
Speaker 1: jokes are cute, the casual racism chuckle chuckle, you know,
Speaker 1: and so and so I think in the end, I've
Speaker 1: heard about dynamics where step children might grow way way
Speaker 1: too close, or even regular children grow way too close
Speaker 1: because the parents are like not really there for kids,
Speaker 1: you know. But and maybe that could be an explanation
Speaker 1: for Margo and Richie, but we don't really get that,
Speaker 1: you know. Yeah, it's not like and the fact that
Speaker 1: Wes Anderson, you know, really goes out of his way
Speaker 1: to be like they are not related is a very
Speaker 1: deliberate choice in his part. And I think that the
Speaker 1: choices like I want this movie to make a lot
Speaker 1: of money and be successful, and I don't want people
Speaker 1: to feel weird about it. I wanted to be quirky
Speaker 1: and like not like the other relationships, but I don't
Speaker 1: want it to be outside of what is conventionally acceptable,
Speaker 1: and you know with in the law and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and then and then I really like and
Speaker 1: we don't really have time to fully unpack it, but
Speaker 1: just the way that this movie treats Richie's suicide attempt
Speaker 1: is very sudden and more graphic than I remembered, and
Speaker 1: beautifully shot though guards of symmetry, gorgeous shot of this
Speaker 1: horrifying act that is really barely commented on after it happens,
Speaker 1: and it's just I mean, it's scared to see, like
Speaker 1: he literally slits his wrists on camera, which I mean,
Speaker 1: we can argue the ethics of that. I just don't
Speaker 1: think that that's like a responsible thing to do in
Speaker 1: what you're trying to have be a mainstream movie. And
Speaker 1: then really it just serves the narrative purpose of you know,
Speaker 1: getting Margot to talk to Ritchie again and to get
Speaker 1: the family together again. And outside of that that like
Speaker 1: very drastic upsetting action is not really addressed that much
Speaker 1: after that, except of like, well Margot is talking to
Speaker 1: me again, so shrug, Like it's just it's very bizarre.
Speaker 1: I mean, the gorgeousness of the art direction and the
Speaker 1: cinematography risks rising suicide and depression, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's like that was pretty well yeah, yeah, like why
Speaker 1: did that look so nice? Right? And then the scene
Speaker 1: after so you see he kind of like lays his
Speaker 1: arms onto the sink and then you see the blood
Speaker 1: kind of rushed down and then that cuts immediately to
Speaker 1: it's not comical, but it's such a juxtaposition against what
Speaker 1: we just saw that it's almost like, I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly how to describe it, but it's like a bunch
Speaker 1: of doctors and nurses and stuff like that rushing him
Speaker 1: the hall and it's like suddenly this bright colors and
Speaker 1: it's like the music, the music and the and just
Speaker 1: the movement on the screen almost makes that seem amusing. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I think that the especially with the music there is
Speaker 1: communicating is like and we're all back together again because
Speaker 1: this thing happened. Either that or saying like oh it's
Speaker 1: all gonna be okay, like he won't die from this,
Speaker 1: but it's still yeah, just if that felt handled irresponsible, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the way that that that that shift communicated
Speaker 1: what it communicated to me was Wes Anderson saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: isn't it cute that Richie tried to commit suicide, but
Speaker 1: he's not going to be successful ha ha because he
Speaker 1: got found before. He can't get that right exactly, but
Speaker 1: that's how that felt because because the way he was
Speaker 1: found was pretty soon after he you know, started bleeding
Speaker 1: and he was on the floor of the bathroom and
Speaker 1: like the random test subject of Rally st Clair finding
Speaker 1: the teenage, Yeah, a lot of hair, a lot of
Speaker 1: hat I'd like to throw in here. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: if I were to rewrite the Royal Tannon bombs from
Speaker 1: a different perspective in order to fulfill the Bechdel test,
Speaker 1: I would write it from the perspective of Sing Sing
Speaker 1: Oh okay, yeah, Sing Sing with this the character in
Speaker 1: the very beginning, that's the masseuse. Uh. You know, in
Speaker 1: the scene where you find out that Royal is going
Speaker 1: to get kicked out of the hotel that he's been
Speaker 1: seeing in and you pan up and you see Sing
Speaker 1: Sing is uh, you know, his his masseuse looks kind
Speaker 1: of asian e and Sing Sing is like what an
Speaker 1: elementary school bully would call me in order to make
Speaker 1: fun of my Chinese name. Yeah, so I'm just like okay,
Speaker 1: and so I would I would rewrite the royal tannem
Speaker 1: bombs from Sing Sing's perspective. You actually see Sing Sing
Speaker 1: later on um do you do? She's in the background.
Speaker 1: And I think this is very indicative of the people
Speaker 1: of color characters that in this movie. For Wes Anderson,
Speaker 1: you have Pagoda, which is it's a Japanese word for
Speaker 1: a Chinese architectural detail. That is the name that is
Speaker 1: given to the Indian man in Calcutta, that he is
Speaker 1: his sort of man servant for the royal for royal,
Speaker 1: So very bizarre, and and and and so you know,
Speaker 1: because of the sort of wide angle shots that we
Speaker 1: get of every scene, the sort of quirkiness and the
Speaker 1: benefit of the color and the texture of of these
Speaker 1: shots is that you get to see side characters and
Speaker 1: background actors and background movement right while the foreground is happening.
Speaker 1: And so so often it's either Pagoda or Sing Sing
Speaker 1: or other sort of people of color or servant type
Speaker 1: characters in the background being quirky and moving uh to
Speaker 1: to sort of be like animated gifts of delightfulness in
Speaker 1: the back and so and so I think Sing Sing
Speaker 1: would be Apparently Sing Sing showing up later probably indicates
Speaker 1: they had a really close relationship. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the nature of it. She didn't say one word, but
Speaker 1: I would rewrite that would be my wicked musical. I
Speaker 1: would rewrite Royal tannem Bombs the musical from Sing Sing's perspective. Uh,
Speaker 1: hell yeah, I'll buy it. I would watch We'll see
Speaker 1: and then she has like a secret relationship with Pagoda,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, yeah, it's a non white characters
Speaker 1: are largely used for comic relief in this movie, with
Speaker 1: with the exception of Danny Glover's character, who's really the
Speaker 1: only non white main character in the movie, and even
Speaker 1: then he's like a bi character pretty much. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it just it just hints to the sort of
Speaker 1: orientalist problem that Wes Anderson tends to have, as we
Speaker 1: saw with Isle of Dogs recently. Because you know, you know,
Speaker 1: I noticed the Asian ship all the time in any movie,
Speaker 1: and so in what in this movie, the first time
Speaker 1: we see Asian ship is Sing Sing the Masseuse. The
Speaker 1: second time we see Asian ship is actually um when
Speaker 1: Royal confronts Ethylene to get back into her life, and
Speaker 1: you see they actually have in a street argument and
Speaker 1: it's in front of some kind of embassy that has
Speaker 1: Chinese words, you know, and so but it's very prominent
Speaker 1: because it's you know, it's it's ethylene and royal on
Speaker 1: the right hand side of the screen and three quarters
Speaker 1: of the rest of the screen is the sort of
Speaker 1: wall of this and you see the sign, and it's
Speaker 1: the sort of little details that tell me like it's
Speaker 1: very deliberate, because there is no scene that is not
Speaker 1: deliberate for Wes Anderson. And you know in the way
Speaker 1: that he also uses sort of essentially orientalist things as
Speaker 1: set dressing and people as set dressing. So um to me,
Speaker 1: the setting in front of a Chinese language sign of
Speaker 1: an embassy in the street of New York is no
Speaker 1: different from the fact that Sing Sing was in the
Speaker 1: background for another scene and pago to access set dressing
Speaker 1: for other scenes. I mean, Wes Anderson is an example
Speaker 1: of one of these odd toward directors that has his
Speaker 1: little like Darling's where he keeps recasting a handful of
Speaker 1: actors in his movies over and over again. You're Wilson Brothers,
Speaker 1: You're Jason Schwartzman's your Bill, Murray's maybe a couple of others,
Speaker 1: a ton of white actors exactly, mostly men um Wes
Speaker 1: Anderson on race is just a deep sigh. How do
Speaker 1: you spell that on a script? It's just like a
Speaker 1: bunch of us and yeah, but like repeated into infinity
Speaker 1: of like also a common not really a through line
Speaker 1: but basically just an image that you keep seeing. Is
Speaker 1: this cab that shows up all the time, Gypsy cab
Speaker 1: gypsy again being a slur for roma people. Not okay,
Speaker 1: I feel like this is this is another male utor
Speaker 1: issue and probably a white director issue as well, of
Speaker 1: like by thinking that the mere presence of something like
Speaker 1: makes it okay. I'm trying to articulate this correctly, but
Speaker 1: I think I know what you mean. Where he's like
Speaker 1: cute defying all this stuff that he cannot possibly understand
Speaker 1: or and and cannot represent on screen responsibly. But he's like,
Speaker 1: well it's there, so that's good. You know. I didn't
Speaker 1: ignore that because it's in my movie, So I'm doing
Speaker 1: a good job. I acknowledged that people who aren't me
Speaker 1: exist at all. So Trophy please like that cuteify ying
Speaker 1: is a good word. For the Wes Anderson filmmaking filter. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the name of his insta filter, slip Slipe cut.
Speaker 1: So I couldn't help but notice that towards the end,
Speaker 1: Eli crashes the wedding by literally crashing a car into
Speaker 1: the wedding. And I just wonder if that's the inspiration
Speaker 1: for the movie Wedding Crashers that he would later star in.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just here to ask the important question.
Speaker 1: It's Wedding Crasher is a part of the expanded Wes
Speaker 1: Anderson universe. Does anyone have any final thoughts about the movie?
Speaker 1: You know, there's still a part of me that appreciates
Speaker 1: the craft and the storytelling that happened in the movie, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, I liked it back then, prewoke viewing days
Speaker 1: for a reason, you know, And I think I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot I can learn about storytelling. But but
Speaker 1: I think we're in this moment where flipping the script
Speaker 1: talking about the Begdel Test, seeing it means to hear
Speaker 1: from the voices of people you don't usually here in
Speaker 1: a more popular conversation. That means that we're all going
Speaker 1: to figure out what it might mean to like create
Speaker 1: more mainstream accessible stories right, that are more critical the patriarchy,
Speaker 1: that are gonna, you know, have us drive the story.
Speaker 1: You know, your future Broadway musical, yes string, you know
Speaker 1: the sing Sing Tannerballs featuring Pagoda. That's that's my takeaway
Speaker 1: that I want to write my wicked yeah. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: that's not to say that every single movie that comes
Speaker 1: out has to be this like hard hitting, deep analysis
Speaker 1: of the patriarchy and how to dismantle it. Because as
Speaker 1: much as I love to watch movies like that, I
Speaker 1: also love to watch just sort of mindless popcorn movies
Speaker 1: sometimes and there ye like Wes Anderson is the king
Speaker 1: of these kind of fun, quirky movies that start to
Speaker 1: maybe explore some themes that tend to go unexplored in
Speaker 1: his movies, but he really only kind of touches on
Speaker 1: the surface of them and doesn't really do much in
Speaker 1: the way of anything like that. But if you are
Speaker 1: going to have just a fun kind of mindless movie,
Speaker 1: I think that you do still have the responsibility to
Speaker 1: treat your characters well. And if you are going to
Speaker 1: have women in your movie, which you should, which which
Speaker 1: I mean rolling my eyes, but sometimes it has to
Speaker 1: have women because what if the proton, what if the
Speaker 1: male protagonist wants to have heterosat who is he going
Speaker 1: to have sex with? But right, So, if you're going
Speaker 1: to make a fun, quirky, offbeat movie, then have your
Speaker 1: female characters still not be entirely defined by their relationships
Speaker 1: to men, for example, Or have the people of color
Speaker 1: in your movie not only be the help of the
Speaker 1: white characters. So yeah, just a lot of just a
Speaker 1: lot of missteps in this movie, as you can expect
Speaker 1: from a mainstream movie. I had one other little note
Speaker 1: that it was just like but both a missed opportunity
Speaker 1: writing wise and just like come on, uh, the only
Speaker 1: writer character in this movie is Margot Tannenbaum, and yet
Speaker 1: the movie Framing Device is a book written by a man.
Speaker 1: Why we have a writer character, we have a writical Well,
Speaker 1: Eli is also a true he is a novelist, and
Speaker 1: Margot's husband, Raleigh is he is a psychologist neurologist. I think, um,
Speaker 1: but he has also written books. I want a female narrator, yeah,
Speaker 1: but also this story would make no sense coming from
Speaker 1: a female narrator because it makes nice it's female characters
Speaker 1: a lot of the time. Also, I'm sure the narrator
Speaker 1: Ali Baldwin has some me two stories. That's oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean we've it's you know, the time, the when
Speaker 1: it culture has come where we finally need to hear
Speaker 1: Alc Balbin out here what he's got to say. I
Speaker 1: think that just speaking to because Wes Anderson is such
Speaker 1: a common request from our audience, and a lot of
Speaker 1: tour directors are that because Wes Anderson's work does tend
Speaker 1: to be in its positiveness and its negative so consistent
Speaker 1: that we can take a movie like this in sort
Speaker 1: of view it to an extent as a reflection of
Speaker 1: the filmmaker's values and interests. So you know, it is
Speaker 1: a little bit of a reflection on Wes Anderson where
Speaker 1: he is, you know, the creative driving force behind this.
Speaker 1: Where it's like this is probably a reflection at this time,
Speaker 1: at this point in time, how Wes Anderson views women
Speaker 1: and views non white people as you know, not the
Speaker 1: primary focus and thought of more in a utility way
Speaker 1: than in like, here's the character we really want to
Speaker 1: explore and give time to. It's all about Okay, they're
Speaker 1: allowed to be there, but only to further the story
Speaker 1: of the person he's really interested in which is almost
Speaker 1: always one of his friends. Yeah. Yeah, and also reflective
Speaker 1: of the way he uses depression and mental health issues
Speaker 1: for utility. Absolutely. You know, we can judge him according
Speaker 1: to this movie, but it also is a judgment on
Speaker 1: his Yes, each of you used a French word to
Speaker 1: talk about film, and I felt left out, so I
Speaker 1: wanted to use a French word. I loved it. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's very well good, it's beautiful, it's very symmetrical. Gang,
Speaker 1: We're real smart. Wow. Think about us is where Genius says,
Speaker 1: does this movie pass the Bechdel test? Yeah? I would
Speaker 1: say it does there by the skin of its teeth.
Speaker 1: At there's a few conversations between Ethylene and Margot. There's
Speaker 1: a scene early on where um Margot is in the
Speaker 1: bathtub and he's like, Raleigh says, you have been spending
Speaker 1: a lot of time in the bathtub. Margo is like,
Speaker 1: I doubt that. Shout out to the movie doubt, doubt,
Speaker 1: And then they're talking about She's like, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's very healthy. What if what if the TV falls
Speaker 1: into the tub And she's like, I tie it to
Speaker 1: the radiator and she's like, wow, it can't be very
Speaker 1: good for your eyes. And then she says Chaz came home.
Speaker 1: So there is a two line exchange that does technically
Speaker 1: pass within that, but the conversation starts talking about Raleigh
Speaker 1: and with talking about Chaz and then Ari and Uzy,
Speaker 1: and the chunk that passes is the only part of
Speaker 1: that conversation that really has no narrative implications. It's just
Speaker 1: like that. It's it's a little joke. That's I think
Speaker 1: that almost every part of this movie that does barely
Speaker 1: pass the back to test has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: what is actually happening in this story. Yeah. Um. The
Speaker 1: scene after that where those two women interact again is
Speaker 1: when they're talking about Eli Cash sending Ethelene his like
Speaker 1: clippings and his grades from college. That doesn't pass because
Speaker 1: they're talking about Eli. And then there's a scene at
Speaker 1: the end between the two of them again where Margot
Speaker 1: is chewing on her nicotine and hailer and she's like,
Speaker 1: what are you tring? And she's like, oh, it's supposed
Speaker 1: to help me quit smoking. Is it working? Not really?
Speaker 1: And then a car crashes into the building and it
Speaker 1: was Eli wedding crashing with Vince Vaughn as he's always
Speaker 1: doing aleating moment, so that scene I think also technically
Speaker 1: passes because that's a four line exchange. Also, I didn't
Speaker 1: realize until you said it that way that one of
Speaker 1: the only Bectel test passing sceneson has literally ended because
Speaker 1: a man drives a car into that scene. So poetic, Yeah, beautiful,
Speaker 1: just a real representation of And but you're right, like
Speaker 1: all the scenes that do are, all the moments that
Speaker 1: do pass the Bechtel tests have no bearing on the narrative.
Speaker 1: They could easily be cut in. The story would not
Speaker 1: be changed one bit to like, well, maybe that's because
Speaker 1: we're always trying to figure out ways to modify the
Speaker 1: test to make it a little more effective for our purposes.
Speaker 1: And that, I mean that might be a new thing
Speaker 1: of like, what is the narrative implication? If if there's
Speaker 1: only exchanges between women and movies that have no bearing
Speaker 1: on what happens, then maybe if that shouldn't pass, right.
Speaker 1: I think in a recent episode we were saying something
Speaker 1: to the effect that we're hoping that the conversation is meaningful.
Speaker 1: So because oftentimes it's like, hey, server at a restaurant,
Speaker 1: do you have any pie? And they're like, yes, my
Speaker 1: name is Marie, and you're just like, well, I guess,
Speaker 1: and that's not a meaningful conversation. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: this movie could have easily done better. It did not
Speaker 1: capitalize on any of the opportunities to pass the Bechdel test. More,
Speaker 1: I still don't hate it. I mean, I hate myself
Speaker 1: for that, but also I still know it's okay. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't hate I don't I don't hate this movie.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's especially regret astive. It's not progressive,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't necessarily set us back any further than
Speaker 1: we already are. So like, yeah, I mean, which says
Speaker 1: what I guess. That just means like all right, and
Speaker 1: it's allowed to continue existence. Which, by the way, if
Speaker 1: you do want to change the test that this podcast
Speaker 1: is based on, maybe you don't have to change the
Speaker 1: name of the podcast, just called the Bechtel Plus and
Speaker 1: then you can start modifying the test. Let what we
Speaker 1: do also talk about other tests that come up, the
Speaker 1: Rito Russo test, the EVA Done tests, um, which I
Speaker 1: don't think this movie would pass. No, no, no, anyway.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yes to passing the Bechtel tests, but that
Speaker 1: does not make it a feminist text. Unfortunately, um, let's
Speaker 1: write the movie on our nipple scale. We have a
Speaker 1: scale of zero to five nipples, and we write based
Speaker 1: on its portrayal of women. I'm going to have to
Speaker 1: give it like a one and a half, I think,
Speaker 1: because I mean a little time is spent characterizing Margot,
Speaker 1: and that she's established as a secretive person. She's a playwright,
Speaker 1: she likes the arts, she likes photography. I mean, we
Speaker 1: only see a glimpse of that in a montage that
Speaker 1: lasts for one second. But we do learn certain things
Speaker 1: about her character that a lot of movies wouldn't even
Speaker 1: take the time to establish. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: her character exists in the narrative to be either the
Speaker 1: object of men's affections or to basically further characterize the
Speaker 1: men around her. So she is not actually characterized that
Speaker 1: well at all, I would argue. But then there's also Ethylene, who,
Speaker 1: similar to Margot, it is pretty much only defined and
Speaker 1: characterized by her relationships to the men in her life.
Speaker 1: So I would say overall, the female characters are disserviced
Speaker 1: by the filmmakers and the narrative. So it gets one
Speaker 1: and a half nipples. One to Margot and the half
Speaker 1: nipple will go to sing sing one nipple more singing
Speaker 1: hashtag more sings. I'm gonna go on nipple two. And
Speaker 1: this is uh something we didn't really touch on, but
Speaker 1: just going on a A lot of people who are
Speaker 1: fans of Wes Anderson, I think are teenagers, and I
Speaker 1: think that's for a reason, whichause that he is very
Speaker 1: visually appealing style that is, perhaps if you have lived
Speaker 1: a little bit, only appealing to an extent. But the
Speaker 1: reason I bring that up is because I think Margot
Speaker 1: Tennenbaumb is kind of a very commonly cited female like
Speaker 1: role model into in the Wes Anderson's BuzzFeed quizzes about her,
Speaker 1: we took it disticals all kind Yeah, regretfully, I was
Speaker 1: a Margot, you were a chass. I was a chass.
Speaker 1: Ten I'm gonna look at you completely differently. It's because
Speaker 1: I'm pretty neurotic and extremely concerned about children's safety. You're
Speaker 1: an amazing father. Yeah so much. You're welcome. I uh suck, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I mean, but Margot Tennenbaum is the central female character,
Speaker 1: and I think she's very often referenced and cited as
Speaker 1: like an early you know, female avatar for for young
Speaker 1: female viewers, and the fact that we are really only
Speaker 1: given a glimpse of what we could be given and
Speaker 1: she's still largely defined by her relationship to men is
Speaker 1: disappointing and I missed opportunity to give young women character
Speaker 1: of a little more substance. So one nipple and uh,
Speaker 1: I'll give mine a sing sing to Jenny, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here. We've had a great time
Speaker 1: with you. Is the best deep dives into pop culture.
Speaker 1: Where can people find you online? At Jenny Yang dot
Speaker 1: tv and every user name Jenny yngg tv. Yeah, follow Jenny.
Speaker 1: Check out our stand up She's great. You can follow
Speaker 1: us the Bechel Cast on Twitter and Instagram and Facebook,
Speaker 1: all the social media is. Subscribe to our Matreon. It's
Speaker 1: five dollars a month and you get to bonus episodes
Speaker 1: and otherwise. Um, we just encourage you to, just like
Speaker 1: I don't know, be critical of the art you're consuming,
Speaker 1: you're guying, especially when you really like it. Yeah, bye,
Speaker 1: love you, Bye bye.