Speaker 1: What kind of a show you guys putting on here today?
Speaker 1: You're not interested in art?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: No, Look, we're going to do this thing.
Speaker 2: We're going to have a.
Speaker 1: Conversation from Chicago. This is film Spotting. I'm Adam Kempinar
Speaker 1: and I'm Josh Larson. I'm in all over this world.
Speaker 4: I mean ways I don't even know as possible.
Speaker 3: With his new period horror film Sinners, Ryan Coogler has
Speaker 3: concocted a few new ways for men to die on screen.
Speaker 1: Anyway, We've got a review of the latest from the
Speaker 1: director of Black Panther and Creed, And speaking of period films,
Speaker 1: we go back to the Middle Ages for the next
Speaker 1: film in our Tarkowsky Marathon, Andre rublev plus the Championship
Speaker 1: round of film Spotting Madness.
Speaker 3: It's all ahead.
Speaker 1: There will be blood. Josh, I'm film Spotting.
Speaker 2: I have a competition in beyond it.
Speaker 1: I want no one else to succeed.
Speaker 4: This episode is brought to you by Peloton break through
Speaker 4: the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton
Speaker 4: Cross Training tread Plus powered by Peloton Iq. With real
Speaker 4: time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize
Speaker 4: your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your
Speaker 4: goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push
Speaker 4: and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross training treadplus at
Speaker 4: one Peloton dot com.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Film Spotting. This is it, Josh, the Film
Speaker 1: Spotting Madness Best of the Century Final. A bit later
Speaker 1: we will get to the matchup the two films that
Speaker 1: will duke it out for Film Spotting Madness supremacy, and
Speaker 1: we have a third place consolation match as well.
Speaker 3: It always comes so quickly. I got to say, all
Speaker 3: the months and months of work prep you and Sam
Speaker 3: put into it, all the agonizing listeners do about how
Speaker 3: they're going to vote, and then suddenly we're here about
Speaker 3: to Corona Chat.
Speaker 1: Voting is live right now in that Film Spotting Madness Final.
Speaker 1: You can go to film Spotting dot net slash Madness.
Speaker 1: But we'll have all the details later in the show.
Speaker 1: Also later, Josh, you'll have a review of the Legend
Speaker 1: of Ochi, which opens this weekend. Every generation gets the
Speaker 1: goonies it deserves.
Speaker 3: That's pretty apt, actually, I think.
Speaker 1: It's also week two of our Andre Tarkovsky Marathon. Nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty six's Andre ruby Lev was three hours in medieval
Speaker 1: Russia enough for you, Josh? Or were you craving more?
Speaker 3: Is it crazy to say I could have had more?
Speaker 1: Surely believe us though I think where it leaves us.
Speaker 3: I'm like, let's go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm ready ultra blik. But it's Tarkovsky, so you
Speaker 1: just kind of want to sit in that space for
Speaker 1: a little while longer somehow. See the full Tarkovsky lineup
Speaker 1: and more at filmspotting dot net slash Marathons. But first,
Speaker 1: Ryan Kugler's Sinners. It's Koogler's first film since the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two Black Panther sequel Wakanda Forever, and his first
Speaker 1: original is non ip what we call it Josh since
Speaker 1: his celebrated twenty eleven debut fruit Vale Station. But like
Speaker 1: every film since his debut, it does feature Michael B. Jordan,
Speaker 1: this time in a dual role as twin brothers Smoke
Speaker 1: and Stack such great Names. After years away, the brothers
Speaker 1: return to their hometown and the Jim Crow era South,
Speaker 1: only to find a supernatural evil awaiting them. Here's one
Speaker 1: me Mosaku and Omar Benson Miller in a clip.
Speaker 2: What y'all doing? Just step aside and let me hone
Speaker 2: in now, why you need him to do that? You
Speaker 2: begin strong enough to push basses?
Speaker 1: What? I wouldn't be too polite, now, would it, miss any.
Speaker 5: I don't know why I'm talking to you anyway.
Speaker 2: Don't talk to him. You're talking to me right now.
Speaker 2: Why you can't just walk your big ass up in
Speaker 2: here without an environment? They admit to it, mid to
Speaker 2: what that you dy.
Speaker 3: To my mind? Adam? We heard in that clip. One
Speaker 3: of the highlights of Sinners one me Mosaku in the
Speaker 3: supporting role of Annie, this former lover to Michael B.
Speaker 1: Jordan's smoke.
Speaker 3: Annie knows a thing or two about the spiritual world,
Speaker 3: which comes in handy when things get spooky in Sinners.
Speaker 3: I remember Mosaku from the HBO series Lovecraft Country, which
Speaker 3: had a similar vibe to Sinners and also gave her
Speaker 3: a chance to display a similar power and authority. She's
Speaker 3: great here as our other supporting players, like how about
Speaker 3: del Roy Lindo as an aging bluesman or Jack O'Connell
Speaker 3: remembering him in Startup a movie I do. We both
Speaker 3: loved Adam and I had lost track.
Speaker 1: And we were right. We were right about Jack O'Connell.
Speaker 1: Apparently it took eleven years, but we were right.
Speaker 3: He plays an Irish immigrant here who, let's say, wants
Speaker 3: to bring his own sort of music to the juke
Speaker 3: joint where much of the action takes place. And of
Speaker 3: course there is Mike b. Jordan in this dual lead
Speaker 3: role of twins Smoke and Stack. I can't wait tear
Speaker 3: your thoughts on his performance. So incredible ensemble cast anchoring
Speaker 3: some thrilling moments where writer director Ryan Coogler and his
Speaker 3: filmmaking team employees cinematography, music, sound design, choreography to create
Speaker 3: sequences that are dazzlingly cinematic. But Sinners more than those showstoppers, Adam,
Speaker 3: does it all hold together? This is a film running
Speaker 3: well over two hours. It shifts gears rather abruptly. I
Speaker 3: feel about halfway through from a period drama to a
Speaker 3: genre exercise, and it includes an extensive post credit sequence
Speaker 3: set decades later than the main narrative. So I want
Speaker 3: to know does all that ambition pay off for you?
Speaker 3: Is Sinners a collection of great cinematic moments or does
Speaker 3: it add up to something more monumental?
Speaker 1: Well? Can't we just enjoy all those great cinematic moments?
Speaker 1: Maybe that's absolutely Josh, and I think I think here
Speaker 1: it probably could be enough, because as good as Coogler's
Speaker 1: work to date has largely been, I wasn't fully prepared
Speaker 1: for how burly I'm gonna say and how fun this
Speaker 1: film is. These two movies otherwise have almost nothing in common.
Speaker 1: But the last time I felt like I could recommend
Speaker 1: a movie to anyone from cinephile to casual moviegoer and
Speaker 1: everybody in between, it was The Holdovers, and I was
Speaker 1: with family for Easter, and I had multiple people who
Speaker 1: I don't normally have conversations with about movies come up
Speaker 1: to me and asked me if I had seen it yet,
Speaker 1: because they just saw Sinners and loved it. Really, it
Speaker 1: didn't surprise me. It did not surprise me a bit,
Speaker 1: and it didn't surprise me a bit to see that
Speaker 1: it won the box office either, And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of conversation around how much money it made. Because it's
Speaker 1: a film working on every level, on the levels of story, performance, production,
Speaker 1: we can add in some specific production elements like cinematography,
Speaker 1: like Ludovic Gorenson's score, all of the music in this film.
Speaker 1: Sinners is a redemption movie, a revenge movie with elements
Speaker 1: of black exploitation and certainly a red blood soaked horror movie.
Speaker 1: It's also deeply romantic and has the rhythms and audaciousness
Speaker 1: of some of our boldest musicals. Kogler seems to be
Speaker 1: drawing from a deep well of cinematic and artistic influences,
Speaker 1: but still making a film that feels so personal, as
Speaker 1: if it's been shaped and sharpened his entire life. Everything
Speaker 1: he's done professionally and everything he's experienced personally has been
Speaker 1: shaped and sharpened into this. And I said that the
Speaker 1: great cinematic moments might be enough. But the fact is, Josh,
Speaker 1: I do think all the ambition pays off. I think
Speaker 1: there is more. I think there's revelation too, revelation that
Speaker 1: that goes beyond the transcendence of Preacher Boy Sammy, his
Speaker 1: musical number that comes maybe about halfway into this film. Otherwise, Josh,
Speaker 1: you know the scene I'm talking about, the early favorite
Speaker 1: for scene of the year, and if something somehow does
Speaker 1: beat it out, it's undoubtedly the music moment. Right, There's
Speaker 1: a choice Coogler makes and a line that he gives
Speaker 1: us in the screenplay that really gives you something to
Speaker 1: chew on in the moment and after you've left the theater.
Speaker 1: And I don't think I'm getting into spoiler territory here.
Speaker 1: It's all stuff that's hinted at or suggested in the trailer,
Speaker 1: and based on the box office, I'm assuming and hoping
Speaker 1: that most people who are listening to this conversation Josh
Speaker 1: have seen the movie. The choice is making that lead
Speaker 1: vampire played by Jack O'Connell, his character's name is Remick,
Speaker 1: making him irish, and the line is I want your music,
Speaker 1: I want your stories. The wrinkle here with these vampires
Speaker 1: is that once bitten Remick and presumably the other vampires
Speaker 1: that he's turned, they consume not just you, but your
Speaker 1: entire being, your identity, your memories, your thoughts, your feelings.
Speaker 1: So on a literal level, it's as if all that
Speaker 1: knowledge imviews him with more and more power, which enables
Speaker 1: him to go on surviving and to go on consuming.
Speaker 1: But metaphorically, and arn't vampires always a metaphor for something.
Speaker 1: This is black culture we're talking about with our main characters.
Speaker 1: This is black art, black narratives being consumed and exploited.
Speaker 1: So let's just say, when I saw the movie and
Speaker 1: then a couple hours later, saw somebody tweet about how
Speaker 1: Ryan Kogler orchestrated a deal where ownership rights revert to
Speaker 1: him after twenty five years. I thought, yeah, that checks out,
Speaker 1: That really checks out based on what I just saw
Speaker 1: unfold that character. Then Remick is the villain. He's insidious
Speaker 1: and evil, and he is white. But by making him irish,
Speaker 1: at least the implication or the suggestion Josh that I'm
Speaker 1: still unpacking is that he represents a group of people
Speaker 1: and a culture with its own unique stories and its
Speaker 1: own unique stories of suffering and exploitation, with its own
Speaker 1: music and its own language which we hear, and he
Speaker 1: was possibly once preyed upon then too, which also somehow
Speaker 1: makes him potentially sympathetic. It's a layer I found just
Speaker 1: so striking, and it's something that I haven't shaken. And
Speaker 1: it's significant that there is something attractive, Josh sinister, but
Speaker 1: attractive about joining Remick's community. That's what they are outside
Speaker 1: the Duke Joint. They're a collective, or at least that's
Speaker 1: what he intentionally makes them present themselves. As they dance
Speaker 1: in a circle, they sing in unison, they have this
Speaker 1: shared joyous experience. They've all been assimilated, and if you're
Speaker 1: someone who has spent your whole life having to fight
Speaker 1: to survive because the dominant white culture doesn't accept you,
Speaker 1: it would seem awfully enticing to want to be part
Speaker 1: of that community potentially, wouldn't it. And I haven't even
Speaker 1: mentioned that, and I won't mention for fear of spoilers
Speaker 1: that post credit sequence that you mentioned, And someone online
Speaker 1: here reminded me as well that that's something Coogler is
Speaker 1: pretty much done throughout all of his films. He likes
Speaker 1: to have a post credit sequence that is actually doing
Speaker 1: a lot of work and isn't extraneous by any means,
Speaker 1: actually seems crucial to the film. That's certainly the case here,
Speaker 1: where all I'll say is a character makes a choice
Speaker 1: that maybe is a bit surprising, but only because we
Speaker 1: think we know what that care is going to do,
Speaker 1: largely because of so many other movies or movie characters
Speaker 1: who have been put in similar predicaments. And maybe I
Speaker 1: should have been smarter based on the film I just
Speaker 1: watched for two hours of seventeen minutes, that of course
Speaker 1: Ryan Coogler wasn't going to do anything conventional and would
Speaker 1: surprise us in that moment as well.
Speaker 3: So you've already teased out a couple of the major
Speaker 3: ideas at play here, which I absolutely agree with that
Speaker 3: they're in it. I think if I'm if my enthusiasm
Speaker 3: is a little tempered, which where I might be more
Speaker 3: on the end of amazing cinematic moments, provocative ideas throughout,
Speaker 3: I don't know if it all adds up to a
Speaker 3: cohesive thing to the same degree. Is let's stick with
Speaker 3: your remic example, all right, because that line you quoted
Speaker 3: about wanting your music, wanting your stories, there's absolutely elements
Speaker 3: in this film that connect with that and support that,
Speaker 3: and that could be a theme I think the standout
Speaker 3: seat quins that you've already mentioned. So we'll talk a
Speaker 3: little bit more about it here and move and move on.
Speaker 3: But this single take sequence at the juke joint during
Speaker 3: a musical performance with all the dancers on the floor
Speaker 3: and we're swooping through them among them, and suddenly we realize,
Speaker 3: wait a minute, is that is that a DJ over there?
Speaker 1: Oh? It is anachronistic and yeah, a little bit.
Speaker 3: And then we move on and then there's you know,
Speaker 3: some rappers over here, and the sound design, which I
Speaker 3: think is like one of the MVP elements of this film.
Speaker 3: The sound design is incorporating those styles to the larger
Speaker 3: song we're hearing. So this is all touching on exactly
Speaker 3: what you just mentioned, Adam, about this idea of black art,
Speaker 3: how it has transformed over the eras but also been
Speaker 3: co opted over the eras, and here is a space
Speaker 3: where it is being held and treasured in community that
Speaker 3: completely aligns with the I want your music, I want
Speaker 3: your stories from Remick. But we also have that other
Speaker 3: element you talked about him being an Irish immigrant referring
Speaker 3: seeing his own oppression as an Irish immigrant and losing
Speaker 3: control of himself. Here's where a whole nother thematic thread
Speaker 3: comes in the prospect the specter of religion as an
Speaker 3: oppressive force as decidedly against the freedom that the music
Speaker 3: at the juke joint is enabling folks to experience. And
Speaker 3: so there I thought, okay, this is this is fascinating
Speaker 3: that he is trying to win over this group by saying, listen,
Speaker 3: I've had religion force fed to me. As well. There's
Speaker 3: a moment where a character thinks he's gonna die and
Speaker 3: he starts saying the Lord's Prayer and it get how
Speaker 3: creepy when the Horde it's almost like this bored horde
Speaker 3: they are, I'm gonna probably get in trouble with Star
Speaker 3: Trek people on that, but something like this. They all
Speaker 3: start chanting the Lord's Prayer too, but in a mocking way.
Speaker 3: And the point of that, Remick says is, listen, we've
Speaker 3: been manipulated by religion as well. I'm offering you some
Speaker 3: thing separate and freeing. But that's that's at the same
Speaker 3: time kind of different and not exactly in parallel with
Speaker 3: his being representative of white appropriation of black culture. So
Speaker 3: it's almost like this is a movie stuffed with so
Speaker 3: many intriguing ideas and they're not all working in concert.
Speaker 3: The one that I did latch onto and I think
Speaker 3: gives it its most cohesion, is this idea of music
Speaker 3: as liberation. We see that in the very opening scene
Speaker 3: again where Sammy played by Miles Catton, the young cousin
Speaker 3: of Smoke and Stack, who's an aspiring blues player. He's
Speaker 3: in this opposition with his pastor father right, and he
Speaker 3: sees music as offering the liberation of Saturday. And then
Speaker 3: he says to his father and then I'll come back
Speaker 3: on Sunday. You know, he sees this stark, secular sacred line,
Speaker 3: which is another fascinating idea the movie sort of explores.
Speaker 3: And so there's just so much going on here. I
Speaker 3: have to admit there is a part of me. You
Speaker 3: got the great word, you found the great word. I
Speaker 3: was trying to figure out how do I describe this
Speaker 3: as something other than big burly.
Speaker 1: It's the word.
Speaker 3: There's part of me that admires the burliness but also wishes.
Speaker 3: You know, man, what if this had been an eighty
Speaker 3: five minute genre piece from the get go, like the
Speaker 3: vampire thing was in the opening sequence. And it's not
Speaker 3: only that that would have cut back on the running time,
Speaker 3: but I wonder if that sort of forced discipline would
Speaker 3: have made Kogler realize, what do I really want this
Speaker 3: to be about? What can this to your point about
Speaker 3: vampire metaphors? What can this really capture well and richly,
Speaker 3: not heavily, not obviously, but in a thrilling genre exercise.
Speaker 3: And maybe that's just my own taste. That's not to
Speaker 3: take away from what's accomplished here. I think maybe if
Speaker 3: push came to shove, I would say, just give me
Speaker 3: it all, Give me it all. If it's a little messy,
Speaker 3: a little contradictory and theme, but I still get all
Speaker 3: of these characters. You know, a bigger movie allows for
Speaker 3: more characters, all of this music, and all of these
Speaker 3: sequences we've already touched on. So I'm a little torn
Speaker 3: on it. But if I'm slightly less enthusiastic then you,
Speaker 3: it's for that reason.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I never felt that contradiction. And to go with
Speaker 1: another C word that you've used, I felt that it
Speaker 1: was ultimately cohesive, and maybe more importantly, I saw it
Speaker 1: as just adding these interesting layers of complexity. And so
Speaker 1: for me, having this film not be the eighty five
Speaker 1: minute genre exercise, as much fun as that might be,
Speaker 1: this film manages to be fun but still really give
Speaker 1: us something to think about as well. And you talked
Speaker 1: about all of those characters, the scale of this film.
Speaker 1: I think what I'm most impressed with is that we
Speaker 1: do meet so many characters, and there are so many
Speaker 1: different not only themes, but just narrative threads. It should
Speaker 1: feel so much more it didn't. To me. It should
Speaker 1: feel so much more unwieldy and messier than it is,
Speaker 1: And I never felt that messiness.
Speaker 3: Josh, I'd agree with Seth. I wouldn't say it's unwieldy.
Speaker 1: Okay, except for maybe I will say this when the
Speaker 1: blood really starts spilling. I had two reactions. One, a
Speaker 1: character makes a choice that the plot needs the character
Speaker 1: to make. And I'm not saying that Coogler didn't give
Speaker 1: us the crumbs in the forest to lead us on
Speaker 1: the trail to make us understand why that character makes
Speaker 1: that choice. But I, even with those crumbs, didn't fully
Speaker 1: believe it. It felt a little bit too much like
Speaker 1: a plot contrivance for me. And then the action itself
Speaker 1: the only bit of filmmaking I will question it all
Speaker 1: in this film, and I do want to go back
Speaker 1: and watch it again and see if maybe there was
Speaker 1: something about it that I just found distracting. But when
Speaker 1: the big battle scene occurs in this film, that's the
Speaker 1: only part where I felt Coogler losing his way a
Speaker 1: little bit in terms of the intense focus otherwise of
Speaker 1: this film, And maybe intense focus is the best way
Speaker 1: I can describe one of the things I loved about it,
Speaker 1: that burliness that comes just from Michael B. Jordan's dual
Speaker 1: performance as Smoke and Stack the prologue is really interesting.
Speaker 1: That moment right after the prologue that brings us to
Speaker 1: the moment before we go back a day to all
Speaker 1: of these events. That's certainly provocative as well. But josh
Speaker 1: I knew this movie was going to be something when
Speaker 1: he opened that third scene, if you will, on Smoke
Speaker 1: and Stack, just sitting there by the car with the angle,
Speaker 1: the kind of low angle on those two, that very
Speaker 1: natural light outside, the looks on their faces, that intense focus.
Speaker 1: Characters who seem to have not just a toughness, but
Speaker 1: a hardness to them that I think the entire movie reflects,
Speaker 1: but they also are still open to They haven't they
Speaker 1: haven't been killed inside, They're not dead inside. They're still
Speaker 1: open to some of the wonders of the world. They
Speaker 1: certainly still have feelings for each other as brothers, and
Speaker 1: they have aspirations that and ambitions that you can really respect.
Speaker 1: You get to the moment where chaos ensues, and it
Speaker 1: felt like chaos for me in a film that otherwise
Speaker 1: felt so so controlled, but controlled in the best way.
Speaker 1: Where when Coogler wants to take the roof off the place,
Speaker 1: quite literally, the roof comes off and you believe it
Speaker 1: in that moment. In those moments, in some of those
Speaker 1: fight scenes, I didn't understand where the characters were. I
Speaker 1: didn't understand what the characters were doing. I didn't understand
Speaker 1: completely how the characters were even surviving. And that's the
Speaker 1: only part for me, John that I am uneasy about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would agree with that, And you know, it
Speaker 3: reminds me that the climactic fight scene in Black Panther
Speaker 3: is you know, a real weak spot for that filmy too,
Speaker 3: and so you know it's a similar sort of fight
Speaker 3: choreography and staging. Yeah, there's some of that here too.
Speaker 3: And then I will also say there is sort of
Speaker 3: an epilogue before the credits though that I don't want
Speaker 3: to get into too much, but it evolves an encounter
Speaker 3: with the Clan, which has been another story throw that's
Speaker 3: popped up that also seemed strange in and of itself
Speaker 3: in terms of why it's there, but.
Speaker 1: Also that'sploitation element.
Speaker 3: It's definitely gives you some of that black exploitation, you know, cathartic. Yes,
Speaker 3: that that is that element as well. But yeah, in
Speaker 3: terms of the staging too, I think it's similar to
Speaker 3: that chaotic fight sequence you're talking about. But in terms of,
Speaker 3: you know, Michael B. Jordan, this lead performance, I want
Speaker 3: to hear a little bit more from you on that
Speaker 3: because I at once loved it because he's having such
Speaker 3: a good time and it's so charismatic and who doesn't
Speaker 3: want to Michael B. Jordan's, but also was left a
Speaker 3: little wanting, if that makes sense. I really feel like
Speaker 3: this movie for me needed a more distinctive separation between
Speaker 3: Smoke and Stack, and the character outlines are there, right.
Speaker 3: Stack is looser, he's got he's freer, and I love
Speaker 3: how he's sort of this this tempter with booze and money.
Speaker 3: Right away he walks around town and he's cajoling everyone.
Speaker 3: And then Smoke is he's more tightly wound. He's the
Speaker 3: planner of the two. He's making sure, you know, the
Speaker 3: bills get paid, however bills they're working with. So I
Speaker 3: get that those character sketches, but I think in terms
Speaker 3: of just the feel of the two of them, there
Speaker 3: is a climactic fight. I think we can say that
Speaker 3: would have for it to matter more beyond just the
Speaker 3: basic logistics, I think we would had to have had
Speaker 3: a sense of the difference or at least the tension
Speaker 3: between these brothers earlier for that to really work. It
Speaker 3: actually made me think of his performance in Kugler's Fruitvale Station.
Speaker 3: You know, Oscar Grant, I think is the real world
Speaker 3: figure he's playing there, and how this was a guy
Speaker 3: he brought. The challenge there was not to make this
Speaker 3: victim of police violence, you know, a saint or a sinner,
Speaker 3: to use the language of this movie, but to show
Speaker 3: that he was fully human. And so Kugler there gave
Speaker 3: us two sides of one guy who is he can
Speaker 3: be rough, he could be intimidating, and then a scene
Speaker 3: later or in the same scene to a different character,
Speaker 3: he can be understanding and loving. And it was those
Speaker 3: variations in persona from Fruitvale. I'm surprised wasn't more here
Speaker 3: in Smoke and Stack, not that he isn't a ton
Speaker 3: of fun and they don't serve their purpose for the narrative.
Speaker 3: Part of me also was wondering early on, I didn't
Speaker 3: know exactly what happened narratively. I knew there was some
Speaker 3: sort of horror element. I was wondering, are these two
Speaker 3: more like mythical figures? Like are we going to find
Speaker 3: out there's some sort of avenging angels or something, and
Speaker 3: is that the reason for the Thinness? Because there was
Speaker 3: a Thinness I detected, and then of course we learn
Speaker 3: I think one of them, I think it might be
Speaker 3: smoke even says something about he doesn't believe in anything
Speaker 3: about the power of money, and so they're very much
Speaker 3: rooted in the here and now. They are not those
Speaker 3: sort of mythical figures. But I was wondering if it
Speaker 3: was going to go that way just because of Jordan's performance.
Speaker 3: But yeah, how did it work otherwise for you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I suppose like the film overall, I'm higher on
Speaker 1: the performances from Michael B. Jordan. I like the fact
Speaker 1: that the shades and the distinctions between them are ultimately
Speaker 1: so subtle, and they're subtle enough that Coogler clearly felt
Speaker 1: compelled to make sure we always understood which one was which,
Speaker 1: because one's going to be wearing a red hat and
Speaker 1: one's going to be wearing a blue hat. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: costume being makes it clear.
Speaker 3: Otherwise we should say doing the costumes here one of
Speaker 3: the greats.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we wouldn't really know who is who, which actually
Speaker 1: for me made them feel even more like Brothers and
Speaker 1: made Jordan's performance feel more grounded and less theatrical. And
Speaker 1: maybe that's what I'm so stunned by, is that this
Speaker 1: is a film that, on some level you could call
Speaker 1: very theatrical. It takes bold swings. This is a movie
Speaker 1: where Coogler really goes for it, and yet it's so
Speaker 1: grounded by the Michael B. Jordan performances, but also every
Speaker 1: other performance in this film. You've mentioned a fe you already,
Speaker 1: but how about Hayley Steinfeld showing up on screen and
Speaker 1: getting apart Josh, where we're all all of a sudden
Speaker 1: in a moment. Honestly, the moment she shows up on screen,
Speaker 1: and it might even be before she says a word,
Speaker 1: it's just her physicality. We know, or think we know
Speaker 1: everything we need to about who that character is in
Speaker 1: that moment, and there's Steinfeld just reminding us, Oh, in
Speaker 1: case you forgot, I'm not a pop singer. I'm not
Speaker 1: just the star of a Transformers movie or those pitch
Speaker 1: perfect sequels. I'm a really formidable actress. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what she proves herself to be here. But again,
Speaker 1: everybody's doing that. It's one of those performances where I
Speaker 1: almost feel bad about saying this, but within two scenes
Speaker 1: you're thinking, so, Delroy Lindo is gonna win Best Supporting Actor, right,
Speaker 1: Like this is a foregone conclusion, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, but can we give him his credit? If
Speaker 3: that happens and we have a long ways to go?
Speaker 3: Who knows what other performance is here? I thought that
Speaker 3: in his first scene right where it's like, oh, this
Speaker 3: is being served on a platter. But also think about
Speaker 3: the subtlety and physicality he brings to that first scene
Speaker 3: when he's offered the beer, and how he negotiates his
Speaker 3: wanting it but not wanting it, not wanting to show
Speaker 3: he wants it. So in a way, it's one of
Speaker 3: those showy best supporting performances because it has those moments
Speaker 3: of charisma. But I think he's doing incredibly deft work.
Speaker 1: Here's what he's recorded.
Speaker 3: To do in this movie, Adam. Delroy Lindo is at
Speaker 3: once required to be the comic relief and the sage,
Speaker 3: like the seer the fount of wisdom and not not
Speaker 3: like not like a holy fool type comic relief wisdom
Speaker 3: where they're combined, like these are two different gears. He
Speaker 3: has to shift into, and he shifts into each one
Speaker 3: perfectly when needed. It's absolutely the groundedness you're talking about.
Speaker 3: He makes this rooted in a man who has lived
Speaker 3: a hard life and is here now and it's going
Speaker 3: to get harder than he ever could have imagined, and
Speaker 3: he handles that with humor and with wisdom. There's there's
Speaker 3: a moment where he's he's talking. They're riding along in
Speaker 3: an open you know, a convertible down the road, and
Speaker 3: he's telling the story and something about how he's paid
Speaker 3: they were paid in liquor and his friend, his musician friend,
Speaker 3: and I forget what happens to the story, but the
Speaker 3: point is he's asked, what did you do with your
Speaker 3: money or something like that, and he just says, I
Speaker 3: drank it. And then it isn't that line. He's holding
Speaker 3: a flask and he flips the top. I think closed
Speaker 3: at that point, and it's that sort of subtle physicality
Speaker 3: where it's the exculpation point on the story. It's his shame,
Speaker 3: but it's also his desire to still move ahead, like
Speaker 3: kind of like saying, I'm put in the flask away now,
Speaker 3: like I know you know, but we all know he's
Speaker 3: it's only for this moment, and these are the little
Speaker 3: touches that a performance like this doesn't need to have
Speaker 3: for people to say it's a best supporting actor performance,
Speaker 3: But Lindo gives us them anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think you're right. Perhaps there is shame
Speaker 1: in that moment. I don't remember the exact dialogue and
Speaker 1: how it plays out either, but I do recall feeling
Speaker 1: in that moment that that is really wonderful scene because
Speaker 1: it's it's great right. We understand that it is informing
Speaker 1: us about the character and their life and the type
Speaker 1: of choices that they've had to make. But you also
Speaker 1: get with Lindo a refusal to embrace any kind of sentimentality.
Speaker 1: He is not going to go for that. He is
Speaker 1: not going to try to make you feel pity for
Speaker 1: him as a character. He says something, there's just some
Speaker 1: line in there, Josh, in the way he says it
Speaker 1: where you understand that's the choice he made, and sometimes
Speaker 1: the choices he makes maybe aren't going to be appreciated
Speaker 1: or understood by everybody, But then you aren't him. You
Speaker 1: haven't walked in his shoes, and he is just going
Speaker 1: to keep on walking and that's the element that Lindo
Speaker 1: brings that makes it not just a showy performance. There
Speaker 1: is so much life that is evident in that character,
Speaker 1: just years of weariness, so that we sense within a
Speaker 1: few minutes is that.
Speaker 3: The scene too just to go back to the so design.
Speaker 3: Where as he's telling the story, we hear voices from
Speaker 3: the story he's telling on the soundtrack and effects that
Speaker 3: would have happened in the story. If it's not that one,
Speaker 3: it's maybe another story that Lindo tells. I think it's
Speaker 3: also in the car though, and the intricacy of this
Speaker 3: sound design and the layers of music, but also things
Speaker 3: like that, like enhancing a character's story by audibly bringing
Speaker 3: elements of it into the foreground. You may not even
Speaker 3: notice it at first that it's happening, but afterwards you're like,
Speaker 3: why was that such a vivid I mean, the performance
Speaker 3: was great, the writing is great. Oh it's so vivid
Speaker 3: because I literally heard what he was describing that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes sense, that's yeah.
Speaker 3: I don't think we see all that often in films,
Speaker 3: and it's really effective.
Speaker 1: Here, and it makes sense temporarily with this film, a
Speaker 1: movie that is suggesting how the past and the present
Speaker 1: in the future, right, can all collide in a way
Speaker 1: for characters and in certain moments as well. But I
Speaker 1: really feel like we could go on and on. I
Speaker 1: want to at least mention if we're going through the list.
Speaker 1: Miles Cayton, who was a new face to me as Sammy,
Speaker 1: And that's another incredible moment that I was thinking could
Speaker 1: be my music moment of the year, Josh, if it
Speaker 1: wasn't for the scene that eventually follows. It's the first
Speaker 1: time we hear him perform. He's in the car and
Speaker 1: I don't remember, sorry, despite what I said about how
Speaker 1: clearly I could distinguish them, I don't remember for sure
Speaker 1: if it's Smoke or Stack. But he starts playing, and
Speaker 1: the moment he starts singing, and you see the reaction.
Speaker 1: You see Michael B. Jordan's reaction to his performing, and yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds right is Stack And what he imparts there
Speaker 1: with that stunned reaction is twofold. I think he's first
Speaker 1: just sort of stunned that his cousin is that talented,
Speaker 1: This person he is known his entire life could sing
Speaker 1: the blues, that type of depth and that type of
Speaker 1: soul and experience and then the other part, and I
Speaker 1: think he actually verbalizes this is, oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: make a lot of.
Speaker 3: Money exactly both. That's how I knew it was stack
Speaker 3: because I remember that part of it. That's the stack quality,
Speaker 3: which you know, speaks to that there are distinctions between
Speaker 3: them that we come to understand.
Speaker 1: Sinners is currently out in wide release. If you see
Speaker 1: it and agree or disagree with our takes, you can
Speaker 1: email us feedback at film spotting dot net.
Speaker 2: Let me make.
Speaker 3: Some wadstit going on that with listening is the number
Speaker 3: one thing you can do to support an independently produced
Speaker 3: show like film Spotting. A couple more things you could do.
Speaker 3: Take a minute to give us a rating or a
Speaker 3: review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Doesn't matter if you're
Speaker 3: a first time listener or have been listening for twenty years.
Speaker 3: Every new review helps us reach new listeners. Another way
Speaker 3: to support us, you could join the Film Spotting Family
Speaker 3: at film Spottingfamily dot com. Thank you to family plus
Speaker 3: member Jeremy Kennis in Severance, Colorado. I've had a chance
Speaker 3: to correspond with Jeremy over the years. If you want
Speaker 3: to follow Jeremy on letterbox, he is Jeremy Kennis k
Speaker 3: E N N I.
Speaker 1: S Jeremy Wright. So buddy turned me onto film spotting
Speaker 1: right about the time Josh took over. Been listening ever since.
Speaker 1: Favorite review or segment several, but I'll highlight the episode
Speaker 1: that Adam did his Jimmy Stewart impression when you all massacred,
Speaker 1: It's a wonderful life, Josh barely keeping it together was hilarious.
Speaker 1: I forgot about that show and that bit, and it
Speaker 1: does help that I won the prize that week from
Speaker 1: the previous edition. What review, Yeah we got wrong, easy
Speaker 1: under the Skin. I tried to watch it again after
Speaker 1: listening to you rave about it, but I just can't
Speaker 1: get on board even remotely. This, Josh is one of
Speaker 1: the I don't mean it pejoratively, but I'll say oddist
Speaker 1: letterbox top four that maybe we've seen in this segment
Speaker 1: rushmore Guns of Navarone, Jojo Rabbit and La fem Nikita.
Speaker 3: I mean that's a four pack. You're going a lot
Speaker 3: of places there.
Speaker 1: Yes, a favorite movie Jeremy revisited recently while he's heading
Speaker 1: to England later this summer. So we watched the trip
Speaker 1: Verry Smart, a random film or filmmaker that he loves
Speaker 1: Formula fifty one, also known as the fifty first State. Now, Josh,
Speaker 1: we took a little bit of grief, playful and supportive grief,
Speaker 1: but a little bit of grief from people who were like,
Speaker 1: you've never heard or you don't know smooth Talk. Come on, Joyce,
Speaker 1: Carol Oates and Criterion Collection. I can't believe you didn't
Speaker 1: know this. Well, I'm gonna say I don't know Formula
Speaker 1: fifty one or the fifty first State.
Speaker 3: Well I didn't think I did. But and here's where
Speaker 3: I'm going to lose Jeremy looking it up now at
Speaker 3: Larson on Film a rare zero star review Adam Oh no.
Speaker 1: Oh, Josh, I was not anticipating that. But here's the
Speaker 1: best part. I mean, I'll just admit that it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be a shock that I have blind spots when it
Speaker 1: comes to Hong Kong. App and this is a film
Speaker 1: directed by Hong Kong action director Ronnie You. It's from
Speaker 1: two thousand and one. But here's my favorite part. It's
Speaker 1: it's reading the brief plot synopsis in the cast stars
Speaker 1: Samuel L. Jackson as a master chemist turned drug dealer
Speaker 1: with Robert Carlyle, Emily Mortimer as an assassin and meat Loaf.
Speaker 3: I don't believe I'm scanning the review here. I don't
Speaker 3: believe I even mentioned meat Loaf. No, and you know
Speaker 3: I must be wrong. Come on, Emily Mortimer as an
Speaker 3: assassin that gives you half a star?
Speaker 1: Zero stars? Josh? How many zero stars are there? How
Speaker 1: many will I find over at Larson on film dot com.
Speaker 3: I mean there's an easy way to filter the review library,
Speaker 3: let me tell you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I thought you might do it. While I
Speaker 1: read his next response to one zero, I okay.
Speaker 3: Be a very unhappy man, Adam.
Speaker 1: Apparently a movie did Jeremy credits with becoming a cinophile?
Speaker 1: Is that one of your zero stars? Sling Blade?
Speaker 3: Now, I'm sure I did not give Sleepway zero.
Speaker 1: Sas finally a book about movies or movie making? Now
Speaker 1: he's just pandering. Movies are prayers? Of course?
Speaker 3: Well it was until my formula fifty one slanders zero stars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, who's your savior now? Jeremy, thank you for joining
Speaker 1: the family and for all those years of listening. In
Speaker 1: addition to keeping us doing what we're doing, your support
Speaker 1: comes with perks. Get to listen early in ed free.
Speaker 1: You get the weekly newsletter. You get to be part
Speaker 1: of the exclusive film Spotting Family discord. You also exclusively
Speaker 1: get to hear our monthly bonus shows coming up very soon,
Speaker 1: our April bonus. It's ask us anything. If you have
Speaker 1: a question you'd like to submit for that segment. Feedback
Speaker 1: at film spotting dot Net is the email. Our May bonus.
Speaker 1: Then will be our draft, our annual, our new annual tradition,
Speaker 1: the draft with our film Spotting Madness Bracket contest winner,
Speaker 1: maybe with a familiar face this year. More on that
Speaker 1: in a bit. Film Spottingfamily dot Com is where you
Speaker 1: can learn everything you need to know about being a
Speaker 1: family member.
Speaker 5: Your parents have offered you to this course, they say,
Speaker 5: here makes something of my boys say texts say fo yeah,
Speaker 5: curse like I'm wickedness.
Speaker 1: Leochi. That's from the trailer for the Legend of Ochi,
Speaker 1: which is new to theaters this weekend. It's directed by
Speaker 1: Isaiah Saxon. It's his first feature. He's an award winning
Speaker 1: music video director an animator. The movie is set on
Speaker 1: the fictional island of Carpathia, where elusive creatures known as
Speaker 1: the Ochi are hunted and feared by the island's human population.
Speaker 1: A young girl, Helena zengels Yuri, comes across a baby
Speaker 1: Ochi and befriends it. Some of the humans Josh. They're
Speaker 1: played by Willem Dafoe, Emily Watson and Finn Wolfhart a
Speaker 1: twenty four et. That's the vibe I'm getting from the trailer.
Speaker 1: Am I way off base? And if I'm not, is
Speaker 1: that a bad thing?
Speaker 3: I mean, that's yeah, that's certainly what they want, and
Speaker 3: maybe it will be for some younger viewers.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I have a feeling watching this movie, which I wanted
Speaker 3: to love and I like quite a bit. There's a
Speaker 3: lot to admire about it, but it's it never like
Speaker 3: it never took off into the air like those bicycles
Speaker 3: in ET. Right, And you know, I'm thinking, but few
Speaker 3: movies doo, and sometimes the ones that lodge themselves in
Speaker 3: your mind when you're a kid are those that you know,
Speaker 3: fumble a little bit on takeoff, but are idiosyncratic enough,
Speaker 3: visionary enough, ambitious enough, weird enough to kind of stick
Speaker 3: in your memory as a kid and you come to
Speaker 3: love them anyway. They're like kiddy cult movies, right. Cult
Speaker 3: movies we think of as for adults. They're a little
Speaker 3: risque sometimes are pushing the envelope. But kids can have
Speaker 3: cult movies too, these weird little movies that most people
Speaker 3: forget as you grow older. But you'll run into someone
Speaker 3: and say, hey, you referenced one earlier in the show.
Speaker 3: Wasn't the Goonies great? And it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 3: if you watch it again, the Goonies is fine, Right,
Speaker 3: you watch ET again, it's a masterpiece the Goonies. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's okay. It's a little weird, a little scruffy. I
Speaker 3: think of these are going to be eighties titles, because
Speaker 3: that's how old I am. But the never Ending Story
Speaker 3: or even something like Labyrinth, right, people love Labyrinth, love
Speaker 3: the never Ending Story. But you know these are not
Speaker 3: fantasy or sci fi films like ET. And I do
Speaker 3: think the Legend of Ochi might be something like that,
Speaker 3: because it's overstuffed with characters, way too many motivations going on.
Speaker 3: I found it to be a little undercooked as a fable,
Speaker 3: like what it actually wants to be about, wants kids
Speaker 3: to think about beyond you know, the obvious. But man,
Speaker 3: is this thing weirdly unique and a lot of that
Speaker 3: has to do with the puppetry, the choice to use
Speaker 3: puppetry and animatronics, and for the adult Ochi, real actors
Speaker 3: in costumes. There is that tactility, that real worldness that
Speaker 3: you need for a children's fantasy movie to root itself
Speaker 3: in your consciousness, and this absolutely has that. It also
Speaker 3: has a look that's unique. The colors here are deeply saturated.
Speaker 3: It's almost like everything's wet in this movie. It's like
Speaker 3: the wetness has made the colors richer in some way,
Speaker 3: which I admired. The score by David Longstreth is very
Speaker 3: flute heavy, which casts this unique hypnotic spell. And yeah, overall,
Speaker 3: you know, you do feel like you're watching real creatures
Speaker 3: being discovered, not digitized just pixels essentially, and that goes
Speaker 3: a long way. I think it will go a long
Speaker 3: way for lodging itself in younger audience's minds. So if
Speaker 3: it at all sounds interesting, you check it out. You
Speaker 3: may not love it, but you'll like it, and you'll
Speaker 3: probably years from now someone will say did you ever
Speaker 3: see a movie called The Legend of Ochi? And you'll say,
Speaker 3: n oh, yes, that was kind of that was really
Speaker 3: great wasn't it. I think it's one of those, so
Speaker 3: we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: The Legend of Ochi is currently out in limited release.
Speaker 1: If you see it and agree or disagree with the Josh,
Speaker 1: email us feedback at filmspotting dot net. Next week on
Speaker 1: the show, it's Movie Book Talk with Adam Josh and
Speaker 1: guess we've got our friend Mariah E. Gates returning to
Speaker 1: talk about her new book, Cinema or her way visionary
Speaker 1: female directors in their own words. We knew back when
Speaker 1: Mariah first told us about this book that when it
Speaker 1: came out, we wanted to have her on the show,
Speaker 1: and we wanted to do something that wasn't just an
Speaker 1: interview with her. Can we talk about one of the
Speaker 1: films it's featured in the book. And it just worked
Speaker 1: out so serendipitously, Josh, that one of the films she
Speaker 1: covers is a major blind spot for the two of
Speaker 1: us that we have wanted to rectify for quite some time.
Speaker 3: Embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Gina Prince Bithwood's Love and Basketball and this month,
Speaker 1: just as of about a week ago, it celebrated its
Speaker 1: twenty fifth anniversary. So we're going to talk about Love
Speaker 1: and basketball and Mariah's book with her, and then we're
Speaker 1: also going to feature my conversation with film writer by
Speaker 1: Le Luca, whose latest book is David Cronenberg Clinical Trials
Speaker 1: of book that was timed, I think fittingly to be
Speaker 1: released around the release of Kronenberg's latest The Shrouds, a
Speaker 1: movie that opens and limited release this weekend. Look forward
Speaker 1: to having both Mariah and Violet on speaking.
Speaker 3: Of Cronenberg this week on our sister podcast, The Next
Speaker 3: Picture Show, Looking at Cinema's Present via Its Pass. It
Speaker 3: is part two of their Body by Kronenberg pairing. So
Speaker 3: previously they talked about The Fly from nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 3: that one with Jeff Goldblum and Gina Davis, of course,
Speaker 3: and yeah, this week they're discussing The Shrouds. Can't wait
Speaker 3: to dig into all that. I'm waiting. I'm waiting untill
Speaker 3: I see The Shrouds and then I'm going to listen
Speaker 3: to it all together with the Shrouds in my head.
Speaker 3: But I do love that pairing from the Next Picture Show.
Speaker 3: New episodes drop every Tuesday and you can find them
Speaker 3: wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Some other bit of housekeeping here, Josh, you threw out,
Speaker 1: I think on last week's show that you were going
Speaker 1: to be going to Tokyo. That's this summer or no,
Speaker 1: actually this spring, just next month. That trip is coming up,
Speaker 1: and we've already gotten two responses. You're gonna have at
Speaker 1: least a two person meetup, maybe more if we get
Speaker 1: the word out. So tell us about the Tokyo meetup.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's happening. I thought there was a chance.
Speaker 1: You never know.
Speaker 3: We hear from listeners every once in a while from
Speaker 3: fire flung spots around the globe. But yeah, Michael Tom
Speaker 3: have already written in and said we'd love to meet up.
Speaker 3: We're kind of gonna be flexible on the date at
Speaker 3: this point because they both can be and we want
Speaker 3: to hear from others if anybody else is out there,
Speaker 3: it might be May twenty two or twenty three or
Speaker 3: twenty four, So a couple of options there in Tokyo.
Speaker 3: If you're hearing this and want to join us, feedback
Speaker 3: at film spotting dot net.
Speaker 1: We promoted this last week, but want to mention again
Speaker 1: that the Chicago Critics Film Festival is coming up, taking
Speaker 1: place at the Music Box and it starts May second,
Speaker 1: runs May second through the eighth. I highlighted one title, Josh,
Speaker 1: that I have recommended on the show, and if it
Speaker 1: ever gets a full theatrical release, will definitely be a
Speaker 1: Golden Brick nominee for me. That's Zodiac Killer Project, which
Speaker 1: the fest has showing at nine thirty pm on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: so the second to last night of the festival. That's
Speaker 1: one title that I can recommend. We will have a
Speaker 1: few other titles that will highlight next week that we
Speaker 1: are interested in seeing and that you might want to
Speaker 1: seek out as well. Everything you need to know about
Speaker 1: getting tickets for the Chicago Critics Film Festival is available
Speaker 1: at Chicago Criticsfilmfestival dot com. This is lasting, This is madness.
Speaker 2: This is absolute madness.
Speaker 1: This is madness, maddness, madness.
Speaker 2: But this is absolute madness.
Speaker 1: Why should you build such a thing? That is?
Speaker 3: I was hot off.
Speaker 1: It's taken us a couple of months. But Josh, we
Speaker 1: have our sixty four film bracket down to two final
Speaker 1: four results the Battle of Seven. There will be blood
Speaker 1: versus No Country for Old Men. Not a tight one necessarily,
Speaker 1: but also not a blowout. There will be blood, though,
Speaker 1: is going to advance to the final beat. The Koane
Speaker 1: Brothers fifty five to forty five percent.
Speaker 3: I mean, just seems unfair that these two were paired
Speaker 3: up before the Championship round. I guess makes it a
Speaker 3: little different than some of our our earlier Madness matchups.
Speaker 3: But yeah, how does it feel? I got to know,
Speaker 3: how does it feel at this point to have Is
Speaker 3: it a little bit like the day after Chrismus for
Speaker 3: you and Sam? Like all of this has gone into it,
Speaker 3: I know, and we're here and now no country for
Speaker 3: old men is gone, and that has to make you
Speaker 3: feel partly responsible.
Speaker 1: Yes, it definitely does. I voted for no Country for
Speaker 1: old men in this case, in this Madness iteration. I
Speaker 1: may not have a previous one when they faced off,
Speaker 1: but it feels like an appropriate culmination. It actually feels good, Josh,
Speaker 1: that it's all all coming down free to this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying. It still feels like Christmas Day.
Speaker 1: And part of that is because our second Final four
Speaker 1: matchup pitted Mulholland Drive versus Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Speaker 1: It was our dream Logic contest and this one was
Speaker 1: super close. At various points over the past week. It
Speaker 1: was tied I don't think there was ever a point
Speaker 1: where one film had a lead. There was greater than
Speaker 1: twenty five votes, and it came out this is how
Speaker 1: it ended up, Josh, David Lynch and Mulholland Drive advance
Speaker 1: to have to face Pta Daniel Plainview and his milkshake
Speaker 1: fifty point eight six percent to Eternal Sunshine's forty nine
Speaker 1: point one four.
Speaker 3: That's ridiculous. And is that I have a feeling you
Speaker 3: would know this. There's a spreadsheet somewhere keeping track of this.
Speaker 3: Is that the closest vote no in Madness history?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, It may be the closest in this Madness Yeah tournament,
Speaker 1: but we've had even tighter than that. We've had ones
Speaker 1: that have come out under five or six votes. This
Speaker 1: one was just slightly more than that. So Josh it is.
Speaker 1: There will be Blood versus Mulholland Drive for film Spotting
Speaker 1: Madness and Best of the Century so far supremacy. We
Speaker 1: do have that third place matchup. Who will take the
Speaker 1: consolation prize? Will it be Michelle Gandry an Eternal Sunshine
Speaker 1: or will it be the Coen Brothers and No Country
Speaker 1: for Old Men? You can vote in the Madness final
Speaker 1: and that third place matchup now at film spotting madness
Speaker 1: dot com or filmspotting dot net slash madness. Either place
Speaker 1: will take you there. You could also just go to
Speaker 1: the main page of filmspotting dot Net. You can't miss
Speaker 1: the graphic right there at the top of the page
Speaker 1: that will take you to the polls. They close Tuesday,
Speaker 1: April twenty ninth at five pm Central time, So next week, Josh,
Speaker 1: we will be able to announce a winner. For those
Speaker 1: of you who submitted brackets in the bracket contest, check
Speaker 1: out how you're doing. Go to film Spotting Madness, click
Speaker 1: on view bracket, go to predictions see how everything shook
Speaker 1: out for you. Once again, we had eight hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five people who participated, and out of those eight
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty five, number one for like four weeks
Speaker 1: in a row is the UK's Ricky Kendall. Ricky Ricky
Speaker 1: picked the correct finals matchup he has there will be
Speaker 1: Blood defeating Mulholland Drive. Number two, Josh is Steve Mesa.
Speaker 1: He has the right matchup, but he has Mulholland Drive winning,
Speaker 1: So it will come down to that. Our winner will
Speaker 1: come down to who wins the final, either Ricky or Steve.
Speaker 1: It really can't be anybody else. And I should probably
Speaker 1: save this for next week. If there will be Blood
Speaker 1: does in fact win, and Ricky wins this bracket competition
Speaker 1: for the second year in a row. But this is
Speaker 1: the truth. I look this up. If there will be
Speaker 1: Blood wins. If Ricky does end up on top, not
Speaker 1: only will he have won this competition two years in
Speaker 1: a row, Josh, but he will have correctly predicted sixty
Speaker 1: two out of sixty three matchups in each tournament. He
Speaker 1: got one wrong in the sweet sixteen, Otherwise he picked
Speaker 1: every other matchup correctly.
Speaker 3: I still, how I still think Ricky needs to use
Speaker 3: his powers for something better for the good of humanity
Speaker 3: than this. Yeah, Ricky, give up madness, find a common
Speaker 3: good project and apply all your brain power towards that. Please.
Speaker 1: I am betraying nothing here. I haven't looked at where
Speaker 1: the voting stands as we're taping this. The final polls
Speaker 1: have just been live for only a few hours, and
Speaker 1: again I don't want to look at them. I don't
Speaker 1: want to give anything away, But I'm just going to
Speaker 1: say there's certainly a chance that Ricky Kendall could win again.
Speaker 1: There Will Be Blood was the number one seed after all,
Speaker 1: and if he does, I suppose, Ricky, you should already
Speaker 1: start thinking about, if you haven't already, what's your bonus
Speaker 1: content RASP topic will be. But then again, maybe you
Speaker 1: don't want to jinx it. You start thinking about things
Speaker 1: that they maybe won't happen.
Speaker 3: Who knows how Ricky's mind works, We clearly don't.
Speaker 1: He can. He can obviously manifest whatever he wants exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: Steve Mesa, you are still alive in terms of our
Speaker 1: internal competition, josh Am.
Speaker 3: I still, well, you're live like a live meaning I
Speaker 3: might not end up in last place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's definitely the case. If we stop right now,
Speaker 1: you're definitely at the bottom. You're one hundred and seventieth overall.
Speaker 1: Your big oversight was having parasite in the final against
Speaker 1: There Will Be Blood. Sam, He's in third place, one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty second overall. He had Eternal Sunshine in
Speaker 1: the final. Mike Marrigan film Spotting Madness Godfather a little
Speaker 1: bit better, one hundred and nineteenth overall, second and our competition,
Speaker 1: like you, he had parasite advancing to the final. That
Speaker 1: means that I am probably temporarily I am in first
Speaker 1: place and I'm twenty ninth overall. That might mean the
Speaker 1: best I've ever been. Again, I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be short lived, though, though I haven't looked, I decided
Speaker 1: to be daring. I went with Mulholland Drive over. There
Speaker 1: will be blood in the final. So, like Steve Mesa,
Speaker 1: I have a chance to win this whole thing. You
Speaker 1: got a shop and Drive wins. But if Mulhallan Drive
Speaker 1: doesn't win, despite the fact that it seems like I'm
Speaker 1: crushing the three of you right now, I will finish last.
Speaker 1: You could go from first to last, first to last,
Speaker 1: print out David Lynch doesn't pull it out. Print out your.
Speaker 3: Certificate now with twenty ninth overall, I see a spot
Speaker 3: behind you on the wall, an empty spot. You could
Speaker 3: frame it, frame it and you'll always have this moment
Speaker 3: at him.
Speaker 1: Film spotting Madness dot Com or film spotting dot Net
Speaker 1: slash Madness is where you should go for everything film
Speaker 1: Spotting Madness related.
Speaker 3: Prussia, Tiber.
Speaker 4: Skoshna, Budo, New Bodle, the Way, Sadium.
Speaker 3: Yetibira, Schedule, Tame It's nice yep.
Speaker 1: That was from Andre Tarkovski's Andre Rubelov from nineteen sixty six.
Speaker 1: It is actually the third film, the second entry, but
Speaker 1: the third film and our Tarkovsky Blind Spots marathon, we
Speaker 1: are watching five films total over four weeks, after which
Speaker 1: we can claim to be Tarkovski Complete us and counted
Speaker 1: among the world's experts on the Russian Master. Yes, I'm
Speaker 1: also I'm going to punt out that certificate as please.
Speaker 1: I think that's the case, Josh.
Speaker 3: Because these are movies you just need to watch once
Speaker 3: and you've got it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, or you know twice, that's it, you
Speaker 1: got it well.
Speaker 3: Andre Rublov came in at number sixty seven on the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two edition of the Citan Sound Top one hundred.
Speaker 3: It is one of three Tarkovski films to make that list.
Speaker 3: Stalker from nineteen seventy nine is next in our marathon
Speaker 3: also made the list, as did nineteen seventy five's Mirror,
Speaker 3: which was part of our Citan Sound Top one hundred
Speaker 3: Blind Spots Marathon a couple of years ago. The subject
Speaker 3: of Tarkovski's film Here Rubylov is a historical figure, a
Speaker 3: painter of religious icons during the fifteenth century. Tarkovski and
Speaker 3: co screenwriter Andre Konchalovsky invented much of rube Lev's story,
Speaker 3: of whom little is known. The movie is told in
Speaker 3: eight extended chapters, plus there's a prologue and then an epilogue,
Speaker 3: and it depicts the artist navigating a medieval Russia defined
Speaker 3: by violence and cruelty. Writing about Andre Rubelev last year
Speaker 3: in the Reveal as part of their series dedicated to
Speaker 3: the Citan Sound Top one hundred, Keith Phipps wrote that
Speaker 3: scene it for the first time. He was feeling a
Speaker 3: bit at sea until a scene that helped clarify what
Speaker 3: Tarkovski might be after that. The film was about quote
Speaker 3: ruby Lev's artistic development and the development of his soul. So, Adam,
Speaker 3: we're coming off, I would say a relatively straightforward start
Speaker 3: to this marathon. That's nineteen sixty one's World War two set,
Speaker 3: Ivan's childhood. You have seen Andre rube Lev before. This
Speaker 3: was a blind spot for me, So tell me a
Speaker 3: little bit about I know it was a while ago,
Speaker 3: but what you're mes memories of that first viewing, how
Speaker 3: they informed this one, and what you make of it
Speaker 3: and its episodic structure today.
Speaker 1: Well, even though I was able Josh to find some
Speaker 1: of my notes from two thousand and five, I have
Speaker 1: to admit that I remember very little about the film specifically,
Speaker 1: and I think that's because it was twenty years ago.
Speaker 1: I also think it's because I was ill equipped twenty
Speaker 1: years ago to really sink my teeth into Tarkovski and
Speaker 1: try to make sense of Andrei Rublev. But that's what
Speaker 1: we were doing. We were trying to expand our horizons.
Speaker 1: That's why we did that marathon so early. It's part
Speaker 1: of why Sam and I also started this show to
Speaker 1: give ourselves missions. Just like that, I was more engaged
Speaker 1: and I liked the film that time, but having a
Speaker 1: little bit more perspective twenty years later, not just on cinema,
Speaker 1: but on the work of Tarkovsky, having been able to
Speaker 1: watch and discuss and really appreciate some of his other
Speaker 1: films like Mirror. As you said most recently, I think
Speaker 1: what I was able to put away, Josh was that
Speaker 1: compulsion in I think all of us as humans, not
Speaker 1: just as movie watchers when it comes to art, which
Speaker 1: is to try to make sense of what we're seeing,
Speaker 1: to try to find a certain logic to try to
Speaker 1: understand motivations and see a causality.
Speaker 3: And what you.
Speaker 1: Realize very early on, or what you need to realize
Speaker 1: very early on with Andrey Rublev is that that type
Speaker 1: of temporal logic, that narrative logic, is something that Tarkovsky
Speaker 1: just really is not interested in at all. And the
Speaker 1: movie can be confounding because he'll have characters who we
Speaker 1: met briefly in the first chapter show up all of
Speaker 1: a sudden in chapter eight, and we have to remember
Speaker 1: exactly who that character is, and even sometimes within chapters
Speaker 1: there's leaps in time or you find yourself. For example,
Speaker 1: after chapter one or two where Andrea gets called to
Speaker 1: go off to paint and learn from Theophanes and he
Speaker 1: brings Foma I believe his name is with him. You
Speaker 1: assume when you get to that next chapter that they're
Speaker 1: walking amidst the trees they must be going to work
Speaker 1: with Theophanes, and then all of a sudden, Theophanes is
Speaker 1: there with them. Then he kind of appears almost like
Speaker 1: a ghost, Josh, it's not immediately clear that he was
Speaker 1: part of their traveling party. And those are the types
Speaker 1: of lapses in logic that you have to expect with Tarkovski.
Speaker 1: For me, what I was able to give myself over
Speaker 1: to was that episodic structure once I realize that you
Speaker 1: have to see them less as stepping stones to understanding
Speaker 1: anything factual or actual about Andre Rublev the painter an artist,
Speaker 1: and see them as parables. And that's how I ultimately
Speaker 1: embraced those chapter is now, I think in the end,
Speaker 1: even though we can't necessarily say that any of it
Speaker 1: is accurate, or that accuracy is what he's going for,
Speaker 1: we know very little about Andre Rublev the man, we
Speaker 1: have his work. It really is and I think Scott
Speaker 1: and Keith talk about this in their really eloquent conversation
Speaker 1: about the film that we referenced earlier in the reveal.
Speaker 1: It's as if Tarkovsky said, I'm going to take this
Speaker 1: figure and I'm going to use him to explore questions
Speaker 1: about sin, about the responsibility of the artist, about Russia
Speaker 1: itself and its history, about the brutality of man, all
Speaker 1: these big questions. He's going to use this story simply
Speaker 1: to be the provocation or the lure to explore some
Speaker 1: of those big questions, the type big questions we've seen
Speaker 1: Tarkovsky explore with his other films. So I don't know
Speaker 1: if that Parables analogy that I'm making resonates with you
Speaker 1: at all, Josh, But they are stories sometimes that don't
Speaker 1: even have anything to do directly with rube Lev himself.
Speaker 1: It seems to be more about not only asking some
Speaker 1: of these big questions or posing some of these big questions,
Speaker 1: but more about providing a backdrop, a potential backdrop to
Speaker 1: understand the types of experiences and the environment that might
Speaker 1: have shaped an artist.
Speaker 3: Like Yeah, I love the Parables analogy. I hadn't thought
Speaker 3: about it that way, but I think it's very apt,
Speaker 3: you know, and like the Parables of the New Testament,
Speaker 3: they're individual stories, fables, but they're also all of a
Speaker 3: piece for a single purpose, you know, in that case,
Speaker 3: painting this picture of a unique kingdom. And I think
Speaker 3: Andre Rubla with this film, Tarkovski is trying to ultimately
Speaker 3: paint a unified picture of what it means to make
Speaker 3: religious art. I think that, I mean, first of all,
Speaker 3: just generally speaking to me seeing this for the first time,
Speaker 3: and it's sort of the first time I went to
Speaker 3: see it. I've mentioned before at DUC Films at University
Speaker 3: of Chicago in January because they were screening it and
Speaker 3: just knowing we had this marathon. So I have had
Speaker 3: the chance to see it twice in a couple of months,
Speaker 3: but still in these recent months, it was the first
Speaker 3: time I thought I'd seen all the Tarkovsky masterpieces at him.
Speaker 3: I was like, I've you know, I've seen Nostalgia, I've
Speaker 3: seen Solaristock. It's like, let me go catch up on
Speaker 3: this well regarded. I certainly knew the movie's reputation, but
Speaker 3: knowing it was something of this biography picture historical picture,
Speaker 3: sounded different than the films I was familiar with earlier
Speaker 3: movie right his second full feature, I thought, let me
Speaker 3: catch up with this one. Okay, apparently the guy's up
Speaker 3: to what five masterpieces. In my mind, this thing is incredible.
Speaker 3: But yeah, going back to what you were saying and
Speaker 3: what Keith wrote specifically, you know this notion I think
Speaker 3: he's I think he's very close when he says this
Speaker 3: was about Rubelev's artistic development and the development of his soul,
Speaker 3: except I wouldn't have the ant I would put those
Speaker 3: two things together, because I think they're exactly the same
Speaker 3: thing in terms of what Tarkovsky is interested in exploring
Speaker 3: in this movie and thinking about it in context of
Speaker 3: the further films that he would go on to make.
Speaker 3: It's almost like he's setting the stage here for the
Speaker 3: rest of his career because he's stating these he's discovering.
Speaker 3: Let me say, it feels like he's discovering the terms
Speaker 3: by which he's going to go on to make deeply
Speaker 3: spiritual cinematic films like Solaris, Stalker, Nostalgia. But they're not
Speaker 3: religious films right in the sense that we think of them.
Speaker 3: And so Andre Rubelev is all about an artist whose
Speaker 3: job is to make religious films, and what are we
Speaker 3: told about him? Very early on, one of his fellow
Speaker 3: painters says to Theophanes, he has no faith in his art, right,
Speaker 3: This guy's going through the motions and he doesn't find
Speaker 3: that faith and that artistry until he's recognized that it
Speaker 3: must have a purpose beyond the religious realm. It must
Speaker 3: resonate outside of these cathedrals for it to have true artistry,
Speaker 3: true meaning, true religiosity, I would argue, and I do
Speaker 3: think you know. There's that early section which is comedic
Speaker 3: but sets the stage for all of this, when he
Speaker 3: and his fellow painters stop at this tavern. They're seeking
Speaker 3: shelter from the right. And before they even arrive, we've
Speaker 3: been watching this performer, this jester roll on bikeoff is
Speaker 3: the actor entertaining villagers with this crude and very lude
Speaker 3: song and dance. Right, and then Andre and his fellow
Speaker 3: monks come in and they crash the party. Everyone gets quiet.
Speaker 3: They look at the gester askance. One of his companions says,
Speaker 3: God sent priests, but the devil sent gestures. You know again,
Speaker 3: we're back to sinners, drawing this line between the sacred
Speaker 3: and secular right. But notice in that sequence, Adam, the
Speaker 3: jester connects with the crowd. The monks sit in the corner.
Speaker 3: They're useless.
Speaker 1: The clown judge and judge of course, the clown.
Speaker 3: Goes out into the world. He leaves the tavern, he
Speaker 3: takes off his shirt and soaks in the rain. He's
Speaker 3: experiencing life. And I think this is setting the central questions.
Speaker 3: The rest of the movie will explore what good is
Speaker 3: religious art, if it's lifeless, if it's disconnected from the
Speaker 3: human experience. It's when we get to these sections of
Speaker 3: cruelty and violence all at the hands of supposedly religious leaders,
Speaker 3: these princes of Russia, who demand these icons but also
Speaker 3: are merciless. What happens when religious art is co opted
Speaker 3: by the cruel and the powerful. And then here's the
Speaker 3: Tarkovsky question. Can art that isn't explicitly religious be faithful
Speaker 3: as well? This is what I think we see in
Speaker 3: his further films, And here it's almost like he's making
Speaker 3: the argument for that. So I really do think this is,
Speaker 3: you know, as powerful as his later movies, if still
Speaker 3: sort of in this formative space for him as a filmmaker.
Speaker 1: It's funny what you said about the Jester and the
Speaker 1: importance you placed on that, because I was looking at
Speaker 1: my notes and one of the last things I wrote
Speaker 1: down watching at this time was that this movie seems
Speaker 1: to be fundamentally about fools. Oh yeah, the characters, Holy fools. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That Tarkovsky is drawn to the most, that he is
Speaker 1: most sympathetic to the characters who he thinks society needs
Speaker 1: to not only have perhaps more compassion for, but needs
Speaker 1: to allow more space for. Are these fools? And that
Speaker 1: doesn't just mean because they're comedic foolish in this case,
Speaker 1: also means that they are distancing themselves or in some
Speaker 1: way separating themselves from conventional society. I think that's why
Speaker 1: we have the prologue, that we have this story that
Speaker 1: otherwise so disconnected, but isn't, and it is in terms
Speaker 1: of filmmaking Bravora Tarkovsky, where that camera is elevating up
Speaker 1: into the sky from the point of view of this
Speaker 1: fool who has decided, despite the shouts that he is
Speaker 1: getting from the people down below, despite the absolute absurdity
Speaker 1: of this decision, to try to fly. He pulls it off,
Speaker 1: doesn't he? And it does, as I said, feel disconnected
Speaker 1: because narratively it doesn't tie otherwise to our story. But
Speaker 1: it makes complete sense when you realize that the movie
Speaker 1: is filled with these types of characters, including rube Blev himself,
Speaker 1: who is constantly going against society, constantly putting himself in
Speaker 1: a position where he is daring to do something that
Speaker 1: subverts norms or subverts expectations, including taking a vow of
Speaker 1: silence as we see him later do. I think part
Speaker 1: of the complexity here of this film too, and the
Speaker 1: way Tarkowsky really gets at the human condition through rube
Speaker 1: Lev is having a character who can so clearly in
Speaker 1: one moment espouse this epiphany that he's had about his art,
Speaker 1: and it's in the chapter about the Last Judgment where
Speaker 1: he seems to have a sort of painter's block. He's
Speaker 1: doing everything he can to distract himself from the job
Speaker 1: at hand, and he expresses it it's because he doesn't
Speaker 1: feel like spreading that message of hell fire and punishment
Speaker 1: and suffering that doesn't seem to resonate with him. And
Speaker 1: then he finally realizes that he wants to tell the
Speaker 1: story of a feast instead so he can have he
Speaker 1: can have that type of epiphany, Josh, he can understand
Speaker 1: that he's a man who doesn't believe in, or doesn't
Speaker 1: want to espouse these ideas of hell fire and judgment
Speaker 1: and condemnation of his fellow man. But what does happen
Speaker 1: in that chapter with the Pagans I believe it's called
Speaker 1: the Feast? Where as soon as they catch him spying
Speaker 1: on lovers and they are going to punish him, what
Speaker 1: does he do. He invokes fire and brimstone, he tells him,
Speaker 1: But that's going to be punished. I think it is.
Speaker 1: Actually it's part of his journey. You could say that's
Speaker 1: part of his journey, and I think that that would
Speaker 1: be fair. You could also look at it as a
Speaker 1: bit of a contradiction, because he invokes it when it
Speaker 1: suits him and then later it doesn't completely feel right.
Speaker 1: But he hasn't he hasn't yet had that moment where
Speaker 1: he's realized what the counter is what he believes in instead,
Speaker 1: I suppose, so I guess that's why I'm kind of
Speaker 1: linking them. But you're right ultimately that I think that
Speaker 1: is part of that journey, that he's not this fully
Speaker 1: formed character. And not only that, of course, any artist
Speaker 1: is always developing. We're always developing as humans. But I
Speaker 1: think what I'm trying to express, Josh is that this
Speaker 1: is a character who is constantly shifting, who because of
Speaker 1: the conditions of the world that he lives in, because
Speaker 1: of the horrors that he witnesses, because of the ideas
Speaker 1: that he is constantly confronted with, He's malleable. He's trying
Speaker 1: to find what he really believes in. He's trying to
Speaker 1: commit to an ideology. And I like the fact that
Speaker 1: we see someone for a good portion of the film
Speaker 1: who is seeking, who is searching.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, that's the fascinating part of this and he is.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't think if we've even mentioned the
Speaker 3: actor portraying Rublove here and atotally Solnitsen, and I will
Speaker 3: say on this recent second viewing, I did appreciate his
Speaker 3: performance more because of that seeking quality and that he's
Speaker 3: kind of like a Brisson, you know, figure of struggling faith.
Speaker 3: He's what Ethan Hawk is doing in First Reformed. They're
Speaker 3: very much cinematic archetypes. But it is this this striving,
Speaker 3: the seeking, this uncertainty, this lack of faith, this doubt
Speaker 3: that is torturing figures like this, and I think we
Speaker 3: very much get that in this performance, which is quite strong.
Speaker 3: Also quickly before I go back to that is we've
Speaker 3: referenced a couple of times all these horror horrors he witnesses.
Speaker 3: We should say for people listening who haven't seen Andre Rublev,
Speaker 3: one of these chapters is like basically a Kurrosawa film, right.
Speaker 1: This Siege on on seven Samurai, It's all there.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's like, okay, let's just take forty five
Speaker 3: minutes to drop in a yeah, Samurai masterpiece, but set
Speaker 3: in medieval Russia. This is the level of artistry working
Speaker 3: on here with Andrea Rubelev. But yeah, I like, also
Speaker 3: continuing your thought about ruby Lev's journey here is that
Speaker 3: he has those qualms about painting the last judgment strong language.
Speaker 3: He starts by saying something about it's not the smoke
Speaker 3: that matters, you know, to his companion who's trying to
Speaker 3: figure out, why are you bothered by this? He says,
Speaker 3: then it disgusts me, like this concept of damnation and
Speaker 3: hell fire discuss me. And then later we notice there's
Speaker 3: another holy fool woman played by Irma Rausch, who wanders
Speaker 3: into this cathedral that they're painting as a character is
Speaker 3: reading a New Testament passage about how women should cover
Speaker 3: their heads in worship. And this is obviously an ironic contrast.
Speaker 3: Here comes this woman into their manly space as they're
Speaker 3: reading this aloud. But it's also where ruby Lev says
Speaker 3: something like she is not a sinner even if she
Speaker 3: does not wear a scarf. And so we're seeing his
Speaker 3: spiritual development here where he's transitioning away from the hell
Speaker 3: fire and damnation to a gospel of grace that he's
Speaker 3: beginning to embrace. And now the tension, the artistic tension,
Speaker 3: is like, but is this what the people paying me
Speaker 3: to paint want and how do I wrestle with that?
Speaker 3: And how do I be true to my art and
Speaker 3: my beliefs. So yeah, it is this this journey of
Speaker 3: discovery on his part, which who knows how historical it is,
Speaker 3: but in terms of rooting it in this narrative and
Speaker 3: how it works on a meta level to my mind,
Speaker 3: with Tarkowsky's development as an artist, I think is fascinating.
Speaker 1: There's a lot that's fascinating about this film and a
Speaker 1: lot that maybe I think we used this word last
Speaker 1: week when we were talking about the first two films
Speaker 1: in this marathon. A lot that's meant to be mysterious
Speaker 1: and not perhaps understood, and yet you're drawn to try
Speaker 1: to make sense of it. And that even includes josh
Speaker 1: lines of dialogue like the one in this film where Ki,
Speaker 1: the character who's a painter who is kind of an adversary,
Speaker 1: seems to be a friend but becomes kind of an adversary,
Speaker 1: feels a lot of jealousy towards Andrea because of his talent,
Speaker 1: he wants to be seen as a superior painter. He
Speaker 1: has greater ambition, but lacks that fundamental ability that his
Speaker 1: colleague seems to have when he is just about to
Speaker 1: have his great unraveling and he's in his room at
Speaker 1: the monastery, and I don't remember who is in the
Speaker 1: room and who says it to him, but the person says,
Speaker 1: why are you burning a candle in the daylight. I'm
Speaker 1: still thinking about why are you burning a candle in
Speaker 1: the daylight? Why that's even something that that character posed
Speaker 1: to him, and how we might interpret it. But what
Speaker 1: it says about Kirol as a man, as a monk,
Speaker 1: as a painter, that he could be I don't know,
Speaker 1: suppose wasteful in that way, that he could feel as if,
Speaker 1: even though it's daytime and he should be able to
Speaker 1: see everything he needs to say, he nevertheless feels the
Speaker 1: need to take in this bit of luxury, this bit
Speaker 1: of medieval luxury, if you will, or adorn his room
Speaker 1: in some way with that light. In a character it
Speaker 1: seems kind of calls him out on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Kirol is fascinating played by Ivan Lapikov, because I
Speaker 3: think he's also, if I'm remembering correctly, one of these
Speaker 3: figures you were referring to, who disappears for long passages, Yeah,
Speaker 3: and then comes back in a way we don't immediately
Speaker 3: know right it's him, and then he has to confess.
Speaker 3: He has two confessions, first who he actually is, and
Speaker 3: then later in the bell section, he confesses when Andrea
Speaker 3: is mistaken by the jester from the early section for
Speaker 3: the monk who denounced him and led to his punishment.
Speaker 3: And it was actually so yeah, can we talk about
Speaker 3: the bell section?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I mean masterpiece on its own right like this? To me,
Speaker 3: this movie just has that, and you've got something that
Speaker 3: will stand the test of time. Now, obviously it builds
Speaker 3: on what came before, because I find it to be
Speaker 3: completely culminating, this exploration of what doesn't mean to be
Speaker 3: an artist, let alone a religious artist.
Speaker 1: But really, what does it mean to be an artist
Speaker 1: like this?
Speaker 3: This is what the movie, or this section, the bell section,
Speaker 3: offers a possibility, I will say, because I think with
Speaker 3: Tarkovsky everything is a possibility, not necessarily an answer. But
Speaker 3: this is where we find the boy from Ivan's childhood.
Speaker 3: I have his childhood, right, Nikolai Berlyyev, who gave such
Speaker 3: a brilliant performance there as a kid a couple of
Speaker 3: years younger, and is here's this orphan teenager who convinces
Speaker 3: the prince that he has learned to cast church bells
Speaker 3: from his late father, is given the job, which means
Speaker 3: overseeing this massive team of adults, and we learn later
Speaker 3: though suspect right away he has no idea what he's doing.
Speaker 3: His father didn't teach him anything, but he proceeds anyway,
Speaker 3: and everyone follows him. What did you make of this past?
Speaker 1: Well, that's partly why, or a major part of why
Speaker 1: I am talking about this film in terms of its
Speaker 1: emphasis on holy fools or certain fool kids a school too.
Speaker 1: I think I think the kid is I think that's
Speaker 1: what really clinched it for me, is that he's another
Speaker 1: character Josh who you said. It turns out he doesn't
Speaker 1: know what he's doing. He doesn't know what he's doing,
Speaker 1: and I don't know if you can really say that
Speaker 1: he's going just off of faith. There's something what's motivating.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a great question, either deeper or more superficial,
Speaker 1: that's driving him. Maybe he just appreciates the power. But
Speaker 1: for whatever reason he takes in my mind, he takes
Speaker 1: the same leap off the church that the guy at
Speaker 1: the beginning does. Right when he flies with the balloon,
Speaker 1: he is putting himself in danger. There is no reason
Speaker 1: on this earth, in this world that he should pull
Speaker 1: this off. He's completely flying without an it and the
Speaker 1: punishment for failure here is severe. As we like to
Speaker 1: say here on film spotting, the stakes could not be higher.
Speaker 1: That is constantly reinforced throughout this entire section. What exactly
Speaker 1: could go wrong and the type of punishment that will
Speaker 1: befall him if he doesn't pull this off. And yet, Josh,
Speaker 1: he is a fool. He doesn't know exactly what he's doing.
Speaker 1: He is just hoping that through the force of his
Speaker 1: own will, that he is going to pull it off.
Speaker 1: That's the test. That's another example for me why it
Speaker 1: feels a bit like a parable. It isn't supposed to
Speaker 1: necessarily make sense that we believe that this character could
Speaker 1: do it. We believe it though in the context of
Speaker 1: this story. So yeah, that's that's where that that really
Speaker 1: came from for me, That idea was that character.
Speaker 3: And just to talk a little bit about the filmmaking
Speaker 3: before circling back to the to the meaning, but the
Speaker 3: patience and the attention to the steps of this craft,
Speaker 3: from finding the right clay which he stumbles upon in
Speaker 3: the rain and incredible. I so much rain in this movie.
Speaker 3: I mean water is Skarkowsky right, but he's he's baptized
Speaker 3: when he finds the right clay that shot, and from
Speaker 3: having to mold the bell in the earth to raising
Speaker 3: it up to yeah, the molding of it with how
Speaker 3: about the streams of like burning, I don't know what
Speaker 3: material is lead or silver, but it's glowing. This is
Speaker 3: a black and white film, but it's glowing behind this
Speaker 3: kid conjuring this fool slash wizard conjuring these streams of
Speaker 3: light to I mean, the filmmaking here is just incredible.
Speaker 3: But yeah, to connect it with some of these other
Speaker 3: things we've been talking about. So Andre Rublev at this
Speaker 3: point is still in his vow of silence, living near
Speaker 3: this city, the Prince's city, where the bell is being cast,
Speaker 3: and observing it from afar, and so he's watching this kid,
Speaker 3: and I would say, similar to the way you've been
Speaker 3: describing it, that rube Lev experiences the creation of this
Speaker 3: bell as a miraculous revelation. I mean, he's been on
Speaker 3: this journey of seeking inspiration. He's found it here a
Speaker 3: little bit. But then the sack of the city and
Speaker 3: the violence that he experienced and witnessed caused him to
Speaker 3: give everything up take on the vow of silence. He's
Speaker 3: left his work behind. But here I think what he
Speaker 3: discovers and the holy fool part is an element of
Speaker 3: this that art emerges from talent, but also from beyond himself. Right,
Speaker 3: he's a vessel. Ruby Lev discovers that he's a vessel,
Speaker 3: just like this kid is a vessel for the miracle,
Speaker 3: and I love I almost want to give it away
Speaker 3: because you are right, You're in such suspense. Is that
Speaker 3: bell going to toll? Are we going to hear anything?
Speaker 3: I'm almost positive I meant to rewatch it today, but
Speaker 3: I think when we hear the bell, the camera is
Speaker 3: on Rublev's face, and he is He has been a
Speaker 3: very side figure in this whole passage.
Speaker 1: We see him watching.
Speaker 3: He's an observer in the background. But the moment the
Speaker 3: movie has been building too in my mind, we're back
Speaker 3: on his face and it just it kind of seems
Speaker 3: like that is the clarity where he realizes it's about
Speaker 3: more than me. I may have been gifted talent, but
Speaker 3: I need to release a little bit of this control
Speaker 3: because I am, as an artist, a vessel, and I
Speaker 3: do think it connects out with another brilliant visual motif
Speaker 3: throughout this film, and it's something our Tarkowsky returns to
Speaker 3: in different ways. Water again is here, but we see
Speaker 3: many times a paint brush with white paint being held
Speaker 3: in a stream.
Speaker 1: I was I was going to go there, Josh, my
Speaker 1: favorite image in the film. Maybe it's gorgeous.
Speaker 3: And what happens is the paint just kind of diffuses
Speaker 3: but travels as the water travels. Yeah, and it's this
Speaker 3: abstract beauty. Here's the key that the person putting the
Speaker 3: brush in the water never intended. It's a new a
Speaker 3: new creation beyond that. That's that's in the process of
Speaker 3: unfolding before your eyes and what and who knows what
Speaker 3: it means. They were a part of it. They needed
Speaker 3: to be there for it to happen, right, it's not accidental.
Speaker 3: But they were also something of a vessel. And so
Speaker 3: I think that's the you know, that's the what rube
Speaker 3: Lev to my mind, discovers by the end of this movie,
Speaker 3: and pointedly in the historical context he goes on to
Speaker 3: make after this period in his life, according to what
Speaker 3: history we know, his greatest piece the Trinity, his greatest icon,
Speaker 3: the one that's the most revered. So it's just interesting
Speaker 3: to see how historically this could be understood as an
Speaker 3: epiphany moment for him. But I think it might be
Speaker 3: the same for Tarkovsky.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's like him understanding you've referenced
Speaker 3: this idea of mystery, like these movies I'm making, I'm
Speaker 3: maybe a vessel for them, like I don't, and this
Speaker 3: is why they're so confounding and we're intimidated by them
Speaker 3: and why we'll never find the answer to them, because
Speaker 3: I don't know if Tarkovsky knows the answer to.
Speaker 1: All of them. Sure, it's as if he has to.
Speaker 1: With this film, he's reminding himself or he's proving to
Speaker 1: himself the lesson the rube Lev learns. I think as
Speaker 1: you're articulating that, yeah, yeah, there, there are all these
Speaker 1: reasons to feel like this is probably pointless, or that
Speaker 1: this beauty or this attempted beauty is not appreciated by society.
Speaker 1: Is it something society even needs? I think it goes
Speaker 1: back to the steamroll or in the Violin too, in
Speaker 1: that way that's opposing that question and ultimately coming to
Speaker 1: a realization that you kind of have no choice. It's
Speaker 1: the only thing ultimately you can do, or certainly you
Speaker 1: can do if you're someone like Rublev or you're someone
Speaker 1: like Tarkovsky, who is a unique visionary artist, and that
Speaker 1: is definitely on display here. I'm so glad that you
Speaker 1: mentioned the brushes, because that moment where I think it's
Speaker 1: Foma who I didn't know totally what to make of it,
Speaker 1: And now it's starting to as we talk it out,
Speaker 1: it's starting to be clear to me. I just liked
Speaker 1: it as an image, and I liked it as a
Speaker 1: singular Tarkovsky image because we've already talked through this marathon
Speaker 1: and with mir we've talked about water and how he
Speaker 1: uses it in so many different ways. But the idea,
Speaker 1: it's almost like, by putting that brush in the water,
Speaker 1: it creates something new, as I said, something that's forming.
Speaker 1: It's in the process of forming itself before your eye.
Speaker 1: Something is disturbed, something is disturbed. The water that's flowing
Speaker 1: is disturbed by the introduction of a new liquid by
Speaker 1: someone's hand, a new thing, and then and that creates
Speaker 1: something new, and it actually creates an effect. Josh, It's
Speaker 1: like the only thing I could write down. I don't
Speaker 1: even know if I'm using this word correctly, but it's
Speaker 1: like tributaries. It's like within the water, new strips are formed, right,
Speaker 1: new streams are formed, which makes sense with some of
Speaker 1: the imagery we've seen from Tarkovski already. But there's another
Speaker 1: moment of that in this film, Josh, and my notes
Speaker 1: aren't entirely clear. I have post attack, so it must
Speaker 1: be after the raid, something like some kind of milk
Speaker 1: or liquid gets spilled into the water and the exact
Speaker 1: same tributary, like yeah, thing forms with that introduction of
Speaker 1: that liquid in the water, and then I love it's
Speaker 1: almost a match cut Tarkovsky gives us from that that
Speaker 1: spilling of that liquid in the water to then paint
Speaker 1: being thrown at the yes wall. There is yes, right,
Speaker 1: So that's that's a great kind of visual play on
Speaker 1: a motif that the Tarkovsky obviously is enamored with. We
Speaker 1: also get here and I didn't know coming into this marathon.
Speaker 1: I didn't know this was a thing. I didn't know
Speaker 1: a thing for Tarkovsky. I didn't know that until I
Speaker 1: saw that incredible scene amongst the birch trees in Ivan's
Speaker 1: childhood that this would be a recurring motif, even with
Speaker 1: the films I've seen, not considering them back to back,
Speaker 1: like this, what happens Josh In one of the early
Speaker 1: sequences in this film, they are walking amongst those same
Speaker 1: types of birch trees, those white trees. They even comment
Speaker 1: on them. I think you never notice until you leave.
Speaker 1: And and there's even a moment, Josh, with those trees
Speaker 1: where the characters in the scene are walking across the
Speaker 1: trees kind of like they're on a tightrope, which is
Speaker 1: exactly how they're walking across them in Ivan's childhood. So
Speaker 1: that was something that stood out to me. The symbolism
Speaker 1: of those trees, the power of those trees for Tarkovski
Speaker 1: obviously very intentional, but again the use of water here,
Speaker 1: and the use of water and layered varying ways by
Speaker 1: introducing new bits of liquid into the mix, was a
Speaker 1: real standout for me as well. I feel like, Josh,
Speaker 1: this is the movie in a lot of ways, that's
Speaker 1: the answer to the biopic conundrum. And the secret is
Speaker 1: not only just have someone as visionary as Tarkovsky creating
Speaker 1: the image of help, but just don't be encumbered in
Speaker 1: any way by fast events signposts. Yea, the things they
Speaker 1: actually did. Like he's a painter, we don't ever see
Speaker 1: him paint. We don't see any of the painting. We'll
Speaker 1: give you some art at the end, otherwise, otherwise we're
Speaker 1: going to give you a story that seems very loosely
Speaker 1: based on who this man ultimately is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what did you make of that? Speaking of the
Speaker 3: end where this has all been in black and white,
Speaker 3: and then we get this long section of close ups
Speaker 3: of some of the icons painted by rublev as this,
Speaker 3: you know, choral music from the period is playing on
Speaker 3: the soundtrack, and it gives you a chance obviously, you know,
Speaker 3: there's an obvious reason and what it means. It gives
Speaker 3: you a chance to see the art, the actual art
Speaker 3: to your point, out of context of him sitting at up,
Speaker 3: you know, sitting down to actually do it.
Speaker 1: So I appreciated that.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's you see this in other Tarkovski movies,
Speaker 3: like I think it's The Hunters in the Snow, the
Speaker 3: Brugal the Elder painting shows up in Solaris, and we
Speaker 3: spend a lot of time of the camera just pouring
Speaker 3: over it in detail. So it's a thing he likes
Speaker 3: to do. Did you find that additive?
Speaker 1: Did you you know? Yeah, Yeah, that's another one of
Speaker 1: those very airing formal choices that completely pays off. And
Speaker 1: I think the reason it pays off is is that
Speaker 1: it's the culmination of everything we've tried to speak to
Speaker 1: during this conversation, which is what this movie is really about.
Speaker 1: Is what ironically all biopics about artists try to be about,
Speaker 1: which is what are the experiences and the perspectives that
Speaker 1: shape the artists in the work that they do. But
Speaker 1: by disconnecting them the way that Tarkovsky has making it so,
Speaker 1: the film itself isn't about the art at all or
Speaker 1: showcase in the art, and it's only at the end
Speaker 1: that we get it. It really does make us feel
Speaker 1: as if he was finally only capable of doing that
Speaker 1: work because of all of these experiences. Yeah. I love
Speaker 1: that separation of it. I think it's very potent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, that's good. That's the time when we need
Speaker 3: the historical record is at that moment, rather than intersperse
Speaker 3: to sort of justify or you know, try to historically
Speaker 3: root your narrative earlier, it would have been distracting, but
Speaker 3: here it is a very nice exclamation point.
Speaker 1: You mentioned shades of Kurosawa here, or at least filmmaking
Speaker 1: on that scale. I can't remember if it's Scott or
Speaker 1: Keith who mentioned it, but were you like them and
Speaker 1: like me thinking about during the bell sequence Werner Hertzog
Speaker 1: and thinking about Fitzcaraldo. Not only another fool character right
Speaker 1: in Fitzcaraldo pulling off the unthinkable, pulling off a miracle,
Speaker 1: but I was thinking about the character, I was also
Speaker 1: thinking about the filmmaker. I was watching that and real
Speaker 1: quick this now made me think, Josh as well when
Speaker 1: you brought up I also loved that imagery of the lead.
Speaker 1: Whatever that molten substance is. But Josh, that's another tributary
Speaker 1: like visual yes, isn't it. It's as if these rivers
Speaker 1: of that liquid are cascading down. But I was thinking
Speaker 1: about the work the entire time. I was just thinking
Speaker 1: about the physical work it must have taken, the people
Speaker 1: working on this film, the oh gosh, the austion designers,
Speaker 1: anyone involved with making this film, and Tarkovski himself to
Speaker 1: sew specifically and in such a detailed way render the
Speaker 1: creation of that bell and the hoisting of that bell
Speaker 1: the pulling of the levers, the pulleys there on the rope.
Speaker 1: It made me think about the totally going over the
Speaker 1: mountain if it's Karaldo, and I can't believe he did it.
Speaker 1: I can't believe he pulled it off.
Speaker 3: I don't know if we've communicated the scale of this film.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, we've talked about the Kursawa thing,
Speaker 3: but but so many of these sequences have you know,
Speaker 3: they're establishing shots where important things are happening in the
Speaker 3: foreground with characters we know, but if you look way
Speaker 3: in the background, there's like fifty or sixty people doing
Speaker 3: something period appropriate, and frequently there are animal like just
Speaker 3: walking across the screen. I think it's another key thing
Speaker 3: with Tarkowsky where he is. He's not Kubrick in the
Speaker 3: sense that I mean for a lot of reasons, but
Speaker 3: he has control, but not the Kubrickian level of control
Speaker 3: of the frame like he he seems to be open
Speaker 3: to chaos in a way with the incorporation of animals,
Speaker 3: like I said, frequently, but also you know, many extras
Speaker 3: doing their own thing nature the way nature intrudes or
Speaker 3: or is like you know, recreated to seem to intrude,
Speaker 3: but yeah, that also seems to be a unique quality
Speaker 3: of his. But just the scale of this movie Andre
Speaker 3: Rublov alone is incredible to behold.
Speaker 1: Maybe as we get through a few more films, we'll
Speaker 1: be able to make better sense of how he is
Speaker 1: using animals in the symbolic nature, because the final frame
Speaker 1: of this film is horses, not men. And dogs recur
Speaker 1: a lot in film, including in key moments like when
Speaker 1: Kirol finally renounces this world, the monastic world, and decides
Speaker 1: to go out and enjoin civilization again, his dog, who
Speaker 1: he otherwise seems to quite love and dote on. In
Speaker 1: this moment, the dog runs towards him. What does he do?
Speaker 1: He beats the dog. The fact that the fact that
Speaker 1: Tarkowsky felt the need to show that type of brutality
Speaker 1: from Kirol in that moment by beating a dog, and
Speaker 1: then dogs are a constant presence swirling throughout that entire
Speaker 1: raid Josh as well. So just when I think thought
Speaker 1: i'd mentioned it's something to keep an eye on, Yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure.
Speaker 3: I mean just when I think that I have a
Speaker 3: decent handle, not a full handle, but a decent handle.
Speaker 3: In Andre Rublov, it ends with those final twenty seconds
Speaker 3: of a color footage of three or four horses along
Speaker 3: a stream. It's sunny but also raining on them. And
Speaker 3: what's that all about?
Speaker 1: Man? I mean great? Like come on like I was.
Speaker 3: I thought I was doing good here and now sure
Speaker 3: now I'm lost in mystery once again.
Speaker 1: If you would like to elucidate that mystery for us,
Speaker 1: we'd love to hear from you. You can share any
Speaker 1: other comments about the show as well feedback at filmspotting
Speaker 1: dot net. Andre rublev is streaming on the Criterion Channel
Speaker 1: and Max. It's also available at vod Next up. We
Speaker 1: are taking a week off, but we will come back
Speaker 1: and reckon with one of my blind spots nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: nine Stocker. More information, filmspotting dot Net, Slash marathons, Josh,
Speaker 1: That's our show.
Speaker 3: If you want to find Adam and the show on Instagram, Facebook,
Speaker 3: or letterboxed, he's at film Spotting. I'm at all those
Speaker 3: places as well. You can find me at Larsen on film.
Speaker 3: We are independently produced and listeners supported. You can support
Speaker 3: the show by joining the film Spotting Family at filmspottingfamily
Speaker 3: dot com. You can listen early and ad free. You'll
Speaker 3: also get a weekly newsletter, monthly bonus shows, and access
Speaker 3: to the entire show archive for show t shirts or yep,
Speaker 3: we still have some Film Spotting Fest posters available. Go
Speaker 3: to film spotting dot net slash shop.
Speaker 1: In the Film Spotting Archive, you can find conversations about
Speaker 1: other Ryan Cougler films, including fruit Vale Station that was
Speaker 1: episode four fifty six, Black Panther six sixty eight, Wakanda
Speaker 1: Forever eight ninety eight. It looks like we did not
Speaker 1: give Creed a proper review on the show. We did
Speaker 1: review Creed two, directed by Stephen Cable Junior. That was
Speaker 1: episode seven oh seven. Streaming this weekend. You can see Havoc.
Speaker 1: This stars Tom Hardy. This is how Sam has described it.
Speaker 1: Tom Hardy as jaded cop in Netflix movie. He didn't
Speaker 1: even get a name, well, not with Sam anyway. Directed
Speaker 1: by Gareth Evans who made The Raid out wide. You
Speaker 1: could see Ben Affleck and John Berthel in The Accountant two.
Speaker 1: Is the Accountant review in the film's finding archive. Josh,
Speaker 1: I can't remember.
Speaker 3: I know, I didn't see it, and why do I
Speaker 3: think The Accountant two came out like five months ago?
Speaker 1: This is new. We have been seeing trailers Forever. Okay,
Speaker 1: you're not wrong there. The Legend of Ochi is also out.
Speaker 1: Josh gave that a few minutes and does recommend that
Speaker 1: film in limited release. The documentary about the comedy duo
Speaker 1: Cheech and Chong. It's Cheech and Chong's last movie. Magic Farm,
Speaker 1: a movie that features a film crew working for an
Speaker 1: edgy magazine traveling to South America to fabricate a trend. Okay,
Speaker 1: Chloe seven Ye, Alex Wolf, and Simon Rex co star
Speaker 1: on Swift Horses is out. Robert Daniels says it's a
Speaker 1: slow burning, nineteen fifty set noir western driven by carnal
Speaker 1: appetites and a longing to break free from societal expectations.
Speaker 1: It stars Jacob Elordi and Daisy Edgar Jones. David Cronenberg's
Speaker 1: The Shroud is also out in select cities, with Vincent
Speaker 1: Cassell as a man who invents a technology that allows
Speaker 1: him to Yeah, I suppose that's accurate. Mono the Dead
Speaker 1: with Diane Krueger. I also did want to give a
Speaker 1: quick mention Josh to a movie called Jimmy and Saigon,
Speaker 1: a documentary directed by Peter McDowell that I think actually
Speaker 1: counts as a twenty twenty two film, played a lot
Speaker 1: of different festivals, but is just now getting a release
Speaker 1: at the Cinema Village in New York City this weekend.
Speaker 1: And it's a documentary about the filmmaker Peter McDowell, who
Speaker 1: grew up he was the baby of the family. I
Speaker 1: think there were five kids total, and had the oldest sibling, Jimmy,
Speaker 1: who he barely knew because of the age difference, and
Speaker 1: also because Jimmy went off to Vietnam and didn't come back,
Speaker 1: and the circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious, and part
Speaker 1: of the mystery was that his family just never talked
Speaker 1: about it. His parents, his other siblings, they seem to
Speaker 1: always want to kind of keep this a secret. And
Speaker 1: so what McDowell does is he tries to unravel the
Speaker 1: mystery of what did happen to his brother back in Saigon,
Speaker 1: has experiences post war there, and I do think if
Speaker 1: you have a chance to see Jimmy and Saigon, it's
Speaker 1: a film worth checking out. Next week, Film Spotting goes
Speaker 1: to the library the Shrouds with author Violet Lucas. She
Speaker 1: just wrote a book about David Cronenberg called clinical Trials
Speaker 1: and blind Spotting. We'll be looking at Gina Prince Bythwood's
Speaker 1: Love and Basketball at twenty five with Mariah Gates. She's
Speaker 1: the author of Cinema Her Way, visionary female directors in
Speaker 1: their own words.
Speaker 3: Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe Desso and Sam
Speaker 3: Van Halgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go.
Speaker 3: Our production assistant is Sophie Kempanar special thanks to everyone
Speaker 3: at wbeazy Chicago. More information is available at wbeazy dot org.
Speaker 3: For film Spotting, I'm Josh.
Speaker 1: Larson and I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 2: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
Speaker 1: The burn film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film
Speaker 1: Spotting Family at film spottingfamily dot com and get access
Speaker 1: to ad free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and,
Speaker 1: for the first time, all in one place, the entire
Speaker 1: film Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five.
Speaker 1: That's a film Spotting Family dot com.
Speaker 2: Panically