WEBVTT - Emma & Yorgos - The Favourite/Poor Things Reviews (Archive) 0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:03.960 Make every dollar work harder with the US banks Smartly Suite. 0:00:04.040 --> 0:00:07.120 It bundles your checking, savings, and credit cards seamlessly in 0:00:07.160 --> 0:00:10.959 one place, making money management easier and more organized. You'll 0:00:11.000 --> 0:00:14.240 also unlock exclusive perks like tailored rates and rewards that 0:00:14.280 --> 0:00:16.720 help you get more out of every dollar. The US 0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:19.480 Bank Smartly Suite is a smart, practical way to grow 0:00:19.480 --> 0:00:22.280 your money and have confidence your money is working harder 0:00:22.280 --> 0:00:25.720 for you. When our Bank Smartly solutions meet your financial goals, 0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:29.760 we are stronger together. That's the power of US Member FDIC. 0:00:30.880 --> 0:00:33.479 This episode is brought to you by Peloton. Break through 0:00:33.520 --> 0:00:35.959 the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton 0:00:36.040 --> 0:00:39.720 Cross Training tread Plus powered by Peloton Iq. With real 0:00:39.760 --> 0:00:42.800 time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize 0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.080 your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your 0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:50.240 goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.880 and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross Training Treadplus at 0:00:53.880 --> 0:00:55.560 one Peloton dot com. 0:00:55.840 --> 0:00:59.640 Hey, film Spiders, Josh and Adam. Here. On Wednesdays, we 0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:03.200 like to drop something into the feed that comes from 0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:06.559 the film spotting archive. This week we're going to share 0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:12.560 a couple of Yorgosplanthemo's Ammastone collaborations twenty sixteen's The Favorite 0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:16.640 twenty twenty threes Poor Things. Both of those, Adam, I 0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:19.720 think made for some pretty good conversation. 0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:23.440 Yeah, we split a little bit, at least on poor things, 0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:27.880 both fans of the Favorite. First up is that conversation 0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:32.200 from December twenty eighteen about The Favorite. 0:01:32.440 --> 0:01:34.320 The queen is an extraordinary person. 0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:36.479 They were all. 0:01:36.360 --> 0:01:38.640 Staring, won't they? I can tell even if I can't see. 0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:42.080 And I heard the word fat, fat, and ugly. No 0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:43.440 one but me would Darren I did not. 0:01:43.920 --> 0:01:45.400 She's been stalked by tragedy. 0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:55.720 Everyone leaves me, he does. I apologize for my appearance. 0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:59.000 I hope I might be employed here by you. That's 0:01:59.040 --> 0:02:01.000 something a monster the children to play with. 0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:02.760 Perhaps ah. 0:02:04.000 --> 0:02:07.320 Olivia Coleman as the beleaguered Queen, Rachel Weiss as her 0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:10.840 ruthless but most trusted friend and advisor, Lady Sarah, and 0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:14.680 Emma Stone as the interloping viper, Abigail There and Jess. 0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:17.120 When I thought last week's conversation about the ballad of 0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:19.600 Buster scrugs had exhausted the need to come up with 0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:24.080 more synonyms for cynicism, we have the favorite, a film 0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:27.280 with a decidedly lower body count than Scrugs with regard 0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:30.959 to on screen casualties anyway, but arguably even a more 0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:34.560 ascetic view of human nature. Nobody in Queen Anne's early 0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:37.200 eighteenth century court gets shot in the back by arrival, 0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:39.600 as we see in the Cones Old West, though a 0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:42.760 rifle may not so accidentally get fired in one's general 0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:46.480 direction to deliver appointed message during an otherwise elegant afternoon 0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:50.000 of pigeon shooting, And even the lowliest kitchen helper with 0:02:50.080 --> 0:02:53.280 no power or political agenda to angle for, is more 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:56.760 likely to connive to inflict pain or embarrassment than spare 0:02:56.800 --> 0:02:59.840 a moment of compassion for a new servant. So, Josh, 0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:03.600 who did you find the most redeemable in this basket 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:06.880 of deplorables? Or perhaps who did you find the most 0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:13.600 entertainingly irredeemable? Coleman's exhaustingly needy, childlike monarch Vice's icy, brutally 0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:18.760 honest Sarah Stone's seemingly wide eyed schemer, or Rakish puppet 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:23.000 master Yorgos Lanthemos so determined to devise and explore hermetically 0:03:23.040 --> 0:03:26.600 sealed worlds that present their own unique language protocols and 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.040 acrid blend of decorum and debauchery. 0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:32.959 Yeah, this is quite the cheery vision of humanity, isn't it? 0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.040 As we would expect from Alanthemo. So I think we 0:03:36.080 --> 0:03:38.000 both knew what we are getting into at this point 0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:40.440 from that director, and for the most part, we both 0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:44.680 really enjoy getting into these sorts of dramas that he 0:03:44.800 --> 0:03:50.440 gives us. Great question, I would argue they're all redeemable. Nice, 0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:54.280 but I would I would also say such a compassion Yeah, 0:03:55.160 --> 0:03:58.440 I guess I would say that some of them have 0:03:58.520 --> 0:04:02.480 more redeeming quality than others. Let's start at the bottom, 0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:05.040 which it sounds like we both agree, is Emma Stone's 0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:10.200 Abigail Oh okay, I mean she is just out for 0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:15.840 the kill from the beginning, and understandably so for many reasons. 0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:18.000 The more we hear about her past and as you said, 0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:22.640 her station in her class. But man, she's look out 0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:25.480 look out for her right. And it is, to answer 0:04:25.480 --> 0:04:29.280 your other question, a perverse delight to watch Stone get 0:04:29.320 --> 0:04:35.200 to showcase new levels of deceitfulness, especially when her early reputation, 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.279 for sure is as a sweet natured someone who plays 0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:43.080 sweet natured parts right. Rachel Weiss Lady Sarah. I think 0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:45.240 there might be a little bit of genuine love there 0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:51.000 for the Queen, and it's gotten just tangled up in 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.599 plays for political power and all sorts of other things 0:04:55.640 --> 0:04:58.880 that we see happen in this film, So that seems 0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:01.800 to have faded and faded until it's almost entirely gone. 0:05:01.920 --> 0:05:04.400 But there is you still see glimmers of it that 0:05:04.480 --> 0:05:09.120 makes her, you know, has some redeemable qualities. I think 0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:11.800 Queen Anne, and this is maybe tied to how I 0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:15.080 enjoy the performances. Enjoyed them all thought they were all great. 0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:21.000 But Olivia Coleman as Queen Anne is just fantastic in 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:24.279 the way that she's at once the most she is 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:27.320 the most easily manipulated in some ways, but she's also 0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:29.560 the master manipulator. And a lot of that has to 0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:30.840 do with the fact that she's at the top of 0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:33.760 the chain, right she's the queen, but she plays that 0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:37.600 card throughout and Coleman just gives her. There's a lot 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:41.000 of king Lear going on in this movie, and I 0:05:41.080 --> 0:05:45.520 think Coleman captures what that play has is the idea 0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:48.720 of a monarch as a having this weary ferocity of 0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:51.960 a dying animal. There's a desperation to her, so that 0:05:52.000 --> 0:05:55.080 she's at once the movie's most monstrous presence when she 0:05:55.240 --> 0:05:58.200 really wields that power, but she's also I found her 0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:00.960 to be the most sympathetic and maybe having the most 0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:04.240 redeemable qualities because of that. So that's sort of where 0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:08.159 I landed after a first viewing of this In one 0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:11.799 way perfect Lanthimos film in the themes that it's exploring 0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:15.760 and intriguingly different in that costume drama setting. 0:06:15.880 --> 0:06:19.839 Yeah, I think this movie could have been still a 0:06:19.960 --> 0:06:23.280 very good film had it been just about taking that 0:06:23.360 --> 0:06:28.240 pleasure in watching this much bad behavior portrayed as artfully 0:06:28.320 --> 0:06:30.400 as it is and with such a plom But I 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:33.440 think what elevates it for me a little bit, and 0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:35.400 what gets back to the question I posed to you, 0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.560 is that as much as I loathed each one of 0:06:39.600 --> 0:06:42.839 these characters for a variety of different reasons, I also 0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:46.960 lamented the misfortunes of all three. Lamented what put them 0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:49.840 all in the situation, some more than others, but put 0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:54.280 them in the situation that requires them to be as 0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.120 needy or as manipulative and scheming and exploitative as they 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:00.120 ultimately are. I think you're probably right about it. I'm 0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:04.039 a stone, especially by the end of the film. Her character, Abigail, 0:07:04.160 --> 0:07:07.520 it's fair to say, is the least redeemable in a 0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:09.440 lot of ways. But there's a key line for me 0:07:09.520 --> 0:07:12.200 in the movie that comes about three quarters the way through, 0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:16.600 during her battle with Lady Sarah, and without revealing any 0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:19.880 of the circumstances, I can say the line she says, 0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:23.600 I'm safe now, And in that moment, if you just 0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:25.960 take it on face value, it sounds as if she's saying, 0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:29.360 you can't touch me anymore, and she is saying that. 0:07:29.480 --> 0:07:31.480 But what she's really saying, if you've seen it, you 0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:36.080 know the circumstances in particular, you understand that she truly 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.320 is now finally in a position where she is not 0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:42.120 as vulnerable as she has been up to this point 0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:43.760 in her entire life. 0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:46.400 She can't be as easily victimized as. 0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:51.160 She has, and so the tenuousness of her survival is 0:07:51.200 --> 0:07:54.560 something that did give me an appreciation for her shrewdness. 0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:58.120 You understand that it really is not just about ambition 0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:02.520 or greed or whatever might drive people to act in 0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:06.040 this way. It's about that survival. All three characters in 0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:08.640 a lot of ways, I would say, are people who 0:08:09.360 --> 0:08:13.920 are incapable of gratification. There are moments where they maybe 0:08:13.920 --> 0:08:17.320 get some solace, especially sexually. I think those moments are 0:08:17.360 --> 0:08:20.920 really the only ones that provide any kind of pleasure whatsoever. 0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:22.720 But think about Coleman, who I agree with you is 0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:25.760 really stunning here, and she's the one who, despite how 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:28.440 needy she is and how demanding she is and how 0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:33.440 incompetent she is as a leader, you recognize that she 0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:36.440 carries so much pathos and that she is a victim herself. 0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:39.199 We understand more of that as we go throughout the film, 0:08:39.240 --> 0:08:42.600 including how much pain physically she is in and has 0:08:42.640 --> 0:08:45.160 suffered in her life, so that skews our perspective as well. 0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:46.960 But back to this idea of gratification, think about how 0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:50.079 many times in the film we see her lose her 0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:55.600 mind when she is confronted with joy of any kind whatsoever. 0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:59.280 The moment when she's walking by with one of the characters, 0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:01.920 I'm blanking on it, the moment and she looks out, 0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:03.959 I think it's Abigail, and she looks out and they 0:09:04.600 --> 0:09:09.280 admire some kids performing with a conductor. It's like a 0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:12.280 group of five and it's really lovely music. And the 0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:14.480 look on her face as it turns from one of 0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:18.280 recognition of that sound and the pleasure of it into horror, 0:09:18.360 --> 0:09:21.480 there's something about it that she immediately recoils from. There's 0:09:21.480 --> 0:09:23.480 also a dance scene in the film that we may 0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:26.480 talk more about, a bit of an anachronistic dance scene 0:09:26.520 --> 0:09:29.079 that's really pretty great in this film that she also 0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:32.199 flips out about and gets immediately angry about. So you're 0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:35.800 dealing with characters who all in their own way, I suppose, 0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:39.880 detached and very difficult, but as we do gain that 0:09:40.000 --> 0:09:44.000 recognition of their circumstances, even Lady Sarah, I would say, 0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:46.320 by the end of the film, we do recognize that 0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:49.440 that honesty that she has, that brutal honesty, may actually 0:09:49.480 --> 0:09:51.800 come from a place of love. Yes, she'll do whatever 0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:55.480 she can to protect herself and protect her standing, but 0:09:56.000 --> 0:09:58.160 she may be the one who is ultimately serving the 0:09:58.240 --> 0:09:59.760 Queen the most. So the fact that we at least 0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:02.720 get to think about those questions and consider those characters 0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:04.680 that way is a real strength of this film. 0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:07.600 You're right that the Queen is a very tortured figure 0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:10.160 in ways that we come to understand, but maybe not 0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:14.839 entirely fully. Abigail, we understand is a tortured figure as well, 0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:18.160 and we get an explicit picture of that. I guess 0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:21.000 I fel the way I did towards your question because 0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:24.959 I asked myself once. Each of these three characters do 0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:27.120 get to a position of power, and that's one of 0:10:27.240 --> 0:10:30.000 the intriguing things about this film is watching that change, right, 0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:32.280 go back and forth. What do they do with that 0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:37.079 power and who's the most vindictive and awful when they 0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:41.880 hold it? And there is a very queasy scene that 0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:44.400 I won't give away involving Abigail towards the end of 0:10:44.440 --> 0:10:47.600 the film that kind of like reveal her true colors. 0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:50.640 To me, if she were in the Queen's place, it 0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:55.000 would probably look very differently than Anne being in that place. 0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:56.840 And we will say for people who have seen it 0:10:56.960 --> 0:11:00.079 or people who haven't seen it but eventually do. It 0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:02.320 is a scene, I know, the one you're talking about 0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:06.120 that involves an animal, of course, right, And I will 0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:09.559 note as well that actually that moment, the moment you're 0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:11.559 talking about, which we will dance around a little bit, 0:11:11.760 --> 0:11:14.800 but it's based on a shriek or it comes out 0:11:14.880 --> 0:11:17.560 of a recognition of a cry that happens in that 0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:19.800 scene that's actually set up by a moment earlier in 0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:22.560 the film that also adds to Olivia Coleman's sense of 0:11:22.600 --> 0:11:25.240 pathos and the vulnerability of her character. There's a moment 0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:30.320 where Abigail exploits the fact that she is in proximity 0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:32.839 to the Queen and she is about to be exiled 0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:34.720 or something bad is going to happen to her, and 0:11:34.760 --> 0:11:37.360 so she actually breaks down and cries like a little 0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:40.840 child in that moment, and the Queen can't resist in 0:11:40.880 --> 0:11:44.640 that moment, at least exploring what that cry is and 0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:48.400 what the problem is. There is that sympathetic side of her, 0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:50.480 and again it does set up that moment at the 0:11:50.559 --> 0:11:52.160 end of the film why she would react to it 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:52.520 that way. 0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:56.560 So you mentioned the animal element. You've referenced the dance. 0:11:56.920 --> 0:11:59.560 These are two things that Lanthemo's films, most of them 0:11:59.640 --> 0:12:03.040 that we see, do incorporate in a really idiosyncratic way. 0:12:03.559 --> 0:12:07.080 I'm guessing that all of these flourishes worked for you 0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:08.840 because in a lot of ways, this is a very 0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:13.559 standard costume drama. I mean, the costumes themselves are opulent 0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:16.640 and gorgeous and the rooms where this is filmed on 0:12:16.760 --> 0:12:20.640 an estate in England, the tapestry lined walls. These are 0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:24.880 giant spaces, absolutely gorgeous. So this looks and plays the 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:29.120 part in a lot of ways. But as Stanley Kubrick 0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.240 did with Barry Lindon, and Kubrick as a filmmaker often 0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:35.240 referenced alongside Lanthemos because I think they both have this 0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:39.760 bleak vision of humanity and like to explore, just to 0:12:39.840 --> 0:12:44.280 expose the folly of humankind. I think they both like 0:12:44.320 --> 0:12:46.520 to do that, and Kubrick did with a period piece. 0:12:47.080 --> 0:12:50.720 This really has a lot of those touches that set 0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:53.440 it apart. Another one might be the fish eye lens. 0:12:53.520 --> 0:12:56.080 Yet he occasionally goes to I don't know offhand if 0:12:56.120 --> 0:12:59.720 that's something that has been a recurring technique in his 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:03.640 other films, but it's certainly used here, so I'm curious 0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:07.640 to hear how that landed for you. The camera also 0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:10.720 will often, you know, make a sweeping pan that takes 0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:13.040 in the enormity of these rooms. So we're not getting 0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:16.000 a masterpiece theater. Set the camera in a gorgeous space 0:13:16.040 --> 0:13:18.360 and let the actors act, right, We're getting a lot 0:13:18.400 --> 0:13:20.200 of landing boss here. Yes, we worked for you. 0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:22.200 Yeah, it absolutely worked for me. I think it's another 0:13:22.200 --> 0:13:24.520 real strength of the film, that fish eye effect. I 0:13:24.520 --> 0:13:26.880 didn't get a chance to really go back and study 0:13:26.920 --> 0:13:30.240 the film and see if this bears out moment to moment, 0:13:30.280 --> 0:13:34.959 but often I noticed it was employed when we were 0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:38.120 seeing characters in times of distress, which made sense. Now, 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:40.920 sometimes it's characters going down a hallway, but also there's 0:13:40.960 --> 0:13:42.720 a moment of tension in that scene, whatever they are 0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:46.760 going to or they are leaving from. But particularly in 0:13:46.800 --> 0:13:49.320 a scene like where the Queen goes to speak before 0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:52.520 Parliament and let's just say it doesn't go very well. 0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:56.839 It's sort of foreshadowed really the couple moments just before 0:13:56.880 --> 0:13:59.559 it by that very distorted kind of fish eye lens, 0:13:59.600 --> 0:14:01.480 which I think does just kind of cue us into 0:14:01.480 --> 0:14:04.079 the fact that something is a little bit off. Those 0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:08.360 wide lenses and the wide frames that you mention, for me, 0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:12.760 really emphasize the order of everything, the structure of everything 0:14:12.800 --> 0:14:15.559 that seems to be in exactly its place. But then 0:14:15.720 --> 0:14:20.000 that's perfectly juxtaposed with the chaos inside and also outside, 0:14:20.040 --> 0:14:23.400 which is only really ever hinted at in this film. 0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:26.760 We never really do kind of get out of this court, 0:14:26.960 --> 0:14:29.360 which is for me. As I suggested in the setup 0:14:29.360 --> 0:14:31.560 another way, this is a Lanthamost film through and through 0:14:31.600 --> 0:14:34.360 the cynicism, the dark humor, the dance scenes, the animals, 0:14:34.360 --> 0:14:36.560 if you will, but also the fact that this place 0:14:36.600 --> 0:14:39.400 has its own way of communication, its own rules, and 0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:42.080 you have all these characters trying to navigate that. He 0:14:42.160 --> 0:14:46.720 seems particularly invested in exploring that throughout his films. Think 0:14:46.760 --> 0:14:49.480 about the lobster in the hotel that they go to, right, 0:14:49.560 --> 0:14:53.200 That's the foundation for the entire film and also one 0:14:53.200 --> 0:14:55.680 of the things he does really well. Despite how vast 0:14:55.840 --> 0:14:59.520 this court is and how big these frames are, you 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:02.120 still get this is kind of claustrophobic effect because he'll 0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:06.360 use the Orson Welles Citizen Kane technique of a lot 0:15:06.400 --> 0:15:09.280 of shots that are low angle, and when we're seeing 0:15:09.280 --> 0:15:11.800 a room and we're seeing a character or often characters 0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:14.320 in a room, we also see the ceilings. There was 0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:16.000 one I was just rewatching today where we see m 0:15:16.080 --> 0:15:18.760 Astone I think it's in the hot chocolate scene, and 0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:21.840 she goes to pour it, so she's bending down. She's 0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:23.720 already kind of low in the frame. The camera is 0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:26.760 below her looking up, the ceiling feels as if it's 0:15:26.880 --> 0:15:29.240 right on top of her because of that wide lens 0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:31.520 and the decision to make sure that that ceiling appears 0:15:31.560 --> 0:15:35.160 in that shot. The ceilings appear in almost every shot 0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:37.920 in this film, which just keeps all of these characters 0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:42.160 contained in a way that does feel appropriately oppressive. 0:15:42.360 --> 0:15:45.440 Well, that's probably why it's really unique in this film. 0:15:45.800 --> 0:15:49.440 Often we get a low angle shot of someone looking 0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:52.720 up at them, and traditionally, most often that conveys a 0:15:52.760 --> 0:15:54.880 sense of dominance and power to that character. It's the 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:58.640 exact opposite here is it somehow diminishes them, which of 0:15:58.680 --> 0:16:02.080 course exactly the aim of the entire film. So I 0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:05.280 think all of those techniques are very effective. I didn't. 0:16:05.400 --> 0:16:07.160 I'd have to go back and watch again as well 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.920 to you know, identify a common through line to the 0:16:10.920 --> 0:16:14.800 fish eye lens thing. But overall it it just does 0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:18.880 distort our understanding of what this movie is going to be. 0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:21.800 So I see it as part of the Again, this 0:16:21.920 --> 0:16:24.280 is what Barry Linden sets out to do, is spoof 0:16:24.480 --> 0:16:30.080 the genre as it is being this beautiful example of it. 0:16:30.240 --> 0:16:31.800 So it's trying to have both ways, and I think 0:16:31.800 --> 0:16:33.880 it does have both ways. The fish eye lens is 0:16:33.920 --> 0:16:36.360 one way to kind of remind us that we're really 0:16:36.400 --> 0:16:40.440 tweaking something here. The dance sequence is another thing where 0:16:40.440 --> 0:16:43.120 we're we all know this is coming in a costume drama, 0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:46.000 and maybe you know a lot of times those dances. 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:48.440 I'm a huge fan of musicals and dance numbers, but 0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:50.440 when I get one in a costume drama, I start 0:16:50.440 --> 0:16:53.440 to kind of sink a little bit because I feel like, yeah, 0:16:53.480 --> 0:16:55.720 it starts outay. I feel like I know these routines right, 0:16:56.040 --> 0:16:59.400 and no, this goes a little bit differently. Yes, And 0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:01.480 so that's part to the satire. As are the wigs. 0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:04.960 I mean, these are the craziest wigs I've seen in 0:17:05.000 --> 0:17:06.600 a costume drama, and quite true. 0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:09.000 Nicholas holds very good in this film as the leader 0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:12.399 of the story, the opposition party who apparently in this 0:17:12.480 --> 0:17:15.520 time actually just existed at court and we're kind of 0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:18.080 a bug in the queen's ear or her advisor's ears 0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:20.439 every single day. I think is really good. But you're right, 0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:23.960 that wig goes beyond anything we've seen before. Barry Lyndon, 0:17:24.040 --> 0:17:26.679 obviously in Kubrick, is a very good touchstone for this 0:17:26.720 --> 0:17:30.200 movie as well. Including you can tell using the natural 0:17:30.280 --> 0:17:32.680 light and candle light, which he does in this film, 0:17:32.760 --> 0:17:36.080 like Lindon scenes. I love the way that does give 0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:38.760 a certain beauty to those nighttime scenes, but also a 0:17:38.840 --> 0:17:41.800 darkness that adds to the overall kind of grimness of it. 0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:45.120 And then in the daytime it's all coming in from 0:17:45.200 --> 0:17:49.160 those huge windows, and it's England, so of course it's 0:17:49.200 --> 0:17:53.040 not sunny and gorgeous. It's gray outside, which also adds 0:17:53.080 --> 0:17:55.880 to this sense of this court maybe being not quite 0:17:55.920 --> 0:17:58.560 as regal as it perhaps purports to be. 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:13.200 Understand me never lived outside God's house? What so Bella 0:18:13.320 --> 0:18:18.639 so much to discover? And your sad face makes me 0:18:18.720 --> 0:18:20.920 discover angry feelings for you. 0:18:23.080 --> 0:18:29.120 Right become very thing I hate, grasping suckulus of a lover. 0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:33.320 So not quite as divisive of a film here in 0:18:33.359 --> 0:18:38.040 Poor Things, Adam, I think I've largely seen positive responses, 0:18:38.119 --> 0:18:43.199 but certainly a movie that could provoke such reactions. I 0:18:43.240 --> 0:18:45.800 think you have to come out of the film feeling 0:18:46.000 --> 0:18:50.520 fairly strongly one way or the other. Ironically, I don't 0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:52.879 know that I did, but as we've seen with Saltburn, 0:18:53.440 --> 0:18:56.159 maybe I'm just too rational in these cases. Do you 0:18:56.240 --> 0:18:59.080 have a stronger, more spirited opinion to give us when 0:18:59.119 --> 0:18:59.960 it comes to poor things. 0:19:00.480 --> 0:19:03.359 Yeah, I do have a very strong positive reaction to 0:19:03.480 --> 0:19:06.080 poor things, though it didn't necessarily start that way. It's 0:19:06.119 --> 0:19:08.480 a Lanthemos movie, so it will surprise no one to 0:19:08.520 --> 0:19:11.439 hear that. The first twenty to thirty minutes I found 0:19:11.680 --> 0:19:15.760 so utterly bizarre and twisted. I never really got my 0:19:16.440 --> 0:19:19.320 footing with it and kind of thought if there was 0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:22.840 someone out there who really dislikes his films, and thought 0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:25.640 this was now just going to be almost a parody 0:19:25.840 --> 0:19:28.320 of Yurgo's Lanthemos. I could see how this movie, or 0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:32.480 at least the beginning of this movie, might support such 0:19:32.480 --> 0:19:36.240 a theory. And yet by the time Emma Stone's Bella 0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:42.840 character gets away from her father figure and gets on 0:19:42.920 --> 0:19:46.880 the road or gets out to sea eventually with Mark 0:19:46.960 --> 0:19:51.480 Ruffalo's character. That's really where I got on board with 0:19:51.600 --> 0:19:56.000 this movie. It's so formally inventive and fantastical. It makes 0:19:56.040 --> 0:19:59.119 the new Miyazaki seem almost prosaic by comparison. 0:19:59.160 --> 0:20:01.280 I thought of that too. Oh yeah, there's some Miyazaki 0:20:01.840 --> 0:20:05.320 esthetic touches here. The skies, the purplish skies, for sure. 0:20:05.440 --> 0:20:09.080 Some of the ships even or Yeah, the boat looks 0:20:09.119 --> 0:20:13.760 against those backdrops with an Emma Stone performance that simultaneously 0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:17.120 grounds it and elevates it. Josh, at this point, I'm 0:20:17.119 --> 0:20:20.119 not sure I expected to come away from any movie 0:20:20.160 --> 0:20:24.840 being surprised by how smart and how playful a Stone 0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:28.800 performance could be. But that's what happened here. Her command 0:20:29.040 --> 0:20:33.800 and dexterity with the dialogue as Bella gathers more information 0:20:34.200 --> 0:20:38.000 and intelligence, the humor that comes from that, her evolving 0:20:38.000 --> 0:20:42.240 physicality from those those awkward, stiff legged, you know, baby 0:20:42.320 --> 0:20:46.120 steps to becoming this woman so comfortable in her own 0:20:46.119 --> 0:20:49.080 skin that her very being is a challenge to the patriarchy. 0:20:49.440 --> 0:20:54.119 There's just a theatricality to it physically, verbally that I think, 0:20:55.119 --> 0:20:58.640 in the hands of a less skilled performer could come 0:20:58.640 --> 0:21:01.959 off as so forced and could be so easily dismissed. 0:21:02.640 --> 0:21:06.919 But she just brings this bravado, this audacity, this confidence 0:21:07.000 --> 0:21:10.159 to it that I think really is what propelled me 0:21:10.520 --> 0:21:13.040 through this in addition to the sheer imagination of it. 0:21:13.359 --> 0:21:15.840 Yeah, for me, it's that sheer imagination that, you know, 0:21:16.240 --> 0:21:19.800 lands me on the side of recommending the film again. 0:21:19.920 --> 0:21:21.840 Like saltburn In hopes that folks will see it and 0:21:21.880 --> 0:21:24.280 like it even more than I did, which it sounds 0:21:24.320 --> 0:21:27.560 like you did. But in terms of my experience with 0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:30.439 the film, I had the opposite. One was I was 0:21:30.600 --> 0:21:34.560 on board immediately. Maybe it was that, you know, Frankenstein 0:21:34.800 --> 0:21:37.920 Lab experimental setting, which I'm a sucker for already, and 0:21:38.160 --> 0:21:40.920 any movie that nods to like the James Whale Frankenstein. 0:21:41.200 --> 0:21:44.119 Although cleverly those sequences shot in color, I think that 0:21:44.160 --> 0:21:47.040 was a wise choice on Lanthymosa's part, not black and 0:21:47.040 --> 0:21:48.880 white like other parts of the film are. I'm in 0:21:48.920 --> 0:21:53.320 for all that stuff, right, but it did eventually wear 0:21:53.400 --> 0:21:56.720 me out, where by the end I was thinking, you know, 0:21:56.800 --> 0:21:59.160 maybe on another day I would have laughed my way 0:21:59.200 --> 0:22:04.520 through this entire thing, but now I'm just kind of exhausted. 0:22:04.920 --> 0:22:07.760 I think this is an example Adam. I would not 0:22:07.800 --> 0:22:10.639 say it's a parody of Lanthemos. I think it's Lanthymos 0:22:10.680 --> 0:22:14.639 getting to do whatever he wants after the favorite and 0:22:14.720 --> 0:22:17.880 the Oscar clout, and you know the power that gave him, 0:22:18.440 --> 0:22:21.639 and so he chooses this novel. I'm assuming it's a 0:22:21.680 --> 0:22:24.480