Speaker 1: Make every dollar work harder with the US banks Smartly Suite.
Speaker 1: It bundles your checking, savings, and credit cards seamlessly in
Speaker 1: one place, making money management easier and more organized. You'll
Speaker 1: also unlock exclusive perks like tailored rates and rewards that
Speaker 1: help you get more out of every dollar. The US
Speaker 1: Bank Smartly Suite is a smart, practical way to grow
Speaker 1: your money and have confidence your money is working harder
Speaker 1: for you. When our Bank Smartly solutions meet your financial goals,
Speaker 1: we are stronger together. That's the power of US Member FDIC.
Speaker 2: This episode is brought to you by Peloton. Break through
Speaker 2: the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton
Speaker 2: Cross Training tread Plus powered by Peloton Iq. With real
Speaker 2: time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize
Speaker 2: your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your
Speaker 2: goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push
Speaker 2: and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross Training Treadplus at
Speaker 2: one Peloton dot com.
Speaker 3: Hey, film Spiders, Josh and Adam. Here. On Wednesdays, we
Speaker 3: like to drop something into the feed that comes from
Speaker 3: the film spotting archive. This week we're going to share
Speaker 3: a couple of Yorgosplanthemo's Ammastone collaborations twenty sixteen's The Favorite
Speaker 3: twenty twenty threes Poor Things. Both of those, Adam, I
Speaker 3: think made for some pretty good conversation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we split a little bit, at least on poor things,
Speaker 4: both fans of the Favorite. First up is that conversation
Speaker 4: from December twenty eighteen about The Favorite.
Speaker 2: The queen is an extraordinary person.
Speaker 1: They were all.
Speaker 5: Staring, won't they? I can tell even if I can't see.
Speaker 5: And I heard the word fat, fat, and ugly. No
Speaker 5: one but me would Darren I did not.
Speaker 2: She's been stalked by tragedy.
Speaker 5: Everyone leaves me, he does. I apologize for my appearance.
Speaker 5: I hope I might be employed here by you. That's
Speaker 5: something a monster the children to play with.
Speaker 3: Perhaps ah.
Speaker 4: Olivia Coleman as the beleaguered Queen, Rachel Weiss as her
Speaker 4: ruthless but most trusted friend and advisor, Lady Sarah, and
Speaker 4: Emma Stone as the interloping viper, Abigail There and Jess.
Speaker 4: When I thought last week's conversation about the ballad of
Speaker 4: Buster scrugs had exhausted the need to come up with
Speaker 4: more synonyms for cynicism, we have the favorite, a film
Speaker 4: with a decidedly lower body count than Scrugs with regard
Speaker 4: to on screen casualties anyway, but arguably even a more
Speaker 4: ascetic view of human nature. Nobody in Queen Anne's early
Speaker 4: eighteenth century court gets shot in the back by arrival,
Speaker 4: as we see in the Cones Old West, though a
Speaker 4: rifle may not so accidentally get fired in one's general
Speaker 4: direction to deliver appointed message during an otherwise elegant afternoon
Speaker 4: of pigeon shooting, And even the lowliest kitchen helper with
Speaker 4: no power or political agenda to angle for, is more
Speaker 4: likely to connive to inflict pain or embarrassment than spare
Speaker 4: a moment of compassion for a new servant. So, Josh,
Speaker 4: who did you find the most redeemable in this basket
Speaker 4: of deplorables? Or perhaps who did you find the most
Speaker 4: entertainingly irredeemable? Coleman's exhaustingly needy, childlike monarch Vice's icy, brutally
Speaker 4: honest Sarah Stone's seemingly wide eyed schemer, or Rakish puppet
Speaker 4: master Yorgos Lanthemos so determined to devise and explore hermetically
Speaker 4: sealed worlds that present their own unique language protocols and
Speaker 4: acrid blend of decorum and debauchery.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is quite the cheery vision of humanity, isn't it?
Speaker 3: As we would expect from Alanthemo. So I think we
Speaker 3: both knew what we are getting into at this point
Speaker 3: from that director, and for the most part, we both
Speaker 3: really enjoy getting into these sorts of dramas that he
Speaker 3: gives us. Great question, I would argue they're all redeemable. Nice,
Speaker 3: but I would I would also say such a compassion Yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess I would say that some of them have
Speaker 3: more redeeming quality than others. Let's start at the bottom,
Speaker 3: which it sounds like we both agree, is Emma Stone's
Speaker 3: Abigail Oh okay, I mean she is just out for
Speaker 3: the kill from the beginning, and understandably so for many reasons.
Speaker 3: The more we hear about her past and as you said,
Speaker 3: her station in her class. But man, she's look out
Speaker 3: look out for her right. And it is, to answer
Speaker 3: your other question, a perverse delight to watch Stone get
Speaker 3: to showcase new levels of deceitfulness, especially when her early reputation,
Speaker 3: for sure is as a sweet natured someone who plays
Speaker 3: sweet natured parts right. Rachel Weiss Lady Sarah. I think
Speaker 3: there might be a little bit of genuine love there
Speaker 3: for the Queen, and it's gotten just tangled up in
Speaker 3: plays for political power and all sorts of other things
Speaker 3: that we see happen in this film, So that seems
Speaker 3: to have faded and faded until it's almost entirely gone.
Speaker 3: But there is you still see glimmers of it that
Speaker 3: makes her, you know, has some redeemable qualities. I think
Speaker 3: Queen Anne, and this is maybe tied to how I
Speaker 3: enjoy the performances. Enjoyed them all thought they were all great.
Speaker 3: But Olivia Coleman as Queen Anne is just fantastic in
Speaker 3: the way that she's at once the most she is
Speaker 3: the most easily manipulated in some ways, but she's also
Speaker 3: the master manipulator. And a lot of that has to
Speaker 3: do with the fact that she's at the top of
Speaker 3: the chain, right she's the queen, but she plays that
Speaker 3: card throughout and Coleman just gives her. There's a lot
Speaker 3: of king Lear going on in this movie, and I
Speaker 3: think Coleman captures what that play has is the idea
Speaker 3: of a monarch as a having this weary ferocity of
Speaker 3: a dying animal. There's a desperation to her, so that
Speaker 3: she's at once the movie's most monstrous presence when she
Speaker 3: really wields that power, but she's also I found her
Speaker 3: to be the most sympathetic and maybe having the most
Speaker 3: redeemable qualities because of that. So that's sort of where
Speaker 3: I landed after a first viewing of this In one
Speaker 3: way perfect Lanthimos film in the themes that it's exploring
Speaker 3: and intriguingly different in that costume drama setting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think this movie could have been still a
Speaker 4: very good film had it been just about taking that
Speaker 4: pleasure in watching this much bad behavior portrayed as artfully
Speaker 4: as it is and with such a plom But I
Speaker 4: think what elevates it for me a little bit, and
Speaker 4: what gets back to the question I posed to you,
Speaker 4: is that as much as I loathed each one of
Speaker 4: these characters for a variety of different reasons, I also
Speaker 4: lamented the misfortunes of all three. Lamented what put them
Speaker 4: all in the situation, some more than others, but put
Speaker 4: them in the situation that requires them to be as
Speaker 4: needy or as manipulative and scheming and exploitative as they
Speaker 4: ultimately are. I think you're probably right about it. I'm
Speaker 4: a stone, especially by the end of the film. Her character, Abigail,
Speaker 4: it's fair to say, is the least redeemable in a
Speaker 4: lot of ways. But there's a key line for me
Speaker 4: in the movie that comes about three quarters the way through,
Speaker 4: during her battle with Lady Sarah, and without revealing any
Speaker 4: of the circumstances, I can say the line she says,
Speaker 4: I'm safe now, And in that moment, if you just
Speaker 4: take it on face value, it sounds as if she's saying,
Speaker 4: you can't touch me anymore, and she is saying that.
Speaker 4: But what she's really saying, if you've seen it, you
Speaker 4: know the circumstances in particular, you understand that she truly
Speaker 4: is now finally in a position where she is not
Speaker 4: as vulnerable as she has been up to this point
Speaker 4: in her entire life.
Speaker 3: She can't be as easily victimized as.
Speaker 4: She has, and so the tenuousness of her survival is
Speaker 4: something that did give me an appreciation for her shrewdness.
Speaker 4: You understand that it really is not just about ambition
Speaker 4: or greed or whatever might drive people to act in
Speaker 4: this way. It's about that survival. All three characters in
Speaker 4: a lot of ways, I would say, are people who
Speaker 4: are incapable of gratification. There are moments where they maybe
Speaker 4: get some solace, especially sexually. I think those moments are
Speaker 4: really the only ones that provide any kind of pleasure whatsoever.
Speaker 4: But think about Coleman, who I agree with you is
Speaker 4: really stunning here, and she's the one who, despite how
Speaker 4: needy she is and how demanding she is and how
Speaker 4: incompetent she is as a leader, you recognize that she
Speaker 4: carries so much pathos and that she is a victim herself.
Speaker 4: We understand more of that as we go throughout the film,
Speaker 4: including how much pain physically she is in and has
Speaker 4: suffered in her life, so that skews our perspective as well.
Speaker 4: But back to this idea of gratification, think about how
Speaker 4: many times in the film we see her lose her
Speaker 4: mind when she is confronted with joy of any kind whatsoever.
Speaker 4: The moment when she's walking by with one of the characters,
Speaker 4: I'm blanking on it, the moment and she looks out,
Speaker 4: I think it's Abigail, and she looks out and they
Speaker 4: admire some kids performing with a conductor. It's like a
Speaker 4: group of five and it's really lovely music. And the
Speaker 4: look on her face as it turns from one of
Speaker 4: recognition of that sound and the pleasure of it into horror,
Speaker 4: there's something about it that she immediately recoils from. There's
Speaker 4: also a dance scene in the film that we may
Speaker 4: talk more about, a bit of an anachronistic dance scene
Speaker 4: that's really pretty great in this film that she also
Speaker 4: flips out about and gets immediately angry about. So you're
Speaker 4: dealing with characters who all in their own way, I suppose,
Speaker 4: detached and very difficult, but as we do gain that
Speaker 4: recognition of their circumstances, even Lady Sarah, I would say,
Speaker 4: by the end of the film, we do recognize that
Speaker 4: that honesty that she has, that brutal honesty, may actually
Speaker 4: come from a place of love. Yes, she'll do whatever
Speaker 4: she can to protect herself and protect her standing, but
Speaker 4: she may be the one who is ultimately serving the
Speaker 4: Queen the most. So the fact that we at least
Speaker 4: get to think about those questions and consider those characters
Speaker 4: that way is a real strength of this film.
Speaker 3: You're right that the Queen is a very tortured figure
Speaker 3: in ways that we come to understand, but maybe not
Speaker 3: entirely fully. Abigail, we understand is a tortured figure as well,
Speaker 3: and we get an explicit picture of that. I guess
Speaker 3: I fel the way I did towards your question because
Speaker 3: I asked myself once. Each of these three characters do
Speaker 3: get to a position of power, and that's one of
Speaker 3: the intriguing things about this film is watching that change, right,
Speaker 3: go back and forth. What do they do with that
Speaker 3: power and who's the most vindictive and awful when they
Speaker 3: hold it? And there is a very queasy scene that
Speaker 3: I won't give away involving Abigail towards the end of
Speaker 3: the film that kind of like reveal her true colors.
Speaker 3: To me, if she were in the Queen's place, it
Speaker 3: would probably look very differently than Anne being in that place.
Speaker 4: And we will say for people who have seen it
Speaker 4: or people who haven't seen it but eventually do. It
Speaker 4: is a scene, I know, the one you're talking about
Speaker 4: that involves an animal, of course, right, And I will
Speaker 4: note as well that actually that moment, the moment you're
Speaker 4: talking about, which we will dance around a little bit,
Speaker 4: but it's based on a shriek or it comes out
Speaker 4: of a recognition of a cry that happens in that
Speaker 4: scene that's actually set up by a moment earlier in
Speaker 4: the film that also adds to Olivia Coleman's sense of
Speaker 4: pathos and the vulnerability of her character. There's a moment
Speaker 4: where Abigail exploits the fact that she is in proximity
Speaker 4: to the Queen and she is about to be exiled
Speaker 4: or something bad is going to happen to her, and
Speaker 4: so she actually breaks down and cries like a little
Speaker 4: child in that moment, and the Queen can't resist in
Speaker 4: that moment, at least exploring what that cry is and
Speaker 4: what the problem is. There is that sympathetic side of her,
Speaker 4: and again it does set up that moment at the
Speaker 4: end of the film why she would react to it
Speaker 4: that way.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned the animal element. You've referenced the dance.
Speaker 3: These are two things that Lanthemo's films, most of them
Speaker 3: that we see, do incorporate in a really idiosyncratic way.
Speaker 3: I'm guessing that all of these flourishes worked for you
Speaker 3: because in a lot of ways, this is a very
Speaker 3: standard costume drama. I mean, the costumes themselves are opulent
Speaker 3: and gorgeous and the rooms where this is filmed on
Speaker 3: an estate in England, the tapestry lined walls. These are
Speaker 3: giant spaces, absolutely gorgeous. So this looks and plays the
Speaker 3: part in a lot of ways. But as Stanley Kubrick
Speaker 3: did with Barry Lindon, and Kubrick as a filmmaker often
Speaker 3: referenced alongside Lanthemos because I think they both have this
Speaker 3: bleak vision of humanity and like to explore, just to
Speaker 3: expose the folly of humankind. I think they both like
Speaker 3: to do that, and Kubrick did with a period piece.
Speaker 3: This really has a lot of those touches that set
Speaker 3: it apart. Another one might be the fish eye lens.
Speaker 3: Yet he occasionally goes to I don't know offhand if
Speaker 3: that's something that has been a recurring technique in his
Speaker 3: other films, but it's certainly used here, so I'm curious
Speaker 3: to hear how that landed for you. The camera also
Speaker 3: will often, you know, make a sweeping pan that takes
Speaker 3: in the enormity of these rooms. So we're not getting
Speaker 3: a masterpiece theater. Set the camera in a gorgeous space
Speaker 3: and let the actors act, right, We're getting a lot
Speaker 3: of landing boss here. Yes, we worked for you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it absolutely worked for me. I think it's another
Speaker 4: real strength of the film, that fish eye effect. I
Speaker 4: didn't get a chance to really go back and study
Speaker 4: the film and see if this bears out moment to moment,
Speaker 4: but often I noticed it was employed when we were
Speaker 4: seeing characters in times of distress, which made sense. Now,
Speaker 4: sometimes it's characters going down a hallway, but also there's
Speaker 4: a moment of tension in that scene, whatever they are
Speaker 4: going to or they are leaving from. But particularly in
Speaker 4: a scene like where the Queen goes to speak before
Speaker 4: Parliament and let's just say it doesn't go very well.
Speaker 4: It's sort of foreshadowed really the couple moments just before
Speaker 4: it by that very distorted kind of fish eye lens,
Speaker 4: which I think does just kind of cue us into
Speaker 4: the fact that something is a little bit off. Those
Speaker 4: wide lenses and the wide frames that you mention, for me,
Speaker 4: really emphasize the order of everything, the structure of everything
Speaker 4: that seems to be in exactly its place. But then
Speaker 4: that's perfectly juxtaposed with the chaos inside and also outside,
Speaker 4: which is only really ever hinted at in this film.
Speaker 4: We never really do kind of get out of this court,
Speaker 4: which is for me. As I suggested in the setup
Speaker 4: another way, this is a Lanthamost film through and through
Speaker 4: the cynicism, the dark humor, the dance scenes, the animals,
Speaker 4: if you will, but also the fact that this place
Speaker 4: has its own way of communication, its own rules, and
Speaker 4: you have all these characters trying to navigate that. He
Speaker 4: seems particularly invested in exploring that throughout his films. Think
Speaker 4: about the lobster in the hotel that they go to, right,
Speaker 4: That's the foundation for the entire film and also one
Speaker 4: of the things he does really well. Despite how vast
Speaker 4: this court is and how big these frames are, you
Speaker 4: still get this is kind of claustrophobic effect because he'll
Speaker 4: use the Orson Welles Citizen Kane technique of a lot
Speaker 4: of shots that are low angle, and when we're seeing
Speaker 4: a room and we're seeing a character or often characters
Speaker 4: in a room, we also see the ceilings. There was
Speaker 4: one I was just rewatching today where we see m
Speaker 4: Astone I think it's in the hot chocolate scene, and
Speaker 4: she goes to pour it, so she's bending down. She's
Speaker 4: already kind of low in the frame. The camera is
Speaker 4: below her looking up, the ceiling feels as if it's
Speaker 4: right on top of her because of that wide lens
Speaker 4: and the decision to make sure that that ceiling appears
Speaker 4: in that shot. The ceilings appear in almost every shot
Speaker 4: in this film, which just keeps all of these characters
Speaker 4: contained in a way that does feel appropriately oppressive.
Speaker 3: Well, that's probably why it's really unique in this film.
Speaker 3: Often we get a low angle shot of someone looking
Speaker 3: up at them, and traditionally, most often that conveys a
Speaker 3: sense of dominance and power to that character. It's the
Speaker 3: exact opposite here is it somehow diminishes them, which of
Speaker 3: course exactly the aim of the entire film. So I
Speaker 3: think all of those techniques are very effective. I didn't.
Speaker 3: I'd have to go back and watch again as well
Speaker 3: to you know, identify a common through line to the
Speaker 3: fish eye lens thing. But overall it it just does
Speaker 3: distort our understanding of what this movie is going to be.
Speaker 3: So I see it as part of the Again, this
Speaker 3: is what Barry Linden sets out to do, is spoof
Speaker 3: the genre as it is being this beautiful example of it.
Speaker 3: So it's trying to have both ways, and I think
Speaker 3: it does have both ways. The fish eye lens is
Speaker 3: one way to kind of remind us that we're really
Speaker 3: tweaking something here. The dance sequence is another thing where
Speaker 3: we're we all know this is coming in a costume drama,
Speaker 3: and maybe you know a lot of times those dances.
Speaker 3: I'm a huge fan of musicals and dance numbers, but
Speaker 3: when I get one in a costume drama, I start
Speaker 3: to kind of sink a little bit because I feel like, yeah,
Speaker 3: it starts outay. I feel like I know these routines right,
Speaker 3: and no, this goes a little bit differently. Yes, And
Speaker 3: so that's part to the satire. As are the wigs.
Speaker 3: I mean, these are the craziest wigs I've seen in
Speaker 3: a costume drama, and quite true.
Speaker 4: Nicholas holds very good in this film as the leader
Speaker 4: of the story, the opposition party who apparently in this
Speaker 4: time actually just existed at court and we're kind of
Speaker 4: a bug in the queen's ear or her advisor's ears
Speaker 4: every single day. I think is really good. But you're right,
Speaker 4: that wig goes beyond anything we've seen before. Barry Lyndon,
Speaker 4: obviously in Kubrick, is a very good touchstone for this
Speaker 4: movie as well. Including you can tell using the natural
Speaker 4: light and candle light, which he does in this film,
Speaker 4: like Lindon scenes. I love the way that does give
Speaker 4: a certain beauty to those nighttime scenes, but also a
Speaker 4: darkness that adds to the overall kind of grimness of it.
Speaker 4: And then in the daytime it's all coming in from
Speaker 4: those huge windows, and it's England, so of course it's
Speaker 4: not sunny and gorgeous. It's gray outside, which also adds
Speaker 4: to this sense of this court maybe being not quite
Speaker 4: as regal as it perhaps purports to be.
Speaker 5: Understand me never lived outside God's house? What so Bella
Speaker 5: so much to discover? And your sad face makes me
Speaker 5: discover angry feelings for you.
Speaker 4: Right become very thing I hate, grasping suckulus of a lover.
Speaker 3: So not quite as divisive of a film here in
Speaker 3: Poor Things, Adam, I think I've largely seen positive responses,
Speaker 3: but certainly a movie that could provoke such reactions. I
Speaker 3: think you have to come out of the film feeling
Speaker 3: fairly strongly one way or the other. Ironically, I don't
Speaker 3: know that I did, but as we've seen with Saltburn,
Speaker 3: maybe I'm just too rational in these cases. Do you
Speaker 3: have a stronger, more spirited opinion to give us when
Speaker 3: it comes to poor things.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do have a very strong positive reaction to
Speaker 4: poor things, though it didn't necessarily start that way. It's
Speaker 4: a Lanthemos movie, so it will surprise no one to
Speaker 4: hear that. The first twenty to thirty minutes I found
Speaker 4: so utterly bizarre and twisted. I never really got my
Speaker 4: footing with it and kind of thought if there was
Speaker 4: someone out there who really dislikes his films, and thought
Speaker 4: this was now just going to be almost a parody
Speaker 4: of Yurgo's Lanthemos. I could see how this movie, or
Speaker 4: at least the beginning of this movie, might support such
Speaker 4: a theory. And yet by the time Emma Stone's Bella
Speaker 4: character gets away from her father figure and gets on
Speaker 4: the road or gets out to sea eventually with Mark
Speaker 4: Ruffalo's character. That's really where I got on board with
Speaker 4: this movie. It's so formally inventive and fantastical. It makes
Speaker 4: the new Miyazaki seem almost prosaic by comparison.
Speaker 3: I thought of that too. Oh yeah, there's some Miyazaki
Speaker 3: esthetic touches here. The skies, the purplish skies, for sure.
Speaker 4: Some of the ships even or Yeah, the boat looks
Speaker 4: against those backdrops with an Emma Stone performance that simultaneously
Speaker 4: grounds it and elevates it. Josh, at this point, I'm
Speaker 4: not sure I expected to come away from any movie
Speaker 4: being surprised by how smart and how playful a Stone
Speaker 4: performance could be. But that's what happened here. Her command
Speaker 4: and dexterity with the dialogue as Bella gathers more information
Speaker 4: and intelligence, the humor that comes from that, her evolving
Speaker 4: physicality from those those awkward, stiff legged, you know, baby
Speaker 4: steps to becoming this woman so comfortable in her own
Speaker 4: skin that her very being is a challenge to the patriarchy.
Speaker 4: There's just a theatricality to it physically, verbally that I think,
Speaker 4: in the hands of a less skilled performer could come
Speaker 4: off as so forced and could be so easily dismissed.
Speaker 4: But she just brings this bravado, this audacity, this confidence
Speaker 4: to it that I think really is what propelled me
Speaker 4: through this in addition to the sheer imagination of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for me, it's that sheer imagination that, you know,
Speaker 3: lands me on the side of recommending the film again.
Speaker 3: Like saltburn In hopes that folks will see it and
Speaker 3: like it even more than I did, which it sounds
Speaker 3: like you did. But in terms of my experience with
Speaker 3: the film, I had the opposite. One was I was
Speaker 3: on board immediately. Maybe it was that, you know, Frankenstein
Speaker 3: Lab experimental setting, which I'm a sucker for already, and
Speaker 3: any movie that nods to like the James Whale Frankenstein.
Speaker 3: Although cleverly those sequences shot in color, I think that
Speaker 3: was a wise choice on Lanthymosa's part, not black and
Speaker 3: white like other parts of the film are. I'm in
Speaker 3: for all that stuff, right, but it did eventually wear
Speaker 3: me out, where by the end I was thinking, you know,
Speaker 3: maybe on another day I would have laughed my way
Speaker 3: through this entire thing, but now I'm just kind of exhausted.
Speaker 3: I think this is an example Adam. I would not
Speaker 3: say it's a parody of Lanthemos. I think it's Lanthymos
Speaker 3: getting to do whatever he wants after the favorite and
Speaker 3: the Oscar clout, and you know the power that gave him,
Speaker 3: and so he chooses this novel. I'm assuming it's a
Speaker 3: bizarre novel from ninety two. I'm unfamiliar with it. Scottish
Speaker 3: author Alistair Gray wrote this that it's based on and
Speaker 3: just indulged in whatever you know, Macabwim dark comic impulse,
Speaker 3: that that material inspired that the screenplay here is actually
Speaker 3: by Tony McNamara, But Lanthemos is absolutely the guiding creative
Speaker 3: force though Stone to your point, you know, I think
Speaker 3: she can be credited equally for what this film is doing.
Speaker 3: And I noted her partnership with Lanthemos in The Favorite.
Speaker 3: She's a producer here, and so I think both of
Speaker 3: them are just completely unrestrained, and sometimes that can result
Speaker 3: in the greatest art of someone's career. Sometimes it results
Speaker 3: in a parody of themselves. For me, this is somewhere
Speaker 3: in between. It's absolutely pure artistic expression. It's free from
Speaker 3: any commercial concerns. Stone to your point, is gleefully smashing
Speaker 3: any preconceived notions of her Bersona. She already did that
Speaker 3: to a degree in The Favorite, I think, but this
Speaker 3: is way beyond and to your point about the creativity.
Speaker 3: They're being supported, the two of them by costume design,
Speaker 3: art direction, production design that is so unfettered and so
Speaker 3: incredible that it absolutely I could keep looking at this
Speaker 3: movie even as I was getting exhausted by what it
Speaker 3: was doing. At the same time, those interludes breaks between
Speaker 3: the sections which are almost these tableaus, these black and
Speaker 3: white moving paintings with Stone at the center. I wish
Speaker 3: those had been on screen longer, just to gaze at.
Speaker 3: I mean, the artistry on display. This is a signature
Speaker 3: achievement and as I said, just utterly exhausting. And I'm
Speaker 3: afraid I have to say eventually Stone's performance fell in
Speaker 3: that category for me as well. I think you're everything
Speaker 3: you described is right. This is so technically impressive. The
Speaker 3: degree of difficulty that she is trying to pull off
Speaker 3: I can admire. But it did eventually begin to become
Speaker 3: more about the lengths of outrageousness that she could perform.
Speaker 3: I think it takes a turn away from that at
Speaker 3: the end, but there's a long middle section where it's
Speaker 3: mostly about whatever outrageous thing Bella can do, and Stone
Speaker 3: just has her foot down the puddle down on that
Speaker 3: so hard that it was in the same register as
Speaker 3: you know, think about the fish eye lenses that are
Speaker 3: employed here or there. There's also I would love to
Speaker 3: hear what your take was on this other esthetic touch.
Speaker 3: It's sort of a peephole aspect ratio that cinematographer Robbie
Speaker 3: Ryan employs. Those things became exhausting as well, and I
Speaker 3: felt like Stone's performance fell in that category too. But yeah,
Speaker 3: did you what did you make of the cinematography here?
Speaker 3: And not only the color changes in black and white,
Speaker 3: but these aspect ratios, the fish eye lens. It was
Speaker 3: just so much.
Speaker 4: It's a lot. I'm on board with the indulgence in
Speaker 4: this case. I wasn't so on board with the fish
Speaker 4: eye here, which is ironic because I'm pretty sure I
Speaker 4: praised it how it was employed in the Favorite.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I liked it there.
Speaker 4: Here, maybe I'm conflating the two different techniques you're talking about,
Speaker 4: but even with the fish eye, my sense here watching
Speaker 4: it was that it was almost meant to convey like
Speaker 4: we're peeking through a door and we're spying on something
Speaker 4: that maybe we shouldn't be seeing. And on one hand,
Speaker 4: I can make a case for that, and then on
Speaker 4: another hand, I'm not sure I can entirely justify it.
Speaker 4: With this material. It definitely didn't add to my experience
Speaker 4: in a significant way, and actually, in contrast to the Favorite,
Speaker 4: it felt more randomly and frequently imposed here. I agree,
Speaker 4: and that that, if anything, is the one indulgence that
Speaker 4: I found a little bit exhaustive about the film. And
Speaker 4: I know ultimately you are praising Stone's performance even if
Speaker 4: it wore you out too, But that language you're using,
Speaker 4: I get it. The degree of difficulty, or the riskiness,
Speaker 4: the the technical nature of it. She is a very
Speaker 4: precise actress. And yet to still have that come through again,
Speaker 4: this speaks to the theatricality of it, I think, to
Speaker 4: have that precision come through, but for it never to
Speaker 4: feel for me cold, or ever to smother that that humanity,
Speaker 4: that that never happened for me with this character. She
Speaker 4: was constantly a delight to me, and an amusing one
Speaker 4: at that. And then add to it, Mark Ruffalo.
Speaker 3: Oh, and he's just wonderful.
Speaker 4: An actor I somehow underestimated because I guess I didn't
Speaker 4: know that he was capable of this, even though I
Speaker 4: probably should be aware of that. And I'm vaguely aware
Speaker 4: of his Stella Adler observatory training. So you would think
Speaker 4: he could play a capital C character like this, and
Speaker 4: yet I'm not sure I can remember a time when
Speaker 4: he's done it. The pitch couldn't be more perfect here
Speaker 4: with this Duncan Wedderburn character. Everything that Rake that Kad
Speaker 4: says is such a devilish delight, and the more ridiculous
Speaker 4: he's rendered, the more hilarious and fun he is. I
Speaker 4: loved every moment he was on screen, and they were
Speaker 4: on screen together.
Speaker 3: I completely agree with you on his performance. I'm looking
Speaker 3: through his credits now, and you know the one that
Speaker 3: immediately came to mind. It's in a much calmer register.
Speaker 3: But he definitely has some dry humor as Bruce Banner
Speaker 3: in the Avengers films. But this is, you know, way
Speaker 3: degrees above. This may be something like Ryan Johnson The
Speaker 3: Brothers Bloom. You know, Ryan Johnson's early film is the closest.
Speaker 3: He does not work with this sort of material, but
Speaker 3: I hope he does. He should do more of it
Speaker 3: because he was. Aside from the art direction and those
Speaker 3: esthetic elements, probably my favorite part of the film.
Speaker 5: These two are fighting and ideas of banging around in
Speaker 5: Bella's head in heart like lights in the storm.
Speaker 4: Oh you're always reading now, Ben, You're losing some of
Speaker 4: your adorable live speaking.
Speaker 5: I'm a changeable feast, as are all of we, apparently,
Speaker 5: according to Emerson, disagreed with by Harry, Come Come, just
Speaker 5: come you were and my son what.
Speaker 4: Access to the full archive is just one of the
Speaker 4: many benefits you get as a film Spotting Family member.
Speaker 4: You also get monthly bonus shows like getting to hear
Speaker 4: and maybe participate in drafts like the Tom Cruise draft
Speaker 4: we recently conducted with listener Zach Cook in Chicago. That
Speaker 4: was a fun one. You also get the weekly newsletter,
Speaker 4: You get to participate in our Film Spotting Family discord,
Speaker 4: you get early access to events and tickets and discounts
Speaker 4: on those tickets, and a whole lot more, and you
Speaker 4: can learn more at film Spotting Family dot com.
Speaker 5: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
Speaker 2: Good Bye.
Speaker 4: Film Spotting as listeners supported, join the film Spotting Family
Speaker 4: at film Spotting Family dot com and get access to
Speaker 4: ad free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and,
Speaker 4: for the first time, all in one place, the entire
Speaker 4: film Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five.
Speaker 4: That's a film Spotting Family dot Com Panically