WEBVTT - Top 5 Needle Drops (Pt. 1) and It Ends | #1078

0:00:21.285 --> 0:00:25.515
<v Speaker 1>Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all-you-can-watch movie

0:00:25.575 --> 0:00:28.395
<v Speaker 1>subscription pass that pays for itself in just two visits.

0:00:28.935 --> 0:00:32.895
<v Speaker 1>See any standard 2D movie, anytime, with no blackout dates

0:00:32.975 --> 0:00:35.754
<v Speaker 1>or restrictions. Sign up now on the Regal app or

0:00:35.894 --> 0:00:38.735
<v Speaker 1>at the link in our description and use code FILMSPOT26

0:00:38.875 --> 0:00:40.145
<v Speaker 1>to receive 15% off.

0:00:45.864 --> 0:00:47.805
<v Speaker 2>What kind of a show are you guys putting on

0:00:47.845 --> 0:00:48.345
<v Speaker 2>here today?

0:00:48.465 --> 0:00:49.475
<v Speaker 1>You're not interested in art?

0:00:49.695 --> 0:00:49.895
<v Speaker 3>No.

0:00:50.114 --> 0:00:51.394
<v Speaker 1>Well, look, we're going to do this thing.

0:00:51.415 --> 0:00:56.195
<v Speaker 2>We're going to have a conversation. From Chicago, this is

0:00:56.235 --> 0:00:58.015
<v Speaker 2>Film Spotting. I'm Adam Kempinar.

0:00:58.315 --> 0:00:59.115
<v Speaker 1>And I'm Josh Larson.

0:00:59.895 --> 0:01:02.455
<v Speaker 3>I've been out walking.

0:01:04.425 --> 0:01:08.805
<v Speaker 1>I don't do too much talking these days.

0:01:09.565 --> 0:01:12.005
<v Speaker 2>The right song and the right scene can stop time.

0:01:12.505 --> 0:01:15.745
<v Speaker 2>This week, it's our top five movie needle drops with

0:01:15.845 --> 0:01:18.104
<v Speaker 2>Rico Galeano from the movie podcast.

0:01:18.485 --> 0:01:22.104
<v Speaker 1>Plus a little golden brick spotting with It Ends and

0:01:22.595 --> 0:01:25.975
<v Speaker 1>90s movie villains. That and more ahead on Film Spotting.

0:01:33.134 --> 0:01:36.755
<v Speaker 2>Welcome to Film Spotting. Josh, this top five turns out

0:01:37.274 --> 0:01:40.625
<v Speaker 2>we really like music. We really like movies. So when

0:01:40.645 --> 0:01:43.765
<v Speaker 2>you get three guys together who really like music and

0:01:43.804 --> 0:01:47.274
<v Speaker 2>movies and music in movies, we had a lot to say.

0:01:47.895 --> 0:01:49.075
<v Speaker 1>We should have seen this coming.

0:01:49.095 --> 0:01:49.715
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you're right.

0:01:49.735 --> 0:01:52.734
<v Speaker 1>It was kind of like doing a film spotting podcast

0:01:52.795 --> 0:01:56.454
<v Speaker 1>and a music spotting podcast episode in one. So we

0:01:56.495 --> 0:01:57.095
<v Speaker 1>went on a bit.

0:01:57.335 --> 0:01:57.915
<v Speaker 3>This is true.

0:01:58.295 --> 0:02:02.315
<v Speaker 2>We invited Rico Galeano from the Mubi podcast. And this season,

0:02:02.555 --> 0:02:06.814
<v Speaker 2>as you'll hear, he's doing a podcast for Mubi devoted

0:02:06.915 --> 0:02:11.685
<v Speaker 2>to needle drops. That's the crossover. We thought we might

0:02:11.745 --> 0:02:13.685
<v Speaker 2>go long. We just didn't come up with a good

0:02:13.785 --> 0:02:16.044
<v Speaker 2>strategy for it. We had to come up with a

0:02:16.085 --> 0:02:19.285
<v Speaker 2>strategy for how to deal with such a long show

0:02:19.585 --> 0:02:22.395
<v Speaker 2>after the fact. It took so long, in fact, that

0:02:22.715 --> 0:02:25.735
<v Speaker 2>I decided to put a different shirt on. So here

0:02:25.775 --> 0:02:26.095
<v Speaker 2>we are.

0:02:26.675 --> 0:02:29.335
<v Speaker 1>This isn't that we're recording a few days later now.

0:02:29.415 --> 0:02:32.155
<v Speaker 1>You just did a break and a costume change, basically.

0:02:32.174 --> 0:02:37.885
<v Speaker 2>I was sweating profusely. So we have regrouped. And what

0:02:37.915 --> 0:02:40.605
<v Speaker 2>we're going to give you is part one. I don't

0:02:40.644 --> 0:02:43.785
<v Speaker 2>know that we've really ever done this other than our

0:02:43.965 --> 0:02:47.345
<v Speaker 2>old top 10 shows that we used to divide into.

0:02:47.805 --> 0:02:48.085
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:02:48.144 --> 0:02:50.684
<v Speaker 2>You're getting part one here. And then depending on when

0:02:50.745 --> 0:02:54.234
<v Speaker 2>you access these shows, you'll have part two in your

0:02:54.275 --> 0:02:57.555
<v Speaker 2>feed as well. You're going to get the top five

0:02:57.655 --> 0:03:02.255
<v Speaker 2>picks five through four and our definitions and criteria. And

0:03:02.294 --> 0:03:05.915
<v Speaker 2>then later you'll get picks again. three through one. You'll also,

0:03:05.954 --> 0:03:08.894
<v Speaker 2>in this show, get some commentary about a very good

0:03:08.954 --> 0:03:13.405
<v Speaker 2>new film called It Ends and our 90s movie villains poll.

0:03:13.984 --> 0:03:16.225
<v Speaker 2>Let's go ahead and kick it back to ourselves now

0:03:16.525 --> 0:03:24.084
<v Speaker 2>and welcome in Rico Galeano from MUBI. We are very

0:03:24.185 --> 0:03:26.764
<v Speaker 2>pleased to be joined now by the head of audio

0:03:26.965 --> 0:03:32.825
<v Speaker 2>at MUBI, Rico Galeano, a returning guest here on Film Spotting. Rico,

0:03:32.845 --> 0:03:33.305
<v Speaker 2>how are you?

0:03:33.945 --> 0:03:36.105
<v Speaker 4>I am so glad to be back. I couldn't, like,

0:03:36.285 --> 0:03:38.685
<v Speaker 4>you know, my day was going pretty good. Now it's

0:03:38.725 --> 0:03:39.585
<v Speaker 4>about to get awesome.

0:03:39.925 --> 0:03:42.465
<v Speaker 2>We'll see how it goes. I mean, maybe we'll let

0:03:42.485 --> 0:03:42.725
<v Speaker 2>you down.

0:03:42.745 --> 0:03:45.085
<v Speaker 1>I like the confidence. I like the confidence, Rico. Thank

0:03:45.105 --> 0:03:45.665
<v Speaker 1>you for bringing that.

0:03:45.685 --> 0:03:47.404
<v Speaker 3>How could it be wrong? We're going to talk about

0:03:47.545 --> 0:03:48.495
<v Speaker 3>music and movies.

0:03:49.095 --> 0:03:53.795
<v Speaker 2>What could be better indeed? And you inspired this top

0:03:53.855 --> 0:03:58.515
<v Speaker 2>five because you have been putting out into the world

0:03:58.615 --> 0:04:01.875
<v Speaker 2>and we've been enjoying it. Side two, needle on the

0:04:01.935 --> 0:04:06.605
<v Speaker 2>record side two. This is part of the movie podcast,

0:04:06.925 --> 0:04:10.895
<v Speaker 2>and you first did this in 2023. What made you

0:04:11.175 --> 0:04:13.335
<v Speaker 2>want to revisit this series?

0:04:13.755 --> 0:04:15.335
<v Speaker 4>Oh, I mean, if I had my druthers, this would

0:04:15.355 --> 0:04:16.595
<v Speaker 4>be the series.

0:04:16.615 --> 0:04:17.235
<v Speaker 2>Maybe it could be.

0:04:18.095 --> 0:04:20.075
<v Speaker 3>I'm a music and movie geek.

0:04:20.095 --> 0:04:23.745
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, this is our latest season is the second time

0:04:23.805 --> 0:04:27.245
<v Speaker 4>that we're tackling great needle drops in movies.

0:04:27.705 --> 0:04:28.265
<v Speaker 1>And I mean, mainly.

0:04:28.775 --> 0:04:31.214
<v Speaker 4>what's funny is that I think since we did the

0:04:31.255 --> 0:04:33.075
<v Speaker 4>first one, first of all, the first one was really successful.

0:04:33.115 --> 0:04:34.835
<v Speaker 4>So that always helps the first season that we did

0:04:34.855 --> 0:04:37.605
<v Speaker 4>of this is really successful. And then ever since then,

0:04:37.625 --> 0:04:40.285
<v Speaker 4>I've been thinking about the movies that I wish that

0:04:40.344 --> 0:04:42.805
<v Speaker 4>I had also had a chance to cover the, we

0:04:42.844 --> 0:04:45.125
<v Speaker 4>had a great time the first time. And, uh, what's

0:04:45.185 --> 0:04:47.485
<v Speaker 4>funny is that I actually kept track of all the

0:04:47.585 --> 0:04:48.945
<v Speaker 4>ones that, you know, you would think of something and

0:04:48.964 --> 0:04:49.104
<v Speaker 4>be like.

0:04:49.205 --> 0:04:49.745
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah.

0:04:49.865 --> 0:04:50.985
<v Speaker 3>Oh, I would love to talk about that.

0:04:51.344 --> 0:04:53.185
<v Speaker 4>None of those actually ended up being in the season

0:04:53.305 --> 0:04:56.075
<v Speaker 4>for various reasons that had nothing to do with my.

0:04:56.034 --> 0:04:56.475
<v Speaker 3>Love of them.

0:04:57.275 --> 0:04:59.755
<v Speaker 4>Um, but that was also cool because actually we did

0:04:59.795 --> 0:05:02.195
<v Speaker 4>a few that I knew the movies, but I hadn't

0:05:02.255 --> 0:05:05.154
<v Speaker 4>really realized how interesting and important some of the music

0:05:05.195 --> 0:05:05.654
<v Speaker 4>was in them.

0:05:05.835 --> 0:05:06.575
<v Speaker 3>So that was groovy.

0:05:07.455 --> 0:05:10.815
<v Speaker 2>What was the biggest discovery for you then this time

0:05:10.865 --> 0:05:11.815
<v Speaker 2>putting the season together?

0:05:12.445 --> 0:05:13.805
<v Speaker 3>Uh, it was probably the movie belly.

0:05:13.825 --> 0:05:18.664
<v Speaker 4>Uh, for those who don't know, um, hype Williams only

0:05:18.784 --> 0:05:22.505
<v Speaker 4>film hype Williams being one of the great hip hop

0:05:22.565 --> 0:05:23.465
<v Speaker 4>video directors.

0:05:23.485 --> 0:05:27.135
<v Speaker 3>Uh, starting in the late eighties, I believe.

0:05:28.034 --> 0:05:30.775
<v Speaker 4>And really like a ground zero for a lot of

0:05:31.135 --> 0:05:33.235
<v Speaker 4>amazing music. He was originally, he was based out of

0:05:33.295 --> 0:05:36.234
<v Speaker 4>Queens and like actually, you know, in his neighborhood where

0:05:36.255 --> 0:05:39.585
<v Speaker 4>people like LL Cool J, there were one of the

0:05:39.725 --> 0:05:47.645
<v Speaker 4>very first music video shows, hip hop video programs was

0:05:48.085 --> 0:05:51.365
<v Speaker 4>a local, I think cable access show that came out

0:05:51.404 --> 0:05:53.805
<v Speaker 4>of Queens and And he worked for the guy who

0:05:53.885 --> 0:05:56.905
<v Speaker 4>created that show, had his own production company. And he

0:05:57.025 --> 0:05:59.265
<v Speaker 4>worked for them and ended up doing all of these videos.

0:05:59.295 --> 0:06:01.825
<v Speaker 4>He became like one of the great rap videos directors.

0:06:01.875 --> 0:06:04.935
<v Speaker 4>And then the late 90s, I think 98, he did Belly,

0:06:05.375 --> 0:06:08.535
<v Speaker 4>which is this insane fever dream of a movie. It

0:06:08.635 --> 0:06:15.495
<v Speaker 4>stars all these hip hop guys, Nas, DMX, T-Boz, and...

0:06:17.125 --> 0:06:20.104
<v Speaker 4>But if you think about a gangster movie, because that's

0:06:20.125 --> 0:06:21.885
<v Speaker 4>what it is, it's like this gangster movie. There were

0:06:21.904 --> 0:06:24.464
<v Speaker 4>a lot of those coming out, Juice, Menace to Society.

0:06:24.525 --> 0:06:27.235
<v Speaker 4>Those have been coming out throughout the 90s. This movie

0:06:27.445 --> 0:06:30.535
<v Speaker 4>is like the art film version of that. And I

0:06:30.534 --> 0:06:34.615
<v Speaker 4>had never seen it. And it is just like stupefyingly beautiful.

0:06:34.835 --> 0:06:38.435
<v Speaker 4>And it's had a huge impact that was unbeknownst to

0:06:38.475 --> 0:06:41.355
<v Speaker 4>me on a lot of filmmakers, especially black filmmakers, because

0:06:41.375 --> 0:06:44.515
<v Speaker 4>of the way that it actually photographs black skin. which

0:06:44.975 --> 0:06:49.635
<v Speaker 4>many black filmmakers have since taken, like Moonlight, Barry, I'm

0:06:49.654 --> 0:06:53.115
<v Speaker 4>going to blow it. Barry Jenkins. Barry Jenkins has talked

0:06:53.154 --> 0:06:55.794
<v Speaker 4>about that movie as a major sort of visual touch point.

0:06:56.214 --> 0:06:59.655
<v Speaker 4>But also the opening sequence of that movie has had

0:06:59.675 --> 0:07:02.875
<v Speaker 4>a big, you know, it's been parodied. It's been aped

0:07:03.775 --> 0:07:07.215
<v Speaker 4>by lots of hip hop videos and lots of directors.

0:07:07.355 --> 0:07:10.175
<v Speaker 4>And it's like this opening sequence that's actually not set

0:07:10.195 --> 0:07:12.655
<v Speaker 4>to a hip hop song. And that was also fascinating

0:07:12.675 --> 0:07:14.895
<v Speaker 4>to me. This guy was totally into hip hop. And

0:07:14.945 --> 0:07:17.085
<v Speaker 4>it stars all these hip hop guys. You could start

0:07:17.125 --> 0:07:19.485
<v Speaker 4>with any of their songs. Obviously they're in the movie.

0:07:19.505 --> 0:07:23.085
<v Speaker 4>And instead he starts with this like late eighties dance track,

0:07:23.185 --> 0:07:26.245
<v Speaker 4>which is the acapella version of soul to souls back

0:07:26.285 --> 0:07:37.245
<v Speaker 4>to life. Figuring out why he chose that, how important

0:07:37.285 --> 0:07:39.945
<v Speaker 4>that song actually was to, and probably still is to

0:07:40.045 --> 0:07:44.315
<v Speaker 4>hip hop culture. And then the impact of that, that's song,

0:07:44.395 --> 0:07:46.575
<v Speaker 4>which is actually very, has a lot of space to it.

0:07:46.595 --> 0:07:48.235
<v Speaker 4>And it doesn't even have a beat that comes in

0:07:48.275 --> 0:07:53.054
<v Speaker 4>until very late in the song, but it's. The music

0:07:53.115 --> 0:07:56.515
<v Speaker 4>is the background to a robbery sequence and the kind

0:07:56.595 --> 0:08:00.045
<v Speaker 4>of audacity of taking this very quiet tune and putting

0:08:00.105 --> 0:08:02.625
<v Speaker 4>it against this robbery sequence right at the beginning of

0:08:02.645 --> 0:08:05.145
<v Speaker 4>your movie. And also the way that sequence is shot,

0:08:05.745 --> 0:08:08.225
<v Speaker 4>it's set in a nightclub. It's a robbery at a nightclub.

0:08:08.245 --> 0:08:10.965
<v Speaker 4>There's these like black lights anyway, all of this. The

0:08:11.005 --> 0:08:16.175
<v Speaker 4>movie is just amazing to me and is also just crazy.

0:08:16.235 --> 0:08:18.035
<v Speaker 4>There's all this stuff going on. We talked to the

0:08:18.075 --> 0:08:19.555
<v Speaker 4>guy who came up with it. He was one of

0:08:19.575 --> 0:08:22.755
<v Speaker 4>the co-story writers of it, talking about the ideas behind

0:08:22.835 --> 0:08:26.065
<v Speaker 4>it that are not necessarily even apparent on first viewing.

0:08:26.285 --> 0:08:27.745
<v Speaker 4>There's a lot going on in that movie. It was

0:08:27.785 --> 0:08:29.015
<v Speaker 4>a big revelation to me.

0:08:29.955 --> 0:08:32.985
<v Speaker 1>I think we've got the right person, Adam. We already

0:08:33.015 --> 0:08:35.985
<v Speaker 1>have an excellent pick here and we haven't even started

0:08:36.025 --> 0:08:36.405
<v Speaker 1>our list.

0:08:36.745 --> 0:08:38.725
<v Speaker 2>No, it's true. And that was a discovery for me.

0:08:38.845 --> 0:08:40.765
<v Speaker 2>I didn't end up getting a chance to watch the

0:08:40.785 --> 0:08:43.965
<v Speaker 2>entire film, but watching that sequence, a discovery for me

0:08:44.025 --> 0:08:45.705
<v Speaker 2>because it was a discovery for you.

0:08:46.585 --> 0:08:47.545
<v Speaker 3>You had not heard of it?

0:08:47.965 --> 0:08:48.125
<v Speaker 1>No.

0:08:48.355 --> 0:08:50.935
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I had heard of Belly, but I had

0:08:51.375 --> 0:08:53.935
<v Speaker 2>never watched that scene and I didn't know it was

0:08:53.975 --> 0:08:57.405
<v Speaker 2>such a touchstone for so many people. But came up

0:08:57.465 --> 0:09:00.104
<v Speaker 2>again and again in doing research for this top five

0:09:00.205 --> 0:09:02.335
<v Speaker 2>as well. It was on so many lists.

0:09:02.835 --> 0:09:05.315
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it is surprising, right? I mean, there's like fashion.

0:09:05.335 --> 0:09:06.655
<v Speaker 4>I was told by one of the guys that I

0:09:06.695 --> 0:09:09.615
<v Speaker 4>spoke to that there was a fashion module that was

0:09:09.775 --> 0:09:13.015
<v Speaker 4>based on the color scheme of this opening sequence. There's like,

0:09:13.035 --> 0:09:15.665
<v Speaker 4>you know, a pair of tennis shoes that was put out,

0:09:15.725 --> 0:09:16.725
<v Speaker 4>you know, that kind of thing.

0:09:16.985 --> 0:09:17.225
<v Speaker 2>Really?

0:09:17.825 --> 0:09:18.265
<v Speaker 3>Pretty amazing.

0:09:18.325 --> 0:09:19.525
<v Speaker 4>Sneakers, sorry, not tennis shoes.

0:09:19.925 --> 0:09:20.084
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:09:20.425 --> 0:09:23.685
<v Speaker 2>So I would like for you to share with the

0:09:23.745 --> 0:09:26.875
<v Speaker 2>audience here a couple more things. maybe it was that one,

0:09:26.955 --> 0:09:30.575
<v Speaker 2>but do you have a favorite episode this season that

0:09:30.615 --> 0:09:34.475
<v Speaker 2>you put together? And maybe you alluded to this, but

0:09:34.515 --> 0:09:37.375
<v Speaker 2>maybe you could share with the audience as well how

0:09:37.455 --> 0:09:41.125
<v Speaker 2>you put these episodes together, because it's not just you

0:09:41.155 --> 0:09:43.724
<v Speaker 2>have one person on, a guest or two, and you

0:09:43.865 --> 0:09:47.985
<v Speaker 2>talk about the music. You're really putting together a whole

0:09:48.064 --> 0:09:51.684
<v Speaker 2>tapestry here. I mean, you are digging into how the

0:09:51.804 --> 0:09:56.125
<v Speaker 2>music is constructed and the how and the why and

0:09:56.145 --> 0:09:56.425
<v Speaker 2>the who.

0:09:57.064 --> 0:09:58.845
<v Speaker 4>Thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about

0:09:58.865 --> 0:10:02.124
<v Speaker 4>this because it's a rare opportunity to be able to

0:10:02.165 --> 0:10:04.125
<v Speaker 4>do a show like this in any medium, but especially

0:10:04.184 --> 0:10:08.145
<v Speaker 4>in podcasting these days. It's like an audio documentary series.

0:10:08.645 --> 0:10:12.415
<v Speaker 4>So we're talking to multiple people and we have original music.

0:10:12.495 --> 0:10:15.175
<v Speaker 4>We use archival clips of stuff that was going on

0:10:15.215 --> 0:10:17.475
<v Speaker 4>at the time, as well as from the movie itself.

0:10:17.515 --> 0:10:19.255
<v Speaker 4>So we're weaving all this stuff together to tell the

0:10:19.314 --> 0:10:21.564
<v Speaker 4>whole arc of the story of the making of the

0:10:21.605 --> 0:10:25.145
<v Speaker 4>film and how it dovetails with the music, why the

0:10:25.184 --> 0:10:28.085
<v Speaker 4>music is important, why that music was chosen. In a way,

0:10:28.184 --> 0:10:30.954
<v Speaker 4>this season, it was actually, I was so excited to

0:10:30.995 --> 0:10:32.255
<v Speaker 4>do it. And then as I was doing it, I

0:10:32.295 --> 0:10:34.315
<v Speaker 4>was reminded of the first season. It's like, oh yeah,

0:10:34.335 --> 0:10:37.074
<v Speaker 4>I'm basically telling two stories here. It's the story of

0:10:37.115 --> 0:10:39.324
<v Speaker 4>the movie and the story of the music. And I

0:10:39.355 --> 0:10:41.355
<v Speaker 4>have to ping pong back and forth between the two

0:10:41.375 --> 0:10:43.175
<v Speaker 4>of them. And it was kind of a nightmare.

0:10:43.535 --> 0:10:45.974
<v Speaker 3>Actually, to put it together. A joy and a nightmare.

0:10:46.675 --> 0:10:52.214
<v Speaker 4>But the ones that I like the best, this is

0:10:52.235 --> 0:10:56.115
<v Speaker 4>for kind of personal reasons. The first episode of the

0:10:56.155 --> 0:11:00.725
<v Speaker 4>season was for Whisper of the Heart, the Studio Ghibli

0:11:00.895 --> 0:11:04.605
<v Speaker 4>animated film, which is another movie. Actually, it was recommended

0:11:04.745 --> 0:11:07.665
<v Speaker 4>by one of the guys on our team, who is

0:11:07.684 --> 0:11:10.315
<v Speaker 4>a big anime guy. I had not seen this one.

0:11:10.355 --> 0:11:12.895
<v Speaker 4>It's not actually directed by Hayao Miyazaki. It's one of

0:11:13.415 --> 0:11:18.275
<v Speaker 4>his other sort of proteges that made it, his only film.

0:11:19.225 --> 0:11:21.585
<v Speaker 4>And so I had not heard of it. It didn't

0:11:21.605 --> 0:11:24.464
<v Speaker 4>get as much play. It was a huge hit in Japan,

0:11:24.505 --> 0:11:26.484
<v Speaker 4>but not as huge a hit in the US.

0:11:26.925 --> 0:11:29.025
<v Speaker 3>And it's just beautiful. It's not this kind.

0:11:28.905 --> 0:11:32.125
<v Speaker 4>Of dreamlike movie like a lot of Hayao Miyazaki's stuff is.

0:11:32.545 --> 0:11:34.604
<v Speaker 4>It's very grounded in reality. It's kind of a love

0:11:34.645 --> 0:11:37.814
<v Speaker 4>story between teenagers. It's very much like I was told

0:11:37.915 --> 0:11:41.235
<v Speaker 4>that the visual representation of Tokyo in this movie, if

0:11:41.255 --> 0:11:42.895
<v Speaker 4>you lived in Tokyo in the 90s, you would be

0:11:42.934 --> 0:11:46.875
<v Speaker 4>able to recognize advertisements, be like, oh yeah, I know

0:11:46.915 --> 0:11:48.915
<v Speaker 4>exactly where that intersection is, that kind of thing, like

0:11:49.015 --> 0:11:51.865
<v Speaker 4>super detailed, realistic, but very beautiful love story.

0:11:53.025 --> 0:11:54.125
<v Speaker 3>And weirdly, the.

0:11:56.045 --> 0:12:00.665
<v Speaker 4>Kind of musical theme through the film is... The John Denver,

0:12:00.845 --> 0:12:15.835
<v Speaker 4>originally John Denver song, Take Me Home Country Roads. Weirdly,

0:12:15.855 --> 0:12:17.595
<v Speaker 4>we put out this episode and then a few months later,

0:12:17.615 --> 0:12:19.575
<v Speaker 4>the World Cup happened. And all of a sudden, everyone

0:12:19.595 --> 0:12:21.875
<v Speaker 4>was talking about that because it became the U.S. soccer

0:12:21.915 --> 0:12:26.635
<v Speaker 4>team's anthem. It's already, it's other teams' anthems in the U.K.,

0:12:26.675 --> 0:12:30.645
<v Speaker 4>by the way, I think, Arsenal. And, uh, by the way,

0:12:30.665 --> 0:12:32.405
<v Speaker 4>it may not be Arsenal and people right now are

0:12:32.445 --> 0:12:35.025
<v Speaker 4>screaming if I've got that wrong. I'm sorry, guys. I'm

0:12:35.075 --> 0:12:41.074
<v Speaker 4>not a sports dude. Um, but that song personally for me,

0:12:42.095 --> 0:12:43.054
<v Speaker 4>I think that song.

0:12:43.075 --> 0:12:45.094
<v Speaker 2>I thought it was Manchester and it is in fact

0:12:45.135 --> 0:12:45.755
<v Speaker 2>Manchester United.

0:12:45.775 --> 0:12:46.655
<v Speaker 3>It's Manchester.

0:12:46.715 --> 0:12:48.594
<v Speaker 4>I'm sorry. Should I go back and retake it?

0:12:48.655 --> 0:12:49.995
<v Speaker 1>No, no. Leave me out there.

0:12:50.135 --> 0:12:50.825
<v Speaker 2>Let's run with it.

0:12:51.554 --> 0:12:51.915
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

0:12:52.175 --> 0:12:56.385
<v Speaker 3>I'm dead, man. Uh, so I grew up though.

0:12:56.795 --> 0:12:59.995
<v Speaker 4>In West Virginia as a really young kid. And Take

0:13:00.015 --> 0:13:02.335
<v Speaker 4>Me Home Country Roads, you know, Almost Heaven, West Virginia

0:13:02.375 --> 0:13:05.495
<v Speaker 4>is the first line of it. So it's totally embraced

0:13:05.535 --> 0:13:09.345
<v Speaker 4>by people in West Virginia. And I think John Denver,

0:13:09.505 --> 0:13:11.425
<v Speaker 4>maybe even before the Beatles, was one of the first

0:13:11.804 --> 0:13:14.445
<v Speaker 4>pop musicians that I was into as a really little kid.

0:13:15.064 --> 0:13:18.844
<v Speaker 4>And by doing this episode, talking about that song, I

0:13:19.325 --> 0:13:24.515
<v Speaker 4>got to interview the guy who co-wrote it. And that

0:13:24.554 --> 0:13:26.115
<v Speaker 4>was just, first of all, he's a great guy. It's

0:13:26.135 --> 0:13:28.415
<v Speaker 4>like in his eighties and he's just totally got it together.

0:13:28.434 --> 0:13:31.675
<v Speaker 4>Remembers every single detail about coming up with it. He's

0:13:31.695 --> 0:13:34.365
<v Speaker 4>like one of these really great folk singer type dudes.

0:13:35.225 --> 0:13:37.925
<v Speaker 4>And he just has all these stories about John Denver,

0:13:38.145 --> 0:13:40.065
<v Speaker 4>but also learning about the history of that song and

0:13:40.125 --> 0:13:42.905
<v Speaker 4>how many versions of it came out almost immediately. Cause

0:13:42.925 --> 0:13:45.234
<v Speaker 4>this was John Denver's first hit. Nobody knew who he was.

0:13:45.755 --> 0:13:47.574
<v Speaker 4>So to make it a global hit, they gave it

0:13:47.595 --> 0:13:49.554
<v Speaker 4>to all these other people. There's the Toots and the

0:13:49.595 --> 0:13:53.804
<v Speaker 4>Maytals version. The movie opens with Olivia Newton-John's version, which

0:13:53.825 --> 0:13:57.245
<v Speaker 4>was apparently huge in Japan and probably why they used

0:13:57.285 --> 0:14:00.425
<v Speaker 4>it in the first place. And then also talking to

0:14:00.445 --> 0:14:06.895
<v Speaker 4>the teenage daughter of the producer for Studio Ghibli, who

0:14:07.115 --> 0:14:12.074
<v Speaker 4>was the one who wrote the Japanese lyrics for Take

0:14:12.115 --> 0:14:14.814
<v Speaker 4>Me Home Country Roads for the film and how they

0:14:14.915 --> 0:14:18.345
<v Speaker 4>subvert the meaning of the song. which seems like this

0:14:18.385 --> 0:14:20.984
<v Speaker 4>very nostalgic song about going back home and how great

0:14:21.025 --> 0:14:23.145
<v Speaker 4>it will be back home. She takes the lyrics and

0:14:23.165 --> 0:14:25.285
<v Speaker 4>turns it into being about, I'm not going to go

0:14:25.325 --> 0:14:27.145
<v Speaker 4>back home, even though that would be nice. I'm going

0:14:27.165 --> 0:14:29.665
<v Speaker 4>to persevere and move forward into the future kind of thing.

0:14:29.955 --> 0:14:33.515
<v Speaker 4>And why that would be something that a teenager in

0:14:34.135 --> 0:14:37.415
<v Speaker 4>the 1990s in Japan would want that song to say

0:14:37.495 --> 0:14:40.075
<v Speaker 4>is also fascinating. Anyway, so it was just like learning

0:14:40.095 --> 0:14:41.695
<v Speaker 4>about this tune that has been with me since I

0:14:41.735 --> 0:14:44.675
<v Speaker 4>was a little kid and like seeing how much of

0:14:44.715 --> 0:14:45.915
<v Speaker 4>a deal it is all over the world.

0:14:45.985 --> 0:14:48.325
<v Speaker 2>Sure. Well, I still have a few episodes left in

0:14:48.345 --> 0:14:51.025
<v Speaker 2>the series, but I'm enjoying it so far. I hope

0:14:51.095 --> 0:14:53.015
<v Speaker 2>our listeners will seek it out. You can get the

0:14:53.055 --> 0:14:58.175
<v Speaker 2>movie podcast wherever you get your podcasts. And let's jump

0:14:58.275 --> 0:15:02.155
<v Speaker 2>in to our needle drops. Josh, we can come back

0:15:02.205 --> 0:15:05.085
<v Speaker 2>to Rico as our needle drop expert here in a moment.

0:15:05.125 --> 0:15:07.905
<v Speaker 2>But of course, our usual approach is we like to

0:15:08.125 --> 0:15:10.325
<v Speaker 2>define the top five lists. I don't know if we

0:15:10.425 --> 0:15:12.765
<v Speaker 2>need to define what a needle drop is, but that's

0:15:12.785 --> 0:15:15.775
<v Speaker 2>how we usually do it. And we establish our criteria.

0:15:16.015 --> 0:15:18.885
<v Speaker 2>And I'll start with you. But when I was thinking

0:15:18.945 --> 0:15:20.785
<v Speaker 2>about this, I always kind of took for granted. I

0:15:20.845 --> 0:15:24.075
<v Speaker 2>knew what a needle drop was. And then I started

0:15:24.155 --> 0:15:27.555
<v Speaker 2>looking around. I'm looking at some different lists online. I

0:15:27.595 --> 0:15:32.215
<v Speaker 2>found one from Fader, thefader.com. They had the 100 best

0:15:32.275 --> 0:15:35.095
<v Speaker 2>needle drops in film and television history. And I'm looking

0:15:35.115 --> 0:15:37.695
<v Speaker 2>at the list and I'm thinking, I'm seeing some here

0:15:37.735 --> 0:15:40.555
<v Speaker 2>that didn't strike me as what I thought was maybe

0:15:40.595 --> 0:15:43.855
<v Speaker 2>a needle drop. And then I read their definition and

0:15:43.875 --> 0:15:46.495
<v Speaker 2>it seems so broad. And this is what they said.

0:15:47.065 --> 0:15:51.605
<v Speaker 2>a piece of diegetic or non-diegetic music that enhances the mood, flavor,

0:15:52.245 --> 0:15:55.725
<v Speaker 2>and or narrative of the film slash show. And I'm like, okay,

0:15:55.745 --> 0:15:57.765
<v Speaker 2>so a needle drop is wrong. I mean, it's just,

0:15:57.785 --> 0:16:01.715
<v Speaker 2>so it's just any, it's any prerecorded music. And, and,

0:16:01.805 --> 0:16:04.475
<v Speaker 2>and that, that kind of seems to be what a

0:16:04.615 --> 0:16:07.915
<v Speaker 2>lot of, a lot of sites were, were going with it,

0:16:08.175 --> 0:16:11.535
<v Speaker 2>going with. And I, I almost Josh went with, or

0:16:11.555 --> 0:16:14.075
<v Speaker 2>it was going to force myself to go with a

0:16:14.155 --> 0:16:16.575
<v Speaker 2>needle drop being, it had to be, had to be,

0:16:17.095 --> 0:16:21.055
<v Speaker 2>completely non-diegetic. That the needle drop for me was a

0:16:21.295 --> 0:16:26.425
<v Speaker 2>filmmaker is the one dropping the needle, right? Like they're

0:16:26.505 --> 0:16:29.785
<v Speaker 2>dropping it over the film is the way I almost

0:16:29.825 --> 0:16:32.125
<v Speaker 2>thought of a needle drop. Not that that was the

0:16:32.185 --> 0:16:34.965
<v Speaker 2>right definition, but that was going to be my definition.

0:16:35.475 --> 0:16:38.515
<v Speaker 2>I didn't end up setting that restriction. And I actually

0:16:38.555 --> 0:16:40.955
<v Speaker 2>only ended up with one, I think that was truly

0:16:41.615 --> 0:16:44.435
<v Speaker 2>completely non-diegetic. So we'll see as we get through our list.

0:16:44.515 --> 0:16:45.975
<v Speaker 2>How did you end up defining it?

0:16:46.785 --> 0:16:49.405
<v Speaker 1>I had a very similar experience where I thought we

0:16:49.465 --> 0:16:52.385
<v Speaker 1>didn't need to think much about this one. It was obvious.

0:16:52.465 --> 0:16:56.494
<v Speaker 1>And then when I sat down, I realized, yeah, the non-diegetic,

0:16:56.515 --> 0:17:00.415
<v Speaker 1>diegetic question came up. The opening credits sequence came up

0:17:00.475 --> 0:17:04.335
<v Speaker 1>to me. Do I set those aside? And as usual,

0:17:04.375 --> 0:17:07.325
<v Speaker 1>what happens is I needed boundaries to winnow down my

0:17:07.385 --> 0:17:11.905
<v Speaker 1>list to justify for me setting some things aside. So

0:17:12.025 --> 0:17:15.995
<v Speaker 1>I largely did avoid opening credits, I think. I also

0:17:16.035 --> 0:17:18.635
<v Speaker 1>went in search of a handy definition. I found one, Adam,

0:17:18.675 --> 0:17:22.095
<v Speaker 1>that's maybe not quite as specific, but I did use

0:17:22.595 --> 0:17:27.295
<v Speaker 1>as a guideline for not only my choices, but organizing

0:17:27.595 --> 0:17:30.865
<v Speaker 1>the order of my list and thinking about how these

0:17:30.935 --> 0:17:33.625
<v Speaker 1>songs were actually working in the context of the film.

0:17:33.715 --> 0:17:38.065
<v Speaker 1>So this comes from The Hollywood Reporter, a 2025 roundup

0:17:38.685 --> 0:17:41.705
<v Speaker 1>of the top 40, appropriately, I think they probably chose that,

0:17:42.085 --> 0:17:44.555
<v Speaker 1>top 40 of all time, they said. And this was

0:17:44.595 --> 0:17:49.835
<v Speaker 1>co-written by Scott Roxborough and Patrick Breski. Here's their definition

0:17:49.875 --> 0:17:52.845
<v Speaker 1>of a needle drop. The use of a preexisting track

0:17:53.305 --> 0:17:59.165
<v Speaker 1>that compliments, collides with, or completes the images on screen,

0:17:59.285 --> 0:18:04.505
<v Speaker 1>creating something bigger than either alone. So I loved that

0:18:05.525 --> 0:18:09.985
<v Speaker 1>narrowing in on compliments, collides with, or completes because it

0:18:10.045 --> 0:18:12.325
<v Speaker 1>just gave me a way in to think about the

0:18:12.505 --> 0:18:15.965
<v Speaker 1>use of the song. didn't really restrict me from choosing

0:18:16.005 --> 0:18:18.595
<v Speaker 1>an opening credit sequence. If I wanted to, wouldn't be

0:18:18.635 --> 0:18:20.475
<v Speaker 1>surprised if the two of you might have that.

0:18:20.695 --> 0:18:20.895
<v Speaker 2>Sure.

0:18:21.115 --> 0:18:24.275
<v Speaker 1>Um, so yeah, it just, it, it painted a way forward.

0:18:24.295 --> 0:18:26.755
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's the end all be all definition.

0:18:27.315 --> 0:18:28.995
<v Speaker 1>But it was helpful to me because this is a

0:18:29.115 --> 0:18:31.715
<v Speaker 1>massive topic with so many amazing choices.

0:18:31.795 --> 0:18:32.035
<v Speaker 2>Yes.

0:18:32.315 --> 0:18:33.855
<v Speaker 1>I just needed something to cling on to.

0:18:33.975 --> 0:18:36.095
<v Speaker 2>Well, I don't know that that actually helps you narrow

0:18:36.135 --> 0:18:38.775
<v Speaker 2>anything down. That still opens you up to almost the

0:18:38.835 --> 0:18:40.615
<v Speaker 2>entirety of great needle drops.

0:18:40.795 --> 0:18:43.805
<v Speaker 1>It's not more specific, but it does. The way it

0:18:43.845 --> 0:18:46.945
<v Speaker 1>helped me narrow down is, you know, there are great

0:18:47.105 --> 0:18:49.965
<v Speaker 1>songs that are dropped into a movie that we love.

0:18:50.205 --> 0:18:50.485
<v Speaker 2>Yes.

0:18:50.805 --> 0:18:52.865
<v Speaker 1>To me, if it didn't really do one of those

0:18:52.925 --> 0:18:54.025
<v Speaker 1>things distinctly.

0:18:54.045 --> 0:18:54.245
<v Speaker 2>Mm-hmm.

0:18:54.465 --> 0:18:56.185
<v Speaker 1>And compliment is a little broad, right?

0:18:56.205 --> 0:18:56.325
<v Speaker 2>Yes.

0:18:56.545 --> 0:18:59.585
<v Speaker 1>I mean, obviously every song chosen, it wouldn't make our

0:18:59.625 --> 0:19:01.355
<v Speaker 1>list if it didn't compliment it in some way.

0:19:01.535 --> 0:19:02.115
<v Speaker 2>In some way.

0:19:02.255 --> 0:19:04.415
<v Speaker 1>But I understand. But I do, yeah, I do think

0:19:05.135 --> 0:19:09.345
<v Speaker 1>the notion that a needle drop can work differently was

0:19:09.405 --> 0:19:09.905
<v Speaker 1>helpful to me.

0:19:10.005 --> 0:19:15.135
<v Speaker 2>Okay. Rico, you're our expert. How did you define it?

0:19:15.185 --> 0:19:16.845
<v Speaker 2>How did you approach your top five?

0:19:18.085 --> 0:19:19.805
<v Speaker 4>I don't think I get the final say on any

0:19:19.845 --> 0:19:23.305
<v Speaker 4>of these things. You're both, you know, perfect gentlemen and

0:19:23.365 --> 0:19:26.865
<v Speaker 4>very wise. And I think that there's legitimacy to both

0:19:26.925 --> 0:19:30.125
<v Speaker 4>your approaches. If that's as wishy-washy as it sounds.

0:19:31.105 --> 0:19:33.205
<v Speaker 2>This is why we love having you on the show, Rico.

0:19:33.665 --> 0:19:34.075
<v Speaker 1>You know what?

0:19:34.205 --> 0:19:37.085
<v Speaker 3>You guys are great. Your hair, if anyone could see it.

0:19:37.435 --> 0:19:38.315
<v Speaker 2>Oh, my gosh.

0:19:39.135 --> 0:19:39.555
<v Speaker 1>Keep going.

0:19:39.575 --> 0:19:39.655
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:19:41.815 --> 0:19:43.625
<v Speaker 3>I like that.

0:19:44.255 --> 0:19:45.615
<v Speaker 4>Life Itself, great movie.

0:19:45.635 --> 0:19:46.575
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, poster behind you.

0:19:46.595 --> 0:19:47.915
<v Speaker 3>I see that movie poster behind you, Adam.

0:19:47.975 --> 0:19:49.795
<v Speaker 2>Impeccable taste in decor.

0:19:50.095 --> 0:19:51.175
<v Speaker 3>Excellent choice in docs.

0:19:53.115 --> 0:19:53.575
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, wait.

0:19:54.175 --> 0:19:54.935
<v Speaker 4>One thing, though, Adam.

0:19:54.955 --> 0:19:56.495
<v Speaker 3>Bruce, can you reread yours?

0:19:57.035 --> 0:20:02.435
<v Speaker 2>It was a piece of diegetic or non-diegetic music that

0:20:02.495 --> 0:20:07.375
<v Speaker 2>enhances the mood, flavor, and or narrative of the film

0:20:07.415 --> 0:20:10.955
<v Speaker 2>slash show. Because they included television as well in this topic.

0:20:01.295 --> 0:20:10.805
<v Speaker 2>The problem that.

0:20:11.485 --> 0:20:12.845
<v Speaker 4>I have with that is that it's got to be,

0:20:13.165 --> 0:20:15.365
<v Speaker 4>I go more with Josh only in the sense that

0:20:15.505 --> 0:20:18.055
<v Speaker 4>I do think it has to be pre-existing. The idea

0:20:18.075 --> 0:20:20.515
<v Speaker 4>is that you're taking something that existed outside the world

0:20:20.535 --> 0:20:23.065
<v Speaker 4>of the movie beforehand and now you're using it. to

0:20:23.125 --> 0:20:24.565
<v Speaker 4>bring into the world of the film.

0:20:24.585 --> 0:20:26.405
<v Speaker 2>And quite frankly, maybe if I look back at the

0:20:26.445 --> 0:20:29.075
<v Speaker 2>list that was spelled out somewhere before that, but I'm

0:20:29.235 --> 0:20:32.775
<v Speaker 2>quoting from the list and it's not said in the definition.

0:20:32.815 --> 0:20:33.535
<v Speaker 3>That's ridiculous.

0:20:33.655 --> 0:20:38.275
<v Speaker 2>Which would be crazy because that is part and parcel.

0:20:38.295 --> 0:20:39.275
<v Speaker 3>Of- That's all music.

0:20:39.415 --> 0:20:39.615
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:20:39.775 --> 0:20:43.335
<v Speaker 4>That's all music in cinema, for God's sake. A score

0:20:43.455 --> 0:20:44.955
<v Speaker 4>could be defined as that basically.

0:20:44.975 --> 0:20:45.775
<v Speaker 2>It could be, right?

0:20:46.035 --> 0:20:49.055
<v Speaker 4>So, but other than that, I think anything goes pretty much.

0:20:49.075 --> 0:20:49.295
<v Speaker 2>Okay.

0:20:49.355 --> 0:20:53.245
<v Speaker 4>And I think I probably- think of a great needle

0:20:53.285 --> 0:20:56.425
<v Speaker 4>drop along the lines of josh's my favorite though being

0:20:56.445 --> 0:20:59.335
<v Speaker 4>i'm actually as i'm thinking about i'm not sure that

0:20:59.355 --> 0:21:00.955
<v Speaker 4>this applies to any of the ones i actually ended

0:21:01.015 --> 0:21:03.535
<v Speaker 4>up choosing because i chose a lot of them based

0:21:03.595 --> 0:21:06.095
<v Speaker 4>on some nostalgia although i can make great arguments for

0:21:06.135 --> 0:21:08.875
<v Speaker 4>all of them as well i think but the i

0:21:08.995 --> 0:21:12.255
<v Speaker 4>really like the contradiction a piece of music that is

0:21:12.295 --> 0:21:15.115
<v Speaker 4>dropped in contradiction to what's going on on the.

0:21:14.975 --> 0:21:18.555
<v Speaker 2>Collides colliding that was really a nice term yeah I.

0:21:18.515 --> 0:21:21.375
<v Speaker 4>Feel like that is a vast majority of, say, Martin

0:21:21.395 --> 0:21:26.395
<v Speaker 4>Scorsese's use of music. He loves putting something that may

0:21:26.475 --> 0:21:32.325
<v Speaker 4>be era appropriate over a sequence that otherwise has nothing

0:21:32.385 --> 0:21:33.825
<v Speaker 4>to do with the music that you're listening to.

0:21:33.825 --> 0:21:36.105
<v Speaker 1>Interesting that you say that. Yeah.

0:21:36.165 --> 0:21:36.525
<v Speaker 4>Really?

0:21:36.545 --> 0:21:38.745
<v Speaker 2>You may return to that. You may return to that.

0:21:38.805 --> 0:21:40.305
<v Speaker 2>And I think as we get through my list, you'll

0:21:40.325 --> 0:21:45.075
<v Speaker 2>have a couple that directly complement and some where there

0:21:45.095 --> 0:21:48.175
<v Speaker 2>may be a little bit of a collision. I'm with you. though, Josh,

0:21:48.235 --> 0:21:51.215
<v Speaker 2>I love this topic so much. I as well. And

0:21:51.235 --> 0:21:53.485
<v Speaker 2>I had so many good options. I felt that I

0:21:53.565 --> 0:21:56.145
<v Speaker 2>needed some, I really needed to set some boundaries as well.

0:21:56.185 --> 0:21:59.765
<v Speaker 2>So I went, I went a step further than, than you.

0:22:00.165 --> 0:22:04.215
<v Speaker 2>And I started thinking about, could I, could I approach

0:22:04.235 --> 0:22:07.595
<v Speaker 2>this where do I narrow my list down to a

0:22:07.875 --> 0:22:10.435
<v Speaker 2>top five where I'm thinking about who are the most

0:22:10.595 --> 0:22:16.815
<v Speaker 2>frequent and adept purveyors of the needle drop? And do

0:22:17.115 --> 0:22:20.915
<v Speaker 2>I pick maybe a favorite from each of them? And

0:22:21.255 --> 0:22:23.765
<v Speaker 2>I came up with a top seven and I will

0:22:23.785 --> 0:22:26.305
<v Speaker 2>share the top seven later, but I did end up

0:22:26.745 --> 0:22:29.485
<v Speaker 2>having four of those represented. I didn't go that route,

0:22:29.605 --> 0:22:31.485
<v Speaker 2>but I still ended up having four of those top

0:22:31.525 --> 0:22:34.705
<v Speaker 2>seven represented. And I think you would probably guess who

0:22:34.865 --> 0:22:39.265
<v Speaker 2>the top seven are. But then here's where I did

0:22:39.365 --> 0:22:42.945
<v Speaker 2>end up. I thought, you know, arguably part of what

0:22:43.185 --> 0:22:48.685
<v Speaker 2>makes needle drops so effective very often anyway, is familiarity.

0:22:49.085 --> 0:22:53.685
<v Speaker 2>That we usually recognize the songs and our relationship to them.

0:22:53.725 --> 0:22:56.984
<v Speaker 2>Not always, but our relationship to them can inform our

0:22:57.035 --> 0:23:00.295
<v Speaker 2>connection to the scene. And I wanted to go the

0:23:00.455 --> 0:23:03.935
<v Speaker 2>other way and focus on something that I often go

0:23:03.975 --> 0:23:08.395
<v Speaker 2>to the movies for, which is surprise and discovery. What's

0:23:08.495 --> 0:23:12.065
<v Speaker 2>better with music than when Josh, you, or Rico, if

0:23:12.085 --> 0:23:14.835
<v Speaker 2>we're hanging out and you say, I've got a song

0:23:14.875 --> 0:23:17.075
<v Speaker 2>you've got to hear. Have you ever heard this band before?

0:23:17.335 --> 0:23:19.315
<v Speaker 2>Have you ever heard this track before? And you play

0:23:19.355 --> 0:23:21.815
<v Speaker 2>it for me and my mind is blown. And then

0:23:22.695 --> 0:23:24.215
<v Speaker 2>I'm the biggest fan of this band now. And I

0:23:24.255 --> 0:23:27.065
<v Speaker 2>can't wait to go hear all of their songs. What's

0:23:27.135 --> 0:23:29.385
<v Speaker 2>better than going to see a movie, hearing a song

0:23:29.405 --> 0:23:33.005
<v Speaker 2>you've never heard before. You love the scene. You love

0:23:33.065 --> 0:23:36.125
<v Speaker 2>the song. And now you just can't wait to hear more.

0:23:36.525 --> 0:23:37.925
<v Speaker 2>And I said, you know what? I'm going to pick

0:23:38.025 --> 0:23:41.965
<v Speaker 2>five where the filmmaker was introducing me to a song.

0:23:42.405 --> 0:23:46.635
<v Speaker 2>And in some cases, a song and a performer that

0:23:46.675 --> 0:23:50.225
<v Speaker 2>had me not only engaged as a movie viewer, but

0:23:50.285 --> 0:23:52.945
<v Speaker 2>as a music listener. And I left the theater wanting

0:23:52.965 --> 0:23:55.125
<v Speaker 2>to hear that song again, and I wanted to discover

0:23:55.185 --> 0:23:58.484
<v Speaker 2>more of that artist's work. So all five of the cases,

0:23:58.825 --> 0:24:00.485
<v Speaker 2>I'd never heard the song before. And even if I

0:24:00.525 --> 0:24:04.745
<v Speaker 2>was familiar with the artist, in the moment, I couldn't

0:24:05.125 --> 0:24:11.005
<v Speaker 2>connect the song to that artist. So a good example

0:24:11.065 --> 0:24:16.025
<v Speaker 2>of that would be In the Royal Tenenbaums, she smiled

0:24:16.165 --> 0:24:20.985
<v Speaker 2>sweetly when Margot drops the actual needle drop on the

0:24:21.045 --> 0:24:24.025
<v Speaker 2>record player in the tent with Richie. How many stitches

0:24:24.065 --> 0:24:24.545
<v Speaker 2>did you get?

0:24:25.185 --> 0:24:27.105
<v Speaker 1>I don't know.

0:24:27.145 --> 0:24:28.445
<v Speaker 3>You want to see it?

0:24:29.885 --> 0:24:32.855
<v Speaker 2>Of course I know the Rolling Stones, but I've never

0:24:32.885 --> 0:24:35.715
<v Speaker 2>listened to that album and I didn't know the track

0:24:36.255 --> 0:24:39.115
<v Speaker 2>She Smiled Sweetly. I know Ruby Tuesday. That was on

0:24:39.135 --> 0:24:43.985
<v Speaker 2>the radio. I didn't know She Smiled Sweetly. And I

0:24:44.185 --> 0:24:48.245
<v Speaker 2>was like, I love this song. This is an incredible song. Now,

0:24:48.905 --> 0:24:51.244
<v Speaker 2>I might have picked that, except Rico, we have this

0:24:51.265 --> 0:24:55.065
<v Speaker 2>thing on FilmSpotting called the Pantheon, which is our little

0:24:55.085 --> 0:24:59.425
<v Speaker 2>Valhalla of movies. And for us, those picks from those

0:24:59.485 --> 0:25:03.865
<v Speaker 2>movies are ineligible. So even if I wanted to pick, yeah,

0:25:03.885 --> 0:25:07.065
<v Speaker 2>the Royal Tenenbaums, I can't. You know what else I

0:25:07.105 --> 0:25:07.685
<v Speaker 2>can't pick?

0:25:08.405 --> 0:25:08.885
<v Speaker 1>Good fellas.

0:25:08.905 --> 0:25:11.685
<v Speaker 2>I can't pick. I was going to get there because

0:25:11.725 --> 0:25:14.465
<v Speaker 2>that's the craziest one. I can't pick The End from

0:25:14.505 --> 0:25:17.845
<v Speaker 2>The Doors from Apocalypse Now. I can't pick Hotel California

0:25:17.885 --> 0:25:20.355
<v Speaker 2>from The Big Lebowski, The Sound of Silence from The Graduate,

0:25:20.725 --> 0:25:23.495
<v Speaker 2>or These Days from The Royal Tenenbaums. I can't pick

0:25:23.635 --> 0:25:27.035
<v Speaker 2>Layla from Goodfellas, or Sunshine of Your Love from Goodfellas,

0:25:27.315 --> 0:25:29.715
<v Speaker 2>or any other track from Goodfellas. You could do an

0:25:29.775 --> 0:25:31.715
<v Speaker 2>entire top five just from Goodfellas.

0:25:32.295 --> 0:25:32.535
<v Speaker 1>Ineligible.

0:25:32.555 --> 0:25:33.095
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that's true.

0:25:33.235 --> 0:25:37.175
<v Speaker 2>Because it's in the pantheon. Let's go ahead and get

0:25:37.215 --> 0:25:39.105
<v Speaker 2>into our list. We're going to let you as our

0:25:39.175 --> 0:25:42.245
<v Speaker 2>guest start. Rico, what's your number five needle drop?

0:25:42.695 --> 0:25:46.255
<v Speaker 4>Oh man, this is like starting a negotiation. You always

0:25:46.295 --> 0:25:48.675
<v Speaker 4>want somebody else to go first to set the floor.

0:25:50.735 --> 0:25:53.335
<v Speaker 4>So then I'm going to start with, I did not

0:25:55.515 --> 0:26:00.585
<v Speaker 4>say that opening credit sequences were verboten. I did go

0:26:00.625 --> 0:26:01.625
<v Speaker 4>with an opening credit sequence.

0:26:01.985 --> 0:26:02.605
<v Speaker 1>That's fine.

0:26:02.645 --> 0:26:03.805
<v Speaker 3>I'm looking through here.

0:26:03.845 --> 0:26:05.365
<v Speaker 4>I don't think I picked any others, but this is

0:26:06.205 --> 0:26:08.705
<v Speaker 4>to me, one of the greatest opening credit sequences ever.

0:26:09.065 --> 0:26:13.805
<v Speaker 4>And it's to Ghost World, the 2001 movie. And that

0:26:13.905 --> 0:26:19.605
<v Speaker 4>opening sequence is set to, interestingly, a piece of film

0:26:19.665 --> 0:26:27.225
<v Speaker 4>music from the past and from a different country. It's

0:26:27.285 --> 0:26:30.225
<v Speaker 4>a song called Yan Pechan Ho. I hope that I'm

0:26:30.385 --> 0:26:33.555
<v Speaker 4>pronouncing that correctly. And it's sung by Mohamed Rafi, and

0:26:33.595 --> 0:26:38.575
<v Speaker 4>it was created by the team of Shankar Jakishan, who

0:26:38.635 --> 0:26:42.635
<v Speaker 4>are one of the greatest songwriting duos in Indian film history.

0:26:43.295 --> 0:26:44.975
<v Speaker 4>And I say all that like I know a ton

0:26:45.015 --> 0:26:47.035
<v Speaker 4>about Indian film history. The fact of the matter is

0:26:47.075 --> 0:26:49.715
<v Speaker 4>if I know anything about Indian film history, it's because

0:26:50.215 --> 0:26:53.575
<v Speaker 4>of first hearing that song in that movie. It was

0:26:53.635 --> 0:26:57.315
<v Speaker 4>probably the first piece of Indian film music that I

0:26:57.375 --> 0:27:02.155
<v Speaker 4>was exposed to that I somehow got. I always thought

0:27:02.175 --> 0:27:05.165
<v Speaker 4>it was cool, you know, like Indian film music is interesting,

0:27:05.505 --> 0:27:07.125
<v Speaker 4>but I never felt it in my gut or I

0:27:07.165 --> 0:27:10.485
<v Speaker 4>never had a way into it to understand it. And

0:27:10.505 --> 0:27:13.825
<v Speaker 4>for those who don't remember the movie, it is the

0:27:13.845 --> 0:27:18.245
<v Speaker 4>character of Enid dancing. That's Thora Birch playing the character.

0:27:18.615 --> 0:27:22.755
<v Speaker 4>And she's dancing happily and crazily in her room while

0:27:22.955 --> 0:27:27.395
<v Speaker 4>watching the original Indian film from the 1960s and the

0:27:27.455 --> 0:27:30.515
<v Speaker 4>sequence that featured that song. And she's dancing like crazy

0:27:30.555 --> 0:27:32.575
<v Speaker 4>in her room while we actually see around her the

0:27:32.595 --> 0:27:35.455
<v Speaker 4>cameras panning in and out of windows in the suburbia

0:27:35.495 --> 0:27:38.265
<v Speaker 4>that she's living in. And everybody else is in this

0:27:38.325 --> 0:27:44.125
<v Speaker 4>kind of Dan Klausian style. Just kind of zombified form.

0:27:44.145 --> 0:27:47.645
<v Speaker 4>They're just existing in their little rooms doing nothing, watching television,

0:27:47.805 --> 0:27:51.705
<v Speaker 4>being very bland. And she is dancing, wearing her cool

0:27:51.885 --> 0:27:55.405
<v Speaker 4>clothes to this really cool track from this really cool movie.

0:27:55.985 --> 0:28:01.005
<v Speaker 4>And it sounds like both an Indian piece of music,

0:28:01.265 --> 0:28:04.875
<v Speaker 4>but also it has this surf music component to it.

0:28:05.535 --> 0:28:08.155
<v Speaker 4>Which is probably why I got into it. It's like,

0:28:08.195 --> 0:28:11.185
<v Speaker 4>there's this one Western element to it that makes me

0:28:11.245 --> 0:28:15.405
<v Speaker 4>realize that there's some way that it jives with my

0:28:15.445 --> 0:28:16.685
<v Speaker 4>world in a way.

0:28:17.665 --> 0:28:21.645
<v Speaker 3>And I just, it's a great track. I also many moons.

0:28:21.325 --> 0:28:24.135
<v Speaker 4>Later went to the Netherlands and went to a dance

0:28:24.195 --> 0:28:26.815
<v Speaker 4>club and they were playing it. And there were all

0:28:26.835 --> 0:28:30.455
<v Speaker 4>these Dutch people dancing like crazy to that song. And

0:28:30.475 --> 0:28:33.455
<v Speaker 4>the fact that it is, has that effect on people

0:28:33.475 --> 0:28:36.735
<v Speaker 4>is just wonderful to me. That sequence is incredible. And

0:28:36.775 --> 0:28:39.075
<v Speaker 4>it also sets up exactly what the movie is about

0:28:39.135 --> 0:28:41.755
<v Speaker 4>in a way. It's kind of like this bland environment

0:28:41.935 --> 0:28:44.115
<v Speaker 4>where you've got somebody who's desperate to break out of

0:28:44.175 --> 0:28:47.115
<v Speaker 4>it and is a unique individual trapped in this world.

0:28:48.475 --> 0:28:51.755
<v Speaker 4>Her only way out is through music and images and film.

0:28:51.775 --> 0:28:53.735
<v Speaker 4>You get it right away. It's a beautiful sequence.

0:28:54.345 --> 0:28:56.655
<v Speaker 2>As soon as you said the title, I could hear

0:28:56.715 --> 0:29:00.445
<v Speaker 2>the song. I could picture the scene precisely. That's how

0:29:00.485 --> 0:29:01.805
<v Speaker 2>you know it's a great needle drop.

0:29:02.325 --> 0:29:06.425
<v Speaker 1>That multicultural aspect to... Two reminds me, Rico, of your

0:29:06.515 --> 0:29:09.495
<v Speaker 1>Bend It Like Beckham episode where you talked about the

0:29:09.575 --> 0:29:12.555
<v Speaker 1>use of music there. And obviously there's the, you know,

0:29:12.595 --> 0:29:16.015
<v Speaker 1>the connection with Indian culture, but even beyond that, um,

0:29:16.215 --> 0:29:19.175
<v Speaker 1>that's what makes it, you know, like a discovery, as

0:29:19.215 --> 0:29:21.495
<v Speaker 1>you said, for yourself and in the way Adam was

0:29:21.535 --> 0:29:24.835
<v Speaker 1>talking about in his setup, looking for, for music discoveries.

0:29:24.935 --> 0:29:28.175
<v Speaker 1>So I can probably place, I didn't think about that

0:29:29.015 --> 0:29:30.975
<v Speaker 1>as a definition or a category, Adam, but I could

0:29:30.995 --> 0:29:34.735
<v Speaker 1>probably place my number five pick there. as well as

0:29:34.935 --> 0:29:39.135
<v Speaker 1>a discovery. One thing I did try to resist doing

0:29:39.635 --> 0:29:43.325
<v Speaker 1>is going, Adam, to our Rap Party Picks for Music

0:29:43.385 --> 0:29:46.185
<v Speaker 1>Moment of the Year. Rico, this is a show we

0:29:46.225 --> 0:29:49.045
<v Speaker 1>do every year. Just kind of look back at different

0:29:49.105 --> 0:29:54.835
<v Speaker 1>categories like Funniest Moment, Music Moment. And a cheat way

0:29:54.875 --> 0:29:56.575
<v Speaker 1>of doing this list would just be go back to

0:29:56.595 --> 0:29:59.295
<v Speaker 1>the years of all those and maybe picking those. And

0:29:59.315 --> 0:30:00.975
<v Speaker 1>I thought that would be too easy. So I tried

0:30:01.025 --> 0:30:04.825
<v Speaker 1>to resist that. But I did have to cheat a

0:30:04.885 --> 0:30:07.645
<v Speaker 1>little bit because I am starting here with a discovery

0:30:07.685 --> 0:30:10.365
<v Speaker 1>song that ended up being a scene of the year

0:30:10.405 --> 0:30:14.195
<v Speaker 1>pick I made in 2020. And really, I picked it

0:30:14.235 --> 0:30:16.735
<v Speaker 1>because it's all about the music. And this is the

0:30:16.895 --> 0:30:21.655
<v Speaker 1>acapella sing-along to Janet Kaye's Silly Games in Steve McQueen's

0:30:22.195 --> 0:30:36.105
<v Speaker 1>Lover's Rock. The song I'd never heard before Janet Kaye

0:30:36.185 --> 0:30:40.945
<v Speaker 1>completely unfamiliar with until it was employed a couple of

0:30:40.985 --> 0:30:44.515
<v Speaker 1>times in this movie, actually. It's not just the one sequence.

0:30:45.125 --> 0:30:47.265
<v Speaker 1>This was Adam and I, we shared it as our

0:30:47.285 --> 0:30:50.165
<v Speaker 1>number one film in 2020. It is one of the

0:30:50.205 --> 0:30:53.375
<v Speaker 1>installments to McQueen's Small Axe Anthology, which was set among

0:30:53.425 --> 0:30:58.455
<v Speaker 1>London's Caribbean community. And Lovers Rock dramatizes one night at

0:30:58.495 --> 0:31:01.535
<v Speaker 1>a 1980s house party. So obviously with that setting, music

0:31:01.615 --> 0:31:05.285
<v Speaker 1>is crucial. The title itself refers to a slow groove,

0:31:05.325 --> 0:31:09.145
<v Speaker 1>romantic sub-genre of reggae that emerged in England in the 70s.

0:31:09.985 --> 0:31:12.485
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, Silly Games, you hear it a couple times

0:31:12.605 --> 0:31:16.555
<v Speaker 1>throughout this party. and throughout the movie. But the moment

0:31:16.595 --> 0:31:20.215
<v Speaker 1>I'm picking specifically is late in the party, and the

0:31:20.255 --> 0:31:34.895
<v Speaker 1>DJ turns off the speakers. And the couples who are

0:31:34.935 --> 0:31:38.975
<v Speaker 1>dancing just continue singing Silly Games a cappella for, I

0:31:39.035 --> 0:31:42.935
<v Speaker 1>think it might be like 10 minutes that this goes on.

0:31:43.745 --> 0:31:48.115
<v Speaker 1>And it really is a distillation of, of lovers rock.

0:31:48.235 --> 0:31:52.495
<v Speaker 1>So in that construct, I was talking about compliments collides

0:31:52.615 --> 0:31:56.935
<v Speaker 1>or completes. I see this one as completing the movie,

0:31:57.055 --> 0:31:58.935
<v Speaker 1>what it is trying to do. This is a movie

0:31:59.055 --> 0:32:04.145
<v Speaker 1>all about creating this space for, for freedom. Uh, it's

0:32:05.065 --> 0:32:09.525
<v Speaker 1>trying to especially create the space for these particular young

0:32:09.565 --> 0:32:13.425
<v Speaker 1>people in this particular time in history, in this particular place.

0:32:29.735 --> 0:32:32.595
<v Speaker 1>I love how the dancers become a choir here. It's

0:32:32.675 --> 0:32:38.845
<v Speaker 1>like a needle drop still has a bit of distance between,

0:32:38.965 --> 0:32:41.165
<v Speaker 1>even if it's, even if it's diegetic, right? Even if

0:32:41.205 --> 0:32:45.335
<v Speaker 1>it's something that's in the scene and the character's, press

0:32:45.375 --> 0:32:49.015
<v Speaker 1>play on the CD or literally drop the needle, there's

0:32:49.035 --> 0:32:52.665
<v Speaker 1>still a bit of distance because they're listening, right? They're

0:32:52.725 --> 0:32:55.565
<v Speaker 1>still receiving it as listeners. And this does something special

0:32:55.605 --> 0:33:00.765
<v Speaker 1>where the characters actually become the performers. So naturally, as

0:33:01.005 --> 0:33:03.795
<v Speaker 1>might happen at a party like this, and suddenly they're

0:33:03.835 --> 0:33:06.295
<v Speaker 1>the ones sharing the music. So they're this choir delivering

0:33:06.315 --> 0:33:10.295
<v Speaker 1>this expression of community and unity, and they're creating this

0:33:10.855 --> 0:33:14.375
<v Speaker 1>protective communal space. I also love, I mentioned this during

0:33:14.395 --> 0:33:16.335
<v Speaker 1>that wrap party show, but it's kind of cool that

0:33:16.415 --> 0:33:20.155
<v Speaker 1>Dennis Bovell, who wrote Silly Games, does have a cameo

0:33:20.315 --> 0:33:23.635
<v Speaker 1>on the dance floor during the sequence. So that's where

0:33:23.655 --> 0:33:26.295
<v Speaker 1>I'm kicking my list off with. Relatively recent pick, Janet

0:33:26.315 --> 0:33:28.635
<v Speaker 1>Kaye's Silly Games from Lover's Rock.

0:33:29.115 --> 0:33:32.395
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, almost made my list. In fact, for a while,

0:33:32.555 --> 0:33:36.045
<v Speaker 2>had it at number five. And that's because it checked

0:33:36.085 --> 0:33:38.525
<v Speaker 2>the box for me. Had not heard the song, had

0:33:38.565 --> 0:33:40.705
<v Speaker 2>not heard of the song or the artist until we

0:33:40.745 --> 0:33:44.975
<v Speaker 2>saw lovers rock. And you're so right. It's communal. There

0:33:44.995 --> 0:33:48.495
<v Speaker 2>are a lot of people dancing. It's so intimate. It's

0:33:48.575 --> 0:33:53.875
<v Speaker 2>so sensual. And there's something about them all starting to

0:33:54.015 --> 0:33:57.615
<v Speaker 2>sing on their own. It becomes like they're under a

0:33:57.695 --> 0:34:01.355
<v Speaker 2>spell and we fall under the spell of it too.

0:34:01.495 --> 0:34:03.715
<v Speaker 2>It's such a scene. It's such a good movie.

0:34:04.195 --> 0:34:07.145
<v Speaker 4>I mean, I have at least one pick on my

0:34:07.205 --> 0:34:11.425
<v Speaker 4>list that is someone in a movie listening to music

0:34:12.575 --> 0:34:17.515
<v Speaker 4>And I wonder what that's about. Because I have a

0:34:17.555 --> 0:34:20.115
<v Speaker 4>feeling there'll be more as we go through our list.

0:34:20.835 --> 0:34:24.835
<v Speaker 4>And in the same way that at some point, I

0:34:24.915 --> 0:34:27.565
<v Speaker 4>recognize that a lot of my favorite scenes in movies

0:34:28.065 --> 0:34:30.845
<v Speaker 4>are people playing some sort of game, either a playful

0:34:30.885 --> 0:34:33.844
<v Speaker 4>game with each other, a verbal game. Actually, now that

0:34:33.865 --> 0:34:35.205
<v Speaker 4>I think about it, there's a scene like that in

0:34:35.265 --> 0:34:37.245
<v Speaker 4>one of the movies I have on my list.

0:34:38.105 --> 0:34:38.245
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:34:39.035 --> 0:34:41.855
<v Speaker 4>And there's something about watching somebody fall in love with

0:34:41.915 --> 0:34:43.935
<v Speaker 4>a piece of music while you're falling in love with

0:34:43.975 --> 0:34:47.155
<v Speaker 4>a piece of music. I'd have to think about what

0:34:47.415 --> 0:34:50.915
<v Speaker 4>is the attraction of that. I mean, maybe it's obvious,

0:34:52.075 --> 0:34:52.915
<v Speaker 4>but it is beautiful.

0:34:52.935 --> 0:34:54.345
<v Speaker 3>And if you can capture.

0:34:54.085 --> 0:34:58.085
<v Speaker 4>It, I mean, I think also we're music lovers, I think.

0:34:58.665 --> 0:35:02.404
<v Speaker 4>So in a way, it's kind of evoking that experience

0:35:02.545 --> 0:35:06.955
<v Speaker 4>that you know and have such a deep affection for,

0:35:07.315 --> 0:35:10.035
<v Speaker 4>I guess, that gives it that little extra layer when

0:35:10.075 --> 0:35:11.975
<v Speaker 4>you watch somebody fall in love with a piece of music.

0:35:12.675 --> 0:35:16.715
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. My number five, I do have to say it

0:35:18.095 --> 0:35:22.805
<v Speaker 2>wasn't a complete introduction, a little bit of a reintroduction,

0:35:22.885 --> 0:35:27.505
<v Speaker 2>but you'll abide my inclusion, I think, because I had

0:35:27.625 --> 0:35:33.715
<v Speaker 2>never heard the version of the song by this band,

0:35:33.875 --> 0:35:38.745
<v Speaker 2>by the original group And the group is the Delphonics.

0:35:39.345 --> 0:35:43.375
<v Speaker 2>The song is Did I, parentheses, blow your mind this time,

0:35:43.895 --> 0:35:48.175
<v Speaker 2>from Jackie Brown, Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown. Of course, Quentin Tarantino,

0:35:48.655 --> 0:35:51.555
<v Speaker 2>one of those top seven and maybe in the top

0:35:51.635 --> 0:35:57.405
<v Speaker 2>two or top one of those purveyors of the needle drop.

0:35:57.965 --> 0:36:02.745
<v Speaker 2>But you know who did perform Did I Blow Your

0:36:02.785 --> 0:36:06.705
<v Speaker 2>Mind this time? You guys probably don't know. But I'll

0:36:06.725 --> 0:36:08.975
<v Speaker 2>tell you who did perform, didn't I blow your mind

0:36:09.015 --> 0:36:12.015
<v Speaker 2>this time, back when I heard it in 1986. The

0:36:13.855 --> 0:36:14.855
<v Speaker 2>New Kids on the Block.

0:36:14.935 --> 0:36:17.355
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, if my wife was here, she would have slapped me.

0:36:17.355 --> 0:36:24.075
<v Speaker 4>I gave my heart and soul to you, girl. Now

0:36:24.475 --> 0:36:26.575
<v Speaker 4>didn't I do it, baby?

0:36:27.235 --> 0:36:30.055
<v Speaker 2>I have, well, I had four younger sisters, but my

0:36:30.115 --> 0:36:33.075
<v Speaker 2>sister Melissa, the one directly below me, was a New

0:36:33.095 --> 0:36:35.975
<v Speaker 2>Kids on the Block fan. And I remember her having

0:36:36.035 --> 0:36:38.685
<v Speaker 2>a friend over at the house and they were watching

0:36:39.505 --> 0:36:42.365
<v Speaker 2>Hanging Tough Live, the new kids on the block live.

0:36:42.385 --> 0:36:43.395
<v Speaker 1>There you go.

0:36:43.785 --> 0:36:47.645
<v Speaker 2>And I was curious. I was starting to get into

0:36:47.705 --> 0:36:50.325
<v Speaker 2>music and I'm a year away from starting a band

0:36:50.365 --> 0:36:53.475
<v Speaker 2>with my junior high friends. And so I'm starting to

0:36:53.495 --> 0:36:55.955
<v Speaker 2>get a little pretentious, even though all I'm listening to

0:36:56.035 --> 0:36:59.115
<v Speaker 2>is hair metal. So I'm judging the new kids on

0:36:59.135 --> 0:37:01.864
<v Speaker 2>the block. as I'm watching this concert and this isn't,

0:37:02.145 --> 0:37:04.685
<v Speaker 2>this isn't revisionist history. I was not a fan of

0:37:04.705 --> 0:37:08.465
<v Speaker 2>the new kids on the block, but they, they start

0:37:08.505 --> 0:37:11.555
<v Speaker 2>performing this song. I don't know which songs are they

0:37:11.615 --> 0:37:13.344
<v Speaker 2>wrote or didn't write. And of course they didn't write

0:37:13.415 --> 0:37:16.355
<v Speaker 2>any of them, but they start performing this song. And I,

0:37:16.375 --> 0:37:20.355
<v Speaker 2>I'm like something about this song is different.

0:37:20.955 --> 0:37:23.755
<v Speaker 1>The song survived. This has survived new kids.

0:37:23.955 --> 0:37:27.395
<v Speaker 2>Like this has a beautiful melody. It's got that call

0:37:27.435 --> 0:37:30.775
<v Speaker 2>and response structure. It's got a really great bridge. It's

0:37:30.795 --> 0:37:34.335
<v Speaker 2>got rich harmonies. It's got that incredible key change that

0:37:34.355 --> 0:37:36.975
<v Speaker 2>happens in it. Like, this is just a great pop song.

0:37:36.995 --> 0:37:39.094
<v Speaker 2>I'm like, I remember thinking, am I liking a New

0:37:39.115 --> 0:37:40.055
<v Speaker 2>Kids on the Block song?

0:37:40.175 --> 0:37:41.795
<v Speaker 3>It's okay. It turns out it's okay.

0:37:42.035 --> 0:37:45.455
<v Speaker 2>How can I be enjoying this? And so, you know,

0:37:45.765 --> 0:37:47.685
<v Speaker 2>I didn't investigate it any further. We didn't have the

0:37:47.725 --> 0:37:51.585
<v Speaker 2>internet back then at this point, right? Flash forward 11 years.

0:37:52.425 --> 0:37:56.205
<v Speaker 2>I'm in the theater watching Jackie Brown. And Robert Forster's

0:37:56.285 --> 0:37:59.845
<v Speaker 2>Max Cherry, the bail bondsman, has just taken Pam Greer's

0:37:59.865 --> 0:38:02.905
<v Speaker 2>Jackie back to her house after a night in jail.

0:38:03.765 --> 0:38:05.925
<v Speaker 2>And she decides to put on some music, puts on

0:38:05.965 --> 0:38:08.045
<v Speaker 2>a record. I should get some extra points here for

0:38:08.085 --> 0:38:12.305
<v Speaker 2>having an actual needle drop in my top five needle drops.

0:38:12.765 --> 0:38:15.965
<v Speaker 2>She puts it on, puts the record on. Quentin Tarantino

0:38:16.505 --> 0:38:19.925
<v Speaker 2>shows us the extreme close-up of the needle going on

0:38:19.945 --> 0:38:20.485
<v Speaker 2>the vinyl.

0:38:21.385 --> 0:38:22.245
<v Speaker 3>They're listening to music.

0:38:22.285 --> 0:38:22.505
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:38:23.095 --> 0:38:25.705
<v Speaker 2>And the moment the opening lines come in, I give

0:38:25.765 --> 0:38:28.305
<v Speaker 2>my heart and soul to you, girl. I give my

0:38:28.625 --> 0:38:35.765
<v Speaker 2>heart and soul to you, girl. I'm simultaneously thinking, holy crap,

0:38:36.625 --> 0:38:39.515
<v Speaker 2>it's that New Kids on the Block song. And it's

0:38:39.615 --> 0:38:42.695
<v Speaker 2>not a New Kids on the Block song. And I'm,

0:38:43.095 --> 0:38:46.715
<v Speaker 2>if not slowly falling in love with Jackie like Max is,

0:38:46.995 --> 0:38:49.555
<v Speaker 2>I'm absolutely mesmerized by Jackie.

0:38:50.265 --> 0:38:53.344
<v Speaker 1>Now, Adam, are you sure you didn't say... You kids

0:38:53.365 --> 0:38:54.205
<v Speaker 1>did this way better.

0:38:54.585 --> 0:38:57.785
<v Speaker 2>No, I did not think that. And, and, you know,

0:38:57.805 --> 0:39:01.245
<v Speaker 2>Tarantino is just so, he's so smart. The, the first

0:39:01.285 --> 0:39:05.075
<v Speaker 2>thing Max says about the music is it's pretty and

0:39:05.115 --> 0:39:08.415
<v Speaker 2>it is pretty, but the camera is on Jackie when

0:39:08.435 --> 0:39:11.075
<v Speaker 2>he says it. And, and it's not only that it's

0:39:11.155 --> 0:39:15.775
<v Speaker 2>Max's point of view, it's his angle looking up at

0:39:15.835 --> 0:39:19.015
<v Speaker 2>her from the kitchen table that he's sitting at, you know, it's,

0:39:19.235 --> 0:39:22.255
<v Speaker 2>it's because Tarantino shoots it all from Max's point of view.

0:39:22.715 --> 0:39:24.955
<v Speaker 2>When she kneels down in front of the records, the

0:39:24.975 --> 0:39:28.384
<v Speaker 2>camera tilts down just like Max's head would if he's

0:39:28.445 --> 0:39:30.365
<v Speaker 2>looking at her when she kneels down. And then it

0:39:30.385 --> 0:39:35.025
<v Speaker 2>just stays static. There's just cross-cutting between him and him

0:39:35.145 --> 0:39:38.884
<v Speaker 2>looking at her from the kitchen table, static point of view,

0:39:39.025 --> 0:39:42.165
<v Speaker 2>exactly as he would. And he's just watching her in

0:39:42.185 --> 0:39:46.255
<v Speaker 2>her bathrobe. And those two shots, it's two shots, one cut.

0:39:47.455 --> 0:39:50.575
<v Speaker 2>As the music starts playing, Jackie lighting a cigarette. She's

0:39:50.615 --> 0:39:53.865
<v Speaker 2>lighting a cigarette in this kind of dingy apartment in

0:39:53.905 --> 0:39:58.585
<v Speaker 2>a bathrobe against the sunlight of her shades and the

0:39:58.665 --> 0:40:03.025
<v Speaker 2>cut is to Max staring intently just slightly tilting his

0:40:03.045 --> 0:40:05.925
<v Speaker 2>head and it's all just to the opening notes of

0:40:06.665 --> 0:40:10.245
<v Speaker 2>of that song the delphonics and it's romantic as hell

0:40:10.465 --> 0:40:14.265
<v Speaker 2>and and Thankfully, Max, you know, asks Jackie who it is.

0:40:15.185 --> 0:40:19.165
<v Speaker 2>So I, as a viewer, understand that it's the Delphonics.

0:40:19.205 --> 0:40:20.805
<v Speaker 2>I didn't have to think about it the rest of

0:40:20.845 --> 0:40:24.405
<v Speaker 2>the movie. I got the answer to my question. And

0:40:24.685 --> 0:40:27.045
<v Speaker 2>I also figured out that it wasn't the New Kids

0:40:27.105 --> 0:40:29.485
<v Speaker 2>on the Block. It's okay that I loved it back

0:40:29.545 --> 0:40:31.225
<v Speaker 2>in 1986.

0:40:31.225 --> 0:40:31.605
<v Speaker 3>It's great.

0:40:31.645 --> 0:40:33.895
<v Speaker 4>By the way, I mean, like, kudos to you for

0:40:33.935 --> 0:40:38.895
<v Speaker 4>picking like the least obvious Quentin Tarantino needle drop that exists.

0:40:39.155 --> 0:40:41.495
<v Speaker 4>There are so many that immediately leap to mind. And

0:40:41.515 --> 0:40:42.535
<v Speaker 4>that is like deep.

0:40:42.575 --> 0:40:45.235
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. I guess I know most of those songs, but

0:40:45.275 --> 0:40:48.395
<v Speaker 2>I didn't know Little Green Bag. That was a discovery. Good,

0:40:48.815 --> 0:40:50.535
<v Speaker 2>good song. But this scene's amazing.

0:40:51.095 --> 0:40:54.055
<v Speaker 1>It's distinct to your point, Rico. It is another example

0:40:54.205 --> 0:40:58.885
<v Speaker 1>of characters choosing the music for themselves. So the director

0:40:59.045 --> 0:41:02.715
<v Speaker 1>is choosing it, of course. But in the reality of

0:41:02.735 --> 0:41:06.335
<v Speaker 1>the movie, the characters are choosing it. And even in Tarantino,

0:41:06.435 --> 0:41:10.445
<v Speaker 1>those move us differently. I'm thinking of in Pulp Fiction, right?

0:41:10.485 --> 0:41:13.425
<v Speaker 1>When Uma Thurman puts the songs, not coming to me,

0:41:13.465 --> 0:41:17.685
<v Speaker 1>but like there are many characters choosing in Tarantino movies,

0:41:17.885 --> 0:41:20.985
<v Speaker 1>the music, and those feel differently than when he drops

0:41:21.025 --> 0:41:24.055
<v Speaker 1>them on us like a bomb, which are thrilling as well,

0:41:24.225 --> 0:41:27.435
<v Speaker 1>because this is a skill he has. They operate in

0:41:27.575 --> 0:41:30.614
<v Speaker 1>very different ways. So that's why, I mean, Not only

0:41:30.655 --> 0:41:32.915
<v Speaker 1>do I like this pick because it's my favorite, favorite Tarantino,

0:41:33.235 --> 0:41:35.935
<v Speaker 1>but I think it is, he's working in a different

0:41:36.015 --> 0:41:40.145
<v Speaker 1>gear here, even though it's a tool he often employs. Yeah.

0:41:40.285 --> 0:41:43.085
<v Speaker 2>And the layers, the layers to it as well, like Jackie,

0:41:43.405 --> 0:41:45.925
<v Speaker 2>Jackie's the kind of person and they're adults at this

0:41:46.005 --> 0:41:48.065
<v Speaker 2>point where she's the kind of person who doesn't need

0:41:48.105 --> 0:41:50.614
<v Speaker 2>to play any games and is just going to pick

0:41:50.855 --> 0:41:52.955
<v Speaker 2>a song that she loves and she's going to play

0:41:52.995 --> 0:41:55.495
<v Speaker 2>it because that's what she's in the mood for.

0:41:55.955 --> 0:41:57.134
<v Speaker 1>It's for her, it's not for him.

0:41:57.155 --> 0:42:01.345
<v Speaker 2>Exactly. Exactly. But she also is precisely the kind of

0:42:01.385 --> 0:42:05.045
<v Speaker 2>person who in this movie is playing games. And everything

0:42:05.105 --> 0:42:09.575
<v Speaker 2>she does is a precursor to another move that she's establishing.

0:42:09.955 --> 0:42:13.935
<v Speaker 2>And she does need Max on her side. And she

0:42:13.995 --> 0:42:17.455
<v Speaker 2>knows what she's doing when she puts on one of

0:42:17.515 --> 0:42:22.075
<v Speaker 2>the most romantic, pretty songs of all time and stands

0:42:22.135 --> 0:42:24.835
<v Speaker 2>there in her bathrobe and lights the cigarette in front

0:42:24.875 --> 0:42:27.795
<v Speaker 2>of the shades, right? Like, she does know what she's doing.

0:42:28.325 --> 0:42:31.765
<v Speaker 4>But you mentioned Uma Thurman putting on Girl, You'll Be

0:42:31.785 --> 0:42:35.305
<v Speaker 4>a Woman soon in Pulp Fiction. Think about the difference

0:42:35.365 --> 0:42:38.844
<v Speaker 4>between those two movies. One comes right before, right? It's

0:42:38.865 --> 0:42:40.205
<v Speaker 4>Pulp Fiction and then Jackie Brown, right?

0:42:40.225 --> 0:42:40.864
<v Speaker 3>Am I out of my mind?

0:42:41.505 --> 0:42:41.725
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:42:42.125 --> 0:42:50.075
<v Speaker 4>And it's like, this actually almost perfectly illustrates something that

0:42:50.295 --> 0:42:51.555
<v Speaker 4>at first was disappointing to me.

0:42:51.635 --> 0:42:52.275
<v Speaker 3>Now I don't care.

0:42:52.975 --> 0:42:55.455
<v Speaker 4>But at the time, I love all those movies. I

0:42:55.495 --> 0:42:57.975
<v Speaker 4>loved Reservoir Dogs. I love Pulp Fiction, love Jackie Brown.

0:42:58.075 --> 0:43:00.915
<v Speaker 4>But I remember seeing, even when I saw Pulp Fiction,

0:43:01.435 --> 0:43:03.815
<v Speaker 4>I remember thinking there are certain scenes. I always think

0:43:03.855 --> 0:43:06.555
<v Speaker 4>about the moment in that movie where she comes back

0:43:06.595 --> 0:43:09.375
<v Speaker 4>from the bathroom in the burger joint and says, don't

0:43:09.415 --> 0:43:11.515
<v Speaker 4>you love it when your food, you go to the bathroom,

0:43:11.535 --> 0:43:13.495
<v Speaker 4>you come back and your food has arrived, which is

0:43:13.535 --> 0:43:16.625
<v Speaker 4>a thousand percent true and has never been in a

0:43:16.645 --> 0:43:19.225
<v Speaker 4>film before. And I was like, this guy is an

0:43:19.265 --> 0:43:24.475
<v Speaker 4>incredible observer of life. He like, is this guy?

0:43:24.695 --> 0:43:24.935
<v Speaker 3>Yes.

0:43:25.435 --> 0:43:25.715
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:43:25.735 --> 0:43:28.395
<v Speaker 4>People think of him as this bloody action guy. There's

0:43:28.435 --> 0:43:30.805
<v Speaker 4>actually not that many shootouts in his movies. There's just

0:43:30.825 --> 0:43:33.205
<v Speaker 4>the threat of violence hanging over a lot of his movies.

0:43:33.505 --> 0:43:37.485
<v Speaker 4>He's actually got this really incredible, you know, insight into

0:43:37.545 --> 0:43:41.465
<v Speaker 4>people and he's going to be doing, you know, any

0:43:41.505 --> 0:43:42.965
<v Speaker 4>kind of movie he wants he can do. And then

0:43:42.985 --> 0:43:45.565
<v Speaker 4>he did Jackie Brown. I was like, see, like, look

0:43:45.585 --> 0:43:47.585
<v Speaker 4>at that. You can see so much more of the

0:43:47.615 --> 0:43:50.134
<v Speaker 4>kind of new wave French influence, you know, in that

0:43:50.195 --> 0:43:52.715
<v Speaker 4>movie and everything. And then it doesn't do as well.

0:43:53.645 --> 0:43:55.665
<v Speaker 4>And then he doesn't do anything for a while. And

0:43:55.685 --> 0:43:57.424
<v Speaker 4>then he comes back with Kill Bill. And at first

0:43:57.465 --> 0:43:59.565
<v Speaker 4>I was very disappointed. It was like, you just gave

0:43:59.585 --> 0:44:03.065
<v Speaker 4>them what they said you were, man. Like they want

0:44:03.105 --> 0:44:05.685
<v Speaker 4>you to be this guy and you're more than that, dude.

0:44:06.025 --> 0:44:08.915
<v Speaker 4>But I don't care anymore. And I actually did like,

0:44:08.995 --> 0:44:10.675
<v Speaker 4>especially when Kill Bill 2 came out, it was like.

0:44:10.695 --> 0:44:11.855
<v Speaker 3>Ah, it's all for a reason.

0:44:12.515 --> 0:44:15.615
<v Speaker 4>But at that moment, I was kind of like, you

0:44:15.635 --> 0:44:17.655
<v Speaker 4>could take those two scenes and those are the difference.

0:44:17.675 --> 0:44:20.295
<v Speaker 4>There's one where he's got Uma Thurman puts on, you'll

0:44:20.315 --> 0:44:23.145
<v Speaker 4>be a woman soon. And she's like literally floating around

0:44:23.165 --> 0:44:25.935
<v Speaker 4>the room. She's like dancing and doing all this stuff.

0:44:26.165 --> 0:44:28.895
<v Speaker 4>In this movie, she puts it on and she just

0:44:28.915 --> 0:44:31.134
<v Speaker 4>sits there smoking a cigarette in her dingy bathrobe. It's

0:44:31.175 --> 0:44:33.255
<v Speaker 4>like the total opposite kind of vibe.

0:44:33.515 --> 0:44:33.735
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:44:34.195 --> 0:44:35.275
<v Speaker 4>Amazing pick.

0:44:36.435 --> 0:44:38.675
<v Speaker 2>Josh, in a few weeks here on Film Spotting, we're

0:44:38.695 --> 0:44:42.975
<v Speaker 2>hoping to give the sacred cow treatment to T2 Judgment Day.

0:44:43.855 --> 0:44:47.135
<v Speaker 2>Hopefully we'll get a chance this weekend at Regal Cinemas

0:44:47.355 --> 0:44:50.555
<v Speaker 2>to see that movie, to revisit it on the big screen.

0:44:50.965 --> 0:44:54.455
<v Speaker 2>It's like we're back in 1991. We're back in high

0:44:54.515 --> 0:45:01.645
<v Speaker 2>school seeing that film on the big screen. Check REGmovies.com.

0:45:01.785 --> 0:45:05.565
<v Speaker 2>See where that film is playing near you. And if

0:45:05.585 --> 0:45:06.765
<v Speaker 2>you can make it to that one, or even if

0:45:06.805 --> 0:45:08.685
<v Speaker 2>you can't, maybe you can see The Dog Stars, the

0:45:08.725 --> 0:45:11.985
<v Speaker 2>new film from Ridley Scott. That's a film we're hoping

0:45:12.005 --> 0:45:14.125
<v Speaker 2>to see this weekend and maybe give a few minutes

0:45:14.185 --> 0:45:17.285
<v Speaker 2>to next weekend. Certainly the movie that's inspiring our top

0:45:17.345 --> 0:45:20.545
<v Speaker 2>five or our draft next week devoted to the films

0:45:20.885 --> 0:45:26.114
<v Speaker 2>of Ridley Scott. It's also available in IMAX if that

0:45:26.235 --> 0:45:29.455
<v Speaker 2>is an option near you. You may be able to

0:45:29.515 --> 0:45:32.935
<v Speaker 2>see The Dog Stars for free if you are a

0:45:33.235 --> 0:45:38.145
<v Speaker 2>Regal Unlimited member. Regal Unlimited is the all-you-can-watch movie subscription

0:45:38.185 --> 0:45:40.805
<v Speaker 2>pass that pays for itself in just two visits. If

0:45:40.845 --> 0:45:42.905
<v Speaker 2>you sign up for Regal Unlimited using the code of

0:45:42.945 --> 0:45:46.815
<v Speaker 2>film spot 26, you get 15% off. You can see

0:45:46.855 --> 0:45:50.715
<v Speaker 2>any standard 2d movie anytime with no blackout dates or restrictions.

0:45:51.095 --> 0:45:53.895
<v Speaker 2>And with Regal Unlimited, you won't just save money on tickets.

0:45:53.935 --> 0:45:57.964
<v Speaker 2>You do also get 10% off all non-alcoholic concessions. We

0:45:58.085 --> 0:45:59.745
<v Speaker 2>encourage you to sign up now in the Regal app

0:45:59.805 --> 0:46:01.685
<v Speaker 2>or at the link in our description and use code

0:46:01.705 --> 0:46:07.844
<v Speaker 2>film spot 26 to receive your discount. Rico, we are

0:46:07.965 --> 0:46:09.915
<v Speaker 2>at your number four. Really?

0:46:10.985 --> 0:46:11.785
<v Speaker 4>I got to top that.

0:46:11.845 --> 0:46:14.885
<v Speaker 3>That's a really good cut. I'm going to go with it.

0:46:14.975 --> 0:46:15.535
<v Speaker 2>This is a tie.

0:46:16.195 --> 0:46:17.755
<v Speaker 4>Because I think, I know you're going to say that

0:46:17.795 --> 0:46:19.195
<v Speaker 4>this is cheating, but I think we can talk about

0:46:19.215 --> 0:46:23.614
<v Speaker 4>them in tandem. Mainly because they had the exact same

0:46:23.675 --> 0:46:25.654
<v Speaker 4>impact on me when I saw them. And they're kind

0:46:25.695 --> 0:46:28.134
<v Speaker 4>of used in the same way, which is in Wings

0:46:28.175 --> 0:46:32.305
<v Speaker 4>of Desire, the Bender's 1988 movie. One of my favorite

0:46:32.325 --> 0:46:36.705
<v Speaker 4>movies of all time. And it's both, well, I'll do

0:46:36.745 --> 0:46:39.045
<v Speaker 4>them in chronological order in the movie. Crime in the

0:46:39.085 --> 0:46:43.175
<v Speaker 4>City Solutions is, Six Bells Chime, and Nick Cave and

0:46:43.195 --> 0:46:45.895
<v Speaker 4>the Bad Seeds from Her to Eternity. Both of these

0:46:45.955 --> 0:46:49.955
<v Speaker 4>are actual performances within the movie. They were both songs

0:46:49.975 --> 0:46:52.305
<v Speaker 4>that existed before the movie came out. But in the movie,

0:46:52.365 --> 0:46:55.365
<v Speaker 4>you see the band sort of lip syncing to as

0:46:55.445 --> 0:46:59.145
<v Speaker 4>though they're performing them. They're both in nightclub sequences. They're

0:46:59.205 --> 0:47:03.005
<v Speaker 4>both in these kind of very, how do I put it?

0:47:03.425 --> 0:47:08.445
<v Speaker 4>They're like faded glamour nightclubs because it's being shot and

0:47:08.505 --> 0:47:11.585
<v Speaker 4>is in a lot of ways about that movie. the

0:47:12.305 --> 0:47:15.105
<v Speaker 4>Berlin of that period, which is just before the wall

0:47:15.145 --> 0:47:17.805
<v Speaker 4>comes down. So it's a city that has a lot,

0:47:17.865 --> 0:47:20.815
<v Speaker 4>you know, it's still kind of in semi ruins from

0:47:20.875 --> 0:47:24.315
<v Speaker 4>World War II somewhat. It's still a kind of walled city.

0:47:24.375 --> 0:47:27.315
<v Speaker 4>There's like all sorts of, and therefore it's very bohemian.

0:47:27.995 --> 0:47:29.915
<v Speaker 4>It blew my mind at the time because I was

0:47:30.075 --> 0:47:32.795
<v Speaker 4>in college radio at the time when this came out.

0:47:33.155 --> 0:47:34.555
<v Speaker 4>And a lot of people were into goth. And I

0:47:34.595 --> 0:47:37.325
<v Speaker 4>actually liked the Cure a lot, but the Cure kind

0:47:37.345 --> 0:47:39.445
<v Speaker 4>of more poppy side of goth, particularly as I was

0:47:39.465 --> 0:47:43.755
<v Speaker 4>getting into them. I thought of goth music as horror

0:47:43.795 --> 0:47:48.114
<v Speaker 4>rock in my mind. It's people dressing like vampires and

0:47:48.215 --> 0:47:52.655
<v Speaker 4>some of it was pretty noisy and like spooky. And

0:47:52.695 --> 0:47:54.535
<v Speaker 4>I kind of felt like it was kitschy maybe in

0:47:54.575 --> 0:47:58.075
<v Speaker 4>some way. I didn't totally get what it was that

0:47:58.115 --> 0:48:01.575
<v Speaker 4>attracted people to it. And that movie and these two

0:48:01.635 --> 0:48:04.815
<v Speaker 4>scenes put it in context for me so that I

0:48:05.015 --> 0:48:09.575
<v Speaker 4>understood the romance of goth music. It's about finding beauty

0:48:09.635 --> 0:48:11.985
<v Speaker 4>in decay. And darkness.

0:48:13.125 --> 0:48:13.405
<v Speaker 3>And it.

0:48:15.185 --> 0:48:20.435
<v Speaker 4>So changed my aesthetics in like 30 different ways. It

0:48:20.475 --> 0:48:23.915
<v Speaker 4>was like, it changed my musical aesthetics because I got that.

0:48:24.075 --> 0:48:26.555
<v Speaker 4>I understood that there was this, there was something could

0:48:26.635 --> 0:48:29.695
<v Speaker 4>sound maybe scary or gritty or something, but there's actually

0:48:29.755 --> 0:48:33.205
<v Speaker 4>something totally different going on underneath it. And it did

0:48:33.245 --> 0:48:36.205
<v Speaker 4>the same thing about places for me. It actually made

0:48:36.245 --> 0:48:39.075
<v Speaker 4>me want to travel that movie. which is not unusual

0:48:39.095 --> 0:48:41.895
<v Speaker 4>than vendors movies are a lot about travel in a way,

0:48:42.375 --> 0:48:44.415
<v Speaker 4>but it made me want to do a certain kind

0:48:44.455 --> 0:48:47.714
<v Speaker 4>of travel, which is to find spaces like that, where

0:48:47.855 --> 0:48:50.935
<v Speaker 4>music like that would be appropriate. That it's like a

0:48:51.015 --> 0:48:54.775
<v Speaker 4>place that is beautiful, but decaying that has history to

0:48:54.855 --> 0:48:59.845
<v Speaker 4>it and is still got, you know, and it's still

0:48:59.895 --> 0:49:04.625
<v Speaker 4>being used in a modern way. the kind of collisions

0:49:04.685 --> 0:49:07.715
<v Speaker 4>of different eras, the fact that it was in this

0:49:07.795 --> 0:49:11.115
<v Speaker 4>faraway place, that people spoke a different language and just

0:49:11.215 --> 0:49:14.535
<v Speaker 4>did things slightly differently. And it's all got this ethereal

0:49:14.695 --> 0:49:16.805
<v Speaker 4>overlay to it, because if anybody knows that movie, it's

0:49:16.865 --> 0:49:19.025
<v Speaker 4>about an angel who falls in love with a woman.

0:49:19.045 --> 0:49:23.145
<v Speaker 4>And in both of these scenes, the angel is with

0:49:23.245 --> 0:49:25.985
<v Speaker 4>the woman and she doesn't know it yet. She's immortal.

0:49:26.645 --> 0:49:28.575
<v Speaker 4>He's an angel watching her in the first scene with

0:49:28.595 --> 0:49:31.205
<v Speaker 4>Crime in the City Solutions. And this music is playing

0:49:31.225 --> 0:49:34.475
<v Speaker 4>and she's swaying like all sort of gently. At one point,

0:49:34.535 --> 0:49:38.975
<v Speaker 4>this non-corporeal being puts his hand over her hand and

0:49:39.015 --> 0:49:42.705
<v Speaker 4>pretends he's holding it and kind of... follows the arc

0:49:42.745 --> 0:49:46.344
<v Speaker 4>of her hand down it's this like totally beautiful graceful

0:49:46.485 --> 0:49:51.725
<v Speaker 4>ethereal moment it just epitomizes so many things for me

0:49:51.825 --> 0:49:54.265
<v Speaker 4>those two things and it's a great example of what

0:49:54.285 --> 0:49:56.605
<v Speaker 4>you were talking about is uh you know going in

0:49:56.625 --> 0:50:00.525
<v Speaker 4>and not knowing a song or not knowing even for me,

0:50:00.565 --> 0:50:03.115
<v Speaker 4>like really getting a genre and having it put in

0:50:03.155 --> 0:50:04.995
<v Speaker 4>context for you so that it's like, not only do

0:50:05.015 --> 0:50:06.695
<v Speaker 4>you get it, but now it's essential. I listen to

0:50:06.715 --> 0:50:08.195
<v Speaker 4>that kind of music whenever I travel now.

0:50:08.555 --> 0:50:11.915
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and Nick Cave, if a voice can be cinematic,

0:50:12.575 --> 0:50:15.535
<v Speaker 1>he has one of those. So it's just, you know,

0:50:15.555 --> 0:50:19.245
<v Speaker 1>any use of him probably would work on some level

0:50:19.265 --> 0:50:21.005
<v Speaker 1>in a movie, but certainly does here.

0:50:21.385 --> 0:50:25.415
<v Speaker 2>I don't think I've seen Wings of Desire since the 90s,

0:50:25.465 --> 0:50:30.205
<v Speaker 2>since I was becoming... A cinephile. One of the movies

0:50:30.265 --> 0:50:33.424
<v Speaker 2>that transformed me. It's been that long and you've made

0:50:33.465 --> 0:50:37.265
<v Speaker 2>me now extremely eager to revisit it. I can't believe

0:50:37.305 --> 0:50:39.055
<v Speaker 2>it's been that long. Talk about a movie we need

0:50:39.095 --> 0:50:40.455
<v Speaker 2>to do a sacred cow on.

0:50:40.595 --> 0:50:43.975
<v Speaker 4>It's one of the most beautiful movies ever. Like no movie,

0:50:44.175 --> 0:50:47.134
<v Speaker 4>literally physically, like, I mean, visually, no movie has looked

0:50:47.155 --> 0:50:49.795
<v Speaker 4>like that since that film came out. The black and

0:50:49.835 --> 0:50:53.535
<v Speaker 4>white in that film is insane. And paired with that music.

0:50:53.735 --> 0:50:55.215
<v Speaker 4>And by the way, that's the other thing. If you listen,

0:50:55.315 --> 0:50:57.965
<v Speaker 4>like the soundtrack for that movie is pretty popular. Because

0:50:58.005 --> 0:51:00.445
<v Speaker 4>of tracks like that. And actually, if you listen to it,

0:51:00.485 --> 0:51:03.475
<v Speaker 4>it sounds like pretty grim in certain ways.

0:51:03.515 --> 0:51:05.635
<v Speaker 3>There's a lot of like sadness.

0:51:05.675 --> 0:51:07.055
<v Speaker 4>There's like one song called Pas.

0:51:08.655 --> 0:51:09.335
<v Speaker 3>A Tende.

0:51:09.775 --> 0:51:12.235
<v Speaker 4>I can't even remember who does it, but it's got

0:51:12.275 --> 0:51:16.195
<v Speaker 4>like clanking kind of, you know, industrial sounds. I think

0:51:16.215 --> 0:51:17.895
<v Speaker 4>because a lot of that music was what was being

0:51:17.955 --> 0:51:20.015
<v Speaker 4>made in Berlin at that time. And that movie is

0:51:20.035 --> 0:51:22.795
<v Speaker 4>a love letter to Berlin. But it's bizarre that I

0:51:22.855 --> 0:51:25.694
<v Speaker 4>now associate all those things with this beautiful love story

0:51:25.735 --> 0:51:29.895
<v Speaker 4>that has, spoiler alert, a happy ending. That's the power

0:51:29.915 --> 0:51:32.185
<v Speaker 4>of music. You can totally recast music like that.

0:51:32.865 --> 0:51:36.065
<v Speaker 1>And you need the visuals to recontextualize it. Yeah, yeah.

0:51:37.205 --> 0:51:38.985
<v Speaker 1>All right. So for my number four, I'm going to

0:51:39.025 --> 0:51:42.625
<v Speaker 1>go from a surprise to a nostalgia pick. I think

0:51:42.665 --> 0:51:45.364
<v Speaker 1>it's only fair that nostalgia comes into play here for

0:51:45.385 --> 0:51:50.465
<v Speaker 1>a list like this. And I realized I needed to

0:51:50.565 --> 0:51:54.785
<v Speaker 1>have a track from a John Hughes movie. And this

0:51:54.955 --> 0:51:58.085
<v Speaker 1>isn't necessarily because I was a little young for his

0:51:58.225 --> 0:52:01.665
<v Speaker 1>run as a director and producer in the 80s with

0:52:01.725 --> 0:52:04.345
<v Speaker 1>teen movies. So we've got 16 Candles, Pretty in Pink,

0:52:04.845 --> 0:52:07.565
<v Speaker 1>The Breakfast Club, Weird Science. I think the first one

0:52:07.605 --> 0:52:10.614
<v Speaker 1>I actually saw was probably Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but

0:52:10.625 --> 0:52:12.735
<v Speaker 1>these were in the air. So even as like a

0:52:12.795 --> 0:52:16.055
<v Speaker 1>kid who's just a couple years behind going with friends

0:52:16.095 --> 0:52:18.975
<v Speaker 1>to the theater to see these movies, you knew about

0:52:19.035 --> 0:52:21.555
<v Speaker 1>them and you knew they were the thing to do.

0:52:22.415 --> 0:52:25.614
<v Speaker 1>And absolutely, you knew the music. I mean, just from

0:52:25.635 --> 0:52:29.335
<v Speaker 1>the radio, from the television commercials, from whatever, you knew

0:52:29.375 --> 0:52:31.735
<v Speaker 1>the music. So even if you were too young to

0:52:31.835 --> 0:52:35.515
<v Speaker 1>see the films themselves, you were aware of them. And

0:52:35.575 --> 0:52:39.965
<v Speaker 1>talk about an embarrassment of new wave, early alternative riches.

0:52:41.005 --> 0:52:44.145
<v Speaker 1>This is what you got in these John Hughes movies.

0:52:44.565 --> 0:52:47.085
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to go with a song that I remember

0:52:47.125 --> 0:52:50.765
<v Speaker 1>hearing the most from the movie I wanted to see

0:52:51.025 --> 0:52:55.495
<v Speaker 1>the most, but couldn't. And that was 1985's The Breakfast Club,

0:52:55.955 --> 0:53:00.095
<v Speaker 1>specifically Simple Minds' Don't You Forget About Me, used during

0:53:00.135 --> 0:53:06.135
<v Speaker 1>the final moments. I try to stay away from opening credits.

0:53:06.175 --> 0:53:07.935
<v Speaker 1>Do I stay away from end credits? Do I stay

0:53:07.975 --> 0:53:12.505
<v Speaker 1>away from final scenes? But this one is interwoven into

0:53:12.565 --> 0:53:15.305
<v Speaker 1>the final scene well before the credits. So we think

0:53:15.325 --> 0:53:16.765
<v Speaker 1>of it, at least I do in my mind, as

0:53:16.825 --> 0:53:19.865
<v Speaker 1>being a final credit song, but it's not. It starts

0:53:20.125 --> 0:53:24.585
<v Speaker 1>a lot earlier in this sequence, which is after the

0:53:24.625 --> 0:53:27.485
<v Speaker 1>group we've been hanging out with all day separates. They

0:53:27.525 --> 0:53:32.435
<v Speaker 1>leave detention. For those who need a reminder on Breakfast Club,

0:53:32.595 --> 0:53:36.995
<v Speaker 1>it's basically a detention, Saturday detention movie. Cross-section of high

0:53:37.035 --> 0:53:40.075
<v Speaker 1>school humanities who are hanging out with here. Prom, Queen Claire,

0:53:40.215 --> 0:53:44.884
<v Speaker 1>Molly Ringwald, Jock Andrew, Emilio Estevez, Burnout Bender, Judd Nelson,

0:53:45.515 --> 0:53:49.435
<v Speaker 1>Nerd Brian, Anthony Michael Hall, and then Loner Allison. played

0:53:49.475 --> 0:53:52.355
<v Speaker 1>by Ally Sheedy. So they've, you know, against all odds,

0:53:52.795 --> 0:53:55.634
<v Speaker 1>they've bonded over the course of the day across these

0:53:55.715 --> 0:53:59.895
<v Speaker 1>social classes and they're getting picked up in the final

0:53:59.935 --> 0:54:02.384
<v Speaker 1>sequence by their parents in the final moments. And yeah,

0:54:02.415 --> 0:54:06.025
<v Speaker 1>don't you forget about me as we watch them leave

0:54:06.045 --> 0:54:08.965
<v Speaker 1>the building, get into their separate cars and, you know,

0:54:08.985 --> 0:54:12.665
<v Speaker 1>Hughes gives them each distinct moments with their parents, who's

0:54:12.705 --> 0:54:16.905
<v Speaker 1>picking them up. And then, and then interestingly, if I'm

0:54:16.945 --> 0:54:20.575
<v Speaker 1>remembering correctly, there aren't a, edits from one kid to

0:54:20.595 --> 0:54:23.154
<v Speaker 1>the next it's a lot where like the next car

0:54:23.175 --> 0:54:25.675
<v Speaker 1>will pull up in the same frame yes so it's

0:54:25.715 --> 0:54:28.614
<v Speaker 1>kind of still holding them together as we're seeing them

0:54:28.675 --> 0:54:31.975
<v Speaker 1>pulled apart and the song playing over all of this

0:54:32.155 --> 0:54:35.515
<v Speaker 1>is of course also holding them together with their wish

0:54:35.755 --> 0:54:38.135
<v Speaker 1>the wish they have at this moment is that this

0:54:38.155 --> 0:54:40.765
<v Speaker 1>is what they're hoping it's what we're hoping i think

0:54:40.785 --> 0:54:43.384
<v Speaker 1>it's what we know isn't going to happen um they

0:54:43.415 --> 0:54:46.375
<v Speaker 1>want to remain friends come on they were right we

0:54:46.395 --> 0:54:48.395
<v Speaker 1>dug into this when we did our sacred cow review

0:54:48.435 --> 0:54:51.455
<v Speaker 1>of breakfast club, right, Adam. And if I recall, I

0:54:51.495 --> 0:54:54.265
<v Speaker 1>think we were both kind of pessimistic, a little cynical

0:54:54.325 --> 0:54:58.645
<v Speaker 1>about that. But for this moment, for this moment, that's

0:54:58.685 --> 0:55:01.145
<v Speaker 1>what everybody wants. Right. And it's what the song is,

0:55:01.325 --> 0:55:06.305
<v Speaker 1>is asking for. So yeah, just incredible use of simple minds. And, um,

0:55:06.565 --> 0:55:08.725
<v Speaker 1>I was glad I did finally get to see the

0:55:08.765 --> 0:55:11.855
<v Speaker 1>breakfast club. And of course that revisit, the revisit we did,

0:55:11.955 --> 0:55:14.425
<v Speaker 1>it really holds up. I mean, it does. It's a,

0:55:14.555 --> 0:55:15.634
<v Speaker 1>it's still a great movie.

0:55:16.345 --> 0:55:17.485
<v Speaker 3>It's been a while, actually.

0:55:17.505 --> 0:55:18.945
<v Speaker 4>I think it might be like 10 years since I

0:55:19.005 --> 0:55:20.005
<v Speaker 4>revisited that movie.

0:55:20.385 --> 0:55:21.045
<v Speaker 3>But I was.

0:55:21.025 --> 0:55:26.125
<v Speaker 4>Expecting 100% to roll my eyes at it. And there's

0:55:26.145 --> 0:55:29.725
<v Speaker 4>some pretty eye-rolly stuff. It's simplistic at points, for sure.

0:55:30.525 --> 0:55:33.575
<v Speaker 4>And also, by the way, Molly Ringwald has since said

0:55:33.595 --> 0:55:35.875
<v Speaker 4>that she had some discomfort with some of the sequences

0:55:35.935 --> 0:55:38.855
<v Speaker 4>in that movie. So I think we should probably mention that.

0:55:39.615 --> 0:55:40.134
<v Speaker 3>But it does.

0:55:40.255 --> 0:55:41.995
<v Speaker 2>I think we did.

0:55:42.015 --> 0:55:42.715
<v Speaker 3>But it does.

0:55:43.765 --> 0:55:47.005
<v Speaker 4>Still carry a lot of emotional, like, you know, it's

0:55:47.145 --> 0:55:50.085
<v Speaker 4>like pretty, it has some beautiful things to say, you know,

0:55:50.405 --> 0:55:52.085
<v Speaker 4>these kids really open up to each other. You can

0:55:52.125 --> 0:55:53.925
<v Speaker 4>tell that they were feeling it in the moment. I know,

0:55:53.985 --> 0:55:56.335
<v Speaker 4>I remember even when it came out, all of those actors,

0:55:56.375 --> 0:55:58.695
<v Speaker 4>there was like an article in, I think like Newsweek

0:55:58.735 --> 0:56:00.095
<v Speaker 4>that I read at the time that it came out

0:56:00.135 --> 0:56:01.755
<v Speaker 4>or something. And it was like all of those actors,

0:56:02.195 --> 0:56:04.295
<v Speaker 4>every young actor in Hollywood wanted to be in that movie.

0:56:04.355 --> 0:56:06.295
<v Speaker 4>They like would have killed to be in that movie.

0:56:06.595 --> 0:56:08.515
<v Speaker 4>And you can tell they all just like gave it

0:56:08.535 --> 0:56:11.765
<v Speaker 4>their all. And it's really, it's like, it's pretty beautiful.

0:56:11.865 --> 0:56:13.384
<v Speaker 4>I do have some bad news though. I think that

0:56:13.405 --> 0:56:16.745
<v Speaker 4>song was written for the movie. So I'm not sure

0:56:16.765 --> 0:56:17.805
<v Speaker 4>it qualifies.

0:56:17.865 --> 0:56:20.115
<v Speaker 2>Good thing we didn't go by your definition.

0:56:20.555 --> 0:56:23.455
<v Speaker 1>Oh, yes. See, this is why I don't make rules

0:56:23.515 --> 0:56:24.075
<v Speaker 1>for myself.

0:56:24.115 --> 0:56:24.395
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:56:24.975 --> 0:56:27.555
<v Speaker 2>Not hard and fast rules. I would have never thought that.

0:56:27.675 --> 0:56:29.975
<v Speaker 2>I just always assumed this was a Simple Minds song

0:56:29.995 --> 0:56:31.035
<v Speaker 2>that pre-existed.

0:56:31.085 --> 0:56:33.725
<v Speaker 4>I believe it was written by like a writing crew

0:56:33.825 --> 0:56:36.665
<v Speaker 4>for somebody to do. And it was brought to Simple

0:56:36.685 --> 0:56:38.924
<v Speaker 4>Minds and Simple Minds was like, we don't do like,

0:56:39.125 --> 0:56:40.625
<v Speaker 4>we're going to do our own music. We don't do

0:56:40.665 --> 0:56:41.465
<v Speaker 4>other people's music.

0:56:41.485 --> 0:56:45.725
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. I suppose the title makes sense, especially considering what

0:56:45.765 --> 0:56:48.105
<v Speaker 2>you just said, Josh, about the end of the movie.

0:56:48.365 --> 0:56:50.465
<v Speaker 2>When do you think then that you finally, do you know,

0:56:50.525 --> 0:56:52.245
<v Speaker 2>when did you finally see The Breakfast Club?

0:56:53.735 --> 0:56:56.595
<v Speaker 1>I think, I mean, it had to be like a

0:56:56.655 --> 0:57:01.305
<v Speaker 1>VHS catch up, right? Once VHS... became more popular and

0:57:01.365 --> 0:57:03.725
<v Speaker 1>common and you were going hanging out at friends' houses,

0:57:03.985 --> 0:57:06.085
<v Speaker 1>it's like, okay, this is one that I'm going to

0:57:06.105 --> 0:57:10.265
<v Speaker 1>get to see. Unless I'm misremembering that and it couldn't

0:57:10.285 --> 0:57:11.325
<v Speaker 1>have been the first time for.

0:57:11.285 --> 0:57:12.285
<v Speaker 2>Our sacred cow.

0:57:12.305 --> 0:57:12.565
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

0:57:12.685 --> 0:57:16.165
<v Speaker 2>By 85, it wasn't uncommon for people to have VHS.

0:57:16.385 --> 0:57:20.705
<v Speaker 2>I mean, in 85, I'd already seen this a hundred

0:57:20.745 --> 0:57:23.045
<v Speaker 2>times and had it memorized. That's how often we watch

0:57:23.085 --> 0:57:25.625
<v Speaker 2>this film. So I love that this is on your list.

0:57:25.705 --> 0:57:28.225
<v Speaker 2>It's such a great pick. And I don't want to

0:57:28.865 --> 0:57:31.465
<v Speaker 2>downplay at all that you are positive on this movie.

0:57:31.485 --> 0:57:33.735
<v Speaker 2>You did give it four stars when we revisited it,

0:57:33.805 --> 0:57:36.145
<v Speaker 2>according to Letterboxd, out of five. But I gave it

0:57:36.205 --> 0:57:38.545
<v Speaker 2>five out of five. That's how nostalgic I am for

0:57:38.585 --> 0:57:42.035
<v Speaker 2>The Breakfast Club. So I'm so happy.

0:57:42.135 --> 0:57:43.175
<v Speaker 1>Should be on your list.

0:57:43.415 --> 0:57:46.535
<v Speaker 2>I'm so happy that you put it there. I'm actually going,

0:57:46.755 --> 0:57:50.035
<v Speaker 2>so it's so funny, you're going with a pick from

0:57:50.095 --> 0:57:53.795
<v Speaker 2>a movie that in grade school, in junior high, I

0:57:55.175 --> 0:57:57.895
<v Speaker 2>probably would have said was the greatest movie ever, at

0:57:57.935 --> 0:57:59.895
<v Speaker 2>least in grade school, I would have said it was

0:57:59.915 --> 0:58:02.195
<v Speaker 2>the greatest movie ever made, maybe when I was in

0:58:02.255 --> 0:58:04.275
<v Speaker 2>sixth or seventh grade. And now I'm going to go

0:58:04.295 --> 0:58:08.715
<v Speaker 2>to a pick that is a song from a band

0:58:09.135 --> 0:58:12.075
<v Speaker 2>that I never in junior high or high school would

0:58:12.095 --> 0:58:15.595
<v Speaker 2>have admitted to liking. Now, in fairness, I didn't listen

0:58:15.635 --> 0:58:18.385
<v Speaker 2>to them then. And you set me up nicely for

0:58:18.435 --> 0:58:23.945
<v Speaker 2>this pick, Rico, with your number four. And this is...

0:58:24.485 --> 0:58:26.625
<v Speaker 2>this is a choice. This is another, this is a

0:58:26.665 --> 0:58:30.745
<v Speaker 2>director who I would, I would consider another heavy needle dropper.

0:58:31.045 --> 0:58:33.825
<v Speaker 2>And I liked the choice because heavy is a really

0:58:33.885 --> 0:58:38.055
<v Speaker 2>appropriate word for the song as well. There are a

0:58:38.115 --> 0:58:41.675
<v Speaker 2>lot of options to go with from Sofia Coppola's catalog.

0:58:41.875 --> 0:58:45.375
<v Speaker 2>There's a lot to go with just from Marie Antoinette,

0:58:45.975 --> 0:58:51.175
<v Speaker 2>but my favorite happens to meet my criteria for this list,

0:58:51.195 --> 0:58:57.125
<v Speaker 2>my main criterion. And yeah, 2026 me really digs the cure.

0:58:57.125 --> 0:59:03.655
<v Speaker 2>2006 me was, was cure curious, but, but as I

0:59:03.675 --> 0:59:06.135
<v Speaker 2>was suggesting just a few moments ago, you know, I

0:59:06.195 --> 0:59:09.475
<v Speaker 2>wasn't a listener at all, even in 2006. And, and

0:59:09.975 --> 0:59:11.985
<v Speaker 2>I didn't know when I saw this movie and reviewed

0:59:12.005 --> 0:59:13.545
<v Speaker 2>it here on the show, I didn't know what song

0:59:13.885 --> 0:59:16.465
<v Speaker 2>was playing when I heard it. I just knew I

0:59:17.225 --> 0:59:19.205
<v Speaker 2>thought it was a banger and I had to look

0:59:19.245 --> 0:59:25.165
<v Speaker 2>it up when, when Marie becomes queen. And she and

0:59:25.225 --> 0:59:29.775
<v Speaker 2>King Louie the 16th walk down the descend the staircase

0:59:30.255 --> 0:59:34.265
<v Speaker 2>and everyone's clapping for them. That moment, I just had

0:59:34.305 --> 0:59:37.185
<v Speaker 2>to know what that was. There's no lyrics to it,

0:59:37.445 --> 0:59:40.265
<v Speaker 2>but it was incredible. And the song is The Cure,

0:59:40.895 --> 0:59:50.865
<v Speaker 2>plain song. We don't see a needle drop here. But

0:59:50.985 --> 0:59:53.055
<v Speaker 2>part of what I love about it is that it

0:59:53.225 --> 0:59:56.875
<v Speaker 2>feels like there's a drop. There's an illusion. It's just

0:59:56.935 --> 1:00:01.355
<v Speaker 2>so heavy the way the song comes into that scene

1:00:01.775 --> 1:00:05.925
<v Speaker 2>where King Louis XV has just died. And there's a

1:00:05.995 --> 1:00:09.865
<v Speaker 2>series of shots where we see Schwarzman's Louis XVI being

1:00:09.925 --> 1:00:14.025
<v Speaker 2>crowned his successor. And then a sound comes in on

1:00:14.045 --> 1:00:17.885
<v Speaker 2>the soundtrack that it seems like it could be diegetic almost.

1:00:17.945 --> 1:00:21.525
<v Speaker 2>It's kind of confusing. It seems like chimes. And maybe

1:00:21.545 --> 1:00:26.325
<v Speaker 2>they're coming from inside the church. Or maybe it's non-diegetic,

1:00:26.365 --> 1:00:29.065
<v Speaker 2>but it's like part of a score. It doesn't sound

1:00:29.085 --> 1:00:31.545
<v Speaker 2>like a pop song, but it would be totally appropriate

1:00:32.245 --> 1:00:34.915
<v Speaker 2>for a score for a scene where something so regal

1:00:35.475 --> 1:00:39.815
<v Speaker 2>and sanctified is occurring. And we hear those chimes as

1:00:39.855 --> 1:00:45.455
<v Speaker 2>we see this gorgeous close-up of Kirsten Dunst looking on

1:00:45.775 --> 1:00:49.915
<v Speaker 2>at her husband being crowned. And the camera is just

1:00:50.145 --> 1:00:53.505
<v Speaker 2>ever so slowly tracking forward on her and her face

1:00:53.585 --> 1:00:58.265
<v Speaker 2>is betraying very little, but it's suggesting perhaps some reverence

1:00:58.345 --> 1:01:01.045
<v Speaker 2>for her husband, maybe some pride, but also as I

1:01:01.105 --> 1:01:04.675
<v Speaker 2>read it, some trepidation, maybe some anxiousness. And then the

1:01:04.715 --> 1:01:08.255
<v Speaker 2>heavy part is we're still hearing these chimes, but then

1:01:08.575 --> 1:01:13.535
<v Speaker 2>there's the cut from her face to the stairs. It's official.

1:01:14.215 --> 1:01:18.795
<v Speaker 2>He's the king. She's the queen. And it, is on

1:01:18.855 --> 1:01:24.595
<v Speaker 2>a cymbal crash, and we get that huge synth bass sound.

1:01:25.165 --> 1:01:28.085
<v Speaker 2>And it really does feel like the sound has just

1:01:28.125 --> 1:01:32.665
<v Speaker 2>completely dropped, and we see them moving to that great adulation.

1:01:32.965 --> 1:01:34.625
<v Speaker 2>And of course, like the rest of the movie, it's

1:01:34.645 --> 1:01:39.165
<v Speaker 2>totally anachronistic. It feels like it could be the score

1:01:40.025 --> 1:01:43.235
<v Speaker 2>from a prom scene, Josh, from an 80s movie like

1:01:43.275 --> 1:01:46.495
<v Speaker 2>The Breakfast Club, almost, to be more appropriate for that.

1:01:46.895 --> 1:01:50.995
<v Speaker 2>But the The rhythm of it, the momentousness of it,

1:01:51.525 --> 1:01:56.305
<v Speaker 2>it sounds sweeping. It sounds grand like it should be.

1:01:56.775 --> 1:01:59.615
<v Speaker 2>It's just, it's perfect for the scene. And then if

1:02:00.055 --> 1:02:01.795
<v Speaker 2>you do go and listen to the song, if you

1:02:01.835 --> 1:02:05.635
<v Speaker 2>listen to Plain Song, you realize that the chimes are

1:02:05.715 --> 1:02:09.035
<v Speaker 2>part of the song. It isn't just the bass synth stuff,

1:02:09.275 --> 1:02:12.645
<v Speaker 2>the keyboards or whatever. It's the chimes are actually leading

1:02:12.705 --> 1:02:17.075
<v Speaker 2>into it. And that cymbal crash that then is the

1:02:17.115 --> 1:02:20.655
<v Speaker 2>precursor to the, to the synth. It, it's all part

1:02:20.675 --> 1:02:23.695
<v Speaker 2>of the song and, and that it's just such an

1:02:23.995 --> 1:02:28.425
<v Speaker 2>elegant choice for that scene. It was like, it was

1:02:29.065 --> 1:02:32.265
<v Speaker 2>truly like it was made for that moment. And I

1:02:32.305 --> 1:02:34.905
<v Speaker 2>suppose it makes sense that the reverse is true, that

1:02:34.945 --> 1:02:38.065
<v Speaker 2>Sofia Coppola just knew how to perfectly execute the visuals

1:02:38.165 --> 1:02:41.575
<v Speaker 2>around the music. And, and maybe that's exactly what she

1:02:41.615 --> 1:02:44.115
<v Speaker 2>had in mind is, is the way she actually did

1:02:44.235 --> 1:02:45.395
<v Speaker 2>execute it. I love it.

1:02:46.175 --> 1:02:49.035
<v Speaker 4>I think that may be also why that, because it

1:02:49.535 --> 1:02:54.225
<v Speaker 4>presages a party sequence. It goes, it segues from this

1:02:54.445 --> 1:02:57.805
<v Speaker 4>regal thing into a party sequence all within the same song.

1:02:58.585 --> 1:03:01.425
<v Speaker 4>And it maybe is partially why that is one of

1:03:01.445 --> 1:03:03.905
<v Speaker 4>the great party sequences of all time, because it gets

1:03:03.965 --> 1:03:08.595
<v Speaker 4>across how a great party feels when you're young. It

1:03:08.675 --> 1:03:09.915
<v Speaker 4>feels like more than a party.

1:03:09.955 --> 1:03:12.675
<v Speaker 3>It's like, this is where it is at.

1:03:12.735 --> 1:03:12.855
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

1:03:15.285 --> 1:03:16.945
<v Speaker 3>It's very almost famous.

1:03:17.805 --> 1:03:20.225
<v Speaker 4>And you know that she knows her music because it's

1:03:20.265 --> 1:03:21.725
<v Speaker 4>a rare song that's going to be able to do

1:03:21.765 --> 1:03:24.645
<v Speaker 4>that where you can pivot from something that grand into

1:03:24.685 --> 1:03:27.515
<v Speaker 4>something that youthful. And I mean, it's interesting because when

1:03:27.555 --> 1:03:29.775
<v Speaker 4>I first saw that movie, I could have sworn because

1:03:29.795 --> 1:03:31.175
<v Speaker 4>she's the kind of person that would do this and

1:03:31.255 --> 1:03:35.185
<v Speaker 4>has in fact used bands like New Order. And I

1:03:35.285 --> 1:03:37.705
<v Speaker 4>thought for sure this must have been early factory records,

1:03:37.725 --> 1:03:40.765
<v Speaker 4>like a much earlier song. I thought that it was

1:03:40.805 --> 1:03:43.345
<v Speaker 4>like maybe one of those deals. And it's actually a

1:03:43.385 --> 1:03:45.885
<v Speaker 4>late model 80s tune. For me, it's a deeper cut.

1:03:45.925 --> 1:03:48.315
<v Speaker 4>It's a deeper cut Cura song and a pretty astute

1:03:48.435 --> 1:03:49.015
<v Speaker 4>one to use.

1:03:50.215 --> 1:03:53.255
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Adam, you're warming my heart here. Is this your

1:03:53.295 --> 1:03:56.705
<v Speaker 1>first Sofia Coppola top five? pick, it might be.

1:03:56.925 --> 1:04:01.205
<v Speaker 2>It's possible. It's possible. You went with The Breakfast Club

1:04:01.245 --> 1:04:04.045
<v Speaker 2>and I went with Sofia Coppola. We've switched bodies here

1:04:04.085 --> 1:04:04.845
<v Speaker 2>for this top five.

1:04:05.105 --> 1:04:08.585
<v Speaker 1>Apparently. And The Cure, I mean, listen, I'm not going

1:04:08.605 --> 1:04:12.085
<v Speaker 1>to claim I was listening, you know, disintegration era, but

1:04:12.185 --> 1:04:15.425
<v Speaker 1>Wish was kind of my like, oh, why have I

1:04:15.505 --> 1:04:18.785
<v Speaker 1>not been into The Cure? And yeah, the way it

1:04:18.845 --> 1:04:23.765
<v Speaker 1>works in this sequence and Coppola uses it is absolutely brilliant.

1:04:23.825 --> 1:04:26.825
<v Speaker 1>So So what a win this, what a win these

1:04:26.885 --> 1:04:28.645
<v Speaker 1>lists have been for me so far already.

1:04:28.665 --> 1:04:30.965
<v Speaker 4>By the way, Gang of Four kicking off that movie

1:04:31.025 --> 1:04:32.525
<v Speaker 4>is a total genius choice too.

1:04:32.565 --> 1:04:33.485
<v Speaker 3>I thought for sure.

1:04:33.345 --> 1:04:35.325
<v Speaker 4>When you were starting to talk about that movie, I

1:04:35.325 --> 1:04:37.505
<v Speaker 4>was like, oh, it's going to be that tune because

1:04:37.545 --> 1:04:38.005
<v Speaker 4>it's crazy.

1:04:38.465 --> 1:04:40.115
<v Speaker 2>Like I said, so many options.

1:04:40.825 --> 1:04:44.035
<v Speaker 1>And also, you know, you're talking about seeing a character

1:04:44.695 --> 1:04:47.715
<v Speaker 1>actually like drop the needle. That would not have been

1:04:47.755 --> 1:04:49.935
<v Speaker 1>out of place in that movie. Like we have the

1:04:49.995 --> 1:04:52.975
<v Speaker 1>Converse sneakers, right? I mean, so we might as well

1:04:53.375 --> 1:04:56.915
<v Speaker 1>have somebody, you know, dialing up the cure on a

1:04:56.975 --> 1:05:10.385
<v Speaker 1>record player or something like that. So a reminder, we

1:05:10.435 --> 1:05:13.565
<v Speaker 1>will have picks three through one coming your way. Look

1:05:13.605 --> 1:05:17.265
<v Speaker 1>for that in the feed. Right now, let's take a

1:05:17.305 --> 1:05:20.575
<v Speaker 1>few minutes to thank some members of the Film Spotting family.

1:05:21.205 --> 1:05:24.955
<v Speaker 1>Membership in the family is the single source of support

1:05:24.995 --> 1:05:28.355
<v Speaker 1>for the show. We are independently produced, and so the

1:05:28.375 --> 1:05:30.815
<v Speaker 1>support we get from our listeners is how we're able

1:05:30.855 --> 1:05:34.135
<v Speaker 1>to keep doing this. This is the last weekend. If

1:05:34.175 --> 1:05:36.495
<v Speaker 1>you're listening to this as soon as the show dropped,

1:05:36.535 --> 1:05:39.015
<v Speaker 1>this will be the last weekend for you. to get

1:05:39.135 --> 1:05:43.915
<v Speaker 1>our 20% off discount that we are offering for family membership.

1:05:43.935 --> 1:05:46.285
<v Speaker 1>We're doing this through August 31st. All you have to

1:05:46.325 --> 1:05:50.765
<v Speaker 1>do is use the promo code summer at filmspottingfamily.com and

1:05:50.785 --> 1:05:53.845
<v Speaker 1>you can join the family for 20% off. We want

1:05:53.865 --> 1:05:57.225
<v Speaker 1>to thank family members Michael Shaw, who's in LA, and

1:05:57.265 --> 1:05:59.105
<v Speaker 1>Mikey Rogers in Nashville.

1:05:59.625 --> 1:06:02.525
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Michael and Mikey. We start with Michael, who says

1:06:02.845 --> 1:06:06.035
<v Speaker 2>he found us on a colleague's recommendation, American Fiction and

1:06:06.075 --> 1:06:09.625
<v Speaker 2>What Siskel and Ebert Got Wrong. We're among early listens,

1:06:09.685 --> 1:06:11.265
<v Speaker 2>but I went back at least as far as Josh

1:06:11.325 --> 1:06:14.495
<v Speaker 2>and Michael's review of Sorry to Bother You. Reviews we

1:06:14.515 --> 1:06:18.235
<v Speaker 2>got wrong. Almost every blockbuster slash superhero movie that could

1:06:18.255 --> 1:06:21.895
<v Speaker 2>have been devoted to a potential Golden Brick nominee. Apologies

1:06:21.955 --> 1:06:25.875
<v Speaker 2>to the blockbuster aficionado. So he wants more arthouse stuff.

1:06:26.115 --> 1:06:26.435
<v Speaker 3>Yes.

1:06:27.515 --> 1:06:28.695
<v Speaker 2>Doesn't mean you were wrong.

1:06:29.385 --> 1:06:32.585
<v Speaker 1>Just a golden brick show is what Michael wants, it

1:06:32.605 --> 1:06:33.825
<v Speaker 1>sounds like. Not a bad idea.

1:06:33.845 --> 1:06:36.445
<v Speaker 2>A movie he credits with becoming a cinephile. I'm not

1:06:36.485 --> 1:06:39.625
<v Speaker 2>sure I've earned genuine cinephile status, but A Clockwork Orange

1:06:39.645 --> 1:06:42.205
<v Speaker 2>was the first film that made me in awe of

1:06:42.245 --> 1:06:43.045
<v Speaker 2>the power of film.

1:06:44.535 --> 1:06:47.955
<v Speaker 1>Mikey says, Josh's book Movies Are Prayers was recommended to

1:06:47.995 --> 1:06:49.515
<v Speaker 1>me by a friend. I found the book to be

1:06:49.555 --> 1:06:52.335
<v Speaker 1>really encouraging, both as a person of Christian faith and

1:06:52.535 --> 1:06:55.275
<v Speaker 1>as a cinephile. This led me to check out the podcast.

1:06:55.575 --> 1:06:58.395
<v Speaker 1>Though not an official film spotting review, I got to

1:06:58.435 --> 1:07:01.885
<v Speaker 1>attend part of Cinema Interruptus for Phantom Thread on a

1:07:01.925 --> 1:07:05.945
<v Speaker 1>trip to Chicago last December. Hearing how Josh facilitated discussion

1:07:05.965 --> 1:07:08.905
<v Speaker 1>of the film inspired me to become a more regular

1:07:09.025 --> 1:07:11.625
<v Speaker 1>listener of the show. Well, thank you, Mikey.

1:07:11.685 --> 1:07:13.615
<v Speaker 2>Thank you for getting us some listeners, Josh.

1:07:13.895 --> 1:07:15.335
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I do what I can. I'm out there

1:07:15.375 --> 1:07:18.755
<v Speaker 1>on the streets, Adam. For Mikey, a review we got wrong.

1:07:19.135 --> 1:07:22.685
<v Speaker 1>Dune and Dune Part 2. I think with enough patience,

1:07:22.805 --> 1:07:26.975
<v Speaker 1>these movies are aesthetically rich and thematically profound. Though Josh

1:07:27.115 --> 1:07:29.775
<v Speaker 1>and Adam didn't deride the films, I didn't get the

1:07:29.835 --> 1:07:35.325
<v Speaker 1>enthusiasm I was hoping for towards such a top-quality fantasy blockbuster.

1:07:35.345 --> 1:07:38.445
<v Speaker 1>Not much enthusiasm, no. I mean, I feel like I'm

1:07:38.485 --> 1:07:43.145
<v Speaker 1>getting roped into your lack of enthusiasm, Adam. I do appreciate—

1:07:43.165 --> 1:07:44.605
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how you feel, really.

1:07:44.665 --> 1:07:47.355
<v Speaker 2>I can't remember. I'm saying I'm not enthusiastic.

1:07:48.055 --> 1:07:49.945
<v Speaker 1>I know you aren't, and And I'm taking the blame

1:07:50.005 --> 1:07:53.065
<v Speaker 1>for it. I'm positive on both films. Maybe I'm not

1:07:53.505 --> 1:07:57.725
<v Speaker 1>quite as enthusiastic as Mikey, I guess. Okay. As for

1:07:57.945 --> 1:08:01.285
<v Speaker 1>a credit, a movie that Mikey credits with becoming a cinephile,

1:08:01.585 --> 1:08:04.885
<v Speaker 1>Captain America, The Winter Soldier, saw it in theaters when

1:08:04.925 --> 1:08:08.425
<v Speaker 1>I was 12. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Mikey, for

1:08:08.505 --> 1:08:10.905
<v Speaker 1>joining the family and for listening. You can follow Mikey

1:08:10.945 --> 1:08:16.435
<v Speaker 1>on Letterboxd at MikeyRogers58. This response to the questionnaire we

1:08:16.455 --> 1:08:19.225
<v Speaker 1>got from Michael said, not on Letterboxd yet, but may

1:08:19.265 --> 1:08:22.025
<v Speaker 1>bite the bullet soon. You should do that, Michael. It's

1:08:22.045 --> 1:08:22.465
<v Speaker 1>a lot of fun.

1:08:22.985 --> 1:08:25.684
<v Speaker 2>If we're throwing out cliches, bite the bullet, take the plunge,

1:08:25.765 --> 1:08:27.835
<v Speaker 2>do whatever you have to do, Michael. It's worth it.

1:08:28.184 --> 1:08:33.485
<v Speaker 2>More about joining the FilmSpotting family is available at filmspottingfamily.com.

1:08:33.505 --> 1:08:36.925
<v Speaker 2>You get to listen early and ad-free. You get access

1:08:37.025 --> 1:08:42.665
<v Speaker 2>to that FilmSpotting family-only feed that lets you listen ad-free,

1:08:42.905 --> 1:08:46.385
<v Speaker 2>whether it's on Apple, Spotify, whatever platform you choose. You

1:08:46.405 --> 1:08:51.515
<v Speaker 2>get our weekly newsletter. you get access to the film

1:08:51.535 --> 1:08:57.375
<v Speaker 2>spotting family discord. You also get access to our monthly

1:08:57.655 --> 1:09:01.295
<v Speaker 2>bonus shows. We have not yet taped it, but coming soon,

1:09:01.575 --> 1:09:05.655
<v Speaker 2>you will hear our August blind spotting discussion of Kiyoshi

1:09:05.755 --> 1:09:11.485
<v Speaker 2>Kurosawa's cure from 1997. That's an interesting film. We'll be

1:09:11.985 --> 1:09:13.155
<v Speaker 2>an interesting through the ringer.

1:09:13.505 --> 1:09:13.765
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

1:09:14.065 --> 1:09:16.665
<v Speaker 2>To have a dialogue about that streaming on the criterion

1:09:16.705 --> 1:09:20.075
<v Speaker 2>channel and available on VOD, we plan to drop that

1:09:20.215 --> 1:09:24.724
<v Speaker 2>in your family feed. on August 30th. And in September,

1:09:25.225 --> 1:09:29.125
<v Speaker 2>Trivia Spotting, exclusive for family members. So if you would

1:09:29.165 --> 1:09:31.725
<v Speaker 2>like to play Trivia Spotting, you got to be a

1:09:31.745 --> 1:09:35.505
<v Speaker 2>Film Spotting family member. Check your email. You should have

1:09:35.885 --> 1:09:39.275
<v Speaker 2>an invite in your email. RSVP for that. If you

1:09:39.305 --> 1:09:41.564
<v Speaker 2>would like to play, remember the promo code is summer

1:09:42.005 --> 1:09:46.505
<v Speaker 2>and it is only available through August 31st to take 20%

1:09:46.505 --> 1:09:48.365
<v Speaker 2>off filmspottingfamily.com.

1:09:50.125 --> 1:09:52.045
<v Speaker 4>What if we're supposed to suffer.

1:09:53.345 --> 1:09:54.625
<v Speaker 1>Here?

1:09:54.825 --> 1:09:55.915
<v Speaker 3>What if that's the point?

1:09:57.815 --> 1:10:01.575
<v Speaker 1>I'll do it.

1:10:02.415 --> 1:10:06.535
<v Speaker 2>It's time for some golden brick spotting. It Ends is

1:10:06.695 --> 1:10:10.175
<v Speaker 2>new in theaters this weekend. A car full of recent

1:10:10.215 --> 1:10:13.415
<v Speaker 2>grads heads out for a final hang before they go

1:10:13.455 --> 1:10:16.855
<v Speaker 2>their separate ways. A wrong turn puts them on an

1:10:16.955 --> 1:10:21.634
<v Speaker 2>unfamiliar road that seems to never end. The plot description

1:10:21.675 --> 1:10:26.145
<v Speaker 2>available online, Josh, refers to it as a two-lane hellscape.

1:10:26.805 --> 1:10:30.445
<v Speaker 2>You have seen It Ends, which is from first-time feature writer,

1:10:30.565 --> 1:10:35.395
<v Speaker 2>director Alexander Ulam. Producer Sam suggests that I should ask

1:10:35.455 --> 1:10:39.594
<v Speaker 2>you if Hellscape is an accurate description, but what producer

1:10:39.635 --> 1:10:43.395
<v Speaker 2>Sam doesn't know and what you don't know is that

1:10:43.715 --> 1:10:45.845
<v Speaker 2>I have a pretty good idea whether or not Hellscape

1:10:45.885 --> 1:10:50.125
<v Speaker 2>is accurate because it turns out that just prior to

1:10:50.245 --> 1:10:51.765
<v Speaker 2>sitting down to record the show with you.

1:10:51.785 --> 1:10:52.745
<v Speaker 3>Do you fit it in?

1:10:53.105 --> 1:10:54.485
<v Speaker 2>I managed to fit in it.

1:10:54.725 --> 1:10:55.105
<v Speaker 1>Nice.

1:10:55.425 --> 1:10:59.285
<v Speaker 2>Now I do feel like I am still processing this film.

1:11:00.275 --> 1:11:05.095
<v Speaker 2>I want, I want to leave the review. officially up

1:11:05.155 --> 1:11:10.775
<v Speaker 2>to you, but I, I can co-sign any recommendation of

1:11:10.815 --> 1:11:14.325
<v Speaker 2>this and do feel like it is deserving of any

1:11:14.365 --> 1:11:18.145
<v Speaker 2>golden brick nomination that you may give it. This is

1:11:18.165 --> 1:11:22.605
<v Speaker 2>a really good film. The question I'm most eager to

1:11:22.725 --> 1:11:26.365
<v Speaker 2>ask you is, is Gen Z okay?

1:11:27.565 --> 1:11:31.685
<v Speaker 1>No, no, they're not. And they shouldn't be. Think of

1:11:31.725 --> 1:11:36.165
<v Speaker 1>what they're going through. Now, here's the other question. Does

1:11:36.705 --> 1:11:41.545
<v Speaker 1>It Ends directly address specifically what they're going through in

1:11:41.645 --> 1:11:46.635
<v Speaker 1>this moment in time? Does it address what anyone graduating

1:11:46.675 --> 1:11:50.595
<v Speaker 1>from college is going through? I think for me, it's

1:11:51.095 --> 1:11:53.845
<v Speaker 1>maybe somewhere in the middle, which is partly why I

1:11:53.885 --> 1:11:57.965
<v Speaker 1>think it's a really good movie is because it's It's topical,

1:11:58.045 --> 1:12:00.285
<v Speaker 1>but universal. Yes.

1:12:00.395 --> 1:12:01.995
<v Speaker 2>Specific, but universal enough.

1:12:02.055 --> 1:12:05.955
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. To the hellscape question, I

1:12:05.995 --> 1:12:07.875
<v Speaker 1>think what I would tell people, I do not want

1:12:07.895 --> 1:12:10.415
<v Speaker 1>to spoil anything because I had no idea beyond that

1:12:10.475 --> 1:12:15.735
<v Speaker 1>basic premise where this was going. It definitely begins like

1:12:15.775 --> 1:12:22.805
<v Speaker 1>a waiting for good old type puzzler. Existential, vaguely allows

1:12:22.845 --> 1:12:27.125
<v Speaker 1>you to ruminate on these big questions and Just before

1:12:27.245 --> 1:12:31.005
<v Speaker 1>the title drops takes a, uh, shall we see a

1:12:31.285 --> 1:12:34.144
<v Speaker 1>zombie movie like turn though? This is not a zombie movie.

1:12:34.185 --> 1:12:36.685
<v Speaker 1>It is not want to be clear about that. Um,

1:12:37.165 --> 1:12:38.945
<v Speaker 1>but it, it makes a turn that brings it a

1:12:38.965 --> 1:12:42.305
<v Speaker 1>little closer to maybe a hellscape. Um, but really what

1:12:42.325 --> 1:12:45.844
<v Speaker 1>I loved about this is it's, it's a malleable metaphor

1:12:45.885 --> 1:12:50.245
<v Speaker 1>movie and it, it, that, but it's not so vague

1:12:50.285 --> 1:12:53.805
<v Speaker 1>that it means nothing, but it could precisely mean a

1:12:54.155 --> 1:12:57.485
<v Speaker 1>lot of things to different people. because of the care

1:12:58.025 --> 1:13:01.965
<v Speaker 1>that a Lomaz writer-director making his feature debut puts into

1:13:02.305 --> 1:13:08.125
<v Speaker 1>this and the details of this constricted world that he provides.

1:13:08.165 --> 1:13:10.305
<v Speaker 1>I think it allows you to think that this could be,

1:13:10.925 --> 1:13:15.905
<v Speaker 1>you know, about a number of things. For me, most richly,

1:13:16.025 --> 1:13:20.335
<v Speaker 1>it is about the obvious question of, you know, am

1:13:20.375 --> 1:13:23.675
<v Speaker 1>I now going to enter the monotony of responsible adulthood?

1:13:24.945 --> 1:13:28.575
<v Speaker 1>That's the universal part, right? At the same time, I'm

1:13:28.755 --> 1:13:34.435
<v Speaker 1>eager to see what other interpretations people have, specifically moviegoers

1:13:34.815 --> 1:13:36.835
<v Speaker 1>of the age of these characters, and see how it

1:13:36.875 --> 1:13:40.025
<v Speaker 1>resonates with them, because I think it has that power.

1:13:40.725 --> 1:13:44.025
<v Speaker 1>I also want to call out the lead performer. Well,

1:13:44.045 --> 1:13:45.945
<v Speaker 1>it's not a lead performance. It's maybe the lead of

1:13:45.965 --> 1:13:51.875
<v Speaker 1>this ensemble. I think it is. Yeah, Phineas Ewan. As James,

1:13:52.015 --> 1:13:56.595
<v Speaker 1>who is this cynical, sarcastic, very funny, the kind of

1:13:56.615 --> 1:13:58.975
<v Speaker 1>guy who says no offense to his friend, and then

1:13:59.035 --> 1:14:02.075
<v Speaker 1>you know is going to follow it with something quite offensive.

1:14:02.475 --> 1:14:04.485
<v Speaker 2>He's a cervic. It's a sharp performance.

1:14:04.765 --> 1:14:08.865
<v Speaker 1>It's a sharp performance. But then on top of that,

1:14:08.925 --> 1:14:14.885
<v Speaker 1>he finds ways to layer it with gestures that speak

1:14:14.965 --> 1:14:19.915
<v Speaker 1>to the deep emotionality going inside this young man as well.

1:14:20.115 --> 1:14:21.675
<v Speaker 1>The one that comes back to me, and maybe this

1:14:21.715 --> 1:14:24.395
<v Speaker 1>was written to the script, but it's where he writes

1:14:24.515 --> 1:14:26.814
<v Speaker 1>in marker, his name on a head, on the headrest

1:14:26.855 --> 1:14:30.035
<v Speaker 1>at one point, and then just so slowly smudges it out.

1:14:30.915 --> 1:14:36.445
<v Speaker 1>And the sense of sort of resignation and loss and

1:14:36.905 --> 1:14:39.985
<v Speaker 1>the loss of yearning. It's not even that he's yearning.

1:14:40.025 --> 1:14:42.945
<v Speaker 1>It's like the loss of yearning that that communicates. It's

1:14:42.985 --> 1:14:48.255
<v Speaker 1>an incredible performance. I think in this movie, and Olam

1:14:48.295 --> 1:14:50.915
<v Speaker 1>as director too manages ways. I think here's where it's

1:14:50.955 --> 1:14:55.675
<v Speaker 1>golden brick worthy is not only the idea, the sort

1:14:55.715 --> 1:15:00.155
<v Speaker 1>of clever visionary idea, but the filmmaking here really manages

1:15:00.275 --> 1:15:05.165
<v Speaker 1>to make this constricted setting compelling. I keep thinking of

1:15:05.205 --> 1:15:08.025
<v Speaker 1>a shot which we've seen a million times, the cameras

1:15:08.085 --> 1:15:11.585
<v Speaker 1>inside the car looking outside as they're just driving past

1:15:11.625 --> 1:15:14.905
<v Speaker 1>these woods continually, right? And in the same shot you

1:15:15.005 --> 1:15:19.145
<v Speaker 1>see the trees blurring by outside the window, but he

1:15:19.185 --> 1:15:22.215
<v Speaker 1>also has the side mirror, which is capturing the trees

1:15:22.275 --> 1:15:25.795
<v Speaker 1>blurring from another angle. And it's all in the same shot.

1:15:26.175 --> 1:15:30.235
<v Speaker 1>And the way that just, you know, evokes their experience

1:15:30.355 --> 1:15:34.995
<v Speaker 1>of the bizarre passing of space and time is it's,

1:15:35.145 --> 1:15:38.785
<v Speaker 1>it's just a really visually insightful touch that I think

1:15:38.805 --> 1:15:41.685
<v Speaker 1>this movie is full of. Um, so yeah, but what,

1:15:41.765 --> 1:15:44.635
<v Speaker 1>what did I totally, you know, you having just seen it,

1:15:44.685 --> 1:15:48.805
<v Speaker 1>I can't imagine. The way your mind is worrying, not

1:15:48.845 --> 1:15:52.025
<v Speaker 1>because it's so puzzling, but because it opens so many possibilities,

1:15:52.085 --> 1:15:52.545
<v Speaker 1>I feel like.

1:15:52.705 --> 1:15:55.405
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, no, I had a similar reaction, I think, to

1:15:55.465 --> 1:15:58.825
<v Speaker 2>you in that the Yoon performance stood out very much

1:15:58.865 --> 1:16:03.435
<v Speaker 2>to me. I do think the overarching metaphor of it

1:16:03.495 --> 1:16:06.115
<v Speaker 2>seems very malleable. I think that's the right term. I

1:16:06.155 --> 1:16:10.275
<v Speaker 2>think a lot of different people could attach their own

1:16:10.355 --> 1:16:13.535
<v Speaker 2>significance to it. At the same time, it feels very

1:16:13.595 --> 1:16:18.155
<v Speaker 2>much of this generation. I have to imagine that people

1:16:19.115 --> 1:16:25.135
<v Speaker 2>graduating like these characters are going to feel a bit

1:16:25.195 --> 1:16:27.955
<v Speaker 2>more potency, are going to feel a little bit more,

1:16:28.755 --> 1:16:32.145
<v Speaker 2>indicted's the wrong word because it's not an assault on

1:16:32.185 --> 1:16:35.085
<v Speaker 2>them necessarily, but they're going to feel a little bit

1:16:35.125 --> 1:16:37.344
<v Speaker 2>more of an attachment, if you will, to these characters.

1:16:38.025 --> 1:16:42.245
<v Speaker 2>The thing that surprised me about it is that it

1:16:42.285 --> 1:16:45.905
<v Speaker 2>is a high concept. There's no doubt. And it's a

1:16:45.945 --> 1:16:51.175
<v Speaker 2>minimalist type film. And so as a viewer, if you're

1:16:52.015 --> 1:16:54.604
<v Speaker 2>captivated enough by it, if you're intrigued enough by it,

1:16:54.715 --> 1:16:58.775
<v Speaker 2>as I was, you can't help but think, where is

1:16:58.815 --> 1:17:02.455
<v Speaker 2>this going? How is this journey going to end? I

1:17:02.535 --> 1:17:10.535
<v Speaker 2>don't know that any ending can be 100% satisfying. And

1:17:10.565 --> 1:17:13.505
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if it is 100% satisfying, but at

1:17:13.525 --> 1:17:17.505
<v Speaker 2>the same, at the same time, watching it I was

1:17:17.525 --> 1:17:26.605
<v Speaker 2>I was so pleasantly surprised with how effectively Olam kept

1:17:26.725 --> 1:17:32.005
<v Speaker 2>it feeling vibrant kept it feeling like there was always

1:17:32.105 --> 1:17:36.005
<v Speaker 2>something new that there was not only something new always

1:17:36.105 --> 1:17:40.354
<v Speaker 2>to look at the way these characters were finding ways

1:17:40.415 --> 1:17:45.665
<v Speaker 2>to pass the time finding new ways to emotionally challenge

1:17:45.725 --> 1:17:49.665
<v Speaker 2>themselves to have new ways that they were, that they

1:17:49.705 --> 1:17:53.425
<v Speaker 2>were in tension with each other and intention with themselves.

1:17:54.945 --> 1:17:58.265
<v Speaker 2>That that's, that's one of the challenges as a viewer

1:17:58.305 --> 1:18:01.665
<v Speaker 2>watching the film is just thinking, how are we going?

1:18:01.825 --> 1:18:03.665
<v Speaker 2>How are we going to pass the time with these

1:18:03.725 --> 1:18:07.265
<v Speaker 2>characters and keep it interesting and keep it from getting monotonous?

1:18:07.985 --> 1:18:10.945
<v Speaker 2>And it didn't feel that way. It never got that.

1:18:11.425 --> 1:18:14.245
<v Speaker 2>It never got to that point for me, these characters.

1:18:14.935 --> 1:18:18.835
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. I'd agree. And to your point about the ending is, yeah,

1:18:19.295 --> 1:18:21.115
<v Speaker 1>when you come up with a high concept like this,

1:18:21.375 --> 1:18:23.395
<v Speaker 1>you're setting yourself up to fail with an ending that's

1:18:23.415 --> 1:18:26.475
<v Speaker 1>going to be completely satisfying for everyone. I kind of

1:18:26.515 --> 1:18:31.275
<v Speaker 1>loved where this ended with a mixture of mystery and humor.

1:18:31.305 --> 1:18:31.735
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

1:18:32.325 --> 1:18:38.064
<v Speaker 1>And without undercutting anything that came before. I feel like.

1:18:38.165 --> 1:18:43.165
<v Speaker 1>So that is, again, for a emerging filmmaker, that is

1:18:43.185 --> 1:18:47.735
<v Speaker 1>a challenge you set for yourself. Not only the box visually,

1:18:48.255 --> 1:18:51.695
<v Speaker 1>physically you've placed yourself in, but also having to come

1:18:51.755 --> 1:18:55.515
<v Speaker 1>up with a resolution to this concept. And I think

1:18:55.835 --> 1:18:58.195
<v Speaker 1>Ola manages both pretty impressively.

1:18:58.895 --> 1:19:01.025
<v Speaker 2>We really can't get into this because it would be spoiler,

1:19:01.045 --> 1:19:03.825
<v Speaker 2>but I'm just going to ask you this generally anyway.

1:19:05.245 --> 1:19:09.645
<v Speaker 2>The number... 90 seconds has significance in this.

1:19:09.705 --> 1:19:10.715
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Yeah.

1:19:11.425 --> 1:19:13.564
<v Speaker 2>Do you have a theory on that? Have you researched that?

1:19:14.305 --> 1:19:18.465
<v Speaker 1>I haven't. Why, why exactly that amount of time? No,

1:19:19.145 --> 1:19:23.815
<v Speaker 1>I've researched other bizarre things related to this movie, but

1:19:23.895 --> 1:19:26.635
<v Speaker 1>not that. So you've piqued my curiosity. Do you have something?

1:19:27.875 --> 1:19:29.115
<v Speaker 2>I think I have something.

1:19:29.635 --> 1:19:29.995
<v Speaker 1>Okay.

1:19:30.255 --> 1:19:31.895
<v Speaker 2>It can't be random, right?

1:19:32.255 --> 1:19:32.655
<v Speaker 1>No, no, no.

1:19:32.895 --> 1:19:35.595
<v Speaker 2>It just cannot be. Why would it be that? As

1:19:35.615 --> 1:19:37.915
<v Speaker 2>well thought out as this movie is, it can't be, right? No,

1:19:38.025 --> 1:19:40.745
<v Speaker 2>it just, it simply can't be. And so I think I,

1:19:40.985 --> 1:19:43.225
<v Speaker 2>I think I have a theory. I don't think it's that,

1:19:44.845 --> 1:19:49.245
<v Speaker 2>that incredible, that remarkable, but it seems kind of obvious

1:19:49.285 --> 1:19:53.805
<v Speaker 2>to me or it just pedestrian, if you will, but

1:19:54.225 --> 1:19:56.355
<v Speaker 2>I don't know what else it could be in relation

1:19:56.365 --> 1:19:59.415
<v Speaker 2>to this film. And, and the state that these characters

1:19:59.595 --> 1:20:05.015
<v Speaker 2>are in, but I'm just curious and I'll have to

1:20:05.035 --> 1:20:06.775
<v Speaker 2>run it by you off air and see what you.

1:20:06.975 --> 1:20:09.215
<v Speaker 1>Oh, cause it would, it would spoil. It would spoil.

1:20:09.755 --> 1:20:12.575
<v Speaker 2>It would, it would give away, it would certainly give

1:20:12.615 --> 1:20:14.945
<v Speaker 2>away the state these characters are in, which I don't

1:20:14.965 --> 1:20:17.445
<v Speaker 2>think we want to get into those kinds of details.

1:20:18.145 --> 1:20:18.965
<v Speaker 1>Okay. Fair enough.

1:20:18.985 --> 1:20:22.005
<v Speaker 2>At this, at this point for, for people who are

1:20:22.065 --> 1:20:25.685
<v Speaker 2>coming to this, this movie, this movie fresh. and we

1:20:25.725 --> 1:20:28.725
<v Speaker 2>are recommending that people see It Ends, and we are

1:20:29.405 --> 1:20:31.665
<v Speaker 2>going to add it to our list of Golden Brick

1:20:32.245 --> 1:20:37.195
<v Speaker 2>nominees over at filmspotting.net. It opens in limited release this weekend.

1:20:37.735 --> 1:20:39.775
<v Speaker 2>What are you doing here? I'm coming with you.

1:20:39.995 --> 1:20:40.195
<v Speaker 1>No.

1:20:40.795 --> 1:20:41.295
<v Speaker 4>Please get out.

1:20:41.655 --> 1:20:42.035
<v Speaker 1>I can't.

1:20:42.355 --> 1:20:45.115
<v Speaker 2>I made a double bet with Ken, and you can't

1:20:45.135 --> 1:20:47.995
<v Speaker 2>make me look uncool in front of Ken. Ken's not cool!

1:20:48.355 --> 1:20:50.325
<v Speaker 2>He is to me. Time to take a look at

1:20:50.725 --> 1:20:52.485
<v Speaker 2>some poll results. A couple of weeks ago, we asked

1:20:52.505 --> 1:20:55.674
<v Speaker 2>you to choose a director's third feature, That was released

1:20:56.115 --> 1:21:02.275
<v Speaker 2>since 2020. I said this wasn't arbitrary. It's not arbitrary.

1:21:02.975 --> 1:21:06.055
<v Speaker 2>But now you're going to have to remind me what

1:21:06.095 --> 1:21:07.735
<v Speaker 2>the tie-in to the show was.

1:21:08.535 --> 1:21:09.315
<v Speaker 1>Oh my gosh.

1:21:10.605 --> 1:21:13.145
<v Speaker 2>What third feature were we discussing on the show?

1:21:13.545 --> 1:21:16.065
<v Speaker 1>A recent... Wow, Adam.

1:21:16.105 --> 1:21:17.225
<v Speaker 3>What was the movie we were talking about?

1:21:17.245 --> 1:21:19.505
<v Speaker 2>You're really putting us both on the spot here. It's

1:21:19.645 --> 1:21:21.805
<v Speaker 2>too late as we're recording this.

1:21:21.825 --> 1:21:23.705
<v Speaker 1>We're failing our producer, Sam, on this.

1:21:24.725 --> 1:21:27.365
<v Speaker 2>Jane Schoenbrun, of course, in Teenage Sex and Death at

1:21:27.405 --> 1:21:27.945
<v Speaker 2>Camp Neon.

1:21:28.265 --> 1:21:31.144
<v Speaker 1>Of course the answer is that obvious.

1:21:31.245 --> 1:21:33.025
<v Speaker 2>The movie that we both think is the best of

1:21:33.045 --> 1:21:36.385
<v Speaker 2>the year so far that we just reviewed two shows

1:21:36.445 --> 1:21:38.825
<v Speaker 2>ago is the tie-in for this poll question.

1:21:39.325 --> 1:21:41.665
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes doing this show is like being in a car

1:21:41.725 --> 1:21:46.265
<v Speaker 1>on a road that just never ends. Interesting theory. You

1:21:46.305 --> 1:21:49.825
<v Speaker 1>forget what show you did when and they blend together.

1:21:49.845 --> 1:21:52.285
<v Speaker 1>Where's the turn, Josh? Where is the turn? Did we

1:21:52.325 --> 1:21:54.764
<v Speaker 1>miss it? I think we missed it.

1:21:55.355 --> 1:22:03.175
<v Speaker 2>So your options were these. Greta Gerwig's Barbie, Ari Aster's

1:22:03.335 --> 1:22:08.495
<v Speaker 2>Bo is Afraid, Brady Corbett's The Brutalist, Olivia Wilde's The Invite,

1:22:08.935 --> 1:22:15.535
<v Speaker 2>Chloe Zhao's Nomadland, Jordan Peele's Nope, Robert Ager's The Northman,

1:22:16.255 --> 1:22:19.175
<v Speaker 2>or you could go other, write in a candidate that

1:22:19.275 --> 1:22:22.275
<v Speaker 2>we failed to include in the poll. Josh, how did

1:22:22.335 --> 1:22:22.875
<v Speaker 2>it come out?

1:22:23.815 --> 1:22:27.095
<v Speaker 1>Always notable when other is not in last place. And

1:22:27.175 --> 1:22:29.455
<v Speaker 1>in this case, it is not. Last place goes to

1:22:29.515 --> 1:22:32.115
<v Speaker 1>Ari Asters. Bo is afraid with 4% of the vote.

1:22:32.495 --> 1:22:35.395
<v Speaker 1>Other did get 5%. And then right there with those

1:22:35.435 --> 1:22:39.095
<v Speaker 1>two is Robert Eggers, the Northman with 6%. Chloe Zhao's

1:22:39.155 --> 1:22:42.535
<v Speaker 1>No Man Land, 8% of the vote. The Brutalist, 9%.

1:22:42.535 --> 1:22:45.845
<v Speaker 1>Little jump up here for the invite. Obviously the most

1:22:45.995 --> 1:22:49.965
<v Speaker 1>recent option in this poll. The invite still received 12%

1:22:49.965 --> 1:22:53.015
<v Speaker 1>of the vote. I mean, that's pretty impressive actually. But

1:22:53.215 --> 1:22:56.495
<v Speaker 1>it was going to come down to these two, Nope

1:22:56.835 --> 1:23:00.835
<v Speaker 1>and Barbie. Barbie took it. 31% of the vote for

1:23:00.875 --> 1:23:04.184
<v Speaker 1>the win. That means 26% went to Nope. But yeah,

1:23:04.345 --> 1:23:05.905
<v Speaker 1>Greta Gerwig for the win here.

1:23:06.465 --> 1:23:09.445
<v Speaker 2>Almost a third going to Greta Gerwig and Barbie. Here's

1:23:09.625 --> 1:23:12.165
<v Speaker 2>Andy Bucati. He says, when you factor in the degree

1:23:12.185 --> 1:23:15.155
<v Speaker 2>of difficulty of taking the general concept of freaking Barbie

1:23:15.605 --> 1:23:18.435
<v Speaker 2>and turning it into a film. Actually, I'm not familiar

1:23:18.455 --> 1:23:22.355
<v Speaker 2>with that version of Barbie. Freaking Barbie. What store? Is

1:23:22.405 --> 1:23:24.195
<v Speaker 2>that available at and turning it into a film that

1:23:24.235 --> 1:23:26.805
<v Speaker 2>appealed to all ages and genders appealed to the masses

1:23:26.865 --> 1:23:28.625
<v Speaker 2>and the art house crowds and the critics was the

1:23:28.645 --> 1:23:32.445
<v Speaker 2>highest grossing film domestically the entire year and garnered copious

1:23:32.505 --> 1:23:36.245
<v Speaker 2>end of year accolades, including eight Oscar nominations. What an accomplishment.

1:23:36.385 --> 1:23:39.305
<v Speaker 2>And yet, despite all that, it's still her third best film.

1:23:39.365 --> 1:23:40.005
<v Speaker 2>What a filmmaker.

1:23:41.105 --> 1:23:44.885
<v Speaker 1>I mean, freaking Barbie, clearly weird. Barbie's sister, Adam. Good point.

1:23:45.205 --> 1:23:45.565
<v Speaker 2>You're right.

1:23:46.085 --> 1:23:49.125
<v Speaker 1>All right. Devin Suber wrote in most filmmakers would kill

1:23:49.145 --> 1:23:51.765
<v Speaker 1>to have a scene half as good as the star

1:23:51.825 --> 1:23:55.065
<v Speaker 1>lasso experience. Incredibly, it's not even the best sequence in

1:23:55.105 --> 1:23:59.685
<v Speaker 1>the film. Gordy's home, raining blood. And don't even get

1:23:59.705 --> 1:24:02.925
<v Speaker 1>me started about seeing Inside Jean Jacket, still one of

1:24:02.945 --> 1:24:06.325
<v Speaker 1>the most disturbing things I've ever seen. Nope, was my

1:24:06.365 --> 1:24:09.115
<v Speaker 1>number one film of 2022 from the moment I saw it,

1:24:09.205 --> 1:24:12.205
<v Speaker 1>practically as soon as those scenes hit. And nothing could

1:24:12.385 --> 1:24:16.165
<v Speaker 1>ever even begin to dislodge it. Along with Schoenbrunn, Peele

1:24:16.245 --> 1:24:18.285
<v Speaker 1>is one of those filmmakers you only need to mention

1:24:18.465 --> 1:24:20.185
<v Speaker 1>to get my butt in that seat.

1:24:20.705 --> 1:24:23.505
<v Speaker 2>Here's Rob Stager. It could be recency bias, but the

1:24:23.605 --> 1:24:26.305
<v Speaker 2>invite really knocked me flat, so I'm giving it a

1:24:26.465 --> 1:24:30.385
<v Speaker 2>slight edge over nope today. And Josh, you know this.

1:24:31.225 --> 1:24:33.145
<v Speaker 2>I didn't think there was, well, it's not that I

1:24:33.385 --> 1:24:37.604
<v Speaker 2>didn't have good or high expectations for the invite after

1:24:38.425 --> 1:24:41.445
<v Speaker 2>your high praise and all the good buzz, but it

1:24:41.465 --> 1:24:44.935
<v Speaker 2>didn't seem that likely that a feature by Olivia Wilde

1:24:45.495 --> 1:24:47.775
<v Speaker 2>was going to fare well in any poll that I'm

1:24:47.815 --> 1:24:51.925
<v Speaker 2>voting in after My mixed take on Booksmart and my

1:24:51.965 --> 1:24:55.104
<v Speaker 2>very negative take on Don't Worry Darling, but having now

1:24:55.145 --> 1:24:59.435
<v Speaker 2>had the pleasure of catching up with The Invite, it's

1:24:59.515 --> 1:25:00.475
<v Speaker 2>one of the films of the year.

1:25:01.245 --> 1:25:01.565
<v Speaker 1>Love it.

1:25:01.595 --> 1:25:01.905
<v Speaker 2>Very easily.

1:25:01.935 --> 1:25:04.375
<v Speaker 1>You're on board. Very easily. And I imagine if it

1:25:04.395 --> 1:25:06.054
<v Speaker 1>came out a year ago and we did this poll,

1:25:06.375 --> 1:25:10.995
<v Speaker 1>it would be giving Barbie some pretty tough competition.

1:25:11.035 --> 1:25:11.595
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, maybe so.

1:25:12.615 --> 1:25:17.015
<v Speaker 1>Here's Patrick. The esteemed Sam Van Halgren gave Nomadland five

1:25:17.055 --> 1:25:21.025
<v Speaker 1>stars on Letterboxd. which is my vote. That is all

1:25:21.155 --> 1:25:21.985
<v Speaker 1>the defense rests.

1:25:22.485 --> 1:25:23.195
<v Speaker 3>Okay, Patrick.

1:25:23.825 --> 1:25:27.235
<v Speaker 2>It, you know, it gives me no pleasure to, to

1:25:27.335 --> 1:25:30.975
<v Speaker 2>ridicule Chloe Zhao or Francis McDormand, but, but Patrick, you

1:25:30.995 --> 1:25:35.095
<v Speaker 2>know that, you know that Sam is wildly incorrect sometimes, right?

1:25:35.835 --> 1:25:37.155
<v Speaker 2>Just wildly off base.

1:25:37.715 --> 1:25:44.655
<v Speaker 1>But, but usually not positively, right? I mean, well, you're right. Wait, no, wait, wait.

1:25:45.075 --> 1:25:48.335
<v Speaker 1>I forgot about Temple of Doom. Nevermind. Take that back. Sam, Sam,

1:25:48.355 --> 1:25:48.795
<v Speaker 1>cut that out.

1:25:50.105 --> 1:25:54.585
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, good point. Here's Kyle Cresce. Bo is afraid without question.

1:25:54.605 --> 1:25:58.915
<v Speaker 2>So Kyle somehow made up all 4%, just hitting the

1:25:58.975 --> 1:26:01.755
<v Speaker 2>vote over and over again. Bo is afraid without question,

1:26:01.815 --> 1:26:05.075
<v Speaker 2>so deeply unhinged and chaotic, but Aster is always in control.

1:26:05.595 --> 1:26:07.755
<v Speaker 2>It's one of the most overlooked films of the decade,

1:26:07.795 --> 1:26:10.675
<v Speaker 2>and as time goes on and Aster's career continues, it

1:26:10.715 --> 1:26:13.995
<v Speaker 2>will be looked back on as a masterpiece. Well, now

1:26:14.495 --> 1:26:17.245
<v Speaker 2>we at least know what Kyle's, or I should say,

1:26:17.745 --> 1:26:21.175
<v Speaker 2>what Ari Aster's Nome de Plume is. It's Kyle Cresce.

1:26:22.055 --> 1:26:24.715
<v Speaker 1>That is bold, Kyle. We shall see. You may prevail

1:26:24.775 --> 1:26:27.995
<v Speaker 1>in the end. Here's our friend Jeffrey Overstreet. It's between

1:26:28.075 --> 1:26:31.475
<v Speaker 1>Gerwig and Peele. Both third films delivered on the promise

1:26:31.515 --> 1:26:33.075
<v Speaker 1>of the previous two and made me all the more

1:26:33.145 --> 1:26:36.925
<v Speaker 1>eager to see what comes next. But wait, we're forgetting someone.

1:26:37.505 --> 1:26:41.665
<v Speaker 1>Doesn't director Tom Moore qualify? The master of Cartoon Saloon's

1:26:41.745 --> 1:26:44.845
<v Speaker 1>innovative animation studio directed The Secret of Cowles in 2010,

1:26:44.825 --> 1:26:46.505
<v Speaker 1>then Song of the Sea in 2014, and then Wolfwalkers

1:26:46.545 --> 1:26:52.064
<v Speaker 1>in 2020. I'd argue that Wolfwalkers is the most visually

1:26:52.105 --> 1:26:55.385
<v Speaker 1>enthralling of the three. We find him elaborating on the

1:26:55.425 --> 1:26:58.365
<v Speaker 1>stylistic strength of the first two. If I learned that

1:26:58.425 --> 1:27:02.325
<v Speaker 1>new films from Moore, Peel, and Gerwig were opening next weekend,

1:27:03.145 --> 1:27:05.745
<v Speaker 1>I'd buy tickets for all three, but I'd go for

1:27:05.805 --> 1:27:10.104
<v Speaker 1>Moore's first and maybe more than once. Okay.

1:27:10.485 --> 1:27:13.865
<v Speaker 2>I love the take. I love it anytime someone's advocating

1:27:13.985 --> 1:27:17.465
<v Speaker 2>for a filmmaker that certainly is not getting enough attention,

1:27:17.545 --> 1:27:19.665
<v Speaker 2>but I have a feeling if we included Tom Moore

1:27:19.685 --> 1:27:24.405
<v Speaker 2>in the poll, he would have gotten less of a

1:27:24.445 --> 1:27:25.655
<v Speaker 2>percentage than Ari Aster.

1:27:26.455 --> 1:27:29.135
<v Speaker 1>I think that's probably true. It's just a little bit

1:27:29.155 --> 1:27:32.795
<v Speaker 1>of an animation bias, or should I say animation awareness?

1:27:33.275 --> 1:27:36.814
<v Speaker 1>Those are all great films, but yeah, I don't know

1:27:36.855 --> 1:27:38.935
<v Speaker 1>if I could put them up against Nope or Barb.

1:27:39.575 --> 1:27:41.745
<v Speaker 2>A few more here. J.P. Aguirre. I will definitely have

1:27:41.765 --> 1:27:46.205
<v Speaker 2>to vote for other for B. Gahan's masterpiece, Resurrection. I

1:27:46.245 --> 1:27:48.465
<v Speaker 2>don't think any film has blown me away in originality

1:27:48.505 --> 1:27:50.385
<v Speaker 2>and ambition as this one. Not only do I think

1:27:50.425 --> 1:27:52.345
<v Speaker 2>it's one of the best films of this decade, but

1:27:52.365 --> 1:27:54.505
<v Speaker 2>for me, might be one of the best of all time.

1:27:55.105 --> 1:28:00.035
<v Speaker 2>The others are Kaylee Blues. Is that Kaylee Blues, Josh?

1:28:00.195 --> 1:28:02.755
<v Speaker 2>That's what it looks like as it's spelled in front

1:28:02.775 --> 1:28:04.655
<v Speaker 2>of me. I haven't seen it, nor have I seen

1:28:04.695 --> 1:28:06.035
<v Speaker 2>Long Day's Journey Into Night from 2018. I am.

1:28:09.315 --> 1:28:11.355
<v Speaker 2>Sadly deficient when it comes to that filmmaker.

1:28:11.775 --> 1:28:14.635
<v Speaker 1>JP is shaming us both here, so I'm afraid I

1:28:14.675 --> 1:28:18.435
<v Speaker 1>can't help you out. Mark Friedman says this, Todd Field

1:28:18.475 --> 1:28:21.375
<v Speaker 1>deserves this nod for Tar. He moved out of the

1:28:21.455 --> 1:28:25.025
<v Speaker 1>small-slash-searing family drama and into a different realm of epic,

1:28:25.185 --> 1:28:30.105
<v Speaker 1>big-personality tragedy with Tar. And he guided an already great actor, Blanchett,

1:28:30.385 --> 1:28:34.615
<v Speaker 1>toward her all-time greatest performance. And yeah, Todd Field in

1:28:34.655 --> 1:28:37.075
<v Speaker 1>the bedroom and Little Children before this. Didn't he come

1:28:37.175 --> 1:28:39.335
<v Speaker 1>up when there was discussion.

1:28:38.955 --> 1:28:42.785
<v Speaker 2>Of the poll? We certainly knew that he qualified. We

1:28:42.805 --> 1:28:45.965
<v Speaker 2>just all felt like it was a different poll with

1:28:46.005 --> 1:28:49.325
<v Speaker 2>Todd Field in it. It didn't feel like the same

1:28:49.945 --> 1:28:53.355
<v Speaker 2>generation of filmmakers. And that is certainly the case if

1:28:53.395 --> 1:28:57.715
<v Speaker 2>we're including RMP's vote, which is Victor Arise, who also

1:28:57.755 --> 1:28:59.635
<v Speaker 2>has just three, The Spirit of the Beehive from 1973

1:28:59.635 --> 1:29:05.445
<v Speaker 2>and Else. from 1983. And amazingly, 2023's Close Your Eyes.

1:29:05.505 --> 1:29:07.345
<v Speaker 2>He has my vote for that last one and my

1:29:07.445 --> 1:29:11.245
<v Speaker 2>gratitude for them all. I've only seen The Spirit of

1:29:11.265 --> 1:29:14.014
<v Speaker 2>the Beehive. So thank you for reminding us.

1:29:14.025 --> 1:29:16.705
<v Speaker 1>I like where RMP is going. I've seen that. And

1:29:16.765 --> 1:29:18.894
<v Speaker 1>Close Your Eyes made my top 10 list that year.

1:29:18.905 --> 1:29:19.245
<v Speaker 2>Really?

1:29:19.815 --> 1:29:24.064
<v Speaker 1>But again, yeah, again, it's a situation of the space

1:29:24.145 --> 1:29:27.405
<v Speaker 1>between those films is just different than the experience we

1:29:27.425 --> 1:29:29.425
<v Speaker 1>were thinking of when we look at who was in

1:29:29.445 --> 1:29:33.405
<v Speaker 1>the poll, where these are filmmakers who had in succession,

1:29:33.505 --> 1:29:37.845
<v Speaker 1>building excitement, building expectation, a little different there in the

1:29:37.885 --> 1:29:40.665
<v Speaker 1>case of Arise. But Close Your Eyes, great film.

1:29:40.935 --> 1:29:43.635
<v Speaker 2>I knew Close Your Eyes sounded familiar and I'm trying

1:29:43.655 --> 1:29:45.895
<v Speaker 2>to kind of quickly, yeah, I've tried to look up

1:29:45.935 --> 1:29:48.115
<v Speaker 2>to see whether or not I had actually seen it

1:29:48.175 --> 1:29:51.825
<v Speaker 2>and I was speaking out of turn, and I have

1:29:51.885 --> 1:29:54.485
<v Speaker 2>seen it, and I was very favorable on it, so

1:29:54.525 --> 1:29:56.725
<v Speaker 2>we must have talked about it on the show, and

1:29:56.765 --> 1:30:00.965
<v Speaker 2>it turns out only El Sur is one or the

1:30:01.085 --> 1:30:02.894
<v Speaker 2>one of those three films that I have not seen.

1:30:03.245 --> 1:30:06.135
<v Speaker 2>Thank you to everyone who wrote in and shared your

1:30:06.195 --> 1:30:09.215
<v Speaker 2>feedback and everyone who voted in that poll. The new

1:30:09.255 --> 1:30:11.975
<v Speaker 2>Deeply Flawed Film Spotting poll is inspired by this weekend's

1:30:12.055 --> 1:30:16.535
<v Speaker 2>re-release of T2 Judgment Day. We're asking you to choose one,

1:30:16.795 --> 1:30:22.495
<v Speaker 2>and only one movie villain, Josh, the choices are.

1:30:23.555 --> 1:30:28.495
<v Speaker 1>Agent Smith from The Matrix, Annie Wilkes. I should pause

1:30:28.565 --> 1:30:31.465
<v Speaker 1>between each of these so listeners can get a chance to,

1:30:31.665 --> 1:30:34.665
<v Speaker 1>you know, who's Annie? Oh, Misery. That's right. Okay, this

1:30:34.725 --> 1:30:38.325
<v Speaker 1>one's obvious. Hannibal Lecter, The Silence of the Lambs. How

1:30:38.345 --> 1:30:45.075
<v Speaker 1>about John Doe? That's seven. Scar, of course, The Lion King, T-1000, obviously,

1:30:45.155 --> 1:30:48.405
<v Speaker 1>Terminator 2, Judgment Day, and yes, We will have the

1:30:48.465 --> 1:30:51.885
<v Speaker 1>category of other. A lot of suggestions on the Film

1:30:51.925 --> 1:30:55.245
<v Speaker 1>Spotting Discord, which is a benefit for Film Spotting family members.

1:30:56.265 --> 1:31:00.785
<v Speaker 1>People there threw out Nicholas Cage's Caster Troy from Face Off,

1:31:00.865 --> 1:31:06.875
<v Speaker 1>Billy Zane's Cal Hockley in Titanic, Warden Norton, Shawshank Redemption.

1:31:07.275 --> 1:31:07.515
<v Speaker 2>Wow.

1:31:07.715 --> 1:31:11.894
<v Speaker 1>How about this? Shooter McGavin, the villain, Adam of Happy Gilmore.

1:31:12.555 --> 1:31:15.235
<v Speaker 1>Kaiser Soce, of course, usual suspects. And I don't know, Mr.

1:31:15.275 --> 1:31:18.655
<v Speaker 1>Blonde from Reservoir Dogs, is he a villain?

1:31:18.675 --> 1:31:21.215
<v Speaker 2>Are you going to bark all day, little doggie?

1:31:21.535 --> 1:31:22.535
<v Speaker 1>Are you going to bite? I mean, I guess.

1:31:22.595 --> 1:31:22.875
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

1:31:23.155 --> 1:31:26.115
<v Speaker 1>I guess. I wouldn't want to hang out with him. Unforgiven,

1:31:26.455 --> 1:31:30.355
<v Speaker 1>we could also include Little Bill, someone suggested. So yeah,

1:31:30.435 --> 1:31:32.155
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. Do you have an obvious answer from

1:31:32.595 --> 1:31:33.905
<v Speaker 1>the official options?

1:31:34.445 --> 1:31:39.465
<v Speaker 2>It's tough because all of those choices feel pretty good

1:31:39.505 --> 1:31:42.755
<v Speaker 2>to me. And if you look at I hadn't looked

1:31:42.795 --> 1:31:44.795
<v Speaker 2>at this list before we put this poll, but as

1:31:44.855 --> 1:31:47.475
<v Speaker 2>I Google it and you look at the AFI 100 years,

1:31:47.475 --> 1:31:53.345
<v Speaker 2>100 heroes and villains list, you've got naturally, as you'd expect,

1:31:53.445 --> 1:31:56.585
<v Speaker 2>Hannibal Lecter's number one. So you've got a 90s movie

1:31:56.605 --> 1:32:00.125
<v Speaker 2>villain at number one. You've got, I'm sure there's a

1:32:00.525 --> 1:32:04.945
<v Speaker 2>few other 1990s villains on there. You know who actually

1:32:05.005 --> 1:32:09.085
<v Speaker 2>one of them is that isn't on this list? Annie

1:32:09.125 --> 1:32:13.975
<v Speaker 2>Wilkes is on the list. Number 17, Eamon Goath from

1:32:14.035 --> 1:32:14.855
<v Speaker 2>Schindler's List.

1:32:15.395 --> 1:32:16.115
<v Speaker 1>Oh, interesting.

1:32:16.175 --> 1:32:23.854
<v Speaker 2>Wow. So I could see that. These feel like pretty iconic, intense,

1:32:24.475 --> 1:32:28.695
<v Speaker 2>scary movie villains from the 90s. It depends on how

1:32:28.715 --> 1:32:31.415
<v Speaker 2>you're approaching it, obviously, as always. Going back to what

1:32:31.455 --> 1:32:34.535
<v Speaker 2>you said, though, if you are taking that to heart,

1:32:36.595 --> 1:32:39.415
<v Speaker 2>I am only taking that to heart because, Josh, when

1:32:39.455 --> 1:32:42.545
<v Speaker 2>I first saw, for example, agent Smith, it's kind of

1:32:42.665 --> 1:32:46.325
<v Speaker 2>easy for me to write off agent Smith because there's

1:32:46.345 --> 1:32:49.985
<v Speaker 2>nothing really compelling about agent Smith. It's just a machine.

1:32:50.825 --> 1:32:52.985
<v Speaker 2>And that's kind of true with the T2. Now T2

1:32:53.065 --> 1:32:56.224
<v Speaker 2>is more interesting to me. The T1000 is more interesting

1:32:56.245 --> 1:32:59.045
<v Speaker 2>to me for whatever reason, maybe it's just nostalgia. Then,

1:32:59.785 --> 1:33:03.845
<v Speaker 2>you know, I was younger and I feel more interesting too.

1:33:03.925 --> 1:33:04.165
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

1:33:04.225 --> 1:33:06.005
<v Speaker 2>And I just have, I was younger when I saw

1:33:06.045 --> 1:33:07.965
<v Speaker 2>the movie. I have a stronger attachment to the film.

1:33:09.335 --> 1:33:12.515
<v Speaker 2>there's something about that, that character that I'm drawn to more,

1:33:13.035 --> 1:33:16.155
<v Speaker 2>but something about agent Smith is just kind of, I

1:33:17.535 --> 1:33:21.735
<v Speaker 2>don't really care that much. I I'm more interested in

1:33:21.795 --> 1:33:26.365
<v Speaker 2>John Doe. I'm more interested in Hannibal Lecter even because

1:33:26.405 --> 1:33:32.005
<v Speaker 2>Hannibal Lecter at least is provocative. Hannibal Lecter at least

1:33:33.485 --> 1:33:37.885
<v Speaker 2>makes us question things about us, right. And the nature

1:33:37.925 --> 1:33:41.365
<v Speaker 2>of good and evil and, And we're drawn to him,

1:33:42.225 --> 1:33:44.845
<v Speaker 2>even though we're also terrified by him and we find

1:33:44.885 --> 1:33:48.025
<v Speaker 2>him repulsive in so many ways. Whereas Agent Smith is

1:33:48.045 --> 1:33:52.535
<v Speaker 2>just whatever. He's just there to stop us from doing

1:33:52.695 --> 1:33:53.475
<v Speaker 2>good things.

1:33:53.775 --> 1:33:55.195
<v Speaker 1>Good performance. Great.

1:33:55.575 --> 1:33:55.814
<v Speaker 2>Sure.

1:33:55.875 --> 1:33:58.455
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. But yeah, I see what you're saying.

1:33:58.575 --> 1:34:01.075
<v Speaker 2>And Scar kind of similarly is like, Scar is just

1:34:01.115 --> 1:34:03.295
<v Speaker 2>a bad lion or whatever. Who cares?

1:34:03.815 --> 1:34:05.195
<v Speaker 1>Whoa. Whoa.

1:34:06.855 --> 1:34:08.955
<v Speaker 2>And I love Jeremy Irons, but no. Okay, now.

1:34:09.835 --> 1:34:13.155
<v Speaker 1>If we go with the construct, the theory that I

1:34:13.175 --> 1:34:15.575
<v Speaker 1>said at the top, that a good villain, you can

1:34:16.555 --> 1:34:18.715
<v Speaker 1>have sympathy for, or you can understand the motivation.

1:34:18.735 --> 1:34:19.644
<v Speaker 2>I went too far with Scar, Josh.

1:34:19.905 --> 1:34:22.125
<v Speaker 1>That's Scar, right? Is he? That's Scar.

1:34:22.145 --> 1:34:25.705
<v Speaker 2>I haven't seen him since 93. He's the overlooked brother.

1:34:25.725 --> 1:34:30.025
<v Speaker 1>I can sort of understand where Scar is coming from,

1:34:31.365 --> 1:34:34.745
<v Speaker 1>but this is, I'm going to go your way. You

1:34:34.845 --> 1:34:39.275
<v Speaker 1>often feel like there's a clear answer, like, There's a

1:34:39.715 --> 1:34:46.745
<v Speaker 1>Mount Rushmore, right? In this case, there's only one face

1:34:46.785 --> 1:34:50.575
<v Speaker 1>that should be on the 90s villain Mount Rushmore. Yes.

1:34:51.015 --> 1:34:51.335
<v Speaker 1>Is there?

1:34:51.355 --> 1:34:52.675
<v Speaker 2>Did I guess right?

1:34:53.955 --> 1:34:55.675
<v Speaker 1>There's Hannibal Lecter. Oh, okay.

1:34:55.695 --> 1:34:57.075
<v Speaker 2>I thought you were going to go with Andy Wilkes.

1:34:57.135 --> 1:34:57.395
<v Speaker 1>No, yeah.

1:34:57.415 --> 1:34:58.455
<v Speaker 2>It's Hannibal Lecter, of course.

1:34:58.855 --> 1:34:59.375
<v Speaker 1>It's Hannibal.

1:34:59.415 --> 1:35:01.344
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this is- It's like, what is this? What

1:35:01.355 --> 1:35:01.945
<v Speaker 2>are we doing here?

1:35:02.485 --> 1:35:03.465
<v Speaker 1>What are we doing?

1:35:03.825 --> 1:35:04.085
<v Speaker 3>I know.

1:35:04.525 --> 1:35:07.285
<v Speaker 1>And I don't even, I have no sympathy for Hannibal

1:35:07.305 --> 1:35:10.345
<v Speaker 1>Lecter or even want to understand his motivation. So I'm

1:35:10.385 --> 1:35:12.985
<v Speaker 1>going against my own reasoning here.

1:35:13.045 --> 1:35:15.545
<v Speaker 2>Most interesting character, most interesting performance.

1:35:15.905 --> 1:35:17.785
<v Speaker 1>It's, yeah. Okay.

1:35:18.125 --> 1:35:20.665
<v Speaker 2>Iconic, unquestionably the most iconic.

1:35:21.695 --> 1:35:24.295
<v Speaker 1>Let's proceed anyway and let's see if we're both wrong.

1:35:24.315 --> 1:35:27.515
<v Speaker 2>We'll pretend this is actually a poll question and we'll

1:35:27.575 --> 1:35:29.845
<v Speaker 2>mock everybody who voted for someone else.

1:35:30.525 --> 1:35:31.205
<v Speaker 1>That sounds like fun.

1:35:31.225 --> 1:35:33.345
<v Speaker 2>We'll pretend to read their comments with interest.

1:35:33.845 --> 1:35:35.845
<v Speaker 1>Exactly. Okay. I could do it. Okay.

1:35:36.205 --> 1:35:39.365
<v Speaker 2>Vote and leave a comment at filmspotting.net. We'll share the

1:35:39.405 --> 1:35:42.515
<v Speaker 2>results and your comments in a couple of weeks. Josh,

1:35:42.655 --> 1:35:43.415
<v Speaker 2>that is our show.

1:35:44.495 --> 1:35:46.354
<v Speaker 1>If you want to connect with us on social media,

1:35:46.395 --> 1:35:50.995
<v Speaker 1>you can find Adam and the show on Instagram, Facebook, Letterboxd, YouTube,

1:35:51.195 --> 1:35:54.195
<v Speaker 1>and Blue Sky at FilmSpotting. I'm Matt Larson on film.

1:35:54.695 --> 1:35:58.144
<v Speaker 1>We are independently produced and listener supported. You can support

1:35:58.185 --> 1:36:02.345
<v Speaker 1>the show by joining the FilmSpotting family at filmspottingfamily.com. You

1:36:02.385 --> 1:36:05.905
<v Speaker 1>can listen early and ad free. You'll get monthly bonus episodes,

1:36:05.925 --> 1:36:08.594
<v Speaker 1>a weekly newsletter, and access to the entire show archive.

1:36:09.055 --> 1:36:13.015
<v Speaker 1>For show t-shirts and other merch, go to filmspotting.net slash shop.

1:36:13.615 --> 1:36:15.815
<v Speaker 2>Bad Lion is definitely the next name of my band.

1:36:18.995 --> 1:36:21.695
<v Speaker 2>American Doctors playing at the Gene Siskel Film Center. That's

1:36:21.715 --> 1:36:24.535
<v Speaker 2>a documentary about three American doctors saving lives while risking

1:36:24.575 --> 1:36:28.195
<v Speaker 2>their own in Gaza. Colony is the latest from the

1:36:28.215 --> 1:36:29.575
<v Speaker 2>director of Train to Busan.

1:36:29.845 --> 1:36:30.225
<v Speaker 1>Idiots.

1:36:31.565 --> 1:36:33.665
<v Speaker 2>It's about two idiots of the title, Dave Franco and

1:36:33.745 --> 1:36:36.405
<v Speaker 2>O'Shea Jackson Jr. They're hired to transfer a rich teen

1:36:36.425 --> 1:36:39.325
<v Speaker 2>to rehab. It's written and directed by Macon Blair. The

1:36:39.365 --> 1:36:42.825
<v Speaker 2>Sun Never Sets is the latest from Joe Swanberg. It

1:36:42.855 --> 1:36:47.055
<v Speaker 2>stars Dakota Fanning, Jake Johnson, and Corey Michael Smith. It

1:36:47.275 --> 1:36:51.215
<v Speaker 2>ends also out in limited release and recommended by both

1:36:51.415 --> 1:36:54.255
<v Speaker 2>of us. In wide release, you can see Buddy, kids

1:36:54.295 --> 1:36:57.245
<v Speaker 2>TV star Buddy, an orange unicorn, starts to crack when

1:36:57.305 --> 1:37:01.165
<v Speaker 2>a kid refuses to play along. Our friend Isaac Feldberg says,

1:37:01.405 --> 1:37:04.405
<v Speaker 2>good God, this goes so much harder than you're expecting.

1:37:04.845 --> 1:37:09.105
<v Speaker 2>The cast includes Kristen Milioti, Keegan-Michael Key, Michael Shannon, and

1:37:09.155 --> 1:37:09.975
<v Speaker 2>Patton Oswalt.

1:37:10.875 --> 1:37:14.205
<v Speaker 1>I'm in. We've got to congratulate Isaac, too.

1:37:15.055 --> 1:37:16.655
<v Speaker 2>Oh, I saw that. New gig at Letterboxd.

1:37:16.675 --> 1:37:18.995
<v Speaker 1>Over at Letterboxd. So very exciting news.

1:37:19.015 --> 1:37:19.395
<v Speaker 2>Congrats, Isaac.

1:37:19.435 --> 1:37:20.495
<v Speaker 1>Congrats, Isaac. Yeah.

1:37:20.955 --> 1:37:24.495
<v Speaker 2>Coyote vs. Acme is being seen by people on screens.

1:37:24.635 --> 1:37:28.715
<v Speaker 2>Wiley Coyote sues Acme Corp with Will Forte and John Cena.

1:37:29.495 --> 1:37:34.035
<v Speaker 2>T2 Judgment Day, 35th anniversary re-release. We'll go ahead and

1:37:34.075 --> 1:37:37.325
<v Speaker 2>tell people now. We will be late to this because

1:37:37.585 --> 1:37:39.845
<v Speaker 2>it's coming out in theaters now, but we do have

1:37:39.885 --> 1:37:43.445
<v Speaker 2>this penciled in. a few weeks from now to revisit

1:37:43.485 --> 1:37:47.065
<v Speaker 2>this as a sacred cow. So it should be fun

1:37:47.125 --> 1:37:50.514
<v Speaker 2>if that does indeed come to fruition. Ridley Scott's The

1:37:50.555 --> 1:37:53.995
<v Speaker 2>Dog Stars with Jacob Elordi, Margaret Qualley, and Josh Brolin

1:37:54.095 --> 1:37:56.515
<v Speaker 2>is also out. Next week in your film spotting feed,

1:37:57.115 --> 1:38:00.455
<v Speaker 2>the movie racket with Michael Phillips returns. Here is the

1:38:00.695 --> 1:38:04.894
<v Speaker 2>law of motion pictures they will be wrestling with. It's

1:38:04.935 --> 1:38:07.955
<v Speaker 2>a Samuel Golden quote. I love it. It's going to

1:38:07.975 --> 1:38:11.905
<v Speaker 2>be a great show. Pictures are for entertainment. messages should

1:38:11.945 --> 1:38:13.545
<v Speaker 2>be delivered by Western Union.

1:38:14.785 --> 1:38:15.405
<v Speaker 1>I like that one.

1:38:15.745 --> 1:38:19.425
<v Speaker 2>They'll debate it. Tuesday on Film Spotting SVU, it's Desert

1:38:19.485 --> 1:38:23.064
<v Speaker 2>Warrior on Hulu, a 7th century Arabia set epic with

1:38:23.145 --> 1:38:26.375
<v Speaker 2>Anthony Mackie, Sharon Copley, and Ben Kingsley. It's directed by

1:38:26.555 --> 1:38:29.015
<v Speaker 2>Rupert Wyatt, who made Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

1:38:29.055 --> 1:38:31.935
<v Speaker 2>On Thursday, it's part two of the next picture show's

1:38:31.995 --> 1:38:35.775
<v Speaker 2>pairing with The End of Oak Street and Steven Spielberg's

1:38:35.815 --> 1:38:37.775
<v Speaker 2>The War of the Worlds. And then this is going

1:38:37.795 --> 1:38:43.445
<v Speaker 2>to be great. On Friday, Film Spotting, A draft, me, you,

1:38:43.865 --> 1:38:47.814
<v Speaker 2>Roxanna Haddadi, drafting Ridley Scott films.

1:38:48.655 --> 1:38:51.175
<v Speaker 1>You know what I just picked up from the library today? What?

1:38:51.755 --> 1:38:53.415
<v Speaker 1>My DVD of G.I. Jane.

1:38:53.905 --> 1:38:54.845
<v Speaker 2>Oh, I haven't seen it.

1:38:54.845 --> 1:38:55.545
<v Speaker 1>Which I have never seen.

1:38:55.625 --> 1:38:55.885
<v Speaker 4>No.

1:38:55.905 --> 1:38:56.505
<v Speaker 1>See, there you go.

1:38:56.525 --> 1:39:02.325
<v Speaker 2>I do have maybe three other Ridley Scott films I

1:39:03.065 --> 1:39:05.005
<v Speaker 2>kind of want to watch ahead of G.I. Jane.

1:39:05.025 --> 1:39:06.265
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I get it.

1:39:06.505 --> 1:39:08.505
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if the draft will actually go that

1:39:08.565 --> 1:39:11.245
<v Speaker 2>deep that I need to watch these films, but... I

1:39:11.285 --> 1:39:13.905
<v Speaker 2>kind of want to watch them, and you never know.

1:39:14.605 --> 1:39:15.505
<v Speaker 1>Maybe I'll watch G.I.

1:39:15.525 --> 1:39:15.605
<v Speaker 2>Jane.

1:39:15.625 --> 1:39:18.345
<v Speaker 1>You're saying Rex Anna, or maybe I'm not going to

1:39:18.385 --> 1:39:20.005
<v Speaker 1>take G.I. Jane, number one?

1:39:20.225 --> 1:39:21.965
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. Not number one. I have a pretty

1:39:21.985 --> 1:39:25.125
<v Speaker 2>good feeling about that. So we do have to find

1:39:25.185 --> 1:39:27.385
<v Speaker 2>out who's going to draft first, what the order is

1:39:27.425 --> 1:39:30.425
<v Speaker 2>going to be, who's going to be so unlucky as

1:39:30.465 --> 1:39:33.085
<v Speaker 2>to not get Alien or Blade Runner, who's going to

1:39:33.145 --> 1:39:35.645
<v Speaker 2>have to pick G.I. Jane third. That's what we'll have

1:39:35.665 --> 1:39:37.805
<v Speaker 2>to find out with the draft order. Look forward to

1:39:37.845 --> 1:39:39.005
<v Speaker 2>that draft coming Friday.

1:39:39.865 --> 1:39:42.425
<v Speaker 1>Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe DeSoto and Sam

1:39:42.445 --> 1:39:45.465
<v Speaker 1>Van Halgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go.

1:39:46.185 --> 1:39:49.445
<v Speaker 1>Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Special thanks to everyone

1:39:49.485 --> 1:39:55.015
<v Speaker 1>at WBEZ Chicago. More information is available at WBEZ.org. For

1:39:55.075 --> 1:39:56.554
<v Speaker 1>Film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson.

1:39:56.735 --> 1:40:00.135
<v Speaker 2>And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening. This conversation can

1:40:00.155 --> 1:40:01.775
<v Speaker 2>serve no purpose anymore.

1:40:02.875 --> 1:40:03.115
<v Speaker 1>Goodbye.

1:40:09.395 --> 1:40:09.695
<v Speaker 3>Bye.