6:00

material, the book itself in

6:02

pre-production, but I suppose even in production

6:04

and post, how much did the actors

6:06

rely on some of those interviews? Did

6:08

you go back to those as a

6:10

touchstone? The book was everything for me.

6:13

I didn't grow up around motorcycle culture. To

6:16

be honest, not really

6:18

got into contemporary motorcycle culture.

6:21

I love Danny's book. I love the photos in

6:23

the book. I love the interviews in the book.

6:26

When I was fortunate enough, in about 2014, I

6:29

reached out to Danny and told him this is something

6:31

I wanted to try to do. He was

6:33

very generous with me. He gave me all

6:35

of the original audio. It was still on reel to

6:37

reel. He'd never transferred it to

6:39

digital. I helped pay

6:41

to get that done. I

6:44

would just drive around Austin and listen

6:46

to these people talking. It

6:48

was literally just people talking. That

6:51

became the foundation of

6:53

the movie. It's

6:56

funny, I was telling somebody about the

6:59

chase sequence where Biddy runs out of gas. I

7:01

was like, yeah, I think I made that up. I'm like,

7:03

no, no, Jeff, you didn't make that up. There's another story

7:06

in the book by a different motorcycle rider who talks about

7:08

running out of gas. All he could do was

7:10

sit around and wait for the police to catch up with him. At

7:14

some point, I'd been over this material

7:16

so much that it

7:18

just became ingrained in

7:20

the story. As for the

7:22

performances, we gave photographs to

7:24

every single department. There was

7:27

a tremendous amount of material for them to look at

7:29

in terms of the clothes and the hair and the

7:31

bikes and the dressing and

7:33

everything. My team did,

7:35

I think, an incredible job bringing that

7:37

stuff back to life. The

7:40

actors, every actor basically got

7:42

a digital care package of audio and photographs.

7:44

It was like, here you go. Some were

7:46

specific than others. Damon

7:49

Herrmann's character, Brucey, who's Johnny's

7:52

number two, for instance, that's an amalgam.

7:54

He got photographs of different people and

7:56

a little bit of different audio.

8:00

I gave Jodi probably an hour, maybe 100 minutes

8:04

worth of the real Kathy. So

8:06

these actors had a tremendous amount to

8:08

pull from and it was all, which is what's cool

8:11

about it, it was all from the

8:13

source. It was all from Damien Ryan's book,

8:15

The Bike Rush. Tied to Kathy's

8:17

point of view is that first moment

8:19

when she and we as

8:21

viewers see the club all together on their

8:24

bikes riding for the first time, her seduction,

8:26

if you will, there is

8:28

something inherently romantic and mythic in this

8:30

imagery, the imagery that Danny Lyons captured

8:32

in the book, Man and Machine and

8:34

Motion across the American landscape. And you

8:36

give us some of that for

8:39

sure, the nighttime

8:41

scene, the empty expressway, then all of a sudden

8:44

the motorcycles appearing, the lights on the horizon behind

8:46

her as she looks back and then riding up

8:48

alongside her and Benny. But it struck me that

8:51

after that, it's all about her. The camera

8:53

stays focused on her in close-up and it's

8:56

not really about glorifying

8:58

the motorcycle riders. How did you conceptualize

9:00

that scene and how did you approach

9:03

that balance generally, focusing on characters,

9:05

focusing on people and not maybe

9:07

what these riders could represent? Yeah,

9:10

I love that scene. I

9:13

knew that scene was important because that

9:16

scene's not just about Kathy falling in love with

9:18

Benny that night. That really happens

9:21

later when he waits outside of her house. That

9:24

moment is about her falling in love with motorcycle

9:27

culture. And that

9:29

wasn't really about, hey,

9:32

look, I'm riding next to this guy

9:34

or I'm riding next to Johnny or

9:36

any of these other guys. It

9:39

was about being in the middle of the pack and

9:41

the sound of being in the middle of that

9:43

pack and the vibration and just

9:46

the experience of being surrounded by these

9:48

bikes. It has to be intoxicating.

9:53

She says in the book that was the first time she'd

9:55

ever been on a motorcycle. So then

9:57

to be surrounded by 30, 40 of them. That's

10:00

quite an experience. I can speak to it myself. I

10:02

didn't grow up around bikes and

10:04

standing on set. When they

10:07

cranked up 42 period correct

10:09

Harley Davidson, you

10:12

just felt like a badass. It

10:14

was undeniable. But that's kind

10:16

of part of the complexity of this thing. If

10:19

you look at a motorcycle, they're beautiful.

10:21

You want to get on it. You want to ride

10:23

it. It could kill you. That

10:27

complexity is really what's at the

10:29

heart of this film. Get

10:32

back to your question. I

10:34

was vastly more interested in

10:36

the people that made up the early days

10:38

of this club. In a way,

10:40

it's kind of like a prequel. We've

10:43

seen the result of what happened

10:45

to clubs like this. They turned into

10:47

gangs. They turned into

10:50

organizations to run drugs and do lots of

10:52

other things. That honestly

10:54

didn't really interest me very much. What interested

10:56

me was the psychology

10:58

behind the

11:00

individuals, Kathy included, that were

11:03

drawn to this world. Why? They

11:06

all knew it was dangerous, but they

11:08

also found something very attractive about it. I

11:10

think that's very honest. I think it's very human. It's

11:13

something I kind of wanted to hold up to the light. You

11:16

just said about Kathy, the psychology of someone

11:18

being drawn to this world. You mentioned that

11:21

this was not something that was part of

11:23

your life, motorcycles, motorcycle culture, and yet you

11:25

were drawn to it. You

11:27

were obsessed with the material. I want to

11:29

probe that psychology maybe a little bit more.

11:31

I once described your debut film, the film

11:33

I love, Shotgun Stories, as another

11:35

film along with Take Shelter that's a tale of

11:37

a man determined to protect his family no matter

11:39

the consequences. Midnight Special fits as well. I won't

11:42

go through the litany and try to fit everything

11:44

neatly into the paradigm, but I think it's safe

11:46

to say that what we see throughout your work

11:48

and certainly here in the bike riders is both

11:50

a conventional and a broader

11:52

notion of family, something that isn't

11:55

defined by biology, but by a

11:57

brotherhood, powerful and sometimes

11:59

tumultuous. bonds that can develop between

12:01

men. Johnny even says, at one

12:04

point to Benny, I put more into this than my own

12:06

family. This is my family. Was

12:08

that what drew you to the bike

12:10

riders? And is it something you're consciously

12:12

exploring or more instinctively drawn to? I'm

12:15

instinctively drawn to it in my work, because

12:18

it's something I think a lot about as, as

12:21

a man myself, you know, I think about

12:23

my family and my responsibility to my family.

12:26

This is the first film that

12:29

actually works well outside of

12:31

life, which is Johnny's

12:33

character, as you mentioned, well,

12:36

he has a family, but he doesn't really

12:38

care about that much. There's a very specific

12:40

scene in the end where Johnny's walking out

12:42

of his house, and his wife doesn't even

12:44

look up from the TV. It's

12:46

because he's not, that

12:49

is not his family. He's not connected to it.

12:51

And so yes, very much, you know, that

12:53

was a kind

12:56

of a conscious exploration,

12:58

this idea that you could

13:00

have, you could have bonds that,

13:03

that you feel maybe even

13:05

closer to than your family. I think

13:07

it connects to this bigger idea of the fact

13:09

that these are outsiders, that these are guys that

13:11

feel like they don't totally fit,

13:13

they just don't really work in mainstream society.

13:16

So they, they fit together. So, you

13:19

know, yes, I think

13:21

for the, for the, the matic connects

13:23

to all my other films, we're forced

13:26

to expand the definition of family, but

13:28

there's also something counter

13:30

to my previous work in this because of that.

13:33

I mean, if you take Michael Shannon's character

13:35

in shotgun stories, or take shelter, you

13:37

do anything for his film, you know, Midnight

13:39

Special as well. There is

13:42

not one man in this movie. And

13:44

that is not the type of man that I strive to be. I

13:48

think part of me wanted to, I

13:50

don't know, look at these types of

13:52

people and, and try to, try

13:54

to see about that. Because

13:57

if I'm being really honest about my, myself and my

13:59

personal life, I give

14:02

everything I can to my family, but I also disappear for

14:04

six months at a time to go make a movie. So

14:07

I have my movie family too. And it's

14:11

something that isn't completely important. The

14:14

scene of the movie for me, as much as

14:16

I like that early scene we touched on with

14:18

Kathy on the back of the bike for the

14:20

first time, it's the one that I think is

14:23

the most intimate and vulnerable in the film. And

14:25

it's one that isn't between Benny and Kathy. It's

14:27

the one where we actually hear those lines I

14:29

quoted. It's between Benny and

14:31

Johnny at the picnic when

14:34

Johnny pulls Benny aside in the dark

14:36

outside the glow of the headlights from

14:38

the bikes to talk about a

14:41

potential succession plan. They

14:43

get very close, very close,

14:45

barely any space between them. Hardy is

14:47

talking in a whisper really at this

14:49

point. And the two men seem,

14:52

I would say, comfortable

14:54

sharing that space together, though there's perhaps

14:56

also a hint of tension to who

14:58

is going to back away first. How

15:01

close, how much can we push this?

15:04

And I think that scene like the one with

15:06

Kathy on the back of the bike, it advances

15:08

the story, but it's a pivotal emotional scene that

15:11

reveals so much about their relationship.

15:13

And maybe it wouldn't appear

15:16

to the average viewer to be

15:18

very complicated or overly technical to

15:20

guys talking. But that proximity

15:22

and the purposefulness of the shots and the

15:24

way we even see their bodies overlap with

15:26

each other. What was the process

15:29

of working with Tom and Austin and your

15:31

DP to pull that scene off? I

15:33

have to give all the credit for that scene

15:35

to Tom and then also to Austin for

15:38

staying in it, because

15:41

Austin doesn't flinch either. But

15:43

Tom's the one that created that space that was not

15:45

written that way. Tom

15:47

was supposed to get up off of his bike and walk up

15:49

to him, but Tom is

15:51

the one that brought that in

15:53

close. It wasn't the

15:56

way we had designed the lighting for the scene. You

15:58

know, my study cam operator. got

16:00

closer, had to keep coming back around. And what was supposed to

16:02

be an over the shoulder now turns into this bizarre

16:04

type two shot. And

16:06

we gone a little bit further, you would have seen the

16:09

base of our lighting crank, because we were not set

16:11

up for a profile shot. But that's what

16:13

it became. Because that's what Tom Hardy made

16:15

it. And it's kind of

16:18

part of the brilliance of Tom. He

16:21

gets up in people's shit, like is the

16:23

truth. And he, you know, and it

16:25

is, sometimes it's uncomfortable,

16:27

sometimes it's sensuous. And

16:29

all those things are happening there. We were

16:31

kind of just watching it with our mouths

16:33

open. Like what, what is going

16:35

on? When you add creaking leather to it, it

16:38

takes it to a whole other level. But

16:40

the truth is what I really love about it, and

16:43

what I love really about Tom

16:45

and Austin's interpretation in this relationship.

16:48

A lot of my films are about

16:50

father-sons. This was not that.

16:53

It wasn't supposed to be that. I

16:55

think it had you put a different actor in Tom's

16:57

role. They could have created that it could

17:00

have been more like, Hey, you know, you're

17:02

my guy. But what

17:04

Tom did, and what I really

17:06

wanted out of that role, and Tom didn't,

17:09

and I didn't really talk about this, Tom just

17:11

did it instinctively. Was

17:14

this older man, Cubbit's this younger

17:16

man. And Cubbit's his freedom, his beauty. And

17:20

that's where that comes from. It's not, oh, this

17:22

is my adopted son. That's not what this movie is.

17:26

And, and that's far more interesting to

17:29

me. Because if you really take that out to the

17:31

rest of the film, Johnny's

17:34

asking this young man to take over a club that Johnny thinks

17:36

is going to kill him. Take

17:39

this thing over that's about to kill me.

17:41

What is that? That's not familial. That

17:44

is this other thing. And yes,

17:47

Johnny thinks that Benny can handle it. That's why

17:49

he's picking him, but he's still trying to get

17:51

out. He's trying to get out of this thing. And

17:54

that relationship, I think is, I think

17:57

it's fascinating. And I think it's,

17:59

it's made more fascinating by

18:01

Tom Hardy's parents and by

18:03

Austin's ability to absorb it.

18:05

Like you can't take Austin out of that

18:07

scene either, you know, he sticks

18:10

right there and it really is a

18:12

tribute to

18:14

those two actors. Yeah, he covets

18:16

his beauty, he covets it seems as well

18:19

an authenticity that maybe he doesn't fully

18:21

see in himself is the sense that

18:24

I get from the film. And

18:26

it's fascinating because I asked that question

18:28

because I almost got the sense watching

18:30

it, knowing what little I know

18:33

about Tom Hardy and his reputation as an amazing

18:35

actor. I wondered if that might even be the

18:37

case where the filmmaking

18:39

was influenced by choices an actor was

18:41

making and it turns out turns out

18:43

that's it that that collaboration how I

18:46

know we have to wind up here, but I

18:48

was going to ask you a question I've actually

18:50

never asked somehow in dozens of interviews, I've never

18:52

asked a filmmaker and maybe this will tie in

18:54

that collaboration and being on set and having those

18:56

magical moments like that. What's

18:58

your favorite part of filmmaking? It

19:01

could be philosophical, it could be practical. When

19:04

you think about the process, what's your favorite part?

19:08

I mean, I have to break it up because I

19:10

really do love all the

19:12

parts and what I like actually is that there

19:15

is no repetition. You know,

19:17

as you get older and I get

19:19

more advanced in my career, yes,

19:22

I've learned things, but

19:24

there is no repetition in this work.

19:27

It is all custom built,

19:29

custom designed. The most

19:32

custom thing you can possibly imagine

19:35

like the ones in the movie. Absolutely.

19:38

And scripts are

19:40

all designed differently. The

19:44

performances are all brought out differently

19:47

because each actor is different. Even

19:50

the editing comes together in different

19:52

ways, the music comes together in

19:54

different ways, and then ultimately

19:56

the world receives them how they receive it. You

19:59

know? Bernice would talk about that.

20:01

He's like, I just make, you know, the

20:03

world decides whether or not they're going to

20:05

be successful. And so you really

20:08

don't know and not to

20:10

get too dreamy about it, but

20:12

it feels like a bit of alchemy. It

20:15

feels like you are taking very

20:18

real pragmatic tools and

20:20

things. And when you're lucky,

20:24

they come together in a way that

20:26

makes something very

20:28

special, that some

20:30

new form. And that's

20:32

really the best part of my

20:35

last question for you. And I know, as you

20:37

promote this film, you're probably getting asked a lot

20:40

of questions about Austin Butler. I know you cast

20:42

him before Elvis came out. Here's

20:44

where I'm going to try to go with it. Other

20:46

than acknowledging that he is absurdly good looking, which

20:48

let's be clear, he is, it's becoming harder and

20:51

harder for me as I see more of his

20:53

work to articulate what it is that makes him

20:56

for whatever this phrase even means, a movie star.

20:59

And like a classic Hollywood movie star, you

21:01

give him a great character introduction here, cutting

21:03

between him and Kathy, again, from her point

21:05

of view, seeing him for the first time

21:07

in that dramatic lighting. But having spent however

21:09

many weeks you spent framing that

21:11

face, have you come up with a way to

21:13

articulate what makes him so magnetic? Beyond

21:16

just saying he is a stone cold movie

21:18

star, it's hard to, but I've been around

21:20

a few movie stars. And

21:24

it is not about how they look. It

21:28

really is not. There

21:30

is something just underneath their

21:34

skin that operates

21:36

differently than other people's. And

21:39

it's not fair. It's not fair

21:41

to the world that some people

21:43

wake up with this ability and

21:45

some people don't. These people do.

21:48

Jodi has it. Tom has it. Michael Shannon

21:50

has it. When they

21:53

get on screen, there

21:56

is stuff that they're doing that you just

21:58

can't take your eyes off of. You

22:00

know, and I

22:03

know it when I see it is the best I could tell you.

22:07

I know it when I see it. And the

22:09

funny thing is sometimes you don't know it until they're on

22:11

camera. You might

22:13

be talking to them in real life and

22:15

not really see it. That's not

22:17

the case for Austin. The

22:19

first time I shook his hand, I was like, done, you

22:22

know, this is it. But

22:24

Jodi, for instance, Jodi is a bit of

22:26

a chameleon. You meet Jodi

22:29

and she's completely, I'm assuming, this young British woman.

22:31

I'm like, oh, nice. But

22:34

then she shows up and it's like,

22:36

holy cow, that's Jodi Comer. So

22:39

some of these people you just have to put on

22:42

screen to see that. I wish

22:44

I could give you a more concise answer, but

22:46

they're movie stars for a reason. That is for sure. Absolutely

22:49

with you there. Jeff Nichols, it was a pleasure to have

22:51

you back on Film Spotting. Thanks so much for your time

22:53

and best of luck with the movie. Thanks

22:56

Adam. Hey. I'm

23:04

Benny. Hello.

23:09

Great interview, Adam. Seems like a wonderful guy and

23:11

it's been a while since we've run one

23:14

of these. You should do more of these. As

23:16

I've said before, you're really good at this and

23:18

it was a fascinating conversation. I loved the

23:21

part talking about the imagery, the mythic sort of

23:23

imagery of the bikers that he made sure to

23:25

put in there, even as the movie swerves away

23:27

from that. And what came to mind as I

23:29

was listening is the

23:32

one shot of them riding along

23:34

on the highway through these Midwestern cornfields.

23:36

And this is early on and they're

23:39

sort of blurring by. It's impressionistic almost.

23:42

And the stalks of corn at this

23:44

point, it's not overdone. This isn't like

23:46

a field of dreams type look, but

23:49

they're full, they're tall, they're golden.

23:52

And then I thought of, you know, at the end of

23:54

the film, when the gang, the group has developed

23:56

into this gang and changed considerably, we

23:59

returned to a very. similar road and

24:02

I don't know if this was planned or

24:04

it's just how it worked out but the

24:06

corn has been harvested and those fields are

24:08

just bare and it's a completely different feel

24:10

from what we saw earlier so

24:12

so glad you guys touched on that and

24:14

also fascinating to hear about these did he

24:17

call them like a digital research pack or

24:19

something that the actors got with the photos

24:21

the original photos and

24:24

the interview recordings for

24:26

their characters what was interesting

24:28

to me is I think the performances you know

24:30

across the board are pretty strong in this film but the person

24:32

who stood out to me was the

24:35

person who played Brucey Damon Harriman

24:38

and Nichols notes that he was something of an

24:40

amalgam he didn't get one of these packs and

24:42

it just made me think you know Harriman

24:45

gave this it was maybe the most natural

24:47

performance in the film to me just filled

24:49

up with real life and experience was that

24:51

a coincidence was that just what the actor

24:53

brought but yeah very interesting to hear about

24:55

that research process on this film we

24:58

may have to come back to that point

25:00

here in a little bit but first I

25:02

also had a chance to speak with Elvis

25:04

slash fade Routha himself yeah Austin Butler who

25:06

plays Benny in the film a note for

25:08

our 90s kids and we know there are

25:10

a lot of them out there Josh I

25:12

think they're gonna get a kick out of

25:15

hearing about one of the first movie characters

25:17

for sure Austin Butler tried to emulate here's

25:19

that conversation in

25:24

this movie we see how Johnny was

25:26

inspired to start the club by

25:28

a movie the wild one and Marlon Brando as

25:31

I read it appropriating something that wasn't

25:33

real a fictional character but what that

25:36

movie and the specific line Johnny repeats

25:38

tapped into something that was very real

25:40

which was a disaffection a disconnection that

25:42

men like Johnny felt so I have

25:45

two questions I'll start with the more

25:47

serious one were there any movies or

25:49

cinematic touchstones that were helpful for you

25:51

in preparing to play Benny or did

25:54

you mainly rely on the Danny Lyons book I

25:56

definitely watched the wild one I watched the

26:00

Loveless, which,

26:02

have you seen that film? I haven't.

26:04

Yeah, that's, it's Willem

26:07

Dafoe, rides a motorcycle on

26:09

that, and he's so cool. So

26:12

The Loveless, yeah, there

26:15

were a number of different films that I watched

26:17

around that time. But as

26:20

we got closer and closer to

26:23

filming, it became more about immersing

26:25

myself in that world. And really

26:27

in the culture of these people

26:29

who live and breathe motorcycles. So

26:32

Jeff Milburn, who most

26:34

of the bikes you see in the film are his

26:36

personal motorcycles, and he was the head

26:38

of the motorcycle stunt department, and his

26:41

whole life is motorcycles. And

26:44

then all of his friends are the same way. And

26:47

so many months before we started shooting, I

26:49

just started hanging out with him and working

26:51

on bikes and asking him to teach me

26:53

how to do motorcycle maintenance and

26:55

having conversations with him and his friends. And that

26:58

helped just understand

27:00

the feeling of motorcycles running through

27:03

your bloodstream. So here's the

27:05

less serious question I wanted to ask you off of

27:07

that one, which is maybe

27:09

because I remember how easily influenced I was,

27:11

especially when I was younger, do you remember

27:13

a time in your life where a certain

27:16

movie or character didn't just impact

27:18

you or change you in some way, but

27:20

actually prompted you to imitate them? Where you

27:22

wanted to be and actively tried to be

27:24

them? Yeah, yeah. I

27:27

mean, I think

27:29

the first that I can remember when I was

27:31

a kid was the Sandlot, and

27:33

there was a character named Benny, actually. And

27:35

the way he put on his converse and the way

27:38

that he was in the world,

27:41

I remember wanting to be him and play

27:44

baseball like him and

27:47

run like him, and he was so

27:50

cool. So that's the first

27:52

one that comes to mind, but I have so many like

27:54

that. I feel the same thing watching

27:56

Jackie Chan as a little kid

27:58

and then wanting to do martial arts. and wanting

28:00

to, you know, do stunts

28:02

and jump off the roof. And there's so many

28:05

things like that. Many

28:07

characters through time. You've played arguably

28:09

the most famous person of the last century,

28:12

who has been the subject of too much media to consume.

28:15

You've played other characters who were real

28:17

people, but nowhere near as famous characters

28:19

the audience doesn't have a significant history

28:21

with, but who you still have

28:24

files on, if you will, that you can draw

28:26

from, like Tex in Once Upon a Time and

28:28

Hollywood and Benny here. And then

28:30

there's someone like Fade Routha, who

28:32

you can read about in Frank Herbert's Dune,

28:34

how he's described, and who I'm sure much

28:36

mythology has been built up around. But otherwise,

28:38

he's a creation of the imagination. How

28:41

does your approach differ or stay the same in

28:43

these scenarios? With each, I

28:46

feel that I'm approaching as though I'm acting

28:48

for the first time. And so I

28:51

kind of always feel that I'm going back to the

28:53

drawing board and seeing what is going to serve this

28:55

story the best. Obviously,

28:57

it was something like Elvis. There's so

28:59

many images and so much audio and

29:01

video and books written about

29:03

him. And so that was a

29:06

lot of detective work. And

29:08

also, that's that he's

29:10

somebody who everybody has an idea of. And

29:13

either they see him as a caricature of

29:16

a human being, or

29:18

they, some people,

29:20

revere him like he's a

29:22

deity, you know. And so

29:24

that was a particular type of

29:27

immersion that I felt that I needed for that, because

29:29

it was also just the responsibility.

29:31

I felt very, I really

29:34

wanted to do justice to him for his

29:36

family and for all his fans and for

29:39

people who would watch it in the future and aren't familiar

29:41

with him. You know, there was such a feeling

29:43

that I had there. With something

29:45

like Fade, there's

29:48

a different feeling because you have

29:51

so much latitude, you

29:53

know, that you can play in so

29:55

many different directions. And

29:57

there was no, you know, it's

30:00

It's interesting now that the movie's out, the

30:02

decisions made you sort of

30:04

feel like, oh, well, that makes sense in

30:06

the context of the film. But his

30:10

voice, I was going to use my own

30:12

voice for a long time. And then it

30:14

was a few weeks before, it just didn't

30:16

feel right. And then that came to me.

30:18

And those ideas that

30:21

give you something to hold on to are, I

30:24

love that feeling when you just,

30:27

when something sparks. And with

30:29

that, I thought, what if, because I

30:31

grew up with the Baron as my uncle, either

30:35

through osmosis or because I've wanted

30:38

to emulate his power, or just

30:40

because we're blood, what if he's

30:42

the sort of template for how I would sound? And

30:45

at first, it seemed crazy to me. And

30:47

I thought, oh, no, that might

30:49

be an awful idea. And then I brought it to

30:51

Denis. And then we talked about it. And once we

30:54

spoke about it more, and I started to practice. And

30:56

then it started to feel exciting. And then it became,

30:59

it changes the way you breathe. And it changes

31:01

the way that you feel in your body. And

31:03

it changes your rhythms. You

31:06

humiliated our family. You

31:09

humiliated me. Kiss

31:12

or die. I'm

31:16

always just trying to find, what do you hold on to? And

31:18

then with Benny motorcycles, or

31:21

how I light a cigarette, I spent

31:24

hours just figuring out, how would I open

31:26

my lighter? And then you

31:28

find something that suddenly feels that, oh, there's

31:31

who he is. And

31:34

how does he smoke a cigarette? What's

31:37

his rhythm in life? How does he breathe? Those

31:39

things. And once you find things you can hold on to,

31:41

it's incredibly exhilarating. So it can

31:43

be both with you, where someone like

31:46

Thaid, you took something, I'll say more

31:48

internal, a thought about a relationship, a

31:50

connection, that then informs something external. And

31:53

with Benny, it's something actually external that

31:55

then informs the internal. Yeah, and

31:58

it all feeds itself, because it. with

32:01

Benny was also, all

32:03

we have to go on is what other people

32:05

say about him in the interviews. And

32:07

you don't have any audio recording of

32:10

him. And you don't have any image

32:12

of his face. You only have him

32:14

from behind or you have the top of his

32:16

head as he's leaning over a pool table. And

32:19

so he's this enigma, he's this mystery. And

32:21

so, and you're seeing him

32:23

in this in the snapshot of the

32:25

time period of this film. So you don't, you don't

32:27

know about his childhood. You don't know about what made

32:30

him the way that he is. And so a lot

32:32

of that was the time spent in imagination

32:34

and trying to figure out what is

32:36

his relationship with his dad and how

32:38

does that lead to the type

32:41

of person that would seek this family of outsiders.

32:43

And, you know, and so a lot of that

32:45

is the internal stuff. And then you find some

32:47

external stuff that helps feed the internal

32:50

and it kind of, it's this back and forth

32:52

that I feel. Well, diving

32:54

into Benny as a character, a little

32:56

bit more of my sense and Jeff

32:58

Nichols confirmed this when I spoke to

33:01

him was that Benny presented a conundrum

33:03

for an actor because so much of

33:05

his identity is intentionally mysterious or absent.

33:07

He, he embodies what both Kathy and

33:09

Johnny envision him to be. And

33:12

those visions aren't necessarily in harmony. Empty vessel

33:14

was the term Jeff used. And I get

33:16

that. I get that as intellectually as a

33:18

thematic conflict. And practically when you're creating and

33:20

playing a character, aren't you trying to fill

33:23

that vessel? You have to play a man,

33:25

not a symbol. And even

33:27

the most wayward seeming souls have wants

33:29

and needs to be explored. So how

33:31

did you serve the story that the

33:34

writer director wanted to tell while also

33:36

serving your craft as an actor? It's

33:39

a great question. And there's

33:41

something that I thought about a lot because there's

33:43

lines in the film like he doesn't care

33:46

about anything. And

33:50

I had to question, is that true? Does he

33:53

actually not care about anything? It's

33:56

hard to play somebody who doesn't care

33:58

about anything because obviously. He cares about something.

34:02

I think he cares about his own freedom. I

34:05

think he cares about the people that he's

34:07

around as long as they don't impose rules

34:09

or expectations

34:11

necessarily upon him. He's

34:14

an incredibly loyal person. He

34:16

would die for the club. He would

34:18

die for Johnny as long

34:20

as there's not rules imposed upon him. So

34:25

he's a very rebellious figure in that

34:27

way, but yet so

34:29

loyal. So I think that there is,

34:32

there's obviously love there as well. And

34:34

so that becomes an interesting exploration

34:37

of the feeling of towards

34:40

the end of the film, I don't want

34:42

to spoil anything, but there are moments that

34:44

you see the love for between

34:46

him and Johnny and between him and Kathy.

34:49

And that I think he really does

34:51

have care inside of him, but he's

34:53

very good at compartmentalizing. And

34:56

that's, I've definitely seen whispers

34:58

of that in myself where as an

35:01

actor, you go off and you'd film a movie in

35:03

another country for six

35:05

months, and you create this new

35:07

family with everybody that you're on set with,

35:09

and then you go off to another family

35:11

and you shoot another thing and you're suddenly

35:14

in a different country and your family's back

35:16

home, your blood family's back home, but you

35:18

might not see them for a long time. And I've

35:21

been doing that from such a young age that

35:24

I got very good for a while

35:26

at compartmentalizing my life to

35:28

where I could just be incredibly present

35:30

with whoever I'm with right now in front of

35:32

me. And it's

35:35

as though nothing else exists in the world. And

35:37

I think Benny is that way. And

35:40

so it's interesting to explore somebody on the extreme

35:42

end of that spectrum and to learn

35:44

about myself through that process and realize how much more

35:46

balance I want to have in my life and

35:50

how important it is to nurture friendships and

35:52

relationships when you're, no

35:54

matter where you are in the world, because it helps,

35:58

you know, for one, it just, that's what makes me feel better. makes

36:00

life worth living is our relationships and

36:04

doing life with people that you love. I

36:07

want to ask you more about that relationship between

36:09

Benny and Johnny and that love and that loyalty

36:11

and how it's displayed. It's my

36:13

favorite scene in the movie and it's one

36:15

that Jeff gave me some intel on where

36:17

Johnny talks to Benny at night at the

36:19

picnic and confides in him what his aspirations

36:21

are for Benny, aspirations that maybe Benny doesn't

36:23

have for himself. This is

36:25

truly an intimate scene between these two

36:27

men, as intimate as any scene in

36:29

the entire movie. And I became

36:32

very aware, not in a way that took me out of

36:34

the scene, but I became very aware of the choices you

36:36

and Tom Hardy as the

36:38

one instigating the conversation, especially we're

36:41

making as if Tom was, let's

36:43

say, challenging Austin in

36:45

a way that directly informed how Johnny

36:47

was challenging Benny, getting closer and closer

36:49

and closer and quieter and quieter in

36:51

a way that that men, much less

36:53

men who are members of a motorcycle

36:55

gang together very rarely do with each

36:57

other. And you don't back away, nor

37:00

do you impose anything physically back

37:02

onto him. You hold steady and it exists

37:05

in that space, exists in that tension. Jeff

37:07

said that Tom had that idea,

37:09

brought that to that scene. What's your recollection of

37:11

shooting that exchange? That's

37:13

such a fascinating night. So

37:16

yeah, I walk up to the bike. Jeff

37:19

had sort of given

37:21

us his idea for the scene, which was we'd

37:24

be doing the scene from maybe six feet apart, we'd

37:26

have the whole conversation that way. And

37:30

that wasn't what Tom was feeling. And

37:32

so he got closer

37:34

and then he got closer and then

37:36

he got incredibly close. And

37:39

it's a type of proximity

37:41

that we don't

37:44

experience much in life unless you're going to kiss

37:46

somebody or fight somebody. And

37:49

so it's like, there's an

37:51

incredible intimacy with that. And

37:54

Tom's a powerful force

37:57

and it was so

37:59

palpable when he'd got that close and

38:02

he did something brilliant as well. I think Jeff

38:04

would probably have told you this story, but they

38:08

had to start pulling the camera around to

38:11

get us from the side, because he's getting so close and now it becomes

38:13

a 50-50 shot. And

38:15

then now Tom's silhouetted,

38:17

but he turned his head just perfectly

38:20

to get that street lamp on

38:22

his face. And that was

38:24

such a stroke of brilliance on his

38:26

part. Just it shows his understanding. I

38:29

wonder if he was even conscious or if it's just a

38:31

sixth sense with him at this point of knowing where the

38:34

camera and the light is and everything, but he's so brilliant.

38:37

But it ramped up the intensity

38:39

of that moment. And it added

38:41

to the stakes of the scene for me for

38:43

sure. And that's

38:45

one of the great joys to get to work with somebody

38:47

like Tom, because there's certain actors

38:50

that you kind of know what they may do. And

38:52

with Tom, you never know the way he's gonna

38:55

approach something. And

38:57

being his partner in that moment is

38:59

exhilarating. Well,

39:01

there's so much more I'd love to talk with

39:03

you about about this movie, about acting, but hopefully

39:06

another time, another movie, we'll get an opportunity. Thanks

39:08

so much for your time. It was a pleasure.

39:10

Thank you so much. Thank you, Tom. What

39:13

were you thinking back there? What?

39:17

Hey there, when you need to come, try

39:20

something like that. Nothing,

39:23

I saw you squaring off with them guys. What

39:26

I need to think for. Hey,

39:30

you want me, kid? Maybe

39:33

goes without saying, but very genuinely

39:35

hoped to get a chance to

39:37

speak to Austin Butler again as

39:39

he continues to progress in his career.

39:42

Pretty good feeling, Josh. He's gonna

39:44

give us some more interesting performances to

39:46

dive into. Of course, getting a chance

39:48

to catch up with Jeff Nichols as

39:50

well, who had previously been on film

39:53

spotting. The Bike Riders is currently out

39:55

in wide release. You have now

39:57

seen the film, Josh. We've heard a few of your

39:59

thoughts coming out. of the Nichols interview. You're

40:01

a fan of Jeff Nichols work as

40:03

I am. We've both recommended every

40:06

one of his previous films with I think

40:08

Take Shelter still as the pinnacle for both

40:10

of us. Where does the bike rider sit?

40:13

Yeah, it's another good one. I mean,

40:15

this has been an incredibly solid filmmaker.

40:17

If I like maybe

40:20

some of his earlier stuff even more,

40:22

it might be, I just saw

40:24

this last night, so I'm still trying to wrap my head around

40:26

this. It might be circling

40:29

around this idea of masculinity that you also

40:31

touched on in your review. I think Nichols

40:33

called it a study of hyper-masculinity, which is

40:35

absolutely the case. And this has been a

40:38

through line in his work, especially

40:40

I think in Shotgun Stories

40:43

and Take Shelter, which are among

40:45

my favorites of his. And

40:48

I'm trying to figure

40:50

out why this felt like

40:53

it interrogated masculinity a

40:55

little bit less to me than some of

40:57

his other films. And maybe it's because interests

41:00

were elsewhere in looking at other things. And

41:02

certainly it's there by centering

41:04

Jodie Comer's character as

41:07

our voice. I mean, she is to some

41:09

degree interrogating it as also came

41:11

up in the interview. So yeah, I'm just

41:13

trying to still think through that. So I

41:15

probably have it a little lower than some

41:17

of the other films. I'm going to take

41:20

this occasion though, just to stump for my

41:22

second favorite film from

41:24

Jeff Nichols, which doesn't really get talked about

41:26

much when it comes to his work. And that's Loving.

41:28

That is his dramatization of the

41:31

1958 marriage between Richard and Mildred.

41:33

Loving, this was the white man and black

41:36

woman whose marriage was declared illegal. Their case

41:38

went to the Supreme Court. And

41:41

it's such a

41:44

careful portrait of domesticity

41:46

and telling this historical

41:48

story through their everyday

41:51

genuine affection for each other that

41:54

stands apart from other socially aimed

41:56

historical pictures that

41:58

sets it apart. So anyway, we're a little off track,

42:00

but whenever I get a chance to tell people, go

42:03

see Loving if you happen to skip that Jeff

42:05

Nichols film, really, it's a wonderful

42:07

one. At Bike Riders, I would say

42:09

another pretty solid one. Yeah, I'm

42:11

a fan of Loving as well, though

42:14

I probably have both Take Shelter and

42:16

Shotgun Stories a little higher. That

42:19

potent exploration of masculinity in those

42:21

two films is something that maybe

42:24

just resonates with me a little more. But

42:26

again, a fan of all these films, I

42:28

have the bike riders sitting a little lower

42:31

as well and I'm conflicted because there are

42:33

aspects, obviously, I responded very positively too. I

42:36

was able to get in to those elements with Jeff and

42:38

with Austin. And there were aspects

42:40

that didn't work as well for me,

42:42

Josh, which I was also able to

42:45

explore with the two interview subjects. They

42:47

provided great insights too. Not surprisingly, there

42:49

were clear choices made here. It's not

42:52

like these artists overlooked anything or made

42:54

any mistakes, but it goes back kind

42:56

of to my first question to Jeff

42:58

here again, he gave a very good

43:01

answer. How

43:03

he decided on the perspective and you mentioned this

43:05

in terms of it being focused on Jodie Comer's

43:07

character. I'm going to use the actors names here,

43:10

but of course I'm talking about the characters. This

43:12

could be Hardy's film. This could be

43:15

Butler's film or it could be Comer's film.

43:17

There's a very different version entirely. That's

43:19

Mike Feist's film. The document of the writer

43:21

and photographer who documented this club and how

43:24

he saw it all unfold and how he

43:26

looks back on it and processes it. Now

43:28

what we get is largely Comer's point of

43:30

view. The story is Kathy tells it and

43:33

that narrative tension between

43:36

the three arguably should serve the

43:38

story well since it matches the

43:40

tension between the characters. Rather

43:43

than adding it undercut the story a bit

43:45

for me, I felt like we either needed

43:47

to commit even further to it being all

43:49

from Kathy's perspective or focused on any one

43:51

of their journeys or not really use

43:54

that framing device of the interviews and her narration at

43:56

all. Every time we dip

43:58

back into the present or heard Comer's voiceover,

44:01

it stripped away some of the narrative urgency for me

44:03

and maybe even a little bit of the danger. And

44:05

I mean that just in terms of the unknown, the

44:08

sense that this is all unfolding in front of

44:10

us and it could go any direction. There's

44:12

a patina of certainty to it, to

44:14

what was otherwise a powder

44:16

cake or could have been a very explosive

44:18

powder cake. And while I haven't seen a

44:21

lot of her work, Comer

44:23

is clearly immensely talented,

44:25

especially when it comes to accents. But

44:28

from her very first line, I

44:30

knew without knowing anything about

44:32

the real people the movie is based on, I

44:35

knew that there had to be a real

44:37

Kathy on tape that Comer

44:39

studied and studied and study and surely

44:42

nailed down to the point where if

44:44

you put their voices on tape and

44:46

listen to them and compare them, you

44:49

might be unable to determine who is

44:51

who. But veracity doesn't

44:53

always equal truth. And I found it to

44:55

be a bit of a distraction. I couldn't

44:57

fully suspend the disbelief we suspend every time

44:59

we watch a movie. Hey, I

45:01

know that actor, they're not the person they're pretending

45:04

to be on screen. That

45:06

is another aspect that undercut the story a

45:08

little bit for me. What did you make

45:11

of Comer? It took me a while to

45:13

adjust to what she was doing. And

45:15

initially it was a bit of a

45:17

like, you know, this is largely set around Chicago. It's like,

45:20

we sound like that. Maybe

45:22

to someone else's ear we do. But

45:25

as you said, I'm sure it's rooted

45:28

in authenticity. It might be a case

45:30

of truth being,

45:33

you know, how about this

45:35

truth sounding stranger than fiction because

45:38

even if that is intensely accurate, which it

45:40

probably is, yeah, it did take me a

45:42

while to adjust to that, that

45:44

manner of speaking. I think in the

45:47

moments and in her reactions, her facial

45:49

reactions, as she's an observer of these

45:51

men and their patterns, she's excellent. And

45:54

this goes to, it's interesting, the structure is kind

45:56

of what you're talking about that you had some difficulty

45:58

with. had similar

46:01

issues but came at it from a different way.

46:03

I almost enjoyed this more as

46:06

that anthropological study with

46:08

Kathy as our witness

46:11

and Feist's character as

46:13

our interviewer more

46:15

than, and they tend to drop off, or

46:18

at least there are gaps where Feist in

46:20

particular disappears. And when that fell away, I

46:23

felt the movie easing more

46:25

into familiar genre rhythms. And

46:28

it definitely becomes more

46:30

that in its last third, I would say,

46:32

before wrapping things up back with Feist. And

46:35

that's where I felt a little less of a

46:37

connection to what was going on. And maybe it's

46:39

again going back to Nichols' work. He

46:42

has been so creative

46:44

about using genre and

46:47

upending our expectations, even something like

46:49

mud, which is sort

46:51

of like a spun

46:53

tail, like a Mark Twain tail, and he

46:55

does something different with

46:58

that. And right

47:00

from Take Shelter is like sci-fi sort

47:02

of psychological horror. You don't know what

47:04

to describe something like that. And then

47:06

we have Midnight Special, which is a,

47:09

I mean, maybe a

47:11

superhero slash another sci-fi attempt.

47:13

These are all very distinct

47:17

attempts to wrestle with and create

47:19

something completely new out of genre.

47:22

And here, the genre elements felt just

47:24

more like genre. And

47:27

that tended to happen for me when

47:29

we got away from the anthropological approach.

47:31

Yeah, I think we're seeing that similarly

47:33

in terms of me wanting maybe for

47:35

it to commit even further to that

47:37

approach. And then there's Benny. And this

47:39

was the question I was most eager

47:41

to hear Butler answer, the one about

47:43

him playing someone who is effectively that

47:45

empty vessel, as I thought about him

47:47

watching the film. And as Nichols

47:50

even described him, this quick

47:52

digression, not something we spent much time on,

47:54

if any, over the years, maybe

47:57

tied a little bit to spectator theory, but just

47:59

goes back. even to the old star

48:01

system in classical Hollywood cinema, where sometimes

48:03

you think about the degree to which

48:06

our viewing of a film is

48:08

influenced by our relationship to the

48:10

star, their persona, their career, the

48:12

business, et cetera, all these outside

48:15

external elements. I think it's

48:17

fair to say the bike riders feels like the

48:19

Austin Butler movie between something like Once

48:21

Upon a Time in Hollywood and Elvis,

48:24

not the movie after Elvis, which it

48:26

kind of was because Elvis

48:28

wasn't out and that whole wave hadn't begun.

48:30

The actor who was cast in the bike

48:32

riders and who plays Benny is

48:34

not Oscar nominee Austin

48:36

Butler. So going back

48:38

to that narrative tension and the issue of perspective we've

48:41

touched on, watching it in the

48:43

only order there is, is there

48:45

a sense that Butler simply isn't getting enough to

48:47

do here? Maybe. I

48:49

think it's at least something to acknowledge and

48:52

is an interesting topic to think about, but

48:54

it's not ultimately about Butler for me, it's

48:56

about Benny and credit to Butler. He expressed

48:58

his approach so thoughtfully and it all comes

49:01

through on screen. He latched on to Benny's

49:03

sense of loyalty. He latched on to his

49:05

innate inability to be pinned down and to

49:07

follow rules. That gives the

49:09

character some heft, but

49:12

not quite enough. I was always too aware

49:14

of him representing something, being that simple, what

49:16

he means to Kathy, what he means to

49:18

Johnny, and not aware of

49:20

him so much as a man. And it

49:22

all co-mingles, right? He represents something to them

49:25

that they feel so passionately about, that

49:27

you want the character to have more substance,

49:29

but with more substance, you'd also tap even

49:31

more strongly into why they feel so passionately

49:33

about him. It all has to work together.

49:36

It struck me while watching it, as

49:39

written, what an incredibly challenging role

49:41

Benny is for an actor, because

49:43

they even say on the screen,

49:45

something about, is it about

49:48

ideas? Like he doesn't hold to Benny's strong

49:50

ideas or

49:52

something like that, which is

49:54

true, but then you think, okay,

49:56

so that's why he's registering this way. How

49:59

do you... that. Yeah,

50:01

that's what I wanted to hear. That's what Butler

50:03

spoke to and he probably did as well as

50:06

he could, you know,

50:08

leaning a lot on the natural star power

50:10

as Nichols, you know, as you guys

50:12

discussed on charisma, however you want to define

50:14

that. So I think, you know,

50:16

I think Butler did what he could and gives

50:19

a good performance with that part, but

50:21

as you're describing something like that would

50:23

have also helped, I feel like, in

50:25

the relationship between Benny and Kathy. Because

50:28

you, you get that initial spark and,

50:31

you know, what she was attracted to. You

50:34

don't really get much of what he was attracted

50:37

to, not because Comer isn't

50:39

playing a fully involved

50:41

human being. She definitely is.

50:43

Yeah, but you're not, there's

50:45

nothing in between them that you

50:48

sense carries through these many years and

50:50

then the tension, the movie ultimately, again, back to genre

50:52

here, really pins its

50:55

narrative on, is he going to choose

50:57

her the gang? Right? We need to

51:00

know more about his allegiance to her

51:02

besides just being in these scenes occasionally with

51:04

her. And I think that was

51:06

a challenge in the part as written as well

51:09

is it doesn't allow for that element if he's

51:11

also going to be something of

51:13

this, this inscrutable symbol.

51:16

The bike riders is currently playing in

51:18

wide release. My thanks again to both

51:20

Austin Butler and Jeff Nichols for coming

51:22

on Film Spotting. We'd love to hear

51:24

your thoughts about the film, about

51:27

Nichols direction, about Butler's performance.

51:29

If you've seen the movie,

51:31

feedback at filmspotting.net. Film

51:33

Spotting is an independently produced show. So

51:36

what that means is we rely

51:38

a lot on the support of listeners. So

51:41

whether you're a longtime listener or just found

51:43

us recently, here's one way you can help.

51:45

Take a minute, give us a rating or

51:47

a review on Apple podcasts or Spotify. Go

51:50

ahead. You can do it right now while

51:52

I'm talking. Each one of these does help

51:54

us reach new listeners. We wanted to share

51:56

a recent review we got on Apple podcasts

51:59

from Koch. It's

52:01

likely been said in plenty of reviews before

52:03

mine, but this podcast really does have something

52:05

for everyone. Whether you seek out Art House

52:08

Fair or only go to the cinema for

52:10

MCU installments, Adam and Josh have you covered.

52:12

Personally, I like to use Film Spotty to

52:14

hold myself accountable for correcting blind spots. Thanks

52:17

to their marathons and oeuvre reviews, I finally

52:19

got around to gems like Double Indemnity, In

52:21

the Mood for Love, and plenty of others.

52:24

I started listening some time around the great

52:26

battle of three billboards and have been hooked

52:28

ever since. Now I'm a proud member

52:30

of the Film Spotting family and attended my first

52:32

Trivia Spotting last month, contributing

52:35

roughly zero correct answers. Sorry,

52:37

Sam. Oh well, maybe

52:39

next time. Maybe next time

52:41

would be great to see you at our next Trivia

52:44

Spotting. Thanks for that, Cotch22. Notable

52:46

that holding myself accountable for correcting cinematic

52:49

blind spots is also how I like

52:51

to use Film Spotting. Another

52:53

way you can support us, join the

52:55

Film Spotting family at filmspottingfamily.com as

52:58

Cotch22 did. We'd

53:00

like to welcome new Family Plus member, TJ

53:02

Duane in Warrensburg, Missouri. TJ writes, my wife,

53:04

Sam and I have been listening to Film

53:06

Spotting on our commutes to Kansas City's movie

53:09

theaters for over a decade. I don't remember

53:11

when we started listening, but I do remember,

53:13

here's another one, The Infamous Wolf of Wall

53:15

Street versus American Hustle Debate. Fortunately, Josh,

53:17

they're team, Marty. So it

53:20

was sometime around then. We just had

53:22

our first baby, Little Lottie. So in

53:24

honor of our future in cinephilia with

53:26

her, we've decided to finally pay the

53:28

dealer. Well favorite segment, yeah, favorite segment

53:30

or episode, we're big Masker theater fans,

53:33

but we went through a major South

53:35

Korean marathon around when you guys did

53:37

and it really changed our outlook on

53:39

cinema. Here here again for the marathons.

53:41

Reviews we got wrong recently. I'd

53:44

say Adam for Avatar 2, way wrong, a

53:46

much better family movie than any Fast and

53:49

Furious flick. Okay, sure.

53:51

There's Letterbox four favorites, The Godfather 2,

53:53

The Third Man, Fanny and Alexander, and The

53:56

Tree of Life, some heady stuff there in

53:58

Fanny and Tree of Life, Josh. favorite

54:00

movie he revisited recently talk about blind spots

54:03

here's a film I'd never heard

54:05

of until I read this Merry Christmas mr.

54:07

Lawrence really blew my hair back after

54:09

being fairly unimpressed seeing it like a decade ago we

54:11

all grow I suppose this is a 1983 I mean

54:14

you know this Josh it's a 1983 World War II

54:16

set film with

54:18

David Bowie that's currently on the criterion channel

54:21

have never ever heard of this let

54:23

alone see me twice I mean I

54:25

know look at TJ a

54:27

random film or filmmaker TJ loves Terrence

54:29

Fisher and all of his hammer horror

54:31

work 58 Dracula with Christopher Lee 57's

54:34

The Curse of Frankenstein with Peter Cushing

54:36

he credits the tree of life with

54:38

becoming a cinephile and finally a favorite

54:40

book about movies or movie making the

54:42

very good pictures at a revolution by

54:44

Mark Harris we thank TJ and Sam

54:46

and we welcome them to the family

54:48

and we welcome to the Dwayne family

54:51

little Lottie in addition to keeping us doing

54:53

what we're doing your support comes with perks

54:56

you get to listen early and add free

54:58

you get Sam's weekly newsletter you get monthly

55:00

bonus shows coming soon in the feed the

55:03

crow 94 that's in

55:05

anticipation of the crow remake

55:07

anticipation might be a strong word but we're

55:09

gonna go back and take a look at

55:11

the movie that inspired it the

55:13

crow remake comes out in August you have any

55:16

hopes Josh for what the new one retains from

55:18

the original I

55:21

don't the things that I appreciate about the

55:23

crow lots of rain there are

55:25

a lot I yeah I mean I think

55:29

it's be there singular we'll get into this

55:31

it's their singularity within that movie that makes

55:33

them special I think this is gonna be

55:35

a very very hard thing to recreate even

55:37

though I know there are many of crow

55:39

sequels none of the very successful as I

55:41

understand it yeah the rain maybe

55:44

that's it whatever this new crow does

55:46

I hope it it is fully committed

55:48

to its own vision because that more

55:51

than anything is what you can say about 1994 is the crow

55:54

that bonus show discussing the crow with

55:56

producer Sam will be dropping here very

55:58

soon in your feed and we're

56:00

kind of doing double duty for the month

56:02

of June. We're going to give you an

56:04

Ask Us Anything. If you have a question

56:07

you'd like us to answer, especially if you're

56:09

a Film Spotting family member, we'd love to

56:11

hear it. We'd love to possibly address it

56:13

in that bonus content. There is a link

56:15

to our Ask Us Anything form in the

56:18

show notes for this episode. You can go

56:20

to filmspotting.net or in whatever podcasting

56:22

platform you are on, or you can just

56:24

email us and say Ask Us Anything. We'll

56:26

put it in the bin. Looking

56:29

ahead, Josh, to July, we

56:31

are going to do that 1999 movie draft. Look

56:35

back on that incredible movie year from 25 years

56:37

ago, me, you, Sam, and

56:40

it sounds like we're all on board with the idea

56:43

of giving a Film Spotting family member a chance, as

56:45

we've done in a few instances

56:48

before, to draft with us. So here's

56:50

how it's going to work. All

56:52

current Family Plus or

56:54

Film Spotting advisory board members and

56:57

new members of those groups who joined by July

56:59

15th will have their

57:01

names thrown in the Film Spotting hat for

57:04

a chance to join us to partake in the

57:06

1999 draft fund. So all you

57:08

have to do right now, if you're

57:10

already a member of the

57:12

Film Spotting family at that Family Plus or FAB

57:14

level, you don't have to do anything. We'll

57:17

follow up later. You'll get a chance to officially

57:19

throw your hat in the ring. If you're not

57:21

a member and you want

57:23

to be part of that draft or maybe you

57:25

want to upgrade to the Family Plus to be

57:27

considered, you have until July 15th

57:29

to do that. And we're always happy

57:31

to walk you through any questions about

57:34

your membership that you may have. filmspottingfamily.com

57:36

is where you can learn more. I

57:40

just don't think you understand how Tinder works.

57:42

Can I tell you something? I know exactly

57:44

how Tinder works. Then you don't understand how

57:47

Flaw and works. How

57:51

do you think you got here? That's

57:54

Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Zora in

57:56

the trailer for Tuesday, which is currently out in London. limited

58:00

release directed by Dinah O. Pusic. The

58:02

film was about Zora and her terminally

58:05

ill daughter Tuesday, played by Lola Petticrew.

58:07

Tuesday's impending death is made literal in

58:10

the form of a talking macaw voiced

58:12

by Arinze Kenny. Josh, we

58:15

have long been in agreement that Julia

58:17

Louis-Dreyfus is the national treasure, particularly

58:19

for her performances in Nicole Hall Center's films

58:21

like Last Year's You Hurt My Feelings and

58:23

2013's Enough Said. This

58:26

is something different, and you've

58:28

already invoked whether or not this should be

58:31

in that Golden Brick conversation. We got a

58:33

listener email also along those lines. Here is

58:35

a longtime listener Kim, very racy Zuckert in

58:37

Hollywood, California. I'm a few episodes behind, so

58:40

I don't know if you've mentioned Tuesday yet.

58:42

I know you haven't reviewed it, but perhaps

58:44

it has come up in passing as a

58:47

Golden Brick possibility. Just in case it hasn't,

58:50

I just came out of it, and as far

58:52

as I'm concerned, it's the best movie of the

58:54

year so far. I will be very surprised if

58:56

I see anything that can come near it. It's

58:58

touching and heartbreaking of course, but it's also funny

59:00

at times, and the performances of Louis-Dreyfus and Petticrew

59:02

as mother and daughter are impeccable. Arinze

59:04

Kenny as death is wonderful, and you don't spend

59:06

the whole movie looking at him as a special

59:09

effect, but as another performer there in the room.

59:11

This is the first feature of writer-director Dinah O.

59:13

Pusic, who has a singular vision and a unique

59:15

point of view, and I hope this is only

59:17

the start of what we will see from her

59:19

in the future. I hope you will see it

59:21

and love it, and consider it strongly for the

59:23

2024 Golden Brick. This

59:26

movie was on our docket to discuss

59:28

this week. Before we got Kim's email,

59:30

came up briefly during our summer preview as well.

59:32

I do very much appreciate

59:34

Kim's thoughts and recommendation. Her plea to

59:36

the brick committee, are you inclined to

59:39

act on her plea and officially nominate

59:41

Tuesday? Oh yeah, yeah, she's right on.

59:43

I mean, when we think about brick

59:45

candidates, they don't always have to

59:47

take a really big swing. Often they

59:49

do, but it's not like something we require.

59:52

This is a really big swing, especially

59:54

for a feature debut that

59:57

you're going to take an incredibly

59:59

heavy material. and try

1:00:01

to approach it with

1:00:03

this metaphysical conceit of,

1:00:06

you know, this is a bird not

1:00:08

only that is, is talking, not just

1:00:10

repeating as some birds like this do,

1:00:13

but, but is talking intelligently is changing

1:00:15

in size depending on the situation from

1:00:18

minuscule to giant. Uh, it

1:00:21

works. That's all I can say, Adam,

1:00:23

is that it's, I went in with

1:00:25

trepidation just knowing the basic premise because

1:00:29

you're, it, it could have just failed miserably.

1:00:31

It could have been, you know, trite. It

1:00:34

could have come across as silly or just kind of

1:00:36

uncomfortable and awkward. But instead

1:00:38

for me, the word that came to

1:00:40

mind was, was pastoral. I found

1:00:42

this deeply beautiful

1:00:45

and very affecting. And,

1:00:47

you know, Kim touched on some of the

1:00:50

work by Kenny that is in the background

1:00:52

here. I think that is so crucial.

1:00:54

I had to track down how they pulled

1:00:57

this off afterwards. And there are, of course,

1:01:00

CGI effects that

1:01:02

I think are exquisitely detailed. But

1:01:04

Kenny as this, as mimicking the

1:01:07

movements on set as being there

1:01:09

in person and also providing the

1:01:12

bird named death has this gruff groaning

1:01:14

voice, which they

1:01:17

ended up using, you know, for the

1:01:19

finished film is also somehow perfect. And

1:01:22

so it's not only as Kim said that

1:01:24

you completely believe this to

1:01:26

be a fully involved character in the

1:01:28

narrative we're watching, but it gives so

1:01:30

much for Petticrew who is wonderful, who

1:01:32

Louis and Louis Dreyfus, who is also

1:01:34

wonderful. I'm sure we'll get to, to

1:01:37

her enough to work off of that.

1:01:39

You buy it. And I gotta say

1:01:41

there's a test moment for this film, whether you're in

1:01:43

or out, I think I'm not

1:01:45

saying this is the highlight, but I'm saying it works.

1:01:48

And it's when Tuesday,

1:01:51

the teenager at this point, she's

1:01:53

formed this relationship with death. And

1:01:55

they've been through a few things together. They

1:01:59

wrapped together. together, to Ice Cubes, it was

1:02:01

a good day. And that's,

1:02:03

I almost don't want to say that because

1:02:05

I'm afraid of chasing people away from this

1:02:08

movie. But that moment

1:02:10

works. And if that moment worked, again,

1:02:12

not necessarily the highlight, but if that

1:02:14

moment just works even

1:02:16

a little bit, you know that

1:02:18

the rest of the film is all good and it happens

1:02:20

to be all great to my mind. Yeah, I don't know

1:02:22

if I have a set answer in

1:02:24

mind to that question, but as I think back

1:02:26

on the film and my experience

1:02:29

with it, I remember about seven or eight

1:02:31

different moments where I said, is

1:02:34

this really going down this way? And am I on

1:02:36

board with it? And then my answer always being, yes.

1:02:39

Emphatically I'm on board. Like all

1:02:41

of the instincts here are somehow

1:02:44

sound, at least from my perspective.

1:02:46

And that supernatural metaphysical

1:02:48

aspect of this film, it takes place in

1:02:51

the real world, but obviously has this heightened

1:02:53

kind of fairy tale aspect to it film.

1:02:56

It means it all relies inherently

1:02:58

on a bit of magic. And

1:03:01

you know what isn't fun at all? Talking

1:03:03

about and trying to explain magic tricks. But

1:03:06

here again, somehow there's not a

1:03:08

false note emotionally. And this

1:03:11

is something Kim said as well, or

1:03:13

even in terms of some of the

1:03:15

humor, that all feels exactly appropriate for

1:03:17

the subject matter. And the big swing,

1:03:19

as you put it, is

1:03:22

so inspired. The portrayal of death as

1:03:25

this shape-shifting, or as you noted,

1:03:27

at least size-shifting, beautiful,

1:03:30

but also kind of trashy

1:03:32

bird. Well, how great then when we

1:03:34

first meet the bird. Yeah, it's so

1:03:37

dingy and mottled. Like this bird and

1:03:39

it's carried has physically drained it. Yeah.

1:03:41

Yeah. And I will touch on

1:03:44

this. I don't know that the film is trying

1:03:46

deliberately to be in dialogue

1:03:48

with a film like The Seventh Seal. But

1:03:51

taking that film and just taking our own human

1:03:54

experience with death. Death is a

1:03:56

constant presence, but one

1:03:58

we don't get to engage. in a

1:04:00

dialogue with, not directly anyway. And when

1:04:03

you see death personified or embodied on

1:04:05

screen in some way, you think about

1:04:07

it inevitably, at least I

1:04:10

do, inevitably the seventh seal. Sure. This

1:04:12

is a more

1:04:15

compassionate, and none of this means

1:04:17

better or worse, not comparing in that way,

1:04:19

but a more compassionate, deeper

1:04:22

feeling, certainly more feminine,

1:04:25

certainly more secular, response

1:04:27

to it, it feels like it could be,

1:04:30

but it's also uniquely its own vision that

1:04:32

I don't want to tether it in any

1:04:35

way to Bergman, but I think about The

1:04:37

Bird, and you

1:04:40

look at a film like The Seventh

1:04:42

Seal with banked, Eckhart's enigmatic smile. That's

1:04:45

what we think of when we think of death. It's

1:04:47

there for all of us. That face

1:04:49

rarely divulging anything, but saying

1:04:52

everything. It's a reflection almost,

1:04:54

death looking back at you. And

1:04:56

somehow that look is just enough. It compels

1:04:58

you to keep talking, to keep questioning until

1:05:01

you discover the answer that you need. And

1:05:03

except for a portion near the end

1:05:06

where death might get a little

1:05:09

too talky and life affirming, and

1:05:11

part of this is in the trailer, which quick

1:05:13

digression, I'm so glad I saw, I know we

1:05:15

say this all the time, but I am so

1:05:17

glad I saw this trailer after

1:05:19

I watched the movie. If you're listening

1:05:22

to this and you haven't watched the trailer for

1:05:24

Tuesday already, absolutely skip it and just

1:05:26

run to the theater and see the

1:05:28

movie. Some movies just shouldn't get

1:05:30

trailers, Josh. This is one of them. That

1:05:32

synopsis that we read during our summer preview,

1:05:35

it was the perfect tease. A mother and

1:05:37

her daughter must confront death when it arrives in the

1:05:40

form of an astonishing talking bird. I

1:05:42

knew that, I knew Julia Louis-Dreyfus. That's

1:05:44

all I needed to know. And so

1:05:46

I felt every nuance, every

1:05:48

detail of the surprises that this movie

1:05:50

brought, I do feel like the trailer

1:05:52

gives away some of that. But except

1:05:55

for that portion near the end, I love the balance

1:05:57

Pusic finds here. Where death is that,

1:06:00

enigmatic figure, but also

1:06:02

so expressive. That combination

1:06:04

grunt and growl that Kenny

1:06:06

does, that's the

1:06:09

bird's usual response to most everything. And

1:06:11

it means a hundred different things, depending

1:06:13

on how aggressive it is, how

1:06:15

soft it is, how loud it is,

1:06:18

how quiet it is. And

1:06:21

I think here's the ultimate

1:06:24

trick of this film for me, or the ultimate

1:06:27

magical element. Nobody

1:06:29

wants to hear, you hear

1:06:31

this brought up a lot in our culture, nobody wants

1:06:33

to hear rich and famous people complain about being rich

1:06:35

and famous, no matter how valid

1:06:37

their challenges might be. Well, I can't imagine

1:06:39

that most of us are keen to

1:06:42

hear death complain about suffering,

1:06:45

or hear death complain about pain.

1:06:48

But after that incredible opening, where

1:06:50

we experience the world viscerally

1:06:53

through the bird's eyes and

1:06:55

ears, we process it,

1:06:57

we feel it, death somehow becomes

1:06:59

one of the tragic figures in this scenario.

1:07:01

Absolutely. It does become one of these characters,

1:07:03

again, as Kim said. And I think

1:07:05

it's because we see how we're connected, that

1:07:08

it's not about like in the seven seal,

1:07:10

about a figure that's just coming to collect.

1:07:13

We accept here that death isn't

1:07:15

this cold, quizzical grim reaper, but a creature

1:07:17

who comes to us in

1:07:20

a bewildering, but

1:07:22

majestic and comforting way,

1:07:24

who somehow incorporates and encompasses

1:07:27

our pain, that's the vision

1:07:29

that somehow is realized over the course

1:07:32

of this film that made me think

1:07:35

about death in a way I had never

1:07:37

previously considered it. Yeah, I think that's the

1:07:39

pastoral quality that you're touching

1:07:41

on there. There's a

1:07:43

closeness to the actual pain,

1:07:45

emotional, psychological, and physical of being at this

1:07:47

moment at the end of life, that

1:07:50

something like seven seal maybe doesn't make space

1:07:52

for, because it's interested in very different things.

1:07:55

Maybe we'll get, maybe we need a short film of, you

1:07:57

know, Eckhart and this macaw

1:07:59

playing chess. at some point, and we'll

1:08:01

see how that goes. So,

1:08:03

yeah, Louis Dreyfuss, I mean, first of all, I

1:08:05

want to give Pettigrew her due because I think

1:08:08

she's fantastic here, as I said, in the seeds

1:08:10

individually with the

1:08:12

Macaw. And also

1:08:14

there is a knockout moment between her

1:08:16

and Louis Dreyfuss, which maybe the trailer shows.

1:08:18

And so I don't want to get into

1:08:20

it, but it does take place near

1:08:23

the end of the film that is

1:08:26

just achingly genuine, is what I'm going to

1:08:28

say. And is also showing us

1:08:30

Louis Dreyfuss as much of this film does

1:08:32

in a slightly different register. I think this

1:08:34

is more. Although she has

1:08:36

moments of comedy here and you definitely recognize

1:08:39

her mannerisms or little asides

1:08:41

you know, she must have thrown in,

1:08:43

especially early on as we're meeting her

1:08:45

character, Zora, this mother, I think

1:08:48

this is closer to like the

1:08:50

straight dramatic performance you

1:08:52

expect a, an

1:08:54

actor known mostly for comic performances who wants

1:08:56

to. And I'm not saying this is the

1:08:58

motivation at all going on here, but wants

1:09:00

to quote, be taken seriously. Right. This is

1:09:02

closer to that sort of performance than the

1:09:04

stuff that she's done with Holof Center, which

1:09:06

well, the one reason I've always loved those

1:09:09

performances because they meld beautifully, the two, right?

1:09:11

You see the sitcom genius, even

1:09:14

though she's in a different venue. And

1:09:16

all that to say is I think she's excellent here.

1:09:19

It just does feel new from at least

1:09:21

what I've seen from her, even on the

1:09:23

big screen. And I think

1:09:26

that newness was part of the

1:09:28

allure for me. And I don't, I don't

1:09:30

mean allure in terms of approaching the film,

1:09:32

but the experience of watching the film and

1:09:34

feeling like I was watching an actress get

1:09:37

to play different notes than, than

1:09:39

I've ever seen her play before that

1:09:41

I'm guessing she's played in real life

1:09:43

before Josh, but we've never, we've never

1:09:45

observed. And that is what

1:09:47

it felt like to me. It felt like I

1:09:49

was observing this character as, as acting at

1:09:51

his best should be. It felt like I

1:09:53

was observing this character, truly

1:09:56

experiencing this processing these moments

1:09:58

and this very. talking

1:12:00

about Golden Brick contenders, the

1:12:04

choice the film makes to

1:12:07

really expand outside this

1:12:10

contained universe of this house

1:12:13

where they live and where one other character,

1:12:15

her nurse, a caretaker

1:12:17

occasionally encroaches, that's another bold one.

1:12:20

And that's another swing, Josh, that could be a test

1:12:23

for some people, though I think by the time you

1:12:25

get to that point with the film, if you've already

1:12:28

decided you're on board, it's probably not

1:12:30

going to make you waver at all.

1:12:33

But let me put it this way, if you think about

1:12:35

a movie, let's say

1:12:37

where there's really a Santa Claus

1:12:39

and Santa Claus is kidnapped, what

1:12:42

happens on Christmas Eve with

1:12:44

all the presents? Do

1:12:47

people get them? What

1:12:49

has to occur then if they

1:12:51

don't all get delivered? And I love

1:12:54

the audacity of the choice the movie

1:12:56

makes here. I'm not totally

1:12:58

sure this is the one part. I'm not totally

1:13:00

sure. I felt like the

1:13:02

film knows what to do with it,

1:13:05

even as some of the moments we

1:13:07

get throughout this sequence are really quite

1:13:10

surprising and moving. Yeah, it threw me for

1:13:12

a loop where I immediately wasn't clear what

1:13:14

was happening. And maybe I was just

1:13:16

like two steps behind the film. And

1:13:18

then once I figured it out, to your point, I

1:13:21

was already on board. So I was like, Oh, okay,

1:13:23

let's go. Let's see what this is going to bring

1:13:26

about. But I will say, I don't

1:13:28

know that a movie this small in

1:13:30

terms of budget and scale, maybe

1:13:33

necessarily has what it needs to completely pull

1:13:35

off where it wants to go. Maybe

1:13:38

that's a limitation. Though at the same

1:13:40

time, I think the experience

1:13:42

of that section is crucial to

1:13:44

where Zora, the

1:13:47

mother eventually ends up without that the

1:13:50

movie couldn't get where it needs to, which

1:13:53

is I think just, you know, incredibly beautiful

1:13:55

and not tidy ending either, I would say

1:13:57

is another thing I respect about this film.