0:00

Thanks to PIA for supporting

0:02

film spotting. PIA stands for private

0:04

Internet access, and they take privacy

0:06

seriously. not only does PIA hide

0:09

your IP address, it encrypts your

0:11

entire connection. Right now,

0:13

go to PIA VPN

0:16

dot com slash film spotting to get

0:18

a whopping eighty two percent off your VPN

0:20

service, plus four free months

0:22

with a two year plan.

0:28

What kind of a show are you guys putting on here

0:30

today? You're

0:30

not interested in learning? No. Look, we're

0:32

going to do this thing. We're going to have conversation.

0:37

From

0:37

Chicago, this is film spotting. I'm

0:39

Josh Larsen, and I'm Adam Kempenar.

0:41

Time

0:43

is the thing -- Mhmm. -- time is

0:45

is the essential piece of interpretation.

0:48

You cannot start without me. See,

0:50

I start the clock. In

0:52

my left hand,

0:53

the end of the year is nigh, Josh. Sounds

0:55

ominous. We're talking about the best performances

0:58

of twenty twenty two this week and know we

1:00

cannot start without cable engines,

1:02

Lydia Tarr. Without

1:03

doubt, one of the standout performances

1:06

of the year but is it the best?

1:08

Our favorite lead and supporting performances

1:11

and much much more head on

1:13

film spotty.

1:19

Welcome

1:21

to Filmspotting. The timing of sight

1:23

and sound publishing, it's once a decade,

1:25

top one hundred films of all timeless meant

1:28

that we'd already recorded our last

1:30

show when it dropped. And now,

1:32

Josh, here we are week later, and

1:34

everyone's already done talking about it. Are you

1:36

ready to reignite the discourse

1:38

Really, you think it it's all wrapped up?

1:41

Yeah. I'm not done. I have some residual.

1:43

I'm still I'm still digging in, looking

1:46

at other's list, there's a lot to get

1:48

to yet, I think. We

1:49

do have some thoughts on the new list, which saw

1:51

a significant turnover in titles, including

1:54

in that number one slot. but

1:56

we're going to save those thoughts for just

1:58

a little bit later in the show. Also

2:01

later in the show. We've got some thoughts on

2:03

a couple of this weekend's big releases

2:05

Guillermo del Toro stop motion adaptation

2:08

of Pinocchio is coming out in limited

2:10

release and playing exclusively on

2:13

Netflix. Also, Sam Empire

2:15

of light is out the director's love letter

2:18

to the power of movies and movie

2:20

theaters. So many love

2:22

letters. radio you're

2:24

hearing an edited version of this show. As

2:26

always, you can hear the full podcast edition

2:28

of the show at film's spotting dot net

2:30

or wherever you listen to podcasts, that's

2:32

where you can get all of our

2:35

insights and rambling. Before

2:37

we get to our favorite performances of the year,

2:39

We did wanna give a quick thank you

2:41

to everyone who has taken the time

2:44

to help us spread the word about the show, Josh.

2:46

Yeah. The last couple of weeks, we have been asking

2:48

folks to tell a friend, a family member,

2:50

maybe a colleague about film spotting.

2:53

You can always post on social media

2:55

about the show, or even better

2:57

take a minute to rate or review us

2:59

on whatever podcast platform you

3:02

use. Apple podcasts, and

3:04

now Spotify as well. I think this is relatively

3:06

new on Spotify, new to me at least.

3:08

Both make rating the show or

3:10

leaving a review easy

3:12

to do. thanks a bunch to those

3:14

who have already done this. They've left some

3:16

very kind reviews over the past week.

3:19

This would include Ajay Adande,

3:21

K White, 9266

3:23

Josh Newby, Marsh Cargill, Illinois,

3:26

sci fi fan in East Islip,

3:29

Jim and Bethpage, Nick, names

3:31

taken, American idiot, and

3:33

last but certainly not least. Captain

3:36

Fartman. Thanks,

3:37

captain. Fartman. I

3:39

like that she went Fartman instead of Fartman.

3:41

It makes it sound like a superhero. Right.

3:44

And and, you know, a little classier I like

3:46

to think? A little classier and

3:48

we're nothing if not classier on film

3:50

spotting are thanks to the captain and

3:52

everyone who submitted a rating

3:54

and review. It truly does help

3:56

introduce the show to new listeners.

3:58

Maybe pumps up that Apple

4:00

or Spotify algorithm a little bit.

4:02

We saw about a sixty place

4:05

jump. Our producer Sam noticed in

4:07

the iTunes top two hundred TV

4:09

and film rankings, Josh, and we had nine

4:11

or ten brand new reviews just

4:13

in the past seven days, so have

4:15

to attribute that jump. Not

4:17

only to mister Spielberg and perhaps interest

4:20

around our review of the fablements, but also

4:22

the kind words of our listeners.

4:24

So thank you for that. Thanks for all

4:26

of your support of the show. And

4:28

now let's get on with the show.

4:29

Alright. Important business to attend to,

4:32

Adam, as the deadline approaches to

4:34

send in our nominations for the Chicago

4:36

Filmspotting Association Awards We're

4:38

going to help each other out. Sort out

4:40

these ballots that were in the midst

4:42

of and possibly flummox spy.

4:44

Yes. definitely Foamix buy. I

4:47

think we both probably have some sure

4:49

things that probably aren't going to change

4:51

much even though we still have some time to

4:53

submit these ballots. which means,

4:55

fortunately, we have some time to

4:57

continue watching things. But I feel like

4:59

performances for the most

5:01

part are pretty well set,

5:03

especially at the top of some categories

5:05

for me. But the bottom 345

5:08

sometimes can get a little

5:10

messy. Yeah.

5:11

That's pretty much where I'm at. I have, for each

5:13

of these acting categories, locks,

5:16

usually -- Mhmm. -- three or

5:18

so locks. And then I've got a

5:20

bunch of names on the bubble. So

5:22

I wanna hear who you've got. Maybe you

5:24

can swing me towards one name or

5:26

another or push me away

5:28

from certain Performances, maybe that'll

5:30

happen too. But yeah, we'll

5:32

come out of this with a set five

5:34

in each category. I like to think that we

5:37

feel good about voting for.

5:38

Yeah. Definitely give each other something to

5:40

chew on. We used to do this in private.

5:42

We didn't really consult each other when

5:44

we were forming our ballots. The picks used

5:46

to come out over the course of

5:48

some of these end of year episodes. But

5:50

I like this approach. Hopefully, listeners

5:53

do too, where we move it up a little

5:55

bit. and we admit that

5:57

things are influx, that we are flexible,

6:00

that we have some more work to

6:02

do, thinking about these lists

6:04

and we're gonna work through it all here

6:06

together. So we're gonna start with

6:08

best supporting actor what

6:10

are the easier categories for me,

6:12

Josh, just in terms of narrowing it down

6:14

to a solid five? What about

6:16

you? Yeah. Probably

6:17

because I actually have four locks

6:19

here rather than three.

6:21

So really space just for one

6:23

more name to move in. And

6:26

at this point, I'm definitely sold

6:28

on Keohui Kwan from everything

6:30

everywhere all at once. Honestly, I think he

6:32

should be considered for lead, but it looks

6:34

like most campaigning

6:36

has him in the supporting category.

6:39

So he's definitely if he was a

6:41

lock for a lead, he's absolutely a lock for me

6:43

here. in supporting. Another

6:46

early performance in terms of

6:48

the calendar year going all the way back

6:50

to Kogenada's after

6:52

yang. Justin h men as

6:54

the techno sapient. I think that's the

6:56

term -- Tahoe sapient. -- in the movie

6:58

just incredible in a very difficult

7:00

role. I think, you know, I know

7:02

he's not a robot, but these robot performances

7:05

we get over the years are

7:07

the ones that I think it can be difficult

7:09

to ascertain

7:12

how

7:13

effective they are beyond

7:15

just separating themselves from the

7:17

quote unquote humans. It's it's

7:19

not just ticks that they need

7:21

to bring to it. But for it to be a

7:23

fully realized performance, they need to do more.

7:25

And I think Justin H.man is doing that in

7:27

after Yang. Pedro Pascal, The

7:30

funniest thing in the nick cage,

7:32

meta movie, the unbearable weight of massive

7:34

talent, and funny with

7:36

cage. It was their dynamic, I

7:38

think. that really made that movie

7:41

for me.

7:42

Alright. Alright. I get it.

7:44

You're

7:44

making this up. What

7:45

is this like a little

7:48

Stanislowsky improv thing.

7:50

Well, you can stop. Stanislowsky is

7:52

he part of the resistance. Stop.

7:54

I am your guest. Gabriela

7:56

ripped the bad spread off me this morning.

7:59

Now you're sending me

7:59

on like a wild ghost ghost ghost

8:02

ghost story, but you can't quit acting.

8:04

You can't That's not your business.

8:06

Whether you like it or not, you have a gift.

8:09

And that gift brings light and

8:12

joy to an increasingly dark

8:15

and broken world and

8:18

to turn your back on that gift

8:20

is to turn your back

8:22

on the Entire human

8:25

race.

8:26

Human race. My fourth

8:28

lock here, Michael Ward, the

8:30

movie theater employee who befriends

8:33

Olivia Coleman's manager in

8:35

Empire of Light. That's who Michael Ward

8:37

plays. I'll just say that for

8:39

now because there will be more on

8:41

him in our bonus show we're going

8:43

to do for some of the other ballot

8:45

categories for film spotting. family members.

8:47

I wanna talk about him a little bit more there, and

8:49

he'll probably come up when we review

8:51

Empire of Light. A very

8:53

good top five. One of those

8:55

I haven't seen but let's start with the two

8:57

that we have in common. I've also

8:59

got Justin Hman from after

9:01

yang. He's in my number four slot at

9:03

the moment. I agree

9:05

with your perspective on that

9:07

performance. He's a

9:09

synthetic human. He

9:12

could be considered a bit of a robot. He's

9:14

full of all this knowledge and information, and

9:16

he's there to serve a function. So there is

9:18

a precision to him. But, man, does

9:20

he bring a soulfulness

9:23

that allows you to

9:25

understand the journey

9:27

that Colin Farrell's character goes

9:29

on as he actually starts to pay

9:31

attention to him and try to

9:33

process who this being

9:35

really was all in retrospect,

9:37

which also adds that heartbreaking

9:40

or tragic element to the story.

9:42

So I agree a newcomer who

9:44

is very good in that Kogenada

9:46

film and Keihih Kwan I've got

9:48

it number two right now. Great comeback

9:50

story, first of all. But

9:52

beyond that, a great performance.

9:55

Like that film, chaotic,

9:57

a little wacky. It's

9:59

got a real sense of humor. He's got a real sense

10:01

of humor that he brings to his character,

10:03

but then there's that emotional depth

10:05

as well. that you cannot overlook.

10:07

So we agree there. Pedro Pascal

10:09

is a blind spot for me.

10:11

I still have not caught up with that

10:13

Nick cage movie. the three others

10:15

on my list right now that you didn't

10:17

mention. And I think two of these

10:19

are currently still blind spots

10:21

for you. And number five, I have

10:23

Mehdi Badgastani from

10:25

the film Holy Spider. This

10:27

came out at the end of October in

10:29

some theaters, the director's Ali

10:32

Abassi, and it's about a journalist,

10:34

a female journalist who

10:36

goes into the streets of Mashad,

10:39

the Iranian holy city, to

10:41

investigate the serial

10:43

killings of sex workers. It's all these

10:45

women who are being killed And

10:47

the killer, although

10:49

unknown and a bit elusive, is

10:52

nevertheless someone who is calling

10:54

the newspaper and making

10:56

his intentions known. He wants the

10:58

world to know why he's doing this and

11:00

that he's going to continue to do it.

11:02

He sees himself on a real mission. and

11:04

it's easy to look at characters

11:06

who play serial killers in

11:08

movies as these fascinating,

11:11

dramatic characters. And sometimes, actors

11:13

give very good performances really

11:16

leaning into that

11:18

juiciness and kind of the salaciousness, and they

11:20

wanna be Hannibal Lecter type

11:22

figures who terrify you a little

11:24

bit. And what's so terrifying about

11:26

Bajistani is how

11:29

untarifying he is. And what I mean is

11:31

outward display of

11:33

the terror he's trying to

11:35

inflict on these women.

11:37

It's a case Josh where

11:39

he acts so serene

11:41

and placid about everything

11:43

he's doing. And that's

11:45

the result of complete entitlement.

11:47

when you live in a society

11:50

that allows you as a man

11:52

to act on your religious fervor

11:54

and punish those you perceive to

11:56

be sinners. then you

11:58

can just kinda go about your day and

12:00

go about your work. And that's what actually for

12:02

me makes that character so

12:04

scary. I wonder if this one's on the

12:06

bubble for you, Josh. Long been a

12:09

defender of this actor, more

12:11

so than me even, at least

12:13

going back aways, but I know we both saw

12:15

this movie and we both saw

12:17

this actor Brad Pitt in

12:19

Damian Chisholm's Babylon.

12:21

I've got him at number three right now.

12:24

I really like this

12:26

performance. I don't know who the

12:28

star of Babylon is

12:29

supposed to be it's a sprawling ensemble

12:33

piece, and you can make the

12:35

case that it's Diego Calviz

12:37

Garik or it's Margot Robbie's character or

12:39

they're all supposed to be equals with

12:41

Pitt. The

12:42

character that

12:44

I think Chisel exhibits the

12:46

most empathy Performances

12:49

gives, actually, the most to do. Robbie's

12:51

performance might be showier, and I

12:53

think she's good as well. But

12:55

pits performance is

12:58

the one that's most grounded

13:00

and the one I think we're supposed

13:02

to really

13:03

care about the most. At least that's

13:05

the experience I had with it, and I think it's because

13:07

of Pitt's performance. Should we have

13:09

the Babylon conversation now? I

13:11

don't think I think we shouldn't.

13:13

And and honestly, that's good because I'm

13:15

still formulating my

13:17

thoughts about it, which I'll just say are conflicted.

13:19

I'm also conflicted about Pitt,

13:22

and I think there are

13:24

absolutely great scenes with

13:26

him. And you see why

13:28

Chisholm thought of him, and why he

13:30

wanted to play this part as this --

13:32

Yes. -- somewhat aging iconic

13:34

classic Hollywood star. I

13:37

also think he has some

13:39

scenes that are among the

13:41

worst that I've seen

13:43

pit in and actually

13:46

make me see what you saw earlier

13:48

in his career. And

13:51

I'll just say this. They come

13:53

in the sequences where So

13:55

part of the narrative is

13:58

that

13:58

his character

13:59

has to look bad on screen.

14:02

in other words has to perform in a way

14:04

-- Mhmm. -- that the audience registers

14:06

as bad acting. And

14:08

there are moments around that

14:10

time frame in the film where seeps into

14:12

his performance where he's

14:15

not supposed to be bad acting. There's a specific

14:17

scene I can think of. Maybe it'll come up later

14:19

if we ever get into this

14:21

that I do think it it was so

14:23

off and totally false

14:26

to me that it really

14:28

took away from some of those other good moments.

14:30

So so, yeah, there's a lot

14:32

going on in in Babylon, Pitt

14:34

because of that, and just some other questions I

14:36

have about the movie. he didn't quite

14:38

rise to the top of the Performances the year for

14:40

me.

14:40

You know, we

14:42

have to do. You have

14:45

to read find the form. Mhmm.

14:47

Map those dreams and print them

14:49

into history. Look up and

14:51

say, Rica. I'm

14:53

not alone.

14:57

Yeah. That falseness

14:59

something I have

15:01

noted in a lot of older performances

15:03

from Pitt, often feeling like he's

15:05

trying way too hard to be

15:07

a character and to be a character

15:09

actor. And here,

15:12

embodying this movie star,

15:14

I felt as if there was really no one

15:16

else who could have played this part.

15:18

Yeah. Honestly, maybe someone

15:20

like Cruise would have been

15:22

able to pull this off, but I like Pitt

15:24

here as that Matt and A Idol.

15:26

I think he does stand

15:28

in for that figure in a way that really

15:30

nobody else on screen these days can.

15:32

There is ease in his best moments

15:34

in the movie, and then there is

15:37

intense effort for me

15:39

in in the worst moments. There's a big

15:41

there's a big gap in this performance

15:43

for me. And, of course, I didn't hear get

15:45

that gap and I really felt like he

15:47

was right in line with the

15:49

overall tone and

15:51

effort of that film. Finally

15:53

though, my

15:54

fifth option here at best Filmspotting

15:56

actor, and right now my number one

15:58

is Brian Tyree Henry from

16:00

Causeway, starring opposite, Jennifer

16:03

Lawrence, Lila Negabauer

16:05

is the first time director

16:07

here coming from the theater. And

16:09

we've all known for a while that Tyria

16:12

Henry is just one of those actors

16:14

who maybe should be cast in

16:16

everything. He's such a

16:18

big presence here, and

16:20

he is a big presence. physically,

16:23

but he's so soft spoken

16:25

as well, especially in this role.

16:27

It's not as if he can't.

16:29

be big or dramatic

16:31

or or eight on screen. But this character

16:33

is one who has undergone

16:36

some trauma He seems to

16:38

be stifling some of that

16:40

baggage, and it's

16:42

coming out through this

16:44

relationship, this platonic relationship

16:46

with Lawrence's character, but

16:49

he's also acting

16:51

as this

16:52

guide for her, this companion that's allowing

16:54

her to work through her

16:56

trauma, and they're such a good

16:58

pair. that that's still the

17:00

standout for me? So

17:03

probably just the carburetor. If it is, I

17:05

can just get that part on eBay. hate the

17:07

hard time, and they took a while to get here.

17:09

But I heard? I don't

17:11

know

17:11

how long I'll be here.

17:13

How much is

17:13

it gonna cost? Maybe better.

17:17

refitting. Oh, that's labor. Making

17:19

more. We can never find any small work.

17:21

I don't know if I wanna fix it. It's

17:23

not it's not even

17:24

mine. It's No. No. Not

17:26

at I mean, this is a nice

17:29

truck. Another one I need to

17:30

see. And so hopefully, we'll both come

17:33

away, you know, between recording

17:36

and actually turned in our first round

17:38

nomination ballots. We have

17:40

a couple of days. So hopefully, we'll both

17:42

come away with a little bit of homework we can do

17:44

in that time because yes, still need to catch

17:46

causeway. Before we move on to supporting

17:48

actress, any other names you're at

17:50

least thinking about or we're in

17:52

the mix in terms of supporting actor?

17:54

Yeah. Here's my bubble name. So feel

17:56

free to push me one way or the

17:58

other. This one this first one I owe to

18:00

you because though I loved the

18:02

performance on this screen, and at the

18:04

time, I I didn't even mention it

18:06

when we reviewed it or I think what I wrote

18:08

about, Nanny as well,

18:10

but Synchronoss, who has a small

18:12

supporting part as a doorman in

18:14

the building where the main character works

18:16

as a nanny and they develop a

18:18

friendship and eventually a Performances.

18:20

his scenes are among the best in the film. And

18:22

he's just it's just one of those performances

18:24

where he he shows up once

18:27

and you think that could be his only scene possibly

18:29

because of the part, but you wanna see

18:31

him again. And then every time you do, you know,

18:33

oh, this is gonna be a good scene because

18:36

he's here. And so I think it does deserve consideration.

18:38

Andre Brauer, as one of the

18:40

editors, and she said, just a

18:42

calm authoritative presence

18:45

in that movie that's kind

18:47

of roots what needs to be done

18:49

and supports his reporters.

18:52

Chris Pine I think it's really good. And don't worry, Darling, a

18:54

film that I am higher on

18:56

than most this year. And then we talked about

18:58

this Adam. We both

19:00

highlighted it among the ensemble of glass onion.

19:02

It's Edward Norton. So

19:04

one of those four

19:06

very

19:06

likely unless something new that I

19:08

see in the next few days pops up is gonna get

19:10

that fifth spot for me. And any one of them

19:12

you wanna you wanna lobby for? Yeah. There'd be

19:15

a clear winner among

19:17

those honorable mentions for me, and it would

19:19

be Edward Norton. And this is a good

19:21

reminder why we do this

19:23

process here on the show and work these lists

19:25

out together. Even though I

19:27

love Norton's performance, somehow when I started whittling down

19:29

my list, I completely overlooked

19:32

him. Brauer is one who

19:34

I would lude more in a

19:36

category that should

19:38

be recognized, but there isn't a

19:40

category for it. And it's just

19:42

not quite supporting actor

19:45

worthy in terms of the meat of

19:47

the performance, it's a scenes dealer. I

19:49

think Brauer does steal some of those scenes

19:51

he's fired even though he's really subtle.

19:53

Usually, we think of scene Steelers as ones

19:55

who are doing something really

19:57

big. And with a lot of flare, he

19:59

is definitely not not. Some others from

20:01

me, I did want to note, not only

20:04

Sinkwall walls from Nanny, but

20:07

Alessandra

20:07

Nevola, was

20:08

I think the funniest part for me of the

20:10

movie Amsterdam -- Mhmm. -- the David O' Russell

20:13

box office failure. I thought every time he

20:15

opened his mouth, he was hilarious. And

20:18

David leads Lynch. David Lynch at

20:20

the end of the fablemans, the

20:22

Stevens Field for a while -- Yeah. --

20:24

is so good. But again,

20:26

not really up to the

20:28

level of a supporting performance for

20:30

me. Beyond Norton, Michael Ward

20:32

from your list, from Empire of Empire, is

20:34

one I've got just on the

20:36

bubble. I did like Paul Daniel a

20:38

lot in the fablements and in

20:40

women talking, then wish

20:42

whishaw I'll give the worst

20:45

adjective you can give as

20:47

a critic. I'll say he gives a really

20:49

interesting performance. And the more

20:51

I sit with it, the more

20:53

I do appreciate

20:54

it. Yeah.

20:55

We have to have a woman talking talk,

20:58

unfortunately, as well. we

21:01

are going to have to talk about that film,

21:03

one of my most anticipated, one of your

21:05

most anticipated of the year.

21:07

Lots of names there. and

21:08

speaking of lots of names. Let's get on to

21:10

supporting actress where there's

21:13

an

21:13

abundance. There were way more options here for

21:16

me, way more on the bubble than

21:18

there were with supporting actor. How did you start

21:21

to approach this one? Right now, I

21:23

have

21:23

three locks, but, yeah,

21:25

to your point, I have a bunch on

21:27

the bubble and, you know, I could

21:29

see things shifting around where enough of

21:32

these bump out one of these locks. But

21:34

for now, I am going

21:36

with Ashlene franchisee from God's

21:38

creatures. This is the Anarose Homer

21:40

and Celyad Davis film that

21:42

man, I think a lot of people have slept on. I

21:44

don't know how big of a release it got.

21:47

I know, obviously, with

21:49

Anaros Homer and the Fit's being a Golden

21:51

Brick winner, her follow-up was gonna

21:53

be was gonna be higher on our radar than

21:55

others. But this is a really solid

21:57

film with some great and

21:59

the one that stood out to me was

22:01

Ashlene franchisee. I've also got

22:03

Hong Chow on the list. She

22:05

plays the friend and unofficial nurse

22:07

to Brendan Fraser's English

22:10

teacher who is struggling with obesity

22:12

in the whale. And it's

22:14

a very complicated role. This

22:17

is someone who is she

22:19

has to capture the anguish of trying to

22:21

help someone who wants some of what you

22:23

have to offer, but is rejecting other

22:27

parts of it. And I just

22:29

think there that's a really complicated

22:31

movie. We also have not had a chance to

22:33

talk about in-depth For sure, we probably both

22:35

agree the performances are

22:37

very solid in it, and that

22:39

includes Hong Child for me.

22:41

The other standout comedic Rachel

22:43

Senate, in body's body's bodies.

22:45

The Shiver baby star, who

22:47

we both loved in that movie,

22:49

just walks away. with this black

22:52

comedy ensemble thriller. She

22:54

brings such a a delightfully dippy

22:56

comic timing to every

22:58

single line reading. She's fantastic

23:00

at it. And I do like

23:02

to honor comedic performances whenever

23:04

I get the chance. So those are my three

23:06

locks right now. Here's

23:09

who's on the bubble. Lee June in

23:12

Herikazo Correitas Broker, which

23:14

I just watched a couple days

23:17

ago. Now Lee June is I found this out after

23:19

watching it. K pop star who

23:21

has also acted for the past, I think,

23:23

ten or more years, mostly. in

23:25

TV series in Korea. Here

23:27

she has incredible pathos

23:29

without being saccharin. And I think

23:32

creators, you know, mileage varies on how

23:34

his films register there. But

23:36

here, she has pathos without being

23:38

saccharin as this young mother who's looking to

23:40

give up her infant. Again,

23:42

that is in broker. So very impressed by

23:44

that performance. Another one I've just watched the last

23:46

couple days. The actor

23:49

is Muslajib Balanga.

23:51

playing the mother on trial for killing her

23:53

infant daughter, which we know right at

23:55

the very beginning, in Alice Depp's

23:58

courtroom drama, Saint Omer,

23:59

there

24:01

are so many sequences in this movie of

24:04

Melanga just holding the

24:06

camera. There are no cuts and

24:08

this is in the courtroom. She's

24:11

very still. She's very stoic. She

24:13

hardly moves on the

24:15

stand. But at the same time,

24:17

she gives this mother a thrumming

24:19

emotion underneath. And one of

24:21

those emotions is bewilderment. by

24:23

her own actions. She doesn't deny the crime.

24:25

She confesses it. And

24:28

all of this is playing up there in

24:30

a reserved but

24:32

completely accessible performance by Melanga.

24:35

I think Angela Bassett deserves consideration

24:37

in Black Panther, Wakanda forever.

24:39

were both disappointed by that film,

24:42

Adam. And one of the pleasant

24:44

surprises for me though was how big

24:46

Bassett's role was

24:48

in it. especially compared to the first

24:50

movie. And I think she taps into more

24:52

than anyone else that undercurrent of

24:54

grief and sorrow that is one

24:56

of the stronger elements in what kind

24:58

of forever. She also gets a killer scene where

25:00

I think it's the United Nations or some

25:02

equivalent. She walks in and just owns

25:04

the room and gets to be full Angela

25:06

Bassett. I'm considering, you

25:08

know, recognizing her for that. And then real

25:10

quickly, three more here. Jennifer

25:12

Eileen, and she said as one

25:14

of the witnesses who

25:16

makes the very difficult decision to

25:19

share her testimony. Carrie Condet, in

25:21

the banshees of Ina Sheerin,

25:24

we touched on her when we talked about

25:26

that film, but mostly focused on Colin Farrell.

25:28

She is so great as his character, sister, and

25:30

then back to the whale here,

25:32

Sady Sync, who most people probably know

25:34

from Stranger Things,

25:37

plays. The Brenna Fraser

25:39

characters teen daughter,

25:42

very angry, a strange, a

25:44

strange teen daughter,

25:47

and I think is, you know, holds her

25:49

own against what what I've already

25:51

described as a a very strong cast.

25:53

So she's probably on the outside looking in of

25:55

those bubble picks, but that's

25:57

what the picture looks like for me right now.

25:59

We

25:59

definitely do not share three of

26:02

those choices because I have

26:04

yet to see bodies, bodies,

26:06

bodies, broker or Saint Romer. Those

26:08

last two, especially, I'd like to see

26:10

all three. Those last two, especially though,

26:13

are on my watch list here

26:15

ahead of valid submission.

26:17

In terms of some of the names where we

26:19

do overlap, I've actually got Hong

26:21

Chao as one of

26:23

my locks. from the whale and right

26:25

now in the top

26:27

spot. Another one of those characters,

26:29

I've said this a few times over the

26:31

past several weeks talking about a

26:33

character like Brian Tyree, Henry's and Causeway talking about

26:35

Synqua walls in

26:37

Nanny, characters who you

26:39

are grateful to see

26:41

whenever they show

26:42

up on screen. And whenever she shows

26:45

up at Charlie's house, you

26:47

understand the empathy that

26:49

she brings, but also the real anger. Yeah.

26:51

There's a tour. It's not

26:53

anger so much that she is

26:55

mad at him. She's

26:57

just so frustrated because she

26:59

loves him and she wants

27:01

to take care of him so badly

27:03

and wants him to live. And that

27:05

pain is something that

27:08

chao really navigates

27:11

acutely, but then also still

27:13

manages to bring some lightness and

27:16

vulnerability to subject matter that's very

27:18

intense. Carrie Condon, I think, is one

27:20

of the standouts of the year for

27:22

sure. She's in my number two slot here

27:24

for supporting actress from the

27:26

banshees have been a sharon. And my number three

27:29

is a performance that

27:32

some, I think, have argued. I

27:34

certainly said it when

27:36

I talked about the movie on the show,

27:38

I said that this is really more of a

27:40

lead performance even though the

27:42

studio is not at all putting it up for consideration

27:44

that way, the movie's The Woman King.

27:46

And the reason why they're putting

27:49

Tussu Embeddo as

27:51

a secondary or supporting option is because

27:53

Viola Davis is the star of that film. But

27:55

when you watch The Woman King,

27:57

her

27:58

character, I believe,

27:59

really is the one driving the narrative

28:02

forward. And is

28:05

the even better performance. Yes. Even

28:07

better than BIOLADIVA. So

28:09

TUSO and Bayou is my number

28:11

three lock, Josh. I

28:13

am

28:13

a general. I have

28:16

ended. You have ended.

28:18

Nothing. I

28:18

should put

28:19

you out by watch soldiers die because they did not

28:22

have discipline. Their easy life

28:23

did not prepare them for I

28:25

didn't know anybody else. doesn't know.

28:27

Go ahead. Yeah. I did

28:30

not have an easy life

28:33

because I I want to be with

28:35

the others. I want to fight for

28:37

my king. You're

28:38

tears. You mean nothing.

28:41

The

28:42

tough part for me are these

28:45

last two slots. because not

28:47

only am I strongly considering someone

28:49

you mention Azeling franchisee

28:52

from god's creatures, and

28:54

also Angela Bassett from

28:56

Black Panther, Wakanda forever. But what

28:58

about the voice work of Isabella

29:00

Rosolini and Marcella the shell

29:02

with shoes on? I

29:03

know. I I should probably

29:06

have her on my bubble

29:08

picks, and I don't have a good reason except

29:10

for maybe what I'll get to when we

29:12

get to best actress. Okay.

29:14

Michelle Williams, for me from the Fableman's,

29:16

I had high praise for that performance

29:19

last week during our review. but you

29:21

also have to consider the two

29:23

TAR supporting performances Nina

29:25

Haas, Naomi Marla. I

29:27

really like Zooey Kravitz in

29:30

the Batman. And

29:30

it sounds like, based on

29:32

the tail end of our review of glass

29:34

onion, our performance that I think is a

29:36

lot more worthy of consideration than you do,

29:39

Janelle Monet. Yeah.

29:40

I'm I'm still wrestling

29:43

with that one as

29:46

well. It has to work on a number of

29:48

levels for reasons we won't get

29:50

into. And I guess I'll just say, maybe

29:52

similar to the Brad Pitt performance, I'm not sure it

29:54

works on all of them quite as well for

29:56

me.

29:56

I do have a few scenes dealers here. Again, these

29:58

are the only two categories where I have them.

30:00

Evan Rachel Wood, in weird,

30:02

the Allianca Vic story, playing Madonna just

30:05

one of the funniest most committed performances of the year.

30:07

I really like Joey King

30:09

in Bulleit Train, opposite Brad

30:11

Pitt. And I'm gonna mention women talking

30:14

again I don't know how much more come

30:16

up in this show or

30:18

other shows here at the end of the year.

30:20

I'll say directly, I'm

30:22

not a fan of the film. it

30:24

was a disappointment me from a filmmaker who

30:27

I am a huge fan of.

30:30

And as I said earlier, it's

30:32

a film that I think I had as my number

30:34

one most anticipated movie of

30:36

the fall. But not

30:38

only do I like Ben Wishaw's There's

30:40

some nice scene stealing moments from an actress. I'm

30:43

sure I've seen before but wasn't

30:45

familiar to me,

30:47

Judith Ivy. is one of the

30:49

older women in this

30:51

group who is trying to decide

30:53

whether or not after they've been

30:56

blatantly abused by the

30:58

men in their community whether or not they're

31:00

going to stay in fight or leave.

31:02

That was one performance for me

31:04

that stood out even more so than some of the

31:06

performances that are getting more attention like

31:08

Jesse Buckley and Claire

31:10

Foy. Now I've thrown out all these names, and I haven't even mentioned

31:12

the two that right now do actually

31:14

occupy my four and five slots. And

31:16

I'm kind of surprised they didn't come up on

31:18

your list, Josh, because you

31:20

like this movie more than I do. And

31:22

I recommended it. It wasn't a mixed

31:24

review really. I just didn't soon for it

31:26

the way a lot of critics

31:29

did. The movie is everything everywhere

31:31

all at once, and it's those supporting turns

31:33

by Jamie Lee Curtis and

31:35

Stephanie Xu. I need to see this

31:38

movie again. I don't know that I'm gonna have

31:40

time to rewatch anything

31:42

with so many movies I still wanna squeeze

31:44

in before the ballots are due. But as

31:46

I was forming this list, as

31:48

I went earlier in the year and

31:50

this is the oldest movie we've talked

31:52

about in terms of freshness in

31:54

my recollection. I had noted both of those

31:56

performances along with Kehequan

31:58

as standouts. Yeah. I have

31:59

watched everything everywhere all at once a second

32:02

time within probably the

32:04

last month. just because I knew it was gonna be

32:06

a player at the end of the year here and wanted to know

32:08

exactly where I stand on it,

32:10

still loved it, mostly

32:12

loved all the performances, as I did the

32:14

first time and sort of confirmed how I

32:16

felt about those two in particular. I

32:18

think for me, Jamie Lee Curtis, who

32:20

is a blast. and should be highlighted. I think it's one of the better

32:22

performance of the year. Let me say that. But I think

32:24

it gets a lot of mileage out of is

32:27

that really Jamie Lee Curtis?

32:29

more than the performance itself, which is fine. That's

32:31

probably part of the casting. Right? But

32:33

maybe why she doesn't rise just as

32:35

high as some other names for me.

32:38

Stephanie Xu and this was my initial

32:40

reaction when I first watched it.

32:42

I loved her in the scenes

32:44

where the straight drama scenes

32:46

or the reality scenes, however you

32:49

wanted to drive those scenes in the movie or just the regular

32:51

family scenes. I think she's it's

32:53

so layered in the types of hurt

32:55

that daughter feels and yet

32:57

the connection she wants to maintain to her family.

32:59

Incredibly good. I thought

33:01

her turn as the villain.

33:04

and I was I was discussing this with my daughter because she

33:06

watched it the second time with me and and she

33:08

actually disagrees with me, but I

33:10

couldn't quite pinpoint what

33:13

was lacking there in terms of

33:15

I don't know if I wanted her to be scarier

33:17

or more of a threat. And of course, I think

33:19

this is what my daughter said is like, well, that's not really

33:21

point. Right? She's this isn't a

33:24

superhero movie. Yeah. But there was a

33:26

gap. I I'm I'm I'm running up against

33:28

this a couple performances I see already. There was

33:30

a gap for me between the

33:32

register she's in as the daughter and the

33:34

register she's in as the villain where

33:37

it didn't quite work quite as well.

33:39

So again, not that it's a bad

33:41

performance, just that's probably why it's

33:43

not on my list at this point. I get

33:44

that, but I'm glad your daughter

33:46

is there to my surrogate and say what I was exactly

33:49

going to say, which is that is part of

33:51

the humor. That's part of the irony of it. It's more

33:53

of a comedic That's effective. Yeah. That it

33:55

becomes more comedic than anything. We'll get

33:57

to more best of twenty twenty two

33:59

performance talk later in the show with our picks

34:01

for the best lead performances of the

34:03

year, but we wanted to spend a

34:05

few minutes on the results of sight and

34:07

sound's one hundred greatest films of all time

34:10

which dropped back on the first of the month. For a little

34:12

background, for those of you who didn't follow the

34:14

story as closely as we did, Cite Town

34:17

magazine has published top one hundred list

34:19

every decade since nineteen fifty two. That year, sixty three

34:22

critics named Vitorio D'Cica's

34:24

Bicycles, The Greatest Film of

34:26

All Time, a film that had

34:28

been released only four years

34:30

earlier, ten years later, and then for the next

34:32

forty lists, the number one

34:34

film was Horacelles

34:36

citizen Caine. over the course of those first fifty years of the they

34:38

did expand the number of critics to a

34:40

hundred and forty five. In

34:42

twenty twelve, it was eight hundred and

34:44

fifty six. critics

34:46

who contributed to the poll and there was a new number one.

34:49

Hitchcock's vertigo displaced Wells

34:52

masterpiece. It dropped to

34:54

number two. Here we are now ten

34:56

years later, Josh. They've

34:58

expanded the list again. Over

35:00

sixteen hundred critics from around the

35:02

world were invited to

35:04

submit ballots. we were not among them, but we shall move

35:06

on. You gotta let that go,

35:08

Adam. I am officially right

35:10

now letting it

35:12

go. Good. The twenty twenty

35:14

two list also saw a shift at the top again. Vertical now dropped

35:16

to

35:16

two, cane

35:17

dropped to three, and

35:21

shooting up the charts from number fifty one in the

35:23

twenty twelve poll, all the way to

35:25

that number one slot.

35:28

Shantal Akerman's three hour and twenty two minutes slow

35:30

cinema classic from nineteen

35:33

seventy five, Jean Dealmann. I had a feeling

35:35

it would be in the

35:38

top ten I was hopeful it would be in the top ten.

35:40

I really didn't think it would jump

35:42

up all the way to number one. I think I

35:44

was

35:44

similar. Top ten seemed

35:48

possible for it. I did expect a lot of

35:50

shakeup. I thought, you know, just knowing they had

35:52

expanded the the list

35:54

of critics who were invited had to

35:57

had to result in a shakeup, plus just the

35:59

general I feel reconsideration of the idea of

36:01

canon we've had in the last

36:03

ten years. Right? So expected some changes. If you had asked me, do

36:05

you think John Dealen was going to get into the

36:08

top ten? Probably would have said, yeah, it's got a

36:10

decent shot.

36:12

Number one, Number one surprised me.

36:14

But yes, as listeners

36:16

know who heard us talk about that in a

36:18

marathon a couple of

36:20

years ago, and have heard

36:22

our bonus show where we picked our own top

36:24

tens. We both love

36:26

this. I loved the shakeup in

36:28

general, to be honest. I think it's

36:30

exciting. I think looking back

36:32

now, it's insane. What

36:34

did you say? Citizen Kane? And this is coming

36:36

from someone who still has Kane. Mhmm.

36:38

in his top ten -- Yeah. Of all years. -- number one. That's insane. That

36:40

is, you know, I know there's been some

36:43

pushback by things have gotten shaken they've

36:45

been, you know, shaken too much. to

36:48

me, it's more insane that the same

36:50

movie held that spot

36:52

for as long as it did. I mean, really,

36:54

we should have I feel a different

36:56

number one almost every ten

36:58

years just to show, you know,

37:00

that we change,

37:02

cultures change, And so

37:04

pretty cool that John Dealman Filmspotting there

37:06

at number one. I

37:07

agree. I was ecstatic to see it that

37:09

high as I mentioned and

37:11

I'll acknowledge that for all those people out there, we'll

37:13

get to the ones who are really upset about all of

37:16

this. Josh, but let's just say the ones who are

37:18

surprised about John Dealman or

37:20

who maybe

37:22

aren't

37:22

even aware of it. They consider themselves cinema fans

37:24

and yet this has been completely off their

37:26

radar. I do understand that. We're

37:28

not

37:28

trying to hide anything here. we

37:31

both knew of its reputation,

37:34

but we didn't watch it until just two

37:36

years ago -- Yeah. -- two thousand -- Part twenty. --

37:38

two thousand twenty. it was

37:39

part of an overlooked o tours marathon. That's

37:41

what we called it because we were

37:43

acknowledging that we needed to stop overlooking some

37:45

o tours like Chantal Aukerman. So

37:47

journey went on back in twenty twenty was just

37:50

a little bit ahead

37:52

of

37:52

the journey that

37:53

hopefully a lot more people

37:55

are going to embark on now. Right? Well,

37:57

how about Ackerman's news from home, which was also part of that marathon.

38:00

I know which I

38:02

absolutely adore making

38:04

the list at a

38:06

number fifty two. I mean, that one -- Right. --

38:08

now that one really

38:10

surprised me to see that

38:12

because, yes, John Dealman had a

38:14

reputation even though took us both way too see were

38:16

it, and you knew how revered it was in some

38:18

circles. For me, I did not have that

38:20

perception of news

38:22

from home. So that felt like a

38:24

real shake up to to see it get there

38:26

at fifty two and then a

38:28

deserving recognition of Ackerman's talent

38:30

and influence. yeah, I

38:32

think it is a new

38:34

entry, not only in the top one hundred,

38:36

but I don't think it was even in the top

38:38

two fifty prior

38:39

to this pull. So you're right. News from home with

38:41

a significant jump. I do want to acknowledge

38:43

here because whenever I think about Jean Dealmann,

38:45

I didn't say this during our review, but I

38:47

should give a shout out

38:49

to a listener. And would be better if I could personalize the shout

38:52

out, but I wasn't able to devote

38:54

some time to scouring through the

38:56

film spotting

38:58

Gmail. back

38:58

in, I think, two thousand eight or so. I

39:01

did a meetup and

39:02

went to a movie and got some drinks

39:04

with some film spotting listeners in

39:06

Montreal. And

39:08

there was a listener that I wanna say his name was Mike. If still listening, please

39:10

write in so I can give

39:13

you proper credit.

39:15

This

39:15

listener, somehow Jean Diehlman

39:18

came up, and I wanna say,

39:20

I've been doing film spotting at this point for

39:22

three years. Possible I'd

39:24

heard it uttered

39:26

somewhere prior. But I feel like

39:28

it might have been the first time I'd ever even

39:31

heard of the film. And he

39:33

couldn't stop talking about how great it

39:35

was and how much of a masterpiece And for then fourteen

39:38

years, I had that ringing in

39:40

my head

39:42

and yet I didn't sit

39:44

down and watch it until twenty

39:46

twenty. So I did want to acknowledge that and

39:48

hopefully that listener is out there

39:50

still partaking in the show Josh and

39:52

can write in. Deserves credit for sure. Yeah. For

39:54

sure. Now another listener who

39:56

deserves credit is

39:58

Joel Rackle.

40:00

he, apparently, loves spreadsheets, loves

40:02

crunching numbers, and send a

40:04

breakdown for us to look

40:07

at and talk about. I'm

40:09

not gonna get into every single pick, obviously, but I wanted

40:11

to highlight a few. And in terms, Josh, of what

40:13

you said about re conceptualizing the

40:15

entire idea of

40:18

canon, Joel said it really well here. He says it's notable that only five

40:20

of the twenty four new entries were directed by

40:22

white men. Likely seeing the result of

40:25

more female critics participating, or

40:27

not white critics participating and the larger critical

40:30

consciousness shift toward more

40:32

diverse representation in these types

40:34

of lists. Meanwhile, all the movies that fell out of the top one

40:36

hundred were directed by white

40:38

men, more room in the canon for

40:40

diversity. So some of these new entries in

40:42

the top

40:44

one hundred We've mentioned news from home

40:46

jumping up to number fifty two, not

40:48

even in the top two fifty, a great

40:50

Agnes Varda film. Clio from five

40:52

to seven,

40:54

going from 202 to fourteen. Some other

40:56

films from

40:57

that overlooked O Tour's marathon,

40:59

not just John Dealman and News

41:01

From Home, but Wanda,

41:04

going from number 202 to

41:06

forty eight, Daisy's going from

41:08

202 to twenty eight,

41:11

and measures of the afternoon. How much

41:14

smarter do we feel as

41:16

critics being able to actually talk

41:18

intelligently about

41:20

Maya Darren having done that marathon, seeing her name and

41:22

seeing that film messhes the afternoon up there,

41:24

number sixteen, up from 102 Yeah. And

41:26

it's not only

41:28

that, it's there is no skepticism if

41:30

you've seen these movements and what they

41:32

have now. So they show

41:34

up on

41:36

the list And if they had shown up maybe

41:38

five years earlier before we'd

41:40

actually engaged with them,

41:42

maybe I would have been

41:44

like, what Come on. Like,

41:46

people don't really talk about that movie that

41:48

much, but we've seen them. And so we know it's

41:50

legit. Like, these are

41:52

some legit changes that have

41:54

taken place. One more from a previous

41:56

marathon, Agnes

41:56

Varda. Clio from five

41:58

to

41:58

seven, we both had seen, so we

42:01

didn't talk about it as

42:03

part of that lineup. But the gleaners and

42:05

I, new

42:06

entry jumps on the list all the

42:08

way up at number sixty seven and

42:10

I love that film. your If you've seen it,

42:12

you know, and you understand why it's

42:14

that high. Now, that doesn't mean it's still not

42:17

hard to see some of these titles

42:20

that are followers from the top one hundred as Joel puts

42:22

it and feel that

42:24

it's a little

42:25

bittersweet. I mean, the

42:27

godfather part two on Michael's

42:30

top ten, not the godfather, but the godfather

42:32

part two, was ranked number

42:34

thirty one. It's just out of the top one

42:36

hundred completely. Raging Bowl was fifty five. It's

42:39

gone. Wild strawberries was sixty

42:41

three. It's gone. Rio

42:43

Bravo sixty eight. Nope. Chinatown

42:46

seventy eight. Gone. Maybe not

42:48

as big of a surprise, but a gear

42:50

of the wrath of God, a

42:52

film from Werner Herzog. I consider a mass feast

42:54

was in the top one hundred. It was number ninety one. It's not

42:56

there anymore. There are many others' wicked

42:58

name. Yeah. That shows you

43:00

that this was a serious

43:02

shake up because anytime you move something new into

43:04

a list like that, another title is

43:06

going to have to go and some

43:09

big ones absolutely want. What

43:12

frustrated me about the discourse, as we say, and

43:15

some of the more

43:17

vitriolic anti woke

43:20

responses including yes from a wonderful filmmaker Paul

43:23

Schroeder. First, Josh,

43:25

why

43:25

is anyone actually that sacred

43:27

about the notion of

43:29

a film canon? I

43:31

mean, I think because

43:33

it has been such

43:35

a cannon, again, if

43:37

this sort of reconsideration was

43:40

happening every ten years, as I

43:42

argue, it should be. And it

43:44

hasn't been cain at the top for forty, fifty years,

43:46

whatever it was, then

43:48

this isn't that big a deal. It's more in

43:50

proportion for how we should be engaging art.

43:52

But we have just not been engaging art in

43:54

this way. for half a

43:56

century film at least at this

43:58

level -- Right. -- in the in the manner of this

43:59

poll. So it

44:02

does feel, and this is not to

44:03

legitimize, you know, those who are actually angry

44:05

about this, but it feels momentous.

44:08

Mhmm. Now -- Yes. -- you asked the

44:10

second question. okay,

44:12

why? And maybe that's

44:14

for the best. Yeah, exactly. I

44:16

don't understand though why people are so precious

44:18

about the idea of can in any way. The point of these

44:20

lists as I see it is to provoke conversation. It's

44:22

to get more eyes on and dialogue

44:25

around movies and movie

44:28

makers that I

44:28

won't say maybe have been overlooked, have been overlooked

44:30

throughout cinema history. Nobody's going

44:32

to stop talking about raging bull.

44:35

or the godfather or too. Or the godfather or

44:37

come on or Chinatown because they're no

44:40

longer on the site and sound top one

44:42

hundred. And Yeah. You said it

44:44

well, there should be shifts over time.

44:46

Maybe those shifts are more pronounced in

44:48

some decades in appropriate

44:50

relation to larger cultural

44:52

changes. But Joel nailed it. The

44:54

list reflects a larger critical consciousness

44:56

shift toward more representation. Okay.

44:59

Great. More room in the canifer diversity. Great.

45:02

The criticism of that approach

45:04

that I saw

45:04

and many others saw and commented on

45:07

online This is the second frustration. If

45:10

you take it at face value, just

45:12

for the sake of this discussion, Josh, you

45:14

set aside any

45:16

underlying racism or desire

45:18

to maintain the white male

45:20

status quo. I

45:22

actually saw people use phrases

45:24

in complete seriousness and

45:26

earnestness like Well, it's

45:28

terrible and horrible and

45:30

flawed that this new

45:32

list emerged that there was this momentous shift

45:35

because it's no longer about quality

45:37

or merit, as if some kind

45:39

of compromise was made. And

45:41

beyond the fact that we've

45:43

already Touch on how really no no

45:45

compromises remain. Not if you watch movies. These are

45:47

really good films if you watch them. But I hate

45:49

to break it to

45:52

these people. There's not there's no such thing as quality or merit when

45:54

you're talking about art. Not

45:56

really, certainly not objective

45:58

quality or merit.

45:59

affirmative action complaint has

46:02

no validity. It's not a scenario like

46:04

and I'm not weighing in on affirmative action

46:06

here. Let me be clear. But

46:08

reasonable people might be able to agree on a situation one candidate

46:11

definitely has demonstrably

46:13

more skills and experience than someone else and

46:15

doesn't get the job. But

46:18

These are movies. Their their greatness lies in the response

46:21

of the viewer and whatever

46:23

criteria that viewer lands on. Of

46:25

course, I hope anyone who

46:27

submitted a ballot devote

46:29

a really serious thought to the movies they value why and wasn't just trying

46:31

to shake things up, wasn't just being

46:33

a provocateur. But this

46:36

idea that only

46:38

a few people out there have figured

46:40

it out and

46:41

somehow get to establish the parameters

46:43

of quality cinema is just

46:45

a name.

46:47

Yeah. No. You're speaking, you know, you're speaking a

46:49

lot of common sense to me. Can I offer a complaint that

46:51

goes the other direction? And it's not even a

46:53

complaint, but it's just and this didn't occur to

46:55

me, honestly, until

46:58

some of this store discourse began, and I sat down and and looked

47:00

at so let's look at this

47:03

massive list. And see

47:06

how well represented things are. I

47:08

did notice that there is

47:10

still a hole when it comes

47:12

to Mexican cinema or the films

47:14

from Central and South America. And

47:16

I think there are there are worthy candidates

47:18

to consider. We also, Adam,

47:20

did a new

47:22

Argentina cinema marathon, and I think, you know, you could talk about

47:24

something like Lucretia Martell's, the hairless

47:26

woman, from two thousand

47:28

eight now. a relatively

47:30

recent film. So, you know, there's

47:32

there's maybe that factor to consider.

47:34

But how about La

47:36

Cienega too? Lacienda, yeah, probably Mariel. Maybe almost her, you

47:38

know, another acclaimed film. I was thinking of

47:40

the four hour extraordinary stories

47:42

-- Right. -- two thousand eight as well for

47:44

Mariano Lina.

47:46

and that especially seems like the sort of bold stroke

47:48

that these sight and sound voters

47:50

might go for. So again, this

47:52

is just it's a quibble

47:55

But within this larger conversation about opening

47:57

the cannon and really

48:00

understanding that cinema is a

48:02

global art form, and it makes

48:04

absolute sense that the entire

48:06

globe should be represented in a list like

48:08

that. I'm sure we'll see,

48:10

you know, ten years from now, my guess is we

48:12

will see a stronger showing from titles from that

48:14

region. Everything you're describing is an

48:15

ideal state. I don't know if you saw it, but

48:18

Carlos Aguirre,

48:20

who's now a friend of the show to get not single film

48:22

from Latin America on the sight and soundless, disheartening

48:24

how little interest there is in general

48:26

in cinema from the region. Folks

48:29

will watch every European title on the criterion collection,

48:32

but can't name a single film from the

48:34

golden age of Mexican

48:36

cinema. I completely understand

48:38

his sentiment. I'm glad he called it

48:40

out. I'm glad you called it out. He

48:42

should be disheartened. And

48:44

you're right that

48:46

over time, I think these things will continue to sort themselves

48:48

out. But the whole thing also gets back to

48:50

the folly of the

48:52

process itself. I feel like

48:54

sometimes people who don't pay really close

48:56

attention to this and they just see and this

48:58

isn't what Carlos is doing. But

49:00

outliers who were just seeing and sound

49:02

or greatest films of all time trending

49:04

on Twitter or they see it pop

49:06

up in their Facebook feed or

49:08

whatever and then decide that they're gonna

49:10

weigh in. they may not totally

49:12

understand that you only

49:13

get ten picks.

49:14

Everybody only gets ten

49:16

votes. We talked about this when we did

49:19

our bonus show. where we shared

49:21

along Sam and Michael Phillips, our new or

49:24

updated top ten greatest films of

49:26

all time. sight

49:28

and sound, named the top one hundred

49:30

or the top two fifty, and they had that

49:32

many slots to work with. And if they

49:34

did that regarded all

49:36

of Latin American cinema? Well, that would obviously be a tremendous slight.

49:40

But ten

49:41

slots, you

49:42

are going to overlook something.

49:45

you want to try to everybody wants to try to have some

49:48

representation in genres, decades,

49:50

nationalities, women, people of color.

49:52

No matter which

49:52

one of those or multiple topics

49:56

there that you focus on

49:58

or decide to try to

49:59

hit, you're going

50:02

to overlook something. So as opposed to the question for me would be

50:04

not that everybody who votes is going

50:06

to vote

50:08

straight ticket by their own

50:10

nationality or whatever. But

50:12

did they get enough representation of voters

50:14

from that region to give those films

50:16

a real chance? I'm gonna give them the benefit

50:18

of the doubt without scrutizing the list that they did,

50:20

and I'm sure some of those people did vote

50:22

for these films. But that many

50:25

critics, ten hence why seats

50:28

slots each everybody

50:28

no matter how committed you are to any cause, you're gonna

50:30

leave something out. Well, and for me, when

50:32

something like this comes up, you know, to Carlos'

50:36

valid point, it just proves there's always something more

50:38

to explore -- Mhmm. -- for everyone. And

50:40

that's the bottom line with an

50:44

exercise like this done every

50:46

ten years is it just shows

50:48

you the richness and the depth and

50:50

even people obsessed

50:52

with cinema are never going

50:54

to get to the bottom of it,

50:56

and that's probably a good

50:58

thing.

50:58

A final thought here from our friend

51:00

Scott Tobias. I thought he made a really astute point

51:03

in the reveal, the substantive

51:05

keep us out with Keith

51:08

Phipps. Although, we're

51:10

very much behind this

51:12

shift in the canon as

51:14

we expressed. And he is

51:17

too. I like how

51:17

he reminded us to

51:20

still think

51:20

about some of these old films as

51:23

vital and not old

51:25

and stodgy. he says, but please, never use the word

51:27

stodgy to describe the films that have anchored this

51:29

list for decades. As I wrote in the essay, this is

51:31

an essay he wrote back in twenty twelve. He

51:33

references in the piece. The rules of the

51:35

game opened to such public outrage that it faced drastic re edit in a

51:37

government ban. Tokyo's story and the passion of Joan

51:39

of Arc both tossed out the conventions of the one

51:41

hundred and eighty degree

51:44

plane that establishes the way we are typically grounded in space.

51:46

Time should not lead us to crude revisions

51:48

and what we understand as radical advances

51:51

in the form just because these older films have carved a

51:53

path for others to follow more smoothly.

51:56

And the one heartening thing about having John

51:58

Dealman at

52:00

the top and

52:00

meshes of the afternoon that highly ranked is that it tells us voters

52:02

are not shrinking from difficult challenges.

52:04

Consider twenty twenty two the year

52:06

the sight and sound poll blew up.

52:08

we'll have to wait another ten years to see how the

52:11

pieces are put back together. So we'd recommend Scott's piece, again,

52:13

that is in the

52:15

reveal newsletter that he

52:17

puts out also if you haven't had enough sight and

52:20

sound talk and I really haven't.

52:22

I've been enjoying digging into all

52:24

this sort of stuff even though we

52:26

are a week or so away from the list release.

52:28

Here are a couple other places you can

52:30

go. Right here, film

52:32

spotting. We've actually reviewed forty one

52:34

of the top one hundred films on

52:36

the current sight and sound list.

52:38

So yeah, could be better, probably should

52:40

be more. I don't think that's too

52:42

bad. And, Adam, you put together a great

52:44

page on our website, dot

52:46

net, a site and sound

52:48

companion page, and that's where you

52:50

can find all forty one of those reviews if you wanna

52:52

listen in on what we thought

52:54

or I think even before my time some

52:56

of these are

52:58

what you guys were talking about when it comes to some of

53:00

these great films. There is also an incredible

53:02

New York Times interactive article

53:07

looking at the list, its history,

53:09

what films came in, when,

53:11

how recently released they were to their

53:13

initial voting in, just fascinated in terms of looking

53:15

at what has happened over the years. It

53:18

changed my understanding actually of

53:20

how, you know, I said how this

53:22

has been somewhat of a

53:24

certain list with Cain at the top, but there would

53:26

have been more movement than I would have guessed

53:28

when you look at it historically. So that's in the New

53:30

York Times. And then one more

53:32

thing is from my friend, Elijah

53:34

Davidson, who is a longtime

53:36

listener of the show. He's also

53:38

by editor on the book

53:40

I'm working on. Christian appreciation

53:42

of horror. Elijah has a

53:44

project called come and see. And

53:47

this is where he takes

53:49

Atheolotch perspective on the greatest films of all

53:51

time, Elijah's got good taste

53:54

and he does cover

53:56

eighty five. of the movies on sight and sounds twenty

53:58

twenty two list. So come and see is available

53:59

in book form. You can also sign up to

54:02

get it in the

54:04

form of free devotional emails. He sends those out. It covers

54:06

one movie every Sunday morning.

54:08

So check that out if it sounds intriguing

54:10

to you from Elijah Davidson.

54:12

Again, it's com and see

54:14

guide dot com. So, yeah,

54:16

I hope this doesn't disappear, Adam,

54:18

this conversation about these movies

54:20

as we get to the year end and

54:22

do our best favorites

54:24

of this particular year because this

54:26

has been this has been quite a

54:28

bit of fun and illuminating for me. eliminating

54:30

fun nerve racking. But as we

54:32

mentioned, we did go through the exercise of

54:35

making our own top ten of

54:37

all time picks and we asked the film spotting

54:39

family to submit their pics as well.

54:42

Over three hundred family

54:43

members answered the call that resulted

54:45

in the film spotting family

54:48

top one hundred. Some people have said they liked the list

54:50

better than the sight and sound list, and that's probably

54:52

because it has a few more of those

54:56

really recognizable and maybe more personal and more recent

54:58

titles on the list. I'm not saying it's a

55:00

better list, but it is a really good one. It

55:02

holds up. say did

55:04

I think it was on Twitter. I posted a screenshot

55:06

of the family list next to

55:08

the sight and sound top ten this

55:11

is, and the family top ten. And, yeah, a

55:13

lot of people did respond that they liked the families

55:15

list, but I I'll say either way,

55:17

I think it holds up. And I

55:19

think I share forget what it was.

55:21

I have one more in common with the family list

55:24

than I do with sight and sound. So I guess I would have

55:26

to agree. You

55:26

can find the family top one

55:29

hundred. You can Sight and Sound

55:31

companion with all of our discussions of those forty

55:33

one titles. And you can

55:35

find our personal top

55:38

ten list all at film spotting dot net. There are links right

55:40

at the top of our main page. Again,

55:42

film spotting dot net. And if you are a film

55:44

spotting family

55:46

member, and you subscribe to get our bonus show, you get

55:48

to hear us go through

55:50

that nerve racking process

55:52

of trying to decide which

55:55

films belong in our top ten, what

55:57

our criteria is. Great stuff from Sam

56:00

and Michael Phillips. As always, again,

56:02

film spotting dot net for those links and film

56:04

spotting family. dot com

56:06

if you're interested in hearing that show

56:08

and becoming a member. You know,

56:10

if you're like me, you'd probably just come to

56:12

accept the fact that being online seems

56:14

to mean that you're susceptible to hacks, that you really

56:16

have no privacy, and all of

56:19

your personal data is up

56:21

for grabs. You are for sale. Well,

56:24

that doesn't have to be the case, not

56:26

anymore, since I

56:28

found PIA. your Internet service provider

56:30

knows literally everything you do online. You could just

56:32

be handing your laptop to a stranger

56:36

browser history and let them go to

56:38

town. That's one of the

56:40

reasons why VPN is an absolute must

56:42

have every time you go online. And I'm

56:44

gonna tell you about PIA, one of

56:46

the best ones out there, easily the

56:48

most affordable ones I've seen, which

56:50

is why I

56:52

use PIA. go to PIAVPN

56:54

dot com slash film spotting for eighty two percent off private

56:58

Internet access not

57:00

only does PIA hide your IP address, it encrypts

57:03

your entire connection that protects your

57:05

Internet activity from everyone, your

57:08

ISP, network admins or any hackers that might be out there

57:10

is also the world's most transparent

57:12

VPN. They don't record or store

57:16

user data. and their no logs policy has even been

57:18

verified in court. You can connect to

57:20

over eighty three countries using their world

57:22

class servers, and there's a server for

57:24

every single

57:26

US state. I don't know a lot about this technology.

57:28

I know that I need to trust

57:30

it and I need it to work easily.

57:33

every time I start up my computer and go

57:36

online, and that's what I found with

57:38

PIA. They have over thirty

57:40

million downloads I'm one of them.

57:42

You can see for yourself how it makes

57:44

browsing so much better. Right

57:46

now, go to PIAVPN

57:48

dot com slash film spotting to get a whopping eighty two percent off your

57:50

VPN service, plus four free

57:52

months with a two year plan.

57:55

It comes out to just around two bucks a month. You can't

57:57

beat that and there's a thirty day money

57:59

back

57:59

guarantee. Once again, that's PIAVPN

58:03

dot com slash home spotting.

58:05

I

58:11

want to

58:12

tell you a story. It's a story

58:14

you may think you know, but you

58:17

don't. Over

58:22

there, What is that?

58:26

papa. It's space.

58:28

He's just a puppet.

58:31

No. I'm real boy.

58:34

That's from Guillermo

58:37

del Toro's Pinocchio.

58:40

motion adaptation of the Children's

58:42

Classic. Pinocchio is currently

58:44

playing in limited release. It's also

58:46

available to stream exclusively

58:48

on Netflix. Del

58:50

Toro is credited as co director

58:52

along with Mark Gustafson, an experienced

58:54

animator. He co wrote the film

58:56

with Patrick

58:58

McHale. we just finished talking about the new sight

59:00

and sound pull. When we made

59:02

our on list of the top

59:04

ten greatest songs of all time,

59:06

You had Disney's pinocchio on that list. In fact, it was

59:09

one

59:09

of the holdovers -- Yeah. -- of your twenty

59:11

twelve -- stuck around. few

59:14

thoughts on Panocchio that I'm going

59:16

to be happy to share here in a moment, but

59:18

not only did I just finish watching it,

59:21

before we started to record, you

59:24

really are the Pinocchio

59:26

expert and the one I'm certainly most

59:28

eager to hear from on the

59:30

topic of this film. You've got the bona

59:32

fides of putting that Disney classic

59:34

on your top ten. You are a

59:36

devotee of Spielberg's

59:38

AI, which is itself Pinocchio

59:41

And you did experience the

59:44

other Disney adaptation

59:46

of pinocchio earlier this year. This was

59:49

a live action conversion from Robert Zumekis

59:52

with Tom Hanks as Gipeddo. Right?

59:54

Yeah. I like how you say experienced it. I

59:56

mean, I actually liked it,

59:58

but it has been trapped. Thank you. It has been

59:59

trapped. Yeah. It's it's got

1:00:02

flaws. Make no

1:00:03

mistake. It has faws, but it's

1:00:05

interesting. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. For some reason, I thought you might be

1:00:08

among the dissenters. Nevertheless,

1:00:10

we've established your credibility on

1:00:12

the topic. And

1:00:14

with all of this said, you appreciating this

1:00:17

think it carries some weight. So tell us

1:00:19

what did you think of it? while

1:00:21

I did not come prepared to psychoanalyze myself in

1:00:23

my Pinocchio obsession, I'm gonna have

1:00:26

to give that. You just wanna be a real

1:00:28

bully. Don't you? Apparently, I'm

1:00:30

gonna have to give that some more

1:00:32

thought. What did I yes. Of course, I'm

1:00:34

going to love this movie with all that being

1:00:36

said. As you suggested, add

1:00:38

stop motion, add Del Toro. it's

1:00:41

very distinct, you know, the nineteen forty movie. One of the things

1:00:43

I do love about is how dark

1:00:45

it is. A something

1:00:48

aimed at children. It doesn't hold back from

1:00:50

being dark. That is true here, but

1:00:52

in a particular del Toro

1:00:55

way. This thing is obsessed with

1:00:58

death. It's very much about the

1:01:00

supernatural. It's

1:01:02

just a strangely beautiful

1:01:04

creep show in a way that only he

1:01:06

could do even though he is

1:01:08

working as you said here

1:01:10

with a co director in Gustafsson working in

1:01:12

a different medium with Stop Motion. It still

1:01:15

comes across in the themes and the concerns.

1:01:17

Some of the narrative devices very much

1:01:19

as a del film,

1:01:21

and that's what I loved about it. I'm gonna be talking

1:01:23

more about this spoiler, Adam, when it

1:01:25

comes to our top ten shows. So I

1:01:27

actually wanna hear

1:01:30

more from you. And this will also speak

1:01:32

more to my obsession with Pinocchio,

1:01:34

I think. But I have a question for

1:01:36

you, and I think my mind is in this

1:01:38

place because I just wrote a dive for the

1:01:40

day job on a theology of Panocchio.

1:01:43

And I basically compared the endings

1:01:45

of the nineteen forty version, twosamecos

1:01:48

and then del Toro. So you can read

1:01:50

that if you want to think Christian dot net. But

1:01:52

thinking about Panocchio in these terms,

1:01:54

it struck me that del Toro's

1:01:58

I'm guessing

1:01:58

had to deeply resonate with you.

1:01:59

Going back to our best films of all time

1:02:02

bonus show that we did for Filmspotting

1:02:04

family members.

1:02:06

the

1:02:06

one came out just before the sight and soundless. You prefaced your

1:02:08

list. You talked you gave us a very thoughtful,

1:02:10

what I would call, a humanist

1:02:14

testimony. Yes. And how you appreciate

1:02:16

movies that affirm that perspective. This

1:02:18

is a film, Guillermo Del

1:02:22

Toro's Pinocchio I could choose many lines, one of the lines that

1:02:24

stuck with me, what happens, happens,

1:02:26

and then we are gone.

1:02:28

And it delivers that line

1:02:31

in a lovely way. The entire film,

1:02:33

I think, holds that

1:02:36

worldview in an incredibly

1:02:38

lovely way. So I was thinking

1:02:40

more about this and especially after we recorded

1:02:42

that show wanting to

1:02:43

hear -- Mhmm. -- what you thought

1:02:45

of Pinocchio if it specifically resonated

1:02:47

with you along these lines. I'm a big fan of

1:02:49

it as well. Leave it to

1:02:51

del Toro to transform a

1:02:53

kid's fairy tale. into

1:02:56

a funny, sad, and resourceful rumidation

1:03:00

on obedience, the messiness

1:03:04

of immortality, and the world's true

1:03:06

monsters, fascists and others who exploit

1:03:08

the innocent. It's all there. And

1:03:11

I love that you were thinking of

1:03:13

maybe you were considering it, I was thinking

1:03:16

of you while I was watching it

1:03:18

and jotting down some of my notes because

1:03:20

especially that

1:03:22

point about obedience. And you've got these layers here in

1:03:25

terms of the Pinocchio character

1:03:28

and his obedience to

1:03:30

multiple fathers.

1:03:32

the movie puts in front of us, father papa Gipetto,

1:03:36

father dictator Ilduche.

1:03:38

I mean Musolini makes an appearance here.

1:03:41

I'm not sure of throwing out the word

1:03:44

fascist, and god

1:03:46

as well. And this is a film

1:03:49

that really wants to

1:03:51

wrestle with those topics.

1:03:54

And there's all sorts

1:03:56

of other religious imagery or

1:03:58

metaphors here as well. At some point,

1:04:01

Pinocchio goes off to

1:04:03

the carnival. And he gets seduced into

1:04:06

it, but he's a very naive little

1:04:08

boy. And what's being sold to him

1:04:10

sounds very good. It sounds enticing.

1:04:12

It sounds a whole lot better than having to go to

1:04:14

school and study.

1:04:16

This figure comes across,

1:04:18

although maybe not in the way he

1:04:20

looks. like the snake

1:04:22

in the garden trying to

1:04:24

tempt anyone. He nevertheless is

1:04:26

someone who is

1:04:27

selling a dream and

1:04:29

he is tempting the young pinocchio. Of

1:04:31

course, there's all sorts of cross imagery and Jesus

1:04:34

imagery here, and sacrifices

1:04:36

being made by some characters,

1:04:38

including the almost

1:04:40

entirely good, Carlo, who

1:04:44

precedes Pinocchio, Chapetto's son.

1:04:46

He seems to be the

1:04:49

figure who like Jesus died

1:04:50

for Pinocchio

1:04:52

to live and for him to try to

1:04:55

figure out what being good actually means and whether or not he

1:04:57

can be redeemed. It's all in this film

1:05:00

which gives it this adult

1:05:02

resonance, but

1:05:04

I

1:05:04

also feel like it doesn't cross over into a

1:05:06

terrain that's maybe too dark

1:05:12

or dreadful to make a child not enjoy it as

1:05:14

well. I think that's part of the trick of the movie. And

1:05:16

I wanna ask you then, I'm sure

1:05:19

You'll have one or two comments on that, but I wanted to

1:05:21

throw it back to you as the

1:05:24

Pinocchio I'm watching this as

1:05:26

someone who hasn't

1:05:28

read or seen since

1:05:30

I was a young boy. And

1:05:32

I know that there are elements

1:05:34

from that story that directly transfer. And it's not

1:05:37

as if Del Toro is making

1:05:39

this all up. But

1:05:42

I have to imagine so much of what we see

1:05:44

in this film is not in

1:05:46

the original story

1:05:47

and probably not in the original

1:05:49

Disney version. Am I right about

1:05:51

that? I mean, yeah, III won't bore

1:05:54

everyone with going checklist,

1:05:56

you know, down the checklist, but I

1:05:58

did recently

1:06:00

read the story or the collection of stories that

1:06:02

Colody, Carla Colody wrote

1:06:04

originally. And there

1:06:06

are distinctions from there

1:06:08

to each of the versions. That's part

1:06:10

of part of what I do right about, which is

1:06:12

fascinating because there are, you know,

1:06:14

theological implications as you're

1:06:16

hinting at as well as story and narrative

1:06:18

choices that are made with each of those changes. And I

1:06:20

think what's crucial here is

1:06:22

the way Del Toro has

1:06:26

honored the essence

1:06:28

of the ideas this story

1:06:30

wants to explore, but managed to

1:06:33

do it a way that is thoroughly

1:06:36

his own. And that includes all of

1:06:38

these religious illusions. This isn't something

1:06:40

that he's you know,

1:06:42

necessarily pulling just from the original or

1:06:44

other places. You see these in so many of his

1:06:46

films are very conflicted

1:06:48

about the church

1:06:50

in particular. And so this is something that makes perfect sense to also be

1:06:52

in this del Toro's And I think it

1:06:54

holds all these all those things you talked about,

1:06:56

which I think are there and absolutely

1:06:58

intrigued me. it

1:07:00

holds those in a way that doesn't feel like it's

1:07:02

burdening the movie with them.

1:07:04

It's also very funny. It's,

1:07:08

you know, it works as you

1:07:10

said as a tale for kids as well.

1:07:12

There are some Performances performances

1:07:14

here. and then haven't even touched on the artistry of the stop motion, the imagery.

1:07:16

So all of that is there

1:07:18

as well. Here's the topper for

1:07:22

talking about here and there over the

1:07:24

year, the course of this year, Adam. This is a movie

1:07:26

that has Tilda Swinton and

1:07:28

Kate Blanchett. we've talked

1:07:30

about how how about that. Do we ever

1:07:32

do we ever get their movies mixed up? You

1:07:34

get two vocal performances

1:07:36

from them. in this, which is just only one I

1:07:38

recognize though. Oh, I would I

1:07:40

would love to see video

1:07:42

of Cable

1:07:44

and Chat. giving her vocal performance because she plays

1:07:46

this kind of devilish monkey.

1:07:48

And -- Mhmm. -- you you have no idea it could ever

1:07:50

be her.

1:07:52

till the swim as the Wood Sprite, who stands in for the Ferry in

1:07:55

this version, probably could have guessed

1:07:57

after one line reading. That's for sure.

1:07:59

And another dual

1:07:59

performance, though. Performances true. Yeah.

1:08:02

In a way. In a way.

1:08:04

Yeah. Yeah. The wooden

1:08:06

boy with the borrowed.

1:08:08

So while you may have

1:08:10

eternal life, your loved

1:08:12

ones. They do not. You

1:08:14

never know how long you have with someone until

1:08:16

they're gone.

1:08:19

yeah, this is a great you liked it. Glad it pushed those

1:08:21

buttons I was hoping it would for you

1:08:24

as well, and

1:08:26

we'll talk about it a little

1:08:28

bit more as we get to our best of the

1:08:31

year

1:08:31

show. I'm sure. Okay. Yeah. I have some thoughts on the visual details that also really

1:08:33

stood out to

1:08:35

me, but You said it's going to come

1:08:37

up again, and I will save it for our top ten show. Guillermo

1:08:40

del Toro's

1:08:42

Panocchio. is currently streaming exclusively on

1:08:45

Netflix. Look

1:08:49

around you. It's all

1:08:50

places for people who

1:08:52

want to escape, people who

1:08:54

don't belong anywhere else. How do

1:08:57

you feel? Do you feel

1:08:59

a bit? That's

1:09:01

the trailer for

1:09:05

San

1:09:06

Mendi's Empire of light.

1:09:09

which opens in wide release this weekend, set

1:09:11

in the early eighties in and around a movie theater on the coast of England. Mendy's film

1:09:13

is a love story

1:09:16

that's also yep,

1:09:19

a love letter to the power of

1:09:21

the movies. In particular here, I think,

1:09:23

the power of movie theaters and the

1:09:25

sense of community that they can engender.

1:09:27

So Adam, Oscar Bate pedigree all over

1:09:29

this thing. You've got an Oscar winning director. You've got an Oscar

1:09:31

winning actor. One of the

1:09:34

best, I would say, Olivia

1:09:36

Coleman. a sentimental ode

1:09:38

to the industry that gives out these awards, check there as well. So aside

1:09:41

for the Olivia

1:09:44

Coleman part, maybe

1:09:46

I should have been allergic to

1:09:48

this thing going in. And I was

1:09:50

a little skeptical. Even when it

1:09:52

comes to Mendez, I am very

1:09:55

hit or miss in his

1:09:57

filmography. Why did I

1:10:00

fall to the power

1:10:02

of movies? for this. Why did I like Empire of Light so

1:10:04

Empire, Adam? And please tell me you're

1:10:07

with me because the reception my review's been

1:10:09

getting since I put it out there is

1:10:11

that I'm the only one. likes

1:10:13

this movie. You have a

1:10:14

chance to get me on your side by the end of this review. I don't know why

1:10:17

you liked it

1:10:20

so much because you're less jaded and less

1:10:22

cynical than the rest of us. I I don't think it's that. I look forward to hearing

1:10:26

your reasons, but I'm not surprised, I'm not down on Empire

1:10:29

Light. I'm also not very enthusiastic

1:10:31

about it. Despite

1:10:33

the Roger

1:10:36

Deacon despite Olivia Coleman and Michael Ward who we've

1:10:38

already talked about on this show. And despite the fact that more so

1:10:40

than you, I'm

1:10:43

generally a real sucker for

1:10:45

movies about the movies. I'll sum this all up here in a

1:10:47

moment. I'm gonna even give you and

1:10:49

listeners a chance

1:10:52

to maybe choose my own

1:10:54

adventure. You get to choose the quote I'm gonna put up on Rotten Tomatoes about this film.

1:10:56

Which blurb do I go with?

1:10:58

There are two options depending on

1:11:03

where I ultimately come out on this film.

1:11:05

But maybe there was partially a fatigue

1:11:07

factor at play with

1:11:09

these movies about the movies. last show,

1:11:11

the fablements, the documentary on Netflix

1:11:14

senior, even the eternal daughter,

1:11:16

all these films to

1:11:18

varying degrees

1:11:19

are about cinema, and making movies. What

1:11:21

about creativity? Can we provide some context that we had both just got out of a three

1:11:23

hour Just three days of Babylon?

1:11:26

Okay. I was just gonna say

1:11:28

it. right before we saw

1:11:30

this, we watched Babylon. And I knew coming out of that without knowing anything

1:11:32

really about Empire of Light except

1:11:34

that it was going to be

1:11:38

about movies. I knew for sure we

1:11:40

were in for back to back films where

1:11:42

we were going to watch a character

1:11:44

in close ups sitting in a theater having

1:11:46

a visceral emotional response to something

1:11:48

playing on the

1:11:49

screen. And when Empire

1:11:52

opened, as gorgeous as that

1:11:54

opening was I did think. Oh, no. The

1:11:57

theater opening, Coleman's

1:12:00

Hillary character, setting everything

1:12:02

up, flipping on the lights,

1:12:04

these slow moving majestic shots of this

1:12:06

grand old theater, I just feared that

1:12:10

it was going to

1:12:12

try to really I'll I'll go with the analogy

1:12:15

here. I thought it was really going to try to lay the butter. The butter

1:12:17

on the popcorn a little

1:12:19

too thick, Josh. And let's

1:12:23

stop for a second and say, just how gorgeous it is.

1:12:25

Of course, you expect that. It's Mendi's

1:12:27

working again here with Roger

1:12:29

Deacon's and we see this

1:12:31

cinema. It's nineteen eighty, the

1:12:34

glow, the warm glow of the

1:12:36

yellows, the way

1:12:38

Deacon shoots it, there's such a warmth to it, that even the stale popcorn from

1:12:43

the night before looks appetizing and

1:12:45

majestic. The bland beige break room we see them in

1:12:48

later, with a few

1:12:50

colored balloons and bulbs strewn

1:12:52

about. in

1:12:54

Deacon's hands through his eye, it

1:12:57

looks beautiful. Now, all

1:12:59

of the power of

1:13:01

movies stuff in

1:13:02

that opening is misdirection. to

1:13:04

some extent, the globalized, the theater shabbiness.

1:13:06

This is nineteen eighty. This theater is a relic

1:13:08

of a

1:13:12

different time. We

1:13:12

don't have to be experts on history or British

1:13:14

history to ask the question, guess what else is crumbling as

1:13:17

it wrestles with

1:13:20

its history? and doesn't have the grandeur

1:13:22

at once had, of course, the British empire. And here, Thatcher has just taken over. She's going

1:13:24

to restore Britain

1:13:27

to its former glory. regardless

1:13:29

of who gets stepped on to do it. The movie very much

1:13:31

wants to talk about that. I really

1:13:36

felt, as I said, I

1:13:38

couldn't sit through a movie that was spooning over cinema. But whether

1:13:42

it

1:13:43

is those political concepts

1:13:45

and overtones, the racial injustice, the mental illness. This film does have

1:13:47

lots of other things on its mind, maybe too

1:13:50

many. So here's my

1:13:52

dilemma. so here's my dilemma with

1:13:54

Empire of Light, Josh, I'm either

1:13:56

giving it two and

1:13:58

a half stars, which means

1:14:00

it doesn't get the fresh on

1:14:02

rotten tomatoes. it doesn't get the little heart on

1:14:04

letter boxed or I could

1:14:06

go three stars for it and

1:14:08

it gets both of those things. So

1:14:11

here are my options for quotes.

1:14:13

Empire of light is earnestly

1:14:14

crafted and intentioned, mostly avoiding oversimplifying

1:14:17

the struggles of

1:14:20

its characters or

1:14:22

offering trite solutions to complicated issues, but there's still a with of falseness to it.

1:14:25

there's still a with a full since two

1:14:28

Or

1:14:28

Empire

1:14:29

of light has a whiff

1:14:31

of falseness to it,

1:14:32

but it's earnestly crafted and intentioned, mostly avoiding

1:14:34

oversimplifying the struggles of its characters or

1:14:38

offering trait solutions to complicated issues?

1:14:41

Yeah. You gotta pick

1:14:43

a lane and which one

1:14:45

do I wanna emphasize? I would pick

1:14:47

a stronger 1II would lean into

1:14:50

You're gonna have to expand

1:14:52

on the width for me,

1:14:54

which I will, a little bit.

1:14:57

because I totally see

1:14:59

how it could be there. And this is especially

1:15:01

interesting

1:15:01

in contrast with

1:15:03

a movie like James

1:15:07

Grey's Armageddon time. For me, when

1:15:09

you talked about the whiff, of

1:15:11

falseness. Yep. And so

1:15:14

just thinking about you

1:15:16

personally, I think you're going to

1:15:18

have to locate, and this is the same

1:15:20

struggle I had. Why, if I remember our

1:15:22

review of that correctly, you weren't as troubled by the

1:15:24

falseness or possible falseness there, but you

1:15:27

might be more troubled by it here. So

1:15:29

let's set that aside a minute because I

1:15:31

wanna go back to your a

1:15:34

description of the opening because as you said, we had the same experience. Just came out of Babylon. I'm starting sense.

1:15:36

We maybe had

1:15:39

different experiences with Babylon. Maybe

1:15:42

that plays into this, but I was

1:15:44

not ready for Empire of

1:15:47

light. And I knew very

1:15:49

little about it. I actually thought

1:15:51

it was more of like a a

1:15:53

Kenneth Bernard Belfast type reminiscent of Mendez

1:15:56

specific youth. and

1:15:59

it's not that. This is the story of Hilary played

1:16:01

by Olivia Coleman, this middle

1:16:04

aged manager of the movie theater struggling with

1:16:06

her mental health. So that was a surprise

1:16:08

to me. that helped. But

1:16:10

before I even get there, I had a different reaction to those opening images, which

1:16:14

which are are Still Life

1:16:17

Snapshots, you could describe them of

1:16:19

rooms, objects in this theater. So film

1:16:23

canisters, the seats,

1:16:24

lights,

1:16:25

empty lobby, things like that. And it reassured me

1:16:27

a little bit actually because

1:16:32

I distinguish those from the scene which we

1:16:34

do get of Hillary staring up at the screen,

1:16:36

the light filtering around

1:16:39

her as she enjoys. a

1:16:42

movie. For me, those still life snapshots were closer though not quite as good to what I described.

1:16:47

I liked about the fablements, which

1:16:49

was Spielberg's attention to the tactile craft of movie making as

1:16:52

much as

1:16:55

the emotional power. I think we get

1:16:57

a little bit of that

1:16:59

here. There's actually a sequence where the

1:17:02

secondary character here played by Michael Wood,

1:17:04

Stephen, gets

1:17:06

to go in the projection booth and

1:17:08

the projectionist there played

1:17:10

by Toby Jones gives him

1:17:13

the talk. about how movies work, you know,

1:17:15

the frames per second, and what the light does. And that's a little heavy handed, but it is

1:17:17

also rooted in the tactile nature of

1:17:19

the technology in practicality.

1:17:23

So all that to say is I think that

1:17:25

helped me with Empire of Light is

1:17:27

it balanced its

1:17:30

love letterishness with this tactile attention that

1:17:33

the fablemans also had.

1:17:35

And then once I

1:17:37

saw that this was

1:17:39

really more about Olivia Coleman's character, and

1:17:41

it was gonna be Olivia Coleman's movie. And this will bring us maybe to the

1:17:44

falseness. I completely

1:17:46

fell for this thing. and

1:17:49

it was in her performance. It was in realizing, you know, Mendez

1:17:51

is doing a couple of things here. Stephen,

1:17:53

the character played by Michael

1:17:56

Ward is a

1:17:58

young black aspiring college student. As

1:18:00

I said, Hillary is a

1:18:02

middle aged woman. Mendez is

1:18:04

writing a script about two people

1:18:07

whose lives he has not lived. And already Antenna goes up --

1:18:10

Mhmm.

1:18:11

-- about this.

1:18:12

Yeah. And then

1:18:14

I began to see Coleman in particular

1:18:16

as the co writer. She is so good here

1:18:19

as she always is. And so fearless

1:18:22

in her portrayal of this woman and this woman's mental health struggles. Also,

1:18:24

the vivacity this woman

1:18:27

has but has lost and

1:18:31

then you bring in an incredible performance from

1:18:35

as Steven, who

1:18:39

is this young man so alive, just when

1:18:41

just when Hillary is

1:18:43

essentially dying, he

1:18:47

comes fully formed and fully alive. And watching their

1:18:49

connection is something I completely

1:18:51

believed in because of

1:18:54

the richness of the performances

1:18:56

And also for me, mostly that,

1:18:58

but also for me because of the time given

1:19:03

to their stories and then to story. This movie

1:19:05

takes a very interesting I won't

1:19:07

spoil why. But

1:19:11

Hillary, leaves the scene for quite a while in the

1:19:13

final third, I would say. And we get a

1:19:15

chance to do exactly the sort of

1:19:17

thing I was hoping we would

1:19:20

have gotten in Armageddon time with

1:19:22

the black character there. We get one scene in Armageddon

1:19:24

time of him

1:19:27

with his grandmother. And

1:19:29

here we get an extended section of the film where we learn about Stephen's home

1:19:31

life. We meet his mother, and

1:19:35

we understand what he

1:19:37

specifically independent of Hillary is struggling with in this time and

1:19:40

place. Now, I know

1:19:42

that there are complaints that

1:19:46

Stephen is a type,

1:19:48

a negative stereotype, a black character who comes

1:19:50

to assist the white hero. And I

1:19:52

will not deny that there are

1:19:54

there are definitely moments and elements of that at

1:19:56

play here. But for me,

1:19:58

the distinction and why I

1:20:01

don't feel there was falseness again, from

1:20:03

where I'm coming from, my own background, who

1:20:05

I am, is because of the richness

1:20:07

of the performances and the

1:20:09

time the movie gives so

1:20:11

that this becomes For me, what matters

1:20:13

in this movie was Stephen Story just as much as Hillary's. Even though at the

1:20:15

end, it is still her she

1:20:18

she's the main character for sure.

1:20:21

the movie is equally interested in both of them, and that made all the difference

1:20:23

for me, I think. I don't know

1:20:27

if it's enough to push you over

1:20:29

to being a little bit more of a fan of the film than you currently are, but that's why it

1:20:31

worked for me. That's

1:20:34

how I got through

1:20:36

this this Armageddon Time

1:20:38

question that was ringing in my head while watching Empire of Light.

1:20:43

the Steven, Tell

1:20:45

me

1:20:45

truthfully. The

1:20:46

day he will eat myself.

1:20:48

he didn't listen

1:20:51

Whoa. Tell me,

1:20:52

did I? No.

1:20:55

It

1:20:55

wasn't humiliating.

1:20:59

It was just intense, to

1:21:02

be

1:21:04

honest. I thought

1:21:05

you were a

1:21:07

bit of a hero.

1:21:12

It's

1:21:12

very nice to be hard to believe.

1:21:14

Well, I come out a

1:21:16

little bit different. than

1:21:18

you on the Armageddon time equation.

1:21:20

Yeah. That's why I'm curious. Yeah.

1:21:22

I'll get there. In terms of

1:21:24

me trying to put a finger

1:21:26

on the falseness I felt throughout the

1:21:28

film. I'll start with some maybe

1:21:30

more trivial things, but it's

1:21:33

the crew of the empire. the

1:21:35

co

1:21:35

workers, to some extent, felt to me, like

1:21:37

Oh, they're great. I know. But still, somehow,

1:21:39

to me, Josh felt a little bit

1:21:42

more like the cast of a TV

1:21:44

sitcom. and not this film, a

1:21:46

little too archetypal, almost the nerdy guy, the wannabe punk girl,

1:21:50

the material and thought full projection is played by Toby Jones. I

1:21:52

I know this isn't a fair thing to

1:21:54

say. I can only tell you how

1:21:58

I felt watching it. it didn't it didn't feel right. You

1:22:00

didn't you

1:22:00

didn't believe those people would die. You used to

1:22:03

work in a movie theater. Did

1:22:05

you I know. And we we just

1:22:07

weren't that eclectic, I different times, different places.

1:22:10

Something about Coleman too.

1:22:12

As much as I

1:22:14

appreciate -- Yes. -- listen.

1:22:16

It's

1:22:17

the the way to do it. It's it's the

1:22:19

way the character is conceived in relation to this topic of movies, okay, magic

1:22:21

of cinema only because

1:22:23

she gives depth to

1:22:27

Hillary that you want every character in

1:22:29

a movie to have. I'll say

1:22:31

that the movie being

1:22:33

there and

1:22:34

Peter Sellars character, Chauncey Gardner, factors

1:22:36

into this film -- Mhmm.

1:22:39

--

1:22:39

because of

1:22:40

that movie's message, and its

1:22:42

appropriateness in terms of release

1:22:44

date, it makes sense. But

1:22:46

there's also something

1:22:47

whether Mendes was trying to

1:22:49

make this point or not. There's also a little

1:22:51

child like

1:22:52

about Hillary, like

1:22:54

Chauncey as well, that

1:22:56

felt off to me

1:22:58

at least in how it relates

1:23:00

to that moment in her

1:23:03

visceral reaction, the movie almost does

1:23:05

want to make us

1:23:07

believe, I think. that when

1:23:09

she says, I don't watch the movies. Those are for the

1:23:11

customers. She comes off as someone who legitimately has never

1:23:14

been to a movie

1:23:16

before. just

1:23:18

by being an adult of, you

1:23:20

know, forty some years of age and working

1:23:22

in a movie theater. The movie at

1:23:25

the end needs us to feel as

1:23:27

if she's having a revelatory experience that could be

1:23:29

a first time experience --

1:23:30

Oh. -- which I don't

1:23:33

buy. Wow. I

1:23:35

loved that I just thought it was

1:23:37

brilliant to reveal that

1:23:38

that's the only way for

1:23:40

me it could

1:23:41

become a revelation for her if

1:23:43

she had been so closed

1:23:45

off. Right. So locked in on her routines. This is very much a woman

1:23:47

of a routine that this was just a

1:23:49

job, absolutely just a job. Not that

1:23:52

she was opposed

1:23:55

to movies. And I I didn't get the impression she'd

1:23:57

never seen one before, but she was there

1:23:59

to work. She was there to

1:24:01

get things done, to make

1:24:03

it move smoothly. And for me, I found

1:24:05

it more I agree. When she's sitting in the in the

1:24:08

theater and

1:24:10

the light comes on, it's the scene we don't need and probably we're saying that

1:24:12

because we've seen so many of them this year. It's

1:24:14

not the strongest moment in the movie. But it

1:24:16

worked to the degree that

1:24:19

it did for me simply because this would

1:24:21

be new to her. And more important, it points it points to another

1:24:23

important conversation between the two of

1:24:25

them where I believe in

1:24:28

their relationship.

1:24:29

It's it's Steven who suggests to her after she's had a bit of a breakdown that she goes

1:24:31

sit in the movie, not because

1:24:34

being there is so great.

1:24:38

No. Exactly. He's he's more a fan

1:24:40

of Silver Street. But -- Yeah. --

1:24:42

it's just the essence. And that it's

1:24:44

an escape within community. which is which

1:24:46

is what she needs. So for me when

1:24:48

she got in there, he says something about

1:24:50

you're in the dark but with all these

1:24:53

people. Right. And and that's what

1:24:55

I was feeling she felt is because for me, that's what hill there's a deep loneliness to

1:25:00

Hillary's character. that

1:25:02

could be met in a number of ways. And

1:25:04

her relationship with Steven meets it in

1:25:06

a variety of provocative ways. But one

1:25:09

way her loneliness could be met, not

1:25:11

completely met, but it's to go to the movies. And that that resonated

1:25:13

with me even though it gives

1:25:14

us that hokey shot.

1:25:17

I agree. Yeah. It's it's a good idea, and

1:25:19

we saw it exactly the same way. I didn't

1:25:22

question for a second the line when she

1:25:24

says that to him. No. That's

1:25:26

for the customers. I don't do that. I believe that in the moment,

1:25:28

but then for me to

1:25:30

fully appreciate what the movie wants

1:25:32

us to see as the big

1:25:35

emotional catharsis of the film, that's

1:25:37

where the falseness started to seep in a little bit. So we see it the

1:25:39

same way. We just feel differently

1:25:43

about it. And what I saw

1:25:45

is a little bit more of

1:25:48

a contrivance you went for. The other issue is

1:25:50

the question of Steven and and how he's treated.

1:25:54

and wanting even

1:25:55

within this film because I'm

1:25:57

gonna acknowledge some of the things you

1:25:59

said as accurate, wanting to see him

1:26:01

as a little bit more of an

1:26:03

individual separate from hillery and someone that

1:26:05

she's watching or someone that she's with and reacting to

1:26:08

that we're

1:26:10

seeing through her eyes. from away from

1:26:12

her? It is very similar, I

1:26:14

think, to the Armageddon Time

1:26:18

question. This movie puts

1:26:21

a black supporting character put so much weight

1:26:23

on this black supporting character. But then

1:26:26

that character you noted is

1:26:30

mainly there to serve the white

1:26:33

character's journey, the white character's

1:26:35

understanding of herself and the world

1:26:37

around her. Now, to its

1:26:39

credit, You said it's it's equal, I think. I

1:26:41

don't think there's a dramatic

1:26:43

imbalance at all. We

1:26:45

do get some scenes

1:26:48

living his life independent from her. But maybe they

1:26:50

just came a little bit later in the film than I would

1:26:52

have liked them to. At which

1:26:54

point I was already starting to feel

1:26:57

some of that tension. But back to the James Grey film for a second,

1:26:59

I do see it as an apples and oranges thing even

1:27:01

though we have to

1:27:04

discuss them. Similarly,

1:27:06

the key difference for me

1:27:08

where I can actually excuse it more

1:27:11

in armageddon time even though it's

1:27:13

more imbalanced. It's actually Because it's

1:27:15

imbalanced, it should be. That

1:27:17

is a film that is

1:27:19

so explicitly told through

1:27:22

the point of view of

1:27:24

not only James Grey, filmmaker, writer director, but

1:27:26

his surrogate, the boy Paul, that the

1:27:29

boy paul that I

1:27:31

understand why we don't get the world

1:27:33

outside of how he sees

1:27:36

it.

1:27:36

he sees

1:27:38

Almost like a film noir where everything we watch

1:27:40

is through the perspective of a

1:27:42

detective. And we don't see anything

1:27:46

outside of what that detective understands or

1:27:48

learns. That's how I see Armageddon

1:27:50

time, whereas here with Mendes, we

1:27:53

have a director who no matter how personal

1:27:55

any of this may or may not be,

1:27:58

he's a more omniscient

1:27:59

objective narrator here

1:28:02

making some of those choices. Yeah. I think that's that's fair and

1:28:04

accurate in discussing the vantage points

1:28:06

of both films and how they

1:28:08

are distinct. Makes makes

1:28:10

sense to me. III

1:28:13

think Armageddon time tells on itself a little bit

1:28:15

along those lines though by including

1:28:17

that one scene I mentioned

1:28:19

with Johnny Davis play

1:28:22

by Jaylen Webb quite well. And and Johnny's grandmother. It's almost

1:28:29

to support your point, gray should have cut that

1:28:31

scene entirely and kept that vision a little more consistent. And

1:28:33

I also think, you

1:28:35

know, it's true running

1:28:38

screen time, running time, you know, of of what we get in Empire of Light,

1:28:41

Stephen gets

1:28:44

far less. it's, you know,

1:28:46

I said it believes in their stories equally, but this is still Hillary's story ultimately

1:28:52

in terms of narrative, but I still

1:28:54

point to that extended section and the precipitating incident, something

1:28:56

that happens to Steve

1:28:58

and I don't wanna spoil.

1:29:00

it happens to him independent of

1:29:03

his relationship with Hillary. That would

1:29:05

have happened even if he'd

1:29:07

never met her. and

1:29:10

the movie follows the repercussions of that instance. Mhmm. Yes. Hillary becomes

1:29:12

involved because they

1:29:15

have the prior relationship But

1:29:19

to me, just as much with concern about

1:29:21

what it means for Stephen in his

1:29:23

life, with his relationship, with his

1:29:26

mother, with his dreams, for his

1:29:28

future, and what it means about

1:29:30

being a young black man at this time in in Britain. So I I do, I guess,

1:29:32

I I'm a little

1:29:34

more favorable on how that balance

1:29:38

works in Empire of Light. Though your distinction

1:29:40

point taken, I think that distinction

1:29:42

is fair. Empire of Light is currently

1:29:44

playing in wide release. you'll have to

1:29:46

figure out where I stand officially when you look

1:29:48

at rotten tomatoes for my blurb. If you see it

1:29:50

and agree or disagree with our takes, you

1:29:54

can email us feedback at Filmspotting dot

1:29:57

net. Next week, we

1:29:58

were planning to

1:30:01

take a week off.

1:30:02

as we prepare for our top ten films of

1:30:04

the year episode. It's always a big round

1:30:06

table. Michael Phillips is back with us

1:30:09

this year, joining us for the first time

1:30:11

and it makes it

1:30:11

easy because she's here in Chicago. One of our favorites

1:30:13

here on film spotting, Mariah e

1:30:16

Gates

1:30:16

will join

1:30:18

us to round out that quartet. We will also

1:30:20

have our golden brick finalists and the

1:30:22

results of the current film spotting

1:30:24

poll asking you to name the film

1:30:26

of the year. wherever you happen to be on your movie year journey. You

1:30:28

can vote in that poll and leave a comment

1:30:30

at Filmspotting dot net. I said

1:30:33

it was supposed to be a week off but we are

1:30:35

gonna give you some new content because we

1:30:37

have both seen Avatar

1:30:40

to the way

1:30:42

of water. Embargo lifts on Tuesday, about

1:30:45

a week from the

1:30:45

time we're recording this, and we do hope to have

1:30:47

that review up for those

1:30:49

who are curious. On the

1:30:52

thirteenth, Josh, not only have we both seen

1:30:54

it, we both wore our three d glasses. I think you kept yours on. I didn't look. Did you I I had

1:30:56

to take them off three or four

1:30:58

times had a bit of a headache.

1:31:01

not blaming Cameron for that necessarily. It's just the

1:31:03

technology. I did not have a headache, but I do always

1:31:05

find myself playing the

1:31:07

game of like wonder

1:31:10

what this looks like with that. Right. And then, you

1:31:12

know, maybe this is what happened to you. If the

1:31:14

movie isn't working, you're like, I'll just keep playing

1:31:16

this because Otherwise, we, of course, wanna plug our live

1:31:18

show in Brooklyn. We're just a little over a

1:31:21

month out. Hopefully, all

1:31:23

of your holiday plans are

1:31:25

being finalized, and you're available if you're in the area or looking to make a trip to New

1:31:27

York Saturday, January fourteenth,

1:31:30

the Bell House in

1:31:32

Brooklyn eight o'clock,

1:31:34

our twenty twenty two wrap party. You're gonna know what our favorite films of the year are. You're gonna know by the end of this

1:31:36

episode what our favorite performances of

1:31:38

the year are, but what about

1:31:41

Performances opening

1:31:43

scenes, our funniest scenes, and overall, our scenes

1:31:45

of the year. Great lineup of

1:31:47

guests joining us for

1:31:49

that, Josh. We've got Dana Stevens. We've got

1:31:52

Griffin Newman, Alison Wilmore, Matt Singer.

1:31:54

I don't know if they'll be

1:31:56

reforming film spotting SVU there

1:31:58

on stage together. We'll see what happens, but all four of those great

1:32:00

guests are going to be joining

1:32:02

us for sure. For tickets and other