0:00

This episode is sponsored by Wonder's new

0:02

podcast, The Re watcher, Buffie the

0:04

Vampire Slayer, where they slay their

0:06

way through Buffie's drama, action, and

0:08

romance. Listen to the re watcher,

0:10

buffy the vampire slayer on Amazon

0:12

Music Apple Podcasts, or listen

0:14

early and add free by sub subscribing to

0:16

Wonderry Plus in Apple Podcasts or

0:18

the Wonderry app. This episode

0:20

is brought to you by Mubi presenting the new film

0:23

decision to leave. Don't miss the

0:25

can prize winning triumph that is now South

0:27

Korea's Academy Award submission for

0:29

best international feature film. decision

0:32

to leave opens today in New York and

0:34

LA exclusively in theaters everywhere

0:36

this fall. You've got to listen to the funny

0:38

and insightful film podcast on the exactly

0:41

right network called I saw what you did.

0:43

Every Tuesday, Millie and Danielle, a

0:45

film expert and a film enthusiast discuss

0:47

a double feature with different wild theme

0:50

and explore how our life stories impact

0:52

the movies we love. They dissect films

0:54

from roadhouse to devil in a blue

0:56

dress and miracle mile. Follow,

0:59

I saw what you did wherever you get your

1:01

podcasts.

1:06

What kind of a show are you guys putting on

1:08

here today? You're

1:09

not interested in them? No. Look, we're going

1:11

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

1:15

From

1:15

Chicago, this is Filment Spotting. I'm Adam

1:17

Campana, and I'm Josh Larsen.

1:20

How's the roaching going? Not

1:25

so well. I keep hearing something.

1:29

Shopping measure the man's intelligence against

1:31

his sensitivity to noise. You

1:36

know, these

1:36

clips are always so loud in my headphones.

1:38

I know you don't have that problem, do you, Josh?

1:42

No. Not a problem for me. We've

1:44

got a reference to a nineteenth

1:46

century German philosopher in a trailer.

1:48

You know what that means? It's prestige movie

1:51

season. Chapin' Howard, come on.

1:53

That's from the trailer for Tarr from director

1:56

Tod field starring Kate Blanchard as

1:58

an acclaimed composer and conductor.

2:00

And speaking of acclaimed, Tyre may

2:02

be the best received film to come out of the fall

2:05

festival season It opens this

2:07

weekend, and we've got a review. Plus

2:09

thoughts on David O'Russell's period ensemble

2:12

comedy Amsterdam, that and more

2:14

not quite as acclaimed, a head

2:16

on film spotting.

2:22

Welcome to film

2:24

spotting. Like the best of chaplains

2:26

work, David O' Russell's star crammed

2:28

historical fantasy Brims with both

2:30

exuberance and rage. when

2:33

Sam shared that with me in

2:35

our film spotting Slack earlier today, I

2:37

was praying Josh that those were your words.

2:39

They were not. I can

2:41

only wish. instead,

2:44

the words of the New Yorkers Richard Brody,

2:46

even more a noted contrarian than

2:49

one Josh Larsen. He's not going

2:51

to join us for our review of David or

2:53

Russell's Amsterdam with its cast of thousands.

2:55

Unfortunately, you know, I had Brody's

2:58

back with don't worry, Darlene. We were

3:00

together on that one. I should probably

3:02

say he had buyback, but, yeah, this

3:04

time, I'm afraid it's not gonna

3:06

work. We'll talk about that

3:08

a little bit later in the show. First though,

3:10

a movie that has plenty of talent, but only

3:12

one true star, which is more

3:14

than enough. If

3:17

you're here, then you already know who

3:19

she is. Lydia

3:21

Tarr is any things.

3:24

As a conductor, Tara

3:26

began her career with a Cleveland Orchestra,

3:28

Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the

3:30

Law Austin, Symphony, until she had

3:33

last arrived here at our own New Yorkville

3:35

Harmonic. In twenty

3:37

thirteen, Berlin elected to

3:39

her as its principal doctor, and

3:41

she's remained there ever since. Laniatar

3:43

has also written music in the

3:45

stage and screen. She is one of

3:47

only fifteen egots, meaning

3:49

those who have won all four major

3:52

entertainment awards. Thank you

3:54

for joining us. My stroke. Thank The

3:59

sizable gap

3:59

between two thousand six's Little Children

4:02

and Todd Fields latest wasn't

4:04

marked by isolation and unproductivity.

4:07

There was plenty of artistic output according

4:09

to an August thirty New York Times profile,

4:12

just nothing that made it to any screens. It

4:14

still would be fair to propose, however, that field

4:17

is enigmatic, unlike

4:19

his prolific attention welcoming

4:21

unapologetically didactic protagonist

4:24

Lydia Tarr, the conductor of an

4:26

acclaimed orchestra in Berlin, filled

4:28

his shoes of the spotlight and

4:30

while not prickly or standoffish, generally

4:33

gives off the vibe in the few interviews

4:35

that I've heard that he would rather be doing

4:37

almost anything else in the world

4:39

than talking about himself and his

4:41

movie, or more specifically,

4:43

talking about his choices. hosts

4:46

and moderators, all properly,

4:48

globally probing, inevitably

4:51

inquire about intent. Why

4:53

this? Why that? What did you want

4:55

the audience to think? What did you want the

4:57

audience to feel? And the dead

4:59

air dotted with ums and

5:01

ahs that meets those queries suggest

5:03

the field only in a moment of

5:05

severe weakness might reply. I

5:07

did it because that's how I did it.

5:09

Figure it out for yourself. Tell

5:11

me what you think it means. What

5:13

are we to make of Tarr, the movie

5:16

and the character? The Times author,

5:18

Kyle Buchanan, warrants us to, quote,

5:20

expect robust conversations to

5:22

follow about the way Tar intersects

5:24

with hot button issues like identity

5:26

politics and canceled culture, unquote,

5:28

and I can imagine an uncharitable reaction

5:30

to the film that goes something like this.

5:33

A eyebrow patrol job in which

5:35

field attacks our capacity and appetite

5:37

for quick condemnation and dismissals of

5:39

great artists for their bad behavior. Instead

5:42

of a revered privilege straight man

5:44

who uses his status to prey on younger

5:46

women, emotionally and psychologically

5:48

or sexually or all of the

5:50

above, field attempts to confound

5:52

by throwing at us a revered privileged

5:55

lesbian. who uses her status

5:57

to prey on younger women. Although

5:59

not so desperate in age,

6:01

it's implied that Lydia may have groomed or

6:03

at least used for political gain Her

6:05

now partner Sharon, the Orchestra's

6:07

first violinist played by the brilliant German

6:09

actress Nina Haas. She's

6:11

straining along her assistant Francesca,

6:14

an aspiring conductor and composer

6:16

herself, portrayed by a portrait of a

6:18

lady on fire, no Amy Moore Law.

6:20

Early on, we see a jilted

6:22

ex students stalking Lydia on a

6:24

publicity trip to New York, her increasingly

6:26

frantic messages indicating a precarious

6:29

mental state with the potential for

6:31

self harm. and there's a new Orchestra

6:33

member. The still precocious but supremely

6:35

talented Russian cellist Olga played

6:38

by actual cellist but not actual

6:40

Russian Soviet tower. Lydia

6:43

just can't stop herself.

6:45

She wants something, she gets

6:47

it. A destructive desire rooted

6:49

in the same ambition and impulses that

6:51

have made her worthy of an extended

6:54

perhaps slightly peculiar but bold

6:56

opening sit down in which the New Yorkers

6:58

Adam Gopnik introduces her

7:00

by listing seemingly every single

7:02

one of her remarkable credits and achievements.

7:05

Regardless of how warmly one reacts

7:07

to this film, Josh, I think Field has

7:09

proven with both a little children and his

7:11

debut in the bedroom to be a highly sensitive

7:13

and thoughtful filmmaker. He didn't come

7:15

back from a sixteen year hiatus and

7:17

collaborate with someone so prodigious as

7:20

Blanchett to poke at social media

7:22

and push a few buttons. So

7:24

since I can't ask him, and

7:26

wouldn't dare even if he was in front of

7:28

me. I'll ask you, why

7:30

did he make tar? What was his

7:32

intent? never an easy question with

7:34

art and even more challenging with a film

7:36

as willfully and big US as this one

7:38

is. Did that ambiguity put

7:40

you off? or did you find it as rousing

7:43

as Lydia's rendering of Mueller's

7:45

fifth? It's very

7:47

smart and incredibly rich and

7:50

the things that you're touching on here

7:52

in this setup for me

7:54

were just one aspect of the film. Mhmm.

7:56

You know, the the gender palette

7:58

ticks, identity politics, the cancel culture, that

8:00

sort of stuff. It's an interesting aspect. And

8:02

it kicks off a lot of the action

8:05

as much as there is, the narrative, I should

8:07

say. I,

8:09

first of all, sounds like Todd Field is director after

8:11

my own heart, wanting to leave it up to

8:13

us and not not pronounce

8:15

two people in q and a is what he meant. That's

8:18

great. Love to hear that. So let's do

8:20

it. I'll say I reacted

8:22

this way to his

8:24

choice of putting

8:26

a woman in this

8:29

lead,

8:29

a character and

8:31

an arc that I think

8:33

we would naturally associate with a powerful

8:36

older white man. Mhmm. That's

8:38

an interesting choice.

8:41

and the way it registered to

8:43

me, the negative review that you

8:45

described, I'm sure, is going to be out there, that this

8:47

is a screwed against cancel culture. I think

8:49

that would be a misreading. I think there's a lot of

8:51

evidence that that would be a misreading. I'm

8:53

sure that we'll be out there.

8:55

But the way this

8:57

choice registered to me was a couple of ways.

8:59

And maybe my own biases are at

9:01

play here. But I

9:03

think It engendered

9:06

some natural sympathy at

9:08

the start on my part

9:11

for Lydia that would not have

9:13

been there if this had been say, as

9:15

I described, some sixty something

9:18

white male. Okay. Straight

9:20

white male. already, I'm intrigued

9:22

for someone who is coming at this

9:24

from a different perspective as a

9:26

woman, as a lesbian, different

9:28

experiences. That changes

9:31

the narrative in a

9:33

way that brought a little more sympathy for

9:35

me. Now the second thing that

9:37

it did And this is where I think the movie

9:39

gets more towards what I think the movie

9:41

is very much interested in.

9:43

It focuses the conversation away

9:46

from gender not that gender doesn't

9:48

apply, but to the

9:50

root of a lot of these issues. When it

9:52

comes to question

9:54

of the me too movement, and

9:56

similar things we've been thinking about and

9:58

wrestling with in recent years

10:00

in particular, it focuses it more

10:02

on power. And it makes us

10:04

question, if there's a root evil

10:07

here, it's power

10:09

and it happens to be that in the

10:11

history, of

10:14

society and music as we

10:16

learn as we learn here about, you know, how the music

10:18

world is set up, that power was held

10:20

by white man, straight white man.

10:22

And In this case, it's

10:24

not. So that kind of strips the gender out

10:26

of it and makes us look, bear

10:28

in the face, and ask when

10:30

there's an incredibly talented

10:32

person. who in

10:34

some ways earns the right

10:36

to be as flippant

10:39

as Lydia is with everyone in

10:41

her life because she sees and she

10:43

answers this in her own q and a.

10:45

Right? What her purpose is as a conductor?

10:47

It's to keep time. And what does

10:49

she say? That's no small thing? She sees

10:51

herself as as almost leading

10:53

more of a marching band. Only

10:55

it's not just the instrumentalist It's also the

10:57

people in the audience and she is taking them to

10:59

musical Nirvana. And

11:01

what they need to do to appreciate

11:03

that higher experience is to

11:05

follow her temple follow the time that

11:07

she sets, the time that she creates,

11:09

and if anyone for whatever reason

11:11

cannot keep up in

11:13

step and they fall away,

11:15

oh well, that's

11:17

their loss. That's a

11:19

cost that just comes with what she will

11:21

be providing. And all

11:23

of that yes, gender comes into play.

11:25

Sexual identity comes into play. Absolutely. We'll see

11:27

that in the intricacies of each relationship that

11:29

we learn about in this movie, but essentially

11:31

it's a matter of power. Lydia has gotten to

11:33

a point where she holds this power and what is

11:35

she going to do with it? How is

11:37

she going to use that to pursue her

11:39

true passion, which is music

11:42

appreciation. Does she

11:44

have room for humans within

11:46

that appreciation? Her wife,

11:49

her daughter, these other

11:52

students who look up to her to showroom for

11:54

their humanity, or is that something

11:56

that she's willing to throw by the wayside to

11:58

serve her own needs in her mind

12:00

to serve this greater need. I thought this was

12:02

an incredibly fascinating character

12:04

portrait to that end that

12:06

touches on all these other elements you've

12:09

mentioned and may in some responses

12:12

overshadow what is at the root of this

12:14

movie for me? Well,

12:16

more than a conductor of a

12:18

marching band that opening Q and A in

12:20

that line you reference suggests

12:23

she's Godlike. you don't stop

12:25

or start without me. She's

12:27

controlling time in the

12:29

way an almighty deity.

12:32

might be able to control time.

12:34

At least that's how it does come off in

12:36

that moment. And you mentioned being in

12:38

a sympathetic mindset towards her from the

12:40

beginning because of her gender,

12:42

yes, because what it suggests

12:44

is knowing the

12:46

sweep of history as we do. You

12:48

know in that moment before you even

12:50

learn anything more about her, that it

12:52

couldn't have been handed to her. Right. It

12:54

wasn't. It had to be earned to

12:56

use my line earlier or to

12:58

paraphrase, it was something

13:00

she took and

13:02

she took it at whatever those

13:05

costs were and you talk about power

13:07

in my setup by reference privilege

13:09

and I don't mean privilege in the way we maybe normally think

13:11

about it in terms of she

13:13

was born with this or something. As we said,

13:15

she had to take this and there's

13:17

some information we learn about

13:19

her later in the film that corroborates

13:22

that idea. But it's

13:24

privilege that comes with asserting

13:27

yourself and putting yourself in such

13:29

a position of authority

13:32

and power that you can essentially

13:34

get away with whatever you

13:36

want. And where the humanity

13:38

does come into this movie and the

13:40

performance is

13:43

in the guilt that

13:45

I do think she expresses or that

13:47

I think comes out through

13:49

some of her behavior and

13:51

actions in the film. A movie I

13:53

thought about quite a bit. I'm gonna

13:55

reference two movies here even though I wanna be clear.

13:57

I think this film is absolutely

13:59

its own singular piece

14:01

of art. But one film I couldn't

14:03

shake was the Michael Hanukkah film

14:05

cache, which is very much

14:07

about privilege and power and oppression

14:09

and guilt and this idea

14:11

of being haunted.

14:14

Maybe not knowing why but being

14:16

haunted and actually having

14:18

some kind of presence that seems to be

14:20

watching you or tormenting you,

14:22

that is happening to Lydia in

14:24

this film. We see that where she's waking up in

14:26

the night and things are out of place or

14:28

the metronomes ticking seemingly

14:31

inexplicably. Another movie I

14:33

thought about and this is a more obvious

14:35

one, is something like whiplash, the

14:37

date which is our film. Less explicitly

14:40

here, but like that film,

14:43

Tar wants us to consider the

14:45

cost of greatness for the

14:47

artist, determine to achieve it, and

14:49

those who suffer under that

14:51

determination. what's permissible,

14:54

what's off limits, field

14:56

isn't interested in any easy

14:58

answers. And that ambiguity is what

15:00

I find so fascinating about the film,

15:02

especially the more distance I've gotten

15:04

from it. I think with Lydia,

15:06

I could easily play prosecutor.

15:09

And I could go through a litany of

15:12

thing she says or does. They

15:14

clearly position her as a monster. You

15:16

could walk out of this film feeling that way about

15:18

her unequivocally. And

15:20

then I could just as easily,

15:22

Josh play defense attorney and

15:25

counter those charges with positive

15:27

or at least neutral behaviors and

15:30

and actions or just

15:32

due to a lack of hard evidence, there's

15:34

reasonable doubt is what I'm saying in

15:36

a lot of aspects

15:38

of this film in her character. And the fact is

15:40

I don't care whether Lydia is a good

15:42

or a bad person just as I don't

15:44

think Field does. That's not interesting. What

15:46

I care about is the complexity. And yes, the

15:48

word we both use the humanity with

15:50

which Blanchett and Field Presenter

15:53

with all of those flaws and

15:55

frailties. It's acting 101 that you don't

15:57

pass judgment on your characters. You can't.

15:59

You can't properly play them

16:01

if you're doing that. And

16:03

Similarly here in terms of writing this character

16:06

and directing Blanche's

16:09

performance, field doesn't

16:11

exonerate Lydia, nor

16:14

does he explicitly punish her

16:16

to keep that courtroom analogy

16:18

going, I suppose. He leaves it up to us.

16:20

he leaves it up to us as the jury. It's there for

16:22

our own interpretation. Time

16:26

is

16:26

the thing. Uh-huh. Time is

16:28

is the essential piece of interpretation.

16:30

You cannot start without

16:33

me. See, I

16:33

start the clock. In

16:35

my left hand, it shapes,

16:37

but my right hand, the second

16:39

hand, marks time

16:41

and moves it forward. However,

16:43

unlike a clock, sometimes my second

16:45

hand stops. which

16:47

means that time

16:49

stops. Now,

16:50

the illusion is that, like

16:53

you, I'm responding to the

16:55

orchestra in real time making the about the

16:57

right moment to restart the thing or reset

16:59

it or throw time out the window

17:01

altogether. The reality

17:03

is, from

17:04

the very beginning, I know precisely

17:06

what time it is, and the exact moment

17:08

that you and I will arrive at our

17:11

destination together I do think

17:12

she would be her own worst witness. We're

17:15

in such a case. Sure. And, you know,

17:17

it's that the expressions, the way

17:19

she lets the guilt seep out.

17:21

to the surface and this does get us to the performance.

17:23

I I think this is

17:25

really a quintessential Blancheck

17:27

character here because she is

17:30

imposingly regal. She's too

17:32

perfect to be true.

17:35

And you only know that because she's clenching

17:37

this world so tightly that

17:39

it's going to crack. And that's a through line

17:41

I see in so many of her

17:44

performances. Blanchard has played plenty of

17:46

vulnerable women. It's not that she's always

17:48

you know, this completely commanding

17:51

figure. But I can't think

17:53

of many. There's probably one

17:55

or two who are openly, willingly,

17:58

vulnerable in in a

17:59

way. and And she

18:01

almost hear and a lot of

18:03

her characters kind

18:04

of demand to be broken. that

18:06

that's what's going to happen to them in

18:08

the course of the movie. And Are

18:11

you almost suggesting a sense of

18:13

masochism? Yes. I yes. I

18:15

think you I think there is that at play

18:17

here. And it's a through line through

18:19

a lot of her characters. And as far as Lydia

18:21

Tyer's concern, you know, she can't conceive

18:23

of her self as being weak. This is why the

18:25

podium is where she comes

18:27

alive. She's in command there. She

18:29

exudes strength. She exudes confidence,

18:31

assurance, She's conducting,

18:33

as we've said, not just the instruments, but

18:35

time itself when she's up there.

18:37

And there is a touch later in the

18:39

film. This is after things have started

18:42

spiral for her, but she suffers this

18:44

symbolic fall. She's running up some

18:46

stairs and suffers this fall,

18:48

gets her face scraped

18:49

up bloody. When she gets back to

18:51

the podium for rehearsals the next day or

18:53

a couple days later, she's bruised

18:56

and she's battered, she

18:58

conducts. more ferociously

19:00

than than ever and

19:02

she's reclaiming that power in

19:04

that place. After she's been made vulnerable,

19:07

she's going to try to and assert herself

19:10

again in the one place she knows that

19:12

she can. And that's just one of those little touches

19:15

that I think makes this such a rich movie.

19:17

It's something that doesn't necessarily

19:19

advance the plot. Mhmm. There is

19:21

something of a mystery plot

19:23

at play here. but

19:25

the film does not rush towards it at

19:27

all. It's very muted in many

19:29

ways. Instead, it drops these

19:31

revelations about her character in little

19:33

touches like that, in how she comes

19:35

back and just, you

19:37

know, throws her baton down like

19:39

a machete. in defiance

19:41

of being actually

19:43

hurt. That's how she's responding

19:45

to it. And so I do

19:48

think for a blank chat. I can see looking back at her other

19:50

characters, why this one would appeal, and

19:52

why, you know, it might not be I

19:54

don't know if it will go down as her best,

19:57

but maybe Maybe her defining

19:59

performance. Yeah. It should be in the

20:01

conversation. I think that's a great call out by

20:03

you. I remember that scene

20:05

vividly. And at the time, I thought of it

20:07

as just being

20:09

tied to that particular movement

20:11

or that part of the Symphony

20:13

that she was performing and

20:16

conducting on that day. But you're right, the

20:18

timing and the context of that

20:20

can't be overlooked. And

20:22

I think express very well what

20:24

makes this performance so remarkable. I'll just

20:26

add just how physical of a

20:28

performance it really is. And that scene's a perfect

20:30

example, but there are a lot of examples like

20:32

that, it would be really,

20:35

really hard to pull

20:37

off this movie

20:39

the with a

20:40

lidiotar who isn't as convincing as

20:42

Blanchett is. You can't

20:44

fake this. Someone who is

20:47

this talented, this

20:50

accomplished, someone who's that revered, that

20:52

she can get away with the things she gets

20:54

away with, she has to

20:56

exude all of that. it has to

20:57

be natural.

20:59

Now, it's completely a performance,

21:01

not only by Blanchett, but

21:03

by Lydia Tarr. Everything about

21:06

her. is a creation,

21:08

which I'll touch on a little bit more

21:10

in a second. But it

21:12

doesn't work. The illusion

21:15

doesn't work. For us as movie goers or for the other

21:17

characters in the film who surround

21:19

her if that confidence isn't

21:22

natural. And even

21:24

the actual conducting itself.

21:26

We have to believe after

21:28

that setup, that opening scene, we

21:30

have to believe that she's capable of anything on

21:32

that stage. And I can only

21:35

imagine the amount of work

21:37

that Blanche had to do the

21:39

amount of training she had to do to

21:41

be able to hold those

21:44

moments in front of the orchestra. And

21:46

in front of us, again

21:48

is the audience and make us believe that

21:50

she is that godlike figure.

21:52

Who is stopping and starting

21:54

time and who everything depends on. I've

21:56

mentioned it now one or two times, but

21:58

I actually really do love that

22:01

opening scene. It catches you so off guard.

22:03

Really, we're We're actually watching Adam Gopnik from

22:05

the New Yorker have a sit down. It's a q

22:07

and a and it's ten minutes

22:09

long or whatever. And

22:11

we're just gonna listen to them talk, but

22:14

all of those accolades, all

22:16

of those credits, it functions in

22:18

a couple of effective

22:21

ways. It shows us how

22:24

meticulously crafted that persona is,

22:26

partly because we see prior to

22:28

that her waiting in the

22:30

wings, and we see some of her

22:32

tics and behaviors as she's reacting

22:34

to some different things,

22:36

I think. that are happening in the

22:38

crowd, and how she gets

22:40

into character, how she

22:42

transforms that moment before she then goes

22:44

out and completely commands the

22:46

stage. She's not conducting. She doesn't have the podium, but even

22:48

from that chair, she's completely owning

22:51

it. And you get the sense from

22:53

Blanche's performance, that she's almost

22:55

reciting something previously

22:57

scripted or rehearsed. She has a line in

22:59

the film where she says that the real discovery

23:01

comes in rehearsal. Then I can

23:03

imagine her actually rehearsing all of

23:05

that or having done that

23:07

dialogue, had those same

23:09

questions before that now she can just

23:11

knock it out, like it's a metronome.

23:14

But that doesn't mean the performance she's giving on stage,

23:16

answering those questions isn't

23:18

any less meaningful or insightful.

23:20

And then the real indicator,

23:23

Josh, is the moment where Field

23:25

cuts to Merlall, her

23:27

assistant. I was just gonna bring this up.

23:29

Yeah. She's melting the words. Yeah. She's melting

23:31

the words. I think that Gopnik is saying in

23:33

the intro. It's of his it's of

23:35

his bio of Lydia

23:37

Euclid. But it speaks to your point that this is

23:39

something that they have it's

23:41

part of her control. Their much

23:43

she and her assistant are as much in control

23:45

of this q and a as he is. Yes. That's

23:47

that's what that tells us. Right. Gopnik,

23:50

he's unwittingly part

23:52

of the performance -- Yeah. -- as he

23:54

recites it back as

23:56

precisely as they have given it to him.

23:58

And then it also gives you

24:00

right from the beginning. the

24:02

arc of the film. You mentioned this

24:04

sense that she's going to crack.

24:06

Well, Josh, where else does she

24:08

have to go? from the

24:10

beginning, but down. She has

24:12

achieved more than most artists ever could have

24:14

dreamed, more than she surely

24:16

initially imagined, And

24:18

she's on the verge of pulling off what should be the

24:20

capstone to her career. Recording

24:23

Mueller's fifth, and she spends all that time in

24:25

the q and a talking about that.

24:27

and I don't remember the exact terms, but she

24:29

in doing so will have

24:32

completed kind of a cycle of Mueller's work. I

24:34

think recording all the the

24:36

symphony. So Once you've done that, where do

24:38

you go? Where do you go from there?

24:40

And that doesn't

24:43

excuse anything. says

24:45

or does. But you can

24:48

understand anyway how reckoning

24:50

with all that, a character in

24:52

her position. who's put herself

24:54

in that position.

24:55

A character

24:56

reckoning with all of that compounded

24:58

then by other external factors

25:01

could end up

25:02

spiraling.

25:03

the barrel Yeah.

25:05

She feels she desert

25:07

it's crossed the threshold where

25:10

she feels like she has deserved this,

25:13

partly because she has worked so

25:15

hard, had to overcome things that

25:17

maybe other male conducting students

25:19

didn't many years ago. But

25:21

at this point, it's become a

25:23

term of ownership for

25:25

her. this status that she has. And there's no humility

25:27

to the character, which I think connects

25:29

back to that vulnerability

25:32

idea. And these are all things that

25:34

Blanchek gives in the performance. You know,

25:36

she gives us it's not just a two

25:38

way performance of command,

25:40

and then hinting when the camera is looking

25:42

in the audiences and at vulnerability, you

25:44

know, at her weaknesses or at her her guilt. We've

25:46

been describing as guilt. Right? It's much more

25:49

layered it's oscillating between

25:51

those two places in fascinating ways.

25:53

And I think, you know, as a director,

25:55

I think field is very much

25:57

assisting her performance with

26:00

the camera. Beyond what he's given in the

26:02

screenplay here, it's this is

26:04

a movie that is very intricately

26:06

constructed, but it's not showing There

26:08

are maybe a few flourishes here or there,

26:10

but mostly the camera needs to be

26:13

where it needs to be for blank chat to have the

26:15

space that she needs. There's

26:17

this silically scene in this

26:19

master class she gives at Juliet. And this

26:21

is kind of the first, you know, piece

26:23

of the of the wall to crumble where

26:25

she goes off when a young student

26:27

expresses, a student of color expresses

26:29

what we've been talking about. You know,

26:31

disinterest in the old white masters, he

26:33

says. and she just tears into this

26:35

kid. Right? And another someone videotapes

26:37

this or gets it on their phone and

26:39

it goes viral clips of it.

26:42

go viral, but that scene is

26:44

filmed almost entirely, at

26:46

least when Blanchett is really getting

26:48

going in a single take. Yeah.

26:50

And I felt like it was. I remember on this

26:52

tape briefly that I jotted down on my

26:54

notes was this a single take.

26:56

It didn't really hit me until near

26:58

the end of the scene, and that tells you something

27:00

about how non ostentatious

27:02

-- Correct. -- is and yet you

27:04

do eventually pick up on it. It

27:06

serves. I did. Yeah. It serves the purpose of again

27:09

putting Lydia in

27:11

complete command of the moment

27:13

without taking us out of the moment.

27:15

And I think that's a very delicate balance to have

27:18

as a director. And I believe, you know, within the

27:20

entire sequence, it's quite long.

27:22

There are a couple of cuts, but

27:24

there is there's a healthy

27:26

section in there where she is

27:28

just, you know, letting these students have

27:30

it and the camera is following

27:32

her and letting her have the space

27:34

that she needs. But, you know, this is

27:36

another filmmaking element that I guess we

27:38

probably should have known would be just

27:40

as crucial, and you've touched on this

27:42

with the haunting sounds that are

27:44

throughout. The sound design in this movie is

27:46

so crucial, not just the classical music

27:48

and the way it's it's used very must killerly

27:51

in this film that I think also

27:53

echoes how Lydia Tower carries herself.

27:55

When we get that that classical

27:58

but also these mysterious noises. The one

28:00

movie that popped into my head was

28:02

the Tilda Swinton film memoria from --

28:04

Yeah. -- people who brought it to

28:06

Yeah. With these bizarre, mysterious

28:10

sounds, they they end up being very

28:12

different things, I think, in both of

28:14

those movies. But in terms of their

28:16

early haunting presence and

28:18

what each of those sounds carries, the one

28:20

I just wanna mention without giving

28:22

away, it was one of the

28:24

the most emotionally affecting details in

28:26

the film and it has to do with

28:28

the flat Lydia has separate from

28:31

this vast industrial home space she shares

28:33

with her wife and daughter. She also has this

28:35

flat, which we learn is one she

28:37

got when she first came to Berlin.

28:40

She goes there to be by herself. There's a piano. She

28:42

works on her music there. And

28:45

we hear these almost chimes. It's

28:47

like two notes. that are very faint in the

28:49

distance. And at first, we're not

28:51

sure if is this

28:53

inspiration? because she looks up and she's trying to

28:55

compose a piece herself. she

28:57

plays the two notes on the piano. And

28:59

you're wondering, is this something that's coming

29:01

to her that she's going to then compose? But

29:03

no, we understand it's coming from

29:05

somewhere else. and it's bothering her as all these other

29:07

noises do. That's right. The

29:09

refrigerator in her house or

29:11

the vent in her car,

29:13

you know, the air vent in her car, these sorts of things. These are

29:15

all auditory thorns pushing further

29:17

under her skin. And

29:19

when we reveal when

29:22

the movie reveals what those

29:24

chime tones are,

29:26

I found that to be devastating

29:28

and connecting back with it's it's

29:31

shoving in her face. That

29:33

question I posed earlier, do you have

29:35

any room in your genius

29:37

for humanity? Is is there

29:40

anything here that

29:42

you might need to step outside of yourself

29:45

and do something for another person

29:47

and the revelation of that

29:50

sound forces her to answer that question. And

29:52

she both meets the challenge and

29:54

then later fails in ways we'd have to

29:56

talk about in spoiler. that

29:58

I think are as crucial

29:59

to pronouncing a

30:01

sentence on her if this movie does

30:03

as anything we learned about her former

30:05

students to be honest. Mhmm. Yeah.

30:07

In terms of the sound, I don't

30:10

remember or I haven't looked up

30:12

the exact term for it,

30:14

but She does seem to suffer from whatever that

30:16

condition is where repeated noises

30:19

and I don't have her genius nor do

30:21

I have her level of sensitivity. but

30:24

I do personally feel

30:26

that and experience that quite a bit myself,

30:28

the repetition of certain sounds and

30:30

noises that can get a little overwhelming

30:32

for me. and you imagine someone

30:34

like her, someone who has that

30:36

extreme sensitivity, if

30:38

you've had that your entire life,

30:41

and just the sounds of the

30:43

world around you overwhelm

30:45

you and impress you in that way.

30:47

how chaotic and out of control must

30:50

things feel for you. And so what are

30:52

you going to do? You are going to try

30:54

to assert your control. constantly.

30:56

You're going to try to be the one who controls

30:58

those sounds. It does make

31:00

some sense in terms of her

31:02

character and where she ends up and

31:04

you talk about the sound design, some of the

31:06

visuals, the score here. Hilda Gunadotter

31:09

does the composing here.

31:12

All really does add

31:14

this eerie kind of texture. I

31:16

love the scenes we cut to

31:18

repeatedly of the car.

31:20

that she's in, where through the tunnels seems to

31:22

be, yeah, the tunnels. You're in these

31:24

tunnels. It seems to be probably early

31:26

in the morning, but not always. There's

31:28

no one else on the

31:31

road, and whatever the sound

31:33

is, it's almost that absence

31:35

of sound, where you're keenly

31:37

aware of just kind of the

31:39

and that that actually doesn't make

31:41

it soothing at all. It it's

31:43

just the opposite. It's a little bit

31:46

disturbing and field returns to that

31:49

motif again and again. I wanna go back

31:51

to something too that

31:53

field clearly chooses

31:55

to do or not do,

31:58

and it goes to this

32:00

notion of the ambiguity and how we

32:02

feel about her character. you

32:04

walk out and I think you'd be very easy to

32:06

assume playing prosecution

32:09

again, that clearly she has groomed some

32:11

of these women. She's abused them.

32:13

She's taken advantage of them. She's had sexual

32:15

relationships with them that she probably shouldn't

32:18

have. And that

32:20

is possibly true. Maybe even

32:22

it's probably true. But

32:24

isn't it

32:24

telling Josh that I can't

32:26

remember a single moment

32:30

of real sensuality or

32:32

any depiction of sex that

32:35

happens at any point in

32:37

this film. I I think it's notable

32:39

how dispassionately field

32:42

portrays these relationships.

32:44

Because then it makes you

32:46

at least ask the question. Well

32:49

then, what is she driven

32:51

by? What what is

32:53

she doing to these What she

32:55

need to sort of consume? What does

32:57

she need to take from these

32:59

women? Is it just about power?

33:01

Maybe it is. Is

33:03

it something to do with their

33:05

youth?

33:06

Maybe that's it too. Again,

33:09

she's she's at this point in

33:11

her career. middle age. She's about to achieve

33:13

everything she ever set out to

33:15

achieve. And she

33:17

somehow you know,

33:19

like in a fairytale, the evil

33:21

witch who needs the the life force

33:23

of some of these characters. But

33:25

Is it actually something a little bit even more abstract?

33:27

And I think it could be all of these things, Josh,

33:29

that again is kind of the magic of

33:31

the film. But does it actually lie in

33:34

their talent? AND HER WANTING -- Reporter: WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO. AND

33:36

WANTING TO HARDNESS IT. YOU KNOW, WE SEE

33:38

THAT IN THE CHELUS STOLGA. YOU

33:40

DO, SHE HAS THIS

33:42

RELATIONSHIP OF SOUTS. with

33:45

Olga. And I think

33:47

you can watch moment after

33:49

moment where you would say, oh, that's improper

33:51

even what she does with the initial

33:54

audition, where she knows it's her. She gets a

33:56

peek at her boots. It's supposed to be a blind

33:58

audition, but she knows that she

34:00

is ultimately recommending the

34:02

woman she saw walk into the bathroom.

34:04

She saw what she looks like.

34:06

When she ultimately decides the piece that

34:08

is going to be featured alongside the

34:10

main piece when they do this performance,

34:12

she decides to feature

34:16

the cello. everything about it seems wrong,

34:18

seems like she's just favoring

34:20

her new pet. But

34:22

then nobody denies

34:24

it. She's Nobody denies

34:26

that. Nobody denies that the peace is

34:28

great and that her playing isn't

34:30

great. It it's

34:32

unimpeachable the decisions

34:34

she makes in terms

34:36

of the music. You can't

34:38

argue with those choices at

34:40

least in the way the movie presents them.

34:42

So you're you're left kind

34:44

of marbling and despising her

34:46

audacity and her seeming selfishness. And

34:48

then you go, oh, but it's

34:50

it's also serving the

34:52

music. Yeah. and that's how she would

34:54

justify it. I think one of the things the

34:56

movie is interested in is

34:58

how these sorts

35:00

of abuses obviously, they take place in more,

35:02

you know, white collar sort of

35:04

industries. But these abuses

35:08

can all be incredibly complicated when you're trying to

35:10

draw professional boundaries as

35:12

part of a creative

35:16

partnership. And part of what you're

35:18

doing is not, you know,

35:20

just making a sale. Like,

35:22

you're building so you're

35:24

creating something

35:26

together. And the sort of

35:28

passions that are shared in

35:30

that process are steps

35:32

closer to sort of the passions that

35:34

really indulges in than maybe in a different scenario. And this is in

35:37

some ways, you could read this, you know,

35:39

film as exact exactly

35:41

what has happened throughout history in the movie making

35:44

industry. Right? And the field

35:46

has just chosen to set it in a

35:48

different artistic venue.

35:50

But I think that's one of the things the movie is struggling

35:52

with. They're asking us to struggle with this. How do

35:54

you keep up these professional boundaries

35:56

when what you're working so tied to

35:59

emotion. You know, there's another later bit

36:01

where she talks about

36:04

music being the only way I don't think she says this, but it's hinted. The

36:06

only way she can access feeling

36:09

emotion is through music.

36:12

And so then what happens when this is

36:14

what the this cellist Olga does for

36:16

her? Mhmm. So I think that's part

36:20

of the complication here and

36:22

it's something that tired of the

36:24

movie is forcing us to wrestle with. I think

36:26

we have a little different reading

36:28

you know, going back to your your

36:30

courtroom scenario, if I had a disappointment in

36:33

the film, it's because I

36:36

think it does take a

36:39

fairly pronounced position

36:42

on

36:42

Lydia in

36:45

its final minute or two.

36:48

And I won't spoil this, but III

36:50

I'm guessing you had a very different reaction.

36:52

I have to say I was

36:54

I was kind of I'll say disappointing the movie, which sounds just

36:56

like a critic phrase, but but personally

36:58

kind of hurt by where

37:02

the movie left her.

37:04

And that's not to say I wanted her

37:06

to be exonerated or proven that

37:08

or even left more in the

37:11

dark. I was pretty convinced she was unlike you, I

37:13

was pretty convinced she was guilty of just about everything

37:15

that had been accused of her.

37:17

And this movie was forcing her,

37:19

was accounting her reckoning for that.

37:22

And then we get this final, you

37:24

know, ten, fifteen minutes. We're not quite

37:26

sure what is going on, where she is, what

37:28

she's up to. It's a kicker. It's a kicker we

37:30

get at the end. It's a kicker. And I found

37:32

it to be a little self satisfied,

37:34

a little arch, and this is all

37:36

compared to the deep feelings that the movie

37:38

has otherwise evoked.

37:40

It it's I I agree. It's an

37:42

undeniably funny, very clever

37:44

turning of the screw. But

37:47

I thought it was a little too bitter and almost

37:49

too vindictive considering how much

37:52

the movie had asked

37:54

us to invest in this woman despite

37:56

her failings, just fight her considerable

37:58

failings. It wanted us to

38:00

recognize those. I think I just

38:02

thought the movie cared for her more than where it

38:04

left her. It struck me as it struck me as the wrong

38:06

note. Yeah. It's a little bit ironic

38:08

because I felt like I was actually a

38:10

little bit

38:12

more charitable charitable to

38:14

her throughout the movie, perhaps than you were. And

38:16

then at the end, I feel like

38:18

she got everything she deserved. But even

38:20

that, I don't really mean. And what

38:23

mean I say that is But that's how the movie treats it.

38:26

That is how the movie treats it.

38:28

But I don't know that we have a

38:30

disagreement, especially as

38:32

we haven't tried to really articulate it because we don't wanna spoil it and we will not spoil

38:34

it. I don't know if we really see the ending

38:36

differently. I'll just say

38:38

I love every of

38:40

it. And I love it partly

38:42

because I don't actually

38:44

purport to know really

38:46

where I think the movie falls

38:48

with it or where I should fall with it. What I

38:51

think is true. The only thing I can

38:53

say I think is true

38:56

is it seems to make

38:58

total sense for her character. Yeah.

39:00

I'm not saying it's unrealistic. To my house

39:02

sense, well, I don't know if it's realistic. I

39:04

would say it's not realistic at all. I would say true to her

39:07

character. Yeah. III yeah.

39:09

We're saying the same thing, but -- Yeah.

39:11

-- to end their felt smug.

39:14

and this was not a movie that was smug about

39:16

these very complicated things it

39:18

had been exploring for almost three

39:22

hours. it just it just hit a little bit of a false note, I

39:24

think. Yeah. No. I I can absolutely see

39:26

the smug argument. And then at

39:28

the same time, I think it

39:31

opens up some more fascinating questions to walk out

39:33

of the theater with. So in that

39:35

way, feels like it's serving the

39:38

audience. Can I just end with

39:40

my little pet theory

39:42

about one really minor

39:44

part of the film, calling it even a theory is

39:46

giving it way too much weight.

39:48

Sure. But I still wanna throw it out there just to see what you or anybody else

39:50

thinks. And it ties back to this

39:52

idea of, again, how we

39:54

judge her, what we make of her character,

39:56

her guilt.

39:59

feel

39:59

field multiple

40:01

times shows

40:04

us anagrams. There's a

40:06

moment where Lydia, she's in

40:08

the midst of this crisis

40:10

with the former student

40:13

of hers, who is Now

40:15

it seems out to get

40:17

her and she's on a plane, I

40:19

think, or she's in the car and she's scribbling

40:21

in a notebook. and she takes her

40:23

name. She takes the character's name, Christa, and she rearranges it to

40:26

at risk. Later,

40:28

she

40:28

I think it's

40:30

i think it's at No.

40:32

It's not Krista's place. It's another character's place. And

40:35

that character who's now mad

40:37

at Lydia has taken

40:39

her name Tarr and rearranged it to

40:41

rat. Mhmm. Right? So

40:43

this idea

40:44

very clearly suggested from

40:48

that this character having those negative feelings is saying

40:50

Lydia is something of a rat. And

40:52

for us to see that twice, to

40:54

see two different moments of Anagram's made

40:57

me think, well, you know, field isn't playing around here,

40:59

there must really be some kind of purpose and meaning to

41:02

everything. Well, how

41:04

about the fact that about

41:06

the fact that her name is

41:10

Lydia. What does Lydia

41:12

rearrange to? It rearranges to at least one

41:14

word I can think of, which is daily.

41:17

is it by design that she's

41:19

a daily rat

41:20

that that

41:21

she's got within her? The field's kind of just

41:24

hinting. If we if we if we pick up on

41:26

it that he's hinting that that's kind of the central

41:28

crux of this almost in some way is that

41:30

that battle every day that's waging

41:32

inside her to

41:34

be this this pillar of greatness that she aspires to be and have the

41:36

respect of everyone, but

41:39

also succumbing to

41:41

all of her urges and wants and desires

41:43

and having it destroy her. Very

41:46

possible

41:47

though though remember That's

41:49

not her real name. There's this really

41:52

interesting scene, which only more proves

41:54

my point. be proud that the fact that

41:56

she chose it. I forget what her

41:58

name is. But, yeah, she has seen with it's what

42:00

is it again? Linda. Linda.

42:02

Yes. That's right. Where where she reconnects

42:04

very briefly. with her brother,

42:06

which is, again, one of those, I

42:08

think, two minute scenes

42:10

that the movie didn't necessarily

42:12

need but tells us so

42:14

so much. so much. Yeah. It's

42:16

a good one. Tar is out

42:19

now in limited release. If you see

42:21

it and agree or disagree with our

42:23

takes, you can feedback at film spotting

42:25

dot net. Up next, Christian Bale for the

42:27

second time plays a character with

42:29

a glass eye. Oh,

42:31

boy. Our review of Amsterdam is next plus a new

42:33

very specific film spotting poll about

42:36

seasonal stop motion animation.

42:39

Stay with us.

43:00

Remember the

43:04

days before

43:08

streaming services? when you would come home

43:10

from high school and it was only a few hours until that TV show that everyone was watching

43:12

was going to come on. Your friends were on their way

43:14

over for the watch party,

43:17

smell of popcorn filled the room? Well, in

43:19

nineteen ninety nine, that show was Buffie

43:21

the vampire slayer. In the new

43:23

podcast from Wandry, the Re watcher, Buffie

43:25

the vampire slayer, We are taking

43:27

it back to nineteen ninety nine. Get out your

43:29

knee high boots and paste that poster of Angel

43:32

on the wall. It is time to enter the

43:34

buffy verse. join Morbid cohost Elena and Ash as they slay their

43:36

way through buffy's drama, action,

43:38

and romance episode by

43:40

episode. I love the setup here for this

43:42

show, Josh.

43:44

You've got one of the hosts, Elena,

43:46

who's a buffy super fan, and you have Ash who's never

43:48

watched a single episode. So

43:51

whether you're a teen angel or you're a teen spike

43:54

or you've never heard those names

43:56

before in your life, this show is going to have you

43:58

covered. I

44:00

would definitely be on the ash

44:02

side of things. Never watched

44:04

a single episode. That's not

44:07

entirely true. I I saw

44:09

parts of episodes, but certainly didn't religiously watch the show

44:12

and I don't remember watching an

44:14

entire show.

44:17

And

44:17

yeah yet,

44:18

this show loomed so

44:21

large in the zeitgeist

44:23

that I feel like

44:25

maybe going down the rabbit hole

44:28

with the rewatch or buffy of the vampire

44:30

slayer might be a good idea. I need another

44:32

TV show to watch right now. They

44:34

break down Buffi and her friends adventures

44:36

through weekly recaps, categories,

44:38

and awards, while ASH, the newbie

44:40

to the show, takes some wooden stakes

44:43

stabs of predicting what she thinks

44:45

will happen next. Listen to the re

44:47

watcher, buffy the vampire slayer on Amazon

44:50

Music, Apple Podcasts, or listen early and

44:52

ad free by subscribing to wonder

44:54

plus an Apple Podcasts or the

44:56

wonder app. We're pleased to be

44:58

brought to you once again

45:00

by Mubi who's presenting the

45:02

new film decision to

45:04

leave from director Park

45:06

Chanuk. At the beginning, a

45:08

mountain climber plummets to his death, an

45:10

investigation ensues, the detective,

45:12

Haijun, arrives on the scene,

45:16

and begins to suspect the dead man's wife who doesn't

45:18

seem to be that broken up

45:20

emotionally about

45:22

her loss and

45:24

this being a Park Chinook film

45:26

with shades of Hitchcock and

45:28

other great mysteries. He

45:30

does find

45:32

himself trapped in a web of deception and desire. Park

45:34

Genook, of course, the acclaimed

45:36

director of Old Boy, made one of my

45:38

favorite films, of years

45:40

ago, the Handmade and so

45:42

far, Josh Rave reviews. I've

45:44

seen the film I look forward to

45:46

talking about it here on the show

45:48

and getting your reaction to it because I do think it's a very good

45:50

one. Yeah. I've been jealous for what a week, two

45:52

weeks -- Yeah. -- that you saw

45:54

this before me just itching for the

45:56

chance, I

45:58

think. This might be the weekend, Adam. It might happen where finally

46:00

get to catch up with decision to leave.

46:02

Don't miss the can prize winning triumph.

46:04

That is now South Korea's Academy Awards

46:08

submission for best international feature film, decision to leave opens

46:10

today in New York and LA exclusively

46:13

in theaters everywhere

46:16

this fall.

46:25

Now if I've done something to you, just

46:27

tell me what I've done you and you didn't do that to

46:30

me. I just don't like you

46:32

no more. to

46:34

thank me yesterday. Colin Farrell and

46:37

Brendan Gleeson in the trailer for Martin

46:39

McDonough is the banshees of

46:41

In Issuer and which plays

46:44

in limited release starting

46:46

next weekend. And next week, here

46:48

on film spotting, we might have a

46:50

review of banshees. We might

46:52

talk about Rubin Oslin's triangle of sadness. Who knows?

46:54

Maybe we'll do a top five. I threw

46:56

out we could in

46:58

could light of especially

47:00

you saying in the previous segment, Josh, that this might be a career

47:03

defining performance for one of

47:05

our best actresses ever,

47:08

Kate Blanchett, we could do a top

47:10

five of her best performances and you even threw out possibly looking at Brendan

47:12

Gleeson's career. I think he deserves it.

47:14

I think that'd be fun.

47:17

Obviously, Blanchuk deserves it. I

47:19

mean, that's one we probably should have thought

47:21

of a while ago and prepared for

47:23

and prepared the curator in me, you

47:25

know. Adam wants to have that list with our

47:27

tire review. I know at the end of the day, it doesn't

47:29

really matter when we actually run

47:32

it. But, yeah, either

47:34

of those sounds like it would have potential. Maybe

47:36

listeners have other ideas. Yeah.

47:38

We could at this point too, and I

47:40

never would have thought this, even really

47:42

liked him in Tigerland, there was certainly

47:44

a point in Colin Farrell's career where

47:46

I never would have thought. I would be

47:48

sitting here suggesting we should do a top

47:51

five or ten best Colin Farrell performances, but

47:53

that's how highly I think of the actor.

47:55

We certainly could pull that off.

47:57

Sam has in our notes here maybe

47:59

top five

47:59

movies about friendship. we actually

48:02

did that top five,

48:04

but many moons

48:04

ago. I think actually

48:07

March or May o

48:10

seven. we did that top five. Way pre Josh.

48:12

So Certainly light of the film spotting

48:14

error almost. That's right. Right. To revisit

48:16

if we did wanna go down that path.

48:19

Once we decide what we're going to do, we'll update the episodes

48:22

page at film spotting dot net.

48:24

And if it's a top five, you can count on us

48:26

asking for your

48:28

assistance over on Twitter and Facebook,

48:30

if you've got a better idea than

48:32

anything we mentioned, we always

48:34

would love to hear

48:36

those ideas. send us a note, feedback at filmspotting dot

48:38

net. We did want to note

48:40

the passing of movie,

48:42

TV, and

48:44

theater legend Angela Landsbury ninety six years old, Josh.

48:46

Oscar nominated for her first

48:48

screen roll. Nineteen forty four's

48:50

Gas Light with

48:52

Ingrid Bergman. three Oscar

48:54

knobs total, including a best

48:56

supporting nod for a really

48:58

wonderful performance in movie.

49:00

Just terrifying

49:02

as missus Iceland in nineteen sixty two's the mandarian

49:04

candidate. Among Lansbury's last films,

49:06

nearly eighty years after her first was

49:09

twenty eighteen's Mary Poppins returns.

49:12

She had a hundred movie credits in all. She

49:14

was the voice of course of missus Pats and Beauty

49:16

and The Beast. Also appeared in nineteen

49:18

seventy one's bed knobs and broomsticks. with

49:22

Elvis in Blue Hawaii, with Judy

49:24

Garland in the Harvey girls. Can't

49:26

really recommend either of those two films

49:28

too strongly, but Think about this

49:30

career, then you go to TV, and this is

49:32

where I will always think of

49:34

Angela Landsbury,

49:36

Adam Murder, She wrote

49:38

where she played mystery writer

49:40

turned sleuth, Jessica Fletcher,

49:42

tell you what, when that was

49:44

on, no one was getting near the TV because my mom was

49:46

the biggest. Murder she wrote

49:48

fan. She just loved the show. I remember

49:50

finally watching

49:52

many episodes with her. You couldn't fool Jessica Adams. just

49:54

could not fool her. I have never

49:56

seen an episode. You know

49:59

the

49:59

what? I was texting with my sisters and dad today about

50:02

this. And right away, my dad was

50:04

like, the reruns are on peacock. You can

50:06

watch them out peacock, so there you go. Get into

50:08

it, Adam. But what a career

50:10

when you think about it? It's almost like a

50:12

forest gump style career

50:14

that she had or took

50:16

part in so many of these seminal

50:18

movies. She was so good in

50:20

gas light. And, you

50:22

know, I saw her well after I had

50:24

already known her in murder she wrote. So playing

50:26

this heartless heart to see her,

50:28

you know, Young and sassy was a bit of a shock and gas

50:30

light. And then as you said, mentoring

50:32

candidate, she's

50:34

absolutely venomous. and you

50:36

know, who doesn't love missus Pott's. So

50:38

wonderful career. Well speaking of

50:40

Tarts, Sophie, the younger

50:42

generation, well, at least weird

50:46

daughters like mine who are obsessed with musical

50:48

theater in Sondheim. She knows her

50:50

as missus Lovett. Oh, sweetie Todd? Yeah.

50:52

That's right. Yeah. Sweeney Todd, RIP Angela

50:55

Landsbury. We are excited

50:57

about the fact

50:58

Josh

51:00

that we have another trivia spotting approaching

51:02

our twenty third edition of

51:04

virtual trivia with film spotting

51:07

listeners run by the amazing quiz

51:09

master, Thomas Todd, Friday, November fourth. Is the

51:12

date seven

51:13

thirty PM central time? We've

51:16

talked about it a lot here on the show. I'm guessing there are a lot of

51:18

people out there who have thought about it, but

51:20

not taken the plunge. They're they're

51:23

nervous about their trivia prowess. Again, we've joked

51:26

about it. You do not have

51:28

to have much trivia prowess to

51:30

have a good time. You can look at

51:32

us as evidence of that.

51:34

We always have an amazing time

51:36

with listeners and our special guests. You might have

51:38

someone like

51:40

Michael Phillips. Adena Stevens, someone who's a friend of the

51:42

show, a special guest you love to hear, maybe

51:44

someone who hasn't been on the show

51:46

before. But is a

51:48

notable critic or writer. They might

51:50

be your guest captain on

51:52

trivia spotting, so we hope you'll join us.

51:54

Proof of our lack of prowess, I think Adam

51:56

after twenty two. Trivia's

51:58

spotings were both sitting each

51:59

sitting on one win. Is that right?

52:02

Yeah. One win. You

52:04

don't want either of us as

52:06

your captain. No. For trivia

52:08

spotting tickets and info, go to

52:10

film spotting dot net. It is open

52:12

to the public, though, our

52:14

family members do get a discount on those tickets. spotting

52:16

dot net for trivia spotting tickets.

52:18

This week on our sister podcast,

52:20

the next picture show, it's part

52:23

two of their unvarnished sleuth pairing.

52:26

They'll be discussing confess, flesh,

52:28

earlier they talked about Robert Altman's

52:31

the long goodbye, so Now they'll be

52:33

making some connections between those two films. I think Adam and

52:35

I both feel one quite a bit better

52:37

than the other. Your next picture show host

52:39

are Tasha Robinson Keith Phipps, Scott

52:41

Tobias and Genevievekoski, new episodes of the

52:44

Next Picture Show post every Tuesday wherever

52:46

you get your podcast, and you can get

52:48

more information at next pictureshow

52:50

dot net.

52:51

in place of

52:54

a

52:54

dark lord. You

52:56

would have a queen, not

52:59

dark, but beautiful

53:00

and terror Cape

53:11

Blanche are

53:16

there

53:17

really taking these

53:19

film spotting poll results a little bit

53:21

too seriously. She's in the fellowship of the

53:23

ring, that scene, one of

53:25

the titles that may have

53:27

given her the edge in our recent poll. We

53:30

asked our listeners this

53:33

despicable question. Choose

53:35

one. Kate

53:35

Blanchett, till the swim.

53:38

That's it. That's the question.

53:39

How did it come out, Josh? Blanchett

53:41

took it with fifty five percent of

53:43

the vote. And, maybe you're right Maybe just a matter of her

53:45

being in films that

53:47

were more popular. over

53:50

the years. It also makes me wanna ask you this question. I think it came

53:52

up when we first introduced this poll.

53:56

How Inter changeable, which

53:58

is a word we shouldn't apply to either of these

54:00

actors -- Mhmm. -- might they

54:02

be in each other's

54:04

roles till the Sweden? as Lydia

54:06

Tarr? You could see it. Right? Of

54:08

course. Yeah. I was thinking about it, at least

54:10

initially, watching the film.

54:12

Again, as we stressed, a very

54:14

different Lydia tire. Yeah. But in terms of meeting the

54:17

demands that that role

54:19

requires, totally capable. Yep.

54:21

Stephen Hill says, I'll just insert the

54:24

obligatory you monsters. And

54:26

hey, we are complicit. There's no

54:28

doubt. We allowed it. We read it

54:30

on air. We put it out there into the

54:32

world, but, you know, Sam's is the real

54:34

monster everybody. Just remember that. Always

54:36

blame Sam. We also heard from

54:38

Jeremy Webbner Berman. This was an

54:40

agonizing poll. I will see any movie just to

54:42

witness either of these outrageously

54:44

talented actresses

54:46

performance. However, I'm going to vote

54:48

Kate. I think I just like her movies

54:50

a little bit more. Plus, she has the

54:52

all time best and funniest episode of

54:54

documentary now to

54:56

her It's the waiting for the artist episode where she stood

54:58

in for performance artist Marina

55:00

Abramovic. I really like

55:02

that documentary, and

55:04

I like the spoof of the documentary

55:06

that Blanchett does. So I'm with you there, Jeremy. We have another Jeremy, though,

55:08

this one spelled with a j. Jeremy

55:10

Laffrey. He says, love Kate.

55:14

Tilda. And this is tough to

55:16

argue with Josh. I understand why you went

55:18

with Tilda. A regular troop member of

55:20

Wes Anderson, the Kone

55:22

Brothers, Jim Jarmesh, Anne Bong

55:24

Joonhow. In keeping with regular film spotting

55:26

incinerator logic, I love the Lord of the

55:28

Rings trilogy and Carol as much as the

55:30

next guy, but I can't lose the

55:32

Grand Budapest hotel. Only

55:34

lovers left alive, Hale Caesar and

55:36

both the souvenir and its sequel all in

55:38

one fell swoop. Plus just for

55:40

some spice, Tilda's just a better actress. Will he just throw Gary

55:42

at the end? Yeah. That's some

55:44

spice. That is He's working with

55:46

sound logic, and then he has to

55:48

get nasty. I mean, that

55:50

is that is a blazing hot

55:52

take. Jeremy. Here's Andrew

55:54

Howell. Kate is patient. Kate is kind.

55:56

Kate does not envy Kate does

55:58

not boast Kate does not proud, Kate does not decide or others, Kate does

56:00

not self seeking, Kate does not easily angered,

56:02

and Kate keeps no record

56:04

of wrongs. does

56:06

delight in evil, but rejoices with the

56:08

truth. Carol, Hella, Phyllis

56:10

Laffley, Jasmine, Katherine Hepburn,

56:13

Kate Wheeler, and Galadriel, I

56:15

love them all. And Rick Hanson

56:18

says, are we absolutely sure they aren't

56:20

the same person? They are that good?

56:23

I mean, she. she is good enough to be both adopting

56:25

different personas like David Bowie just

56:28

throwing it out there. Wait wait

56:30

a minute. a minute Maybe they're all

56:32

Bowie. Is it possible?

56:34

He never left. This is

56:36

all Bowie still with us. One more comment

56:38

here from down

56:40

under Dan. I've enlisted in many a monstrous film spotting pole. But

56:42

finally, finally, I find myself

56:44

a conscientious

56:46

objector. Kate and

56:48

Tilda Switten have both been nothing but

56:50

good to us. I'd take my own metaphorical life

56:52

before I pointed the metaphorical gun

56:55

at either one of these perfect creatures. Okay. I

56:58

can't argue with your reasoning

57:00

there at all, Dan. Thank you to

57:02

everyone who

57:04

participated in that little bit of insanity and for leaving a

57:06

comment. Our new poll is another

57:08

showdown of sorts, not nearly

57:10

as hard or

57:12

I don't think it is anyway, Josh is Blanchett versus Swinton.

57:14

But it may be tougher for

57:16

you and for a certain segment of our

57:18

audience. Yes.

57:20

I'm talking ninety's kids here. Oh, boy. We're gonna we're gonna

57:22

rouse the ninety kids. They're out

57:24

there. The poll looks ahead to the release of

57:26

Wendell and

57:28

Wilde. the latest stop motion creation from director Henry Selick. It

57:30

comes to Netflix at the end of this month. The

57:32

question is, here we are again, choosing

57:36

one, but It seems like, I don't of

57:38

the slack. We've decided to give the incinerator

57:40

a break. We're just going with an

57:44

impenetrable vault. I think yeah. I

57:46

think the incinerator is it's

57:48

undergoing upkeep repairs to

57:50

get ready for film spotty madness. I think this time

57:52

of year, that's what happens. That's what sounds like. to

57:54

the shop. So

57:55

the choices are this.

57:57

Wes

57:57

Anderson's, the fantastic

58:00

mister Fox. or

58:01

Henry Selick's feature linked

58:01

debut nineteen ninety three's, the

58:04

nightmare before Christmas. Now I actually don't

58:06

know how you feel about the Henry

58:08

Selick film.

58:10

but I know how you feel about the fantastic

58:12

mister Fox and I just don't envision that I

58:15

live in a world where you're

58:18

going to put fantastic mister

58:20

fox in an incinerator

58:22

or a vault or any kind of box

58:24

or confinement whatsoever. Yeah. Putting it in a vault

58:27

from October through December sounds

58:30

just ridiculous. though

58:32

if I look on my site, I do have similar four to

58:35

four star ratings for both of these films --

58:37

Really? -- a door, a nightmare before

58:40

Christmas. one of maybe

58:42

the the early entrees into modern

58:44

stat motion for me. It was always something

58:46

that mesmerized me, you know, when you

58:48

when you look at some of the Harry housing stuff

58:50

way from decades ago. But in

58:52

terms of the modern art form,

58:54

nightmare before Christmas was it, And

58:58

to lose that, I can't imagine even for a

59:00

brief period of time. So the logic I'm

59:02

gonna try to apply here You're

59:08

right. It's gonna be mister Fox. But the

59:10

way Why are you drawing this out, Josh? The

59:12

way I'm thinking about

59:14

this is I have to rationalize it. We have

59:16

a lot of, you know, nightmare before Christmas.

59:18

It's a Halloween movie and a Christmas movie. We've got a

59:20

lot of Halloween movies. We have a lot of

59:22

Christmas movies. we

59:24

don't have a lot of Thanksgiving movies. That's

59:26

to me is what fantastic mister Fox

59:28

is. So for that reason alone, I

59:30

think I need to have it. I'm

59:34

sorry. Sorry to Jack

59:36

Skellington. Now, I don't remember that

59:38

movie, fantastic mister Fox nor do I adored as

59:40

much as you do, though, on my rewatch

59:42

with my two oldest kids during

59:44

COVID is we took a look at

59:47

Anderson's entire Hoover I

59:50

did really like the fantastic

59:52

mister Fox. I'd liked it more than I did

59:54

on initial

59:56

viewing. But I misremembering something? Does it end with a Thanksgiving

59:58

dinner? Is it is it really a

1:00:00

Thanksgiving film? Well, here we heard

1:00:02

from Kevin

1:00:04

h on this very point, Adam. So so let me share this. Nightmare is

1:00:06

an easy choice for Kevin. Not because I like

1:00:08

it better, but because I don't associate watching

1:00:12

mister Fox. with a particular season at all. I mean, I get why it would be

1:00:14

an autumnal favorite. It's just never

1:00:16

held that place in my mind. Is that

1:00:18

just me or is Sam the

1:00:20

crazy one? So you're with

1:00:22

Kevin, maybe or maybe I'm just not

1:00:24

remembering the film well enough, but

1:00:26

Sam is definitely trying to position these

1:00:28

two films together as sort of of the

1:00:30

season, the Halloween movie versus the

1:00:32

Thanksgiving film. Yeah. And I don't think you know,

1:00:34

I don't remember if they ever

1:00:36

mentioned Thanksgiving. in fantastic

1:00:38

mix. Mister Fox, there is a

1:00:40

crucial gathering

1:00:42

of the extended family around

1:00:45

the table see. That's what I've sort of had in mind.

1:00:47

Yeah. And and, I mean, if this was on

1:00:49

my mind back when it came out, I for the day

1:00:51

job, I think Christian, I wrote a piece all

1:00:53

about Fantastic mister Fox.

1:00:55

and the role of greed around the

1:00:58

time of Thanksgiving advent,

1:01:00

the whole holiday season, and how it's

1:01:02

a movie deeply

1:01:04

concerned with. Greed as the role Dow buck was before it

1:01:06

and what that means

1:01:08

around this time of year. So to me, it's

1:01:10

it struck me that way right from

1:01:12

the beginning. Sounds like Sam's on

1:01:14

the same page. We'll see if that

1:01:16

affects how listeners vote in this poll.

1:01:18

Yeah. You can vote in that poll and leave

1:01:20

a comment at film spotting dot net, maybe next week we'll do our

1:01:22

top five Thanksgiving movies that aren't really

1:01:24

Thanksgiving movies.

1:01:26

Love it. ABC

1:01:28

Thursdays, Cold Case in Alaska, her death is

1:01:30

part of a pattern, television's most

1:01:32

anticipated new drama. Another

1:01:34

missing and murdered in genes woman.

1:01:36

And we need to show who's the

1:01:38

blame.

1:01:38

Two time Academy

1:01:40

Award winner Hillary Swank

1:01:42

Stars. we can choose to fight and

1:01:44

report a news. It's

1:01:45

the fall's biggest mister e short. We start

1:01:47

asking questions, careful. We're gonna break this

1:01:49

story together. Alaska did new

1:01:52

Thursday's ten nine central on

1:01:54

ABC and stream on

1:01:56

Hulu.

1:01:57

Love is funny

1:02:00

when it's a help us.

1:02:02

To find the truth.

1:02:04

My friend was killed because

1:02:06

of something monstrous that he

1:02:09

had seen. This is all

1:02:11

turning out to be a lot larger than

1:02:13

any of us. You're gonna have

1:02:15

to take

1:02:16

my leaves getting out of this. I had

1:02:18

to stab a guy. I had

1:02:19

to hit a lady with a brick one time.

1:02:22

What? It's a long

1:02:23

story that with YouTube, it's be

1:02:25

a cakewalk. That's from the trailer

1:02:27

for David O'Russell's Amsterdam,

1:02:29

which opened in wide release to

1:02:31

very little business last

1:02:34

weekend. Despite Having a huge

1:02:36

ensemble of familiar faces at the top of the

1:02:38

bill of this nineteen thirties set film

1:02:40

are Margot Robbie and John David

1:02:42

Washington along with Russell veteran

1:02:44

Christian Bale Washington and

1:02:46

Bail's characters witness a murder. They

1:02:48

become suspects themselves, and along

1:02:50

the way, quote, uncover one of the

1:02:52

most outrageous plots in North

1:02:54

American history. unquote,

1:02:56

Adam.

1:02:56

You've noted before that we

1:02:58

did have a heated debate over

1:03:01

Russell's American hustle back in the day,

1:03:03

by back in the day, I mean, ten years ago, do you want you want

1:03:06

to just pause? I

1:03:08

don't know. Think about how well that makes you

1:03:10

feel. So

1:03:12

we split on that. I was a big fan. You didn't care for it at all.

1:03:14

How did that affect you coming into Amsterdam?

1:03:16

Let's let's talk about let's start with

1:03:18

Russell and his filmography. Maybe Is

1:03:22

this someone you ever were

1:03:24

on the same wavelength with? Did you

1:03:26

fall off at some point? Where

1:03:28

have you been with him?

1:03:30

And when did you land with

1:03:32

Amsterdam? I was certainly ready for

1:03:34

a David O'Russell redemption

1:03:36

project. That's what I was hoping

1:03:38

this would be. And when I think

1:03:40

back on American hustle,

1:03:42

and I don't really wanna think back on that

1:03:44

conversation many years ago. But we did that

1:03:46

thing where we pitted it against the wolf of Wall

1:03:48

Street, and that was a movie

1:03:50

I loved. that you didn't care for. And I feel like that actually kind of

1:03:52

shaded the American hustle conversation. Don't get me

1:03:54

wrong. I wasn't a fan of it.

1:03:56

I just

1:03:58

don't remember hating it as much

1:04:00

as I love the wolf of Wall Street if

1:04:02

that makes sense. So

1:04:03

with that acknowledged, I'm

1:04:05

looking at Russell's

1:04:08

filmography, and I I

1:04:09

don't think I've seen spanking the monkey. I thought I had, but I don't think I have. I haven't seen

1:04:11

with yeah. I've seen forwarding with disaster.

1:04:13

I like it. three

1:04:16

kings of ninety nine. That's among my top five films of

1:04:18

ninety nine. I might have even listed it

1:04:20

on a previous film spotting. year

1:04:23

by year top five as my favorite

1:04:25

film of ninety nine. So once that

1:04:27

movie happened, I was like, oh, David

1:04:29

O'Russel, this guy I'm gonna follow him to the ends of the

1:04:31

earth. Yeah. And then Ihard Huggies

1:04:34

was disappointing in that

1:04:36

it wasn't on the level of

1:04:38

three kings for me at all, but I

1:04:40

still could appreciate how

1:04:42

totally nuts it was --

1:04:44

It was. -- unique voice. Yeah. But After

1:04:46

that, it's been diminishing returns. I was nixed negative on

1:04:49

the fighter. Silver lining's playbook,

1:04:51

American Hussle. I

1:04:54

know Generally, those movies were all well regarded, not by

1:04:56

me. We talked about him on the show, all

1:04:58

three of them. And then I didn't even

1:05:00

bother to see Joy. I think

1:05:02

You talked about it here on the show with a guest

1:05:04

host. I was off that week, and I never felt

1:05:07

compelled to catch up

1:05:09

with

1:05:09

it, Josh. So for

1:05:11

me, it really is a matter of hoping at

1:05:13

some point we're gonna get back to the

1:05:16

David O' Russell of Huggies and

1:05:18

especially three

1:05:20

kings. and I would love to sit here and say that that's

1:05:22

what happened here with Amsterdam, but

1:05:24

alas it did not. that's

1:05:27

I just came from the film actually about

1:05:30

an hour and a half ago. I wouldn't

1:05:32

exactly say I'm still processing it. I don't think the

1:05:34

movie demands

1:05:36

quite that much scrutiny. But I will note

1:05:38

that for most of its running time, I

1:05:40

was kinda charmed by it, and I was

1:05:42

watching it maybe a little bit

1:05:44

you were watching, don't worry darling. Just a little bit incredulous going, like,

1:05:46

really all these negative reviews, like, it's

1:05:49

a little scrambled and a

1:05:51

little bit messy, but it's

1:05:53

kinda charming. I was enjoying it on

1:05:56

that level just because of the

1:05:58

central relationship and

1:06:00

performances, which I think after a

1:06:03

few scenes I got on the right wavelength with, and I liked

1:06:05

the Bail Washington Robbie

1:06:08

Dynamic well enough. And then I

1:06:10

didn't know manual Lobetski until

1:06:12

the end of the film, but I wasn't surprised

1:06:14

to see his name -- Yeah. -- as the director of

1:06:16

photography because I certainly

1:06:18

noted the lush

1:06:20

cinematography of this period piece and that was kind

1:06:22

of enough even though I

1:06:24

don't remember being really

1:06:26

amused by any of the humor

1:06:30

whatsoever. the mystery of it with those

1:06:32

performances, with the cinematography, was kind of

1:06:34

carrying me through and then you you get

1:06:36

to that

1:06:38

last thirty minutes or so in the last twenty minutes. And -- Wow.

1:06:40

-- you you've already had the sense in

1:06:42

a number of scenes. And

1:06:45

I know David O'Russell has

1:06:48

historically enjoyed kind of

1:06:49

that improvisational approach and

1:06:52

feel. There there are some scenes where it definitely

1:06:54

looks like they're

1:06:56

meticulously scripted and designed

1:06:58

and that you'll cut to another

1:07:00

scene and you feel like the actors are

1:07:02

making it up in that moment and they're

1:07:04

not quite sure. where they are. It just doesn't all

1:07:06

work and you get to the end. And it

1:07:09

feels like in post production,

1:07:11

perhaps, they had to make

1:07:13

it all fit together and

1:07:15

have some poignancy and have

1:07:18

really even just some meaning.

1:07:20

And unfortunately, it comes off

1:07:22

as contrived. Yeah. It's the thing

1:07:24

is teetering. It's very

1:07:25

wobbly right from the start. Then my

1:07:27

experience was regains

1:07:30

its balance. but is still

1:07:32

teetering all the way through.

1:07:34

And then you get to that section you're

1:07:36

talking about

1:07:38

and things absolutely collapse. And what I came

1:07:40

away from this, I'm a bigger

1:07:42

Russell fan. I think fan of his work,

1:07:44

I should

1:07:46

say, than you historically. I think Joy is the only one I've really

1:07:48

disliked. Even tried to do my homework and

1:07:50

see spanking the monkey but not streaming anywhere and didn't

1:07:52

have time to get it from the library. So

1:07:55

all that other stuff. I think I've been, you know,

1:07:58

if not enthusiastic about mildly

1:08:00

positive on, and I thought this

1:08:02

might have that charm of something like

1:08:04

flirting with disaster and the iHeart

1:08:06

Huggies, more of that slapstick

1:08:08

screwball, sensibility that his

1:08:10

films can have. So I'm

1:08:12

kind of watching it heater and thinking, well,

1:08:14

this is sometimes what you get when you're trying for this

1:08:16

tone and it never

1:08:18

entirely clicks and does just

1:08:20

fall apart. I came away from it

1:08:23

though just with with an admiration really for anyone trying to make a movie

1:08:25

this big with this sort of tone

1:08:27

and how hard it has

1:08:31

to be because you have to think there were points

1:08:33

I mean, all these actors signing up

1:08:35

for this had to see

1:08:37

something. right on the page even though

1:08:40

maybe the script is the source of the trouble. If

1:08:42

you looked at it, you could someone could say this

1:08:44

is not gonna work, but it appealed to a

1:08:46

lot of people. On the set, they must have thought that things were working. And I just got the sense it got

1:08:49

put up on

1:08:52

the screen. And this was my experience

1:08:54

in the showing I was at, which was a mixture of a promotional screen in and critics. So it was a fairly big crowd.

1:09:00

know, it was just like a dying balloon when the scenes

1:09:02

would come out into and you just you kind of

1:09:04

feel bad. I mean, that -- Mhmm. --

1:09:06

that all these people are, you know, doing

1:09:08

just fight without our accolades,

1:09:10

but you kinda feel bad to see the effort up there and to see actors particularly you like.

1:09:12

I think, you know, I

1:09:14

made jokes about Christian Bale. and

1:09:18

the glass eye, which I think

1:09:20

was, you know, a horrible choice for him in

1:09:22

the big short. I think he's really funny here.

1:09:24

I think Russell knows how to get him

1:09:27

to click in ways -- Mhmm. -- American hustle to

1:09:29

me is one of Bail's

1:09:31

best performances. And I can

1:09:33

see how that might

1:09:36

have worked The other actors I

1:09:38

I wanna ask you this, which is separate from the Russell conversation. Where are we at with

1:09:43

John David Washington? because I'm asking myself that every

1:09:45

time I watch him. Right? Yeah. Isn't that the

1:09:48

experience? Because I think, you

1:09:50

know, if you look at his

1:09:53

themography, we both were very impressed with BlackKlansman. I think I might have

1:09:55

had him maybe you did two among the

1:09:58

top five performances of that year

1:10:00

just He

1:10:03

clicked with the vibe of that film

1:10:05

and you saw someone electric,

1:10:08

charismatic, but also

1:10:10

playing a real character. And

1:10:12

I think we both struggled with him in

1:10:14

Tennant. We struggled with Tennant on a number of levels. Yeah. But certainly, he

1:10:19

was not a strength of the film, and that was question of, is it the movie around him?

1:10:21

I really thought he was pretty good in Malcolm

1:10:23

and Marie. You

1:10:26

saw that Charismaism I had issues with that film, but they weren't with him.

1:10:28

And you saw that this he's got it.

1:10:30

He's got it. And then you hear I

1:10:35

don't know if it's that improvisational, you know, environment

1:10:37

you're talking about, but it was

1:10:39

very much back to the

1:10:41

tenant sort of blank stare. type presence. And so

1:10:43

I'm completely adrift as to where I

1:10:46

am with him. Yeah. I think

1:10:48

overall, I'm still

1:10:51

favorable. And there are many

1:10:53

moments in Amsterdam that work that he

1:10:55

delivers. I do think among

1:11:00

that Trio that both

1:11:02

bail to your point and Margo Robbie are just operating

1:11:05

on a

1:11:08

more naturally theatrical

1:11:10

comedic level. Yeah. That's it. And and Washington, he he isn't quite

1:11:13

there or that

1:11:16

isn't his skill set.

1:11:18

And It goes back to the screwball first. Yeah. Sort of pattern peck. And so So,

1:11:20

again, for me, he

1:11:23

wasn't a huge distraction. certainly

1:11:26

not the reason why this movie doesn't

1:11:28

work, but Bale and Robbie,

1:11:31

I think, are working on

1:11:33

a slightly different level than him. So you

1:11:35

mentioned Lebueski. I do wanna say one thing,

1:11:37

and it goes back to the glass eye.

1:11:39

I don't know if he took that

1:11:42

little bit of character detail that Russell

1:11:44

and just said, I'm gonna run with it because, you know, I

1:11:46

don't know what else is I don't know what these characters are talking about

1:11:48

anyways. but

1:11:51

I have never seen a film, and I would even

1:11:53

count Lebiedzinski's the tree of life, where

1:11:55

the actors' eyes

1:11:58

were so

1:11:59

resplendent. Every character.

1:12:00

This is I mean,

1:12:02

talk about Rami Malek, Anja Taylor Joy, anyone who shows up whether

1:12:07

they're one of these conspirators or one of the people were supposed to

1:12:09

be, you know, rooting for. It doesn't

1:12:11

matter. Lebiedski finds, like,

1:12:13

the particular tone and

1:12:16

color. Mhmm. of their

1:12:18

individual eyes and lights it in a way where I almost was just happy to sit

1:12:20

beneath that. You know,

1:12:23

I have the screen project

1:12:27

that at me. And maybe it's because I'd given up trying to

1:12:29

keep up with, you know, this this far cyclical

1:12:31

plot that was going on. And it's a

1:12:33

frustrating thing too, Adam, because this is

1:12:35

a movie that makes you at times

1:12:37

feel dumb, but you always know what's happening. The problem

1:12:40

is it keeps explaining

1:12:42

to you what you already

1:12:44

know. Yeah. And doesn't

1:12:46

fill in the things that the narrative needs. It was funny. I was I was there with

1:12:48

my high school daughter and she what

1:12:50

did she say at the end? Something like

1:12:55

kept thinking when we got out, she said, I kept thinking maybe I'm not smart enough for

1:12:57

this, but then I realized, no, I know what's

1:12:59

supposed to be going

1:13:02

on. So it's it's one of those where you feel up at

1:13:04

a loss. And every time you're hoping the

1:13:06

movie gives you something, it just

1:13:10

kind of boldly states the obvious and

1:13:13

doesn't again deepen the

1:13:15

things that that should

1:13:17

be deepened. No,

1:13:19

definitely not. And I see what you're

1:13:21

saying, but I also think that the ending

1:13:23

or the reveal of the mystery

1:13:26

or who is behind it

1:13:29

is telegraphed. Oh. That's what I'm saying. It's so obvious. Yeah. It's so obvious. It's like you keep thinking there

1:13:31

must be more. Right. No. There's there's

1:13:34

no real revelation there at all.

1:13:36

And continuing

1:13:39

to think there must be more is a good

1:13:41

description of the experience I had

1:13:43

with this film. Yeah. Like,

1:13:45

every scene. You just gotta

1:13:47

keep waiting for there to be some

1:13:50

kind of payoff and it just doesn't come, unfortunately. Amsterdam is

1:13:52

currently playing

1:13:55

in wide release if you see the film and especially if you disagree with

1:13:57

us, we'd love to hear from you feedback at

1:13:59

film spotting dot net.

1:14:02

Josh, We've got some work to do figuring out what we're going to do next

1:14:04

week here on film spotting, but that is it for this

1:14:06

show. If you wanna connect with us on Facebook,

1:14:09

Twitter or Letterbox, Adam is at film spotting and I'm

1:14:11

at Larsen on film at film spotting dot

1:14:13

net. You can vote in the current film

1:14:16

spotting poll. We're asking you to

1:14:18

choose just one of these stop motion

1:14:20

cozy season's stand by's, fantastic mister Fox, or the

1:14:22

nightmare before Christmas. To order show t shirts or other merch,

1:14:24

visit films spotting

1:14:27

dot net slash shop. Film

1:14:29

spotting is listener supported. Join the film spotting family at

1:14:31

film spotting dot supporting cast dot

1:14:36

f m. and you can get access

1:14:38

to ad free episodes, monthly bonus shows are weekly newsletter and for the first time,

1:14:40

all in one place,

1:14:42

the entire film spotting archive

1:14:45

Yes, that does go back to

1:14:47

two thousand five. That's at film spotting

1:14:49

dot supporting cast dot f m out

1:14:52

in wide released this

1:14:54

weekend. Halloween ends. You could see that in theaters and peacock on digital.

1:14:57

You can see

1:15:00

a movie It's playing the

1:15:02

Chicago film festival that I'm excited about Raymond and Ray with Ethan Hock and Ewan McGregor, that's on Apple

1:15:04

TV plus Roslin, that's

1:15:07

with Caitlin Deiver as Romeo,

1:15:11

Montague's x. You see where that's

1:15:13

going directed by Karen Main. Stars at

1:15:15

New and the latest from Claire Deney,

1:15:17

that star's Margaret Kuali. Benny Saffte and John C.

1:15:19

Riley, and despite that cast and that

1:15:21

director of this movie has been,

1:15:24

it seems completely

1:15:26

ignored by its distributor.

1:15:28

And The few people I know who

1:15:30

have seen it have said it's not good, which is disappointing. We will still try to catch

1:15:32

up with whatever Claire

1:15:34

DiDi does. In limited release,

1:15:37

Tar is playing here in Chicago. It's at the music box. And yes, if you can see it,

1:15:39

you should see it. Next week, yeah,

1:15:42

we

1:15:42

have some work to do.

1:15:46

a lot of films to potentially talk

1:15:48

about, including Triangle of Sadness,

1:15:50

the Palmdor winner, including Colin Farrell

1:15:53

and Brendan Gleeson and Mark McDonough's

1:15:55

new one, banshees of InAssurant, and lots

1:15:57

of top five options

1:15:59

as

1:15:59

well. We'll have something We'll

1:16:02

have something, Josh. Film spotting is produced by Golden Joe DeSoe and Sam Van Hager. And without Sam and Golden Joe, this

1:16:07

show wouldn't go. Our production assistant

1:16:09

is Betty LaVendero, and special thanks to everyone at WBEZ Chicago.

1:16:11

More information is available at

1:16:14

WBEZ dot

1:16:16

org. For films,

1:16:18

spotty, and I'm Josh Lars. And

1:16:20

I'm Adam Kempenar. Thanks for listening. This conversation

1:16:22

can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

1:16:36

Panoply.