TRANSCRIPCIÓN 🔗
WEBVTT
1
00:00:01.080 --> 00:00:03.640
Chat rooms and instant messenger are a staple of the
2
00:00:03.700 --> 00:00:07.259
modern internet. As an 80s baby, I remember not being
3
00:00:07.299 --> 00:00:10.259
allowed in chat rooms and being strictly supervised with who
4
00:00:10.320 --> 00:00:13.599
I was allowed to interact with on instant messenger. With
5
00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:18.640
good reason, as they proved quite an effective tool for predators. However,
6
00:00:19.019 --> 00:00:22.769
some folks found a simple solution to thwart at least
7
00:00:23.129 --> 00:00:27.589
some of these predators, which is how Chris Hansen ended
8
00:00:27.629 --> 00:00:32.789
up with the show on primetime. I'm Ronald Young Jr.,
9
00:00:32.640 --> 00:01:27.189
and I'm leaving the theater. Thank you. All right. This
10
00:01:27.269 --> 00:01:32.609
is Ronald, and I am leaving the theater after seeing Primetime. Primetime,
11
00:01:33.290 --> 00:01:38.670
written by Ajong Singh, directed by Lance Oppenheim, starring Robert Pattinson,
12
00:01:38.870 --> 00:01:43.849
Merritt Weaver, Skylar Gisando, and Phoebe Bridgers. Per usual, for
13
00:01:43.870 --> 00:01:45.670
a complete listing of the cast and crew, you can
14
00:01:45.689 --> 00:01:48.480
check out the link in our show notes. It is
15
00:01:48.599 --> 00:01:53.540
just me today. All right, prime time. This is a
16
00:01:54.140 --> 00:02:01.319
dramatization of the creation and execution of the show To
17
00:02:01.379 --> 00:02:07.379
Catch a Predator, starring Chris Hansen, which was on Dateline
18
00:02:07.560 --> 00:02:12.840
NBC in 2006. So most of you might have grown
19
00:02:12.900 --> 00:02:16.439
up with that show. I would have been in my
20
00:02:16.620 --> 00:02:21.900
very early 20s, I think 21, 22, something like that. which, man,
21
00:02:22.419 --> 00:02:25.740
what a different time. The premise of the show To
22
00:02:25.780 --> 00:02:29.590
Catch a Predator was that Chris Hansen and his team
23
00:02:30.189 --> 00:02:36.710
would talk to potential child predators and pedophiles online and
24
00:02:36.849 --> 00:02:39.949
lure them to a house in which they would show
25
00:02:40.210 --> 00:02:49.740
up having been promised Congress with Okay, it's disgusting. Basically,
26
00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:52.479
they would catch pedophiles who were talking with what they
27
00:02:52.539 --> 00:02:57.219
thought to be children online, and they would show up.
28
00:02:57.580 --> 00:02:59.500
Chris Hansen would do an interview with them in which
29
00:02:59.539 --> 00:03:02.449
he read some of the stuff that they said online,
30
00:03:03.270 --> 00:03:06.110
and then the police would arrest them. And they would
31
00:03:06.129 --> 00:03:08.629
do that over and over again. You have to remember,
32
00:03:08.849 --> 00:03:11.919
in the early days of this type of television, of
33
00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:15.310
this type of activity, they were doing... I mean, this
34
00:03:15.330 --> 00:03:18.620
is early television. And when I say early, I don't
35
00:03:18.639 --> 00:03:21.330
mean like, I mean early this type of television, early
36
00:03:21.370 --> 00:03:25.530
reality television, even if you will. And this was back
37
00:03:25.590 --> 00:03:28.969
when they were doing this. Cheaters was a thing. This
38
00:03:29.030 --> 00:03:32.129
show inspired the ABC version, What Would You Do?, which
39
00:03:32.189 --> 00:03:35.500
was more about feel-good television. They did this a lot.
40
00:03:35.560 --> 00:03:37.139
I think this is around the same time that Punk'd
41
00:03:37.180 --> 00:03:40.300
might have just started prank television. So they were still
42
00:03:40.340 --> 00:03:42.539
figuring out what you could do with TV cameras and
43
00:03:42.599 --> 00:03:45.030
what people would watch. And this was a show that
44
00:03:45.060 --> 00:03:49.080
people watched. They watched this show a lot. The movie
45
00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:54.949
is a dramatization of Chris Hansen and his producer, who
46
00:03:54.990 --> 00:03:57.509
was actually a composite of all the television producers that
47
00:03:57.530 --> 00:04:01.810
he had, and the decoy, who was the person that
48
00:04:01.840 --> 00:04:05.560
they used to attract the Predators to wherever they're going,
49
00:04:06.599 --> 00:04:08.759
and the rest of the Chris Hansen team as they
50
00:04:08.780 --> 00:04:13.039
were building out this show and producing the show to
51
00:04:13.090 --> 00:04:18.220
catch a Predator. When I saw the preview for this film,
52
00:04:18.360 --> 00:04:22.000
I remember thinking, I've got to see this movie because
53
00:04:22.019 --> 00:04:25.939
I thought Robert Pattinson was doing an excellent job as
54
00:04:26.019 --> 00:04:28.459
Chris Hansen. I saw it and I was like, wow,
55
00:04:28.500 --> 00:04:32.399
he's nailing Chris Hansen. And also, I love Robert Pattinson.
56
00:04:32.420 --> 00:04:36.000
I think he's a great actor. With that in mind,
57
00:04:36.019 --> 00:04:38.920
I remember thinking, I wonder what the movie's about. And
58
00:04:38.959 --> 00:04:41.759
now that I've seen the movie, I think there's a
59
00:04:41.899 --> 00:04:49.490
layer of this That is pretty good in that if
60
00:04:49.550 --> 00:04:54.430
I just look at these as characters who were making
61
00:04:54.490 --> 00:04:57.709
a television show and interacting with each other, and I
62
00:04:57.730 --> 00:05:01.949
knew nothing of Chris Hansen, nothing of anything else happening.
63
00:05:03.060 --> 00:05:07.360
I would, I would think that this was a brilliant movie.
64
00:05:08.759 --> 00:05:11.550
But this movie is actually hamstrung by the fact that
65
00:05:11.589 --> 00:05:18.819
these are real people who actually exist now and they
66
00:05:19.160 --> 00:05:22.970
had to really make up a story. Now, it's based
67
00:05:23.029 --> 00:05:26.910
on an article that came out in Esquire in 2007,
68
00:05:26.910 --> 00:05:28.569
and I forgot the name of it. You can look
69
Load full transcript
00:05:28.589 --> 00:05:30.389
it up, and I'll try to link it in the
70
00:05:30.829 --> 00:05:33.649
show notes. As a movie, as a person just watching
71
00:05:33.689 --> 00:05:36.160
a movie, I remember thinking, the things that are working
72
00:05:36.199 --> 00:05:39.379
about this movie are the performances, which is unsurprising because
73
00:05:39.759 --> 00:05:43.759
Merritt Weaver and Robert Pattinson are brilliant actors. Both of
74
00:05:43.800 --> 00:05:46.019
them are brilliant. They play well off of each other.
75
00:05:46.060 --> 00:05:50.449
Skylar Gisondo also did a very good job. everybody that
76
00:05:50.490 --> 00:05:53.740
was acting in this movie, they all clocked in. So
77
00:05:54.379 --> 00:05:59.339
as an acting feat, this is probably around four stars, 4.25
78
00:05:59.339 --> 00:06:02.420
stars just for the acting. That's not the actual rating
79
00:06:02.439 --> 00:06:04.990
of this movie, but I will just say the acting,
80
00:06:05.199 --> 00:06:07.430
I can't say enough about how good the acting was
81
00:06:07.470 --> 00:06:10.430
in this film. Is it good enough to get Robert
82
00:06:10.470 --> 00:06:14.550
Pattinson nominated? I would say so, this year especially, because
83
00:06:14.649 --> 00:06:18.050
I have not seen a bunch of Performance from men
84
00:06:18.610 --> 00:06:23.329
that have impressed me that much that actually that weren't
85
00:06:23.389 --> 00:06:25.600
Robert Pattinson. He also did a very good job in
86
00:06:25.620 --> 00:06:27.600
the drama. He also did a very good job in
87
00:06:27.620 --> 00:06:31.339
the Odyssey. So he's already doing well. If they need
88
00:06:31.480 --> 00:06:36.240
one solo character driven performance, which the Oscars tend to like,
89
00:06:36.860 --> 00:06:39.709
this is the one. this is the one you nominate
90
00:06:39.730 --> 00:06:41.670
him for. You could also nominate him for the drama,
91
00:06:41.730 --> 00:06:43.810
to be honest with you. But I'm saying if they
92
00:06:43.870 --> 00:06:47.370
need one, if I'm working with Robert Pattinson, if I'm
93
00:06:47.410 --> 00:06:50.459
his agent, I'm already talking to all of these studios, A24,
94
00:06:50.790 --> 00:06:53.689
these are two A24 movies, and saying, which one are
95
00:06:53.740 --> 00:06:56.379
we getting them nominated for? Because honestly, I think we
96
00:06:56.420 --> 00:07:01.819
could submit both. So the acting is good. The movie itself,
97
00:07:02.759 --> 00:07:07.060
I remember thinking early on, what is this movie? What
98
00:07:07.100 --> 00:07:09.850
am I watching? And it was the same question I
99
00:07:09.889 --> 00:07:11.829
had when I saw the preview for this movie. What
100
00:07:11.930 --> 00:07:14.790
is this movie? What am I watching? There's not a
101
00:07:14.870 --> 00:07:19.870
plot here. It's really just some good acting around a
102
00:07:19.910 --> 00:07:24.000
prompt or a premise. And I know there's a script
103
00:07:24.040 --> 00:07:27.420
here and they performed the script well, but that doesn't
104
00:07:27.500 --> 00:07:29.680
mean that there was much of a story to be
105
00:07:29.740 --> 00:07:36.600
told here. And I think because I'm honestly interested in
106
00:07:36.660 --> 00:07:41.189
what Chris Hansen did Feels about all this, which and
107
00:07:41.209 --> 00:07:43.750
there's some articles out there saying he's not happy with
108
00:07:43.790 --> 00:07:46.360
the performance and he wasn't as involved in the movie
109
00:07:46.389 --> 00:07:50.759
as he feels like he should have been. I would
110
00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:52.339
like to know what he thinks, and I think that's
111
00:07:52.480 --> 00:07:57.060
best served by this being a documentary. So here's the
112
00:07:57.079 --> 00:08:00.149
big reveal. If you don't already know this. This is
113
00:08:00.230 --> 00:08:06.870
the narrative directorial debut of Lance Oppenheim, noted documentary filmmaker
114
00:08:07.389 --> 00:08:11.470
Lance Oppenheim. He's making a movie that I'm very interested
115
00:08:11.509 --> 00:08:13.990
in seeing with Nathan Fielder called You Can See Everything
116
00:08:14.310 --> 00:08:17.910
about Elizabeth Holmes. And I remember thinking about the preview
117
00:08:17.949 --> 00:08:21.129
of that, which came on right before this film. And
118
00:08:21.170 --> 00:08:26.519
I wondered to myself, what, what, what, what, what? Do
119
00:08:26.560 --> 00:08:30.019
y'all think that Lance Oppenheim's view on this would have
120
00:08:30.050 --> 00:08:32.259
been best served by the medium that he works the
121
00:08:32.299 --> 00:08:35.549
best in, which is documentary? Because I would have loved
122
00:08:35.570 --> 00:08:38.990
to have seen Chris Hansen talking about his reasoning behind
123
00:08:39.029 --> 00:08:41.750
making the show, the motivation behind making the show, bringing
124
00:08:41.789 --> 00:08:44.809
all that up, rather than it being kind of connected
125
00:08:44.909 --> 00:08:48.610
to this article in Esquire. Now, I'm sure I have
126
00:08:48.649 --> 00:08:51.230
not read the article in Esquire, so I don't know
127
00:08:51.309 --> 00:08:52.830
if some of the details that come up in the
128
00:08:52.929 --> 00:08:59.850
movie are... mentioned in the article, but because I watched
129
00:08:59.909 --> 00:09:06.110
them in a narrative form, in this fictionalized form, I
130
00:09:06.269 --> 00:09:10.679
immediately began to feel suspicious about how real this was.
131
00:09:11.480 --> 00:09:21.639
And that is in direct opposition, in direct competition with
132
00:09:21.899 --> 00:09:25.409
what you want me to believe in the film. So
133
00:09:25.490 --> 00:09:29.379
because I know there's real facts out there watching this,
134
00:09:29.620 --> 00:09:33.799
I remember thinking, what, really? What, really? And I think
135
00:09:33.840 --> 00:09:40.120
there's instances in which that kind of competition, that dissonance works.
136
00:09:40.940 --> 00:09:44.299
A movie like The Social
Network, where they give me
137
00:09:44.509 --> 00:09:47.990
enough facts that I am willing to forgive the parts
138
00:09:48.029 --> 00:09:51.009
of it that I know to be narrative. But that's
139
00:09:51.049 --> 00:09:54.029
because I have so many facts. You know what I mean?
140
00:09:56.559 --> 00:09:59.360
And because it's such a well-executed movie and it stays
141
00:09:59.399 --> 00:10:04.750
very grounded, I'm able to suspend any little bit of
142
00:10:04.789 --> 00:10:08.210
disbelief and watch what's in front of me. Whereas with
143
00:10:08.289 --> 00:10:12.350
this one, there is some surrealism going on here. There
144
00:10:12.549 --> 00:10:18.429
are things that are assumed about... or that feel assumed
145
00:10:18.750 --> 00:10:23.230
about Chris Hansen's personal life and details about his personal
146
00:10:23.269 --> 00:10:27.039
life that I don't know that I needed. And all
147
00:10:27.059 --> 00:10:30.039
of that makes it harder for me to suspend that
148
00:10:30.159 --> 00:10:33.960
same disbelief when watching this. There's another movie about this
149
00:10:34.019 --> 00:10:41.500
type of journalism called Nightcrawler with Jake Gyllenhaal. That's totally fiction,
150
00:10:42.080 --> 00:10:45.840
but that's another example of the direction this can go,
151
00:10:46.279 --> 00:10:48.659
where it's like you go totally fiction, this is not real,
152
00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:50.899
and then you can really send it with the surrealism
153
00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:54.000
and all that. But when you have something that is real,
154
00:10:54.620 --> 00:10:58.340
and you mix it with surrealism, you make it so
155
00:10:58.379 --> 00:11:00.980
that I don't know what to trust, and I feel
156
00:11:01.120 --> 00:11:04.460
unsettled in my seat. So while I enjoy the performances,
157
00:11:05.710 --> 00:11:09.669
there's plenty of this film where I'm wondering why it's here.
158
00:11:11.669 --> 00:11:14.570
Justify your existence, once again. And you've heard me say
159
00:11:14.590 --> 00:11:17.509
that on this show before. So that's one part, but
160
00:11:17.529 --> 00:11:20.529
then the other part is like, the story doesn't really,
161
00:11:21.070 --> 00:11:24.360
there's no story here. And they try to create one,
162
00:11:24.379 --> 00:11:30.399
but it doesn't work. The decoy, while performed well, I
163
00:11:30.500 --> 00:11:33.909
don't think it was important to the narrative. The producer
164
00:11:33.950 --> 00:11:36.730
has her own storyline. I don't know how important that
165
00:11:36.789 --> 00:11:39.009
is to the narrative. And again, Chris Hansen has his
166
00:11:39.070 --> 00:11:41.409
own storyline. I don't know how important that is to
167
00:11:41.429 --> 00:11:45.450
the narrative. They created a through line with the decoy
168
00:11:45.470 --> 00:11:47.340
from beginning to end. And I remember when we got
169
00:11:47.360 --> 00:11:51.840
to the end thinking, I don't know how much I
170
00:11:51.980 --> 00:11:57.799
actually care about this character in particular. And I don't
171
00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:03.200
know that this was a story about the decoy. So
172
00:12:05.320 --> 00:12:08.919
it makes it so that when it just makes me
173
00:12:08.990 --> 00:12:14.389
wonder why this film got greenlit or why this particular
174
00:12:14.429 --> 00:12:19.009
film to be specific got greenlit. There's plenty of films
175
00:12:19.090 --> 00:12:21.129
out there. There's plenty of things out there that get
176
00:12:21.169 --> 00:12:23.470
greenlit all the time. But I'm wondering when you walk
177
00:12:23.490 --> 00:12:25.529
in there and you pitch this story and you say, hey,
178
00:12:25.549 --> 00:12:27.309
we want to talk about to catch a predator. Well,
179
00:12:27.330 --> 00:12:30.169
the interesting part to me is the to catch a
180
00:12:30.210 --> 00:12:33.529
predator part. I have so many questions about why these
181
00:12:33.590 --> 00:12:35.700
folks are doing this, how they got caught up in this.
182
00:12:36.529 --> 00:12:39.000
What happened to the predators after they got arrested on
183
00:12:39.039 --> 00:12:42.659
the show? Are they registered sex offenders now? What happens
184
00:12:42.679 --> 00:12:45.039
to the decoys? What's the toll that it takes on them?
185
00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:47.320
And I feel like those are all questions that could
186
00:12:47.340 --> 00:12:50.100
be answered if they had made a documentary about this,
187
00:12:50.700 --> 00:12:53.600
which I think would have worked fine. But instead they
188
00:12:53.639 --> 00:12:56.419
made this fictionalized version and I still am left with
189
00:12:56.480 --> 00:12:58.320
a bunch of questions because I don't know what to
190
00:12:58.360 --> 00:13:01.970
believe and I don't know what is actually real. So
191
00:13:01.990 --> 00:13:04.970
with all of that being said, I think this movie
192
00:13:05.029 --> 00:13:09.669
is probably somewhere around a 3.25. I think there are
193
00:13:09.769 --> 00:13:13.509
some redemptive portions of it. All of them are in
194
00:13:13.549 --> 00:13:16.190
the acting. If I were just rating the acting alone,
195
00:13:16.389 --> 00:13:18.370
this is among some of the best stuff I've seen
196
00:13:18.429 --> 00:13:22.289
all year. Unsurprising because it's coming from Robert Pattinson, who
197
00:13:22.470 --> 00:13:25.009
is in a couple of my favorite movies of the
198
00:13:25.210 --> 00:13:27.690
year so far. You know what I mean? So it
199
00:13:27.750 --> 00:13:32.100
makes sense that this would be this would be the
200
00:13:32.159 --> 00:13:36.970
trend that he's setting. However, as a story and as
201
00:13:37.009 --> 00:13:40.470
a movie, it kind of falls short of a three.
202
00:13:41.110 --> 00:13:44.370
I would say, sometimes I was watching and thinking, is
203
00:13:44.409 --> 00:13:47.909
this a one-star movie? Is this a two-star movie? And
204
00:13:47.950 --> 00:13:52.360
it probably falls somewhere just below three,
that sacred space
205
00:13:52.399 --> 00:13:55.840
I call the 2.99, the 2.75, the 2.99, where it's like, oh,
206
00:13:55.860 --> 00:13:58.399
you were almost good. But the acting is so good
207
00:13:58.419 --> 00:14:00.740
that it pulls it just above a three, meaning I
208
00:14:00.820 --> 00:14:03.679
would definitely watch this again. I would certainly watch this again.
209
00:14:04.399 --> 00:14:07.149
And I like Robert Pattinson. I really like what's happening
210
00:14:07.169 --> 00:14:10.149
in his career right now and his breadth of talent.
211
00:14:10.269 --> 00:14:15.980
Like he is really showing his range. But outside of that.
212
00:14:17.629 --> 00:14:20.509
not a great film. I will say it, it does
213
00:14:20.590 --> 00:14:23.669
make me think I want to give Lance Oppenheim another
214
00:14:23.730 --> 00:14:27.240
shot with other sorts material. That is not something that
215
00:14:27.299 --> 00:14:30.440
is real. And I do want to dive into his
216
00:14:30.480 --> 00:14:34.620
documentary catalog. I'm going to watch, you could see everything obviously,
217
00:14:35.320 --> 00:14:38.230
but I am curious about the rest of his work
218
00:14:38.409 --> 00:14:43.980
as a result. So with that, uh, Leaving the Theater
219
00:14:44.100 --> 00:14:46.679
is a production of Oh, It's Big Ron Studios. I
220
00:14:46.879 --> 00:14:52.460
mixed this episode. Today is day one of what feels
221
00:14:52.480 --> 00:14:55.370
like probably a week-long movie marathon. I'm going to see
222
00:14:55.870 --> 00:14:59.950
two or three today, and then one on Monday when
223
00:14:59.970 --> 00:15:03.450
this comes out, and one on Tuesday, the day after
224
00:15:03.490 --> 00:15:06.610
this comes out. And I looked up, I did prep
225
00:15:06.769 --> 00:15:12.070
on like, 12 movies yesterday and i have more movies
226
00:15:12.110 --> 00:15:15.049
than i do have dates to put them out so
227
00:15:15.230 --> 00:15:18.190
it is a lot of coordination just to make this
228
00:15:18.289 --> 00:15:23.769
podcast leaving the theater work i work on several podcasts
229
00:15:24.889 --> 00:15:27.590
wait for it is still on my mind they've been
230
00:15:27.629 --> 00:15:30.029
having a few conversation that makes me say do i
231
00:15:30.049 --> 00:15:31.750
need to start putting out new episodes and wait for
232
00:15:31.789 --> 00:15:34.179
it again wait for if listeners are going to listen
233
00:15:34.200 --> 00:15:36.700
to this and be like, yes, obviously, but it's a
234
00:15:36.820 --> 00:15:39.220
lot of work to do that. I'm also working on
235
00:15:39.259 --> 00:15:42.759
an entirely different podcast and I'm still trying to set
236
00:15:42.799 --> 00:15:44.860
the launch date for that. I have a lot of
237
00:15:44.899 --> 00:15:47.919
balls in the air. I also do television now, which
238
00:15:47.960 --> 00:15:50.549
I don't talk about a lot on this show, but
239
00:15:50.690 --> 00:15:53.149
I do. And I don't know where that's going, but
240
00:15:53.169 --> 00:15:56.789
I'm enjoying the trip. So there's a lot on my plate.
241
00:15:56.850 --> 00:16:00.159
There's a lot that I'm doing. This is independent work,
242
00:16:00.179 --> 00:16:03.230
but I'm still pushing it forward. And we have not
243
00:16:03.570 --> 00:16:05.570
gone as far as we can go. We have not
244
00:16:05.610 --> 00:16:08.970
gotten as good as we can get yet. And we
245
00:16:08.990 --> 00:16:13.110
can go further with your help. I'm doing a lot
246
00:16:13.149 --> 00:16:17.049
of work. It's a labor of love, but it's still labor.
247
00:16:18.830 --> 00:16:21.129
If that means something to you, you should become a patron.
248
00:16:21.169 --> 00:16:24.809
Go to patreon.com slash ohitsbigron or go to the link
249
00:16:24.929 --> 00:16:28.529
in our show notes. Show art from Heather Wilder. themed
250
00:16:28.570 --> 00:16:33.600
music by the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder. For more information about Primetime,
251
00:16:33.799 --> 00:16:36.120
check out our show notes. You can follow me on Instagram,
252
00:16:36.139 --> 00:16:39.379
Blue Sky, TikTok, Threads, or Letterboxd, at Oh It's Big Ron.
253
00:16:39.659 --> 00:16:45.399
That's at O-H-I-T-S-B-I-G-R-O-N. You can find out more about this
254
00:16:45.419 --> 00:16:47.610
show and other Oh It's Big Ron Studio shows by
255
00:16:47.649 --> 00:16:50.750
following us on Instagram, at Oh It's Big Ron Studios.
256
00:16:51.210 --> 00:16:53.870
Leaving the Theater will be back soon. Thanks for listening.
257
00:17:06.920 --> 00:17:10.460
I'm Ronald Young Jr., and I'm in my very early 20s,
258
00:17:10.450 --> 00:17:11.390
I think 21, 22, something like that.