Listen Notes: بهترین موتور جستجوی پادکست
Primetime

رونوشت کامل Primetime

رونوشت 🔗

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.
رونوشت را ویرایش کنید