Featuring: Filmspotting Podcast | The End of Oak Street, plus Tony and Late Fame | #1077

00:00:21
Speaker 1: Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all you can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in just two visits. See any standard two D movie anytime with no blackoutdates or restrictions. Sign up now on the Regal app or at the link in our description and use code film spot twenty six to receive fifteen percent off.
00:00:45
Speaker 2: What kind of a show you guys putting on here today?
00:00:48
Speaker 1: You're not interested in art?
00:00:49
Speaker 3: Now?
00:00:50
Speaker 1: No, Look, we're going to do this thing. We're going to have a conversation from Chicago. This is film Spotting.
00:00:57
Speaker 3: I'm Josh Larson and I'm Adam Kempenar.
00:00:59
Speaker 4: I think that our neighborhood, our homes, our host street has moved.
00:01:10
Speaker 1: Now the hell is not even possible.
00:01:14
Speaker 3: Get out of the run, Anne Hathaway, Ewan McGregor, and dinosaurs. That's what you get from the End of Oak Street, which opened wide last weekend. It's the latest from it follows director David Robert Mitchell.
00:01:28
Speaker 1: We've got a review, plus the Anthony Bourdain biopick Tony and Willem Dafoe in Late Fame. That more ahead on film Spotting.
00:01:44
Speaker 3: Welcome to Film Spotting.
00:01:45
Speaker 1: Josh.
00:01:45
Speaker 3: We don't often get into spoiler talk in our main reviews here on the show, but I think the end of Oak Street may demand it.
00:01:53
Speaker 1: What say you shocked? I was genuinely shocked at the event that I think you're referring to. Did not see it coming even even leading up to it, did not think it was going to go that way. And yes, not only do I think we need to discuss that, but the repercussions, yes, are what I particularly want to ask you about.
00:02:11
Speaker 3: So we'll definitely do that absolutely later in the show. After that, the Anthony Bordaine biopick, Tony Late Fame with Willem Dafoe, A Magical trip to the Field Dreams with producer Sam. I'll have a little recap of that, and then we'll end the magic quickly by playing Massacre Theater. A reminder that Film Spotting is now a video podcast. You can watch us talk over at YouTube dot com slash film Spotting.
00:02:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, that way you can track the development of the larsen On Film studio. I finally had to lose a kid, but gained a home office, which means a dedicated recording space. It's pretty generic now, you know, mainly storing extra house plants. But we're going to get there, Adam, Well, we'll professionalize it a little bit by little bit as we go.
00:02:58
Speaker 3: To be clear. You know where the kid is. They're just off at school.
00:03:02
Speaker 1: Yeah. By lost, I mean got rid of.
00:03:05
Speaker 3: Up first, the End of Oak Street. Despite having made only four films, I'm not a David Robert Mitchell complete us, but I had a hunch that a little bit of research validated. That hunch had to do with the filmmaker's penchant for temporal displacement. About his debut feature, twenty ten's The Myth of the American Sleepover, one reviewer said this, no characters have a cell phone or a computer. A boy has an actual world globe in his room. The girls at a sleepover play on a Ouija board, and one girl discovers another girl's been sleeping around by reading her diary in a dresser drawer, not on Facebook. Mitchell, the writer continues, has said he was attempting to make a film that telescoped fifty years of teenage suburban nights into one timeless quilt. Mitchell's breakout twenty fourteen's It Follows is equally elusive. We see wired landlines, old school cathodraid TVs, and a mix of cars and clothes from various decades. Linda I. Young Leu, a faculty member at UMass Boston, authored a paper you can find on Academia dot Edu titled out of Time The Uses of Anachronism. In it follows, among Leeve's key takeaways, the film's aesthetics invoca blend of past and present, fostering a critique of lake capitalism's consumerism. With Under the Silver Lake, Mitchell finally anchors himself to a fixed time, not that it makes us or his protagonist Andrew Garfield Sam feel any more secure. Released in twenty eighteen, we know it takes place in August twenty eleven thanks to the presence of an LA weekly issue dated as such, plus pop culture references and technology appropriate to the era. However, there's also plenty of vintage technology and pop culture ephemera, and Mitchell himself told Deadline dot Com it's specifically supposed to be happening in the summer of twenty eleven, although it's not a real summer twenty eleven. It's a fantasy, a nightmare version of it. That fantasy nightmer concoction led Bright Wall Dark Room to characterize Silver Lake as one of the rare post postmodern noirs with its overt pastiche of the Bernard Hermann school of composing, implying that Sam's perspective is heavily filtered through the classic films that seemed to be perpetually playing on any available television right on Q If a few years longer between projects, then maybe expected comes the end of Oak Street, arguably an overt pastiche of the Steven Spielberg school of filmmaking, set precisely in the summer of nineteen eighty two, the period that saw one of the Maestro's greatest triumphs et What besides, the setting, which includes some time travel back one hundred and fifty million years, makes it so Spielbergian. I don't know. We could start with the giant teeth on the poster dinosaurs. I know Nerdy's second grade Josh, who is never tucked too deeply away inside you immediately recognized that the giant scary one was an alvosaurus, not a t rex. You got that right, Josh.
00:06:09
Speaker 1: I was just mesmerized by the feathers.
00:06:11
Speaker 3: Okay, but let's be honest, Mitchell might have just called this movie Jurassic cul de sac. How about family dysfunction and divorce. Seem to have the idyllic family living on the idyllic block with son Brian, older daughter Audrey played by mild Asses Mazie Stella, and rambunctious but lovable dog Starbuck. But Anne Hathaway's Denise is disenchanted and actually contemplating splitting, while Ewan McGregor's Gregg is delivering pizzas to make ends meet after being laid off, a reality he's been keeping from the family. Michael Jacchino's sweeping score is undeniably and wonderfully John Williams esque. The way the Platts have to fight off domestic supernatural terror was reminiscent of another eighty two film that Spielberg had his hands in, Poltergeist. I even occasionally had flashbacks to back to the future, and not just because of the time traveling. Spielberg executive produced Future, and as the story goes, was Robert Zemeckis's only early supporter. The bottom line is there is a lot happening, including copious composition, lens and framing choices, kids on bikes that transport us to a different theater, in a different time, in a different place, watching the work of a different director. That different director, of course, made his own movie this year, Disclosure Day and the End of Oak Street has something else directly in common with it, as well as a touchstone, like Close Encounters of the third kind, something that could get lost, admits all the Dino stopping popcorn munching fun a discourse on faith, Josh, This question seems entirely unfair to Mitchell, since I know that a month ago when we named our top five films of the year so far, you had Disclosure Day at number one. But tell me, is it possible that the End of Oak Street is actually the best Spielberg movie of twenty twenty six.
00:08:03
Speaker 1: I see what you're doing here, trying to push my buttons. Uh huh, I mean, let's not get blasphemous, good sir, that's a ridiculous question for me, for the reason you just laid out. Yeah, Disclosure Day, it's not my second favorite film of the year. Yes, Teenage Sex and Death, but I have not dropped it to the level to the level of the End of Oak Street, which which we'll get to. What level that is I still, having now seen Disclosure to day twice, I think it's near top tier Spielberg, and by that I mean second tier. I put it in that group below the masterpieces. If the End of Oak Street was a Spielberg movie, and I'm looking at where I've ranked all of Spielberg's, I'm afraid I would have it pretty low. I'd have it. I would call this a low I'd call it a near low tier Spielberg movie. So maybe second from the bottom. We're not in you know, hook territory here, but you know, things are pretty thin. The family dynamics are pretty thin. And there's a key example of that. There's two actually we've talked on the show, Adam and the various Spielberg lists we've done. I forget if it was scenes. I mentioned how Spielberg is a master of family meal sequences. N Street or the End of Oak Street gives us two of those, A breakfast and a dinner, so perfunctory, just laying out the exposition and what we need to know about each character. Nothing like the rich, complicated emotional dynamics that you find in a Spielberg dinner scene, like the opening pizza scene from E. T I think the characters overall are pretty pretty generic, and the dialogue they're given isn't all that helpful to either. So much exposition here. For me, though, the key distinction is that when it comes to the Spielbergian wonder here, I found it to be pretty watery wonder pretty just not crisp, not overwhelming, never approaching the transcendent, which is when Spielberg is at his best. I think all the touchdoones you called out are good ones. Didn't think of Poltergeist that You're so right once they're actually in these houses and having to defend for themselves from these creatures. What was interesting to me about this movie, though, is a different Spielbergian connection, a second degree connection, and that's JJ Abrams, who is a producer on the End of Oak Street, and I was also thinking as much about Spielberg's films while watching the End of Oak Street. I was thinking about Abrams Super eight, a movie he directed, a movie I liked quite a bit, set during the same time period, right right up around the same time period, also features a wild mashing of fantasy and reality. That movie, to me, and I know some people just said it was a knockoff of Spielbergian techniques and story narratives. To me, I thought it had it pulsed with a sense of astonishment, which is the key for me. For Spielberg, it had the excitement of adolescence. It was a group of friends who were the main characters there at the possibility of the other worldly and Super eight. Those friends were making movies, so it was in love with the power of cinema itself. It was about the human experience of the fantastic, and this is mostly about displaying the fantastic, which can still be fun. But I think what elevates Spielberg and what someone like Abrams was able to tap into with Super eight is focusing on that human experience. This is something that really clarified for me in doing my dissertation that I just wrapped up, which Spielberg was a part of, and in trying to pin down what is it about his evoking of transcendence, the transcendent experience, whether it's the Alien movies or Jurassic Park, I realized how much time Spielberg spends on faces during these scenes, human faces, and I even clocked that first dinosaur scene in Jurassic Park where they're out in the jeeps and they encounter the dinosaurs close up. It's a two minute scene, and or might be a three minute scene. The point is more than double the time of images is given on the faces of Grant and Sattler as they're experiencing the wonder. Half that time is given on the dinosaurs themselves. So the special effects the thing that everyone thinks about first when it comes to Jurassic Park in one of its key wonder sequences, double the time is spent on the humans. And I didn't have time to clock any of this while watching the end of Oak Street on my first watch. I'd be curious to do that if I watch it again. But I certainly felt that this was more interested in the largely cgi effects of these creatures and putting them in this space, this cul de sac, as you said, and how bizarre and disorienting that is. And there's a lot of fun there right, But where it does fall short is capturing that sense of wonder and transcendent that the best of Spielberg can do. You know, it's unfair to ask other filmmakers to be able to do that, but I think Super eight came a lot closer than the end of Oak Street for me, I can you know, I can speak more about the other thing which I noticed too, is the dropping of these these questions about do you believe in God? Because that is something that was a clear part of disclosure Day. We'll talk about it, but but yeah, for you, how did it work as a Spielbergian exercise?
00:13:48
Speaker 3: Before I get there, can I just say, picking up from our conversation last week about teenage sex and death at Canton Asthma, the only regret I have from my theatrical experience with Oak Street is that I had to watch it alone and I didn't have the opportunity to turn to someone next to me and say split diopter the first time Mitchell used it, we were the next seventeen times I was.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: Just gonna say, you mean the split diopter party.
00:14:15
Speaker 3: It wouldn't have been old for me. I don't think it would have ever gotten old. I would have done it every single time. It would have done definitely annoyed a few people in the theater. And also, picking up in that conversation, we were talking about Sophie and how watching Camp Miasthma, my daughter Sophie, the film Spotting Pa that this was a learning experience for her. She saw that first one. I think the first one is when Denise Hathaway is talking to the neighbor, Missus Huddleston about her book, and Sophie said she saw it right away. She also saw it alone and couldn't say it to anybody, but she knew it. She saw it was a split diopter. It's when Mitchell is trying to make sure we know he uses the lens to make sure we don't miss the tension between Denise's individual aspirations and her obligations to the family in that shot.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, yeah, And that's an interesting one because it must be using that technique, but there's a little more distance you're seeing Denise's face and then you're actually seeing out through the window too. The culd a sack the box part plays and he also uses it. I like your explanation for why he would use it there. That makes sense, But then he also used this is it for the older neighbor she's talking to, And it's just it's a yeah, I mean, we can dive into the split diapter party where this far in we might as well, and then get back to your question. It's an over use of it that I'm still trying to puzzle why, even in that scene, why use it with the neighbor as well, because the neighbor is having a different psychological experience of that conversation.
00:15:42
Speaker 3: Yes, but she represents to Denise. She represents to Denise that freedom I think.
00:15:49
Speaker 1: So it works, okay, but the split diapter is all about putting you directly in the foreground, in the psychology of that face. So again, yes, I can see that thematically, but in the moment, all of a sudden, I'm thinking more about the neighbor and what is the neighbor's emotions, and that's completely different. I know they're having a conversation about Denise's work, but my goodness, when that family conversation everything's gone down, they're in the living room panicking about what to do, and we get another split diapter. I couldn't keep track of who it started with, what they said.
00:16:21
Speaker 3: It goes around the circle.
00:16:22
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was asking myself the same questions, Okay, what's the what's the thematic emotional, psychological reason for using this? And I came up with some answers. You know this, each of them has their own response and perspective on the experience. It's commonly used to amp up the tension because it is disorienting to ask you to focus on two things at once. Yeah, that all makes sense to me. I don't know why he didn't include overlapping dialogue then, which would enhance that. It's very much where we get a shot and one character says one clear point of view, and then in the background another character off for something else. I don't know, to be honest with you, even though I can see some of that rationale and maybe you have some stronger ones, it did take me out of the movie in a way that some of the more ostentatious techniques of a film like It Follows did not, and worked in concert with a theme I have.
00:17:21
Speaker 3: A super super profound rationale. You're ready, Okay, it's really cool. I thought it was really cool in terms of my response to the movie, and getting back to the question I post to you, I can agree with you overall on your read certainly of Spielberg and even my feelings about Spielberg, but disagree with you on this movie, and it's really great to put it in those terms. I didn't think about where I would put this movie in my Spielberg ranking. What would keep this from being top tier Spielberg is that I don't think there is no nor do I think Mitchell is seeking wonder. Maybe yeah, it is unfair because it would be one thing, Josh, if there were moments I recall from this film where I thought Mitchell was seeking the transcendent and was coming up short. And I don't recall that ever. So that is the way I think he is specifically, despite all the similarities, all the parallels that we've already drawn, that is the way specifically I think he is diverging from spir So I don't think this movie is top tier Spielberg, and I don't think it's even as good a film as Super eight. I'm with you on that, but I will get blasphemous I suppose and say that somehow the best Spielberg movie of twenty twenty six isn't directed by Steven Spielberg. That is how much fun I had with this movie. I, of course, was not as high on disclosure Day as you. One of the things we can discuss in spoiler talk anyway we can get deeper into it is whether this film is truly just pure summer entertainment with satisfying resolutions and no larger questions to ponder, And whether than my use of the word just is pejorative. Maybe you're a David Robert Mitchell stan and you love It Follows, and you love Under the Silver Lake, and you love how those movies are full of ambiguities and mysteries. The latter I haven't seen it from what I understands, requiring you to decode it. And here, the End of Oak Street is ostensibly a textbook crowd poleaser. Maybe that bugs you. It is a crowd pleaser. I enjoyed it for all of the reasons I do love many of Spielberg's crowd pleasers, the combination of drama, of thrills, of heart, and of craft. I think the degree of difficulty here is quite high, because you could fill your movie with a bunch of homages, and it would feel very trite to try to pull out the same combination of drama and thrills, heart and craft that no one other than maybe Spielberg has done before, at least so consistently, and to come up short. You'd have something that was not only trite, but very possibly quite dull. And this is probably not a stretch to say this, but I imagine this movie playing like Gangbusters for plenty of audience members who have no relationship to Spielberg's work whatsoever. And I think where you should probably disagree the most, because this speaks to my having a deeper investment in the heart and in the drama of the film than you is. I think Mitchell does it largely just based on fundamental storytelling that it comes back to character, it comes back to dramatic irony. I don't think the family dynamic is as thin as you think it is. I think that there's enough weight here because I like the touch that everybody in this family has a secret. And these aren't you know, suburbia blue velvet ants crawling on a bloody cutoff ear in the green grass while you know, below a white picket fence type secrets. There's nothing dark or sinister about them, but they're real and they do subtly tear away at an individual's and a family's psyche. The way the dad, Greg is hiding that he lost his job and he's taking these pizza delivery shifts. Why is he doing it? Because he doesn't want the family to worry, But what's that doing. All that's doing is just leading to more anxiety in the family. He's got a little something stashed in the garage. He also knows what Denise is up to in the basement, but he's not letting on about that. Right She's hiding that she's writing this book in the basement, that she may also want to leave Greg and her kids. She may also want to leave them to be a writer. But you can go with the kids too, Like Brian is at that age where he's testing the boundaries a little bit. He's smoking cigarettes, he's lying about that he's in some trouble in the neighborhood that he's not facing. Audrey, I want to mention this scene. I mentioned Mazy Stella and she I didn't immediately recognize her. I just immediately recognized. I feel like I've sort of seen her before, and she's really good. We learn what she's hiding about her identity in a scene that, as often is the case with these great music moments, it's a candidate for me Josh from Music Moment of the Year and Moving Moment of the Year. The scene where she goes to the garage and she puts in a cassette, and that's That's pretty much all I'll say, except to further explain that it's just such great economical storytelling. It's set up by one earlier quick scene, but that's just laying the foundation for it. The reason why that's so great is because it functions. Its function for the audience is to reveal something about the character we didn't know before. But Mitchell here is a smart enough writer and director that that's the subtext. But the text is within the context of the movie. Why is that scene occurring? And it feels not just logical but appropriate. It feels necessary that someone in Audrey's circumstances, with all of this insanity swirling around her, in a quiet moment, would seek normalcy. Putting that cassette tape in the car, in the garage, sneaking away like that that song playing transports her back to nineteen eighty two. For those three to four minutes of Steve Winwood Magic, things are okay with the world. But it's also tinge for this overwhelming sadness because you have to consider what she's thinking about, what we know she's thinking about that's not spelled out, but we get it. And also that she has to be considering that she may never be leaving this place, and what is she never going to get to experience all that's going on with nothing being said at all, just what she's doing in that scene and what the music's doing. And then finally I'll say that none of them, none of them in the family, are talking about what they all know to be true, which is that this family does seem to be falling apart. So for me, those secrets they provide something substantive for us to latch onto and that that gave me investment enough and in what's going to happen to this family and that dynamic?
00:24:08
Speaker 4: Anybody else did that weird light last night?
00:24:11
Speaker 3: The weird light.
00:24:13
Speaker 5: The wind was blowing all crazy, startled with streaked down and barking.
00:24:17
Speaker 3: Could have been light from a helicopter or a UFO A.
00:24:24
Speaker 1: I think it's the case for you. With this movie is where I can intellectually understand all the choices that are made, and yet they none of them are resonating with me in It's almost like I can see the structure rather than feel the structure. Now, the case of the scene with Audrey and the car is different. It stands out. It's a great sequence for all the reasons you described, and almost makes me wish that this entire movie had been about her point of view and her story. She seems to be given the most interesting experience that is unique in its own way, even as it is embedded in the universal experiences of someone that age. The other family members' issues just felt so perfunctory in how they were presented. Audrey's scene is presented beautifully as you described, you know, without any sort of dialogue or a back in forth between husband and wife. We've seen a variation on a million times. I wonder how much this is a matter of performance. These are two lead actors, Adam, that you know, we both like quite a bit. We've praised Anne Hathaway, you know, for some of her other work this year. You and McGregor we've gone back to with since Train Spotting, and in our recent revisit or a discussion of Train Spotting, talking about how good he was there as a as a breakout star. I don't know if it's the writing. I don't know if it's the suburban eighties Dad, that's just not a good fit for this, Scott. I don't know what it is but there is I couldn't figure out why he was in this movie, and Anne Hathaway somewhat similar, though she gets to bite into a little more stuff as the movie proceeds. She has a bit more interesting of a backstory, the fact that she's writing this novel in secret. There's more to dig into there. I don't know that the movie actually does be beyond wanting to give her a as you said, and maybe for some viewers that's enough. I do wish it had been explored a little bit more. But this relates to something I wanted to ask you. The performances, and I do want to hear what you think of those performances. But it does make me wonder it connects with the question you asked, which is really good, is what was he looking for as writer director with this movie? If he's not seeking that transcendence, that Spielbergian transcendence, which I think is fair and doesn't have to what was he seeking? I wonder if this was really if you asked him at heart, or asked anyone involved in it, is this supposed to be a dark comedy, like a really dark action comedy, Because for me, when the end of Oak Street operated at that level, it was really clicking. And that doesn't necessarily need a rich family dynamic that needs more types that we can place as the gears start churning in a more humorous vein, that needs leads who are more comfortable in that vein. And so even someone I don't want to get into recasting, so I'm just gonna throw out one thing. But because this was David Robert Mitchell, it made me think of Under the Silver Lake, and even someone like Andrew Garfield, who I don't think we think of first as a comic actor. He's incredibly funny and Under the Silver Lake in a fresh way I hadn't seen him before, and even him in the role of the father here might have brought a little goofiness, a little unexpected even zaniness that I do think the movie is going for. I mean, there's a great shot, speaking of the camera work here, there's a great shot early on after the chaos has broken out and Greg and Denise are running through the neighborhood trying to find their kids, but we see them in the foreground is another family who's come out of their house. They don't know this is going on yet. They're getting into the car, and the camera just slowly pans to reveal across the street behind them, Greg and Denise sprinting across all the neighbor's yards f these dinosaurs. That's funny. There is the moment of the two dinosaurs mating in the background, that's darkly funny. I think when light actually, I mean it's kind of light, and it's lightening the scenario, I guess, is what I would say a dark scenario is bringing a light touch to it. And then when we get to our spoiler conversation, I think that's particularly where this movie wants to or I feel like has the opportunity to become quite dark and humorous, and where it ends, to me only works if you see this movie as a dark comedy. If you see it as anything other than that, I think the ending is kind of a disaster. I went with it because I enjoyed the end of Oak Street not as the year's best Spielberg movie, but as a quite funny, dark, insane comic fantasy. That's where this movie is clicking.
00:29:23
Speaker 3: I like how it ends, but I also like the possibilities that the end opens up, which we are going to talk about, and I understand why you potentially want to read it that way. I can only tell you that the experience I had in the theater was not one where I thought that David Robert Mitchell was going for a darkly comic experience. I think that there are moments of comedy, and there are moments where I laughed, and certainly there are moments where maybe you don't expect that you would be laughing, and so I get that that's usually the term we would put on it. But I still can't help but think, and maybe this is just me going off my first reaction. I just saw it two days ago, that that doesn't really mean anything. It's not like it was just two hours ago. But I am still processing my reaction. I still see this as David Robert Mitchell mostly trying to give us a very entertaining, action packed experience and succeeding now on the p pformances. I'm with you that I had a similar reaction, unfortunately to McGregor, and some of that is I fear that the character as written is supposed to be a bit bland, in a bit ineffectual. You know, there's a moment in the movie where Hathaway, her character says, listen to your father, and that's actually supposed to be a big moment for both charactures, whether whether or not the camera draws any attention to it, and the camera doesn't, that's actually a big moment because she isn't She isn't someone as the mother who is usually telling the kids to obey what the father is saying. She wears the pants in the family, she's driving the car, she's got the shotgun. She's the one who is handling most things. And I do think that McGregor's performance then, as a result, it's as if he taps into that a little bit and and plays him a little boringly. Hathaway, though, I think, is pitched at exactly where this movie needs her to be, and that includes needing her to be able to sell the terror that this family would feel, including when we get one scene in particular that I think is one of the great set pieces in this film, when let's just say a creature invades the home and none of them are aware of it. It's one of those scenes, Josh, where I noticed it wasn't just me, there were other people in the theater. We were all squirming in our seats when a director can make you squirm in your seat because you're actually trying to maneuver as if your movements would help the character move. If you can do this, maybe the character will notice what's behind them. That is something, and that is how you That is how I felt, certainly watching this scene. There is a moment at the end of that scene where I'll put it this way. Hathaway's Denise goes to town, and Hathaway plays that with the same conviction she would play The Odyssey or any other movie, any other character she's ever played. You believe that every single protective instinct is coming out of her there, but not only that, every ounce of anger that has built up in her up to this point from the family dynamic, but also through whatever they're experiencing, every ounce of frustration, It is all coming out of her in that moment this release. And I actually do think there aren't that many actresses on Hathaway's level who can deliver that type of Catharsis in that moment, and I really appreciated it in her performance there.
00:33:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's doing the stuff we haven't seen her do before, especially in that scene. She's one hundred percent committed to it. I think she also works a little bit better because for me, she's tapped into the vein of humor too, whether it is signing away to kind of not directly undercut her husband, but you know, give us a variation on an eye roll. You're over his ineffectiveness, And yeah, I think she does work quite a bit better than he does.
00:33:45
Speaker 3: Well, let's talk a little bit then, before we get to spoilers, can we talk?
00:33:49
Speaker 5: Well?
00:33:50
Speaker 3: I also have to tell you what I think is the great, the great screenwriting misguided misstep of this film too. The misstep Okay, oh yeah, there is one I almost thought I couldn't forgive Mitchell for so I have to get to that. But since I brought it up in the setup and I know we're going to diverge on this, I'm going to go ahead and say it. What I do think it has on Disclosure Day, as absurd as it might sound, since that film takes place in a more recognizable roam world in Oak Street has a bunch of dinosaurs running around. Some of the choices of the characters and their actions with this one major exception I'll get to are more rational and believable here. The other part is what I alluded to before this dialogue about faith elements in Disclosure Day, there were elements I appreciated, But Spielberg also makes the conflict there quite literal. Right. It's in the form of the Sister Mara character and Neeve Houston's Jane, and they are talking directly about their faith or lack thereof, and what all of this means. In Oak Street, you have characters who represent different sides of that conflict in a way that seemed realistic to me, especially since I know which one of the characters I am. This family has been dealt a terrible hand. The only real possibilities seem to be die pretty quickly and gruesomely, survive for a bit, but suffer. Okay, both of those are bad or long shot. The longest shot, they'll be magically saved. Some members of the family express a faith in effectively a higher power, and they'll be magically saved. And why because it they have no rational reason to believe that, but it comforts them and it's how they want to live their lives because the alternative seems to only hold at best negativity and at worst sorrow. What about the people out there getting eaten? One of the characters says at one point that also, I have to say, is one of the great theological quandaries. It's the beginning of thought and but and it's quite funny. And it's quite funny. It exactly pleasy. Stella, God's not gonna let us die here. You only go to Church of Christmas. And now you're telling the kids God's looking out for us. What about the people who are out there getting eaten? The other characters are pragmatists who see false hope as the great sin to be avoided. I found that conversation, and I do mean that actual conversation, but the larger conversation, because it's something that the movie is speaking to, not just in that scene. I found that conversation to be very compelling. I liked that it made me think about that. Now. I'm not suggesting, Josh that David Robert Mitchell is giving us the end of Oak Street because he wants everyone to come away with his treatise on faith. But I like that. I liked that it was wrapped up in there.
00:36:59
Speaker 1: I yeah, I wish I could have seen the tentacles of that conversation and the rest of the film. To me, there are basically two conversations like that that are dropped in kind of come out of nowhere. I found it to be more imployed to give extra shading to Greg the father's inefficiency helplessness. Of course he would be the guy who says, you know, God will save us or whatever he says. And then here's more dark humored. This is where Athway is like greatly go to church on Christmas, Chris, and you're pulling this out. So I thought that was funny too. Yeah, I just didn't see it. As I didn't. It was a curiosity to me like that, where is this? And I know it's there's a callback with the neighbor, the young woman who goes to private school there, like is she go to Catholic school? And then the neighbor asks, I think, Audrey, do you believe in God? When she asked her to me, that was like, oh, well, this is random again, And I know you could extrapolate that to ask these larger questions that you proposed there. I don't know that the movie really, as you said, also, is that interested in doing that regarding disclosure day, you know, which it is curious that both of them at least touch on this issue. I my preference is that Spielberg had let that play more in the background. I always would rather have it be something that, yeah, I know, you know, not that bliss it. However, why I did like it, about why I did like it in Disclosure Day, even though it worked in that way, is it was much more directly woven into the characters' backgrounds, who they were as people. I mean, this isn't the first time Jane brings up the Houston character faith. It's not out of nowhere like Greg here. It's because we know she's already shared that she considered being a nun at one point. And you know, these are much more richly developed characters in general and specifically on the question of faith. She has a relationship with the other nun. And here's the other thing that Spielberg is And again this is coming out of just being deeply embroiled in his work, realizing that he has always been a believer in belief. And what I mean by that is he's less interested in the object of the belief. The belief could be a fairy, it could be a dinosaur, it could be an alien, but what he believes in is the human act of believing in something that's unbelievable, and he his special gift is getting you in the theater to feel like you could believe as well. And that is one of the main questions. I don't remember if we got into this that deeply in our initial conversation. That's one of the main questions that Disclosure Day is interested in, is the value of believing in we did it's unbelievable? Right, Yeah? So again, is it a little too literalized and Disclosure Day? For me, yes, I would agree with that, but I think it is much more thoughtfully and skillfully woven into that movie than it is here, where it struck me as an oddball curiosity to have those two scenes kind of.
00:40:07
Speaker 3: Dr See, that's the exact opposite of what I'm describing, because for me, that's exactly the type of conversation I believe that family would have in that moment, precisely like they have it there in that scene. It did not feel to me at all like some contrived moment the screenwriter felt like he needed to have in order to elivate like script I guess just.
00:40:31
Speaker 1: A couple of more suggestions about what their relationship to this was before maybe even in production design or crisis.
00:40:41
Speaker 3: Like this, bring these out, bring these types of conversations.
00:40:45
Speaker 1: I'm talking about as a viewer, you know that so that you're kind of being the landscape is being set, the seeds are being planted, that this might be something that's going to come up in some way, rather than it subtenly being dropped in, you know, forty minutes or whatever into the movie.
00:41:02
Speaker 3: I guess, okay, let's get onto something that I struggled with my Yes, my David Robert Mitchell. It follows embroidered nitpick hating to is going to come out with the asterisk that like my it follows thoughts, it's not a cinema sins like Nitpick. And I'm going to explain why. The key difference here is that while this choice sends the movie off track, fortunately it turns out it wasn't a permanent detour. There is a point and obviously I don't think this is a spoiler, and I'm going to be I'm going to talk generally about it enough that if I thought it was a spoiler, I would save it, and I'll save part of it actually for spoiler talk later. There's a point roughly an hour in where Mitchell clearly decided that either a it was going to get too stagnant if I didn't get this family out of the house for an extended period of time, or b it was going to get too stagnant if I didn't gym up gin up some heavier emotional stakes or see both because.
00:42:09
Speaker 1: This is this stybuck Starbucks.
00:42:12
Speaker 3: Or he has one of the family members make a decision that accomplishes both of those things. That is nevertheless one of the dumber, least believable things I have seen a character do ever on screen. And yes, it does involve the dog, Starbuck. And you can say, first, you can tell me how much you all love dogs, and so you bought it. You can also understand how far I just don't get for your dog exactly. You can also tell me how how Mitchell sets it up in earlier scenes. In retrospect, that just feels exactly like that's what it was a writing ploy to try to justify this insanely stupid act. And as if that wasn't bad enough, what follows is then another character, a smarter, more mature character that's the sin doing something equally stupid. But here's what I think is here's here's the compound on compound. What I actually think is the greater sin. What frustrates me most, what elevates it from from nitpick to the level of what I'm saying is I think misguided narrative judgment is the reason both of these characters and this maybe gets back to where we diverge on this movie overall a little bit. The reason both of these characters make this decision, or the reason that they're in a position to make it, is why because their parents are having a screaming match in the other room. Setting aside the fact that they're fighting, isn't enough for me to believe that either kid would do what they did, especially the older, more mature one. We're yanked as viewers out of that fight so we can watch the kids do what the screenplay needs them to do. But the family dynamic and the tension which starts with Greg and Denise, for me, isn't just window dressing, as I argued. It's the foundation of this movie. It's crucial to this movie working as well as it does. And this is a huge moment, the moment when the secrets are finally laid back. Greg and Denise deserved to get those things off their chests. We deserved to hear them get those things off their chests. And somehow Mitchell literally and figuratively turns their voices into the adults from Charlie Brown. It becomes background noise that allows what the plot to move forward. It's it's contrived. It undercuts the emotional thrust of the movie. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to get over it. I was in part because of another decision Mitchell makes to salvage it, which which I'll get into. But I was struggling with that for a while.
00:45:01
Speaker 1: Isn't isn't this the movie showing its hand laying its cars?
00:45:05
Speaker 3: Potentially? I knew that's where you were gonna go with me, like I said, And it had enough of its its hooks in me by that point that I could overhear it.
00:45:14
Speaker 1: For me, it was it was like, this is the movie we're in. Like it didn't surprise me. I disagree with you that I agree with you on Audrey's choice to follow Brian, But hey, come on, Brian, you know risk reward. He's he's that age he's still learning to calculate things risk reward and Starbuck needs help. What are you gonna do if you're out? What is he? Thirteen? Fourteen year old boy?
00:45:37
Speaker 3: And he's old enough. He's old enough.
00:45:41
Speaker 1: Let me before we do spoilers. I wanted to one thing. I was asking myself and see if either of this resonates with you, you know, what else is this? What else might this movie be interested in? Because obviously at this point you found more in it than I was. And so I was looking for things, and I thought, is there any sort of commentary going on here? Maybe there's the one shot of Brian after it all goes down, he grabs the encyclopedias from his bedroom and he's looking in one of them, and we see a page that says something about greenhouse climate, and so part of me is thinking, okay, is there some sort of environmental you know thing going on here? I didn't find any more threads to pull on. Maybe you did. I don't know, there's another option of social commentary. I did think this beginning this long opening setup of this neighborhood and the block party that was going on and on and on. For me, I'm thinking that this has got to be some sort of commentary on you know, the United States basically being stuck in the past. The movie set in the past, so somewhat related to nostalgia, but possibly even more pointedly related to recent dialogue about America being better before. And it clicked for me when that overhead shot of the entire neighborhood like a circle, isolated amidst the prehistoric landscape, and I'm thinking, Okay, maybe we're getting something here about isolationist America. Like America doesn't want to just go back to the nineteen fifties, let's say, but it wants to go back. We're so behind the times in the United States because we're looking backwards, we might as well be in the prehistoric era. Is there any thing there? I don't know that I found many more threads. Possibly, I think that's a little more interesting. But did anything like that register for you or either of those strike anything.
00:47:32
Speaker 3: No, Josh, I think it's entirely possible. David Robert Mitchell just wanted to make a blockbuster that really entertained people. I do think in this case that shot though, that shot though, that shot though, was really interesting because it made me think, even though ultimately aliens are not part of this movie, there is something clearly cosmic going on, and that shot overhead of the cul de Sac, it's a very odd, oddly shaped circle, like a good circle. It looks it looks like a crop circle. Makes it makes you think that, of course Oak Street in this circle, this neighborhood was the one that was picked out. It's a nice little bit of design or at least set choice there. You're like, though, that what is interesting? Unless I'm overlooking something something that is interesting about I think it'd be very I think it'd be a bit of a stretch to suggest the movie is trying to make some climate change argument or really wants us to think about it. But that that moment stood out to me as well, where he gets out the encyclopedia and he's reading about dinosaurs, because the director shows us what he's reading, and he reads something about about the climate and how it's going to get very hot greenhouse climate. Yep, the greenhouse climate. But then, to my recollection, the movie doesn't do anything with that. I thought that that then was going to lead to some kind of revelation later in the movie where the way they get rid of the dinosaurs is by doing something with the climate. It it doesn't factor in so as far as I recall, So, why does that? Why is that shot in the movie?
00:49:07
Speaker 1: Yeah?
00:49:07
Speaker 3: It is a It is a good question.
00:49:09
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe we miss something. Listeners can tell us if there's an environmental reading or yeah, America stuck in the past reading.
00:49:15
Speaker 3: Yes, But I will say this as we transition to spoilers for the people who are are not ready to listen to that yet. What we are going to talk about in spoilers I want to talk about, as you've hinted already, the ramifications of the ending. I also want to talk about Denise as writer slash god. Okay, where that's where we're going to go. Let's go ahead and close out the review proper of the end of Oak Street. If you've seen the movie and you would like to agree or disagree with with one of us because we see this movie differently, you can write in feedback at filmspotting dot net get out of that run, Josh, spoilers on the end of Oak Street? Where would you Where would you like to begin? So?
00:50:12
Speaker 1: As boring as he was, I was sad to see Greg get it.
00:50:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that is you know.
00:50:20
Speaker 1: I also feel like I should say I haven't I haven't had time to sit down and write, which is where I finally know what I really feel about a movie. I'm leaning positive on this movie. I did enjoy it really Yeah as an experience. I mean, you're trying to claim its Spielberg. Well, how am I going to get on board with that?
00:50:36
Speaker 3: That's nuts?
00:50:37
Speaker 1: But yeah, not top to Spielberg, Josh, just this movie. And I think one of the best sequences is Craig's death because it is exciting. It is again darkly funny that what is he on a sledgehammer? I think, yes, so just the ludicrousness that a sledgehammer to the nose of this what what was that? An alisauris now he's going after.
00:51:01
Speaker 3: Okay, so nerdy Josh didn't know that.
00:51:02
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't get into dinosaurs as a kid. I don't. I don't know. I think we were too old for that. That didn't really start till in Earnest till Jurassic Park.
00:51:10
Speaker 3: Well, I know, so I was into dinosaurs way before Jurassic Park. I was into dinosaurs right about the time this movie is set nineteen eighty two, but I was familiar with Alice at.
00:51:21
Speaker 1: That point anyway, So he takes the sledgehammer and knocks the thing down, which got a laugh out of me, and then all of a sudden chomps is this was my thought process at him the alsours chomps his foot, and I'm thinking, oh, no, it's like below the knee. Josh, yeah, yeah, you're right, it's I mean, it's severe. And my first thought is, again like a screenwriter writing thought, is like, how are they going to write around this?
00:51:46
Speaker 4: Now?
00:51:46
Speaker 3: For the rest he can't hop around the rest of the film, he can't.
00:51:50
Speaker 1: And then nope, nope, he gave us who's the guy the lawyer in Jurassic Park? He just gets swallowed there, Yes, And I think I laughed at that as well. I did feel bad, sure, and I do. That's where my interests started to peak in terms of the dark humor and the implications for the family dynamic. I will say, got a little more interesting after that, Okay, which I'm guessing is where probably you'll go look.
00:52:16
Speaker 3: See So that's so fascinating because I can tell you that my experience it's in the theater is that when you watch a gigantic dinosaur on screen bite somebody's leg off and blood starts spurting out and they're screaming. There's a part of you that can't help but laugh a little bit, even if it's internal, just kind of chuckle. But the moment when that dinosaur ate greg All, I'm thinking, this is, this is at least how in tune with the movie. I was Josh and the family when that, when that dinosaur ate greg All. I was thinking about was I was feeling it like Denise and the kids were feeling it. I was crushed. I was crushed on the kid's behalf. I was in shosh like they were a monster. No, I understand. I'm just saying that I didn't have the darkly comic take on the film.
00:53:06
Speaker 1: I think about, think about, think about how many of the other kills in this movie are punchlines. Though, yeah, Adam, like with the neighbors and stuff, and so this is operating. I know it's the character you know even better, but it's operating in that vein.
00:53:20
Speaker 3: But but you say that, and I think it's such a fine line, and I think even Mitchell was probably trying to figure out where that line was because we hate that neighbor. And I want to talk about this in a second where I want to go with the ending that neighbor is a loser jerk. And if you asked us early in the film, do we want to see him get eaten by a dinosaur? We would say yes. And there's a part of us. Even as he's shooting at him, I was thinking, Oh, I kind of can't wait for them all to swirl around him. But then when it happens, he shows it happening from the perspective of Denise and Greg, and Denise and Greg are nothing except purely horrified. Sure, And so there I'm purely horrified. I'm not laughing at him getting eaten by the dinosaurs, right.
00:54:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, that one. Yeah, because they're involved, which goes back to the Spielberg human experience thing I was talking about. Actually, because they're in Valve involved, it's seen through a different lens. And certainly Greg's death is too, of course, because the kids are right there and she's right there, and as you say, that's what I'm thinking is about, is they're watching this. But it's also curious because I was noticing how is that scene going to play too, because to me it did have that dark comic element. But she does cover their eyes and drag them away and start talking to them about other things. So it's definitely meant to play that way.
00:54:43
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, before maybe we get into the heavy stuff, because I don't know where exactly you want to go, whether or not it coincides with where I want to go. I do just want to go back to I said, Mitchell salvaged the misguided narrative choice, right, And that is simply that just about I swear, just about the time I was thinking, if the rest of this movie is me having to follow the kids and the parents not being able to reunite because of that fight, and Brian jumping out the window to chase Starbuck, and Audrey chasing after Brian without telling the parents that she's going after him, it becomes the fruit of the poisonous tree. It's just gonna sink the entire rest of this movie and maybe retroactively everything that came before it. And right at that point I was thinking it, it's like Mitchell was reading my reading my mind, and and they see they see the parents outside the window, and they open up the doors Mom, Dad, and they see each other and they get back together. It's like if I had to go any longer with them not finding each other, Josh, the movie was probably sunk.
00:55:50
Speaker 1: Well, I'm I'm glad for your sake that you didn't have to experience that. Yeah, I think the reuniting of the family at the end via this very elaborate glowing blob, which you know, I guess we just accept that's all we're gonna learn about that. Yeah. You know. One of my quibbles about the movie, too, is or hesitance, as I should say, is that it's kind of like half a high concept that he's come up with here and he didn't kind of finish it because this portal's just glowing there and the.
00:56:26
Speaker 3: Sheaves Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan is a wise man, Josh, what's the deal?
00:56:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, But yeah, it's there to reunite the family. But here's my question for you. So they steal this other dimensions Greg, that's it, right, the father So and again I was kind of chuckling at the implications of this, just because how I had keep it into the movie. You're a s they steal What about the other dimensions? Audrey? This is the question Denise and Brian, Right, Apparently this just means that Greg never comes home, Dad never comes home from surreptitiously delivering pizzas the dinosaurs invade, and whatever happens to the three of them happens the three of them alone. So they've stolen this dimensions Greg. I also like, I mean, here's where it's got to be meant to be sort of funny. The fact that Jeanette, the neighbor girl who ends up with them for a long time, she runs away to steal her entire family, including her other self.
00:57:36
Speaker 3: She go back earlier, Josh, so.
00:57:38
Speaker 1: In the in the happy ending, No, I get how it happens, but in the happy ending, I saw that as a punchline, that there were two Jeanettes, just like, this is our new family life, right, is we get a bonus Jeanette? Now, yes again, all of this You know, I think for me only works if it's a little bit of a joke asking you to say, yeah, you know what we Here's how I felt, how I experienced it, and I enjoyed this experience. Yeah, we put a portal in our movie. Yeah, that means the family gets together. It means Greg was stolen. You know, we're at the end of the movie. This is what we want, and it was what I wanted as boring as Greg was. He's back good, they're in better terms, have sometely fine with it. I had a good time coming out of the theater. But yeah, because I was locked in in.
00:58:30
Speaker 3: That vein jokes the right word in that in that context, I mean the movie is is playing in that register. Certainly by the end of the film, I think, I mean it is a dinosaur movie and it's about wormholes, Like it's yeah, we know what we're we know what we're dealing with here. And and just to be totally clear, even though if people are listening to this, they they have seen the entire movie and they've probably thought about all of this. What you were saying is exactly where I want to go. This isn't really a time travel movie. This isn't Back to the Future or The Terminator where you go into the past and your actions can change the future.
00:59:08
Speaker 1: This is a multit being a multiverse.
00:59:10
Speaker 3: This is a multiverse.
00:59:11
Speaker 1: I hate to say it.
00:59:11
Speaker 3: It is so at the end, even though I just said it's not back to the future, it's kind of like they returned to Hill Valley. Because I love how they see the time on the clock and they realize that they have.
00:59:22
Speaker 1: Times, the biggest clock I've ever seen.
00:59:24
Speaker 3: That's right. Yes, they have time to change what will happen, but not entirely. But they have some time and things are going to change, or or they can change things. But the event the wormhole is going to happen. So I'm I'm not patting myself on the back here. I assume most viewers put it together. The crumbs, where the breadcrumbs were laid from the very beginning of the movie, the references to the pizza delivery, the phone number on the top of the car. We can put two and two together that she's going to go to the phone booth and she's going to call the number, she's gonna have the pizza delivered, and theoretically he's going to arrive. Daddy is of course alive, reuniting, tears, rejoicing. Wow, it's like it's like Lazarus. Lazarus risen from the dead, right, But in so doing, they have they have changed the events in this in this multiverse. It's been created because returning Denise, returning Denise, Audrey and Brian. So let's call him Denise Audrey and Brian.
01:00:28
Speaker 1: Two.
01:00:29
Speaker 3: They're with Greg one and Denise Audrey and Brian one. They all went to the wormhole without Greg one. They're all without their dad.
01:00:41
Speaker 1: So they've got this guy.
01:00:43
Speaker 3: No, they don't have a guy. They don't have a guy. Oh no, yeah, they don't have a guy as I'm reading it exactly. So in our world, in our world, what we're called, Denise Audrey and Brian too and Greg one are living happily ever after with two Jenettes, and and aren't they all really they are? This is the question. They're just Denise, Audrey, Brian, and Greg They're not two and one as far as they know. They're all just the family. But this is the kind of question that sci fi movies has been posing forever different versions of multiverse versions, Are they really the same? But to them, to the three members of the family, it's just like they're reuniting with the only dad they've ever known. So that's interesting to ponder. But in the other world, Denise, Audrey and Brian for however long they survived, which I know I'm just spelling it out. I said that, Josh, I'm just making sure people understand because I think it's really fascinating. For however long they survived, they did so without their dad now came home. Now, think about that. Think about that from their perspective. Maybe they ultimately, once they put things together, they decided, hey, dad never came home. That means he probably never got sucked into this wormhole and maybe at least he's safe back on Oak Street. And so maybe they think about that and it makes them feel good, or maybe it just fills them with overwhelming sadness that they they don't have their dad with them. So effectively, they lost they dad, They lost their dad husband, just like the others lost their dad slash husband. And You're right, they just stole him. The other ones just stole that Denise.
01:02:30
Speaker 1: Denise probably wasn't too worried. I mean, at that point in the narrative she had blatantly said I can handle a lot more than you think, or something like that, probably more than you more than you think. Yeah, she might not have been too worried. I don't think they'd started to reconcile yet. So yeah, it's again, obviously we're seeing it through You're just seeing it through a more emotional moving lens, and I'm seeing it through a more comic lens, which I think is to the movie's credit. I think that's when it's working best. And I see this ending as kind of kind of like a final punch line, even as it does raise some of these interesting questions.
01:03:04
Speaker 3: And the question that I still haven't fully been able to reconcile is to what extent, Because if you think about this, it it's pretty heavy and it casts it certainly casts a shadow over the happy reading of the end of the film, which I don't see how you read as anything but happy. It's it's like the back to the Future ending where everything has now been not only set right with the world, everything's better than it previous was than it previously was. She's the writer, she wants to be everybody's happy. The daughter got into Cornell like, yeah, they all have boyfriends and girlfriends like everything else. Everything is perfect with the world. But if you now start thinking about this stuff, it's it's not all perfect with the world. So does David Robert Mitchell want us thinking about that stuff or does he want us thinking about how happy everybody is? And then the other part of this is what I'm what I'm just also intrigued by, is is that the fact that the movie takes time to show us not only is denis a writer. But the name of her book right is called isn't it the True Story, The True Story of the End of Oak Street?
01:04:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it has it has a two word title, shoot, I didn't write it down, and then that's I think that's the subtitle, is the True Story of the.
01:04:27
Speaker 3: End of Oaks ste and and so she also says at one point to to Greg when he says, well, I found your book when they're when they're fighting, and she tries to say, oh, no, it's not it's not true, it's not real. It's a story, like she's just an inventor of stories.
01:04:45
Speaker 1: Yep.
01:04:46
Speaker 3: Well. There are different versions then of the end of ok Street, including now this different version of how things would play out with just the three of them in this multiverse without Greg and and So I have two things I want to mention. One is I had a thought, which is, if Mitchell had been really ingenious and I would be first in line obviously to see this, he would have simultaneously shot the other end of Ooks the sequet. He would have simultaneously shot the Move, the Move, the second movie version, the alternate multiverse version with just the three of them without Greg in the end of Oak Street and that movie would come out a year from now and I would go see it.
01:05:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I think that partially speaks to why this does feel like half a high concept to me, is there's still that potential there by this ending. Here, here's a question or here's a development that would have been interesting. What if the Denise, Brian and Audrey Who's Greg had been stolen? What if they jumped through the portal ended up in the same dimension as stolen Greg. Who's Greg gonna choose which which family? I mean, Greg's got Greg's got some heavier right to do, and I don't know that he's up to it quite fir.
01:06:17
Speaker 3: No, No, he probably is not up to it. So then here's the last part I said. Some think about Denise as God. Any writer is a creator of a universe and is creating life, is creating characters, and can can dictate who lives and who dies and how life plays out. Isn't isn't Denise doing just that? As we describe, She's deciding the fate of Greg, She's deciding the fate of Greg one, and she's deciding to some extent, the fate of the alternate Denise Audrey and Brian as well. But more than that, the whole thing on the television when we get the stories of the two year anniversary.
01:07:01
Speaker 1: MM.
01:07:02
Speaker 3: She not only chooses to save Greg one, but she has time to save three other people. Does she saves? She calls the librarian, she calls Missus Huddleston, and she calls the neighbor. So it's very interesting that those are the three people and she calls those three, she calls those three who who she then saves by telling them to come to the hill, just like she does with Greg. So one of those three is obviously someone she's very close with, Missus Huddleston, one of those people we know, one of those people we know she is at least collegial with, and she would consider a friend and also gave that woman, gave up her life for them. So clearly she feels like she owes her a debt the librarian a.
01:07:58
Speaker 1: Very positive librarian portrait. I mean, come on, only good information, and yes, a good information.
01:08:07
Speaker 3: That she gets eaten by an alligator, a gigantic prehistoric alligator for for the kids, Josh. Would Debbie do that?
01:08:16
Speaker 4: No?
01:08:17
Speaker 3: I didn't think so. I don't think she'd go that far, but then she also saves the neighbor. Yeah, so so how do you how do you explain that choice choice to save mel.
01:08:32
Speaker 1: The cynical answer, and you've given this a lot more thoughts, you probably have a better one. He's the only other neighbor that we've met in.
01:08:38
Speaker 3: The movie that I did think about that. I mean, of course, that's.
01:08:43
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny that it's him, because it's ironic, it's, you know, not what you would expect. It's the last person you'd expect. So it landed for me as a bit of a joke.
01:08:51
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think that that's that's there. I think the other way, I suppose you could look at this cynically, but I don't know if cynical is the right way, or just to call it human nature. They are the three people she knows that she sees die. The other people in the neighborhood that she sees die, we don't know for sure that she has any personal personal connection to And so if you were in her shoes, you might also be inclined to save the three people you see die. That you make sense, and I think that that's I think that's part of it. But also just something about her actually being neighborly. Even though she doesn't like him, she does the neighborly thing and saves him. I like to read it that way. Sure, even though he doesn't deserve it. Yeah, it's yeah.
01:09:41
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm thinking about her having this sort of power in this being her story. Did she did she kill Greg Off? Like at some at some level she is she making the decision. No, that's David Robert Mitchell. I'm I'm getting well, I mean, I'm getting all confused.
01:09:56
Speaker 3: But think about this. This is still this is still just Greg. This is Greg one. Greg hasn't gone through any of this stuff. He's still the lame Greg from the first half of.
01:10:05
Speaker 1: The May haven't had their confrontation, their concessions there.
01:10:09
Speaker 3: He hasn't gone through any of this this adversity that's made him a better man. He's got some work to do still, She's got her work cut out for him. That's our spoiler talk on the end of Oak Street. And as I said in the film Spotting Family Discord earlier today, I thought that somehow, without knowing, without having an inkling of what your thoughts were about this film, I thought that it was possible that somehow this movie might end up being, with spoiler talk, one of our longest reviews ever. And here we are for an hour on the End of Oak Street.
01:10:44
Speaker 1: What was that? The Tree of Life? What was our No? Yeah, no, it was Odyssey, right.
01:10:48
Speaker 3: The Odyssey the Tree of Life? Yeah, somehow, David Robert Mitchell, who knew.
01:10:54
Speaker 1: This is not the best Spielberg movie of the year, but it is the longest Odyssean conversation of the year.
01:11:02
Speaker 3: I guess we'll have to pick a Spielberg movie to try to outdo this one. At some point. I'll give you that. I'll promise you that at some point, Josh, thank you. Do encourage you to share your feedback, especially after all that spoiler talk. Tell us how we should be reading the End of Oak Street feedback at filmspotting dot Net.
01:11:20
Speaker 1: I've got to tell you quick story about my showing of the End of Oak Street. Caught it middle of a day I think it was Thursday. And you can tell who the real movie diehards are. You know, weekday middle of day screenings, you usually have other people are there by themselves and the lights come up or the credits are rolling, and this guy a couple of seats down for me just kind of leans over. Maybe you've had this too, although I don't think you take quite as many notes as I do. But I had my notebook out. He's like, hey, I noticed notice you're writing some notes or are you like a movie critic or something? Does it you get this every once in a while, sometimes when you're in a theater and he's so, I said, yeah, I'm actually, you know, do this podcast? Really nice guy, He's said, he's part of a film group that they get together regularly and talk about the movies that they've seen. And yeah, I'm actually going to shower his name. He's on Instagram. We traded trader profiles ABC dot nephew, so follow him if you're intrigued and keep up with his movie talk. But it's always nice to meet one of those hardcore film fans in the middle of the day, in the middle of the week. If you're one of those folks and you see movies that frequently, that devotedly, then you should become a Regal Unlimited subscriber, because that way, going to these films, you could see one of them for free. Regal Unlimited is the all you can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in just two visits. And right now Regal is offering Film Spotting listeners endless movies for less. I forgot to tell ABC Dot nephew this. I'm I'm gonna have to DM him on Instagram. If you sign up for Regal Unlimited using film using the code film Spot twenty six, You're gonna get fifteen percent off. Regal Unlimited is the only truly limitless movie subscription pass. You can see any standard two D movie anytime, there are no blackout dates or restrictions. You're also going to save on snacks because members get ten percent off all non alcoholic concessions. So sign up now on the Regal app or at the link in our description and use code film Spot twenty six to receive your discount. Adam, it's been nice to see so many people joining the Film Spotting family recently. I'm guessing maybe the sale we have going on to become a family member is part of that. We are offering twenty percent off membership through August thirty. First, you just need to use the promo code Summer and you can do all of that at Filmspottingfamily dot Com. So yeah, some new folks coming in, but let's take a few minutes to thank people who have been members for a while now. Membership, of course, is the single largest source of support for film Spotting. It's the main reason we get to keep doing this. So thank you very much to family members Ernie Dusson in Tampa, Florida and Alex in Valpraso, Indiana.
01:14:16
Speaker 3: Ernie says, I've been listening for many years a review he got wrong. Your top five concert movie list was extremely flawed. No Woodstock or Monterey Pop. How dare you? A movie I credit with becoming a cinophile two thousand and one A Space Odyssey. My mom let me stay up late to watch it on television at about ten years old. I didn't understand any of it, but I was hooked.
01:14:36
Speaker 1: I have no excuse, Ernie, I did homework for that top five and Woodstock did it make the cut, so still needs to be seen by me. As for Alex Batman Versus Superman with Michael Phillips as the first episode, I recall listening to a favorite show reviewer. Top five tough to choose, but I think I learned of Coconata's Columbus through the show and that is now an all time favorite, So I'll go with that. A movie I credit with becoming a cinophile Knowing with Nicholas Cage from two thousand and nine, directed by Alex Proeus. Watching with the director's commentary track on a portable DVD player during a family road trip is what first opened my eyes to the art of filmmaking. Okay, a random film or filmmaker that I love The Her and Horse. Where is the Blatar Marathon? Oh man, Alex you I've given up on that ever happening. Just I know thength of these films. It's gonna take a lot to convince Adam.
01:15:35
Speaker 3: So I just sit here and act like you've been pushing for a Bellatar marathon behind the scenes.
01:15:40
Speaker 1: I'm I brought it up here and there, and I've done. I've seen the turn Horse, I've seen works Harmonies.
01:15:47
Speaker 3: I've seen the Man from London. So I've got to go.
01:15:51
Speaker 1: I don't think either of us have had the no, no, the fortitude to take on yet.
01:15:56
Speaker 3: Look at it this way, I'll do it. Let's look at it this way. No, no, I don't want to do it. Look at it this way. The positive is we already have the name of the marathon awards the Potato Peels. This is true. And and the thing about the Belatar Marathon is that it starts, but it never ends. It will just take up the entire rest of the shows, the entire future of the show. Josh, however, it's just ongoing, so I think that would be a problem and we can't actually do that. Alexn Sorry, I just want to make sure I was clear on something. Did you say, Josh, that you watched Woodstock didn't make the cut Monterey Pop? Is that one you still need to see?
01:16:33
Speaker 1: I haven't seen either of them.
01:16:34
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, I seen either. Okay, I did your homework, but you didn't get to either of those. Yes, Woodstock was on my homework list. Ah, I did watch other movies for the first time for that one, but didn't get to Woodstock. Okay, Well, we do have I'll say, I think maybe I've plugged this already, but we do have a great movie deathmatch for fans of concert movies, a great movie deathmatch coming up. The first Monday of September stopped making sense versus the last Waltz, So look forward, Look Forward, to that one.
01:17:03
Speaker 1: Thanks again to Ernie and Alex for their support for listening. If you want to follow them on letterboxed. Ernie is at hard Tale sixty seven. Alex is Alex the Great eighteen.
01:17:16
Speaker 3: You can learn more about joining the Film Spotting Family at Filmspottingfamily dot com. Early in ad free listening, wherever you listen to podcasts, whatever platform you're on, you do get our weekly newsletter. You get access to the complete Film Spotting Archive. You get access to that exclusive Film Spotting Family Discord. Hey, it's just like a message board. Don't be scared of it if you've never been on Discord, and it's a great group of people, definitely nothing to be scared of. You also get exclusive opportunities like being part of Film Spotting Family Madness, naming the best films of the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties. Josh, we are down to the championship match. Yeah, saw this and it did come down to the Wizard of Oz versus Sherlock Junior, two films that are in the film Spotning pantheon, which seems only appropriate.
01:18:09
Speaker 1: Seems appropriate. I like the matchup. You know, Keaton obviously chosen by listeners over chaplain to represent the great genre of silent comedy from that era. I don't no. I can't wait to see how Keating fars against the Wizard of Oz though. It just seems too big of a task even for him to knock Oz out. But you've been paying closer attention to how these matchups have gone so far. Am I under selling Sherlock Junior?
01:18:41
Speaker 3: It's going to be very tough for Sherlock Junior to overtake the Wizard at all his might? I will say that. But you still have time to vote. As you are listening to this, we encourage you to do so. And if you were an early Film Spotting Family voter, you may not have had a chance to vote in the third place matchup. I forgot that we do normally put up a third place poll, so you do have a chance still to determine the third place winner. Is it m or is it city Lights? So please do go back and vote in that contest if you haven't already. August Josh, the monthly bonus show you're going to get is a Blind Spotting review. The poles are still open there too, but it does look like it's going to be Kiyoshi Kurasawa's cure. I think nineteen ninety seven. I'll finally get to say I've seen a Kiyoshi Kurasawa film. You'll get to say you've seen two if we do that film.
01:19:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm excited about that. I was happy with any of these picks, but this would be a good one with the samurai and the prisoner still in theaters too, and kurs how on people's mind.
01:19:45
Speaker 3: I like that if you want to hear that conversation which includes producer sam and all those other benefits just joined the film spotting family at film spotting family dot com. Don't forget to take that twenty percent discount that's running for a couple of more weeks here. Use the promo code summer you work in Akoju before Sorry. Yeah, we open Wednesday to Sunday.
01:20:09
Speaker 2: Started eleving a What time is it?
01:20:13
Speaker 3: That means that you're here at ten forty five?
01:20:15
Speaker 4: Eleven is late?
01:20:17
Speaker 3: Anyone late?
01:20:17
Speaker 4: He's five?
01:20:18
Speaker 3: You know I can cook too. Tony is the new biopic about the early restaurant career of the late chef, writer and TV personality Anthony Bourdain. The movie's directed by Matt Johnson and stars dominic Cessa as Bordain, best known for his role in Alexander Paines The Holdovers. Annoyingly, Josh Tony has not yet expanded to my region of the world, which means I have not yet had a chance to see it. But you have seen it. Johnson, It's worth noting did also make my favorite film of the year so far, Nirvana, the Band, The Show, the Movie. I'm curious whether he brings any of the inspired madness of that film to this bio pick. But also as someone who is enough of a Boordain fan that I once ordered The Crab back at Swan Oyster Depot in San Francisco solely because on Parts unknown he called its buttery enterds, unicorn juice and a touchstone in my worldwide wanderings. Is there any chance that two Matt Johnson movies are going to make my top ten of the year.
01:21:24
Speaker 1: Buttery innards, Yeah, buttery its yeah, Okay, well, yeah, that's what they are.
01:21:30
Speaker 3: Unicorn juice. Doesn't that sound delicious?
01:21:32
Speaker 1: Hey, I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to return to that. I think you're gonna love this movie, Adam, and it's it's good. I enjoyed it. But yeah, given your background with Boordain and enjoying Johnson's film, which I also enjoyed previous to this, though very different energy going on here, there is some anarchy here. This depiction of Bordain at this age is one of a person trying to find themselves and doing that all externally, not you know, not sitting in a room writing in a journal, but living loudly with other people in their lives and making mistakes and messing up their lives. And it is in that sense something of an anti hero drama. I think you can sense a little bit in the filmmaking style actually the film Drain and the time frame this has a nineteen seventies feel to it. I forget the exact year that this is supposed to take place. But the most consistent through line in terms of it being an antiher drama is Sessa's performance. I think we were both just incredibly excited to encounter him as a screen presence in The Holdovers, couldn't wait to see what he did next, and this is a great part for him to just double down on the lanky, uncomfortability that he brought to The Holdovers, and here as Bordain, You just get the sense that he does not care what anyone thinks of him as a character or as an actor. He's not pulling any punches here. And his physicality is so much a part of this. One of Bourdain's instincts, This Bordain's instincts. His age is just to instinctively lie all the time. And I love in the physicality. It's almost like Sessa has this very prominent Adams apple and I'm just imagining like the truth getting caught in that in that Adam's apple, and it just the truth can't come out. This kid just lies about his past, about who he is, who he wants to be, And Susa is mesmerizing to watch as that sort of character. The movie overall, you can feel it sanding off some of the more unlikable qualities that might come with that. The line a little bit, the drug abuse, alcohol abuse. You know, there are bursts of violence here that Sessa commits to, but that instinct in this character fades away as the movie gradually wants this to be a learning experience. Summer that gave us got us closer to the Bordained. You know that we all treasure those who those who really followed his work, and so there's just something that moves further away from a nineteen seventies anti hero drama like The Last Detail or Scarecrow or some of these really bold they the movie doesn't care what the audience thinks of the movie, let alone the actor playing the anti hero. Tony does care a little bit more Sessa doesn't. Tony does. Maybe that's maybe that's fine for most people. I thought it was maybe held it back a little bit for me, but still good film, great performance, worth checking out, even if you you know, don't know anything about Boordain. Really, I think it still would work for someone.
01:25:04
Speaker 3: I have been heartened to see that it's gotten mostly positive reviews in addition to your positive review. So I think this weekend is when I finally do get a chance to see Tony as it is expanding wide. If you have thoughts on Josh's take, email us feedback at film Spotting.
01:25:22
Speaker 1: You're at Sacksburger. The at Sacksburger, right, the poet that was a long time ago, You were brilliant. He wrote a masterpiece.
01:25:28
Speaker 6: It's as if the poems were written yesterday.
01:25:30
Speaker 1: They're moving, they're scathing, they're timeless. We all think, so my whole group, your group, and we both caught up with Late Fame. This is the latest from critic turn director Kent Jones previously made the documentary Hitchcock True Foe and then more recently Diane. Late Fame is currently playing in limited release. It stars Willem Dafoe as a New York poet who's mostly forgotten work has been taken up by a group of young artists. Now, Diane was something of a showcase for Mary kay Place she played the title character. I was very much about that character's experience in the world and psychology. How did you think Late Fame worked along those lines? When it comes to Defoe, I think a universally beloved actor with an enormous body of work early in his career, maybe a few chances to be center of a movie, but you know, not so much more lately. I think we think of him as a welcome supporting presence in movies. Here he is center stage. How did it work as a showcase for him?
01:26:38
Speaker 3: I haven't seen Diane, though I have seen other Kent Jones films. In fact, he was interviewed here on the show for Hitchcock Trufoe, that documentary, which I believe was his first film. But hearing that about Mary Kay Place and it being a showcase your reaction to it, that doesn't surprise me. After watching Late Fame. I almost never recommend a movie for this primary reason, and there are other rewards here, but Willem Dafoe's layered, laconic, layered performance makes Late Fame worth seeking out. That's what I think the attraction really is here. And it's not so much that I didn't go back and look at his filmography and and break it down. It's not so much that we've never seen Dafoe play someone so normal, I suppose, but it still feels a little bit novel. And maybe the Florida Project, Yeah exactly, yeah a key, Yeah, Yeah, that's that's a standout too. There's no like that character. There's no real melancholy to this man, this this poet who's now a postal worker named Ed Sachsberger. But he just plays him with such acceptance, he plays him with a certain resignation. There's a there's a certain man that he used to be and there's the man he is now. But it's not as if you just understand with Dafoe immediately, the history that he brings to this man, the arc. There wasn't some transformation, just the just the art of time and the idea or the sense that you become who you are. And this this encounter with this very idiosyncratic, eccentric group of aspiring artists. I guess some of them are our artists in their own in their own way that that say they have discovered this book of poems he wrote and and admire him like he's a genius. This this jolts some recognition back into him of this, this previous, this previous soul, that he was a man who who like artists are, or or who like we presume artists are, someone who who couldn't help but react to the sounds and the sights and and the people that he encountered, the experiences around him, and he funneled all of that into his work. And that's that's just not the person that that he is now. And the way Dafoe brings all of that to this character, for me was was something that I just found really enjoyable watching Late Fame.
01:29:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting you say he doesn't have a sense of melancholy. I think you're absolutely right. I think you know this character. It's not even that he's accepted where his life has led as you describe it. The passage of time is so good because it's just where he is. But he goes about he's a postal worker. Now he works out a post office, and we see him going through his routine. And you're right, he's not trudging, he's not sighning. This is just he's not better. He's not better, exactly right. But I will say what I liked about Late Fame, in addition to de Foe's performance, was that I did find it has an undercurrent of melancholy. And so what you don't get here is this group rediscovering him, as they say, and bringing him back into a lying and suddenly the fame that was short lived and went away has returned and he you know, and not to give away exactly where this ends, but it is not that inspirational type story that it could have then. And I think the melancholy that the movie does hold is more about the dissatisfaction that an artistic life will give if the satisfaction you seek is always recognition. And while I think that's healthy, there's something inevitably sad about that, and I think the movie is true about that, and so I appreciated it. I did find I did find I struggled a little bit with this is a movie, Adam, that I don't know if it needed, you know, another pass on the screenplay and I'll mention it's you know, the people behind it in a second, or if it just needed more screen time for some of these characters. I did find this world outside of Dafoe and his New York not as well lived in as I had hoped, or as unbelievable isn't the right word. But I did find both the young men who are part of this group and they call themselves the Enthusiasm Society, and obviously they're supposed you're supposed to laugh at them a little bit at the beginning. I didn't feel like the movie's portrait of them progressed much past that. As a matter of fact, it leaves the main leader of the group, played by Edmund Donovan, I think really kind of does him dirty where how that character ends in terms of seeing them as kind of naive jokes. Now on the other end of that, ed the defaux character hangs out now with his fellow workers at the post office at a Billiard's Hall, Pool Hall. And I also felt the depictions of them were a little less lived in as well, and some sequences of confrontation with them felt a little stage And I just don't know if the movie needed more time to percolate what it might be the background here. Now Kent Jones wrote the script for Diane, that's not the case here. He's working with a very talented screenwriter, Sammy Birch, who did May December here adapting in Arthur Schnitzler novella, so clearly talented people at work. It's just it felt like it needed to marinate a little more until I experienced something that felt again. I just keep going back to the idea of lived in. Maybe even I guess I was thinking at him, you know, this group of young artists, they're on the verge of being Wes Anderson caricatures. But I think what you always feel when you get those sorts of figures in an Anderson film is the silliness but also also a deep warmth for them and for their dreams. And I could see the movie kind of wanted this that to be a quality. Here in late fame, but it didn't quite through for me. Probably worth mentioning in terms of performance, though, Greta Lee as well, who's an actress and a spiring actress, kind of on the fringes of this group. Like Dafoe, who gets a great showcase sequence reading one of his character's original poems at a recital that this group sets up. She has a monologue there that's kind of a kind of a showstopper, and she gets an earlier piece of performance that's, you know, musical performance that's pretty incredible to outside of those her character also feels a little you know, could have used more deepening. But in those sequences of performance, man does she pop. And as you said, Dafoe, so good throughout.
01:34:06
Speaker 5: My book.
01:34:08
Speaker 4: It's an honor to meet you, mister sachs Perk.
01:34:10
Speaker 1: Thank you.
01:34:11
Speaker 3: Of course this sick xactly how you would look. So here is right here, but you will again. You might think the boys are silly, but they have connections. I take point about Lee, and those two stand out performances are standouts. But I didn't know that Lee, just full disclosure, I didn't know that she had that theatricality in her I haven't seen that in her previous work, and to see it come out here was startling in a good way. And I think the fact that she is playing such a literally theatrical character, someone who is who is almost acting like Norma Desmond in every scene in terms of her bigness, To then have that offset by at least one scene where we understand that this is someone who is actually quite wounded and quite vulnerable, I thought that that at least added some more depth to that character that made me appreciate both performance and the character more. I do agree with your overall thoughts on on the broadness of the two groups here, the two worlds that he is trying to navigate. Maybe what you said about Meyers the Leader and Edmund Donovan, he was someone I felt like I'm not familiar with, maybe I've seen him in other performances. Was very interested in him as a character, and you can see how that character and the enthusiasm that he brings for Sacksburger's work, how intoxicating that could be. You said that it kind of does him dirty. Maybe you can clarify that, I don't know what doing him dirty would be, because I really appreciated the slipperiness of that character and that ultimately I don't know who he is, and I don't think that's the fault of the screenplay. I don't think that character knows exactly who or what he is. I think he is so struggling to figure out what he is, what kind of an artist he is, what success is to him. There is a part of him that is the real deal in so many ways and an absolute fraud in so many ways. And I think the movie understands that about him.
01:36:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess I didn't find that complicated. I found it simple where he registered as a phony pretty much from the beginning, and there are glimpses here there of where he wants to be something more authentic but only knows how to fake it. And his final scene is kind of tripling down on his phoniness and then he just disappears. Yeah, you know, the final it goes back to the Wes Andersonian warmth. You know, even that character, he's not a villain. But if there if there was a villain in this movie, in this movie, in this story, it would probably be him. But even that character, you know, to the points you're making that you picked up on more these other sides to him. I would like to have seen a warmth towards those desires of his rather than repeated examples of his phoniness, even though there's a great there's a really funny bit involving a command to Alexa and his character that yeah, I got.
01:37:35
Speaker 3: Word, I got pasted. I got past the phoniness and started to believe him the same way that ed does. And I think that's to both Edmund Donovan's credit but also to Defoe's credit, right that I started to And I don't even think it's a matter of succumbing or wanting to believe it too much, though there's that element there, without a doubt, there is that part of it because you're seeing it through that character's eyes, through Sacksburger's eyes. But it's also that it's in the performance and it's in the writing. To an extent. I saw enough conviction in him, and I think there is enough conviction inside him. There's so much truth in what he's saying.
01:38:15
Speaker 5: But the.
01:38:18
Speaker 3: Fraudulent part of him is there. There's a huckster in and you're right then at the end, the way that the way that character presents himself. Ultimately, I thought push that character too far. And you see something similar happen with the Enthusiasm Society, even in its presentation of you know, the scene where they're they're telling ed kind of who they all are in the lay of the land, and they say over there, those are the influencers. And that seemed to me like such a naive way, lack of word of presenting what I can't imagine that even in New York City there's actually a group of people who sit around and call themselves or or think of themselves as influencers, who sit around at the top of a of a bar with their phones, and they don't sit around in a group like that.
01:39:15
Speaker 1: And what it did, exactly what it did, is it reflected back on the caricature nature of the Enthusiasm Society. Is like, so, yeah, it meant to distinguish them, but it really only mirrored it. So yeah, that wasn't one of the strong points either, I think. But again I think we'd both Yeah, I think we both still recommend late Fame a lowly on the strength of the PA.
01:39:37
Speaker 3: I'll just add that what you said about Melancholy, I think is ultimately right where I was thinking. More is that there isn't that bitterness in him? There isn't that regret in him now?
01:39:48
Speaker 1: But which is interesting.
01:39:50
Speaker 3: Yes, But the more he interacts, the more he does think about who he used to be, the more he does think about the life of an artist. I think some of that melancholy, that there is more melancholy in him than he may have thought. That there is more wanting in him, there's more desire, there's more desires in him than he may have previously considered. And so I think that is what makes that character interesting. And I'm sure when you're talking about his friends and maybe a bit of caricature and how they're portrayed and some of the writing, this is what I would say about Defoe's performance. There's a scene where he interacts with them on the occasion of a birthday for one of those factors, and it gets a little bit overwrought, and I don't think that the line delivery. I don't think that the line that Defoe's character has to say is particularly believable. I think he says something like you have no idea who you're talking to, which the implication is this is a point where Ed is finally, maybe for the first time since he was a young poet in forty fifty years is feeling himself a little bit, and his feelings of frustration are believable. It's the way he expresses it via that line are not really believed and that that's all true. But still, Josh watching it, I'm giving Dafoe enough credit that he says it with enough melancholy, he says it with enough layers attached to it. It's it's subtle conviction. It's not so much force that I almost heard it more like a question than a pure admonishment. It was almost like he was while he was saying it, it was like he was trying to get a grasp on It was almost like it was revealing of himself. I have no idea who you're talking to at this point, more than he was really trying to put them in their place. So that that that told me just how in tune I was with Dafoe.
01:42:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, that That's was a key scene for me in this notion of the movie needed to simmer some more because so much happened in that scene. Whereas I loved what it wanted to do, but I needed ed to more slowly realize the things that the screenplay was asking him to realize and portray in those three minutes. Now, to your point, Defoe kind of saves the scene, right, But he's coming to realization here. Maybe I don't fit in with these guys who've been my friends for the past twenty years and my coworkers as well as I thought. And that's one of the things the screenplay wants him to realize during this one confrontation at the birthday party, when in reality, like it would have been a long time, many more scenes of this to be a developing awareness. You know, it's a movie. We only have what ninety to two hours, ninety minutes of two hours, But in a movie as thoughtful and as quiet and as patient as this, it's a bit jarring when those sorts of realizations are expected to happen quickly in one scene.
01:43:14
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think that's exactly right, and I will just give it credit. Though for me, the Miliu New York in the Fall artists all that intellectual discussion, the conflict of it being all of the quiet variety that it is. There's no major drama here. Yeah, it was for me, at least for the first forty five minutes. It was all just cat nip. This was this was such such a movie. I felt like I hadn't seen in a long time, and I was really enjoying it.
01:43:44
Speaker 1: I love that it's either I mean, I would guess it feels from the way people are moving through the city like February. You know, you've they've got their coats to be that they've been on for months and the hat is just what defoe? You know that spoiler cap like what you do now? And I love that sort of It's somehow romantic without being movie New York romance. That's it.
01:44:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would fall, but it's not. It's not fall like leaves are falling. It's not that romantic older trail. It's colder. Yeah. Late Fame is out now in limited release. We'd love to hear your thoughts about it if you've seen it feedback at Film spotting dot Net. Wanted to take a moment Josh to talk about an opportunity that Sam and I had just this past week where we got an email fairly out of the blue from a Netflix rep, someone who we've known for a while who does pr for Netflix. Actually, someone David Kuozo, who has been a longtime listener of this show who knows that I'm located in Iowa, and said, you know, the Twins and Phillies are playing. MLB has done a couple of games here at the Field of Dreams, which is in Dyersville, maybe an hour and a half from where I'm located. And they said, Twins and Phillies are playing in about a week. Would you be interested in coming to the game. And I said, well, yeah, of course I'm interested in coming to the game. I like baseball, I grew up on baseball. I love the movie Field of Dreams. I have only been to the Field of Dreams once, but it was a pretty great experience. When Sarah took me for a milestone birthday fairly recently, I said, the only thing is I gotta bring my producer. Can Sam come? And they said they said, no problem. So Sam and I are pretty excited. But Josh, we don't realize until the night before when we get our tickets that we're sitting right behind home plate. We're sitting in the second row right behind home plate, Big Way, So we had the opportunity to not only go and spend a few hours at the Field of Dreams where it's one of those movie sets where you get to get to actually just walk around the field is the movie set, and you get to sit on the benches just like they do in the movie scenes. You get to walk up to the house, you get to go to the pitcher's mound and the batter's box and do the whole thing. You get to walk into the corn and all that stuff. But then you get to walk through the corn and walk over to this new field that they've constructed just for this game, okay, and sit down in this small little stadium that only holds eight thousand people, and we get to sit there. I've never had seats that good for a Major League baseball game or any baseball game other than maybe Little league. And we got to sit there, and it was fascinating because we even had one listener, Josh, who didn't know about us going to this game but just happened to be watching the game on Netflix and sent me a note on Facebook and was like, I see you on Netflix right now. Didn't recognize Sam because he had his glasses on and a hat on, but did recognize me sitting there in the second row. It really was a great time just being able to hang out with Sam for a couple hours, sit at the ballpark, watch a great game. The Phillies kind of crushed the Twins seven to one. Schwarber hit at least two home runs? Did he hit three? I need to look back at the box score. He hit at least two home runs, including a leadoff home run right into the corn.
01:47:21
Speaker 5: Schwarmer with a shout out to the corn and line, kiss your buckets. Job.
01:47:26
Speaker 2: What a way to open the ball game.
01:47:30
Speaker 3: We had a great time. So I have to think I have to thank David Ross, Lipschultz, It at Netflix, Corey Rosen, they all made this happen for us, and it's it's an experience we'll never forget.
01:47:41
Speaker 1: I'm glad you guys got it in because I know, whether you know, as it was across the Midwest last week, weather was dicey and there was a question you might not be able to make it, So yeah, go ahead, how about that.
01:47:53
Speaker 3: We woke up that morning, as you know, we had a film spotting production meeting that morning and the forecast was so bad. Sam and I were talking about how this is going to get called off, right, Like maybe we shouldn't even drive there because it was it was rain all day and it looked like into the night too, and we got nothing. It stopped it. It stopped at like noon and never started again, and the game happened and it was beautiful. So thanks again to everyone who made that happen. And if you do want to stare at Sam and I as we watch a baseball game and occasionally eat concession food, you can do that the games available to stream on Netflix. It's very weird having to be self conscious when you watch a baseball game, knowing that your friends and family are watching the game and watching you and everything.
01:48:41
Speaker 1: Like, Sam played it right though. I like that he has a disguise for he's so famous now as Film Spotting producer, he goes out, he has to do the baseball cap and sunglasses. There you go.
01:48:52
Speaker 3: Some other business we wanted to take care of recently in the Film Spotting feed. We have really enjoyed showcasing some other shows that are part of our Inflection Network, and we have recently partnered with a show called Table Read. That is a great show. And you'll understand why as you hear a little bit about the show, and as you hear some of those shows, Josh, the show is such a good fit with film Spotting that we're actually going to be showcasing them over the next four weeks. So Film Spotting listeners every Saturday or Sunday are going to get a table Read show in the Film Spotting feed. So we thought, why don't have the guys from table Read and the show title tells you a little bit, gives you an idea what the show is like and what the content is about. We thought, why not give our listeners a little bit of a sense of what the show is, who the people are behind it, why we're featuring it in the Film Spotting feed. And that's what we're going to do now. I taped a little conversation with the three executive producers of Table Read, and we would like to bring that to you now. All right, I'm very pleased to be joined now by the executive producers of Table Read, Sean Sharma, Mark Nell, Jack Levy. Table Read a podcast that we're excited to be partnering with. Film Spotting. Listeners are going to be getting table Read in their feed here over the next few weeks. The podcast is Webby nominated, Shorty nominated, and iHeart Podcast Awards nominee Just tons of accolades that I'm sure we will touch on here as we talked to Mark, Jack and Sean, and I actually want to start with you, Sean, because I'd love to share with our audience the origin story. How did table read come about?
01:50:47
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, And we're Webby Winners, not just nominated Webby Winners. He won the Best Fiction last year, which was just amazing. But my apologies, no, no, it's an honor to be nominated and having one. But you know, the story just comes to the fact that I got involved in SAG after leadership and volunteers and back around twenty fifteen. And in twenty sixteen, I was sitting around with some of my co leaders there saying, how do we work more with our partners in filmmaking, especially the writers at the Writers Guild.
01:51:16
Speaker 3: Because there's so.
01:51:18
Speaker 5: Many great scripts that have not been brought to life. It's easy for us to bring actors together to read those scripts and then we get to enjoy that experience with each other. So we started doing table reads. It started doing them in person, especially at the American Film Institute in North Hollywood here, and we started working with the Blacklist with eventually Coverfly with the Writers Guild members, the Writers Guild Foundation, and Jack would start coming to attend some of those table reads. He was just so interested and loved what we were doing and where our brains were starting to turn on about how we can do something together with this, and we started pitching like a TV show idea we were excited about that was kind of like the Hollywood Report, a round table with all the actors sitting around in a circle and having a conversation. And then the pandemic struck and that kind of put a pin in that conversation. And then Jack was getting all kinds of offers to help the Universal and other studios kind of build their podcast departments, and he's like, why don't we do it as a podcast. So that's when he reached out to Mark and we started to taking some of our favorite scripts and bringing them into a studio with the actors sitting in a circle and a'll miked up and we would have an incredible read. We would deck out the space like we did with the in person reads, and then you know, Jack would go to town with his team to produce all the audio after the recording, with sound effects and music and all this stuff. So it sounds like you're listening to a movie. But as Jack says so brilliantly, it combines the best aspects of live performance like seeing theater or something, with the polish of a major Hollywood studio with somebody who's won an Emmy for his work. So that's kind of where it came from, just a passion for stories. And you know, the one thing I like to point out is that the table read is the one time that the writer's writing is done kind of purely without being changed, because as soon as they sell it to a studio, they're out of the mix. As soon as you get it produced and edited, it's going to be changed during production and editing. So table reads are such a gift because it's the purest expression of what that writer wrote. And we wouldn't have any of the movies or TV shows we love without the writers. So it's it started as a love letter to them and it's just become such a gift.
01:53:32
Speaker 3: Quick follow of Sean, how are the writers then typically involved in the table read taping?
01:53:37
Speaker 5: Well, when we started doing them, we just said, you know, hey, just you know, we would love to do a table read of your script or the writers Guild would just bring us a script or you know, the Blacklist would just bring us a script, and then we would just go to town. We would you know, highlight the scripts for all the actors, cast the actors. We would have table tents and food inspired by the script. So if there's lasagna in the script, we'd have lasagna at the reading. We'd deck out the room, we'd have trailers on the TV, we'd have we just went we We even had to deal with the prop house in La to have professional movie props on the table for people to get inspired by. So it became kind of like a planet Hollywood or like a rainforest cafe of the writer's vision. And they would walk in just given a time in a day and they'd be like, who are you people?
01:54:23
Speaker 6: How are you doing all of this for me?
01:54:24
Speaker 5: For a stranger, for free? And so we never asked them to do anything other than come and just be celebrated.
01:54:31
Speaker 3: Jack this show, as we heard webbe winning number one on Apple podcasts us Fiction chart. So clearly you've had a lot of success. What would you say is the secret sauce? What has contributed to the success of this show.
01:54:50
Speaker 6: It's the same thing that contributes to the success of your show. We start with great stories, great great storytelling, and that's unobstructed. It's like the most altruistic musician is all about the music. They're not about the marketing. They're not about how much they sell each record for.
01:55:04
Speaker 5: Right.
01:55:05
Speaker 6: So, you know, we are all inside the Hollywood garden and we all see amazing scripts every day. We've all been sent scripts by the studios that for some reason don't get made and you think, what happened to that brilliant piece of IP I read? So it starts with the story. But the real secret sauce is the community. You know, people who come to Los Angeles to be in film, to be in music. They love making independent films. They love going into the studio and recording records. And that's not about the business of Hollywood. That's about the creative of Hollywood. And literally, we have the finest of every trade, writers, actors, musicians, post production people, right, and we deliver the secret sauces. We deliver award winning trades. I mean literally, We've had Tony winners, Grammy winners, Emmy winners, We've had you know everyone on our show, you know, I mean Oscar multiple Oscar nominees. The only thing we don't have is the studio. So it's the very best part of Hollywood. And listen, the worst part of the movie business is the business part. People love making films, So it's the community and who shows up. And by the way, it's not just the celebrity element. You know, working professionals, writers with scores of scripts, people who've been in the writer's room but never been feed you know, the most award winning scripts that have never been made. We do those. But at the same time, you know, we've worked with anonymous content and Scooter Braun and Tom Holland. And I'll tell you something that Sean doesn't know. Just yesterday, I got a script from Paul Schrader Wow, an unproduced script written in nineteen seventy eight from the guy who wrote A Taxi Driver American Jigglow. I mean, I mean, come on, raging Bull. And you know, he wrote such a gracious letter about the show, So you.
01:56:51
Speaker 3: Know, that's fantastic. A one time, a one time guest here on Film Spotting. That was at first a very intimidating interview, and then he was kind of a teddy bear to talk to, so it was well.
01:57:01
Speaker 6: As I said, it's about community. You know, it's no different than Slash having a jam session at his house. Everyone who shows up shows up without the pretense because they love the art. Every time we do a table read, everyone Sean fills that room with It does not matter if they're just getting started or they have a shell full of statues. There's zero ego when you show up on a set, Adam, there is always ego because there's agents and who's getting paid more and why didn't my lines come in right? None of that happens, And I think that translates to the content. People have a great time, and it translates to the energy of the read we do, which translates to the thirty awards we've.
01:57:37
Speaker 5: Won absolutely quick. Little thing like we all geeked out. I've been on a show for the last eight years called The Chosen, and when Paul wrote a post about how much he loved our show, we all were just like wowed because we have so much reverence for him. So that's super cool Jack to get that.
01:57:55
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm gonna pin him on that today.
01:57:57
Speaker 6: I'm gonna send him a no, He's gonna love that tie in. I'm telling you. I mean, as you know, he's a community guy. I think most of the top people are commune. They put up with the business because they have to. It's nothing that they like.
01:58:07
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, Mark, we we have a lot of aspiring writers and current writers in our audience, So I think they're they're really going to enjoy if they're not already familiar with your show, getting familiar with your show, and I'd love to give them some starting points. So can you share with them a favorite episode of yours and also also give them some context on the first episode that we're going to drop into our feed for them. I believe it's called Suburban Night, Act one. Yeah.
01:58:38
Speaker 2: Well, I'll give you two of my favorites. And and you know it's hard. It's it's you know, I have four children and eight grandchildren, and if I had to pick a favorite, I probably could, but I couldn't say it out loud. But dream World is one of my favorites written by Senny post to Leone Uh, the lead uh in that in that one is one of the faces that you see right here on the screen, And it's just it's such a wonderful script with characters that we all loved that. We all grew up with, you know, a little bo peep and and Jack and the bean stock, but they're all twisted in a really really wonderful way and it's a it's a it's a really it's an adventure and it's it's so cool. The other one that I really love came to us through Ty Burrell's production company. It's called Peev and Franny, written by Tommy Wallack Uh and actually Tie handles the narration of that script. Fred Armison was attached to it. So Fred came in and read with us, and the amazing Kensington Tallman, who is just such an amazing actor. She and Liam Richardson read lead for that script. Both just did such a great job. So the Dreamworld and Peeb and Franny really hold a special place in my heart. Suburbanite is super fun. Jim O'Hare, Jade Taylor, Darren Tunder, Rob Fitzgerald who just did such a great job. And then two of are really our biggest supporters, Ashley Platts and Ze Golden, helped fill out that and and the short is that there's a sex demon that moves into a quiet neighborhood and Jim O'Hare plays Walter Nope, kind of the bankrupt antique salesman, and he's forced to enlist the help of Rob's character, who is a B movie horror host, to kind of save things. So that's written by Nick Banister. It is so freaking funny. It's just terrific. I think that was I think this is what the third script that Jim did with us, and problem the fourth or fifth that Darren Tunder has done with us. And that's what makes this so special is we've kind of created this community of actors who really not just enjoy doing what they do, but enjoy kind of what has been created. And you know, I will say that we created it in a sense, but they all created right their their willingness to come into this room and just enjoy themselves. One of the things that we say is that we kind of lean on the imperfection of what a table read is. So people listen, they'll hear a fourth wall break that will sometimes leave in. I think I've only taken a couple of them out. One was during a very very emotional scene Sean got the giggles.
02:01:36
Speaker 3: And I.
02:01:39
Speaker 2: Because I'm like, oh my gosh, that we can't leave that in there, but it.
02:01:43
Speaker 5: Will not let me live that down. He will not let me.
02:01:46
Speaker 2: But it really is it's you know, what has been created. You know, yes, the three of us started it, but but what has been created is this just this movement of really wonderful, talented people who want to come in and really do have such a good time in the room. And that's what kind of I think makes it a bit different than some of the other things.
02:02:12
Speaker 3: Well, we are thrilled to hopefully not just be part of a network together with you, but be part of a community with you now. And I think thank you so much for jumping on and sharing your story with us. Thank you.
02:02:26
Speaker 1: Well, thanks to Mark, Jack and Sean for giving some time there to talk about table Read. As Adam said, you will be getting some episodes the next few weeks in your Film Spotting feed. If you'd like to go ahead and subscribe to table Read, just go ahead and do that wherever you listen to podcasts. Time now for Massacre Theater, where Adam and I perform a scene and you get a chance to win a Film Spotting prize. Last time we massacred this scene.
02:02:54
Speaker 4: What's the thoughts for two thousand degrees? Make enough to turn steel into butter. We'll heard it first. It's too hot, Issy a flame, series the nerve and shut killing them. You're going to shock and oh you feel coold?
02:03:24
Speaker 1: That was Thomas Jane with Eddie Jemison in two thousand and four's The Punisher written by Jonathan Henslay and Michael France, directed by Henslay. That massacre was part of our spider Man brand New Day Show. So why that scene from the Punisher.
02:03:39
Speaker 3: Here is Pavla Masik in Toronto. This one was instantly recognizable for me, even though I have not seen this movie in nearly twenty years, and yes, I did return to it to watch the director's cut, not only because of the amazing rendition of Tom Jane's Punisher by Adam, but also because it is one of the three good scenes in the movie, the others being Harry Heck's song and the fight with the Russian. Who could forget Howard Hawks would not have liked this one. It has at least three good scenes I remember, but at least a few bad ones. But my bar for a good movie is lower than great filmmakers. Adam, you should squeeze it in. Roy Scheider is in it. I don't know if that's all dually forgot that. The obvious connection is that John Bernthall's rendition of the Punisher character appears in Spider Man Brand New Day. But where's the fun in sticking to the obvious connection? The Punisher connection itself goes a little deeper. The Punisher two thousand and four was directed by Jonathan Hensley, who also directed the late and talented Ray Stevenson as the Punisher in Lexi Alexandra's Punisher war Zone, which also had three good scenes but more than a few bad ones. Adam, maybe a double bill. Sure that sounds torturous.
02:04:46
Speaker 1: But wait, Pavla has more. The Punisher also connects to everybody to Kenmeer Street, The Punisher two thousand and four features John Travoltaz, it's main villain, who starred in Primary Colors, alongside Emma Thompson, who, of course appears in Kenmer Street. I scratched my head to connect the Punisher to the Samurai and the Prisoner, but here goes Kyoshi Kurosawa directed De Guero type am I saying that right, which I was lucky enough to catch at Tiff, starring Tahi Raheem who did appear in Madame Webb, perhaps the worst Spider Man or at least Spider Man adjacent film to date. To Hai Raheem also start.
02:05:22
Speaker 3: As a titular character in The mauritsh Maran Mauritanian.
02:05:26
Speaker 1: Mauritanian Pabo is really putting me through it here, Mauritanian co starring Benedict Cumberbatch aka Doctor Strange, who has shared the screen with Tom Holland's Webslinger, who got through all of those. Thank you Pavla for all.
02:05:42
Speaker 3: That Jackson Goldberg was able to do what Pavla wasn't in the interest of variety. I guess you could say the scene finds Punisher extracting information from a shackled hostage via unexpected means, like how Murashiga does in The Samurai and the Prisoner kinda. Also, Punisher's last name is Castle, a thing Japan had in abundance back then. I know I'm reaching here, alas I don't think they had popsickles in Feudal Japan.
02:06:10
Speaker 1: We also heard from Eric Jensen in New Jersey Winning Life as a viewer of Thomas James the Punisher, obviously related Spider Man brand New Day as both feature actors named Tom, the titular superhero suffering from the loss of those closest Today. There's also the clear tying of Punishers roommates being played by actors Rebecca Roman Mystique and Ben Foster Angel, who may or may not play a role in characters introduced in future MCU movies. If it's not one of those two reasons, I'm not sure why you choose the Punisher, unless you wanted more people to beware of John Travolta's historic early two thousands run that included Battlefield Earth Sword Swordfish Yikes, and film Spotting's first ever review be Cool. Lastly, Adam, you nailed the coolness. Nailed it, Thomas Jane oozed in nineties two thousands.
02:07:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, wow, Oozed. It sounds like an infection. Jeremiah Conway says, I would like to note that the reason I am not a winner is not because I've seen the film I haven't, but because I recognized the scene from its comic book inspiration Punisher war Zone number one. God help me. I'm a forty eight year old man with a teenage son and who teaches high school and am therefore trusted with the safety and well being of about one hundred kids a day, and yet I remembered that scene instantly. The joke is that he's holding a popsicle to the guy's back and blow torching a hunk of meat or something. This is why I'm not a winner.
02:07:34
Speaker 1: Do't be so hard on yourself, Jeremiah. A final comment from Josh Stolberg. Adam and Josh's performances hurt my ears more than being tortured by Frank Castle and the Punisher, which is where the scene comes from. And while most will claim the connection is Frank Castle appearing in Brand New Day, I'm certain they picked the Punisher because Brand New Day was shot almost entirely in Glasgow, and everybody to come your street focuses on Glasgow's Pollock shields protest deep pull there, Josh, how about that very It was all rage when we first arrived in Scotland because I think they wrapped up possibly last summer. Yeah, Glasgow doubling for New York City.
02:08:15
Speaker 3: All right, thank you everybody for all the deep cuts there, all the great feedback on mass theater, even though there seems to be some disagreement about the spectacularness of my performance, Josh, reach into the film Spotting hat and pick out this week's winner.
02:08:31
Speaker 1: Our winner is a familiar name family member, Julio Olivera from Austin, Texas.
02:08:36
Speaker 3: I don't think Julio has won before, which seems crazy. Congratulations Julio. I know you don't need the trial membership to the film Spotting family. Maybe you need a new film Spotting t shirt or a tote bag. Email feedback at film spotting dot net and we will hook.
02:08:50
Speaker 4: You up with the toys symbol. Would the detours?
02:08:57
Speaker 3: Would they simple?
02:08:58
Speaker 1: Would the de tours?
02:09:00
Speaker 3: Samet? Why do you say that?
02:09:01
Speaker 1: Why do you say tour?
02:09:02
Speaker 3: Will you said? Say it?
02:09:03
Speaker 5: Like I said?
02:09:06
Speaker 3: We move on now to this terrible accent edition of Massacre Theater. We have definitely done this film before. I can't believe we have never done this scene before. I am positive, I'm I'm almost positive. We've played this scene as of a top five and I think a lot of people are going to get it, whether they have seen this movie or not. So I'm happy with this choice.
02:09:27
Speaker 1: Do you remember did this movie take a lot of heat for the accents in it? I don't remember when it came out. I remember it being widely beloved.
02:09:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know enough people saw it to get mad about it.
02:09:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess it. It wasn't initially a hit, but I feel like it grew and people do love this movie. We're both fans. But I gotta say, in my deep research, which involved watching the scene just now, I don't know how they weren't made fun of for these accents. Well, I mean, I don't think you and I have to do a lot of hamming it up here. We just gotta play what we saw.
02:10:02
Speaker 3: There's some heritage there at least with one of the actors for sure, so they can get away with it, can't.
02:10:08
Speaker 1: That doesn't get away with it. It doesn't always mean it's good.
02:10:11
Speaker 3: That is true. We'll see what we can get away with or if we'll set back diplomatic relations one hundred years. I started off, you're gonna give me the action? How do I get into character here? I don't know I'm playing the serious scold. I don't know I'll ever do it.
02:10:29
Speaker 1: Yep, thank You'll be all right?
02:10:31
Speaker 3: Okay, here we goin faction. Please just come on. I want to know for who just make the side order spaghetti? Please, I want to know for who is it the four for the lady with the risotto? What why she likes starch?
02:10:50
Speaker 4: I don't know.
02:10:51
Speaker 3: Come on, I'll make it myself.
02:10:55
Speaker 6: Dah, who are.
02:10:56
Speaker 1: These the people in America? I needed to talk to her?
02:11:00
Speaker 3: Oh? Please, what's you going to do? Tell the customer what she can Eatah, that's what she wants. This is what the customer asked for. Naked, make it the pasta? Naked, make it, make it the pasta. Come on, let's go and and the scene.
02:11:19
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what did set back diplomatic relations? The sargers we both chose to use. You have to unplanned, you have to and probably deeply inappropriate.
02:11:29
Speaker 3: You can't do the scene without Wow. Okay, I know what filmed. We just massacred email the movies title, your name, and your location. Send him to feedback at filmspotting dot net. The deadline is Monday, huks thirty first. We will select the winner randomly from all the correct entries and announce it in a couple of weeks. I feel like I might order risotto and spaghetti.
02:11:52
Speaker 1: M sure, I'm always a good choice.
02:11:55
Speaker 3: That's the show, Josh, Yeah, I think.
02:11:57
Speaker 1: We need to get out of here, find Adam in the show on Instagram, Facebook and letterboxed, YouTube, Blue Sky, as well at film spotting I'm at those places Larsen on film We are independently produced and listeners supported. You can support the show by joining the film Spotting Family at film spottingfamily dot com. You can listen early in ad free. You'll get monthly bonus episodes, a weekly newsletter, and access to the entire show. For show t shirts another merch go to filmspotting dot net slash shop.
02:12:26
Speaker 3: Next week in the film Spotting Feed, the Movie Racket with Michael Phillips will be examining this question about scoring music, Michael's beloved topic, how much is how much is too much? It's going to be a fun show. Tuesday, Film Spotting SVU. They're looking at the high school theater dramedy. Don't say good luck. It's got Sonny Sandler, Melanie Lynsky, Steve Buscemi, Julia Hart, who made Fast Color and I'm Your Woman directs. Sam van Holgren has seen it. He says, good movie, exclamation point. Put it on the poster, he says, especially for musical theater families. And he would know.
02:13:04
Speaker 1: I was just going to ask surely. I mean, they should have given Sam early access to this one. It's sick at his all.
02:13:10
Speaker 3: Thursday, The Next Picture Show has a new pairing clearly similar mindset to me with the End of Oak Street and so many others, David Robert Mitchell's The End of Oak Street and Steve Spielberg's.
02:13:21
Speaker 1: The War of the World. Back to Spielberg for them and War of the Worlds, I'm gonna say I've got, as you know, second tier Spielberg maybe third. Yeah, it's a good one.
02:13:34
Speaker 3: It's a really good down for me.
02:13:37
Speaker 1: And it's definitely it's better than the End of Oak Street. I'll say that.
02:13:41
Speaker 3: Okay, we disagree, but we'll save that for another time. Friday on Film Spotting, I'm putting an asterisk here because as of this taping we don't have it scheduled, but it is penciled in. We are hoping to do our top five needle Drops with Rico Galiano from the Movie Podcast. They just concluded taping and have put out their series about the best needle drops in movie history, so we thought we'd have him on and explore that topic with him.
02:14:10
Speaker 1: All right, hope that works out. Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe to So and Sam Van Hoggren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go. Our production assistant is Sophie Kempenar. Special thanks to everyone at wb EAZ Chicago. More information is available at wbez dot org. For film Spotty, I'm Josh.
02:14:28
Speaker 3: Larson and I met him Kempinar. Thanks for listening.
02:14:30
Speaker 4: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore but burn