The Shrouds with Violet Lucca, Revenge of the Sith at 20, Madness Champ, Vulcanizadora

00:00:03
Speaker 1: What kind of a show you guys putting.

00:00:05
Speaker 2: On here today?

00:00:06
Speaker 3: You're not interested in art?

00:00:07
Speaker 4: Now?

00:00:08
Speaker 3: No, look, we're going to do this thing.

00:00:09
Speaker 5: We're going to have a.

00:00:10
Speaker 3: Conversation from Chicago. This is Film Spotty celebrating our twentieth year. I'm Josh Larson and.

00:00:17
Speaker 6: I'm Adam Kempinar.

00:00:20
Speaker 7: When they lowered my wife into the coffin, I had an intense s urge to get into the bugs with her.

00:00:26
Speaker 3: We never considered cremation.

00:00:28
Speaker 6: How dark are you.

00:00:29
Speaker 3: Willing to go? Well, there's dark and then there's David Cronenberg Dark, which is pretty dark.

00:00:36
Speaker 2: That's from the Shrouds, the director's latest which puts cameras right in the grave. Our review, plus how about the dark Side? We revisit Star Wars episode three, Revenge of the Sith, which turned twenty and was just back in theaters, and we crown a Film Spotting Madness Champion. It's all had a new Cronenberg and Darth Vader. That's a lot of heavy breathing tershow.

00:00:59
Speaker 3: On Film Spotty.

00:01:04
Speaker 2: Welcome to Film Spotting. It's official, Josh, we have a winner sixty four films Film Spotting Madness Best of the twenty first century so far down to one. Later in the show, we will have results from the final pairing which pitted PTA's There Will Be Blood against David Lynch's Mulholland Drive. Will also announce the winner of the film Spotting Madness Bracket contest. Spoilers It was not you and it was not me.

00:01:33
Speaker 3: Oh well, I see no need to talk about it further. Then let's just move along at them.

00:01:39
Speaker 2: Also later my conversation with film writer Violet Luca about her new book David cronenberg Clinical Trials, and some thoughts about the director's latest The Shrouds, currently out in limited release. You also caught up with the latest from a former Golden Brick nominated director, Joel Petreikis.

00:01:56
Speaker 3: But first Star Wars episode three, Revenge of the Sith, is back in theaters for its twentieth anniversary. This was the concluding chapter of George Lucas's prequel trilogy, the top grossing film of two thousand and five when it made over three hundred and eighty million dollars. Critically, it was also the best received of the prequels. It got a respectable seventy nine percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. That's compared to sixty one percent fresh for episode two and fifty four percent for episode one. All of those for the record, way too low to.

00:02:30
Speaker 2: My I was just going to say, I'm shocked they're both that high.

00:02:34
Speaker 3: I did my best, Adam, I did my best.

00:02:37
Speaker 2: Alas you are one man one critic one ranking on Rotten Tomatoes.

00:02:43
Speaker 3: I don't know. Did episode one suffer from unrealistically high expectations? Did episode three benefit from unfairly low expectations? Maybe we can get into that a bit, but first, let's play some of the trailer to get everyone caught back up on how Anakin became Darth Vader.

00:03:00
Speaker 5: Every single Jedi is now an enemy of the Republic.

00:03:08
Speaker 6: Do what must be done, Do not hesitate, show no mercy. Who could have done this?

00:03:20
Speaker 3: Twisted by the dark Side, Young Skywalker and be competition. I feel so helpless going back in the time machine, Adam. This tale of Jedi Night Anakin Skywalker's conversion to the Dark Side came to theaters in May two thousand and five, which was just a couple of months after the launch of film Spotting You and then co host Sam Van haggrean now producer, reviewed the film on episode fourteen, so about a thousand shows ago that would be. And I don't know if you had a chance to look back at your notes, but I have some notes here from producer Sam A little sonsis of that two thousand and five review. Apparently, the film's first twenty or so minutes, the first twenty minutes of Sith, which is this prolonged rescue mission featuring Hayden Christensen's Anakin and Ewan McGregor's Obi Wan, didn't sit well with you. You called it horrendous and abysmal, but at some point things got better for you. The fact is you said I loved this film. It sounds like you connected with the stories Shakespearean tragedy. You also described having a nostalgic, kid like reaction to the movie, one that you hadn't in some time. You experienced that tingle that you had watching the original Star Wars chick Out and Good the Empire strikes Back. Basically, according to that five review, syth reinvigorated the franchise for you. And here's the real whopper, this one I was aware of. Speaking of fresh re ratings, Adam kempenar five stars for Revenge of the Sith so you did take the time to rewatch Revenge of the Sith on this occasion of its twentieth anniversary the first time in twenty years as well, I believe. So how are those stars looking now, Adam?

00:05:22
Speaker 2: You should probably just ignore everything I'm about to say. I just need to commit to the bit right and give it. I don't know, ten stars, fifteen stars.

00:05:29
Speaker 3: I mean you could, that'd be fun.

00:05:32
Speaker 2: I will say thank you to now producer Sam for pulling together that recap, because I definitely didn't listen to episode fourteen, nor could I dig up my notes.

00:05:43
Speaker 6: Two thousand and five.

00:05:44
Speaker 2: Adam was a little excitable, maybe, Josh a little over eager and hyperbolic, maybe, but he wasn't wrong about the movie as a whole or those specific points that opening rescue mission I'll horrendous and abysmal, though side note twenty twenty five Adam would know better than to use two adjectives when one suffices. I don't like the whole quippy, lethal, weapony buddy comedy vibe between Obi Wan and Anakin and Noah doesn't remind me of Han and Luke or the overly chaotic and flimsy CGI spectacle of that opening, both of which lower the stakes significantly, And I get it. This movie isn't otherwise very light and fun. It could be called Revenge of the Stakes. It's so loaded with dramatic conflict and tragic irony, so having an opening that's a little lighter but also intended to establish the rapport and the genuine bond between those two and in the process heightening their tragic arc at the end. It makes sense, but it's not clever or visually thrilling, you know what, though things do get better. Anakin's story is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, and I did still have that nostalgic, kid like reaction to it, something I felt maybe during the opening scroll and trumpet blast of the Phantom Menace, and then proceeded not to feel again until Revenge of the Sith. Is it a great Star Wars movie. It's certainly the greatest prequel, And I'm not damning it with faint praise when I say that, because Episode one and Episode two for me were so unsatisfying that it's a testament to the magnitude of Lucas's achievement with episode.

00:07:32
Speaker 6: Three that it sticks.

00:07:33
Speaker 2: The landing as effectively as it does, both in terms of the film's actual ending and ultimately delivering on the pardon me new hope we all felt when the prequels were originally announced. Anakin, I'm guessing Josh would be a little put out and petulant to hear that I'm not planning to reissue the movie five stars? But am I giving it four stars? And probably four and a half? Search your feelings, Josh? What do they tell you? And I know I'm the only one who rewatched it for this occasion. This was Sam's idea. Let me see if I have his words right to see if I'd walk back my reaction from twenty years ago. I guess I'm not really. But according to letterbox, you rewatched this movie in twenty fifteen. You watched it again in twenty eighteen. Both times you gave it four stars. So we're not going to be duking this out with our lightsabers. You agree this is a good movie.

00:08:27
Speaker 3: I agree a lot on a lot of this. I agree it's the best of the prequels, though notoriously I am a fan of all three prequels. I think we're in alignment with what about what makes this one particularly good. When I think back on this trilogy, this particular trilogy, if there's something that's lacking for me, and you've touched on it with that opening. Though I do like the opening, I remember the gravity of them flying through that corroscant city scape, feeling that a little bit more, and maybe the effects just don't hold up for that, but I will admit it, it's not the sort of set piece that both Attack of the Clones and to me, Phantom Menace those offered us incredible star wars sustained special effects, action driven, yet narratively rooted set pieces. The pod race will forever be the one I think of from Phantom Menace, and I don't recall getting a lot of that in Revenge of the Sith. There is the fight, obi Wan's fight with General Grievous. Grievous one of the great prequel creations in terms of characters, and I remember that being kind of fun. But yeah, otherwise, this is a movie that sets those things aside to really simmer and root in this dynamic between Obi Wan and Anakin. But more importantly, you know just the depth it took to get to a character like Darth Vader, and I think it learns that. I think this works as and I think the reason most people regard it as the best of the prequels, which I do, is that it is a work of closure for those prequels, but also a work of sustenance from the entire franchise, the way it connects with everything that came before Slash Later. It's doing so with a richness, with a brooding quality that makes it works as this Kapper and this bridge. So so yeah, I did take a look at the original trailer, you know, just to refresh my memory a little bit, and I would be curious. Here's a question I have for you. Here's the things that were going through my mind I would have been looking for if I'd had the time to rewatch it. You touched on the effects a little bit. I was curious how those looked, maybe particularly the climactic lightsaber duel on the lava planet. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about how the effects look and then, which isn't always you know, you can't damn a movie for the time it was made. Just more curious, but also the performances, because you know, Christensen and Natalie Portman both incredible and talented actors we know in other works, not the strongest elements of the prequels, which has much more to do with the scriptwrite writing and the dialogue, but it is connected to what we both appreciated is the fall of Anakin. And so yeah, say a little bit more about what this looks like and what those two maybe sound like.

00:11:31
Speaker 2: Well, I really like that you use that term brooding because it references the film as a whole and how dark it ultimately gets. But that's matching, of course the arc of Anakin's character. And I do think for as wobbly maybe as Christensen is early on and is with how we handle some of that dialogue. But again, most actors are going to struggle with some of this dialogue.

00:11:57
Speaker 6: Samuel L.

00:11:58
Speaker 2: Jackson, Josh has never had an untrue moment on screen in his career otherwise, and there are about five lines in this movie where I just can't believe what's coming out of his mouth. I mean, I literally can't believe it. And I also can't believe that that Samuel L. Jackson the actor can't make it work, even he is incapable with his tremendous skill to make those moments.

00:12:20
Speaker 6: What they need to be.

00:12:22
Speaker 2: But the darker this movie gets, the more brooding. Frankly, and this here again isn't fae praise. The less he has to talk, the more he just has to emote, the better Hayden Christensen is.

00:12:33
Speaker 6: And I think that is.

00:12:34
Speaker 2: Partly why I am invested in that character.

00:12:38
Speaker 6: I don't want to hear any more about Obi Wan the Jedi turned against me. Don't you turn against me?

00:12:47
Speaker 8: I don't know you anymore.

00:12:51
Speaker 5: Henny, You're breaking my heart.

00:12:56
Speaker 7: You're going down a pup I can't follow.

00:12:59
Speaker 2: I think padme the character is still a little bit too much of a porcelain doll here, but there is real conflict in her, and there is real pressure that she unknowingly and unintentionally puts on him that helps lead to all of that conflict within him. So their relationship and their love story, it is an element that works with this movie and here again, aside from some awkward moments here and there, I think Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan Kenobi is effective too. And how about Ian McDermott. He gets his entire section in my notes, the fun, the sheer joy that he is having, the gravitas that he brings to it while also bringing that sense of humor to this character. I think is a wonder the way Josh he turns his head at one point so deliberately and slowly when he as I think, in that booth they're watching that crazy bubble show, whatever that thing is.

00:14:06
Speaker 6: Yeah, and he says.

00:14:08
Speaker 5: Dark Plaguers, it's a dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise, he could use the force to influence the Midi Chlorians to create.

00:14:23
Speaker 6: Life, to create life.

00:14:26
Speaker 2: And he turns his head and it takes him like five minutes just to turn to the left.

00:14:32
Speaker 6: It's it's so good.

00:14:33
Speaker 2: But then when he has to really dig deep and we get that gravelly voice a character as he becomes the Emperor who reminded me of And I googled this and I couldn't find anything, So maybe it's just not there. But I wondered if Lucas was intentionally channeling Friedkin in The Exorcist because of the eyes, the way the eyes change the faces of both Anakin and Palpatine, and that voice, the Mercedes McCambridge like voice that he takes on, that makes that character really more terrifying. But I'll use the word again, but at the same time very fun. So he's he's at the top of the list for sure when it comes to performances as means gone.

00:15:22
Speaker 4: And all.

00:15:25
Speaker 5: But my.

00:15:34
Speaker 3: McDermand cracked the code. He's cracked the Lucas code in terms of performer whatever that alchemy is. And and I think Alecanness has this too managed it as well. Maybe it's just you know, a UK actor.

00:15:48
Speaker 2: Msality to his ob one, but.

00:15:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, less theatricality, but a playfulness that is not undercutting or making fun of the material, right and think of how delicate of a lie that is to dance on where in this film, in particular, if mcderman pushes it, it's almost like a half second more for that head turn, and he would have pushed it into making fun of the moment right and now. And some people may still appreciate it as camp. It's a little bit in the interpretation there, but I think overall that's the key to the performance is he believes what he's saying while still having fun with it and not making fun of it. And if you're able to do that, you can give a good performance in a Star Wars movie. Otherwise, what mostly happens is it's quite clear you don't believe it at.

00:16:39
Speaker 2: All, and he has to be a puppet master on such a scale that he has to bring that type of theatricality I think, to that character and that sense of charisma, even ultimately in addition to that gravitas that will wait that he brings. You mentioned or ask me about the effects, and I certainly don't think that the effects are something twenty years later that are helping the film. But when you look at the end, I'm caught up enough in the story and what is playing out in the drama between Obi Wan and Anakin, knowing also what's happening with Padme. I'm thinking about the larger story that you referenced of Star Wars itself, this entire Star Wars universe, and how all of this is going to play into it. That those effects didn't deter me or didn't distract me in any way, And in fact, I want to say there is some really inspired filmmaking throughout and including in that end sequence, in particular, Josh, the moment when Padme lands and Anakin sees her ship and starts running towards her. That's a great visual with the lava kind of shooting up in the landscape behind him. Is he starts running towards her and you get the entire scope of the surroundings and his sense of urgency. How about when Yoda is fighting with Dooku and the whole thing is is waning and his cape falls to the ground, and is that's descending? We cut to a shot of obi Wan as he's actually descending. It's it's a match cut. The music that peaks the way it does that Williams score peaking as the lightsabers hit and the first bit of that clash between obi Wan and I'm going to go back to the end sequence here between obi Wan and Anakin with the lava splashing right in perfect sync with him. That is pure spectacle. That is cinema, Josh.

00:18:54
Speaker 3: And that all speaks to a level of care that we don't always get in major franchise installments, especially this far in And it's connected to my defense of the prequels as a whole, which I've talked about on the show as being examples of a tourist cinema. Now it's popcorn auturism. It's James Cameron Avatar type auturism. But you need someone at the creative helm, like Lucas here still, who has this much investment in these worlds that he's imagined and gathered these massive teams of imagineers to bring it to life alongside him. To put the time and effort and energy and imagination into little details like that, then you get these things that make like the Yoda Douku sparring just have a little more spark and individuality and uniqueness to it. That is I'm glad you brought that one up, because that is an action sequence that I think I would point to as a standout from the prequel series. Is that showdown between them. If I remember right ce in the theater, it was seeing Yoda in action there brought a cheer from the crowd, right sure, partly because of you know, attachment to the character of Yoda, but also the thrill of the filmmaking that you're speaking to. That's that's how you get to connect with an audience on that level. And again, it takes that sort of care, that sort of auturist investment in the story you're telling. It's not just propping it up because you signed on for three of these that sort of thing.

00:20:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, more examples of that when we have both Padme and Anakin, the cross cutting between them going to medical getting care at the same time care, if that's what you can call what Anakin is getting at the end, the mask descending the Vader mask descending so great then the way Lucas cross cuts between their breathing. Their breathing is in sync with each other as well as hers is dissipating as his is getting even heavier that choir singing. Then as Vader now us sends and we have him fully formed, is that undercut a little bit by the meme moment? And I understand why it is when he yells no, we don't need the know. I wish we didn't get the know, because everything about the physicality of Christiansen or whoever is inside the suit at that moment, and the way that moment has given us that closure, in this case, a very tragic closure, but the way that all culminates. Josh, we don't need the know. I think I feel all that pain sufficiently. It's still a wonderful visual and oral moment with the music. I also love the way as he takes his first steps, something I never really paid attention to before. The way he walks like we're used to seeing a Frankenstein's monster, And yes, that probably has something to do with the fact that he is feeling out this new body, this new mechanical body, and he has just been horribly injured. But I also think Lucas is very intentionally referencing that, and we should be thinking about that, because that's.

00:22:15
Speaker 6: Really what he is.

00:22:17
Speaker 2: This whole movie is the process of Palpatine creating this figure, creating the apprentice that he wants, making him in his mold, to his vision. So that invocation of Frankenstein really worked for me there. How about Josh the politics everybody loved, including me, taking shots at Lucas for how burdened the prequels were, with bureaucracy and boring talk of what was it? Trade routes between Star systems justified perhaps, but do we now, oh, in twenty twenty five, do we now owe Lucas amea copa for his political pressience an acute understanding of tyranny. Frankly, I'm shocked I didn't hear the word tariffs like seventeen times in this screenplay. But what I did hear is he didn't inform the Jedi Council. Anakin says that's unusual, isn't it? And Obi Wan says, all of this is unusual, and it's making me feel uneasy. How many times have we said almost exactly those words, those phrases minus Jedi council over the past eight or nine years. I mean that's just the beginning.

00:23:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's I'm thinking back to the last time I logged this and looking at it here in letterbox. All I wrote this was twenty eighteen, so you can recall where we were. If Putin is Darth Sidius, then Trump is Dooku. And someone recently commented, I forget, I just got to comment on this, something like if only like it's it's gotten way worse right that. But yes, this worked obviously as a political allegory when it came out. These are concerns that were in the first three films as well. But yeah, I imagine seeing it again in twenty twenty five, so much of this would pop out at you.

00:24:15
Speaker 2: Maybe I don't need to underline it, but I am going to provide a few more examples of Josh that really resonated with me on this viewing, and certainly wouldn't have had the impact that they did now back in two thousand and five. Obi Wan says, the Senate is expected to vote more executive powers to the Chancellor today, and Anakin says, well, that can only mean less deliberating and more action. We hear phrases like that quite a bit, Anakin me, a master, I'm overwhelmed. But the Council elects its own members. They will never accept this, Palvatine.

00:24:44
Speaker 6: I think they will. You know, old.

00:24:47
Speaker 2: Traditions, the rules, the constitution irrelevant. Padme, what if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy? And finally, Palpatine an empire that will continue to be ruled by this August body and a sovereign ruler chosen for life, gasp, an empire ruled by the majority, ruled by a new constitution. And Padney says, so this is how liberty dies with thunderous applause. Yeah, Larcas, Now you don't know, maybe you shouldn't, but it is the filmmaking fun here. It is the fun that Ian McDermott is having. It is the development of those stakes. I have to give Lucas. Again we deride him for some of his plotting for his screenplay in terms of the dialogue, but from a storytelling standpoint with this film, I really like what you said in terms of it being a work of closure, that it earns what it has to by the end of this film, and it's sustaining the franchise because right from the beginning the way this idea of deception is oven end to the story and being something that is just subtly eating away at Anakin and adding to this trauma. This is still just this boy who hasn't gotten over being taken from his family, losing his mother. That's very clear from this film, and is resentful and is full of anger, and he and Haad Me are keeping secrets from people. And then you've got Palpatine asking him to keep secrets, and you've got the Jedi Council asking him to keep secrets. And when you talk about it being on the level of Shakespeare or Greek tragedies, that's because you've got a figure who is saying things like I will not let this one, this death, I will not let this dream, this premonition he's referring to become a reality he says and does other things that reflect what is driving him is this need to protect the woman he loves, and everything he does in order to do that only causes her pain and brings about her downfall and the end of their relationship. So that is the tragic irony. That is the definition of tragic irony, Josh, that he's doing everything he can for one good reason and ultimately only causing harm. Then you add in the premonitions, of course, that he's being plagued by that mistrust idea that keeps coming up over and over again, the Jedi Council not trusting him, and even Obi Wan Kenobi's conflicted everybody in this film, even Padney, and one of the things I liked about her said, I think that character still could have used a little bit more depth, but to tie back to this idea of the political prescience. One of the lines that really stood out this time is when Obi Wan says to Anakin near the end that only Sith lords talking absolutes. I was at that point before he said that line, Josh, I was thinking about ideologues, and I was thinking about what makes them so dangerous and scary, of course, is their absolute certainty, and then he says that, But Padme is kind of the only character you could argue, even thinking about the Jedi who truly doesn't fall victim to dealing in absolutes, because she's someone who has seen the truth, knows in her heart what the man she loves has become, knows what he has done and is capable of, and yet says, I know there is still good in him. Yea, she believes fundamentally, and she's right, there is. We know there is. We know at the end, even when he's become Vader, and certainly part of that may be informed by having seen the films that came that came after Slash before, but we know there is good in him. She's the only one who sees that. Obi Wan doesn't see that, Yoda doesn't see that. They just know that he has to be stopped.

00:28:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, the seeds for all of this have been so richly planted in the first three films, and return to the Jedi particular, you know that climactic the choices made there to not just have Luke chop off Vader's head, but instead to give all of that time to Luke's attempt to at least recognize him as something other than Darth Vader. You know, without those scenes in Jedi, none of this would work as well as it does. But that doesn't mean that this movie is just leeching off those It's enriching those scenes and feeding back. It's a loop, feeding back into their richness too. And you know, in this world of reheats and sequels and prequels and all this stuff, it's rare we get that sort of reciprocity of the films. So I think that is one of the achievements of Revenge of the Sith. I'm going to need a final verdict, though, Adam. I want to know since this was a star driven idea where you're ultimately going to land lower than those five stars, because I have always, in my heart chuckled at the notion that you have on the record a higher rated review of a Star Wars prequel than I do, and so about that, I'm hoping you at least stick to four and a half so that still will hold true.

00:30:18
Speaker 2: You know what, I'm going to do it, and that's as good a reason as any. I'm definitely going to give a four and a half. You're right, you the lover of the Star Wars prequels has not gone higher than four stars on any of those three films, four out of five on letterbox. So I'm going to go four and a half. And here's the reason why I'm bestowing all this praise on the film. What is keeping me from just fully leaning in fully committing to the five stars, Besides a few things I'm referenced here and there, including how hard it is to watch Samuel L. Jackson be not good on screen, some of the effects the opening the mace window Palplatine fight scene I think is particularly egregious in that regard the grievous Obi one scene. I agree with you, Josh, that fight scene is a little bit better, though I was still watching it thinking, why am I watching Obi Wan writing a gigantic lizard, you know, especially early on, even pre fight. He's supposed to be like hiding, He's supposed to be secretive and being clandestine, and he's he's thumping around on this giant lizard, And I was just thinking, we've come such a long way from those tontons I loved as a kid. But in that moment, as I was writing that down in my notes, I then interrogated that thought a little bit more and the conclusion I came to because why was it? What was it about the Tontons that I liked better besides them feeling far more tactile, Yes, and overall liking that that sequence more. And I think, here it is. And I know this could open up a larger conversation about the prequels that neither of us want to have right now. But I think at its core for me is the idea that Okay, yes, maybe these movies always were intended for and our movies quote unquote four kids, and that involves these types of creatures and that type of fun with those creatures. But I thought back to when I was a kid, and I didn't fall in love with Star Wars because I fell in love with the creatures. I fell in love with the mythology. And it was how those creatures served that mythology and served that larger narrative. And it's only when the creatures start to feel like the point and they override the mythology that then some of us recoil a little bit at these films. And that's one of those moments watching him prance around, thump around on this really fake looking pseudo dinosaur that I start to tune out.

00:32:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, it might have been better if they'd given him one of those those wheel vehicles that Grievous is driving and just just let it, you know, duke it out, wheel the wheel.

00:32:56
Speaker 6: Yeah.

00:32:57
Speaker 2: And as much as we both that the movie earns those final moments, it sets up the entire franchise and everything that we know is going to follow narratively, I am going to admit to struggling a little bit Josh on this viewing. I don't think I did back in two thousand and five, but I'm not sure struggling a little bit with the idea because maybe I saw so much good still an Anakin, or maybe I just didn't want to accept it. I was seeing him through the eyes of the woman who loves him. Here, it's a little bit too much of a shock when he kills all the young links.

00:33:34
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.

00:33:35
Speaker 2: That transformation feels awfully abrupt, especially when you think about what is driving all of his actions. It's trying to protect padme, it's trying to protect his family, his child eventually, and the fact that we don't get any beats at all where he seems to be wrestling with that decision. I'm not sure why. I think the argument would be we needed some of the characters in the film needed to know that he was capable of something on that scale of evil, to know that he had truly crossed over to the dark side. That would be the case for it. But watching the film this time, I felt as if, I'm not sure why it was truly there. I didn't accept that it was there, and I think it actually undercut the narrative more than served it.

00:34:23
Speaker 3: I think that's, you know, a case of unimaginative screenwriting, because the question is, how do we show how bad he's gone? Well, of course you have him do this heinous act that everyone would recoil from, when you probably could have found a character choice that was less dramatic. But because we know him, maybe it involves Obi Wan, maybe it involves Padme. You know, the choke, the force choking scene of her is obviously not on the same moral level as killing the young Jedi, but because of their relationship and our investment in those characters, it's somehow feels like more of a step into a darker version of himself than killing the kittens. You know, so I guess. Yeah, that's the distinction I'm talking about where it's like, it does feel like a little bit of lazy script writing, is let's just think of something terrible and have him do it, but it kind of sticks out.

00:35:17
Speaker 2: Well, then it sticks out also because it is so morally repugnant, it is so heinous that the reaction to it almost feels like it doesn't match it.

00:35:28
Speaker 6: None of the characters.

00:35:29
Speaker 3: React on what type of things as well?

00:35:32
Speaker 6: Right?

00:35:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, that said four and a half and I feel great about it. Josh, I'm really glad I got a chance to revisit Star Wars episode three, Revenge of the Sith, was just back in theaters in wide release. If you missed it, well you can see it for the first time maybe or rewatch it.

00:35:51
Speaker 6: It's available vod.

00:35:52
Speaker 2: If you do an agree or disagree with our takes, you can email us feedback at filmspotting dot net. Josh, you cut up with vulcan Esidora from director Joel Patrichas. That's out in limited release, maybe a movie not quite on the same scale or budget a Star Wars, little less social effects. Petrichas should be known to our longtime listeners. He made Buzzard, which was a Golden Brick nominee back in twenty fifteen. All I know about this film is what's in front of me. Here, two friends take a trip through a Michigan forest intent on carrying out a disturbing pact. I want to see it because I did like Buzzard a lot. I like Joel Patrichas as a filmmaker. Can you urge me to see it? Having caught up with it.

00:36:36
Speaker 3: Josh, I strongly urge you. And it's funny. I just had a chance before we jumped on recording to sit down and write out, you know, the rough sketch of a review, and a lot of times that's when I find out how much I liked a movie. Obviously, nine to nine percent of the cases, you come out of a movie and you're like, yeah, yeah, liked it, or it didn't work. But I don't always know until I get my thoughts together. And this is very, very strong and deeply disturbing. As you might expect. Having seen Buzzard, it made me think, you know, these characters, these two guys. I should note it doesn't matter, you don't have to have seen Buzzard, but this actually picks up the main character in Buzzard, Marty Jakatanski played by Joshua Burge, ten years later about you know and so, and he's the other guy is Patrychis playing Derek, Marty's friend who briefly shows up in Buzzard. So again, you don't need to know that. I didn't realize it. Honestly, my memory of Buzzard had faded to the point where it wasn't until I saw the character's names, like in the credits that I was like, wait a minute, these are the two. I bet this is the same guy, essentially in the case of Marty. So if you remember in that movie, he's this mangy, anti social outcast, basically getting through life by running these petty scams that he's incredibly aggressive about. Just someone like you don't want to be near for any reason, for any length of time. And this is multiplied in Volcanesadora. On this camping trip, I would say for the first twenty minutes it plays more as pure comedy because Derek, the Patrychis character, does more of the talking. Marty is almost silent, and Derek is just this We see him as this incompetent, self deluded motormouth. He's over geared for this trip, whereas like Marty hasn't brought a thing, but Derek's got all the equipment hanging off of him, yet he can't light a campfire. He just keeps, but he keeps encouraging himself. He's like, Oh, that's gonna burn, that's gonna light, And then of course it doesn't. And we get a lot of this stuff of these guys acting like immature adolescent boys in the woods with fireworks. Again, you don't want to be anywhere near them. But we also understand early on, and it's not exactly defined, that they're on this trip because they've made a pact of some sort. There's a point to this trip, and we increasingly get the sense that there's a darkness to the pact. We don't know what it is, but it's not good.

00:39:28
Speaker 2: You still owe me money for what I paid your bail that was seven hundred bucks and said you'd pay me back, and if you don't go to your court, thing, I'm not going to get that back.

00:39:38
Speaker 6: Well I'm not going to court.

00:39:42
Speaker 1: Well, then you owe me money, man, you don't get it.

00:39:46
Speaker 6: The money doesn't matter anymore. The Jagger Grail doesn't matter anymore. Nothing matters anymore.

00:39:54
Speaker 3: I know that.

00:39:58
Speaker 6: Still seven hundred book.

00:40:00
Speaker 3: So wherever they're headed is not good. And so the movie begins to close in on you and then even though they're in the outdoors, until it does sink in what they're there for. And it just struck me, Adam, that it's a real test for empathy, this movie and Buzzard, And I was thinking about this in terms of like Sean Baker's films right, which are you know, Tangerine Florida Project. These are empathetic depictions of people on society's margins that you come to recognize and appreciate their humanity. And what Patrycas seems to be doing with Buzzard and Bulcanesador, at least the only two films of his i've seen now, is challenging us like, what if there is nothing that you come to love about these characters? What then? And I'm not saying there aren't moments of humanity in it. Patrychas actually gets a soliloquy that he like, really nails and does open up a little bit insight into Derek. But this is more like if Baker's making cinema about outsiders. This is like outsider cinema, these two films. Even in its esthetics, it's challenging you. There's this opening sequence of just the two of them walking along and this blaring like death metal on the soundtrack. At one point, Patryka shifts to freeze frames in black and white and zooms in on their faces in ways that are kind of like jarring and off putting, and it builds to this scene that's excruciating, I will say. And another thing Patricis does is he holds on scenes and lets them play out far after you want to be out of that scene, but it's not. It never feels exploitative or it's because this is this person, this is what the choice they're making, this is who they are, and then you have to wrestle with that. So it's challenging in terms of outsider them in that way. And yet somehow I'm sitting here just thinking about the things that it prompts in you and in this character of Marty two, about confession and trying to trying to form some sort of friendship and maybe being incapable. I don't know. I'm obviously still thinking a lot about it, But yeah, you need to catch up with it.

00:42:25
Speaker 6: I do.

00:42:26
Speaker 2: I missed it when it played the sixtieth Chicago International Film Festival last October, so I'm definitely going to see it here before the end of the year. On that recommendation, Josh, It's currently out in limited release. If you see vulcan Esadora and agree or disagree with the Josh feedback at film Spotting.

00:42:43
Speaker 6: Done, I feel better. I think I feel better.

00:42:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, you feel better now, but tomorrow you're going to feel bad again.

00:42:53
Speaker 3: Listening is the number one thing you can do to support an independently produced show like film Spotting. A couple more things you can do. Take a minute to give us a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can do this whether you're a first time listener or you've been listening for twenty years. Every new review helps us reach new listeners. Another way to support us, join the film Spotting Family at film Spottingfamily dot com. Thank you to family member Amber Noel from Atlanta. I've had the honor of editing some of Amber's writing over the years, so great to see her here as a family member.

00:43:28
Speaker 2: Amber says I found film Spotting during a year in my mid thirties when I moved in temporarily with my parents so I could work on a writing project. You guys kept me company on long walks around their subdivision, and some days help keep me sane.

00:43:39
Speaker 6: Love you, Mom and Dad. Favorite review or segment.

00:43:42
Speaker 2: I enjoyed Adam's interview with Ethan Hawk, and always enjoyed decade brackets and deep dives into particular tours. Keeps my watch list fresh. Here's a good one. What review did we get wrong?

00:43:53
Speaker 6: Oh man?

00:43:53
Speaker 2: I was talking back so hard at both of your analyzes of the end of Lost in Translation? What did Bill Murray whisper to Scarlett Johannes. I will be convinced until the day I die that he was simply telling her that everything was going to be okay. It was a tender wise goodbye, a whispered suggestion of another rendezvous.

00:44:10
Speaker 6: Please, sirs? Did you say that because.

00:44:12
Speaker 3: I was gonna ask you the same thing? Yeah?

00:44:15
Speaker 2: Here's Amber. This is still living rent free in her mind. And I didn't know I had an analysis at the end of Lost in Translation.

00:44:22
Speaker 3: I do remember we spent time on it, okay, And the only other thing I can say that might resonate with this is I at least remember. One of my takeaways in that revisit is that that relationship struck me as less platonic on that revisit than it did when the movie first came out. Now, I don't know if that led me to theorize this about that whisper. Maybe, though, we'll we'll have to go to the.

00:44:50
Speaker 2: Tape, yeah, or have Sam go to the tape and make bullet points for us. A favorite movie that she revisited recently, Amber says Phantom Thread, a random film or film maker. She loves Jim Jarmish's coffee and cigarettes. A movie she credits with becoming a sinophile is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It was the first rated AR movie I saw in the theater, and my sensitive teenage evangelical conscience was torn. Josh, tell me if any of this connects with you. But I remember praying and telling God, Lord, this looks like a really good movie. If you don't want me to see it, you'll have to tell me after it turns out the Lord was okay, and so was I. The movie blew my mind, broke my heart, and changed my engagement with movies.

00:45:31
Speaker 3: Oh great story.

00:45:34
Speaker 6: Yeah, No.

00:45:34
Speaker 3: The only similar one I have is at which I may have shared on the show. When Debbie and I were on a date to go see the Silence of the Lambs and we were going to the late show, my parents were at the early show. They waited in the parking lot and said, you're not going to take her on a date to this movie.

00:45:50
Speaker 6: So we circled the mall I was gonna say, and snuck in. You had to.

00:45:54
Speaker 3: Circle the mall until they left and went right in. So that's my version of Amber's story.

00:45:59
Speaker 2: A book about movies or movie making, Amber says she hasn't read it yet that David Thompson's The Big Screen is in the queue. Thank you for joining the family and for all your years of listening. In addition to keeping us doing what we're doing, your support comes with perks. You get to listen early in ED free, You get our weekly newsletter, You get exclusive opportunities like being part of the Film Spotting Family Discord, and you get access to monthly bonus shows like What's Dropping Soon, our April Bonus, ask Us Anything, and our May Bonus Coming soon, a draft with our Film Spotting Madness Bracket contest winner, You can learn more at film Spotting Family dot com.

00:46:35
Speaker 4: Hey, it's Brooklyn Adams and I'm partnering with Abercomedy to tell you about the newest drop from their Active brand, Your Personal Best YPB luggings are made with buttery soft fabrics that hug you in all the right places and common Abercomed's viral curve love fit designed to eliminate waste gap, Paired with sports bras and super soft sweatshirts. It's active word that supports every part of my busy lifestyle and gives me my best butt ever. Head into the new year feeling your personal best. Shop Active by Abercrombie in the app, online and in stores.

00:47:06
Speaker 6: I just wanted to come here.

00:47:10
Speaker 3: To Winkies.

00:47:12
Speaker 6: This Winkies.

00:47:15
Speaker 3: Okay, why this Winkies.

00:47:19
Speaker 6: It's kind of embarrassing.

00:47:24
Speaker 3: Go ahead, I had a dream about this place.

00:47:30
Speaker 6: Oh boy.

00:47:31
Speaker 2: That's from Film Spotting Madness finalist Mulholland Drive. We will announce this year's Madness Champion just a bit, but first let's talk about next week's show, Josh. It's kind of the culmination of the project we started with this year's Madness celebrating the best films of the last twenty five years we've decided to list, though I have not begun to try to compile this our top twenty five films of the twenty first century.

00:47:57
Speaker 3: I mean, it sounds like a difficult task. We did put in some of this work, which we can review. Was it the best of you know, up to twenty twenty or did we just do to twenty ten. We've done some variation of this, some decade work, decade work that at least will give us a starting point. Now, I'm not going to copy and paste those, you know, I want to rethink about my opinions of some of the movies on there, maybe find titles that weren't on there at all that I want to shift in. So, yeah, a bit of a monumental task. But of course Madness did some of this work for us too. We're already in this hut space.

00:48:34
Speaker 2: We are, though of course you're not part of the selection committee by choice, by your choice, not our choice. And that means that the Madness seeding doesn't necessarily reflect your ranking of the best films of the last twenty five years, and it doesn't really reflect my ranking or Sam's either, because we're trying to anticipate how voting ultimately will go. So yes, plenty of overlap, or I am at least assuming there will be a fair amount of overlap, because there are plenty of titles that made the Madness Bracket that I love and that we're among our favorite films of the year when we do our top tens as part of our annual roundtable. So we will see how it all shakes out. It is daunting, but I'm looking forward to the challenge. Now, I guess I'll note this isn't going to be a four hour or fourteen hour show. We're not going to go deep on all twenty five films. We're gonna kind of take them in groups of five and single out a film that we really want to highlight. That's how we're planning to approach it to make this a little more manageable for everyone. Back on episode three hundred, Josh Before Your Time, when we were doing then the best films of the decade so far two thousand through two thousand and nine, I had Mulholland Drive as the best film of the two thousands. But we have fifteen more years of cinema to now factor in. Should be fun for a schedule of future shows, visitfilmspotting dot Net slash episodes. Of course, you should always be aware that when it says subject to change, things are subject to change. Like this week, our plan was to have two authors on the show, Mariah Gates. We talked about her and her new book, Cinema or Her Way last week, and we were going to discuss a different movie celebrating an anniversary, Love and Basketball at twenty five. But some of you may have seen that Mariah mentioned on her Facebook page her dad is having some health issues. She's out with him, had to back out this week. We wish them both the best and we look forward to having Mariah on very soon to talk not only about her book, but talk about that film, Love and Basketball, which now we have both seen.

00:50:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, can't wait to get into that discussion. So hopefully we'll get to do that with Mariah soon. This week on our sister podcast, The Next Picture Show, looking at Cinema's present via its Past, they've got a new pairing that I'm very excited about, Ryan Coogler's Sinners. Of course, they had to discuss that one and maybe the first movie that came to my mind while watching Sinners was the Robert Rodriguez Quentin Tarantino collaboration from Dusk Till Dawn. That one came out in ninety six with George Clooney starring. Yep, right there his co star, not a cameo, Quentin Tarantino. I love this pairing, but it reminded me, Adam that in our review of Sinners, I meant to shout out a couple of other influences I thought of, and actually I think it wasn't until after our discussion. I thought about Steve McQueen's Lover's Rock, which we loved but created this atmosphere of community and safety around music, which is such an essential part of Sinners as well. And then one that I've seen maybe one person on social mention, but it's a film forgotten to time by many. But I loved two thousand and six's Idlewild. This is a musical set in the nineteen thirties Georgia speakeasy and stars the hip hop duo Outcast. It's really great. It's a ton of fun touches on some similar themes. So those are two other possible pairings, but I am excited about the one that the next picture show folks are doing from dust till dawn with Sinners.

00:52:08
Speaker 2: So what you're saying is, next time, Genevieve give give me a call, Josh is ready, I mean put.

00:52:13
Speaker 6: An end coach.

00:52:14
Speaker 3: They always they always hit it out of the park. So but yeah, this one should be a good one. New episodes drop every Tuesday and you can find the next picture show wherever you get your podcasts.

00:52:25
Speaker 2: The past few weeks here on Film Spotting, we have highlighted the Chicago Critics Film Festival, the group that we are a part of that we are not a part of the programming committee. In this case, we would be proud to be part of that committee with some of the titles they've suggested. These filmfests have always been a good time when we've been able to go to screenings and when we've heard the responses to these films that screen at the music Box. As you're hearing this, the fest is ongoing started May second, runs through May eighth. I've highlighted one title, Josh that I Wreck, and then the Zodiac Killer Project. You've had a chance to look over the list, anything stand out to you that you're particularly eager to see.

00:53:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll throw two out There. One is a midnight showing. It's going to be Saturday, eleven fifty nine pm. Mister K had not heard of this before. It stars Crispin Glover as a traveling magician who finds himself in a kafcusk nightmare when he can't find the exit of his hotel. Now Glover, I was looking up his credits. You know. He was on the TV series American Gods a few years ago, popped up in an episode of Germo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities more recently, but otherwise it's been a while since he's been a reliable weirdo on the big screen, and so this is good to see him back in an intriguing premise. It's written and directed by Tallula Hayes camp Schwab, a Norwegian Dutch filmmaker who's based in the Netherlands. Again, that's going to be eleven fifty nine pm, Saturday, May three. If you're not a late night person. An afternoon showing that I think I'm going to try to go to is a Friendship Sunday at four thirty pm. The plotline is suburban dad Craig falls hard for his charismatic new neighbor, but Craig's attempts to make an adult male friend threatened to ruin both of their lives. This has Tim Robinson as Craig and Paul Rudd as the new neighbor. Now Robinson folks might know from the Netflix sketch comedy series I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson, which features character is so awkward or inappropriate there basically everyone does want them to leave. It was one of the more bizarre examples of serious comedy I've seen in recent years. Hilarious and uncomfortable, also oddly profound about the desperation of humanity and opportunities to meet that with kindness. So if Tim Robinson is someone who's been on your radar, I'm sure you're intrigued by Friendship as i am. It's written and directed by Andrew Deyong, who has done a lot of TV work, including a handful of episodes of Our Flag Means Death. So again, that's Friendship for thirty PM, Sunday, May fourth.

00:55:05
Speaker 2: Maybe a little bit of a cop out, Josh, because this festival is usually about discovery. It's about new voices or independent film, smaller movies that need or deserve a larger audience, but they always sprinkle in some anniversary screening, some thirty five millimeter prints, and you can watch on Sunday, May fourth, at eleven thirty in the morning. Charlie Chaplin h The Great Dictator, a movie I haven't seen in probably thirty years, if I'm being totally honest, or at least twenty five. And then the day before Saturday, May third, this one's in the evening. But strange days, Catherine Bigelow's film starring Ray Fines, celebrating its thirtieth anniversary once again in thirty five millimeters. Seeing that at the music Box, so two, I wanted to make sure people are aware of. But one other movie that I'm really intrigued by, Josh, just based on its description is Brother Versus Brother and Versus His spell vr scs like a verse in a song, which makes sense. It's directed by Ari Gold, and this is the description. It says it's inspired by Francis Coppola's concept of live cinema. Now I don't know exactly what that means in this context or how it will play out in this film. I assume they're referencing the Megalopolis Adam Driver element where there was actually some live interaction that occurred that varied per screening, But they say in this description it's a radically personal musical odyssey combative. Twin musicians hunt for their dying poet father in an improvisation performed by the director's own family in a single, unbroken shot through the streets of San Francisco. So we're going meta, we're going experimental, single unbroken take. One brother seeks love and excitement while the other seeks to disappear and do his music. But his nightfalls and their father remains missing. Their frantic safari leads them from the secret haunts of the beat poets into the heart of their family.

00:56:58
Speaker 6: I just want to see how they pull this off. It doesn't work.

00:57:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that sounded fascinating. One last thing, and I'm just going to throw this out there just to kind of hold myself to it and make sure I get there. But I am contemplating doing a triple feature on Wednesday, May seven. I know, I don't know if I'll pull off all three. But the film you're you've highlighted Adam Zodiac Killer Project, as I think you said it nine thirty pm on Wednesday, May seven, So that one I want to see, and then before that are two films that look intriguing. Won't go into all the details here, but Familiar Touch and Happy End. So if you're Chicago listener and are there Wednesday May seven and you see me, please say hello. That would be a great triple feature if I can fit that in. And you said it at the top out, But I do want to really reiterate the programming of this festival has been consistently excellent since they started. And we can say that because as as you mentioned, we're not involved in it, and I'm each year. I'm impressed with the films that they fine just smart picks, good restorations or anniversaries as you said, But also they are often ahead of ahead of the game, you know, with some movies that either end up getting released and are incredibly strong or some other scenario where they become you know, ones you'll you'll be glad you have seen and you'll likely have seen it at this festival.

00:58:20
Speaker 2: First Befest is going on now at the Music Box. You can learn more and get your tickets at Chicago Critics Film Festival dot com.

00:58:29
Speaker 5: This lasting, this is madness This is absolute madness.

00:58:34
Speaker 6: This is madness, madness, madness.

00:58:38
Speaker 5: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador, Why should you build such a thing?

00:58:43
Speaker 3: Madness?

00:58:47
Speaker 1: That is s hot off.

00:58:50
Speaker 2: Zack Snyder's three hundred curiously not one of the sixty four films to make this year's Film Spotting Madness Best of the twenty first century so far. Madness is our our annual bracket style movie elimination tournament. Sixty four movies, only one survives, and it's time to announce a champion, the best film of the last twenty five years, as determined by Film Spotting listeners. And as it turned out, our finals matchup was between our number one seed and our number two seed, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood up against David Lynch's Mulholland Drive.

00:59:26
Speaker 3: Let's get to some listeners thoughts about this matchup before we reveal the winner. Here's Josh Newby. Both are obviously masterpieces, so there's no wrong answer. But if Mulholland Drive wins, I think it'll be largely based on Lynch's passing and a desire to honor his legacy. But There Will Be Blood is truly timeless in its critique of greed, capitalism, family, and religion. So Mahaland Drive might be the best movie of this era right now, but there will be Blood is the best movie of this era long term.

00:59:54
Speaker 2: Here's Jose Gonzalez. I'm not sure how Mulholland Drive beat Grand Budapest in the mood for love or eternal unshine of a Spotless Mind? Can we get a recount?

01:00:03
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know hose the committee is awfully busy as it is. Here's Keith hook up the doal Moser. I guess I should rewatch Mohan Drive because I don't see how it made it past half the movies it defeated. Here. I gave it two and a half stars after my one viewing back in two thousand and seven. Side question for Sam and Adam. Any reason why some Madness pages show results while others show closed polls.

01:00:26
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you asked, Keith. I did decide this year to do something different, though I should have been consistent about it, which is to not show the results on the various pages for each round because it's redundant and it's extra tedious work. The results are on the bracket you can look at the bracket. You don't need to look at it on those pages. So moving forward, I probably won't put the results at all on those pages. I'll just close the polls that said the play in page is one where you need the results because those don't otherwise show up.

01:00:55
Speaker 6: Gotcha the bracket.

01:00:56
Speaker 2: So there's your answer, Keith, here's Daryl.

01:00:59
Speaker 6: Look.

01:01:00
Speaker 2: I love pt Anderson as much as most cinophiles, but Mulholland Drive is a better film, and quite frankly, a win from Mallan Drive would be an easy way to pay respect to this artist whose work will be sorely missed.

01:01:10
Speaker 3: How about we end with this from MITCA, congratulations film, Spotty Nation. You're boring, be.

01:01:15
Speaker 2: A boring Midkah says, well enough suspense. How did it come out?

01:01:22
Speaker 3: There was a lot of lynch love, but not enough to take down There will be blood. PTA wins it fifty four percent to forty six percent.

01:01:33
Speaker 2: And if you maybe are thinking, okay, well it was the number one seed, had a pretty easy path. That's why it won. Here are the movies it took down on its path to the championship. Christian Munju's four Months, three weeks, and two Days, Denevilnov's Arrival, the other Andersen's The Royal, Tenebobs Oh, David Fincher's The Social Network. In the final four the Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men, and finally Mulholland Drive. And that turned out to be its toughest competition, with No Country getting forty five percent of the vote, and here you know, we had Mulholland with forty six percent. Otherwise otherwise it was winning in the sixties or seventies as it made its way through the bracket. But some formidable titles there and this is there will be Blood's second Madness win. It also won the Best of the two Thousands back in twenty nineteen. And my question for you, Josh, which I know we aren't going to be able to decide here, but I posed to Sam via Slack, is at some point when it's won Best Films of the two thousands already looking at one decade, and now Best Film of the two thousands looking at twenty five years a quarter century, is it just insane that this movie isn't in the film spotting pantheon?

01:02:42
Speaker 6: Should it be fast tracked?

01:02:43
Speaker 3: I mean, it certainly makes the Pantheon suspect more suspect than it already was. So this got an original review on the show and a revisit a san Anniverse or a Sacred Cow. So it's checked those boxes. Yes, I don't know what else it has to do. To be honest with you.

01:03:03
Speaker 2: I know I feel like we should be anointing it. We'll have to have a production meeting and discuss behind the scenes. Our congratulations to PTA, and there will be blood. We also had a contest for third place, No Country for Old Men, up against Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That final was pretty close. This one was even closer. But first a little bit of feedback Josh, and I think now we get a better idea of why Mitke might have been so miffed.

01:03:30
Speaker 3: To quote Kent Brockman, I've said it before and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

01:03:36
Speaker 2: So obviously a bigger fan of one of these two films that got beat and didn't make it to the final.

01:03:43
Speaker 4: All right.

01:03:43
Speaker 3: We got more feedback from Jonathan Anderson. Here he's in Denver. I'm picturing everybody in Joel's house. And then Anton Sugar blows the lock off the Door. Sorry, Eternal Sunshine.

01:03:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, here's Cueball. I'm beyond thrill that mulhalland Drive beat Eternal Sunshine. So that makes this one easy country for the Bronze and Josh. That is how it played out, very close, but No Country for Old Men does take third place fifty one percent to forty nine percent. This is another third place finish for No Country though a bit of redemption for the Cones because in twenty nineteen they got beat out by Eternal Sunshine, which finished second, and now it's finishing fourth, but No Country lost to it in twenty nineteen. Now No Country beat it to get third place and ultimately finish third in both of those tournaments. So our listeners are big on PTA, They're big on the Cone Brothers, and hey, we're all fans of Eternal Sunshine as well.

01:04:40
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the love. It was very interesting to watch the Lynch situation play out, and I think, as you mentioned in one of the shows, you know, it's not just that Lynch died recently, but people have been rewatching his movies and so that had to be part of the influence as well, which I like, you know, that makes it less just sentimental or nostalgic. It's actually based on the films themselves that drove mulholland drive to this second place finish, just not quite enough to give it over the top. I guess.

01:05:11
Speaker 2: Interesting bit of trivia. Back in twenty nineteen, the selection committee anointed No Country for Old Men the number one seed. It was there will be Blood. There was number two, but it took it. It takes Film Spotting Madness twenty twenty five as well. To see the complete bracket from this year or any previous year, you can do that at filmspotting dot Net, slash Madness and now the bracket contest. The winner gets some nice prizes, including a signed Film Spotting Fest poster by Coganata and Ryan Johnson. They get to join us for a bonus content draft on the topic of their choosing. Maybe we'll just have to do the British Film's draft all over again, because it turns out, Josh, that we had the same winner for the second year in a row.

01:05:55
Speaker 3: It's Ricky. It is oh my gosh.

01:05:57
Speaker 2: The UK's Ricky Kendall. Ricky Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. But again that's not true because that crown seems to just fit perfectly atop his head. Maybe he pulls off the trifecta next year, for the second year in a row, not only winning but only a single incorrect pick. There are sixty three choices to make in film Spotting Madness, and once again he made sixty two of them accurately.

01:06:24
Speaker 3: Ricky is as inevitable as there will be blood.

01:06:27
Speaker 6: Apparently that's a good way to put it.

01:06:30
Speaker 2: It's it's suspect he's a wizard or something, and we'll have to figure out what his secret to pulling this off was when we get on the chat with him for a draft that will be coming up soon that will be our May bonus content. Congratulations, Ricky. We will be talking to you soon about coordinating that and getting your prizes out to you. Man, I'm gonna have to drop some money sending that poster across the pond.

01:06:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, kidding out.

01:07:00
Speaker 2: Some customs paperwork. But Ricky, you have definitely earned it. In terms of our internal bracket challenge, well, as I projected, I went from first to worst.

01:07:14
Speaker 6: I tried to be bold.

01:07:16
Speaker 2: I had Mulholland drive defeating there will be Blood in the final That obviously did not happen. That means I dropped. I'm the big loser and will have some punishment coming my way, to be decided by you. Sam and Film Spotting Madness Godfather Mike Merrigan, Josh, you just escaped. You finished third, one hundred and sixth Overaul.

01:07:36
Speaker 3: Well, you know what, I you should hold your head high because you took a risk, a calculated risk that I did consider, and I think you know at least you have integrity in doing that.

01:07:49
Speaker 6: Thank you, Josh. That means a lot.

01:07:53
Speaker 2: One hundred and six overall really isn't too bad when you consider we had eight hundred and twenty five entries.

01:07:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I'm proud of that up.

01:08:00
Speaker 2: Sam also in the top one hundred, finished ninety second overall. Mike Marrigan seventy first. He finishes first in our competition. We think, Mike, we think everyone who participated this was fun. And I notice that it's not here in our show outline, Josh, but we are all set to announce that we are in fact going to go back in twenty twenty six to our decade by decade approach. We're not sure we're going to continue it after twenty twenty six, but we are at least going to give you the best films of the nineteen forties.

01:08:37
Speaker 3: So excited for that. This is going to be a big blind spot erase your opportunity. When we do these sorts of madness contests, find those films that are considered good enough to likely make the bracket, but for some reason one of us hasn't seen catch up with them. And I know listeners like doing that as well, so that'll be a fun one.

01:08:59
Speaker 2: And there's more good news. I'm sure that most listeners, not all listeners, but most listeners are like us. And unless you grew up in this era or shortly after, the more recent the decade, the more films you've seen. Definitely, the nineteen forties list on Letterboxed has my biggest percentage of films that I need to see, the most homework I need to do. And since I assumed I was not alone in that, I decided to hunker down work with Sam, and I can say the earliest this has ever been accomplished. The short list is ready to go. We actually shared it with Film Spotting family members on discord as a special benefit. Back at the beginning of this Film Spotting Madness they've had some more time to do their homework, Josh. But you have from right now early May until the end of February to get ready and we hope you'll participate. We hope you'll have fun with this competition. You'll enter the Bracket Challenge next February and May, and you've got time to do it because the shortlist is available one hundred ish titles that we're considering for the final sixty four film. Spoting gott Neet Slash Madness is where you can find the list, Get on it.

01:10:13
Speaker 7: This episode is brought to you by Peloton break through the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton Cross Training tread Plus powered by Peloton Iq. With real time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross Training tread Plus at one peloton dot com.

01:10:41
Speaker 6: Those are the shrouds me like burial shrouds, not exactly.

01:10:49
Speaker 1: It's basically a kind of camera in her grave.

01:10:54
Speaker 6: If you find it hard to take comforts me like she's floating out of space.

01:11:00
Speaker 3: That was from David Cronenberg's The Shrouds. Vincent Cassel plays Karsh, a businessman who is mourning the death of his wife played by Diane Krueger. He invents a radical technology that allows the living to monitor departed family members in their graves via this complicated video feed. When graves, including that of Karsh's wife, are desecrated, Karsh attempts to track down the perpetrators. It's worth noting that Cronenberg's wife of forty three years, Carolyn Zeifman, died in twenty seventeen.

01:11:33
Speaker 2: I do want to get some of your thoughts on The Shrouds, Josh, but first my conversation with film writer and author Violet Luca. She's been on the show before. I don't remember the exact topic, but back when she was the host of the Film Comment podcast a few years ago, we had Violet on excited to have her back, as she has written this great book and great looking book called David Cronenberg Clinical Trials, an illustrative monograph on Cronenberg's filmography that just came out this past decemi and is quote not a straightforward narrative about the filmmaker, but a dreamlike exploration of all that is Cronenbergian unquote. Here's our chat, Violet first, welcome back to campus. We're recording this at the University of Iowa, where I now teach. You earned a BA in cinematic arts. Here you introduced the shrouds last night at film scene. This isn't a recruitment pitch for Iowa. I'm genuinely curious. Why did you choose Iowa for your undergrad and did you always know you were going to study film?

01:12:31
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's a good question.

01:12:33
Speaker 8: So I grew up in Cedar Rapids, which is thirty forty minutes away, and I did not originally plan to come here because the high school I went to was very nice, but there were a lot of very wealthy Cans kids. It's like sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers, that's Sara, and they were going to.

01:12:53
Speaker 1: Like ivs and subibes.

01:12:55
Speaker 8: And I was like, I'm going to try and go to Oxford in the UK. And then I had this whole, very long application process, which surprisingly, going to a public school in the Midwest does not prepare you.

01:13:11
Speaker 6: Did you set show up for Oxford?

01:13:12
Speaker 1: I'm sure did not, but it was a very nice high school. I'm sure, very nice high school free.

01:13:16
Speaker 8: But so then I was like, Okay, I guess I'll go to the University of Iowa.

01:13:21
Speaker 1: And I sort of was like upset about it.

01:13:24
Speaker 8: But then when I got here, I just really was able to throw myself into studies and I was so impressed with how unique and in depth, you know, the teachers were, the tas were, like everybody was so great. And even though I felt like maybe there was a maybe there was a Bloyd in my life where I felt like, oh I failed, I'm so glad I went here because after I finished the University of Iowa, I went to NYU for graduate school, and that program was very much a joke. So really and I'm very glad. I'm very glad I got the education here. I got here not obscenely expensive. It was just like nice people, good program, unique, and I feel like all of the professors had really kind of unique approaches to a particular subject, like we've watched the not obvious film noir. And then it was also like the seminar where it would just be like this amazing collection of really rare prints, Like I remember I took the Arabic Cinema film seminar with Linda Makdad, and it was like incredible, Like there's there's things that I haven't been able.

01:14:38
Speaker 1: To find anywhere else. So I feel like it's good university.

01:14:43
Speaker 6: Yeah, but you'll get a good education.

01:14:45
Speaker 2: So absolutely, So let's talk Cronenberg. Let's talk about your book Clinical Trials. I think there's about a ten year age difference between us, if my snooping on LinkedIn is accurate. The first David Cronenberg movie I saw and loved but wasn't aware that it was a David Cronenberg movie was The Dead Zone. The first Kronenberg movie I sought out and loved because it was a Kronenberg movie was Dead Ringers, though that wasn't in eighty eight when it came out. I didn't really begin my cinophile journey until a few years later. What was your gateway Kronerberg movie or movies?

01:15:23
Speaker 8: Well, it actually was here. And again this is going to sound like an advertisement for the University of Iowa and specifically Linda mock Dad, But I took a horror film course while I was here, and it really like it really opened up horror to me and we watched the Fly and that was such a horrifying experience, and I was sort of shocked by how much it moved me and disturbed me. And so I went on like a Kronaberg kick after that, you know, videodrome crash. Like I just sort of threw myself into it and I haven't looked back.

01:16:01
Speaker 6: So this is your first book.

01:16:04
Speaker 2: Did you always have in mind that you might write a book? And if you did that, David Kronenberg was going to be the subject. How did this come about?

01:16:12
Speaker 8: So I knew David Jenkins, who's the editor of Little White Lies, and he is one of the editors on this series of books at Abrams where they do you know, they've done one on pt Anderson Bong, June Hoe, the Coen Brothers, And he asked me if I wanted to write a book on Cronenberg, and I was like, it was a very daunting task, but I took it because it's such a great I mean, it would be great to spend so much time with his work.

01:16:43
Speaker 1: So I threw myself in.

01:16:45
Speaker 8: I had I had a very good time, and I mean people had always been like, you should write a book, and I was like, I don't know i'd read to make a movie. But I'm very glad I wrote this book, and I don't know my filmmaking will come back at another time.

01:16:59
Speaker 6: It is a beautiful book.

01:17:00
Speaker 2: It's one I've enjoyed thumbing through since I got it a few days ago. I do want to establish some bona fides or lack thereof, on my end, because I have some fairly significant David Cronenberg feature blind Spots. If you decide to storm out in a huff, I won't hold it against you. Chronologically, they are the brood scanners. I know, Naked Lunch Just wait, there's more Crash, oh, I know, and Crimes of the Future. The most egregious for me is Crash, just because by ninety six I would have claimed to be a David Cronenberg fan. I have no explanation for why I didn't see it. So if you were curating for me my own personal Cronenberg blind spotting marathon of those five films, what would your order be from most essential to least essential?

01:17:54
Speaker 8: Well, I think, well, when people ask me for film recommendations, I'd like to ask some questions about what they like. But since you're you're a dim little fin and while I'll just do.

01:18:05
Speaker 6: Whatever I feel like, please do.

01:18:08
Speaker 1: So I would say normally I would say.

01:18:11
Speaker 8: Don't start with The Brood, but I would advise people before they watch The Shrouds to rewatch or watch for the first time The Brood, because that is also a very deeply autobiographical film of his. I would probably say, start with the fun one, start with Scanners, and then go to Naked Lunch and then go to Crash just sort of, you know, once you're kind of on a roll, you can kind of move into Crash with me, and then you know, watch The Brood and then watch the new film, watch The Shrouds.

01:18:41
Speaker 1: Oh wait, and then Crimes of the Future. I mean, you could start with that one.

01:18:45
Speaker 6: You could.

01:18:45
Speaker 8: You could like that one's like so much fun so and it's like got all of the Kronenberg stuff that he like, Old Kronberg.

01:18:53
Speaker 1: And New Kronenberg.

01:18:55
Speaker 2: The research process for this book, did you rewatch I'm assuming you rewatched lot of things. What did you read, What, if anything did you see for the first time? And did you have a clear idea going in what the framework was going to be. You divided into two parts and then there's there's chapters within each going by specific Cronenberg themes or preoccupations, but the two parts being individuation and psychotherapy. How how did any of that shift from the framework you maybe had in mind coming in as you did your research.

01:19:25
Speaker 8: Well, I got some very good advice before I started writing the book, and this was even before I wrote the proposal, and somebody said, get the structure done first, because you can write whatever you want in a book proposal and chances are they'll take it. But you have to figure that out sometime, like you you can't be lazy and not know what you're doing, because you're gonna have a headache later on.

01:19:51
Speaker 1: So I, yeah, I had, I had.

01:19:54
Speaker 8: The structure in mine ahead of time, and I just went for it. And I feel like, you know, I read a lot of stuff that Carl Jung wrote. I read a lot of stuff that was written by Cronenberg scholars, but in particular I went back to a lot of the original reviews and things written at the time and interviews he did, and I found those incredibly helpful. And specifically, you know, Cronenberg on Croneberg was just in value me, but it was also interesting for me to see and sort of realize that the way that he talked about his films really changed over time, and I think he's you know, I wouldn't say it's a cynical thing. I think it's just a smart thing that the way he talks about them kind of shifts the time. And then also people are just like not ready for certain things. So it was interesting to notice that change, and that was something I hadn't really expected.

01:20:50
Speaker 2: How about your reaction to Cronenberg and his work in specific movies shifting maybe over time or through the process of researching this book, did you have a discovery or rediscovery?

01:21:00
Speaker 1: That's a good question, and whatever you hear, that's a good question. That means you're their person I had to think about.

01:21:08
Speaker 6: That's great.

01:21:08
Speaker 8: I would say probably Rabbit is one that I had sort of thought as like a lower Kronenberg, and that sort of came back to me in a different way or rewatching it, certain things jumped out, and I think just rewatching them as a whole, or also, as you say, thinking of them in these different sort of subcategories, there's different obsessions made me realize that, like, you know, Rabbit is a really solid film, or like The Brood or things like you know, m Butterfly. I feel like that is a film that really gets short shrift. And I was always a fan of Maps to the Stars. Yeah, but like revisiting that, there was just so much extra stuff that came to me. And then even Crash because I remember I saw that with my friend Carrie my apartment on Jefferson Street and she turned to me at the end and she's like, I think we just watched a porn I was like, yeah, And then rewatching it, I'm like, it's not porn.

01:22:10
Speaker 6: That was probably maybe not quite.

01:22:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that was that was one thing where I'm just like, okay, yeah, I feel differently about a lot of this stuff.

01:22:17
Speaker 2: Okay, So it turns out I misspoke. I have six major blind spots because I haven't seen Rabbit Eio. They so, yeah, I know, and I missed it. Variety they did a Cronenberg filmography ranking a couple of years ago, twenty twenty three. I think The Fly your Gateway Cronerberg was number one. It's number one on Rotten Tomatoes, highest score ninety three percent. I believe it's my co host favorite Cronenberg. I saw it on cable all the time as a kid, but didn't truly sit down to watch it like in one sitting a lot of stuff. I'm sure they did right, because between TV and cable, who knows what I saw. I watched it finally, just you know, gave it my full attention. Twenty twenty one. I thought it was fine.

01:22:59
Speaker 6: It wasn't.

01:22:59
Speaker 2: It wasn't revelatory Kroniberg experience for me. Do you have any unpopular Kroneberg opinions you'll admit to.

01:23:07
Speaker 8: Unpopular Kronerberg opinions, I would say, I don't know. I wasn't as crazy about Stereo and Crimes of the Future the Original Crimes of the Future, but I feel like the First Crimes of the Future prepares you also to watch The Shrouds because it has a very similar structure where it's this man who's experienced deeply personal loss. It sort of descends into this stranger and stranger stranger subterranean world of sort of niche interests. Let's say, so that was I feel like again it's like I'm not I don't really like the Phone because he's clearly it's very rough, like your second kind of feature film. But that's probably my least popular have.

01:23:55
Speaker 2: You ever had a full on negative reaction to a Cronerberg.

01:23:59
Speaker 8: I mean again, like I thought, Stereo is prettymoch okay, but it's like beautiful.

01:24:04
Speaker 1: But I'm just sort of like, Okay, I get it. Yeah, I get the joke.

01:24:08
Speaker 8: This could have been a short or it could have been part of Crimes of the Future like that.

01:24:12
Speaker 1: You know, it's like the double album that could have been a sent Yeah.

01:24:16
Speaker 2: So I said, I love The Dead Zone, even though I can't tell you for sure the last time I watched it, but I watched it constantly as a kid, and it is a movie I've thought about quite a bit during the Trump era. I'm not gonna lie, I think about The Dead Zone quite a bit. I'm always pleasantly surprised to see it appear pretty high on rankings of his films and also on rankings of the best Stephen King film adaptations. And you have a bit of an explanation or your own opinion on that. You have a take that you can give that's in your book. You also say something that really resonated with me. So I want to mention this part. I'm going to read this part from page forty nine of the gospel clinical trials. Such warm feeling is absent from the Dead Zone, which is what makes it so power powerful. The retelling of King's novel is filtered through the eyes of its wounded protagonist, mild mannered, virginal school teacher Johnny Smith Christopher Walkin, who falls into a coma and awakens to discover he's lost his fiance Sarah Brooke Adams and gain clairvoyant powers. You're right, I would not call The Dead Zone a warm movie, but even more than the bloody scissors scene, which I've never gotten out of my head and which I should not have experienced at that young age. When I think about The Dead Zone, I think about those wounded eyes of Christopher Walkin, I think about the vulnerability. I think about the tenderness of that movie and those scenes between him and Brook Adams, but many other characters in the film. So why do you think it is? And is that perhaps the reason? Why do you think it is that that movie does seem to be so highly regarded have such staying power. Why is it a film that people still place pretty high when they think about his best films.

01:25:54
Speaker 8: I think it is because it's a Stephen King joint ultimately, but then because it's so unlike any other Stephen King novel, because Stephen King kind of Stephen King doesn't know what's good for him in terms of adaptatiens, right like famously he traded Kuber. Yeah, you know, but I think probably it has staying power because again there are so many funnies. You know, even before Trump, there there are people who just sort of the dynamics, the political dynamics and then also those personal dynamics where who has an experience. Like another way to think of it is that this is somebody who's experienced a loss and they can never regain that time. And I feel like most people have had that experience in their life. And I think you can kind of watch it without realizing it, but that there's the scene where Sarah comes over to his house and she brings her son and they make love him and say and he just is he looks at the table, you know, it's his dad there, the kid there, and Sarah there, and he's just sort of like this will never happen again, Like this is what I'd lost. Like he's been like seething because he's lost so much stuff, and it's just like he gets one taste of it again.

01:27:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's like, really, it's really really painful.

01:27:13
Speaker 2: It is the first Kronenberg movie that was reviewed that I reviewed on Film Spotting was a History of Violence.

01:27:21
Speaker 6: That was five. That was our first year, maybe.

01:27:23
Speaker 2: About seven months into the show, and my co host at the time, producer now Sam, we deemed it the number one film of that year, and being our first year, that was probably pretty meaningless. We maybe saw thirty movies that year. But twenty years later, I don't have any regrets looking back on that film and ranking it so high. I looked back at my notes from that top ten show, and there's something I said that that coincides with what you bring up in the book, which is how do you really know who Tom Stall is? And even when you find out the truth or what we think is the truth, I never really felt like I knew it or believed it, or that I believe that he knew who he truly is. And you really do spend the movie, even walking out, you have to ask yourself, at what point does he know who he is? And is he fooling himself as much as he's fooling everyone else? And I love the way you phrased it in the book. You say he is at once an impossibly good and evil man, and I think that's accurate, And you say it's clear that Cronerberg is playing with Hollywood genre conventions, particularly those of crime films and westerns, and teasing out the contradictions in the process. So I looked this up because I thought maybe it was just a perfect bit of coincidence. And it was the first marathon we did on our show, and marathons have always been about filling in our cinematic blind spots. The very first one we did was Westerns, and it turns out that our Westerns marathon started about two weeks before we saw a history of violence, So who knows if some of that was in my mind as I was taking in this Krona Bird film. I was getting my education kind of in line with watching this film.

01:29:00
Speaker 6: You can watch it and see that.

01:29:01
Speaker 2: So clearly he's at once and here's that nice split, the dark side in him that comes out as well as the good side. He's like the law abiding saloon operator in the small western town, but he's also the mysterious, dangerous stranger.

01:29:16
Speaker 6: And it is clear.

01:29:18
Speaker 2: I think it was even clear to me then, as I was learning so much more about cinema that Kroneberg was deconstructing American and American cinematic archetypes in really interesting ways.

01:29:29
Speaker 8: Absolutely, and actually, you know what, to go back to your earlier question, I would absolutely say A History of Violence is a film that, upon revisiting for the book, I was like, whoa, this is so much better than I remember it, because I do. I remember seeing it roughly around the time it came out and kind of just being like eh, and then watching it now, it's just such a clear like it starts off so periodically, like there's such a periodically applie family, like just too squeaky clean, and then it falls apart, you know, and again it the fact that it's unresolved, that you really don't know and he doesn't know who he is. It's it's what I would say, is that something that interests me a lot are invisible aesthetics, right, because you can be aware of sort of the syntactic and semantic approach to Westerns, but you can't necessarily put your finger on it. You're just it's sort of like just part of the Erkin grain, right, and it'll be an ad, it'll be on TV and you won't even notice it. You don't have to do a westerns rewatch to really soak that stuff in. And I think that's part of why you can watch it and kind of be like, it'll just pass you by, but if you really stop and really look at it, and you're like, man, something really weird is going on. But it's also very essential and very crucial. I mean, what's so funny is that that like graphic novel is such which it's so boring, like it's not very good, and then what he does with the film and sort of the pauses and the characterizations, and then also the violence, it cats everything in a very different way and it makes if you're paying attention, the invisible becomes visible.

01:31:18
Speaker 6: You've mentioned The Shrouds quite a bit.

01:31:20
Speaker 2: That is his most recent film out now book obviously timed in conjunction with that. First off, my next band is definitely going to be called Corpse Voyeur. I don't know if it matches the style of music I tend towards, but I love the name. We were just talking about history of violence. There's a line in this film that obviously you watch and if you know Kronoberg's work at all. You kind of chuckle at early on when he's actually on a date, a blind date, and vince A, Cassel's character, says, how dark do you want to get?

01:31:49
Speaker 6: Right?

01:31:50
Speaker 2: And all of Kroneberg's movies, especially A History of Violence, eventually get very very dark, and The Shrouds does as well, though I'm not sure if it gets quite as dark as a History of Violence. But let's see how I do here. Haven't finished the book. We've got a main character, Cassel'skarsh, who is He's lonely or alienated. He's obsessed with bodies, with machinery, with technology, with experimentation. We have doppelgangers here in this movie. I would also say we've got I can only classify it as the deadest of deadpans senses of humor. I don't remember who Karsh is talking to at one point, but this guy is just saying increasingly outlandish things, and Carsha's responses are wow, wow, Wow, it's just three wows in a row. I'd love to know if that was really like that in the screenplay. But you also have the dentist in that kind of opening scene dropping the line do you want Jpex, which if it isn't already that has to become a meme.

01:32:45
Speaker 6: Oh my god, it's so great.

01:32:47
Speaker 2: So yeah, I want to hold off for a second on talking about what you've already alluded to, the autobiographical elements of the film. Despite all my blind spots. How did I do identifying what makes the Shrouds essentially Cronenbergian?

01:33:00
Speaker 1: I mean I think he did.

01:33:01
Speaker 6: I think that scratch the surface.

01:33:02
Speaker 8: Like no, I do think how dark do you want to go? And the Doppelgangers. The one thing I would say you missed is the horniness, Yeah, because it is such a unapologetically like the loneliness is not just a spiritual loneliness.

01:33:19
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, my beautiful wife was so perfect, you know. It's not like severance. It's very, very thirsty. And I love that.

01:33:26
Speaker 2: Yes, he's fantasizing about her, dreaming about his dead wife coming back in the flesh.

01:33:32
Speaker 8: Yes, And I mean the you know, those scenes, those dream sequences are so.

01:33:38
Speaker 1: There.

01:33:39
Speaker 8: You know, she's sort of different pieces of her getting get taken away, you know, amputated, cut away, operated on and no longer his which is weird, but you know, the idea that her body is his, but you know that they're so they're so together. I feel like even those dream sequences have this real sensuality and a familiarity and kind of like a come in every day, like they're in their darkened bedroom. They're in the bedroom they used to share, and it's such a fertile place for like that feeling of I can never go back.

01:34:16
Speaker 1: But it's also obviously her.

01:34:18
Speaker 8: You know, getting amputated, his favorite breast, getting caught off. You know, obviously that's a metaphor for losing someone in a very slow, kind of unstoppable way, and that eventually he decides that it's not her disease taking these things away, and that she's just sort of an innocent victim of biology circumstance. It's that her doctor, and she's had this infidelity, or he believes she's had this infidelity. That's what actually took her away, and therefore he hates her and he can his grief, you know, because anger is part of grief. So instead of being angry at grief, he starts to be angry at her and that allows him in part, to move on.

01:35:03
Speaker 1: But he has to do this very elaborate story.

01:35:06
Speaker 8: But that that transformation of elevating the wife and then bringing her down, being like she deserved to die, essentially.

01:35:13
Speaker 1: Like he doesn't say it, but that's in his head.

01:35:16
Speaker 6: Yeah.

01:35:17
Speaker 8: I think that's a really crucial part of the story. And again it's very weird, is like the ending. You will be like wait, what right? And you you should talk about it with your.

01:35:30
Speaker 1: Friends, with your therapists. Your therapist emailed me on a did answer any questions you might have? Definitely see it twice.

01:35:37
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I need to see it twice, and I'll just go back real quick what you were saying with a history of violence there too, or making that connection maybe a little bit more aggressive.

01:35:46
Speaker 6: In these scenes.

01:35:47
Speaker 2: But the horniness, the sensuality, and also the familiarity of the husband and wife couple those scenes with Vigo and Maria Bello, that's something that's really striking in the history of violence as well. So I do need to see it a second time, full disclosure. Maybe the most interesting part of the Shrouds for me were the extra textual elements, the autobiographical elements. And I don't know a ton, certainly don't know as much as you, but I know that like Karsh, the main character Cronenberg lost his wife fairly recently, and Diane Krueger may play two characters in the movie, but Cassell, with his sharp angular features and that comback stark white hair, is obviously a stand in for Cronenberg himself. If somehow we weren't sure about the parallel, another character tells him this is the line of the film for me.

01:36:37
Speaker 6: You've made a career out of bodies.

01:36:39
Speaker 1: Yes. And also he used to produce.

01:36:41
Speaker 6: Industrial he did. You're right, that's another element, right, And then even.

01:36:45
Speaker 1: Like during that date, you know, his playing day.

01:36:47
Speaker 8: It's like, well, I can read things on the internet. I've read some interviews, you can hid stuff from Google. Yeah, about it, like, you don't know me, you don't actually know me.

01:36:56
Speaker 2: He's letting us in a window into that psyche, right, But is this is it fair to say that this is his most personal or explicitly personal film?

01:37:05
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel like the Brute.

01:37:07
Speaker 8: I mentioned the brew before, but that's like the last one, okay. And I find it really moving that it is love and the loss of love, the end of a relationship that pulls this personal nature, this autobiographical nature out.

01:37:22
Speaker 1: Of him, like obviously in Crimes of the future.

01:37:26
Speaker 8: Vigo Mortensen kind of looks like Kronenberg, and he's also like a performance artist and performance art as a metaphor for filmmaking.

01:37:35
Speaker 1: But this is very.

01:37:38
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think it's chilling, how earnest and honest he is about this thing that so many people would be afraid to touch. I mean, I can't think of you know, I keep making fun of Severance. I like Severance, but I did not like the Gema episode. But you know, when people typically talk about losing his spouse, it is like, you know, dead wife Montage. You know, it's like this idealized sort of beautiful thing, and here it's it's earthier, it's more complicated, but there is still like this real pain. There's there's a level of pain that I don't think people are used.

01:38:15
Speaker 1: To narrative film, and so, you know, and I really respect that.

01:38:20
Speaker 8: And also the idea of a man who's been with one woman for many decades trying.

01:38:26
Speaker 1: To restart his sex life.

01:38:29
Speaker 8: Oh, it's his new opportunity and all this stuff. I'm sorry, I keep coming back to sex, but it's a really important part.

01:38:34
Speaker 6: We're talking about Cronenberg. After all, it is inevitable, and I don't know.

01:38:39
Speaker 8: You know, he's typically associated with you know, like exploding heads, good, the leg wound and crash what. But this is very I think what really kind of ties his films together is a sense of love and that, you know, and sensuality, and I think that's you know, that's drowned out sometimes by the butt wor stuff, which is unfortunate. And then also he has a shockingly prescient view.

01:39:06
Speaker 1: Of the world.

01:39:08
Speaker 8: Kroneberg also a tessela driver, or he used to be. Yes, he's I assume he's gotten rid of it. I haven't due asked, but yeah, it's kind of shocking.

01:39:19
Speaker 2: Of course, it would be a self driving car in a crona Bird film, right, that has to be like a plot element. Well, this was a blast, Violet, and the book is incredible. It's a lovely looking book. I can't wait to get through it even more. Congratulations on it, and are you off anywhere wonderful to promote it next?

01:39:39
Speaker 1: Yes.

01:39:39
Speaker 8: So actually by the time people hear this, I will have been in Chicago, and then I'm going to be in Seattle for Siff the Stiff screening shrouds, and then I'm also going to be in la for a screening of M.

01:39:51
Speaker 1: Butterfly Again I'm very underrated.

01:39:53
Speaker 6: Yeah, I like that films. That was one of those.

01:39:55
Speaker 2: First I was a sinophile Dead Ringers, then into M.

01:39:57
Speaker 6: Butterfly.

01:39:58
Speaker 2: Wow, yeah and I loved it. Then yes, the Irons connection, uh huh Irons. He was he for a spell. And maybe I still feel this way. If you asked me back in ninety three who my favorite actor was, it was Jeremy I so no.

01:40:10
Speaker 1: And I mean at that time he was king. And then I'm also going to be an Austin for a screening of Crash wonderful. Then that'll be like June July.

01:40:20
Speaker 2: Get the book wherever you get your books. Fair to say, okay, yes, and even if.

01:40:25
Speaker 1: You don't like reading it, it is very nice. It's just an object you look at.

01:40:29
Speaker 6: Just put it on you is there's there's lovely pictures.

01:40:32
Speaker 2: It is a perfect coffee table book, but also with a ton of great content, a lot of substance. They're Violet, as we've touched on. So congrats again and recommend people check the book out wherever they get their film books. Thank you, Violent, thank you the Shroud there my thanks again to Violet Luca for that conversation. Her book is called David Cronenberg Clinical Try. It is available wherever you get your books. Josh, any takeaways from that conversation or about The Shrouds. What did you make of Kroneinberg's latest.

01:41:08
Speaker 3: I am very glad that Violet brought up the horniness factor because of course that's, you know, something of a through line for so many of Cronenberg's films. But I think it's also a critical element to The Shrouds because boy, the first maybe thirty maybe forty five minutes of this is you know, deadpan funny in the way you guys discussed, but also a deeply mournful and captures the physicality of grief. That's where the horningness comes in. And the fact that Kassel's character Karsh is missing his wife's literal body. I don't know that that's something that other movies about grief consider or depict or explore, but it makes absolute sense that Cronenberg would This is the filmmaker to do it right. And those dreams I took them to be dreams that Karsh has of his wife played by Krueger, appearing in their bedroom. She's naked and desecrated, really by these surgeries she's had to endure from as part of this cancer treatment. Are all the things you guys mentioned. I concur they are strangely cronenburgianly sexy, but disturbing and icky. And it's not that they're all that on the same time, but they fluctuate. There's a series of them, two maybe three of these dreams, and they fluctuate among all those things, as I would imagine someone mourning the loss of a partner who they love for their intelligence and their humor and yes, their form. So so yeah, I'm glad you guys touched on that. I would just say, you know, if there are people the Shrouds isn't getting ray of reviews. I think it's getting from what I've seen, kind reviews and a few people here and there who have really gone for it. But if you are someone who you know, maybe Crimes of the Future Cronerberg's last film didn't really quite work for you, or you've lost touch with him, you know, in recent years, I would say make time for The Shrouds. I don't think it's entirely successful, and it starts to lose its way for me, particularly in this emotionality that I discussed, but it's undoubtedly a Cronnberg film that does what his best films do really well. I think that's for me. Crimes of the Future I didn't find that to be the case. It was clearly a Cronenberg film, but it just didn't click in that way, and The Shrouds, when it's clicking as a Cronberg film, absolutely does for me.

01:43:54
Speaker 2: The Shrouds is currently playing in limited release. We hope you do get a chance to see it, and if you have any feedback, we'd love to hear from you. Feedback at film spotting dot net. Josh, that's our show.

01:44:03
Speaker 3: If you want to connect with us on social, you can find Adam and the show on Instagram and Facebook and letterboxed. He's at film Spotting. I'm at those places as well. You can find me at Larsen on film. We are independently produced and listener 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 a weekly newsletter, monthly bonus shows, and access to the entire show archive for show t shirts or film Spottingfest posters or other merch go to film spotting dot Net slash shop.

01:44:36
Speaker 2: In the film Spotting Archive, you can find conversations about other David Cronenberg films Videodrome, most recently as part of our Top five Films of nineteen eighty three. That was show six six six Maps to the Stars on episode five twenty eight, Cosmopolis four eleven, A Dangerous Method with Michael Phillips on three seventy seven, Eastern Promises episode one seventy seven from the Toronto International Film Festival, and Way Back episode forty two. You heard it in our conversation with a Violet Sam and I just gushing over a history of violence out wide. It's thunderbolts time, Josh seven disillusion MCU cast offs find themselves ensnared in a death trap that is definitely not a metaphor for the current state of the MCU. Thanks in limited release, the surfer Nicholas Cage returns to the idyllic beach of his youth to surf for his son and is humiliated by a group of locals, drawing him into a conflict that pushes him to his breaking point. Drawing him into a conflict that pushes him to his breaking point, like you could just take that part and just copy paste it. Couldn't you into almost any cage You.

01:45:40
Speaker 3: See cage's face when you hear that phrase, you do letterboxed.

01:45:44
Speaker 2: Our friend Mitchell Bouprey, says director Lorc and Finnegan harnesses the almighty power of the cage for a fever dream. He refuses to let us escape, so that sounds like praise from Mitchell.

01:45:56
Speaker 6: Next week.

01:45:57
Speaker 2: It is our top twenty five films of the twenty first century so far.

01:46:02
Speaker 3: Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe Disso and Sam van Holgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go. Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Special thanks to everyone at WBEAZ Chicago. More information is available at wbeaz dot org. For film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson.

01:46:19
Speaker 2: And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.

01:46:21
Speaker 4: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

01:46:25
Speaker 6: But fine.

01:46:42
Speaker 2: Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the Film Spotting Family at film Spottingfamily dot com and get access to ad free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and for the first time, all in one place, the entire Film Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five. That's a film Spottingfamily dot Com pantibly