transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:06] Hey everyone, I have some news for listeners of the show. I am starting a newsletter. It's called Projections. It's on Substack. You can find it and subscribe at seanfennessey.substack.com. I'll be writing on a weekly basis to start, essays about new movies and happenings in film culture, recommendations for new releases that fall through the cracks of this show, dedicated physical media coverage on an ongoing basis, stray reactions to casting, box office, and all other kinds of news. This isn't changing anything about what we are doing on The Big Picture. This is a relative, not a sibling exactly, but definitely a cousin. If you only know me as a podcaster, I spent roughly 15 years as a writer and editor in my career, first as a blogger, then as a music critic, then a features writer and story editor at magazines. Since I formally stopped writing a movie column for The Ringer in 2019, give or take the occasional extended letterbox review, I've really been missing writing a lot, so I'm going back to it. This will be a place where I'll host chats with subscribers, give or take those quick reactions to the news and maybe the occasional Mets panic note. Again, you can find projections at seanfennessey.substack.com. Thanks as always for following along with what we've been doing here over the years. I hope you'll check this out. I'm Sean Fennessey.

Speaker 2:
[01:28] I'm Amanda Dobbins.

Speaker 1:
[01:29] And this is The Big Picture, a conversation show about 900 and going strong. Today on the show, we are celebrating our 900th episode with your thoughts, prayers, well wishes, and demented questions, as we are doing another voicemail bag. Later in this episode, I will be joined by Sophy Romvari, the writer-director of Blue Heron, a finely textured personal feature debut. Sophy has been making fascinating short films for the past decade. Blue Heron is the announcement of a major new voice in movies. It's a special film, blurs the modes of narrative filmmaking, likes getting the chance to chat with Sophy about it, go see the movie, listen to our conversation. Amanda and I will also talk about it here on the show. But first, we need to hear from you. It's all coming up right after this. This episode is brought to you by the Autograph Journey Credit Card from Wells Fargo. The Autograph Journey Credit Card from Wells Fargo is built for travel. You can earn rewards wherever you book. Your favorite hotel site, your go-to airline, and more. You get five times points with hotels, four times with airlines, three times on restaurants and other travel, and one point on other purchases. Whether it's a big vacation or a quick getaway, from booking your stay to that first meal when you arrive, you're turning your trips into rewards with the Autograph Journey Credit Card from Wells Fargo. Learn more at wellsfargo.com/autographjourney. Terms apply. This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Upsizing to a large popcorn, smart move. Staying for the post-credit sequence, smart move. Finding ways to be financially savvy, very smart move. Maybe the smartest, especially when you choose to bundle home and auto with help from one of State Farm's 19,000 local agents, bundling just another way to save with the personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer, availability, amount of discounts and savings, and eligibility vary by state. Okay, Amanda, happy 900.

Speaker 2:
[03:16] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[03:17] How do you feel?

Speaker 2:
[03:18] I mean, it's not 1,000, but we're getting close.

Speaker 1:
[03:21] Yeah, I like centennials.

Speaker 2:
[03:24] You do, you like round numbers.

Speaker 1:
[03:26] I like round numbers. I like reaching milestones. I like feeling as though we're marking time.

Speaker 2:
[03:32] I mean, 900 is pretty good. We did one for 300 and I was like, eh, you know.

Speaker 1:
[03:37] Yeah, and that was, we were what, 26 then? How old were we then?

Speaker 2:
[03:41] No, it feels great. It's nice. It's a nice round number. Our producer, Jack Sanders, got us all of this lovely stuff. Great, great producing, great set dressing. I feel, you know, I haven't had balloons for any personal occasion in my life. Like, number balloons.

Speaker 1:
[03:57] Oh, that's just not something someone's done for you?

Speaker 2:
[03:59] Yeah, and not that I would really want it in a personal context, but here it feels great.

Speaker 1:
[04:03] Okay, because you don't want your age being exposed in balloon form?

Speaker 2:
[04:06] No, I think everybody knows that I'm 41 on Netflix. How brave of you to say those words out loud.

Speaker 1:
[04:12] I'm really happy for you. Yeah, we're 900 episodes old. It's been an interesting journey so far. I think we're about halfway done.

Speaker 2:
[04:20] Okay, that's why you're setting?

Speaker 1:
[04:21] What do you think?

Speaker 2:
[04:22] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[04:24] Can we get there?

Speaker 2:
[04:24] At that point, we got to go to 2000. But have we mapped out when do the four Beatles movies? What episode number will the four Beatles movies do?

Speaker 1:
[04:33] It definitely won't be 1800, because that's only two years away. So if we can do 900 episodes in two years, things have gone terribly awry. I think we're doing good. And yeah, the prompt for this episode, there's no news you want to talk about, right? Is there anything you really want to get into that happened over the weekend?

Speaker 2:
[04:49] No, I don't think so. I did read Deadline.

Speaker 1:
[04:53] deadline.com.

Speaker 2:
[04:54] Congrats to Tom Hooper, who's directing Millie Bobby Brown's new film.

Speaker 1:
[04:58] Yes, will that be on Netflix?

Speaker 2:
[04:59] About World War II, I believe, for Netflix.

Speaker 1:
[05:01] World War II.

Speaker 2:
[05:01] Yeah, will you finally see a Tom Hooper film that isn't Katz?

Speaker 1:
[05:05] Well, I have seen The King's Speech, but I've not seen Les Mis. I've also not seen The Damned United, which is his soccer film.

Speaker 2:
[05:12] Oh, right. With Michael Sheen?

Speaker 1:
[05:16] I believe that's right.

Speaker 2:
[05:16] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[05:17] And so, I didn't think we'd be talking about Tom Hooper today. I didn't think that would come up. I didn't think that'd be a reason for celebration here on the 900th episode.

Speaker 2:
[05:24] Well, you asked about the news, and if that's all the news we have, then let's get into it.

Speaker 1:
[05:29] Let's just get right into the mailbag. So as I said, voice mailbag, which means we had folks write in, and Jack Sanders is going to help us read some of those questions, but we also had people call in. They called us at a special number demarcated for questions, hopefully mostly questions and not stray rants, but I'm sure we'll get a couple of rants here and there. Jack, how do you want to do this? Where do we go first?

Speaker 3:
[05:54] Just to let you know, I will not be reading the emails. I had a special guest read some of those emails for us. So the entire show will be entirely voicemails.

Speaker 1:
[06:03] Wow.

Speaker 3:
[06:03] Just to note, if you submit a question with Go Braves, I immediately deleted it. That happened at least a dozen times. Sorry.

Speaker 2:
[06:10] Can I just say also that yesterday, the Braves and the Phillies were playing last evening and I did have Sean was at my home with his family and Chris Ryan was at my home. And despite me renouncing them on the record of this national podcast, I still got shit. So I don't know what else there is to do. Yeah, not from you, but that's because they weren't playing the Mets.

Speaker 1:
[06:36] I really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about baseball right now. I've really never, never been in such a bad place with the sport in my entire life.

Speaker 2:
[06:43] Vegas was really up and down for you in that respect.

Speaker 1:
[06:45] We are down down right now. There has not been an up in several weeks.

Speaker 2:
[06:48] And I keep saying to you, it's April 20th. Is that what it is? And it's not even a month in, we're not even a month in.

Speaker 1:
[06:55] How many games in a row do you think the Mets have lost?

Speaker 2:
[06:58] I know it's like seven ish area.

Speaker 1:
[07:00] It's 11.

Speaker 2:
[07:01] 11, oh dear.

Speaker 1:
[07:03] It's 11.

Speaker 2:
[07:03] Okay, that's bad.

Speaker 1:
[07:04] That's extremely hard to do.

Speaker 2:
[07:06] I know they played the Dodgers, and that didn't go well.

Speaker 1:
[07:08] That was tough, but you know, that happens. When they played the Dodgers in LA, you get swept, it happens. You know, you play like the Giants, the Cardinals, you know, kind of middling teams in the sport, and you lose, you start to feel worried in the beginning of the season. Now we're just in a place where we're just, they're hopeless, truly hopeless. And as you say, it's April 20th.

Speaker 2:
[07:28] Right.

Speaker 1:
[07:29] There's time to turn it around, but I'd like to talk about movies.

Speaker 2:
[07:33] Okay.

Speaker 4:
[07:36] Hey Sean and Amanda, this is Bob from Toledo, Ohio. Hey, calling in, cause I had a, I think a good hypothetical question. I'm here with my six month old daughter, Violet. I have a hypothetical question. I know you guys have gotten plenty of questions about what films you'll show your kids. I wanna switch it up and instead ask your respective children bring home their first boyfriend or girlfriend. And they say, oh, I'm a big film buff. I love movies. And so of course you ask them what their favorite movie is. What would a red flag response be from them? And what would a green flag response be from them?

Speaker 1:
[08:14] Okay, Bob from Toledo.

Speaker 4:
[08:16] Which one make you kind of lean over to your son or daughter and say, I think you shouldn't see this person anymore.

Speaker 2:
[08:23] Right.

Speaker 4:
[08:23] And green flag, you gain a lot of respect and Sean, you probably show them your Blu-ray collection. Thanks a lot, guys. If you ever want, come to Toledo, do a pod. This is the home of Katie Holmes. So you guys could do a great Hall of Fame episode. It would be an amazing 10 minutes. So thanks a lot.

Speaker 2:
[08:40] Hey, first time writer director, Katie Holmes or at least director. I don't know whether she wrote the feature film.

Speaker 1:
[08:45] Didn't she direct that film about hosting Thanksgiving? Isn't it like April something?

Speaker 2:
[08:52] She did write and direct Happy Hour, but let's see what else we have here.

Speaker 1:
[08:56] I think she had another, maybe she was just the star. I thought she was the director of that film.

Speaker 2:
[09:00] I'm looking, I'm looking, but director, six credits here.

Speaker 1:
[09:04] Yeah, I think she's made some films.

Speaker 2:
[09:05] Rare Objects, Alone Together. She directed one episode of The Kennedys After Camelot.

Speaker 1:
[09:11] Oh, sure.

Speaker 2:
[09:12] And then All We Had. I'm sorry to Katie Holmes.

Speaker 1:
[09:15] I can't remember that Thanksgiving movie that she made that was pretty good too. I thought she directed that. Anyhow, Bob from Toledo, really interesting question. Leading right into some of our child-focused concerns on the show over the last few years. So the question was about what's a movie that your child's potential partner, future imaginary partner, would identify as their favorite movie, and what would be a red flag and what would be a green flag? So red flag is like, you know, assuming Alice is bringing a boy home. I think if a boy comes home and he's like Batman versus Superman, Dawn of Justice, like that's a red flag.

Speaker 2:
[09:54] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[09:54] That's like, that's more red than Superman's cape. That's like, you have to turn around and leave my home.

Speaker 2:
[10:01] Let me take it one further. Snyder cut, because then that indicates a level of- Okay. Okay. Someone's logged on, but they're making the wrong decisions.

Speaker 1:
[10:11] Maybe that indicates a level of interest in auteurism that I could explore with him. Maybe he could be turned.

Speaker 2:
[10:18] But it's evil auteurism, the hooks. And also suggests an over-familiarity with the internet and with posting and with- Could be. Subcultures that-

Speaker 1:
[10:30] We're talking like 10 years from now.

Speaker 2:
[10:32] Yeah, but already been- Oh, so you think in 10 years Snyder cut will be like historical?

Speaker 1:
[10:37] Maybe it'll be reclaimed.

Speaker 2:
[10:39] Oh, okay. By you?

Speaker 1:
[10:40] Maybe, probably not.

Speaker 2:
[10:43] So when the person says Snyder cut, will you then take them to your bootleg DVD of the Snyder cut?

Speaker 1:
[10:51] You know, I think they sell it.

Speaker 2:
[10:54] I think you can buy it. But you don't own it?

Speaker 1:
[10:56] I don't. I do have a Snyder stack. I'd be lying if I said I didn't own a Snyder stack. Fan of the Dawn of the Dead remake you made. Kind of a fan of 300. Everything else after that's kind of a mess. Okay. Green flag is an interesting question. I think any of the Gen X classics would be lovely to hear. Your Tarantino's, your PTAs, your Soderberghs, your Spikes. If any of those movies came across the transom and they're like, you know what I really love is Jackie Brown. I'd be like, now we're cooking with gas. Have you bought the ring yet, sir?

Speaker 2:
[11:29] But you wouldn't feel threatened at all because then...

Speaker 1:
[11:32] No, I think that would be magical. I think that would be wonderful. I mean, in all likelihood, movies will be dead by the time this happens, so I'm not too worried about it. What about for you?

Speaker 2:
[11:40] Well, I'm trying to think, so I would not receive with hope. I think probably any sort of... I mean, if someone's like Super Mario Galaxy, like, you know, blew my wig back, that would indicate some issues.

Speaker 1:
[11:56] A teenager came home and said that? And was like, my favorite movie is Super Mario Galaxy?

Speaker 2:
[12:01] I would be a little bummed about it.

Speaker 1:
[12:03] That's concerning. It's a movie for a seven-year-old.

Speaker 2:
[12:06] Well, I agree, so that's why I would have some issues with that. And I think probably if we'd spend the next ten years doing video game movies and it's someone being like, they didn't show us any real footage of Call of Duty, but they did show us Peter Berg being like, Taylor and I have a respect for special operations.

Speaker 1:
[12:28] What if the person who came home was like, I don't watch movies, but I'm really into Lioness season nine?

Speaker 2:
[12:33] That would also be a red flag. Probably I don't watch movies would also be a red flag. Don't you think?

Speaker 1:
[12:42] You know, it would be an interesting challenge for me.

Speaker 2:
[12:44] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[12:45] It's not impossible. The way in which I'm raising my daughter, the idea of her being interested in someone who's like, I don't watch movies would be a little weird.

Speaker 2:
[12:54] But you know what?

Speaker 1:
[12:55] She might break away. She's going to go find her own path. She might be interested in something completely different.

Speaker 2:
[13:01] Yeah, and it may also be that they are engaged in other types of culture and not movies specifically because it's a different generation. It would be hard for me if someone came home and was like, I don't do culture, you know?

Speaker 1:
[13:15] That would be an issue.

Speaker 2:
[13:16] So that would be like a real red flag.

Speaker 1:
[13:17] I'm not interested in art.

Speaker 2:
[13:19] Yes, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[13:19] But what if they came home and they're like, here are my two passions, hacky sack and devil sticks.

Speaker 2:
[13:24] Devil sticks?

Speaker 1:
[13:25] You know the devil sticks, like the two sticks and you've got to balance.

Speaker 2:
[13:29] Would you be into that?

Speaker 1:
[13:30] What if I started doing those things on the show?

Speaker 2:
[13:33] Can you do those? Are you good at those?

Speaker 1:
[13:35] I used to do both.

Speaker 2:
[13:36] Yeah?

Speaker 1:
[13:37] Not, well, not really. Not well?

Speaker 2:
[13:38] I was going to say, like, do you have any sort of talent at it?

Speaker 1:
[13:40] I wasn't professionally performing with devil sticks, like at a Grateful Dead show.

Speaker 2:
[13:44] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[13:44] But I owned devil sticks as a young kid, yeah. I had a hacky sack for sure.

Speaker 2:
[13:49] I don't want you to do that because then my sons will see a clip and be like, can I have those? So what's a green flag? I mean, I agree with you, any of the, you know, of our classics. I mean, we are, you know, narcissistic people and we want to be pandered to. So I would throw in Sofia Coppola, I would throw in Nancy Meyers, I would throw in Nora Ephron, I would throw in like any of like the Golden Hollywood classics. You know, if someone wants to be like the Lady Eve or singing in the rain or whatever, I'd just be like rock on.

Speaker 1:
[14:22] Like a 13-year-old is going to come to your house and be like, my favorite movie is the Lady Eve?

Speaker 2:
[14:25] They're sophisticated these days, you know? They have the internet, they have letterboxes. I don't know what they're up to.

Speaker 1:
[14:32] Well, let's say your son's future partner comes over and says, I've got 25,000 followers on letterbox. You're like, this is exciting or this is concerning?

Speaker 2:
[14:45] Well, I'd have to look at the profile, you know, and kind of see what we're doing, both from like a content, like, what is the taste displayed, but also is this person a little too professional at it? That would weird me out at age 13, or maybe this is just someone with a passion. And if it's someone with a passion, that's okay.

Speaker 1:
[15:07] Do you want to go to Toledo?

Speaker 2:
[15:09] Sure, I don't think I've ever been to Ohio.

Speaker 1:
[15:10] I've not been to Toledo? To Ohio?

Speaker 2:
[15:12] I don't think so.

Speaker 1:
[15:13] Have I been to Ohio? Maybe I haven't.

Speaker 2:
[15:17] Good luck. Six months, six months things are turning, you know? Six, with the child. And they can almost like sit up. They can, they respond to you.

Speaker 1:
[15:28] Yeah, I don't really, I don't really wish for anyone to have to experience zero to 18 months. I think that that's, that wasn't a pleasant time. I didn't enjoy it. Since then, it's gotten better and better every year. The first, the first stretch, not my favorite. Just putting that out there.

Speaker 2:
[15:43] But you know what, Bob, you're killing it.

Speaker 1:
[15:45] Hang in there, Dada. Okay. What's next?

Speaker 5:
[15:48] What's up, guys? Matt here. Big fan, longtime listener. On a recent episode of The Blank CheckPod, Tracy Letts was discussing with Griffin and David, how Sean and Amanda can from time to time, quote, get weird regarding what is and what is not considered a key film within an actor's filmography. In particular, Tracy mentions he and Amanda's love for witness and how, quote, Sean gets a look on his face like his ass is sucking lemons when they praise it as a key film in Harrison Ford's career. I'm wondering, could Sean please do his best to recreate this face just so we, as viewers, can recognize it when we see it going forward?

Speaker 1:
[16:31] I feel as though that is my resting face.

Speaker 2:
[16:35] No, there is an angry face that you get, but it's like you're not going to be able to recreate it. And I know when I've really got you, and I actually do know when I have to start backing off.

Speaker 1:
[16:44] But do you think that that's what the face that's being described is? Not you teasing me.

Speaker 2:
[16:48] A little bit, a little, because there is a little bit of disgust in the back off, you know, like you've gone too far faced. Definitely nostrils flaring and eyes getting a little whiter, and you sit up a little because you're spoiling for a fight. And then you do look a little disgusted that anyone would think differently than you and or provoke you in this way. So normally like a little more color in your face also, but I don't think it's something that's a different face. You're right. Sucking lemons is more just like, you know, general disinterest.

Speaker 1:
[17:28] I think it's yeah, I think it's like a mild disdain for someone's strongly held opinion.

Speaker 2:
[17:33] Impatience, like with me specifically, or just like stop doing your bit. I don't want this anymore.

Speaker 1:
[17:38] Yeah, I certainly understood what Tracy was talking about. Witness is an interesting example, which is a movie that I like, but that I find has kind of like had like the horseshoe theory of praise, where now it's like people are like, this is the greatest movie of all time.

Speaker 2:
[17:52] They built a whole barn.

Speaker 1:
[17:53] I get it. I listened to your episode of Blank Check. It was wonderful. You were an amazing guest. You know, I think Peter Weir is an incredibly gifted filmmaker. I have no negative feelings. In fact, I looked on Letterboxd last week to see what did I rate Witness when I watched it during COVID? Four stars. Put a heart on it. I'm a big fan of the movie. The point that I think Tracy was making when you made that comment and the face that is being described is sort of like, is this movie a masterpiece? Which is like a haughty attitude about something. I'm like, this is a very good adult crime drama for adults. And that's great. It's good to do that. But the overextension of this movie deserves to go into the Hall of Fame for XYZ, for Amish films, certainly. But for Harrison Ford, sure, we did.

Speaker 2:
[18:39] It's his only Oscar nomination. Just by the definition.

Speaker 1:
[18:42] Is that correct? Like, is that right?

Speaker 2:
[18:44] Well, no, he should have several Oscars and all he has is a SAG award that they made up. But like, you know, it's really good. Since we brought up this segment of the Blank Check episode featuring Tracy Letts, he goes on to compare, he puts the films in context, and he's like, I mean, it's obviously not a Kurosawa film, Witness, but if you're talking about how A Few Good Men and Pelican Brief are classics, and I said this to Tracy directly, but I will say it now to the public at large, A Few Good Men and Pelican Brief are not equal.

Speaker 1:
[19:17] They're not.

Speaker 2:
[19:17] They're not equal.

Speaker 1:
[19:18] Nor did-

Speaker 2:
[19:19] Okay?

Speaker 1:
[19:19] I certainly never indicated that they are.

Speaker 2:
[19:21] I like both of them. A Few Good Men, Way Up Here, Up High, Pelican Brief. It's just a legal thriller with Denzel and Julia Roberts. Like, we're having fun. One's very, very good. One's a little long and a little weird, but I like it.

Speaker 1:
[19:36] Here's the thing about Tracy's comments. You know, a lot of people want what The Big Picture has. You just got to keep that in mind. What's next?

Speaker 6:
[19:47] Hello, Big Picture. Hi. Happy episode 900. This is Blank Check with Griffin and David. Hi, I'm David. I'm not saying this is now Blank Check. We're not seizing your podcast. I'm just introducing ourselves. One of my favorite things about The Big Pick is how different Sean and Amanda's tastes can be. Sure. They're obviously zones of overlap, which are interesting to discover, but also I feel like there's lively discussion often in how different their go-tos are in film watching. David, I feel like there are moments in the history of our podcast where one or the other of us has successfully sold the other on one of our favorite movies.

Speaker 2:
[20:25] Okay.

Speaker 6:
[20:26] I think about the moment where you finally got me to understand the Matrix sequels. There is a login screen. I don't know if you have a moment where I've successfully convinced you of anything.

Speaker 2:
[20:34] I feel like there's so many movies you've probably, you should have.

Speaker 6:
[20:38] I was trying to put you on the spot. I mean, this is what I was trying to do. I want an honest answer. But while you're thinking about it, my question to Sean and Amanda is.

Speaker 7:
[20:46] So many fucking things I have to look at now.

Speaker 6:
[20:48] Can each of you name a movie that you feel like the other one successfully got you to understand and appreciate in your time doing the podcast that you don't think you would have watched or really locked in on otherwise? This is, I'm trying to set up an opportunity for the two of you to appreciate each other.

Speaker 8:
[21:07] That's nice.

Speaker 7:
[21:08] What is it? You have talked me into many a movie.

Speaker 6:
[21:11] Hotel Transylvania? Well, that's a good point. All three, that's three movies. That's a big three right there.

Speaker 3:
[21:16] Actually, that's actually a really good point.

Speaker 6:
[21:18] It's also a good opportunity to call out Sean who's been dismissive of the Hotel Transylvania trilogy or trilogy, if you will, during the Adam Sandler Hall of Fame.

Speaker 1:
[21:26] Fourth movie, not canon.

Speaker 6:
[21:28] Fourth movie doesn't count. Well, Sandler's not in it. Yeah. So my first question, I guess, is when are you guys going to do a Hotel Transylvania Hall of Fame?

Speaker 1:
[21:39] Yes, a Hotel Transylvania Maxi-Sode.

Speaker 6:
[21:41] Yes. And my second question is, what are the movies that you thank each other for exposing you to and making you understand? That's a great question.

Speaker 2:
[21:49] That's nice. Thank you. It's about healing here on The Big Picture. Briefly taken over by The Blank Jack. Good sequencing, Jack, on those. Mine's got to be a horror movie, right?

Speaker 1:
[22:02] Well, I will say one of my favorite episodes we did, and I can't remember if it was the first movie swap that we did, but we did Sense and Sensibility and Spider-Verse.

Speaker 2:
[22:11] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[22:11] And that was, I actually think when the show became sentient, or sort of like, our differences is like part of the programming strategy.

Speaker 2:
[22:21] It was an exchange of ideas.

Speaker 1:
[22:23] And then I think both of us were very open-minded and open-hearted about both of those movies. I think you really, I think I had not seen Sense and Sensibility, right?

Speaker 2:
[22:34] You hadn't.

Speaker 1:
[22:34] And you hadn't seen Spider-Verse, right?

Speaker 2:
[22:36] Correct.

Speaker 1:
[22:37] And those are two very specific kinds of movies that I'm usually a little bit allergic to and you're usually a little bit allergic to. One, animated and superhero, me, costume drama, kind of literary adaptation. And both films are, of course, like hugely critically acclaimed and beloved. So it's not shocking that we both liked it. But I think it has led to some interesting tributaries of exposure. In terms of the kinds of stuff that we're excited about over time. So that's the one that jumps into my mind. Not every movie swap has been as successful. You know, we have not always...

Speaker 2:
[23:13] You were quite rude about The English Patient.

Speaker 1:
[23:15] I didn't love that movie.

Speaker 2:
[23:16] And I had already seen Fargo and appreciated Fargo. So that wasn't as effective. The most recent movie swap, I can't remember what I gave you. Oh, Mamma Mia. Yeah, but that was different. Which was fun. Yeah, which was fun. And I think rounded out, again, we're working on, you know, your blank spaces, your blind spots, but I really liked The Strangers, which you gave me. And I do feel, especially as horror has been going in a more, well, you know, there are different tributaries, but you've been getting me on the more like psychological and like the types of horror movies that I would like. I mean, really like everything having to do with Ari Aster. I mean, I love Midsommar. Like I just straight up think that's a great movie. And that is not something that I would have thought out until the show.

Speaker 1:
[24:04] Maybe 15 years ago, you wouldn't have thought that's a movie I'd like. That's a good, Ari is a really good example.

Speaker 2:
[24:09] So that, and I'm really, really glad that I have not missed out on all of his work. So I think, and that's an extension, right? Of the movie swap of just like expanding a genre. You let me put Lost in Translation on 25, not Lost in Translation, you let me put Marie Antoinette on 25 for 25 over Lost in Translation. And you were gracious about it. And we're also like, I get it. I get why this is the one. So that was nice.

Speaker 1:
[24:37] I'm a big fan of that movie. I've obviously come to appreciate and understand Sophia's work more, being working so closely with you over the years and hearing you talk about her and what you like about her. And I think you just have an interest in certain aspects of movie making that are not always at the forefront of my mind. And so even if it's movies that we like together, and I will say spending so much time with you, making so many episodes, like our taste is definitely getting closer and closer over that time. Like we're not getting further apart. No. I'm sure for a variety of reasons, we're at similar stages of our life. There's like an inherent kind of cultural sameness that you sometimes adopt. But also, like you want to kind of be able to get along when you're making episodes all the time, too. Like I don't want to be like sniping at you in every episode. To me, that's not fun.

Speaker 2:
[25:23] Well, I do also think we just we see more of the same movies now. That's honestly what it is because our natural tastes and when we're not doing it for work, are pretty opposite day.

Speaker 1:
[25:35] It's funny, though, because last week you saw a movie that I didn't see. And yesterday I saw a movie that you didn't see. We could talk about them both later in this episode. There still are these like paths that it's like, that's for Amanda. This is for me.

Speaker 2:
[25:46] You know, that's fine. And that's how it works. You can't do it all. So, that was healing. That was nice. Do you think the rest of the mailbag is going to be that friendly?

Speaker 1:
[25:57] Probably all divisive, mean-spirited voicemails. Is that right, Jack? Yeah, absolutely. Okay.

Speaker 9:
[26:04] Hey, guys. This is Matt from Brooklyn. Longtime listener, first-time caller, proud DGA member, proud Jets hater. Sorry, Sean, go Pats. My question is quick and simple. Okay. You were ranking either your most rewatchable movies or your favorite movies. What is your version of the number 16 limitless take? What is your number 16 limitless? Thanks, guys. I'll hang up and listen to your answer off air.

Speaker 1:
[26:34] Is the question about 21st century like Bill's list was?

Speaker 2:
[26:38] I mean, he didn't specify.

Speaker 3:
[26:39] He didn't specify, but maybe we should take it that way.

Speaker 2:
[26:42] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[26:42] If we're not doing 21st century, it's Congo.

Speaker 2:
[26:45] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[26:46] Frank Marshall's masterpiece adaptation of Michael Cretton's novel about evil apes, diamond technologies, Laura Linney being in charge.

Speaker 2:
[26:59] Right.

Speaker 1:
[27:00] The CIA's desire to control Africa and Dylan Walsh coaching an ape to learn how to speak. That's one of the worst movies ever made that is very important to me. And I just watched it again this year and had a grand old time. 21st century? Probably need to think about that for one second.

Speaker 2:
[27:18] I know. I'm trying to think here. You know, we've made bits of most of the Amanda movies, but like I don't really think that, you know, Thomas Crown Affair in 1999 is eligible for this.

Speaker 1:
[27:29] Okay.

Speaker 2:
[27:30] I mean, I think that it's too good and too widely appreciated. You know, people are getting on that train. Apollo 13 is another one, but Apollo 13 is probably in my top 10 lifetime. It's released in 1995 and it's also good.

Speaker 1:
[27:45] Yeah, and people, most people agree it's good.

Speaker 2:
[27:48] It was nominated for Oscars.

Speaker 1:
[27:49] It's not Congo.

Speaker 2:
[27:50] So like what is a really, I mean, I love plenty of trashy movies. I guess a lot of them are romantic comedies. It's probably Two Weeks Notice.

Speaker 1:
[28:02] Good one.

Speaker 2:
[28:03] The Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, early 2000s movie. He's a real estate developer. She is a do-gooder lawyer. They work together, violate all acceptable office romance norms and then ultimately fall in love and also save a community center. We'll say there's a brief Donald Trump cameo at the end. Cool. We should probably, we could just edit that out. I would pay for that DVD release. Is it on DVD or Blu-ray? Two Weeks Notice?

Speaker 1:
[28:33] I don't own the film.

Speaker 2:
[28:34] Okay. That's your loss.

Speaker 1:
[28:36] It is directed by Mark Lawrence, not one of my guys. I've got nothing against him, you know? A lot of people love music and lyrics. That's a beloved film.

Speaker 2:
[28:43] That's right. I think this one is better just because I like Sandy and Hugh Grant and they have good chemistry.

Speaker 1:
[28:50] That's a really good pick. You know, I think my least reputable opinion is just that I think that the Deadpool movies are really funny and I've always liked them. And I kind of loathe Ryan Reynolds' screen persona and yet I think he is the perfect Deadpool. And I think those movies, which most people think are obnoxious, fourth-wall breaking, superhero garbage and hyperviolent. I wouldn't really argue with that per se, but I just always have fun watching those movies. And would I put any of them at 16 on my list? Probably not, but it was just reported over the weekend that Ryan Reynolds is writing another Deadpool movie. And what he said was, I won't be centering Deadpool in my Deadpool movie, which is a very funny way of putting it. He's like, I'll make Deadpool a supporting character, which is kind of amusing of him continuing to move Deadpool out of the center of the movies that he is working on with that character. But I know that I can't look at you or any sincere movie lover and communicate about the greatness of Deadpool. It's just like, you have a kind of lizard curling its tail inside of your mind.

Speaker 2:
[29:55] Have you watched it enough times for it to be number 16? Like I'm obviously working on number 16, Salt, but I haven't seen it enough times yet, right?

Speaker 1:
[30:05] Here's the big challenge. Because of what our jobs are now and because of how I live my life, I can't rewatch movies all day long that I love. Of course, like so many people and so many listeners of the rewatchables podcast, when I was in college, I watched the same 25 movies a dozen times, 25 times. I've seen The Big Lebowski, I've seen Clerks, I've seen Pulp Fiction more than anything. They're all great. I don't know if one can replicate number 16, Limitless. I think that is an individual accomplishment.

Speaker 2:
[30:38] That's the magic of Bill Simmons.

Speaker 1:
[30:40] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[30:42] Number 16, Salt.

Speaker 1:
[30:43] Wait, Jack, what's yours?

Speaker 3:
[30:44] Probably go like Nacho Libre.

Speaker 1:
[30:46] Oh, that's good. I like that one.

Speaker 3:
[30:47] Because I've seen that movie probably 50 times, 500 times.

Speaker 1:
[30:51] Interesting. Would you say you're a Jack Black person?

Speaker 3:
[30:54] No, I wouldn't.

Speaker 1:
[30:56] Okay, cool.

Speaker 3:
[30:57] But I vividly remember renting that movie from the library almost every single weekend.

Speaker 2:
[31:02] That's very cute.

Speaker 1:
[31:04] I rent from the library now. It's called Canopy.

Speaker 2:
[31:06] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[31:06] What did I watch on Canopy? I watched the movie called Tomorrow to prepare for the Robert Duvall Hall of Fame.

Speaker 2:
[31:11] Wow.

Speaker 1:
[31:11] 1972 film. Never seen it, never heard of it. Interesting movie. We'll talk about it next month. Okay, Jack, what's next?

Speaker 9:
[31:18] Hey, this is Chance Spivey from Morris, South Carolina. I'm just tuning in to the show, mainly because I just want to know, Sean, do you know that Aole is mayonnaise? That's all. Bye.

Speaker 1:
[31:34] Was that fella's name Chance Spivey?

Speaker 2:
[31:37] From, I couldn't hear where in South Carolina.

Speaker 1:
[31:40] I think he said, Waris.

Speaker 2:
[31:41] Waris, South Carolina? Well, now I'm just...

Speaker 1:
[31:43] Chance Spivey from, that guy's name is definitely Nate Golden from Greenpoint, Brooklyn, New York. Chance Spivey, my goodness. What did he say?

Speaker 10:
[31:54] He said, Aole is mayo.

Speaker 2:
[31:55] Do you know Aole is actually mayo? It's flavored mayo. He knows this. Here's the real... There's no consistency to these food takes. They are capricious, irrational and annoying. Last night, I had to do a separate dill bowl for this guy.

Speaker 1:
[32:12] That was nice. That was kind of you.

Speaker 2:
[32:14] No one, Zach and I, both remembered independently that Sean doesn't like dill. No broccoli, no salmon, no white condiments.

Speaker 1:
[32:21] That's what I call you when you're not around, dill bowl.

Speaker 2:
[32:23] Dill bowl, yeah. It was fresh dill. It was dill from the farmers' market too. Sunrise Farms.

Speaker 1:
[32:29] The meal was outstanding.

Speaker 2:
[32:30] Thank you so much.

Speaker 1:
[32:31] Some of your best work.

Speaker 2:
[32:32] Thank you. It's just what happened was we opened the Alison Roman cookbook and we said that.

Speaker 1:
[32:36] Well, she knows what she's doing.

Speaker 2:
[32:38] She really does. But the real reveal, the thing that makes me angriest about Sean's food preferences, and I learned this while he was eating an open-faced sandwich in Stockholm, Sweden was that it's not actually mayo that is the true deal breaker. It's mustard.

Speaker 1:
[33:01] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[33:02] Which I don't understand. I don't, and you would rather eat a dry sandwich than eat a sandwich with mustard. But if there is mayo or aioli, if it has flavor to it.

Speaker 1:
[33:15] You remember in...

Speaker 2:
[33:16] But mustard does have flavor. It's just not a flavor that you like.

Speaker 1:
[33:20] In old school, Frank the Tank, Will Ferro's character, you know, he drinks beer and he says, oh, you know, when it hits your lips.

Speaker 2:
[33:26] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[33:27] And he kind of has this like convulsive, orgasmic reaction to drinking beer. I'm that, but in reverse, for mustard. I don't know why the neurons are firing in my mind saying, repel, repel, whenever I taste mustard. But when I taste it, it's like my body goes into shutdown. I need to get it away from me. You know, no white drugs, no white condiments. Obviously, one of the great catchphrases.

Speaker 2:
[33:51] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[33:52] Am I inconsistent with it? Sure.

Speaker 11:
[33:55] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[33:55] But technically, in your defense, and I can't believe I'm defending this, an aioli is often not white. It has a color to it. It is a beige.

Speaker 1:
[34:03] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[34:03] Well, or...

Speaker 1:
[34:04] Or a chipotle aioli that has a pinkish quality. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[34:08] Well, that's the thing.

Speaker 1:
[34:09] And that's why we don't claim aioli in the no white drugs, no white condiments, you know, phylum.

Speaker 2:
[34:14] Here's the thing, though, so often aioli will have dill. Like, where are you on tartar sauce?

Speaker 1:
[34:19] No, thank you.

Speaker 2:
[34:19] Yeah. Okay. There you go.

Speaker 1:
[34:20] In fact, I would never.

Speaker 2:
[34:22] All right. Well, do you eat it like a po'boy, though, in general? Or just dry?

Speaker 1:
[34:27] I mean, I'm not, like, hanging in New Orleans on the regular. I guess I'm not opposed to it.

Speaker 2:
[34:32] I mean, I guess, no, tartar sauce is remoulade. Please, New Orleans people don't come for me. And tartar sauce would be more like fish and chips, you know, New England type thing.

Speaker 1:
[34:41] If I get served fish and chips and they put a tartar sauce next to it. Nope. No, thank you.

Speaker 2:
[34:45] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[34:45] I'm good.

Speaker 2:
[34:46] Remoulade?

Speaker 1:
[34:49] Yeah, I think so. Remoulade is white. It's not white.

Speaker 2:
[34:53] It's a cold mayonnaise based sauce. I mean, I think it has a little, it's mayo, mustard, hot sauce and spices.

Speaker 1:
[35:01] Yeah, I don't know if I can eat that anymore. As I said, it's inconsistent, but I appreciate this attention to detail because frankly, these discussions have not been as common in recent years on the show. But that is, that's a real head to know about the no white drugs, no white condiments. And I appreciate that attention to detail by you as well, Jack. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
[35:20] From Parker, Hey Sean and Amanda, my wife and I have two daughters, seven and five, and we live in Austin, Texas. My undergrad was in film, so movies are a big part of our household. A few weeks ago, my seven-year-old came home asking if I knew about Star Wars. The boys in her class are fired up for Mandalorian and Grogu. My five-year-old added that the boys in her class play laser swords at recess. By the time we got home, we'd struck a deal. Watch episodes one through nine, then they each get to pick out their own lightsaber. We watched A New Hope as a family. It was a hit. The girls were pumped for Empire for the following Friday. Then disaster struck the next week at school. My seven-year-old went to school the next day and told a boy in her class, Thomas, that she'd watched the first Star Wars. Without hesitation, Thomas told her Darth Vader is Luke's dad. I kept my cool, confirmed it was true, and then watched my daughter burst into tears and run into her room. Heartbreaking. Now I try not to be a petty person, but Thomas needs to learn his lesson for spoiling one of the great twists in movie history. Here's where you come in. No, I can't pull a blanchette and tar at the next school drop-off as tempting as that may be. What is a canonical movie that a seven-year-old boy like Thomas is bound to see one day, that I can show my daughters first with the explicit goal of sending my seven-year-old to school to ruin that movie for Thomas? I sincerely appreciate your help in plotting the revenge and restoring balance to the force.

Speaker 2:
[36:48] Parker, you're a great dad.

Speaker 1:
[36:49] That's very funny.

Speaker 2:
[36:50] This is beautiful. So three options come to mind. The first is that this happened to me, not about Star Wars, but Dark Knight. A young man who I was sort of dating at the time, which really puts everything that you need to know in one sentence.

Speaker 1:
[37:11] That's sort of doing a lot of work.

Speaker 2:
[37:13] Yeah, just as soon as I said, and by the way, I'm going to spoil the Dark Knight. I said, I'm going to see the Dark Knight, and he said, oh yeah, she dies. And I was just like, what the fuck? Why would you say this?

Speaker 1:
[37:25] She didn't even use the word Rachel.

Speaker 2:
[37:26] No, yeah. And then, because do you really know her name? Also, they had recast her, remember? You do, you know all women's names, I know.

Speaker 1:
[37:34] I see women, I acknowledge them. I recognize their power.

Speaker 2:
[37:37] Maybe he even said Maggie Gyllenhaal dies to differentiate from the fact that Katie Holmes played Where's Rachel? Right. So that was pretty messed up, but that seems down the road. It was effective though. I was very pissed off throughout the entire movie, just being like, well, I know she dies. There's no attention here.

Speaker 1:
[37:55] What a weird response to immediately say she dies. Is that your first takeaway from The Dark Knight?

Speaker 2:
[38:01] As I said, sort of, David. You could be like, the truck flips. We all make mistakes.

Speaker 1:
[38:05] Harvey Dent is two-faced.

Speaker 2:
[38:07] Listen.

Speaker 1:
[38:07] Joker blows up a hospital. You could go in any direction here.

Speaker 2:
[38:12] It's a long game, the next two, but at some point, this child will see both Sixth Sense and Psycho. And so, you know, just ground it early on.

Speaker 1:
[38:23] That would be a weird thing for two seven-year-olds to be talking about.

Speaker 2:
[38:26] Well, again.

Speaker 1:
[38:26] You don't know this yet, but in seven years, you'll be seeing the film from 1960, directed by the master auteur, Alfred Hitchcock, Psycho. In this film, a lowly motel proprietor will welcome a young woman in peril into his hotel. Turns out, he's dressing up every night as his mother and murdering people who stay at the motel. What are you going to do with that? What was the seven-year-old boy's name? Let's use his name. Let's use his full name on the podcast.

Speaker 3:
[38:57] The first name is Thomas.

Speaker 1:
[38:59] I can't believe they even gave us that name.

Speaker 3:
[39:00] I have an idea that he gave us a fake name.

Speaker 1:
[39:03] Hopefully, that's good.

Speaker 2:
[39:04] Thomas is a nice name. It was on my list.

Speaker 1:
[39:06] Thomas?

Speaker 2:
[39:06] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[39:07] Interesting. That's quite patrician.

Speaker 2:
[39:09] Okay. That was Zach's feedback for a lot of names. That's fine.

Speaker 1:
[39:14] This is my son, Thomas.

Speaker 2:
[39:16] I'm happy with where we landed.

Speaker 1:
[39:19] I think, gosh, what's more realistic? What's your third one?

Speaker 2:
[39:23] Oh, you said Sixth Sense and Psycho.

Speaker 1:
[39:26] Okay. What is something that is a little bit more in the realm of the seven-year-old viewership?

Speaker 2:
[39:34] Harry Potter, but presumably, Harry Potter has already been spoiled for him because he reads the books. I don't know.

Speaker 1:
[39:40] I know. We're just about to start Harry Potter. I think Five, Six, Seven is right in that zone when you read them. Jack, what comes to mind? Is there something that could be spoiled for a young boy and ruin their lives?

Speaker 3:
[39:50] Lucas had said Bing Bong Dies in Inside Out.

Speaker 1:
[39:53] Oh, great one. We've probably seen it.

Speaker 3:
[39:56] If he hasn't seen it, I would say the LaShawn McCoy Ripped My Dog Tony Stark for Avengers Endgame, because that's probably coming up in four or five years.

Speaker 2:
[40:07] I don't even know. I don't know what that is.

Speaker 3:
[40:08] LaShawn McCoy was a running back in the NFL and he saw the Avengers Endgame early, and then he tweeted that out before people saw it, spoiling the film.

Speaker 1:
[40:17] That is it. That's the best answer. The best answer is Tony Stark dies at the end of Endgame. That is the absolutely correct answer. The LaShawn McCoy poll is also quite good.

Speaker 2:
[40:26] I also had a different, this was a friend of a guy I was actually dating.

Speaker 1:
[40:32] Wow. What a checkered past for you.

Speaker 2:
[40:34] I remember we were at some bar in Brooklyn and this is about a TV show, but someone was on the third season of The Wire and he just yelled out, Stringer Bell dies, which is so messed up.

Speaker 1:
[40:45] Yeah. Actually, if we can get a seven-year-old girl to tell a seven-year-old boy Stringer Bell dies to his face, then we've accomplished more than I ever could have imagined on this podcast.

Speaker 2:
[40:54] Anyway.

Speaker 1:
[40:55] Hopefully, nobody listening to the show has not seen The Wire, one of the masterpiece achievements of our lifetime. Okay. What's next?

Speaker 10:
[41:03] Big Pig fam is Avatar Man. Who's Avatar Man? I'm the number one Avatar fan in the goddamn land. I got one question I need y'all to stand. Avatar, of course, altered the game. It put the whole server screen up in 3D flame. Y'all even did a whole pod just watching the water. Rotting the wave of James Cameron. But here is the twist I'm presenting to goddamn you. If we wiped out Pandora, if we faded the blue, if these game-changing movies had never existed, and the whole course of cinematic history twisted. If instead of the world where the Avatar play, Jim had given us two totally new joints, damn, what'd I think? Would you make that trade? Would you give up the Avatar crown to see what else Big Jim might have ended up laying down? So Sean and Amanda, I'll leave it to you. Would you rather have had two originals and never seen Avatar? Or goddamn, would you stick with the motherfucking...

Speaker 2:
[42:08] This is, I mean, bravo.

Speaker 1:
[42:09] Avatar Man.

Speaker 2:
[42:10] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[42:11] I salute you.

Speaker 3:
[42:12] Probably the greatest voicemail we have ever gotten or will ever receive.

Speaker 1:
[42:17] Wow. That was, I moved. The question is effectively, would you remove the three Avatar films from James Cameron's CV and replace it with two different James Cameron movies, if you could?

Speaker 2:
[42:30] So for me, this is less about losing the Avatar films themselves. I don't have the personal connection to the Avatar films that Avatar Man does. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[42:40] One assumes, but we don't know.

Speaker 2:
[42:42] I guess that's true.

Speaker 1:
[42:43] What if he's anti-Avatar, but has assumed the mantle of Avatar Man?

Speaker 2:
[42:48] That seems unlikely.

Speaker 1:
[42:49] He didn't indicate one way or another, right?

Speaker 2:
[42:51] I mean, he did kind of say the greatest... Yeah. Cinematic achievements. Anyway, so what I'm doing is not necessarily to preserve Pandora and the whales and everything. But you have to think about what role the movies play in cinematic history, positive and negative. And I do see Chris Ryan's point that this is one of our great spectacle filmmakers who's just been living in a blue land for 20-something years. On the other hand, those movies have made billions of dollars and sort of kept theaters afloat at a pretty dark time in cinema theater history and have papered over a lot of holes in the finances of an industry and then allowed other great things to be made. So, you know, do you want to take away $6 billion? Because I think whatever... Like, I love Big Jim.

Speaker 1:
[43:56] I don't really care about the money.

Speaker 2:
[43:57] You don't care about the money?

Speaker 1:
[43:58] I don't. I think it's an amazing accomplishment that he's been able to get people to come out for these movies, these original stories that he invented out of nothing. And I think, to me, I think the first two movies especially are just a major achievement. And I think they're really good. And I think we forced Chris to watch them under duress. But if he were with me in 2009 and saw the film wearing 3D glasses at the AMC in Lincoln Plaza like I did, that's one of my favorite movie going experiences. I thought it was amazing. I thought I was like, I thought I was witnessing the dawn of a new age of movies. I can only imagine how insufferable I would have been in this podcast after having seen the movie. I loved it. Now, is it a flawed story narratively? Does it borrow from lots of other things that have come before it? You know, is it a little oddly rendered and hard to watch at home? All that stuff is true. But like, I think the first two movies are huge, huge, huge creative accomplishments. So I would never, I don't know, not to be too, stick up my ass about it, but like tell an artist, like, don't do that, do this. Like I try to avoid that if I can. And in this case, now, the third one, I think you and I were both pretty mixed on, because it did feel a bit redundant to the second film, and over long, and it felt like it was spinning its wheels a little bit. It had some great stuff in it, but was not the level of achievement I thought the first two were. So if you told me you could lose the third one and replace it with one other Jim Cameron movie, I'm open minded about that idea, but I wouldn't take away Avatar for anything in the world. I mean, we were just joking around about Babylon with Matt Bellamy and the idea of Avatar appearing at the end, but I think that it was very justified that Avatar appeared at the end of that movie. It was a step in a progression of movie making around the world. So what is the other movie going to be? Is it an original story that James Cameron is going to write? Well, sure, that could turn out to be The Terminator or it could turn out to be True Lies. I like True Lies, but is True Lies a bigger deal than Avatar? Of course not.

Speaker 2:
[45:58] It might be to me, but I don't know. I don't know, but again, that's just because I agree with you that they are an accomplishment, but in terms of what I want to go to the theater to see, Yeah, I get it. I might prefer to see True Lies, and certainly the possibility for Titanic or Terminator 2.

Speaker 1:
[46:14] I think one of the things about signing on for a filmmaker's work and getting interested in it, it doesn't mean that you can't dislike anything that they make at any given point, but I think it's also trying to have some empathy for like, what's guiding them towards different choices in their career too. So like, his interest in ecology and the environment and the world around him, like all that stuff becoming a much bigger part of James Cameron's interest over the last 25 years is what led him to these movies. And it kind of makes sense when you think about how he's interacted with the world, the kinds of stories, this like sci-fi fantasy that kind of enlivened his interest in creativity as a young person. So I don't know, I don't mean to be so self-serious about it, but I wouldn't want to take it away from him.

Speaker 2:
[46:51] I think that's beautiful. You've always been an Avatar guy.

Speaker 1:
[46:54] I like Avatar.

Speaker 2:
[46:55] Would you redo the Papyrus font?

Speaker 1:
[46:57] It wouldn't have been my first choice.

Speaker 2:
[46:58] Okay, yeah. All right.

Speaker 1:
[47:00] It wouldn't have been my first choice. But you know what? The Papyrus font led to billions of dollars.

Speaker 2:
[47:05] It did.

Speaker 1:
[47:06] What's next?

Speaker 8:
[47:07] Hey, this is a message for Sean and Amanda. My name is Adam. I'm calling from Toronto. Long time listener, first time caller. I have a two part question for Sean and Amanda. First question is, without recourse to Google or a book or any notes that you've been passed by your producer or written on your hand, could you name all of the Canadian provinces and territories on air for The Big Picture? I want to know how many between the two of you guys could do. And hypothetically, if you were to ever come to Canada, which is the big country above you guys, what is one thing you've always wanted to do in Canada? Skydiving off the CN Tower doesn't count. I think this is a really important set of questions for your 900th episode. And I look forward to seeing them both answered on air.

Speaker 2:
[48:11] That was, of course, our pal, Adam Naven. Okay, here's the thing that I recently, in addition to Blue Heron, which we're going to talk about later, which is a Canadian film, also recently watched Myland Kicks, another Canadian film we're going to talk about in a couple of weeks. So in the last week, I've been more saturated in Canada than I have in some time, having quite literally never been to Canada. So, okay, provinces. So Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Vancouver. Are we missing one? Yes, we are.

Speaker 1:
[48:47] Is Alberta a province?

Speaker 2:
[48:49] Alberta?

Speaker 3:
[48:52] Vancouver is not a province.

Speaker 1:
[48:54] Vancouver is a city.

Speaker 3:
[48:55] There are 10 provinces and three territories.

Speaker 1:
[48:59] I don't know. I couldn't do the territories for you, I don't think. I mean, Nova Scotia.

Speaker 3:
[49:03] That is a province.

Speaker 1:
[49:05] Newfoundland?

Speaker 3:
[49:08] No.

Speaker 2:
[49:09] Okay. So what's British Columbia?

Speaker 3:
[49:13] That's correct.

Speaker 2:
[49:14] That's Vancouver, British Columbia. So that's what I was thinking of. I know that because of the Vancouver BC at the end of half the films that we watch.

Speaker 1:
[49:20] I don't know what we've named so far.

Speaker 2:
[49:22] I've said Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, you said Alberta, British Columbia.

Speaker 3:
[49:28] And Nova Scotia.

Speaker 2:
[49:29] Nova Scotia. So that's five. There are ten?

Speaker 3:
[49:31] There are ten provinces, three territories.

Speaker 2:
[49:34] I mean, can Adam name all 50 states? Is what I would like to ask.

Speaker 3:
[49:39] Good question. I don't know.

Speaker 2:
[49:40] Okay. You know?

Speaker 1:
[49:44] You know, I just don't know.

Speaker 2:
[49:47] What are the other five?

Speaker 3:
[49:48] No, you've, or wait, one, two, three, four, five, six. You've named six. I also have New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island.

Speaker 2:
[49:56] Ontario, damn it.

Speaker 1:
[49:57] Ontario, that's a terrible mess. We just needed to take more time on that. We would have gotten Ontario. I was thinking of New Brunswick for Newfoundland. My bad.

Speaker 3:
[50:04] Yeah, the territories I would no shot. Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon? Yukon.

Speaker 2:
[50:10] Yukon. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[50:12] Yeah, sure, the Yukon Territory, okay. Well, our apologies and our love and affection to the fine people of Canada. Maybe we will be seeing you.

Speaker 2:
[50:21] Maybe. Don't know.

Speaker 1:
[50:22] Maybe we will be seeing you later this year. Maybe. What was the second part of the question?

Speaker 3:
[50:26] What is one thing you've always wanted to do in Canada? Skydiving off the CN Tower.

Speaker 1:
[50:31] I want to play the Rivoli.

Speaker 2:
[50:33] That's a good one. I can't top that one.

Speaker 1:
[50:37] Okay, what's next?

Speaker 3:
[50:39] Also, I think the tenth one that I missed was Labrador, I believe.

Speaker 1:
[50:43] Labrador?

Speaker 3:
[50:43] That's a dog. I believe so.

Speaker 1:
[50:44] That's the name of a Canadian province?

Speaker 3:
[50:47] I'm Googling just to make sure to make all of our Canadian friends Newfoundland and Labrador, Canadian province.

Speaker 1:
[50:53] I said Newfoundland.

Speaker 3:
[50:54] Oh, right. They're connected. They're one.

Speaker 1:
[50:56] Newfoundland and Labrador. Okay, so we get credit for seven.

Speaker 3:
[50:59] Yeah, we did good. We put up a good performance.

Speaker 2:
[51:01] Okay.

Speaker 12:
[51:03] Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg. Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg. Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 13:
[51:15] Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 1:
[51:20] Jeremy Strong as Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 2:
[51:21] Yeah. Where are you feeling? Where are you on your emotional roller coaster?

Speaker 1:
[51:28] I think it's good.

Speaker 2:
[51:29] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[51:30] I think it's good. What do you think? You haven't seen it, so you don't.

Speaker 2:
[51:32] I haven't seen it. I had to have family dinner. We had lentils. I'm really nervous.

Speaker 1:
[51:41] I know. I know.

Speaker 2:
[51:42] But every time I'm nervous about Jeremy Strong doing something, he's never the problem. He's always really good.

Speaker 1:
[51:48] I agree. I think his radar is not strong on when to avoid something though. He will misstep at times. He's a transformer. He's our closest transformer. For example, The Apprentice is a movie that I think is pretty unsuccessful. But his Roy Cohn is fascinating. It is a standalone art piece. I feel like this movie is going to end up being somewhat similar. It's going to be a predictable docudrama about a lot of things that we already know. There's going to be some really interesting performances inside of it, but the movie is not going to be able to get out of its own way. I'm fine with that. I think what Matt was saying on the show is true, which is like there's a real chance that he is gliding into the best supporting actor nomination and maybe even a win, just because I do think that for all his self-seriousness, he's really admired. People think he's a fucking good actor. Also, Mark Zuckerberg, there's not a really high popular opinion of Mark Zuckerberg. So, him being the villain of this movie, I think will gratify at least a lot of people in that community. So, I'm interested, I'm paying attention. I really just wish it was like, gosh, Kevin MacDonald directing this movie instead of Aaron Sorkin. Just like a very seasoned professional maker of movies. I actually would feel a lot better about it if it was just his script.

Speaker 2:
[53:10] As you know, I agree. I had forgotten that Jeremy Strong is in Molly's Game. So, that makes three Aaron Sorkin movies?

Speaker 1:
[53:18] It's his guy.

Speaker 2:
[53:19] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[53:19] It's his guy.

Speaker 2:
[53:20] That's beautiful.

Speaker 1:
[53:21] Travel to Chicago 7. How many times do you think you'll watch it before you die?

Speaker 2:
[53:25] I think I've seen it twice.

Speaker 1:
[53:27] Pretty good.

Speaker 2:
[53:28] Maybe I'll rewatch it before Social Reckoning. So that's three. Three is my answer.

Speaker 10:
[53:33] Pretty good.

Speaker 2:
[53:34] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[53:36] What's next?

Speaker 10:
[53:37] Hey, Don and Amanda.

Speaker 8:
[53:38] This is Ben M calling from Washington, DC. I actually have a question for Amanda about rom-coms. I'm in a relationship with a woman that I love very much. We both love movies, but we don't always love the same kind of movies. Rom-coms are like that middle of the Venn diagram for us, and we've watched all the great all-time classics, or at least the modern classics, like Notting Hill, Four Weddings at a Feral, I Don't Lose a Guy in 10 Days, When Harry Met Sally, You've Got Mail, like we've run the gamut. But wanted to know if there are any examples of rom-coms that you would recommend that are like, you did Witness with Blank Checks recently, and you talked about how that movie was huge when it came out, but it sort of fell out of the zeitgeist. So I was wondering, what are the five rom-coms you would recommend that maybe aren't as popular or relevant today, but are still like exceptional films and are worth watching for rom-com lovers, because I love to share movies with my girlfriend, with my partner, and I want to make sure that we're continuing to explore a genre that she really loves. So we really appreciate the insight. Thanks, Amanda and Sean. I guess you could also answer too. Thanks, guys. Huge fan.

Speaker 2:
[54:44] Sure. Thank you, Ben. It was Ben, right? Ben, I have more than five, obviously. So I kept this list to modern rom-coms, but I would definitely recommend also checking out everything from the 30s and the 40s. One of my fondest memories of early dating, my now husband, was we went out to dinner with some friends of his who became friends of mine. I caught the bad oyster, had a bad night, and then the next day he very sweetly took care of me, and one of the things he did was he put on Philadelphia Story. So, you know, you don't have to really go deep cuts on that stuff, but those are great. I'm defining modern period as everything after when Harry met Sally. So, I apologize to the 70s and the 80s. Tracy Letts, like, don't e-mail me. I mean, do, Tracy. I always want to hear from you, but in this case, this is more 90s, 2000s and later. So, I already mentioned Two Weeks Notice, but Two Weeks Notice is a good one. From the 90s, I'm going to throw out The Cutting Edge, which is an Olympics romantic comedy, essentially figure skating, really, really good, written by Tony Gilroy. The American President, speaking of Aaron Sorkin, 1995 starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening, The President Falls in Love. I saw it four times in theaters with my dad. And you know what? Dave is a romantic comedy. Sure. Dave is wonderful. We also, you and I did a rewatchals about it with Bill Simmons. Okay, then we have Two Weeks Notice, Morning Glory, which I've talked about a lot. And that is written by Aline Brush McKenna, who also wrote The Devil Wears Prada and The Devil Wears Prada 2. And 27 Dresses, which I don't like as much. I think Morning Glory is slept on.

Speaker 1:
[56:35] Who wrote 13 dresses?

Speaker 2:
[56:38] 13. I mean, they pretty much live in my head. And let's see, and Morning Glory stars, Rachel McAdams, Patrick Wilson, Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford. Maybe you've heard of them. What else do I have here? Enough said. The Nicole Hollis Center film is a little more left-field in the rom-com space. It's not quite as shiny, but it's a really, really, really beautiful movie. Set It Up, starring Glenn Powell, that's one we all knew. It may also remind you of a website and media company that you consume content from. And Longshot, which I think is the one where Charlize Theron is the Secretary of State and running for president. And Seth Rogen is her speechwriter. And no one saw this movie and we all really liked it.

Speaker 1:
[57:28] Yes. Often cited as the market indicator of the downfall of the rom-com, Theatrically Released.

Speaker 2:
[57:35] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[57:37] Now, I wanted to ask you about this related to this question. I guess you could make the case that materialists kind of broke this up a little bit, but it does feel like this subgenre is still a little theatrically threatened, imperiled by streaming.

Speaker 2:
[57:55] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[57:56] Streaming in particular. This is a category where people have just said, I'll just watch this on streaming. I'll watch the Netflix version on streaming. I'll wait for it to come to whatever service I subscribe to.

Speaker 2:
[58:06] Sort of.

Speaker 1:
[58:06] We've seen other movies kind of like beat back, like fight back the dawn on this and come back. You know, the drama being successful recently is very encouraging for what people want to see at the movies. Do you think there's a world where rom-coms can come back to, if not when Harry Met Sally, Peak, Nora, Efron, at least even into that late stage Hugh Grant period?

Speaker 2:
[58:30] Right.

Speaker 1:
[58:31] Mid 2000s, 2010s.

Speaker 2:
[58:34] Yeah, sure, and you'll notice I didn't... I really like Kate Hudson, but that era of rom-coms is not on my classic list.

Speaker 1:
[58:40] You know, J. Lo and Sandra Bullock and Bruce Witherspoon, like the icons from that period of time.

Speaker 2:
[58:48] So, first of all, I would argue that the drama is a romantic comedy. Sure. But it wasn't marketed as such. So what you're talking about is like we're putting on the package, like, hey, find love at the movies, which Universal is trying to do this year with One Night Only, the Callum Turner, Monica Barbaro movie from Will Gluck, who also did Anyone But You, which again, like that is a romantic comedy. Those are both also being marketed more as sex comedies, which is different in most of these movies. People do have sex, but it's not like the, forgive the pun, thrust of the experience.

Speaker 1:
[59:23] You don't show up for the décolletage.

Speaker 2:
[59:26] Exactly. So the thing is, is that all of those Netflix movies, those aren't romantic comedies, those are Hallmark movies. And that like, there is a difference in the eye of the beholder. And so the problem really, and not to step on You, Me & Tuscany, is that we have just, people will now accept or people will slap on the label of romantic comedy to things that do not meet the criteria of like actually good writing, movie stars, some thought into production design and, you know, any sort of budget. So I don't know, I'm not that optimistic because it seems like everyone has realized you can just make a bad version for less and put it on streaming and people will watch it. And I'm kind of bummed out about that. There have been a couple TV versions of it. Starstruck is probably the best romantic comedy that's been made in the last 10 years. And that is Rosemata Feo, like three season, but British series. And so each season is about two hours long, like a romantic comedy.

Speaker 1:
[60:36] Okay.

Speaker 2:
[60:38] I wish people would try, but I don't know. Hiring like directors and spending money on girl stuff, it's historically not been, you know, what studios want to do.

Speaker 1:
[60:49] It's true, but when you look at the origins of the genre, and you look at what the kind of like collision of farce and witty repartee, right? And you got the hired hands in the 30s, the Ben Hecht's of the world writing a lot of those movies who are great at that ratatat dialogue. You got Ernst Lubitsch coming over from Europe. Then you've got, you know, folks in the 40s, Howard Hawks and later Billy Wilder and all Preston Sturges, like all those filmmakers who were so good at that work. Like there was no like boy movie, girl movie thing. It was like there were date night movies. You know, there were movies that you went to go see with someone who you were interested in or who you were married to. And they kind of, they gave both parties something interesting, exciting, fun, entertaining. And so I think part of like, I know it's a bit of a joke on this show of like your thing, my thing, but you know, the Lady Eve is not for girls. The Lady Eve is for everybody. And When Harry Met Sally is not for girls. It's for everybody.

Speaker 2:
[61:48] Right, but I mean, we just sat through a week of presentations that were just, what is the most that we can pack into a movie? What is like the most IP, the most recognizable names, the most explosions, the most video game tie-in. It's just like, this is, these are not movies. These are events. These are amusement parks. And obviously we were at a convention for theater owners. They're playing to that particular audience. But I think what we've learned, the industry is about premium formats and getting everyone's attention for as much as possible.

Speaker 1:
[62:23] And high concept. And when you were talking to Matt about One Night Only, he was like, I don't get it, I don't get it. Why is it The Purge? But it's like, that's why it's The Purge. The Purge romcom is happening because there has to be an extra layer to sell it, which I think is fine. But as long as the movie is good.

Speaker 2:
[62:37] It's totally fine with me. And hopefully that also, it looked, they at least filmed in New York City. They at least hired real movie stars like Will Glock.

Speaker 1:
[62:46] Do you think that was a real pizzeria that they were in in that sequence that we saw?

Speaker 2:
[62:50] I don't know about that, but I did see paparazzi photos of them on the street in New York. So they're at least trying for some of that. And I'm great with a premise. I mean, all of the things that I just named have a premise of sorts. It's like hockey player and a figure skater, and they've got to team up. It's the secretary of state and a speechwriter. It's the president and a lobbyist. So premises are fine.

Speaker 1:
[63:14] I love that. I mean, one of the things I think about growing up in the 80s and 90s is that you can almost feel the screenwriter pitching the idea in the room when you're watching the movie. And sometimes that leads to a really fun movie. It's a movie, it's not a documentary. You're supposed to have an idea that makes it exceptional so that you're spending time watching it.

Speaker 2:
[63:31] Yeah, and the other thing about them is that romantic comedies are a very set, recognizable structure. They are a genre, just like any other genre. And then half the fun is the premise or the situation, right? So Morning Glory is a newsroom. The Cutting Edge is the Olympics. I did several political ones.

Speaker 1:
[63:48] Yeah, let's go somewhere where we don't usually go.

Speaker 2:
[63:49] Yeah, exactly. And someplace you don't normally have access to. Obviously in the 90s, there was like 55 magazines, which is then why I became a magazine writer. So I guess now it has to be influencers or whatever, but as much care is put into developing those worlds, right? And making them real believable places. And you just don't get that in the streaming movies. So it's just about spending money and hiring good talent.

Speaker 4:
[64:18] It is.

Speaker 2:
[64:19] And as long as people keep watching, I don't know whatever, on Irish Wish or whatever, then I don't know what the incentive is. I didn't see Irish Wish. I don't care about that stuff, you know?

Speaker 4:
[64:30] The Irish?

Speaker 2:
[64:32] I care about you.

Speaker 1:
[64:32] Thank you.

Speaker 2:
[64:34] But yeah, I don't like the homework stuff. I want real romantic comedies.

Speaker 1:
[64:38] I'm with you. What's next?

Speaker 3:
[64:41] This next voicemail isn't precisely a question, but I do have a follow up that will be a question afterwards.

Speaker 1:
[64:46] Fire away.

Speaker 12:
[64:48] Yeah, g'day, CR. Right, I'm here waiting at Sydney International Arrivals for, hang on, is that you? I know that's just, I'm Paul Bloke and an Oakland Ace cat. Anyway, mate, yeah, so when you get in, we've got a special surprise for you. Me and all the officer class members of the Australian Army, of the CR Army, you're going to put on that moot reading at the JAN 6 committee hearings, you said you wanted to see on the JMO pod. And made a special special edition. We've got a tattoo artist coming along, so we can all get in with the chair for life, Shin Tapps. Yeah, so hopefully you get this when you get off the plane, mate, if you're trying to find me, I'm holding up a picture of Rain Groves, says, I've got a couple of moves I can make here. See you soon, Dickhead.

Speaker 3:
[65:39] So we had another question, another voicemail that was left, by the way, just amazing voicemail, that was basically asking, what makes CR so likable? What makes him the best? Why does he have such a great approval rating? I thought this would be a nice way to clear out and show him some love.

Speaker 1:
[65:58] It's weird to be getting these questions now. Like I have actually answered questions like this in the past on the show and have talked about like my history of my friendship with Chris. And I actually felt like in the past, I was like still doing what I was doing in 2007, where I was like, is no one else seeing this?

Speaker 2:
[66:15] Totally.

Speaker 1:
[66:15] This is the funniest person I've ever met. And now we're over the mountain here.

Speaker 2:
[66:21] So everyone's seeing it?

Speaker 1:
[66:23] We got the Australian Army lighting up ready to battle.

Speaker 2:
[66:28] He gets a welcome off the airplane.

Speaker 1:
[66:32] Is it unknown what is so great about Chris? He's on eight pods a week. Like we know.

Speaker 2:
[66:36] To a person though, both as a listener, but also the people in his life. Like you talk about the moment that you met Chris Ryan and you're like, wait, are you real? Like, is this really, really happening? How did I not, how do I not already know you? And also, how are you, am I the only person hanging out with you? Cause you're like the coolest funniest person in the world.

Speaker 1:
[66:58] Everybody either wants to be or thinks they're his best friend. That's obviously something that has become even more clear as so many millions of people have spent time with him in our cars doing the dishes and stuff like that. I think, you know, I'm also like a little selfish, like a little greedy with my friend, you know? I'm like, I really, I put the time in. I love this kid. Like, I really love this guy. So, but I'm so happy that, CR Month was very special. That was very cool because, you know, you and I are as close with him as anybody and he deserves to be feted in that way. But I don't know, there's like also a lot more going on with Chris that he doesn't usually let out. He did a little bit on Talk Easy, which did you eventually listen to that?

Speaker 2:
[67:39] No, I still haven't. I've only seen the clips.

Speaker 1:
[67:41] Yeah. It was nice to hear him in that frame as well. But the one thing that I'll say is, this is going to seem like it's undermining, but it's actually the opposite. Chris is unthreatening. And I don't know very many men who are unthreatening. Most men are like kind of aggro and competitive and not supportive.

Speaker 2:
[68:07] True.

Speaker 1:
[68:08] Chris is really positive and encouraging. And even if your joke is bad, he'll laugh at your joke. And if he knows you're interested in something, he'll ask you about it. And not performatively on podcasts. In life. He's actually connected to you in a sincere way. And I think that that ports over to all the work that he does publicly, and people can feel that. He's just not full of shit. And he's not anxious. And he's not worried about what you think about him or whatever. Or even if he is, it's completely masked by the infectious energy that he brings to things. So it's actually ultimately not surprising to me that we are where we are with this thing.

Speaker 2:
[68:46] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[68:46] But it did take, from my vantage point, 20 plus years. For Andy, it's 30 years. It's people who've known him even longer than I have.

Speaker 2:
[68:56] That's true. Yeah. I mean, the thing about it is that the magic of Chris is that Rango Sheriff is possible and is there. And it's not even, you know, and the voices and I can't even name all of the rewatchables characters that he does at this point.

Speaker 11:
[69:11] Sure.

Speaker 1:
[69:12] Robert Lohr is still my favorite.

Speaker 2:
[69:13] Sure. But like, that is, that's just like, right, he can reach that at any point. It can come out whenever. And sometimes the best ones are just kind of like in passing, you know, when he's not even doing the full voice work. But he's not like that all the time. He's also just like a loving, friendly, reliable guy who knows like a lot about the special forces, speaking of Taylor Sheridan and like, and geopolitics and soccer and other things. Like one of the great things about Chris is you can just be, like text him and be like, so can you like bring me in on what's going on here with this British newspaper and or like Venezuela? And he's like, okay, so here's what the message boards are saying, you know?

Speaker 1:
[70:01] If you want to know the breath of his knowledge, don't go to the rewatchables or the watch or a sports podcast. Go to Wait A Second, the show with Jason Concepcion and Tyler Parker. Those episodes are, that's where Chris is spending a lot of his free time.

Speaker 2:
[70:15] And he will, and he'll bring you in. He wants to share.

Speaker 1:
[70:18] Yeah, how do you think he really feels, like deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep down in his heart of hearts about the third chair controversy?

Speaker 2:
[70:27] I mean, he's welcoming. And I think, as you said, he comes, Chris isn't like a threatening guy, but he's also not threatened. He knows, you know, like it's, he's not in danger. He lets people come to him. And I think that's his power. And that's his confidence. And I think he's going to be fine. I honestly think he doesn't spend that much time thinking about it. I think he's just on the message boards.

Speaker 1:
[70:53] Could be. He did send me a note yesterday that said, I miss being on Big Pick.

Speaker 2:
[70:57] Oh, that's nice.

Speaker 1:
[70:58] Because it was a CR month. My gift to him, our gift to him was to give him a little bit of a break.

Speaker 2:
[71:02] Right, was not having to do all our bullshit, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[71:04] You know, we gave him a little bit of a break as he was visiting all of the other spaces. But he'll be back with a fury, I think, in May.

Speaker 2:
[71:09] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[71:10] OK, what's next?

Speaker 5:
[71:12] Hi, Sean and Amanda. This is from John and Carly from Chicago. My fiance and I are getting married this summer and bonded over the podcast when we first met back in 2019. My question is, which movie couple do you feel best encapsulates your respective marriages? Yes, my fiance is a woman and she got me into physical media. Hashtag breaking stereotypes, hashtag physical media, hashtag open the schools.

Speaker 2:
[71:48] That's beautiful and I'm glad, you know, representation matters. So that's really, that's great.

Speaker 1:
[71:53] There are dozens of women.

Speaker 2:
[71:55] What do you think? Do you think they have a registry that's just like DVDs or Blu-rays that they want? Is this happening yet? Are there physical media registries?

Speaker 1:
[72:06] I don't know. I'm reluctant to share this, but when I was at a screening that we did a year ago or so maybe, one of the American Cinematheque screenings, I was introduced to someone who was getting married, and they were having a physical media-themed wedding where the party gift, the favor, was a Criterion Collection Blu-ray, and that they had gotten Criterion to sponsor that wedding. Wow. They gave away 75 Blu-rays, all individually curated for the guests, which was a great, really beautiful idea that I liked, and I will share with other people. I cannot promise you the Criterion will participate with you. I think this person knew someone who worked there. Nevertheless, gosh, a couple that most represents our individual marriages?

Speaker 2:
[72:51] I think so.

Speaker 3:
[72:52] That's correct. I was really close to putting this in the doc to prep, but I thought hearing it in real time wouldn't be more fun.

Speaker 2:
[72:59] So I was afraid they were going to say what represents, like, our dynamic, and we were having a conversation at CinemaCon where I was like, you know, I'm the ginger to his friend, always backwards and heels, but you thought that that wasn't fair. And I didn't. Yeah. And that so it was more of a Roslyn Russell, Cary Grant sort of thing, which is really complimentary to both of us.

Speaker 1:
[73:20] I agree.

Speaker 2:
[73:20] Which is why I would say that out loud.

Speaker 1:
[73:21] I feel that that is more accurate.

Speaker 2:
[73:22] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[73:23] A little bit of bickering, there's chemistry, independent minded.

Speaker 2:
[73:27] Sure. I'm solving crimes. That's fine. That's what I do. In cool hats.

Speaker 1:
[73:33] Yeah. I think I'm making important decisions, but you're doing the work. I think that was a better comparison.

Speaker 2:
[73:39] Okay. My marriage. I don't know. What's my marriage like?

Speaker 1:
[73:42] Mine is kind of like Dave and Hal 9000, I'll say. Eileen is like, why are you doing this to me? I'm like, I'm sorry, Eileen.

Speaker 2:
[73:58] That's funny. What's mine?

Speaker 1:
[74:05] Gosh. I had to not make a joke here. You got so many good jokes.

Speaker 2:
[74:08] No, say the jokes. The jokes are funnier. Yeah, that's funny.

Speaker 1:
[74:13] What are you guys like?

Speaker 2:
[74:16] Let's see.

Speaker 1:
[74:18] Probably Shia and Optimus Prime in Transformers.

Speaker 2:
[74:21] Okay. Who's who?

Speaker 1:
[74:23] You're Optimus Prime, obviously. Yeah, of course. Zack has got Shia energy for sure.

Speaker 2:
[74:27] Yeah.

Speaker 5:
[74:28] Not in a bad way.

Speaker 2:
[74:30] We love Zack.

Speaker 1:
[74:30] That character.

Speaker 2:
[74:31] We're positive.

Speaker 1:
[74:32] That character, I mean.

Speaker 2:
[74:35] What are some other great tools?

Speaker 1:
[74:38] What about Linda Blair and Pazuzu in The Exorcist?

Speaker 2:
[74:42] Sure. Absolutely.

Speaker 1:
[74:44] Is that accurate?

Speaker 2:
[74:44] That seems good.

Speaker 1:
[74:45] I mean, you could be like, one of you is Harry, and one of you is Sally.

Speaker 2:
[74:49] But not really. That's also...

Speaker 1:
[74:51] No.

Speaker 2:
[74:52] That's not really... That's not how it went down. We weren't friends first. We also aren't You've Got Mail. No, we weren't really friends.

Speaker 1:
[75:00] You were lovers then friends. That's great.

Speaker 2:
[75:07] Let's see. We're not any of the Nora Ephrons. Because, I mean, you know, we could be Julia, Julia. Not Julie. We could be Julie and Stanley Tucci.

Speaker 1:
[75:17] Maybe you're like Anna Paquin and Matt Damon and Margaret.

Speaker 2:
[75:21] Okay, that has to be really good. We definitely were sitting very quietly after we saw Margaret. Together being like, I hope, yikes.

Speaker 1:
[75:29] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[75:30] Uh, well, this was fun.

Speaker 1:
[75:32] How about Cap and Iron Man?

Speaker 2:
[75:36] Well, then, who's dead?

Speaker 1:
[75:40] Well, Robert Downey Jr.'s back.

Speaker 2:
[75:42] Sure, but not as Cap, as Dr. Doom.

Speaker 1:
[75:45] He was never Cap. He was always Iron Man.

Speaker 2:
[75:47] Right, he was always Iron Man. Sorry, I didn't know that.

Speaker 1:
[75:49] Spidey and MJ?

Speaker 2:
[75:51] Is MJ Kirsten or is MJ?

Speaker 1:
[75:54] You tell me. They're both MJ. Zendaya and Kirsten Dunst both play Mary Jane.

Speaker 2:
[75:59] And then who was Emma Stone?

Speaker 1:
[76:01] Emma Stone was Gwen Stacy.

Speaker 2:
[76:02] Okay, I don't want to be her.

Speaker 1:
[76:05] The good thing about Gwen Stacy, if you be her, and I'm happy to share this with you now, is there's alternate tellings of the Gwen story. And in Spider-Verse, that's also Gwen Stacy, the Haley Steinfeld character, the blonde young girl who Miles loves and is a part of a crime-fighting partner with, and she's a hero. And that Gwen in Spider-Verse, I think, is probably my daughter's favorite character. Spider-Gwen.

Speaker 2:
[76:31] Oh, great. Okay.

Speaker 1:
[76:33] Ghost Spider.

Speaker 2:
[76:34] Ghost Spider? Okay, I don't... We don't really do ghosts in my house.

Speaker 1:
[76:38] Well, she's not actually a ghost. I think it's more of speaks to her styling.

Speaker 2:
[76:42] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[76:45] I think you should also show your sons empowered women who have web shooters.

Speaker 2:
[76:50] That's great that we had to have a long conversation this morning about how we don't shoot lasers at people. And I was going to have to take the Lego ship away.

Speaker 1:
[76:57] Going to have to disagree with you on that one. We do shoot lasers at people. And by we...

Speaker 2:
[77:01] Not in real life, just in the movies. And we can't build a Lego ship to shoot our brother laser, shoot lasers at our brother.

Speaker 1:
[77:07] Pete Hegseth might have something different to say about that.

Speaker 2:
[77:09] All right.

Speaker 1:
[77:12] What's next? What was that? What was up with the Australian? Oh geez. What was the Australian guy who was like JMO?

Speaker 3:
[77:17] Yeah, what about, oh, he didn't leave a name.

Speaker 1:
[77:20] He's not a subscriber to JMO. I have a list of all of the subscribers to JMO, and he's not on that list. So that was an affront to what JMO has been accomplishing over these years. And we're making progress on that show, I feel. What's next?

Speaker 8:
[77:35] Hey, it's been David Grabinski, longtime listener, first time caller. Just wanted to say, I wish I talked about the Gilmore Girls scene more in our interview about Mike and Nick and Nick and Alice. More specifically, I wish I had Sean who we thought was the best boyfriend for Rory. And also, I think you guys really underestimated the box office for Coyote versus Acme. If I know anything, it's this, kids love legal thrillers. That guarantees at least 600 million domestic. But in all seriousness, I think you should both weigh in on the Rory Gilmore of it all. The people want to know, and the people is me. All right, thanks.

Speaker 2:
[78:15] Okay. So have you seen any Gilmore Girls?

Speaker 1:
[78:17] I have. I've seen multiple episodes of multiple seasons, but I'm not.

Speaker 2:
[78:21] Okay, so your prime options here are Dean. That's the first boyfriend. Jess.

Speaker 1:
[78:26] That's the second boyfriend.

Speaker 2:
[78:27] And Logan.

Speaker 1:
[78:28] So I'm not as up on Logan. Logan's the college boyfriend?

Speaker 2:
[78:30] Yeah, Logan is the college rich kid boyfriend. And in Mike and Nick and Nick and Alice, did I get the names right? Yes, you did. Yes, great. It is argued that Logan is actually the best for Rory of the boyfriends, which is correct.

Speaker 1:
[78:46] Okay.

Speaker 2:
[78:48] But is sort of controversial because he's a rich kid and Rory drops out of school because of some trouble that they get into. And her life is very up and down when Logan's around. And people blame him for that, but it's actually Rory that's the problem.

Speaker 1:
[79:07] Well, thank you to Ben David. Was he asking who would be the best, who was the best boyfriend for Rory?

Speaker 2:
[79:11] What's your opinion? Because that's the James...

Speaker 1:
[79:14] Well, the energy between Rory and Jess, I think, is the most interesting energy.

Speaker 2:
[79:18] That's correct.

Speaker 1:
[79:19] And that's what you want, right? Milo Ventimiglia, right? He was Jess. And I thought the show was most interesting to me when he was in the mix because he was like, you know, playing a Sean-esque role of challenging.

Speaker 2:
[79:34] And later on in the show, and it's when she is with, she's with Logan, she's in college. I think she actually, she's dropped out of college right now because they steal a yacht.

Speaker 1:
[79:43] Jeez, Louise.

Speaker 2:
[79:43] And then she's, because his dad is a newspaper guy and tells her that she doesn't have it, what it takes to be a newspaper person. And so she spirals, she drops out of college, she joins the DAR, she starts living with her grandparents. It's like pretty dark. And so during that, she goes to Philadelphia and she goes to where Jess is now living in Philadelphia and he is running a small indie book imprint and they have a coffee shop and they're doing really cool stuff. I mean, it is like so in our alley. Obviously for us, Jess is the answer. I think that there are some younger kids who think that Jess is too bad a boyfriend and that he's not nice to her. He's not nice and so that Dean was so nice. Dean's a loser with Nowhere to Go. He's really needy. Then he cheats on his wife with Rory. And it's like, I feel bad for him, but that doesn't mean that he's right for Rory. So I think... So what happened?

Speaker 1:
[80:44] So it was Jared Padalecki and then he went on to be on, what was that show on?

Speaker 2:
[80:49] Smart Something.

Speaker 1:
[80:50] No, come on. What's the, Supernatural, right? Wasn't he on Supernatural? Jared Padalecki? Wasn't he on like 14 seasons of Supernatural?

Speaker 2:
[80:57] Jared Padalecki. I mean, I know what show you're talking about, but I don't, Supernatural.

Speaker 1:
[81:01] Yeah, he was on, I think he left Gilmore Girls and then went to Supernatural for 15 seasons.

Speaker 2:
[81:06] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[81:09] I'm going with Jess.

Speaker 2:
[81:10] Yeah, I mean, the thing is, is that it's not Rory's, it's not Logan's fault that his dad is a jerk and he tries to warn Rory about her. And honestly, Logan is like very smart and charming. And then he starts a business by himself and then he proposes to her and he's like ready to commit and it's her issues. So I honestly kind of vote for Logan still, but Jess would have wrecked my life for sure. The thing is, is that Gilmore Girls is a show about two total narcissists in Lorelai and Rory, like they're the problems.

Speaker 1:
[81:48] Sure. Do you think, did Alexis Bledel, she did eventually show up on Mad Men, right?

Speaker 2:
[81:54] Yeah, she was.

Speaker 1:
[81:55] Was she Pete's future wife?

Speaker 2:
[81:59] I think so, where they had an affair.

Speaker 3:
[82:01] Google AI says that's correct, I've never seen the show.

Speaker 1:
[82:04] I enjoyed that. I enjoyed the idea of the real life couple of Vincent Carthyzer and Alexis Bledel being represented on screen. I like to think of that as Rory's spiritual partner.

Speaker 2:
[82:14] Right. I'm trying to think.

Speaker 3:
[82:17] Also, this is the take that the characters have on Mike and Nick and Nick and Alice, right? This is where they land as well.

Speaker 2:
[82:24] Yeah, they land at Logan is the best for Rory.

Speaker 3:
[82:27] Oh, no. So we're saying Jess and they say Logan.

Speaker 2:
[82:30] Well, so they say Logan is the best for Rory, which is true. But they also say that like Rory is a that they're both spoiled. So they deserve each other. And I would argue that it's not nothing's really Logan's fault. It's Rory's fault. So I think Logan is the best.

Speaker 1:
[82:44] Understood.

Speaker 2:
[82:44] But Jess definitely is our flavor.

Speaker 1:
[82:49] What's next?

Speaker 7:
[82:51] What's up, guys?

Speaker 10:
[82:52] My name is Brent.

Speaker 7:
[82:53] I am 28 years old for Amanda. I live in San Diego. And my question is for Amanda. Amanda, I'd like you to recast X-Men. No, I'm just kidding. My real question is, congratulations on 900 episodes. How has the show changed and evolved in ways that you guys were not expecting? How has the show become different than when it started on day one in ways that you didn't think that it would change or evolve or grow? Big fan. Keep doing what you're doing. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
[83:24] That's a nice question.

Speaker 2:
[83:25] It is nice. I'm 41 on Netflix, so.

Speaker 1:
[83:29] That's a change.

Speaker 2:
[83:30] Yeah, that's the answer.

Speaker 1:
[83:33] You weren't on the show when it started.

Speaker 2:
[83:35] That's true.

Speaker 1:
[83:35] That's a huge change. A change for the better.

Speaker 2:
[83:37] You were talking to directors.

Speaker 1:
[83:38] It was just me interviewing directors for almost a year, at least six months, and then you started coming on more, other guests started coming on more. And then, I want to say it was the fall of 18, maybe, when you officially joined, and we just started going to two a week.

Speaker 2:
[83:55] Yeah, and doing the Oscars.

Speaker 1:
[83:56] Right, right. So that was almost eight years ago, since that took place. So that's probably the single biggest change. And it led to the show becoming as much about us nattering about this and that, as it did filmmaking and movies and everything else.

Speaker 2:
[84:12] We do see a lot of movies.

Speaker 1:
[84:14] A lot of movies. How has the show changed?

Speaker 2:
[84:17] I mean, we did used to do this in a windowless room, just the two of us. And it would get really, really wacky sometimes.

Speaker 1:
[84:30] It would.

Speaker 2:
[84:30] And I think that we still have that ability. And every once in a while, you let me steer things off the rails. But there was a sort of a claustrophobic, insane quality to the early episodes.

Speaker 1:
[84:44] Yeah, so when we went back into the studio, but Bobby Wagner had moved to the East Coast, and it was literally just us, and I was pressing the buttons, and Bobby was engineering the session remotely, where, yeah, we would get a little weird. And that was fun. I enjoyed that. I think it was very helpful for coping with whatever was going on in the universe at that time.

Speaker 2:
[85:01] I mean, we say that, but like Frog Sheriff was also before the pandemic.

Speaker 1:
[85:06] I was also on camera.

Speaker 2:
[85:07] Yeah, there was something about it that was still, we haven't lost it.

Speaker 1:
[85:11] No, the design of the show, though, I mean, it hasn't really changed. I think it's a pretty honest reflection of how we feel about movies, what they mean to us and the ways in which they like drive us a little crazy. I was really excited about things. I feel like we still have a lot of passion. I certainly have a lot of passion for it right now. I have not, I'm tired a lot, but I really like doing the show still a lot.

Speaker 2:
[85:30] I do too. And it's also, the other things have fallen away in a nice way. You know, I just don't watch TV anymore. I don't really have to. It feels great.

Speaker 1:
[85:38] You know, the same is true for me. And that is one thing that has really changed, because I am just really checked out on television. And there's plenty of good shows or whatever. But I actually, per Chris' nudging last night at your house, watched the first episode of Euphoria, and I like Euphoria. And I was like, do I need this? Yeah. What's this giving me? And like that shows more well made than 98% of all TV shows. But it just feels much more incidental and much less essential to my cultural consumption nowadays. And it doesn't mean that movies are like so much more important than they were five years ago. I think they're...

Speaker 2:
[86:11] Hopefully they are a little bit more.

Speaker 1:
[86:12] It feels like they're tipping back towards something for sure. But I don't think we're going back to 1995 anytime soon. What other things have changed?

Speaker 2:
[86:23] I mean, we are now on camera. We're on camera.

Speaker 1:
[86:26] I'll tell you, a lot of people are aware of the show, which has upsides and downsides. And I've had some nice conversations with some extremely successful, well-known people who are like aware of the show. And that makes me want to die.

Speaker 2:
[86:36] That is a little weird. Because I don't really feel that it's for them. I appreciate them. I admire their work. But much in the way that I don't ever want to talk to a celebrity or someone whose work I admire. We're not doing it for them because they know more than we do. Correct. And so this is for people who are as enthusiastic about movies from afar as we are. I guess another thing that's changed is that we've met the next generation. Do you think that the audience has gotten younger?

Speaker 1:
[87:11] I'm consistently astonished by how young the audience is.

Speaker 2:
[87:14] And I just, I want to say, like, I love you guys. And I'm so grateful. But also, like, we are two people in our 40s talking about movies. So like, anytime you feel like you need to graduate, like mom and dad love you and support you, and it's okay.

Speaker 1:
[87:28] I'm going the other way. You can never move out. You have to stay here forever.

Speaker 2:
[87:33] Well, pay for your phone until 25, okay?

Speaker 1:
[87:36] Yeah. You can keep the gas card if you don't move out of my house. Which is exactly, I think exactly what I'll say to my daughter in about 20 years. Okay, what's next?

Speaker 8:
[87:48] My name is Zeke. I moved to LA about two years ago from New York City. I'm 27 years old. I've never really wanted a relationship or have been looking for that. But since I moved to LA, I feel like I'm more around my people. Now, at 27, I really feel like I should start considering it, and who I'm going to eventually be with for hopefully the rest of my life. So my question to you, Amanda, is what kind of factors should I be looking for? I really do love film, so often I feel like I'm looking for that shared interest. But I found that a lot of the times, that's not really who I connect with the most. So yeah, just give me some advice, and I feel like Amanda Dobbins and the Dobb Mob is who I should ask. Thanks.

Speaker 2:
[88:30] That's beautiful, and it's nice that you're open at this point in your life. I do want to, how are we switching from not interested in a relationship to suddenly settling down for the rest of our life? I do, that seems like a big swing, right?

Speaker 1:
[88:47] Zeke's in Saturn Return, you know? I mean, that's, he's at that age.

Speaker 2:
[88:50] Sure, but I think probably, you know, meet some people first, you know, date around a little.

Speaker 1:
[88:57] Yeah, speak to one person.

Speaker 2:
[88:58] Respectfully, and be upfront about your intentions, but you know, you don't want to go from zero to...

Speaker 1:
[89:05] It's not useful when meeting new people to say, I'm looking to be married. They don't like that. They don't want that. They get nervous and scared.

Speaker 2:
[89:14] But it is also not useful to say, hey, I'm only going to spend three hours with you every two weeks, and I won't respond to text messages.

Speaker 1:
[89:26] I'll tell you what else is a challenge. Telling them, hey, would you like to be my first relationship? That's not gonna go well.

Speaker 2:
[89:35] So, yeah, I would cast around a bit, but the crux of the question is like, how shared do your interests need to be? And I have found that some overlap is good, but separate things are nice. You can have shared bedrooms, separate interests. That's worked for us. Again, I still could not identify a Jawbreaker song, which is something that we learned on my episode of Bandsplay, and that is one of my husband's favorite bands. But I think what you really, if movies are a very important part of your life, which if you're sending up voicemail into this podcast, I assume so, you don't need to look for like an exact copy of your own likes and your own letterbox. And in fact, I think that would be kind of weird and not be particularly interesting. But to go back to our first question of what's a red flag? What's a green flag? You probably want someone who's seen a movie in the last year, two years, maybe not. Maybe movies are what you do in your own time. And then you spend, there are lots of different ways, but you don't have to find yourself. You don't have to find a carbon copy. And I actually, I think that would probably be pretty boring.

Speaker 1:
[90:45] I think the biggest challenge or thing that it's easy to forget when you're in this situation, not that Zeke asked me, but I'll share my feelings anyway, is to continue to be open to the other person's interests. You're right, I think, to have your own demarcated spaces and things where you don't need your partner to be interested. But if there is something that really matters to you, making sure that you're making yourself available and open minded about those other things. My wife is very good about this. This morning, I was playing the Rolling Stones for Alice. We were just getting ready in the morning. And Eileen came out of the bedroom and she was just like, Sweet Virginia, I think, maybe is the best Rolling Stones song. And I was like, all right, this is our kickoff to our conversation about this. And then Alice was like, what's Sweet Virginia? And then she didn't have to have an opinion about that. But she knew that that would get me perked up and interested in a conversation. And I find that that's helpful. But more importantly than anything, this is something I always think about, is the person has to be able to make you laugh. Like, that's the thing that I need, is like, I need somebody to kind of snap me out of my shit and make me laugh a little bit.

Speaker 2:
[91:52] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[91:53] So if you could, I would search for that.

Speaker 2:
[91:56] Yeah. But don't, it's not comparing letterboxes for us. That's all.

Speaker 1:
[92:00] No. I couldn't even imagine trying to.

Speaker 2:
[92:03] Can you?

Speaker 1:
[92:04] No, no. No, I can't. Okay, what's next?

Speaker 7:
[92:09] Hey Sean and Amanda. This is Donnie from Athens, Georgia. Has there ever been a movie that you've walked out on? I once saw X versus Sever and I had to take off after about 20 minutes. Thanks, Gay.

Speaker 2:
[92:24] I wanted to leave Pain and Gain, but my husband wouldn't let me.

Speaker 7:
[92:29] Pain and Gain?

Speaker 1:
[92:30] You guys were together when that came out?

Speaker 2:
[92:31] The Michael Bay, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[92:33] That's a great film.

Speaker 2:
[92:35] It wasn't for me. I also was just like, I get it. You know what I mean?

Speaker 1:
[92:39] I do. So much so that you and Juliet watched me walk out of Last Christmas.

Speaker 2:
[92:43] That's true. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[92:44] Which I did not think was very good.

Speaker 2:
[92:45] But you actually don't know how that ends, and I don't want to spoil it for the people at home. Except for Thomas, the seven-year-old with the fake name.

Speaker 1:
[92:54] Oh, Thomas.

Speaker 2:
[92:55] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[92:55] You're your future son. I don't regret that. I don't walk out of a lot of movies. I try to sit through and really get what went wrong, even when things are going wrong. I will check out on a movie at home.

Speaker 2:
[93:12] Right. But that's different once you've made the effort of going to the theater.

Speaker 1:
[93:16] Yeah. I won't really leave. I don't really understand that.

Speaker 2:
[93:19] Festivals are slightly different because you're trying to see different things.

Speaker 1:
[93:23] Yeah. I don't want to be rude. I've definitely walked out of a couple of movies when we went to Sundance, for sure, because you're trying to navigate the timing of the day.

Speaker 2:
[93:31] There are a couple that I walked out of. I haven't really walked out of Venice.

Speaker 1:
[93:34] Too much. Maybe one or two things that tell you right over the years, but not really. Because there's also just like a quality factor most of the time. Sundance is the slate is so big. It's like a crapshoot. You're taking a chance on things. We'll find out it can.

Speaker 2:
[93:47] I guess so.

Speaker 1:
[93:47] There's definitely going to be things that we're not clicking with.

Speaker 2:
[93:49] But yeah, but even there, because it's ticketed, it's not like you can leave and then go jump into another one, which is the reason at festivals that you would do it. So I quit books all the time. I just want to say that for the record and I feel like life is too short.

Speaker 1:
[94:02] Thanks for letting me know.

Speaker 2:
[94:04] You know, if you're not clicking, move on. But that's only for books.

Speaker 1:
[94:10] This episode is brought to you by State Farm, upsizing to a large popcorn, smart move. Staying for the post credit sequence, smart move. Finding ways to be financially savvy, very smart move. Maybe the smartest, especially when you choose to bundle home and auto with help from one of State Farm's 19,000 local agents. Bundling, just another way to save with the personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer, availability, amount of discounts and savings, and eligibility vary by state. What's next?

Speaker 14:
[94:44] Hi Sean, hi Amanda. This is Sarah, longtime listener, first time caller. Thank you so much for all of the accompaniment on dog walks and housecleans and kitchen activities. Huge dog mob member. I would like to ask a question that I hope has not been answered 700 million times. I apologize if it has. Like if you had to cast someone to play each other, ideally civilly, who do you think would actually be a great casting fit? Like if they were going to make a big pick movie, I don't know why they would. But if they would, who would you cast as each other? Thanks again. Love you both. Bye.

Speaker 1:
[95:24] Okay, let's, we've done this.

Speaker 2:
[95:26] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[95:27] Let's do different decades.

Speaker 2:
[95:29] Okay. Then, then currently.

Speaker 1:
[95:32] Yeah. So seventies, I would just say Jane Fonda.

Speaker 2:
[95:35] Oh my God. That's so nice. Okay. Seventies for you. It's hard because I don't want to do like full character actor, but you know.

Speaker 1:
[95:44] I'll tell you who I think would do a good job playing me. Michael Murphy. Do you know Michael Murphy? Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[95:56] Oh, I can see that. Sure. The friend in, is that the friend in Manhattan?

Speaker 1:
[96:01] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[96:02] Yeah. I was gonna say, and this is nice, but I started just thinking through The Godfather, and I think James Cahn could do it. Wow. Which is nice for you. I'm being nice.

Speaker 1:
[96:13] Wow, that's...

Speaker 2:
[96:13] Well, you gave me Jane Fonda.

Speaker 1:
[96:15] That's very exciting.

Speaker 2:
[96:16] You gave me Jane Fonda, but there's just something like the fast talking, a little hot headed part of him that you could absolutely, you know...

Speaker 1:
[96:23] A little more aggro than you'd expect, yeah. Do you think I could beat the shit out of Carlo like that, convincingly?

Speaker 2:
[96:30] I do. Okay. I mean, that's kind of what was, you know, and then you, you know, meet an untimely death, but in a dramatic way.

Speaker 1:
[96:36] James Cahn in Thief is my platonic ideal performance. Like that, to me, I've not seen a film more perfectly cast, and I've not seen a character more perfectly realized.

Speaker 2:
[96:52] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[96:53] You know, the Joe boss of my own body, that guy, you know, let's get on with this big romance. Like all of that stuff, they're like, come on, let's go.

Speaker 2:
[97:03] Yes. That's what I'm saying. If you have a certain aspect of it, and some of it's like aspirational.

Speaker 1:
[97:07] I wish I looked like James Cahn.

Speaker 2:
[97:09] Yeah, but if you cut the hair, you style the hair and then at least he's tall enough. He's got that nice curl. You, it's pretty easy because you just put on the wig for anybody and then they have your head shape.

Speaker 1:
[97:21] I put on the wig?

Speaker 2:
[97:22] Someone puts on a Sean wig. Can you sell those? No, I mean, we could. There was someone, maybe it was in Vegas last week or something, but you were standing next to me and then there was someone else who was like Sean from behind, like over on the other side of the room.

Speaker 1:
[97:37] Handsome fellow?

Speaker 2:
[97:37] I was like very confused. No, it was Sean from behind. So he just had the head shape.

Speaker 1:
[97:42] It's a nice shape. Thanks, Jack.

Speaker 2:
[97:44] Okay. You're just doing 70s, so now you want to do 80s.

Speaker 1:
[97:49] 80s. Bonnie Bedelia.

Speaker 2:
[97:56] That's nice, but the hair is...

Speaker 1:
[97:58] The hair is not great. She needs to get a straightener. But there's something attitudinal.

Speaker 2:
[98:04] Okay. I can see it. I'm thinking 80s.

Speaker 1:
[98:07] A very no-bullshit actor, Bonnie Bedelia.

Speaker 2:
[98:10] Yeah. I'm trying to think. Like, Michael Keaton when you're being affable. But that's not that often. It's like Michael Keaton is one half of you and James Cahn is the other half. You know what I'm saying?

Speaker 1:
[98:27] James Cahn in the 80s is different than James Cahn in the 70s.

Speaker 2:
[98:29] Yeah, that's true. Let's see. Anybody else?

Speaker 1:
[98:34] I feel I'm pretty affable.

Speaker 2:
[98:37] But not with me, and that's the point. But so is this a biopic about the Big Picture or about each individual person?

Speaker 3:
[98:45] I think she implied Big Picture because she says, I don't know why they would make a Big Pick movie.

Speaker 2:
[98:49] Right.

Speaker 3:
[98:50] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[98:51] I know why. Okay.

Speaker 1:
[98:52] This is the story of our time.

Speaker 2:
[98:54] Okay.

Speaker 3:
[98:54] Exactly right.

Speaker 2:
[98:56] I'll give you Keaton.

Speaker 1:
[98:57] Okay, that's great. 90s.

Speaker 2:
[99:00] Well, I think 90s is when my true answer comes onto the scene.

Speaker 1:
[99:07] The person that you feel you are closest to?

Speaker 2:
[99:10] No, for you.

Speaker 1:
[99:11] Oh, okay.

Speaker 2:
[99:12] The real answer is Edward Norton, who plays you.

Speaker 1:
[99:14] Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[99:16] And that would be, I mean, it could be 90s or 2000s, but that's the answer.

Speaker 1:
[99:20] See, I feel like 90s Sigourney Weaver would be an interesting move for you, which is different than what we've talked about in the past.

Speaker 2:
[99:27] I mean, I love Sigourney Weaver, so I would accept that.

Speaker 1:
[99:30] You know, you can do sternness, you can be light, you can be Zool, you know, you can be Ripley.

Speaker 2:
[99:36] But yeah, but is she doing that in the 90s when...

Speaker 1:
[99:39] She's taken out, it got not one, but two alien films in the 90s. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection.

Speaker 2:
[99:44] But we accept Alien 3?

Speaker 1:
[99:47] Um, we accept it. We accept Alien Resurrection far less.

Speaker 2:
[99:50] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[99:52] We don't love Alien 3. We wish it was more.

Speaker 2:
[99:55] I'm trying to think of other 90s people that could be you. Pullman, Bill Pullman?

Speaker 1:
[100:02] Okay. I accept that. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[100:04] But you can kind of see it, right? Yeah, presidential.

Speaker 1:
[100:06] Yeah, that's pretty good.

Speaker 2:
[100:07] And the hair a little bit?

Speaker 1:
[100:08] Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 2:
[100:09] Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 1:
[100:10] This is our Independence Day.

Speaker 2:
[100:11] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[100:11] Remember when he said that when he was in a fire jet?

Speaker 2:
[100:13] Right. He also gets dumped in Sleepless in Seattle. And, uh, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[100:19] It's tough.

Speaker 2:
[100:20] But he gets the girl in while you were sleeping.

Speaker 1:
[100:21] Yeah. Is he the brother in that?

Speaker 2:
[100:23] He's the brother, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[100:26] You got some Sandy energy as well.

Speaker 2:
[100:28] Okay. Thanks.

Speaker 15:
[100:29] Right.

Speaker 2:
[100:29] I accept. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[100:31] Nineties Sandy.

Speaker 2:
[100:32] Well, yeah, but she's very winning.

Speaker 15:
[100:34] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[100:35] Sandy at 61.

Speaker 2:
[100:37] Looking very good.

Speaker 1:
[100:38] Knocked my socks off.

Speaker 2:
[100:39] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[100:40] Just could not believe it. Just really special stuff. Very happy for her. Okay. What's next? Let's do like a few more.

Speaker 15:
[100:48] Hi, Big Picture. My name is Rodrigo, and I'm a big fan and listener, and myself and my kids listen to the podcast every day on our way to school each morning. So my son, Nico, who is nine, has a picture, has a question for you guys.

Speaker 16:
[101:07] Sean, Amanda, what is your favorite movie to watch with your kids?

Speaker 15:
[101:12] Happy 900th episode.

Speaker 2:
[101:14] Bye. Nico, hi. Thank you for listening. Really. And I'm sorry for using bad words. Okay. My favorite movie to watch with my kids. This weekend, we watched Paddington again, the original, and Knox, my four-year-old doesn't like Paddington too because the nuns are scary for him, but he likes the original very much. Even though, and it's funny, and I think that he and I enjoy the same things about it. We've oftentimes, we're watching movies, and I think something's funny, or Knox thinks something's funny, but we both think the scene where Paddington comes sailing out of the bathroom on the bathtub is equally funny. And when Knox started laughing, he cracks up, and there's nothing better in the world than Knox laughing, like full belly laugh. So, I like any movie that makes that happen, but Paddington is the most recent example.

Speaker 1:
[102:16] That's a great answer. Truth be told, Alice doesn't rewatch a ton of movies anymore. She has at multiple stages of her life. The number one movie she probably rewatches the most now is Frozen 2, which is a movie I don't like, but she loves Frozen and Frozen 2, as do many young children. The one, I would say the one that she has rewatched the most that I like the most is probably Moana, and that's the one that I have been most like, Disney still got it. I remember Jason Gallagher saying that to me years ago, at the beginning of The Ringer and him being like, Moana, dog, you don't understand, because his son at that time was very young and was really into it. I could watch that movie any time of the day, and I think it's really, really great. But I looked at the list of movies she's seen. I think we saw The Land Before Time at Videots on Sunday, and that was the 136th movie she's seen. So she's knocking some stuff out, and she wants to see new stuff. She's constantly looking for something new. After we saw the movie, we went to the video store, and she's like, what have I not seen? What have I not seen? So we don't rewatch as much. I was absolutely moved by that phone call, though. I'm a little worried about a nine-year-old listening to the show, but also if something has changed about the show, that's the thing that has changed. It's just like what our mentality is around movies and how we think about it, and who maybe even is interested in the show. I would have assumed it would have been just like burnt out, sad, single bros in 2018, and now this is a family program. This is a very different experience.

Speaker 2:
[103:54] Thank you, Nico.

Speaker 1:
[103:55] Thank you, Nico.

Speaker 13:
[103:58] Hello, all at The Big Picture. This is a question in regards to the High Council, and wondering what is required for entry to the council and how to maintain membership status in the council. This is all just for the spirit of transparency and accountability for all members. Thank you very much and have a good one.

Speaker 1:
[104:20] Well, it's not a club that has a subscription fee. You know, there's no dues. There's not, you're not going to be judged on the size of your collection. First and foremost, it's about integrity and how you live in the world. Secondarily, you have to think of it more like a knighthood. This is really more of a royal court experience. And we don't really have jousting in these modern times. But I think if you're willing to die on the sword for the future of physical media, you will at least be considered for membership. But I don't act alone. I don't operate alone on the council.

Speaker 2:
[104:59] How many seats are there at the round table?

Speaker 1:
[105:03] Well, we can build furniture as we've built shelves. And this is not an exclusionary space. What I want is I want people to join us. I want to take over these studios. There was some awful news about the Disney Corporation last week. They laid off a thousand people, including the home entertainment group, almost in full, which doesn't necessarily mean they won't be still making home entertainment. But the group of people who work really hard on that stuff are not there anymore. It's very sad. And so we're fighting back against that. That's what we're doing on the council, you know? And we're also being sad middle-aged men. You don't have to be a sad middle-aged man to be on the council.

Speaker 2:
[105:47] And that's why you led with Size Doesn't Matter. By talking about the collections.

Speaker 1:
[105:53] Size matters sometimes.

Speaker 2:
[105:54] I was going to say. Sounds like that's delusional, but that's okay.

Speaker 1:
[105:57] Well, you know, CR is at the beginning of his journey, his collecting journey. He was welcomed warmly despite the modesty of his collection, which has grown even since that episode. The high council, I'd like to report, will return.

Speaker 3:
[106:15] How many more do you want to do?

Speaker 1:
[106:18] One?

Speaker 2:
[106:19] Two?

Speaker 3:
[106:20] This is a good one to end on.

Speaker 2:
[106:21] Okay.

Speaker 3:
[106:22] And I have a follow up kind of to make it a double part or two.

Speaker 2:
[106:24] Okay.

Speaker 15:
[106:26] Hello, Amanda and Sean. My name is Jack from Pittsburgh, birth year 2000, and I do know what voicemails are. My question is, could you guys assemble the Mount Rushmore of big picks most important movies? Which four movies have been the most important to the show? My guess is Die Hard with a Vengeance would be George Washington, but I'm excited to see yours. Thanks guys.

Speaker 3:
[106:51] We got another voicemail that I couldn't include, which was also asking about the Mount Rushmore Big Picture episodes. So I figured this two parter, just what is most representative of this show is good to end on.

Speaker 1:
[107:02] Okay. Great question. One, I want to do more Mount Rushmore episodes. They say that those episodes don't work and they're incoherent. I disagree. Specifically, identifying which president a film is, is just a fun game. And everybody needs to shut up and relax. All right. I'm coming up with games all the goddamn time. Some of them are going to be good. Some of them are going to be even better.

Speaker 2:
[107:25] Beautiful.

Speaker 1:
[107:25] In this case, it was better.

Speaker 2:
[107:27] All right.

Speaker 1:
[107:29] The Mount Rushmore, who's on Mount Rushmore? It's Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt?

Speaker 2:
[107:35] Teddy.

Speaker 1:
[107:36] Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt. Yeah. And FDR, I've got a giant head in my backyard.

Speaker 2:
[107:40] Right. Well, but I think, wasn't...

Speaker 1:
[107:41] Because of the New Deal and all that.

Speaker 2:
[107:43] Didn't Teddy like build Mount Rushmore and then put himself on it? Wasn't he involved in some of the parks?

Speaker 1:
[107:49] I don't think so. I don't think so.

Speaker 2:
[107:50] Anyone? No one in the booth?

Speaker 3:
[107:51] You definitely should not be looking at me for that answer.

Speaker 2:
[107:53] You didn't get to this part in history class?

Speaker 3:
[107:55] History was not my strong suit.

Speaker 1:
[107:57] You said Teddy Roosevelt built Mount Rushmore?

Speaker 2:
[107:59] No, but Mount Rushmore National Memorial, didn't he make a big push for national parks?

Speaker 1:
[108:06] Well, that is true, yes.

Speaker 2:
[108:07] So then isn't it sort of, what am I looking at? Oh, I'm looking at the national parks.

Speaker 1:
[108:12] No, this was 1927. So that's well after Teddy Roosevelt's time.

Speaker 2:
[108:17] I'm just like, didn't he like lay the groundwork? Whatever. Okay. But look for my upcoming book, How Teddy Roosevelt Grandfathered Himself In to Mount Rushmore.

Speaker 1:
[108:26] If you could remove Roosevelt and put any American leader up, who would you put up there?

Speaker 2:
[108:30] Chris Ryan.

Speaker 1:
[108:31] I said leader.

Speaker 2:
[108:35] Of the CR heads who are here in America and also Australia.

Speaker 1:
[108:38] These are zealots. I'm talking about men and women in organized society.

Speaker 2:
[108:42] I'm fine with Teddy Roosevelt. I'm also trying to show the limitations of this game when it comes to our understanding of American history, but that's okay. So you want to do movies or episodes first?

Speaker 1:
[108:56] Um, movies. Social network's going on. I think it's Roosevelt.

Speaker 2:
[109:04] You think social network is Roosevelt?

Speaker 1:
[109:07] I do.

Speaker 2:
[109:07] Because it laid the groundwork for the national parks.

Speaker 1:
[109:11] No, because he was like a buccaneer, Roosevelt. Much like Mark Zuckerberg. He was forging a new path across this American terrain. He was the wind and the lion.

Speaker 2:
[109:24] I love your interpretation of American history.

Speaker 1:
[109:28] Got a freewheel in it here.

Speaker 2:
[109:30] What else you got?

Speaker 1:
[109:31] Well, I know you'd say Birth of a Nation for George Washington, but I would never allow that, of course, because of the terrible ideas in that film. Casablanca, I think is Washington, probably.

Speaker 2:
[109:42] Okay. You would do Casablanca over Singing in the Rain?

Speaker 1:
[109:45] No. Yes, I would do Casablanca, and I would do Singing in the Rain as Jefferson, because those two presidents are sort of close together historically, and they both represent something about the Golden Age of Hollywood stepping forward.

Speaker 2:
[109:59] Great. But you think we need two Golden Age of Hollywoods? Yep.

Speaker 1:
[110:03] And then for Lincoln, I'd say Congo.

Speaker 2:
[110:05] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[110:08] Just a fearless leader, the great emancipator.

Speaker 2:
[110:11] I think Mission Impossible and Singing in the Rain. Oh, sorry, I said social network and Singing in the Rain, but I think we need Mission Impossible fallout on there.

Speaker 1:
[110:18] Mission Impossible fallout on the Mount Rushmore?

Speaker 2:
[110:22] Like, not of the greatest movies of all time.

Speaker 1:
[110:25] Just that a representative of where we're at?

Speaker 2:
[110:28] You don't think we need fallout on that?

Speaker 1:
[110:30] If you want to make fallout of Abraham Lincoln, that's fine by me.

Speaker 2:
[110:33] Well, I mean, instead of Congo.

Speaker 1:
[110:35] Well, I was joking about Congo. But what if we were like all the president's men or, you know, something historical? Yeah, we got social network, Casablanca, Singing in the Rain.

Speaker 2:
[110:46] Casablanca and Singing in the Rain is... There are two of my favorite movies, but like both of them... Okay, fine, fine.

Speaker 1:
[110:52] What about... Well, you love Song of the South. You want to put Song of the South on there?

Speaker 2:
[110:57] Okay. As who? As which president? The great scholar of national history, of American history.

Speaker 1:
[111:06] God, I don't know. What else? I mean, you know, A Few Good Men is a big one for us.

Speaker 2:
[111:10] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[111:11] That's a...

Speaker 2:
[111:12] All right, so you want that to be the Tom Cruise movie?

Speaker 1:
[111:14] This is protestations.

Speaker 2:
[111:15] Okay, so social network, A Few Good Men, Singing in the Rain, and what's the fourth?

Speaker 1:
[111:24] Probably Other Mommy.

Speaker 2:
[111:25] Okay, yeah. There we go. All right, now episodes.

Speaker 1:
[111:31] Deacon's Hall of Fame.

Speaker 2:
[111:32] Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 1:
[111:40] Dark Knight Rises commentary.

Speaker 2:
[111:43] Oh, wow. Okay.

Speaker 1:
[111:45] That's a funny episode.

Speaker 2:
[111:46] Is it?

Speaker 1:
[111:46] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[111:47] I just remember that I got Girl Scout Cookies and kept trying to give you guys the Girl Scout Cookies and you were like, we do not want Girl Scout Cookies. That's really my only memory.

Speaker 1:
[111:54] We were extremely focused on Bane.

Speaker 2:
[111:56] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[111:58] I think the 2000 movie draft.

Speaker 2:
[112:06] Was that?

Speaker 1:
[112:07] With Mal, Van and Joe.

Speaker 2:
[112:10] Oh, right. That's when I had my perfect game. Because that's when I got Bring It On and Coyote Ugly and Virgin Suicides.

Speaker 1:
[112:18] Literally, no one has ever said that. You're just saying that out loud as though it was something written in textbooks.

Speaker 2:
[112:22] It was incredible. What else did I have? You couldn't knock me off my square.

Speaker 1:
[112:26] You just said Coyote Ugly.

Speaker 2:
[112:27] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[112:27] As if that were a good choice.

Speaker 2:
[112:31] There were several more amazing ones.

Speaker 1:
[112:33] Yes, for sure. That's definitely what I was thinking.

Speaker 2:
[112:35] 2000 Draft.

Speaker 1:
[112:36] 2000 Movie Draft. We've done good episodes.

Speaker 2:
[112:40] Yeah, you don't want to put those on there?

Speaker 1:
[112:42] Yeah. I think some of the better episodes we've done. Anatomy of a Fall is a good conversation. Brutalist is a good conversation.

Speaker 2:
[112:49] Tar was good.

Speaker 1:
[112:49] Tar is a good conversation.

Speaker 2:
[112:51] One battle after another. Also, you've got Leo and PTA on that. Just two great American filmmakers.

Speaker 1:
[112:59] Two Mount Rushmore candidates for this show. I think...

Speaker 2:
[113:03] Marriage Story was good?

Speaker 1:
[113:04] Marriage Story. There's a certain Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There's a certain kind of movie that I think kind of brings out the best in us that gets us really, really engaged. You could debate whether or not you think that's the best version of this show. I think some people would want this show to be stupid.

Speaker 2:
[113:16] Well, with Mount Rushmore, don't we get all four?

Speaker 1:
[113:22] I don't know how to do this.

Speaker 2:
[113:23] Okay, the only other one I thought of was obviously Deacon's Hall of Fame, but I had to Google what year Iron Man 3 came out, but the year that Chris, the draft, where it's 2013. Yeah, so the 2013 draft. Iron Man 3 first pick would be the top forever. Also, the very first auction was also really chaotic and very good.

Speaker 1:
[113:45] I think explaining Barbarian to you, that was a fun, memorable one.

Speaker 2:
[113:48] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[113:50] We're just doing the work here.

Speaker 2:
[113:52] Sure, every day, all the time.

Speaker 1:
[113:53] We have to do 900 more episodes in the next two years, which is something we agreed to on this episode.

Speaker 2:
[114:00] Okay. Then so 200, so then it would be 50 episodes for each of the four Beatles movies, and then we make it to 2000 and we're out.

Speaker 1:
[114:08] I think that's a good idea.

Speaker 2:
[114:09] Okay, that's great.

Speaker 1:
[114:10] Maybe we should do it like the One Heat Minute podcast, where each episode breaks down one minute from the film.

Speaker 2:
[114:15] Okay, perfect.

Speaker 1:
[114:16] Okay, that sounds good. Jack, do you want to add anything to what we've just discussed?

Speaker 3:
[114:22] The Chicago movie draft is the most special one for me personally. Just very fun, meeting Tracy, solo producer, us going out. It was very rewarding seeing everybody in person. And when I'm back here doing this show, I'm not really actually using my brain. It's down so much to a muscle memory that getting me out of my comfort zone, having to collaborate with other production people is really fun.

Speaker 1:
[114:42] That's nice. I'm sorry about your brain.

Speaker 3:
[114:44] Yeah, it's doing really, really, really good.

Speaker 1:
[114:47] Yeah. Okay, good. This episode is brought to you by LinkedIn ads. Ever invest in something that seemed incredible at first, but didn't live up to the hype? Marketers know that feeling. They optimize for the numbers that look great. Impressions reach and reacts. But when they don't show revenue, well, that's a not so great conversation with the CFO. LinkedIn has a word for that, bull spend. Instead, why not invest in what looks good to your CFO? LinkedIn ads generates the highest ROAS of all major ad networks. Reach the right buyers with LinkedIn ads. You can target by company, industry, job title and more. So cut the bull spend, advertise on LinkedIn, the network that works for you. Spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a $250 credit for the next one. Just go to linkedin.com/thebigpicture. That's linkedin.com/thebigpicture. Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 11:
[115:36] Did you know about one in three people with plexoriasis may also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness, and swelling? Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away. Termphia, Goussoukouma, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plexoriasis, who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy and for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Termphia. Tap this ad to learn more about Termphia, including important safety information.

Speaker 1:
[116:37] Let's talk about a couple of movies real quick before we jump to the conversation. So as I mentioned, you've seen You, Me & Tuscany.

Speaker 2:
[116:42] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[116:43] And I haven't seen it.

Speaker 2:
[116:44] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[116:45] This is a new film from Cat Coyro. Was hotly debated amongst Black creatives and its success at the box office. Something that Van and Rachel talked about on Higher Learning. What do you think?

Speaker 2:
[116:58] Yeah. So this movie stars Halle Bailey and Roger Jean Page and then a lot of Italian people.

Speaker 1:
[117:05] Okay. Takes place in Tuscany.

Speaker 2:
[117:08] Most of it takes place in Tuscany. And Anna, the Halle Bailey character is at a, just lost in her life in her young 20s. She's mostly a house sitter. And she meets a young man who describes a Tuscan villa that he has built, but then is basically sitting empty. And wouldn't you know it, she has a ticket, a plane ticket to Italy, but really no other money. So she goes to, quote, unquote, house sit the Tuscan villa. His family's there. Somehow she winds up telling them that they're engaged. And so she pretends to be his fiance, sort of like a while you were sleeping situation, where she becomes endeared to the family while also falling for the brother who's played by Rajay John Page. Okay. This movie is a rejoinder to my belief and my insistence that locations can make or break a movie because this is filmed in Tuscany and otherwise really is a hallmark movie. There is no imagination in the script. There is no imagination in the cinematography. I mean, it really looks filmed for TV. Like it's a real waste of Tuscany. I don't really feel that Halle Bailey and Roger Jean-Page have any chemistry. And she in general just looks a little uncomfortable on screen in this movie. I don't really know what's going on. So I did not think that this worked from a creative point of view.

Speaker 1:
[118:41] Yeah, that's too bad. I similarly was not, didn't, didn't... I had a ticket to this movie and I skipped it. I was like, is this something I can really do right now? Part of it was we were traveling to go to Las Vegas. Part of it is just trying to catch up on a lot of stuff we've missed over the last couple of weeks. The film has, I would say somewhat disappointed, not dramatically disappointed, but this does speak to that concern that we had about, how do you make a movie like this theatrical? And this has kind of a high concept and it has that location that you're describing, but...

Speaker 2:
[119:16] But then it doesn't use any of it. And the problem is, is that this is not, as it is made, a theatrical movie. They made a streaming movie and put it in theaters. And you can just kind of tell.

Speaker 1:
[119:28] Do you think it's a wrap for Roger Jean Page as a theatrical star?

Speaker 2:
[119:33] Well, this plus his performance in Black Bag, I would say, two examples of him not really holding the screen. So in Black Bag, he was surrounded by heavyweights. Not so much in You, Me & Tuscany.

Speaker 1:
[119:49] But not, he's not just being blown off the screen by like Fassbender and Blanchett, but like Naomi Harris and Mercer Bella are blowing him off the screen. So, you know, not ideal if you're him. And you know, he's in Dungeons & Dragons, Honor Among Thieves. He was in The Grey Man, like Bill O'Rocky.

Speaker 11:
[120:02] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[120:03] Since his breakout in Bridgerton. I know it has not really hit.

Speaker 11:
[120:06] I, this did not hit.

Speaker 2:
[120:08] Amanda, I don't know if you stayed for the credits, but I thought it was like a real indictment of the film not working that the blooper reel was entirely the secondary characters.

Speaker 11:
[120:17] Of course.

Speaker 2:
[120:17] And those were the funniest moments of the movie and they are 5%. And yeah, it was, it was tough.

Speaker 11:
[120:23] This is the other thing where like romantic comedy is, despite everything I said about like, you do actually need to have a script with a brain and good writing. And you need to spend time on the setting and the production. There need to be ideas. But like, if you don't have two actors who can stand on their own and also have chemistry, it's not going to work. And these two, it's not, they just look uncomfortable. It's not that they're not talented. It's just there is, it doesn't fit. So, I feel for them, but it did not work.

Speaker 1:
[120:59] Okay, let's talk about The Christophers.

Speaker 11:
[121:00] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[121:01] There's a new Stephen Soderbergh movie out.

Speaker 11:
[121:03] There sure is.

Speaker 1:
[121:04] It's a very low-key film, not in massive, wide release. It stars Ian McKellen and Michaela Cole. It is about a woman who is approached by the two estranged children of a very well-known artist who has entered a kind of funky final stage of his career. Ian McKellen plays the elder artist, Cole plays the woman who is approached. And she is a, help me figure this out, a sort of a former art student who is an artist herself and also has an incredible ability to mimic, to replicate.

Speaker 11:
[121:35] She has a restoration business, but yes, she is, without being too rude, like a forder, or she has real abilities as a forder. She's like the really hot model at the end of the Thomas Crown Affair in 1999.

Speaker 1:
[121:49] And she is approached by these two children of this famous artist to effectively complete these incomplete paintings and keep them, prepare them so that they can be sold by these children who have kind of been cut out of this artist's life. The movie is written by Ed Solomon, who's made a handful of projects with Soderbergh over the last couple of years, including No Sudden Move and Mosaic. What did you think of The Christophers?

Speaker 11:
[122:13] I really like it when Stephen Soderbergh does stuff. And this is obviously in my wheelhouse, which is that it's sort of an art heist movie. It's a caper, I guess. But then also a two-hander of two great actors. It's modest. I like watching Soderbergh movies now because he obviously works at such volume and so efficiently, as we know, that when I watch them, I try to figure out, okay, so what was it about this movie that interested you? That you said, okay, like, I want to try to figure this out.

Speaker 1:
[122:46] Okay, so what do you think it was here?

Speaker 11:
[122:51] I thought that it was a little bit the Ian McCallan character and that there is not autobiography, but there is someone who makes a lot of work and who is an artist and who does things in various reasons and starting to think about when and why you do stuff and what's good and what's bad. And so much of what the Ian McCallan character is, he's wrestling both with his actual art, but also his legacy and his fame and doubt about what's good and what's not. And the disconnect between what is received as quality and what isn't, which Soderbergh is a very smart guy who's thinking about a lot of these things. So I think that was probably an interesting idea to him. And then I assumed it was the actual art and the making of the paintings and then also the destruction of the paintings and the forgery and how do you communicate the physicality of the artwork that I did think was interesting. So those were my guesses. But you know, it's also two good performances. I think Michaela Cole is really good in this and is not the type of performance that Soderbergh usually uses in a movie. You know, it's very still and she's receptive. So, and she's watching. So I thought maybe that was interesting to work with a different type of actor.

Speaker 1:
[124:20] Yeah, I was a little more muted on this. I think the ideas that you're talking about are definitely there and it's interesting. I think Michaela and Cole have good chemistry. I think they're both realized characters. I found the movie a little claustrophobic and that may have been its intention, but we're now working on like the fourth or fifth Soderbergh movie in a row where I'm like, I kind of feel like we're just trapped in somebody's house here.

Speaker 11:
[124:41] Right. I mean, we are.

Speaker 1:
[124:43] Yeah. Part of that is like this scale with which he is making these movies, Black Bag Accepted, when you think about Let Them All Talk and No Sudden Move, and this film and Kimmy and Presence. These are all very modest frames. The mise-en-scene is limited and it's on purpose, because he can control those environments a lot more. This was the first one where I was like, I don't want to go outside. Yeah. I know that a lot of the movie is meant to be about this aging man who's trapped in his past and trapped in his ideas. I thought it was very appropriate, so I don't mean to hold it specifically against it. But as you know, I always think about the arc of the filmmaker and how different or not different the previous work is. He's so renowned for mixing it up, from going from traffic to Aaron Brockovich to Adesight to Schizopolis to Ocean's Eleven to the hopscotching from space to space. This one felt for the first time in a while, I was like, okay, I know what you're doing here. I know how the camera is going to move. I know what the tempo and pacing of the story is going to be. It's not bad. He doesn't make bad movies. It felt a little iterative for me.

Speaker 11:
[126:00] I definitely had the thought of, okay, so he spent 15 days on this total. And there is this sense of, it's just a small thing that he did. And I like that Steven Soderbergh is just trying all sorts of stuff. And he has an amazing skill and he can work at volume. And so if he wants to just, you know, like do like a single, like a nice little, you know, just a bloop, it's fine. But I agree that it just feels sort of, if not like a side project, then something that he spent like a month on.

Speaker 1:
[126:35] Yeah, it's funny to think about it in relation to the news of him not being able to make the Ben Solo movie, which is the kind of movie that would take like a year to make or two years to make. And that these movies where he's getting these pretty sharp scripts from real old pro screenwriters, right, your Ed Solomons, your David Kepes, your Scott Burns, like these guys who I'm sure what they submit is like probably pretty close to what they're going to end up shooting. And so that they can move quickly and they're getting super gifted actors in all of these movies. The casting is always so good in his films. But there's a part of me that wants to see him do Ben Solo, you know, that wants to see him do something a little bigger and stretch himself in a different environment. And it seems like he does too, so I'm not holding it against him. He's being told no on a couple of things, right? He said he pitched James Bond recently and they didn't get it. So it's just one of those things where, because he has been so productive, it now feels like a hundred slices of pizza, and sometimes you want to have a lamb feast.

Speaker 11:
[127:32] Sure.

Speaker 1:
[127:33] You know what I mean?

Speaker 11:
[127:33] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[127:34] And I love pizza.

Speaker 11:
[127:35] That's fair.

Speaker 1:
[127:36] I fucking love pizza.

Speaker 11:
[127:37] Yeah, I just, I was thinking about this movie in the context of Cinemacon and, you know, the continued, like, what's the biggest, loudest, what's like, what is every director's been solo, which is kind of where we are as an industry.

Speaker 1:
[127:52] It's very true. You're right. But few people are as talented or as interesting as him.

Speaker 11:
[127:55] And that's, I mean, and that is the problem, is that Soderbergh is one-on-one. Like Soderbergh is also, this movie would be wonderfully enjoyed at home, you know? And it's like, if everybody could make streaming movies, like with the quality that Steven Soderbergh made streaming movies, then like, you know, maybe we would have adult dramas again, maybe we would, but, but, you know, you can say that if everyone could do what Steven Soderbergh does, then we would be living in a much happier place.

Speaker 1:
[128:22] A functioning society.

Speaker 11:
[128:23] On a lot of different fronts.

Speaker 1:
[128:24] That's absolutely true. Let's speak briefly about Blue Heron. So it's not out in a lot of theaters yet. So I certainly don't want to spoil anything about it for people who haven't seen it. We got into some of it when I spoke to Sophy, but this is a film that our friend Adam Naiman has been telling us about for a long time, that has been in the works for some time because Sophy has been making movies for a while, but premiered at TIFF last fall. It's a very personal movie about a family of six that settles into their new home on Vancouver Island, which is a place that we know is not a province in Canada.

Speaker 11:
[128:56] It is in British Columbia.

Speaker 1:
[128:57] It's in British Columbia, which is a province. Thank you to the people of Canada. In the film, the dynamics of the family evolve because of their eldest son. The movie, at least in the first half, is seen through the eyes of an eight-year-old girl, who seems to be, at least in part, inspired by Sophy's own experiences. It's a very contemplative, complicated, I would say emotionally tumultuous piece of work. What did you think?

Speaker 11:
[129:28] I was quite moved by it. It's also one of those, without spoiling it, where you keep thinking about not just the structure and the film making choices, and it is, without spoiling things, kind of... There's a meta-textual aspect to some of it. But in a new way, in a way that I thought was really engaging, like the first half of what I'd seen, I started thinking about, okay, so this is what you've already shown me, and now I'm seeing it in a different way, and this is why you showed me that, which is very cool. But also, it's a newer way of exploring a familiar and very sad story, which is like a complicated family dynamic, but it was effective enough that I have just been thinking about it in my own life since I saw it. So it really, it does, it connected with me, or I connected with it.

Speaker 1:
[130:22] Yeah, I think the first half of the film is very well made and interesting and uses documentary strategies to create dramatic intensity. The second half of the movie takes some pretty bold chances structurally and the way the characters interact that I could not really think of a comp in a drama. I think there are a lot of comedies that do some of the things that Sophy does in the movie. But the sensation that the final 30 minutes of the movie gave me, I could not really think of a way that she had kind of elided our general expectations for how a story like that should be told and kind of wrapped up in as much as it can be wrapped up. It's a very sincere movie. Even though it's structurally dynamic, it's very straightforward. And I thought really, really cool and a step. And if you look, all of her shorts are on the Criterion channel right now. And you can look at what she's doing. And we talked about this in the interview. But you could feel her figuring out all the moves she's going to make in the feature as you go through each of the short films. We're always a little tough on short films on the show.

Speaker 11:
[131:29] But we're just...

Speaker 1:
[131:31] On the Oscars.

Speaker 11:
[131:32] Yes, on the Oscars.

Speaker 1:
[131:33] In general though, when you like a director, I always think it's interesting to see what they're putting on screen in the early stages of their careers. Martin Scorsese, for example, you can buy a collection of his shorts from the Criterion collection. I would encourage people to do it because you can see him figuring some things out about what interests him, about how to move the camera, how to look at someone's face, how to cut a scene. The same is true for this. I think she gets really, really good performances in this movie. Ailou Gouvin as Sasha, the eight-year-old girl, is really good. She's not asked to do a lot. There's not a lot of dialogue in this movie. There's a lot of withholding information and feeling even, not enunciating what's going on specifically. But yeah, I was really, really impressed by this. And you mentioned Mylon Kix in this film and Nirvana the band, the show, the movie, and Canada, so it's all happening.

Speaker 11:
[132:18] Yeah, Ontario. We see you, Ontario. We're sorry that we forgot, but we see you. What cities are in Ontario? Toronto?

Speaker 1:
[132:29] No.

Speaker 11:
[132:31] Are you sure? It is in Ontario. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[132:34] What else?

Speaker 11:
[132:34] And then Montreal is in Quebec.

Speaker 1:
[132:36] Yep. Calgary is in Alberta.

Speaker 11:
[132:39] Yeah. What's in Saskatchewan?

Speaker 1:
[132:43] Saskatchewan City.

Speaker 11:
[132:44] All right. Canada, we love you. We're grateful for your cinematic works.

Speaker 1:
[132:50] Should we go to my conversation?

Speaker 11:
[132:52] Yeah, please.

Speaker 1:
[132:52] Let's go to my conversation now with Sophy Romvari. For the first time, Sophy Romvari, thank you for being here. Congratulations on your first feature. Now, I know you've been making shorts for some years. I was curious if there is a movie, since I know you've seen a lot of films in your life, that kind of turned the engine on for wanting to become a filmmaker. When you were a young person or even a little older and you were studying film and thinking like, can I really do this as my vocation?

Speaker 14:
[133:27] It's a great question that I feel like I should have a canned answer for at this point, but I think there's so many... There's so many of the films that I love are not films that I would want to make myself, but there's films that have just moved me so much and made me feel like I want to be involved in the medium in some way. But I'm trying to think of an early interaction because I think I did grow up with parents that were very avid movie watchers. They would watch a lot of movies and invite us into that world and to watch a lot of films and not always just kid-friendly movies, so I saw a lot of foreign films or just art films that I think I wasn't quite ready to digest at the time.

Speaker 1:
[134:10] Were they showing them to you at home? Or were you going out to the theater to see them?

Speaker 14:
[134:13] Definitely at home, yeah. I think so much of my movie watching was actually at home. And I grew up on a very small island, Gabriel Island, which is even smaller than Vancouver Island, which is what you see in Blue Heron, which didn't have a movie theater, so so much of what we were watching was rented tapes or things that would screen on the TV or things that they would record from the TV onto VHS tapes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I didn't answer your question at all.

Speaker 1:
[134:43] Do you remember a movie that they showed you that you thought maybe I shouldn't be seeing this or I don't understand this?

Speaker 14:
[134:48] Oh, yeah, many. I was thinking recently. I mean, I don't remember what ages I was, but I do remember seeing Paunette pretty early on, which is, I mean, it's not for kids, but it's a complicated movie. There's a lot of big emotions in that film and it's quite difficult because it's about a child going through grief of a parent. And I remember feeling a lot of empathy for the child and having that be a unique experience because there's not that many child performances that are that evocative, I think. And I remember watching, I've been thinking about this movie a lot recently, it's La Ceremonie, the Claude Sherbroil film, because my parents also have a lot of actors that they love to follow the work of. So I think they're big fans of Sondre Bener and Isabel Hubert.

Speaker 1:
[135:43] So I've been thinking about this a lot, because I'm raising a little girl, and we're not quite at that place where I would show her La Ceremonie. But I thought like, when will be the time when I start showing things like that? Do you think that it like transformed your sensibilities or like, what do you think it gave you that maybe though some of those things came into your life, too soon?

Speaker 14:
[136:10] I think at the time, I was not really in the right head space to accept them as art. And I was just being shown images and films that confused me and were complicated. But I also now in retrospect, I think that did open up my mind to the possibility of what films can be and what films can do. And I think at first I actually wanted to be an actor. That's what I thought women did in films, was act. And I actually went as far as trying to audition and apply to acting schools. And the reason I went to film school is because I didn't get into any of those schools because I was not a very good actor.

Speaker 1:
[136:53] And yet you have performed in some of your films.

Speaker 14:
[136:55] I have. I enjoy acting, but I think that acting is not for the faint of heart as a career. And it's something that I have a lot of respect for. It's not something that I have the trained craft in. So when I'm in my films, it's out of necessity. I'm available. I'm the one that is kind of putting myself on the line in those films. And I'm also playing a sort of a version of myself. So if someone gave me a script and asked me to memorize and do different versions, I don't know that I could do that. But I like acting for fun. But I think when I was applying to acting school, it was out of a false sense of what involvement I wanted to have in film. And I applied to film as a sort of backup plan actually. And when I got into the program, it was very early on in the semester. I think there was an exercise to direct a film. And I just really had one of those moments of, aha, this was what it was the whole time. I just didn't know. And I really haven't had like a look back moment, which I'm so grateful for.

Speaker 1:
[137:52] When you had that feeling, was it more related to learning about something technical or something emotional or like what triggered the sense that you'd found the thing?

Speaker 14:
[138:03] I think just the cumulative nature of film, of getting to work with different elements, the production design and the performance and the camera, all these different things you have to learn about, and also work in tandem with other people. And I think realizing how much craft goes into that and how many decisions you get to make and have to make, I think I fell into that really naturally. I think it's something, I think in my own life, I have a lot of trouble with trying to not be a perfectionist and have so much control over everything. But in film, it's like, that's what you're being asked to do. And so I think I can thrive in that environment. And I think early on in film school, I was definitely called a micromanager more than once. So, you know, it's something that lends itself to the job. But I think it's something, when you're a young person, you have to learn how to do that in tandem with other people and collaborate with other people and communicate better than any other job I can imagine. You have to communicate not only your vision, but also what other people's needs are to have their vision be heard and translated.

Speaker 1:
[139:15] Yeah, it's funny, I definitely share that sensibility. I've often wondered why I'm so attracted to, interested in filmmakers, and I think it's because there's a makes like experience of someone who's maybe thinking a little too hard about making sure that everything is just right. Yeah. But do you feel like sometimes you have to combat that when you're trying to be creative? Because some things you can't control when you're making something.

Speaker 14:
[139:39] Oh, for sure. I think it's a false sense of control. Because I think you can control as much as you want with preparation, but then of course when you're making a film, there's so many live elements that you're having to react to. I think that's really where the preparation is necessary. Because once you've prepared to a certain extent, you're ready to face the actual spontaneity of what's going to happen. Because it's going to rain, someone's going to be sick, someone's not going to do what you want them to do. All these different things that you then have to in the moment decide, and that's where you're actually directing the film. Because you're having to funnel in your intentions and your vision, and unless you're working in animation or something, there's going to be so many uncontrollable elements, which is what makes film beautiful, and also what I think makes film always kind of a documentary, regardless of what the genre is.

Speaker 1:
[140:31] It's very interesting because your films really puncture that imagined line between what is documentary. I want to talk to you about that. Before we do that, I know you studied film in undergrad and got your MFA. The whole time you were studying, did you think this will be my career? This will be the way that I make money, support a family, because it's a very challenging, it's a very bold thing to say I'm going to try to do this professionally.

Speaker 14:
[140:58] To be honest, I've almost never thought about anything long-term. Not what filmmakers want to hear, but I really think of my life in sort of six-month increments. I've always kind of been that way. Like, will this gig get me through the next six months of rent? Will this, you know, I don't really attach my work, my career, I don't attach filmmaking to the word career, because I think career implies longevity. And I don't know, I don't think any of us can really know that in the arts. I want to, I want to keep making films for the rest of my life. I don't even want to retire. I want to, I think that's going to be, if I'm lucky, a very iterative thing that I can grow and change as a person and the films will evolve with that. And that's such a privilege. But I don't have a plan for like, this is what my career is going to look like. Because I think I'm always going to be a filmmaker who's responsive to like what I'm experiencing, what the world is experiencing. And I think that's hard to plan. Obviously financially, we're so dependent as filmmakers. It's not the same thing as being a painter or a poet, we have to rely on other people, we have to rely on financial means to make work, even if you're making low budget work. So, I try not to think too far ahead.

Speaker 1:
[142:21] How did you, well, I want to understand a little bit about maybe the Canadian system and how you worked making the shorts, working towards making Blue Heron. And then also like, how do you support yourself when you're going through that process of like, okay, I'm sharpening my craft, making more shorts, trying to work toward getting to a feature. I assume that's how you were thinking about it, but how do you do both of those things?

Speaker 14:
[142:44] With a lot of false confidence. No, no, really, I think, when I talk to like students or more emerging filmmakers, that is a question that comes up a lot, is like, you know, how do you get to this point? And I think it's such a cliche thing to say, but there's no one path. And it really, I do believe that for me, the path was I needed to go through making all these short films in order to make this feature. I didn't know that the feature was at the end of this road. I wasn't making the shorts in order to get there. I think once I had made all the shorts that I had made, I had done the work I needed to do to explore different modalities of filmmaking and also emotionally things that I had to kind of excavate. And so then I was, only once I finished those shorts, was I ready to start conceptualizing the feature. I didn't have this sort of like, oh, now I can start applying for funding for this project that I've been thinking of all this time. But the project is obviously cumulative at the same time.

Speaker 1:
[143:44] It feels like a culmination in a lot of ways. If you look at the shorts now, but I just looked at them in succession basically over the last few days. And it does feel like you're very clearly working towards something and trying to deconstruct something at the same time. How are you, this is a dumb question, but how do you get the shorts paid for? How do you actually go about trying to make something like that? I'm sure again students are asking this question.

Speaker 14:
[144:08] I love talking about it because I think part of why I'm glad that my shorts are available is because I think they're a good tool for deconstructing the myth of you need a lot to make a film. And because almost all of these films are no to very, very low budgets. Like the budget of Pumpkin Movie is literally two pumpkins. Like it's, you know, it's like my best friend.

Speaker 1:
[144:31] And a Zoom account maybe?

Speaker 14:
[144:32] Yeah, right. No, it's actually Skype.

Speaker 1:
[144:34] Yeah, Skype.

Speaker 14:
[144:35] There you go. RIP Skype. But no, it was, you know, it's my best friend from high school who's, you know, playing herself and me and we're shooting in a friend's apartment and it was just very minimal, you know, resources and so many of the concepts were just things that I thought of really, really kind of off the cuff and did them very quickly. And that's, that's my biggest skill, if anything, is just not waiting. I just, I have an idea and then I go and I make it, especially with the short films. And Norman Norman also, a short film with my dog, you know, he was just very old and I wanted to document him and I kind of had this like big concept of how I could depict this emotional experience and filmed in just a couple of hours. And so I think the limitations are actually what breed the creativity. So many of the shorts are very intuitive and the feature is much more, it's much more intentional than anything else I've made and that was purposeful. Like I wanted there to be intention behind all the decisions in the feature.

Speaker 1:
[145:36] Looking at the shorts, I was thinking to myself, did you know that a lot of people were going to see these? Because now it's available on the Criterion channel now and so a lot of people can look at your work and I think it works well to see the feature and see kind of the continuity of the body of work. But they're very personal and they do feel at times like experiments. So sort of like, will this, can this withstand a short film, this idea that I have?

Speaker 14:
[146:03] Yeah, I think, yeah, I feel the same way. Actually, I only recently watched them all in succession because they were playing at a festival sort of in a mini retrospective and I did have this moment where I was like, these are really personal, these are really vulnerable. And I think, you know, they were all made in my 20s, they were all made in a time of my life when I was genuinely going through all the things that you see in the films. And I've just been using film as a way to process these things, you know, since the beginning of making my work. And I'm glad there's a documentation of that. And I think I've accepted that vulnerability. And I think, again, from like a perspective of learning from other people, like for other people, maybe it's interesting to see. But I do see them now as, yeah, that the vulnerability is almost surprising to me in a way. And now I see the feature, and I feel like I've found the right distance to make the work.

Speaker 1:
[146:59] Yeah. It reminded me a little bit of, I'm friends with a lot of writers, and just a lot how we wrote in our 20s, which was a little bit more open. And you felt like maybe you were looking to be understood, but also had less to protect.

Speaker 14:
[147:17] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[147:18] So I thought Blue Heron was very special, and I'm very interested to hear how you conceptualized it, and effectively why you wanted to tell the story. Because some of your shorts kind of glance at, or even directly look at, what this film sort of becomes about in some respects. But it's a very dangerous thing, I think, to put so much autobiography in a movie. And so, when did you start thinking about doing it, since it wasn't part of this big master plan, as you say? And why was this the one to be the first feature?

Speaker 14:
[147:56] Yeah, I think, like you said, I think that there's a general, an openness and a sort of, yeah, that desire to be seen and understood. And I think that's a very common thing as an artist in your 20s. Because you're also trying to understand yourself. And I think that by the time I had finished making those films and started to develop Blue Heron, I had just a greater maturity as a person where I no longer, no longer felt that need as much, but I also knew that it wasn't possible to be understood by, you know, never mind everybody. You know, it just, it's this, when you're making films, not only are you going to be misunderstood, but your intentions are going to be misunderstood and your artistic intentions. And when you make personal work, people are going to make assumptions about you, about anything that you put into the work. And I can say as much as I want that this film is fiction and that so much of it is complete fiction and people are still going to make implications. And I just, I have to accept that as a filmmaker who's not only made really explicitly vulnerable work, but also this film is publicly known to be autobiographical. But in my understanding, when I watch the film, I don't see myself. I don't see, I see a version of my experiences, but there is a really, there is a distinct creative difference. And I think the most obvious one to me is that the character who's playing Jeremy is so dissimilar from my brother. Because that was part of the acceptance of making this film, was that I couldn't recreate, you know, I couldn't recreate this person. And there's, that impossibility is part of the point of making the film and part of the point of using film to access that acknowledgement. If that makes sense, you know, I could just try to acknowledge this art is the limit to which I can access this person.

Speaker 1:
[149:47] How did you think about making that distinction then? Like making that, because you're going to be confronted by schmucks like me being like, is this your life? So then what material decisions do you make to say, well, this, I don't want this to seem too close, or I want to find divergences from my own experience, that still feel, I always say true but not real.

Speaker 14:
[150:09] I love that.

Speaker 1:
[150:10] You know what I mean?

Speaker 14:
[150:10] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[150:12] So how did you think about that?

Speaker 14:
[150:14] I think that is kind of the line. I love that you said that, true but not real, because I think the reason I like documentary form and the hybridizing between fiction and documentaries, because for me, they're just different tools to access true but not real, you know, performance-wise or script-wise or whatever it is. Like accessing something that feels more authentic, but it's always an illusion of authenticity, and I think that's true for documentary and true for fiction. There's just different access to get to that outcome. And so I think those are the kinds of films that I've watched over the years that have been the most exciting to me, are films where that line is blurred and you can't tell as a viewer, like, what is the contract here? Is this real or is this not? And just having to accept that and move through the work. And there's so many great films that dissect that, like, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm is like a very formative film for me when I watched it. Because it's within the deconstruction, within the film, it's commenting on that. Or Chronicle of the Summer is a film that I watched early on as well, where I was, you know, they're actually talking about the access to authenticity and how you can achieve that. And I think that's what motivates me more than anything, is to try to root the work in naturalism, but naturalism is very constructed. It's extremely constructed. It's not something that is just occurring. You have to create a very tightly curated environment with the camera, with the production design, with the cinematography and editing. Everything is actually so tightly wound, but that it gives the sense of, oh, it's just occurring in front of us, and it's a documentary style, or it's very hard to actually do in a way that feels natural.

Speaker 1:
[151:57] Do you find yourself intellectualizing it when writing or conceiving of it, or is it primarily instinctual to say, this just feels like what it should be? Because especially, it's a period piece, it's got kind of echoes or reflections of personal experience, but not one-to-one, so like how much of it is, I'm sitting down and my brain is imagining, like, oh, thematically, this will make sense, or is it just, this feels right to me?

Speaker 14:
[152:25] I think there's only so much you can do until you're making those decisions on set, and we did, you know, shot list the film as much as we could, but then, of course, once you're on set, you're discovering things that are more interesting, and the thoughts that you had before were built upon assumptions of how things would feel and look. So there's room for the spontaneity, and especially because we were shooting on this very long lens, this zoom lens, and we were always shooting from a distance, it gave a lot of room for that play. Oh, wow, if we move the camera over here, we can shoot through this, and that creates more distance here, and Maya has a lot of experience as a cinematographer in every genre, in documentary, in television, in fiction narrative, and so she's very responsive to the environment. And so we were able to be responsive, but then develop a consistent cinematic language together. So we're not like just slapdash, you know, putting things together. It was admittedly like very addicting to shoot on a zoom lens. We did not think we were going to have as many zooms, but every time we would put the zoom lens on, we were like, well, we could do another shot on it, another shot. Because you can be so economical, and it's like a fun challenge. It's like, how can we shoot this entire scene in one shot? And that became like a fun challenge for us.

Speaker 1:
[153:46] That's really interesting. One of the things I was thinking could have been the reasoning behind that was when shooting young performers, having distance from the camera sometimes draws out better performance or better material, or that naturalism that you're describing occurs maybe more comfortably. Was that part of the design of that choice?

Speaker 14:
[154:05] Yeah, it was twofold because it was pragmatic from a performance level, which was very much inspired by Cassavetes. And reading about just his desire for performance over technical precision and how that turned into an aesthetic. And yeah, just using that as an ethos. And then also aesthetically, it made sense for the film, and it made sense for how I wanted the film to look and feel as a sort of recreation, but also memory. So it's like, is this a film that we're watching that this character is making, or is this a memory that she's having? And I think both can be applied.

Speaker 1:
[154:41] Right.

Speaker 14:
[154:41] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[154:42] How was it directing actors in this way over a period of time?

Speaker 14:
[154:47] I loved it. I mean, I think so much of the performances is in the casting process, of course, especially when you're casting children, you're also casting the dynamic between the children. And so much of the rehearsal that I did was actually just chemistry, chemistry building and sending the boys on play dates and they're playing video games together, they were going to the water park and half the time I wasn't even there, I was just having them build their own world and their own relationship. And then with the parents, there was really an important sort of chemistry in their auditions. And we auditioned many different actors and combined them and saw them in different arrangements. And because that's everyone's pet peeve is you watch a movie about a family and you're like, these people just met, you know, there's...

Speaker 1:
[155:33] Right, that is definitely not the feeling I took away from your movie. I assume many people have come to you and said this by now, but like, I grew up with a Jeremy, not in my family, but I knew a Jeremy. And it's a very extremely emotionally challenging thing to be proximate to. And similarly, that person just is not in my life anymore. And I'd like to hear a little bit about your thinking about how you wrote and framed him, because he doesn't speak very much. I think maybe he only has one or two lines of dialogue in the whole film. And he seems to be drifting to the side of the frame a lot, and we're not really ever getting... He's never down the barrel, you know what I mean? And so I just kind of wanted to hear about conceiving and portraying the character from your perspective.

Speaker 14:
[156:27] Yeah, I mean, it's a challenging thing because obviously we've all seen the film with the bad teenager, the teenager is acting out, the teenager who's... There's a lot of people who watch this film and assume that there's going to be some sort of really violent act that occurs. And so I knew I was up against these cliches of depicting a teenager that's having any kind of behavioral problems. And I didn't want to fall into that. Because I didn't want this character to feel unsympathetic or like a caricature. But I also wanted this character to be complicated. So it's a fine balance because, I mean, that's also the fine balance I've had to grapple with with my feelings about my brother was I did grow up with a lot of resentment and frustration. Like, why can't you just be normal? Why can't you just make things easier for mom and dad? And like this kind of feeling that when you're young, there's not much nuance to it. And then when you're older, you're applying the lens of an adult and the perspective of understanding that you didn't actually have all the information and there's more empathy. So I think it was important to show both the child's perspective and the adult's perspective and how those things change over time. But the character itself is based on my family's experience, but the character Jeremy is, yeah, I think I've spoken about this a lot, but he's so dissimilar from my brother in the sense that my brother was very, I don't know, he was just very bizarre, very the way he would speak and the way he would move his body and the way he was, he was always kind of clownish and joking around and you could never tell if he was lying or joking or what was happening. So this very complicated person and almost very childlike, like through his entire life and so he was provoking people. This is something he would do a lot of, he'd provoke. And I tried to hint at this at moments when he's on the roof and it ends with a little smile. And these were just little performance things that I knew that the actor could pull off. But if I started asking him to perform the way that my brother was, it would not work. It would be a very, very different movie. And that's where, that's one of those lines I drew was like, this isn't important. It's not important to try to recreate what my brother was like, because first of all, it's impossible. And second of all, Edik as a person is such a special person. It has such a special presence that I'm going to lean into that instead. So it changes the trajectory of the film entirely because I'm not recreating this character or this person in my life anymore. I'm leaning into what this actor is giving me. And I think that's one of those things you have to do when you're working with non-actors, new actors is what are they bringing to you and how can you utilize that? And his silence was so much more powerful. So I just leaned into that.

Speaker 1:
[159:24] The movie creates a tremendous sense of unease. And I feel like a big part of it, as near as I can tell, was due to the sound design. And I really felt the cereal container sliding across the kitchen table and the ball bouncing against the house. It's sort of ominous. Especially in the first half of the film. How did you think about that? Am I picking up on something that you were going for?

Speaker 14:
[159:51] Yeah, absolutely. I think people really underestimate the work of Foley artists. Foley is a very, very important part of every film. And you don't want to feel it. You don't want to actually know it's there. But it's a nuanced thing. I think every sound in the film was calibrated to be exactly the volume. Every slide of the cereal box, every time a glass of water is sipped from, every time one of the parents sighs, these are all decisions that I can see when I watch the movie. And it's something that really does create the majority of the atmosphere, and also the sense of it being in the past, the memories. And it's such a funny thing of, like, everyone who watches the film remembers the sound of a lawnmower and remembers this feeling of the summer, the sound of the summer. And it's funny, because as adults, we still should hear those sounds.

Speaker 1:
[160:46] Yeah, no, the present doesn't, it feels untextured, but the past is so, it has a lot of ripples, right? It's a strange thing.

Speaker 14:
[160:53] I can only assume it's because we were newer to the world, so we were paying attention to these things more or something, but it's...

Speaker 1:
[160:58] Less distracted now than we are, too.

Speaker 14:
[161:00] Yeah, that's true, and it was important for me to have... The majority of the film is just kids that are bored. Kids that are bored, and that's normal.

Speaker 1:
[161:08] That is what it was like.

Speaker 14:
[161:09] Yeah, that's what it was like.

Speaker 1:
[161:11] How about music? A couple of needle drops. Very powerful. How did you think about how it should work inside the movie?

Speaker 14:
[161:20] Oh, God, I could do a whole TED Talk on music.

Speaker 1:
[161:23] One of my favorite topics.

Speaker 14:
[161:24] Yeah, just because it's such a complicated thing because it's such a big part of this film that it was always going to be was written into the script that there was going to be diegetic music in the film. But I'm sure everyone knows it's very expensive. Yes.

Speaker 1:
[161:39] So you put song titles in the script?

Speaker 14:
[161:41] There was some. There was some. Yeah. I think the music, it was important to me that the music, yeah, was coming from a source that it was diegetic. And that was inspired by looking back at, again, the home video footage that my dad had shot in still processing, but also just other clips that he'd shared with me. There was almost always music playing in the background, and the music felt like score, and it felt like I was watching something intentionally paired with the sound and the image were intentional, but they were always mismatched in terms of the importance of what the image was and the grandiosity of the music. So there would be something very mundane, just kids doing kid things, but then there would be this beautiful Mozart score going on in the background, and it created this sense of importance. So I really borrowed that and tried to have the same atmosphere being created from this dad character. And so so much of the music in the film is inspired by just the music I remember growing up and what my dad would play and his taste, which is obviously consequently my taste now.

Speaker 1:
[162:46] King Crimson. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's it's very powerful and it's tricky to know like what is what is like a personal memory versus what is going to connect with a wider audience. The final song that is played is a very powerful song. And it's like, if you know it, it's a big deal. And if you don't know it, then I think it's like a little bit of a portal to.

Speaker 14:
[163:07] Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[163:08] I don't know how much you want to talk about that.

Speaker 14:
[163:11] Yeah. I mean, it's it's hard to end a film on any level. It's, you know, I think. Because I also it's I know that the film gets to an emotional place on its own and then how you want to leave people is it's a question. And I know that song does what it does.

Speaker 1:
[163:31] It does what it does.

Speaker 14:
[163:32] Yeah. So I think I think as soon as I tested it out with my sound designer, we kind of looked at each other and we just knew we just knew that it just felt right. And I think also, yeah, we can talk about this. Should we spoil what it is?

Speaker 1:
[163:47] No, let's not spoil it.

Speaker 14:
[163:49] Yeah, okay. Yeah. It just felt right. It was very, very evident that it felt right. And also, it was also the final note that I wanted to end on for my parents because my parents are also a fan of this artist. And I knew that I wanted them to have, you know, end on a note that it was a final gesture toward them.

Speaker 1:
[164:09] Do you share what you're going to do when you're making something that is connected to your family or seek consent or permission or something like, what do you do beforehand or maybe after you've completed something? Like, what is that experience like?

Speaker 14:
[164:23] Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I mean, I talk to my parents almost every day. We're very close. I've long since called them like my digital parents because they're just always in my pocket, you know. And we talk a lot. We're very conversational, very, yeah, we're very in each other's lives. And when I was making my short films, it was more complicated because I was also, you know, not as nuanced in my understanding of what my parents had gone through and what my family had gone through, but I was still needing to process those things. So I was kind of making these films, wanting to acknowledge these experiences, and they were still grappling with their own feelings. And so I think there was more of a tension to begin with, but once I was making those films for a while, and especially Still Processing, there became a real sense of trust and a real sense of understanding. And Still Processing was the first film that I really do feel I made for my parents. And in the thesis paper that I wrote about the film, which is all about using film as a way to process grief and to process grief and to actually process trauma. And this is something I'm actually interested in teaching eventually, is using film as a tool to reckon with difficult memories and complex memories. Because I think there's something very powerful that only film can do when you're watching back a reflection of your experience and sharing it with other people collaboratively. And it's like a communal experience that I don't know that any other art form can really access. And so I think there is an untapped tool there, therapeutically.

Speaker 1:
[166:02] It's so interesting that you frame it that way because I felt that same feeling like only a film can do this when the film takes a sort of structural shift. Or we move towards the present or whatever the perceived present. And just even how the film is kind of working, like how it is narratively operating shifts pretty dramatically. And it's not so confusing that anyone couldn't follow it, but it's a bold choice stylistically. And I loved it. I thought it completely worked. And I've seen films try to do something like that before and fall flat on its face. So can you talk about like, was it always part of the design to make the movie in that structure? Is it something that you came to over time? How did you think about it?

Speaker 14:
[166:46] I mean, it was, yeah, it was, it's what interested me because I think this film easily could have been a coming of age narrative drama, which stays in the same register as the first half, which was enjoyable to make. And I think to watch, but I think the point at which it cuts is kind of when it exhausts its originality. Like, there isn't anywhere to go from there, I think, had it continued in that register. And I think I knew from the beginning that I wanted it to be this perspective shift between a child and an adult. And originally, when I was writing this script, I was trying more superficial things to distance myself from the character. And so originally, she wasn't a filmmaker, she was, she actually becomes a social worker. And then I realized I was doing that thing that filmmakers do, which is like, here's a thin facade and behind it is a filmmaker. And so it wasn't actually until the last six months or so, I think I was talking to a friend of mine. And he just encouraged, he was just like, why are you trying to help? No one's going to know it's you anyway. So what are we doing? So and once I unlocked that and allowed that to be the case, then it just made the meta elements of film make so much more sense. And also I think there is a connection between social work and filmmaking in terms of the research elements and trying to understand human behavior from a perspective that is like very universal. And I think, yeah, so I found there was a way to marry these two things. And also because narratively we see the social worker in the first half of the film who arrives to the house and she's doing a house visit. It was an easy access point for why Sasha comes back. And so rather than she's just visiting her home from an emotional catharsis, she's actually performing a house visit as a social worker. So I realized from a narrative perspective that this could actually be wrapped into this performance that she's doing. And so I liked that. So yeah, just to answer your question, yes, I did always want to be bifurcated because I think there's a lot of films that are wonderful, but they crosscut these two things. When you're dealing with the past, it's very natural to want to crosscut between the past and the present. And the thing that excited me was not doing that because that to me feels more realistic to my experience of growing up and becoming an adult as you get to the certain point where you start to look back and you... I think if I was crosscutting, it would be less jarring, and I wanted it to be jarring, because that's the experience is you're suddenly an adult and you can't go back and you can't access those things and you're grasping at them and they're disappearing.

Speaker 1:
[169:28] Watching it, I was thinking of a lot of heavyweight stylists, like Linklater, Nolan, Wong Kar-Wai. They all have tried things like this in their movies. Sometimes they're a little bit more... They're very showy and audacious and exciting ways sometimes, but the editing style is very clean and invisible, especially in the second half of the film. And I'm not like, I don't know really know how it works. I don't know how you do that. So how did you try to... Because at first it seems like, oh, this movie is trying to wrong foot you. And then it becomes something more ethereal. And then it becomes a very practical experience of watching this character inside of this timeline. And, I don't know, maybe you can explain how you did that.

Speaker 14:
[170:14] I mean, yeah, I worked on the script for a long time, because I was really wanting the script to make structural sense, especially because we were taking this kind of big swing halfway through. And there was many different iterations of how that time jump was going to happen. And then once I landed on the phone to phone, and as you saw my shorts, I do include a lot of screens and cell phones. And so it made sense to me that that would be the first image we see of the present day, is the iPhone, because it's the quickest way to say we're in present time. Like immediately we're going to get there. And I was like, how can I communicate to the audience 20 years later without putting 20 years later on the page? And that was a big…

Speaker 1:
[170:54] Which is something we always talk about on the show, that most modern filmmakers are afraid to do that, and they make a lot of period pieces because they feel like a phone somehow indicates a loss of attention, or it's just not very cinematic, I guess. And you're using it in the opposite direction.

Speaker 14:
[171:07] Yeah, I mean, I understand that because it creates… It's very insular to be on a phone, to be on a computer. You're not interacting with anyone else, really, but that's how we communicate. So to me, it feels impossible to avoid. And it's been how I have communicated for so much of my life. And yeah, all of my films are characters communicating through digital means. And so it made sense to me. Because the second half of the film is very similar to the experience I had making Still Processing. So in many ways, it's like a fictional recreation of me making that film. And I think I wanted it to be a little confusing, but there was a concern that it could be too confusing, but it really doesn't seem to be.

Speaker 1:
[171:55] It wasn't to me at all. But it did have me kind of leaning forward and trying to figure out what you were trying to accomplish until you sort of realize what it is you've accomplished.

Speaker 14:
[172:03] You have to commit to the journey, I think. Obviously, if someone walks out at that point, they're going to have a very different experience. But it's... Yeah, I think I wanted that moment to feel like the experience that I've had, which is that you have conversations with your parents when you're a kid, and then by the time you're an adult, you're still having those same conversations. And I wanted to kind of show almost seamlessly that this is still occurring, and you can actually hear the sound of the trampoline in the background, as though the time just like disappears, but you're still having these same conversations, and you still don't have answers to these questions. And that's really the point, you know, is you're still stuck with these curiosities without clean answers. And I think that's so much of life, really.

Speaker 1:
[172:50] What has it been like showing the movie over the last seven or eight months?

Speaker 14:
[172:55] It hasn't been like, um, heavy, for sure.

Speaker 1:
[173:00] This is not like you made an action movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger, you know, and people are like, I was entertained. Like, it's very heavy and personal.

Speaker 14:
[173:06] Yeah, the personal aspect, to be honest, is not the hard part. Like, I think because I have spent so much of my adult life now thinking about and talking about and looking at from different angles the grief that I have experienced my brother's losses and my parents, their experiences. And it's very, I'm very aware of it. So it's, I'm much more able to talk about it now, which was not the case, obviously, even when I was making Still Processing. So it is, there probably is sort of a disassociation, I'm sure, on some level that is occurring. But for me, the heavy part is the people who are watching the film who are relating to it and it's unlocking for them their own experiences and wanting to be able to carry and help hold those things is heavy. But also, I'm so grateful that that is happening because when you make personal work, I'm really not interested in making work that is just accessible to me and to my family. I want people to be able to reflect or feel reflected in the work. But I think I didn't know the extent to which that would be true. And I've met many people who have lost siblings. I've met many parents who have lost children. And I've met many people who relate to Jeremy and who have gone through foster care systems, who have come out the other side and are grateful for having done that. And there are many who feel represented by that experience, but also many who feel just devastated to know that this is such a universal experience. So really, it seems like every character has a foothold for people. And that, as an artist, is very validating, but also is a very heavy thing as a human being to know that that's such a shared thing. Because growing up, it really did feel like we were in isolation. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[174:59] Is the plan to keep working in this literally personal register?

Speaker 14:
[175:03] No, I don't think so. I mean, I think even the shift between store processing and this film does feel to me significantly more at a distance. And I think that feels more comfortable to me now as an artist, because it gets much more creative freedom. And I'm sure the work I make will always be personal on some level and kind of rooted in my point of view. And I'm probably always going to be interested in like the meta-textual elements and filmmaking, its process. And these are just fixations. But I think, yeah, I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to do.

Speaker 1:
[175:39] You haven't written anything yet?

Speaker 14:
[175:40] I haven't written anything yet.

Speaker 1:
[175:41] Okay.

Speaker 14:
[175:42] Yeah, I haven't had five damn minutes.

Speaker 1:
[175:45] Well, why not? Like, just because you're just sharing this with as many people as possible to get, as many people as possible to go and see it.

Speaker 14:
[175:53] It's been, yeah, it's just been going since August, basically. It's the festival's...

Speaker 1:
[175:57] A weird job. It's a weird job.

Speaker 14:
[175:59] It's not even a job, actually. That's why I don't say the word career.

Speaker 1:
[176:02] A weird non-job.

Speaker 14:
[176:04] Yeah, it's a insane privilege to get to share your work with a lot of people, but it is very time-consuming. And it's something that you, in order to... Because the film is personal, I'm the person that's going to be talking about it as well. That's just the nature of it. And now that the film is coming out, there's a new wave of that, which is very exciting. And I'm on record, I believe, at LaCarno, saying, oh, there's no way this film will get distribution.

Speaker 1:
[176:30] You're getting very hallowed distribution.

Speaker 14:
[176:33] Literally, I know. It's insane, because I fully was like, this will maybe stream. Because the industry tells you there's no way. The theaters are dead, it's over. So I'm still in the process of believing what's actually happening with this film.

Speaker 1:
[176:49] Congratulations. We end every episode by asking filmmakers, what's the last great thing they have seen?

Speaker 14:
[176:55] The last great thing I've seen? I saw less films in the last year than I've ever seen in my entire life.

Speaker 1:
[177:01] Everyone always says this.

Speaker 14:
[177:02] Oh, God.

Speaker 1:
[177:02] This is the problem.

Speaker 14:
[177:03] I know.

Speaker 1:
[177:04] Once you start making them, you can't watch them anymore.

Speaker 14:
[177:06] I know. That is true. Well, I was on a jury which forced me to watch movies in Spain. I saw this film by a filmmaker from Cuba called David Simms. It's called Out West to Zapata, I believe. It's this documentary that he shot by himself in Cuba. It's black and white photography and it's phenomenal film. It's the film that we awarded the best of the festival. I don't know that it's accessible at all, but it was an unbelievable film and it was made just himself. And he was shooting a couple who were taking care of their child and the father of the family hunts crocodiles with his bare hands. And you see the footage of this actually being shot. It's some of the most incredible footage I've seen in recent years.

Speaker 1:
[178:02] And what was the name of the film?

Speaker 14:
[178:03] I think it's called... I think Out West to Zapata, I believe it's called...

Speaker 1:
[178:11] Out West to Zapata. Okay. That's an incredible recommendation. Hopefully, we will all be able to see it soon. Sophy, thank you.

Speaker 14:
[178:17] Thank you so much. This is such a pleasure. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
[178:25] Okay, thanks to Sophy, thanks to Chris Ryan, thanks to Griffin and David, thanks to Ben David Grubinsky, thanks to every single person who sent a voicemail or wrote an email for this episode. Thanks to everybody who's been spending time with this show. We are in our 10th year. We are not quite 10, but we're in our 10th year, which is fucking crazy. Thanks to Jack Sanders. Thanks to Lucas Cavanagh. A lot of whiplash coming later this week. Our pal Yasi Salak is going to join us. We're going to talk about two music movies. What are they?

Speaker 11:
[179:01] Michael and Mother Mary.

Speaker 1:
[179:03] What's Michael about?

Speaker 11:
[179:05] I can't believe I'm not on vacation for this. Can't believe I didn't arrange this. But no, we'll all be there together.

Speaker 1:
[179:11] Yes. It's the Michael Jackson biopic, which I explained to some friends over the weekend. They were like, what? That's real? It's not only real, it's probably going to be one of the biggest movies of 2026. We will talk about it with you on Friday. See you then.