Speaker 1: We're Tom Lorenzo and this is the Pop Style Opinion Fest.
Hell look, and welcome back to another edition of the
Pso I am the team. You're Daelo, Tom Fitzgerald, and
I'm here with the Low and your Delo Lorenzo because
my love, the husband. We are three days away from
our Paris trip. We are Paris in parts in Paris,
will send lots of pictures. We'll send well, we'll.
Speaker 2: Post post lots of pictures. But we're excited because it's
just going to be to relax and do nothing and
eat and drink and yeah, do.
Speaker 1: A little shopping, a little wine drinking, a little cheese.
He's eating. That's about it. We're going to Notre Dame.
We're going to Mucid' but not to the Louver right.
Speaker 2: I do want to thank people who emailed us and
told us about getting tickets ahead of time. So we
did get the Dorsey ticket and the Notre Dame. We
have to wait a little bit, as the email said,
but thank you so much. You guys are so sweet
for all the suggestions.
Speaker 1: So yes, we're looking forward to that. It is Halloween Day.
We have no plans for the evening and that's it
for the news. I think, uh, Prince Andrew was no
longer a prince. Lorenzo was like, do you want to
talk about this? And I was like, not really, I
just think it's.
Speaker 2: A big deal for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just Lorenzo wants to talk about it.
Speaker 2: No, No, I just think it's great that you know
that that woman went through hell, wrote the book now
all that, And of course she didn't get to see this,
but I was watching. I was listening to any pr
this morning and her brother was Zobby, Yeah, her brother
was it was hard to watch and talking about how
you know, how important is this and he's story that
she's no longer here to see what you know. But anyway,
I think it's it's a major accomplishment. I think it is.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think her family should be proud of what
she's managed. But I don't know that's it.
Speaker 2: That's it. I just think it's it's it's a little
victory in a world falling apart, right right, so it
you know, it's something to celebrate.
Speaker 1: One of the things I did say on Blue Sky
and I realized that a lot of this is happening
because of Virginia Jeffrey's book and just the increased interest
on the quote unquote Epstein files. Right, So this is
an ongoing international story, and I think we can look
at it that way and say, Okay, this is why Charles,
you know, King Charles finally did this. But one of
the things I said was that I really think this
is an indication that Charles is near the end because
reading various accounts over the years, it's well documented that
Prince William loads Prince Andrew and hates the fact that
he has tainted the family name so much and has
been putting a lot of pressure on his father to
find to do something about it. So I just feel
like this was one of those instances where William said,
either you take care of this now, or I'm going
to take care of it in a much uglier way later.
Because I do think if Charles hadn't done this, the
second William was ascended to the throne, he was going
to do everything he could to strip Andrew of everything
that he possibly could. So, I mean, I'm not taking
anything away from like Virginia Jaffray's advocacy and what she's
and her bravery to get to this moment, but I suspect.
Part of what fuels it is that I just don't
think Charles is healthy. I don't think he's well, and
I don't think he is expecting to live as long
as his parents did. And that's really all I have
to say about that. You're right, it was a good choice,
it was the right thing. It took too long, they
should probably there's a lot of calls about this isn't
enough or whatever, but I do think that this is
leaving Andrew wide open to some more investigations and he's
not going to be protected by the crown anymore so.
Speaker 2: And it's kind of a big deal because the whole
family gets stripped right of all the titles, the daughters
and everybody. No, no, no, they don't. Oh, okay, so
just him, just him, okay, never mind.
Speaker 1: They get to be princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, and they
probably will wind up with a more elevated role in
the family because of this, because they're losing people. And
actually the princess are somewhat well liked, and I, you know,
I don't know. That's all I have to say about that.
I'm glad it happened, and yeah, it's good. All right,
So we are going to talk about three movies today.
They all dropped on streaming services, either Netflix or Prime
Video this month. I think some of them dropped in
the last week. So they're all available.
Speaker 2: To view, people are talking about it.
Speaker 1: And they're all movies people are talking about. They have
a significant amount of buzz surrounding them. So we thought
we would sit down and watch all three. And I
found all three of them problematic in different ways. But
two of them I found problematic in ways that actually
challenged me, and one of them I found problematic in
ways that actually insulted me. Yes, so we're going to
talk about all three. The three movies are a House
of Dynamite on Netflix, Heada on Prime Videos starring Tessa Thompson.
House of Dynamite is Staring Everybody to starring Tessa Thompson,
and Ballot of a small Player starring Colin Farrell, fall
A Chen Until the Swinton, which is also also on Netflix. Yeah.
I had to think for a second, Uh, We're going
to do Ballot of a Small Player last because there's
a major twist halfway through the movie and we want
to be able to talk about it, So we'll do
that one last, and if you don't haven't seen the
movie and don't want to know what the twist is,
you can tap out about halfway through our discussion. The
other two movies we're not going to like spoil spoil well,
first off, the head of it, it's based on Gobbler,
the Ibsen play, but even so it's not the kind
of story that has that we can spoil, right, So
we'll have a discussion about that movie and you don't
have to worry about being spoiled. The first movie, we're
going to talk about His House of Dynamite, and it's
not so much that we're going to spoil things, but
we are going to talk about the structure of it.
And the director, Katherine Bigelow, chose to end the film.
Speaker 2: Right, So the whole movie, the whole structure.
Speaker 1: The whole thing. It's it's not that there are twists
and turns and we're going to reveal something that you
wouldn't have known. In fact, most of the reviews of
the film do talk about what we're going to talk about,
so you're all fully warned. And I will warn you
in these discussions if we're guide you to the next one,
if now, if we're about to talk about things that
you might want to not know. I'll let you know,
all right. So, A House of Dynamite is from director
Katherine Bigelow, who you know did Zero Dark thirty and
you know, Blue Steel and The hurt Locker and Near Dark.
She's had a career in the last several years that
centered around very sort of masculine coded, military themed films.
So The House of Dynamite is in some ways very
much up her Ally. It is a film about when
a nuclear missile is launched at the United States, and
it's about the various people and departments and how they
all deal with this while that missile is in the air.
It's got an incredible cast, almost all of whom are
unbelievably wasted in this film because of the fact that
a it is so stacked with so many names, and
b the structure of the film prevents any of those
actors from basically having more than twenty minutes of screen
time total.
Speaker 2: I know, I thought the movie was going to be
about Rebecca and it wasn't. Character It wasn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's so played up in the in the beginning,
in the marketing of the film, and all the in
the trailer and in the you know, the art for
the film, and then I get it because she I
don't know if I would say she's the biggest star
in it, but she's probably you know, she's in the
Mission Impossible movies, and I guess they were trying to
make that connection.
Speaker 2: Were as you know, there.
Speaker 1: I know, but I think she's kind of a bigger
star than it, well because of the Mission Impossible Movies
or nothing else. So you know what you go first,
I think a lot of people didn't like this film,
and I think you didn't, and I actually will talk
about the ways on which it's flawed, but I I
did like it. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I didn't know anything about it, I mean a little
because we posted on our site the preview and stuff.
But I felt like I was kind of misguided because,
as I said, I was expecting a story about certain people.
I thought it was about her and her life, you know,
and working for the government, blah blah blah, and then
then they kind of dropped her and then kind of
started introducing other characters, and I was like, oh, hey,
so it's a whole environment, you know, everybody working for
the government to take care of this issue, but I
felt like it just took a long time, with a
lot of dialogue, a lot of you know, right setting
up everything, every department, every you know, branch of the
government and so on. So I don't know, I was
a little bored towards half. I was.
Speaker 1: When we got to the third part of the film,
and this is where I'm going to explain how the
film is structured. I really would not consider this a spoiler.
I knew it going into the film, so it didn't
really change my perception of the film. But if you
don't want to know, I guess skip ahead, you know,
to our next discussion. The film is told in three
separate is it three? Yeah, three separate vignettes, starting with
before the missile is detected, all the way up to
the moment the missile hits right, and then it moves
to another vignette and starts the process over again, and
you see that entire situation from a slightly different angle,
and then it switches a third time, and so you know,
the the opening sequence is is when the missiles first
detected and it's at a missile you know, there's a
missile defense base and the situation room in the White House,
and that's where Rebecca Ferguson is right, And that's the
first part of the story. And then the second part
of the story is it's mostly just military guys. It's
a lot of generals and stuff like that, Secretary of Defense,
and the point of the film is it's all people
basically on zoom calls and telephone and phone calls trying
to handle this situation. And then the final sequence is
with the President of the United States who has to
come to a conclusion as to how he's going to retaliate.
Speaker 2: Which was the most annoying part for me, Actually, go ahead,
why just his reactions in the way he behaves. I
don't know. He wasn't too.
Speaker 1: I'm not a huge fan of Indtersell, but now I
am not.
Speaker 2: I'm the same, And I felt like he didn't I
don't think he did a really good job as a president,
but maybe it was just that he didn't have the
material to work well.
Speaker 1: He does a lot of this in a lot of
his portrayals, and I'm like, I don't get why he
does this, where he just his whole portrayal is like
someone who's just exhausted and like wounded, like he walks
around like and he did make some comment about how
he has a limp or something like that. I can't
remember it was said and passing. And I guess my
thing with his portrayal was there was just nothing presidential
about the guy. He just didn't come across like a
president to me. He was he was too. Yeah, he
just didn't have it. And I'm not crazy about his
performing style. He always acts like he's over whatever he's doing,
like I'm just over this. Can I just get through
this scene and then get back to my trailer? That's
what it always feels like with him.
Speaker 2: So true, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's like, can I just get through this scene and
then can I go sit down? Exactly exactly what his
acting comes across like. And I really came out in
this role because I'm like, you're the president in a crisis.
I think, why are you acting like I can't wait
until this scene is over?
Speaker 2: I think, especially in this case in this movie, because
you were waiting for that moment when the president wasn't
and it's the guy who's like, yeah, was going to
start talking taking action and then you know this is
just like I.
Speaker 1: Mean, there's a lot that you could unpack about the
timing of this film. You know, it starts with the
assumption that all of the people in these roles are
essentially competent, decent people, all the way up the chain
to the to the President, and that's kind of a
hard sell into twenty twenty five to the idea that
everybody in these in the White House situation room, in
the Pentagon Missile Defense Command, they're all very calm, but
in people who are just trying to do their best. Yeah,
and that does I mean, that's kind of a naive
view of our government at the moment.
Speaker 2: I agree because I started watching the movie and you know,
I can't I'm not gonna say anything, but at some
point I work for the government and I was in
a situation that I was surrounded by people like that
taking action. And it's funny because I remember thinking, Wow,
these are just regular people, like they it's a job
at the end of the day, it's a job with
a lot of responsibility, but it's a job with ordinary people.
Not ordinary but you know, I mean, just regular people
taking part of it. So that's the first thing I
thought when I started watching the movie when she go
through all security and you know, and she's an employee,
she's a worker, and these people are making major decisions
every day for you and for the whole world. So
that was interesting, I thought. So I thought it was
going to be more like that about her. I don't
know her family and so on.
Speaker 1: Now, and I mean, that is something that I actually
thought was interesting. It does work against the film that
you spend you know, only about twenty minutes with each situation.
Well it's more than that, because the film's almost two
hours long, but you only spend a short amount of
time with these people. You're giving almost no information about them.
You might see them with a kid or before this
all starts, or on a phone call with a girlfriend
or whatever, but you're really not given a lot of
information about these people's lives, and you don't get to
know them very well. And ultimately, that I think is
a very deliberate choice on the part of Catherine Bigielow
and Noah Oppenheim, the screenwriter, because this isn't a story
about people. It's a story about systems and it's about
it's not about the people in those systems trying to
do their best work, which would be the traditional way
of doing this story. It's about people in those systems
watching those systems fail one after another, and to that.
In that sense, it really was interesting and very very tense.
About halfway through the film, I was like, Wow, she
is ringing an awful lot of tension out of people
staring at computer screens and that is literally all anybody does.
Speaker 2: How much longer can I stand this? Just watching that?
Speaker 1: And I mean that may be that it does get
to a point where it's like, Wow, Okay, this is
really all that this movie is. It's just people on
telephones or on I don't know why I keep saying telephone.
That sounds so old fashioned. Telephone on the phone, or
or on like zoom meetings or whatever. And it does
get it does get sort of monotonous, and when you
get to the third sequence, because it's sort of a
Rassamon style thing where you're seeing certain conversations from different
angles when you go through the various sequences, and actually
that part does pay off at certain moments where you're like, oh, Okay,
that's what that person was doing, That's why they couldn't
get a hold of that person or whatever. But ultimately
it means that you are repeating conversations right in a
film that's already struggling to keep the interest up because
it's all phone calls and zoom meetings, You're then repeating
conversations that we've already seen from a different angle, and
that is asking a lot of the audience. I do
think I think a lot of people had problems with
this film, and I understand that. I don't think it's
a perfect film. I think the flaws are very evident,
the structure of it is very evident. But I appreciated
what she tried to do with this, and I also
appreciated the fact that most of these actors were given
almost nothing to work with, and a lot of them
really gave a lot. Like I thought Rebecca Ferguson was
really great. I thought Gretel Lee, who is in it
for about three fucking minutes, perfect and she just gave
you a fully realized human being. You could just see
who that woman was, Yes, yes, and you yeah. Some
of them really did an amazing job with that. I
thought Tracy Letts, who played that one general, all he
could do was be kind of annoyed, and which Tracy
lets is very very good at playing annoyed, but he
really gave you something to look at someone to wonder
what they were going to do next, what they were thinking.
Speaker 2: Back to Greta, I just loved her. As you said,
it was very short, but it gave you that Ho
gave you that woman with a kid, the wife and
the mother with a kid.
Speaker 1: I don't think she's a wife. She was an expert
on Korea.
Speaker 2: But my point is that also a brilliant woman with
a great career and a lot of knowledge, and very intelligent.
So I thought that she did a very good job
in what five minutes. I thought Gabriel Bassell was also
very good.
Speaker 1: He's the young guy, right, he was probably given the
most to do.
Speaker 2: Was he's good. He was also on Netflix doing something else.
I mean, he's And I.
Speaker 1: Could not understand Moses Ingram, the woman who worked for FEMA.
They did zero with her zero Later I was like,
what was the point of that? That literally went no.
I mean, none of their stories go anywhere. But she
literally had no point to anything in the story. I
except to illustrate that that certain high ranking people are
going to be safe when the bombs dropped. She was
one of them, and other people are not. As I noted,
the film does not, and it doesn't end you don't.
There's no bomb drop it all. Each sequence ends before
the actual bomb drop. Some of them end right just
before the bomb drops, and none of them are set
in the city where the bomb So none of the
actual characters that you're watching are indirect except for one.
There is one character that's in the city again, Caitlin Deaver.
You got to see she literally had three lines. Yeah,
I think we saw more of her in photographs on
her father's desk than we actually saw of her. Actually,
am I wrong?
Speaker 2: No, Yetta, that's true.
Speaker 1: Final two final critiques. Like I said, I did find
this thought provoking and I did not mind watching it.
It does get tedious near the end, but I would
recommend it. But two final critiques. The first is that actually,
I'll just settle on this one. I did a little
research on the setup for this thing, because the setup
is like, okay, is that real? Is that really? How
that would work out? Part of the problem and everyone's
debating in this movie is that nobody knows where the
missile came from, right, And I was like, really, is
that a thing? And so they did know who to
retaliate against, and the question for the president was do
you just retaliate against all our enemies or do you
pick whichever one you think is the one that sent
this missile? And it turns out that's not really a thing.
Like that's first off, the Pentagon came out today this
week and denounce the film. But of course, anything that
comes out of the Pentagon right now any leestionable as hell.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: But uh. I did read some other experts and they
were like, it's there's really not a believable scenario where
people would not know where the missile was fired from.
That's not believable. And the entire movie hangs on that question.
So I found that kind of annoying because there's this
whole conundrum about what are we supposed to do? How
are we supposed to do this next? And the film
has this sheene of legitimacy over it. It feels like, oh, wow,
this must be what it's really like in the situation room.
And I don't know is it. I have no booking clue,
but it has that like veneer of everybody did their research,
this is what it's really like. And then you present
this scenario that is most of the experts are like, now,
that probably wouldn't happen that way. So it's a thought
prevaking film. It's a scary film because it's very clear
that all of our systems are manned by human people
who are prone to mistakes and confusion.
Speaker 2: I think, if nothing else, and.
Speaker 1: Also that the systems themselves don't work right.
Speaker 2: I think, if nothing else, that you walk away knowing
that voting for the right people is the right thing
to do, because you know these people are in charge
of your life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so that's it. So I don't think I
have anything else to say about the movie, do you No?
Speaker 2: That's it?
Speaker 1: All right, We'll take a break here and we'll be
right back where are back? And now we're going to
talk about Head up Uh, starring Tessa Thompson, directed by
Nia DaCosta, based on the Henrik Ibsen play Head of Gobbler.
I did not know what to expect of this because
I did not know. I didn't know the play very well.
I just knew that Head of Gobbler was one of
those nineteenth century portrayals of difficult women who are probably
suffering from a mental illness. And that's all I knew
going into it, and I actually after I watched this,
I went and looked up the play just to see
how much of this was changed from the actual play,
because the play is, you know, eighteen nineties in you know,
I think Sweden, and this is set in the nineteen
fifties in England, and you know, the lead character is
a black woman, so obviously there were changes. There were changes.
And not only that, but she's a lesbian because one
of the male characters and had a goblet, was one
of her lovers, was changed to a woman played by
Nina Hawes. So it is oh, interesting, Yeah, you didn't
know that. I don't know that that character was a man.
And the wow, And to be honest, I will get
into that later. That is one of my criticisms of
the film is that some of this stuff does not
translate from the eighteen nineties to the nineteen fifties, or
from white people to black people or straight people to
gay people. Wow, it doesn't map exactly right. So there
are times during the film where it just it feels
a little off.
Speaker 2: Wow, it makes sense now in my head entirely.
Speaker 1: Now it makes sense. Yeah, that that was I mean,
the lesbianism.
Speaker 2: Was not only not on that the male character, but
the time and the place right.
Speaker 1: Because doesn't it make more sense about why she would
be considered her husband's rival professionally, Like yeah, okay, let's
let's backtrack here.
Speaker 2: So, uh.
Speaker 1: Nia DaCosta is a black woman director, and I think
that's worth pointing out here because well, first off, in
the past, she has said that she wants to tell
stories of black women who were difficult or interesting or
not easy to love or whatever that sort of thing,
and she definitely got her chance to do that with this.
And I kind of struggled sometimes, as I said, because
I didn't feel like her blackness was referenced in a
way that made sense, nor did I think her lesbianism was.
Let me just say this. So it's set during a
party in nineteen fifty eight. She is heada and she's
married to a professor, and they have none of this
is particularly clear, and this is why it's like, well,
if this was set in the eighteen nineties, this would
all make a little bit more sense, but it's the
nineteen fifties and it doesn't quite make sense. They don't
have a lot of money, but they apparently borrowed a
ton of money to buy essentially Downton Abbey. It is
this massive country house. But we are told a couple
of times that neither one that they don't really have
money in their letterage.
Speaker 2: Ah, that makes much more sense than in eighteen nineties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I'm sitting there going, how can they what
kind of loan did they take out? Not only that,
but the house. The house is stunning.
Speaker 2: It is everything about it, Duhn amazing.
Speaker 1: And it is not just stunningly stunning architecturally, it is
the furnishings. It is luxuriously every furnished in every single room,
And I'm like, this is not the house of a
nineteen fifties couple who had to take out a loan.
This doesn't really make any sense to me. If it's
eighteen nineties Sweden, that actually does make us some sense.
So it's things like that where it's like, I mean,
the house is everything dinner, I think I might have understood.
I think the story might have worked a little bit
better if they had just a mansion instead of not.
I mean, it was a fucking castle. They were living
in a castle, and it didn't make any sense why
they would if they couldn't afford.
Speaker 2: It, and it all the secrets and everything make more
sense in eighteen ninety ninety one.
Speaker 1: Well that's the thing. Yeah, it's all. So they have
this party, this massive nineteen fifty eight party, and their
servants and everything like that, and it's it's fairly formal,
although they're not wearing ball gowns or anything like that.
And then the party, in the manner of like you know,
the idle wealthy, the party turns. It goes on all night,
people get really really drunk, people wind up skinny dipping
in the lake and all that sort of thing. There's
people you know, fucking in the in the hedge maze
and all that sort of thing. So what fucking It's
not the first time I've said it on this podcast.
So so there's this this central relationship between tests between
Head and this author writer professor Eileen, who was at
one time a professional rival of Heda's husband, and now
they're both sort of gunning for the same professorship. And again,
none of this, none of us reads like the problems
of people who would live in that kind of house,
Like it just doesn't. And not only that, I think
Nina has is amazing, as I lean in this movie.
I mean charismatic, beyond charismatic. She actually looks stunning, but
not in a traditionally gorgeous way. She looks stunning because
she's so imposing to look at.
Speaker 2: But in general, I know, and.
Speaker 1: But you know, I kept sitting there going in nineteen
fifty eight, would a man really be in danger of
not getting a job because a lesbian was up for
the same job, because that's not how that works, Like
he's so worried that this lesbian is going to take
his job. This, I mean, she's pretty much an out
lesbian in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: Everything about it.
Speaker 1: When and I'm just like, no, he's in notice, like
she's not going to get the job because she's a lesbian.
And it's the nineteen fifties, right.
Speaker 2: The same thing with the book when she talks about
her book and how scandalous you know, everything is in
the book, and then that's going to change history in
the world. Well, yeah, in eighteen ninety one, that makes sense,
not in the fifties. Yeah, now that you pointed that out,
I can't. Yeah, the whole thing just changed in my head.
Speaker 1: Having started out I silely did like the film. It's
frustrating at times, because again, if you don't know the
story going into it. Honestly, the first forty minutes I
even said to you, I'm like, I really don't know
what the hell's going on, right, there's just a lot
of very rapid talk and people moving quickly through scenes,
and I'm just like, and it really took an hour
and a half of watching the film, Like I was
almost near the end of the film before I could
figure out what everybody's relationship was to everybody else. I mean,
I actually had to go look up the the guy
who did the attack near the end of the film.
That's all I'll say. In the last few minutes of
the film, I had to go look up that character
because I was like, what, who is this guy? What
does he have in relationship? Well, it turns out he's
the guy that lent them all the money he and
he knows all their secrets. But that is not entirely
clear in the beginning of the film because they throw
so much information at you.
Speaker 2: Well minempression, go ahead, Yeah, because I knew, again, very
little about it. My impression was that, Okay, well, this
is a story about a rich family and this woman,
complicated woman, fabulous woman, and we're going to find out things,
and then we find out that her Max Lover is coming,
you know. So I was like, all right, it's going
to be about that. I but as you say, so,
I just went along with that and looking at beautiful things,
to houses, gorgeous, the table, the dishes, the fashion.
Speaker 1: They had, big band singer. It was just amazing. I
almost I'm like, I would buy the soundtrack to this film.
Speaker 2: The music.
Speaker 1: The music is really I mean, it is a treat
to look at.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's what I went with in the beginning. Yeah,
but then I was a little shocked with Tessa Tumpton's
choice of voice. I hated her voice, and I think
she was way over the top with everything performance.
Speaker 1: I agree with you on this. I think that shocked
me a little. It was I don't think. I'm pretty
convinced it was deliberate because Heda is supposed to be
a big phony who is too much and everybody thinks so, right.
Speaker 2: But but but there's a difference between a character being
too much and a performance being too much. And I
think she did.
Speaker 1: Think I think there are times where I think she
takes it too far. There are times where I think
the the because she's playing an English character, and she
has played English character in the past, and I do
think her accent work is good for the most part.
Oh that's something I wanted to say about House Full
of Dynamite. Our House of Dynamite. Half the cast are
either Swedish or English, and they're all playing Americans. And
about halfway through the film, I turned to you and said,
I'm really getting a headache from all of these people straining.
I mean, Jared Harris plays the Secretary of Defense, and
that is literally the most English looking man you could
ever find. And it's just I was like, all right,
I guess I'll believe that he's an American, but it's
it was kind of hard to get through. Anyway. Back
to this Tessa Thompson, her her accent work is normally good.
I found it a little precious. This time. It was
like veering into a parody. And I mean, in the
beginning of the film, I have wondered because it seemed
like she was a phony with a lot of secrets,
and I have wondered, is the secret that she's American?
Like I really thought that might be one of her secrets.
But no, that wasn't one of those just the choice
now in the original play, in any place, in any
play or story that tells a woman's story in the
nineteenth century, there's you know, it almost always deals with
her lack of options in society, and a woman in
the nineteenth century had no options, and subsequently a character
like hett A Gobbler would make sense. But her actions
make sense in a situation where she has no power,
so she fucks with people and she ruins lives, and
she's manipulative, And that makes sense when you put it
in the nineteen fifties. You're sitting there. I'm sitting there
wondering why the hell is she acting like this? Like
why is she being this way? And I do think
that was sort of the hook for why Nadcosta made
her a black lesbian, because if she was a white
woman in nineteen fifty eight and her lover was a man,
then this story actually probably wouldn't make sense. Then the
story would be just to woor's your husband and go
live with that Man's the.
Speaker 2: Problem in comparison to Carol the movie, right, like you
can see a white woman lesbian.
Speaker 1: Well even they were shamed, I know, but it's.
Speaker 2: A different She had she acted a little more, you know,
she took more actions. But and here it's sort of like,
as you said, especially in the beginning when the husband
starts talking about, you know, behave and all that. Yeah,
this is not the time. It felt more eighteenth century,
nineteenth centtru I'm sorry, eighteen ninety one nineteenth century. It
felt more like the way you talk to not that
in the fifty quiet map.
Speaker 1: And I think making her black and making her a
lesbian was an attempt to set it in a more
modern era while while imposing greater restrictions on her because
of the era that she lived in. It almost works. However,
I honestly, for the first half of the film, I
was she's not the only black character in this film
or in this party. It's a very upper class party,
and is like, you know, it's racially mixed, and I
was like, is this like a Bridgerton thing where it's
just like color blind and we're not really going to
acknowledge the realities of the day.
Speaker 2: I thought that I was, That's how I read it
in the beginning.
Speaker 1: But then they bring up her being black, being a bastard,
her being a lesbian, and I'm like, oh, so it's
just this unusually racially integrated, Like I mean, her husband
is like this upper class white professor. A first question
you got to ask is what a guy like that
mary a black woman in nineteen fifty eight in England, Like,
I don't even know if that scans.
Speaker 2: But they do talk about her upbringing or her family
that they're rich, right, But.
Speaker 1: Then they said she was a bastard at the end
of the film, and I was like, I don't understand
the makeup here, and I'm spending a little bit too
much time trying to figure all of the social and
sexual and romantic there's just a little bit. Yeah, But
like I said, she liked Tessa Thompson's performance you cannot
take your eyes off a fantasty and Nina Haas, I
mean she just gets in there with her and the
two of them. Yes, just I mean Nina I actually
think gives a better performance because she falls apart. She
just is destroyed during the course of the movie.
Speaker 2: Her monologue and the whole thing, like you cannot take
your if you don't know Nina Haas. And Nana Has
is a very famous German actor. She started doing German movies.
Of course there's a fantastic movie called A Woman in Berlin.
I highly recommend.
Speaker 1: She was on Homeland.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but then she started doing more American stuff and
you know, more stuff in English. She did Tar.
Speaker 1: She did tar, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's another fantastic movie called Barbara in German. She
is an amazing actor and as you say it, she
has no problem looking a certain way. She doesn't care
about her appearance when.
Speaker 1: She actually thought. When she first walked in, I was like, wow,
she looks stunning because she's such an imposing fake. And
I remember thinking what an odd dress to put her in,
because that's a strangely unflattering dress. But it actually made
sense as the movie went on, because as she became
more degraded, the dress became uglier and uglier on her,
and it was just it was interesting. So the other
thing that I thought was interesting was costume wise. The
minute she put it on, I was like, no one,
no woman would have worn that dress. In nineteen fifty eight,
Tessa Thompson's dress same, Yeah, it was gorgeous, but the
plunging neckline barely covering her nipples, and I'm like, I
don't think so. I mean, the the general shape of
it is correct, but uh, that became a motif for
both of their breasts. Actually, there's sets of breasts became
a motif. Eileen Nina Haass's character. I won't get into how,
but well, I mean at one point her dress gets
wet so you can see her her nipples and it
becomes a moment of embarrassment for her. And with and
the way he dresses, I mean, I kept going, my god,
she's got a spectacular rat on her. She really really does.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then Tessa Thompson, she has this very plunging neckline
and she wears a key on a chain that locks
the gun, and people kept reaching into her dress to
pull that out, like literally coming very close to fondling
her breasts, just to make up a story point. So
I think both of those costumes are kind of interesting
because and they were lovers. So you have these two
and they're sweaty or wet halfway through most of the films.
So yeah, in their scenes and I'm as gay as
a pink Christmas tree full of parrots. I'm staring at
their boobs the entire time. And again that's not a
male gaze thing because it's a female director. It's a
female director very smartly using their breasts right for story
points and character points and for the visual and you know,
I don't think a male director would have been able
to do that because they would have been more like
look at their boobs.
Speaker 2: I think if you focus on parts and you know, scenes,
I think it works. I mean, in as it's fantastic.
Would be the whole thing about being a woman and
and and you know fighting for for a job, a position,
and and and and power when you know you're fighting
against another a man. So that also, that is incredible.
She does a fantastic job Tessa also as a woman,
you know, married to a man, and an unhappy woman,
and the whole thing about you know, not not being
able to do what she wants to do.
Speaker 1: Although it's never clear what is it you want to do? Right,
And I do think that was a problem in the story.
Speaker 2: I think she's just a miserable, uh woman and not
happy with her marriage and probably wanted to just run
away within the haus. But again the real story that
was a man and now she's another woman. It's interesting
and and yeah, the whole thing also when in a
house has a girlfriend, right, she brings a girlfriend a
lover or some forget me. Yeah. Yeah, and she's actually
very good bright in the movie and so also interesting character.
But again, that's it.
Speaker 1: I think we'll leave it there.
Speaker 2: Yes, you said you recommend it, and me too, I.
Speaker 1: Would totally recommend it. Yeah, that's it. We'll leave it there.
If I were giving it a grade, I would put
this at like eighty somewhere around there. It is a
recommended film. I think the story is interesting. I think
the two lead actresses are amazing, and it looks it looks,
it looks and it sounds incredible. Yes, So for the
I mean, I read one review that called it Dalton
Abbey by way of Baz Luhrman, who directed a mulung Ruge,
And I think that's about right.
Speaker 2: That makes sense.
Speaker 1: All right, let's leave it there and we'll be right
back with a Ballot of a small Player. Where back,
and now we're going to talk about Ballad of a
small Player, which I freaking.
Speaker 2: Hate it and I freaking loved it.
Speaker 1: It was directed by Edward Berger, who directed last year's Conclave,
the Pope Voting Movie, And there was something I noticed.
I really enjoyed Conclave. I thought it was fun and
well acted. It had that sort of airport paperback quality
to it that I liked. But there was a single
moment in that film where I was like, that is
the cheesiest goddamn thing. And I mean, it's the moment
where you know, essentially he you know, that whole movie
was about politics and secrets and it was about very
earthly concerns. And then there's this moment where they're all
voting for the pope and he kind of implies that
God is looking down upon them, and I just found
it so cheesy. And I'm bringing that up because wow,
this whole film is made out of that. So Colin
Farrell as a high rolling gambler who calls himself Lord Doyle,
and he is in Macau, where he is well known
in the casinos there, and he is down on his luck.
He's being hounded to pay a hotel bill that's like
three hundred thousand dollars and he can't get buy ins
to these games.
Speaker 2: And there's more to the story. He was a lawyer
and he had to run away because he took somebody.
Well that comes out much much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're spoiling.
Speaker 2: Sorry, that's fine.
Speaker 1: We said we were going to spoil things here. Lord
Doyle is in his real name. We find all this
out very early because Till the Swinton plays an insurance
investigator who was sent from England to go track him
down because he had stolen nine hundred and fifty thou
pounds from a woman that was one of his clients
or something like that, and so that's where he is.
He's a loser, he's a gambler, he's an addict, and
people are hounding him because he owes millions of dollars
to people. So I'll say this Colin Farrell, charm, charm, charm,
charm out the wazoo. That guy is so easy to watch.
Speaker 2: Yes, so.
Speaker 1: I don't think this character is likable at all, But
you know, likable is an overrated concept anyway, and it's
an over disgusted concept in most narratives. But in this sense,
I mean I like watching him. It's not it's not
that I admire this guy or want to be friends
with this guy. I just like watching this guy. And
in that sense, he's very much an old school movie star.
He understands that he understands that people are paying to
watch me, and I have to give them something.
Speaker 2: Because you could hate this character easily, right. But because
it's Colin Farah, you pay attention to him. You know
his struggles and and and you know everything.
Speaker 1: And along the way he meets Fala Chen, who plays
like a broker for these games or whatever, and she
arranges things like buy ins and loans and that sort
of thing. She is also someone who's a bit of
a loser and on a dark path. But and here's
one of my major criticisms of the film is she
is presented as someone who understands Colin Farrell's character because
they're both have these dark and depressing pass and secrets
that they're running from. But she is so clearly not
important to the narrative like she is like.
Speaker 2: I felt.
Speaker 1: One of the criticians I have of this film is
that I felt that it had some rather annoying orientalism
in it, which I at first I thought the film
was sort of buying into a critique of orientalism, and
then I was like, oh, no, you're actually indulging in it.
She's not a full character. None of the Asian characters
are as full a character as he is. And I
get it, you are the lead character. I understand that,
But he's a white man surrounded by Asians, and she
is his counterpart, and in fact, she is, you know, spoiler,
a romantic counterpart to him, and her story is given
very short shrip. She's treated as this mysterious, you know,
mysterious Asian woman. You know, she's got secrets and she's
maybe even a little mystical. And at one point she's
like when I was growing up in my village, and
I was like, oh, okay, that's the kind of character
going there. This is what we're doing in twenty twenty five. Like,
I really thought the story was going to have more
of a hook to it. And it's like, no, let
me teach you about Buddhism and let me teach you
about the ghosts from my village. And I'm like, all right.
I mean, I'm not Asian. I don't have a leg
to stand on complaining about this. But I did feel
like every bit of that was a cliche.
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1: I'll just finish a few and then I'll I think
the film looks stunning, Yes McCall is, she's and I
think it's probably difficult to shoot macau and make it
look bad. Although there I really enjoyed. Uh, I really
enjoyed how it looked when it got away from the
casinos and the and the neon lights and everything. Her
apartment block. The way that was shot, I was just
and it's not a pretty building, but the way it
was shot, it's just so beautiful.
Speaker 2: But I think that's the whole point of showing the
two worlds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then like there's a point where he wakes
up at a bee on a beach early in the morning,
and the cinematography is just so beautiful. Costume design is
also great, lighting everything, the sets are stunning. All of
that's great. His performance, I don't know if it'll get
any awards consideration because I think this film is pretty
flawed and I don't think I don't think the film
is going to get much attention. But he's definitely gunning
for an award. It's an award level performance. Let me
put it that way. He plays this guy and this
and I'll get into it later, but this, this sets up.
My major disappointment with the film is that he plays
this guy as just someone in the throws and in
the end stages of addiction, his addiction being gambling, and
you will just watch how much he cannot control himself,
he cannot stay away from it, he cannot get off
of this self destructive path where he winds up exploiting
everyone around him. I'll leave it there.
Speaker 2: No, I think. I think that's that's the key here.
It's it's because it's about him. It's about his what
what's going on in his head? And I think that's
why the other characters are not that important, because it's
all about his fantasies and he's you know, because it's
very clear. And I went online and I checked to
see what the director was saying about the movie, and
you know that that's because I was like, what's going
on here? Is this really happening?
Speaker 1: Or can I explain?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Okay, So we're getting into the twist now.
So about halfway through the film, I don't even know
what point this was in the film.
Speaker 2: Right from the people has a heart attack.
Speaker 1: He has a heart attack on the stress of all
of this causes a heart attack. And the next and
it's such a strange scene like he's in a he's
in a hotel, he's about to he's in a restaurant,
he's about to get arrested, and he's running up this
massive bill, just ordering all this stuff, and I'm not
even sure what the plan was there, what he was
going to do.
Speaker 2: I think he was trying to kill himself. That's probably, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Guess he was. And then and then fall A Chin
shows up in this restaurant. Now they had a previous
in several interactions in fact, and then she disappeared, and
that she told him about how dark her past was
and that she understood his own darkness and blah blah blah,
and she explained like Buddhism and ghosts and all this
other stuff to him, and then she disappears from the story.
And then she shows up in this scene where he's
about to fucking die and he has a heart attack
right in front of her, and the whole scene is
so oddly staged that I was like, oh, oh, he died.
So everything that happens after this, because it just seemed
so off killed. So he has this heart attack and
then he wakes up on a houseboat. Yeah, and she's
there with all her makeup off, and she's in very
like humble clothing all of a sudden, and she saved him.
But none of that is made clear, No.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think from that point on it's
kind of the fantasy part. But just to bring something up,
you said while we were watching the movie that she
shows up gorgeous. Yeah, like dressed.
Speaker 1: That's why I was like, this is a hallucination.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she looks incredible, kind of like not what we
saw before. And then and then after that, they're in
the village.
Speaker 1: They're in her houseboat and she's not wearing any makeup
and she's in very humble clothing and she's nursing him
back to health and they're kissing and they whatever. But
the whole time, I'm like, Okay, so this this isn't
really happening, Like this is all him in the last
moments of his life and he's dying on the floor
of that of that restaurant. Uh, but that's not where
the film goes.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And then the and then you know, he through all
these mass and he finds a shit ton of money
that essentially belongs to her, and he steals it, and
she implies that she was putting him through some sort
of test where it's not too late for you. I
can you know, I can save you, but I'll both
So you're thinking okay, whatever, this is some sort of test.
And then he takes the money and he's going to
he's going to use it to gamble to win all
the money he needs to pay off his debts. Right,
and then he goes on this massive, massive winning streak
where he just keeps winning and winning and winning. Right,
And there's a story that another character tells him about
what hell is like for gamblers, and it's essentially you
you just never stop winning. That's hell for gamblers. So
again it's implying, oh, he's dead, none of this is
really happening. But then he actually does pay off his debts,
pays off till the Swinton. But that could be all
in his head. But the film doesn't make that clear. Yes,
I would go further than that. It's one thing to
not make it clear that to give it a sense
of ambiguity, and it had ambiguity up till I'll tell
you exactly what happened. I'm sitting there going, okay, none
of this is real. None of this is happening. And
he's playing back a route with that guy Alex Jennings
to win the big money that he's going to pay
everybody off. And they cut to a security feed and
they show people in the casino watching this game and
talking and I'm like, all right, so this isn't his
fantasy because now we've this. That's the thing about filmmaking.
If you're in someone's delusion, you cannot cut away to
someone else, because then that's no longer a delusion. You're
telling the audience that that's actually happening, right, And then
he goes, yeah, the way the film ends it does
not imply anything. It does not imply that what we're
seeing isn't true. It actually works very hard to make
it seem like what we are seeing is true. And
I did read at Burger he said a couple of times.
He's like, it's you know, he actually leaned on the
idea that no, I think it's a redemption story. He
redeemed himself. And to me, forget the annoyance of literally
half of the movie, I'm sitting there and going, I
cannot tell it this is real or not. And the
film is not being you know, it's it's not being
ambiguous enough for me to enjoy it. It keeps contradict
itself and it's annoying me. But what really annoyed me
about it was that it was a story. Relentlessly told
you that this guy was an addict, relentlessly told you this,
and then he overcomes his addiction and becomes a better person.
How by gambling. That's like someone conquering Heroin by having
a huge binge just before. I mean, it doesn't work
that way. And if you're going to talk, spend the
whole movie saying, you know, gambling is his addiction and
it has destroyed his life, and it's destroyed all his relationships,
and it's a bad thing. You cannot make it then
the ticket to his salvation without contradicting your entire film.
Speaker 2: I see what you're saying. But I feel like he
was feeling guilty, you know, because he fucked up all
these people and he wanted to pay them back. And
I think he thought that that was the only way
to do it, to gamble and make money so that
he could pay people.
Speaker 1: I think, which was a more honest film. He would
have lost all that money and died, right And I
honestly thought that's where the film was going.
Speaker 2: But I think again it's in his head. The defanity
of always winning that you have. That's a gambler. You
know your fantasies, it's always win and which doesn't happen.
That's why these people, you know, lose everything. But I
think that's in his head. That's why he was playing
against that guy, because he knew that guy could be
you know, could have been thought too.
Speaker 1: But again they cut away to security watching it, and
he paid off till the Swinton's character.
Speaker 2: Right because he also felt bad for her. And I
think I.
Speaker 1: Think all of that happened in his head that I
don't think so see, and he went and found Oh
I missed the other big twist. We didn't mention this.
He he wins all this money and he goes to
the casino where fala Chen used to work because he
wants to pay her back for the money he stole
from her. And he finds out that she's been dead
this whole time, Right, she's been dead since the first
night he met her. She killed herself. So this was
a ghost or something.
Speaker 2: Or some sort of of I don't know, ghost or protector.
Speaker 1: That's what I mean. It's it's a story about addiction.
It's a story about a man with a demon and
a monkey on his back and then suddenly becomes this
mystical ghost story where you cannot tell what's real and
what's not, and you got to decide which film you're
going to be. And then it ends on this sort
of uplifting note where he has become a better person
by burning all the money.
Speaker 2: Whatever.
Speaker 1: That made no sense, Well it did, because she said
the Buddhist monks burn money. That's right.
Speaker 2: Earlier she said, I get why he did it, but
that's that's stupid. I think here's how I feel about
movies and TV shows in town. If they don't have
to make sense to me sometimes if I agree with that,
if they take me on a journey and I and
this movie did that to me. I was with him.
I was just following his struggles and he's gilled and
and everything around him falling apart in a beautiful, gorgeous
city which is Macau. The restaurants, everything, my god, absolutely gorgeous.
So I went with that, a lot of color, a
lot of I don't know, beautiful lighting and all that,
and following him, and it goes back to Colin Farrow's performance.
I think he did such a good job because he
is mad in the entire movie. So that and follow
Chan I thought she was fantastic.
Speaker 1: I thought she was good, but again, I just was
so disappointed in how much of an Asian cliche she was.
Speaker 2: But I halfway through I gave up trying to understand.
I was like, all right, I'm just gonna go with
this because I said.
Speaker 1: I don't mind films that are ambiguous, but this wasn't.
It kept contradicting itself, and that's the part. And I
do think that if you are going to tell a
story with a mystical bent to it, you can't just
decide right more than halfway through it. Okay, now's where
we introduce the ghost, because up to that point you've
been telling a fairly story set in the real world.
If you want to do some mystical journey for this character,
I think you need to establish a more surreal sort
of setting for him, and I just don't think the
film does that. So I think he's great. I don't
think the filmmaking is very good.
Speaker 2: I think the director was trying to keep you always
guessing is this real or not real the entire time,
So the director would give you something that looked like
real and then would switch to a fantasy, and then
it doesn't job differentiating that's mighty. The whole village thing
with her in her house or whatever. I absolutely loved
all of that. I don't know, I just loved scenes
and moments. Yeah, because they were great together. I thought.
I thought she was phenomenal Tela Fin.
Speaker 1: Doing Oh my god, what a waste of her. I
just put her in a goofy wig and some funky glasses.
Speaker 2: And yeah, she worked with the director before, right, I
think so. I think he just wanted her in the
movie and give her something.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had any actress in there, there was
no need for her. So I actively disliked this movie,
and I would not recommend it because I found it
uneven and it didn't know what it wanted to say
or what it wanted to be. House of Dynamite. I
actually do recommend, although I will warn you that it's
going to get tedious and had a I highly recommend
even with its flaws. It's very watchable and I can't
stop thinking about it. Those are my thoughts.
Speaker 2: I agree. I think you made a very good point
in the beginning that they're all problematic, they're all flawed.
I think, yeah, but I think you should try and
watch them. I absolutely loved a ballad of a small player.
I did. I just went with it. It's so pretty,
it's so beautiful, and I don't know, vibrant. I felt
that I loved it. Uh had up, Yes, especially because
of Nina haunts. I absolutely love her. She is a
goddess to me. And what's the other one, the dynamite
one house, No, I'd pass it.
Speaker 1: So you are getting a full range of table opinions today.
So that's it for this week. We'll be back next No,
we won't. We'll be in Paris, in Paris, but we'll
be back early in the week after that to tell
you all about Paris. Until then, take care of yourself.
Love you mean it.
Speaker 2: Bye bye by