Leaderboard

One of the weirder moments for me was when Rock's starts seeing for the first time and he laments that all he can see are "wrinkly butts." Setting aside that he doesn't know what eyes are but immediately knows what butts are - and the adjective "wrinkly," apparently - I thought it was really weird that the mama dog makes sure to immediately clarify for him that the wrinkly butts he's seeing aren't hers ("They're not mine. They're your brothers and sisters.") I don't know, it seems like an oddly defensive stance to take with a newborn child.

big thank yous to the boys for playing my flagrant ones theme on the patreon this week along with several other fan submissions. it was probably just a fun one time thing as Sean and Carl's song parody themes are always instant hits, but I'll still try and do a stankier remix, just to see if that's even possible

Haha seriously there's nothing better than classic Conan bits

I'm having a a weird Mandela effect moment because I thought for certain I remember seeing a line of NBA dolls similar to the WWF Brawlin/Cuddle buddies. They would have been released around the same time as the WWF one so Barkley would have been one of the athletes chosen, but for the life of me I can't find anything on them. Also, speaking as someone who worked in a dog pound for a summer, there are more reasons that a dog is to be destroyed other than "I wanna kill this dog," and yes destroyed is the term used. It's that term usually because the dog has something wrong with it like rabies or another condition that can affect the rest of the animals in the pound or humans, so they need to be put down, which is the term used more for dogs that haven't been adopted in a given period of time. So Travolta is realistically bringing a very ill animal into his home with two small children and running the risk of someone getting ill or hurt. Or even more realistically, the entire movie is a Jacob's Ladder Scenario for the dog who imagines itself being saved from the pound, saves the family from wolves, and reunites the family in the end.

I'll put it out there that I was not a big fan of this one. Maybe it was that I wasn't in the right mood or head space for it, but it didn't move me at all. I found all of the characters rather unlikable. I found Nathan an abusive and manipulative person. I agree with Cameron H. that this wasn't a love triangle. The inclusion of Stingo into their relationship felt more poly to me. But that could be my current sensibilities. I got the sense that Nathan and Sophie really cared for each other. I think he admired her for her experience. He knew he was sheltered, and I think he hoped to kind of explore and live the world vicariously through her. 's I do think I'd have liked this better if we saw it from Sophie's point of view as opposed to (as Danny said) from Stingo's point of view. I don't think we need him as a stand-in for the audience. I think seeing it from her POV we could still have her see herself through the eyes of a naive writer (maybe even a woman) as she brings the writer into her life, and opens herself up as she realizes she can finally trust someone with her secrets. I think we'd get more of that personal discovery. I also think it would've made the scene of her giving up her daughter feel more affecting.

I was tempted to suggest that we needed a complete list of directed graphs on three vertices with no isolated vertices, before deciding that was too mathy. But TV Tropes provides the list for us! https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TriangRelations They suggest that Sophie's Choice is a #6 on that list, because Stingo does seem to genuinely want to be friends with Nathan.

I agree. As much as I complain about his character, his use as a plot device makes the storytelling more interesting. This was a major trend in Oscar bait films from the 80s, to tell their story across a wider time period instead of staying tethered to more or less a moment in time. (I'm looking at you, Gandhi, Terms of Endearment, Amadeus, Out of Africa, The Color Purple, The Last Emperor, and Driving Miss Daisy, all Best Picture winners except Purple.) I think the difference in storytelling method is why I like Sophie's Choice and Amadeus better than the rest of these. I realize that you're not suggesting that the whole story be told linearly like the bulk of these films were, but I rather like that the entirety of Sophie's relationship with Nathan up to that point is summed up relatively briefly, and I think there are diminishing returns in going back earlier to see it. Exactly, and this is one of the tropes I was trying to describe: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FirstPersonPeripheralNarrator

That's a tough question. Seeing this story from Sophie's point-of-view, though, would probably make it triple the level of depressing, no? Probably better to view her through someone else's eyes. While I agree with concerns that maybe Stingo was an odd choice for narrator, I'm not sure it should have been through her. Hmm that's interesting. What did she show Nathan? If anything, he was the manic pixie one giving her (and Stingo) some sort of life. I don't know, I just don't think this movie is quite the trope-filled story as everyone else seems to. That said, Amazon Prime is suggesting all these sexy dramas to me "because I watched Sophie's Choice"... so maybe I should have found it more basic and romantic.

June already upset the breakdance community now poodles have no expressions

I can get behind this 100%

Did anyone else think that Olympia Dukakis' pep talk about infidelity was insane? Apparently, her husband was shipwrecked with a bunch of USO girls, but she refused to believe he didn't cheat on her until - years later - she met some of the women and *they* said he didn't cheat on her. Yeah, that sounds healthy. I'm not trying to blame Alley's parents for all their relationship problems, but I feel like at least some of Travolta and Alley's dysfunction should be attributed to them.

Paul seemed to be confused as to why the dogs appeared sound like they were chewing when they were thinking, but I think the confusion is that he and the gang seem to be under the impression that the babies, dogs, wolves, etc. are communicating telepathically. However, I've always been under the impression that they aren't communicating via their mind but rather the words we're hearing is the translation of their own languages - both verbal and non-verbal. That's why in Look Who's Talking Too the children's mouths sometimes move. If you were to remove Bruce Willis and Roseanne Barr's voice overs, as adults, all we would be hearing is baby gurgling, but they are still "talking.". It's the same deal with the dogs. They are just speaking a separate language that only they understand. So, no, the dogs can't speak with or understand squirrels or clouds or whatever. Babies can speak with babies and animals can speak to animals of the same genus. We're just getting a peak into what all their strange noises actually mean.

Was browsing this movie on IMDB, and noticed that the family's last name in Ubriacco. Ubriaco (with 1 c) means "drunk" in Italian. Not sure if that is a coincidence, a misspelling or what, but might explain a lot of what's going on in this trilogy.

Found this comment about the Charles Barkley doll on a YouTube clip from the film:

I'm not sure I'd consider two brief scenes as “too much” in a two and a half hour movie. Especially since I feel like - as parallel scenes - they are important in showing Stingo's maturation. I think people might be placing too much emphasis on Stingo's sex life, or at least, emphasizing the wrong things about the sex scenes. Sex as a metaphor for the transition to adulthood - for both genders - is such an old concept that's it's cliche. Once Stingo is presented with the entirety of Sophie's story, he himself is no longer innocent. He is confronted with the atrocities of the world, he can put his childhood behind him - physically, emotionally, and intellectually. I think what might be a big part of people's problems with the scene are two lines in the voice over. The part where he says he was "22 and a virgin" and the part where he holds her up as a "goddess." And I think this might come down to a misinterpretation based on modern sensibilities. While it might come off to modern ears as "And at long last I was having sex!" it's really about crossing over the threshold into manhood. I feel like him mentioning he was 22 in that context would be like if in a modern film the character said "I was 18." The point of both of the scenes isn't about sex exactly, but his personality growth. The sex is just a metaphor. As far as holding her up as a goddess, while it might seem a bit condescending and chauvinistic, if we look at it with less cynicism, Stingo is saying - after hearing all of the terrible things that Sophie did and had done to her - that he still sees her as he ever did. He sees her for what she really is and he doesn’t care. To him, she's still perfect. Essentially, her story is the refutation of the fantasy "If I had been there with my gun, that shooting wouldn't have happened" and the confirmation of "If you want to know what you would have done when Hitler rose to power, you're doing it now." Sophie was oblivious to what was going on until the day she actually listened to her father's lesson. Once she did, she visited the ghetto and realized that she hated her father, and by extension, her husband. However, despite her progressive views regarding the extermination of the Jewish people, she repeatedly sells them out in order to save herself and her children. So when Stingo admits, after hearing her full story, that his feelings haven't changed, it gives Sophie, a lapsed Catholic, a modicum of absolution. (I don't think the fact that the love scene begins with her on her knees is an accident.) However, even though she might be forgiven by Stingo, and by extension the viewer and perhaps God, she still can't forgive herself - which is what drives her back to Nathan.

OMG Conan?! I'm so happy he's on Earwolf playing on all my favorite podcasts

That's also kind of how I feel about it. I certainly don't think it stinks or anything. Meryl Streep's performance is brilliant and unassailable, and the most effective scenes (which I found to be the flashbacks to Sophie's past) do indeed carry a lot of power. But to me the movie feels unbalanced, with everything in Sophie's flashbacks carrying a ton of stakes and everything in the "modern" story with Stingo feeling comparatively weightless and unimportant. The modern relationship stuff could carry its own movie, but the juxtaposition with Sophie's Holocaust story feels awkward to me. It really comes to a head when the scene revealing the nature of the titular "choice" is immediately followed by a scene of Stingo and Sophie going to bed and Stingo's syrupy voice-over describing it. To me it feels a bit like they are trying to equate or compare the climaxes of these stories, and it feels like the wrong choice. Again, not terrible. Better than the average movie. But I would personally not vote for it to stay on the list.

Speaking of which, isn't there a new season of MST3K?

100% It's all wrapped up in this wish to live and a desire to die. He gives her life, but promises death. However, I don't agree that she hides it from Nathan to be "more acceptable." I think, without necessarily knowing it, she senses that he's not exactly stable. An analogy might be that we have some friends we share certain aspects of our lives and others we just go out to clubs with or whatever. She shares her story with Stingo because she trusts him. She doesn't share it with Nathan because that's not the role he plays in her life. I am pretty sure, though, that Nathan is at least partially with Sophie as a kind of a holocaust trophy. Like, he wasn't put in a Concentration Camp and feels guilty about it, so he kind of gets off on being with - and being the savior of - someone who has. You know...like in all the great romances.

Not survivor of the Holocaust story, but Hiroshima, mon Amour came to mind in terms of comparable movies of what does do when what they cared for is lost. It doesn't have the guilt-ridden, and I'd say self-destructive qualities of Sophie for hating herself for actively choosing her daughter to die. (I haven't listened to the episode yet, but Sophie's relationship is an abusive one, and her return to it seems driven by self hatred). I wish I remembered Jules et Jim better (or at all, beyond just not clicking with it/was just expecting something else. It's been a few years since I've seen it and it just didn't stick in my mind) for a weird (emotional) throuple-like situation. Since I noticed Sophie's Choice is on filmstruck, I noticed it listed Au Revour, Les Enfants as a related movie. So I'm trying to get through that as well, before filmstruck goes away, just for another point of comparison. Because, also, I didn't actually like this movie. Amongst other things, I don't really care for 80's melodrama, so I'm kinda of wondering if 80's French drama plays differently to me. What I'm saying is, this movie is starting to seem like an almagan of other movies I've seen and I felt like the various parts might have been underserved because of it. I also think all the lying Sophie does is as much for emotional coping with herself (not having to face the past) as much as it is to be considered acceptable to Kevin Kline's character. I'm not sure how well the movie would play a second time with that knowledge. Since I didn't enjoy the movie overall, it probably wouldn't help too much, but it might enrich repear viewings for people who did.

Okay, now that we've defended Stingo from being categorized as some kind of angry, misogynistic creep there was another take I kind of had an issue with. I believe Paul was putting forward the idea that Sophie "didn't actually need anyone" and was kind of manipulating people to take care of her. Did I mishear that? Because, man, I feel like that's a really bad take. I'm not saying Sophie isn't smart, or isn't capable, but I'm not sure that she possesses that kind of guile. I think she needs Nathan and Stingo insofar as they give her a reason to live at all. If it wasn't for them, she probably would either be dead from all of the things she was afflicted with or finally committed suicide. I don't know that we need to make her some kind of Machiavellian super hero who just uses the men around her for survival - if for no other reason than I don't feel like after the war survival is her goal. I think Sophie wants peace and forgiveness. Sophie is supposed to be us if we were in that situation: flawed and scared and desperate. And imbuing her with some kind of supernatural ability to exploit people in that way seems to really be missing the point and actually lessens the impact of her story. Yes, she absolutely tries to manipulate people, but I'm not sure if it ever actually works. She tries to use her race, education, and background to save her kids, and ends up getting her daughter killed. She tries to use sex and her background to save her son, and she ends up losing him as well. Also, since I've finished the episode now...I'm not saying Eternal Sunshine isn't a good movie, but if the suggestion is that they are somehow comparable, that's crazy. I cannot stress enough that Sophie's Choice is definitely, 100% not a romance. (No more than The African Queen is a wacky, buddy road trip movie). Just because two people are in a relationship in a movie, doesn't mean it's a romance. That would be like saying Starship Troopers is a porn because there's sex in it. What makes Sophie's Choice special is that there really aren't parallels. As I mentioned in my Letterboxd review, I can't think of another movie, or book for that matter, that really captures that time in history. Usually when we deal with holocaust movies, we're either dealing with it directly or as something that happened in the past. Sophie's Choice is immediate. Here is a survivor. She is two years out of an unimaginable nightmare, what does she do now? Here's a young Jewish man who didn't fight in the war, how does his guilt affect him and his relationships? Here's a writer who has been blessed with a life of blissful ignorance, how does he react when faced with the ugliness of the real world? What it's not about is falling in (romantic) love, dating, and kissing under the moonlight.

Stingo didn't come across as an incel to me either. You're right that incels, at least on my understanding, are pretty misanthropic (with a pretty strong focus on hating women). There's a world of difference in my mind between an incel and guy who is inexperienced with sex. Stingo strikes me as the latter.

I know she probably won’t see this, but Amy, please call out Paul when he mispronounces names on the podcast - Stango vs. Stingo. We don’t need another Ron Silver/Ron Silva situation

At the risk of being unpopular, I didn't really like this movie much at all. It was a chore to get through. I can respect it for its acting. Kevin Kline really surprised me out of everyone. Other than the scene with titular choice and one of the scenes of Kevin Kline viciously berating Sophie, this didn't do anything for me. I can respect it but otherwise a big meh. I don't know if I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie when I watched it. This one just felt like homework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma's_Choice https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2107523/quotes