Leaderboard

What's wrong with watching stuff on a plane? I watched Buster Scruggs on my phone on a plane last month and I still incredibly enjoyed the movie. As far as Schindler's List goes, I have to echo many of the things brought up in the episode. Like Paul, I was really dreading this one due to its content and runtime. But like Amy and Paul said, it's a much more enjoyable movie than I remembered it being, and it feels like far less than 195 minutes. (I might be in the minority here, but I think the only time the film really slows down too much for my taste is the middle 45 minutes or so when they're spending time developing the relationships between Goeth and Schindler and between Goeth and Hirsch. That might have worked well for some people, but it seems to be at a different pace than the rest of the movie.) I can see why critics might argue that the enjoyability of the film is in some way disrespectful to the actual horrific real-life circumstances. However, I think it serves to expose a wider audience to the story, and I wouldn't really say that the film sugarcoats things. It's an incredibly brutal film, and I think it's a credit to Spielberg that audience members were able to absorb this brutality and be affected by it without it causing them to shut down and stop watching. I contrast it with something like Come and See which is a fantastic film about the brutality of WWII, but it is so dire that it's a really hard film to get through. So how do you portray something miserable and brutal without it feeling like exploitation or misery porn or something? It's a tough line to walk, but I think this film manages to do it correctly.

Basically agree with everything here. I was also surprised at how swiftly this film moved, not having seen it in at least a decade. It just flies right along, despite the 3+ hour run time and brutal subject matter. I've heard criticisms like Hoberman and Mamet's before, and I tend to agree with Paul: I think these criticisms generally lose sight of the needs of dramatic storytelling, versus historical record. An audience watching drama responds to things like relatable characters, emotional highs and lows, a driving narrative, etc. You can subvert these things sometimes, but if it's totally devoid of that stuff they're going to check out. So yes, Spielberg chose to focus his story on a non-Jew who was flawed but did a heroic thing in the end. I think this works well for his approach, for a couple of reasons: 1. Spielberg is, above all things, a brilliant director of action. I think this extends to his characters too: he works best with lead characters who are always moving and doing things. Schindler is that, and is Spielberg's way in to exploring the Holocaust. If his central character is Jewish then that character will have to be static and constantly victimized. I don't think Spielberg works well in that mode. (Seems like the only way to get really active Jewish protagonists in a Holocaust movie is to generate a fantasy world, as Tarantino did with Inglorious Basterds.) 2. The audience for this film is not just Jewish people. If Amy's statistic about Holocaust denial is to be believed, then it seems another important task for this film is to get people who might have doubted the existence of the Holocaust to believe it. Schindler is a non-Jew who is led down the path to full understanding of how terrible his government's treatment of Jews really was. The movie is leading its modern audience down the same path. This is part of what makes it effective as drama. I've got more thoughts (boy, this movie was way more emotionally effective than I expected it to be on this rewatch), but will need to return later.

Nah that's still your phone, which is fine. I think we mean watching on the back of the seat in front of you, where films are edited, squished into the square, seemingly lower resolution, etc.

Of course I stuff my bird feeder full of dead birds. How else will the other animals get enough birds to eat?

Yes, I'll take an actual movie villain stalking a (somewhat) sympathetic protagonist over whatever Ribisi's character played in Perfect Stranger any day of the week. Also, I think we're alone now.

Hey Paul! As a medical student one week away from exams, I have spent most of my days this week glued to a textbook in the depths of the library. HOWEVER, I had to rip my tear-crusted, sleep-deprived eyes away from my giant textbook so that I could talk about those Belladonna eyedrops. Yes, those deadly suckers that June and Jason were skeptical about. I had just learned about them in class and I just need to set the record straight. Firstly, YES, they are real! Renaissance women used them to make their eyes bigger. Today, we commonly use a chemical in the Belladonna plant for certain heart issues and motion sickness. Also, you CAN die of an overdose on the Belladonna eyedrops. However, I have not come across straight-up Belladonna eyedrops in this modern age (not that I actively look for them). Perhaps she made them herself?... Lastly, I want to talk about HOW the poison works because I don't think the writers understand what happens when you OD on something like Belladonna. It ain't pretty. We have some rhymes in the medical community for the symptoms of this poison: Red as a beet, hot as a hare, blind as a bat, mad as a hatter. Oh and constipation. Like, unbelievably severe constipation. What a way to kill someone. Anyway, thanks for a great show! You guys always make my day brighter after a stressful day in the hospital. Keep up the good work!

Also this pro version was v funny. Brett was on fire, Kevin was being quite big for his britches, only thing missing was Bosch doing a huge squeaky

Lastly, a rap battle (NSFW)

For the Mary Poppins (and KBell) fans... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ggfes8

So if Ribisi did this during Perfect Stranger, That it would have been a better movie?

Now gonna be next week's show!