Leaderboard

Charlize just became one of my most favorite guests of all time!!! I think "I might have to give her my Academy Award!" might also be one of my favorite lines ever lol!

I have to say that my favorite part of this batshit bananas film has to be be the scene where Principle Nordham (Michael Ironside) furiously drives up the town's church to see Father Cooper just standing outside. The scene is set up for the two to discuss Nordham possibly coming clean over his guilt in his roll in Mary Lou's violent-yet-accidental murder. But taken out of the context of this movie, this scene plays like a forbidden, unrequited love affair: Principle Nordham looks out the windshield of his car and sees Father Cooper. Father Cooper stares back with puppy dog-eyed yearning. Principle Nordham then gets this "I can't do this anymore" look on his face and peels off, to wit Father Cooper calls out in a desperate plea, "Bill...!" What the fuck do Vicki's parents still see in each other? Her mom is this ultra religious zealot and her dad is this put-upon sad sack. Did they drift apart as Mrs. Carpenter started channeling Piper Laurie from Carrie, or was Mr. Carpenter becoming increasing lax in his Bible thumping ways? I do not get this pairing, like, at all. Also, the roll between Vicki and her mom would have played so much better if Vicki started out as an obedient, straight A student who becomes increasing out-of-control and essentially her mom's worst nightmare once Mary Lou takes over Vicki's body. Charlize Theron was absolute right about how disgusting the boys room in this movie was. This scene takes place in the 1950's, but that restroom looks like it's in a Greyhound bus terminal. Also, did anyone else notice the old time-y, high-up toilet tanks near the top the ceiling in the stalls? How old is this school? Is this a Canadian thing? I don't recall any of the toilets in the restrooms of schools I went to (grade school through college) having tanks; just pipes that went from the back of the toilet directly into the wall(s). Is the room Josh (Brock Simpson) hangs out in his own private space at the high school? It's not big enough to be a classroom and it's decked-out with all of his creature comforts (a mini fridge full of beer that looks like a TV, all of his computer equipment, a dartboard, an Albert Einstein poster, etc.) The dude seems to feel pretty secure in that room, as if no one (students or the school's insanely minuscule faculty) would just barge on in while he's receiving a coerced blowjob. Why are only Mary Lou and Vicki receiving prom royalty coronations? Traditionally, don't most (if not all) high schools crown a prom queen and king? Or is this a more progressive Canadian high school ritual where boys say, are allowed to get away with murdering students and then become the principle of the same schools their crimes occurred in while girls get tiaras and flame-resistant sashes? (Also, semi-but-not-really-related: remember the time Buffy Summers won the Class Protector award at the '99 Sunnydale High prom? Now that was a great prom!) Finally, a direct question for Paul: as a fellow Star Trek fan, do you watch The Orville? If so, what do you think of it?

Jessie Maltin brought up the whole “art vs artist” thing on Twitter awhile ago and my take was essentially if I’ve already made a personal connection with the piece of art *before* learning anything untoward regarding the artist, then I can generally continue to appreciate the art on its own merits. At that point, the piece of art is, in effect, “mine” and I can kind of compartmentalize my feelings. However, like you said, I probably wouldn’t buy any “new” media from the person.

Just as a piece of art, I find this movie clearly worthy of inclusion. It's beautifully made on just about every level. The thing I didn't remember all that well until this week's rewatch was just how classical the style was. I remembered a more heated, emotional movie, but the filmmaking is laid-back and subtle all the way through. It's the story itself that elicits the heat and emotion, particularly the gut-punch ending. On Polanski and art-vs.-artist questions (and I'll preface this by saying that I can only speak to how I personally think about these things, not trying to impose my morality on anyone else): I generally have no issue with consuming already-produced art that has long been in the public domain, particularly if the artist in question is already dead (I have no ethical qualms about buying more Michael Jackson music, for example). I can see the argument for not wanting to continue supporting an artist who is likely to continue his bad behavior (R Kelly, for example). When we dig back into history and decided to "cancel" long-dead artists for being assholes, I start to think it's not so much about helping people and more about just making yourself feel better. Another thing I struggle with is whether or not there is any room for a person to grow and change and leave behind what they used to be. Polanski drugged and raped a teenage girl in the 1970s, I have no doubt of that. It's very possible (even likely) that he did it more than once. Would my support of his art contribute to more such behavior now, or was he a really fucked-up dude back then and has since changed? The rape victim herself seems to take the view that he has. I dunno, people can make their own call on that, but I'd just want to throw that out there as something else to consider. One of the things that sometimes bugs me about #MeToo and other examples of online activism is that there doesn't seem to be any room for atonement or forgiveness: you're either a "Good" person or a "Garbage" person and that's it. Humans are more complicated than that. There are "good liberals" who will argue for convicted felons to be granted all kinds of additional rights (something I generally agree with), but then will also proclaim someone a "garbage human" based on a single rape accusation from decades ago. That seems inconsistent to me. (And I also want to be clear: I think #MeToo is a net positive as a movement, but that also doesn't mean it's perfect.) Anyway, on Polanski: he's still alive, but I'm not sure that watching a movie he made 40 years ago on Amazon or whatever really puts any significant money into his pocket. For a new, current release, yes, I can see the logic in boycotting. Studios do care about how your new stuff performs, not so much the old stuff. I'm fine with watching his classic films and analyzing them as art produced (in part) by a troubled person. I'm also fine with one of them being on a list like the AFI 100. The recognition is for the film, not the person.

In the fifties, they hadn't invented "Stop, drop and roll" yet, so if someone was on fire, they were already as good as dead. It was all very sad.

God yes. Quite honestly the best part of the episodes were because of Charilize and I'm not just saying that because I'm in love with her as almost all wlw are. I hope she comes back for another episode and I'm honestly so happy to see her in a comedy again! She's actually got really great comedic timing as well as being a serious actor.

That's because Eugene Levy was and is the fucking Best.

Yea, everyone can and should make their own threshold of tolerance for these things. But my line is generally: I can keep things separate for the most part, but I think about whether I'm participating in their perversion. For instance, Miles Davis and John Lennon don't actually write songs about domestic abuse, so it feels safer to enjoy their art -- their real and artist personas feel more separate, and their art can live on its own. R. Kelly, though, writes "Age Ain't Nothing But A Number." It's right there, and you can't avoid it and it's gross. There's a lot of examples now, and I guess basically I take it on a case-by-case basis. I definitely understand though if people can't listen to like Michael Jackson or watch Roman Polanski anymore though. (And I definitely agree, re: new media from anyone like this.) Right this is true, but I take it as the growing pains of a new cultural action, basically. We should get more nuanced. We may wrongly sweep some tolerable actions into the intolerable category, but maybe that's what has to happen here at the start of this valid movement. As you say it's not perfect, but I think it could and will move towards being more perfect in time. (Nothing's ever totally perfect.)

The gang agreed that the soundtrack for this movie is full of legit music but so far all I've heard is Soul City by the Partland Brothers #cancon ETA: about 3/4 into the movie I realized that most of you probably wouldn't know the name Paul Zaza. Apart from just being a funny name, he is the John Williams of shitty Canadian film scoring. His credits include all the Prom Nights, My Bloody Valentine, Turk 182, Meatballs III, and several of Bob Clark's most memorable films including Porky's, Baby Geniuses, and A Christmas Story. So that, at least, is sort of legit. Additional trivia: my college roommate and I used to stay up late on weeknights and watch syndicated reruns of Magnum PI, which were often preceded by a syndicated series called Just Jazz created and hosted by the very same Paul Zaza. It was truly an epitome of 80s Canadian TV. Edited again because I misspelled the name "bob" ffs

Especially since the rest of the lyric is, “Man, I was mean, but I’m changing my scene, I’m doing the best that I can.”

She's an insanely talented and multi-faceted actor: from Monster to Arrested Development to (the criminally underrated) Young Adult to Atomic Blond to one of the best HDTGM guests of all time. Seriously, what can't Charlize Theron do?

Can I just say a gold lame blouse with that amount of chest hair showing is a BOLD choice. Granted a gold lame blouse is a bold choice on its own...

This movie left me with a disturbed and gross feeling. I loved it. As far as remaining on the list, I have somewhat the same attitude that they took on the podcast. I don't mind that it's there (I voted "yes"), but wouldn't cry to see it go. Separating art from the artist is so damn complicated. I can not stand abusive men, yet I still listen to James Brown, Miles Davis, and The Beatles. And if that makes me a hypocrite, then I'm am genuinely disturbed by that. At the very least, as an admittedly weak rationalization, I'm hoping I can enjoy Polanski films made before any allegations; because Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, and Repulsion are all films worth watching and studying. And to Paul's point, a movie is a collaborative art form. Even in the auteur era, tens to hundreds of people work on films, and their incredible work should not be diminished because of the detestable actions of the perceived figurehead. Honestly, it's not too difficult for me to separate art from the artist. That's one of the reasons I hate biopics. I care more about the actual piece or art than the douche that made it. I think it was Marc Maron who said something like, [heavily paraphrased] "Almost all the people who make interesting art are terrible humans."

Have to listen to the podcast but when i watched the episode I look at the IMDb as I assume most do. I enjoy seeing what the actors have also been in before and noticed this... Steve Atkinson (Young Bill Nordham) played the younger version of Michael Ironside (Bill Nordham) in this movie. They worked again in the same manner in Mindfield (1989) - Michael (Kellen O'Reilly) Steve (Young Kellen). Submitted to the Trivia section for the movie. Quickly looking at the Mindfield it could be another movie to watch! Mindfield (1989) When a police detective kills a criminal, this traumatic event triggers a locked memory, he didn't know he had, of him being a subject of a CIA experiment.

this is that real freaking gnar bro sickly done

I can't believe this scene wasn't in the version I watched! Other than that, I didn't hate the remake. I guess they took out the Christianity aspect of the plot and replaced it with a self-help tape?

A friend told me the premise of the movie and I thought they were joking.

John Alonzo, the cinematographer of Chinatown says that as they prepared to shoot the final scene, Polanski approached him and said that he had decided to go handheld after Evelyn gets shot, to do it documentary style, panning quickly, and then craning up, still handheld. This shot posed a lot of technical difficulties for lighting, following focus, and finally, the issue of the camera shadow being visible on the actors. According to John Alonzo, Polanski told him "Put a hat on the camera. You’ll see a shadow if you look at the picture closely, but it will look like a hat shadow." So they put a hat on the camera. I tell this story because lost in the discussion of this movie on the podcast is the fact that Roman Polanski was a very shrewd and inventive director, but to hear this podcast you'd think he was a goon who did it for the cash, lucked into a good screenplay (despite the fact that the ending is all his), the actress directed herself, and the only good thing he did for the film was to let them call him a midget in the scene that he acted in. Roman Polanski the human may be indefensible, but Roman Polanski the filmmaker deserves a lot more credit than is given to him on the podcast, for this film. It was he who composed all the shots, it was he who decided to light everything without difussion, it was he who decided that every time Jake Gittes arrives at a house, he should have to walk up a hill, or up a set of stairs, to emphasize the uphill battle he faces. He may have done it for the money, but he exercised a lot of control over the film. It's perfectly fine to say, fuck this guy, I'm not watching his movies, but if you're going to watch Chinatown and engage with it, you have to acknowledge all of Polanski's contributions to its greatness as a film. All you have to do is look at his filmography and see the consistency of style, and the precision of his camerawork and lens choices, independent of who his cinematographer is. He trained as an actor himself, and he got great performances out of Mia Farrow, Catherine Deneuve, and Nastassja Kinsky - unless we are going to make the case that they also directed themselves. I'll quote John Alonzo: "Roman is a stickler for details. He wanted everything just right — Faye Dunaway’s fingernails, Jack Nicholson’s ties and coat, the color balance of the clothing against the wall, the perspective of the cyclorama, the backings outside the windows...So he led the way. He did this by staging the action in a particular way, by making certain words within a scene more important than others, by requesting that I light — and something not put light on — actors. There were times when he felt that he wanted the audience to listen to the words, as opposed to seeing the actors speak them. I hope I don’t sound like I’m overdoing it, but I really mean it when I say that he is a very thorough and investigative type of director who gives credit where credit is due. He figures that if he has hired certain technicians, they must be good at what they do. That’s one of the things that made working with him on Chinatown a pleasure." Finally, the podcast says that this was Robert Towne's first produced screenplay. That isn't accurate. He had already made The Last Detail.

Hi, sorry I missed my cue Charlie.

I usually listen to these on the way to and from work - I was laughing so hard I almost got into an accident when the clown honk first went off. Amazing! I love you Conan - Ill be your friend!!

I listened to this episode on my run and had to stop because I was laughing so hard at the clown honk bit. Oh man. Love Tig and Conan!