Leaderboard

Ohh - gotcha. Yeah - his "last resort" move makes more sense if he's in some small city with limited acting roles but he's in NYC for crying out loud! If you can't land any roles on tv, in commercials, or in a play, maybe you're not talented! It also feels like yet another F YOU to Terri Garr's character to go for the part they rejected her for before she really got a shot at it. (She's really treated so badly by him and it's played for laughs but I really feel for her. She needs new friends.)

I think it's Michael Dorsey's overestimation of his own acting talent that makes him do it - he thinks he's so good that he can even dress as a woman, audition, and land the part easily - which he does! I think it's hubris that makes him dress as a woman and the lure of easy and consistent soap opera money that makes him choose that part. I heard Hoffman on Fresh Air a couple of years ago and he said that he was really upset when they were making him up as a woman for this movie because he realized that he looked like a woman he wouldn't look twice at. He said not looking pretty made him realize what women who aren't beautiful go through. This was before stories about how obnoxious he was on various sets were mainstream so I had mostly positive feelings about him going into the interview but I thought, dude - you have no idea what it is like to be a woman because you dressed up like one for a movie one time. You know how to feel sorry for yourself and can start to understand how judgmental you are towards women but you don't really understand what it's like to put up with guys like you all the time. Really turned me off him.

Syncs so far: "Faces of Death," Leonard Maltin I was JUST telling my wife yesterday about how I moved the stickers on Faces of Death in our VHS rental store to cover stuff up so my mom would let me rent it. (The truth is I rented it for the nudity, not the death. Wasn't that the one where the lady shot ping pong balls out of her ping-pong-ball-shooter?)

I believe the guests will be M. Ryan, R. Gere, M. Pfeiffer, and Rupert Murdoch.

I feel like I saw quite of few high-rated reviews on Letterboxd for Cold War. I’m kind of wondering what they got out of it that maybe I didn’t.

playing thru

I don't know what that guy is smoking but I want some!

Can we get a Mantzoukas/Time Keeper crossover episode? Tick tock, Tick Tock Man!

I have never heard Andy Daly speak uninterrupted for so long.

511 minutes too short

Aye, but Russell Brand also says "Cor blimey, I got my Mr nobby caught in me Zippy Whip."

I'm not a fan of this movie, but I think you're pushing aside Paul's point in his comparison to Bosom Buddies: not that the plot points were vastly more refined, but that the laughs are directed in different places. While I'll concede that the baby scene is just a useless shitty scene, I'll pushback a bit on the Les plotline. I don't think it was at all played for a homophobic laugh. It's barely played for a laugh at all, as the overriding emotion is pity for Les for struggling to get over his wife only to misplace his affection with someone who can't return it. If there is any laugh at all, it's over the awkwardness of the situation formed by the love triangle, not the fact that it's two dudes. The only moment where I was fearful of some homophobia was when George Gaynes kissed Dorothy on set, but his reaction was not a grossed-out one, played for cheap laughs. He was indignant in a similar way as a woman would be in the same situation. And to Paul's larger point, the fact that Dorothy is a man in drag is never the punchline. I'm not saying this makes Tootsie a good movie, because I don't think it is, but I do think it elevates it over many (perhaps not all) drag comedies. As I alluded to in my Letterboxd review, the biggest compliment I can give it is that it is charming enough to make me overlook almost all the problematic aspects in the moment, but the treatment of the drag is never one of those problematic aspects in my opinion.

Julie: I miss Dorothy. Michael Dorsey: You don't have to. She's right here. And she misses you. Look, you don't know me from Adam. But I was a better man with you, as a woman... than I ever was with a woman, as a man. You know what I mean? I just gotta learn to do it without the dress. At this point, there might be an advantage to my wearing pants. The hard part's over, you know? We were already... good friends. One thing I really did appreciate about Tootsie was how the movie doesn’t pretend Michael is perfect at the end. I think most movies would have just had him learn his lesson and tell us that he’s been completely changed by his experience. I find Michael’s admission that he still has more to learn to be refreshing. It implies that progress often comes in degrees and not through sweeping, miraculous change. As long as we’re always moving forward, even if it doesn’t always feel like we’re getting very far, we’re still doing okay.

I totally agree with them about Tootsie. It's totally screwed up my personal AFI ranking. I definitely don't think it belongs for the reasons they stated (i.e. pretty typical 80's comedy), but I probably enjoyed it more than some of the movies I think should absolutely be on the list. It kind of falls in with that category of films that I personally enjoy, but recognize aren't necessarily "the best" movies ever. So while I think I'd be more likely to rewatch Tootsie over, say, Taxi Driver, I feel like Taxi Driver deserves to be on the list more. Also, as I said in my Letterboxd review, for thematic similarities, I prefer 9 to 5 (w/ Dabney Coleman). As far as any other movie I might choice to replace it? I have no idea where to start. Just mentioned on the show, I would take League of Their Own, Roger Rabbit, and Back to the Future over Tootsie. Movies with Bill Murray? Groundhog Day. Movies with Teri Garr? Young Frankenstein. Hoffman's doing fine with The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. He doesn't need anymore. Jessica Lange? Big Fish. Charles Durning? Dog Day Afternoon, The Sting, The Muppet Movie... I mean, there are just so many other options.

I think personal accountability and how the behavior is brought to light counts for a lot as well. For instance, take John Lennon. People like to bring up the quote, “I was a hitter” when they talk about his abuse, but the full quote and its context means a lot. The full quote is: “It is a diary form of writing. All that “I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved” was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically — any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace...I am not a violent man, who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster.” That interview, one of his last, was him and the interviewer going through every song The Beatles wrote and what they “mean.” What’s important to me is that he wasn’t exposed, he revealed. The reviewer wasn’t bringing it up because he was confronting Lennon with some dark rumor, Lennon volunteered the information. There’s a good chance, had he not said anything, the public would never have known anything about it. This is very unlike most of these stories where you have accusers and some level of cover up. In effect, Lennon was his own accuser, which for me, makes his contrition feel more sincere. No, it doesn’t excuse things he did when he was younger, but it does show some self-awareness and personal growth. He even acknowledges that people will hate him when they learn the truth, and he’s honest enough to admit, “I’m scared about that.” That feels more human to me. Much more than, say, The Rolling Stones that “pretend” raped a woman as a “joke” for a documentary to appear “edgy” and then sued the filmmaker to prevent its release.

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.

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.

Plugtime (Hope I'm not breaking any rules) Lyrics: Plug time It's not showtime anymore So, I'll keep it short, and I'll keep it sweet. It's time for you and me to hear some plugs. Maybe in my butt. PLUG (not show) time.mp3

Long time Listener. I Love you all Let me belt it out for you, Baby. Short, sweet, and in the heat