FictionIsntReal

The best thing I've ever read on advertising is Kevin Simler's Ads Don't Work That Way. Anyone who talks about ads "fooling" people is missing the point: awareness is enough. I didn't enjoy this nearly as much as most Canon films (it was compared to SNL's parody commercials, which are funnier than the examples here), and will even disagree with Seth that the film is "woke" simply due to its subject matter. However, it does seem distinctive & influential enough to have a place. I happened to watch this right before De Palma's "Hi, Mom!", so like Palmatto I can see the similarities. But I'll give the nod to this one, which gave me more laughs and was a less unpleasant watch.

Odd the poll remained open long enough for the No vote to get a majority even though Amy has now inducted Footlight Parade into the Canon.

Woohoo, I got a shoutout! Although I should note that Louis wasn't said to be impotent, just ignorant and perhaps not very diligent in his duties (which was why his brother-in-law was able to solve the problem) This was the first time I'd seen an actual Busy Berkeley film, rather than mere clips, and I wish it had been for a better film. I think he belongs in the Canon somewhere, but I think there's a reason I'd never heard of this (whereas I had heard of 42nd Street and the Gold Diggers movies). Even the hosts acknowledge the bad actors, the first musical sequence being bad and the skippability of the majority of the film. So are the final three "prologues" really good enough to merit inclusion? I find it hard to believe Berkeley didn't make other films with comparable numbers but without such flaws. They asked if anyone could be cynical enough to watch "By the Waterfall" and still say no, and while I'll acknowledge it's technical impressiveness, that's not enough for me. I got more enjoyment out of the Busby-imitation in Cremaster 1, as it had some more interesting weirdness. That's not going into the Canon (Cremaster 3 would have better odds, but that belongs in a different Canon).

I only watched Marie Antoinette because it was nominated for the Canon, and I was expecting to dislike it. I was surprised by how much I didn't. It's a costumed period biopic which looks expensive, but we've had many of those. It is somewhat unique for its use of music, anachronisms and pleasing refusal to force American actors to use different accents. But Lost in Translation is the more unique, the more personal, the film that really put Sofia Coppola on the map so she could make something like Marie Antoinette. The discussion of the opening scene reminded me of an anecdote I recently heard involving Scarlett Johansson: she really disliked the bra Michael Bay had her wear in The Island and tried to argue him into letting her do the scene topless instead. He prevailed, and the film stayed PG-13. Stephanie refers to Harold & Maude as an example of a non-sexual love story, but they actually do have sex. Are the things that we respect not to be "scrutinized"? I think great art tends to reward scrutiny. The beginning of Marie Antoinette is depicted as strange and alienating for the title character, but after a while she settles in and seems to enjoy that environment, without really "breaking free". I haven't heard of any radical small-r republicans who still insist on decapitating aristocrats. Perhaps because aristocrats aren't really in charge (outside of the Gulf states) any more. Amy is right that people in the past wore color. Even the poor. I've found some more of the text from Joseph II's letter describing Louis XVI's missing steps in his attempts to produce a child. You can search for the reference to "complete fumblers" here for the explicit details. There's something darkly comical about the attempt by revolutionaries to raise the heir to the throne to adhere to republican ideology (after killing his parents). I know Sofia has a terrible reputation for her performance in Godfather III, but I don't think she's that bad. Partially it's because she's not asked to do much, and she's playing the privileged daughter of a wealthy Italian-American family anyway.

I think the video Richard Lawson's referring to is not of a politician, but . The pederasty wasn't "subtext". When he's looking up at the teen on the balcony, the driver says to him "Horny again?", and he gives a smiling nod "Yeah!" in reply. I wouldn't have been sure what was going on during that scene if it hadn't been for that dialogue, but later scenes cement it. I also found the pinball scene odd before he even gets handsy, because he clicks his heels in the air and jovial music plays as he runs off. I was thinking not simply of him being a villain stereotype, but also a Greek stereotype. I'd heard of Z long before I'd heard of any podcasts, and it seems to have played a role in the career of a later president of Greece, and despite being so specific to that place also apparently had a Hindi remake, so it seems canonical to me. I'm fine with the Canon mostly consisting of English-language films, since that's largely who's putting it together. But an English-speaking cinephile's canon would still have to include Ingmar Bergman & The Bicycle Thief.

Unlike last week, where I was conflicted, this is an easy choice. I both greatly enjoy the film and regard it as highly canonical. Amy complains about tropes it helped establish and Dicey Dice says he dislikes "New Hollywood", but that's just further evidence for how canonical it is. Thief, Driver series of games (and perhaps GTA to some extent), that series of BMW commercials with Clive Owen that in turn inspired The Transporter series, Refn's Drive and now Baby Driver are all lineal descendants. And that's leaving aside broader things like "strong, silent character". And it's not like those descendants have completely displaced it either. I think there is something to be said for "purity", stripping something down to its essence, and there won't be any reason for people to even attempt making a more pure version of this because Walter Hill already did it. Going back to my comment about last week, Amy should know that as promised I did vote for Black Orpheus despite preferring City of God, and since it was decided by one vote that means I cast the winning vote which doomed my preferred movie. I only saw the version in which Adjani's Player is clearly a bought witness (whereas in Le Samourai I think she merely chooses to lie), and didn't know other versions existed. She's a great actress in other things, but despite my high regard for this film, her performance is rather forgettable. With all due respect to Bruce Dern (and that's a significant amount) I think he's exaggerating what a big deal the female roles in this were. The Charles Bronson quote says more about Bronson himself than the year he said it, and isn't quite as funny as his remark on receiving the script for Death Wish that it sounds fun and he'd love to do it, by which he meant shooting muggers rather than starring in the movie.

I like City of God FAR FAR better than Black Orpheus. I also like Beasts of the Southern Wild a bit more, and Slumdog Millionaire about the same amount. Nevertheless, Black Orpheus seems more canonical to me. I hardly remember the last time I heard anyone talk about City of God (other than this podcast). I completely forgot the same director did The Constant Gardener (which I just thought of as an example of how Le Carre doesn't work as well after the Cold War). I had no problem with the moral perspective; as you noted Scorsese has often taken a similar approach. An exploitation film is not simply one with lurid subject matter (is every film about the Holocaust "exploitation"?), this is a very well done film about some real things. I was so irked by the criticism the film is receiving here that I'm tempted to vote for it even though I don't see it as canonical (at least in the US), particularly when Goodfellas gets to take a similar spot with chronological precedence.

This is an odd episode in that the person who nominated the film doesn't seem to like it all that much, and neither does the host. I won't go for this either, in part because Basic Instinct seems the more canonical "erotic thriller" starring Michael Douglas from this time period. The essential article to read here is Allison P Davis' "Unhinged Psycho Stalkers Are My Favorite Movie Heroines".

Bakshi's version was my introduction to Tolkien. I thought it was great, but it's been a long time since I've seen it. It's still the only Bakshi I've seen. I voted for Fellowship because Return was too bloated and exhibited a number of Jackson's later sins. But all in all the series is a surprisingly good adaptation that we were lucky to have.

I was typing up my own version of this post and almost clicked the button, before I decided to check again. I found different availability options from canistream.it but I figure most Canon listeners have already seen these anyway.

I already commented in another thread on my personal view of its quality, but this movie is mostly forgotten (except as an example of Harvey Weinstein's ability to play the awards game). Does not strike me as canonical.

"Middlebrow" is just what I thought. Not so dumb that Anthony Jeselnik can mock them for being unfamiliar with Shakespeare, but dropping lots of well known lines & titles so such people can feel smart for recognizing them. I was disappointed in part because Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was a fantastic "fan fiction" which also explored a lot of more post-modern ideas in an entertaining way. And it's not just Marlowe in this film: the religious fuddy-duddy says the Rose theater "by any other name" would be just as foul. Shakespeare seems to take names & ideas from a number of characters.

I was expecting this to be easy: I prefer Young Adult to Juno, and Whiplash to (nearly Best Picture winning!) La La Land. But it seems too recent judge how canonical it is. Regarding the neither entry: it actually seems like a good idea, since in non-vs episodes we have that option. It does make it harder to compare with prior vs episodes which lacked that option.

Before listening, I was planning on voting yes. But Paul gave a very weak defense of its inclusion which acknowledged many shortcomings, and Amy did a good job of pointing out comparable movies which aren't in, and I ultimately agreed that the Canon had gotten too lax in admitting films based on childhood nostalgia. Ghostbusters was a successful enough film to launch a franchise people have fond memories of, but the film itself is merely quite good while riddled with deficiencies, so I'll say this is among the most canonical of non-Canon worthy movies.

By "the homework guy", do you mean Nick Perkins? I only just saw that the latest episode has dropped and haven't listened yet, so do they say what's up for next week?

I would still like to listen to those episodes.

I liked this movie a good deal, but it's not quite canonical. Nothing spectacular about the directing, the play is no Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, as was pointed out). The child actor is good, but I don't think in the running for best. You brought up the camp angle, but it's no Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. Rhoda is an early psychopath, but I don't know if she really stands out that much among the gallery of movie psychopaths.

As I noted at BMD (before I even listened to this), I agree with Amy that Star Trek is more of a TV than movie franchise. This film by itself is not canonical, even if it is the best of the Trek films. On a sidenote, the bit about being introduced to these works through Khan reminded me of Deus Ex, which introduced me to Voltaire, Kahlil Gibran (I can't recommend that), and indirectly via Steve Jackson Games (more specifically Illuminati) the works of H. P. Lovecraft (and associated "weird fiction") and the Illuminatus trilogy. I don't know if it belongs in a list of canonical games though, important as it is to me personally.

I'm going to quote from wikipedia here on the ending:

A fairly easy yes. Cannibal Holocaust may have used the trick earlier, but neither I nor anybody I knew had even heard of that at the time. This movie was a huge phenomenon and is the more direct inspiration for the wave of found-footage horror. It was also quite effective as a viewing experience. Dracula was an epistolary novel (a common form at the time), but the main cast survives the tell the tale even if one ignores their writings. Lovecraft's stories more often feature doomed protagonists, and a singular voice rather than exchange of letters (although Call of Cthulhu is the story of multiple characters, assembled together from research later).

If I was going to stump for a Jim Henson project which was neither Muppets nor Sesame Street it would be The Cube. Not that it's canonical.

Near Dark & Titus are cool looking movies I'd recommend people check out, but don't seem to belong. And since I was just recently discussing Manhunter, Day Night Day Night is the film that rivals it for my most watched. It would be an interesting world in which enough people watched that film for it to be canonical, but we don't live in that world. On the other hand, while I wasn't a big fan of The Piano (I was stupidly annoyed that Michael Nyman's score had so much piano in it!), that could actually qualify. Persepolis is another interesting possibility, we did already let in one non-fiction animated film about the Middle East but this one is sufficiently different. Lots of people are recommending movies they like, but may be a bit too niche. Maybe something from Nora Ephron? She basically became THE representative of a sub-genre very popular with audiences if not self-described cinephiles. Admittedly, some of her most beloved work was writing rather than directing.

Oh, man. Manhunter is absolutely one of my favorite films, and perhaps the one I have watched the most times. But I don't think it belongs in the Canon. It bombed on release*, it was completely displaced by Silence of the Lambs in popular culture as THE Harris/Hannibal movie, and there are more canonical Mann films to choose from (Heat ups the hunter/hunted duality even more by splitting the focus more evenly, and Thief is more obviously the progenitor of Mann's 80s style, even if Manhunter takes it to further extremes). This is a bit like Beyond the Black Rainbow (whose director cites Manhunter as a big inspiration): I will promote it every chance I get, but it's just not going in the Canon. *I also recall reading about a tv show made a little after which by some of the writers admission was partly inspired by it and bombed, with them saying they should have figured audiences weren't in the mood for serial killers yet.

Just like the Goonies, Pennies From Heaven and Re-Animator, this is a favorite of a small group of people (mostly from a limited age range) which does not belong in the Canon. Plus, it's not even the best film from Henson, Bowie or Connelly.

"Indulgence" picks are automatically disqualified from the Canon, almost by definition. Devin borked the last time and managed to get Re-Animator in, when it clearly doesn't belong, but two wrong don't make a right. This movie is neither influential, important, or of especially high quality. I guess it's more unusual than Re-Animator (unless you count the original miniseries, which I haven't seen but presumably contains the same distinctive features), but also less enjoyable. A musical consisting of such obvious lipsynching of old songs is bad idea, and there was way too much of it here. Steve Martin was not a great choice for lead, and Bernadette Peters might have been if they actually let her sing. The murder plot is out-of-left-field yet also "writerly" like Devin said, as if it's supposed to have thematic relevance but doesn't really. The protagonist is entirely one-dimensional, unsympathetic and uninteresting to boot. I was never invested in anything he did because he was an obvious jerk & incompetent to boot. I guess it made the other Canon picks I watched before it that I was lukewarm on (Breakfast at Tiffany's & A Hard Day's Night) look better by comparison.