WatchOutForSnakes

I made the comparison because Paul had mentioned that WSS made him question whether or not SITR was the best musical of all time. I stand by thinking SITR is better, but that's just my personal taste. I can understand the arguments against it. My personal favorite musical of all time is Annie. Is it the best movie? Probably not, but Annie was such a huge role model for me in her spunk and toughness (at least in the film adaptation). It has a special place in my heart. I get what Cameron H. says about the stakes being higher and the themes being deeper in WSS than in Romeo and Juliet. I think I'll need to watch it a second time so that I'm less distracted by the comparison. I still find the most interesting thing about it is how WSS ends with Tony's death, but no suicides.

I can actually join this time!

So, I didn't hate this movie, but I was definitely not as in love with it as Paul was. It is just so very beat for beat, scene for scene, Romeo and Juliet that I found it distracting. What I found more interesting, and what I really wish Amy and Paul had discussed, was the points where it does depart from Shakespeare: - There's no Rosaline, but instead Tony is sidetracked by his job for Doc (the Priest). I think this really detracts from the Romeo as a love sick teen boy that endears him to the audience, and maybe makes him seem like a more sexual person? - Instead of them setting up a potential marriage proposal during the balcony scene, they set up a meeting in the bridal dress shop where they have a symbolic wedding instead of a real one, (did they have premarital sex?) - Instead of Maria faking her own suicide, Anita (the nurse) tells them all that Chino (Paris) killed her. That scene also seemed an amalgam of when the nurse goes to tell Romeo he better marry Juliet or he's a turd, and Mercutio and the band harass her, and also the scene where the nurse goes to the Priest where Romeo is hiding and tells Romeo Juliet is waiting for him. - I guess you could say Tony constructively commits suicide when he's looking for Chino? Obviously the gun is the poison, and Maria points it at everyone and asks if there will be one bullet left for her. This is the biggest change - Maria lives. Why did they do that? That's such a major and fundamental change, that I really wondered why the show went that way. All that said, more random thoughts: I think WSS is fine as a movie, and as a musical. Maybe I'm too used to dance and theater to find the juxtaposition of cheesy 50's gang members doing leaps and turns to be particularly jarring. I have to disagree on Amy's distaste for Natalie Wood. I thought she did just fine. I also have to disagree with Paul that this is a better musical than Singin' in the Rain. The main characters in SITR did all of their own dancing and singing, and acting. I think their performances were so far beyond WSS that it's not even a question. Sure, SITR has a light plot, but it's at least original. Like I said up top, this is just sooooo Romeo and Juliet that I couldn't stop making comparisons. I've also watched the Baz Luhrmann version, and read the play so very many times. I'd also take that version over this any day. Quick bit of trivia: Claire Danes and and Leonardo DiCaprio also did not get along. But holy smokes did they have the best chemistry! I'd keep WSS on the list for it's iconic nature, but not because it's the best musical of all time. It isn't.

I think we can give the crew a break here. Just because Paul didn't launch into an attempt to make sense of a senseless plot doesn't mean they are all of a sudden throwing out any interest in the form of the discussion. I didn't find their raised voices to be anything other than excitement and befuddlement with the movie, and really not that far outside the norm of live shows. Speaking of- they also have an audience in front of them, and as a person who's only listening, I''ll give them the benefit of the doubt of reading the room. I agree with Taylorann, that usually this amount of vitriol is reserved for lesbian guests. Maybe the criticism is becoming more egalitarian? These folks are funny, and produce an amazing show. Oh, and it's free. Once in a while the discussions get completely off track (mannequin genitals, anyone?). Such is the nature of comedy and banter. That's why I love them.

Wait, Ryan was Jewish? I genuinely missed that. I find it interesting that the D-day invasion seems to be the only thing I remember people discussing about the film. That it was the first to really show the horror of people's bodies torn apart on the battlefield. I found that all so unbelievably unnecessary. It was gore for gore's sake. It was voyeuristic and manipulative, like the rest of the movie was. The entire first 30-45 minutes of the movie (complete with the framing device) was unnecessary and did nothing to advance the plot, save to maybe put some perspective on how hard it would be for these soldiers to go on a mission to save one guy. The whole logic of saving one man to save his mother from losing all her sons was, while historically accurate, total BS. Does anyone else's mother suffer 1/4 less because only one son dies instead of four? Suffering is suffering. Mourning is mourning. It seems horrible to justify the deaths of so so many other men to save one. I really felt for all the other mothers who would have to be told their sons' lives weren't worth as much as Ryan's.

My read on this film was super misogynistic. It basically seemed to me like some Men's Right's Activist, anti-choice, trying to be pro-dad BS. You all have already addressed the whole Oleg situation, and the rampant distrust of women who are all promiscuous and lying to the men about who are the fathers of their kids. But there was some real anti-choice messages (and I feel like the director was kind of muddled in whether he was pro-choice). For example, we know that Chloe Sevigny had an abortion just before she died, and when she's on the phone with the Snowman, she says something about, "it wasn't your child, it was mine" and her "twin" made some comment about "she got rid of the baby." Also, so I understand (could be wrong?) the Snowman was actually the "pregnancy doctor" which I took to mean "abortion doctor." I attributed the awkward phrasing to the English translation? And wasn't JK Simmons giving money to the fertility clinic that was performing the abortions? The whole thing felt like a mess of men being pissed about not having reproductive control over women's bodies. When that control is lost, and when women prove themselves slutty liars, they're knocked off. Here comes hero Michael Fassbender who steps up into a father's roll KNOWING he's not Oleg's biological dad, and they really drive that point home. The main message of Snowman seems to be: Fathers = AWESOME; Women = lying sluts who deserve to die. Except Charlotte Gainsbourg (?) I have feelings about The Snowman, and none of them good. Glad I didn't pay to watch it. I didn't know about Fassbender's history with women, or I'd probably have skipped this all together.

Huzzah! Thanks for sharing this! I've listened to a few back episodes of The Cannon, but of course the co-host was not quite Paul Scheer caliber.

I agree. I was just pondering why Richard was so quick to emotionally attach. Beyond his obsession with his high school sweetheart, he was so quick to propose to the woman at the restaurant, and I think he was also real quick to be friends with Nat. I've not figured it out yet. Still mulling it over. I also felt a little unsatisfied with the ending, but thought it was kind of true to life. You can have these brief, intense experiences, and then they can just be over, and life goes on. I get that it was more profound for Nat because he is right on the precipice of adulthood. Richard comes into his life like a tornado and leaves just as fast. Richard, though, as the tornado itself, just moves through things and leaves a mess in his wake. I think Nat, though, was looking for excitement and something to break free from his typical self, or he wouldn't have let Richard in the car.

This was the most joyful interaction between the two guys! I really had a lot of fun watching this, but the Fast and Furious talk was just perfect.

I echo everyone's thoughts on suicide. Without making this too much about me, I, also struggle with depression/anxiety and suicidal ideation. The podcast, and this forum are excellent respites for the soul pounding the world can give us. Grateful fur all of you!

I'll give a little on the Italian stereotype role for Viggo's performance. I agree that he did way better in Captain Fantastic. and I've generally been fine with his work. I'm soured on him not so much for this role, and the way he portrayed it, but for his whole appearance on the Hollywood Reporter round table. It's possible Dr. Shirley agreed to having a movie made about him post-mortem. I've only read about him refusing it while he was alive.

I really thought it was the other way around, going into this. Either way, what fun! Probably my favorite musical.

I bought it for like $4.00 on Amazon Prime. Unfortunately, it's not even available through a free trial of the Lifetime Movie App.

I respectfully disagree on this. I see Green Book as not just tone deaf, but actively rewriting history in a way that perpetuates stereotypes, and sees Dr. Shirley as less than a fully-developed and nuanced person beyond a caricature. Ali's acting was great, but I'm forever soured on Viggo Mortensen. I don't think he did a great job. I don't think it was a stretch to play a loud, Italian thug. To say nothing of the Hollywood Reporter round table that was making the rounds. This whole project was a mess. Dr. Shirley actively turned down the opportunity in taking part in the movie during his lifetime. It's more than just a bunch of oafs making a tone-deaf movie. I'm not going to get down on anyone for finding it enjoyable, but for me, its problems outweigh its pleasures.

It actually wasn't a terrible watch. I got more enjoyment out of it than Dragon Blade. I may or may not have gotten teary-eyed when they kiss on the tarmac.

I'd like to think the Oscar voters just got inclusivity exhaustion from the rest of the groundbreaking that happened this year.

I'm really curious to hear the ep this week. Now that I own the movie (and have survived a screening), I feel obligated to have strong feelings about it. I feel kinda meh, though. It would make a much more interesting horror film. Harry seems like a creeper to me, and I'm not sure I trust Kate.

100% agree, and thought of you when I saw an article pop up on Slate today talking about just how obnoxiously awful Skin was. Whether it was worse than Green Book is debatable. Acutely worse, yes. But Green Book lasts 2 hours and 15 minutes. I finally saw how Green Book addressed *cough, cough* Dr. Shirley's sexuality, and even that was turned into a fucking "Tony Lip to the rescue. Isn't he such a great hero!" scene. I mean it with heart when I say fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck both these movies.

I had a snag sleuthing which of the overwhelming onslaught of Harry and Meghan movies they were referencing. (Harry and Meghan: A Royal Romance) I ended up having to buy it on Amazon, of course I picked HD because, why not? I haven't seen it yet, and already...fuck this movie.

Yes! That was easily the worst of the live action shorts, and we're talking about a group of films that includes multiple child deaths. Maybe all the older white Oscar voters had inclusivity exhaustion from Black Panther and BlacKkKlansman ETA: Reminder that exactly 20 years ago Shakespeare in Love swept the awards and took Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan.

I think you should win C&O forever and for all time for discovering Dan's true identity. You should get Daniel Radcliffe's voice on your voicemail a la Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me.

good to know! I wasn't sure about that, and the way Paul talked about the availability of the music made it sound confusing, and I've heard it confused before.

I'm glad no one called in to support Green Book and I'm disappointed in Paul and Amy for glossing over how problematic it is. First, it's not a movie about Don Shirley and his white driver. It's about Tony Vallelonga and his story about driving for an African-American pianist in the South. Those are two very different films. Green Book was written by Vallelonga's son. The Shirley family has come out strongly against this movie for its inaccuracies, such as Shriley's alleged estrangement from his families, and even for the movie being made at all, which Shirley turned down during his lifetime. From indiwire: "I remember very, very clearly, going back 30 years, my uncle had been approached by Nick Vallelonga, the son of Tony Vallelonga, about a movie on his life, and Uncle Donald told me about it,” Edwin said “He flatly refused.” Edwin and Maurice said they heard from Mahershala Ali shortly after they spoke about their issues with the film on NPR in late November. “I got a call from Mahershala Ali, a very, very respectful phone call, from him personally,” Maurice said. “He called me and my Uncle Maurice in which he apologized profusely if there had been any offense.” “What he said was, ‘If I have offended you, I am so, so terribly sorry. I did the best I could with the material I had. I was not aware that there were close relatives with whom I could have consulted to add some nuance to the character,’” added Edwin. Vanity Fair talks about how Mahershala Ali didn't even get a chance to meet the Shirley family prior to shooting. Aside from any racial feel-goodness this might give a white movie-going or Oscar-voting public, you can't talk about this movie without talking about its overwhelming problems. If this film wins any Oscars, I won't be shocked, but I will be pissed off. Also, the "Green Book" isn't a book of music, it's a travel guide for the Jim Crow south. Per Wikipedia: "The Negro Motorist Green Book [was] an annual guidebook for African-American roadtrippers, commonly referred to simply as the Green Book. It was originated and published by New York City mailman Victor Hugo Green from 1936 to 1966, during the era of Jim Crow laws, when open and often legally prescribed discrimination against non-whites was widespread. Although pervasive racial discrimination and poverty limited black car ownership, the emerging African-American middle class bought automobiles as soon as they could, but faced a variety of dangers and inconveniences along the road, from refusal of food and lodging to arbitrary arrest. In response, Green wrote his guide to services and places relatively friendly to African-Americans, eventually expanding its coverage from the New York area to much of North America, as well as founding a travel agency."

New theory: Keanu Reeves was the first choice to play Lucius and Cusack's performance is actually John Cusack as Keanu Reeves as Lucius. I imagine their delivery of "I've never seen a Chinese sword." would play exactly the same.

I am here for you on this theory.