ol' eddy wrecks

That seems like a random one, unless you've wanted to dress up as a young Jennifer Connelly and/or just have pet insects you've always wanted to work into a costume. Or, I guess Creepers is just a personal favorite.

I had forgotten how much the movie shifts in the middle towards the Roman Republic and its machinations, which is really the more interesting part of the movie. One thing in its favor compared to Lawrence of Arabia, in terms of specificity is the heart of narrative, you get a better sense of the pulls of political conflict. Though it seems a little lightweight on Caesar switching sides. As opposed to Lawrence where all tribal disputes are explained with, "He insulted me." That said, I already gave my opinion on this one, while I still think it's a decent movie, I'm still mostly meh on it. I don't know if that's just a sign I dislike historical epics of the era (or in general). It's a lowest-tiered Kubrick to me, and would prefer just about nearly any other one (which is ironic since it really catapulted his career) - both in terms of watching and being on the list.

To give credence to Amy's thought that this is on the list because Trumbo's name is on it - there was a documentary about Trumbo, titled "Trumbo", that came out in 2007 (the year this list was produced). I never saw it, but remember seeing trailers for it in independent theaters, and I remember the trailers felt like they hyped up the importance of Spartacus. It's always hard to guess how influential a documentary that runs in independent theaters is, but my gut is telling me the two are related (this would also track with it not being on the 1997 list). Just based on how easily influenced people are by just name recognition.

For Spartacus (I was going to do some joke about the importance of teeth representing the tyranical need of the government for us to have fluoride in our drinking water and children's I've cream), but since I don't think I've met anyone go to bat for this one. Something that I've seen people do for Paths of Glory - which since that is another Kubrick/Douglas collaboration, I'd be curious to hear during that discussion of they'd prefer Spartacus or Paths of Glory on the list - though that means watching PoG.

I guess NXNW doesn't generate a lot of conversation. I guess I'll say, out of the Hitchcock on the list, the internal state of the characters was the least interesting. Admittedly, it can be argued this movie wasn't as concerned about such things, but that doesn't preclude me from finding its concerns less interesting (I was never that big on James Bond, even growing up). I was thinking about the various Coen references (penis etching above, the mistaken identity triggering the plot - both Big Lebowski, the airplane chase seemed to be echoed in the truck chase in No Country, the more general mistaken spy activity in Burn After Reading). The other movie NXNW made me think of was Antonioni's The Passenger (starting Jack Nicholson). Which since it's been over a decade since I've seen it, I'll start with the Google summary: David Locke (Jack Nicholson) is a world-weary American journalist who has been sent to cover a conflict in northern Africa, but he makes little progress with the story. When he discovers the body of a stranger who looks similar to him, Locke assumes the dead man's identity. However, he soon finds out that the man was an arms dealer, leading Locke into dangerous situations. Aided by a beautiful woman (Maria Schneider), Locke attempts to avoid both the police and criminals out to get him. It's been long enough since I've seen that lots of things are vague in my head, but, to my recollection, there was a strong theme of, by adopting this man's identity, he started to become him, the film wanting to raise the issue of, "who are we? If everyone treats us a certain way and we become that, is our identity our own?" (At least that was how I remember it at a vague high level). Also slow pacing and strong composition, visuals (because, Antonioni). This comparison came to mind as Roger Thorne was breaking into the spy room and everyone was mistaking him for the spy. ROT effectively doing spy things just seemed to be narratively taken for granted, but that could have been an interesting emotional exploration. Though, I don't know if audiences in the 1950's would have gone for it. (In terms of audience size, it's not like NXNW sized audiences would have taken to it in the 1970's either).

Huh, I wonder if Halloween will be Jaws, otherwise, I was way off on my prediction there.

But they drew this line a notepad and crumpled up the paper. Quick, now that they've left, someone get a pencil so we can rub out what they drew on the impression of the next sheet down. Wait... that's not a line!

Oooof. Hopefully it's at least enjoyably campy, as opposed to Son of Dracula, where Ringo played Merlin. That one sounded like it should have been hilarious, but was just a dud.

Well, I wasn't familiar with the backstory, so I might have this wrong, but didn't Any say Kazan was a member of the American communist party? That initial knock-off would be Kazan becoming disillusioned with the communists (which did happen to a lot of American communists when Stalin and Hitler struck an alliance - though how much of that was putely disillusionment was more with Russia and how much was domino effect of becoming disillusioned with the ideology of the movement, I can't remember what I heard the details were). I wouldn't be surprised if Kazan doesn't feel remorse because, well, "communists? Fuck those guys." Which wouldn't become irrelevant for another 30+ years.

Technically they sent the brother to "talk some sense into him." i.e. the carrot of a cushy job. I think the gun meant more to make sure Terry didn't get away and could kept hostage until wherever that address they were going to - presumably there would be people there who would have done the literal knocking off. And the reason (given in the movie) would be, Friendly wasn't accused of murdering the brother beforehand. Being accused of murder is more serious than corruption. Your accuser getting hit by a car is going to look a lot more suspicious.

This got a weird question in my head - what do you mean by your top 100? 1. Top 100 list of all time great movies? 2. Top 100 list of American movies? 3. Top 100 of the 100 movies we're watching for this podcast? (this interpretation was what got my brain chuckling and wondering) 4. Voting on the list of top 100 movies, you'd vote Yes to keep it on? (a lot more than 100 movies could meet this criteria) 5. If you were to go through the ballot of 400 movies from the AFI, it'd be one you'd include? 3 & 4 (and the impracticality of 5, unless we all go through all 400 movies), did make me wonder if at the end of the podcast, rather than looking at what movies passed the Yes/No vote, if we mimiced the AFI poll, and had everyone submit their top 25 (unordered) and tabulated those up to get the top 25 (keeping the ratio of 1 of 4), how'd that'd turn out.

The "it's based in history" is a defense that usually doesn't hold up. Even in a documentary, the film maker has to present a point of view, what to emphasize, what gets cut, de-emphasized, or just isn't considered worth including. All of this forms a narrative, which might not be factually inaccurate, but it might not be accurate either. And, as it was even said in the podcast, this was a fictionalized version of the story. And the white savior complex isn't just applicable to "liberating" the Middle East from the Ottoman Empire, but also trying to change their culture, bring them democracy, the idea of a unified people. Even if the narrative does try to undermine his attempt to accomplish this by the end, he is the arbiter and harbinger of these ideas as the film presents it. e.g. The Arab Council could have worked if those darn Arabs just didn't take everything so personally. Also, as stated in the podcast, this was a fictionalized take on the events. And in the case of the Arab Council, a factually inaccurate one in terms of how long it lasted (also pointed out in the podcast - I'm taking this fact from the podcast. I feel like I've been coming down a bit hard on Paul & Amy's takes the past couple of weeks, so need to give them credit for giving me a specific example undermining a line of reasoning given in the podcast). This isn't to say it isn't without its strengths. The Searchers, seemed to try grapple with the racism of the genre, but that doesn't mean it didn't still fall into certain racist stereotypes. Hmm... While I speculate on a lot of things, I guess I don't have a strong enough gut feel to speculate on the reasoning of the AFI voters (I think the AFI doesn't published who voted, what they voted for, and so we don't have stated reasons) - especially since their tastes seem to be different enough from mine. e.g. Fargo was also removed from the 2007 list, the Sixth Sense was added, and I think Spartacus was added as well. I agree with you that The Third Man feels more American than LoA, and would also point to the reasons you listed (I personally would be fine with TTM on a list of American movies). Trying to run it through other examples, I wonder if the story type matters and just how much we're influenced by how popular/well-known they are in the US. The two examples coming to mind are two of my favorite movies, Orson Welles' adaptation of The Trial and Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. The Trial is more interesting since TTM was listed above. The Trial is directed by an American (Welles), stars an American (Anthony Perkins) and has Welles in a notable supporting part. It is however based on a German author's (Kafka) story, set in a location whose oppressive architecture feels Eastern European, and the characters are citizens of the location. As opposed to TTM where the lead and antagonist are American actors playing Americans abroad in Europe. Which seems like an American post-war type of story. TTM is also much more well known in the US and The Trial, fairly uknown. Barry Lyndon compared to A Clockwork Orange - same director, cast and location mostly British, but the dystopian story of ACO isn't uniquely British, at least culturally, where-as, European period piece/historical drama does seem very British. And Barry Lyndon wasn't as culturally resonant in the US as ACO (I guess ACO getting pulled from theaters in the UK could have also greatly diminished it in British cultural presence). Wrt LoA, I guess the one counter-argument I've heard was the production part (which you addressed above), but it is interesting to think - I don't know how the cast of AGoT breaks down, but if it was an almost purely British cast with a purely British crew, but it was produced and financed by HBO execs for the American TV market, would we be arguing about whether it was a British or American TV show? I don't fully buy that as a justification, but the thought experiment does make the LoA was produced by an American company argument seem less blatantly wrong than what it did initially. Granted, I'm still giving the list the side-eye for stating it's just doing American films. I can't help but think it was for one of two reasons, and neither of them are good.

I think some word choice would go a long way on clarity (ie just say the name of the list). I don't think the culturally British film list is that well known and some comments (mainly from Paul) in the early episodes of the podcast left the impression he thought the BFI list (by default refers to the Sight & Sound critic's poll), only had British films (or maybe European films). And I saw a number of comments on the FB group at the time implying the posters thought the BFI list only had British films. Has the podcast even explicitly stated the BFI made a list specifically for culturally British films? Asking not rhetorically, because if they have, then that might give better weight that I just am being uptight on this. Otherwise, saying "the" implies one list and if you haven't stated there are separate lists, contextually you are creating confusion.

I'm not familiar enough with the history of the intricacies of the AFI list - do we know the reason it's not on the 2007 list (after being on the 1997 list) is due to it being considered British as opposed to it just not getting enough votes? I'm debating whether I'll vote on this one still because I think historical epics are my thing. I saw this in college and was "meh". I'm still kind of "meh". Relatedly, if I were to rank Spartacus (coming up) amongst Kubrick's work, it'd probably beat out Killer's Kiss and Fear & Desire, but that's it. I know he was a director for hire on that one, but it might also be a sign that the genre just isn't my thing. I liked the scene of Lawrence in the sandstorm losing his way (well, his moral and literal compass). I wish there were more parts like that. Just viscerally, I suppose. I guess I'm waiting for Bleary to get in here for a stronger negative on it, because I remember he said he dislikes it.

Sight & Sound is BFI's magazine. When one says "the BFI list" they mean the Sight & Sound list.

Just starting the episode, but Amy made the comment, "I wonder how many American films are on the BFI list." When people say they mean the BFI list, they mean the Sight & Sound best of all time poll, which isn't restricted by country... The way Amy said it, it left me unclear if she knew that, which seems like something she would know. (Caveat, at some point, the BFI did do a best British culture films list, but that's like one of the random AFI lists that no one really thinks about. i.e. not "the" BFI list). If have to look at the numbers, and the cutoff is a little arbitrary of what number on the poll qualifies as "making the list" (e.g. 10, 50, 100, 250...) If have to check the list, but for the comparison of lists I did way back when, roughly half were "American" (including such films as Lawrence of Arabia as an American film - since the point was to see where a movie would land on the list, filtering out movies not eligible for the AFI).

To my knowledge, b-movies were called that, because they were the b-movie in the double-feature. The equivalence to that now would probably be, direct-to-video. errr, I mean, direct to streaming, but without it being a given that meant low quality that direct to video meant in the 80s.

Yeah, I guess it wasn't clear in my word choice, but even most of the movies I watch from today feel like they're describing very different movies than what I'm seeing. The "admittedly small number are recent movies," was meant more as a caveat. A small, biased selection process might be heavily skewing stuff. Though they could just be doing the opposite - forgetting about the number of movies today that also don't fall into the trends their describing.

I guess the issue I had with their take on it, the film says nothing positive about the new taking over, and they seemed to think it was all fine. Heh. Whenever I hear them say, "movies today," I always end up thinking, "I feel like I'm watching very different movies." - admittedly recent releases make up very little of my yearly watches.

A four hour PSA on the importance of motorcycle safety.

Just to throw out some points (some where it felt like I was just seeing a different movie than Paul & Amy) Dianne's premature orgasms were symbolic of the younger generation's need for instant gratification. Dianne's constant taking of the show... well, that's was literal text in a monologue from Max - there's no "there" there, inside of Dianne or her generation. She has concept nor concern for reality (which might be fine for programming, but news is supposed to be describing facts, because facts are important for, well, making decisions based on reality). She only knows how to conceptualize the world through fiction she's seen on TV (admittedly, I can see how one see this as a weakness of the film, a jeremiad about how the next generation is worse, as given by every generation prior). While Dianne seems un-real inside, Duvall seems like the really ruthless one (in terms of corporate execs he would be the new, young guard. Maybe not young to a young viewer, but for a corporation). Finch's character could be compared to other fictional characters, where the cause of the rage doesn't seem illegitimate, but isn't well thought out and can go off the rails easily. The older generation, though in some ways respectable in some ways, are complacent and enabling of the worst behaviors of the next generation - sometimes for infatuation, sometimes for prideful, power games, that blow up in their face. Since it sounded like Paul & Amy were really sympathetic to Dianne's character and supportive of the young in the movie, I feel the need to ask how other people read these characters.

I hadn't watched this since circa 2000, which made me pause and think about how different the media landscape felt back then. A reflection on the consequence of the consolidation of news outlets and the overt commercialization of news* that probably favored my re-viewing of the movie. Well, commercialization, unless the message is to push a worldview, favorable by the corporate owner's. Not that TV news was necessarily an august institution that wasn't already subscribed to the philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads." And it isn't like print news didn't have its yellow journalism era going even further back. But man...

For organization... I just rip all of my stuff, put it on my NAS, to which I have a dedicated HTPC hooked up to it, which is connected to the TV. All to ignored as I lazily switch to the firestick to stream something. I'm playing around with PLEX on the firestick to access my collection from there, but it doesn't handle all the formats as well as I need, so I have to play around and possibly encode a lot of my collection now. In terms of shelf organization, I did the binder thing a long time ago, but when I built it back up with the blu-rays, I found myself wanting to keep a lot of the cases (I like the artwork on some of them), so it's all more, dedicated bookshelf of a disorganized mess mostly. Organized mostly by genre, director, unalphabetized. I only have about 200-400 discs, but fortunately I don't really have to try to find anything.

I've noticed the same with VHS tapes, starting somewhere around 2010-2015. It seems mostly niche though, in terms of Retro-hipsterism (there's a scene of Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver watching VHS tapes in Baumbach's of While We're Young to illustrate the lifestyle difference). Wanting simpler times of some sort, I'd guess. Some collector mentality (just liking to collect vintage media). And there are some movies that are still only available on VHS. (Again, niche) Nostalgia? I think the format is just flat out inferior to modern formats, so I roll my eyes at the first group.

Rottentomatoes links out to the reviews they're aggregating. Nothing's stopping you from still reading the reviews. Admittedly for consistency I think you need to know the critics you're looking for, as opposed to deferring to your local paper's choice of people reviewing films. IDK if RT has a "filter by publication". Though, at that point, I imagine you'd just go the publication's website. Well, I mean, there's no hard fast rule that 75% has to mean a 'C'. Granted, I don't think there's a single number that will accurately differentiate between "divisive" and "meh" on aggregate, so I don't know if I get the whole, just look at the score mentality. (I guess of they did two numbers, average and STD Dev..., but even then, without reading, you're not going to have a sense on which side of a divide you'd fall).