Cameron H.

100% I was kind of shocked that they suggested on the podcast that he was a "likable" character. I think he's there, as you said, as an obstacle and also as kind of a joke. Like, "Who is this dweeby, overcompensating, middle-class white dude that Jules is apparently such good enough friends with that he trusts him to help dispose of a body? Isn't it funny that they're friends and that tough guy Jules defers to him?" I think the whole thought process behind it was entirely, "Who could I have Jules call that would be last person the audience would expect?" I don't think it's much deeper than that. He was just trying to subvert expectations.

Exactly. It’s not like they are unaware the Transformer movies exist. If they really wanted to do one, they would have. Don’t be a pest.

I totally agree. I appreciate the bit, but it’s kind of played out now. I don’t even feel like the Transformers movies are a good fit for the show. They’re bad, but not every bad movie needs to be discussed, you know? The Transformers movies are a two and a half hour migraine.

Yes! I meant to bring this up as well! Honestly, all we know about these guys is that they are hit men, that Vincent has been in Amsterdam for three years, and they work different areas of town. They don’t really come off to me as pen pals. To me, they came off more as co-workers. You try to have an easy relationship with them because if you don’t, it just makes your work life harder. They might have sort of known each other from before Amsterdam, but you wouldn’t exactly call them friends. Even their conversations sounded more like things work acquaintances talk about to kill the time. For example, in my previous job, there were a couple of guys I used to hang out with whenever work was slow. We’d talk about everything - politics, religion, relationships, movies. We all looked out for each other. From the outside, we all seemed pretty close, but as soon as I quit, we all immediately lost touch. Vincent and Jules are the guys in the trenches. They respect each other, they like each other, but they’re not close. Vincent doesn’t know Jules doesn’t eat pork. Jules doesn’t seem to be into drugs - beyond maybe pot. Vincent doesn’t know Jules’ friends. They’re cordial with one another because the alternative is to have to work with someone you don’t really like. We tend to unconsciously force these relationships, which can involve real affection, to help keep our sanity in the face of vocational boredom. So, yeah, I think their relationship is done well, but not in the way described in the episode.

Amy and Paul drink in 1966's black relationship comedy Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? They learn about Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton's status as the Brangelina of their day, ask which member of the ensemble is the meanest, and wonder if George and Martha are truly in love after all. Plus: A new tasting segment, this time with a very rare spirit! What do you think is in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction? Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your answer! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. Photo credit: Kim Troxall This episode is brought to you by Ooni Wood Fired Pizza Oven (www.ooni.com code: UNSPOOLED10) and Betterhelp (www.betterhelp.com/unspooled).

I have to agree. Even if I don’t really care for his movies all that much, i have admit that there’s definitely a pre and post Pulp Fiction Hollywood.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Pulp Fiction (or Tarantino at all, really). I think before this re-watch I might have seen it once. However, on this viewing, I was pretty into it. It’s funny that they described Tarantino as a nerd as that was how I described the film in my Letterboxd review. It’s a nerdy guy’s vision of what cool is. However, that doesn’t make it bad. If anything, I think that artifice kind of heightens the movie. I also agree that Vincent is not cool, but I don’t really think he’s meant to be. My read on him is he’s kind of a dork who is trying to seem cooler, smarter, and more important than he actually is. As for whether it belongs on the list. My initial thought was, yes, but I’m the low end. However as I started to weigh it against the other movies covered so far, I ended up ranking it pretty high. When all is said and done, it might be in my Top 50 - which is mind blowing to me.

That video just gave me so much anxiety

Tom found this and I posted on the Pluto Nash thread. It’s dated July 2nd. I think it’s still kind of up, but for how long...

Sad news - it looks like Rabbit is in the process of being closed down

Yay!

Has anyone found any other options? I’ve searched YouTube, Hoopla, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Tubi, Freeform, and Crackle. My library doesn’t have it, and I’m personally trying to get rid of my physical media so the Amazon prices are a bit much for something I’m just going to turn around and get rid of. Any other places I can look? I want to watch it, but I’m kind of at a loss right now.

Hmm...I’m not seeing it anywhere. Amazon just has the second one and iTunes doesn’t have it at all.

Sweet! I’ve always wanted to watch this!

God, I’d really love to be a part of this conversation. Unfortunately, even though the movie was less than two hours long, I was somehow unable to finish it before my rental period ended. To be clear, I had ample time to watch it. I just couldn’t watch more than three minutes at a time due to apathy. I finished a bunch of sudoku puzzles though...

To be fair, you copy and pasted the same comment in the Gone With the Wind thread and it's still up in all its glory. Maybe it was deleted from here because it was redundant to have it in two locations (basically spamming the boards) and wasn't pertinent to Virginia Woolf? I'm sorry you were upset by the episode. You make some valid points. However, the way you're going about it is maybe not the best way. You can be angry and make your case without being confrontational. Anyway, if you don't like the hosts and don't like the fans, maybe you should just stop listening. It will make you feel better. There's no need to add extra stress to your life over a non-compulsory podcast about movies.

I made you all a thread you little couch monsters

Yes, but this is more to draw parallels between the couples, is it not? In Nick and Honey, we’re seeing George and Martha twenty something years ago - except instead of being unable to conceive, Honey had an abortion. It wouldn’t make sense theatrically for the only other couple in the movie to not relate. The question is whether or not they follow the same path or break the cycle. To the other point, the reason I don’t like that particularly rationale is that it suggests that if a woman - or anyone really - makes the independent choice that what they want more than anything is to be a homemaker and that having children is the most important thing in the world to them, that that choice somehow makes them less-than. I’m not saying you specifically, but I’ve definitely encountered that thinking generally. For me, that’s just placing people in another box. In my mind, true equality means being able to chase your bliss however you see fit without limit or judgment. That’s why I don’t find the idea of her being torn up by infertility to be particularly “outdated.” There are people in 2019 that feel the exact same way Martha does. That’s why I said, as long as it’s what she actually wants, and not something being forced upon her by George or somebody else, then who cares? Would it have improved the movie if what Martha wanted was to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Even if the trope feels overused, it’s something almost universal. At some point during their life, most people will probably have to make a decision about starting a family. Whether they choose to start one or not is irrelevant. The fact that they can place themselves in her shoes is enough.

I guess I just didn't get that Woolf was trying to be particularly "forward-thinking" so much it was an intimate character study. You said in your original post that the movie showed the "negative effect" of what not being able to have a baby can have on a woman and that this contributed to it feeling "outdated." Maybe I'm misunderstanding yours and Amy's point, but I just don't feel like the idea of Martha wanting to have a baby, and her subsequent frustration at their inability to conceive, to be inherently "outdated." No one in the film (surprisingly) ever tells her, "You are less of a woman because you haven't had a child." She's disappointed because she's being denied something that SHE wants by factors beyond her control. Societal pressure really doesn't come into play at all - at least not overtly. And I assume, much like the homosexual thing, had Albee or Nichols really wanted that to be part of the story they were telling, they could have easily written it into the plot. Ultimately, I interpreted Woolf to be a story about the damage unfulfilled dreams - particularly ones that never come to pass due to circumstances beyond your control - can wreak upon an individual, and by extension, their relationships. In this case, Albee choose for that dream to be represented as a baby. And while I suppose it could have been represented by just about anything, I don't feel like it necessarily had to be something else either. Unless of course the complaint is: "She's a woman so of course the writer made the manifestation of all her hopes and desires a baby." But as long as Martha retains her agency, I really don't see a problem with that.

Does it help to think of them not as representative of all women and men, but merely as characters unto themselves? Or, at the very most, merely representatives of a certain population?

I’m sure there are some videos out there from the long, long ago, but I think they more or less stopped before they began. I think Paul said in a mini one time that there’s a whole rights thing with video that they don’t have to deal with when it’s strictly audio. Also, I want to say there was something said in Spontaneanation about Largo, where most Earwolf live episodes are tapped, no longer allowing video recordings. That doesn’t necessarily explain why they can’t film when they’re on the road, but I think that goes back to the first point. A rights issue and it being more trouble than it’s worth.

Aside from just “it’s plot relevant so the characters need say something,” my head cannon explanation for why George tells Martha not to bring up their “son,” and why Martha spoils the beans to Honey so quickly, is that the next day, Sunday, really is their “son’s” birthday. Or rather, it’s the 16th anniversary of when they decided to invent him therefore making it his “birthday.” Because of that, I think it’s the day when the balance between illusion and reality is at its most tenuous. Their son is forefront in their minds so they are more likely to say something - especially after heavily drinking for 5 hours. It’s the reason that it being Sunday, or rather Son-day, is so significant. And why, as George says, it will last “all day.”

Just some additional trivia regarding George and Martha Washington is that George Washington himself was infertile (hence there not being any Georgie Jrs). In fact, it was a major reason why he was a popular choice for the first president as it prevented any chance of the presidency becoming an hereditary title like there was in Britain. The irony, of course, is that the man known as the father of our country was incapable of having children of his own. All in all, I enjoy the Washington/United States metaphor as it applies to Virginia Woolf. That something so promising was rooted in a dysfunction it can’t help but infect subsequent generations.

Thank you so much!