Cameron H.

That's a good point. I'll try to remember to do that, but I can't promise anything. Some Mondays I'm scrambling myself just to create the thread without looking up the order. nvm - I suppose I'm looking up the order when I'm creating the thread. I can make that work. (Guys, I'm really tired - lol)

Awesome!

Hey all! I think it might be time to do a little Spring Cleaning I love Musical Mondays. It’s been something I look forward to every week since we started this thing. That being said, I realize that many of us (including myself) are in a far different place than where we were 2 1/2 (???) years ago. In the past year, more and more people have dropped out. And that’s totally fine. There’s never been a hard rule regarding participation. Everyone has always been welcome and everyone has been free to drop in as they please and life allowed. That being said, it’s been difficult for me to find the time to create these threads (not that I mind) much less track down people when it’s their turn. And that’s not a judgment, at all. I totally get it. Being able to watch movies in this way really is a luxury that not many people have time for anymore. So, I guess it’s time to re-evaluate. The obvious question is: do we want to continue or has Musical Mondays run its course? Personally, I would hate for it to end, but if the interest isn’t there, then there’s no reason to continue. If we want to continue, I feel like we should kind of re-sign up. Does that sound fair? That way the people who want to keep going can. And, please, everyone is absolutely welcome forever (Once in MM, always in MM) I just feel like this will cut down some of the “Who’s week is it?” stuff. And when people have the free time again in the future, they are more than welcome to join back up again. Sound fair? I am resigning up. Please let me know if you would like to as well.

I just spoke with Sarah, and she would like to be taken out of the rotation for the time being. Next up is @EternalSammich whom I have just dropped a line. If I don't hear back from her, it will be @EvRobert's turn. Stay tuned...

Hey all! I just realized this was coming up this week. Just wanted to touch base with you all and see what night works best

I think the thing that I found the most perplexing was Mr. Wasey’s motivation. Like I got why Mr. Burns/Farraday wanted him. And I got why Ms. Tatlock, as a missionary, was willing to put up with his nonsense. I even got why he needed their help to get back to LA. What I couldn’t understand was how at some point this nipple obsessed, neon tie salesman became the point man in the investigation. Once his character cleans up, everyone just sort of steps aside and let’s this crazy vagrant lead the investigation. He’s not a detective! He’s just some dude that just happens to look like some other guy. That’s it. Yet the movie tries to portray him as some kind of street savvy gumshoe. He’s not. We’re not even talking about a Mr Allnut situation from The African Queen where he’s some guy who has been around long enough that he’s become an expert at navigating the local climate. He sells nudie ties. That’s what he does. Nothing about him makes him particularly well-suited to negotiate with corrupt cops, drug dealers, or mobsters. What would have made more sense is if it were explained that he was some kind of disgraced, but talented, detective that had fled to Shanghai to escape his troubles. Everything could pretty much stay the same, except his character’s motivation for sticking around and wanting to figure out what’s going on would make way more sense. The movie would then become a journey of redemption and self-discovery rather than just about some skeevy, pornographic cravat salesmen who somehow knows how to rig the trigger of a Shanghai Surprise.

I think it was more the novelty of the pitch that impressed him. Anyone can throw a fastball, but not many can throw a (decent) knuckleball.

I’m telling you, it’s the best! It’s like, “Next stop, Slumbertown!” ::woot woot::

There’s also a line where Clarice is told that Bill was rejected for sexual reassignment based on his psychological tests. I think this is one of those lines that one reviewer was criticizing, but it did go a long way to alleviate some of my concerns. Essentially, the movie wasn’t saying, “He’s crazy because he wants to be transitioned,” but rather “He wasn’t transitioned because he was so crazy.” It might seem like a bit of semantics, but I think there’s a world of difference between saying “here’s a psychotic, trans person” and “here’s a psychotic person - who happens to be trans.” Granted, I am totally speaking from a place of cisgendered, male privilege and this doesn’t really get into the issue of representation at all. It definitely matters if the only time trans people even show up in a movie is to play either a psychopath or a punchline. I think this has (maybe?) gotten a little better, but excluding maybe The World According to Garp, I think this was especially true of the time.

I apologize! I’m commenting as I’m listening when I probably shouldn’t be, but I have to comment on the “fish smell” thing because that bothered the fuck out of me at the time, but I eventually (I think) figured it out. After they are thrown into the oubliette of fish, they go to the baths where they can both get cleaned off. When they get out, Madonna complains that Penn still reeks. My initial response was that she should to, but what I failed to realize at the time was that she’s in new clothes provided by the baths, and he’s in the same clothes he was in when they were thrown in. Maybe the clothes provided to Madonna cost money and he just couldn’t afford them? Regardless, this is why when they return to Mr. Burns/Farraday, he makes a point to give Penn cash to “buy some new clothes.”

Regarding White Noise, instead of birds, which I don’t have any particular objections to, if Paul’s son is into Thomas the Tank Engine, YouTube has a lot of great ASMR train sounds. For my son, I usually pick “train in the rain.” There are tons of videos. They generally have a nice rhythmic quality with the pleasant hush of the rain. It also allows your son to imagine riding on one of the Steamies of Sodor as he drifts off to sleep. I’ve been putting it on for my eldest for years, and he’s always really enjoyed it.

While I agree that the graphics shot felt a little out of place in the movie, I disagree with the gang that they should have shown a head on shot of the knuckle ball being thrown. I mean, honestly, setting aside people that might be avid baseball fans, how many people in the audience would actually be able to recognize a knuckle ball from another pitch on sight? It would have just be Sean Penn throwing a ball and everyone in the movie freaking out about how magical it was. Showing it slowed down and from the side, the movie emphasized the unusual mechanics of a knuckleball (i.e. low velocity, minimal spin) and underscored just how special that might seem to someone who appreciates the game, but is unacquainted with the pitch. The movie didn’t do much very well, but I have to say, I’m team “side knuckleball” all the way.

Just a friendly reminder we’ve got a date to schling a schlong tonight...

Amy and Paul suit up for 1982’s gender-bending Dustin Hoffman comedy Tootsie! They ask whether Michael is really a great actor, praise Bill Murray’s scene-stealing performance, and compare the film to last year’s Best Picture winner. Plus: drag comedian Roz Drezfalez (“Ghosted” podcast) tells us why he loved Tootsie as a kid. For Silence Of The Lambs week, help us create a menu for Hannibal Lecter’s next meal! Call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 in your best Hannibal impression.Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com [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 Koda (www.ooni.comcode: UNSPOOLED) and Black Tux (www.blacktux.com code: UNSPOOLED).

This week Paul & Amy investigate 1976’s journalistic thriller All The President’s Men! They learn about the controversy surrounding who wrote the screenplay, appreciate the unshowy direction of Alan Pakula, and ask whether Woodward & Bernstein are a true cinematic ‘odd couple.’ Plus: Liz Hannah, the screenwriter of The Post, tells us whether her film was an intentional prequel to President’s Men. What do you think the Treasure Of The Sierra Madre is? 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 Vrbo, Black Tux (www.blacktux.com code: UNSPOOLED), and Fracture (www.fractureme.com/UNSPOOLED).

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.

You know what? I already added Modern Times and The Gold Rush to my list. My bad. D’oh!

Huh, I would have thought they would have done another “State of the Podcast” episode after 50 movies...

I think the metaphor of a “Cold War” was pretty well done, but nothing about the characters drew me in to the point where it transcended to a narrative level. It felt like metaphor without context (if that makes sense). I never really understood their codependency beyond “it’s there because I said so.”

I totally agree about 9 to 5. I watched it for the first time in the last year and I was stunned by how well it held up (and saddened by how little things had changed.) The movie even ends with a joke about how even though most of their demands will be met, they still aren’t going to give them equal pay. I don't necessarily know if I would go so far as to put it on the list, but I would certainly place it ahead of Tootsie.

Just to kick things off here, I thought Cold War was absolutely beautiful. Visually, it was a stunner. Unfortunately, I couldn't really connect with the characters. I didn't really care if they ended up together or not. Neither Wiktor nor Zula made much of an impression on me one way or the other. Still, it was absolutely gorgeous to look at.

Yeah, that was my Letterboxd review “Tootsie is a great movie even though at times it feels like the chauvinistic equivalent of the “white-savior” trope (penis-savior?) That being said, it never feels like it’s being purposefully condescending or malicious. It’s trying to do something good, but I’d argue that maybe 9 to 5 does it better?”

I suppose so, but I still think that message could have been made more apparent. Even on the episode, Paul and Amy has to pause for a moment to confirm, “Oh yeah, he was kind of a dick at the party.” That’s really the only scene where he behaves that way toward women, so if we want to make that “the point” then it needed to have been better woven into the picture. And I still think the that “ability to empathize” would have been more interesting, and more appropriately directed, with him having to confront Dorothy's legion of admirers than with the one woman he clearly wanted to sleep with. There’s too much space for ulterior motives with Julie. Has he really changed or is he just saying these things because he thinks she’s pretty? It’s obvious what the movie wants us to believe, but I think it that point could have been hit harder. If he had to open up to the woman who look like and looked up to Dorothy, that would have been a statement. Saying “I’ve changed” to Julie, means nothing to me.

Another aspect of Tootsie that fails for me is its resolution - or its lack thereof. The movie ends with Michael trying to make up with Julie, but pretty much ignores or glosses over all the other lingering plot threads. In doing so, at literally the last minute, the movie seems to want to shift its focus on their relationship, making that the central theme of the movie, rather than what seemed to be its central focus from the beginning. Namely, watching a chauvinistic man grow as a person after experiencing the challenges of being a woman firsthand. If the whole point of the movie had just been about them getting together, then I would expect the movie to start with that being the goal. For example, it could have started with him watching the generic Hospital Soap and admiring Julie from afar, and then taking on the role of Dorothy specifically to get closer to her. Granted, this doesn't make Michael a very likable guy (not that he is anyway), but it makes for a clear narrative thread. (I like this person > I'll do what it takes to be close to this person > through my misdeeds, I inadvertently learn a valuable lesson that makes me a better person > being a better person makes me worthy of the person of my affection) Before Michael meets Julie, love doesn't even seem to be something that's his radar one way or another. For example, there's not a scene with Jeff or somebody telling him he needs to settle down and him saying, "Acting is my passion. I don't have time for a relationship." There's just nothing. I'm not saying that it can't be a part of the narrative, but it's a really strange decision to think that after everything else that has happened over the course of the movie, that's the thing they felt needed the most closure. Honestly, what I think what might have improved Tootsie is if he had been exposed as Dorothy earlier in the film. We needed to see the fallout beyond, "the person I'm attracted to hates me now." How do all the women who looked up to "Dorothy" as a role model feel? She was popular because she seemed to be "just like them." An inspiration for millions has turned out to be a fraud, how does that play out? How does the soap opera handle the situation? Do they keep Michael on or is he fired? Is he sued? Do people protest Jeff's play? Is it more successful then it might have been because it stars the man who pretended to be "Dorothy?" And most of all, how does Michael's experience as "Dorothy" help him navigate the fallout? What has he really learned?

That’s a damned impressive catch, Eagle Eye...