Cameron H.

This was the line specifically: "You know? I knew a couple of guys could sing Sinatra under the table. But Frank, he'd come on stage with the blue eyes, the sharkskin suit, the patent leather shoes... he becomes Frank Sinatra. And everybody else, all these other guys... that really got it, that really have it inside... just a bunch of nobodies." Her father does say later that some other singer, I want to say Frankie Avalon or Frankie Vallie but the script I'm looking at doesn't mention them, says that they told him that he could also out sing Sinatra. Like I said, it's not a big deal, but would have made more sense in maybe the 70's version. In 2018, it just felt weird and lazy. ("Oh, New York Italian guys? They all love Sinatra! It doesn't matter that he was a teenager in the early 70's.") (I had no idea that was Dice)

Okay, I promise I'll get to the '37 version soon, but one thing that annoyed the crap out of me in the 2018 version (and I know this is a bit nitpicky) was how obsessed her father was with Frank Sinatra. I mean, I like Sinatra fine, but he kept telling these stories like, "I knew a this guy who was better than Sinatra, but Sinatra was the one who got famous." Like, her father couldn't have been older than 65? 70? In 2018, he would have been a child during the Sixties, what is he talking about having buddies who were better than Sinatra? Sinatra would have been in his 50's and well-established by that point. I don't even care if it's just because he likes Sinatra. Hell, I like Sinatra. But if I'm going to make a point about how people I knew were just as good as someone else, I would use someone contemporary to me. He should have been like, "I knew this blues-rock band who were better than Zeppelin, but they just didn't get the recognition. It's just another weird thing about the new movie. It was like, in some ways, they didn't even really try to update it for the times.

As a “non-Star is Born” person, I admit that I liked this one more than the greasy Bradley Cooper version. I felt like Maine was sincere with his affection in the ‘37 version whereas I felt like Jackson Maine was more about self-pity. Granted, there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two, so I guess I preferred March’s acting better. However, I will say that the newer version did at least try to give an underlying reason for Maine’s behavior, so that’s something, I guess... And I will say this, if the newer version ended with “Shallow,” I would have been all in. But from that point forward, it became more Jackson’s story than Ally’s, and I always felt ahead of it. And the peeing scene was fucking dumb. The ‘37 version felt more consistent throughout. It felt balanced between the two leads, and I actually felt sorry for Maine. I wish it didn’t have the grandma coda, but at least it didn’t end with “I Believe I Can Fly,” so that’s an improvement

I think it’s: Jammer announces on the 15th to be discussed on the 22nd. Then you announce on the 29th and we discuss the 5th. Please feel free to double check that. Going off memory right now

Love is like a metaphor, it is a simile... (Oh, wait...fuck.) We watched:

@gigi-tastic I’m so sorry to hear of your loss! For me, it’s best to dive into things were I can turn off my mind - so usually dumb TV or movies. Something entertaining enough to keep me from thinking about it, but nothing so heavy that it depresses me further. It doesn’t hurt if it’s a series of something either. Like watch all the Jurassic Parks or something. Kind of a little goal to keep you focused. Sorry, I don’t have anything more creative, but that’s what works for me.

I love Road to El Dorado!

As a father of two, I 100% concur with Paul’s parenting advice. First of all, you’re never going to be in such dire need for unsolicited parenting advice that you actually need to search something out. And secondly, like he said, what works for one child won’t necessarily work for yours. Hell, with everything being equal with my own two kids, I have to adjust how I parent to suit their individual personalities. Like Paul said, go with your gut. No one will ever understand your children’s little idiosyncrasies like you do. People have successfully raised children before podcasts and parenting books and so can you. Just accept that you’re not perfect and you’re going to fuck up, but as long as your heart’s in the right place, you’l be okay.

Lol - I mean, you’re not wrong. I just think things like that, and some of the things Taylor brought up, really are a casualty of this being the first of its kind. There’s a sense of showing off, but also of holding back. People really didn’t think it was going to work - period. So you get a sense of, “I wish we could do a scene of SW and PC talking and getting to know one another, but...that might hurt the flow. It’s also going to cost X amount more dollars that we really don’t have. Okay, well the curse can only be broken by true love’s kiss, right? Well, then we don’t need much of a courtship. It’s love at first sight, and when she wakes at the end, everyone will know that they’re perfect for each other - otherwise his kiss wouldn’t work.” So, yeah, of course it could be better, but I think, due to their circumstances, they allowed the audience to make some of these intuitive leaps.

But that’s the difference between Snow White and Grumpy. She’s an optimist and he’s a pessimist. And if it had been Grumpy, he would have probably let an old woman die in the dirt in front of him. Lol But even if Grumpy is right, who wants to be Grumpy? It would be a miserable, pessimistic existence. Even Grumpy doesn’t want to be Grumpy (and isn’t by the end). I like SW’s optimism better. Sometimes you trust people and it works out (the Dwarves) and sometimes it doesn’t (the Queen) but maybe it’s better to be wrong once and awhile than to shut yourself off completely and assume the worst of everyone. Also, the Queen gets to her, not by offering something for her - which might have been more suspicious - but by offering something for the Dwarves (“Fuck gooseberries! Apple dumplins are the way to go!”) This kind of disarms SW a bit. It’s not like, “Hey, eat this apple!” It’s “I know how you can make your friends happy.” I don’t know, I get what you’re saying. Maybe they could have had a “12 Months Later” to show she’s grown complacent, but I personally don’t feel like that is necessary.

Yes, but the Evil Queen totally manipulates Snow White. She uses the animals attacking her to her advantage and starts acting like she’s about to have a heart attack or something. Snow White is caught completely unaware, and now this woman is like, “I need to sit down.” How would any of us act if we opened the door to an old woman and our dog just attacked her? I would let the woman come in for sure. At least let her sit down and make sure she isn’t seriously injured. Snow White also has no idea that this is her stepmother. You can see her wrestle with what to do - which I like. She’s not just like, “Please, come in! Sit down!” You can see she’s really not sure what to do. She’s afraid, but she’s also the kind of person who just wants to help. Her stepmother knows this about her which is why she succeeds. She uses Snow White’s empathy, and her daydreams about that charming Prince, against her - which is pretty cool. Is that moralizing though? True story: a couple of weeks ago, I was driving my son home from school and I was telling him never to take candy from strangers. And he...kind of got it? It was a bit conceptual for him. Like, he got not to do it, but pretty much only because “Daddy says not to.” I mean, I want my kid to get why it’s important, but I also don’t want to scare him to death either. Anyway, as we were watching Snow White, he actually had an “a-ha” moment. You could see that he “got it.” It was a bit scary, but in a fantasy type way that he could easily handle and process. Now, if a stranger offers him something he wants, he can refer back to this and think, “I probably shouldn’t.” I mean, that’s great. And, yeah, if you ever come home to find food cooking away, it’s probably best not to just chow down on it

One thing that I thought was cool on this rewatch was when the Dwarves return home from work and see the food cooking over the fire, Grumpy warns them not to eat the tempting food because it might be poisoned. It’s a nice bit of foreshadowing, and also helps explain that Grumpy’s demeanor and cynicism is based at least a bit in pragmatism. It’s an interesting message in a kids movie. It’s not the happy-go-lucky Dwarves that get it right, but the one who is like, “Don’t trust anything.”

Oh, I agree. These lists can be kind of a joke. However, I think that things are definitely starting to open up. And the more diversification we see, the more likely movies like The French Connection, MASH, and Goodfellas (which tend to skew more favorably with old, cis-gendered, white dudes) will drop off in favor of other, more inclusive, movies - like Josie and the Pusseycats

I think that’s tough to judge though as it treads into the realm of subjectivity. Who among us can even agree on what’s a “good story?” Paul likes Marvel movies, Amy doesn’t. Hell, you and I can’t even agree between two Disney princesses much less every American film ever made. I’m sure all four of us have very different opinions on what makes a good story. As far as underdeveloped characters, that’s a little less subjective, but who’s to say what’s an underdeveloped character or not? I see far more depth in Snow White than you do. I see a dreamer, a romantic, a kind heart, a person trusting to a fault, a person who - despite her suffering - just wants to sing and dance and be happy. Now, is she as developed as, say, Ariel or Belle? Probably not. But I doubt that they had the same luxury of time and money as those films either, so cuts were probably made to make it work with as little as possible. So I guess the question is then, is she developed enough. Do we understand who she is and what her motivations are? Do we worry for her when she’s in danger? Do we feel happy for her when she feels safe? Do we laugh with her, and do we cry for her? If so, then I think the movie has accomplished it’s goal - especially for a children’s film which doesn’t need to be overly complex. So, taking it back to Avatar, maybe that’s why it doesn’t make the list, but Titanic does? Neither Jack or Rose are overly complex, but we still feel for them unlike Avatar-guy. I think that’s why you have to weigh these movies with things that are more objective. And that’s where cultural influence and technical achievement help to make it, to some extent, measurable.

I guess the question goes back to you then. What do you think makes a “great” movie? Because, personally, I don’t have a problem with including achievement and influence as at least part of the criteria. If nothing else, allowing for influence and achievement gives me the distance I need when I really don’t see the appeal of one of these movies.

A year or so ago we started going through the Disney catalog chronologically, and yeah, Pinocchio was shockingly bad.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but the list claims to be the “greatest American films” which, for me, means the whole process. And I try my best to not necessarily think of “greatest” as a synonym for “most enjoyable.” For example, I probably enjoy watching Big Hero Six more than Snow White, but in terms of influence, technical achievement, and moving the art of filmmaking forward, it’s certainly not the “greater” film. I mean, I’ll be honest, there are movies on this list I straight up hate, but I think deserve to be on the list for what they did for cinema. I mean, sure, there has to be some entertainment value too, but I feel like it’s got to achieve more than just that.

Weird coincidence: I just finished watching The Tooth Fairy with my son this morning.

Like Cinderella..? I have no problem with her cooking and cleaning in return for shelter. I also think it takes skill to be able to do either of those things well. Honestly, I feel like she was just being a good houseguest. She was homeless and was being pursued by her evil stepmom and was like, “Hey, I can do this for you if you help me.” I would do the same thing. It’s fine if you like Cinderella, but I think we’re really splitting hairs here. I think it comes down to a matter of taste. Any criticism you can level at Snow White (boring, no agency, poorly defined) I could level right back at Cinderella. So I’m going to let it go.

I haven’t finished it, but yes they do Sweet dreams

As a counter-anecdote, I showed this to my son yesterday, who has been raised on all sorts of Hotel Transylvania type nonsense, and he was super into it. It also, as Paul kind of brings up, has a lot of teachable moments. (e.g. This is why we don’t take candy from strangers.) Although, I think my son’s favorite early Disney movies would be either Pinocchio (which I hate) and 101 Dalmatians (which I’m not sure counts as “early” Disney).

There are whole huge sections of Cinderella where she’s not even in it. Also while perhaps truncated, the prince falls in love with Snow White for who she is - despite her rags. He has no idea that she’s a princess, he just knows he likes her voice. They even duet together showing their compatibility. Contrast this with Cinderella whose Prince falls in love with her exclusively because of her looks and when she’s looking her most regal. As far as agency, I think Snow shows plenty. But she’s also a little girl whose primary attribute is kindness. So, no, she’s not going to storm the Wicked Queen’s castle or anything like that, but she does find shelter for herself and barters a new life with the Dwarves utilizing the skills she possesses. No one ever intervenes on her behalf and no one - neither the Prince, nor the Dwarves - ever tells her what to do. If anything, she’s the one saying, “No, no - this is how it’s going to be.”