Cameron H.

I'll give you that, but I still stand by my assertion that being an originator or being influential doesn't automatically mean you're "The Best." If I'm permitted to switch metaphors for a moment, I'd say that Carl Perkins and Gene Vincent were both fine musicians, but I'm mainly aware of them because they influenced The Beatles.

I suppose, but had they not done it, someone else would have. It's not like they directed it. It's revolutionary because it was the first, not because it it was groundbreaking. No one knows - or really cares - who hit the first home run. It's not that it's not important, but it's more of a foot note. What people care about are people like Micky Mantle and Babe Ruth. People who elevated it to an art form. (Not that this isn't art.) Something like 2001 and Star Wars required people to invent new ways of doing new things, but I feel like Duck Soup was inventing new ways so they could do the same things. I can't say that Psycho would still exist if wasn't for Alfred Hitchcock or Citizen Kane without Orson Welles. And, again, I'm not shitting on Duck Soup. However, I will say that, in my personally rankings, it's right on the cusp of movies that I think should be kept and movies that, aren't necessarily bad, but ones I probably wouldn't shed a tear for if they got dropped.

I mean, it's a fine comedy, but there's no pathos. There's no emotional center. And I think this goes back to what Conan was saying about (oh, I'm going to fuck this up) sentimentality (Chaplin) vs Anarchy (Marx Bros). For me, a good drama has elements of comedy and a good comedy should have elements of drama. That's what I mean by "one note." So, yes, there are different styles of comedy in it, but it's still, essentially, a zany comedy. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it bad. But without that depth of scope, I don't know how it can be considered "the greatest." It has really good jokes, but so does Airplane!. Furthermore, as I said before, Duck Soup isn't doing anything terribly compelling from a filmmaking perspective. The cinematography and direction are both pretty basic. There aren't any great leaps in technique - aside from it being a talking comedy. I'm just asking, besides "The Marx Bros are some funny dudes," why does this deserve to be on the list?

I think my issue with Duck Soup, and the thing I brought up in my Letterboxd review, is with the countless of movies available to me, I don’t know if it exactly transcends to the point of “best of all time.” It’s great. It’s clever. It’s funny. But as they touched on in the episode, that’s pretty much all its got going on. The acting, direction, and cinematography are all just kind of fine. The plot is basically non-existent. What I expect from a “Best of All Time” type movie is something that can play more than one note. So, while I think DS is great and everyone should definitely watch it, I feel like it isn’t quite multidimensional enough to be included on a “Best of” list - unless that list is specifically for Comedies. I keep wanting to pick another comedy that could replace it on the list, and while I’m not exactly sure why, my brain keeps wanting to suggest Coming to America and/or Groundhog Day.

No, that’s cool. I think you’re right in that having the foreknowledge that it was going to be Groucho kind of filled in some gaps. I’m just saying it doesn’t live in a completely “plot point free continuum.” It’s pretty lean, but it’s there.

I didn’t say it was much of a plot device, just that it was one. And in my opinion, far more shoe-horned in - and feels much more like a studio note - as it’s a bunch of characters we don’t know literally telling what’s going on and what’s about to happen. Conan made it sound like there was zero exposition and that we were just dropped into this world where Groucho was the leader. If that were the case, the first minute (sorry, I didn’t bother to double check) would have been cut. I though someone said she loved him. My mistake.

I find it weird that Conan praises the movie for having a plot device to install Groucho as leader, but the first two or three minutes are just that (I.e. Freedonia is bankrupt and need Mrs. Teasdale’s money, but she will only give them the money they need if they install Firefly, a man she loves, as the new leader). Although, to be fair, those first few minutes are pretty boring and he might have just forgot...

Listening to Amy and Paul gush over Duck Soup makes me kind of wish their fathers showed it to me when I was a kid

Happy Halloween, everyone! Have fun, be dumb, stay safe

Raiders Of The Lost Ark UNSPOOLED #23OCTOBER 17, 2018 This week Amy and Paul uncover 1981’s rollicking Indiana Jones adventure Raiders Of The Lost Ark! They ask if Indy is actually a good archeologist, find out whether Belloq really ate a fly, and discuss what makes the film’s action sequences so irresistible to kids. Plus: Indiana Jones superfan Guy Klender shares his wealth of Indy knowledge, and talks about his work on the Raiders fan remake. What do you think the film The African Queen is about? If you haven’t seen it, call the Unspooled voicemail line at 747-666-5824 with your best guess! Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, get more info at unspooledpod.com, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts.

Not to mention a pretty bitchin’ drum solo.

Reeeeeeaaaaally....?

I just can't agree with "coincidence, no story." If it were just a movie where stuff happens, then there would be no reason to make one of the characters a missionary and have them be prominently delivered in the movie through prayer. From my point of view, the movie is pretty specific. It's about a divine being (Rose) experiencing humanity and a man experiencing divinity (Allnut) and how their shared experience elevates each of them. Along the way, they are faced with obstacles that test their faith and resolve. After successfully navigating through a number of "impossible" trials, they face their toughest challenge - a floral paradise. Despite everything they’ve been through, it is in this moment of Temptation that Rose confesses that even she's having some doubts. However, they persevere. Ultimately, they face their oppressors and are punished by being hanged from a cross...er, I mean a yardarm (an object that looks absolutely nothing like a cross...) This is why I understand the original ending as the movie would have culminated with our Christ figures (joined as one) making the ultimate sacrifice, but through their sacrifice, they save others. The torpedo blowing up the German ship would have then represented their ascension to Heaven. That being said, I totally get why the studio would want to change that. Obviously, Paul and Amy didn't see the movie the same way. They said they weren't really sure what they were looking at. Paul said it didn't really jibe for him as a "Hope and Crosby 'Road To..'" movie or as a "Rom-Com." The problem is, the movie isn't either of those things. So if that's what you're looking for or expecting, you're probably going to be disappointed. It might feel like it doesn't have a point or coalesce properly. For myself, I see all the religious stuff because, as a Literature Major brought up in a church, I'm probably a bit predisposed to see it. And this all leads me back to my original question: does secularism affect ones viewing of The African Queen? This isn't a knock on anyone or their beliefs (or lack thereof). I just wonder if the reason that its lost some of its prestige is because, in the last 70 years, society as a whole has become more secular thus making it harder for modern audiences to relate to its religious themes. In other words, if you're not looking for the allegorical/metaphorical/whatever, or if it's lost on you, is it even possible for it to resonate in the way in which it was intended?

(Psst...if you don’t mind swirling stars it’s on YouTube)

For the first question, I'm honestly pretty terrible at recognizing directors. Unless it's someone super well-known, I probably wouldn't know if it was their first film or tenth. So, I guess my answer would have to be no. For the second question, for me, a good story can absolutely transcend bad CGI. I feel like I have a movie on the tip of my tongue that would be a good example, but it's eluding me at the moment. I'll post it later if it comes to me.

Everything you’ve ever wanted to know about the cutthroat world of jukebox rentals. We watched:

WHERE’S THE ISLAND OF DR MOREAU!?!

That's interesting. It just seems like such a weird criteria. Like I said before, sure they make for interesting stories, but ultimately, who cares? There are tons of ambitious projects of varying degrees of quality. If I truly felt like a painting was mediocre, I wouldn't shower it with accolades just because the artist painted it while drunk in the desert while a crazy person yelled obscenities at them. I guess I also find it odd that people just assume that people already know these stories. For example, during the Apocalypse Now episode, Amy and Paul posited that perhaps the reason the film is so well regarded has more to do with the insanity of the production than the quality of the film, but...how many people really knew about the filming? I certainly didn't. And knowing it now has had zero impact on how I feel about it. Same for Titanic. Now, of course, maybe this is something AFI voters specifically give a shit about. I don't know. Maybe they really are like, pencil to lips, "Hmmm...Well, I prefer The Third Man, but Katherine Hepburn had to crap in a jungle so..." And, no worries! I'm not worried about anyone demeaning my love for the film - lol. We all like what we like. It's really nbd. I was just curious is all. It's been brought up a few times now, and when I heard it this time, I couldn't help thinking, "I have literally never based my opinion of a movie on the conditions under which it was filmed." I just wondered if anyone here had.

So, I just finished the episode and I have question for the boards. Does anyone here actually rank these movies higher on their personal lists based on how difficult the shoot was? Not difficult in a special effects type of way, but straight up, “This was a tough shoot in the jungle with a crazy director so I’m going to go ahead and give it an extra half a star?” It’s come up a few times on the show and it just feels kind of bogus to me. Personally, I’ve been ranking these movies before I listen to the episodes, and I know next to nothing about most of them until after I've listened to the episode. And while their arguments might sway me a little bit, I’ve never been like, “Sounds like a rough shoot, I guess I’ll move this above All About Eve...” I feel like I’m being a bit of a contrarian this week (although I’m not going to apologize for liking a movie), but I’m genuinely curious. Because for me, it’s always been more about the product than the process. All that anecdotal stuff is interesting, but ultimately, what matters to me is what’s up on the screen. Does it really matter to AFI voters, or to anyone? Also, while I get what Paul was saying about Bogart’s Academy Award, I’m not sure I buy his argument that The African Queen is on the AFI list to represent “Old Hollywood” and the Classics. Not when there are, by my count, 28 other films on the list that could just as easily represent the old guard - three of which even star Bogart! I I mean, I get that they weren’t really into it and didn’t feel like it deserved to be on the list, and that’s fine, but I feel like that particular argument is a bit of a stretch. It just feels a bit conspiratorial to me (“Since I wasn’t personally feeling it, that must mean there were ulterior motives in play for it be included.”) Or...it could just be you didn’t really like it, but it is still worthy - which is more or less how I feel about Apocalypse Now

Great! Thanks to Ghost I now have to chew my face off

I’m listening to the episode now, and I wonder if secularism affects one’s enjoyment of the film. While I don’t know where Amy and Paul land on a Spiritual level, I’ve noticed when it comes to the presentation of Christianity in these films, particularly Christian metaphors, they tend to either miss them completely or make shallow generalizations. For example, Paul was amazed that Rose “wasn’t Puritanical” and had expected her to be “not so well-rounded.” Amy said she would have expected her character to be more “priggish.” However, there’s never anything in the film - especially in the first couple of scenes they were discussing - to suggest that she should be any of those things. While some Christians can be rigid and uptight, most Christians cuss. A lot of them drink and smoke and fuck for fun. It feels like as soon as Rose was presented as Christian, they already made up their minds about the type of person she must be, and were then “surprised” when their preconceptions were challenged. Paul then goes on to say something about how the ending didn’t fit or make sense because nothing up until that point suggested that they were going survive, but literally the whole movie is full of little miracles (e.g. Surviving the rapids, the sun in the sniper’s eye, the rain that gets them to the lake, the torpedo, their salvation). However, if you’re not looking at it from a Spiritual standpoint, it all seems like series of lucky breaks that, I guess, seem kind of dumb and trivial. I guess what I’m saying is, if you exorcise the Judeo-Christian God from the narrative, the whole thing loses a ton of meaning. Perhaps it’s a generationist mentality (it’s a new word I’m trademarking). I feel like the intended 1951 audience for this movie was probably predominantly white and Christian. We live (thankfully) in a more diverse and secular time, but the 50’s were a far more conservative (with all the baggage that goes with that). My point is, because our our society is more secular, I feel like a lot of the things might be lost on today’s audience that might have been more apparent and readily accepted seventy years ago. That doesn’t make it good or bad, necessarily. It’s just a different mindset. Just to clarify, I am not religious myself. Being raised by someone who worked for, coincidentally enough, a Methodist Church cured me of that. However, this is big reason why I still feel like it’s important to ensure my children have a passing familiarity with, not just Christianity, but all religions. Historically, Art and Literature are jam packed with religious allegory, metaphor, and allusions and if you can’t recognize it when you see it, or dismiss it out of hand when you do, you’re not experiencing it as the artist intended.

Not at all, but it depends on what the writer is trying to convey. If it was meant to be a movie about Man vs Nature then absolutely - Good vs Evil isn't necessary. But I don't think that was the writer's intention. If it was, he could have set the movie at any time, at any place, for any reason. It could have been a bunch of dumb-dumbs on safari or something. However, the writer made an intentional choice of making this movie about a Missionary and littered it with miracles. So , in that case, I believe Man vs Nature is just the backdrop for a deeper story about Faith and goodness; in which case, in order to create conflict, they have to be set at odds against their opposites: Faith vs Doubt; Good vs. Evil.

I wouldn't say it was because it was "the right thing to do" necessarily. Even though she believes they can do it, she initially wants to do it out of revenge. Allnut does it because he kind of gets bullied into it - lol. It is through their journey that they learn to let go of their pettiness and strive to achieve their goal, not for themselves, but for a higher purpose. I don't think just getting her brother to a hospital would have worked since it wouldn't have had the same Good vs Evil perspective. I also think it would be kind of boring. I feel like the movie benefits from its underdog "good will always triumph over evil" angle.

I don’t know, I think it would be difficult, but I think they could do it. There has to be some “impossible” odds for them or else it would just be a strenuous boat ride. Perhaps that’s what I respond to. These people are basically saying we’re going to do this thing no matter what. We have no training, and the odds seem hopeless, but we’re going to do it anyway. And even though everything is against us (e.g. enemy battlements, rapids, broken propellers, etc), we’re going to keep going - even if our reward for all our travails is our own deaths. The movie is about Faith with a capital “F.” It’s an allegory for life. We each face what seem to us like insurmountable odds. We fear and we despair and we act childish, but we push forward. We do so because there are things worth living for - like love and laughter and happiness. We can’t stop the river’s current. We can only flow with it the best we can. And when we get to the end, we have no idea what we’ll find there or how we’ll face it. It could just be the end or there could be something more. We can’t ever know for sure. However, the torpedo at the end, while perhaps far fetched, gives us hope. Hope that we’re not alone. That even in the face of ugliness, there’s a benevolence - whether that be Spiritual or Cosmic or just Coincidence - that watches over us. It’s a balm for our suffering and ameliorates our anguish. In other words, there is peace at the end of the River - if we can just make it there.

I’ve seen it before. I raised it from, I think, 4 Stars to 5. I don’t know, something about it really resonated with me. I liked the character development between the two characters. How they both start at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, and by the end, have met somewhere in the middle. I’m also a sucker for “against the odds” stories. Additionally, it feels so human and grounded. These two nobodies aren’t trying to win a war, just a small part of it. The challenges they face are perfectly scaled to their station. For example, Bogart’s expression when he realizes he has to get back in the water after pulling off the leeches is amazing. Compare that to Indiana Jones who “hates snakes,” but we never really see or feel that fear. He just drops in a snake pit like it’s no big deal. Of the two, I’d say Allnut displays the greater heroism. The African Queen isn’t about larger than life superheroes. It’s about people like us, flawed and fragile, doing their part to fight against evil.