Episode 90: Pakula's Paranoia Trilogy

[00:00:19] Speaker A: Hello everyone and welcome to Odd Trilogies with Logan and Andy. I'm Logan Sowash. [00:00:23] Speaker B: And I'm Andy Carr. [00:00:25] Speaker A: In Odd Odd Trilogies, we take a trio of films where they're tied by cast and crew, numerical order, thematic elements, and we discuss the good, the bad and the weird surrounding each film. And today we are doing Not a Spooky Season because of course, it's November, it's done with Spooky Season. No one talks about horror after October. You know, it's not like horror is. It's not like horror films are constantly released throughout the entire year to the point where October is kind of useless. [00:00:54] Speaker B: We have to wait when it goes through more months before another horror movie be discussed. [00:00:59] Speaker A: Although Terrifier 3 did come out in October, which you did cover for the website, if I remember. And so, hey, at least that's there. [00:01:08] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:01:09] Speaker A: But to start off November, we decided to choose a trilogy that was Andy's recommendation, which now going through the trilogy, I'm absolutely glad he recommended it because it is a fascinating trilogy that of course delves into paranoia of three different kinds, which in case you haven't listened to our last episode, our trilogy today is Alan J. Pakula's Paranoia trilogy, which includes 1971's Clute, 1974's The Parallax View, and 1976's all the President's Men. So if you are a normal casual movie viewer, probably the only thing that you've heard from those three films that you're aware of is probably all the President's Men, just because of its definitely. [00:01:54] Speaker B: The most high profile. [00:01:55] Speaker A: Yeah. And it's probably his most popular film, I would probably say. [00:02:00] Speaker B: Yeah, I would think so. [00:02:03] Speaker A: Other than, I guess, Sophie's Choice, you know. [00:02:05] Speaker B: Well, that's true. Sophie's Choice is kind of a. Although that's kind of ubiquitous just for the saying, like the term a Sophie's Choice. I would bet a lot more people know the term than have seen the movie. [00:02:18] Speaker A: Yes. [00:02:19] Speaker B: But yeah, yeah, this is the. This Paranoia trilogy, as it's called, is kind of an informal cultural trilogy. It wasn't a trilogy that Pekula set out to make. It doesn't follow the same characters. No, it's really just something that kind of Film enthusiasts and film historians and critics over the years have kind of dubbed a trilogy due to their similar thematic natures. But like you implied earlier, Logan, it is kind of. Although it's all the Paranoia Trilogy, they're all kind of dealing in different varieties of paranoia. [00:03:05] Speaker A: Yes. [00:03:05] Speaker B: Different areas in which you Know, our society, and especially society in the. In the 70s, was feeling paranoid about different things. [00:03:18] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. [00:03:18] Speaker B: Yeah. This was a blind recommendation from me. I hadn't seen any of these, but I had always wanted to see all the President's Men and I'd heard things about the other two. [00:03:31] Speaker A: Because you hadn't even seen all the President's Men. [00:03:33] Speaker B: When you mentioned that was the thing. [00:03:35] Speaker A: That shocked me because I thought initially that you were introducing this trilogy because, like most people, again, of all the three films here of Pukula's filmography, I think the only film before this trilogy I had seen in full was all the President's Men. Like, he had a career, of course, before the 70s. I mean, most notably, I didn't even know this until looking up more of his filmography. He was a producer on the Gregory Pratt To Kill a Mockingbird film. So, like, he had been a producer for a while too, as well and had been in the industry for at least a decade before he does this trilogy. And ultimately, what's so fascinating about this trilogy is that the fact that most people are very well aware of the paranoia and conspiracy surrounding, you know, the retelling of the Watergate scandal as well as Bernstein and Woodward's, you know, expose on that. But what's fascinating is the fact that Pekula clearly had an interest devolving into paranoia and conspiracies and how much that can infect not only society, but also the human and the person that is dealing with discovery in these paranoias. [00:04:40] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:04:41] Speaker A: By. In the span of five years, having three different films that tackle different facets of paranoia. [00:04:47] Speaker B: Yeah. Clearly his interests were kind of in one place, just as a. As a storyteller. [00:04:53] Speaker A: Yeah. And you would. You could maybe even argue, you think it's because of, like, all of them are based off of written works. But that's not the case because the first film in our trilogy, Clute, is entirely original. It is a original, like, you know, neo noir psychological thriller that is like, basically was based off of brothers Andy and Dave Lewis, specifically, Andy being, I think, you know, into interested in serials at the time that they wrote the story that had something to do with finding a murderer or basically finding a murderer surrounding a brother or something like that with a family and basically giving the inspiration to Clute, where, you know, in this film, it is mainly of our paranoia. We are starting, you know, perfectly starting with personal paranoia more so than anything, where it's like. Yeah, interesting enough it is. Each film in this trilogy almost amps it up in a way that when we get to all the presidents. Yeah. And hilariously enough though, even with that scale, all the President's Men feels more restrained than Parallax View, which is also fascinating to think and I mean, but did not get too ahead of myself with Clute as the start of this trilogy. It is fascinating to see kind of the start of the 70s in it being out in 1971, seeing just the look and feel of what we would know as classic 70s cinema. Kind of starting where. Yeah, clearly transitioning. [00:06:30] Speaker B: Yeah. From like late 60s, the new wave. Right. With like Scorsese and De Palma. Yes, all of those guys. And Pekula is not really one that comes up in that, but you can definitely see he was on that train with that. With that movement in. [00:06:46] Speaker A: Oh, for sure. [00:06:46] Speaker B: Yeah. This movie, I mean, definitely for early 70s, looks very striking and very naturalist in a way that like you don't really see from the 60s. [00:06:57] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, I will also do a bit of a disclaimer going into this trilogy for a lot of people that are listening to is that the conversations and the topics that we'll talk about with each three of these films are topics that are now, I think, a lot more commonplace than when these films are coming out. And preferably just starting with Clute. There's an idea of like, isn't it crazy that a man that came from suburbia is into, you know, maybe is a bit of a sexual deviant. Which now if you say that out loud, it is like, hey, that's not too surprising. But in 1971, the way that it's handled, I mean, all three of these films have those kind of topics. And we'll talk about it more with the other two. But like, what's so great about Pekula as a director is the fact that even though we both were well aware once we got into it of like the themes and the topics of like. Oh, I can. I understand where they're going for. For this. We are used to these topics in some way, shape or form. But it's the way that he makes them feel so fresh in its execution. [00:08:00] Speaker B: Is what makes it fun. Certainly the execution. And also, I mean like those ideas, frankly were fresh at the time. Like, yes, you know that there's a lot, especially in Klute, but kind of in all these, that's sort of transgressive in its. Not just its aesthetic storytelling, but like the subject matter. I mean, like here in Klute, one of our main characters is a escort prostitute, effectively a high end prostitute. [00:08:30] Speaker A: Slash Coal Girl. [00:08:32] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's, you know, a very sympathetic kind of, you know, depiction of that life and also the kind of the pitfalls of it as well and that sort of thing. And so, yeah, I mean, a lot of the stuff that's going on in these movies, yes, may seem quaint now, but, like, at that time, they were really pushing the envelope. [00:08:56] Speaker A: Oh, you can also tell just how new these concepts are for 1971, for the fact that there's an entire conversation. Jane Fonda's Bree Daniels, who is basically one of the co leads, basically is the lead of the film. [00:09:10] Speaker B: Yeah, pretty much. [00:09:11] Speaker A: Even though. Even though Donald Sutherland's name is literally. [00:09:15] Speaker B: Koot, he's the title character. [00:09:18] Speaker A: But Bree Daniels, Jane Fonda's character, is definitely more the protagonist and the heart of the film. But she has a whole conversation with her therapist about just how, you know, being a call girl gives her so much control because she can just be in a room with a man and she has full control with no kind of fear whatsoever. Which is just wild to hear that. Now when it's thinking about, like, how you. If you talk to someone now about that kind of scenario of being alone with a stranger, a woman being alone with a male stranger in a room, it would be the opposite conversation. But it is fascinating to hear just in that. Just seeing with 71, like, yes, of course, the sexual liberation at that time. But it is fascinating to hear just how refreshing and almost kind of rejuvenates the idea by seeing it through such a lens in 1971, especially through Fonz's character, who is like. It is fascinating to watch a film that is like, basically being like, oh, Jane Fonda is not hot enough or pretty enough to be an actress in a play in, like, New York. And like, strangely enough, you know, Pekula makes that work. And even though it's silly to think about that now, especially with how Jane Fonda has had such, you know, a long career all the way up to now, it is fun to watch the film, you know, take, you know, actors, especially the late Donald Sutherland, and take two actors that are very well known now and have basically had a career for decades after that to just kind of see them at their, like, earliest when they are basically butting into the popularity or about to get, you know, much bigger films out of this and just kind of see how both of them were just really committed to their characters and giving the story the heart it needs. Because out of all three of these films, the paranoia kind of conspiracy theory narrative is the weakest here, but not because there isn't anything else in the story. It's just the story is more interested in its characters rather than the actual mystery. Because, you know, once the mystery actually kicks up in the film, it is very interesting and very, you know, engaging and intense, but, like, it takes a while to get to that point with this. [00:11:38] Speaker B: Yeah, this. This is definitely. I mean, I think it's the most kind of character centric drama of the three of these. [00:11:49] Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. [00:11:50] Speaker B: And certainly kind of surprising in that way because ultimately this movie is a. Is a mystery thriller. Like, it's a detective case kind of thing. Sutherland obviously playing Klute, the detective, but really, like, all of that is kind of secondary to what's going on in the psychology of Jane Fonda's character, Bree Daniels. [00:12:14] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:12:15] Speaker B: And, yeah, I mean, Fonda knocks it out of the park. It's a phenomenal performance. [00:12:21] Speaker A: And it's. It also is just weirdly enough, a story that, like. And I think it shows the New wave era, too, of just like a story about just how much the city sucks. Like, it is kind of like, what do you think of, like, the. The romanticization of New York or LA or just big cities in general, especially when it comes to filmmaking. It is just like, again, it's 1971. They're not pulling any punches with how it's like being a burgeoning aspiring actress in New York City is not glamorous. [00:12:54] Speaker B: Yeah, well, I mean, living in New York city in the 70s in general for most people was not glamorous. [00:13:00] Speaker A: Oh, yeah. [00:13:01] Speaker B: This kind of, at least to my understanding, kind of a historical low point for the city, just in terms of, like, the quality of life and the crime and all that. So. Yeah. Yes. And you see it on full display in this movie. This movie gets creepy at times. [00:13:18] Speaker A: Oh, God. Yeah. [00:13:19] Speaker B: It still has similar ways to, like, Scorsese's early movies, like Mean Streets and shit. [00:13:24] Speaker A: Yeah. But it still has, you know, even though it is committing to the ground and kind of grittiness of New York at the time, it still has some phenomenal set pieces and set design where it's like, you know, Jabri Daniels is apartment or studio apartment is, you know, objectively shitty. But it's also objectively like. Well, it's like, pretty cool in terms of, like, the set design as well as how it's like, all, like. It has a look to it where it's like, do I really want to live in that kind of space? No, but it is. It looks. It looks nice. She's put it together really nicely. They do a really good job of just being like making do with what you have in that scenario. Well, like, it is interesting to have John Clutes character know John Clute as it just. Again, I need to put it out there now. The name John Clute is so funny, but also really fun. That like part of it. [00:14:21] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. John Clute. Well, and it's like a name like that Clute. Especially when your first movie is called. Or the, you know, the movie is called Clute. It sounds like it should be a character like the main character of like a franchise or a serial or something. You know, where it's like there's multiple entries about John Klute. You know, like, Jack Reacher is like kind of a distinct name, but he's just a guy. [00:14:49] Speaker A: Yeah, it's what. It's also one of the reasons why I asked before we started recording today, like, if you were aware if this is a novel or not initially. Because I was like, john Clute, like you said, does sound like. [00:15:00] Speaker B: Sounds like it would be a series of novels. [00:15:02] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Like, I was expecting to look up that it was like a 70s series that went for like four books but didn't go past that like I was expecting. Especially with the fact that Parallax View and All the President's Men are both based off of novels. It only kind of like in my head I was like, well, it makes sense if John Clute had a series, but nope, it one and done. John Kloot is hilariously like a stoic character for the most part. But it's also like again, Donald Sutherland was never. I would never consider him an ugly actor or an ugly man like in his career. Like, I think. [00:15:39] Speaker B: No, but he's very much distinctive looking. [00:15:42] Speaker A: He's. Yeah, he's distinctive and he's very unique. [00:15:45] Speaker B: In his looks and he's got very strong features. Really, the fact that shapely mouth and cheekbones and he's a, you know, tall, lanky guy too. [00:15:55] Speaker A: But the fact that Pikula is able to have you believe that Jane Fonda just absolutely wants to tear John Clue to shred sexually. And it makes sense in terms of just like what he offers her in terms of a possible partner or just as like just a companion in terms of like figuring out this mystery together. Like, I do think that's like, you know, when the film is not dedicated to Brie as a character, it is one of the strongest points when they go back to just like their relationship and how like, initially it seems like, it is mainly gonna be like a will they, won't they scenario. And then ultimately it changes that and then it becomes something even more interesting. Especially when Bree is trying to figure out what this could mean for, you know, when they figure out the mystery, if they figure out the mystery, where could their relationship or companionship go from this point? And another thing that I also love about the three of these films, it'll just get out of the way now is I love how they just end, which is definitely the era of the films of films at the time. But I love how Clute as a film is, you know, in an era where it's like, you know, there's constantly jokes because the MCU has so many films of post credits scenes and how so many other studios have tried to do that with bigger budget films. It's funny just to go back to older series of films and just be like, yep, the story's done. Roll credits for like 30 seconds. There it is by. It's like, it's like, oh, it used to. We used to be something else. Filmmaking used to be something else. It used to have such a small amount or just focus so much on credits at the beginning and then the ending is just like. And here's all the other people we haven't done yet. [00:17:43] Speaker B: Yeah, the end. [00:17:45] Speaker A: And with Clute, I mean, again, it also gives these films, I would argue, much more intensity, especially when it comes to their climaxes. Because once you look, I mean, if you're ever curious about these films and you just look at their run times and you're like, holy shit, we only have like five minutes left. What is it? What are they gonna do in those five minutes? And all three of these films have pretty wildly different, but pretty phenomenal last five to 10 minutes in terms of just like getting like running to the finish line. These films sprint to the finish line with such ease that like, it is quite impressive, in my opinion, to go back to, back to back with these films. And yet he did it again. [00:18:29] Speaker B: Yeah, man nails the ending every time. [00:18:32] Speaker A: He does. He really does. And with Clute is, you know, again, I think we, when we initially saw it because we watched all three of these separately just because our schedules, especially while we watched all these films in October, our schedules are just like packed in different ways. So, yeah, it only made sense to kind of watch these separately, but to talk to each other about it. I mean, I remember I was initially, you know, I really liked Clute, but I was just on the cusp of being thinking that it was Great. Until I talked to you about it. And then I think it like, you know, it does make a lot of sense that like, you know, Wale was kind of like initially bummed that the mystery is kind of the back burner of the majority of the film. Because to be honest, the mystery is like truly one of the most simple. It's like the simplest mystery. [00:19:19] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, it kind of telegraphs the, you know, the reveal way in advance. [00:19:25] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh. I think hour in. [00:19:27] Speaker B: Yeah. Even if it didn't like, pretty much outright say, like, here's the guy. It's a pretty straightforward mystery and the person responsible is very like, oh, as soon as that character shows up, yeah, he seems like he could be the guy. And so, you know, this is not like a knives out situation where it's constantly trying to trick you on, yeah, who's the guilty party. And yeah, I felt that way too at first. I was like, man, this mystery is kind of rote. [00:19:58] Speaker A: And yeah, it's like a game. It's like a game of Guess who. But instead of all the tiles being pulled up, there's only three tiles on. [00:20:05] Speaker B: Each side where two of them are the protagonist. [00:20:09] Speaker A: Yes. And then it's like you by the hour mark, you're like, well, I know who it is now, but wait, we got another 45 at least what's going on. [00:20:17] Speaker B: But yeah, it is. It's a character study through and through and like emotional kind of film rather than a plot film. [00:20:26] Speaker A: To be completely honest, there are some similarities in terms of the mystery, how it's being handled. Very much so in the next film in terms of just like, at a certain point, your brain is almost aware of where the story is going to go, but you just don't know in fully the A to B of it. Like, you know, the finale, you know that like, especially with Kloot, who the killer. About an hour in the film telegraphs who the killer is in terms of this scenario. But what's so great is like Pukula as a director, it does not hinder his performance as a director and his execution on basically keeping you invested for the latter half of the film by being like, yeah, you know who it's gonna be, but you don't know what we're gonna show you in terms of. [00:21:14] Speaker B: Yeah, you don't know characters. Yeah. [00:21:17] Speaker A: Because to be honest, it's like, I would have never guessed that John Kloot would have such a Hail Mary to like drag the killer out of the open and it work so well that he's like, caught off guard by how well it works to kind of bait him out. [00:21:33] Speaker B: Yeah, it's almost, like, too grand or, like, too kind of extreme for how chill the rest of the movie is. [00:21:44] Speaker A: It's also kind of surprising how, like, there are elements to, like, kind of in the first 30 minutes or so when Clute hasn't really fully introduced himself to Bree. There are moments with Bree as a call girl where you find out that Klute is aware of, like, certain clients, certain techniques with those clients, as well as the locations for those clients. Specifically one in, like, a seamstress clothing factory that is, like, I never would have guessed that the finale of the film would be in that factory, but thank God it was, because that scene, that whole kind of setup in the factory has one of the freakiest shots in the entire film. It's also one of the best fucking shots of the entire film with the killer looking through the plastic, dry, dry, clean bag. Yeah, it's so fucking good. Like, again, yeah. I mean, if anything, like, Pekula is a director that, like, arguably is understandable that, like, people have been maybe furious over the years about doesn't get enough love. Because, like, the man was making films up until his untimely death in the late 90s. And, I mean, he has so many films under his belt. And with just these three films alone, you can just see the talent this man has for storytelling and direction as well as, like, directing actors. Because with Sutherland and Fonda, you just have this newfound feeling that both of these actors are just, like, they've got something here that is going to keep them going for decades on end, which is what happened. And even though these are not the films they're known for, like, I've never seen anyone be like, you love Jane Fonda. You should really watch Clute. But she. Honestly, if I found someone in the future who says, like, have you seen Clute? Jane Fonda's great. I'd be like, absolutely. Yeah, I agree with you. I'm surprised. You know what? Clute is right, because, again, it's like, yeah, like, Sutherland. It's like, God, it's like right after. This is like Animal House. We also have Invasion of the Body Snatchers for him. I mean, it's all the way up to, like, fucking Hunger Games in the last, like, decade and decade or so. Him, like, he's just everywhere, and he's a phenomenal actor. And Jane Fonda literally is now in a spot of, like. I mean, even though it's. They're not movies Made for us, but like basically like the old, like the grandma road trip, like horny films of like the last like decade of like the book clubs and the 80 for Brady's. Like these or also like, you know, this is where I leave you. Or Grace and Frankie, like she's just had like a consistent career as well. And just. It's just so much fun to like just see them both be like new and upcoming and then Roy Scheider just appears before. I mean before Jaws too. But like just to see, like just to see a very small cast of really talented people. But to just be like. There was a time in the 70s where Jane Fonda, Donner Sutherland and Roy Scheider played characters together. And Donald Sutherland is not the pimp in this scenario. It is Roy Scheider. Yeah, he's got a great three to four scenes in this movie. Like he's. [00:25:01] Speaker B: Yeah, he's very much part. But he's definitely a felt presence in. [00:25:07] Speaker A: Yeah, he's like a suspect for like. He's like a suspect for five minutes. [00:25:11] Speaker B: Yeah. And then after that he's just a piece of shit. [00:25:15] Speaker A: Yeah, he very much is. Just. He's a piece like. [00:25:17] Speaker B: Well, we know he's not guilty of this, but still, fuck that guy. [00:25:21] Speaker A: No. Yeah. And thank God that string bean Sutherland just comes in and wrecks his shit in this final scene in a really phenomenal way. And yeah, the personal paranoia aspect of it, especially with this trilogy, is just, you know, I would probably say, if anything, critique wise, I wish there was more of it because I think the stuff that is in the paranoia aspects of this are just phenomenal. It's the best stuff in the movie. [00:25:51] Speaker B: It gets pretty chilling when it is in that mode and to the point where, I mean, I think it's effective in a way where it made me feel at times kind of like how I imagined the characters were probably feeling of like I don't know exactly what's happening, but it makes me nervous that I don't know what's happening. [00:26:12] Speaker A: Yes. [00:26:12] Speaker B: Oh my God, that was a lot of it for me. And yeah. Does that really. Well, I just. Yeah, I do wish it leaned a little harder on that. But I also understand it was like. I guess it's trying to focus more on like the. I guess the emotional dynamic between Clute and Brie. But like. Yeah, you're right, that is like the best parts of the movie is when it's kind of going into this creepy mystery, like suspense thriller. [00:26:41] Speaker A: Because I mean, it's very much like Pukula feels like he is absolutely taking advantage of the fact that people are not going to be expecting a character drama out of this film. Because when it's in. [00:26:50] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:26:51] Speaker A: Hard cut to like a POV from the skylight. It is like, oh, my gosh, here we go. This is going to be fun. Like the. [00:26:59] Speaker B: Be like some Black Christmas shit. [00:27:01] Speaker A: Yes. And the fact that it's like, when it gets towards the end of the film, I remember when it got to like, I think the 25, like the 20 to 15 minute mark, I was like, God, how are we going to get. And then immediately as I was trying to finish that sentence, it's a hard cut to the killer's pov. And the music is blaring. [00:27:18] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:27:19] Speaker A: It's like, oh, shit, there it is. This is what I've been waiting for. Let's go. And it's just, you know, a totally fine. Honestly, looking back at it. And I still think this film is great, even though the fact that they could have amped that up harder. But I can also understand, like you said, you got it. The drama is definitely one of the selling points of the film once you get into it. And the character development between Cluten Daniels and just, you know. [00:27:46] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:27:46] Speaker A: Honestly. Yeah. The other critiques would honestly be for this film was the fact that I just. I would have taken more development for both of them. Like, there's even an. There's. [00:27:54] Speaker B: Yeah, I think particularly Clute. [00:27:56] Speaker A: Yes. Oh, yeah. It is also kind of phenomenal. Like, again, what makes John Kloot almost feel like a book protagonist in a series is the fact that he feels he's not Nick Carraway empty, but he is very much just a passenger in Bree Daniels personal paranoia, like conspiracy mystery. [00:28:17] Speaker B: Well, and he's also kind of, you know, we don't get a lot of origin on him. He's kind of just. We kind of drop into his story, like, right as he's getting this case. [00:28:28] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:28:29] Speaker B: And so that sort of adds to this sort of serial feeling of like, oh, this is just another chapter in the Clute adventures. [00:28:37] Speaker A: Gosh, a delightful chapter. And it's also the fact that it's like. Yeah. It's the fact that he's also just like personally connected to the story in terms of just like John Kloot being close friends with the missing man. [00:28:53] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:54] Speaker A: That they believe is one of Bree Daniels's clients or John's. [00:28:59] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:29:00] Speaker A: And that introduction scene is also like. I mean, again, this was not intended to be like. It wasn't like Pukula was Like, aha, I'm finally finished my trilogy when I got all the President's Men. But like to just introduce a style in the very first scene where it's just like this dinner scene with a bunch of friends and family and then just a hard cut to a passage of time and like the missing person being gone from the dinner scene and being like he's been gone for like 48 hours. [00:29:32] Speaker B: Yeah, it was like super scary. Disorienting at first. [00:29:36] Speaker A: It is. And it's almost like phenomenal that like that basically is the baseline for this entire trilogy. Because there are a lot of fucking moments, especially in Parallax View. Holy shit. The amount of times the film will just hard cut to. Yeah, you just. The last time you saw this person, they were alive, now they're fucking dead. And it's like, holy shit. [00:29:58] Speaker B: Yeah, and. [00:29:59] Speaker A: Yeah, and especially with all the President's many kinds of. Gets away with that in terms of just the actual passage of time of finding the new information as well as trying to get it out in a timely manner as well as try to like. [00:30:10] Speaker B: Yeah, well, I think. Yeah. That it makes the most. Not that it doesn't make sense in this or Parallax View, but like it probably makes the most sense in all the President's Men just because of, you know, the journalistic perspective. These guys are limited in what they're able to find out. So when they do find out something, it's like, oh shit, we didn't realize that was part of it. [00:30:30] Speaker A: Yeah, it's almost like. Yeah, every time there's a hard cut and all the President's Men, it's just like it's supposed to signify that thought process wise, whatever they just learned goes right to the typewriter. Because nearly nine times out of ten it's just a hard cut back to the Washington Post. And yeah, with Clute, it is just. I mean it's a phenomenal start in a trilogy filled with paranoia and it's. I mean it really gets a promise. [00:30:58] Speaker B: I think it's really great like in terms of if you were to sit and watch these either all at once or in close succession like we did. Yeah, you know, it's a really great mood setter. Just kind of placing you in that feeling of like nothing is as it seems. Who are these dark beings and forces beyond my perception that are, you know, homing in on me. [00:31:24] Speaker A: Yeah, it's very much so. Like if you are a sucker for 70s cinema and you've never seen this, like you get the grittiness and the grime without feeling like it's ever gonna get exploitive or even like, way too nasty. [00:31:39] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:31:39] Speaker A: There's one moment in particular that. Where it is like very much a extremely perverted thing that is done in pre. In Breed Daniels apartment. But you don't see it happen. And it's basically implied off screen and like talked about once, which is, you know, which is. I mean, again, it does its job without it feeling like, too. Too exploitative. And very much keeps the energy of the 70s cinema that we're aware of. Especially just. Oh, gosh, it is. I mean, looking back at it now, it is. It is such a fun time. Despite the fact that it is about a man going missing in New York City because of a bunch of a prostitute and. [00:32:26] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, it is. [00:32:27] Speaker A: I mean, again, it is. It was a nice surprise, honestly, especially going into this, like, not knowing anything about the other two films of this trilogy. It is fun to just go into a film called Clute, just be like, oh, Clutes. Just the guy's name. And then just being like, surprised at, like. Well, that was a fun time. That was a delight. And never would. I had guessed, going from Clute to Parallax View that the scale would be amped up because. [00:33:02] Speaker B: Yeah. A leap in scale and also just like tone in a way. [00:33:11] Speaker A: Oh, my God. [00:33:12] Speaker B: Yeah. Parallax View is practically a blockbuster by comparison. [00:33:18] Speaker A: Yeah, it is. I mean, if you go. It's like. Clute is by far like. It feels like a person's first film or early years, like, director debut. The Parallax View feels like, all right, you did the first film that did really well. Here's your blockbuster. And then all the President's Men feels. [00:33:35] Speaker B: Like it's your prestige film. [00:33:37] Speaker A: Yeah. Prestige film. That is, of course, deserved every bit of prestige that I got at the time. [00:33:42] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:33:43] Speaker A: But I was. Yeah, I mean, because again, you got to parallax you before I did, viewing wise. And then you told me like, yeah, this thing is like, weirdly a blockbuster. And I was like, that throws the guy that did Clute. And again, all the President's Men is not that bombastic of a film in. [00:33:59] Speaker B: Terms of very much a procedural. Yeah. [00:34:03] Speaker A: But Parallax View in the first 15 minutes, actually, first 10 minutes, because I had to pause at one point and go back because I looked away for a second and someone got assassinated. [00:34:19] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:34:20] Speaker A: Immediately. And I was like, what? [00:34:21] Speaker B: The film basically opens on an assassination of a. Is it a senator? [00:34:27] Speaker A: I believe a senator, yes. [00:34:29] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's this kind of crazy Hectic, bombastic scene that culminates in a like a little brief wrestling match on the top of the Space Needle. Oh my gosh, the roof of the Space Needle. And it's like, what the hell is this? After coming off of Clute, which mostly takes place in like dank New York apartments and basements and shit. [00:34:53] Speaker A: Yeah. I think the biggest like set in Kloot is the club. [00:34:58] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:34:58] Speaker A: Because everything else you could feel like, oh, they just got this like this place already existed in. You know, they'd have to do too much to glam it up. While as in Clute, it's like, yeah, the dance sequences, the so many place. Yeah. Well, as in Parallax View, it's like, yeah, the Space Needle immediately opener, that's the opener as like a helicopter and they accidentally push the guy off of the space. [00:35:26] Speaker B: You've got like a little bit of a fist fight in like at the bottom of a dam and then the dam lets loose. It's just huge set pieces, you know. It's crazy. And it's also funny just how it, how this movie zips between them because like if, if you watch Clute and you felt like it was slow or like the kind of mystery of it was sort of too plodding. It's just like Parallax View goes the opposite direction. And it's just like every scene something major, some major development is happening. [00:36:02] Speaker A: Yeah. Because the big thing about Parallax View is going from personal paranoia to this film. This film is about basically corporate espionage. Much bigger paranoia in terms of. The film is basically about a freelance journalist that is like equally hated as he is beloved in certain circles. Having a journalists, you know, an ex that is also a journalist or at least maybe they were a thing at one point. You don't know. But basically a friend that is like, I think I am being followed and I think I'm gonna probably die because all these people that were at this assassination of the senator that I was with have been slowly dying of quote unquote, this cause or this cause. And it doesn't make sense. [00:36:48] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's a corporate conspiracy movie. A corporate cover up type thing. And yeah, it's, it's. It would be an understatement to say that this movie, you know, explodes in terms of scale over clue. Just the. I mean the ultimate kind of note of this film is like, you know, it goes all the way to the top, you know, corruption and all of that, which obviously all the President's Men deals with as well. But in this it's far more kind of nefarious and mysterious and looming because it's like these faceless people at the top of these very powerful unknown organizations are just pulling strings. [00:37:45] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:37:45] Speaker B: So, yeah, it's a very distinctive feeling for a movie like this about a journalist. You know, it's. It's a very. It's not globetrotting literally, but it feels that way. [00:37:58] Speaker A: Yeah, it is. I mean, again, the big. Yeah. The aspect of it that is so fascinating, very similar to just like how Kloot just gives away its killer like halfway through the film, is the fact that immediately in Parallax View, when it is introduced to Warren Beatty's Joe Frady, who is our protagonist in the film, when he realizes that the corporation that probably had his friend killed is involved in a way that could go all the way to the government, he doesn't even question it. Doesn't even question if it's a possibility. He believes it outright. And the film ends up at that point not being. Does it really go to the top? It becomes a. Okay, now we know that it goes to the top. What can you do? What can Joe do in terms of this kind of situation to actually. Is any kind of article or any kind of expose gonna be enough? Because if this corporation has been around. [00:38:54] Speaker B: For so long, they're so invested in every part of society and yeah, not. [00:39:00] Speaker A: Even just Seattle, they are everywhere outside of it as well, in other states and clearly across the globe. I think it's implied at some points that like it is, it becomes fascinating because it's like as a film you have probably definitely seen as a viewer have seen films that very much have the 1 versus 100 or 1 versus the corporation, where it's like, can one man successfully take down capitalism in some way, shape or form? Not like full blown the idea, but just like an avenue of capitalism that is wrong and very much deserves to be brought to light. And in most cases, especially in a modern sense, we kind of would believe we know how it's going to end. Because there are a lot of versions of that where it just is like, well, it's got to end in a positive way because I mean, again, the reason why we have those feelings is a lot of times because of all the President's Men as a version of that. But this is a world where all the President's mental hasn't happened yet. Hell, the Nixon, Nixon resigning hasn't even fully happened yet or just happened when this film came out. So like in the Parallax View, probably the part where I fell in love with this movie because while it's not my personal favorite of the three films, I think I was absolutely shocked with how much fun I was having with this movie and how much it freaked me the fuck out. Because again, like I said with kloot, the idea that a corporation has its fingers in government as well as all other avenues that it shouldn't have its fingers in is not shocking. That's called lobbying. Like, at this point, we're like, yeah, no, yeah, it's like at this point in like life, especially when it comes to politics and like, you know, corporations having their fingers in, like places they really shouldn't have their fingers in, literally, big companies have admitted to putting monies into campaigns and putting just exuberant amounts of money into other aspects to try to like. [00:41:09] Speaker B: Pretty out there in the open at this. [00:41:11] Speaker A: Yeah, and it's like, clearly this has also happened in the 70s too, but, like, it is fascinating just how the Parallax View introduces this concept in a way, but in almost the worst case scenario. Yeah, and I fucking loved that. Especially when it comes to how the film starts and ends. Because the film brings in the logo. Like the prologue is the assassination. That is not even how the film does its title card. Its title card is in an amalgamous void. [00:41:44] Speaker B: Logan? [00:41:45] Speaker A: Yeah, you there? [00:41:47] Speaker B: I can't hear you. [00:41:50] Speaker A: Oh, shit. [00:41:51] Speaker B: Let me see your audio seems to have gone out. [00:41:55] Speaker A: Here we go. Give me one second. [00:41:57] Speaker B: Oh, okay. [00:41:58] Speaker A: Oh, it must have been my wifi. Oh, okay, you can hear me now because my recording is still going. [00:42:04] Speaker B: Oh, okay. Yeah, we're good. [00:42:06] Speaker A: So let me make a note. Okay, yeah, I'll remember this. But yeah, I mean, when the film gets to its title cart, it is horrifying because it basically has a bunch of government officials in a dark void saying there is no way this assassination has anything besides this one bad apple. And the fact that it starts with that and just has the Parallax View is fucking phenomenal because the way that it caps off the film in a very similar way, but even scarier. Like, it is kind of fascinating how much this film is like. Yes, there are aspects of this that are still pretty lacking, especially when it comes to Joe as a protagonist, which is very intentional. I feel like in terms of having Joe be occlude esque, like, we don't fully understand where he stands except for the fact of like, fuck the power to a degree. [00:43:11] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. [00:43:13] Speaker A: But it just. I mean, it's one of those things where it's like, yeah, there are some Lacking aspects to the film. But that finale. Holy fuck. In my opinion, it's my favorite finale of the three films. Like, I was on my genuine edge of my seat, constantly lying to myself that I didn't know where it was gonna go. And then when it happens, when basically the film's shoe drops and it just ends, like all three of these films just end, it is, in my opinion, the most impactful of the three endings. Even though it's not the best film of the three films. It is, I think, in my opinion, just like the way that the film ends genuinely made. Like the Parallax View, in my opinion, one of my favorite viewing experience of any film we've watched for the. [00:44:05] Speaker B: Oh, that's awesome. [00:44:06] Speaker A: I think it's a. [00:44:08] Speaker B: Just wild ending. [00:44:10] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:44:11] Speaker B: And again, like, bleak. [00:44:14] Speaker A: Yes. And I think that's what threw me off the most because it's like, I think about now, especially with, like. Even though it's a different genre, but, like, there have been conversations now about certain films. Like, the most recent example now is the film that both Andy and I despise. And we haven't even seen it because of its trailer being all over the place in every theater we went to. But Speak no Evil, that is an adaptation of a foreign film that basically had a incredibly bleak ending that, like, in the American version, apparently, they basically romanticized or changed in a way where it's not as bleak or depressing. And it very much feels like that is the American sensibility in cinema now, where it's like. It's very hard to really push to go for the bleak and depressing because of insert factor here. So to watch, like, a fully fledged. This is a fully American film. Like the Parallax View uses the national anthem to make you feel uncomfortable. The fucking poster, the tagline, everything is supposed to make you feel like this film is American as apple pie. [00:45:20] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:45:20] Speaker A: Guess what? It fucking sucks. And it's kind of wild to see that film. Just commit to it. And also the fact that it's, like, half a century old. This year is its 50th anniversary. [00:45:31] Speaker B: Oh, yeah. [00:45:31] Speaker A: And it just. It holds up, man. [00:45:34] Speaker B: It would have been very much. I don't know if, like, can can or anybody did a repertory screening of it, but that would have been cool. [00:45:41] Speaker A: No, because, again, this is like, if anything, because of just how not only is all the President's Men much more popular in a better film and also the one that Bakula is known for because of that, and also because of the fact that all the President's Men, because it's based off of real events, technically has a good ending because like a happy ending, quote unquote. Because, like, you know, the bad guys get put into jail and Nixon resigns. Spoiler alert for people that don't know about Watergate. But, like, that's basically the scandal end in a nutshell. But, like, the fact that that film is such more of a, I guess, quote unquote, populist, you know, appreciation. An easier film to digest. [00:46:25] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:46:26] Speaker A: I think the Parallax View has definitely got pushed to the wayside because the Parallax View almost at times is like a genuine horror film and how it handles some of its moments. There's even a moment in this fucking film where someone is in the room with Warren Beatty for at least a solid two to three minutes. And Warren Beatty has no fucking idea. You know, he's there because you can see the man's shoes, but he's just casually there. And Warren Beatty has no idea what's going on. [00:46:55] Speaker B: Right. [00:46:55] Speaker A: And it's very uncomfortable. And this movie, even when it has its bombastic moments, the bombastic moments don't feel as fun as any other action film because you're. It feels very much like, how the hell are you gonna get away with, like, doing all these things? [00:47:13] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:47:14] Speaker A: And like, why are actually. [00:47:16] Speaker B: Yeah. Why are these people going to these lengths to. You know, It's a little terrifying. Yeah. [00:47:23] Speaker A: Because they're. Yeah. And it's. It is the fact that it's like. I mean, the big thing that really, like, again, shows very much how Pekula handles the source material and is unapologetic with the paranoia aspect of not trying to, like, downplay it in any way, shape or form is like the fact that it is introduced at the corporation that is involved in the assassination at the very beginning of the film is not only a corporation that you can, like, look up. It has an open public office. You can just walk in, like, fascinating that it's like, right next to other corporation offices and it's like, has a very modern of the time sense of, like, its design as well as what it's selling. Until you get to the indoctrination scene. [00:48:11] Speaker B: Right. Which is this weird Eyes Wide Shut type thing. [00:48:16] Speaker A: Again, again, it is like handling that indoctrination scene is handling concepts that is now even more prevalent in our current culture just because of the Internet existing. [00:48:27] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's. It's easy for, like, when the movie goes in that direction, for it to seem like kind of, I don't know. Hokey. Or. Or. [00:48:39] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:48:39] Speaker B: Just, like, kind of overdone because we've had so much of that at this point. And also at this point, like, culturally, I feel like nobody trusts corporations or anything like that. You know, it's just kind of like a common fact now that. Yeah. Anyone. You know, corporations do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, they have, like, your suffering in mind and that sort of thing. Blah, blah, blah. [00:49:04] Speaker A: Or even just the concept of something being put on a television screen or on a projection screen. [00:49:11] Speaker B: Subliminal. Yes. And subliminal messages and things like that. [00:49:15] Speaker A: It's like, why would they do that? There's no way companies would want to do that. [00:49:19] Speaker B: It's like, yeah. [00:49:20] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:49:21] Speaker B: But especially at this time when this movie came out, that it feels very jarring and shocking to watch. [00:49:29] Speaker A: Not as shocking as Warren Beatty go into a bar in the south getting a glass of milk. Truly the most heroin scene. But also makes him. It's hilarious how that man, a man that is, like, introduced initially as being, like, a recovering alcoholic or at least trying to cut back on the amount of alcohol he's drinking. And then, like, as soon as he finds out the conspiracy and has, like, a genuine theory that could be real, he goes right back into drinking. And it's almost like, well, what? What did you expect? [00:50:04] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:50:04] Speaker A: Like, I mean, it's gonna be this or that and. But, yeah. I mean, again, because we haven't really talked much about him. Because, to be honest, like, the difference between Clute. The biggest difference, I would say, between Clute and Parallax, you. Besides the bombastic approach is the cast size and the fact that it's like, this is a film where, besides Warren Beatty, you're getting a lot of people that are kind of showing up in and out consistently. [00:50:31] Speaker B: They'll be there for, like, one scene or one scene every half hour or something. [00:50:36] Speaker A: Yeah. Like, it's almost like the introduction of his, like, old journalist friend who's very paranoid about being, you know, she's gonna be assassinated next. [00:50:45] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:50:46] Speaker A: Literally the next scene she's in after having that moment, she's like, in. She's in the prologue all the way up to the assassination. She's there when the assassination happens. Shows up at Warren Beatty's apartment, quote, unquote. But also, Hawaiian tiki motel room. [00:51:03] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:51:03] Speaker A: Which is just. What an interesting design for that. And then literally the next scene after that is the hard cut to her in the morgue. [00:51:11] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:51:12] Speaker A: And being like, yeah, she just got pushed over the edge and she was drinking too Much like that type of. And it's like that is the majority of the cast in this film. There'll be people that come in and are just like very charismatic or maybe even silly even. And then they just aren't involved anymore. It's Warren Beatty show and I do think he holds the film up on his shoulders even though there's not a lot to Joe. [00:51:38] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:51:39] Speaker A: I think Beatty does a phenomenal job with the little he's given. Yeah. [00:51:43] Speaker B: I mean, he's kind of just a vessel for us, like a, you know. Yeah. For us to be transported into this dark world of, you know, corporate corruption and things. He. Yeah. There's not a ton to his like character personality or history wise, but yeah, just enough. And he's. He conveys the morbid curiosity and. [00:52:08] Speaker A: Absolutely. [00:52:08] Speaker B: Also eventually, you know, kind of the terror of it as well. [00:52:12] Speaker A: Yeah. Because it's great to have this be the second of the three films because you have in Parallax view the downside of curiosity and fighting to find the truth while you have the next film being like the other side. Yeah. [00:52:27] Speaker B: The triumph of persistent curiosity. Yeah. [00:52:31] Speaker A: Because the most. The thing that Joe Frady does that I think describes his character the best in the entire film, even though it is basically him coming up with an insane plan to find out more information about Parallax by basically indoctrinating himself. [00:52:48] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:52:49] Speaker A: Or just integrating himself as a sleeper agent in a freelance newspaper sense. [00:52:54] Speaker B: Right. [00:52:55] Speaker A: And it is. I think that is the most telling thing about him as a character. Just the fact that he is like. [00:53:01] Speaker B: Willing to do that almost. [00:53:02] Speaker A: Yeah. He is not tied down by anything in his life to the point where he can be like. Yeah, I can just pretend to be dead and go to this. [00:53:11] Speaker B: I'll basically become an undercover cop for this. [00:53:14] Speaker A: Yeah. And an undercover cop. And I mean, again, this is the type of film where it's like the list has phenomenal. Again, I think the other actor that is probably the most prominent other than like the head editor who is like the go to guy for Frady, is. I think it's Jack Younger. Is that the guy that's in Parallax Corp. That is like his go to. [00:53:39] Speaker B: Guy in the Parallax Corp. Jack Young. [00:53:41] Speaker A: That guy is phenomenal and intimidating and I, He's. He scares me. And I think it's the fact that his name is Jack Younger and he's just like selling that name even though it's a silly name. [00:53:53] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:53:54] Speaker A: And it's. I mean. Yeah. It's also the fact that, you know, this is the youngest I've ever seen Mr. Feeny from Boy's Meet Boy Meets World. [00:54:02] Speaker B: Oh yeah. [00:54:03] Speaker A: When I saw that man, I went wait a minute, that's not what fucking. Yeah, but no, yeah. William Daniels who plays Mr. Feeney, boy meets World, he is in this as the senator or the ex senator's aid I believe a right hand man who is like the one that kind of introduces Parallax to Freddy vocally, like verbally. Cuz basically at this point in the film, by the time that happens, Freddy has been given a bunch of evidence that Parallax exists. But no one has ever said it out loud until they like gets to him basically. [00:54:38] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:54:38] Speaker A: And yeah, this is unlike Clute. This is not the film where I feel like you're going to it. For a phenomenal ensemble that has a lot to do. This is honestly just like a very bombastic broad sense of like the dangers and horrors surrounding corporate paranoia and basically just a domination under the rug. [00:55:03] Speaker B: Yeah. Kind of capitalist conspiracy. [00:55:07] Speaker A: Yeah. And. But it also leads to again Pekula having like so much bigger set pieces where it's even just like the set pieces could be just like they're on the Space Needle or like this is a giant like stadium warehouse area. [00:55:24] Speaker B: Yeah. We're in the catwalk level of Giant stadium overlooking this you know, gorgeously laid out like Dinner Arrangement man the gun reveal. [00:55:39] Speaker A: In terms of like watching him put one to one together in terms of like what that means for him. Ah, incredible. Pula as a director again shows just like if Clute shows just how well he can handle just the. The very intimate nuances between a story of like two people dealing with a Neo nor a mystery. It is the Parallax view just shows how he can go big and still have you almost as invested if not you know, even more invested than include by just having like these long wide shots that are just unsettling to watch. [00:56:15] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:56:16] Speaker A: Like there's. I mean there's literally a just a long shot of someone just driving into a bunch of tables and it's like just uncomfortable to watch because of just the open amount of like empty space. [00:56:31] Speaker B: Of people that the scene is just allowed to like continue like without cutting away or anything happening. It's just kind of like ooh. [00:56:38] Speaker A: Oh it's so good. It's such a great film. And I saw like cuz again I mean we were talking back and forth. I don't. We never really had a full conversation about this one. Yeah. Off mic. But I know that this is probably your least favorite of the three, at least. [00:56:54] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, definitely. I still like it. I still think it's a good movie for all the reasons we've talked about. But yeah, I think it's just at least in comparison to the other two. Feels a little bit more, I don't know, kind of silly or spectacle focused in a sense. Like. Yeah, I can see that kind of some of the, some of the ways the film jumps from kind of one big moment or reveal or set piece to the next. Feels a little bit like, man, we really had to cram a lot into this movie, huh? [00:57:31] Speaker A: Oh, gosh. I mean, again, I'm curious to see because I didn't fully do in terms of just like what was cut or what was kept in adaptation wise from the book. But I am curious to like see how long it is the book wise and just see like if there. If this is considered a worthy adaptation to that novel. [00:57:50] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, yeah, it's certainly a. I mean it's a well liked movie in its own right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know how faithful or successful of an adaptation it is, but yeah, I mean, even my hang ups aside, I think, you know, especially the finale and just how deep this movie goes into kind of a damning portrayal of, you know, the shadowy powers that be is really cool and fun in kind of a scary way. And it's honestly, I mean, I do feel like I want to rewatch this movie at some point because I think I would pick up on other things on a rewatch that would maybe make it feel like it would coalesce a little bit more in my mind. [00:58:42] Speaker A: No, yeah, for sure. I mean, again, yeah, I'm excited to rewatch it again just to see what was retained in between viewings that I caught the first time were just the little details that clearly are involved in this film because, gosh, the amount of just like American symbolism and imagery just intertwined with everything as well as just Pekula going full blown ham on like the budget and the explosions, car crashes, just, you know. And also, yeah, I think to me where I completely understand where you're coming from with that. Especially with like how there is a bit of this that has like not an antithesis of Kloot, but clearly is like veering in a different direction. That could mean like whatever people thought the next film he was gonna do, it could go either way. [00:59:31] Speaker B: Mm. [00:59:32] Speaker A: Where it's like he could go even bigger if he wanted to with Parallax View. I think that would have just. That would have been hard to See, that would have been wild to think what that could have been. But to go, I think, to me, the thing that gets with why I loved the Parallax View so much is the fact that it's like a sneaky blockbuster in a way where you feel like it's gonna be, you know, very much just, you know, surface level kind of characterization where you get little. You get little breadcrumbs here and there of what Joe Frady believes in as well as Joe Frady as a person. And it is him against a corporation. And we're gonna have some fun set pieces as he tackles, right, this evil, you know, syndicate. And honestly, it is a backdoor into a much more interesting conversation as well as like, you know, approach to that topic where it becomes not full blown nihilistic, but becomes very pessimistic when it gets to that finale in a way that is just like very kind of engaging and yeah, hopeless. But even like, hopeless in a way where it doesn't feel like it's a hopeless that doesn't. Like, it's like a hopeless with a period. It's almost just like a hopeless with like a question mark. Like, is there more to this? Can we ever get back from this? Where like Bakula, I feel like, is very much just trying to be like, listen, I'm not trying to bum you out, but like, this is something that feels like could be genuinely happening right now and no one would fucking understand or even think of like, the fact that like, as when it comes to American cinema and American culture, we love the lone hero. We love the idea of like, you know, a lone gunslinger taking on a thing of bandits or one superhero taking on an army and just, you know, having someone be able to take on a bigger threat and be able to come out on top even though it shouldn't work. And the Parallax View basically takes what we expect from that and subvert it in a way that I think is very satisfying. [01:01:38] Speaker B: Right. [01:01:39] Speaker A: In a way that makes me go, damn, that was not what I was expecting. We were going with this, especially with, honestly, all the posters the first 30 minutes. Like, yeah, I mean, to be honest, as much as I enjoyed this film, the fact that like the car chase ends on the most, like, hilarious stealth, like, I'm just gonna hide in this truck and he's totally fine. Yeah, it's very much like when that happens, I was like, oh, I'm in for a treat. But I don't know what kind of treat I'm in for. And then of course, the ending would never. I would have never guessed that it would go that far into the depths with that ending. And honestly, I'm glad that that film does that because with Bakula's next film, it is very much so. I feel like you get all the lessons he's learned from Clute and the Parallax few to really put into not only his most popular film, but also arguably one of the most important films in a subgenre. Especially when looking back on the last, like decade or so of just anytime there's been an investigative drama thriller involving real life events, whether it involves like an actual newspaper or following specifically one or two reporters that were involved in an expose dealing with that real life event, it's hard not to look at those films and not automatically have. Even if you haven't seen the film in full. I bet you had this mindset too of like, oh, all the President's Men, like, this is the type of film. [01:03:18] Speaker B: It's a go to reference poster child. Yeah. For journalism movies and things like that. [01:03:27] Speaker A: And for good reason. Because this film had, of all three of these films, I would say the most backing. Not only because of like the historical significance of the story of Woodward and Bernstein uncovering a conspiracy that is all too real. So unlike Clute Parallax view, it is like based off of a true story and was still recent events by the time this film had come out. [01:03:55] Speaker B: Nick Jackson resigned in what, 73, 4, 74, 75. [01:04:02] Speaker A: And like, again, like there were people still like involved in the scandal that were going to jail. It seemed like months before this film fucking came out. Yeah, like, it was like the fact that it's like. Because now again, when we think about situations like that, like, I think an example, in my opinion, a great example of an investigative drama thriller that is very much in the same vein as all the President's Men is like Spotlight. [01:04:23] Speaker B: Yeah. Actually there's. There's some crossover with Spotlight as well because that's. Doesn't. Isn't Ben Bradley a character in that? [01:04:35] Speaker A: I believe so, yeah, I think so. And it's also the fact that it's also. It is, is it. It's at the Washington Post. [01:04:42] Speaker B: Is it the Boston Globe? [01:04:44] Speaker A: Boston Globe, yes, it's. I'm thinking of the Post. That's the one that I was thinking of too. But like, same with the Post. Like very much like both of those films have very different approaches to covering recent, like, real life events, but those were handling events that were like decades old, if not at least a decade old. And like Spotlight's case. [01:05:09] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:05:10] Speaker A: When it comes to the. The Catholic Church scandal. And so, like, the things now, like, I don't even know what you'd make a film of in the next two to three years that would be all the President's Men esque, but, like, yeah, kind of wild. I mean, again, there technically was one a few years back that unfortunately just didn't get a lot of buzz and I don't think. I think prime had it, but didn't really push much was what she said, which was about the Weinstein scandal surrounding it. I think it was Kerry Mulligan and Zoe. Gosh, the name escapes me. But, like, that's, like, the closest, like, most recent example I could think of in that point. But I think, like, I don't think this is all the President's Men fault, but I think, like, when it comes to situations like that, people would just prefer to let it sit and. [01:06:01] Speaker B: Yeah, just, like, it can be really hard. I think the trick with, you know, making a movie that's about very recent or even kind of current events is, you know, you have to offer something, whether it's a perspective or a bit of insight or, you know, some kind of take on whatever happened that everybody doesn't already know from all the headlines. And I think that's something that all the President's Men does really well in two ways. One, in actually depicting the process of investigative journalism, which is not, as far as I know, as far as movies I've seen had really been done in a detailed way prior to this movie and very rarely since. And also, you know, the kind of smaller details and insights it pulls from Bernstein and Woodward's book that, you know, was not. [01:07:05] Speaker A: Yes. [01:07:05] Speaker B: Not all of that made the news. And. Yeah. So, you know, we get a lot. We still get movies today. I mean, we're what. We've got a. We've got a movie about. Or we. We had a movie about Trump with Brendan Gleason, like, not that long ago. [01:07:24] Speaker A: It was a Showtime show. [01:07:25] Speaker B: Yeah, Showtime show. [01:07:26] Speaker A: Comey Rule. [01:07:27] Speaker B: Yeah. It kind of came and went without much of a. Yeah. You know, much noise. And that kind of happens a lot these days. And I think that's because, like, a lot of these, you know, a lot of those things, they're cashing in on a relevant idea, but not really giving it a whole lot that people don't already know. [01:07:48] Speaker A: Yeah. And I also think it's because all the President's Men technically does this. But I think in a much more understandable sense, compared to, like, a Lot of the reasons why I think something like the Comey Rule doesn't work is because at a certain point it is trying to sell people on the idea of it's this actor as this character, where it's, where it's like, I think now it's one of those things like no one wants to see a president, a modern day president be done by an actor. Even though studios are gonna. I mean, there's literally a Trump film that I believe by the point that this review, this trilogy episode comes out, should have already been out. I don't know if either one of us will have seen it by the point this comes out. [01:08:33] Speaker B: Yeah, you're talking about the Apprentice. [01:08:35] Speaker A: Yes, I'm talking about the Apprentice. [01:08:36] Speaker B: I guess the, at least the plus with that one is it's set in like the 80s or 90s, like long before President Trump stuff, but still it is that kind of, oh, Trump's in all the news, let's do a Trump movie. [01:08:50] Speaker A: But like, I mean, a good example of a bad way to do it. And I would say both of us would agree with this and this better not be a hot take now, but it's not surprising if it is. But Vice, I think is an example of just like a modern day version of just like, oh, it's Christian Bale as Dick Cheney, It's Sam Rockwell as George W. Bush. It is all these actors and actresses basically playing political leaders and figures that are like, you know, of course, it's like a 20 year gap between when that film takes place initially. [01:09:21] Speaker B: Yeah. But a lot of the characters being portrayed are like, we're still active at the time. Yeah, yeah. [01:09:28] Speaker A: And with this and with all the President's Men, you technically get that with Hoffman and Redford, Bernstein and Woodward. But one, it makes sense, especially with Redford, because Redford is like a producer and is a huge part of the production of this film as well as the fact that like they are not trying to sell super well known political figures, they're trying to just basically sell people on the idea of we're putting faces to names that you are aware of but probably don't know their faces. Just like off the top of your head. [01:10:01] Speaker B: Yeah. And why something like Bernstein and Woodland? Yeah, Bernstein and Woodward also weren't like, you know, they're not political figures really, and they were celebrities on the level of, you know, a lot of these other similar movies. [01:10:17] Speaker A: No, but it is, it is funny to think that we brought up the whole kind of aspect like we brought up. It's funny that Pekula has like a Sophie's Choice. Like, how people know about the Sophie's Choice kind of idea more than the film itself. Where I think, like, I think a lot of people, especially our generation and onward, would probably know Woodward and Bernstein because people have used them as an example of being like, gonna crack the case? Are you gonna solve the conspiracy theory? Like Woodward and Bernstein, 70s. [01:10:47] Speaker B: That's kind of a reference. Yeah, yeah. [01:10:49] Speaker A: Like, almost a joke as well. Like, making fun of someone, trying to be like, oh, are you better than other. You could see the thing that no one else sees, which is like, all. [01:10:58] Speaker B: Right, Woodward and Bernstein. [01:11:00] Speaker A: Yeah, like, that kind of. Because I think I remember hearing their names even way before I'd seen the film and be like, oh, that's the reference to them. Like, oh, they're real people. I just thought that was like a book thing, like. Or Deep Throat. I think Deep Throat is like, something too that is, like, is still referenced in some way, shape or form about, you know, whistleblowers as well as this and that. Even though now we know exactly who Deep Throat was and, you know, we know it's from this film, but shows just kind of like, the cultural relevance of its ideas more so than the actual text itself. [01:11:36] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:11:37] Speaker A: Because, I mean, again, it's all the President's Men is in that kind of box of films, especially in this era where of like, yeah, you've heard for years and years that this is one of the best films ever made in the era. It was, you know, one of a big hit. It's the biggest film for Pukula at the time. And it's very much as, hey, guess what? You watch the film, it's a great film. It's exactly what you heard it is. So why even bother? You know what? You know what it's about that being said, dislike that kind of concept. It is very much still worth watching because, like you said, it's like the process to get to what we ultimately know is the end of this story in terms of, like, the scandal actually bearing fruit and showing a conspiracy theory that actually is true and needed to be dealt with and actually led to people resigning and being sent to prison, as well as a president being seen as a bad person, which is, I bet, a newfound idea in terms of that idea at that point in time. [01:12:41] Speaker B: Or, you know, at least a, you know, clear and guilty criminal and conspirator. [01:12:48] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh. I mean, again, it's just going back to that and just being the fact that, again, like, the other two Films. The fact that this film takes every single second to get right to the finish line and then dashes to the finale where the fact that this is a film where we know that it leads to believe, like, this is a film where two men have to get to the very end of the film to realize, holy shit, this goes to the top. [01:13:15] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:13:15] Speaker A: It's literally a film, the film that popularized that idea as well as the importance of investigative journalism in a popular media sense. The fact that this film takes all the way up to its two plus hour runtime to basically have people look them in the eyes and go, no, you're fucking right it goes up to Nixon, dude. Just fucking put it in there. Like, it's fascinating, but it also makes sense because it's like in that era, like, one, that's just a wild concept. And also, two, it's a wild concept to find out when you're kind of in the minority in that scenario. And when the minority is you and your buddy writing the story. It's fascinating to really see the paranoia seep in with more names getting thrown around, more research and more information getting sent to them. The realization that the people that they are talking to are scared. [01:14:12] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:14:13] Speaker A: Because they're worried about their livelihood and their lives. [01:14:16] Speaker B: Yeah. And that's kind of a. It's kind of a build as the movie goes on because like every, pretty much everybody, like, you know, kind of closes the door on them from the get go of like, yeah, I'm not talking to you. But there's almost kind of this sense that, like, as these people who are involved realize what's at stake or, you know, and also Woodward and Bernstein get more persistent. You know, these people start to divulge details more and more, but at the same time are like, okay, but literally I can't say another word more than that or else I am in danger. And frankly, you guys are in danger too. And they just go, really? [01:15:01] Speaker A: Who's gonna. [01:15:02] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. It's like they don't even. They don't even get it. Like, they don't get how deep in the shit they are. And that's a. It's a really cool way that the movie ratchets up the tension to the. You know, by the time that Deep Throat, their. Their secret source is telling them, like, your lives are at risk, like you, you know, you need to be looking over your shoulder. And then Woodward goes home terrified, watching over his shoulder the entire walk home. [01:15:34] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, it's very much it. It's phenomenal just how the films, quote, unquote. Because technically, of these three films, in terms of the paranoia aspects, this film probably has the most subtle, it's the most subdued. [01:15:49] Speaker B: Yeah, but I think it's also. It's more in the films, like the DNA of the subject matter in the sense. [01:15:57] Speaker A: Oh, yeah. [01:15:58] Speaker B: Watergate is just. I mean, like, this movie's a poster child for journalism films. Watergate is like the poster child for, you know, political and civil distrust of like, you know, that was. That was the era and everybody was like, well, shit. So much of this kind of artifice we hold up around the presidency and our clean cut politics has been shattered. And that's just kind of in every inch of this movie. But, yeah, as a dramatic device, the paranoia is definitely more subdued than the other two. [01:16:33] Speaker A: It's also a film where the paranoia is basically blocked off due to our main characters perception of themselves. In the scenario where it's like, basically from the get go, Woodward and Bernstein have to fight for their lives to basically get the story because they're basically like, woodward, you've barely been here. You've been here less than five years. Yeah, we don't want to give you this story because you're still green. And Bernstein, you are so full of shit sometimes. And I know you've been here for 15 years that, like, who is gonna truly believe you caught the expose of a lifetime? Like, you both should work together and figure it out. But, like, it's gonna be difficult because no one is going to take you seriously. And so for the majority of the film, it's almost like Woodward and Bernstein internalize that perception of themselves to the point where, like, the paranoia doesn't set in until people finally say to both of them, you have no fucking idea what you just found out. [01:17:32] Speaker B: Mm. [01:17:33] Speaker A: You don't. You have no idea that you two are both green journalists. That people are going to constantly shit on you guys because they're gonna be like, who the fuck are Woodward, Bernstein? When in reality, most of those people are doing that because they're trying to create a smokescreen, trying to dis. [01:17:48] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. [01:17:49] Speaker A: You found something that no one else has found before. And they are afraid of that. [01:17:55] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:17:55] Speaker A: Like, it's. It is kind of phenomenal, the fact that. And it's also phenomenal that it's mainly Woodward, because Woodward is basically. Even though Bernstein is a co lead, the film starts with Woodward basically stumbling upon this notion on accident by going to, like, getting some court proceedings when the Watergate robbers are first locked up. And then ultimately he is the first one to really feel the paranoia because of his connection to Deep Throat, his sources, as well as, you know, being the one who is. Even though he is them, I would say is the one that is, you know, the most skeptical. I think that's also the best part too is Woodward is the one that. [01:18:36] Speaker B: Feels Bernstein's kind of like from the get go, like, oh, yeah, for sure. These guys are all fucking. Yeah, he's very much evidence. [01:18:46] Speaker A: Yeah. If Joe, he'd like. Bernstein is played like Hoffman plays Bernstein, as if Joe Frady was a real person. [01:18:52] Speaker B: Yeah, he's. He's kind of the reckless sort of loose cannon one. [01:18:57] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:18:57] Speaker B: Not necessarily. Always ensuring his sources and verifying his information. [01:19:03] Speaker A: Once that librarian basically like tells him, oh yeah, there's a bunch of books that this person put out. I'll find them for you. And then Mealy calls back and says, I have no idea who this person is. I lied. I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Immediately after that, Bernstein goes, there's a conspiracy. There's something going on here. And while Woodward has to. The film basically has to convince Woodward. Not only have you stumbled upon something, you've stumbled upon something that could royally fuck you up if you don't have the full story in scope. And it's kind. It's phenomenal how, like, that's why the film, out of all three of these film in the trilogy is the most grounded. Not because it's a real life story, but because of the idea that like, you know, these are two people that are in a way. In a meta. Textual way. Being like, this is like a movie scenario. There's no fucking way we're writing something that would be like this bombastic and ridiculous and also just easy to see that there's something shady going on. Yeah, like, that's a big thing too, is the fact that like, they basically have to constantly keep telling people like this doesn't this seems way too easy in terms of just like how people are just like the connection to who is doing this and, you know, the use of funds for this kind of horrible. Like, it's just so insane. And like other people are like, yeah, this does sound insane. Do you have sources? And we're like, yeah. He's like, okay, well, like, keep going. I think it's a. Because Ben Bradley, he's the senior editor. Like, he's the guy. Is he the one that is like constantly hounding them the entire time? [01:20:37] Speaker B: Yeah, he's hounding them. And like, at a certain point he obviously believes in their story, but he's like, guys, oh, yeah. If we're gonna publish this, you have to be 120% sure. Yeah. Because he's Jason Robards, who we've also talked about on the pod before in Once Upon a Time in the West. [01:20:58] Speaker A: Yes, I was. I remember looking that up because he's phenomenal in that movie and he's great in this movie. He also has probably one of the. I mean, again, I think I've cards on the table now in case no one is aware of that. I think this movie is perfect. I love this movie. [01:21:12] Speaker B: Yeah, it's amazing. [01:21:14] Speaker A: My favorite of the trilogy and I think, like, the amount of moments in this movie where it's like, this is a movie that is captivating and it's mainly just people talking on phones, smacking typewriter keys. [01:21:26] Speaker B: Other than like the eating sandwiches. Yeah. Other than like the opening scene and like the couple short sequences of like really kind of paranoia thriller stuff, this movie is. Yeah, it's like 98% just standing in well lit rooms talking or yelling at each other, tracking down sources and stuff. It's very procedural and I love that about it. I loved Spotlight for the same reasons. Same here, having not seen all the President's Men at that time. But there's a lot of similarities between them in how these movies very painstakingly spell out the kind of mundane and repetitive nature of investigative journalism and, you know, trying to get information out of people who don't want to talk to you and, you know, also managing the bureaucratic element of it and like trying to get through to editors who don't want to listen to you and that sort of thing. Yeah, it's, it's, it's awesome. And I mean, I'm not a journalist, you know, not other than like film criticism. I'm not really a journalist by profession, but I was a journalism student in high school and college and you were a communications student. So, like, that stuff, I think is a little bit special to us, seeing that portrayed in a really authentic way. [01:22:53] Speaker A: I mean, it's also just like a very sobering feeling too. The fact that it's like Bernstein and Woodward are constantly being called kids by a bunch of old men that are looking at two men that are in their 40s being like they're too green for this to be like, okay, so like, it's a hub. It's an uphill battle, regardless. Yeah. The reality, the fact that it's like these are two men that are just at the, at the very big, like, beginning are just basically like it's so fascinating how this film finds a way to turn the real life events in a way that doesn't make Woodward and Bernstein look stupid. Because you're basically watching two men build a pyramid from the bottom up and get confused as to what the last piece is. As if it's not the top of the pyramid. [01:23:44] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:23:45] Speaker A: As if it's not like, guys, you're so close. But it's great. But it's great to feel like the fact that it's so impactful is because Bakula as a storyteller and as a director is able to introduce to the audience again a well known concept now, which is, hey, people in our government are shady, shitty and they're human and flawed. And guess what, they can make mistakes. And guess what, even the President can make mistakes and kind of do bad things. [01:24:17] Speaker B: Oh yeah. Not even mistakes, but actively conspire to corruption. Yeah, yeah. [01:24:23] Speaker A: And the fact that like Pekula is introducing this concept in the 70s as a way to just like reintroduce the whole Nixon scenario to just people who are living as it's happening. Well, it's. Now it's like, it's fascinating to just like get a re. Almost just like a rejuvenized version of like what we have always been aware of for decades. It's way more than I think they were in the 70s. And it's like, it's phenomenal because again, I think that re, you know, you just reminding people about that idea, unlike Parallax View, is for an optimistic reason. It's basically trying to get people to go, hey, we thought that these people were held at a higher standard and that meant they weren't going to do criminal activities. That's not the case. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep going until there's nothing left. [01:25:21] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's. I mean it's. Without being saccharine, it's a celebration of, you know, journalism and of the importance of digging deeper and all of that. [01:25:35] Speaker A: Because there's a great moment in the film where you in like a normal quote, unquote normal, like fictional investigative drama is where it's like, holy shit, did we get this all wrong? [01:25:47] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:25:47] Speaker A: Where we have this phenomenal moment with Bren Ben Bradley. It's a moment that honestly is like meme quality, like everyone cheering in the streets kind of scenario where it's basically he just looks at all these men that just denounce Woodward and Bernstein to his face and he goes Fuck it. We stick with him. And it's like, fuck. It's so simple, yet it's so satisfying. And it's just so fun to watch Ben Bradley be the biggest asshole in the entire space. To just basically be like, listen, the reason why I'm doing this is because I had my own water gate years ago and I nearly got screwed. But I was right, and I believe you boys are, too. And it's like, fuck, that's just such good storytelling, such good performances across the board. Again, very similar to Parallax View. This isn't. This is a film that has a huge fucking cast. I mean, Ned Beatty shows up for five seconds, basically, and never shows up again. Like, that is fun. I mean, fucking f. Mary Abraham is like a cop. [01:26:52] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:26:53] Speaker A: The fucking dad from seventh Heaven who is controversial in his own right. But, like, at least at the time is like, you have all these actors where it's like, holy fuck, you're in this. Yeah, it's 76. And it's like. It all is like. Even though they're playing mainly smaller roles to Woodward and Bernstein, and to an extent, you know, Deep Throat and Bradley. [01:27:14] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:27:15] Speaker A: They still work incredibly well and have so much to work with compared to, like, Parallax View, where you have so little to work with, yet do such a good job with this. They've got plenty to work with. They do it in such a subtle, phenomenal way as a supporting cast. [01:27:31] Speaker B: Yeah, it's. [01:27:32] Speaker A: It's hard not to just, like, any time someone shows up on screen, just have a fun time. Even the guy that, like, mainly deals with foreign affairs in, like, the meetings, who is, like, super stiff. It is basically like, yeah, you bought. Your boys are fucking up Ben. I don't trust it. Like, even he is satisfied. He's, like, very satisfying to watch because you get where he's coming from, even though you don't agree with him. Like, it's so much fun to just, like, rewatch this film, be like, yep, still as great as I remember it being. Like, it's. It's. It's a classic for a reason. Like, again, it's all the President's Men, a film that is nearly half a century old and I would argue is still pretty goddamn relevant. [01:28:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I would. I would love if this, like, gets any repertory screenings at any local theaters. I would love to go see. [01:28:23] Speaker A: Oh, man. [01:28:24] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:28:25] Speaker A: And I would love it if they had Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, you know, just sit down and randomly just talk about. [01:28:31] Speaker B: Do a sleepy FAQ beforehand. A sleepy Q and A do the. [01:28:37] Speaker A: Same thing that the New York Film Festival did for Megalopolis. I'd listen to them talk. I mean, that would be the one film where Redford goes off on a political tirade where it would make sense. [01:28:48] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:28:49] Speaker A: Right. But yeah. Do you have anything else to add to the all the President's Men? [01:28:55] Speaker B: Oh, I mean, not really. It's. Yeah, it's a. It's a masterpiece. I mean, I fucking love how Holbrook in this movie is Deep Throat. You can barely tell it's him until pretty close to the ending. His striking eyes, this almost cartoonish sort of mystery figure, but almost just about everything he does and says in this is pretty much true to the original book. It's also just crazy to me that like, that that exists in reality. Like, Deep Throat was an actual person and nobody even knew who he was until like 2005 after he died. And it was the, like the director, I think of the Mark Felt. [01:29:55] Speaker A: Yeah. Because now if you look up. If you look up Deep Throat, hilariously enough, because again, I completely forgot. [01:30:02] Speaker B: Deep Throat has a wick Wikipedia page. And it's also Mark Felt's Wikipedia page, but it's also literally listed as Deep Throat. [01:30:12] Speaker A: Not only is Deep Throat basically a gag in the newspaper, like in the Washington Post as a reference to a porno at the time. [01:30:21] Speaker B: Yeah. But it's also the fact that it's porn film. [01:30:25] Speaker A: The fact that if you look up Deep Throat now, you not only get Mark Felt, but you also get the fact that there was a Liam Neeson Mark Felt biopic that came out like decade ago. [01:30:36] Speaker B: I never heard of that. [01:30:38] Speaker A: Apparently, like I called Deep Throat. No, it's not called Deep Throat, but I think if you look up Deep Throat, the two big, like, researches come up are all the President's Men and that Mark Felt biopic. [01:30:51] Speaker B: Jesus. [01:30:52] Speaker A: Because I think it's like maybe they say, like the man who becomes Deep Throat maybe is like the subtitle for that film. [01:30:58] Speaker B: Or like. [01:30:59] Speaker A: Okay, but like, it's just fascinating. Yeah. To think about, like, you know, after a certain point, like, if anyone says Deep Throat. It is not. It is. At this point they're probably not even saying it because of actual Mark Felt. It is just a term that has been around long enough that people are just like, this means something. Right? [01:31:22] Speaker B: Mark Felt, the man who brought down the White House. [01:31:26] Speaker A: There it is. There it is. Yeah. And it's got like a. It's like, it's got like a J. Edgar esque, like, poster. [01:31:32] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:31:34] Speaker A: But yeah, that is not only the all the President's Men, but that is Vakula's paranoia trilogy, which I would recommend watching through. Like, I think it's a really fun trilogy. That definitely amps up the paranoia aspect in conversation in a way that feels genuine, that feels interesting, and also doesn't feel. The best part, I think, about all three of these films is that it doesn't feel preachy. [01:32:02] Speaker B: Preachy. [01:32:03] Speaker A: You're trying to it all shut down your throat. [01:32:05] Speaker B: Doesn't feel too samey. Like, all approaches to two different vert, like, kind of types of paranoia. And it's also different, like, storytelling approaches to handling those types of paranoia. And also just, you know, is a really cool kind of microcosm of that time. [01:32:29] Speaker A: Yes. [01:32:30] Speaker B: Politically and socially, you kind of get three different facets of what was on Americans minds in the 70s. [01:32:41] Speaker A: And they were thinking Dustin Hoffman as Carl Bernstein. [01:32:45] Speaker B: Right. [01:32:45] Speaker A: I mean, he's. Again, I think at one point they said they wanted Pacino. [01:32:49] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:32:50] Speaker A: Or something for that role. And it's like, thank God they didn't. Not because Pacino wouldn't have done a good job. But like Hoffman, just his introduction, especially their introduction to their relationship where he's just basically stealing pages from Woodward to rewrite them. [01:33:06] Speaker B: Yes. [01:33:07] Speaker A: He's such a little scoundrel. And Hoffman perfectly captures that aspect of Bernstein incredibly well and his incredible, like, dynamic between him and Redford. [01:33:17] Speaker B: Absolutely. [01:33:19] Speaker A: Great time all around. And just in time to now have just a few days left until the election. [01:33:27] Speaker B: Yeah. It gets you feeling a little bit paranoid at a time when I'm sure you're not feeling any of that. [01:33:33] Speaker A: Yeah. Not like I haven't felt paranoid for over half a year. [01:33:38] Speaker B: I mean, at least with like, what's going on now, I feel like at least with regards to Trump, we kind of know all of the awful shit he's been up to. So, you know. [01:33:49] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh. It is. It is very much just like there's got to be someone who is like, can we do an all the President's man about? And then someone goes, please stop. [01:33:58] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:33:59] Speaker A: Like, what do you. [01:33:59] Speaker B: What do you. What are we going to uncover at this point? [01:34:02] Speaker A: Yeah. What is. He had. He hasn't had any repercussions anyway. Like, why would you even. Why. [01:34:09] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I guess. I guess that might be. Honestly, though, the most compelling recipe for a Trump movie in my mind would be a. Like, all the President's Men, a Trump movie with no Trump in it. Like, if you could find. Maybe. Maybe it's a January 6th movie. I don't know. But, you know, something that is a byproduct or the, you know, consequence of the direct action of Donald Trump. But he doesn't even need to be in the film because what we're doing is we're following the, the breadcrumb trail or whatever. [01:34:41] Speaker A: Maybe. I think that's probably why a lot of studios don't do all the President's Men stuff anymore. Because it's like there's. There's a part of them that's itching and they want to push the big red. [01:34:50] Speaker B: Yeah. They want the big actor. The eye catcher thing. Yeah, yeah. [01:34:55] Speaker A: Because it's like. Yeah. [01:34:56] Speaker B: It's even like they want Liam Neeson as Mark Felt. [01:34:59] Speaker A: Who doesn't? I guess some. Someone wanted that. [01:35:02] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:35:03] Speaker A: And that's. I don't think I'll have any interest in watching. [01:35:07] Speaker B: No. [01:35:07] Speaker A: But I will say if there is a scene where they basically invoke Puck, like Pakula's Deep Throat, like, where it's like Liam Neeson just like in the shadows with only his eyes showing, like. [01:35:18] Speaker B: Yeah, right. [01:35:19] Speaker A: I'll watch that scene. [01:35:21] Speaker B: Jared Leto as Deep Throat too. [01:35:24] Speaker A: Oh, man, it's gonna make a more billion amount of dollars. Well, now that we have talked about the Paranoia trilogy, it is time to discuss our next trilogy. So this has come out on November 2nd. [01:35:42] Speaker B: Say again. I've lost. [01:35:44] Speaker A: Is my head all over the place? Is it, is it November 2nd? Is it November 2nd? [01:35:49] Speaker B: Hold on, go back a little bit. I lost. I lost connection with you. [01:35:55] Speaker A: Oh, no. But enough of the Paranoia Trilogy. We're now here to talk about our next November trilogy. One that is gonna be definitely more theatrical in a sense, taking a classic narrative, but told through an iconic director's lens. Andy, take it away. What's our next trilogy? [01:36:18] Speaker B: Yeah, we are talking about three films by world renowned, all time great filmmaker Akira Kurosawa. [01:36:28] Speaker A: Damn right. [01:36:29] Speaker B: But at least to my knowledge, the man never made a canonical narrative trilogy, but rather we're discussing a. An adaptation trilogy. There are three films in Kurosawa's filmography in which he adapts the works of William Shakespeare. Kurosawa was an incredibly well read, well educated man in all types of storytelling, film, theater and literature. But yes, he made three stabs at William Shakespeare adaptations with 1957's Throne of Blood, which is his adaptation of Macbeth. 1960s the Bad Sleep well, which is Hamlet. It's a loose Hamlet, but it was intended to be a Hamlet adaptation. And many Years later, in 1985, he made a film called Ron, which is his adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear, so. Oh, shit. [01:37:44] Speaker A: I didn't even know that. [01:37:45] Speaker B: I actually haven't. I've watched Ron before, but I've never read King Lear, so I might kind of try and do that as part of my little homework for this next episode. But, yeah, I mean, I have seen Throne of Blood before. I had not even heard of the Bad Sleep well until finding out about this trilogy. So I'm excited to try that. I think that one's like a modern setting, like a contemporary, really. [01:38:17] Speaker A: Okay. [01:38:18] Speaker B: Whereas the other two are period pieces. [01:38:22] Speaker A: Yes. [01:38:22] Speaker B: Kind of Feudal Feudal Japan, jidai geki. [01:38:24] Speaker A: Films, because I knew about all three of those films and of course, love Kurosawa from what I've seen personally. But never before you introduce this trilogy to me, never did I realize that they were, in fact, Shakespeare adaptations. [01:38:40] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:38:41] Speaker A: So it's kind of, you know, I. [01:38:43] Speaker B: Mean, Throne of Blood's probably the most recognized one because it is pretty much beat for beat just about the plot of Macbeth. And it was intended like, he made it as, like, hey, I want to make Macbeth into a movie. It's also probably one of the most famous Macbeth adaptations. But, yeah, the other two I had no idea were Shakespeare adaptations. [01:39:13] Speaker A: Yeah. Especially Ron. I didn't even think about that being a possibility because that's been on my watch list for a very long time. [01:39:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I watched most of it earlier this year because I've been on a kick of trying to watch a lot of Japanese cinema, but my Blu Ray that I had was a faulty copy and it froze up, like, two thirds of the way through, and I never finished it. And then, like, I knew we were doing this, so I was like, ah, I'll just wait and watch it then. So, yeah, excited to jump back into that one. And also we will be joined by a very special guest for this trilogy, a good friend and colleague, a fellow fellow local film journalist, Matt Hurt, who owns and operates the Obsessive Viewer podcast and website. He is a major Kurosawa nerd, probably the biggest that I know has seen. I believe he's seen all of these films already and has seen most of Kurosawa's filmography. So he will be an invaluable resource talking about these three. I'm very excited to have him. [01:40:28] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh, it's gonna be so much fun. We've had so much fun with guests this year that I'm excited to not only talk about Kurosawa, but have another Kurosawa head or just someone. [01:40:38] Speaker B: Just similarly to having Nick Rogers on as our resident Kev head. [01:40:45] Speaker A: I can't wait for that episode to be four hours long. But, yeah, so absolutely tune in on November 16th when we cover Kurosawa's Shakespeare trilogy. But until then, I'm Logan Sowash. [01:41:02] Speaker B: And I'm Andy Carr. [01:41:03] Speaker A: Thank you so much for listening. [01:41:05] Speaker B: Bye.