Some Movies That Changed Filmmaking

An estimated 50,000 films were made worldwide in 2009 alone. Many are surely clunkers, but in this episode Chuck and Josh talk about the ones that emerged throughout cinema history to change the course of all movies that followed. Get your popcorn.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to you Stuff you should know from how Stuffworks
dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark. There's
Charles W. Chuck Bryant aka Ciskel.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
And Ebert save it's the I'll see.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
And Jerry's over there. I guess she's Gene Shallett. That's
the stuff you should know, triumph for.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
I don't know why that took on me so much
because Jeane Salat's a funny looking I guess, yeah, Jerry's not.
I'm just picturing her with a big afro and a
mustache and like a tweet jacket and bad opinions about movies.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Geene Shllett had a look for sure.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Still thought he's around right, Oh yeah, I think so. Yeah,
Rip both Ciskel and Ebert, so sad. I know, have
you seen the Roger Ebert documentary?

Speaker 2 (00:55):
No, I've heard nothing but good things.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Really really good, very touching.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Yeah. Is it a something life?

Speaker 3 (01:03):
Life? Uh like mine, Life with Me, Life on top,
Life itself, Life with thumbs, Life itself, Life itself, Life
with thumbs.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
It was really great and I watched it on made
the mistake of watching on a plane, and I was
just like.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
My allergies were acting up. Oh yeah, oh yeah I was.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
I was watering because of your allergies. No, because it
was sad. I was crying. Do you want me to
say it?

Speaker 3 (01:26):
Oh? Yeah, crying on a plane. I was confused there
for a second.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
That's better than when I watch other movies that are
on my laptop that are like like bad violence or
nudity or something. I'm always just like oh, and I
kind of lower the laptop and it's like I.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
Didn't realize this was in here, and the lady next
to me is just.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Like, ugh, you disgust me?

Speaker 1 (01:47):
Yeah, because I don't. I want to be sensitive people
around me. You know, I'm not one of those jerks.
It's like just lives in my own bubble.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
It's like watching some sex scene on a plane, You're
like elbowing the lady.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
So yeah, no, I hate it. It was so embarras
happened to me a couple of times. I'm like I
needed to start going PG on movies airplanes.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Judd Apatow huh am, I right, he's unpredictable.

Speaker 3 (02:08):
Yeah all right, So Chuck, this is your episode to
shine man, is it? Yes, you're a movie guy too, though,
I like movies.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
But I've I almost consciously don't let myself watch movies
on a like a film aficionado.

Speaker 3 (02:25):
Level, your pure enjoyment.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
Yeah, I don't ever want to see the individual shots
and just be like, oh, well that could have been
better whatever. Yeah, and just missed the movie as a whole.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yeah. I fall somewhere in the middle of that. I
try to let go.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
But like our our video producer director Casey is is
pretty bad about that. And our buddy Scotty who shot
our TV show, Oh he's the worst. Yeah, he's just
the camera working that lighting in that scene.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
Scott's awesome. Hey Scott, Hey Casey.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
They're all in here with this in spirit. And hey,
this is the last show in the studio. Yeah, last
episode in the old office.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Yep, Murder Room.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
Couldn't feel more neutral about it.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
I actually feel less than neutral, less than zero. It's
it's weird. That was a good movie. Thank you, great shots.
I say thank you as if I directed it.

Speaker 2 (03:18):
I not only directed it, I also played Andrew McCarthy. Uh.

Speaker 3 (03:24):
Yeah, I'm ready to get the heck out of here. Man.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
I can't wait to get in that new office and
that Yeah, it's gonna be good, tiny little dedicated studio.

Speaker 3 (03:31):
Whole new world. All right, let's do this.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Okay, So, Chuck films, you've seen one or two of
them in your time? Sure, have you seen any of
the ones in this list? I know you've seen a
few of them, but have you seen like some of
the early ones I've seen.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Well, we'll just go piece by piece because I have
not seen Battleship Patankn.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
Okay, but I do love Mandy Patankin.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
It's a little different, yes, in spelling pronunciation meaning the
whole thing.

Speaker 3 (03:57):
Uh huh.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
But it's close, I guess.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
But we're talking, of course, about films that change filmmaking
somewhere or another. And the first one on the list
is from nineteen twenty five, Battleship Patinkin.

Speaker 3 (04:10):
That's hard for me to say, which is.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
Not the first movie, by the way. The first screen
movie was Workers Leaving the Lumieer Factory, which is forty
seven seconds long and the most boring piece of celluloid
anyone's ever picked together. But it was the first, that's right.
This was many years. That was a full thirty years
before Battleship Potempkin. By the time thirty years had passed,
like we were doing like narratives, and there was banning

(04:33):
and all sorts of great stuff. Yeah, and Battleship Patinkin
fell under both of those umbrellas. It was a narrative story.
It was a silent movie, that's right, But it told
a pretty clear story. And it was a bit of
Russian propaganda as well.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Yeah, it tells a story of a nineteen oh five
uprising in where there were Russian sailors. Basically, there was
a mutiny aboard a ship and then the bad guys,
the Cossacks, came in looking for.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, nineteen oh five, that would have been rising up
against tyranny, would have been rising up against the Romanov monarchy.
I guess nice. But it was made in nineteen twenty five,
so this is a time when you know, Lenin and
Trotsky and all those dudes were running around trying to
do the great experiment. Yeah, and it ends up it

(05:22):
turns out that the Battleship Petempkin was banned in some countries.
Some countries are like, we don't want this Rusky propaganda, right,
But Russia itself later on banned it when Stalin came
to power because he was a self aware dictator.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
Was that the deal? Yeah, okay, he knew.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
This could be a metaphor for rising up against my dictatorship.
So I'm going to just ban the uh yeah, even
though it's Russian propaganda.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Well, filmatically, I need to bring the history, by the way.
Filmatically speaking, it was a landmark film because of the
montage and most notably the Russi or Soviet theory of montage,
which is basically that your impact is going to come
from juxtaposition of shots and not necessarily a smooth sequence

(06:10):
of shots, right, and it should be rhythmic instead of
necessarily being tied to the story. It was like a
rhythmic series of shots. And this one is popular. It
was the Odessa Steps sequence as one of the five acts,
and it is huge because it has been aped and

(06:32):
mimicked and mocked and homaged probably more than about more
but a lot of times in film history.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
Well, yeah, the montage it's like a go to editing technique, right.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
Oh yeah, well the montage in general, but specifically the
Odessa Steps.

Speaker 3 (06:48):
Oh, there are two notable parts in that sequence.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
One is the you know, it's basically a big charge
on these these grand steps leading up to a building
in a big battle.

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Odessa, Texas.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
And there's a part of it where there's the old
the old baby carriage going down the steps. You know
what's gonna happen to the baby? And it sounds tired
because we've seen that in uh, you know, The Untouchables.

Speaker 3 (07:13):
Yeah, notably, I did not find it tiresome.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
Naked Gun thirty three and the third Yeah, everything is illuminated,
the great movie by Leeb Schreiber. That was from directly
from the Odessa step sequence in Battleship Patinkin the baby carriage. Yeah,
and the old shot through the shot in the eye
through the glasses, Oh cool, that comes from this movie too.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
They were the first ones to do it.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, and you've seen that in Woody Allen's Love and
Death and Bananas and.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
Of course The Godfather.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
The great sequence where Moe Green's getting the massage and
he looks up and puts on.

Speaker 3 (07:48):
His glasses during a montage. Yeah, that's exactly the whole
sequence montage.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Yeah, because there was an assassination on the steps as well.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
Oh yes, that was definitely was a double.

Speaker 3 (07:59):
Who was that? That was Francis Ford Coppola.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
Oh yeah, he was clearly aware of Battleship Pat Tempkin, clearly.
I was trying to think of other examples of montages
and the only thing I could come up with was
the eighteen building something. But that counts as a montage, right, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
It's like some related in some way related shots that
are kind of put together that a little bit transcend like.

Speaker 3 (08:23):
Story in itself. Yeah, like Rocky training for a fight.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
Yeah, that's another good A lot of times just.

Speaker 3 (08:28):
Set to music. Yeah, I love it. That's the only
one you can think of.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Yeah, and the great movie Brazil too has the shot
through the glasses bit, as I like to call it.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
So that's Battleship of Dinkin, doesn't it. One of the
Nazis and Raiders of the Lost Dark gets shot through
the glasses.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
Maybe that wouldn't surprise me. It's been it's been off homaged,
you know.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah, So Battleship Pat Tempkin was a It made a
pretty big splash in nineteen twenty five. In nineteen twenty six,
the following year, the next movie on the list. It
wasn't his first, but it really solidified I think his
stardom Buster Keaton stardom.

Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah, the general rightfully so too. Yeah, he was one
of the.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
Great Well, some people call him the greatest stuntman to
ever live.

Speaker 3 (09:15):
He's done some stuff that I think earns him that, Yeah,
because I mean this is.

Speaker 1 (09:19):
Back in the day too, where he was legitimately risking
his life, right, you know, like.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
That the very famously where he's standing on the street
in front of a house and then the whole front
of the house falls over him and the window just
goes right around him.

Speaker 3 (09:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
I watch that again today.

Speaker 3 (09:34):
Yeah, it is.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
I can't believe he did that. And there's actually a
half of a second where his arm jerks up because
he's startled as the house finally makes its way like
into his peripheral vision. Yeah, and it has to be
one of the most dangerous things that human beings ever
done on film.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
Yeah, I'm sure the whole time before that was like
we did the math, right, he did the math.

Speaker 2 (09:58):
Do the math again, Do.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
The math again, Show me the math, Show me the math,
because that's all it was. It was math in measurements, right.
But yeah, he could have been squashed and killed very easily, and.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
He had a lot of faith in everybody who was
pulling off this stunt with him. You know, he had
to just stand there. That was his whole thing is
he had to just stand there, and his bit was
that he was he played it straight constantly. He was
a stonefaced actor.

Speaker 3 (10:21):
Yeah, deadpan.

Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah, he kind of started that whole thing because his
big I was about to say rival, but I guess
just contemporary Charlie Chaplin, while similar in some ways, was
completely different because Chaplin was constantly mugging for the camera
and like asking for the audience sympathy.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Right, raising his eyebrows or yeah.

Speaker 3 (10:41):
Like look, what's happening to me? Come on, come on?
Where his Buster Keaton would just he had that dead
pan look the whole time.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Yeah, he would go from like a house falling around
him to jumping on a train or something like that
with just the same blank facial expression.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (10:55):
And the reason this is a highly influential film the
generals because it kind of showcases the best of both
the amazing stunts that would be mimicked and throughout the
years and built upon, and then the deadpan style that
influenced everyone from obviously Bill Murray is one of the great.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
Deadpan actors of all time.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
Yeah, Like you can count the number of times Bill
Murray even smiles in a movie on like two hands,
sure much less like apes or laughs or anything.

Speaker 2 (11:23):
Michael Sarah's mentioned in here, and I'm like, he, I
think he might have Bill Murray beat as far as
the dead pan pan actor goes.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
Yeah, well, Zach galafan Actus is on the list, he's
super deadpan.

Speaker 3 (11:35):
Leslie Nielsen, of course. Amy Poehler, I think is a
woman that's a very dead pan has a deadpan style.
Jason Schwartzman.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Yes, but people say, is this all is a direct
descendant of Buster Keaton's work.

Speaker 2 (11:48):
Yeah, And if you think we're overstating this, go watch
any Buster Keaton movie. Yeah, you will be thrilled and delighted.
And if your attention span has been shredded to ribbons
by the Internet, just go on onto YouTube and type
in Buster Keaton and it'll bring up all sorts of
clips of his awesome stunts.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
Pretty great.

Speaker 2 (12:06):
He will be thrilled in as I promise.

Speaker 1 (12:08):
Yeah, and I think I made a note here, by
the way, that we have a fatty arbuckle retraction to
make Remember when we called him out as the rapist.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Murderer, I didn't say murderer. Well we said rapist at least, right,
but we were taking the task by fan he was,
he had, he was acquitted of all that stuff, and
apparently he didn't do either act and his career in
life and family name were ruined forever. So he was
evidently done a grave miss justice, and we sort of

(12:38):
cavalierly just still called him that today. Yeah, I need
to look into it more, all right. So next up
we have the Jazz Singer, the nineteen twenty seven edition.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
Not the Neil diamond one.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
No, and there was one in between two with Danny Thomas.
I believe I like Neil Diamonds. It's good. I never
saw you ever see it? No, No, it's not bad.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
But this is the original from Alan Crossland, and it
is notable because it was.

Speaker 3 (13:07):
The first feature length.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
Movie that was at least twenty five spoken dialogue.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Right, does that make sense? Yeah, it's totally new.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
Yeah, it wasn't the first talkie because they had short
films that were talkies, and there was a movie the
next year I'm sorry, yeah, in nineteen twenty eight called
Lights of New York that had one hundred percent full
spoken dialogue. But the Jazz singer had a mix of
music and spoken dialogue. Right, the first big, big daddy
feature length film to.

Speaker 3 (13:38):
Do so right with substantial dialogue, right. Yeah. And they.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
Did it in the most roundabout difficult way that you
could possibly do it, which is to record the audio
and the soundtrack, both the dialogue and the music, onto
vinyl records.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
Yeah, probably wax records.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Really, and then the projectionists had to sync the record
up with the film strip so everything was in sync.

Speaker 3 (14:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
It was a device called a vitaphone that Warner Brothers
sunk about half a million into this company called Western
Electric who invented it, and it was actually physically connected
to the projector's motor, so they did while they did
have to sink it was it was a physical connection
between the phonograph player and the projection.

Speaker 3 (14:28):
Real, I guess, yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
And it went on to gross three and a half
million bucks for nineteen twenty seven.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
That's man, a lot of dough. That's a ton of dough.
That's like five six million dollars today, at least, yeah,
at least, but was ineligible for the Best Picture because
they were just like, you can't compete with the rest,
it's not fair. Oh wow, because everything else is silent
and everyone's going to vote for you. Yeah, so that

(14:53):
changed the whole game for sure.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
We will continue on with our awesome and engrossing list
right after this. So, Chuck, if you'll notice, the first

(15:23):
three movies in our list, the first three films that
changed everything happened in nineteen twenty five, twenty six, and
twenty seven.

Speaker 3 (15:30):
Things were changing fast.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
They really were. I mean, like we by leaps and bounds. Sure,
but you can also make the case that there was
a lot of new ground to cover. So just about
anybody who did anything new that was noteworthy of the innovation. Yeah,
it was a big innovation. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (15:46):
Harder to innovate these days, it is.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
And if you'll notice on the list, so the earliest
ones were like technical editing innovations. Now, starting with Citizen
Kane from nineteen forty one, we started to get into
innovations in storytelling, which is a lot more nuanced than
you know, doing your own stunts or using a montage

(16:09):
or something. It's figuring out how to tell a story
in a much less linear narrative fashion. And Citizen Kme
was one of the early ones to pioneer a non
linear narrative.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
Yeah, did you you saw this? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Yeah, I didn't see it untill I mean it was
probably like probably about fifteen years ago, but like way
later than you would think I would have seen.

Speaker 3 (16:34):
This is a big film, buff.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
I saw it in college at a in a film class.

Speaker 3 (16:40):
Yeah. Sure. Often. Yeah, if you sign up for a
film class, you're going to study Citizen exactly pretty much.
And I finally found out what Rosebud was. Don't ruin it.
I won't.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
But it is a landmark film in every way, and
it has often been top of best Films of All
Time lists for great reasons, one of which, like you said,
the non linear narrative was a really unique thing at
the time. Although flashback wasn't brand new, it was the
first time it had been this extensive and effective in

(17:13):
the story.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
Yeah, because, I mean it's substantial enough that it really
cuts up the flow. Oh yeah, you know, it's not
like a quick flashback and then come back and the
actors like staring off into space to transition back into
the present again. I mean like it was all over
the place.

Speaker 3 (17:28):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
Some of the more concrete cinematic landmarks, one was using
deep focus.

Speaker 3 (17:38):
Director of photography.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
Greg Toland legend used he had used deep focus before
on a movie called Long Voyage Home, but it's all
over the place in Citizen Kane. And that basically means
if you see a shot where something very far away
is in focus in the shot, basically where everything's in
focus with.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
The background in the foreground or yeah, and focus so
you can press pause and look around like you're sticking
your head into a box.

Speaker 3 (18:05):
Yeah, that's called deep focus.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
And it was brand new as far as Citizen Gain goes,
is how extensive it used it.

Speaker 3 (18:13):
One of the other things was off center framing.

Speaker 1 (18:16):
It was a big, you know, pretty common thing to
just center whatever the main action was, either the character
or the object, And Citizen Kaine had a lot of
things where the main focus of the scene the character,
maybe even off screen, which was really weird at the time.
People didn't know what to think of it. Expressionistic lighting

(18:39):
back then, everything they just lit it. They're like, make
sure everything's well lit.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
But it was an autopremeter. Also like a big pioneer
with that.

Speaker 3 (18:46):
Yeah, I think so.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
With Dalm for Murder, I think he.

Speaker 3 (18:51):
Directed that was it Hitchcock.

Speaker 2 (18:52):
I think that was Hitchcock was it okay, Well, autopremmeter
directed stuff like that, though, right he was. He used
moody lighting and shot yeah and stuff a lot.

Speaker 3 (19:00):
I probably messed that up. People are gonna be for murder.
I think it was preventy okay.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
But orson Welles, of course, I don't think we even mentioned.
That's who wrote, directed, and starred and produced. And I
think he even edited a Citizen Kane.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Yeah, I just assumed everybody knew that, you know.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Yeah, he came from the theater where you create mood
with lighting only.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
Certain parts of the stage.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
So he brought that into the movies and it was
very evocative and set the mood well, and people are like, man,
why we lighten everything all bright all the time?

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Look at Citizen Kane. It really worked a couple of
other things, One of which.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
I know you will appreciate, sir, is that he pretty
much invented the wipe.

Speaker 3 (19:47):
Oh the star white, not the star white, but it followed.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
Yeah, the star wipe followed, which I know is your
favorite transition in cinema.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
Oh, it's all Star.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
Wars star because it almost makes a sound, you know.
And one of the way I want to say, you're right,
Dallen for Murder it was Hitchcock.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
Oh was it? Yeah? Okay, what was premature? Did you
look that up?

Speaker 2 (20:09):
He did one called Laura the Man with the Golden Arm.
It's not who I'm thinking of. I'm thinking of a
director named Auto who directed in like the twenties or thirties,
and he directed like moody, like like moody movies, like yeah,
murder movies. Yeah, like fil noir, Yes, film noir. That's
exactly what I was going for. And I don't remember

(20:30):
who it was.

Speaker 3 (20:32):
Maybe his name was Auto film Moore. He's French.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
And then one final thing, of course, that you could
study Citizen Kane for a week in the film class.
So this is an overview. But the low angle shots.
People didn't use a lot of lower high angle shots
back then. It was kind of just shot from straight
on and Orson Welles even dug out cut out the
floor a lot of times to get the camera lower.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
And for the first time we saw ceilings in view
in a movie, because quite often things were shot on
a sound stage where you don't have ceilings, and he
wanted those low angle shots. So they used fabric most
times to act as a ceiling, but very effective shots
of from below of Orson Wells as. I mean, it

(21:17):
wasn't exactly William Randolphurst, but it was an approximation of
William Randolphurst, right, so very effective low angle stuff that Now,
I mean, we take for granted all these things, but
you know, there would be no pulp fiction in that
nonlinear storytelling. If there was no well maybe somebody would
have done it, but maybe eventually.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
But he was the first. He did the first, and
that's why it was innovative.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
It's Fritz Lang.

Speaker 3 (21:43):
Yeah, there you go, Fritz Lang, Metropolis and Am just them.
That's okay, Yeah, it's all making sense now.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
You get confused.

Speaker 3 (21:52):
Yeah, but you were right on, You were right there.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Fritz and Auto are not close. I mean they're both German,
but that's about it.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Yeah, but you know the difference between and dial M
just a telephone.

Speaker 3 (22:04):
What's up next, Chuck Breathless one of my faves.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
So I am going to rely on you mostly for
this one because I looked up what the French new
wave really did, what it accounted for. Yeah, and like
all of the essays I found were hard to they
were dense. Yeah, and I didn't really understand. I understood
that the French New Wave like changed everything, and that

(22:29):
a lot of the movies that I know and love
today are the offspring of the French New Wave, but
I still didn't get exactly specifically what the French New
Wave did.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
And you're going to allow me to summarize, says yeah,
no pressure.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Well, for me, the French New Wave basically ushered in
an era of what now I think most people might
associate with indie filmmaking okay, okay, like handheld camera work
and what some people at the time considered amateurish camera work,
movies where maybe not a lot seemingly happens, you know,

(23:08):
nothing grand happens, which was the case in Breathless. A
lot of people didn't like it at the time because
it was like, you know, not much happens. You know
that the two leads in the movie, Jean Paul Belmondo
and Geene c Berg, weren't really like, didn't show express
a whole lot of deep love, and there weren't these
big moments of love and affection and these huge action sequences,

(23:31):
And it was described as flat by a lot of people.
And I think a lot of indie movies do that
just kind of show life as it happens.

Speaker 2 (23:38):
Yeah, so without Breathless, who wouldn't have like Fallow Rocket.

Speaker 3 (23:42):
Maybe.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
Wes Anderson's definitely a big French New wave guy, Yeah
for sure. But godar John lu Goodard who directed it,
and Truffau and some other French New Wave forefathers were
film critics at first.

Speaker 3 (23:58):
Oh yeah, yeah. They decided as a.

Speaker 1 (24:01):
Group, like, we want to look at cinnamon a new
way and do something different.

Speaker 3 (24:06):
So they went and started making their own movies.

Speaker 2 (24:08):
That's like James Fenimore Cooper, Yeah, the guy who wrote
Last of the Mohicans.

Speaker 3 (24:13):
Oh really Yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
He apparently used to complain that like nobody wrote good
books anymore, and so I think his wife or something said, well,
why don't you do it, big shot? And he did.
In the books he wrote really were so great. But
he went and wrote them, and he wrote a bunch
of them too.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
One of my favorite foresides ever is the second to
the Last of the Mohicans. It's just a line of
Native Americans and the second to the last one they're
online facing away. He just sort of turning around and
waving camera. I guess the camera at Gary Larson's hand,
So Breathless is notable for those reasons. It kind of
kicked off the French New Wave. But the use of

(24:51):
jump cut editing, which we see so much now, it
was the first movie and it was very jarring at
the time to see jump cuts in a movie. And
that's when you're showing, like, uh, I guess the best
way to describe it as multiple shots of the same
subject or thing from different angles.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
Right, It's like you indicate the progression of time or
movement or something by just cutting quickly rather than focusing
on somebody walking down the street for five minutes, you
cut a couple of times, and all of a sudden
they're just closer to the camera, and then closer and closer,
and then they're past the camera.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
It's a jump cut, yeah, Or even as simple as
something as simple as like you're going to leave the house,
so you go and pick up your keys and you
put on your coat. Instead of showing all that you
come out of the bedroom, Boom, you're putting on your coat. Boom,
you're putting the keys in the door.

Speaker 3 (25:41):
Right exactly.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
You're just showing the high highlights of this progression of
stuff where that would otherwise be boring to watch the
whole thing. But it also is used to create tension too,
because it's it's jarring. I guess it's probably why it
creates tension. And Scorsese famously used it in Good Fellow.
Oh yes, at the end when Henry Hill is like,

(26:03):
like trying to sell some guns to Nero. Yeah, he's
to the gills, right, and he's like trying to sell
some guns to NERO, but they don't fit the silencers,
and like he's the helicopters following them. He's got the
sauce going, and all this stuff is being represented and
compressed in a very short amount of time by the
use of jump cuts.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yeah, very effective, and for budding filmmakers it's a great
way to hide mistakes of things you may not have
gotten that you thought you got. Jump cutting is a
really easy way to just sort of, yeah, to hide
your errors. Yeah, I did it a lot. In other words,
when I was making those.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
Shorts, I I was I realized that in my head
I was referencing the shot in Soul Taker. You know,
have you ever seen that mystery signs three thousand with
uh uh? It's his last name is Estevez is Martin
Sheen's brother and he is the soul taker and he's
next to this guy who's a soul taker.

Speaker 3 (27:05):
You just have to see this.

Speaker 2 (27:06):
But anyway, they're they're walking down the road in this
jump cut, like has this progression of them. It's so unnecessary,
but it's like a great use of jump cut. You
could tell the director was like, I can't wait to
use a jump cut, and this is what she did.
She used it on.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
But go watch the MSc three K it's a good one. Man.
Did you see every single one of those episodes?

Speaker 2 (27:27):
No, it's still I still run across the ones that
I haven't seen.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Yeah, nice, hey in then shout out to Bill Corbett,
who I know is a listener.

Speaker 3 (27:37):
Oh, yeah he is, isn't he?

Speaker 1 (27:38):
I don't know if he's going to hear this one,
but the great Bill Corbett, so taker. Next, we're gonna
move on.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
To Frederico Fellini's Eight and a half. Have you ever
seen this one? No?

Speaker 2 (27:52):
I haven't. Now I understand why it's called that though.

Speaker 3 (27:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
It was one of the first, although not the first,
movies about movie making and starring the great Marcelo Masteriania
Masi from ladulcea vita a muse of Fellini's over the
years too, And this one, this one really kicked off
the surrealist filmmaking and sort of saying you can play

(28:17):
around and shoot a dream sequence where the guy's in
traffic and then he leaves his car and floats up
in the air and is you know, being pulled down
to the ground on the beach from a rope tight
around his ankle, just like go nuts.

Speaker 2 (28:30):
Yeah, And successive filmmakers did go nuts, like Gondry did
Eternal Center of the Spotless Mind.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Oh yeah, he's hugely influenced.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Darren Aronofsky did some weird stuff here or.

Speaker 3 (28:42):
There, yeah, David Lynch and Terry Gilliam of course. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
Just basically surrealism is what I'm taking Fellini introduced into.

Speaker 3 (28:50):
This, yeah, for real.

Speaker 1 (28:52):
And besides the surrealism, that opening sequence of Eight and
a Half where the director, he's the director in the movie,
Guido is.

Speaker 3 (29:03):
Stuck in traffic.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
It's really claustrophobic feeling, and that's why he floats.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
Away and escapes, you know that that.

Speaker 1 (29:09):
Traffic jam, But that was directly mimicked in like Rams
Everybody Hurts video. Oh yeah, and the beginning of the
movie Falling Down. Do you remember that huh that started
with the traffic jam. Yeah, Michael Douglass just left. He
doesn't float, he gets like an oozy.

Speaker 3 (29:24):
I saw that again the other day. Most of it
it's weird.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
It alternately felt way ahead of its time and also
very dated because the stuff that Michael Douglas is doing
felt way ahead of its time.

Speaker 3 (29:40):
But then there was I just forgot about that whole
weird subplots with Robert Duvall retiring and he had this
wife that was hinpecking them, and like this retirement party
they were trying to throw them. I forget about that too.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Yeah, it was just so unnecessary. It felt really weird
and out of place. The other day when I was watching.

Speaker 2 (29:59):
It, there like a jump cut montage where he's putting
on his watch, his gold retirement watch.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
No, but then too, the Barbara hershey know, is in
venice at home with the daughter and he spends a
whole day coming there to grab them basically, and the
whole time she just keeps calling the cops.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
Like the no, he's coming and now he's coming.

Speaker 1 (30:19):
And I was watching the other day, I was like
freaking leave. Oh yeah, what are you doing there?

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah, that's a movie character thing.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Ah.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
You know that's just bad writing, bad directing. When you
just walk right past the ability to leave. You missed
a huge step.

Speaker 3 (30:36):
Where were we falling down?

Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (30:38):
I think that pretty much sums up eight and a half.

Speaker 2 (30:40):
I think so too. Falling down boom, so chuck. We
got a little more left, we got more films. Is
this making you want to watch films?

Speaker 3 (30:47):
Yeah? Me too.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
I feel like eating ice cream, watching a film and
scratching from poison ivy lately.

Speaker 3 (30:54):
Yeah, and burning this office down. You know, if that.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Happens now, suspicion's gonna fall on you for saying that.

Speaker 3 (31:01):
That's all right, we'll be right back after that.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
All right, So we're back with our awesome jingles, which,
by the way, we have to thank John Began, John
begin Begin. He even emailed with the pronunciation of his name.
But he the original guy who did our jingle, the
first jingle ever, Rusty Mattias or Matthias Man, I'm not

(31:44):
good with the pronunciation. Uh well, anyway, Rusty who's banned
the sheep Dogs are on tour right now. Just because
his work was so original, we contacted him and said, Hey,
we got this other guy who's done like covers of
your work.

Speaker 3 (31:58):
Can we use these. It's like totally mash it up.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Yeah, and John's been making awesome like versions of it
ever since.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Yeah. They're both great and talented.

Speaker 2 (32:07):
Thanks to you both.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
And go check out I think that what you say.
They're on tour right, yeah, the sheep Dogs. Yeah, go
check out the Sheep Dogs. Yeah, and in town near you. Yeah.
All right, let's finish with these two in reverse order.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
Okay, Toy Story was a big one, hugely innovative, huge,
and again it's one of those things where now almost
everything about it seems pedestrian.

Speaker 3 (32:30):
Su or what it did.

Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, see, it's still a great movie, I'm sure, but
the innovations that it undertook are just seemed pedestrian. But
at the time it was totally groundbreaking.

Speaker 3 (32:42):
Yeah, game changer.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
It was the first, the first CGI movie, all CGI
movie ever. Yeah, that was enormous.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
Well yeah, and I remember at the time seeing it
and just being like, Wow, this is the future of
animated films.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
What's the best all CGI animated film? Seemed?

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Visually, Uh, well, I haven't seen a lot of them.
These days because Emily doesn't like those, So I probably
wouldn't be the best person to ask Holly from uh stuff.

Speaker 3 (33:10):
Or soyas in history class. She'd probably be the one to.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
Ask for my money. Have you seen The Adventures of Tintin?

Speaker 3 (33:17):
Oh? Yeah, that was amazing, mind blowing. Yeah. I saw
that on your recommendation and really really liked it. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
The story was great, the action was great, the characters
were great. But the CGI, the computer animation, is I
think possibly the best ever done.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yeah, and that's a bit of a different style than say,
like UP or The Incredibles. It's not nearly as cartoons.
It's like the I think it's the motion capture. Yeah,
I think that's what they did for that.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
Oh yeah, with UP it would strictly be totally just animation, right.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
Yeah, but I mean they're both animation, right. But yeah, man, Tintin,
that was really good.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
It was good.

Speaker 3 (33:53):
I was surprised how much I liked that.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
But UP was good too, and Toy Story was good too.
But all of these things came as a result of
the ground that Toy Story.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
Broke absolutely in nineteen ninety five, Like you said, what
seems like a common thing today I mean, you don't
see cell animation anymore.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
It's almost I know, I kind.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
Of miss it.

Speaker 3 (34:11):
I totally miss it.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
Well, like the new Mickey Mouse is all weird and
CG like stuff from our generation should have just been discontinued. Yeah,
and then you just come up with all new stuff
that's CGI Starwberry Shortcake not supposed to be CGI. It
just all looks weird now.

Speaker 3 (34:28):
Yeah, I wish there would have people would have done
the little bit of both still, because I think sell animation,
Like I think The Iron Giant came out after Toy
Story and they did sell animation. Yeah, and that was great. Yeah,
great movie.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
I haven't seen that.

Speaker 3 (34:42):
Oh, it's really good. You'd like it.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
Like it was a movie for grown ups, and Toy
Story sort of laid the way for that because it
was one of the first movies, I guess, cartoony kids
movies to really have a lot of dialogue that flew
over kids heads that adults.

Speaker 3 (34:57):
Got a little nod in a wink.

Speaker 2 (34:59):
What Toy Story.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
Yeah, not like dirty humor, but it's not like Fittz
the Cat No no no, but a little entendre here
and there that adults might appreciate. The kids won't understand, right,
those are the best jokes.

Speaker 3 (35:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
And now we have you know, best Animated Feature in
the Oscars, which definitely came straight out of the original
Toy Story because movies started being considered before they created
its own category up and Toy Story three were actually
nominated for regular Best Picture. Yeah, and I think everyone's like, oh,
we need to get them in their own category because

(35:34):
you can't have an animated movie when best Picture it came.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
Well, up would have come after the Best Animated Picture
category came out. Oh really, so that kind of ghost
as a testament to just how amazing that movie is.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
Yeah, that's right, those that it was still for Best Picture. Oh,
it was both.

Speaker 2 (35:52):
I don't know if it was up for it probably
was up for Best Animated as well, but it was
definitely also up for Best Picture while there was an
animated cat category.

Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yeah. I never considered that. Bam, that was a good movie. Yeah,
it was sweet. So I got nothing else on Toy Story.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
Well then what about the last one?

Speaker 3 (36:11):
Yeah, two thousand and one in Space Odyssey. Man, quite
a film.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
You sent this essay on Criterion I think Criterion dot com,
but you know, the Criterion collection. Yeah, it was written,
I guess in nineteen eighty eight, even though it says
posted in nineteen eighty eight. It's like there wasn't an
internet to post it on in nineteen eighty eight.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
Maybe it means posted like in the mail. Maybe.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
But I realized, like I can read film essays about
Stanley Kubrick's work all day long. Yeah, me too, Like
I love that documentary Room two two seven. It was
two three seven, two four six seven, you know, the
one about the shining conspiracy theory.

Speaker 3 (36:56):
Yeah, the number of the room is amazing. I can't remember, though.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
I read a bunch of articles is I think two
thirty seven. I read a bunch of articles around the
release of that documentary, which we're basically like film essays
on the Shining. I read this one amazing one from
several years ago about Eyes Wide Shut, about how it's
like a masterpiece of sociology. I love that movie theology.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
A lot of people hate that movie.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
Yeah, and then now this like two thousand and one.
I'm sure there's tons out there to consume, but I
can just read that stuff all day long because that
guy was so just amazingly detailed as a director.

Speaker 3 (37:35):
Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
I can read more about his work critical essays on
his work than any other director.

Speaker 3 (37:41):
Right, it's just unbelievable. It's almost like it's its own genre.
It is, you know, Kubrickian. Yeah, just got a word
name after it, and well it should so.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Two thousand and one A Space Odyssey nineteen sixty eight
blue minds back then, blows minds today one for it's
just the amazing look in the technical achievement eight is
really well. I mean, if you see a movie from
nineteen sixty eight about outer space, it still looks like
the future. Yeah, he don't expect it to hold up well,

(38:10):
but it totally does. So much so that a lot
of the you know, George Lucas and Ridley Scott were
just like, it's done right, Like we might as well
give up.

Speaker 3 (38:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
George Lucas when Star Wars came out said Star Wars
is technically comparable, but for my money, two thousand and
one is by far the better movie.

Speaker 1 (38:27):
Yeah, everyone was sort of intimidated, I think by how
talented Kubrick was.

Speaker 3 (38:31):
Well.

Speaker 2 (38:32):
Plus also you have to take into account that he
made this movie at a time when other sci fi
movies were.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
Just pure schlock.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
Oh yeah, so not only to make the movie in
this way, this visually amazing and amazing with an audio
soundtrack and just totally innovative, it also took like that
mindset is just completely going a different direction that everybody
else has as well.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
Yeah, of course, think about Ridley Scott saying that, and
then he goes on to make Alien and Blade Runner
after that.

Speaker 3 (39:03):
So I mean he helped Prometheus. Man.

Speaker 2 (39:07):
Yeah, people don't like Prometheus. I don't care.

Speaker 3 (39:10):
It's a cool movie. No. I liked it too.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
I thought, Okay, one flaw, the big flaw to me was,
and I'm sure it's like part of the subtext or
the context or one of the texts, but the engineer
coming back to life or coming out of hibernation after
however long and just immediately like inflicting violence on these

(39:35):
pe brained humans who are showing him no threat whatsoever. Yeah,
I just thought it was a little It wasn't explained
well enough, I think for my taste.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yeah, I don't think I agree with you.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
But when I'm watching a Ridley Scott movie, I just
assume if I'm missing something, he has an explanation for it.
I'm just not catching it.

Speaker 3 (39:56):
Yeah, I know what you mean.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
I'd like I think I read some stuff about how
it tied into the alien cannon and realize I need
to go see it again with all this knowledge that
I wasn't really thinking about.

Speaker 3 (40:09):
Yeah, and maybe i'd like it more. Yeah, but I
haven't done that yet. So back to two thousand and one. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (40:14):
It was also notable for being bookended basically with thirty
minutes of silence on both ends of the movie. The
first thirty minutes or and when I say silent, I
mean no dialogue, and the last thirty minutes have no dialogue.

Speaker 3 (40:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
The last line comes like a full thirty minutes before
the end.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
Yeah, And over the one hundred and forty six minutes
there are only forty minutes of dialogue and the whole thing.
And that's why I just when people compare something like Interstellar,
then call it Kuprickian.

Speaker 3 (40:43):
I just want to smash.

Speaker 2 (40:45):
Do you not like Interstellar?

Speaker 3 (40:47):
Not really?

Speaker 2 (40:48):
Oh, I liked it.

Speaker 3 (40:48):
I was super letdown.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
Despite McConaughey doing Waterson in the future, I still liked it.

Speaker 3 (40:56):
I even liked him in it.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
I liked a lot of the parts of it, But
to me, it's anti Kubrickian because every ten minutes they're
explaining everything that's going on.

Speaker 3 (41:06):
Oh yeah, again, that was another thing. Just like in.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
Susception, Ellen Page's entire character was written in to explain
what was going on every ten minutes.

Speaker 1 (41:15):
Yeah, And I feel like Interstellar was the same way.
It's like Christopher Nollen needs to just trust his audience
a little bit like Kubrick did and say you figure
it out or don't.

Speaker 3 (41:22):
Yeah. No, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
Gonna stop every ten minutes just to explain everything.

Speaker 3 (41:27):
Yeah, it's just going on. I remember if you didn't
get it right, here's what's going on again.

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Well, I think if they are labeling something like Interstellar
is Kubrickian, right, one of the ways that you can
interpret that is that he was he rooted his two
thousand and one in science fact Yeah right, So like
the stuff that the astronauts are like dealing with and
the things that are going on and the conditions of space,

(41:55):
it was all factual. Whereas with Interstellar, same thing. They
went to really great links to do what they could
to make everything scientifically factual. Aside from the fact that
the idea that you could go into a black hole
and then come back out or something like that. Sure,
drifting in space, that's not gonna happen. But for the
most part, Interstellar was scientifically accurate. So maybe that's what

(42:17):
they meant when they called it Kubrickian, because you're absolutely right,
like they did explain a lot and went to great
links to explain a lot, whereas with two thousand and
one you just watch it the first five times like
what just happened? Yeah, and apparently Carrie Grant had that
same reaction as well.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
That was rock Hudson, Rock Hudson, that's right. Yeah, the original.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Screening that Roger Ebert was at in La Rock Hudson
just left and said, can somebody tell me what the
hell that was about?

Speaker 3 (42:43):
Yeah, and it wasn't even over yet. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Well, the reason it it has science fact and not
science fiction is because Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark, who
oh yeah, it wasn't actually a book that was made
into a movie. It was a movie. Our book made
after movie, and they collaborated on both. And they went
to Carl Sagan of course of Cosmos and said.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
He said, you're gonna make billions, And.

Speaker 3 (43:13):
That was pretty good, was it? Yeah? That sound a
lot like them.

Speaker 1 (43:16):
They went to Carl Sagan said, Hey, we want to
portray these extraterrestrials. Are they maybe the Star Child is
or they turned Dave into the Star Child? Are they humanoids?
What are they going to look like? And Sagan was like,
they were very unlikely to be humanoid. So Kubrick did
the smart thing and was just like, well, we just

(43:36):
won't show him at all, instead of making a fool
of myself like Signs and making some dumb looking out
o man, man, let me just not show the aliens.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Very smart move. Getting back to the story of two
thousand and one, although I.

Speaker 2 (43:56):
Think the Village is underrated, Yeah, I can stomach that one.

Speaker 3 (44:02):
What about Well, you like the sixth sense? Right? Everybody
like the sixth Sense? Sure, I guess that was it
for him. I loved Unbreakable.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
Unbreakable, Yeah, that was one where like, yeah, I think
it was maybe even better the second time.

Speaker 3 (44:15):
Yeah. I still like that movie.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
But then he also made that Lady in the Water
movie and the the one with Marky Mark the people
were jumping off four brothers, No, three kings?

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Is it the one in the Elevator? No, he just
produced Oh I know what you're talking about, the one
where people like jumping off of buildings and stuff inexplicably. Yeah,
that I didn't even I didn't see that. You couldn't
get through ten minutes of that movie.

Speaker 1 (44:42):
So two thousand and one Back to Good Movies was
had a three acts, three part structure, but not a
conventional three act structure that you might be used to
in movies, which is why it confounded people like Rock Hudson.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
The first they called the movements.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
The first movement was the The Dawn of Man sequenced
with the Apes with a monolith, and he has that
great part where he throws his little bone tool up
in the air and then it morphs into all lot morphs,
but it maybe is a dissolve into the spinning in

(45:18):
outer space.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
It's called the match cut. Yeah, match cut.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
And of the rotation of what we now know was
a nuclear warhead.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
Because I read.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
That little article twenty Things you Didn't Know about two
thousand and one, I didn't know those were nuclear warheads
necessarily in outer space. They made it a little more vague,
and initially it was going to be more explicit and
they were going to explode it in outer space, right
but he said, now it's a little too close to
the ending of strange. Yeah, so let's not do that. Yeah,

(45:48):
probably a good choice.

Speaker 2 (45:49):
Yeah, But as a result, some people have taken it
to mean that like it was that match cut was
supposed to show how far humans have come, right from
using a bone to murder somebody to satellites in space.
But if you know that the satellite is actually loaded
down with nuclear warheads, that match cut demonstrates how little

(46:10):
humans have changed from using a bone to murder somebody
to using satellites to murder somebody. The motif is still
the same, and it's murder.

Speaker 3 (46:19):
Yeah, he's going for some deep things. Oh yeah, a
lot of metaphor happening. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
I mean supposedly in every single shot, because he started
out as a still photographer, right, Yeah, supposedly every frame
of a Kubrick movie. There is nothing that isn't unintentionally
placed there by him. He did a lot of his
own set decorating.

Speaker 3 (46:38):
Yeah, Like the pencil holder on the desk in the
office of the guy at the Shining Hotel, right was
where it's supposed to be.

Speaker 2 (46:44):
Right, and if it has like a picture of a
goatthead inscribed on it that means something.

Speaker 3 (46:51):
It's not accidental.

Speaker 1 (46:52):
Yeah, although we'll say Room two thirty seven, which I
think may have been the point is a little bit
like these people are crazy, not like, oh man, I
just see what they're saying in all this, right, I
was just thinking these people are nuts.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
Right, it's it was just kind of enjoyable to hear
their interpretations of.

Speaker 1 (47:09):
It well, and I think it had It was a
comment on obsession and fandom more so than the shining.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
For sure, but there I thought, there are some of
their ideas were oh yeah, interesting totally. I said Room
two two seven, didn't I like going out with conspiracy Theoris.
It's like Mary.

Speaker 3 (47:27):
Was in Room two two seven, like a sitcom. Yeah,
it was just called two two seven. Okay, yeah, gotcha,
remember it was Jack Kay. She'd be like Mary, Oh okay.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
That's what my impression was. What'd you think I was doing?

Speaker 3 (47:38):
Well? I wasn't sure what she meant being a weirdo. Yeah, yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
The second movement was, of course the How sequence, the computer,
the how uh was it?

Speaker 3 (47:48):
The How nine thousand?

Speaker 1 (47:49):
Yeah, really creepy and How ended up being a lot
of people's favorite character, even though it was just a
voice the supercomputer on the Discovery ship.

Speaker 3 (48:00):
Like, what are you doing to It's so creepy.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
I had the Mad Magazine spoof of two thousand and
one when I was a kid.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
It was great. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
And then the third movement is when Dave moves on
to the next stage of human development with these extraterrestrials
that you only hear, and basically it's when it comes
full circle the third movement.

Speaker 2 (48:24):
And the third movement is the one that has almost
well it's really just the second movement that's has a dialogue.

Speaker 3 (48:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (48:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Some of the alternate titles for two thousand and one
Journey Beyond the Stars, terrible Universe not bad, Yeah, okay,
Tunnel to the Stars so great.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
Planet Fall that sounds bad.

Speaker 2 (48:46):
It sounds like a James Pond movie.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
And then How the Solar System was one as a
play on how the West was won.

Speaker 2 (48:52):
Yeah, which like movie geeks would find that appealing, but
everybody else would say, that's you ruined everything.

Speaker 1 (49:00):
Yeah, And Kubrick was this is the last thing I have.
He was so obsessive with protecting his material that he
allegedly I don't think allegedly, I think he did ye.
Have all the sets and props and miniatures destroyed after
he shot it, so they would never be reused, which
is a common thing at the time.

Speaker 3 (49:18):
Yeah, okay, we're doing a space movie. Go get that,
Go get that space ring from Stanley set. Yeah, let's
reuse it for a planet fall.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
He also destroyed all of the footage that didn't make
it into the original theatrical release.

Speaker 3 (49:33):
Yeah, destroyed. It's gone.

Speaker 1 (49:35):
Yeah, so they wouldn't one day after his death recut it,
which they invariably probably would have done.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
Yep, he's a smart man.

Speaker 3 (49:42):
Yeah, I could. We should just do a podcast on Kubrick.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
Okay he was I'm down for that challenge.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
He'd be a dude. Yeah, one of my heroes.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
Cinematically, you got anything else? I got nothing else.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
If you want to know more about movies, if you
like this, and you probably also love our exploitation episode,
exploitation movie episode fun one. What else have we talked
about movies in Cannonball Run? Oh yeah, I had a
lot to do with the movie.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
Yeah. Our James Bond episode. Yeah. Yeah. We've had a
few of these, and people always respond to these real like,
you guys should have a spin off.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Should do an all movie podcast. Sure, maybe one day.

Speaker 3 (50:20):
Maybe.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Remember if you're looking for any of these press control
F or Apple F in your web browser and search
that way on our podcast archive page. You can also
search for this article on how stuff works by typing
movies in and seeing what comes up. And since I
said how stuff works, is time for a listener mail.

(50:43):
I'm gonna call this Mike A. DuPont really clear something
up for us on scientific method. Okay, hey guys, it
was a great Well, actually, he doesn't say it was great.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
I think I just made that up.

Speaker 1 (50:53):
Hey guys, your Scientific Method podcast has a consistent misuse
of what a scientific law is in relation to the
working of the scientific method. It appears that you believe
that a law e g. Newton's law of gravity is
held in higher esteem than theory, that eventually a theory
matures into a law. I think I probably did think
that because of politics, right, you know, Bill becomes a

(51:16):
law right exactly, he says, when in fact, theory is
considerably more robust than a law.

Speaker 3 (51:20):
A law is a mathematical model.

Speaker 1 (51:22):
That describes observed behavior, does not answer the why. Theory
does answer why something happens.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
Did we not say that.

Speaker 2 (51:31):
I thought we did well, Like I knew that. I
remember finding that out from the research. I just can't
believe it didn't come out of my mouth.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
He claims, we did not, And I feel like I'm
learning this so I definitely did not.

Speaker 3 (51:42):
Okay, go ahead, but you may have. For example, Newton's law.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
Of gravitational attraction describes the action of two bodies that
can be used for pretty much everything. It is perfect
for describing what happens, but it cannot tell you why
the two items are attracted or drilled down to the
underlying mechanism.

Speaker 3 (51:58):
Yeah, a law is like much more succinct.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
It just is what it is.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
Nor is the law even universal, and could not be
used to explain the Parahelian procession of Mercury's orbit burn.
In comparison, Einstein's theory of general relativity was eventually used
to solve the Mercury issue.

Speaker 3 (52:18):
Oh yeah, the mercury issue.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
And the standard model, along with the recent discovery the
Higgs posts on my stern can answer the why do
these two masses attracted to each other?

Speaker 2 (52:29):
A question?

Speaker 3 (52:30):
I think what you mean is why are these two
masses attracted to one another? Mike, it's pretty teleological theory
is considerably more developed and richer than a scientific law,
which is more of a tool that is applicable to
a wide range of applications. Keep up the good work
that is, Mike DuPont.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
Thanks Mike, thanks for that of the Valley Forge. DuPonts,
I think, so, huh have you seen fox Catching?

Speaker 3 (52:53):
Oh? No, I've heard it's good. Is it good? No? Really,
I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (52:58):
No.

Speaker 3 (52:58):
I hear it's kind of slow, it's beyond slow. Really?

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Oh yeah, I can understand why the academy loved it,
or sure a lot of people. I'm sure, do you
like it?

Speaker 3 (53:12):
I was not a fan of.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
Fo I think people generally seeing like a turn by
an actor like Steve Girl doing something really different.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
They're knocked out by that. No, I still can't believe
he didn't like Birdman. No spoiler alert for people who
have not seen Birdman. The following conversation is full of spoilers.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
Yes, what didn't you like about it?

Speaker 3 (53:33):
So?

Speaker 2 (53:33):
I thought I thought Michael Keene was good?

Speaker 3 (53:35):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (53:38):
Who plays his daughter Emily Blunt?

Speaker 3 (53:40):
Is that? Who that is? Emma Stone?

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Emma Stone? Excellent? Okay? Ed Norton even pretty good.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
Okay, so the acting was fine.

Speaker 2 (53:48):
Who is Naomi Watson was in it?

Speaker 3 (53:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (53:50):
She did great? Okay, so yes, the acting. The acting
was fine. Sure that the acting was fine. I thought
the photography was amazing.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
Yeah, the whole seemingly one take thing kind of knocked
you out.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Probably I didn't even pick up on that, but yes
it did. It was more the uh, the for me,
the juxtaposition of the story, which was pretty boring and
realistic in everyday life, even though it was about a
Broadway production, it was still about the everyday life of it, sure,

(54:23):
against the surrealism that's like threaded and embedded in throughout
the whole movie. I didn't like that. Okay, it was
like choose one or the other men?

Speaker 3 (54:31):
Gotcha? It irked me.

Speaker 2 (54:33):
And uh and then just so that one part with
the critic where Michael Keaton tells off the critic. I
thought Michael Keaton did a wonderful job, But just the
whole point that it was in there of like the director,
you know, using Michael Keaton's character to tell off all
the critics he's ever wanted to tell off in his movie. Yeah,
I just thought it was pretentious and I thought it

(54:55):
was kind of clumsy in that sense too, and it
was enough that it attainted it.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
Yeah. And then the ending. I did not like the
ending at all, Yeah, at all. That'll ruin a good movie.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
Because it was it completely went contrary to all the
other stuff that he went out of his way to
point out was fake or fraudulent or not real. And
then all of a sudden it is what Yeah, no
choose one or the other. The director refused to make
very important decisions, and I think that that ruined the movie.

Speaker 3 (55:29):
That is a very well thought out the criticism, I think,
thank you, thank you very much. Sure man, that was
the end of listener mail even, wasn't it. Yeah?

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Because now I'm not like, she's Jush is weird? He
didn't like Birdman. Now I'm like, just didn't like Birdman.
He has good reasons.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 3 (55:46):
I like justifying my opinion, don't we all?

Speaker 2 (55:50):
So if you want to get in touch with Chuck
and I or Jerry, who I apparently just spoiled Birdman for,
you can contact us via Twitter, s y s K podcast.
You can join us on Facebook dot com slash stuff
you should know. You can send us an email, this
stuff podcast at how stuffworks dot com, and as always,
joined us at our home on the web, Stuff you
Should Know dot com.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit
HowStuffWorks dot com.