June 5, 2026 • 36 mins
Is YouTube the new film incubator? In the wake of two hit movies from internet native directors, Max, Stacey, and Bloomberg's Lucas Shaw figure out if the buzz around Backrooms and Obsession is a trend or a fluke. Plus, we check in on the Iran conflict and China’s role in it with Javier Blas, some clumsy alleged insider trading, and a couple different instances of international art theft.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I will take my phone out to take a picture
of the title and then put it away.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Definitely put it away and don't look at it.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm really upset, like when people beside me or something
are like Max brightness phone use.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
So this is everybody's business where we assure you we
are not going to have a trillion dollar IPO.
Speaker 6 (00:33):
I'm Max Schafkon and.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I'm Stacey Annick Smith.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
And today summer movie season is red hot, new talent,
big risks, and strange behavior in the movie theater.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
One of the strengths underpinning what we often call the
experience economy, which is going to concerts and sporting events
and anything kind of.
Speaker 7 (00:50):
Out of the house is okay.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Kids in particular spend so much time on their devices,
but movie theaters would seem to have an opportunity to create,
to pitch themselves as opportunities for friends to gather.
Speaker 8 (01:04):
Right the first, we are checking in on the war
with Iran, and we have the great Javier Blast.
Speaker 9 (01:09):
With us to say, the hormones remains closed. China has
reduced his oil imposts. We don't know if there is
a deal under the table between the Communist Party in
China and the White House. So here we are forty
days later than my sixty days armageddon.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
We are holy still around.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
The conflict, the fallout, and what things look like one
hundred days in that is coming up after the break.
Speaker 5 (01:43):
Javier Blass Bloomberg opinion columnist Stacy He joined our show
three months ago, basically six days into the conflict between
the US and Iran. At the time, pretty much everybody
assumed that it couldn't last that much longer. We're three
months and now straight of Horm Moves is closed. Fuel
(02:04):
prices are are are much much higher than they were,
And a question that you and I and pretty much
everyone I know has been asking is is this normal?
Speaker 1 (02:15):
This?
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Is this just the way it's going to be?
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Are we going to be paying four fifty for gas
and dealing with this kind of tension in the straight
of Horm Moves forever?
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Yes?
Speaker 8 (02:25):
And you know, it seemed the conflict's gone on so
much longer than I think anybody thought it would, And
gas prices have obviously gone up quite a bit, and
there has been a big economic impact, but maybe not
the economic impact we would have thought six days into
the conflict, So we wanted to have Javier back to
talk about what's happened up until now and what do
(02:46):
sees happening right now, because it feels like, you know,
we've been hearing the conflicts about to end for you know,
one hundred days roughly.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
Hi, Javier, Hi, Thank you for having me again.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 8 (02:59):
Max and I talked so many times about the conversation
that we had back in March when the conflict with
Iron had just happened, and we wanted to bring you
back to talk about the economic follow.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Up where we are now, especially since you know, back.
Speaker 8 (03:13):
Then I think we we didn't know where our economy
would be, but you had some idea of what you
thought might happen if the conflict dragged out this long,
and we have a clip of that here.
Speaker 9 (03:23):
It is a truly worst cases scenario, what I will
call it, really worst cases scenario. I think that we
go north of two hundred dollars, we will need massive
demand destruction. It will it will imply an economic shock
of the size that the central banks will have to intervene,
et cetera.
Speaker 7 (03:39):
Accident.
Speaker 9 (03:40):
It's very ugly, but that's one of the reasons that
I cannot see these lasting sixty days. I think that
the White House will will call it over a lot earlier.
Speaker 6 (03:51):
All right, So I feel like so I was very wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Maybe I don't know if you were wrong.
Speaker 5 (03:58):
Well, Javier, take us through kind of the thought process
back then and kind of what your evaluation of where
we are today is.
Speaker 9 (04:08):
Well, you know, I thought that the conflict was not
going to last more than a couple of months, sixty days,
because I thought that by that time oil prices will
be much higher, and that will be game over. The
bomb market will take over all military planning, and the
war will have to come to an end. And here
we are about one hundred days into the war, and
(04:29):
oil prices are below one hundred dollars at the time
that we are recording, and you know, and the conflict
is on a ceasefire, but they say the hormones remains close.
I think that there are a couple of things that
have surprised me. One is how much China has reduced
(04:50):
his oil imports to the tune of forty below what
it was important last year, and that has free a
lot of oil for everyone else. We do not understand
how China is exactly doing it, and we don't understand
the motivations of Beijing to do it, other than probably
(05:12):
self preservation. They don't want a massive oil shock. But
we don't know there is a deal under the table
between the Communist Party in China and the White House,
and we don't know exactly how the Chinese are doing it.
The other thing that surprised me is how quickly the
rich countries, the US, Canada, the European and Japan also
(05:33):
used the stategy petroleum reserves and they put a lot
of oil into the market from those emergencies stock piles.
For example, at the First Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein
in Bacubate in nineteen ninety, it took the rich countries
more than six months to decide to use the statatey
petroleum reserves. So six months is a lot. A lot
(05:54):
is lower than the two weeks that it took us.
Perhaps the other thing that has surprised me is that,
and it will be obvious but it doesn't become obvious
until later, is that the oil industry of twenty twenty
six is a lot more sophisticated, flexible that it was
twenty five years earlier in two thousand and that flexibility
(06:17):
has helped to mitigate problems. For example, very early the
biggest problems was heavy fuel oil for ships and get
fuel for planes, because a lot of that comes from
the Middle East, from inside the astraet or hormones. We
were having a shortage. But the global refining system, and
(06:37):
particularly the American refining system, literally flex and was able
to increase the amount the proportion of jet fuel that
comes out of every barrel of oil a few percentage points.
So here we are forty days later than my sixty
days Armageddon.
Speaker 6 (06:56):
We are all still around.
Speaker 9 (06:57):
Please do take my comments with a pinch of salt.
Speaker 6 (07:00):
Can I push back on this?
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I feel like Javier is being all too hard on
himself and and like this idea that okay, we thought
it would be the end of the world, but it's
it's it's actually fine.
Speaker 6 (07:13):
It's not fine.
Speaker 9 (07:14):
I mean, well, no, you're right, I mean it's not fine.
We are still trading close to one hundred dollars oil.
Gasoline retail prices in America well above four dollars a gallon,
so significantly higher than they were before the war. And
what really surprises me is that I was. I thought
that these have to go really for a long time
(07:36):
for to create significant pain. But you think what I
was saying, and I was probably on the moderate camp
of price increases, et cetera, et cetera. And it has
turned that even that moderate camp was was too too hard,
suspecting too much of a price price increase. But to me,
(07:56):
if I have to put it down to what has
been the biggest difference of what I was thinking when
we spoke to today, I will say China. That came
as a big surprise, and I will have never thought.
You have asked me the last time I was in
(08:17):
the show, will you think that China can say reduced
imports by four million dollars a day.
Speaker 6 (08:24):
Basically that's a ten year low.
Speaker 9 (08:25):
They're importing less oil that they were important during COVID.
Speaker 6 (08:29):
That that puts things into into perspective.
Speaker 9 (08:32):
And I asked a very senior contact in the oil industry.
Was a big gathering of oil traders, analyst executives in
London the past few days for a conference. I asked
one of the persons who typically you will go and
I said, do you know what's happening? And this person
said to me, It's like the numbers don't make sense.
(08:55):
I cannot account for when you put it together, it's like,
how this is happening?
Speaker 8 (08:59):
It sounds I think we all should be thanking China
for really stepping up and helping the global oil market.
Speaker 9 (09:07):
The reduction and impulse started a bit earlier than the
trip of President Trump to Beijing to meet President she
But everything could be negotiated in advance and then finalized
in Beijing. But I mean, we can think about a counterfactual. Okay,
what will be happening if we if China was buying
the same amount of oil as before, we will be
(09:29):
short of another four million dollars a day. So we
will need to be on much higher prices because we
will need to destroy some demand, which means much higher
prices for gasoline in the United States, probably above five dollars
a gallon, which means that the Fed will be under
pressure to increase interest rates, which means that the rallying
(09:50):
Wall Street probably will will have already ended, which also
means that President Trump will be really under pressure to
cut a deal with Iranians, and the Iranians will have
the upper hand on the negotiations.
Speaker 6 (10:01):
So in some ways.
Speaker 9 (10:03):
And and and and the way that some people in
the oil markets see it is Beijing is bailing out
President Trump. And then the question is why and in
exchange of what, because in the oil market, everyone including
myself is as conspiracy theorist and nothing comes nothing comes from.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Free We have no proof whatsoever. I should make that
very clear.
Speaker 9 (10:27):
And and there is also a very good reason why
China could be doing this on their own motivation, that
that really reduce the threat of inflation at home in China,
reduce the threat of an economic slowdown around the world,
which is something that the Chinese authorities don't want because
the Chinese authorities, they do need that the economy is healthy.
(10:49):
For a healthy economy in China, they need a healthy
global economy because a priorities to creat enough jobs every
year to absorb all the all the all the own
people that he's coming to the labor market in China.
So maybe they're doing it because that's what Rassi and
not thinking in Beijing says that they need to do,
regardless of President Trump.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
So we need to.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Talk about cuisine, in particular Mexican cuisine. You know, about
a month ago, six weeks ago, I can't remember you
sort of, I don't I don't know.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
I don't know if coined is the right word.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
But maybe popularized the term not cho.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
I was like, uh, Max asking about Mexican.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Text mex I suppose not cho not a chance Hormuz opens. This,
of course, is the you know, much anticipated sequel to Taco.
Trump always chickens out the theory Javier is basically what
that that the Iranians are going to have a very
strong incentive to keep their leverage.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
The straight up horror Moons is still open.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Trump has basically since this conflict began, been saying it's
going to reopen tomorrow or maybe it's already open. At
various times's he suggests it's already open, or that it's
going to open naturally. How long do you think, Natcho,
you know it continues to be true.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 9 (12:12):
I mean, I do think that both sides want a deal.
It feels to me that the landing zone of a
deal is becoming clear. Both sides are going to have
to give something. The main problem is both sides need
to sell the deal to the domestic audience. President Trump
needs to convince a lot of Republican senators and his
right wing that that this is a good deal, even
(12:35):
he has to give something to the Iranians. The Iranians also,
the negotiators need to convince the most conservative sector of
their political system that doing a deal with America, but
doing a deal with President Trump has reniqued in the
past of deals, makes sense, et cetera, et cetera. I
think that President Trump believes that he needs to get
(12:57):
a deal and reopened to the hormones, and and I
think that the Iranians are also under pressure. One of
the things that we don't know, because we don't really
have access on the ground with proper reporting, is what
is really happening on the Iranian street. All what we
get is some indication that unemployment is rising, that food
inflation is skyrocketing, general inflation and economy is increasing, and
(13:19):
the Iranians don't want to emerge from this having won
the battle and keeping the straight of hormone, say closed
for three months, three more months, and then realizing that,
you know, down the road later this year they have
another popular raup rising because the economic situation, the domestic
economic situation has deteriorated to such a.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Point so the Iranians.
Speaker 9 (13:40):
I think that they are also going to be caucious
the one a deal also, but the one a deal
that they can sell to their domestic audience as a
victory when the straight hormones reopened. I don't know, But
can the White House and the Islamic Republic reach a
deal that both sides can sull well as a victory?
Speaker 6 (14:01):
Have here? How many days?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
So give us a number so that in that many
days we can have you on the podcast again.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
Oh you want to embarrass or allow you to gloat.
Speaker 6 (14:14):
Oh, yes, there's upside that.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
I think that the day is coming closer. I don't
know how many days. I mean you you have listened
to President Trump. He has been saying that tomorrow we're
going to have a deal, and that tomorrow was about
fifty days ago. So I'm not gonna do the same thing.
But it does feel this time that both sides are
very very very close. A few more days, perhaps a
(14:40):
couple of more weeks, certainly before the end of June.
There you are, love. Certainly before the end of June.
I will be here in September.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Well, have here.
Speaker 8 (14:50):
We cannot thank you enough for talking with us. Really
fascinating conversation. So thanks and yes we're looking forward to
having you back.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
Thank you. Hopefully not in September, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
So Max, it is almost summer.
Speaker 8 (15:10):
Technically it feels like summers away. We are weeks away,
weeks away, which means summer movies, which is I know
you go to the movies with your kids quite a bit.
Is there anything that you guys are excited to see?
Speaker 5 (15:24):
Stacey, I have not gone to an adult movie since
a movie for adults since Oppenheimer, which was like three
years ago, so it's been a while.
Speaker 8 (15:36):
Well, this is a really extraordinary summer for movies. So
we sent our producer Jasmin gt. Green out into the
wilds of New York, into Central Park to ask people
about whether they are going.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
To the movies and which movies are going to.
Speaker 10 (15:51):
What summer movies are y'all watching or you're really interested
in checking out.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
We saw The Mandalorian and Grogu which we really enjoyed,
and also want to see Spider Man.
Speaker 7 (16:00):
Is the Odyssey this summer.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
I definitely want to see the Odyssey.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
I'm really excited to see The Odyssey. Obsession.
Speaker 11 (16:05):
We've been just down the rabbit hole of theories and
and things like that, what people think, how people interpret it.
And then the back Rooms movie is one we're dying
to see.
Speaker 10 (16:16):
It seems like this summer like everyone is going back
to the movies and people are really excited about a
lot of big films. Have you been like big movie watchers?
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I started going to the theater again last year, right,
it's almost like enough time past for COVID that I
got more excited to go out of the house to
see movies starting in around last year.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
I love going to movies and I always have so
more movies better.
Speaker 12 (16:40):
Going to the movies has just gotten really expensive, so
I'm just like put off of going like when movies
come out and stuff to the theaters because it's so expensive,
and then you pay twenty dollars for like snacks. It's
just like, yeah, all wait for it to come up
on like Prime.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
So we heard two movies there that I just wanted
to call out, back Rooms and Obsession, Uh, both new
horror movies. Back Rooms directed by Kane Parson, Obsession directed
by Curry Barker.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Before very Young First Time were very.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Young, both coming out of kind of the YouTube world,
and probably most importantly both massive hits. These two movies
have earned two hundred and sixty six million dollars combined,
despite having very very inexpensive budgets and kind of growing
out of you know, like lo fi YouTube work.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Here to discuss these movies and the summer movie season,
and also some theater etiquette. We have the great Lucas Shaw,
who covers media and entertainment here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
He is also a self proclaimed party pooper.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
Lucas, Hello, good to see you both. What is the
part You're a party pooper? What are you talking about?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
You're familiar with the Bloomberg message nine yes bio on
a message I years and years ago because I never
understood why one needed to have that years and years ago.
Just named a professional party pooper and people seem to
like it. So I also applied it on LinkedIn.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Have people reached.
Speaker 8 (18:05):
Out to you on LinkedIn asking you to destroy a party?
Speaker 1 (18:09):
They have not asked me to destroy a party, but
people have referenced it somewhat often in LinkedIn messages offline.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
Well, I'm happy to be part of that tradition.
Speaker 5 (18:19):
Lucas also writes the screen Time newsletter for Bloomberg, which
you should subscribe to Lucas just to start, Like these
two horror movies, Obsession and back Rooms, Do you have
any sense of why they've they've they've sort of been
the hit that they are and and like how unexpected
was this?
Speaker 13 (18:37):
Well?
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Horror is a genre that has worked for decades, and
I think especially in the last couple of decades as
Hollywood has become kind of obsessed with the big, big
blockbusters and I think become even more risk averse because
it's gotten more and more corporate horror is the one
genre other than sort of the big family and themation,
(19:00):
big action superhero type movies that studios will consistently make
because people will show up.
Speaker 13 (19:05):
To the theater to watch them.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Right, So having these breakout horror movies is like not
altogether shocking, the YouTube origin story of it all a
little more surprising. I mean, we've seen examples of it.
I think what is really tripping people up is that
they're both happening at the same time, Right, Like what
(19:28):
surprised people with Obsession was not so much how it started,
but that its grosses went up and weekend two and
weekend three, which is very unusual for a movie. And
what surprised people with backrooms. I think was just how
big it was. You know, it opened north of eighty
million dollars. To put that in perspective, was released by
A twenty four. A twenty four I don't think it
(19:50):
ever had a movie cross thirty its opening weekend, so
it more than doubled the biggest opening A twenty four
I'd ever had. So it's like a It's one of
those things where it's a lot of trends that have
been happening, horror movies, YouTube to Hollywood, A twenty four,
like all that, but it happened that you had sort
of them all piling on one another at the same time,
(20:10):
and it happened at the same time that a Star
Wars movie was kind of a disaster, and so it
sort of reinforced this perception that youth tastes have changed
and that Hollywood must heed and take notice. And I
think there's some definitely some truth to it, and then
obviously some kind of overreaction extrapolation.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
I mean, what I found exciting about this was kind
of what you touched on, which is that you know,
for a long time, it has started to seem like
as fewer and fewer movies get made that it seems like,
you know, the big franchises, the sequels, so many sequels,
and this kind of like mindless recreation of you know,
the stories was kind of taking over the industry. And
(20:53):
then the summer you have two pretty unknown directors. I mean,
in the case of back Rooms, it was a series
of YouTube videos this young man had been making for years.
But it seems kind of exciting, like this this new
kind of creative possibility and that maybe the movies aren't
have it become totally corporate.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
So we're going to get to the end of summer,
end of the year, and the biggest movies for the
most part, are still going to be sequels and remakes
and the like, right, you know, the highest grossing movie
of the year so far is Super Mario Brothers Galaxy Movie,
which is a sequel to a movie based on a
video game. I think most people assume that the highest
(21:31):
grossing movies of summer will either be Toy Story five, which,
as the number suggests, is a sequel, or Spider Man.
I forget what the you know, the adpim is to
this one, but we're up to like nine Spider Man movies.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
At this point, or the Odyssey maybe.
Speaker 13 (21:45):
Or maybe the Odyssey, which.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
Well that is some old eyep. The Odyssey.
Speaker 13 (21:50):
Well, that's the thing is people liked.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
There's like this new trend where people don't call movies
based on people like to call movies based on books original,
and it's like no, no, no, Like the book is the
sort of material Homer bag.
Speaker 13 (22:01):
It's a different what the movies had missed.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
I think the last few years coming out of COVID,
where the grosses were down was sort of like the
middle class. The numbers didn't always bear this out. I
tried to like crunch it, and I couldn't quite figure
out why.
Speaker 13 (22:13):
The movies were down.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
It just felt like goes down across the board, but
it felt like you either had really really big movies
or nothing else. And this year we've had movies like
Michael Devilware's product too. Now these horror movies project tail
Mary like a solid class of movie that are blockbusters
that are not billion dollar movies like Super Mario Brothers
or Toy Stories, but are making anywhere from two hundred
(22:34):
to six hundred. During the Michael is probably gonna get
to eight or nine. So that's maybe a weird example,
but that are some of which are original, and you
know what, the IP people are interested in change a
little bit. Right, video game adaptations didn't work until the
last few years when finally they did. And maybe it's
that the movies were better, or maybe it's the Hollywood
got that enough people had grown up with video games
(22:55):
they wanted them back rooms is IP right? It is
a YouTube series.
Speaker 13 (22:58):
That someone adapted. So I to.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Your initial question, I do think that there are different
types of stories breaking out. Some of them are original,
some of them are IP, and it's exciting just that
people want to go to the movies.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
All.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Yeah, that is it, This sense of more sort of
mid sized movies is that's what is that? What's ultimately
like helping the box office numbers Because the box office
numbers you've alluded to this, they've been really good.
Speaker 13 (23:27):
The best since twenty nineteen, which was the biggest year ever.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
Really. I mean, if you're adjusting for inflation and all
that stuff, it gets more complicated, but the numbers have
been consistently down since the pandemic. Obviously, twenty twenty and
twenty one were basically a wash because theaters were.
Speaker 13 (23:44):
Closed for part of it.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And there weren't a lot of movies and production had
been disrupted, and then we had strikes, and there were
a lot of reasons why people thought last year was
going to be the year the movie.
Speaker 13 (23:52):
Business was back.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
This is the year where we're sort of the closest
to what it had been pre pandemic, and there's hope
that it will sustain throughout the year. This weekend we
have scary movie whatever it is, I think seven.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 13 (24:06):
People are actually expecting to do really well.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
There's a Toy Story movie later this month, and you
just have ever. It feels like every weekend there is
something big.
Speaker 5 (24:15):
So one of the things that's come up amid this
this sense that the theaters are back, that the movie
business is back, the box office back.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
Is sort of indications that behavior is changing.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
You know a lot of people did not go to
the movies for a few years during COVID, And this
came up in the tape you just heard.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Let's just play a little bit more.
Speaker 10 (24:35):
I've just been only thing. People have been taking their
phones out a lot more in the theater. Is that
something that y'all have been noticing too, or are you
phone users?
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I will take my phone out to take a picture
of the title and then put it away.
Speaker 13 (24:50):
Definitely put it away and don't look at it.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
I'm really upset, like when people beside me or something
are like max brightness phone used.
Speaker 7 (24:59):
I do not take my phone out in the theater.
I've noticed though, that people are engaging more like clapping
or laughing or like I watched the drama and people
were all like gasping.
Speaker 10 (25:10):
Have you ever confronted them?
Speaker 4 (25:12):
No, but I'll just like give them a bad glance
or like a evil look or something.
Speaker 6 (25:17):
So it's like, why are you doing this now?
Speaker 12 (25:19):
When you're seeing like especially like a scary movie and
there's like a group of like thirteen year old teenage
boys like talking and laughing and like throwing popcorn at
people like from the seats. It just kind of takes
you out of the film and you're more like, where
are your parents?
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Please?
Speaker 5 (25:37):
I want to watch the movie, Lucas, I have you
have you been hearing about this phone thing? I mean,
it sounds like the new etiquette is like it's okay
to scroll, you just got to keep the.
Speaker 6 (25:46):
Brightness really low.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
Is that is that kind of your understanding of the
of where the norms are today.
Speaker 13 (25:53):
The honest answers, I don't know. I do feel like
what people.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
You know, there's been a little bit of research recently
to suggest us that that young people are once again
interested in going to the movie theater. I have not
stress tested the research enough to feel confident one way
or the other. I would say that, you know, the
one of the strengths underpinning what we often call the
experience economy, which is going to concerts and sporting events
(26:18):
and anything kind of out of the house is okay.
Kids in particular spend so much time on their devices.
Speaker 13 (26:25):
They do you know, these these.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Moments that can make them gather irl are important.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Now.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Granted, if anyone's ever been to something like Coachella, they
are there, you know, at something in person, but they're
still using their phone to you know, tape all the time.
But movie theaters would seem to have an opportunity to create,
pitch themselves as opportunities for friends to gather.
Speaker 13 (26:50):
Right, as long.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
As studios make the right movies and theaters create experiences
that kids actually.
Speaker 13 (26:55):
Want to be at.
Speaker 8 (26:56):
I thought, maybe we're at a moment with our phones
because also, you know, Rosamond's pike, the actress. She's performing
a play in the West End in London. She was
giving this very impassioned speech in her plan and she
looked over and someone was deep in their phone sending
a text, and so she has called this out and
it's caused this kind of conversation about people taking out
(27:20):
their phones too much in the like live theater. Do
you think this is something that we'll have a reckoning
or is this just.
Speaker 13 (27:27):
I feel like that's taboo in live theater. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
I mean I don't go to movie's for sure.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Yeah, I certainly go to a few every year, and
it's pretty rare to see someone just going on the
phone all day or certainly not having the phone out
taking photos.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
I have seen Stacy. I wasn't following this.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
Did she break the fourth wall during the show to
like tell this guy to turn his Uh?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
No, she did not.
Speaker 8 (27:51):
I think she was like a pro and like did
her thing, But I guess she was. She called it crushing.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
Lucas Shaw, thank you so much for me here.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
Thanks us.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
So Max.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
It is time for our Underrated story and we have
a very special guest for that. But first we had
to do a small addition because some news broke.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
Yeah, this was like a stop the presses type moment
here at everybody's business.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
Stop production.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
So NPR reported that there is a new potential insider
trading scandal in the world of prediction markets, this one
involving George Santo's former US congressman. All in all, very
interesting character, Stacy, Real quick, here's what happened. Santos recorded
(28:48):
a video in which he said that he was going
to be at the State of the Union address, and
the allegation is that he then against himself.
Speaker 8 (29:01):
So he he this was a bet that was on
cal she right, and the bet was like will Santos
be at the State of the Union address?
Speaker 6 (29:09):
He said that that.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
Hey looking forward to seeing everyone tonight at the State
of Union address.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
And then the accusation is that then he went.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
On calshok and placed to bet that he would not
be at the State of the Union address and he
did not go to the State of Union dress. Santos
has said, the basis of this accusation is preposterous. I
look forward to supplying any information asked to me to
any agency that inquires. I think this is very funny, Stacy,
partly because if it were true, it would be just
(29:38):
a very clumsy instance of insider training. But also is
it possible that George Santos was hitching that he wanted
to go. He wanted to be there to support President
Trump and to be part of history. But as an
emotional hedge, which we've talked about this on the show.
Sports gamblers do it all the time, he placed a
bet and he made a little money and it's probably
not enough.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
To make up for the not being there. But but
that's my theory.
Speaker 8 (30:01):
So your theory is that he thought, if I get
to go to the State of the Union, it's a win.
If I don't get to go to the State of
the Union, I'll make a lot of money on call
sheet because the odds are really high that I will
be going to the State of the Union because I
recorded a message saying that I.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Was on my way there. That's very generous. Honestly, I
think that's a very generous.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
Reason in a generous mood.
Speaker 8 (30:25):
Good well, I really, I think the Santos camp thanks you,
thanks you for that.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Although then also it's illegal.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Stacy, underrated story time. And as you said, we have
a special guest. It's Matt Campbell. Roving Business Week correspondent.
He has a new book that's out this week, The
Man who Stole the Gods, a true story of war
obsession and a global art conspiracy. Everyone should check it out. Matt,
what is your underrated story?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
So?
Speaker 14 (30:58):
I have art Theft on the brand, and my underrated
story is from art net about the efforts by police
in France and apparently Belgium to track down the people
involved in this jewel heist from the Louver not long ago,
and it kind of sort of sounds like the cops
are beginning to roll this up.
Speaker 6 (31:17):
Matt, refresh our memory for those of us who've yeah.
Speaker 14 (31:20):
So last year there was a brazen heist of some
of the most valuable and historically significant jewels in the
whole collection of the Louver, which were just boosted out
of the place.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
And then they just like dropped some jewels like on
the ground, and.
Speaker 14 (31:36):
This ground was theah got smushed. It was not so
it was not the slickest job, but they did get away.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
So, Matt, the thing that I was surprised by, first
of all, I was I assume this stuff was long gone.
And also it sounds like maybe they'll recover some of
these stones that were taken right or is is there
any hope of recovery of these precious artifacts?
Speaker 6 (31:55):
That's always the question.
Speaker 14 (31:57):
So the police are being very tight. It sounds like
they have a pretty good idea of at least who
the crew were, but that doesn't mean they know who
the crew were working for, which is of course the
more interesting question. And there's no indication that they have
recovered the actual objects. And for me, with art thefts,
which still happen all the time, museums get hit constantly
(32:19):
all over the world, particularly in Europe, the big question
I always have is, well, where's this stuff going? Because
you can't sell it on the open market, you know,
you can't go to Sotheby's and say, here's this piece
that happens to match exactly something that was lifted out
of the louver last year. So there has to be
a private buyer for it somewhere, and we don't know
who that is.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
So, Matt, you've reported on art theft, you kind of
know these pipelines. Is it normally the person who wants
the jewels or the painting who commissions the crime or
are there just people who what is the what is
the way this happens. Is there like a like a
dark web Sotheby's.
Speaker 14 (32:59):
I hope there's a dark website the base. That'd be
a great story actually, But as far as we know,
it's both. So there are opportunistic art thefts. There are
also art thefts that appear to be commissioned by people
who actually want specific items. But what is kind of
amazing is the frequency with which this happens. You know,
not only in peaceable places like Paris, but every time
(33:22):
there is an armed conflict anywhere in the world. One
of the first thing that happens is the museum gets
cleaned out, archaeological sites get cleaned out, private collections get
cleaned out. That is all going somewhere, and there's a
very sophisticated supply chain that gets it to wherever it's going.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
All right, speaking that supply chain, as I mentioned, your
your book is out this week. It's about an art
heist in Cambodia, like a complex and very sophisticated network
of basically looting. Tell us a little bit about about
the story and how you got interested in it.
Speaker 14 (33:55):
The book basically tells the story of how this in
dust drill scale art theft operation got going in historical
sites in Cambodia starting in the seventies, and that's on
Korwatt and all the other temples. People will have seen
pictures of imagine like a tomb raider set up. That's
basically what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
What kinds of things are they taking?
Speaker 14 (34:15):
These are huge, amazing thousand year old stone, life size
sculptures and also a lot of bronze which tends to
be smaller, and thousands of pieces were taken sold in
some cases for seven or even eight figure prices. And
above all we now know, and this is the story
that gets told in the book into New York City,
(34:36):
that was the big destination private collectors here and also
the Metropolitan Museum.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Oh the Met.
Speaker 8 (34:42):
So actually your travels because you're based in Singapore, right
and your art theft travels brought you to New York.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
That's right.
Speaker 14 (34:49):
So this is a story that begins in very remote
and landmine laden jungles in northwest Cambodia and it ends
at the corner of Fifth Avenue and eightieth Street, which
is where a lot of these things did end up
bought by the met bought by various wealthy private collectors
in the us in some cases within a couple of
(35:12):
years of being ripped out by former Khmer Rouge child soldiers.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Literally, Matt Campbell, thank you for being here. The book
is called The Man.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Who Stole the Gods, a true story of war obsession
and a global art conspiracy. Go to your bookstore pick
it up or Amazon.
Speaker 14 (35:27):
Matt, thanks a lot, any anywhere that sells books, the
sales Tea wherever you.
Speaker 7 (35:31):
Get your books.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
This show is produced by Jasmine J. T. Green, Stacey Waugh,
and Miles J.
Speaker 5 (35:43):
Harrison Horn Magus Hendrickson is our supervisor, Producer Sam Roga,
Chandles Engineering, and Dave Purcelle fact checks.
Speaker 6 (35:50):
Special thanks to Jeff Muskus, Julia Rubin and Maria Lyn.
If you have a minute, please rate and review the show.
Speaker 5 (35:56):
It'll mean a lot to us and even have a
story that should be our business. Email us at Everybody's
at bloomer dot net. That's everybody with an ass at
bloomer dot net. Thank you for listening and we'll
Speaker 6 (36:06):
See you next week.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
I will take my phone out to take a picture
of the title and then put it away.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Definitely put it away and don't look at it.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm really upset, like when people beside me or something
are like Max brightness phone use.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
So this is everybody's business where we assure you we
are not going to have a trillion dollar IPO.
Speaker 6 (00:33):
I'm Max Schafkon and.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
I'm Stacey Annick Smith.
Speaker 5 (00:35):
And today summer movie season is red hot, new talent,
big risks, and strange behavior in the movie theater.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
One of the strengths underpinning what we often call the
experience economy, which is going to concerts and sporting events
and anything kind of.
Speaker 7 (00:50):
Out of the house is okay.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Kids in particular spend so much time on their devices,
but movie theaters would seem to have an opportunity to create,
to pitch themselves as opportunities for friends to gather.
Speaker 8 (01:04):
Right the first, we are checking in on the war
with Iran, and we have the great Javier Blast.
Speaker 9 (01:09):
With us to say, the hormones remains closed. China has
reduced his oil imposts. We don't know if there is
a deal under the table between the Communist Party in
China and the White House. So here we are forty
days later than my sixty days armageddon.
Speaker 6 (01:28):
We are holy still around.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
The conflict, the fallout, and what things look like one
hundred days in that is coming up after the break.
Speaker 5 (01:43):
Javier Blass Bloomberg opinion columnist Stacy He joined our show
three months ago, basically six days into the conflict between
the US and Iran. At the time, pretty much everybody
assumed that it couldn't last that much longer. We're three
months and now straight of Horm Moves is closed. Fuel
(02:04):
prices are are are much much higher than they were,
And a question that you and I and pretty much
everyone I know has been asking is is this normal?
Speaker 1 (02:15):
This?
Speaker 6 (02:15):
Is this just the way it's going to be?
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Are we going to be paying four fifty for gas
and dealing with this kind of tension in the straight
of Horm Moves forever?
Speaker 6 (02:24):
Yes?
Speaker 8 (02:25):
And you know, it seemed the conflict's gone on so
much longer than I think anybody thought it would, And
gas prices have obviously gone up quite a bit, and
there has been a big economic impact, but maybe not
the economic impact we would have thought six days into
the conflict, So we wanted to have Javier back to
talk about what's happened up until now and what do
(02:46):
sees happening right now, because it feels like, you know,
we've been hearing the conflicts about to end for you know,
one hundred days roughly.
Speaker 6 (02:54):
Hi, Javier, Hi, Thank you for having me again.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 8 (02:59):
Max and I talked so many times about the conversation
that we had back in March when the conflict with
Iron had just happened, and we wanted to bring you
back to talk about the economic follow.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Up where we are now, especially since you know, back.
Speaker 8 (03:13):
Then I think we we didn't know where our economy
would be, but you had some idea of what you
thought might happen if the conflict dragged out this long,
and we have a clip of that here.
Speaker 9 (03:23):
It is a truly worst cases scenario, what I will
call it, really worst cases scenario. I think that we
go north of two hundred dollars, we will need massive
demand destruction. It will it will imply an economic shock
of the size that the central banks will have to intervene,
et cetera.
Speaker 7 (03:39):
Accident.
Speaker 9 (03:40):
It's very ugly, but that's one of the reasons that
I cannot see these lasting sixty days. I think that
the White House will will call it over a lot earlier.
Speaker 6 (03:51):
All right, So I feel like so I was very wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Maybe I don't know if you were wrong.
Speaker 5 (03:58):
Well, Javier, take us through kind of the thought process
back then and kind of what your evaluation of where
we are today is.
Speaker 9 (04:08):
Well, you know, I thought that the conflict was not
going to last more than a couple of months, sixty days,
because I thought that by that time oil prices will
be much higher, and that will be game over. The
bomb market will take over all military planning, and the
war will have to come to an end. And here
we are about one hundred days into the war, and
(04:29):
oil prices are below one hundred dollars at the time
that we are recording, and you know, and the conflict
is on a ceasefire, but they say the hormones remains close.
I think that there are a couple of things that
have surprised me. One is how much China has reduced
(04:50):
his oil imports to the tune of forty below what
it was important last year, and that has free a
lot of oil for everyone else. We do not understand
how China is exactly doing it, and we don't understand
the motivations of Beijing to do it, other than probably
(05:12):
self preservation. They don't want a massive oil shock. But
we don't know there is a deal under the table
between the Communist Party in China and the White House,
and we don't know exactly how the Chinese are doing it.
The other thing that surprised me is how quickly the
rich countries, the US, Canada, the European and Japan also
(05:33):
used the stategy petroleum reserves and they put a lot
of oil into the market from those emergencies stock piles.
For example, at the First Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein
in Bacubate in nineteen ninety, it took the rich countries
more than six months to decide to use the statatey
petroleum reserves. So six months is a lot. A lot
(05:54):
is lower than the two weeks that it took us.
Perhaps the other thing that has surprised me is that,
and it will be obvious but it doesn't become obvious
until later, is that the oil industry of twenty twenty
six is a lot more sophisticated, flexible that it was
twenty five years earlier in two thousand and that flexibility
(06:17):
has helped to mitigate problems. For example, very early the
biggest problems was heavy fuel oil for ships and get
fuel for planes, because a lot of that comes from
the Middle East, from inside the astraet or hormones. We
were having a shortage. But the global refining system, and
(06:37):
particularly the American refining system, literally flex and was able
to increase the amount the proportion of jet fuel that
comes out of every barrel of oil a few percentage points.
So here we are forty days later than my sixty
days Armageddon.
Speaker 6 (06:56):
We are all still around.
Speaker 9 (06:57):
Please do take my comments with a pinch of salt.
Speaker 6 (07:00):
Can I push back on this?
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I feel like Javier is being all too hard on
himself and and like this idea that okay, we thought
it would be the end of the world, but it's
it's it's actually fine.
Speaker 6 (07:13):
It's not fine.
Speaker 9 (07:14):
I mean, well, no, you're right, I mean it's not fine.
We are still trading close to one hundred dollars oil.
Gasoline retail prices in America well above four dollars a gallon,
so significantly higher than they were before the war. And
what really surprises me is that I was. I thought
that these have to go really for a long time
(07:36):
for to create significant pain. But you think what I
was saying, and I was probably on the moderate camp
of price increases, et cetera, et cetera. And it has
turned that even that moderate camp was was too too hard,
suspecting too much of a price price increase. But to me,
(07:56):
if I have to put it down to what has
been the biggest difference of what I was thinking when
we spoke to today, I will say China. That came
as a big surprise, and I will have never thought.
You have asked me the last time I was in
(08:17):
the show, will you think that China can say reduced
imports by four million dollars a day.
Speaker 6 (08:24):
Basically that's a ten year low.
Speaker 9 (08:25):
They're importing less oil that they were important during COVID.
Speaker 6 (08:29):
That that puts things into into perspective.
Speaker 9 (08:32):
And I asked a very senior contact in the oil industry.
Was a big gathering of oil traders, analyst executives in
London the past few days for a conference. I asked
one of the persons who typically you will go and
I said, do you know what's happening? And this person
said to me, It's like the numbers don't make sense.
(08:55):
I cannot account for when you put it together, it's like,
how this is happening?
Speaker 8 (08:59):
It sounds I think we all should be thanking China
for really stepping up and helping the global oil market.
Speaker 9 (09:07):
The reduction and impulse started a bit earlier than the
trip of President Trump to Beijing to meet President she
But everything could be negotiated in advance and then finalized
in Beijing. But I mean, we can think about a counterfactual. Okay,
what will be happening if we if China was buying
the same amount of oil as before, we will be
(09:29):
short of another four million dollars a day. So we
will need to be on much higher prices because we
will need to destroy some demand, which means much higher
prices for gasoline in the United States, probably above five dollars
a gallon, which means that the Fed will be under
pressure to increase interest rates, which means that the rallying
(09:50):
Wall Street probably will will have already ended, which also
means that President Trump will be really under pressure to
cut a deal with Iranians, and the Iranians will have
the upper hand on the negotiations.
Speaker 6 (10:01):
So in some ways.
Speaker 9 (10:03):
And and and and the way that some people in
the oil markets see it is Beijing is bailing out
President Trump. And then the question is why and in
exchange of what, because in the oil market, everyone including
myself is as conspiracy theorist and nothing comes nothing comes from.
Speaker 6 (10:23):
Free We have no proof whatsoever. I should make that
very clear.
Speaker 9 (10:27):
And and there is also a very good reason why
China could be doing this on their own motivation, that
that really reduce the threat of inflation at home in China,
reduce the threat of an economic slowdown around the world,
which is something that the Chinese authorities don't want because
the Chinese authorities, they do need that the economy is healthy.
(10:49):
For a healthy economy in China, they need a healthy
global economy because a priorities to creat enough jobs every
year to absorb all the all the all the own
people that he's coming to the labor market in China.
So maybe they're doing it because that's what Rassi and
not thinking in Beijing says that they need to do,
regardless of President Trump.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
So we need to.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Talk about cuisine, in particular Mexican cuisine. You know, about
a month ago, six weeks ago, I can't remember you
sort of, I don't I don't know.
Speaker 6 (11:20):
I don't know if coined is the right word.
Speaker 5 (11:22):
But maybe popularized the term not cho.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
I was like, uh, Max asking about Mexican.
Speaker 5 (11:30):
Text mex I suppose not cho not a chance Hormuz opens. This,
of course, is the you know, much anticipated sequel to Taco.
Trump always chickens out the theory Javier is basically what
that that the Iranians are going to have a very
strong incentive to keep their leverage.
Speaker 6 (11:50):
The straight up horror Moons is still open.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
Trump has basically since this conflict began, been saying it's
going to reopen tomorrow or maybe it's already open. At
various times's he suggests it's already open, or that it's
going to open naturally. How long do you think, Natcho,
you know it continues to be true.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 9 (12:12):
I mean, I do think that both sides want a deal.
It feels to me that the landing zone of a
deal is becoming clear. Both sides are going to have
to give something. The main problem is both sides need
to sell the deal to the domestic audience. President Trump
needs to convince a lot of Republican senators and his
right wing that that this is a good deal, even
(12:35):
he has to give something to the Iranians. The Iranians also,
the negotiators need to convince the most conservative sector of
their political system that doing a deal with America, but
doing a deal with President Trump has reniqued in the
past of deals, makes sense, et cetera, et cetera. I
think that President Trump believes that he needs to get
(12:57):
a deal and reopened to the hormones, and and I
think that the Iranians are also under pressure. One of
the things that we don't know, because we don't really
have access on the ground with proper reporting, is what
is really happening on the Iranian street. All what we
get is some indication that unemployment is rising, that food
inflation is skyrocketing, general inflation and economy is increasing, and
(13:19):
the Iranians don't want to emerge from this having won
the battle and keeping the straight of hormone, say closed
for three months, three more months, and then realizing that,
you know, down the road later this year they have
another popular raup rising because the economic situation, the domestic
economic situation has deteriorated to such a.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Point so the Iranians.
Speaker 9 (13:40):
I think that they are also going to be caucious
the one a deal also, but the one a deal
that they can sell to their domestic audience as a
victory when the straight hormones reopened. I don't know, But
can the White House and the Islamic Republic reach a
deal that both sides can sull well as a victory?
Speaker 6 (14:01):
Have here? How many days?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
So give us a number so that in that many
days we can have you on the podcast again.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
Oh you want to embarrass or allow you to gloat.
Speaker 6 (14:14):
Oh, yes, there's upside that.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
I think that the day is coming closer. I don't
know how many days. I mean you you have listened
to President Trump. He has been saying that tomorrow we're
going to have a deal, and that tomorrow was about
fifty days ago. So I'm not gonna do the same thing.
But it does feel this time that both sides are
very very very close. A few more days, perhaps a
(14:40):
couple of more weeks, certainly before the end of June.
There you are, love. Certainly before the end of June.
I will be here in September.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
Well, have here.
Speaker 8 (14:50):
We cannot thank you enough for talking with us. Really
fascinating conversation. So thanks and yes we're looking forward to
having you back.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
Thank you. Hopefully not in September, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
So Max, it is almost summer.
Speaker 8 (15:10):
Technically it feels like summers away. We are weeks away,
weeks away, which means summer movies, which is I know
you go to the movies with your kids quite a bit.
Is there anything that you guys are excited to see?
Speaker 5 (15:24):
Stacey, I have not gone to an adult movie since
a movie for adults since Oppenheimer, which was like three
years ago, so it's been a while.
Speaker 8 (15:36):
Well, this is a really extraordinary summer for movies. So
we sent our producer Jasmin gt. Green out into the
wilds of New York, into Central Park to ask people
about whether they are going.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
To the movies and which movies are going to.
Speaker 10 (15:51):
What summer movies are y'all watching or you're really interested
in checking out.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
We saw The Mandalorian and Grogu which we really enjoyed,
and also want to see Spider Man.
Speaker 7 (16:00):
Is the Odyssey this summer.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
I definitely want to see the Odyssey.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
I'm really excited to see The Odyssey. Obsession.
Speaker 11 (16:05):
We've been just down the rabbit hole of theories and
and things like that, what people think, how people interpret it.
And then the back Rooms movie is one we're dying
to see.
Speaker 10 (16:16):
It seems like this summer like everyone is going back
to the movies and people are really excited about a
lot of big films. Have you been like big movie watchers?
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I started going to the theater again last year, right,
it's almost like enough time past for COVID that I
got more excited to go out of the house to
see movies starting in around last year.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
I love going to movies and I always have so
more movies better.
Speaker 12 (16:40):
Going to the movies has just gotten really expensive, so
I'm just like put off of going like when movies
come out and stuff to the theaters because it's so expensive,
and then you pay twenty dollars for like snacks. It's
just like, yeah, all wait for it to come up
on like Prime.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
So we heard two movies there that I just wanted
to call out, back Rooms and Obsession, Uh, both new
horror movies. Back Rooms directed by Kane Parson, Obsession directed
by Curry Barker.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Before very Young First Time were very.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Young, both coming out of kind of the YouTube world,
and probably most importantly both massive hits. These two movies
have earned two hundred and sixty six million dollars combined,
despite having very very inexpensive budgets and kind of growing
out of you know, like lo fi YouTube work.
Speaker 8 (17:27):
Here to discuss these movies and the summer movie season,
and also some theater etiquette. We have the great Lucas Shaw,
who covers media and entertainment here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
He is also a self proclaimed party pooper.
Speaker 6 (17:40):
Lucas, Hello, good to see you both. What is the
part You're a party pooper? What are you talking about?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
You're familiar with the Bloomberg message nine yes bio on
a message I years and years ago because I never
understood why one needed to have that years and years ago.
Just named a professional party pooper and people seem to
like it. So I also applied it on LinkedIn.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Have people reached.
Speaker 8 (18:05):
Out to you on LinkedIn asking you to destroy a party?
Speaker 1 (18:09):
They have not asked me to destroy a party, but
people have referenced it somewhat often in LinkedIn messages offline.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
Well, I'm happy to be part of that tradition.
Speaker 5 (18:19):
Lucas also writes the screen Time newsletter for Bloomberg, which
you should subscribe to Lucas just to start, Like these
two horror movies, Obsession and back Rooms, Do you have
any sense of why they've they've they've sort of been
the hit that they are and and like how unexpected
was this?
Speaker 13 (18:37):
Well?
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Horror is a genre that has worked for decades, and
I think especially in the last couple of decades as
Hollywood has become kind of obsessed with the big, big
blockbusters and I think become even more risk averse because
it's gotten more and more corporate horror is the one
genre other than sort of the big family and themation,
(19:00):
big action superhero type movies that studios will consistently make
because people will show up.
Speaker 13 (19:05):
To the theater to watch them.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Right, So having these breakout horror movies is like not
altogether shocking, the YouTube origin story of it all a
little more surprising. I mean, we've seen examples of it.
I think what is really tripping people up is that
they're both happening at the same time, Right, Like what
(19:28):
surprised people with Obsession was not so much how it started,
but that its grosses went up and weekend two and
weekend three, which is very unusual for a movie. And
what surprised people with backrooms. I think was just how
big it was. You know, it opened north of eighty
million dollars. To put that in perspective, was released by
A twenty four. A twenty four I don't think it
(19:50):
ever had a movie cross thirty its opening weekend, so
it more than doubled the biggest opening A twenty four
I'd ever had. So it's like a It's one of
those things where it's a lot of trends that have
been happening, horror movies, YouTube to Hollywood, A twenty four,
like all that, but it happened that you had sort
of them all piling on one another at the same time,
(20:10):
and it happened at the same time that a Star
Wars movie was kind of a disaster, and so it
sort of reinforced this perception that youth tastes have changed
and that Hollywood must heed and take notice. And I
think there's some definitely some truth to it, and then
obviously some kind of overreaction extrapolation.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
I mean, what I found exciting about this was kind
of what you touched on, which is that you know,
for a long time, it has started to seem like
as fewer and fewer movies get made that it seems like,
you know, the big franchises, the sequels, so many sequels,
and this kind of like mindless recreation of you know,
the stories was kind of taking over the industry. And
(20:53):
then the summer you have two pretty unknown directors. I mean,
in the case of back Rooms, it was a series
of YouTube videos this young man had been making for years.
But it seems kind of exciting, like this this new
kind of creative possibility and that maybe the movies aren't
have it become totally corporate.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
So we're going to get to the end of summer,
end of the year, and the biggest movies for the
most part, are still going to be sequels and remakes
and the like, right, you know, the highest grossing movie
of the year so far is Super Mario Brothers Galaxy Movie,
which is a sequel to a movie based on a
video game. I think most people assume that the highest
(21:31):
grossing movies of summer will either be Toy Story five, which,
as the number suggests, is a sequel, or Spider Man.
I forget what the you know, the adpim is to
this one, but we're up to like nine Spider Man movies.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
At this point, or the Odyssey maybe.
Speaker 13 (21:45):
Or maybe the Odyssey, which.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
Well that is some old eyep. The Odyssey.
Speaker 13 (21:50):
Well, that's the thing is people liked.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
There's like this new trend where people don't call movies
based on people like to call movies based on books original,
and it's like no, no, no, Like the book is the
sort of material Homer bag.
Speaker 13 (22:01):
It's a different what the movies had missed.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
I think the last few years coming out of COVID,
where the grosses were down was sort of like the
middle class. The numbers didn't always bear this out. I
tried to like crunch it, and I couldn't quite figure
out why.
Speaker 13 (22:13):
The movies were down.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
It just felt like goes down across the board, but
it felt like you either had really really big movies
or nothing else. And this year we've had movies like
Michael Devilware's product too. Now these horror movies project tail
Mary like a solid class of movie that are blockbusters
that are not billion dollar movies like Super Mario Brothers
or Toy Stories, but are making anywhere from two hundred
(22:34):
to six hundred. During the Michael is probably gonna get
to eight or nine. So that's maybe a weird example,
but that are some of which are original, and you
know what, the IP people are interested in change a
little bit. Right, video game adaptations didn't work until the
last few years when finally they did. And maybe it's
that the movies were better, or maybe it's the Hollywood
got that enough people had grown up with video games
(22:55):
they wanted them back rooms is IP right? It is
a YouTube series.
Speaker 13 (22:58):
That someone adapted. So I to.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Your initial question, I do think that there are different
types of stories breaking out. Some of them are original,
some of them are IP, and it's exciting just that
people want to go to the movies.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
All.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
Yeah, that is it, This sense of more sort of
mid sized movies is that's what is that? What's ultimately
like helping the box office numbers Because the box office
numbers you've alluded to this, they've been really good.
Speaker 13 (23:27):
The best since twenty nineteen, which was the biggest year ever.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
Really. I mean, if you're adjusting for inflation and all
that stuff, it gets more complicated, but the numbers have
been consistently down since the pandemic. Obviously, twenty twenty and
twenty one were basically a wash because theaters were.
Speaker 13 (23:44):
Closed for part of it.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And there weren't a lot of movies and production had
been disrupted, and then we had strikes, and there were
a lot of reasons why people thought last year was
going to be the year the movie.
Speaker 13 (23:52):
Business was back.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
This is the year where we're sort of the closest
to what it had been pre pandemic, and there's hope
that it will sustain throughout the year. This weekend we
have scary movie whatever it is, I think seven.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 13 (24:06):
People are actually expecting to do really well.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
There's a Toy Story movie later this month, and you
just have ever. It feels like every weekend there is
something big.
Speaker 5 (24:15):
So one of the things that's come up amid this
this sense that the theaters are back, that the movie
business is back, the box office back.
Speaker 6 (24:25):
Is sort of indications that behavior is changing.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
You know a lot of people did not go to
the movies for a few years during COVID, And this
came up in the tape you just heard.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Let's just play a little bit more.
Speaker 10 (24:35):
I've just been only thing. People have been taking their
phones out a lot more in the theater. Is that
something that y'all have been noticing too, or are you
phone users?
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I will take my phone out to take a picture
of the title and then put it away.
Speaker 13 (24:50):
Definitely put it away and don't look at it.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
I'm really upset, like when people beside me or something
are like max brightness phone used.
Speaker 7 (24:59):
I do not take my phone out in the theater.
I've noticed though, that people are engaging more like clapping
or laughing or like I watched the drama and people
were all like gasping.
Speaker 10 (25:10):
Have you ever confronted them?
Speaker 4 (25:12):
No, but I'll just like give them a bad glance
or like a evil look or something.
Speaker 6 (25:17):
So it's like, why are you doing this now?
Speaker 12 (25:19):
When you're seeing like especially like a scary movie and
there's like a group of like thirteen year old teenage
boys like talking and laughing and like throwing popcorn at
people like from the seats. It just kind of takes
you out of the film and you're more like, where
are your parents?
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Please?
Speaker 5 (25:37):
I want to watch the movie, Lucas, I have you
have you been hearing about this phone thing? I mean,
it sounds like the new etiquette is like it's okay
to scroll, you just got to keep the.
Speaker 6 (25:46):
Brightness really low.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
Is that is that kind of your understanding of the
of where the norms are today.
Speaker 13 (25:53):
The honest answers, I don't know. I do feel like
what people.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
You know, there's been a little bit of research recently
to suggest us that that young people are once again
interested in going to the movie theater. I have not
stress tested the research enough to feel confident one way
or the other. I would say that, you know, the
one of the strengths underpinning what we often call the
experience economy, which is going to concerts and sporting events
(26:18):
and anything kind of out of the house is okay.
Kids in particular spend so much time on their devices.
Speaker 13 (26:25):
They do you know, these these.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Moments that can make them gather irl are important.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
Now.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
Granted, if anyone's ever been to something like Coachella, they
are there, you know, at something in person, but they're
still using their phone to you know, tape all the time.
But movie theaters would seem to have an opportunity to create,
pitch themselves as opportunities for friends to gather.
Speaker 13 (26:50):
Right, as long.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
As studios make the right movies and theaters create experiences
that kids actually.
Speaker 13 (26:55):
Want to be at.
Speaker 8 (26:56):
I thought, maybe we're at a moment with our phones
because also, you know, Rosamond's pike, the actress. She's performing
a play in the West End in London. She was
giving this very impassioned speech in her plan and she
looked over and someone was deep in their phone sending
a text, and so she has called this out and
it's caused this kind of conversation about people taking out
(27:20):
their phones too much in the like live theater. Do
you think this is something that we'll have a reckoning
or is this just.
Speaker 13 (27:27):
I feel like that's taboo in live theater. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
I mean I don't go to movie's for sure.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Yeah, I certainly go to a few every year, and
it's pretty rare to see someone just going on the
phone all day or certainly not having the phone out
taking photos.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
I have seen Stacy. I wasn't following this.
Speaker 5 (27:44):
Did she break the fourth wall during the show to
like tell this guy to turn his Uh?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
No, she did not.
Speaker 8 (27:51):
I think she was like a pro and like did
her thing, But I guess she was. She called it crushing.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
Lucas Shaw, thank you so much for me here.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
Thanks us.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
So Max.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
It is time for our Underrated story and we have
a very special guest for that. But first we had
to do a small addition because some news broke.
Speaker 5 (28:20):
Yeah, this was like a stop the presses type moment
here at everybody's business.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
Stop production.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
So NPR reported that there is a new potential insider
trading scandal in the world of prediction markets, this one
involving George Santo's former US congressman. All in all, very
interesting character, Stacy, Real quick, here's what happened. Santos recorded
(28:48):
a video in which he said that he was going
to be at the State of the Union address, and
the allegation is that he then against himself.
Speaker 8 (29:01):
So he he this was a bet that was on
cal she right, and the bet was like will Santos
be at the State of the Union address?
Speaker 6 (29:09):
He said that that.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
Hey looking forward to seeing everyone tonight at the State
of Union address.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
And then the accusation is that then he went.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
On calshok and placed to bet that he would not
be at the State of the Union address and he
did not go to the State of Union dress. Santos
has said, the basis of this accusation is preposterous. I
look forward to supplying any information asked to me to
any agency that inquires. I think this is very funny, Stacy,
partly because if it were true, it would be just
(29:38):
a very clumsy instance of insider training. But also is
it possible that George Santos was hitching that he wanted
to go. He wanted to be there to support President
Trump and to be part of history. But as an
emotional hedge, which we've talked about this on the show.
Sports gamblers do it all the time, he placed a
bet and he made a little money and it's probably
not enough.
Speaker 6 (29:58):
To make up for the not being there. But but
that's my theory.
Speaker 8 (30:01):
So your theory is that he thought, if I get
to go to the State of the Union, it's a win.
If I don't get to go to the State of
the Union, I'll make a lot of money on call
sheet because the odds are really high that I will
be going to the State of the Union because I
recorded a message saying that I.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Was on my way there. That's very generous. Honestly, I
think that's a very generous.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
Reason in a generous mood.
Speaker 8 (30:25):
Good well, I really, I think the Santos camp thanks you,
thanks you for that.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Although then also it's illegal.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Stacy, underrated story time. And as you said, we have
a special guest. It's Matt Campbell. Roving Business Week correspondent.
He has a new book that's out this week, The
Man who Stole the Gods, a true story of war
obsession and a global art conspiracy. Everyone should check it out. Matt,
what is your underrated story?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
So?
Speaker 14 (30:58):
I have art Theft on the brand, and my underrated
story is from art net about the efforts by police
in France and apparently Belgium to track down the people
involved in this jewel heist from the Louver not long ago,
and it kind of sort of sounds like the cops
are beginning to roll this up.
Speaker 6 (31:17):
Matt, refresh our memory for those of us who've yeah.
Speaker 14 (31:20):
So last year there was a brazen heist of some
of the most valuable and historically significant jewels in the
whole collection of the Louver, which were just boosted out
of the place.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
And then they just like dropped some jewels like on
the ground, and.
Speaker 14 (31:36):
This ground was theah got smushed. It was not so
it was not the slickest job, but they did get away.
Speaker 5 (31:42):
So, Matt, the thing that I was surprised by, first
of all, I was I assume this stuff was long gone.
And also it sounds like maybe they'll recover some of
these stones that were taken right or is is there
any hope of recovery of these precious artifacts?
Speaker 6 (31:55):
That's always the question.
Speaker 14 (31:57):
So the police are being very tight. It sounds like
they have a pretty good idea of at least who
the crew were, but that doesn't mean they know who
the crew were working for, which is of course the
more interesting question. And there's no indication that they have
recovered the actual objects. And for me, with art thefts,
which still happen all the time, museums get hit constantly
(32:19):
all over the world, particularly in Europe, the big question
I always have is, well, where's this stuff going? Because
you can't sell it on the open market, you know,
you can't go to Sotheby's and say, here's this piece
that happens to match exactly something that was lifted out
of the louver last year. So there has to be
a private buyer for it somewhere, and we don't know
who that is.
Speaker 8 (32:38):
So, Matt, you've reported on art theft, you kind of
know these pipelines. Is it normally the person who wants
the jewels or the painting who commissions the crime or
are there just people who what is the what is
the way this happens. Is there like a like a
dark web Sotheby's.
Speaker 14 (32:59):
I hope there's a dark website the base. That'd be
a great story actually, But as far as we know,
it's both. So there are opportunistic art thefts. There are
also art thefts that appear to be commissioned by people
who actually want specific items. But what is kind of
amazing is the frequency with which this happens. You know,
not only in peaceable places like Paris, but every time
(33:22):
there is an armed conflict anywhere in the world. One
of the first thing that happens is the museum gets
cleaned out, archaeological sites get cleaned out, private collections get
cleaned out. That is all going somewhere, and there's a
very sophisticated supply chain that gets it to wherever it's going.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
All right, speaking that supply chain, as I mentioned, your
your book is out this week. It's about an art
heist in Cambodia, like a complex and very sophisticated network
of basically looting. Tell us a little bit about about
the story and how you got interested in it.
Speaker 14 (33:55):
The book basically tells the story of how this in
dust drill scale art theft operation got going in historical
sites in Cambodia starting in the seventies, and that's on
Korwatt and all the other temples. People will have seen
pictures of imagine like a tomb raider set up. That's
basically what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
What kinds of things are they taking?
Speaker 14 (34:15):
These are huge, amazing thousand year old stone, life size
sculptures and also a lot of bronze which tends to
be smaller, and thousands of pieces were taken sold in
some cases for seven or even eight figure prices. And
above all we now know, and this is the story
that gets told in the book into New York City,
(34:36):
that was the big destination private collectors here and also
the Metropolitan Museum.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
Oh the Met.
Speaker 8 (34:42):
So actually your travels because you're based in Singapore, right
and your art theft travels brought you to New York.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
That's right.
Speaker 14 (34:49):
So this is a story that begins in very remote
and landmine laden jungles in northwest Cambodia and it ends
at the corner of Fifth Avenue and eightieth Street, which
is where a lot of these things did end up
bought by the met bought by various wealthy private collectors
in the us in some cases within a couple of
(35:12):
years of being ripped out by former Khmer Rouge child soldiers.
Speaker 6 (35:16):
Literally, Matt Campbell, thank you for being here. The book
is called The Man.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Who Stole the Gods, a true story of war obsession
and a global art conspiracy. Go to your bookstore pick
it up or Amazon.
Speaker 14 (35:27):
Matt, thanks a lot, any anywhere that sells books, the
sales Tea wherever you.
Speaker 7 (35:31):
Get your books.
Speaker 6 (35:40):
This show is produced by Jasmine J. T. Green, Stacey Waugh,
and Miles J.
Speaker 5 (35:43):
Harrison Horn Magus Hendrickson is our supervisor, Producer Sam Roga,
Chandles Engineering, and Dave Purcelle fact checks.
Speaker 6 (35:50):
Special thanks to Jeff Muskus, Julia Rubin and Maria Lyn.
If you have a minute, please rate and review the show.
Speaker 5 (35:56):
It'll mean a lot to us and even have a
story that should be our business. Email us at Everybody's
at bloomer dot net. That's everybody with an ass at
bloomer dot net. Thank you for listening and we'll
Speaker 6 (36:06):
See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.