Coyote vs. Acme and The Rocky Horror Picture Show | #1080 - Filmspotting

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Filmspotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all-you-can-watch movie subscription
pass that pays for itself in just two visits. See
any standard 2D movie anytime with no blackout dates or restrictions.
Sign up now on the Regal app or at the
link in our description and use code FILMSPOT26 to receive 15% off.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
What kind of a show are you guys putting on
here today?

Speaker 3 (00:48):
You're not interested in art?

Speaker 4 (00:49):
No.

Speaker 5 (00:50):
Well, look, we're going to do this thing.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
We're going to have a conversation.

Speaker 6 (00:55):
From Chicago, this is Film Spotting. I'm Adam Kempinar.

Speaker 5 (00:58):
And I'm Josh Larson.

Speaker 6 (00:59):
I've been making a man with.

Speaker 5 (01:02):
Blonde hair and a tan.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
And he's good for a living, man.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
As a midnight movie, the Rocky Horror Picture Show is
a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
We'll pay tribute to Tim Curry with a 51st anniversary
review of the cult musical. Plus, Coyote vs.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Acre.

Speaker 5 (01:24):
Ahead on FilmSpotting.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Welcome to FilmSpotting. It's unfortunate, Josh, that it took the
passing of Tim Curry to make it happen. But finally,
I get to cross off an egregious blind spot. No,
I didn't get to see it in a packed theater
with audience participation. But I did finally watch the Rocky
Horror Picture Show.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
You are licensed now, though, Adam, having watched it, to
go to one of those. So, yeah, pick out your
favorite prop, costume, and be prepared to sing along.

Speaker 5 (02:01):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
We will discuss Rocky Horror a bit later, plus a
new poll that asks you to choose your favorite 70s musical.
It might just be Rocky Horror. We will weigh in
on that as well. A weird decade for the movie musical,
but there are some good ones. And listeners tell us
their picks for the best 90s movie villain. A reminder
that Film Spotting is available as a video podcast. We

(02:24):
encourage you to go watch us talk over at youtube.com
slash film spotting.

Speaker 5 (02:30):
Adam, what do you think?

Speaker 1 (02:31):
The new Larson film studio. It's pretty much done.

Speaker 5 (02:35):
Not bad.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Might tweak the production design here and there, but yeah,
mainly it just feels good to be in a designated space.
I've been in the wilderness for about six years, Adam, since,
you know, moving from the house where I was fortunate
to have a home office and been making it work.
You remember the closet days?

Speaker 6 (02:53):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
In the closet, maybe good sound, not very comfortable. So yeah,
happy to be in this space now and Listeners slash viewers,
take a peek on YouTube.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
You know I love the film spotting decor.

Speaker 6 (03:07):
Looks very nice.

Speaker 5 (03:08):
How about that?

Speaker 1 (03:09):
I mean, from Film Spotting Fest, the signed poster, Koganata
and Rian Johnson here. So, yeah, happy to have a
space for that, too.

Speaker 6 (03:18):
First up, Coyote versus Acme.

Speaker 4 (03:21):
Acme has knowingly been making dangerous products for decades. Is
there anyone in the whole world who cares what happened
to the coyote at all?

Speaker 3 (03:33):
Yeah, I do.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Adam, I haven't given much thought to Wile E. Coyote
and the Roadrunner in quite possibly decades. Unlike Star Wars
or The Muppets, this wasn't a pop culture artifact that
persisted for me into adulthood or one that I passed
on to my own kids. And so sitting down in
the theater to watch the new live-action animation hybrid, Coyote vs. Acme,

(04:01):
it was nothing less than a Proustian experience. It's probably
bad form to compare anvils falling on heads to Marcel
Proust's memory-inducing madeleine cake, but seeing such images, and honestly,
mostly hearing the Roadrunner's signature, this sent me immediately back

(04:21):
to my childhood family room, sitting in front of the TV,
after school, probably maybe Saturday morning, watching Looney Tunes cartoons.
From what I remember of those days, Coyote vs. Acme
is true to that original experience. The slapstick chaos, as
well as the Sisyphean nature of Wildy Coyote pursuing and

(04:42):
never capturing his prey. I think it was that part,
that haunting existential quality of the shorts that registers even
more strongly as an adult. So far, then, so nostalgic.
But the movies are awash in attempts to appeal to
our nostalgia for earlier pop culture eras, from the aforementioned

(05:04):
Star Wars and Muppets to niche properties like Masters of
the Universe, which somehow got a second movie this summer.
I do want to hear if Wiley and Roadrunner were
a part of your childhood, Adam, and what that meant
for your experience with this new film. But either way,
mostly I'm curious if you think Coyote vs. Acme justifies

(05:26):
itself beyond being a nostalgia play. Is there another reason
for this movie to exist in 2026?

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, the answer to your first question and your last question,
definitely yes. And I had to do some research, Josh,
because I wanted to confirm that this wasn't all just
swirling in my memory and maybe... made up part of
my imagination. You know how that goes over the years.
And there was a Saturday morning CBS Bugs Bunny Roadrunner

(05:58):
show during our youths that apparently packaged classic Warner Brothers
shorts together that included Bugs Bunny and Daffy and Tweety
and Sylvester and Foghorn Leghorn.

Speaker 6 (06:09):
And of course, Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
But what I vividly remember, and the research did confirm
that I'm not crazy. is whatever the syndicated programming was
on local stations.

Speaker 4 (06:25):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
In the afternoons after school, when I would get to
my babysitter's house and I would eat my little snack
and this went on for at least a few years
and I would sit there with my snack and my
friends and I would watch those cartoon blocks.

Speaker 6 (06:43):
Absolutely. Watched Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote.

Speaker 2 (06:48):
So, watching this movie, because you're right for me as well.
It wasn't a remnant. It wasn't something that had loomed
large in my consciousness. I wasn't thinking about Roadrunner or
Wile E. Coyote much. So there was a thrill, not
just seeing Wile E. Coyote back at it, still at it,

(07:09):
trying and failing to chase down Roadrunner, but the use
of the old footage, some of the actual footage from
those cartoons, right? The grainy or the blurry footage that
we would have watched as kids, that was absolutely a
little bit nostalgic. But in terms of 2026 and what's
new or what stunned me about this movie, of course

(07:34):
we were kids, so it didn't and didn't need to
work on any level of other than this. But from
a comedy standpoint, those cartoons were beautifully primal. Like Wile E.
Coyote himself, who just can't stop wanting to eat that bird,

(07:55):
our animal instinct, maybe you were more sophisticated, Josh, but
our animal instinct was to delight in watching him repeatedly
get beaten, bonked, and blown up. He had some competition
with Elmer Fudd, and Sylvester. Those are the two I remember, certainly,
and I know there were others.

Speaker 6 (08:14):
But Wile E.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
Coyote was always the ultimate loser. Just totally pathetic. And
Roadrunner was essentially a cypher. He was cooler than Wile E.
Coyote because he always won, but he was a character
offering some playfulness, but little discernible personality beyond just existing

(08:38):
to outrun Coyote.

Speaker 6 (08:41):
Coyote vs.

Speaker 2 (08:42):
Acme comes along as if to say, you've got a
different perspective, we're going to give you a different perspective too.
Among them, Wile E. Coyote's relentless pursuit, his Sisyphean pursuit
in the face of repeated failure is in fact heroic

(09:03):
and inspiring. And Roadrunner, rather than a mere foil blazing
ignorantly across the desert is an existentially self-aware figure of
transcendent beauty. The movie reinterprets the coyote roadrunner relationship, finding

(09:24):
nobility in Wile E. Coyote's failure and something almost mythic
in the roadrunner.

Speaker 6 (09:32):
It's funny, too.

Speaker 4 (09:33):
Have you ever set a big stack of TNT on
the road hoping to blow up your nemesis, but the
detonator itself explodes? Have you ever pulled the ripcord of
your parachute and only a bunch of silverware comes out?

Speaker 6 (09:46):
It's not your fault.

Speaker 4 (09:48):
Acme is evil.

Speaker 5 (09:51):
I think you're right.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
That's somewhat what I was touching on when I was
saying that existential quality, which did go over my head
because I did like the repeated jokes. sinks in a
little more and takes a larger grandeur here. They also
find there's a balance, too, in the relationship.

Speaker 5 (10:08):
Where they need each other, right?

Speaker 1 (10:11):
Which, of course, the cartoon needs them to need each
other to have to generate another installment. But this movie
has the space and the characterization time to suggest that
even as characters, if we imagine ourselves as these, these
are creatures who actually exist, that to exist, they need
each other. And there's something almost sweet about that, that

(10:32):
the movie taps into. I think also, you know, real
quickly in terms of the rest of my memories of
watching it is It's funny because of the violence inherent
in this dynamic, Roadrunner and Coyote and Wile E. Coyote
were always on the line with my mom because Tom
and Jerry, which I know is a different universe, they

(10:54):
were out. We're not allowed to watch Tom and Jerry.

Speaker 6 (10:57):
No kidding.

Speaker 5 (10:58):
I think it was like it made me... And my
sister's too wild, I think I remember being told.

Speaker 6 (11:04):
This is why you're so well-adjusted.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
Or maybe it made me meaner to my two younger sisters,
which is very possible. So Tom and Jerry was out.

Speaker 5 (11:12):
Wile E.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
Coyote and the Roadrunner, I think, was a little bit
on her mood. Whether, okay, fine. And then sometimes, probably
depending on how much violence was on the screen at
the time.

Speaker 6 (11:22):
Because it was so absurd. It was just so absurd.

Speaker 5 (11:26):
Maybe that too.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
And my mom was not super harsh in terms of
what we could watch either. She was just, you know,
she just paid attention. So I love what I loved
about it as a kid was yes. What you talked
about the comic violence, but I still like this sort
of comedy when it just continually ups the ante in what,
what starts as a minor gag. And to your point,

(11:49):
it's always at the expense of Wiley just gets escalated
further and further and further until it eventually hits a
point in the original shorts where you, as a kid,
could not even have imagined what happens next, right? There's
a level where it's the obvious joke, the anvil or whatever.
Then there's another level where if you were asked as
a kid, what could happen next? Maybe I'd come up

(12:11):
with that one. Maybe the third level, a six or
seven year old could come up with it. But then
the writers of those shorts would add a fifth and
sixth level. And that's when your little.

Speaker 5 (12:20):
Mind was blown.

Speaker 6 (12:20):
That's their genius.

Speaker 5 (12:21):
How did they get there? How did they get there?

Speaker 1 (12:25):
All of that, I think, is still here in Coyote
versus Acme, though not leaned on too heavily. As a
matter of fact, I'd say much of it is dealt
with and indulged in the first 20 to 30 minutes.
And then once the plot kicks in, it takes on
other contours of the sort that you were talking about.
So once Wiley hires Will Forte's attorney to represent him

(12:49):
in this case suing Acme, the Acme Corporation, for all
of these products that have failed him over the decades.
And it's not that they give Wiley a voice. I
love that they retain his silence and that he speaks
in signs and says at one point, what does one
sign say?

Speaker 5 (13:07):
A limited number of signs.

Speaker 6 (13:08):
Limited number of signs.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
So the screenwriter, you know, Sammy Birch here, the screenwriter
kind of finds a cheat code that's very funny to
not have to keep writing those signs. Yeah, then this
larger plot kicks in. Where it becomes this disgruntled consumer.
Here's what I found in terms of its timeliness in 2026.
Wiley becomes the representative for the disgruntled consumer who, as corporations,

(13:36):
get bigger and own more and care less about the
consumer experience because they have us in their vice grip.
Wiley stands in for all of us. I mean, this
is a movie about You know, the phrase that people
have been using for a number of years now, the
general and shitification of, in this case, the consumer experience, right?

(14:00):
Where the customer hasn't been right for a while. The
customer just keeps paying, paying, paying more and more for
the lack of any sort of privilege. And if you're
fed up, wherever you're experiencing that, it could be anything.
I have my own gripes. I'm not going to be
the old man on my front lawn railing at the,
you Enlist those now. We all have our gripes to

(14:21):
that experience. And I feel like Acme in this movie
can stand in for the corporation that's making your life
miserable and taking a ton of money from you monthly.
And you can watch Wiley and say, you know what?
I'm signing up for this class action lawsuit too. Even
if all that means is going to buy a ticket

(14:41):
to Coyote versus Acme, which ironically, of course, there's the
meta background.

Speaker 6 (14:46):
Of course.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
That works so well that this is a movie that
its parent company originally wanted to shelf for a tax break.
That's exactly the sort of stuff we're talking about here.
And just how, however intentional along the way that was managed,
the fact that that's at play is part of the
timely richness of this movie.

Speaker 5 (15:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
What, what cosmic poetic justice would it be? And I
didn't look at the box office hall. Unfortunately, I can't
offer that, but I know it's doing well with critics.
I saw the Rotten Tomatoes score. I hope it's doing
well with audiences and we normally don't spend a lot
of time on that or necessarily even outright encourage people
to see a movie, but it couldn't be more appropriate

(15:30):
to this film, especially because we both like it so much.
It couldn't be more appropriate to actively encourage people to
go see this film because it is this David versus
Goliath type of story. It is this film that is
about It is about corporate malfeasance, but in this larger context,
the meta-narrative here, maybe not malfeasance so much as just

(15:54):
corporate disregard. And the fact that you have a film
that was made by Warner Brothers, and they ultimately decided
that they could shelve it. And they could make more
money using it as a tax write-off than allowing the
public to see what is a great piece of populist

(16:19):
art and entertainment that they could shelve it and would
be better for their business. And you've got a film
that is fundamentally about that, about corporate malfeasance. And then
it finally did get bought. and we're able to see
it and embrace it and engage with it and consider

(16:40):
these ideas, I do hope more people see it. I
hope the company that bought it, Ketchup Entertainment, I hope
that they are getting their money back and more. It
would only be fitting for this film. And yes, I
was surprised that it could get me to think about
Wile E. Coyote any differently than I did previously as
a kid, or even just enough to sort of hang

(17:02):
a movie on and hang the plot on.

Speaker 6 (17:05):
But You're right with what you're.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
Talking about here, Josh, because one of the other aspects
we never would have thought about as a kid, and
this movie makes us now consider, is since we saw,
or since I certainly saw Wile E. Coyote as such
a loser, it never occurred to me that maybe some
of the equipment was letting him down.

Speaker 6 (17:31):
It was always. I was taking always the side. of
Acme Corporation, even as a kid.

Speaker 2 (17:39):
No, it couldn't be the equipment. Of course, it's Wile E.

Speaker 6 (17:42):
Coyote.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Now, maybe the animators were also then nudging us a
little bit in that direction because that was part of
the humor and part of the dynamic in the relationship.
But I think there is also something a little bit
more provocative there, at least that this movie wants us
to consider. Because now when we watch this film, even

(18:04):
at the beginning, Josh, in those first 20 minutes or
so that you were speaking to, I found myself even
knowing a little bit about the backstory here. Even when
the equipment was failing him, I still was in my
childlike mindset or an adult-like mindset, just accepting the capitalist

(18:29):
structure under which we all live and saying, well, that's
just the way things are. And The corporation, the equipment
probably all works just like it should. And the person
using it's probably user error. And if it's not user error, well,
what's the point in fighting it? I just I immediately
even as a viewer, I took on the mindset of

(18:50):
Will Forte's character that there was no point in fighting it.
And so this movie does somehow Coyote versus Acme does
make you think in a way you maybe haven't thought
as much before that we just take. We take these
things for granted far too often, the system that we
do live under.

Speaker 5 (19:10):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
And to connect it to, you know, the Warner Brothers
of it all, and this Wile E. Coyote is standing
in for consumers getting ripped off. I have to imagine
that real world scenario is that this is a good movie,
to your point, that deserves an audience, deserves a large audience,
a family audience. that those subscribers who are paying.

Speaker 5 (19:33):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Is it HBO Max now? What is Warner Brothers calling it?
They change the name all the time. Whatever their streaming
service is, presumably you're paying monthly, and the trade-off is
you're getting good original content, right? And to your point
about shelving it, they made a choice to save their
own money to withhold product from the consumers that the

(19:55):
consumers have already paid for.

Speaker 5 (19:56):
So there's just so many.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Amazing ways this connects to the real world. The last
thing I just want to cite on this is the slogan. Again,
I know a lot of hands were on this screenplay
before Sammy Birch, who got the final credit, Maybe this
is from Birch, but the slogan for Acme is just
genius for where we're living today. We're a company of
family values that values its family of companies.

Speaker 6 (20:20):
Of companies.

Speaker 5 (20:22):
That says it all.

Speaker 2 (20:23):
Josh, the line of the film... the line of the decade,
the line of our society, it made me laugh harder
than any other thing in the movie. And the best
thing about it is that when that is said, and
if people haven't seen the movie, I just want to
make sure that you heard that right. We're a company

(20:45):
of family values that values its family of companies. So good.
It is as if the PR people who write that
kind of nonsense. And they all say that kind of nonsense.
Of course, a company of family values.

Speaker 5 (21:01):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
And if you work for a company that starts talking
like that, that starts talking about how we're one big family,
that is when, you know, it's time to jump ship.

Speaker 6 (21:12):
Okay. Just, just so you know.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
Or at least double check your benefits.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Yes, you need to. That line is so good. And
the best part about it is, is the footage on
the screen that accompanies it is jet planes shooting other
jets out of the sky. You know, the height of
empathy and compassion is what accompanies that line. It just

(21:38):
nailed me. I do want to go back real quick
to something about Roadrunner. What I said when I was
comparing Wile E. Coyote and how the movie challenged a
preconceived notion. Because that scene, I think it's the scene

(21:58):
where we discover that now Acme is determined.

Speaker 6 (22:03):
Maybe it's the one.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Where Will Forte and crew are trying to subpoena Roadrunner.

Speaker 6 (22:09):
I can't remember.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
But it also might be the one where the company
is trying to catch Roadrunner. And we see Roadrunner scampering
across the desert. And between the way the animation portrays
the body moving through time and space. And then we
get a close-up of Roadrunner's face. Now, it's entirely possible, Josh,

(22:36):
that we used to get a copious number of close-ups
in the cartoon. But I don't remember that. I don't
remember ever really identifying with Roadrunner in that way and.

Speaker 6 (22:48):
Seeing its face.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
And even though the expression, I don't know that Roadrunner's
expression ever actually changes, but what I associate with Roadrunner
in that moment certainly changes. And what I associated watching
it was joy, a pure visceral pleasure in its own

(23:13):
And that's where you do get a sense that Roadrunner
is almost mythical. This creature that is enjoying its own
existence and the way it moves through space. And in
that way, it becomes a little bit disheartening that all

(23:38):
Wile E. Coyote wants to do is get it on
a plate and eat it. But then at the same time,
it also justifies the quest, the fact that that it
warrants that Roadrunner is so such a transcendent figure that
that Wile E. Coyote is is going to pursue it
to whatever ends it takes, because it is such a

(24:01):
beautiful figure. The fact that I'm watching Coyote versus Acme
and having that reaction to it, certainly something I never
felt watching the cartoon.

Speaker 1 (24:09):
Well, and that's why Roadrunner needs Wiley, right? To be
able to achieve that level of beauty, you have to
have a pursuer, right? You have to have something pursuing you.
And I do wonder if you could say that the
understanding of that dynamic for these two characters changes by
the end of the film compared to what it, maybe
it doesn't quite so much for Wiley, but I think

(24:32):
it might a little bit. I'm glad you started bringing
up the visuals because we absolutely have to spend time
on this. as this combination of live action and animation,
the director here, Dave green. And I think the, the,
the filmmaking team understands not just, we have to make
this work, but choosing this form opens up the possibilities.

(24:56):
It goes back to the possibilities of, of escalating the joke.
Now they think they can escalate to your point, space
and understanding of space, understanding of understanding of time. My, um,
My memory of those scenes of Roadrunner running in the
desert is that it's in the actual desert.

Speaker 4 (25:13):
Right.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
And so clearly Roadrunner is this old school 2D animated figure.
The location is actual location. And then there's a merging,
it seems like, of the dust and smoke Roadrunner creates
while running along that's somewhere in a good uncanny valley
in between. It kind of makes it make sense that

(25:37):
that this 2D figure is in this actual locale. And
so much of the movie is seamless in this way.
Little touches like when we encounter Daffy Duck, who starts,
as Daffy Duck tends to do, lose his mind, bouncing
literally off the corners of the frame, of the screen.

(25:59):
Like he's trapped by the mise-en-scene. Just like little bits
like that are where They're taking the opportunity that this
particular rarely used format, we're in brilliant Roger Rabbit territory here.

Speaker 5 (26:12):
What does that allow?

Speaker 1 (26:14):
And I think visually they take such great advantage of that.
It's one of the other delights of the film.

Speaker 6 (26:20):
Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
I think the way you framed it in terms of
merging these two worlds is brilliant. It's integrated seamlessly and
the attention to detail is is something you can't help
but notice, including even in scenes such as when the
real world they're approaching or they've been given a tip

(26:43):
to drive down to scary road drive. And then we
see the sign and it says scary road drive. And
because it's a scary road, there's a, there's a cartoon
web and a spider.

Speaker 6 (26:58):
And what do we see? Another spider pulling a knife.
on another spider, right?

Speaker 2 (27:05):
So that speaks to what you've said earlier too, is
it's a little bit of a heightening of the joke
or adding on. Not that in this case, there's necessarily
a joke to begin with. I guess the joke is
that it's called scary road drive, which is just so silly.
And we're going to have a spider crawling on the sign.

(27:26):
And then you add that on top of it, right?
And it makes it, it makes it instantly hilarious. And
those kind of touches, if you look for them, I'm sure, Josh,
and it didn't help that I got to the theater
a little bit late and I was sitting there with
Quinn and Connor and we ended up in.

Speaker 6 (27:44):
The front row. So I haven't watched a movie in
the front row. I don't remember the last time I
watched a movie in the front row. I literally don't remember.

Speaker 2 (27:51):
I might've been in junior high, but I think there's
probably a visual gag like that in almost every scene,
in almost every cut.

Speaker 5 (28:03):
In this film.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
And one of those that I'll also mention, because there
are a few more bits that I think we just
have to single out here, and not that this is
a small one or one you really have to be
paying attention to, but I'm watching the scene. It does
speak to how the world is integrated so well. The
scene in the law firm, Avery Jones and Maltese, which

(28:28):
I knew that had to be a reference. It had
to be an Easter egg to something, and I figured
Jones was Chuck Jones.

Speaker 5 (28:33):
And it is.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
And it turns out Avery and Maltese are also references
to animators. And Maltese may be a double reference to
the Maltese Falcon.

Speaker 6 (28:44):
2 with Peter Lorre, who is a character in this film.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
But when we see at one point all the law
books behind one of the characters... And it's just like
shelf after shelf of Anvil law, as if there's that
much case study on Anvil law in this world.

Speaker 6 (29:05):
It really is so, so right on.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Will Forte is just perfect because he manages, you know,
the comedy, which you'd expect. But also, I mean, there's
a bit of an arc to his character that actually
works and goes along parallel with Wiley's a little bit.
John Cena, you know, I thought, It's kind of at
this point, you almost expect John Cena to be in

(29:29):
something like this and he's fine. And then he gets
that exchange with Tweety where I'm like, okay, John Cena.

Speaker 6 (29:35):
No, that's where he goes.

Speaker 5 (29:36):
You win. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (29:38):
That's for the Oscar reel, John Cena.

Speaker 5 (29:40):
There you go.

Speaker 6 (29:41):
That scene. Oh, Utah. Like, that's it. You just need
that one line.

Speaker 5 (29:46):
So good.

Speaker 6 (29:46):
It's so good. And Forte, I just want to add
real quick.

Speaker 3 (29:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (29:49):
I agree with you. That it's a really good performance.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
And I think the reason why he's a good actor,
he's a very good comedic actor, but you think of
him or I at least immediately think of him going
back to. SNL and all the losers that he played
on SNL. And this character is kind of a loser
like Wile E.

Speaker 6 (30:06):
Coyote.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
And they were so over the top. And you think
he might bring that here. He really embellishes those characters.
And that makes sense for sketch comedy on SNL. A
movie is obviously a different thing. A cartoon movie is
obviously a different thing. And here, he plays it so smartly,

(30:27):
he doesn't have to add any whiny affect to this character,
to the voice. He doesn't have to embellish him in
terms of his physicality by making him any less imposing
or anything like that. He just has to be this character.

Speaker 6 (30:41):
And that's what he is.

Speaker 4 (30:42):
Mr.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
Coyote?

Speaker 5 (30:45):
Coyote.

Speaker 4 (30:46):
Coyote.

Speaker 6 (30:46):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
All right.

Speaker 4 (30:48):
Well, how can I help you?

Speaker 1 (30:52):
He's almost in Nebraska mode, honestly. I think of a
line he says explaining about his ineffectiveness.

Speaker 5 (30:58):
As a lawyer.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
He says, it is really super easy to lose at
one point. And he means it and somehow finds like sadness,
but also an acceptance with that to the character, which
is way more than you're going to expect in something
like this. But I mean, in terms of putting in
the hours, we probably have to credit the vocal work
here of Eric Bauza, who once I looked up all

(31:21):
the characters that Bauza is doing, which apparently he's done
work in other projects as some of these voices, but
he is Bugs Bunny, Charlie Dog, Daffy Duck, who I mentioned, Tweety,
who I mentioned, Elmer Fudd, you mentioned Gossamer, Porky Pig,
Foghorn Leghorn. And, you know, again, my memory is a

(31:42):
little hazy on some of these characters. It's been many years,
but As far as I could tell, man, Bowser is
dead on.

Speaker 6 (31:50):
He is.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
And more importantly, correctly playing each moment as they're needed
for this movie. So that's what really matters in terms
of Coyote vs.

Speaker 3 (32:03):
Acme.

Speaker 6 (32:04):
I'm just going to give you two more bits that
slayed me.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
One more goes to Cena, which is after his opening statement,
in court, how does he conclude it?

Speaker 6 (32:18):
God bless America.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
God bless the troops, which isn't even so much his delivery,
which is perfect.

Speaker 6 (32:25):
It's the writing.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
The fact that his character would say that and it
goes over as well as it does. Just a perfect
little bit of satire there. And when Will Forte, when
his character, Kevin Avery, cites precedent and the precedent which
is perfectly dead on in this context. He's citing precedent

(32:51):
of a job, saying that this actually is a job
and the precedent is Sylvester V.

Speaker 6 (32:57):
Gonzalez.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
And you have to, for a second, think about it.
Just for one second, you have to go, yeah, I
get it. I know who Sylvester and Gonzalez is in
this context. And just, there are so many Moments like that, that,
that speak to how clever this film is. You add
that onto the attention to detail visually as well onto

(33:23):
the satire and this is a winner.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
So do we have our, I mean, and we've got
a ways to go and there's some good looking animated
films coming up, but do we potentially have our animated
film of the year or is this not considered, we're
going to have to, we're going to have to do some, um,
hashing out of where a movie like this falls. In
terms of end-of-year honors, is it an animated film?

Speaker 6 (33:48):
Let me put it this way.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
I could see people who have made 100% animated films
being very upset that this movie is in their category,
but I would consider it an animated film. There are
animated elements in every scene, aren't there? In probably every
frame or close.

Speaker 6 (34:08):
In almost every frame.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
There might be a few with Forte and his coworkers
where there's not. But again, to your point, you know,
it's moving fast. I wouldn't be surprised if we look
in the background of those and there's a little gag somewhere.

Speaker 6 (34:20):
Right.

Speaker 2 (34:21):
Coyote versus Acme is out now in wide release. If
you see it, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Tell
us your favorite gag, visual, or otherwise feedback at filmspotting.net.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
Adam, let's take a minute to thank the film spotting family.
Their membership, that's the largest support for the show that
we have. It does keep us doing what we've been
doing for over 20 years. This week, we want to
thank family members Michael Brantner in Kiel, Germany, and Jared
Williams in Dallas, Texas. Michael shared this, when still a

(34:53):
student of language, culture, and media studies in Flensburg, I
looked for a film podcast and yours came up in
some list. I was impressed by the high quality of
your discussions and While most other film podcasts I found,
especially the German ones, sounded like two guys talking without
any preparation at their kitchen table. One of the earliest
reviews I remember is American Sniper, a movie I hated

(35:14):
while you were quite positive.

Speaker 6 (35:16):
Two things real quick.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
Film spotting has been recorded over 21 plus years at
a lot of different tables.

Speaker 5 (35:22):
This is true.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
In a lot of different places. I don't think it's
ever been recorded at a kitchen table. And don't you
put that on me, Ricky Bobby. American Sniper. Two out
of five stars by Adam Kemp.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
Yeah. I was going to say, I don't remember. I'll
take the hit for liking it.

Speaker 6 (35:37):
You liked it.

Speaker 5 (35:38):
I did. I think I was like three out of four.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
Maybe that is quite positive, but yes, a good point
of order there.

Speaker 5 (35:45):
I'm trying to think.

Speaker 1 (35:46):
Now, how have we not done a kitchen table? Certainly
during the pandemic, did you come over once and we
did a janky, like a sideboard we pulled into the
middle of my office?

Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yes.

Speaker 5 (36:00):
Yes. Okay.

Speaker 3 (36:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (36:02):
And then I think that's probably the closest we've ever come.

Speaker 2 (36:05):
Because there was a time in the suburbs where we
actually lived only like 15 minutes from each other.

Speaker 5 (36:10):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (36:11):
And we recorded once, at least once at your house.
I don't remember why.

Speaker 5 (36:16):
Not a kitchen table though.

Speaker 6 (36:17):
Not a kitchen table though. A random table.

Speaker 5 (36:20):
A random table indeed.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
Michael also says, then came kids and a full-time job.
And I became less of a cinephile for some years.
because I simply didn't have the time for it anymore.
So at some point I decided to stop listening because
I wasn't going to watch the movies you spoke about anyway.
But now that the kids are older, I have resurrected
my hobby and I am glad to hear that the
both of you are still doing this and that the

(36:42):
high quality hasn't declined at all. Michael credits Fight Club
with becoming a cinephile.

Speaker 6 (36:50):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
Michael, I don't know for sure about Jared, but I
know that Michael is very active in the FilmSpotting family
discord and we appreciate all of his contributions. Jared writes,
I found you via the 2019 top 10 list. It's
where I first learned about Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
And Michael Phillips rightfully supported Trey Edward Schultz's Waves. I
love the episodes where there is a draft or when

(37:11):
Adam and Josh disagree. A movie I credit with becoming
a cinephile, Roma. A favorite book about movies or movie
making is Spike, a great coffee table book. That's a
career-spanning monograph of Spike Lee's filmography featuring photos by his brother,
David Lee.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
I would recommend Spike, although you have to be okay
if you're putting it on a coffee table, you know,
in your main room with hot pink. The whole thing,
just bright hot pink. It's a beautiful cover. I think
the lettering's in gold. But yeah, be ready for that.
That is a good book recommendation.

Speaker 5 (37:45):
Jared, thank you.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
And thank you, Michael, as well for joining the family and,
of course, for listening. Jared is on Letterboxd at Jared Williams.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
We do encourage you, if you are interested in supporting
the show, to go to filmspottingfamily.com to learn about all
the benefits. Those benefits include getting to listen early and ad-free.
And I'll just say this. We know that you hear
a fair number of ads in the show, but it
has been a long time since you have heard. I'm

(38:16):
not going to get into the weeds, but I'm just
going to say, It's been a long time since you've
heard host read ads in the show. And that does
tell you that we're not kidding when we say that
the biggest source of support for the show is membership.
We appreciate every single one of our members. And we

(38:36):
try to show that appreciation by doing things like giving
you monthly bonus shows, like playing trivia spotting, which we
are doing here in September. The monthly bonus show for
August is Had a really fun conversation about Kiyoshi Kurosawa's
cure from 1997. That's in your family feed. But trivia
spotting coming up just next week as we're taping this, Thursday,
September 17th. If you're a family member who hasn't signed up,

(38:59):
there is still time to do that. If you don't
know how to do that, just email the show and
we'll tell you how. And here's the good part about this, Josh.
Not only have I secured myself and you and Sam
and Michael Phillips, as we previously announced.

Speaker 6 (39:17):
But Mariah Gates is going to play trivia spotting on
the 17th.

Speaker 5 (39:21):
So we'll all lose, but okay, go ahead. Exactly. We're sunk.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
Film spotting SVU hosts Jordan Hoffman and Matt Singer are
also going to play. So we've got a good group
of captains in store.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
Well, what I haven't told you, Adam, is, you know,
I haven't been able to play the last few trivia
spottings because the timing didn't work out. I was over
in Scotland last I was not getting a master's in
theology and the arts. I was actually just boning up
on my movie trivia for nine months. so I can
come and have a triumphant return on Thursday, September 17th.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
It's finally here, Josh, in select cities at Regal Cinemas
this weekend, starting September 11th. You can see Oasis, Don't
Look Back in Anger, That song, Don't Look Back in Anger,
is a song I did bring back from London when
I studied there. And I'm not going to say force
because I can't force anybody to do anything, but I

(40:19):
did convince through playing it at the coffee house with
my lead singer, I convinced my band in college to
perform that song as a band. And we even played
it recently at our 30th anniversary performance on campus, Love Oasis.
Love the album, What's the Story, Mourning Glory. Did not

(40:40):
get a chance to see the brothers reunite on stage.
So seeing this concert film on the big screen at
a Regal Cinema, that's the closest I'm going to get
to ever seeing, maybe ever seeing Oasis Live. And certainly
the closest I'm going to get to enjoying that concert tour.

(41:01):
Can't wait for it. And you may get to see
it as well and see it for free. with Regal Unlimited,
the all-you-can-watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in
just two visits. Yes, Regal is offering our listeners endless
movies for less. All you have to do is sign
up using the code FILMSPOT26, and you get 15% off.

(41:24):
You can see any standard 2D movie anytime with no
blackout dates or restrictions, and you don't just save money
on tickets, you also save on snacks. You get 10%
off all non-alcoholic concessions. Sign up now in the Regal
app or at the link in our description and use
code FILMSPOT26. That's FILMSPOT26 to get 15% off. It's time now.

Speaker 6 (41:47):
For our Tim Curry tribute, A Blind Cow Review. Sacred
Cow for you.

Speaker 2 (42:05):
I suppose as a cult classic, as a midnight movie
hall of famer, we can say that the Rocky Horror
Picture Show has achieved Sacred Cow status. But blind spotting
for me, as I have now just seen it for
the first time, and maybe the best place to start,
or where I want to start anyway, instead of just
seeing what I think of it, Josh, having watched it

(42:27):
for the first time, I want to know what your
experience with the Rocky Horror Picture Show is. Was this
the second time you've seen it? Have you seen it
multiple times before this? And has your experience with it
changed over the years? And did you see it for
the first time the ideal way, with a big audience,

(42:48):
with full participation?

Speaker 6 (42:50):
What was it like?

Speaker 5 (42:51):
Sort of. Sort of.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
I wish I could say, yeah, that I went to
one of these costumes, props, and sing-alongs. I saw it
for the first time related to one, though, so this
would have been... In the 2000s sometime when I was
a critic for the Naperville Sun and Hollywood Boulevard, which
was right next door in Woodridge.

Speaker 6 (43:10):
Woodridge, yeah.

Speaker 5 (43:10):
Theater.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Yeah, would often do special events, movie-type events every year.
And they had a long run of the Rocky Horror
Picture Show, these midnight sing-along screenings. And so writing a
story about that, kind of previewing that they were going
to start this, had to watch the movie for the
first time. So that's when I did it and interviewed,

(43:36):
I think, in advance the owner of the theater or
something like that, but then didn't go to the actual
event itself. It was kind of like a review of
the movie. I had a DVD library column at the time,
which was older movies. So a review of the movie
that acted as a preview of the event.

Speaker 5 (43:52):
That's what it was.

Speaker 1 (43:54):
And it was, yeah, it was just watching it at
home is wild, right? Because this is a movie and
we'll probably get into the other wild rock or somewhat
similar musicals that came out within three or four years
of Rocky Horror Picture Show. They're all wild in their
own way. I think this one incredibly distinct and I

(44:17):
think it still retains that. So it hasn't really even
though the culture has in some ways caught up with
Rocky Horror, in some ways contradicted it, progressively contradicted portions,
segments of Rocky Horror, I think overall it still stands
as maybe not a transgressive, but a gleefully alternative way

(44:42):
of thinking about identity, gender, sexuality, It's that gleefulness, the joyousness,
the inclusiveness that the movie leads with that I feel
like makes it distinct and still its own joy to watch.

Speaker 6 (44:58):
Yeah. I think that's right on.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
And I will note that here in Iowa City, we
have a great theater that has a lot of great events.
And the Refocus Film Festival here has some events at
this theater, the Englert Classic movie theater, much smaller, but
similar in some ways to the music box in Chicago.
And I think annually they do a Rocky Horror event.

(45:25):
But last year when it was its 50th anniversary, I
found out about it too late and all the tickets
were sold out. They have one coming up on October 30th.
And as of right now, tickets are still available. So
I need to check my calendar and see if I
can make it out.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
Are you more inclined to do that now.

Speaker 6 (45:41):
That you've seen the film?

Speaker 5 (45:42):
Absolutely.

Speaker 6 (45:42):
I am absolutely more inclined though. I'll say this.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
I'm not going to lie watching the film. I did
feel a little bit lost like Brad and Janet walking
into the castle for two reasons. One, because I was
obviously so aware of its status as this all time
midnight movie. And I was, I was thinking about how if,

(46:09):
you know, if I'm not going to see it at
a public showing, with full audience participation, you know, then
am I, am I getting the full experience that, that
was in my mind? And not only was that in
my mind, I was thinking sometimes during certain songs or
during certain scenes in a certain moments during the live event,

(46:30):
what would be happening here? What would they be saying
back to the screen to this character here? I would
be conjuring that in my mind, right? So I was,
I was detaching myself a little bit, wondering what, The
moment might be like in the theater. The other part
of that is really all the films, maybe except for

(46:50):
one or two, that would make up any appropriate science
fiction double feature that were major influences on this movie.
The songs that really are part of that song, all
those B movies and the classic Hammer horror films that
are blind spots, they are blind spots for me. Clearly,
Richard O'Brien is having a tremendous amount of fun paying

(47:12):
tribute to and parodying those films. They'd all make a
great marathon topic for me, multiple marathons for me here
on this show. But I don't know those films. I
can understand beyond the song referencing them. I can understand
that he's paying tribute, perhaps, in parodying those films. But
I don't know them. I certainly don't have them in

(47:35):
my soul. So... Yes, I am curious about all the
levels that I could be appreciating this movie on or
appreciating it more on. I'll say appreciating it more on
because I was still unmoored in a positive way by it.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is so dizzying and singularly

(47:58):
ecstatic that unmoored may be the highest compliment I can
pay it. And I think what surprised me most is
the expectation that it was a cult classic because it
was almost certainly a bad movie, as in poorly made.
The midnight showing was its refuge, its reclamation. And yes,

(48:23):
it was a disaster at the box office, so that's
certainly true financially. But formally, we haven't even mentioned Richard O'Brien,
who stars in the movie as Riff Raff and who
wrote the original musical and wrote the songs and Jim Sharman,
who directed it, you watch this movie, it's clear they're
quite intentional about all of their choices. And whatever it lacks,

(48:47):
I'll leave it here, Josh, for now, or you can
pick up this thread. Whatever it lacks in story coherency,
let's face it, it makes up for in Tim Curry's
lips and eyebrows.

Speaker 4 (48:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
Oh, we'll spend some time on Curry. because he is
a revelation in many ways in this role. And perhaps
the reason the movie persists, but I think you're onto
something with the midnight movie element of it. And does
that mean it's camp? Does that mean it's bad reclaimed?

Speaker 5 (49:19):
I think it's, I think it.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
Needs a certain level of shoddiness to fully live up
to that experience. And I will admit to me, the
Rocky or picture show, has that in some of the filmmaking.
I think some of it is conscious. Some of the
use of Zooms here are just unhinged and egregious. Mm-hmm.

(49:41):
The editing is particularly ungainly and awkward at times. And
if you put it up against one of those other
movies I was thinking of in terms of, um, you know,
sensibility and rock opera type, um, Phantom of the Paradise.
So the De Palma film. which we did as a
bonus episode, I think, two years ago, right? Of course,

(50:03):
which preceded Rocky Horror by a year. And there De
Palma is trying all sorts of stuff as well, right?
So many aesthetic choices, but has, even though they're experimental,
a firmer control of how to employ them and why
he wants to employ them. You just don't have that here.
And I, you know, you have to admit that I

(50:23):
think Rocky horror is a better film.

Speaker 5 (50:25):
I liked Phantom.

Speaker 6 (50:25):
I do too.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
I was going to say, I still, I still have,
I still enjoy this much more as a singular vision
than Phantom of the Paradise.

Speaker 5 (50:33):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
So I want to be clear about that, but I
do think part of it's midnight movie character is that
you need a little of that, um, slipshod filmmaking for
it to fully, fully embody.

Speaker 6 (50:45):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (50:45):
That quality cabaret is the other one I was thinking of,
of course, which also preceded Both films, I think. They're
more in terms of sensibility, perhaps, than aesthetics. But yeah,
you know, the filmmaking cabaret probably stronger here. So that aside,
I still think the energy that Charmin harnesses and proceeds

(51:08):
with is also necessary to the full experience of the movie.
If Rocky Horror tried to slow down to be more
disciplined in some way, it would ultimately lose something and
become perhaps more polished, but less distinct and less itself.
And so maybe that's a cop-out, but it's why I

(51:30):
do think it's the better film than something like.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
Phantom. And I think both things can be true at once,
that it can be less polished or not as polished
as some conventional fare and have the slipshod style that
you're referring to that gives it the qualities you need
for a midnight movie and still have the intentionality that

(52:00):
I'm referring to. Meaning there are, there are some cult
films that really do feel simply shoddy. And I think
you can see in this film in terms of the
craft that, a lot of very clear choices that are
being made that enhance the film, that enhance the story,

(52:21):
that actually draw out some of the key ideas of
the film that I want to talk about. I want
to talk about Curry first.

Speaker 6 (52:29):
So, come up to the lab and see what's on
the slab.

Speaker 5 (52:36):
I see you shiver with anticipation.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
I think the thing that stuck out to me is,
and this speaks exactly to what you're talking about, is
it's the joy of the performance that is ultimately what
I'm left with and how much fun he's having. Yet,
if you watch it, it is incredibly precise, incredibly disciplined.
I mean, he knows his lines, he knows his notes,

(53:09):
but he also knows exactly how his eyes look.

Speaker 5 (53:14):
In that makeup.

Speaker 6 (53:14):
That's it.

Speaker 1 (53:15):
And what every widening of them, narrowing of them, side,
side eye he gives of them, which sometimes is given
directly to the camera. Love the bit where he throws
the water at the camera. And, you know, this is,
this is where it's becoming a midnight movie is when
all of a sudden we're asked, we're, we're invited in

(53:37):
to your point. We are Brad and Janet and we're
included in the fun. Curry's doing that in his performance.
And at the same time, he's hitting every mark. The voice,
I mean, he's got to be, Debbie's watching this and
she's like, that's Bowie, right?

Speaker 5 (53:55):
He's doing Bowie. It's like, well, yeah, I mean, it's,
you know, he's.

Speaker 1 (53:59):
Matching that, but also that's the glam rock era, you know,
that he's evoking here.

Speaker 5 (54:04):
I also think it's interesting.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
We can talk a little bit about Frank and Ferder
as the villain. I had been a while and I
forgot about what villain he actually is, which is an
interesting as conceived and written, but also performed. That's not
something Curry backs away from, um, either. So yeah, it's,
you know, again, unfortunate that his passing is the occasion to,

(54:30):
to watch this movie, but his performance is maybe the
reason also to watch this movie.

Speaker 6 (54:37):
I think so.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
I think you can still say it's the main reason
to watch the film and precise is a great word
for it. It's a precise performance. It's also, and I
do want to get to this a little more even
post the specific Curry conversation. It's a bit tragic and
I'm not disagreeing with you about the villain part. That's

(54:58):
the complexity of the performance and even the movie as
it's written. He's not just a chaos agent. He's not
just the antagonist. You could argue that not Brad or Janet,
he gets the main arc of the film. And certainly,
whether you fully agree with that even or not, you
can't say that he doesn't, that Curry as a performer

(55:20):
doesn't get to do the full scope of just about
anything a performer can do on screen or stage as Frankenfurter. Emotionally,
he gets to explore just about every emotion. In this film, emotionally, psychologically.

Speaker 6 (55:36):
And it's absurd.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
I think it's absurd that this is his screen debut, Josh.
And to translate, of course, the precision of it isn't
surprising considering that he played the character on stage. But
what is surprising is how good he was in front
of the camera. Because Frankenfurter is this larger than life character.

(56:04):
And on the stage, you could imagine him, and it
would have been glorious too, you could imagine him fully
leaning into that grandiosity and the frivolity of it. And
the Doctor's sheer volume and the size of the antics
would have been necessary and brilliant. But you can't do

(56:25):
that in front of a camera.

Speaker 5 (56:27):
And what.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
I'm going to say, I'm saying this rhetorically, but I
suppose you could disagree with me. What's the most seductive?
And I'm also going to suggest unsettling part here. I
think it's the close-ups. I think it's those direct addresses
to the audience, which puts us directly in the shoes

(56:50):
of Brad and Janet, because I think we are in
the shoes of Brad and Janet.

Speaker 6 (56:55):
That's all it takes.

Speaker 2 (56:57):
It's a raise of the eyebrows. It's a purse of
those lips. And then what happens when they open? We
hear that low, sultry voice. And whether it's singing or
it's talking to us slowly and sultry, seductively, we are paralyzed.

Speaker 5 (57:20):
Why don't you stay for the night?

Speaker 2 (57:24):
Or maybe.
I could show you my favorite obsession.

Speaker 6 (57:30):
I've been making a man with blonde hair and a tan.

Speaker 5 (57:36):
And he's good for relieving my tension.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
I'm just a sweet transvestite. So for him to modulate
that performance perfectly for the camera without sacrificing any of
the bravado or energy or dynamism of that character... is
is the wonder.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
Of it yeah and that's that's what you would think
might have gotten lost translating it from stage to screen
right the close-ups the eye work and that's absolutely one
of the strengths of the performance so it really really
is remarkable and as to this character being somewhat of
a villain though a complicated one we should talk about
you know um I know that there are conversations in

(58:21):
terms of Frankenfurter as trans representation.

Speaker 5 (58:25):
And critiquing that, right?

Speaker 1 (58:27):
There's much deeper analysis than I can provide on that topic,
but it's probably worth tracking down some of the people
who have done that writing, because I think it's a
good conversation to have, and it's also related to this villainy,
because I had forgotten that he takes a pickaxe to Eddie.

Speaker 6 (58:46):
Yeah, he's pretty cold-blooded.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
And it gets bloody. Totally forgot the cannibalism aspect that
he serves Eddie up to everyone at dinner that night.

Speaker 6 (58:58):
A little Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Speaker 5 (59:00):
Yeah. Yep.

Speaker 1 (59:02):
And yet, interesting to me that the movie makes space
and so does Curry's performance for him to be more
than just the villain or the chaos agent or even
the hedonism agent necessarily. that it seems to be, that
Frankenfurter seems to be selling. And it's, you know, it's

(59:25):
striking that everything is free for all until Janet and
the creature hook up.

Speaker 3 (59:31):
Right?

Speaker 1 (59:31):
Then all of a sudden, then there need to be
rules imposed. Then Frankenfurter is like, well, wait a minute.
This has gone too far. And he has a line
here that I thought was fascinating that speaks, I think,
to his envisioning as a villain. At one point, this
may be one he delivers to the camera. I don't
remember precisely. but he just laments, it's not easy having

(59:54):
a good time. And to me, I was like, there
it is. That's why this movie is way more complicated
than I think, not only it's detractors who might say
that this is just like some sort of orgiastic celebration,

(01:00:15):
but also I think maybe some of it's celebrators. It's
more complicated than that as well, because you have this
figure at the middle that wants to be the representative
of ultimate human freedom, and yet at one point says
out loud, it's not easy having a good time. What

(01:00:36):
does that mean for someone who theoretically exists only to
do that and has the power only to do that
in this castle that he's built for himself?

Speaker 4 (01:00:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
You have this line at one point too, right, that Dr.
Scott says about how society must be protected. And this
goes back to the line you're saying here too. You
have to question that even when you want to have
total freedom or liberation, society still has to operate and

(01:01:06):
it still does require some lines being drawn. And where
do you draw the lines and who draws them? And
so I do think this is one of the more
interesting aspects of this film is to consider by the end,
or even as it's going, where do our sympathies lie
when we watch this movie? Because the movie puts us

(01:01:29):
in a position where not only are they the protagonists,
so this is the case initially, but I think in
terms of, I'm going to use the word normality too,
we as audience members, because this is such a weird,
intentionally weird, transgressive.

Speaker 6 (01:01:45):
Space and meant to be that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
It's meant to introduce us to it just like It's
introducing Brad and Janet to it. We immediately identify with them.
And so are we by the end supposed to identify
with Brad and Janet who just want to get their
tire fixed? We could be them getting lost in the night,
getting our car breaks down. We just want to get

(01:02:08):
to a phone. I love the way Barry Bostwick says
that when he shows up at the house.

Speaker 6 (01:02:15):
He is really good.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Hey, Janet.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
Yes, Brad.

Speaker 6 (01:02:21):
I've got something to say.

Speaker 4 (01:02:23):
Uh-huh.

Speaker 5 (01:02:25):
I really love the.

Speaker 6 (01:02:31):
Skillful way you beat the other girls to the bride's bouquet. Oh, Brad.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
He is exactly as stiff as he has to be.

Speaker 5 (01:02:47):
For this without being boring.

Speaker 6 (01:02:49):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
Because he has to play the role of dominant American
male trying to play the character of dominant American male.
And he does it so well. So they just want
to get their tire fixed. They just want to get
on their way. They aren't looking to be enlightened in
any way. They don't want to get corrupted. And that's

(01:03:10):
probably who we are as well.

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:03:12):
So are we are we with them or.

Speaker 2 (01:03:16):
If they do, if we see them as people who
get corrupted, then Frank is definitely the villain. And you
do understand and even may agree with his punishment at
the end. Society does need to be protected. And he
has gone too far. The things he, what he did
to Eddie, serving him up too, certainly. And just the hedonism,

(01:03:40):
everything he has done is an overreach of his power.
So he is a bad guy. And so then you
can say that Magenta and Riff Raff, well, maybe they're
the heroes because they've put things back in order.

Speaker 5 (01:03:54):
Restore order.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
They've punished him. But don't they, by the end, also seem,
with their uniforms and their severity, don't they also seem
like they're kind of interested in restoring their own sort
of fascistic order? Like, they don't seem like the one,
the type of system that.

Speaker 6 (01:04:14):
You would want to embrace either.

Speaker 1 (01:04:16):
That and for a brother and sister, granted they're aliens,
who knows, there's an awful lot of.

Speaker 5 (01:04:24):
Stroking going on.

Speaker 6 (01:04:26):
A little too cozy.

Speaker 5 (01:04:26):
If you look closely between those two. I agree. The squares,
they want.

Speaker 6 (01:04:32):
To pretend to be either. That is true.

Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
But then that does bring you back to Frank, who
is clearly this authoritarian who did all the things we
said he has done. He himself has clearly been corrupted
by his power, but arguably he has also helped Brad
and Janet be liberated in a way that we as

(01:04:54):
viewers should embrace. And at least his ethos is rooted
in pleasure. It's rooted in pleasure and sexual freedom. But
that said, Josh, there are, by the end of this film,
there are at least three different types of authoritarianism presented here.
including the fact that I love the nod to the

(01:05:15):
fact that he calls him, he calls Dr.

Speaker 6 (01:05:17):
Scott, Dr. Von Scott.

Speaker 5 (01:05:19):
I know.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
In this strange Lovey and sort of nod in the wheelchair, right?

Speaker 6 (01:05:23):
Like he's a Nazi.

Speaker 2 (01:05:25):
The suggestion is he's a Nazi and just in the
hypocrisy there of straight militaristic America that brought the Nazis
over to be our scientists. That's who this guy is.
And so you're looking at this and you're thinking none.

Speaker 6 (01:05:40):
Of these paths.

Speaker 2 (01:05:43):
Are being prescribed to us as the obvious path to take,
as the obvious right or righteous path. And I think
that then does leave us as viewers to, we can't
do anything but to question authority, which is then what
makes it subversive. That's part of what makes this film
so subversive.

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
I mean, it really is a portrait of the human condition.
It's just a broader portrait of the human condition. then
the movies are usually willing to entertain.

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:06:15):
And if it's subversive, it's in that way. Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Otherwise I think it's, you know, it's very, again, amenable
to anyone coming to it from whatever their background is
being welcomed to it. And also being allowed to ask
these questions about themselves and what authority they're going to
bring into their own lives.

Speaker 5 (01:06:36):
I do love though.

Speaker 1 (01:06:37):
I think the framework you set up, I think is
very true. But I love the initial subverting of us
as audience members, if we are the squares coming to
it as audience members, subverting that early on in the
wedding scene of Brad and Janet's friends who have just
gotten married. Did you notice what's written on the side
of the car in shaving cream as.

Speaker 6 (01:06:59):
The newlyweds go off?

Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
And let me see if I can remember it. She
got hers. Now he gets his.

Speaker 3 (01:07:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:07:06):
Something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Now he's going to get his. The idea, right, that
like she got the ring. which is all she needs.
And what a line, too. Now she gets to be Mrs.
Ralph Hapschatz or something. The worst shackling she could ever
be shackled with is she's lost her identity completely. Yes.
And And she's taken on that identity. That's what she

(01:07:27):
gets to be called for the rest of her life.
But now he gets his. He gets to claim sexual
power over her.

Speaker 1 (01:07:35):
And that is pretty much it. But it's even more violent, really.

Speaker 5 (01:07:39):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:07:39):
Because it starts with, wait till tonight.

Speaker 5 (01:07:42):
Yes, wait till tonight. Then she got hers.

Speaker 6 (01:07:44):
It's foreboding.

Speaker 5 (01:07:44):
Now he'll get his.

Speaker 1 (01:07:46):
And it's this idea of the movie already poking holes in...
you know, conventional perfection and suggesting perhaps that square life
comes with its own quote unquote perversions.

Speaker 3 (01:08:00):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:08:00):
And that, that a phrase like that could be written
on a car and everyone laughs it off is deranged.

Speaker 6 (01:08:07):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:08:07):
So, so this is a movie that opens before you
even get to Frank's castle with a perverse derangement that's
being accepted as, well, this is just what we do.

Speaker 5 (01:08:18):
It's part of tradition.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
And so I think that's just very sophisticated in terms
of complicating things in the way that you've described.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
I want to just briefly expand on that, that complicating
and maybe that perversity a little bit, if that's the word.

Speaker 6 (01:08:37):
That you used.

Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
And I'll set it up by saying, I think the
best visual gag in the movie, the best little scene
is that moment that happens twice.

Speaker 6 (01:08:48):
That's repeated.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
Under the sheets, the repetition we get when Frank Inferter
seduces first Janet and then Brad, but it's clearly Barry
Bostwick talking to her.

Speaker 5 (01:09:02):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
But then it seems like he's transformed, right, into- All
in silhouette.

Speaker 6 (01:09:08):
The silhouette, right.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
And so it's set up for us as if Tim
Curry was imitating Brad, but it clearly was Bostwick. And
then later it's as if Frank was imitating- Brad, but we.
know that it was, you know, the other way around.
So the, that scene is, is funny. First of all,
it's really funny, but it, it does set up. It's

(01:09:30):
at the core of what makes this movie, I think special,
what makes it so transgressive and use that word and said,
maybe now looking back on it, it doesn't seem that
way or so transgressive through our 2026 lens. And I
get that, but I was trying to watch it through
a 1975 lens. I was trying to think about what

(01:09:50):
it would have been like seeing this in the theater.
And I think I'm gonna echo some of the things
you were saying before, because I can imagine a lot
of Brad and Janet normals in high school and college
going to see this movie in 1975. The allure of
it would have been that this is something so weird

(01:10:14):
and so challenging the status quo and the norm that
we're doing something wrong. We're doing something naughty by going
to see it, right? And not only that, Josh, by
going to see it, finding themselves stirred by certain feelings
that maybe they had never experienced before. Maybe by some
of those close-ups from Tim Curry. Just like Brad and

(01:10:37):
Janet are when they find themselves under the sheets with
Tim Curry. Now, even if those feelings were fleeting, it
was something they had to actually acknowledge and they had
to accept for a second. And I do think there's
power in that, especially when it's a communal theatrical experience.
Before the whole spectacle that surrounds this movie, just it

(01:10:57):
being communal and theatrical, all of a sudden you're saying
to yourself, wait, we're all just now accepting that? this
kind of fluidity. We're all just kind of accepting this openness,
this weirdness. And Brad and Janet were probably never the same, right,
after leaving this castle. And nobody in the audience was

(01:11:19):
never quite the same after walking out of the theater,
after watching Rocky Horror. And the mashing together of all
these different cultural touchstones and influences, is this just Richard
O'Brien having a goof? Is he sort of bereft of ideas?
And so he did it. I think of it more
like he understands that these narratives are ultimately what form

(01:11:42):
our cultural narratives. And so you have to be willing,
if this is your goal, you have to be willing
to challenge those in order to be transgressive. And so
even just to give you one example, having Rocky carry
Frank up to the top of the RKO tower, and

(01:12:02):
have them plummet to the ground.

Speaker 6 (01:12:05):
Even with the sounds, sound effects of.

Speaker 2 (01:12:07):
Airplanes, even though there are obviously no airplanes coming in non-diegetically.
It was beauty that killed the beast. And that imagery
in our minds of King Kong and Fay Wray, that
is a parable at this point for us culturally, as
much as anything in the Bible, right? So what does

(01:12:29):
it then mean To have a film like this, have
this monster, monster that's been created, even though is it
really a monster? Does it really behave like a monster?
Carrying this even bigger monster potentially up to the top,

(01:12:49):
but he's also beautiful, right? And then come crashing down
to earth with it. That encapsulates the transgressiveness of this
film for me.

Speaker 1 (01:13:00):
Yeah, you're onto something too about the touchstones because horror
in particular, and them being specific choices on O'Brien's part, maybe,
as you said, these are just movies he loves.

Speaker 5 (01:13:12):
But I think.

Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
Often you will hear people talk about or critics write
about genre, particularly horror. So the Frankenstein myth or King Kong,
even more so than maybe sci-fi. but being like moments
of awakening for people in watching movies, older movies like that,
maybe has nothing to do with how those films were intended.

(01:13:35):
Maybe some of those films, their subtext that was intended.
But at any rate, having those sorts of experiences with
these cultural myths. And so to that sense, and to
your point, weaving them into a story like this absolutely
seems like a reasonable and a fruitful strategy.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
Maybe I'll report back after October 30th if I do,
in fact, make it to Rocky Horror in the theater.
I would love to hear, obviously, your thoughts. We always
want to hear your feedback for any.

Speaker 6 (01:14:07):
Review that we have.

Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
But especially if you have been to the live experience,
and I'm sure that many of you have, tell us
what it was like.

Speaker 6 (01:14:16):
Feedback at filmspotting.net. Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:14:23):
There's a wind that blows in from the north.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
A quick note, speaking of feedback, Josh, we have gotten
a lot of great feedback in response to our top
five needle drops with Rico Galeano from MUBI. Some folks
in the Film Spotting Family Discord suggesting that that's a
top five that might go into the Film Spotting Top
Five Hall of Fame someday. So I'm very pleased to

(01:14:49):
hear that folks enjoyed it that much. We certainly enjoyed
putting it together and recording it, even if it did
go long, but it went long because we were having
such a good time talking about those films and those
songs in particular. That brings me to a note that

(01:15:11):
I wanted to make people aware of, which is there
are playlists available. Apple Music and Spotify are We will
link to them in the notes for this show if
you want to find them. If you would like to
hear the 15 songs that made our top fives, they're available.

(01:15:33):
Apple Music Playlist, Spotify, check them out.

Speaker 5 (01:15:36):
And do we have these? It's all one list, right?
All one list.

Speaker 1 (01:15:41):
Are we cycling what, like the, the, the round that
we picked them?

Speaker 5 (01:15:45):
How's it organized?

Speaker 2 (01:15:46):
Yeah, I think, well, I can tell you cause I
put it together and what I did was I started
in the order that we went. So Rico, you, me,
but I did go one, two, three, four, five. So
it starts with Rico's pick of before sunrise and then
to your number one from Darjeeling, right? And then to

(01:16:06):
my number one from fight club and then two down
to face. And yeah, There is one more that we
will link to. Dennis, I hope I'm saying this right.
I apologize if I'm not. Dennis Hui, he also made
a film spotting needle drops playlist on Spotify, but he
was way more ambitious than I was, Josh. It has

(01:16:28):
51 songs in it.

Speaker 5 (01:16:30):
Whoa, is this every song we mentioned?

Speaker 2 (01:16:33):
In the description, it says, parentheses, almost, and then it says,
All the songs mentioned on episode 1058. So it is
it is missing at least one song. I think I
noticed that it's missing at least one of your picks somehow.
I think one of your actual picks. But don't take
that the wrong way, Dennis. You did amazing work. I'll
let you know which one and you can add it.

(01:16:55):
It has 51 songs pretty much as we said it.
he added it to the playlist.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
No wonder we had to do a two-parter for that.

Speaker 6 (01:17:03):
That's it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
51 songs, three hours and 45 minutes of music. Dennis
did yeoman's work. So you can check out the abbreviated
Just Top Five version, or you can check out the extended,
the quadruple LP, if you will. We will link to
all of them in our show notes over at filmspotting.net.

(01:17:25):
and also in the podcast description for this episode.

Speaker 3 (01:17:30):
And you think if you save poor Catherine, you could
make them stop, don't you? You think if Catherine lives,
you won't wake up in the dark ever again to
that awful screaming of the lambs.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
Let's get back to our horror talk. We have some
poll results for you. A couple of weeks ago, we
asked you to choose one and only one 90s villain.
The choices were John Doe from Seven, Agent Smith from
The Matrix, Annie Wilkes from Misery, Hannibal Lecter, The Silence

(01:18:03):
of the Lambs, Scar from The Lion King, The T-1000
from T2, Judgment Day, or you could write in Other Josh.
Who is the greatest 90s movie villain and give us
the also-rans?

Speaker 1 (01:18:20):
Well, aside from Other, which only received 3% of the vote,
bringing up the rear here is Scar and Annie Wilkes, 6%
and 7% for those two. Agent Smith got 10% of
the vote. Then, very close here, 13% for John Doe
from Seven and 14% for T-1000. But yeah, as we expected,

(01:18:42):
Hannibal Lecter takes this poll with 46% of the vote.

Speaker 6 (01:18:46):
Here's Aaron.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
The 90s is more stuff full of villains than myself
after visiting a Brazilian steakhouse. I'm kind of surprised that
nobody has yet to mention Amon Guth from Schindler's List.
I'm even more surprised that nobody mentioned Shooter McGavin from
Happy Gilmore. My choice is still Hannibal Lecter, even though
Buffalo Bill was the real villain of the movie.

Speaker 5 (01:19:06):
Good point, Aaron. Here's Juan.

Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Of course, Lecter will justifiably run away with this, but
John Doe was so patient, methodical, smart, and relentless that
he lived in my nightmares for months after I saw Seven. Yeah,
I guess that could have been a good way of
thinking about this. Which one of these characters gave you
the most nightmares?

Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
Here's Isabel Bishop. I'm not denying the eeriness of Hannibal
Lecter or how psychotic John Doe is, and the T-1000
and Agent Smith are both terrifying monsters, but no scene
in the history of film makes my whole body cringe
more than that scene in Misery. Annie Wilkes is not
a serial killer, a killing machine, or even a Shakespearean
fratricidal lion. She's just a human being who has lost

(01:19:48):
all semblance of her sanity, and she's the best 90s
villain ever. Fratricidal Lion is a great band name, and
Shakespearean Fratricidal Lion is a great band name if you're nasty. Wow.

Speaker 5 (01:20:02):
Nice work, Isabel.

Speaker 6 (01:20:03):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
Here's our friend Maria from Kent, UK. Scar is very cruel.
He makes little Simba an orphan without batting an eyelid,
just watches his own brother being trampled to death. The
other villains are sadistic, but they don't go killing their
own siblings and then saying long live the king to
Mufasa as he plunges to his death Spine chilling.

Speaker 6 (01:20:22):
A really bad guy. A really bad guy.

Speaker 5 (01:20:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:20:25):
And Jeremy Irons really knows how to play bad guys.
I forgot about the long live the king.

Speaker 5 (01:20:31):
Long live the king.

Speaker 6 (01:20:37):
That's some evil stuff.

Speaker 5 (01:20:39):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:20:40):
Damien Cannon says, there's a big hole in your pole.
If you're looking for an unhinged bonkers movie villain, I
refer of course to Gary Oldman's Norman Stansfield from Leon
the Professional. He's a pill-popping agent of chaos and evil
all the way through. And Jesper tacks onto this. Josh says,
Gary Oldman had a pretty villainous run in the 90s.

(01:21:01):
Norman Stansfield, Zorg in The Fifth Element, Ivan Korchenov in
Air Force One, Dracula anyone? And the minor villain, Drexel
Spivey in True Romance, I should say. All these characters
made a pretty lasting impression in this adolescent's nightmares. With
that being said, none of them scared me or scarred
me like John Doe.

Speaker 1 (01:21:20):
Fair, but that does make me wonder. I remember that
era and thinking, almost starting to write Gary Oldman off
because of that run. I wonder if he was being punished. Like,
was there some sort of, was that his penance he
was paying for having to take all those roles? I mean,
some of them are pretty good to the listener's points.

Speaker 5 (01:21:38):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:39):
Dave Davidson here. All good picks, but it's got to
be Simon Peter Gruber, Jeremy Irons in Die Hard with
a Vengeance.

Speaker 6 (01:21:46):
There he is again.

Speaker 5 (01:21:48):
Jeremy Irons. He's foreign. He's in a sequel.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
He's got an elaborate plan. And be honest with yourself.
The rest of these villains could be from any time period.
Simon very specifically occupies a pre-911 New York. Therefore, he
alone truly epitomizes what it is to be a 90s villain.
I rest my case.

Speaker 5 (01:22:05):
Thank you. Good night.

Speaker 2 (01:22:07):
I mean, a pretty compelling argument. If you emphasize the 90s,
I see what Dave is selling there, Josh.

Speaker 5 (01:22:15):
Worth considering.

Speaker 2 (01:22:16):
That brings us to our final bit of feedback. Certainly,
last but not least, it turns out we've got this from, oh,
Hannibal Lecter.

Speaker 6 (01:22:25):
Josh, what an honor.

Speaker 2 (01:22:27):
It says, I'd advise voting for me. Of course, if
you feel the T-1000 Hans Gruber or some animated nonsense
is more deserving, I will respect your decision completely. I
would only ask that you leave your name Address, blood type,
and preferred wine pairing in the comments. I do so

(01:22:50):
enjoy meeting an independent thinker for dinner.

Speaker 6 (01:22:54):
And scene. Well done.

Speaker 1 (01:22:56):
Bravo for taking on the impromptu Massacre Theater.

Speaker 5 (01:22:59):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:23:00):
I think I'm impressed, even if it was a little bit,
you know, Some Valium slipped into Hannibal's wine, maybe?

Speaker 6 (01:23:06):
Maybe for that one? A little drowsy.

Speaker 2 (01:23:10):
A little drowsy southern gentleman, not so much Hannibal Lecter.

Speaker 5 (01:23:13):
But really, kudos. Kudos for digging into that one.

Speaker 2 (01:23:16):
Here's my question. If it had worked out that it
was your turn to read, would you have done it?

Speaker 5 (01:23:22):
You know I would have had to do it.

Speaker 6 (01:23:24):
Now I feel bad. Now I wish it was you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
I'm sure this will actually kick off.

Speaker 4 (01:23:31):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:23:31):
A wealth of opportunities from listeners are now.

Speaker 5 (01:23:34):
Going to be writing in whole comments.

Speaker 6 (01:23:35):
I think Hannibal Lecter should respond to every poll.

Speaker 5 (01:23:39):
That would be amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:23:40):
Whether he's part of it or not. And I am
going to regret that, aren't I? We thank everyone who
voted in that poll and left a comment. Our new
deeply flawed, and I'm going to point out why it's flawed, Josh,
film spotting poll is inspired by our Rocky Horror Review.
It is about 70s musicals. We are asking you to
choose the seventies musical. I think that's how it's phrased.

(01:24:03):
Choose the seventies musical. So here again, like nineties movie villain,
is it the best seventies musical or is it the
most seventies of seventies musicals? You get to decide as
the person voting in the poll, the options are.

Speaker 1 (01:24:18):
Yeah, that's yeah. That could really change things.

Speaker 5 (01:24:21):
Couldn't it? All right.

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
So we're giving you all that jazz cabaret fiddler on
the roof. Grease. Jesus Christ Superstar, The Rocky Horror Picture Show,
or Other?

Speaker 5 (01:24:35):
And the question I.

Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
Have for you, Adam, is clearly, and I think the
way this poll will go, the cinephile choice is All
That Jazz. It is.

Speaker 5 (01:24:43):
I know you love All That Jazz.

Speaker 4 (01:24:44):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:24:45):
Has your watch of Rocky Horror caused you to reconsider that?
Or are you going to go with All That Jazz?

Speaker 6 (01:24:53):
Well, let me walk you through it here real quick.

Speaker 4 (01:24:57):
I have.

Speaker 2 (01:24:58):
I have one blind spot here, so I do have
to admit to that, but only one. So I feel
like I'm still qualified to vote in the poll. I
haven't seen Fiddler on the Roof.

Speaker 5 (01:25:08):
Yeah, me neither. Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:25:11):
The best film of the other five that are mentioned
for me, as you said, for me is definitely All
That Jazz. And I'm so in the bag for Fosse
that the next best film on the list very clearly
is Cabaret. Okay. So those would be my top two. However, Josh,

(01:25:31):
I know it's listed this way. If you Google it
and it comes up and whether it's Wikipedia or whatever,
I know all that jazz is listed as a musical
and I understand why. But when I think of all
that jazz, I do not think of musical scenes. Roy
Scheider sings about four lines in the movie. There are
musical numbers or there are scenes put to music, but

(01:25:54):
those are musical scenes within a musical. It's not like
any of these other films where characters are breaking out
into song, expressing themselves. All that jazz to me is
not a musical. It does not belong on this list.

Speaker 6 (01:26:09):
It's disqualified.

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
I take your point, but I'm afraid... When I look
on my own website, I have it categorized as musical.

Speaker 5 (01:26:17):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:26:17):
Well, that trumps everything.

Speaker 5 (01:26:18):
I got to go with it.

Speaker 6 (01:26:20):
LarsonOnFilm.com has spoken.

Speaker 5 (01:26:23):
You know it. Yeah. No, I get that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:27):
I mean, but also, and this gets to my choice,
which is in the category of other, you could say
the Muppet movie is somewhat similar because it's a showbiz story.
I think not all- But there's songs throughout that. The
Muppets sing, don't they? There are songs throughout, but a
good number of them are on stage as part of
the Muppet show, right? I think in the Muppet movie.

(01:26:50):
We recently watched the Muppets again, and that's certainly the
case there. At any rate, I would allow all that jazz,
but I get what you're saying. It is a way
to make this poll a little easier, perhaps, if you
remove that, or maybe more interesting for people who are
in the bag for all that jazz as much as
you are. I'm torn actually between two other options. It

(01:27:12):
is the Muppet movie and it is Willy Wonka and
the chocolate factory.

Speaker 5 (01:27:18):
I mean, yeah, I think.

Speaker 6 (01:27:22):
Yeah. I think I'm going to other that's tough.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
I think I'm going to go with the Muppet movie
just to keep that showmanship showbiz meta thing. thematic spirit
that seems to be going through a lot of these,
this somewhat is related to the seventies.

Speaker 5 (01:27:41):
Of it all, right?

Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
Rocky horror has production elements to it. That's what Frankenfurter
is leading us to that, that big stage show at
the end, obviously all that jazz you talked about cabaret, right? Um,
and so I like this notion of this period of
movie musicals, really exploring performance itself and show business itself.

(01:28:05):
And the Muppet movie is aligned with that. That's enough
for me to give it the edge in this poll
over Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. But it's really
tough for me between those two.

Speaker 5 (01:28:14):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:28:16):
We have no buddy, but ourselves to blame for this
because Sam gave us the chance to weigh in and
determine what options were in this poll. I do think
one of the flaws of this poll is not only
that all that jazz is included, but that Willy Wonka
is not included and Fiddler on the roof is. And
I know there are people listening who are saying, Adam,

(01:28:37):
Fiddler on the Roof absolutely should be included. But I
am going to posit that if we put head-to-head Fiddler
on the Roof and Willy Wonka to our audience, Willy
Wonka would dominate. So I think Willy Wonka probably should
be in this poll and over that choice. As it is,

(01:28:58):
it's in other.

Speaker 6 (01:28:59):
And I am.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
really inclined to go other and vote for it as
I said I'm leaving off all that jazz can't vote
for Fiddler on the Roof I was very inclined to
go with Grease Josh even though as a musical the
one on here just as a musical in terms of
the music And listeners should know this about me by now,

(01:29:21):
even though I maybe haven't talked about it exhaustively.

Speaker 6 (01:29:25):
Sam knows this.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
The musical that I care about the most, the one
I can sing every song to, the one I know
line by line, is Jesus Christ Superstar. Now, as a movie,
the Norman Jewison film, I can take or leave the film.
But the soundtrack from the movie is vastly superior to

(01:29:47):
the original Broadway production. With Ted Neely and Carl. How
am I blanking on Carl's last name? Because he's a legend.
But whatever. The movie version is the definitive version. The
movie is fine. I was inclined to go with Grease.
Here's where I'm coming out, Josh. The reason why I'm

(01:30:08):
leaving off Grease and Cabaret, here's my arbitrary thinking. Even
though Grease arguably works for its time period, because it
presages the coming 80s nostalgia boom for the 50s, neither
Cabaret or Grease, neither Cabaret nor Grease are products really

(01:30:32):
of the 70s. They have nothing to say about the 1970s,
the time in which they are released.

Speaker 5 (01:30:37):
I mean, okay, this goes back to Rocky Horror, though.

Speaker 6 (01:30:41):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:30:44):
How is Rocky Horror a... you know, British America by
way of Britain cabaret for the seventies, you know, and
I realized cabaret was, if you go all the way
back to the, if you go to the Christopher Isherwood,
you know, source material, um, and think about Berlin and

(01:31:05):
the end of the Weimar Republic and what it's saying
about that, how, how much is, so I guess what
I'm saying is cabaret is in a way a seventies movie.

Speaker 6 (01:31:13):
Of course it is. I don't really want to suggest...
In the way that Grease is not.

Speaker 5 (01:31:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:31:18):
And I don't really want to suggest that period pieces
aren't intentionally made, obviously, to inform the period in which
they are released or produced. But I still see that
largely as a reflection of the period that it is
set in. Whereas the Rocky Horror Picture Show, for all

(01:31:39):
the reasons we discussed, seems to me A direct reflection
of the mid-1970s in its challenge of authority, its transgressiveness,
and its prescience in terms of what is right around
the corner, like right around the corner, it's ushering in

(01:32:03):
of punk.

Speaker 6 (01:32:05):
Yeah, I think that's all fair. I'm going with Rocky Horror.

Speaker 5 (01:32:07):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:32:08):
Yeah, it's definitely more of the 70s picture. And as
to the music, I mean... Yeah. If you give me
any of these to just listen to, for me, it
is Grease. And that is completely a nostalgic thing, not
obviously going back to the 50s or whatever, but just
my sisters watching that with their cousins and having.

Speaker 5 (01:32:27):
It on all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:32:28):
And the music is kind of irresistible in that one. So, yeah,
it'll be interesting to see where listeners come out on this.
It could be tight across the board with a healthy
dose of voting for other.

Speaker 6 (01:32:41):
Watch Fiddler on the Roof, 72%.

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
The comments will just be, take that, Adam.

Speaker 6 (01:32:47):
Hannibal Lecter. Suck it, Adam. Hannibal Lecter. I can't wait.

Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
Hannibal's going to be so busy writing into us. Vote,
and please do leave a comment at filmspotting.net. We will
share the results and your comments in a couple of weeks. Josh,
that is our show.

Speaker 1 (01:33:06):
If you want to connect with us on social media,
you can find Adam and the show on Instagram, Facebook, Letterboxd, YouTube,
and Blue Sky at FilmSpotting. I'm at those places as
Larson on film. We are independently produced and listener supported.
You can support the show by joining the FilmSpotting family
over at FilmSpottingFamily.com. That way you can listen early. Also,

(01:33:27):
the episodes will be ad-free. You'll get monthly bonus episodes,
a weekly newsletter, and access to the entire show archive.
For show t-shirts and other merch, you can go to
filmspotting.net slash shop.

Speaker 2 (01:33:39):
Out wide this weekend, The Fix. Liam Neeson and Zachary
Levi are disgraced CIA operatives who attempt a life-changing score.
They're always life-changing. Can't resist them. Practical Magic 2 is out.
Rekindling the magic. Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock, they return
for a sequel to their 1998 spooky season movie, Josh Confession.

(01:34:02):
I never saw the original practical magic.

Speaker 1 (01:34:05):
I did review the original, um, quite negatively, but I
am still just worked out timing wise. I'm going to
go see the new one as soon as we're done here. And, um, hopefully,
hopefully I'll like it a little better and I can
report back next week.

Speaker 2 (01:34:20):
Runner is also out a former soldier. Alan Richland is
in a race against time when a critical medical delivery
makes him and his unlikely partner, Owen Wilson, the targets
of a ruthless cartel.

Speaker 6 (01:34:30):
They're always ruthless. How about this?

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
I didn't know this until I read it here. I've
been seeing the previews for Andrew Garfield in The Uprising.
He leads a 14th century rebellion. And I'm just going
to give you my honest reaction. Every time I saw
the trailer, I thought, why is Andrew Garfield in this movie?
I have no interest in seeing this movie. And now
I have to accept the fact that Paul Greengrass is

(01:34:53):
directing The Uprising, and maybe I need to see it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
I know that did push me. I'm hoping to go
see it tomorrow night. We'll see if that works out,
but it did push me over the edge as well.

Speaker 5 (01:35:05):
I'm looking here. I think I've.

Speaker 1 (01:35:07):
Missed the last possibly three films from Paul Greengrass, which
is way more than I would have thought.

Speaker 5 (01:35:16):
Is this real? The Lost Bus. Never heard of it.
News of the World 2020. Didn't see it.

Speaker 6 (01:35:22):
22 July 2018. Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:35:22):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:35:26):
I guess I also am a dilettante when it comes
to Paul Greengrass.

Speaker 5 (01:35:30):
How about that? Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:35:32):
Well, hopefully I'll fit this one in and get him
back on my radar because he's an incredibly talented filmmaker.

Speaker 2 (01:35:39):
Next week in the Film Spotting feed, we will have
a new movie racket with Michael Phillips. We will have
a new Film Spotting SVU on Tuesday, Untold.

Speaker 6 (01:35:48):
Ray Gun, Breaking Badly.

Speaker 2 (01:35:49):
This is a documentary about the infamous Australian breakdancer from
the 24 Paris Olympics. That's on Netflix. On Thursday, the
next picture show we'll contend with, It Ends, and it's
pairing with Solaris. Friday's film spotting, since we don't plan
to talk about The Uprising or Runner or Practical Magic
2 or The Fix, unless Josh comes back from any

(01:36:10):
of those just raving about how great they are, we
are going to talk about, as part of our Pantheon project,
David Lynch's Blue Velvet, Can You Believe It?

Speaker 6 (01:36:21):
At 40.

Speaker 1 (01:36:21):
Film spotting is produced by Golden Joe Desso and Sam
Van Halgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go.
Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Ariana Martinez is our
marketing and social media assistant. Special thanks to everyone at
WBEZ Chicago. More information is available at WBEZ.org. For FilmSpotting,

(01:36:42):
I'm Josh Larson.

Speaker 6 (01:36:43):
And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.

Speaker 3 (01:36:45):
This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

Speaker 4 (01:36:49):
Goodbye.

Speaker 6 (01:36:56):
Thank you.

All Episodes

Coyote vs. Acme and The Rocky Horror Picture Show | #1080

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Coyote vs. Acme and The Rocky Horror Picture Show | #1080