The End of Oak Street, plus Tony and Late Fame | #1077 - Filmspotting

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all you
can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in
just two visits. See any standard two D movie anytime
with no blackoutdates or restrictions. Sign up now on the
Regal app or at the link in our description and
use code film spot twenty six to receive fifteen percent off.

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

Speaker 1 (00:48):
You're not interested in art?

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Now?

Speaker 1 (00:50):
No, Look, we're going to do this thing. We're going
to have a conversation from Chicago. This is film Spotting.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
I'm Josh Larson and I'm Adam Kempenar.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
I think that our neighborhood, our homes, our host street
has moved.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Now the hell is not even possible.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
Get out of the run, Anne Hathaway, Ewan McGregor, and dinosaurs.
That's what you get from the End of Oak Street,
which opened wide last weekend. It's the latest from it
follows director David Robert Mitchell.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
We've got a review, plus the Anthony Bourdain biopick Tony
and Willem Dafoe in Late Fame. That more ahead on
film Spotting.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
Welcome to Film Spotting.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Josh.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
We don't often get into spoiler talk in our main
reviews here on the show, but I think the end
of Oak Street may demand it.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
What say you shocked? I was genuinely shocked at the
event that I think you're referring to. Did not see
it coming even even leading up to it, did not
think it was going to go that way. And yes,
not only do I think we need to discuss that,
but the repercussions, yes, are what I particularly want to
ask you about.

Speaker 3 (02:11):
So we'll definitely do that absolutely later in the show.
After that, the Anthony Bordaine biopick, Tony Late Fame with
Willem Dafoe, A Magical trip to the Field Dreams with
producer Sam. I'll have a little recap of that, and
then we'll end the magic quickly by playing Massacre Theater.
A reminder that Film Spotting is now a video podcast.

(02:32):
You can watch us talk over at YouTube dot com
slash film Spotting.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yeah, that way you can track the development of the
larsen On Film studio. I finally had to lose a kid,
but gained a home office, which means a dedicated recording space.
It's pretty generic now, you know, mainly storing extra house plants.
But we're going to get there, Adam, Well, we'll professionalize
it a little bit by little bit as we go.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
To be clear. You know where the kid is. They're
just off at school.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Yeah. By lost, I mean got rid of.

Speaker 3 (03:05):
Up first, the End of Oak Street. Despite having made
only four films, I'm not a David Robert Mitchell complete us,
but I had a hunch that a little bit of
research validated. That hunch had to do with the filmmaker's

(03:27):
penchant for temporal displacement. About his debut feature, twenty ten's
The Myth of the American Sleepover, one reviewer said this,
no characters have a cell phone or a computer. A
boy has an actual world globe in his room. The
girls at a sleepover play on a Ouija board, and one
girl discovers another girl's been sleeping around by reading her
diary in a dresser drawer, not on Facebook. Mitchell, the

(03:51):
writer continues, has said he was attempting to make a
film that telescoped fifty years of teenage suburban nights into
one timeless quilt. Mitchell's breakout twenty fourteen's It Follows is
equally elusive. We see wired landlines, old school cathodraid TVs,
and a mix of cars and clothes from various decades.
Linda I. Young Leu, a faculty member at UMass Boston,

(04:14):
authored a paper you can find on Academia dot Edu
titled out of Time The Uses of Anachronism. In it follows,
among Leeve's key takeaways, the film's aesthetics invoca blend of
past and present, fostering a critique of lake capitalism's consumerism.
With Under the Silver Lake, Mitchell finally anchors himself to
a fixed time, not that it makes us or his

(04:36):
protagonist Andrew Garfield Sam feel any more secure. Released in
twenty eighteen, we know it takes place in August twenty
eleven thanks to the presence of an LA weekly issue
dated as such, plus pop culture references and technology appropriate
to the era. However, there's also plenty of vintage technology
and pop culture ephemera, and Mitchell himself told Deadline dot

(04:57):
Com it's specifically supposed to be happening in the summer
of twenty eleven, although it's not a real summer twenty eleven.
It's a fantasy, a nightmare version of it. That fantasy
nightmer concoction led Bright Wall Dark Room to characterize Silver
Lake as one of the rare post postmodern noirs with
its overt pastiche of the Bernard Hermann school of composing,

(05:18):
implying that Sam's perspective is heavily filtered through the classic
films that seemed to be perpetually playing on any available
television right on Q If a few years longer between projects,
then maybe expected comes the end of Oak Street, arguably
an overt pastiche of the Steven Spielberg school of filmmaking,
set precisely in the summer of nineteen eighty two, the

(05:41):
period that saw one of the Maestro's greatest triumphs et
What besides, the setting, which includes some time travel back
one hundred and fifty million years, makes it so Spielbergian.
I don't know. We could start with the giant teeth
on the poster dinosaurs. I know Nerdy's second grade Josh,
who is never tucked too deeply away inside you immediately

(06:02):
recognized that the giant scary one was an alvosaurus, not
a t rex. You got that right, Josh.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
I was just mesmerized by the feathers.

Speaker 3 (06:11):
Okay, but let's be honest, Mitchell might have just called
this movie Jurassic cul de sac. How about family dysfunction
and divorce. Seem to have the idyllic family living on
the idyllic block with son Brian, older daughter Audrey played
by mild Asses Mazie Stella, and rambunctious but lovable dog Starbuck.

(06:32):
But Anne Hathaway's Denise is disenchanted and actually contemplating splitting,
while Ewan McGregor's Gregg is delivering pizzas to make ends
meet after being laid off, a reality he's been keeping
from the family. Michael Jacchino's sweeping score is undeniably and
wonderfully John Williams esque. The way the Platts have to
fight off domestic supernatural terror was reminiscent of another eighty

(06:54):
two film that Spielberg had his hands in, Poltergeist. I
even occasionally had flashbacks to back to the future, and
not just because of the time traveling. Spielberg executive produced Future,
and as the story goes, was Robert Zemeckis's only early supporter.
The bottom line is there is a lot happening, including
copious composition, lens and framing choices, kids on bikes that

(07:17):
transport us to a different theater, in a different time,
in a different place, watching the work of a different director.
That different director, of course, made his own movie this year,
Disclosure Day and the End of Oak Street has something
else directly in common with it, as well as a touchstone,
like Close Encounters of the third kind, something that could

(07:37):
get lost, admits all the Dino stopping popcorn munching fun
a discourse on faith, Josh, This question seems entirely unfair
to Mitchell, since I know that a month ago when
we named our top five films of the year so far,
you had Disclosure Day at number one. But tell me,
is it possible that the End of Oak Street is

(07:58):
actually the best Spielberg movie of twenty twenty six.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
I see what you're doing here, trying to push my buttons.
Uh huh, I mean, let's not get blasphemous, good sir,
that's a ridiculous question for me, for the reason you
just laid out. Yeah, Disclosure Day, it's not my second
favorite film of the year. Yes, Teenage Sex and Death,
but I have not dropped it to the level to

(08:27):
the level of the End of Oak Street, which which
we'll get to. What level that is I still, having
now seen Disclosure to day twice, I think it's near
top tier Spielberg, and by that I mean second tier.
I put it in that group below the masterpieces. If
the End of Oak Street was a Spielberg movie, and

(08:47):
I'm looking at where I've ranked all of Spielberg's, I'm
afraid I would have it pretty low. I'd have it.
I would call this a low I'd call it a
near low tier Spielberg movie. So maybe second from the bottom.
We're not in you know, hook territory here, but you know,
things are pretty thin. The family dynamics are pretty thin.

(09:10):
And there's a key example of that. There's two actually
we've talked on the show, Adam and the various Spielberg
lists we've done. I forget if it was scenes. I
mentioned how Spielberg is a master of family meal sequences.
N Street or the End of Oak Street gives us
two of those, A breakfast and a dinner, so perfunctory,

(09:32):
just laying out the exposition and what we need to
know about each character. Nothing like the rich, complicated emotional
dynamics that you find in a Spielberg dinner scene, like
the opening pizza scene from E. T I think the
characters overall are pretty pretty generic, and the dialogue they're
given isn't all that helpful to either. So much exposition here.

(09:56):
For me, though, the key distinction is that when it
comes to the Spielbergian wonder here, I found it to
be pretty watery wonder pretty just not crisp, not overwhelming,
never approaching the transcendent, which is when Spielberg is at
his best. I think all the touchdoones you called out

(10:18):
are good ones. Didn't think of Poltergeist that You're so
right once they're actually in these houses and having to
defend for themselves from these creatures. What was interesting to
me about this movie, though, is a different Spielbergian connection,
a second degree connection, and that's JJ Abrams, who is
a producer on the End of Oak Street, and I

(10:41):
was also thinking as much about Spielberg's films while watching
the End of Oak Street. I was thinking about Abrams
Super eight, a movie he directed, a movie I liked
quite a bit, set during the same time period, right
right up around the same time period, also features a
wild mashing of fantasy and reality. That movie, to me,
and I know some people just said it was a

(11:03):
knockoff of Spielbergian techniques and story narratives. To me, I
thought it had it pulsed with a sense of astonishment,
which is the key for me. For Spielberg, it had
the excitement of adolescence. It was a group of friends
who were the main characters there at the possibility of
the other worldly and Super eight. Those friends were making movies,

(11:26):
so it was in love with the power of cinema itself.
It was about the human experience of the fantastic, and
this is mostly about displaying the fantastic, which can still
be fun. But I think what elevates Spielberg and what
someone like Abrams was able to tap into with Super
eight is focusing on that human experience. This is something

(11:51):
that really clarified for me in doing my dissertation that
I just wrapped up, which Spielberg was a part of,
and in trying to pin down what is it about
his evoking of transcendence, the transcendent experience, whether it's the
Alien movies or Jurassic Park, I realized how much time
Spielberg spends on faces during these scenes, human faces, and

(12:11):
I even clocked that first dinosaur scene in Jurassic Park
where they're out in the jeeps and they encounter the
dinosaurs close up. It's a two minute scene, and or
might be a three minute scene. The point is more
than double the time of images is given on the
faces of Grant and Sattler as they're experiencing the wonder.

(12:36):
Half that time is given on the dinosaurs themselves. So
the special effects the thing that everyone thinks about first
when it comes to Jurassic Park in one of its
key wonder sequences, double the time is spent on the humans.
And I didn't have time to clock any of this
while watching the end of Oak Street on my first watch.
I'd be curious to do that if I watch it again.

(12:57):
But I certainly felt that this was more interested in
the largely cgi effects of these creatures and putting them
in this space, this cul de sac, as you said,
and how bizarre and disorienting that is. And there's a
lot of fun there right, But where it does fall
short is capturing that sense of wonder and transcendent that

(13:21):
the best of Spielberg can do. You know, it's unfair
to ask other filmmakers to be able to do that,
but I think Super eight came a lot closer than
the end of Oak Street for me, I can you know,
I can speak more about the other thing which I
noticed too, is the dropping of these these questions about
do you believe in God? Because that is something that
was a clear part of disclosure Day. We'll talk about it,

(13:43):
but but yeah, for you, how did it work as
a Spielbergian exercise?

Speaker 3 (13:48):
Before I get there, can I just say, picking up
from our conversation last week about teenage sex and death
at Canton Asthma, the only regret I have from my
theatrical experience with Oak Street is that I had to
watch it alone and I didn't have the opportunity to
turn to someone next to me and say split diopter

(14:09):
the first time Mitchell used it, we were the next
seventeen times I was.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
Just gonna say, you mean the split diopter party.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
It wouldn't have been old for me. I don't think
it would have ever gotten old. I would have done
it every single time. It would have done definitely annoyed
a few people in the theater. And also, picking up
in that conversation, we were talking about Sophie and how
watching Camp Miasthma, my daughter Sophie, the film Spotting Pa
that this was a learning experience for her. She saw

(14:36):
that first one. I think the first one is when
Denise Hathaway is talking to the neighbor, Missus Huddleston about
her book, and Sophie said she saw it right away.
She also saw it alone and couldn't say it to anybody,
but she knew it. She saw it was a split diopter.
It's when Mitchell is trying to make sure we know
he uses the lens to make sure we don't miss
the tension between Denise's individual aspirations and her obligations to

(14:59):
the family in that shot.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
Yeah, I think, yeah, And that's an interesting one because
it must be using that technique, but there's a little
more distance you're seeing Denise's face and then you're actually
seeing out through the window too. The culd a sack
the box part plays and he also uses it. I
like your explanation for why he would use it there.
That makes sense, But then he also used this is
it for the older neighbor she's talking to, And it's

(15:26):
just it's a yeah, I mean, we can dive into
the split diapter party where this far in we might
as well, and then get back to your question. It's
an over use of it that I'm still trying to
puzzle why, even in that scene, why use it with
the neighbor as well, because the neighbor is having a
different psychological experience of that conversation.

Speaker 3 (15:42):
Yes, but she represents to Denise. She represents to Denise
that freedom I think.

Speaker 1 (15:49):
So it works, okay, but the split diapter is all
about putting you directly in the foreground, in the psychology
of that face. So again, yes, I can see that thematically,
but in the moment, all of a sudden, I'm thinking
more about the neighbor and what is the neighbor's emotions,
and that's completely different. I know they're having a conversation
about Denise's work, but my goodness, when that family conversation

(16:12):
everything's gone down, they're in the living room panicking about
what to do, and we get another split diapter. I
couldn't keep track of who it started with, what they said.

Speaker 3 (16:21):
It goes around the circle.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah. I was asking myself the same questions, Okay, what's
the what's the thematic emotional, psychological reason for using this?
And I came up with some answers. You know this,
each of them has their own response and perspective on
the experience. It's commonly used to amp up the tension
because it is disorienting to ask you to focus on

(16:43):
two things at once. Yeah, that all makes sense to me.
I don't know why he didn't include overlapping dialogue then,
which would enhance that. It's very much where we get
a shot and one character says one clear point of view,
and then in the background another character off for something else.
I don't know, to be honest with you, even though

(17:04):
I can see some of that rationale and maybe you
have some stronger ones, it did take me out of
the movie in a way that some of the more
ostentatious techniques of a film like It Follows did not,
and worked in concert with a theme I have.

Speaker 3 (17:21):
A super super profound rationale. You're ready, Okay, it's really cool.
I thought it was really cool in terms of my
response to the movie, and getting back to the question
I post to you, I can agree with you overall
on your read certainly of Spielberg and even my feelings
about Spielberg, but disagree with you on this movie, and

(17:45):
it's really great to put it in those terms. I
didn't think about where I would put this movie in
my Spielberg ranking. What would keep this from being top
tier Spielberg is that I don't think there is no
nor do I think Mitchell is seeking wonder. Maybe yeah,

(18:05):
it is unfair because it would be one thing, Josh,
if there were moments I recall from this film where
I thought Mitchell was seeking the transcendent and was coming
up short. And I don't recall that ever. So that
is the way I think he is specifically, despite all
the similarities, all the parallels that we've already drawn, that
is the way specifically I think he is diverging from

(18:26):
spir So I don't think this movie is top tier Spielberg,
and I don't think it's even as good a film
as Super eight. I'm with you on that, but I
will get blasphemous I suppose and say that somehow the
best Spielberg movie of twenty twenty six isn't directed by
Steven Spielberg. That is how much fun I had with
this movie. I, of course, was not as high on
disclosure Day as you. One of the things we can

(18:49):
discuss in spoiler talk anyway we can get deeper into
it is whether this film is truly just pure summer
entertainment with satisfying resolutions and no larger questions to ponder,
And whether than my use of the word just is pejorative.
Maybe you're a David Robert Mitchell stan and you love

(19:11):
It Follows, and you love Under the Silver Lake, and
you love how those movies are full of ambiguities and mysteries.
The latter I haven't seen it from what I understands,
requiring you to decode it. And here, the End of
Oak Street is ostensibly a textbook crowd poleaser. Maybe that
bugs you. It is a crowd pleaser. I enjoyed it

(19:32):
for all of the reasons I do love many of
Spielberg's crowd pleasers, the combination of drama, of thrills, of heart,
and of craft. I think the degree of difficulty here
is quite high, because you could fill your movie with
a bunch of homages, and it would feel very trite
to try to pull out the same combination of drama

(19:55):
and thrills, heart and craft that no one other than
maybe Spielberg has done before, at least so consistently, and
to come up short. You'd have something that was not
only trite, but very possibly quite dull. And this is
probably not a stretch to say this, but I imagine
this movie playing like Gangbusters for plenty of audience members

(20:16):
who have no relationship to Spielberg's work whatsoever. And I
think where you should probably disagree the most, because this
speaks to my having a deeper investment in the heart
and in the drama of the film than you is.
I think Mitchell does it largely just based on fundamental
storytelling that it comes back to character, it comes back

(20:38):
to dramatic irony. I don't think the family dynamic is
as thin as you think it is. I think that
there's enough weight here because I like the touch that
everybody in this family has a secret. And these aren't
you know, suburbia blue velvet ants crawling on a bloody
cutoff ear in the green grass while you know, below

(21:00):
a white picket fence type secrets. There's nothing dark or
sinister about them, but they're real and they do subtly
tear away at an individual's and a family's psyche. The
way the dad, Greg is hiding that he lost his
job and he's taking these pizza delivery shifts. Why is
he doing it? Because he doesn't want the family to worry,
But what's that doing. All that's doing is just leading

(21:21):
to more anxiety in the family. He's got a little
something stashed in the garage. He also knows what Denise
is up to in the basement, but he's not letting
on about that. Right She's hiding that she's writing this
book in the basement, that she may also want to
leave Greg and her kids. She may also want to
leave them to be a writer. But you can go
with the kids too, Like Brian is at that age

(21:42):
where he's testing the boundaries a little bit. He's smoking cigarettes,
he's lying about that he's in some trouble in the
neighborhood that he's not facing. Audrey, I want to mention
this scene. I mentioned Mazy Stella and she I didn't
immediately recognize her. I just immediately recognized. I feel like
I've sort of seen her before, and she's really good.
We learn what she's hiding about her identity in a

(22:05):
scene that, as often is the case with these great
music moments, it's a candidate for me Josh from Music
Moment of the Year and Moving Moment of the Year.
The scene where she goes to the garage and she
puts in a cassette, and that's That's pretty much all
I'll say, except to further explain that it's just such
great economical storytelling. It's set up by one earlier quick scene,

(22:29):
but that's just laying the foundation for it. The reason
why that's so great is because it functions. Its function
for the audience is to reveal something about the character
we didn't know before. But Mitchell here is a smart
enough writer and director that that's the subtext. But the
text is within the context of the movie. Why is
that scene occurring? And it feels not just logical but appropriate.

(22:55):
It feels necessary that someone in Audrey's circumstances, with all
of this insanity swirling around her, in a quiet moment,
would seek normalcy. Putting that cassette tape in the car,
in the garage, sneaking away like that that song playing
transports her back to nineteen eighty two. For those three

(23:17):
to four minutes of Steve Winwood Magic, things are okay
with the world. But it's also tinge for this overwhelming
sadness because you have to consider what she's thinking about,
what we know she's thinking about that's not spelled out,
but we get it. And also that she has to
be considering that she may never be leaving this place,
and what is she never going to get to experience

(23:37):
all that's going on with nothing being said at all,
just what she's doing in that scene and what the
music's doing. And then finally I'll say that none of them,
none of them in the family, are talking about what
they all know to be true, which is that this
family does seem to be falling apart. So for me,
those secrets they provide something substantive for us to latch

(23:58):
onto and that that gave me investment enough and in
what's going to happen to this family and that dynamic?

Speaker 4 (24:08):
Anybody else did that weird light last night?

Speaker 3 (24:11):
The weird light.

Speaker 5 (24:13):
The wind was blowing all crazy, startled with streaked down
and barking.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Could have been light from a helicopter or a UFO A.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
I think it's the case for you. With this movie
is where I can intellectually understand all the choices that
are made, and yet they none of them are resonating
with me in It's almost like I can see the
structure rather than feel the structure. Now, the case of
the scene with Audrey and the car is different. It
stands out. It's a great sequence for all the reasons

(24:47):
you described, and almost makes me wish that this entire
movie had been about her point of view and her story.
She seems to be given the most interesting experience that
is unique in its own way, even as it is
embedded in the universal experiences of someone that age. The
other family members' issues just felt so perfunctory in how

(25:12):
they were presented. Audrey's scene is presented beautifully as you described,
you know, without any sort of dialogue or a back
in forth between husband and wife. We've seen a variation
on a million times. I wonder how much this is
a matter of performance. These are two lead actors, Adam,
that you know, we both like quite a bit. We've

(25:32):
praised Anne Hathaway, you know, for some of her other
work this year. You and McGregor we've gone back to
with since Train Spotting, and in our recent revisit or
a discussion of Train Spotting, talking about how good he
was there as a as a breakout star. I don't
know if it's the writing. I don't know if it's
the suburban eighties Dad, that's just not a good fit

(25:55):
for this, Scott. I don't know what it is but
there is I couldn't figure out why he was in
this movie, and Anne Hathaway somewhat similar, though she gets
to bite into a little more stuff as the movie proceeds.
She has a bit more interesting of a backstory, the
fact that she's writing this novel in secret. There's more

(26:16):
to dig into there. I don't know that the movie
actually does be beyond wanting to give her a as
you said, and maybe for some viewers that's enough. I
do wish it had been explored a little bit more.
But this relates to something I wanted to ask you.
The performances, and I do want to hear what you
think of those performances. But it does make me wonder
it connects with the question you asked, which is really good,

(26:38):
is what was he looking for as writer director with
this movie? If he's not seeking that transcendence, that Spielbergian transcendence,
which I think is fair and doesn't have to what
was he seeking? I wonder if this was really if
you asked him at heart, or asked anyone involved in it,
is this supposed to be a dark comedy, like a

(27:00):
really dark action comedy, Because for me, when the end
of Oak Street operated at that level, it was really clicking.
And that doesn't necessarily need a rich family dynamic that
needs more types that we can place as the gears
start churning in a more humorous vein, that needs leads

(27:23):
who are more comfortable in that vein. And so even
someone I don't want to get into recasting, so I'm
just gonna throw out one thing. But because this was
David Robert Mitchell, it made me think of Under the
Silver Lake, and even someone like Andrew Garfield, who I
don't think we think of first as a comic actor.
He's incredibly funny and Under the Silver Lake in a

(27:43):
fresh way I hadn't seen him before, and even him
in the role of the father here might have brought
a little goofiness, a little unexpected even zaniness that I
do think the movie is going for. I mean, there's
a great shot, speaking of the camera work here, there's
a great shot early on after the chaos has broken
out and Greg and Denise are running through the neighborhood

(28:06):
trying to find their kids, but we see them in
the foreground is another family who's come out of their house.
They don't know this is going on yet. They're getting
into the car, and the camera just slowly pans to
reveal across the street behind them, Greg and Denise sprinting
across all the neighbor's yards f these dinosaurs. That's funny.
There is the moment of the two dinosaurs mating in

(28:27):
the background, that's darkly funny. I think when light actually,
I mean it's kind of light, and it's lightening the scenario,
I guess, is what I would say a dark scenario
is bringing a light touch to it. And then when
we get to our spoiler conversation, I think that's particularly
where this movie wants to or I feel like has

(28:51):
the opportunity to become quite dark and humorous, and where
it ends, to me only works if you see this
movie as a dark comedy. If you see it as
anything other than that, I think the ending is kind
of a disaster. I went with it because I enjoyed

(29:11):
the end of Oak Street not as the year's best
Spielberg movie, but as a quite funny, dark, insane comic fantasy.
That's where this movie is clicking.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
I like how it ends, but I also like the
possibilities that the end opens up, which we are going
to talk about, and I understand why you potentially want
to read it that way. I can only tell you
that the experience I had in the theater was not
one where I thought that David Robert Mitchell was going
for a darkly comic experience. I think that there are

(29:44):
moments of comedy, and there are moments where I laughed,
and certainly there are moments where maybe you don't expect
that you would be laughing, and so I get that
that's usually the term we would put on it. But
I still can't help but think, and maybe this is
just me going off my first reaction. I just saw
it two days ago, that that doesn't really mean anything.
It's not like it was just two hours ago. But

(30:05):
I am still processing my reaction. I still see this
as David Robert Mitchell mostly trying to give us a
very entertaining, action packed experience and succeeding now on the
p pformances. I'm with you that I had a similar reaction,
unfortunately to McGregor, and some of that is I fear

(30:29):
that the character as written is supposed to be a
bit bland, in a bit ineffectual. You know, there's a
moment in the movie where Hathaway, her character says, listen
to your father, and that's actually supposed to be a
big moment for both charactures, whether whether or not the
camera draws any attention to it, and the camera doesn't,

(30:51):
that's actually a big moment because she isn't She isn't
someone as the mother who is usually telling the kids
to obey what the father is saying. She wears the
pants in the family, she's driving the car, she's got
the shotgun. She's the one who is handling most things.
And I do think that McGregor's performance then, as a result,

(31:13):
it's as if he taps into that a little bit
and and plays him a little boringly. Hathaway, though, I think,
is pitched at exactly where this movie needs her to be,
and that includes needing her to be able to sell

(31:33):
the terror that this family would feel, including when we
get one scene in particular that I think is one
of the great set pieces in this film, when let's
just say a creature invades the home and none of
them are aware of it. It's one of those scenes, Josh,

(31:54):
where I noticed it wasn't just me, there were other
people in the theater. We were all squirming in our
seats when a director can make you squirm in your
seat because you're actually trying to maneuver as if your
movements would help the character move. If you can do this,
maybe the character will notice what's behind them. That is something,

(32:17):
and that is how you That is how I felt,
certainly watching this scene. There is a moment at the
end of that scene where I'll put it this way.
Hathaway's Denise goes to town, and Hathaway plays that with
the same conviction she would play The Odyssey or any

(32:39):
other movie, any other character she's ever played. You believe
that every single protective instinct is coming out of her there,
but not only that, every ounce of anger that has
built up in her up to this point from the
family dynamic, but also through whatever they're experiencing, every ounce
of frustration, It is all coming out of her in

(33:03):
that moment this release. And I actually do think there
aren't that many actresses on Hathaway's level who can deliver
that type of Catharsis in that moment, and I really
appreciated it in her performance there.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Yeah, she's doing the stuff we haven't seen her do before,
especially in that scene. She's one hundred percent committed to it.
I think she also works a little bit better because
for me, she's tapped into the vein of humor too,
whether it is signing away to kind of not directly
undercut her husband, but you know, give us a variation
on an eye roll. You're over his ineffectiveness, And yeah,

(33:41):
I think she does work quite a bit better than
he does.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, let's talk a little bit then, before we get
to spoilers, can we talk?

Speaker 5 (33:49):
Well?

Speaker 3 (33:50):
I also have to tell you what I think is
the great, the great screenwriting misguided misstep of this film too.
The misstep Okay, oh yeah, there is one I almost
thought I couldn't forgive Mitchell for so I have to
get to that. But since I brought it up in
the setup and I know we're going to diverge on this,

(34:10):
I'm going to go ahead and say it. What I
do think it has on Disclosure Day, as absurd as
it might sound, since that film takes place in a
more recognizable roam world in Oak Street has a bunch
of dinosaurs running around. Some of the choices of the
characters and their actions with this one major exception I'll
get to are more rational and believable here. The other

(34:32):
part is what I alluded to before this dialogue about
faith elements in Disclosure Day, there were elements I appreciated,
But Spielberg also makes the conflict there quite literal. Right.
It's in the form of the Sister Mara character and
Neeve Houston's Jane, and they are talking directly about their

(34:53):
faith or lack thereof, and what all of this means.
In Oak Street, you have characters who represent different sides
of that conflict in a way that seemed realistic to me,
especially since I know which one of the characters I am.
This family has been dealt a terrible hand. The only
real possibilities seem to be die pretty quickly and gruesomely,

(35:19):
survive for a bit, but suffer. Okay, both of those
are bad or long shot. The longest shot, they'll be
magically saved. Some members of the family express a faith
in effectively a higher power, and they'll be magically saved.

(35:41):
And why because it they have no rational reason to
believe that, but it comforts them and it's how they
want to live their lives because the alternative seems to
only hold at best negativity and at worst sorrow. What
about the people out there getting eaten? One of the

(36:01):
characters says at one point that also, I have to say,
is one of the great theological quandaries. It's the beginning
of thought and but and it's quite funny. And it's
quite funny. It exactly pleasy. Stella, God's not gonna let
us die here. You only go to Church of Christmas.
And now you're telling the kids God's looking out for us.
What about the people who are out there getting eaten?

(36:21):
The other characters are pragmatists who see false hope as
the great sin to be avoided. I found that conversation,
and I do mean that actual conversation, but the larger conversation,
because it's something that the movie is speaking to, not
just in that scene. I found that conversation to be

(36:44):
very compelling. I liked that it made me think about that. Now.
I'm not suggesting, Josh that David Robert Mitchell is giving
us the end of Oak Street because he wants everyone
to come away with his treatise on faith. But I
like that. I liked that it was wrapped up in there.

Speaker 1 (36:59):
I yeah, I wish I could have seen the tentacles
of that conversation and the rest of the film. To me,
there are basically two conversations like that that are dropped
in kind of come out of nowhere. I found it
to be more imployed to give extra shading to Greg
the father's inefficiency helplessness. Of course he would be the

(37:23):
guy who says, you know, God will save us or
whatever he says. And then here's more dark humored. This
is where Athway is like greatly go to church on Christmas, Chris,
and you're pulling this out. So I thought that was
funny too. Yeah, I just didn't see it. As I didn't.
It was a curiosity to me like that, where is this?
And I know it's there's a callback with the neighbor,

(37:44):
the young woman who goes to private school there, like
is she go to Catholic school? And then the neighbor asks,
I think, Audrey, do you believe in God? When she
asked her to me, that was like, oh, well, this
is random again, And I know you could extrapolate that
to ask these larger questions that you proposed there. I
don't know that the movie really, as you said, also,

(38:04):
is that interested in doing that regarding disclosure day, you know,
which it is curious that both of them at least
touch on this issue. I my preference is that Spielberg
had let that play more in the background. I always
would rather have it be something that, yeah, I know,
you know, not that bliss it. However, why I did
like it, about why I did like it in Disclosure Day,

(38:26):
even though it worked in that way, is it was
much more directly woven into the characters' backgrounds, who they
were as people. I mean, this isn't the first time
Jane brings up the Houston character faith. It's not out
of nowhere like Greg here. It's because we know she's
already shared that she considered being a nun at one point.

(38:48):
And you know, these are much more richly developed characters
in general and specifically on the question of faith. She
has a relationship with the other nun. And here's the
other thing that Spielberg is And again this is coming
out of just being deeply embroiled in his work, realizing
that he has always been a believer in belief. And

(39:12):
what I mean by that is he's less interested in
the object of the belief. The belief could be a fairy,
it could be a dinosaur, it could be an alien,
but what he believes in is the human act of
believing in something that's unbelievable, and he his special gift
is getting you in the theater to feel like you

(39:33):
could believe as well. And that is one of the
main questions. I don't remember if we got into this
that deeply in our initial conversation. That's one of the
main questions that Disclosure Day is interested in, is the
value of believing in we did it's unbelievable? Right, Yeah?
So again, is it a little too literalized and Disclosure Day?
For me, yes, I would agree with that, but I

(39:55):
think it is much more thoughtfully and skillfully woven into
that movie than it is here, where it struck me
as an oddball curiosity to have those two scenes kind of.

Speaker 3 (40:07):
Dr See, that's the exact opposite of what I'm describing,
because for me, that's exactly the type of conversation I
believe that family would have in that moment, precisely like
they have it there in that scene. It did not
feel to me at all like some contrived moment the
screenwriter felt like he needed to have in order to

(40:29):
elivate like script I guess just.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
A couple of more suggestions about what their relationship to
this was before maybe even in production design or crisis.

Speaker 3 (40:41):
Like this, bring these out, bring these types of conversations.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
I'm talking about as a viewer, you know that so
that you're kind of being the landscape is being set,
the seeds are being planted, that this might be something
that's going to come up in some way, rather than
it subtenly being dropped in, you know, forty minutes or
whatever into the movie.

Speaker 3 (41:02):
I guess, okay, let's get onto something that I struggled
with my Yes, my David Robert Mitchell. It follows embroidered
nitpick hating to is going to come out with the
asterisk that like my it follows thoughts, it's not a
cinema sins like Nitpick. And I'm going to explain why.
The key difference here is that while this choice sends

(41:25):
the movie off track, fortunately it turns out it wasn't
a permanent detour. There is a point and obviously I
don't think this is a spoiler, and I'm going to
be I'm going to talk generally about it enough that
if I thought it was a spoiler, I would save it,
and I'll save part of it actually for spoiler talk later.
There's a point roughly an hour in where Mitchell clearly

(41:47):
decided that either a it was going to get too
stagnant if I didn't get this family out of the
house for an extended period of time, or b it
was going to get too stagnant if I didn't gym
up gin up some heavier emotional stakes or see both because.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
This is this stybuck Starbucks.

Speaker 3 (42:12):
Or he has one of the family members make a
decision that accomplishes both of those things. That is nevertheless
one of the dumber, least believable things I have seen
a character do ever on screen. And yes, it does
involve the dog, Starbuck. And you can say, first, you
can tell me how much you all love dogs, and

(42:32):
so you bought it. You can also understand how far
I just don't get for your dog exactly. You can
also tell me how how Mitchell sets it up in
earlier scenes. In retrospect, that just feels exactly like that's
what it was a writing ploy to try to justify
this insanely stupid act. And as if that wasn't bad enough,

(42:54):
what follows is then another character, a smarter, more mature
character that's the sin doing something equally stupid. But here's
what I think is here's here's the compound on compound.
What I actually think is the greater sin. What frustrates
me most, what elevates it from from nitpick to the

(43:16):
level of what I'm saying is I think misguided narrative
judgment is the reason both of these characters and this
maybe gets back to where we diverge on this movie
overall a little bit. The reason both of these characters
make this decision, or the reason that they're in a
position to make it, is why because their parents are

(43:37):
having a screaming match in the other room. Setting aside
the fact that they're fighting, isn't enough for me to
believe that either kid would do what they did, especially
the older, more mature one. We're yanked as viewers out
of that fight so we can watch the kids do
what the screenplay needs them to do. But the family

(44:00):
dynamic and the tension which starts with Greg and Denise,
for me, isn't just window dressing, as I argued. It's
the foundation of this movie. It's crucial to this movie
working as well as it does. And this is a
huge moment, the moment when the secrets are finally laid back.

(44:21):
Greg and Denise deserved to get those things off their chests.
We deserved to hear them get those things off their chests.
And somehow Mitchell literally and figuratively turns their voices into
the adults from Charlie Brown. It becomes background noise that
allows what the plot to move forward. It's it's contrived.

(44:46):
It undercuts the emotional thrust of the movie. I wasn't
sure I was going to be able to get over it.
I was in part because of another decision Mitchell makes
to salvage it, which which I'll get into. But I
was struggling with that for a while.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Isn't isn't this the movie showing its hand laying its cars?

Speaker 3 (45:05):
Potentially? I knew that's where you were gonna go with me,
like I said, And it had enough of its its
hooks in me by that point that I could overhear it.

Speaker 1 (45:14):
For me, it was it was like, this is the
movie we're in. Like it didn't surprise me. I disagree
with you that I agree with you on Audrey's choice
to follow Brian, But hey, come on, Brian, you know
risk reward. He's he's that age he's still learning to
calculate things risk reward and Starbuck needs help. What are

(45:35):
you gonna do if you're out? What is he? Thirteen?
Fourteen year old boy?

Speaker 3 (45:37):
And he's old enough. He's old enough.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
Let me before we do spoilers. I wanted to one thing.
I was asking myself and see if either of this
resonates with you, you know, what else is this? What
else might this movie be interested in? Because obviously at
this point you found more in it than I was.
And so I was looking for things, and I thought,
is there any sort of commentary going on here? Maybe
there's the one shot of Brian after it all goes down,

(46:02):
he grabs the encyclopedias from his bedroom and he's looking
in one of them, and we see a page that
says something about greenhouse climate, and so part of me
is thinking, okay, is there some sort of environmental you
know thing going on here? I didn't find any more
threads to pull on. Maybe you did. I don't know,
there's another option of social commentary. I did think this

(46:24):
beginning this long opening setup of this neighborhood and the
block party that was going on and on and on.
For me, I'm thinking that this has got to be
some sort of commentary on you know, the United States
basically being stuck in the past. The movie set in
the past, so somewhat related to nostalgia, but possibly even

(46:46):
more pointedly related to recent dialogue about America being better before.
And it clicked for me when that overhead shot of
the entire neighborhood like a circle, isolated amidst the prehistoric landscape,
and I'm thinking, Okay, maybe we're getting something here about
isolationist America. Like America doesn't want to just go back

(47:09):
to the nineteen fifties, let's say, but it wants to
go back. We're so behind the times in the United
States because we're looking backwards, we might as well be
in the prehistoric era. Is there any thing there? I
don't know that I found many more threads. Possibly, I
think that's a little more interesting. But did anything like

(47:29):
that register for you or either of those strike anything.

Speaker 3 (47:32):
No, Josh, I think it's entirely possible. David Robert Mitchell
just wanted to make a blockbuster that really entertained people.
I do think in this case that shot though, that
shot though, that shot though, was really interesting because it
made me think, even though ultimately aliens are not part
of this movie, there is something clearly cosmic going on,

(47:52):
and that shot overhead of the cul de Sac, it's
a very odd, oddly shaped circle, like a good circle.
It looks it looks like a crop circle. Makes it
makes you think that, of course Oak Street in this circle,
this neighborhood was the one that was picked out. It's
a nice little bit of design or at least set

(48:13):
choice there. You're like, though, that what is interesting? Unless
I'm overlooking something something that is interesting about I think
it'd be very I think it'd be a bit of
a stretch to suggest the movie is trying to make
some climate change argument or really wants us to think
about it. But that that moment stood out to me
as well, where he gets out the encyclopedia and he's

(48:34):
reading about dinosaurs, because the director shows us what he's reading,
and he reads something about about the climate and how
it's going to get very hot greenhouse climate. Yep, the
greenhouse climate. But then, to my recollection, the movie doesn't
do anything with that. I thought that that then was
going to lead to some kind of revelation later in

(48:56):
the movie where the way they get rid of the
dinosaurs is by doing something with the climate. It it
doesn't factor in so as far as I recall, So,
why does that? Why is that shot in the movie?

Speaker 1 (49:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (49:07):
It is a It is a good question.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Maybe maybe we miss something. Listeners can tell us if
there's an environmental reading or yeah, America stuck in the
past reading.

Speaker 3 (49:15):
Yes, But I will say this as we transition to
spoilers for the people who are are not ready to
listen to that yet. What we are going to talk
about in spoilers I want to talk about, as you've
hinted already, the ramifications of the ending. I also want
to talk about Denise as writer slash god. Okay, where

(49:37):
that's where we're going to go. Let's go ahead and
close out the review proper of the end of Oak Street.
If you've seen the movie and you would like to
agree or disagree with with one of us because we
see this movie differently, you can write in feedback at
filmspotting dot net get out of that run, Josh, spoilers

(50:06):
on the end of Oak Street? Where would you Where
would you like to begin? So?

Speaker 1 (50:12):
As boring as he was, I was sad to see
Greg get it.

Speaker 3 (50:17):
Yeah, I think that is you know.

Speaker 1 (50:20):
I also feel like I should say I haven't I
haven't had time to sit down and write, which is
where I finally know what I really feel about a movie.
I'm leaning positive on this movie. I did enjoy it
really Yeah as an experience. I mean, you're trying to
claim its Spielberg. Well, how am I going to get
on board with that?

Speaker 3 (50:36):
That's nuts?

Speaker 1 (50:37):
But yeah, not top to Spielberg, Josh, just this movie.
And I think one of the best sequences is Craig's
death because it is exciting. It is again darkly funny
that what is he on a sledgehammer? I think, yes,
so just the ludicrousness that a sledgehammer to the nose

(50:58):
of this what what was that? An alisauris now he's
going after.

Speaker 3 (51:01):
Okay, so nerdy Josh didn't know that.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
Okay, I didn't get into dinosaurs as a kid. I don't.
I don't know. I think we were too old for that.
That didn't really start till in Earnest till Jurassic Park.

Speaker 3 (51:10):
Well, I know, so I was into dinosaurs way before
Jurassic Park. I was into dinosaurs right about the time
this movie is set nineteen eighty two, but I was
familiar with Alice at.

Speaker 1 (51:21):
That point anyway, So he takes the sledgehammer and knocks
the thing down, which got a laugh out of me,
and then all of a sudden chomps is this was
my thought process at him the alsours chomps his foot,
and I'm thinking, oh, no, it's like below the knee. Josh, yeah, yeah,
you're right, it's I mean, it's severe. And my first
thought is, again like a screenwriter writing thought, is like,

(51:44):
how are they going to write around this?

Speaker 4 (51:46):
Now?

Speaker 3 (51:46):
For the rest he can't hop around the rest of
the film, he can't.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
And then nope, nope, he gave us who's the guy
the lawyer in Jurassic Park? He just gets swallowed there, Yes,
And I think I laughed at that as well. I
did feel bad, sure, and I do. That's where my
interests started to peak in terms of the dark humor
and the implications for the family dynamic. I will say,

(52:12):
got a little more interesting after that, Okay, which I'm
guessing is where probably you'll go look.

Speaker 3 (52:16):
See So that's so fascinating because I can tell you
that my experience it's in the theater is that when
you watch a gigantic dinosaur on screen bite somebody's leg
off and blood starts spurting out and they're screaming. There's
a part of you that can't help but laugh a

(52:36):
little bit, even if it's internal, just kind of chuckle.
But the moment when that dinosaur ate greg All, I'm thinking,
this is, this is at least how in tune with
the movie. I was Josh and the family when that,
when that dinosaur ate greg All. I was thinking about
was I was feeling it like Denise and the kids
were feeling it. I was crushed. I was crushed on
the kid's behalf. I was in shosh like they were

(53:00):
a monster. No, I understand. I'm just saying that I
didn't have the darkly comic take on the film.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
I think about, think about, think about how many of
the other kills in this movie are punchlines. Though, yeah, Adam,
like with the neighbors and stuff, and so this is operating.
I know it's the character you know even better, but
it's operating in that vein.

Speaker 3 (53:20):
But but you say that, and I think it's such
a fine line, and I think even Mitchell was probably
trying to figure out where that line was because we
hate that neighbor. And I want to talk about this
in a second where I want to go with the
ending that neighbor is a loser jerk. And if you
asked us early in the film, do we want to

(53:40):
see him get eaten by a dinosaur? We would say yes.
And there's a part of us. Even as he's shooting
at him, I was thinking, Oh, I kind of can't
wait for them all to swirl around him. But then
when it happens, he shows it happening from the perspective
of Denise and Greg, and Denise and Greg are nothing
except purely horrified. Sure, And so there I'm purely horrified.

(54:03):
I'm not laughing at him getting eaten by the dinosaurs, right.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
Yeah, that one. Yeah, because they're involved, which goes back
to the Spielberg human experience thing I was talking about. Actually,
because they're in Valve involved, it's seen through a different lens.
And certainly Greg's death is too, of course, because the
kids are right there and she's right there, and as
you say, that's what I'm thinking is about, is they're
watching this. But it's also curious because I was noticing

(54:28):
how is that scene going to play too, because to
me it did have that dark comic element. But she
does cover their eyes and drag them away and start
talking to them about other things. So it's definitely meant
to play that way.

Speaker 3 (54:43):
Yes, yes, before maybe we get into the heavy stuff,
because I don't know where exactly you want to go,
whether or not it coincides with where I want to go.
I do just want to go back to I said,
Mitchell salvaged the misguided narrative choice, right, And that is
simply that just about I swear, just about the time
I was thinking, if the rest of this movie is

(55:07):
me having to follow the kids and the parents not
being able to reunite because of that fight, and Brian
jumping out the window to chase Starbuck, and Audrey chasing
after Brian without telling the parents that she's going after him,
it becomes the fruit of the poisonous tree. It's just
gonna sink the entire rest of this movie and maybe

(55:29):
retroactively everything that came before it. And right at that
point I was thinking it, it's like Mitchell was reading
my reading my mind, and and they see they see
the parents outside the window, and they open up the
doors Mom, Dad, and they see each other and they
get back together. It's like if I had to go
any longer with them not finding each other, Josh, the
movie was probably sunk.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
Well, I'm I'm glad for your sake that you didn't
have to experience that. Yeah, I think the reuniting of
the family at the end via this very elaborate glowing blob,
which you know, I guess we just accept that's all
we're gonna learn about that. Yeah. You know. One of

(56:12):
my quibbles about the movie, too, is or hesitance, as
I should say, is that it's kind of like half
a high concept that he's come up with here and
he didn't kind of finish it because this portal's just
glowing there and the.

Speaker 3 (56:26):
Sheaves Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan is a wise man, Josh,
what's the deal?

Speaker 1 (56:30):
Yeah, exactly, But yeah, it's there to reunite the family.
But here's my question for you. So they steal this
other dimensions Greg, that's it, right, the father So and
again I was kind of chuckling at the implications of this,
just because how I had keep it into the movie.

(56:52):
You're a s they steal What about the other dimensions? Audrey?
This is the question Denise and Brian, Right, Apparently this
just means that Greg never comes home, Dad never comes
home from surreptitiously delivering pizzas the dinosaurs invade, and whatever

(57:14):
happens to the three of them happens the three of
them alone. So they've stolen this dimensions Greg. I also like,
I mean, here's where it's got to be meant to
be sort of funny. The fact that Jeanette, the neighbor
girl who ends up with them for a long time,
she runs away to steal her entire family, including her

(57:34):
other self.

Speaker 3 (57:36):
She go back earlier, Josh, so.

Speaker 1 (57:38):
In the in the happy ending, No, I get how
it happens, but in the happy ending, I saw that
as a punchline, that there were two Jeanettes, just like,
this is our new family life, right, is we get
a bonus Jeanette? Now, yes again, all of this You know,
I think for me only works if it's a little

(57:58):
bit of a joke asking you to say, yeah, you
know what we Here's how I felt, how I experienced it,
and I enjoyed this experience. Yeah, we put a portal
in our movie. Yeah, that means the family gets together.
It means Greg was stolen. You know, we're at the
end of the movie. This is what we want, and

(58:20):
it was what I wanted as boring as Greg was.
He's back good, they're in better terms, have sometely fine
with it. I had a good time coming out of
the theater. But yeah, because I was locked in in.

Speaker 3 (58:30):
That vein jokes the right word in that in that context,
I mean the movie is is playing in that register.
Certainly by the end of the film, I think, I
mean it is a dinosaur movie and it's about wormholes,
Like it's yeah, we know what we're we know what
we're dealing with here. And and just to be totally clear,
even though if people are listening to this, they they

(58:53):
have seen the entire movie and they've probably thought about
all of this. What you were saying is exactly where
I want to go. This isn't really a time travel movie.
This isn't Back to the Future or The Terminator where
you go into the past and your actions can change
the future.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
This is a multit being a multiverse.

Speaker 3 (59:10):
This is a multiverse.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
I hate to say it.

Speaker 3 (59:11):
It is so at the end, even though I just
said it's not back to the future, it's kind of
like they returned to Hill Valley. Because I love how
they see the time on the clock and they realize
that they have.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
Times, the biggest clock I've ever seen.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
That's right. Yes, they have time to change what will happen,
but not entirely. But they have some time and things
are going to change, or or they can change things.
But the event the wormhole is going to happen. So
I'm I'm not patting myself on the back here. I
assume most viewers put it together. The crumbs, where the

(59:44):
breadcrumbs were laid from the very beginning of the movie,
the references to the pizza delivery, the phone number on
the top of the car. We can put two and
two together that she's going to go to the phone
booth and she's going to call the number, she's gonna
have the pizza delivered, and theoretically he's going to arrive.
Daddy is of course alive, reuniting, tears, rejoicing. Wow, it's

(01:00:09):
like it's like Lazarus. Lazarus risen from the dead, right,
But in so doing, they have they have changed the
events in this in this multiverse. It's been created because
returning Denise, returning Denise, Audrey and Brian. So let's call
him Denise Audrey and Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Two.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
They're with Greg one and Denise Audrey and Brian one.
They all went to the wormhole without Greg one. They're
all without their dad.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
So they've got this guy.

Speaker 3 (01:00:43):
No, they don't have a guy. They don't have a guy.
Oh no, yeah, they don't have a guy as I'm
reading it exactly. So in our world, in our world,
what we're called, Denise Audrey and Brian too and Greg
one are living happily ever after with two Jenettes, and
and aren't they all really they are? This is the question.

(01:01:07):
They're just Denise, Audrey, Brian, and Greg They're not two
and one as far as they know. They're all just
the family. But this is the kind of question that
sci fi movies has been posing forever different versions of
multiverse versions, Are they really the same? But to them,
to the three members of the family, it's just like
they're reuniting with the only dad they've ever known. So

(01:01:29):
that's interesting to ponder. But in the other world, Denise,
Audrey and Brian for however long they survived, which I
know I'm just spelling it out. I said that, Josh,
I'm just making sure people understand because I think it's
really fascinating. For however long they survived, they did so
without their dad now came home. Now, think about that.

(01:01:53):
Think about that from their perspective. Maybe they ultimately, once
they put things together, they decided, hey, dad never came home.
That means he probably never got sucked into this wormhole
and maybe at least he's safe back on Oak Street.
And so maybe they think about that and it makes
them feel good, or maybe it just fills them with

(01:02:14):
overwhelming sadness that they they don't have their dad with them.
So effectively, they lost they dad, They lost their dad husband,
just like the others lost their dad slash husband. And
You're right, they just stole him. The other ones just
stole that Denise.

Speaker 1 (01:02:30):
Denise probably wasn't too worried. I mean, at that point
in the narrative she had blatantly said I can handle
a lot more than you think, or something like that,
probably more than you more than you think. Yeah, she
might not have been too worried. I don't think they'd
started to reconcile yet. So yeah, it's again, obviously we're
seeing it through You're just seeing it through a more
emotional moving lens, and I'm seeing it through a more

(01:02:51):
comic lens, which I think is to the movie's credit.
I think that's when it's working best. And I see
this ending as kind of kind of like a final
punch line, even as it does raise some of these
interesting questions.

Speaker 3 (01:03:04):
And the question that I still haven't fully been able
to reconcile is to what extent, Because if you think
about this, it it's pretty heavy and it casts it
certainly casts a shadow over the happy reading of the
end of the film, which I don't see how you
read as anything but happy. It's it's like the back

(01:03:27):
to the Future ending where everything has now been not
only set right with the world, everything's better than it
previous was than it previously was. She's the writer, she
wants to be everybody's happy. The daughter got into Cornell like, yeah,
they all have boyfriends and girlfriends like everything else. Everything
is perfect with the world. But if you now start
thinking about this stuff, it's it's not all perfect with

(01:03:51):
the world. So does David Robert Mitchell want us thinking
about that stuff or does he want us thinking about
how happy everybody is? And then the other part of
this is what I'm what I'm just also intrigued by,
is is that the fact that the movie takes time
to show us not only is denis a writer. But

(01:04:12):
the name of her book right is called isn't it
the True Story, The True Story of the End of
Oak Street?

Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
Yeah, but it has it has a two word title, shoot,
I didn't write it down, and then that's I think
that's the subtitle, is the True Story of the.

Speaker 3 (01:04:27):
End of Oaks ste and and so she also says
at one point to to Greg when he says, well,
I found your book when they're when they're fighting, and
she tries to say, oh, no, it's not it's not true,
it's not real. It's a story, like she's just an
inventor of stories.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
Yep.

Speaker 3 (01:04:46):
Well. There are different versions then of the end of
ok Street, including now this different version of how things
would play out with just the three of them in
this multiverse without Greg and and So I have two

(01:05:06):
things I want to mention. One is I had a thought,
which is, if Mitchell had been really ingenious and I
would be first in line obviously to see this, he
would have simultaneously shot the other end of Ooks the sequet.
He would have simultaneously shot the Move, the Move, the

(01:05:27):
second movie version, the alternate multiverse version with just the
three of them without Greg in the end of Oak
Street and that movie would come out a year from
now and I would go see it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Yeah. Yeah, I think that partially speaks to why this
does feel like half a high concept to me, is
there's still that potential there by this ending. Here, here's
a question or here's a development that would have been interesting.
What if the Denise, Brian and Audrey Who's Greg had

(01:06:00):
been stolen? What if they jumped through the portal ended
up in the same dimension as stolen Greg. Who's Greg
gonna choose which which family? I mean, Greg's got Greg's
got some heavier right to do, and I don't know
that he's up to it quite fir.

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
No, No, he probably is not up to it. So
then here's the last part I said. Some think about
Denise as God. Any writer is a creator of a
universe and is creating life, is creating characters, and can
can dictate who lives and who dies and how life
plays out. Isn't isn't Denise doing just that? As we describe,

(01:06:40):
She's deciding the fate of Greg, She's deciding the fate
of Greg one, and she's deciding to some extent, the
fate of the alternate Denise Audrey and Brian as well.
But more than that, the whole thing on the television
when we get the stories of the two year anniversary.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
MM.

Speaker 3 (01:07:02):
She not only chooses to save Greg one, but she
has time to save three other people. Does she saves?
She calls the librarian, she calls Missus Huddleston, and she
calls the neighbor. So it's very interesting that those are

(01:07:24):
the three people and she calls those three, she calls
those three who who she then saves by telling them
to come to the hill, just like she does with Greg.
So one of those three is obviously someone she's very
close with, Missus Huddleston, one of those people we know,

(01:07:46):
one of those people we know she is at least
collegial with, and she would consider a friend and also
gave that woman, gave up her life for them. So
clearly she feels like she owes her a debt the
librarian a.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
Very positive librarian portrait. I mean, come on, only good information,
and yes, a good information.

Speaker 3 (01:08:07):
That she gets eaten by an alligator, a gigantic prehistoric
alligator for for the kids, Josh. Would Debbie do that?

Speaker 4 (01:08:16):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
I didn't think so. I don't think she'd go that far,
but then she also saves the neighbor. Yeah, so so
how do you how do you explain that choice choice
to save mel.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
The cynical answer, and you've given this a lot more thoughts,
you probably have a better one. He's the only other
neighbor that we've met in.

Speaker 3 (01:08:38):
The movie that I did think about that. I mean,
of course, that's.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
It's kind of funny that it's him, because it's ironic, it's,
you know, not what you would expect. It's the last
person you'd expect. So it landed for me as a
bit of a joke.

Speaker 3 (01:08:51):
Yeah, I think I think that that's that's there. I
think the other way, I suppose you could look at
this cynically, but I don't know if cynical is the
right way, or just to call it human nature. They
are the three people she knows that she sees die.
The other people in the neighborhood that she sees die,

(01:09:12):
we don't know for sure that she has any personal
personal connection to And so if you were in her shoes,
you might also be inclined to save the three people
you see die. That you make sense, and I think
that that's I think that's part of it. But also
just something about her actually being neighborly. Even though she
doesn't like him, she does the neighborly thing and saves him.

(01:09:35):
I like to read it that way. Sure, even though
he doesn't deserve it. Yeah, it's yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
I mean, I'm thinking about her having this sort of
power in this being her story. Did she did she
kill Greg Off? Like at some at some level she
is she making the decision. No, that's David Robert Mitchell.
I'm I'm getting well, I mean, I'm getting all confused.

Speaker 3 (01:09:56):
But think about this. This is still this is still
just Greg. This is Greg one. Greg hasn't gone through
any of this stuff. He's still the lame Greg from
the first half of.

Speaker 1 (01:10:05):
The May haven't had their confrontation, their concessions there.

Speaker 3 (01:10:09):
He hasn't gone through any of this this adversity that's
made him a better man. He's got some work to
do still, She's got her work cut out for him.
That's our spoiler talk on the end of Oak Street.
And as I said in the film Spotting Family Discord
earlier today, I thought that somehow, without knowing, without having
an inkling of what your thoughts were about this film,

(01:10:31):
I thought that it was possible that somehow this movie
might end up being, with spoiler talk, one of our
longest reviews ever. And here we are for an hour
on the End of Oak Street.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
What was that? The Tree of Life? What was our No? Yeah, no,
it was Odyssey, right.

Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
The Odyssey the Tree of Life? Yeah, somehow, David Robert Mitchell,
who knew.

Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
This is not the best Spielberg movie of the year,
but it is the longest Odyssean conversation of the year.

Speaker 3 (01:11:02):
I guess we'll have to pick a Spielberg movie to
try to outdo this one. At some point. I'll give
you that. I'll promise you that at some point, Josh,
thank you. Do encourage you to share your feedback, especially
after all that spoiler talk. Tell us how we should
be reading the End of Oak Street feedback at filmspotting
dot Net.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
I've got to tell you quick story about my showing
of the End of Oak Street. Caught it middle of
a day I think it was Thursday. And you can
tell who the real movie diehards are. You know, weekday
middle of day screenings, you usually have other people are
there by themselves and the lights come up or the
credits are rolling, and this guy a couple of seats
down for me just kind of leans over. Maybe you've

(01:11:42):
had this too, although I don't think you take quite
as many notes as I do. But I had my
notebook out. He's like, hey, I noticed notice you're writing
some notes or are you like a movie critic or something?
Does it you get this every once in a while,
sometimes when you're in a theater and he's so, I said, yeah,
I'm actually, you know, do this podcast? Really nice guy,

(01:12:03):
He's said, he's part of a film group that they
get together regularly and talk about the movies that they've seen.
And yeah, I'm actually going to shower his name. He's
on Instagram. We traded trader profiles ABC dot nephew, so
follow him if you're intrigued and keep up with his
movie talk. But it's always nice to meet one of

(01:12:24):
those hardcore film fans in the middle of the day,
in the middle of the week. If you're one of
those folks and you see movies that frequently, that devotedly,
then you should become a Regal Unlimited subscriber, because that way,
going to these films, you could see one of them
for free. Regal Unlimited is the all you can watch

(01:12:45):
movie subscription pass that pays for itself in just two visits.
And right now Regal is offering Film Spotting listeners endless
movies for less. I forgot to tell ABC Dot nephew this.
I'm I'm gonna have to DM him on Instagram. If
you sign up for Regal Unlimited using film using the
code film Spot twenty six, You're gonna get fifteen percent off.

(01:13:07):
Regal Unlimited is the only truly limitless movie subscription pass.
You can see any standard two D movie anytime, there
are no blackout dates or restrictions. You're also going to
save on snacks because members get ten percent off all
non alcoholic concessions. So sign up now on the Regal
app or at the link in our description and use

(01:13:27):
code film Spot twenty six to receive your discount. Adam,
it's been nice to see so many people joining the
Film Spotting family recently. I'm guessing maybe the sale we
have going on to become a family member is part
of that. We are offering twenty percent off membership through
August thirty. First, you just need to use the promo

(01:13:49):
code Summer and you can do all of that at
Filmspottingfamily dot Com. So yeah, some new folks coming in,
but let's take a few minutes to thank people who
have been members for a while now. Membership, of course,
is the single largest source of support for film Spotting.
It's the main reason we get to keep doing this.
So thank you very much to family members Ernie Dusson

(01:14:11):
in Tampa, Florida and Alex in Valpraso, Indiana.

Speaker 3 (01:14:16):
Ernie says, I've been listening for many years a review
he got wrong. Your top five concert movie list was
extremely flawed. No Woodstock or Monterey Pop. How dare you?
A movie I credit with becoming a cinophile two thousand
and one A Space Odyssey. My mom let me stay
up late to watch it on television at about ten
years old. I didn't understand any of it, but I
was hooked.

Speaker 1 (01:14:36):
I have no excuse, Ernie, I did homework for that
top five and Woodstock did it make the cut, so
still needs to be seen by me. As for Alex
Batman Versus Superman with Michael Phillips as the first episode,
I recall listening to a favorite show reviewer. Top five
tough to choose, but I think I learned of Coconata's

(01:14:57):
Columbus through the show and that is now an all
time favorite, So I'll go with that. A movie I
credit with becoming a cinophile Knowing with Nicholas Cage from
two thousand and nine, directed by Alex Proeus. Watching with
the director's commentary track on a portable DVD player during
a family road trip is what first opened my eyes
to the art of filmmaking. Okay, a random film or

(01:15:19):
filmmaker that I love The Her and Horse. Where is
the Blatar Marathon? Oh man, Alex you I've given up
on that ever happening. Just I know thength of these films.
It's gonna take a lot to convince Adam.

Speaker 3 (01:15:35):
So I just sit here and act like you've been
pushing for a Bellatar marathon behind the scenes.

Speaker 1 (01:15:40):
I'm I brought it up here and there, and I've done.
I've seen the turn Horse, I've seen works Harmonies.

Speaker 3 (01:15:47):
I've seen the Man from London. So I've got to go.

Speaker 1 (01:15:51):
I don't think either of us have had the no, no,
the fortitude to take on yet.

Speaker 3 (01:15:56):
Look at it this way, I'll do it. Let's look
at it this way. No, no, I don't want to
do it. Look at it this way. The positive is
we already have the name of the marathon awards the
Potato Peels. This is true. And and the thing about
the Belatar Marathon is that it starts, but it never ends.
It will just take up the entire rest of the shows,

(01:16:16):
the entire future of the show. Josh, however, it's just ongoing,
so I think that would be a problem and we
can't actually do that. Alexn Sorry, I just want to
make sure I was clear on something. Did you say, Josh,
that you watched Woodstock didn't make the cut Monterey Pop?
Is that one you still need to see?

Speaker 1 (01:16:33):
I haven't seen either of them.

Speaker 3 (01:16:34):
Oh, yeah, I seen either. Okay, I did your homework,
but you didn't get to either of those. Yes, Woodstock
was on my homework list. Ah, I did watch other
movies for the first time for that one, but didn't
get to Woodstock. Okay, Well, we do have I'll say,
I think maybe I've plugged this already, but we do
have a great movie deathmatch for fans of concert movies,

(01:16:54):
a great movie deathmatch coming up. The first Monday of
September stopped making sense versus the last Waltz, So look forward,
Look Forward, to that one.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
Thanks again to Ernie and Alex for their support for listening.
If you want to follow them on letterboxed. Ernie is
at hard Tale sixty seven. Alex is Alex the Great eighteen.

Speaker 3 (01:17:16):
You can learn more about joining the Film Spotting Family
at Filmspottingfamily dot com. Early in ad free listening, wherever
you listen to podcasts, whatever platform you're on, you do
get our weekly newsletter. You get access to the complete
Film Spotting Archive. You get access to that exclusive Film
Spotting Family Discord. Hey, it's just like a message board.

(01:17:36):
Don't be scared of it if you've never been on Discord,
and it's a great group of people, definitely nothing to
be scared of. You also get exclusive opportunities like being
part of Film Spotting Family Madness, naming the best films
of the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties. Josh, we are
down to the championship match. Yeah, saw this and it

(01:17:59):
did come down to the Wizard of Oz versus Sherlock Junior,
two films that are in the film Spotning pantheon, which
seems only appropriate.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
Seems appropriate. I like the matchup. You know, Keaton obviously
chosen by listeners over chaplain to represent the great genre
of silent comedy from that era. I don't no. I
can't wait to see how Keating fars against the Wizard
of Oz though. It just seems too big of a
task even for him to knock Oz out. But you've

(01:18:32):
been paying closer attention to how these matchups have gone
so far. Am I under selling Sherlock Junior?

Speaker 3 (01:18:41):
It's going to be very tough for Sherlock Junior to
overtake the Wizard at all his might? I will say that.
But you still have time to vote. As you are
listening to this, we encourage you to do so. And
if you were an early Film Spotting Family voter, you
may not have had a chance to vote in the
third place matchup. I forgot that we do normally put

(01:19:01):
up a third place poll, so you do have a
chance still to determine the third place winner. Is it
m or is it city Lights? So please do go
back and vote in that contest if you haven't already.
August Josh, the monthly bonus show you're going to get
is a Blind Spotting review. The poles are still open
there too, but it does look like it's going to

(01:19:23):
be Kiyoshi Kurasawa's cure. I think nineteen ninety seven. I'll
finally get to say I've seen a Kiyoshi Kurasawa film.
You'll get to say you've seen two if we do
that film.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
Yeah, I'm excited about that. I was happy with any
of these picks, but this would be a good one
with the samurai and the prisoner still in theaters too,
and kurs how on people's mind.

Speaker 3 (01:19:45):
I like that if you want to hear that conversation
which includes producer sam and all those other benefits just
joined the film spotting family at film spotting family dot com.
Don't forget to take that twenty percent discount that's running
for a couple of more weeks here. Use the promo
code summer you work in Akoju before Sorry. Yeah, we

(01:20:08):
open Wednesday to Sunday.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
Started eleving a What time is it?

Speaker 3 (01:20:13):
That means that you're here at ten forty five?

Speaker 4 (01:20:15):
Eleven is late?

Speaker 3 (01:20:17):
Anyone late?

Speaker 4 (01:20:17):
He's five?

Speaker 3 (01:20:18):
You know I can cook too. Tony is the new
biopic about the early restaurant career of the late chef,
writer and TV personality Anthony Bourdain. The movie's directed by
Matt Johnson and stars dominic Cessa as Bordain, best known
for his role in Alexander Paines The Holdovers. Annoyingly, Josh
Tony has not yet expanded to my region of the world,

(01:20:41):
which means I have not yet had a chance to
see it. But you have seen it. Johnson, It's worth
noting did also make my favorite film of the year
so far, Nirvana, the Band, The Show, the Movie. I'm
curious whether he brings any of the inspired madness of
that film to this bio pick. But also as someone
who is enough of a Boordain fan that I once

(01:21:03):
ordered The Crab back at Swan Oyster Depot in San
Francisco solely because on Parts unknown he called its buttery enterds,
unicorn juice and a touchstone in my worldwide wanderings. Is
there any chance that two Matt Johnson movies are going
to make my top ten of the year.

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
Buttery innards, Yeah, buttery its yeah, Okay, well, yeah, that's
what they are.

Speaker 3 (01:21:30):
Unicorn juice. Doesn't that sound delicious?

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
Hey, I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to return
to that. I think you're gonna love this movie, Adam,
and it's it's good. I enjoyed it. But yeah, given
your background with Boordain and enjoying Johnson's film, which I
also enjoyed previous to this, though very different energy going
on here, there is some anarchy here. This depiction of

(01:21:56):
Bordain at this age is one of a person trying
to find themselves and doing that all externally, not you know,
not sitting in a room writing in a journal, but
living loudly with other people in their lives and making
mistakes and messing up their lives. And it is in
that sense something of an anti hero drama. I think

(01:22:20):
you can sense a little bit in the filmmaking style
actually the film Drain and the time frame this has
a nineteen seventies feel to it. I forget the exact
year that this is supposed to take place. But the
most consistent through line in terms of it being an
antiher drama is Sessa's performance. I think we were both

(01:22:45):
just incredibly excited to encounter him as a screen presence
in The Holdovers, couldn't wait to see what he did next,
and this is a great part for him to just
double down on the lanky, uncomfortability that he brought to
The Holdovers, and here as Bordain, You just get the

(01:23:06):
sense that he does not care what anyone thinks of
him as a character or as an actor. He's not
pulling any punches here. And his physicality is so much
a part of this. One of Bourdain's instincts, This Bordain's instincts.
His age is just to instinctively lie all the time.
And I love in the physicality. It's almost like Sessa

(01:23:27):
has this very prominent Adams apple and I'm just imagining
like the truth getting caught in that in that Adam's apple,
and it just the truth can't come out. This kid
just lies about his past, about who he is, who
he wants to be, And Susa is mesmerizing to watch
as that sort of character. The movie overall, you can

(01:23:48):
feel it sanding off some of the more unlikable qualities
that might come with that. The line a little bit,
the drug abuse, alcohol abuse. You know, there are bursts
of violence here that Sessa commits to, but that instinct

(01:24:08):
in this character fades away as the movie gradually wants
this to be a learning experience. Summer that gave us
got us closer to the Bordained. You know that we
all treasure those who those who really followed his work,
and so there's just something that moves further away from

(01:24:30):
a nineteen seventies anti hero drama like The Last Detail
or Scarecrow or some of these really bold they the
movie doesn't care what the audience thinks of the movie,
let alone the actor playing the anti hero. Tony does
care a little bit more Sessa doesn't. Tony does. Maybe
that's maybe that's fine for most people. I thought it

(01:24:53):
was maybe held it back a little bit for me,
but still good film, great performance, worth checking out, even
if you you know, don't know anything about Boordain. Really,
I think it still would work for someone.

Speaker 3 (01:25:04):
I have been heartened to see that it's gotten mostly
positive reviews in addition to your positive review. So I
think this weekend is when I finally do get a
chance to see Tony as it is expanding wide. If
you have thoughts on Josh's take, email us feedback at
film Spotting.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
You're at Sacksburger. The at Sacksburger, right, the poet that
was a long time ago, You were brilliant. He wrote
a masterpiece.

Speaker 6 (01:25:28):
It's as if the poems were written yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:25:30):
They're moving, they're scathing, they're timeless. We all think, so
my whole group, your group, and we both caught up
with Late Fame. This is the latest from critic turn
director Kent Jones previously made the documentary Hitchcock True Foe
and then more recently Diane. Late Fame is currently playing

(01:25:51):
in limited release. It stars Willem Dafoe as a New
York poet who's mostly forgotten work has been taken up
by a group of young artists. Now, Diane was something
of a showcase for Mary kay Place she played the
title character. I was very much about that character's experience

(01:26:11):
in the world and psychology. How did you think Late
Fame worked along those lines? When it comes to Defoe,
I think a universally beloved actor with an enormous body
of work early in his career, maybe a few chances
to be center of a movie, but you know, not
so much more lately. I think we think of him
as a welcome supporting presence in movies. Here he is

(01:26:34):
center stage. How did it work as a showcase for him?

Speaker 3 (01:26:38):
I haven't seen Diane, though I have seen other Kent
Jones films. In fact, he was interviewed here on the
show for Hitchcock Trufoe, that documentary, which I believe was
his first film. But hearing that about Mary Kay Place
and it being a showcase your reaction to it, that
doesn't surprise me. After watching Late Fame. I almost never

(01:26:58):
recommend a movie for this primary reason, and there are
other rewards here, but Willem Dafoe's layered, laconic, layered performance
makes Late Fame worth seeking out. That's what I think
the attraction really is here. And it's not so much

(01:27:18):
that I didn't go back and look at his filmography
and and break it down. It's not so much that
we've never seen Dafoe play someone so normal, I suppose,
but it still feels a little bit novel. And maybe
the Florida Project, Yeah exactly, yeah a key, Yeah, Yeah,
that's that's a standout too. There's no like that character.

(01:27:43):
There's no real melancholy to this man, this this poet
who's now a postal worker named Ed Sachsberger. But he
just plays him with such acceptance, he plays him with
a certain resignation. There's a there's a certain man that
he used to be and there's the man he is now.

(01:28:05):
But it's not as if you just understand with Dafoe immediately,
the history that he brings to this man, the arc.
There wasn't some transformation, just the just the art of
time and the idea or the sense that you become

(01:28:25):
who you are. And this this encounter with this very idiosyncratic,
eccentric group of aspiring artists. I guess some of them
are our artists in their own in their own way
that that say they have discovered this book of poems
he wrote and and admire him like he's a genius.

(01:28:48):
This this jolts some recognition back into him of this,
this previous, this previous soul, that he was a man
who who like artists are, or or who like we
presume artists are, someone who who couldn't help but react
to the sounds and the sights and and the people

(01:29:11):
that he encountered, the experiences around him, and he funneled
all of that into his work. And that's that's just
not the person that that he is now. And the
way Dafoe brings all of that to this character, for
me was was something that I just found really enjoyable
watching Late Fame.

Speaker 1 (01:29:32):
Yeah, it's interesting you say he doesn't have a sense
of melancholy. I think you're absolutely right. I think you
know this character. It's not even that he's accepted where
his life has led as you describe it. The passage
of time is so good because it's just where he is.
But he goes about he's a postal worker. Now he
works out a post office, and we see him going

(01:29:53):
through his routine. And you're right, he's not trudging, he's
not sighning. This is just he's not better. He's not better,
exactly right. But I will say what I liked about
Late Fame, in addition to de Foe's performance, was that
I did find it has an undercurrent of melancholy. And
so what you don't get here is this group rediscovering him,

(01:30:17):
as they say, and bringing him back into a lying
and suddenly the fame that was short lived and went
away has returned and he you know, and not to
give away exactly where this ends, but it is not
that inspirational type story that it could have then. And
I think the melancholy that the movie does hold is

(01:30:39):
more about the dissatisfaction that an artistic life will give
if the satisfaction you seek is always recognition. And while
I think that's healthy, there's something inevitably sad about that,
and I think the movie is true about that, and

(01:31:00):
so I appreciated it. I did find I did find
I struggled a little bit with this is a movie, Adam,
that I don't know if it needed, you know, another
pass on the screenplay and I'll mention it's you know,
the people behind it in a second, or if it
just needed more screen time for some of these characters.

(01:31:20):
I did find this world outside of Dafoe and his
New York not as well lived in as I had hoped,
or as unbelievable isn't the right word. But I did
find both the young men who are part of this
group and they call themselves the Enthusiasm Society, and obviously

(01:31:43):
they're supposed you're supposed to laugh at them a little
bit at the beginning. I didn't feel like the movie's
portrait of them progressed much past that. As a matter
of fact, it leaves the main leader of the group,
played by Edmund Donovan, I think really kind of does
him dirty where how that character ends in terms of
seeing them as kind of naive jokes. Now on the

(01:32:04):
other end of that, ed the defaux character hangs out
now with his fellow workers at the post office at
a Billiard's Hall, Pool Hall. And I also felt the
depictions of them were a little less lived in as well,
and some sequences of confrontation with them felt a little
stage And I just don't know if the movie needed

(01:32:25):
more time to percolate what it might be the background here.
Now Kent Jones wrote the script for Diane, that's not
the case here. He's working with a very talented screenwriter,
Sammy Birch, who did May December here adapting in Arthur
Schnitzler novella, so clearly talented people at work. It's just
it felt like it needed to marinate a little more

(01:32:47):
until I experienced something that felt again. I just keep
going back to the idea of lived in. Maybe even
I guess I was thinking at him, you know, this
group of young artists, they're on the verge of being
Wes Anderson caricatures. But I think what you always feel
when you get those sorts of figures in an Anderson
film is the silliness but also also a deep warmth

(01:33:10):
for them and for their dreams. And I could see
the movie kind of wanted this that to be a quality.
Here in late fame, but it didn't quite through for me.
Probably worth mentioning in terms of performance, though, Greta Lee
as well, who's an actress and a spiring actress, kind
of on the fringes of this group. Like Dafoe, who

(01:33:31):
gets a great showcase sequence reading one of his character's
original poems at a recital that this group sets up.
She has a monologue there that's kind of a kind
of a showstopper, and she gets an earlier piece of
performance that's, you know, musical performance that's pretty incredible to

(01:33:51):
outside of those her character also feels a little you know,
could have used more deepening. But in those sequences of performance,
man does she pop. And as you said, Dafoe, so
good throughout.

Speaker 5 (01:34:06):
My book.

Speaker 4 (01:34:08):
It's an honor to meet you, mister sachs Perk.

Speaker 1 (01:34:10):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:34:11):
Of course this sick xactly how you would look. So
here is right here, but you will again. You might
think the boys are silly, but they have connections. I
take point about Lee, and those two stand out performances
are standouts. But I didn't know that Lee, just full disclosure,

(01:34:33):
I didn't know that she had that theatricality in her
I haven't seen that in her previous work, and to
see it come out here was startling in a good way.
And I think the fact that she is playing such
a literally theatrical character, someone who is who is almost

(01:34:53):
acting like Norma Desmond in every scene in terms of
her bigness, To then have that offset by at least
one scene where we understand that this is someone who
is actually quite wounded and quite vulnerable, I thought that
that at least added some more depth to that character
that made me appreciate both performance and the character more.

(01:35:16):
I do agree with your overall thoughts on on the
broadness of the two groups here, the two worlds that
he is trying to navigate. Maybe what you said about
Meyers the Leader and Edmund Donovan, he was someone I
felt like I'm not familiar with, maybe I've seen him

(01:35:37):
in other performances. Was very interested in him as a character,
and you can see how that character and the enthusiasm
that he brings for Sacksburger's work, how intoxicating that could be.
You said that it kind of does him dirty. Maybe
you can clarify that, I don't know what doing him
dirty would be, because I really appreciated the slipperiness of

(01:36:01):
that character and that ultimately I don't know who he is,
and I don't think that's the fault of the screenplay.
I don't think that character knows exactly who or what
he is. I think he is so struggling to figure
out what he is, what kind of an artist he is,

(01:36:22):
what success is to him. There is a part of
him that is the real deal in so many ways
and an absolute fraud in so many ways. And I
think the movie understands that about him.

Speaker 1 (01:36:35):
Yeah, I guess I didn't find that complicated. I found
it simple where he registered as a phony pretty much
from the beginning, and there are glimpses here there of
where he wants to be something more authentic but only
knows how to fake it. And his final scene is

(01:36:56):
kind of tripling down on his phoniness and then he
just disappears. Yeah, you know, the final it goes back
to the Wes Andersonian warmth. You know, even that character,
he's not a villain. But if there if there was
a villain in this movie, in this movie, in this story,
it would probably be him. But even that character, you know,
to the points you're making that you picked up on

(01:37:17):
more these other sides to him. I would like to
have seen a warmth towards those desires of his rather
than repeated examples of his phoniness, even though there's a
great there's a really funny bit involving a command to
Alexa and his character that yeah, I got.

Speaker 3 (01:37:35):
Word, I got pasted. I got past the phoniness and
started to believe him the same way that ed does.
And I think that's to both Edmund Donovan's credit but
also to Defoe's credit, right that I started to And
I don't even think it's a matter of succumbing or
wanting to believe it too much, though there's that element there,

(01:37:57):
without a doubt, there is that part of it because
you're seeing it through that character's eyes, through Sacksburger's eyes.
But it's also that it's in the performance and it's
in the writing. To an extent. I saw enough conviction
in him, and I think there is enough conviction inside him.
There's so much truth in what he's saying.

Speaker 5 (01:38:15):
But the.

Speaker 3 (01:38:18):
Fraudulent part of him is there. There's a huckster in
and you're right then at the end, the way that
the way that character presents himself. Ultimately, I thought push
that character too far. And you see something similar happen
with the Enthusiasm Society, even in its presentation of you know,

(01:38:40):
the scene where they're they're telling ed kind of who
they all are in the lay of the land, and
they say over there, those are the influencers. And that
seemed to me like such a naive way, lack of
word of presenting what I can't imagine that even in

(01:39:02):
New York City there's actually a group of people who
sit around and call themselves or or think of themselves
as influencers, who sit around at the top of a
of a bar with their phones, and they don't sit
around in a group like that.

Speaker 1 (01:39:15):
And what it did, exactly what it did, is it
reflected back on the caricature nature of the Enthusiasm Society.
Is like, so, yeah, it meant to distinguish them, but
it really only mirrored it. So yeah, that wasn't one
of the strong points either, I think. But again I
think we'd both Yeah, I think we both still recommend

(01:39:35):
late Fame a lowly on the strength of the PA.

Speaker 3 (01:39:37):
I'll just add that what you said about Melancholy, I
think is ultimately right where I was thinking. More is
that there isn't that bitterness in him? There isn't that
regret in him now?

Speaker 1 (01:39:48):
But which is interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:39:50):
Yes, But the more he interacts, the more he does
think about who he used to be, the more he
does think about the life of an artist. I think
some of that melancholy, that there is more melancholy in
him than he may have thought. That there is more
wanting in him, there's more desire, there's more desires in

(01:40:11):
him than he may have previously considered. And so I
think that is what makes that character interesting. And I'm
sure when you're talking about his friends and maybe a
bit of caricature and how they're portrayed and some of
the writing, this is what I would say about Defoe's performance.
There's a scene where he interacts with them on the

(01:40:34):
occasion of a birthday for one of those factors, and
it gets a little bit overwrought, and I don't think
that the line delivery. I don't think that the line
that Defoe's character has to say is particularly believable. I
think he says something like you have no idea who

(01:40:56):
you're talking to, which the implication is this is a
point where Ed is finally, maybe for the first time
since he was a young poet in forty fifty years
is feeling himself a little bit, and his feelings of
frustration are believable. It's the way he expresses it via

(01:41:18):
that line are not really believed and that that's all true.
But still, Josh watching it, I'm giving Dafoe enough credit
that he says it with enough melancholy, he says it
with enough layers attached to it. It's it's subtle conviction.
It's not so much force that I almost heard it

(01:41:39):
more like a question than a pure admonishment. It was
almost like he was while he was saying it, it
was like he was trying to get a grasp on
It was almost like it was revealing of himself. I
have no idea who you're talking to at this point,
more than he was really trying to put them in
their place. So that that that told me just how

(01:42:02):
in tune I was with Dafoe.

Speaker 1 (01:42:04):
Yeah, that That's was a key scene for me in
this notion of the movie needed to simmer some more
because so much happened in that scene. Whereas I loved
what it wanted to do, but I needed ed to
more slowly realize the things that the screenplay was asking

(01:42:26):
him to realize and portray in those three minutes. Now,
to your point, Defoe kind of saves the scene, right,
But he's coming to realization here. Maybe I don't fit
in with these guys who've been my friends for the
past twenty years and my coworkers as well as I thought.
And that's one of the things the screenplay wants him

(01:42:47):
to realize during this one confrontation at the birthday party,
when in reality, like it would have been a long time,
many more scenes of this to be a developing awareness.
You know, it's a movie. We only have what ninety
to two hours, ninety minutes of two hours, But in
a movie as thoughtful and as quiet and as patient

(01:43:08):
as this, it's a bit jarring when those sorts of
realizations are expected to happen quickly in one scene.

Speaker 3 (01:43:14):
Yeah, I think I think that's exactly right, and I
will just give it credit. Though for me, the Miliu
New York in the Fall artists all that intellectual discussion,
the conflict of it being all of the quiet variety
that it is. There's no major drama here. Yeah, it
was for me, at least for the first forty five minutes.

(01:43:36):
It was all just cat nip. This was this was
such such a movie. I felt like I hadn't seen
in a long time, and I was really enjoying it.

Speaker 1 (01:43:44):
I love that it's either I mean, I would guess
it feels from the way people are moving through the
city like February. You know, you've they've got their coats
to be that they've been on for months and the
hat is just what defoe? You know that spoiler cap
like what you do now? And I love that sort
of It's somehow romantic without being movie New York romance.

(01:44:08):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (01:44:08):
Yeah, I would fall, but it's not. It's not fall
like leaves are falling. It's not that romantic older trail.
It's colder. Yeah. Late Fame is out now in limited release.
We'd love to hear your thoughts about it if you've
seen it feedback at Film spotting dot Net. Wanted to
take a moment Josh to talk about an opportunity that

(01:44:30):
Sam and I had just this past week where we
got an email fairly out of the blue from a
Netflix rep, someone who we've known for a while who
does pr for Netflix. Actually, someone David Kuozo, who has
been a longtime listener of this show who knows that
I'm located in Iowa, and said, you know, the Twins

(01:44:54):
and Phillies are playing. MLB has done a couple of
games here at the Field of Dreams, which is in Dyersville,
maybe an hour and a half from where I'm located.
And they said, Twins and Phillies are playing in about
a week. Would you be interested in coming to the game.
And I said, well, yeah, of course I'm interested in

(01:45:15):
coming to the game. I like baseball, I grew up
on baseball. I love the movie Field of Dreams. I
have only been to the Field of Dreams once, but
it was a pretty great experience. When Sarah took me
for a milestone birthday fairly recently, I said, the only
thing is I gotta bring my producer. Can Sam come?
And they said they said, no problem. So Sam and

(01:45:38):
I are pretty excited. But Josh, we don't realize until
the night before when we get our tickets that we're
sitting right behind home plate. We're sitting in the second
row right behind home plate, Big Way, So we had
the opportunity to not only go and spend a few

(01:45:59):
hours at the Field of Dreams where it's one of
those movie sets where you get to get to actually
just walk around the field is the movie set, and
you get to sit on the benches just like they
do in the movie scenes. You get to walk up
to the house, you get to go to the pitcher's
mound and the batter's box and do the whole thing.
You get to walk into the corn and all that stuff.
But then you get to walk through the corn and

(01:46:20):
walk over to this new field that they've constructed just
for this game, okay, and sit down in this small
little stadium that only holds eight thousand people, and we
get to sit there. I've never had seats that good
for a Major League baseball game or any baseball game
other than maybe Little league. And we got to sit there,
and it was fascinating because we even had one listener, Josh,

(01:46:42):
who didn't know about us going to this game but
just happened to be watching the game on Netflix and
sent me a note on Facebook and was like, I
see you on Netflix right now. Didn't recognize Sam because
he had his glasses on and a hat on, but
did recognize me sitting there in the second row. It
really was a great time just being able to hang

(01:47:03):
out with Sam for a couple hours, sit at the ballpark,
watch a great game. The Phillies kind of crushed the
Twins seven to one. Schwarber hit at least two home runs?
Did he hit three? I need to look back at
the box score. He hit at least two home runs,
including a leadoff home run right into the corn.

Speaker 5 (01:47:21):
Schwarmer with a shout out to the corn and line,
kiss your buckets. Job.

Speaker 2 (01:47:26):
What a way to open the ball game.

Speaker 3 (01:47:30):
We had a great time. So I have to think
I have to thank David Ross, Lipschultz, It at Netflix,
Corey Rosen, they all made this happen for us, and
it's it's an experience we'll never forget.

Speaker 1 (01:47:41):
I'm glad you guys got it in because I know,
whether you know, as it was across the Midwest last week,
weather was dicey and there was a question you might
not be able to make it, So yeah, go ahead,
how about that.

Speaker 3 (01:47:53):
We woke up that morning, as you know, we had
a film spotting production meeting that morning and the forecast
was so bad. Sam and I were talking about how
this is going to get called off, right, Like maybe
we shouldn't even drive there because it was it was
rain all day and it looked like into the night too,
and we got nothing. It stopped it. It stopped at

(01:48:14):
like noon and never started again, and the game happened
and it was beautiful. So thanks again to everyone who
made that happen. And if you do want to stare
at Sam and I as we watch a baseball game
and occasionally eat concession food, you can do that the
games available to stream on Netflix. It's very weird having
to be self conscious when you watch a baseball game,

(01:48:35):
knowing that your friends and family are watching the game
and watching you and everything.

Speaker 1 (01:48:41):
Like, Sam played it right though. I like that he
has a disguise for he's so famous now as Film
Spotting producer, he goes out, he has to do the
baseball cap and sunglasses. There you go.

Speaker 3 (01:48:52):
Some other business we wanted to take care of recently
in the Film Spotting feed. We have really enjoyed showcasing
some other shows that are part of our Inflection Network,
and we have recently partnered with a show called Table Read.
That is a great show. And you'll understand why as

(01:49:13):
you hear a little bit about the show, and as
you hear some of those shows, Josh, the show is
such a good fit with film Spotting that we're actually
going to be showcasing them over the next four weeks.
So Film Spotting listeners every Saturday or Sunday are going
to get a table Read show in the Film Spotting feed.
So we thought, why don't have the guys from table

(01:49:34):
Read and the show title tells you a little bit,
gives you an idea what the show is like and
what the content is about. We thought, why not give
our listeners a little bit of a sense of what
the show is, who the people are behind it, why
we're featuring it in the Film Spotting feed. And that's
what we're going to do now. I taped a little

(01:49:56):
conversation with the three executive producers of Table Read, and
we would like to bring that to you now. All right,
I'm very pleased to be joined now by the executive
producers of Table Read, Sean Sharma, Mark Nell, Jack Levy.
Table Read a podcast that we're excited to be partnering with.

(01:50:16):
Film Spotting. Listeners are going to be getting table Read
in their feed here over the next few weeks. The
podcast is Webby nominated, Shorty nominated, and iHeart Podcast Awards
nominee Just tons of accolades that I'm sure we will
touch on here as we talked to Mark, Jack and Sean,

(01:50:37):
and I actually want to start with you, Sean, because
I'd love to share with our audience the origin story.
How did table read come about?

Speaker 5 (01:50:47):
Yeah, thank you, And we're Webby Winners, not just nominated
Webby Winners. He won the Best Fiction last year, which
was just amazing. But my apologies, no, no, it's an
honor to be nominated and having one. But you know,
the story just comes to the fact that I got
involved in SAG after leadership and volunteers and back around
twenty fifteen. And in twenty sixteen, I was sitting around

(01:51:09):
with some of my co leaders there saying, how do
we work more with our partners in filmmaking, especially the
writers at the Writers Guild.

Speaker 3 (01:51:16):
Because there's so.

Speaker 5 (01:51:18):
Many great scripts that have not been brought to life.
It's easy for us to bring actors together to read
those scripts and then we get to enjoy that experience
with each other. So we started doing table reads. It
started doing them in person, especially at the American Film
Institute in North Hollywood here, and we started working with
the Blacklist with eventually Coverfly with the Writers Guild members,

(01:51:41):
the Writers Guild Foundation, and Jack would start coming to
attend some of those table reads. He was just so
interested and loved what we were doing and where our
brains were starting to turn on about how we can
do something together with this, and we started pitching like
a TV show idea we were excited about that was
kind of like the Hollywood Report, a round table with
all the actors sitting around in a circle and having

(01:52:03):
a conversation. And then the pandemic struck and that kind
of put a pin in that conversation. And then Jack
was getting all kinds of offers to help the Universal
and other studios kind of build their podcast departments, and
he's like, why don't we do it as a podcast.
So that's when he reached out to Mark and we
started to taking some of our favorite scripts and bringing

(01:52:23):
them into a studio with the actors sitting in a
circle and a'll miked up and we would have an
incredible read. We would deck out the space like we
did with the in person reads, and then you know,
Jack would go to town with his team to produce
all the audio after the recording, with sound effects and
music and all this stuff. So it sounds like you're
listening to a movie. But as Jack says so brilliantly,

(01:52:46):
it combines the best aspects of live performance like seeing
theater or something, with the polish of a major Hollywood
studio with somebody who's won an Emmy for his work.
So that's kind of where it came from, just a
passion for stories. And you know, the one thing I
like to point out is that the table read is
the one time that the writer's writing is done kind

(01:53:07):
of purely without being changed, because as soon as they
sell it to a studio, they're out of the mix.
As soon as you get it produced and edited, it's
going to be changed during production and editing. So table
reads are such a gift because it's the purest expression
of what that writer wrote. And we wouldn't have any
of the movies or TV shows we love without the writers.
So it's it started as a love letter to them

(01:53:29):
and it's just become such a gift.

Speaker 3 (01:53:32):
Quick follow of Sean, how are the writers then typically
involved in the table read taping?

Speaker 5 (01:53:37):
Well, when we started doing them, we just said, you know, hey,
just you know, we would love to do a table
read of your script or the writers Guild would just
bring us a script or you know, the Blacklist would
just bring us a script, and then we would just
go to town. We would you know, highlight the scripts
for all the actors, cast the actors. We would have
table tents and food inspired by the script. So if
there's lasagna in the script, we'd have lasagna at the reading.

(01:53:59):
We'd deck out the room, we'd have trailers on the TV,
we'd have we just went we We even had to
deal with the prop house in La to have professional
movie props on the table for people to get inspired by.
So it became kind of like a planet Hollywood or
like a rainforest cafe of the writer's vision. And they
would walk in just given a time in a day

(01:54:21):
and they'd be like, who are you people?

Speaker 6 (01:54:23):
How are you doing all of this for me?

Speaker 5 (01:54:24):
For a stranger, for free? And so we never asked
them to do anything other than come and just be celebrated.

Speaker 3 (01:54:31):
Jack this show, as we heard webbe winning number one
on Apple podcasts us Fiction chart. So clearly you've had
a lot of success. What would you say is the
secret sauce? What has contributed to the success of this show.

Speaker 6 (01:54:50):
It's the same thing that contributes to the success of
your show. We start with great stories, great great storytelling,
and that's unobstructed. It's like the most altruistic musician is
all about the music. They're not about the marketing. They're
not about how much they sell each record for.

Speaker 5 (01:55:04):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:55:05):
So, you know, we are all inside the Hollywood garden
and we all see amazing scripts every day. We've all
been sent scripts by the studios that for some reason
don't get made and you think, what happened to that
brilliant piece of IP I read? So it starts with
the story. But the real secret sauce is the community.
You know, people who come to Los Angeles to be
in film, to be in music. They love making independent films.

(01:55:28):
They love going into the studio and recording records. And
that's not about the business of Hollywood. That's about the
creative of Hollywood. And literally, we have the finest of
every trade, writers, actors, musicians, post production people, right, and
we deliver the secret sauces. We deliver award winning trades.

(01:55:50):
I mean literally, We've had Tony winners, Grammy winners, Emmy winners,
We've had you know everyone on our show, you know,
I mean Oscar multiple Oscar nominees. The only thing we
don't have is the studio. So it's the very best
part of Hollywood. And listen, the worst part of the
movie business is the business part. People love making films,
So it's the community and who shows up. And by

(01:56:12):
the way, it's not just the celebrity element. You know,
working professionals, writers with scores of scripts, people who've been
in the writer's room but never been feed you know,
the most award winning scripts that have never been made.
We do those. But at the same time, you know,
we've worked with anonymous content and Scooter Braun and Tom Holland.
And I'll tell you something that Sean doesn't know. Just yesterday,

(01:56:33):
I got a script from Paul Schrader Wow, an unproduced
script written in nineteen seventy eight from the guy who
wrote A Taxi Driver American Jigglow. I mean, I mean,
come on, raging Bull. And you know, he wrote such
a gracious letter about the show, So you.

Speaker 3 (01:56:51):
Know, that's fantastic. A one time, a one time guest
here on Film Spotting. That was at first a very
intimidating interview, and then he was kind of a teddy
bear to talk to, so it was well.

Speaker 6 (01:57:01):
As I said, it's about community. You know, it's no
different than Slash having a jam session at his house.
Everyone who shows up shows up without the pretense because
they love the art. Every time we do a table read,
everyone Sean fills that room with It does not matter
if they're just getting started or they have a shell
full of statues. There's zero ego when you show up
on a set, Adam, there is always ego because there's

(01:57:24):
agents and who's getting paid more and why didn't my
lines come in right? None of that happens, And I
think that translates to the content. People have a great time,
and it translates to the energy of the read we do,
which translates to the thirty awards we've.

Speaker 5 (01:57:37):
Won absolutely quick. Little thing like we all geeked out.
I've been on a show for the last eight years
called The Chosen, and when Paul wrote a post about
how much he loved our show, we all were just
like wowed because we have so much reverence for him.
So that's super cool Jack to get that.

Speaker 1 (01:57:55):
Oh, I'm gonna pin him on that today.

Speaker 6 (01:57:57):
I'm gonna send him a no, He's gonna love that
tie in. I'm telling you. I mean, as you know,
he's a community guy. I think most of the top
people are commune. They put up with the business because
they have to. It's nothing that they like.

Speaker 3 (01:58:07):
Yeah, So, Mark, we we have a lot of aspiring
writers and current writers in our audience, So I think
they're they're really going to enjoy if they're not already
familiar with your show, getting familiar with your show, and
I'd love to give them some starting points. So can
you share with them a favorite episode of yours and
also also give them some context on the first episode

(01:58:31):
that we're going to drop into our feed for them.
I believe it's called Suburban Night, Act one. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:58:38):
Well, I'll give you two of my favorites. And and
you know it's hard. It's it's you know, I have
four children and eight grandchildren, and if I had to
pick a favorite, I probably could, but I couldn't say
it out loud. But dream World is one of my
favorites written by Senny post to Leone Uh, the lead
uh in that in that one is one of the

(01:58:59):
faces that you see right here on the screen, And
it's just it's such a wonderful script with characters that
we all loved that. We all grew up with, you know,
a little bo peep and and Jack and the bean stock,
but they're all twisted in a really really wonderful way
and it's a it's a it's a really it's an
adventure and it's it's so cool. The other one that

(01:59:20):
I really love came to us through Ty Burrell's production company.
It's called Peev and Franny, written by Tommy Wallack Uh
and actually Tie handles the narration of that script. Fred
Armison was attached to it. So Fred came in and
read with us, and the amazing Kensington Tallman, who is

(01:59:40):
just such an amazing actor. She and Liam Richardson read
lead for that script. Both just did such a great job.
So the Dreamworld and Peeb and Franny really hold a
special place in my heart. Suburbanite is super fun. Jim O'Hare,
Jade Taylor, Darren Tunder, Rob Fitzgerald who just did such

(02:00:03):
a great job. And then two of are really our
biggest supporters, Ashley Platts and Ze Golden, helped fill out
that and and the short is that there's a sex
demon that moves into a quiet neighborhood and Jim O'Hare
plays Walter Nope, kind of the bankrupt antique salesman, and

(02:00:24):
he's forced to enlist the help of Rob's character, who
is a B movie horror host, to kind of save things.
So that's written by Nick Banister. It is so freaking funny.
It's just terrific. I think that was I think this
is what the third script that Jim did with us,

(02:00:45):
and problem the fourth or fifth that Darren Tunder has
done with us. And that's what makes this so special
is we've kind of created this community of actors who
really not just enjoy doing what they do, but enjoy
kind of what has been created. And you know, I
will say that we created it in a sense, but

(02:01:06):
they all created right their their willingness to come into
this room and just enjoy themselves. One of the things
that we say is that we kind of lean on
the imperfection of what a table read is. So people listen,
they'll hear a fourth wall break that will sometimes leave in.

(02:01:29):
I think I've only taken a couple of them out.
One was during a very very emotional scene Sean got
the giggles.

Speaker 3 (02:01:36):
And I.

Speaker 2 (02:01:39):
Because I'm like, oh my gosh, that we can't leave
that in there, but it.

Speaker 5 (02:01:43):
Will not let me live that down. He will not
let me.

Speaker 2 (02:01:46):
But it really is it's you know, what has been created.
You know, yes, the three of us started it, but
but what has been created is this just this movement
of really wonderful, talented people who want to come in
and really do have such a good time in the room.

(02:02:07):
And that's what kind of I think makes it a
bit different than some of the other things.

Speaker 3 (02:02:12):
Well, we are thrilled to hopefully not just be part
of a network together with you, but be part of
a community with you now. And I think thank you
so much for jumping on and sharing your story with us.
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (02:02:26):
Well, thanks to Mark, Jack and Sean for giving some
time there to talk about table Read. As Adam said,
you will be getting some episodes the next few weeks
in your Film Spotting feed. If you'd like to go
ahead and subscribe to table Read, just go ahead and
do that wherever you listen to podcasts. Time now for

(02:02:46):
Massacre Theater, where Adam and I perform a scene and
you get a chance to win a Film Spotting prize.
Last time we massacred this scene.

Speaker 4 (02:02:54):
What's the thoughts for two thousand degrees? Make enough to
turn steel into butter. We'll heard it first. It's too hot,
Issy a flame, series the nerve and shut killing them.

(02:03:17):
You're going to shock and oh you feel coold?

Speaker 1 (02:03:24):
That was Thomas Jane with Eddie Jemison in two thousand
and four's The Punisher written by Jonathan Henslay and Michael France,
directed by Henslay. That massacre was part of our spider
Man brand New Day Show. So why that scene from
the Punisher.

Speaker 3 (02:03:39):
Here is Pavla Masik in Toronto. This one was instantly
recognizable for me, even though I have not seen this
movie in nearly twenty years, and yes, I did return
to it to watch the director's cut, not only because
of the amazing rendition of Tom Jane's Punisher by Adam,
but also because it is one of the three good
scenes in the movie, the others being Harry Heck's song

(02:04:00):
and the fight with the Russian. Who could forget Howard
Hawks would not have liked this one. It has at
least three good scenes I remember, but at least a
few bad ones. But my bar for a good movie
is lower than great filmmakers. Adam, you should squeeze it in.
Roy Scheider is in it. I don't know if that's
all dually forgot that. The obvious connection is that John
Bernthall's rendition of the Punisher character appears in Spider Man

(02:04:23):
Brand New Day. But where's the fun in sticking to
the obvious connection? The Punisher connection itself goes a little deeper.
The Punisher two thousand and four was directed by Jonathan Hensley,
who also directed the late and talented Ray Stevenson as
the Punisher in Lexi Alexandra's Punisher war Zone, which also
had three good scenes but more than a few bad ones. Adam,
maybe a double bill. Sure that sounds torturous.

Speaker 1 (02:04:46):
But wait, Pavla has more. The Punisher also connects to
everybody to Kenmeer Street, The Punisher two thousand and four
features John Travoltaz, it's main villain, who starred in Primary Colors,
alongside Emma Thompson, who, of course appears in Kenmer Street.
I scratched my head to connect the Punisher to the
Samurai and the Prisoner, but here goes Kyoshi Kurosawa directed

(02:05:08):
De Guero type am I saying that right, which I
was lucky enough to catch at Tiff, starring Tahi Raheem
who did appear in Madame Webb, perhaps the worst Spider
Man or at least Spider Man adjacent film to date.
To Hai Raheem also start.

Speaker 3 (02:05:22):
As a titular character in The mauritsh Maran Mauritanian.

Speaker 1 (02:05:26):
Mauritanian Pabo is really putting me through it here, Mauritanian
co starring Benedict Cumberbatch aka Doctor Strange, who has shared
the screen with Tom Holland's Webslinger, who got through all
of those. Thank you Pavla for all.

Speaker 3 (02:05:42):
That Jackson Goldberg was able to do what Pavla wasn't
in the interest of variety. I guess you could say
the scene finds Punisher extracting information from a shackled hostage
via unexpected means, like how Murashiga does in The Samurai
and the Prisoner kinda. Also, Punisher's last name is Castle,
a thing Japan had in abundance back then. I know

(02:06:04):
I'm reaching here, alas I don't think they had popsickles
in Feudal Japan.

Speaker 1 (02:06:10):
We also heard from Eric Jensen in New Jersey Winning
Life as a viewer of Thomas James the Punisher, obviously
related Spider Man brand New Day as both feature actors
named Tom, the titular superhero suffering from the loss of
those closest Today. There's also the clear tying of Punishers
roommates being played by actors Rebecca Roman Mystique and Ben

(02:06:31):
Foster Angel, who may or may not play a role
in characters introduced in future MCU movies. If it's not
one of those two reasons, I'm not sure why you
choose the Punisher, unless you wanted more people to beware
of John Travolta's historic early two thousands run that included
Battlefield Earth Sword Swordfish Yikes, and film Spotting's first ever

(02:06:51):
review be Cool. Lastly, Adam, you nailed the coolness. Nailed it,
Thomas Jane oozed in nineties two thousands.

Speaker 3 (02:07:00):
Yeah, wow, Oozed. It sounds like an infection. Jeremiah Conway says,
I would like to note that the reason I am
not a winner is not because I've seen the film
I haven't, but because I recognized the scene from its
comic book inspiration Punisher war Zone number one. God help me.
I'm a forty eight year old man with a teenage
son and who teaches high school and am therefore trusted

(02:07:20):
with the safety and well being of about one hundred
kids a day, and yet I remembered that scene instantly.
The joke is that he's holding a popsicle to the
guy's back and blow torching a hunk of meat or something.
This is why I'm not a winner.

Speaker 1 (02:07:34):
Do't be so hard on yourself, Jeremiah. A final comment
from Josh Stolberg. Adam and Josh's performances hurt my ears
more than being tortured by Frank Castle and the Punisher,
which is where the scene comes from. And while most
will claim the connection is Frank Castle appearing in Brand
New Day, I'm certain they picked the Punisher because Brand
New Day was shot almost entirely in Glasgow, and everybody

(02:07:57):
to come your street focuses on Glasgow's Pollock shields protest
deep pull there, Josh, how about that very It was
all rage when we first arrived in Scotland because I
think they wrapped up possibly last summer. Yeah, Glasgow doubling
for New York City.

Speaker 3 (02:08:15):
All right, thank you everybody for all the deep cuts there,
all the great feedback on mass theater, even though there
seems to be some disagreement about the spectacularness of my performance, Josh,
reach into the film Spotting hat and pick out this
week's winner.

Speaker 1 (02:08:31):
Our winner is a familiar name family member, Julio Olivera
from Austin, Texas.

Speaker 3 (02:08:36):
I don't think Julio has won before, which seems crazy.
Congratulations Julio. I know you don't need the trial membership
to the film Spotting family. Maybe you need a new
film Spotting t shirt or a tote bag. Email feedback
at film spotting dot net and we will hook.

Speaker 4 (02:08:50):
You up with the toys symbol. Would the detours?

Speaker 3 (02:08:57):
Would they simple?

Speaker 1 (02:08:58):
Would the de tours?

Speaker 3 (02:09:00):
Samet? Why do you say that?

Speaker 1 (02:09:01):
Why do you say tour?

Speaker 3 (02:09:02):
Will you said? Say it?

Speaker 5 (02:09:03):
Like I said?

Speaker 3 (02:09:06):
We move on now to this terrible accent edition of
Massacre Theater. We have definitely done this film before. I
can't believe we have never done this scene before. I
am positive, I'm I'm almost positive. We've played this scene
as of a top five and I think a lot
of people are going to get it, whether they have
seen this movie or not. So I'm happy with this choice.

Speaker 1 (02:09:27):
Do you remember did this movie take a lot of
heat for the accents in it? I don't remember when
it came out. I remember it being widely beloved.

Speaker 3 (02:09:36):
Yeah, I don't know enough people saw it to get
mad about it.

Speaker 1 (02:09:39):
Yeah, I guess it. It wasn't initially a hit, but
I feel like it grew and people do love this movie.
We're both fans. But I gotta say, in my deep research,
which involved watching the scene just now, I don't know
how they weren't made fun of for these accents. Well,
I mean, I don't think you and I have to
do a lot of hamming it up here. We just

(02:10:00):
gotta play what we saw.

Speaker 3 (02:10:02):
There's some heritage there at least with one of the
actors for sure, so they can get away with it, can't.

Speaker 1 (02:10:08):
That doesn't get away with it. It doesn't always mean
it's good.

Speaker 3 (02:10:11):
That is true. We'll see what we can get away
with or if we'll set back diplomatic relations one hundred years.
I started off, you're gonna give me the action? How
do I get into character here? I don't know I'm
playing the serious scold. I don't know I'll ever do it.

Speaker 1 (02:10:29):
Yep, thank You'll be all right?

Speaker 3 (02:10:31):
Okay, here we goin faction. Please just come on. I
want to know for who just make the side order spaghetti? Please,
I want to know for who is it the four
for the lady with the risotto? What why she likes starch?

Speaker 4 (02:10:50):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (02:10:51):
Come on, I'll make it myself.

Speaker 6 (02:10:55):
Dah, who are.

Speaker 1 (02:10:56):
These the people in America? I needed to talk to her?

Speaker 3 (02:11:00):
Oh? Please, what's you going to do? Tell the customer
what she can Eatah, that's what she wants. This is
what the customer asked for. Naked, make it the pasta? Naked,
make it, make it the pasta. Come on, let's go
and and the scene.

Speaker 1 (02:11:19):
I'll tell you what did set back diplomatic relations? The
sargers we both chose to use. You have to unplanned,
you have to and probably deeply inappropriate.

Speaker 3 (02:11:29):
You can't do the scene without Wow. Okay, I know
what filmed. We just massacred email the movies title, your name,
and your location. Send him to feedback at filmspotting dot net.
The deadline is Monday, huks thirty first. We will select
the winner randomly from all the correct entries and announce
it in a couple of weeks. I feel like I
might order risotto and spaghetti.

Speaker 1 (02:11:52):
M sure, I'm always a good choice.

Speaker 3 (02:11:55):
That's the show, Josh, Yeah, I think.

Speaker 1 (02:11:57):
We need to get out of here, find Adam in
the show on Instagram, Facebook and letterboxed, YouTube, Blue Sky,
as well at film spotting I'm at those places Larsen
on film We are independently produced and listeners supported. You
can support the show by joining the film Spotting Family
at film spottingfamily dot com. You can listen early in
ad free. You'll get monthly bonus episodes, a weekly newsletter,

(02:12:19):
and access to the entire show. For show t shirts
another merch go to filmspotting dot net slash shop.

Speaker 3 (02:12:26):
Next week in the film Spotting Feed, the Movie Racket
with Michael Phillips will be examining this question about scoring music,
Michael's beloved topic, how much is how much is too much?
It's going to be a fun show. Tuesday, Film Spotting SVU.
They're looking at the high school theater dramedy. Don't say

(02:12:49):
good luck. It's got Sonny Sandler, Melanie Lynsky, Steve Buscemi,
Julia Hart, who made Fast Color and I'm Your Woman directs.
Sam van Holgren has seen it. He says, good movie,
exclamation point. Put it on the poster, he says, especially
for musical theater families. And he would know.

Speaker 1 (02:13:04):
I was just going to ask surely. I mean, they
should have given Sam early access to this one. It's
sick at his all.

Speaker 3 (02:13:10):
Thursday, The Next Picture Show has a new pairing clearly
similar mindset to me with the End of Oak Street
and so many others, David Robert Mitchell's The End of
Oak Street and Steve Spielberg's.

Speaker 1 (02:13:21):
The War of the World. Back to Spielberg for them
and War of the Worlds, I'm gonna say I've got,
as you know, second tier Spielberg maybe third. Yeah, it's
a good one.

Speaker 3 (02:13:34):
It's a really good down for me.

Speaker 1 (02:13:37):
And it's definitely it's better than the End of Oak Street.
I'll say that.

Speaker 3 (02:13:41):
Okay, we disagree, but we'll save that for another time.
Friday on Film Spotting, I'm putting an asterisk here because
as of this taping we don't have it scheduled, but
it is penciled in. We are hoping to do our
top five needle Drops with Rico Galiano from the Movie Podcast.
They just concluded taping and have put out their series

(02:14:04):
about the best needle drops in movie history, so we
thought we'd have him on and explore that topic with him.

Speaker 1 (02:14:10):
All right, hope that works out. Film Spotting is produced
by Golden Joe to So and Sam Van Hoggren. Without
Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go. Our production
assistant is Sophie Kempenar. Special thanks to everyone at wb
EAZ Chicago. More information is available at wbez dot org.
For film Spotty, I'm Josh.

Speaker 3 (02:14:28):
Larson and I met him Kempinar. Thanks for listening.

Speaker 4 (02:14:30):
This conversation can serve no purpose anymore but burn

All Episodes

The End of Oak Street, plus Tony and Late Fame | #1077

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;}The End of Oak Street, plus Tony and Late Fame | #1077