October 9, 2025 • 55 mins
Join us on Houselights as we dive into the sci-fi wonder of Robert Zemeckis's 1997 film, "Contact." With a story by Carl Sagan, this episode explores the film's ambitious themes of faith, science, and politics, featuring a stellar cast including Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey. We discuss the film's technical achievements, its place in Zemeckis's filmography, and the dualities present in its narrative. Tune in for a thoughtful analysis and a nostalgic look back at a 90s classic.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome back to House Lights, our director discussion show here
on the Nerd Party Network. This week, we're continuing to
look at Zamechas of the nineteen nineties with nineteen ninety
seven's Contact with a story by Carl Sagan and Anne Duran.
Will this podcast last eighteen hours or no time at all?
(00:42):
I'm your host Stargazer Darren Moser, and I'm joined again
by my friends Head of the National Security Council and
wear of some fine cologne, John Mills and recursive billionaire
tr Raddell. This film is shocked full of fi wonder
both and it's cast and its effects. If we don't
(01:04):
convince you with our sizeable ratings, well that would just
be an awful waste of space. Gentlemen, this movie some good,
meaty sci fi. I can seek my teeth then too.
I'm so excited.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
My first question for everybody, I gotta know I've read
the book that this is based on. Have either of you?
I have not.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I know a lot about the differences between the two,
but I haven't read the book.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I highly recommend the book. I I this is a
classic example. It's not like Shining Level two different things
sort of thing. But all of the decisions they make
to streamline makes so much sense in the film, but
then when you read the book, you're like, oh, like it, actually,
I would kind.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Of more Jurassic Park, where Jurassic Park really goes into
the minutia versus the movie.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Uh yeah, I'd say that's closer than like with Shining,
Like there's no yeah, yeah, that stuff a very apt comparison.
But there is definitely a lot of streamlining with this film,
but also some decisions that actually the special effects will
touch on that I can't wait to talk about.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yay, Well, Starry about streamlining, Tristan, did this feel like
a streamlined film? Because it's two and a half hours long.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
This is the Mechis's longest film, which is crazy to
me because you think Forrest Gump or Castaway I would
have sworn Yeah, yeah, no, it's a I would not
call this a streamline film. But you know, when comparing
it to the book and like the scientific discoveries in
(02:43):
the book and the intellectual you know, philosophy and everything
like that, and when you look at the differences between
the how many people went at the end versus just
ellegoing at the end and everything like that, like it's
it's a it's a Hollywood streamline when compared to the
source material. But yet I have some struggles with that
(03:05):
because I can't criticize it too much because it needed
to do these things. But at the same time, it's
two and a half hours and you feel.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
It, you do feel it. I would say that for
all the streamlining that they did, there is still something
that could have streamlined even more out of it, and
it would have been probably closer to two hours and
it still would have been fine. And you know, I'm
not saying that to like tip my hand in terms
of my reaction, but I remember seeing this in the
(03:37):
theater at the time, and my reaction was fairly typical
from people who saw it where they were like it
was everybody. Everybody who came out, regardless of whether they
loved it or not, all said, well, you could have
cut maybe this part of it or tone. You know,
you've felt gotten at a point faster there. Yeah, And
that's what's odd is like rewatching it this time. It's
(03:57):
the first time for me in years, and it definitely
I definitely felt the length this time, like it definitely
definitely felt like a two and a half hour film.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
So all right, well, Tristan, we have to know Riddell
family favorite or did this one mix? It was it
a VHS DVD or Blu ray purchase, because yeah, it
tells how how quickly they wanted to adopt it to
the library.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
This was this was a Redell family favorite.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Ah I called it.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
And this was such a Riddell family favorite that all
of us saw it in the theater when it came out.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Yeah, we were all all of us except for my
sister who's a black sheep of the family who's not
a nerd uh. You know, she had like friends in
a social life. But no, like all the three of
like my parents and me were stoked for it. We
were just like, wait, a science heavy film and it's
based off of Carl Sagan book. Yeah, okay, we're gonna go.
(05:01):
And also like we were all big Jodie Foster fans,
like my mom was like hardcore into Nell. You know
when the right right before this before.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
That's a poll, that is a poll I have. I
don't think people even knew Nell was out when Nell
was out, so okay, she was.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
The one she was the one one went to the
theater for it, but no, we we loved it. It
was actually like the opening scene, you know, where we
get the pull out, you know with the radio frequencies.
Classic scene, really really greatly done. I always like, I
have this memory in my about this movie, like the
when I think about that scene, I think about my
(05:40):
mom where it's completely silent in the movie in the
in the theater and I hear my mom whisper. I
hate it when they don't start with music, and then
all of a sudden you start to hear the radio
frequencies and everything, and then I hear a.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Oh okay, well, which is funny because for that scene
just gave me the impression of well, I know where
a quarter of the budget went was for licensing all
of these media bits for this long intro.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
Maybe not the quarner, but you know, and Men in
Black has ruined it for me. Honestly, by the time
we get to the end of it, I expect to
see aliens, you know, playing with marbles, playing marbles. But
actually this was one of the first DVDs that my
dad ever bought.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Oh interesting, I would have one of.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
The clamshell cases, not the clamshell, but the kind that
open up on the side.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, tab yeah up front.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
Yeah, And that was that Jody Foster commentary was great.
That was one of the first commentaries I ever truly
listened to. Was this one.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Interesting see I think that you know to the story
with your mom like that is. There were people who
definitely I remember on my first viewing, it would have
been great had they started the film with like a
card saying it's supposed to be silent for a while,
just don't talk, trust us. The sound is broken because
you could hear people start to fidget and everything. People
(07:03):
don't know what to do if they're if they're not
bombarded with noise, and it's like, you know, I got
my camp and we're sitting there, We're like, oh wow,
this is really Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
And other people like just two thousand or one, where
again you have the music playing, but it's just black
screen and it's it's jarring, like we are not used
to that.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
I remember a sign uh on the door walking into
Last Jedi when it said towards the end of the film,
there's an explosion followed by silence. This is totally part
of the movie don't come and complain. I softballed it
(07:44):
to you, and I didn't realize it. I was I
couldn't help in trouble, like five words into that.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, I'm like the sniper. I had to take the shot.
I had to take the shot.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Come on anyway, all right, Well back to Contact. Yeah,
this movie, not only you know, had a heavy influence
from Carl Sagan, you know, NASA influence, all these pieces
coming together. Let's talk talking about the cast, because this
cast is bigger and better than it had any right
(08:15):
to be, I think in nineteen ninety seven. Also in
just a sci fi way. Now, some of these are
movies that they're going to do later, which I guess
doesn't really apply. But you have you Matthew McConaughey with Interstellar.
You have David Morse is going to be in Twelve Monkeys,
you know, major pedigree coming from Tom Skirt with Alien
(08:41):
Captain Dallas. You have John Hurt Alien again with Cain.
Even Angela Bassett was in Critters four where they were
on a space station. I know low Low Hanging Fruit
or Jake Push.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
I know Angela Bassett, Right, doesn't everybody have that Blue
rais all right?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
All right. All that's to say for being a science
a hard science type movie where they are trying to
put a lot into it. Yes, there's fantastical elements this cast.
Every time someone new came on screen, I was like, oh,
it's got even better, Like well that I mean how
I perceived it.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Yeah, but think about it. By this point, Zamechas has
done all of these movies we've talked about up to
this point, and then he won the Oscar for he's
coming off a forest Gump. All he has to do
is call somebody and be like, hey, you want to
be in my next movie? Yes, sir, I do. I
will work for scale. I have no problem with that,
because you just want to be in the Zamechas movie
because it's like, well, look at what this guy is
capable of. You know, I might suddenly get all of
(09:39):
this esteem. I think that interesting. And this is one
of the one of the things that they committed to
that I guess is okay, but they Zamechas makes such
a such a decision to root it in the world
of our time at the time that he made a
change where Angela Bassett had It's been a true adaptation
(10:01):
of the book, she would have been the president, and
instead they make the decision, no, we're going to root
it in our world, and I feel like that's it. Yeah.
They There was actually a little bit of controversy about
the fact that they clipped Clinton talking about the Mars
landing and camped them in, and there was a conver.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Larry King like it. It kind of blew If this
was on the TV and the background as you know,
movie of the week, you might not know for a
moment if it was a movie.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well, I mean the lighting on Clinton was obviously outdoors,
comped in.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Hey, you know that's going to be ruined it for yeah,
you know, really ruined it. You're just like, oh man,
he's clearly in the sun.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
And which which you know, blows my mind because I'm like, well,
you could have just comped these other people in and
not you could have had to be in the Rose
Garden like it would have been okay. But I mean
the decision to root it in nineteen ninety seven, basically,
I mean, was that a mistake? Like does it lose
some of its own because now it's an historical piece
(11:03):
and you know that didn't happen in history. Should it have
been set a little bit further in the future so
that it felt a little more, you know, not of
our time.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
No, I can now, I can firmly say no, no,
that never really occurs to me whatsoever I think I mean,
if anything, I mean the first satellite dish that she
was at. I can never remember the name of it. Darren,
you probably remember, Oh.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Is that the one that's collapsed now?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
It is here, It laps in twenty twenty, and it
was in James Bond. It's been all around.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
It was in the X files at one time. Yeah, No,
I think it was. It was interesting to put to
put Clinton in there. I don't think it was the
wrong move. I don't think it was a bad move,
but I feel like there could have been a little
bit more elegant ways to do it, where even if
we just saw him on TV right the scene with him, Yeah,
(12:07):
that would have been I think that would have been fine.
That would have been absolutely fine.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Yeah, I would take it a step further, and I
would say it would actually make it even better because
he could be on TV and somebody could say, oh,
you have politician going for the glory? Were the ones
working in the ditches sort of thing, you know, like
emphasizing how the person on TV doesn't necessarily have anything
to do with the work that's actually going on sort
of thing, but they're always the you know, the spokespiece
(12:33):
of it.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
And what a theme of a like of a of
a triad in this movie where you have faith, science,
and politics all combating with each other all at once,
all throughout the movie. I thought that was I know
that that's not what we're talking about right now, but
that was something that I felt. I really felt this
time while watching it as an adult. I mean, I've
seen it before as an adult, but in this rewatch
(12:55):
that one that really hit me.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Well well, I mean sticking with that though, the thing
that it always struck me really strikes me now more
than anything as I watched this is I'm going to
try to state it like the way it is in
my head, which is, if somebody like a Carl Sagan
type figure were to write this book now, I don't
(13:18):
think it would treat the theme of faith within sciences
as politely as Magnet, you know, like it wouldn't have
treated Matthew McConaughey's character as anything but an irrational goof
as opposed to even the book treats that character as
(13:41):
he's on to something. Maybe you know like that that
there is an amount of faith that you have to
put into something. And that's what I think is beautiful
as the movie carries that forward, that there is still
faith you have to put in to somebody who makes
the discovery or the person who's saying, no, this is
what this means or what this is. There's still some
(14:03):
faith involved in that. Trust you know what is faith,
but trust, like you essentially have to trust that person
to be telling dealing straight with you. But I think
that that is actually the thing that jumps out to
me now more than ever, is that I don't think
something would have treated that character as graciously as this
(14:24):
film does.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Now, Yeah, I can I can see that. I think
it goes around to the question you posed earlier of
rooting this in ninety seven, I feel is the right
call because this is the world we were in in
ninety seven. It's a pre nine to eleven world. It's
you know, the different types of politics that are going on.
(14:47):
I totally agree that this is how the government would
probably take over that kind of investigation if a signal
did come in. But you know for that, I liked
how you could see it coming where you know, James
Woods was there and his you know, his goons with
(15:08):
the guns are there and they're slowly encroaching, and you feel,
you know, for for Jodie Foster for air Away, because
you see it coming, you know it cannot the hammer
is going to drop. But yeah, overall, I think besides
being rooted, it's also just all these actors. These are
(15:28):
these are peak ninety seven actors, like everything screams this time,
which I think works well. So we've talked a bit
about the actors. Actually not not enough. I want from
each of you, who was your besides Away, besides Jodie Foster,
who is your favorite kind of performance out of this?
(15:50):
And you can go down the list, it doesn't have
to be, you know, on the on the top marks.
I'm gonna say, I really enjoyed Tom Scaret. Again, you
can't for me, I can't look at him a Nazi
Dallas like that that charm, that captain, that father kind
(16:13):
of vibe that he just gives off. And he's the
politician in this really, he's the sensible bridge between science
and politics that you know, puts his hat in the
ring and and you know is the original test pilot.
But I thought for the size of the role it
was he was giving it one hundred and ten percent.
(16:35):
I didn't need any backstory on this guy. I knew
exactly what to expect, what he was going to give me.
So that that's my recommendation. What about you, John, which
one kind of just struck you? In this rewatch?
Speaker 3 (16:50):
There there are a couple. I mean, I always have
to tip my hat, you know. James Woods has always
been so good at playing that sort of like hard
ass jerkface, like he's just got a gift for it.
But honestly, I think William Fickner as Kent Clark, I
think he's an underappreciated actor in this role because he
(17:11):
is He's a fully like He's a side character that
feels fully developed and fully real, and that's a not
common thing within a large scale film. I believe that
Kent Clark exists is basically the way that I would
say that, and I will credit Fickner with that, and that,
(17:32):
you know, not just because he's an incredible actor, but
I think that he just found a way to make
that character seem.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Alive well and he's he's the best friend really, and
the fact that he keeps showing up like he's in
the whole movie, from the very beginning to the very end,
and I think that really shows about not just the acting,
but also the character is that we want this guy.
He's kind of an anchor point to our story that
(18:01):
we're gonna see it as he's experiencing the event.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
What about to me?
Speaker 4 (18:09):
To me, I I'm always impressed with McConaughey in this
because I've a I've always been a fan of McConaughey's.
I know that he had the maconnaissance you know, in
the you know, in the in the New Century, but
I've been with him for a long time and it's
it's interesting because he's on the poster, he has second billing,
(18:30):
but yet you don't really think of this as a
McConaughey film, like this is a Jody Foster film through
and through. It's contact and Jody Foster. That's what it is.
And so I feel like he's often overlooked, but I
really like the charm that he brings, the chemistry that
you don't expect between Jody Foster and Matthew McConaughey. And
(18:52):
just he kind of grounds everything and he does some
things in the name of faith, and you know, being
an advisor to the president, being on the committee and
everything like that. He makes hard decisions, but you never
feel like he's a jackass about it, right, And that's
that's really hard to do, especially being a love interest
(19:14):
of Jodie Foster, but also being a foil at the
same time. He walks a tightrope and I think, I
mean that a lot has to do with the writing
and Zamechis's direction, of course, but Matthew McConaughey, he easily
could have played this as smarmy or over zealous or opportunate,
like opportunistic, but he doesn't. And so yeah, i'd say
(19:38):
Matthew McConaughey for me in this one.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Yeah, for me.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
With McConaughey, it was kind of a pleasant surprise because
I haven't watched this movie in a long long time,
and my memory had started to combine McConaughey's role with
Jake Busey's role, which obviously is our very differ ends
of the spectrum. But so I was almost expecting him
(20:03):
to the shoe to drop and he would start to
really push her around faith and things like that, and
that ever happened because that's not the character. And so
I was like, Okay, that's right. These are two very
separate characters that represent different things. So that was a
pleasant surprise that my memory was faulty.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah, I think that McConaughey here in retrospect, he's giving
a hint of the McConaughey that we're going to get
to know as a more dramatic actor. But at the
time that this came out, this was the aberration rule.
I would say this is sort of his career after
contact is sort of what we expected the snap back
(20:45):
to be for like Tom Hanks after Forrest Gump or Philadelphia,
where it's like, Okay, he's going to go back to
what's his bread and butter, and we didn't get a
full delivery on sort of the nuanced performance he was
capable of until later, to be fair.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
To be fair, A Time to Kill came out a
year before this.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Sure, but I'm talking about after this, like there was
a there was a period where he sort of went
back to Oh okay mc connaugh Hayle, like that sort
of snapback. So this felt like a brief you know,
pissed up and then I would have. I'm glad for it, though,
because when he came back to the dramatic stuff, he
(21:26):
came back with a vengeance and really really shines now
like you you know, we all understand, you know, his
skill set. But I'll give a lot of credit honestly
to Zamechis for bringing out, you know, such a great
performance from him, because you know, you mentioned A Time
to Kill. If I were to compare, I barely remember
(21:48):
anything about his character from A Time to Kill, But
if you ask me about contact, I can. Okay, Yeah,
I know who Palmer Joss is and you know what
what his goals, his objectives are, all of those sorts
of things. He's not this character that you know, like
an amorphous character that just sort of like serves a purpose.
Like he's an actual character to Darren's point, where it's
(22:10):
like we see him actually functional in the story and
with his own journey through everything.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
All right, Well, let's talk a bit about Zamechis. We've
talked a lot about the plot, a lot about the actors,
and it's kind of a two part question. One. Let's
start off with this feels like an interesting choice for
Zamechas's next film after Forrest Gump. This, Maybe you have
(22:38):
a different opinion. This does not feel like the standard
you got a blank check to do whatever you want
after you dominated at the Oscars. This feels like a
stepped in to fill someone's shoes and help somebody out
and then cast away. Next film feels like the blank
check movie. Do you guys kind of agree with that
(23:01):
or what's the vibes for you?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I think it would be fair to say that I'm
not going to agree with you completely, but I think
it would be fair to say that Zamechas, having seen
him through the movies we've already looked at, would see
a movie like Contact as a challenge, like a puzzle
to be solved. And there are a lot of technical
(23:25):
and construction considerations, and I think that only somebody at
the time who had Zamechas's pull would have been able
to put this movie together. I don't think that there
are many other directors active at the time who would
have been able to come in and say, no, we're
going to do this thing, that thing I did over
in Forrest Gump, We're going to reverse it. We're gonna
(23:47):
take Bill Clinton we're gonna put him in the movie,
or we're gonna do this and we're going to drop
people into the movie who are real people. Like I
think that he saw something interesting and I you know,
if he had read the book, you know, I read
the book, I would have if somebody came to him
and was like, hey, do you want a direct contact? Yeah, sure, absolutely,
(24:07):
let's figure this one out. And like he obviously takes
it takes a bit of time because you know, as
we've been watching, it's you know, ninety ninety two, ninety four.
He takes a whole three years between movies, so you know,
obviously there was a lot, a lot to consider and
work on.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, all very good points. What do you think, Tristan,
I feel like this is.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
This, this feels like a content. Castaway doesn't feel like
a blank check movie to me. It really doesn't, because
in terms of filmmaking, once you take out the crash,
it's in Castaways, it's much more basic filmmaking. Like you know, shooting,
shooting on the locations is of course a struggle, and
(24:52):
like filming, it is a struggle. But from a technical standpoint,
this one was was much more, much more exhausting, to
do because of like, this was Jodie Foster's first experience
with blue screen. This was the very first experience with
blue screen. And she said, like when she went in,
you know, and did the scene on the beach, it
was like it was a blue wall, it was a
(25:14):
blue floor, it was a blue ceiling. She's like, it
was really hard. And and also like you have the uh,
you have the machine which is incredibly hard to create,
which I think was originally designed for Terminator two.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Yeah, I think it was meant to be the go
back high machine.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Uh. And also like from a from a visual storytelling standpoint,
I feel like this is this is much more of
a continuation. It was a machus from Forrest Gump because
if you look at the classic clean movements of the
camera and the way the like where he puts the
camera in the scene, where he puts it geographically and
how he blocks his actors and everything like that, it
(25:57):
feels very much like a can like this feels like,
you know, as we often reference Wes Anderson goes through
different eras, this very much feels like a particular type
of era for Zamechas, and some of it holds up
some of it doesn't like the Clinton stuff is ambitious,
and you could tell that, like John, I think you're
(26:17):
on the money when he said he's like this time,
like we can posited Hanks in Now we're gonna you know,
we're gonna composite the footage out, you know, like something
like that, Like you know that that's the real one
of the big reasons why he did it. And the
machine I think doesn't hold up as much as i'd
like it too in certain shots.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The actual CGI, because he does cg little like pre
two thousand CGI. It they look and so they all
fault it for that.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I'll give him credit though they tried really really hard
to make it look like they like he he knew
enough to put it in the distance where there's like
atmospheric stuff that like we know without knowing, oh yeah,
the light, would you know, mess with the way that
it looked a little bit. I still want to know
what happened to the rockets that they used to turn
(27:12):
that final ring, because I never saw them land So
I hope that everybody's okay where those rockets landed. But yeah,
I think that all of your points are very valid. Tristan,
I mentally like they spent a long time trying to
get this movie put together. There were a lot of
different screenwriters and directors attached to it, and the one name,
(27:35):
because you know it's a director focused podcast, is a
director that we've covered before, George Miller. And I think
to myself, I'm like, I want to find I want
to build this machine to take me on a timeline
where George Miller's Contact was made, because man, that would
be interesting to see that movie. That would be crazy crazy.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Apparently Copola sued the production company because apparently Sagan was
supposed to make a movie or a TV show or
something based off of Contact for Zoatrup. I don't know how, Yeah,
I don't know about or how it ended.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
But see, this was in the in the era of
the streaming series. I could easily see this being an
eight episode series like that would work in today's TV environment,
which it's basically like a long film cut up into
you know, eight chapters. But I mean, actually one of
the screenwriters was, you know, you talk about Coppola. One
of the screenwriters attached along it was James V. Hart,
(28:36):
who made Francis Ford Coppola's Gary Oldman as Bronstoker's Dracula,
so like you know that that's that's a pedigree right
there too. And I don't know, though, I mean I do.
I think that Zamechis is the guy who had the
cachet at the time. It makes sense that he's the
one that they that's able to pick up the ball
(28:56):
and run it across the goal line. Like I don't
see many other directors at the time being able to
manage this.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
And if we're talking VFX, we got to talk about
the medicine cabinet.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Oh yes, the yeah, I shot that broke our minds.
I still watch it over and over and I know
how it is made, and it still breaks my brain
every time I see it.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
Just months ago, I saw this shot discussed on YouTube,
and like in a YouTube short of a bunch of
guys who break down VFX videos or like VFX scenes
and movies and everything like that, people are still talking
about it. They're still teaching it in film schools, like
this shot is so seamless and so beautifully done that
(29:44):
it will be continued to talk about for decades to come.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I don't think I think most people have no idea
that it even exists. As an effects shot, like I
think it is that that's smooth. You know, if you
move outside of people who watch YouTube video it was
like us about dissecting effects shots and everything. Like if
I showed this to my wife, God love her, she'd
(30:07):
see it and it wouldn't even occur to her that
it was an effects shot. It would just be there.
It would just be a thing, you know, like And
I'm not saying that to be pejorative. I'm not saying
that to like be dismissive either. I'm saying that just
as support nobody caught it at the time, nobody thought
of it as such at the time, So you know,
like that's how good it is. And yeah, it does
hold up for sure.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
I again, my memory for some reason put that at
the beginning of the movie, you know, when she's with
her dad, and it's obviously not till a good chunk
in where she's remembering that as we've learned that he
has passed. But yeah, it again, like I said, I
know how it is made, but it's I it tricks
(30:50):
me every time, every single time.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Sure, you know, we haven't gone back to talk about
Jodie Foster like we like we talked about all all
the other actors were like, well, do Jodi Foster. We
haven't done that yet. And you know, Darren, I want
to ask you, you know, in the realm of Jodie
Foster movies, where does this ring for you? Is this
mid level Foster? Is this top tier? What do you think?
Speaker 2 (31:14):
It's pretty top tier? I'm trying to think in my
mind the movies of hers that I have seen. Obviously,
you know, you have like Silence of the Lambs and
things like that Panic Room, you know where she's she's
obviously often in movies where it is her, it is
like every shot is her and she is definitely the lead.
(31:37):
But in this one, yeah, it I think she strikes
the tone well of someone who is committed to their
vision and has to kind of throw their weight around
a bit to get stuff to happen, but is not unlikable.
And that is kind of a narrow road to walk,
(31:59):
because you can easily be the scientist that's a jerk,
that is the one who has to go get funding,
but you also want to be the main character. You
want to be the leading person that we want to
root for, and we're also watching her on this journey
of figuring out her own faith, in her own what
she actually believes. And so when your protagonist is in transition,
(32:25):
they're not firm, concrete in the ground. That is another
acting challenge to act throughout the course of these events.
So I think she did a great job in this.
It must have been exhausting because, like I said, she
is in practically every single shot of this movie. I
(32:46):
think the only time she gets a reprise is when
it's young Jodie Foster in the flashbacks.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
A young gentlemen alone in just a stellar performance, you know, yeah,
I mean Foster is great. You know, you use the
old joke that you usually reserve for like Gene Hackman,
where you're like, oh, she's great and everything you know,
and it can seem so dismissive to be that way.
(33:15):
Do I think that this is a role that when
you say, hey, what are the great Jodie Foster roles
that she jumps to mind? I can say no. I
think that she is up against a very large task
that she is very much up for, but the movie
(33:35):
doesn't do her any favors. The movie does not, I think,
give her the chance to shine the way that she
can in a dramatic role. And I'm not saying that in,
you know, in a way to diminish her. I'm saying
that the thing that I think, Oh God, Tristan, you
(33:57):
might have said this at some point, or maybe it
was you, Darren, about how Zamechis could fall into the
trap of being a very I guess clinical or technical director,
and I think Contact is that type of movie, and
I think it undercuts Foster's performance. I think she's great,
(34:19):
but I think the movie doesn't permit the audience as
much have a chance to connect with her as I
want to. And maybe that's not true for you guys,
but for me, it's sort of like some of that
overly technical, sterile direction undercuts her.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
I feel like we we as an audience, really connect
with her after the explosion, which might be a bit
too late in the movie. So I get what you're saying.
I don't think it. I don't think it necessarily affected
me too terribly. But you're not wrong because I think that,
(34:58):
you know, like after the explode and you start to
feel how lost she is, she doesn't know what to do,
and then she's confused when there's she's there's a second
one and I love. I can't remember if it was
American Dad or Family Guy or something like that. Like
they were talking about this movie and they're like, really,
just build another one. They just did that without anybody
(35:21):
finding out. Yeah you wait, And I.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Feel like I quote that all the time. It's like,
why build one when you can build two for twice
the price?
Speaker 4 (35:31):
The price, that's right, My dad would do that, like
that creepy John Hart where he's it's like want to
go over ride because of this movie. And but yeah,
it's just like you know, like we we we feel
how apprehensive she is when she walks into the ship,
and like the journey that she's going through when she's
(35:53):
like okay to go, okay to go, you know, everything
like that. And then of course the much parodied should
have sent a you know, it sucks so much because
it's such a moment.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
It does because terrible. All I could think of was
a very early Family Guy when they find the Twinkie factory. Yeah,
that's it. That's what's in my.
Speaker 4 (36:12):
Brain that I think Family Guy who's ruined so many
moments for me.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Yep uh.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
And then of course, like when she's trying to defend
herself against James Wood, as many people do. And it's
it's terrible because I always feel I know you're supposed
to feel this way, but the injustice that I feel
when Angela Bassett says there's eighteen hours of static, I'm like,
what somebody should tell somebody.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
That, yeah, yeah, it should have led with that, yeah,
uh yeah it But through all of that, And that's
an interesting point you were saying, Tristan of are we
drawn firmly onto her side too late in the game
to really feel that resonance because this is a movie
(37:05):
where there's a lot of great showing, and there's a
lot of great telling, and there's some not so good telling,
and there's some not so good showing, like where I
feel like, I love how we're meant to connect with
her through her dad and her and her upbringing, but
(37:26):
kind of the times and the places and the way
they show the flashbacks is kind of scattered. And there's also,
you know, like the poet part where we're shown and
I get it, it's ninety seven and you're supposed to
show the most fantastical visuals and have your act or
react to nothing and convey emotion. I think you know
(37:52):
something that did it better would be like Interstellar, where
they don't focus on the visuals of space, they focus
on the heart of our character watching a recording of
his daughter aging through time. We're connecting with the human
element rather than the fantastical element. So so back to contact, Like,
(38:17):
I don't know, did anybody else nod with me when
I was saying, you know, different times when showing was
good and telling was good. Did it feel kind of
like that to you guys where there were sometimes where
they were really trying to show, but they were shoving
tell in the way. I think that's how the poet
part feels to me.
Speaker 4 (38:37):
I not necessarily because in that scene, like you get
to see some really cool stargate effects that's true, you
know true, you know, like where she's going through and
everything like that. And then they did some really really
interesting editing where zamechis. What he did was he had
Foster record it three or four different ways with different motions,
(39:01):
and it was you know, excited, it was sad, it
was scared, and then the editors would blend that footage
together and more literally more for her face with different
reads of the moment and even through in GenAm alone
in there, like, I freaking love that stuff. I love
that stuff in sci fi, especially hard sci fi, And
(39:23):
so I feel like that kind of excuses that that
section because it's so technically it's so it's built so
technically well and interesting, and even with the beach scene,
which you think is a little bit of a cheat
where you're just like, oh, we don't get to see
an alien civilization, and I feel like this was the beat.
(39:44):
I know it's happened before, so guys, don't don't you know,
message me or email me. I know this has happened before,
but I feel like this was the tipping point for Oh,
I'm in an I'm presenting myself in an image that
your mind would be able to comprehend or make you comfortable.
That is used almost in every single sci fi franchise
(40:05):
moving forward after this movie, and it's just an excuse,
like in a Star Trek episode to have a bottle episode,
which is like why are we on the Defiant? It's like, well,
I guess he wanted to make us more comfortable.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Why did you possess Captain Bacad because then Patrick Stewart
could play the villain.
Speaker 4 (40:25):
But in that scene, you know, like the sand is
done in an artistic way that the water is moving backwards.
The clouds are unique in every single different shot. You know,
it's trying to show you that it's ethereal and that
it's fake at the same time, but not in a
way that is poorly done, like it's fake on purpose
(40:48):
to make you feel like something's off, something's wrong. And
also the technical stuff, it's kind of just that. It's
part of the territory of hard sci fi. You gotta
get through it, like we just I think we just
have to applaud them for not doing putting a piece
of paper together and then piercing it, Oh, with a pencil.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
How do warbles work? Well, do you got a piece
of paper at a pencil? Because that's how I'm going
to show you you're right?
Speaker 3 (41:18):
You're right. So that's an unnecessary zing. But outside of that,
I think that the thing that I struggle with with
the film is that I think I don't know what
the specific right cuts or changes would have been. I
know that probably a lot of what I think in
(41:39):
terms of excizing something has to be addressed at the
script level, Like when you're just first conceiving everything together.
This isn't something where you could come in and be like, well,
I know, I'll just cut that. I can't be uh,
you know any of a lot long line of producers
who are like, I'm just gonna cut this twenty minutes
out and the movie's gonna be one hundred times better.
It's not that, but there is definitely something where the
(42:05):
Zamechas needed a little more courage to say, this is
a gigantic book. There is no way I can include everything.
So I'm going to cut even more and I'm going
to streamline it even more and get from A to
B to C to D even more quickly. And I
think that that would help some of what you're talking about, Darren,
(42:28):
where the spacing of the flashbacks is too far apart.
It's it's it almost feels staccato as opposed to rhythmic,
Like there's a flow to the storytelling in Forrest Gump.
There's a flow to the storytelling in all of Samecha's books,
but it's specifically this one where it's like, like it
it's like the gears don't catch some of the time,
(42:51):
and it's unfortunate because there are some legitimately great moments
that would have, like I I'm prevented from emotionally connecting
with it because I have to rewarm myself up to
get back into that flow. And then the movie jumps
and I'm like, oh, okay, I have to change where
(43:12):
I'm looking, at what I'm thinking, and I just I
there's a part of me that thinks at the script level,
they could have and should have had the courage to
basically possibly just get rid of the or not get
rid of, but completely restructure how they approached the accident
(43:35):
in the first like the sabotage that happens.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
With the first one.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
I may have even moved it earlier because the fact
that it blows up and it's like, oh my god,
we are in our darkest hour. Oh wait, no, that's okay,
we got another one. Like it just feels right. It's
a two and a half hour movie. But I'm like,
that's the part that feels too quick. I'm like, you
should have the thing up there, and then like she
goes back to everything and it's like, oh no, we
just need more time to completely it's the second Death
(44:01):
Star just took a few more years, you know, that
sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
It's one of those things where when it blows up.
It's far enough in the movie that you look at
your watch, yeah, and you go, well.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Wait a second, they're not done.
Speaker 4 (44:13):
So they're not done yet, So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (44:18):
And I think you're right, like that's the first, you know,
climax point of the movie is that explosion. And not
to go too deep into rewriting territory, but something along
the lines of you know, taking you know, doctor Drumlin,
you know who died in that, who obviously was kind
(44:39):
of set up as a secondary father figure to Jodie
fire Like, you know, because obviously someone took care of
her after she was nine years old, you know, when
her dad died. So that would have been an interesting
thing if if he was the second father figure and
they were very close, like not even antagonists at all,
(45:01):
which is what we got in this, and then he
dies like that, I think would have been an even
deeper connection.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
I agree, I agree, I think I might have even
not even might I probably would have cut the the
sabotage aspect of it, because they have a very pointed
argument at one point where she says, you're not supposed
to have all of this extra stuff, the schematics don't
talk for it, And I would have had him die
in a mishap because the weight was off or something
(45:32):
like that, Like he goes into the prototype and then
that goes wrong, and it's like that becomes a thing
where they're like, no, we have to build exactly what
they told us to do. We can't we And that
would even reinforce the whole idea of like we can't
think that we can outsmart this. We have to either
do what they told us to do or not do
it at all. And I think that actually would have
(45:54):
resonated with the themes better because here I am earlier
talking about oh, well, you know the Matthew mcconaughe character
deals with you know, faith in a very mature and
respectful manner. But then it's almost like they just couldn't
help themselves but have Jake Busey play crazy religious guy
just to be like no, no, no, no, no, he's he's a
(46:14):
good one, but like they're all the rest of them,
they're all nuts. Like it's sort of like, yeah, like
the character is there, and Bucy does a great job
with him. Oh he does an amazing job, but it's
just it, I don't know that that's again though, like
that's all script level stuff that's not this movie.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
I don't know, Okay. I like that there's a duality
in every single section of this movie where you have
you have Jodie Foster's character who kind of represents the
positive side of science, and you know Tom Skarett, who
is the negative. And then you have McConaughey who is
(46:52):
the positive side of religion, Bucy who's negative, and you
have Angela Bassett the positive side of politics, and James
Wood as the negative. You know, like you have these
this duality for every single.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
I want to see that report Tristan write a paper
on that as amazing.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
It just it works, It works, it feels real, it
feels nice because I think that's one of the reasons
John and like you were talking about, if this movie
was made today, you wouldn't have that duality. You would
not have that duality in politics or religion. You would
not have the good and bad of religion, you would
not have the good and bad of politics. You have
bad politics, bad religion, good science. And this is coming
(47:34):
from science loving people on this podcast, and it's just
a show a change of the times, like the nineties
were people who weren't born yet. The nineties were so
different from today, even from post nine eleven. It's as
so different as somebody.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
Who was alive and very aware in going through them.
It was a cooler time. I'm just gonna say, let's
go ahead, gen X. We were having the time the nineties.
It's pretty fun.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
I'm not going to argue with you, like how Darren,
how many?
Speaker 2 (48:05):
How?
Speaker 4 (48:05):
How often do we go back to the nineties in
this podcast?
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Ge so so many times? Great films now for decade.
Speaker 3 (48:16):
By skateboarding, no doubt, great music, you know, great fashion,
very easy fashion back then. Oh my god, it was
so nice, comfortable in my day.
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Hey, I feel like I feel like we're I feel
like we're reaching the end here. I want to give
I want to give my rating.
Speaker 2 (48:35):
Yes, we we are all the way around. We're about
to drop through the machine. Tristan start us off then
with your rating of contact Everdell family favorite.
Speaker 4 (48:45):
I'm giving this four machine rings. I genuinely like this movie.
I think it's well made, I think it's well acted,
I think it's well performed. I think it was ambitious
for what it tried to tackle. I wish Carl Sagan
could have seen the completion of the movie because he
was heavily involved and died during the filming. That's why
(49:08):
the movie was dedicated to him. And I think the
structure is a is a little weird, could have been trimmed.
That's why I'm knocking down a star. But this is
to me, this is a top tier Jodie Foster film
for me. I love her performance in this. I love
the character. I love that, I love the chemistry that
(49:32):
she has with McConaughey. I love that she's an atheist
in real life and McConaughey is a Christian in real life.
I feel like they they brought it, they brought that
to the movie and it just works and scare it.
I mean as Drumlin is perfect, He's absolutely perfect for
this role. He because he's not a bad person. He's
(49:56):
not out let me rephrase. He's not an evil person,
but he's not opportunist, and he knows how to play
the game. Foster character doesn't know how to play the game.
I've worked in education, I've worked in medicine, I've worked
with scientists and doctors. Those who know how to play
the game get funding. Scaret knew how to do that anyway. Regardless,
(50:20):
I think this is a great movie. I love this movie.
It's one of my favorite Zamacas films. Four stars.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Oh awesome. Well, mister composition of Clinton, John Mills, what
is your rating for this movie?
Speaker 3 (50:36):
We didn't even really talk about the controversy or the
fact that the White House got all up in arms
about about the use of Clinton's image, even though Warner
Brothers insisted that they sent them a print before the movie.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Like he said, she said,
sort of.
Speaker 4 (50:50):
Figure, he's a public servant. We got his image.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
Hey they didn't. Hey, I know right, they didn't ask
anybody's permission Forrest Gump, So you know, fair play, right,
and you know what open Ai is hoping that argument
holds up in court too. But I think that this
is a film that I don't love. I like it
a lot, I don't love it. I definitely think that
(51:13):
there are things Trisa, and I hear what you're saying
about duality. I accept it, and you're right. No, No,
you're right. It should probably stay as a result. It's
just I'm so trying to solve the exploding thing that
I'm like, I don't know how to move it, how
to change it sort of thing. So be that as
(51:33):
it may. I think for the technical breakthrough stuff, I
gave a lot of grace to Back to Future Part
three for it. I gave a lot of grace to
Death Becomes Her for it, and so I'll extend that
saying grace here that this is a four star movie.
That's a very good movie, but it's not a great movie,
and I'll probably sit down and watch it again at
(51:55):
some point, but I don't love it. But it's something
where I have to at least admire and respect it.
So I'll give it a four.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Yeah for this movie. It I think the more I've
watched it, the more I've enjoyed it, especially as we're
going through Zamechas right now and really seeing it in
the context of his his filmography. It totally is a
Mechas film from and we talk a lot about, oh,
(52:27):
we put Bill Clinton in just like the other president's,
but there's also just all of the aspects. I'm you know,
the in the drop ship sphere. It was this time
that I noticed, as her point of view is looking around,
that is the only part that is becoming transparent is
her POV. It's not just oh it's clear below you,
(52:51):
it's clear over here. It's like no, no, it's following.
It's It makes me think of the Volume right now
where they have the fake you know, it's all digitally rendered,
but the area that the camera can see is like
hyper rendered, and it's like this little tiny window that
moves around so it's always in the frame. I think
they could have made this on the Volume in like
(53:11):
five minutes. I think Jodie Foster would have had a
much more enjoyable time. But yeah, but overall, you know,
con you know, special effects aside, acting aside, I think
this movie just accomplished what it struck out to do,
to make you discuss it, to make you question things
(53:35):
and wonder. You know, there's a lot of wonder in
this movie, both on the side of faith and on
the side of science, which is very interesting. So yeah,
I think across the board we're giving this this four stars.
It's a great movie. I should revisit it more often.
It had been far too long since I had watched this,
(53:57):
So all right, so con Tact was four stars across
the board. But we're not done.
Speaker 4 (54:05):
Yeah, I'm I'm okay. So we were we weren't sure
if we were going to do this because we're like, okay, no,
we really do like to stick to themes where we're
just like, okay, it's we're just doing the screen franchise.
Oh we're doing Craven, We're doing all of Tarantino, or
we're doing you know, Emeric of the nineties or you
(54:26):
know Rhiner of the eighties. But I want to do Castaway.
I just it just feels like a logical progression after contact,
and so that I want to do. I want to
do that, guys, I want I want to do it.
Speaker 3 (54:41):
Okay, I'm totally game. I I gladly will watch Castaway again.
I look forward to rewatching it and talking about it absolutely.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
I mean, that's the whole point of having your own
podcast is you can make the rules and you can
break the rules. And we want to continue to thousand.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
It's part of the nineties, right if you're ten years technically,
the New Millennium didn't start till two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (55:07):
Tech there you go.
Speaker 4 (55:08):
So there, I knew you were that type of person.
Speaker 3 (55:12):
I'm just saying it. Tech to have I.
Speaker 4 (55:15):
Could have told you without you saying a word that
John would be fine with us doing Castaway because include
the millennium.
Speaker 3 (55:22):
Oh no, Actually, I'm more fine with it because I
remember loving this film and I want to see if
I still do.
Speaker 2 (55:30):
All right, well, you heard it here next week Castaway
from two thousand here on house Lights.
Speaker 1 (55:38):
Join the Revolution, Join the NED Party.
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome back to House Lights, our director discussion show here
on the Nerd Party Network. This week, we're continuing to
look at Zamechas of the nineteen nineties with nineteen ninety
seven's Contact with a story by Carl Sagan and Anne Duran.
Will this podcast last eighteen hours or no time at all?
(00:42):
I'm your host Stargazer Darren Moser, and I'm joined again
by my friends Head of the National Security Council and
wear of some fine cologne, John Mills and recursive billionaire
tr Raddell. This film is shocked full of fi wonder
both and it's cast and its effects. If we don't
(01:04):
convince you with our sizeable ratings, well that would just
be an awful waste of space. Gentlemen, this movie some good,
meaty sci fi. I can seek my teeth then too.
I'm so excited.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
My first question for everybody, I gotta know I've read
the book that this is based on. Have either of you?
I have not.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
I know a lot about the differences between the two,
but I haven't read the book.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
I highly recommend the book. I I this is a
classic example. It's not like Shining Level two different things
sort of thing. But all of the decisions they make
to streamline makes so much sense in the film, but
then when you read the book, you're like, oh, like it, actually,
I would kind.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Of more Jurassic Park, where Jurassic Park really goes into
the minutia versus the movie.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Uh yeah, I'd say that's closer than like with Shining,
Like there's no yeah, yeah, that stuff a very apt comparison.
But there is definitely a lot of streamlining with this film,
but also some decisions that actually the special effects will
touch on that I can't wait to talk about.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Yay, Well, Starry about streamlining, Tristan, did this feel like
a streamlined film? Because it's two and a half hours long.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
This is the Mechis's longest film, which is crazy to
me because you think Forrest Gump or Castaway I would
have sworn Yeah, yeah, no, it's a I would not
call this a streamline film. But you know, when comparing
it to the book and like the scientific discoveries in
(02:43):
the book and the intellectual you know, philosophy and everything
like that, and when you look at the differences between
the how many people went at the end versus just
ellegoing at the end and everything like that, like it's
it's a it's a Hollywood streamline when compared to the
source material. But yet I have some struggles with that
(03:05):
because I can't criticize it too much because it needed
to do these things. But at the same time, it's
two and a half hours and you feel.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
It, you do feel it. I would say that for
all the streamlining that they did, there is still something
that could have streamlined even more out of it, and
it would have been probably closer to two hours and
it still would have been fine. And you know, I'm
not saying that to like tip my hand in terms
of my reaction, but I remember seeing this in the
(03:37):
theater at the time, and my reaction was fairly typical
from people who saw it where they were like it
was everybody. Everybody who came out, regardless of whether they
loved it or not, all said, well, you could have
cut maybe this part of it or tone. You know,
you've felt gotten at a point faster there. Yeah, And
that's what's odd is like rewatching it this time. It's
(03:57):
the first time for me in years, and it definitely
I definitely felt the length this time, like it definitely
definitely felt like a two and a half hour film.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
So all right, well, Tristan, we have to know Riddell
family favorite or did this one mix? It was it
a VHS DVD or Blu ray purchase, because yeah, it
tells how how quickly they wanted to adopt it to
the library.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
This was this was a Redell family favorite.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Ah I called it.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
And this was such a Riddell family favorite that all
of us saw it in the theater when it came out.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Yeah, we were all all of us except for my
sister who's a black sheep of the family who's not
a nerd uh. You know, she had like friends in
a social life. But no, like all the three of
like my parents and me were stoked for it. We
were just like, wait, a science heavy film and it's
based off of Carl Sagan book. Yeah, okay, we're gonna go.
(05:01):
And also like we were all big Jodie Foster fans,
like my mom was like hardcore into Nell. You know
when the right right before this before.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
That's a poll, that is a poll I have. I
don't think people even knew Nell was out when Nell
was out, so okay, she was.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
The one she was the one one went to the
theater for it, but no, we we loved it. It
was actually like the opening scene, you know, where we
get the pull out, you know with the radio frequencies.
Classic scene, really really greatly done. I always like, I
have this memory in my about this movie, like the
when I think about that scene, I think about my
(05:40):
mom where it's completely silent in the movie in the
in the theater and I hear my mom whisper. I
hate it when they don't start with music, and then
all of a sudden you start to hear the radio
frequencies and everything, and then I hear a.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Oh okay, well, which is funny because for that scene
just gave me the impression of well, I know where
a quarter of the budget went was for licensing all
of these media bits for this long intro.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
Maybe not the quarner, but you know, and Men in
Black has ruined it for me. Honestly, by the time
we get to the end of it, I expect to
see aliens, you know, playing with marbles, playing marbles. But
actually this was one of the first DVDs that my
dad ever bought.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
Oh interesting, I would have one of.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
The clamshell cases, not the clamshell, but the kind that
open up on the side.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, tab yeah up front.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
Yeah, And that was that Jody Foster commentary was great.
That was one of the first commentaries I ever truly
listened to. Was this one.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Interesting see I think that you know to the story
with your mom like that is. There were people who
definitely I remember on my first viewing, it would have
been great had they started the film with like a
card saying it's supposed to be silent for a while,
just don't talk, trust us. The sound is broken because
you could hear people start to fidget and everything. People
(07:03):
don't know what to do if they're if they're not
bombarded with noise, and it's like, you know, I got
my camp and we're sitting there, We're like, oh wow,
this is really Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
And other people like just two thousand or one, where
again you have the music playing, but it's just black
screen and it's it's jarring, like we are not used
to that.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
I remember a sign uh on the door walking into
Last Jedi when it said towards the end of the film,
there's an explosion followed by silence. This is totally part
of the movie don't come and complain. I softballed it
(07:44):
to you, and I didn't realize it. I was I
couldn't help in trouble, like five words into that.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, I'm like the sniper. I had to take the shot.
I had to take the shot.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Come on anyway, all right, Well back to Contact. Yeah,
this movie, not only you know, had a heavy influence
from Carl Sagan, you know, NASA influence, all these pieces
coming together. Let's talk talking about the cast, because this
cast is bigger and better than it had any right
(08:15):
to be, I think in nineteen ninety seven. Also in
just a sci fi way. Now, some of these are
movies that they're going to do later, which I guess
doesn't really apply. But you have you Matthew McConaughey with Interstellar.
You have David Morse is going to be in Twelve Monkeys,
you know, major pedigree coming from Tom Skirt with Alien
(08:41):
Captain Dallas. You have John Hurt Alien again with Cain.
Even Angela Bassett was in Critters four where they were
on a space station. I know low Low Hanging Fruit
or Jake Push.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
I know Angela Bassett, Right, doesn't everybody have that Blue
rais all right?
Speaker 2 (08:57):
All right. All that's to say for being a science
a hard science type movie where they are trying to
put a lot into it. Yes, there's fantastical elements this cast.
Every time someone new came on screen, I was like, oh,
it's got even better, Like well that I mean how
I perceived it.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Yeah, but think about it. By this point, Zamechas has
done all of these movies we've talked about up to
this point, and then he won the Oscar for he's
coming off a forest Gump. All he has to do
is call somebody and be like, hey, you want to
be in my next movie? Yes, sir, I do. I
will work for scale. I have no problem with that,
because you just want to be in the Zamechas movie
because it's like, well, look at what this guy is
capable of. You know, I might suddenly get all of
(09:39):
this esteem. I think that interesting. And this is one
of the one of the things that they committed to
that I guess is okay, but they Zamechas makes such
a such a decision to root it in the world
of our time at the time that he made a
change where Angela Bassett had It's been a true adaptation
(10:01):
of the book, she would have been the president, and
instead they make the decision, no, we're going to root
it in our world, and I feel like that's it. Yeah.
They There was actually a little bit of controversy about
the fact that they clipped Clinton talking about the Mars
landing and camped them in, and there was a conver.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Larry King like it. It kind of blew If this
was on the TV and the background as you know,
movie of the week, you might not know for a
moment if it was a movie.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well, I mean the lighting on Clinton was obviously outdoors,
comped in.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Hey, you know that's going to be ruined it for yeah,
you know, really ruined it. You're just like, oh man,
he's clearly in the sun.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
And which which you know, blows my mind because I'm like, well,
you could have just comped these other people in and
not you could have had to be in the Rose
Garden like it would have been okay. But I mean
the decision to root it in nineteen ninety seven, basically,
I mean, was that a mistake? Like does it lose
some of its own because now it's an historical piece
(11:03):
and you know that didn't happen in history. Should it have
been set a little bit further in the future so
that it felt a little more, you know, not of
our time.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
No, I can now, I can firmly say no, no,
that never really occurs to me whatsoever I think I mean,
if anything, I mean the first satellite dish that she
was at. I can never remember the name of it. Darren,
you probably remember, Oh.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Is that the one that's collapsed now?
Speaker 2 (11:35):
It is here, It laps in twenty twenty, and it
was in James Bond. It's been all around.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
It was in the X files at one time. Yeah, No,
I think it was. It was interesting to put to
put Clinton in there. I don't think it was the
wrong move. I don't think it was a bad move,
but I feel like there could have been a little
bit more elegant ways to do it, where even if
we just saw him on TV right the scene with him, Yeah,
(12:07):
that would have been I think that would have been fine.
That would have been absolutely fine.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Yeah, I would take it a step further, and I
would say it would actually make it even better because
he could be on TV and somebody could say, oh,
you have politician going for the glory? Were the ones
working in the ditches sort of thing, you know, like
emphasizing how the person on TV doesn't necessarily have anything
to do with the work that's actually going on sort
of thing, but they're always the you know, the spokespiece
(12:33):
of it.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
And what a theme of a like of a of
a triad in this movie where you have faith, science,
and politics all combating with each other all at once,
all throughout the movie. I thought that was I know
that that's not what we're talking about right now, but
that was something that I felt. I really felt this
time while watching it as an adult. I mean, I've
seen it before as an adult, but in this rewatch
(12:55):
that one that really hit me.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Well well, I mean sticking with that though, the thing
that it always struck me really strikes me now more
than anything as I watched this is I'm going to
try to state it like the way it is in
my head, which is, if somebody like a Carl Sagan
type figure were to write this book now, I don't
(13:18):
think it would treat the theme of faith within sciences
as politely as Magnet, you know, like it wouldn't have
treated Matthew McConaughey's character as anything but an irrational goof
as opposed to even the book treats that character as
(13:41):
he's on to something. Maybe you know like that that
there is an amount of faith that you have to
put into something. And that's what I think is beautiful
as the movie carries that forward, that there is still
faith you have to put in to somebody who makes
the discovery or the person who's saying, no, this is
what this means or what this is. There's still some
(14:03):
faith involved in that. Trust you know what is faith,
but trust, like you essentially have to trust that person
to be telling dealing straight with you. But I think
that that is actually the thing that jumps out to
me now more than ever, is that I don't think
something would have treated that character as graciously as this
(14:24):
film does.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Now, Yeah, I can I can see that. I think
it goes around to the question you posed earlier of
rooting this in ninety seven, I feel is the right
call because this is the world we were in in
ninety seven. It's a pre nine to eleven world. It's
you know, the different types of politics that are going on.
(14:47):
I totally agree that this is how the government would
probably take over that kind of investigation if a signal
did come in. But you know for that, I liked
how you could see it coming where you know, James
Woods was there and his you know, his goons with
(15:08):
the guns are there and they're slowly encroaching, and you feel,
you know, for for Jodie Foster for air Away, because
you see it coming, you know it cannot the hammer
is going to drop. But yeah, overall, I think besides
being rooted, it's also just all these actors. These are
(15:28):
these are peak ninety seven actors, like everything screams this time,
which I think works well. So we've talked a bit
about the actors. Actually not not enough. I want from
each of you, who was your besides Away, besides Jodie Foster,
who is your favorite kind of performance out of this?
(15:50):
And you can go down the list, it doesn't have
to be, you know, on the on the top marks.
I'm gonna say, I really enjoyed Tom Scaret. Again, you
can't for me, I can't look at him a Nazi
Dallas like that that charm, that captain, that father kind
(16:13):
of vibe that he just gives off. And he's the
politician in this really, he's the sensible bridge between science
and politics that you know, puts his hat in the
ring and and you know is the original test pilot.
But I thought for the size of the role it
was he was giving it one hundred and ten percent.
(16:35):
I didn't need any backstory on this guy. I knew
exactly what to expect, what he was going to give me.
So that that's my recommendation. What about you, John, which
one kind of just struck you? In this rewatch?
Speaker 3 (16:50):
There there are a couple. I mean, I always have
to tip my hat, you know. James Woods has always
been so good at playing that sort of like hard
ass jerkface, like he's just got a gift for it.
But honestly, I think William Fickner as Kent Clark, I
think he's an underappreciated actor in this role because he
(17:11):
is He's a fully like He's a side character that
feels fully developed and fully real, and that's a not
common thing within a large scale film. I believe that
Kent Clark exists is basically the way that I would
say that, and I will credit Fickner with that, and that,
(17:32):
you know, not just because he's an incredible actor, but
I think that he just found a way to make
that character seem.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Alive well and he's he's the best friend really, and
the fact that he keeps showing up like he's in
the whole movie, from the very beginning to the very end,
and I think that really shows about not just the acting,
but also the character is that we want this guy.
He's kind of an anchor point to our story that
(18:01):
we're gonna see it as he's experiencing the event.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
What about to me?
Speaker 4 (18:09):
To me, I I'm always impressed with McConaughey in this
because I've a I've always been a fan of McConaughey's.
I know that he had the maconnaissance you know, in
the you know, in the in the New Century, but
I've been with him for a long time and it's
it's interesting because he's on the poster, he has second billing,
(18:30):
but yet you don't really think of this as a
McConaughey film, like this is a Jody Foster film through
and through. It's contact and Jody Foster. That's what it is.
And so I feel like he's often overlooked, but I
really like the charm that he brings, the chemistry that
you don't expect between Jody Foster and Matthew McConaughey. And
(18:52):
just he kind of grounds everything and he does some
things in the name of faith, and you know, being
an advisor to the president, being on the committee and
everything like that. He makes hard decisions, but you never
feel like he's a jackass about it, right, And that's
that's really hard to do, especially being a love interest
(19:14):
of Jodie Foster, but also being a foil at the
same time. He walks a tightrope and I think, I
mean that a lot has to do with the writing
and Zamechis's direction, of course, but Matthew McConaughey, he easily
could have played this as smarmy or over zealous or opportunate,
like opportunistic, but he doesn't. And so yeah, i'd say
(19:38):
Matthew McConaughey for me in this one.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Yeah, for me.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
With McConaughey, it was kind of a pleasant surprise because
I haven't watched this movie in a long long time,
and my memory had started to combine McConaughey's role with
Jake Busey's role, which obviously is our very differ ends
of the spectrum. But so I was almost expecting him
(20:03):
to the shoe to drop and he would start to
really push her around faith and things like that, and
that ever happened because that's not the character. And so
I was like, Okay, that's right. These are two very
separate characters that represent different things. So that was a
pleasant surprise that my memory was faulty.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah, I think that McConaughey here in retrospect, he's giving
a hint of the McConaughey that we're going to get
to know as a more dramatic actor. But at the
time that this came out, this was the aberration rule.
I would say this is sort of his career after
contact is sort of what we expected the snap back
(20:45):
to be for like Tom Hanks after Forrest Gump or Philadelphia,
where it's like, Okay, he's going to go back to
what's his bread and butter, and we didn't get a
full delivery on sort of the nuanced performance he was
capable of until later, to be fair.
Speaker 4 (21:02):
To be fair, A Time to Kill came out a
year before this.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Sure, but I'm talking about after this, like there was
a there was a period where he sort of went
back to Oh okay mc connaugh Hayle, like that sort
of snapback. So this felt like a brief you know,
pissed up and then I would have. I'm glad for it, though,
because when he came back to the dramatic stuff, he
(21:26):
came back with a vengeance and really really shines now
like you you know, we all understand, you know, his
skill set. But I'll give a lot of credit honestly
to Zamechis for bringing out, you know, such a great
performance from him, because you know, you mentioned A Time
to Kill. If I were to compare, I barely remember
(21:48):
anything about his character from A Time to Kill, But
if you ask me about contact, I can. Okay, Yeah,
I know who Palmer Joss is and you know what
what his goals, his objectives are, all of those sorts
of things. He's not this character that you know, like
an amorphous character that just sort of like serves a purpose.
Like he's an actual character to Darren's point, where it's
(22:10):
like we see him actually functional in the story and
with his own journey through everything.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
All right, Well, let's talk a bit about Zamechis. We've
talked a lot about the plot, a lot about the actors,
and it's kind of a two part question. One. Let's
start off with this feels like an interesting choice for
Zamechas's next film after Forrest Gump. This, Maybe you have
(22:38):
a different opinion. This does not feel like the standard
you got a blank check to do whatever you want
after you dominated at the Oscars. This feels like a
stepped in to fill someone's shoes and help somebody out
and then cast away. Next film feels like the blank
check movie. Do you guys kind of agree with that
(23:01):
or what's the vibes for you?
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I think it would be fair to say that I'm
not going to agree with you completely, but I think
it would be fair to say that Zamechas, having seen
him through the movies we've already looked at, would see
a movie like Contact as a challenge, like a puzzle
to be solved. And there are a lot of technical
(23:25):
and construction considerations, and I think that only somebody at
the time who had Zamechas's pull would have been able
to put this movie together. I don't think that there
are many other directors active at the time who would
have been able to come in and say, no, we're
going to do this thing, that thing I did over
in Forrest Gump, We're going to reverse it. We're gonna
(23:47):
take Bill Clinton we're gonna put him in the movie,
or we're gonna do this and we're going to drop
people into the movie who are real people. Like I
think that he saw something interesting and I you know,
if he had read the book, you know, I read
the book, I would have if somebody came to him
and was like, hey, do you want a direct contact? Yeah, sure, absolutely,
(24:07):
let's figure this one out. And like he obviously takes
it takes a bit of time because you know, as
we've been watching, it's you know, ninety ninety two, ninety four.
He takes a whole three years between movies, so you know,
obviously there was a lot, a lot to consider and
work on.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, all very good points. What do you think, Tristan,
I feel like this is.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
This, this feels like a content. Castaway doesn't feel like
a blank check movie to me. It really doesn't, because
in terms of filmmaking, once you take out the crash,
it's in Castaways, it's much more basic filmmaking. Like you know, shooting,
shooting on the locations is of course a struggle, and
(24:52):
like filming, it is a struggle. But from a technical standpoint,
this one was was much more, much more exhausting, to
do because of like, this was Jodie Foster's first experience
with blue screen. This was the very first experience with
blue screen. And she said, like when she went in,
you know, and did the scene on the beach, it
was like it was a blue wall, it was a
(25:14):
blue floor, it was a blue ceiling. She's like, it
was really hard. And and also like you have the uh,
you have the machine which is incredibly hard to create,
which I think was originally designed for Terminator two.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Yeah, I think it was meant to be the go
back high machine.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Uh. And also like from a from a visual storytelling standpoint,
I feel like this is this is much more of
a continuation. It was a machus from Forrest Gump because
if you look at the classic clean movements of the
camera and the way the like where he puts the
camera in the scene, where he puts it geographically and
how he blocks his actors and everything like that, it
(25:57):
feels very much like a can like this feels like,
you know, as we often reference Wes Anderson goes through
different eras, this very much feels like a particular type
of era for Zamechas, and some of it holds up
some of it doesn't like the Clinton stuff is ambitious,
and you could tell that, like John, I think you're
(26:17):
on the money when he said he's like this time,
like we can posited Hanks in Now we're gonna you know,
we're gonna composite the footage out, you know, like something
like that, Like you know that that's the real one
of the big reasons why he did it. And the
machine I think doesn't hold up as much as i'd
like it too in certain shots.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The actual CGI, because he does cg little like pre
two thousand CGI. It they look and so they all
fault it for that.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
I'll give him credit though they tried really really hard
to make it look like they like he he knew
enough to put it in the distance where there's like
atmospheric stuff that like we know without knowing, oh yeah,
the light, would you know, mess with the way that
it looked a little bit. I still want to know
what happened to the rockets that they used to turn
(27:12):
that final ring, because I never saw them land So
I hope that everybody's okay where those rockets landed. But yeah,
I think that all of your points are very valid. Tristan,
I mentally like they spent a long time trying to
get this movie put together. There were a lot of
different screenwriters and directors attached to it, and the one name,
(27:35):
because you know it's a director focused podcast, is a
director that we've covered before, George Miller. And I think
to myself, I'm like, I want to find I want
to build this machine to take me on a timeline
where George Miller's Contact was made, because man, that would
be interesting to see that movie. That would be crazy crazy.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Apparently Copola sued the production company because apparently Sagan was
supposed to make a movie or a TV show or
something based off of Contact for Zoatrup. I don't know how, Yeah,
I don't know about or how it ended.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
But see, this was in the in the era of
the streaming series. I could easily see this being an
eight episode series like that would work in today's TV environment,
which it's basically like a long film cut up into
you know, eight chapters. But I mean, actually one of
the screenwriters was, you know, you talk about Coppola. One
of the screenwriters attached along it was James V. Hart,
(28:36):
who made Francis Ford Coppola's Gary Oldman as Bronstoker's Dracula,
so like you know that that's that's a pedigree right
there too. And I don't know, though, I mean I do.
I think that Zamechis is the guy who had the
cachet at the time. It makes sense that he's the
one that they that's able to pick up the ball
(28:56):
and run it across the goal line. Like I don't
see many other directors at the time being able to
manage this.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
And if we're talking VFX, we got to talk about
the medicine cabinet.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Oh yes, the yeah, I shot that broke our minds.
I still watch it over and over and I know
how it is made, and it still breaks my brain
every time I see it.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
Just months ago, I saw this shot discussed on YouTube,
and like in a YouTube short of a bunch of
guys who break down VFX videos or like VFX scenes
and movies and everything like that, people are still talking
about it. They're still teaching it in film schools, like
this shot is so seamless and so beautifully done that
(29:44):
it will be continued to talk about for decades to come.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
I don't think I think most people have no idea
that it even exists. As an effects shot, like I
think it is that that's smooth. You know, if you
move outside of people who watch YouTube video it was
like us about dissecting effects shots and everything. Like if
I showed this to my wife, God love her, she'd
(30:07):
see it and it wouldn't even occur to her that
it was an effects shot. It would just be there.
It would just be a thing, you know, like And
I'm not saying that to be pejorative. I'm not saying
that to like be dismissive either. I'm saying that just
as support nobody caught it at the time, nobody thought
of it as such at the time, So you know,
like that's how good it is. And yeah, it does
hold up for sure.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
I again, my memory for some reason put that at
the beginning of the movie, you know, when she's with
her dad, and it's obviously not till a good chunk
in where she's remembering that as we've learned that he
has passed. But yeah, it again, like I said, I
know how it is made, but it's I it tricks
(30:50):
me every time, every single time.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Sure, you know, we haven't gone back to talk about
Jodie Foster like we like we talked about all all
the other actors were like, well, do Jodi Foster. We
haven't done that yet. And you know, Darren, I want
to ask you, you know, in the realm of Jodie
Foster movies, where does this ring for you? Is this
mid level Foster? Is this top tier? What do you think?
Speaker 2 (31:14):
It's pretty top tier? I'm trying to think in my
mind the movies of hers that I have seen. Obviously,
you know, you have like Silence of the Lambs and
things like that Panic Room, you know where she's she's
obviously often in movies where it is her, it is
like every shot is her and she is definitely the lead.
(31:37):
But in this one, yeah, it I think she strikes
the tone well of someone who is committed to their
vision and has to kind of throw their weight around
a bit to get stuff to happen, but is not unlikable.
And that is kind of a narrow road to walk,
(31:59):
because you can easily be the scientist that's a jerk,
that is the one who has to go get funding,
but you also want to be the main character. You
want to be the leading person that we want to
root for, and we're also watching her on this journey
of figuring out her own faith, in her own what
she actually believes. And so when your protagonist is in transition,
(32:25):
they're not firm, concrete in the ground. That is another
acting challenge to act throughout the course of these events.
So I think she did a great job in this.
It must have been exhausting because, like I said, she
is in practically every single shot of this movie. I
(32:46):
think the only time she gets a reprise is when
it's young Jodie Foster in the flashbacks.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
A young gentlemen alone in just a stellar performance, you know, yeah,
I mean Foster is great. You know, you use the
old joke that you usually reserve for like Gene Hackman,
where you're like, oh, she's great and everything you know,
and it can seem so dismissive to be that way.
(33:15):
Do I think that this is a role that when
you say, hey, what are the great Jodie Foster roles
that she jumps to mind? I can say no. I
think that she is up against a very large task
that she is very much up for, but the movie
(33:35):
doesn't do her any favors. The movie does not, I think,
give her the chance to shine the way that she
can in a dramatic role. And I'm not saying that in,
you know, in a way to diminish her. I'm saying
that the thing that I think, Oh God, Tristan, you
(33:57):
might have said this at some point, or maybe it
was you, Darren, about how Zamechis could fall into the
trap of being a very I guess clinical or technical director,
and I think Contact is that type of movie, and
I think it undercuts Foster's performance. I think she's great,
(34:19):
but I think the movie doesn't permit the audience as
much have a chance to connect with her as I
want to. And maybe that's not true for you guys,
but for me, it's sort of like some of that
overly technical, sterile direction undercuts her.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
I feel like we we as an audience, really connect
with her after the explosion, which might be a bit
too late in the movie. So I get what you're saying.
I don't think it. I don't think it necessarily affected
me too terribly. But you're not wrong because I think that,
(34:58):
you know, like after the explode and you start to
feel how lost she is, she doesn't know what to do,
and then she's confused when there's she's there's a second
one and I love. I can't remember if it was
American Dad or Family Guy or something like that. Like
they were talking about this movie and they're like, really,
just build another one. They just did that without anybody
(35:21):
finding out. Yeah you wait, And I.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
Feel like I quote that all the time. It's like,
why build one when you can build two for twice
the price?
Speaker 4 (35:31):
The price, that's right, My dad would do that, like
that creepy John Hart where he's it's like want to
go over ride because of this movie. And but yeah,
it's just like you know, like we we we feel
how apprehensive she is when she walks into the ship,
and like the journey that she's going through when she's
(35:53):
like okay to go, okay to go, you know, everything
like that. And then of course the much parodied should
have sent a you know, it sucks so much because
it's such a moment.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
It does because terrible. All I could think of was
a very early Family Guy when they find the Twinkie factory. Yeah,
that's it. That's what's in my.
Speaker 4 (36:12):
Brain that I think Family Guy who's ruined so many
moments for me.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Yep uh.
Speaker 4 (36:17):
And then of course, like when she's trying to defend
herself against James Wood, as many people do. And it's
it's terrible because I always feel I know you're supposed
to feel this way, but the injustice that I feel
when Angela Bassett says there's eighteen hours of static, I'm like,
what somebody should tell somebody.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
That, yeah, yeah, it should have led with that, yeah,
uh yeah it But through all of that, And that's
an interesting point you were saying, Tristan of are we
drawn firmly onto her side too late in the game
to really feel that resonance because this is a movie
(37:05):
where there's a lot of great showing, and there's a
lot of great telling, and there's some not so good telling,
and there's some not so good showing, like where I
feel like, I love how we're meant to connect with
her through her dad and her and her upbringing, but
(37:26):
kind of the times and the places and the way
they show the flashbacks is kind of scattered. And there's also,
you know, like the poet part where we're shown and
I get it, it's ninety seven and you're supposed to
show the most fantastical visuals and have your act or
react to nothing and convey emotion. I think you know
(37:52):
something that did it better would be like Interstellar, where
they don't focus on the visuals of space, they focus
on the heart of our character watching a recording of
his daughter aging through time. We're connecting with the human
element rather than the fantastical element. So so back to contact, Like,
(38:17):
I don't know, did anybody else nod with me when
I was saying, you know, different times when showing was
good and telling was good. Did it feel kind of
like that to you guys where there were sometimes where
they were really trying to show, but they were shoving
tell in the way. I think that's how the poet
part feels to me.
Speaker 4 (38:37):
I not necessarily because in that scene, like you get
to see some really cool stargate effects that's true, you
know true, you know, like where she's going through and
everything like that. And then they did some really really
interesting editing where zamechis. What he did was he had
Foster record it three or four different ways with different motions,
(39:01):
and it was you know, excited, it was sad, it
was scared, and then the editors would blend that footage
together and more literally more for her face with different
reads of the moment and even through in GenAm alone
in there, like, I freaking love that stuff. I love
that stuff in sci fi, especially hard sci fi, And
(39:23):
so I feel like that kind of excuses that that
section because it's so technically it's so it's built so
technically well and interesting, and even with the beach scene,
which you think is a little bit of a cheat
where you're just like, oh, we don't get to see
an alien civilization, and I feel like this was the beat.
(39:44):
I know it's happened before, so guys, don't don't you know,
message me or email me. I know this has happened before,
but I feel like this was the tipping point for Oh,
I'm in an I'm presenting myself in an image that
your mind would be able to comprehend or make you comfortable.
That is used almost in every single sci fi franchise
(40:05):
moving forward after this movie, and it's just an excuse,
like in a Star Trek episode to have a bottle episode,
which is like why are we on the Defiant? It's like, well,
I guess he wanted to make us more comfortable.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Why did you possess Captain Bacad because then Patrick Stewart
could play the villain.
Speaker 4 (40:25):
But in that scene, you know, like the sand is
done in an artistic way that the water is moving backwards.
The clouds are unique in every single different shot. You know,
it's trying to show you that it's ethereal and that
it's fake at the same time, but not in a
way that is poorly done, like it's fake on purpose
(40:48):
to make you feel like something's off, something's wrong. And
also the technical stuff, it's kind of just that. It's
part of the territory of hard sci fi. You gotta
get through it, like we just I think we just
have to applaud them for not doing putting a piece
of paper together and then piercing it, Oh, with a pencil.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
How do warbles work? Well, do you got a piece
of paper at a pencil? Because that's how I'm going
to show you you're right?
Speaker 3 (41:18):
You're right. So that's an unnecessary zing. But outside of that,
I think that the thing that I struggle with with
the film is that I think I don't know what
the specific right cuts or changes would have been. I
know that probably a lot of what I think in
(41:39):
terms of excizing something has to be addressed at the
script level, Like when you're just first conceiving everything together.
This isn't something where you could come in and be like, well,
I know, I'll just cut that. I can't be uh,
you know any of a lot long line of producers
who are like, I'm just gonna cut this twenty minutes
out and the movie's gonna be one hundred times better.
It's not that, but there is definitely something where the
(42:05):
Zamechas needed a little more courage to say, this is
a gigantic book. There is no way I can include everything.
So I'm going to cut even more and I'm going
to streamline it even more and get from A to
B to C to D even more quickly. And I
think that that would help some of what you're talking about, Darren,
(42:28):
where the spacing of the flashbacks is too far apart.
It's it's it almost feels staccato as opposed to rhythmic,
Like there's a flow to the storytelling in Forrest Gump.
There's a flow to the storytelling in all of Samecha's books,
but it's specifically this one where it's like, like it
it's like the gears don't catch some of the time,
(42:51):
and it's unfortunate because there are some legitimately great moments
that would have, like I I'm prevented from emotionally connecting
with it because I have to rewarm myself up to
get back into that flow. And then the movie jumps
and I'm like, oh, okay, I have to change where
(43:12):
I'm looking, at what I'm thinking, and I just I
there's a part of me that thinks at the script level,
they could have and should have had the courage to
basically possibly just get rid of the or not get
rid of, but completely restructure how they approached the accident
(43:35):
in the first like the sabotage that happens.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
With the first one.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
I may have even moved it earlier because the fact
that it blows up and it's like, oh my god,
we are in our darkest hour. Oh wait, no, that's okay,
we got another one. Like it just feels right. It's
a two and a half hour movie. But I'm like,
that's the part that feels too quick. I'm like, you
should have the thing up there, and then like she
goes back to everything and it's like, oh no, we
just need more time to completely it's the second Death
(44:01):
Star just took a few more years, you know, that
sort of thing.
Speaker 4 (44:04):
It's one of those things where when it blows up.
It's far enough in the movie that you look at
your watch, yeah, and you go, well.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Wait a second, they're not done.
Speaker 4 (44:13):
So they're not done yet, So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (44:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (44:18):
And I think you're right, like that's the first, you know,
climax point of the movie is that explosion. And not
to go too deep into rewriting territory, but something along
the lines of you know, taking you know, doctor Drumlin,
you know who died in that, who obviously was kind
(44:39):
of set up as a secondary father figure to Jodie
fire Like, you know, because obviously someone took care of
her after she was nine years old, you know, when
her dad died. So that would have been an interesting
thing if if he was the second father figure and
they were very close, like not even antagonists at all,
(45:01):
which is what we got in this, and then he
dies like that, I think would have been an even
deeper connection.
Speaker 3 (45:10):
I agree, I agree, I think I might have even
not even might I probably would have cut the the
sabotage aspect of it, because they have a very pointed
argument at one point where she says, you're not supposed
to have all of this extra stuff, the schematics don't
talk for it, And I would have had him die
in a mishap because the weight was off or something
(45:32):
like that, Like he goes into the prototype and then
that goes wrong, and it's like that becomes a thing
where they're like, no, we have to build exactly what
they told us to do. We can't we And that
would even reinforce the whole idea of like we can't
think that we can outsmart this. We have to either
do what they told us to do or not do
it at all. And I think that actually would have
(45:54):
resonated with the themes better because here I am earlier
talking about oh, well, you know the Matthew mcconaughe character
deals with you know, faith in a very mature and
respectful manner. But then it's almost like they just couldn't
help themselves but have Jake Busey play crazy religious guy
just to be like no, no, no, no, no, he's he's a
(46:14):
good one, but like they're all the rest of them,
they're all nuts. Like it's sort of like, yeah, like
the character is there, and Bucy does a great job
with him. Oh he does an amazing job, but it's
just it, I don't know that that's again though, like
that's all script level stuff that's not this movie.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
I don't know, Okay. I like that there's a duality
in every single section of this movie where you have
you have Jodie Foster's character who kind of represents the
positive side of science, and you know Tom Skarett, who
is the negative. And then you have McConaughey who is
(46:52):
the positive side of religion, Bucy who's negative, and you
have Angela Bassett the positive side of politics, and James
Wood as the negative. You know, like you have these
this duality for every single.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
I want to see that report Tristan write a paper
on that as amazing.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
It just it works, It works, it feels real, it
feels nice because I think that's one of the reasons
John and like you were talking about, if this movie
was made today, you wouldn't have that duality. You would
not have that duality in politics or religion. You would
not have the good and bad of religion, you would
not have the good and bad of politics. You have
bad politics, bad religion, good science. And this is coming
(47:34):
from science loving people on this podcast, and it's just
a show a change of the times, like the nineties
were people who weren't born yet. The nineties were so
different from today, even from post nine eleven. It's as
so different as somebody.
Speaker 3 (47:51):
Who was alive and very aware in going through them.
It was a cooler time. I'm just gonna say, let's
go ahead, gen X. We were having the time the nineties.
It's pretty fun.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
I'm not going to argue with you, like how Darren,
how many?
Speaker 2 (48:05):
How?
Speaker 4 (48:05):
How often do we go back to the nineties in
this podcast?
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Ge so so many times? Great films now for decade.
Speaker 3 (48:16):
By skateboarding, no doubt, great music, you know, great fashion,
very easy fashion back then. Oh my god, it was
so nice, comfortable in my day.
Speaker 4 (48:28):
Hey, I feel like I feel like we're I feel
like we're reaching the end here. I want to give
I want to give my rating.
Speaker 2 (48:35):
Yes, we we are all the way around. We're about
to drop through the machine. Tristan start us off then
with your rating of contact Everdell family favorite.
Speaker 4 (48:45):
I'm giving this four machine rings. I genuinely like this movie.
I think it's well made, I think it's well acted,
I think it's well performed. I think it was ambitious
for what it tried to tackle. I wish Carl Sagan
could have seen the completion of the movie because he
was heavily involved and died during the filming. That's why
(49:08):
the movie was dedicated to him. And I think the
structure is a is a little weird, could have been trimmed.
That's why I'm knocking down a star. But this is
to me, this is a top tier Jodie Foster film
for me. I love her performance in this. I love
the character. I love that, I love the chemistry that
(49:32):
she has with McConaughey. I love that she's an atheist
in real life and McConaughey is a Christian in real life.
I feel like they they brought it, they brought that
to the movie and it just works and scare it.
I mean as Drumlin is perfect, He's absolutely perfect for
this role. He because he's not a bad person. He's
(49:56):
not out let me rephrase. He's not an evil person,
but he's not opportunist, and he knows how to play
the game. Foster character doesn't know how to play the game.
I've worked in education, I've worked in medicine, I've worked
with scientists and doctors. Those who know how to play
the game get funding. Scaret knew how to do that anyway. Regardless,
(50:20):
I think this is a great movie. I love this movie.
It's one of my favorite Zamacas films. Four stars.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Oh awesome. Well, mister composition of Clinton, John Mills, what
is your rating for this movie?
Speaker 3 (50:36):
We didn't even really talk about the controversy or the
fact that the White House got all up in arms
about about the use of Clinton's image, even though Warner
Brothers insisted that they sent them a print before the movie.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Like he said, she said,
sort of.
Speaker 4 (50:50):
Figure, he's a public servant. We got his image.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
Hey they didn't. Hey, I know right, they didn't ask
anybody's permission Forrest Gump, So you know, fair play, right,
and you know what open Ai is hoping that argument
holds up in court too. But I think that this
is a film that I don't love. I like it
a lot, I don't love it. I definitely think that
(51:13):
there are things Trisa, and I hear what you're saying
about duality. I accept it, and you're right. No, No,
you're right. It should probably stay as a result. It's
just I'm so trying to solve the exploding thing that
I'm like, I don't know how to move it, how
to change it sort of thing. So be that as
(51:33):
it may. I think for the technical breakthrough stuff, I
gave a lot of grace to Back to Future Part
three for it. I gave a lot of grace to
Death Becomes Her for it, and so I'll extend that
saying grace here that this is a four star movie.
That's a very good movie, but it's not a great movie,
and I'll probably sit down and watch it again at
(51:55):
some point, but I don't love it. But it's something
where I have to at least admire and respect it.
So I'll give it a four.
Speaker 2 (52:05):
Yeah for this movie. It I think the more I've
watched it, the more I've enjoyed it, especially as we're
going through Zamechas right now and really seeing it in
the context of his his filmography. It totally is a
Mechas film from and we talk a lot about, oh,
(52:27):
we put Bill Clinton in just like the other president's,
but there's also just all of the aspects. I'm you know,
the in the drop ship sphere. It was this time
that I noticed, as her point of view is looking around,
that is the only part that is becoming transparent is
her POV. It's not just oh it's clear below you,
(52:51):
it's clear over here. It's like no, no, it's following.
It's It makes me think of the Volume right now
where they have the fake you know, it's all digitally rendered,
but the area that the camera can see is like
hyper rendered, and it's like this little tiny window that
moves around so it's always in the frame. I think
they could have made this on the Volume in like
(53:11):
five minutes. I think Jodie Foster would have had a
much more enjoyable time. But yeah, but overall, you know,
con you know, special effects aside, acting aside, I think
this movie just accomplished what it struck out to do,
to make you discuss it, to make you question things
(53:35):
and wonder. You know, there's a lot of wonder in
this movie, both on the side of faith and on
the side of science, which is very interesting. So yeah,
I think across the board we're giving this this four stars.
It's a great movie. I should revisit it more often.
It had been far too long since I had watched this,
(53:57):
So all right, so con Tact was four stars across
the board. But we're not done.
Speaker 4 (54:05):
Yeah, I'm I'm okay. So we were we weren't sure
if we were going to do this because we're like, okay, no,
we really do like to stick to themes where we're
just like, okay, it's we're just doing the screen franchise.
Oh we're doing Craven, We're doing all of Tarantino, or
we're doing you know, Emeric of the nineties or you
(54:26):
know Rhiner of the eighties. But I want to do Castaway.
I just it just feels like a logical progression after contact,
and so that I want to do. I want to
do that, guys, I want I want to do it.
Speaker 3 (54:41):
Okay, I'm totally game. I I gladly will watch Castaway again.
I look forward to rewatching it and talking about it absolutely.
Speaker 2 (54:52):
I mean, that's the whole point of having your own
podcast is you can make the rules and you can
break the rules. And we want to continue to thousand.
Speaker 3 (55:00):
It's part of the nineties, right if you're ten years technically,
the New Millennium didn't start till two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (55:07):
Tech there you go.
Speaker 4 (55:08):
So there, I knew you were that type of person.
Speaker 3 (55:12):
I'm just saying it. Tech to have I.
Speaker 4 (55:15):
Could have told you without you saying a word that
John would be fine with us doing Castaway because include
the millennium.
Speaker 3 (55:22):
Oh no, Actually, I'm more fine with it because I
remember loving this film and I want to see if
I still do.
Speaker 2 (55:30):
All right, well, you heard it here next week Castaway
from two thousand here on house Lights.
Speaker 1 (55:38):
Join the Revolution, Join the NED Party.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!