October 16, 2025 • 59 mins
In this episode of Houselights, we explore Robert Zemeckis' "Cast Away." Join hosts John, Darren, and Tristan as they discuss Tom Hanks' remarkable portrayal of Chuck Noland, the film's innovative use of sound and visual design, and its cultural impact.
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 (00:21):
Welcome back to House Lights, in particular the House of Zamechas.
Our last stop this week as we go along looking
at the works of Robert Zemechis of the nineteen nineties,
capping off with Castaway, which was released in two thousand.
But hey, we wanted to talk about Castaway. I am
one of your humble hosts, John FedEx Mills, and I
(00:42):
am joined by Darren ups Moser and Tristan who the
hell uses the postal service anymore of Riddell for a
discussion of a film that is large in scope and
very ambitious, especially considering Zamechas released not one, but two
movies that year at least What Lies Beneath in July
of two thousand and then Castaway came out in December
(01:05):
of two thousand. Quite a feat considering the scope of
Castaway and its challenges for filming. So we've talked often
about how Zamechas is up for challenges and likes to
give himself something to do. And I guess we can
come in here and we can say, well, he made
up for it being three years since contact by doing
(01:27):
two films, so and that makes up for the extra
Skipp year in the nineties as well. Either way, Darren
and Tristan, I know I did not see this in
the movie theater when it came out. I had reasons.
Maybe we'll talk about him later, maybe we won't.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
But the two of you, did either of you see
it in the movie theater? And follow up question, Tristan,
was this a Redell family favorite or is this only
your second time ever seen?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
I'm shocked.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
That is a follow up question, John, that is first question.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It's not the first question. It's a follow up question.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
This was not a Ridell family favorite, which I don't
know why, because this this has the makings of a
Redell family favorite. We all love Tom Hanks and like
it's a there's no this is you could call this
a family movie, like it has some dire moments, but
there's nothing crazy in it. You know. No, this just wasn't.
(02:27):
This just wasn't one that that tickled everybody's fancy, or
at least one that we all watch together that we
associate with with each other. I do have one memory
of it watching I didn't see it in the theater,
but I remember the marketing campaign for this was done
really really well, because I think like one teaser showed
the plane crash, like Tom Hanks going through the plane crash,
(02:49):
and that it ends with him just like walking on
the beach for the first time, saying hello or something
like that, and that it ends and you're like, oh wow, interesting,
like Tom Hanks alone in an island. Okay, yeah, I
would pay my.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Tailors, didn't you know spoil the entire movie in.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Thirty seconds, right, the first six seconds for the YouTube algorithm? Yeah,
it was Yeah. I remember the campaign was done really well,
the marketing campaign. And I also remember I think it
was the Oscars or some award show and it was
in between filming of Castaway when they were they haven't
(03:28):
started the second phase of filming yet, and then Tom
Hanks was at an award show. He was super skinny,
he had the beard, and the camera cut to him
as he was clapping for an award, and my whole
family was like, what the hell happened to Tom? Like,
I really hope that's for a role. And one of
(03:48):
the memory I have is I saw this at like
there was a there was a girl in high school
I think it was high school who I was involved
with and we were watching it together with her family,
and her mom started crying when Wilson floated away, and
she started screaming because she was so angry at herself.
She's like, I'm not crying over a god dang volleyball.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well that's a complicated Catharsis going on right there. So that's,
you know, I can say that that's not entirely surprising though,
because Wilson became a bit of a cultural phenom. But Darren,
did you see this in the movie theater or did
you hold onto this for home video?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
No? I did. I think the trailer got us. We
were like, Okay, this looks really I mean, it's Tom
Hanks and he was just king in the late nineties,
so it was a very easy sell to see this.
And yeah, when you talk about, you know, the familysness
(04:50):
of Tristan, I'd say the only thing about this movie
is it's kind of a queasy movie as a part.
There's like there's blood and there's like uncomfortable situations like
I don't want to have to think about being my
own dentist. But that's not a bad thing. That's not
gonna scar me. But you're watching this character go through
(05:11):
these moments and you're like, ugh, I don't want to
do that. So but I think for me, yeah, I
remember it all the touchstones, the I mean, the Wilson
was all over either comedy gags or late night or whatever.
(05:33):
The thing I remember the most so, which was just
totally tapping into the culturalness of it, was the following
year's Super Bowl commercial, which I think was a FedEx
commercial or it was spoofing something, but it was you know,
him at the end delivering the package. But in this
version there's someone there as he's delivering it and they're like, oh,
(05:57):
do you want to see what's in it? And he's like,
oh sure, And it's like GPS, phone packing, seeds, you know,
firestarter and you know basically everything would would have gotten
rescued in like five minutes and he's like, oh okay,
just like cuts. And it was such a clever idea sketch.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
It was one of the goodness.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
It was a great send up back when Super Bowl
commercials were truly truly great and inspired. I'll go ahead
and share timing is so important and this movie actually
wound up playing an important role for me later when
I saw it on disc borrowed from guy I've known
(06:42):
since I was fourteen years old, Mike, and he was like,
I really think you should see this because what had
happened was my mom had died just a few months
before Castway came out, so I wasn't much of a
moviegoer for a few months afterward, obviously, And this was
right around Christmas time in that first year, and the
family's all, you know, it's a little hour. But when
I did see this on disc it it was it
(07:05):
had an impact. Like I think that the reason that
those jokes resonated with people, the reason that Wilson became
a thing, was this was like a Forrest Gump type
moment where it didn't even really matter whether you liked
the movie. It was just part of the cultural conversation.
(07:27):
And Zamechas has a real gift for that. And I
think we've encountered that as we've gone through his filmography,
where it's like I'd say that death becomes her in
contact again are victims, and I mean what lies beneath
is an absolute victim of this, where every so often
he just comes out of the left field and just
hits you with something that dominates everything else. And you
(07:47):
forget everything else that like he's done, and sometimes the
other movies that were released in that year. It becomes
a very uh, you know, very weird sort of filmography
to go through from my perspective. But part of that
is he's reuniting with Hanks, and I wanted to throw
out there, Darren, to you first, did you get a
(08:07):
sense at all that reuniting with Hanks.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
And specific was in any sense a cynical move?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Is there anything about this where you look at it
and you go he went with Hanks because he worked
with him on Forrest Gump. He should have gone with
a different actor because like a Daniel day Lewis, who
would have actually strainded himself on an island for five years,
so they would have had to, you know, suspend Fethod acting.
It would have been a Richard link Later production where
it would have taken him fourteen years to film the thing.
(08:34):
But I mean like that that sort of thing. Is
Hank's successful enough here that he's the guy you're like,
definitely should have been Hank's or did at any point
of creep into you where you're like, a different actor
could have probably done something more dynamic with it.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Yeah, I get the question. Is Hank's the safe bet
the guy I've worked with and I'm trusting because we're
going to be shooting and also involve like gaining and
losing weight, and you know, I think overall it was
like a fifteen sixteen month shoot, which is a long time.
(09:11):
Not that he was shooting every single day of that,
but just the whole process. No, I think Hanks was
the right call. Again, I look back to Forrest Gump,
and you have this this aspect of Hank's working in
the role that he has to come across as likable.
(09:34):
He has to come across as you know, genuine and
in this movie, you need to connect to him. Otherwise
this is a carring movie. You need to care about
the character or it's just like you're watching an episode
of Survivor and oh, he got voted off this week.
I don't care. You know, you need and he takes
(09:58):
us through that entire range of Okay, this guy's a workaholic.
He's you know, I think the dynamic of the scene
where him and Helen Hunt open up there like day
planners and are trying to find a time to get together,
you feel that you're like, oh, it's he's this is
this kind of a relationship, so all of that through
(10:18):
his isolation and the cathartic ending. Yeah, I think maybe
there's a ten percent of it is I've worked with
this guy and I trust it. But I think Hanks
was the right call, Tristan.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
I think Tom Hanks brings this kind of everyman energy
that was very much needed in Castaway. And by every man,
I mean I know that Tom Hanks is revered and
I do believe that he's a special type of actor,
but Tom Hanks brings this genuine kind of quality to
(10:54):
the film into his acting, where you know, like we
never want to see him as a bad guy. He's
He's America's dad, and you want to see what America's
dad would look like on an island. Like if you
dropped off, you know, an action hero on you know,
on an island, you would feel like if you drop
Sylvester Stallone, you'd be like, Okay, he's just going to
(11:14):
go all Rambo and like mcgiver's way out of the situation.
But with with Tom hanksherlet you really do ask yourself,
how is he going to get along? How is he
going to do this? It kind of makes me think
of Ebert did a review on The Girl with the
Dragon Tattoo the Fencer version and talked about how there
(11:35):
was an inherent problem with having Daniel Craig be the
me Kil character because like by that time he was
already James Bond, and he's like, in the back of
your mind, you know that James Bond is going to
get out of the torture chamber. You know that James
Bond is going to survive, But when you watch the
Swedish version, you have no idea if Mikail's going to
(11:58):
survive because it's not James Bond. So I feel like
with Tom Hanks and Castaway, it was perfect casting me
because it really makes you wonder, like, if Tom Hanks
could survive, maybe I could survive, and so you're a
little bit more emotionally invested.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
I accept that. I accept that.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
I think that Hanks is the right choice because the
concept of the film is difficult for audiences to plug
into and it is a shortcut to getting butts in
the seats for the reasons you're talking about Tristan, where
people see him as America's dad, like you were saying,
and you're going to root for him without believing he
(12:38):
can make it. Necessarily, he's still got to prove he's
got to go through it, and you believe he can lose.
And Darren, I think that you're right that Hanks has
built up enough esteem by this point that he's in
the conversation automatically as worthy of doing the difficult role.
This isn't taking a gamble on a comedic actor with Philadelphia.
(13:00):
This is Hanks has the pedigree by this point to
say he can do this. I believe he can do this,
and if it makes the investors a little easier and
more forgiving of the way you're going to shoot this film,
so much the better.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
So much the better.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
But speaking of the way they shoot the film, I'd
be interested to know, Darren, it's I think it's very
judicious in its use of.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Visual effects.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
I think that they use them when they need them,
but otherwise they frame them with items that are you know,
if they could film it for real, they did film
it for real and other things.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
They did what they had to do.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
You feel that those effects hold up or did they
twenty five years later take you out of the film
in any way?
Speaker 3 (13:47):
Well?
Speaker 4 (13:47):
I think you know, I didn't even think about visual
effects in this rewatch, but upon thinking about it for
two seconds, these are the best kind of background effects
where it's the storm, it's you know, the little prop
thing has to roll up at the exact right moment.
But it's all as much as possible practical for practical
(14:11):
and the only thing that it didn't pull me out,
it more made me question, like, oh, how, I'm wondering
how they shot This was the very early shot where
the camera is following in kind of a riding along
with the package POV and I'm thinking, well, this is
two thousand, so there's no iPhone we strapped to this,
(14:33):
So is there just a guy with a full on
camera rig like huffing it behind little Tommy who's carrying
this pat I was actually genuinely curious how they pulled
off those shots, and it's probably simpler than I'm thinking
about it. But and that's not a negative to be
pulled out in that way. It was more curiosity, but no. Overall,
(14:56):
these these are like the Truman Show or set extensions
where we change the sky or we had to add
a storm, those kinds of effects, whereas everything else is
extremely practical. You feel like you're on this island. They
never placed the camera, you know. Oh, and here's a
(15:18):
bird eye view of his island, like a drone would shoot.
Why would we ever have that perspective? Why would we
ever We only really get a good look at the
island when he's rowing away from it, and that's the
first time he's seen his island that far away.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
So I think it works great. I appreciate what you're saying.
I think there are a couple of shots, Tristan. I
think there are like one or two shots where I
look at them and I go, ah, that's as good
as they could do in two thousand. Did you find
any shots like that at all?
Speaker 5 (15:50):
A there was Actually when I watched this, there was
something I noticed for the first time was the first
time we look through the cockpit of the plane. The
ocean is right up to the window. It looks like
they're skimming across the bottom of the ocean as they're flying,
(16:10):
and you're just like, oh my God, like, no wonder
they're having a problem right, like you're too low, you're
too low. But then the very next shot is just blackness,
like they're above the clouds. And then when they're starting
to descend. You see them go through the crowd clouds
and then you see the ocean. So they clearly screwed
up in that one shot where I don't know how
they could have missed it, but it was. It was
(16:33):
a huge screw up to have the ocean in the
outside window, uh, when you're supposed to be an airliner
above the weather. Regardless though, I think that was probably
the biggest thing was that, But this was. I loved
how much of a departure this was for Semechas you
know when you when you come from Contact and Forrest
(16:54):
Gump and you look at it his filmography with so
many other technical advances and motion capture and things like that,
like this was. This was as most bare bones as
you can get with Robert Simchis. Maybe Oh, I was
about to say What Lies Beneath, which is a movie
that we're totally skipping over because I forgot that What
Lies Beneath came out in July. I totally yes, the
(17:17):
way it came out in December.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Everybody, everybody, like I was saying, like he did two
in one year, just to make up for the extra
year off.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Everybody forgets about What Lies Beneath like I even more
than Death Becomes Her.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
Yeah, my dad and I really liked What Lies Beneath
like it is. It's that's a bare bones movie, like
it's it's a psychological thriller. You know, it's not fantastic,
but it's it's an interesting watch. It's it's yeah, it's
worth seeing.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
The strange thing is that's the one I saw in
the theater that year. I probably would have seen Castaway
if my life had continued on, uh with with without
you know, the tragedy and everything. But like, it's weird
to me because as as we're prepping for this, I
looked up and I saw the whole thing about July
and I was like, oh, yeah, I did go see
that in the movie theater. I forgot that movie even existed.
(18:06):
And what you're saying, yeah, we won't rabbit hole, it's
it's okay, Yeah, it's fine.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Yeah, it's fine, it's fine.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
It doesn't not every That's one of those movies where
I tell people, not every movie has to change your life.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
Yeah exactly, what isn't that what he basically quickly shot
while they were waiting for Tom Hanks to like lift weight,
So like he filmed it as a pocket movie in
the middle of his other movie. Like that's still like
the most badass way of shooting something.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
That was okay.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Honestly, I think probably it's like somebody who has something
to distract themselves where they're trying to work out a
different problem, and like he can go on set and
he can do that thing, and like in the back
of his brain he's like, oh, wait a minute, no, no, no,
I could take the camera when we go back to
the island and we could do this with him instead.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
That sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
But in terms of the way this is shot, the framing,
the aspect ratio is a departure from previous work with Zamechis.
It's it's lensed differently, even though he keeps the same
you know, crew, largely editor and everything going along with him. Darren,
did that take you by surprise at all? Do you
(19:17):
think that that was a practical consideration. Do you think
it helps the movie to have a narrower field of vision?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
I mean, to be honest, I didn't give a ton
of thought about it, but I will say the the
feeling I got from the framing was a bit of closeness,
you know, you feel like you are right there with him,
almost not too close, as in he put a camera
(19:46):
down and he's blogging from the island. You know, it's
still a little bit of ways from that, but there
aren't sweeping vistas, and you know it's not that kind
of a shot of movie. So no, I think moving
the action as it were a little closer to your character,
(20:07):
especially when he's going to be in ninety five percent
of the frames, like this is a Hanks movie, So
I think it worked.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Tristan, same question.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
I love that he filmed this in one point eighty
five aspect ratio. I remember when I pulled it up
on the TV and clicked it, I was surprised that
it wasn't anamorphic, that it wasn't two point thretey nine.
And I was also kind of taken it back at
how much grain there was at the beginning. Did you
(20:40):
guys notice that too, Like there was a lot more
grain than what you would expect for a two thousand film,
And I thought that was interesting because it definitely gave
it a texture that you hadn't noticed in previous films,
Like if you watch Contact, you don't really notice the
grain or that kind of texture. Even Gump, you know,
you didn't even really notice it that much, maybe more
so than contact, but yeah, it was. It's interesting because
(21:04):
like the type of the type of film that he used,
like the actual stock, the actual film stock he used,
had a little bit more dynamic range and allowed for
a little bit richer color reproduction. Like did you guys
notice that at all with this, Like the colors were
a little bit richer than in previous films because the
palette is a little constrained. I think it's on an island.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
The palette is restrained for the obvious reasons and everything.
But the sky really, and I hate to use the word,
the sky pops at certain moments. I do, I trust me.
I want to cut off my own nose for saying it.
I apologize to everybody. But the richer colors I think
really help some of those shots because it makes what
(21:51):
could be a very flat and boring looking film be
more dynamic. So I mean, but obviously Don Burgass, who's
been who was working with him since Gump at least
I think, really, you know this is this is a duo,
like he's found his director of photography that got exactly
(22:12):
what he was going for, because the balance here is
he's balancing those visual effects. And I think that actually
framing it the way that he did is helpful on
the island. But I think it's clutch in the plane crash.
It is absolutely clutch in the plane crash because it
is so claustrophobic and you're so up in there that
(22:34):
you know. Honestly, I watch it, and everybody knows I
hate flying. I watch a film like this and I'm like, well, yeah,
that's everybody. That's a fifty to fifty chance every time
you go in the air like this is exactly what's
going to happen. At one point you know, well what
you know it's coming.
Speaker 5 (22:48):
I wish the audience could know how little you're joking.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
It's not a bit. I swear to god, it's not
a bit. My palm starts sweating during that scene. I'm like, yeah, yeah,
this is exactly I'm gonna fly. I'm gonna fly back home,
see my family. This is what's going to happen.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Yeah, Jack, John and I text each other every day.
I get way more texts than I usually do when
he's flying or about to fly.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
That is true that is true.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I absolutely light up light up the world because like,
so I will actually sit down next to people in
a plane, I'll be like, I'm a bad flyer. I'm
letting you know that, do not take any cues off
of me. That is how we may have to hold hands.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
So with okay, so with this movie specifically, like since
you're talking about Burgess, I loved how minimalistic the camera
work was in this movie, how long the takes were,
how they focused on natural lighting, like like when you
saw the fire, whenever he had a fire, that's that's
mostly what was used to light the scene. And it
(23:50):
really showed no like did they bring in lights, of
course they did. You know, this wasn't like The Remnant
where it was all just natural light, but you could
tell that was the main motivated light was natural light sources.
And I felt like it really and also the absence
of the score, like you didn't get Celestry's score on
the Island. I thought that was such a great aesthetic
(24:11):
choice that really showcases the isolations along with the lake.
The longer takes and some wide shots and close ups.
You know, it just it just I felt like it
really really worked, like this is the mechas and Burgess
working together and firing on all cylinders.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Well, I'm glad you mentioned that about the the the
naturalistic lighting, but obviously they brought in lights, Darren. Do
you think that we should be grateful that this film
was conceived and shot before the huge digital camera revolution,
because Tristan references the Yeah, I like the whole time
(24:49):
I'm watching it this time, I'm like, oh my lord,
I know exactly what this film would look like if
somebody came up with it today.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
I already know what it would.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Look like if the mechais did this today, he would
he'd be using like the most advanced digital cameras and
shoot in the dark as much as they could.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yes, yeah, Well.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
And the fact that he doesn't even get fire for
like a while, so it's just better shoot during the
day or hope there's a moon out at night. And
part of it is he's in a cave, you know,
which is actually a major set piece on the island.
But circling back around to the sound editing, as it were, Yeah,
(25:28):
not only did we not have score until the very end,
but I most noticed it when he's back at the
FedEx business and you're hearing cars honking in the background,
and you're hearing which it kind of caught me off
guard because it's obviously a choice because normally, when you're
(25:50):
in a scene like that, like in an office building
or whatever, you don't want to hear the outside world.
You don't want it to pull you out. But in
this case, the inverse is true. You want it to be. Like.
The whole vibe of that portion is everyone's kind of
scurrying around in their minutia of life, which isn't a
(26:11):
bad thing, but it's so jarring for Chuck coming back
to Okay, see you tomorrow for another day of work.
Like when before it was I hope I live through tomorrow.
I hope I find food or water. So yeah, the
use of or the lack of extra sound, even the
(26:34):
fact that there's besides the crab and fish, there's no
animals on the island. There's no birds or or wild
cats or anything like that, and it's shockingly isolating because
of it.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I'm glad you mentioned the sound because I think the
sound design in this is tremendous for the reasons you're
talking about. When he's on the island, its sounds isolating.
It's like that, and and what I love coming back
to it this time is it's never called out, but
(27:09):
the I think the subtext is still there. We all
love to go to island paradises or think about going
to island paradises, and we're like, oh, I would love
to be there and live there. No, you would love
to live there and be there in a resort in
an island paradise. You have no desire to.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Be You want to live in Hawaii. That's what you
want to do.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
You want to live somewhere where they built things and
you have electricity.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Infrastructure my friends said infrastructure exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Maybe some pavement and two day shipping. Who knows, but
and we'll come back to the shipping, trust me. But
this was nominated for Best Sound. But that Academy award
went to a different film, and that went to Gladiator,
which we.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
All love, we all know.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
I thought it went to the Matrix.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
No Matrix came out ninety nine. This came out in
two thousand. So for those awards, Gladiator won, Castaway was nominated,
The Patriot was nominated, The Perfect Storm was nominated More
Water Effects for You There and You five seven one,
which is a movie nobody three people saw who knows.
(28:20):
I Well, there you go, you and the other two
people in the theater, who knows. But I mean I
hear it, and I'm like, oh, now I want to
go back and watch Gladiator because I know the sound
design was great on that, but it really tough.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
I know it is, I know it is.
Speaker 5 (28:36):
It's really really good, like I know, like, okay, so
Gladiator was one of the CAUs I ever owned.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Scene like just and.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Oh that's but it's I would put in Gladiator to
showcase my dad's surround sound system, Like that's what we
would do it, Like we would pop in Gladiator and
like when he throws the sword, when when he's about
to when they're about to execute him towards the beginning,
and he gets away and he's off screen, and then
(29:07):
all of a sudden, you see you hear a sword
just like like go past the camera. It's freaking amazing,
like just that just that one bit because you can
totally feel it, so it feels like it just whiz
past your ear and you have the worst seeings and
the animals. There's no question of so much.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Gladiator has more going on, and it's very on point.
It's very well done. This is a much more subtle
type of score. And I'm not saying that to like
throw shade it Gladiator. I'm saying this, you know, to
Darren what what you were talking about a minute ago,
Like this is one where the sound is a character
in a way that you don't even really notice it.
(29:47):
You know, you mentioned, Tristan the lack of score on
the Island, and it made me think of Dog Day Afternoon,
where you don't realize that the music is missing until
the end and you're like, oh, yeah, right, and you
realize exactly how on point that whole team had to
be to keep you invested without the emotional cheat code that.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
A film score is no country also.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Yeah, oh yeah, right, I forgot about that. Oh my gosh. Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
But that said, it's still great design. But playing into
everything else, as we've talked about Hanks is a very
I'll just go ahead and I'll ask you first, Triston,
do you think other directors would have had the courage
that Zamechis does here not to cut to the people
back in the world while Hanks is isolated.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Yes, I do believe that other directors would have done that.
I was actually thinking about that as I was watching this,
where it would have been so easy, It would have
been so easy to show the search, to show Helen
Hunt struggle with a new relationship, you know, it would
have been really, really easy. But I think the idea
of it, they went in with the best intentions. It
(30:59):
was we're showing this movie from the perspective of Tom Hanks,
like this is his movie. This like we're like, there's
no reason to cut back, there's no there's no reason
to to to show a flashback that okay, see that
would have been even easier to did to do was like, oh,
he's thinking about his life back home, you know, and
(31:20):
we see what he's thinking. I'm trying to think of
another director that wouldn't have cut back, and a director
who would. I feel like Spielberg definitely would have cut
back to know that that's a hardcore absolutely would have
shown what was going on or done flashbacks. I feel like, maybe, oh, Couran,
(31:46):
he would not cut back. Alfonso Kuran would have cut back.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
That's fair.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
That's that's my that's my two examples of those who
obviously there's tons of who would and tons of who wouldn't.
But those are the top two that that kind of
pop into my brain. Fair.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Yeah, with the cutting back, there's two things about it.
One is I think it would absolutely have destroyed the isolation.
You would not have felt the isolation nearly as much
if you're and then you know the super Bowl happened
and he's just like killing a crab. He would be like,
what am I watching? The only thing as far as cutback,
(32:21):
that I think might be interest I'm not saying I'm
advocating for it, but I feel like another director could
have gone this route, which would have been start the
movie with him washing up on the island and all
of the nightmare flashback when he's dreaming is like the
crash and maybe a bit of the last day of FedEx.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
An interesting take.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
I don't think there's anything wrong with how we watched
it in a linear progression, but the directors love tossing
us in the middle of the action and then flashbacking
you know how we got here. So I'm not saying
i'm advocating it. I'm just saying it would have been
interesting take.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
You're right, I think I could easily see somebody doing that.
I really could, Like I could even see like a
fan edit of that.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Somebody doing that now, Darren, you mentioned that he worked
for FedEx, which eventually, by you know, by the third
act I kind of called on right, he worked for
fed X, Right, I think it gets there. Eventually, it
seeps through. They can only be nuanced for so long.
Tristan coming back to it with twenty twenty five eyes
(33:27):
or even projecting yourself backward to the first time you
saw it, is the obvious backing of FedEx in this film,
to its detriment or to its benefit or is it a.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Neutral They didn't actually get any funding from FedEx for this,
you're kidding me. No, No, they did presume that they did,
because I was like, it's an easy question.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Yeah, I absolutely presumed that they did. So they simply
got FedEx's permission to use their logo, or.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
They got their permission and cooperation. But they didn't get
any funding.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
That's crazy, that's crazy. They were able to use their trucks. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
The original idea was from Hanks, wasn't it where he
thought he was thinking of or he had read somewhere
about FedEx sends three planes over the Pacific every single
day and was like, what if one of those crashed,
and then he brought a third, and Zamechas brought a
third and it all kind of pieced together. But yeah,
it does though. I see what you're saying, though, John,
(34:29):
the first ten minutes of this movie, you're like, this
is am I to FedEx ad because it is everywhere.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
I think it works. I think you have to use
a brand like that, Like I think you had to
do it back then. I think you absolutely have to
do it today because there's certain times when you have
a fake brand, you're like, Okay, is this more inspired
by UPS or is this more inspired by FedEx? It's
just like it looks like the UPS logo, but they're
using FedEx colors. You know, Like you I feel like
(35:01):
you get inside your own head more when you see
a fake brand than if you just went ahead and
used a normal one or an everyday one. But it's
kind of like when you see football in movies and
they're not allowed to do an FNAL team, it all
feels like Canadian football.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Well, and that's I'm glad you bring that up because
football and specific because I consider the whole FedEx thing
in neutral like it's one of those things where it's like, well, yeah, okay,
he works for a real company that I understand. That's fine,
and then I can compartmentalize because obviously I presume FedEx
must have kicked in some funding. But either way, even
if they had, I'm like I was able to be like, okay,
(35:40):
well he works for FedEx, so that I believe that
this is occurring in my planet, you know, my existence.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Fine.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
But the football thing, it always reminds me of an
absolutely terrible movie starring Ben Affleck. It was him trying
to be Jack Ryan. I don't forget the name of
it right now. It was one where they blew up Baltimore.
It was a Tom Clancy some of all fears, that's
the one Morgan Freedan is the President one.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
But I did not. I hated that movie.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
And one of the reasons I hated the movie is
they went to a football game in Baltimore and not
only was the stadium indoors, which Baltimore Stadium is not,
but neither team exists. And it to your point, Tristan,
I was like, I can't even pretend that this is
the real world right now, Why did you even have this?
If you admite it a soccer match. I'm with you, okay, fine,
(36:31):
because I know nothing about soccer, but the NFL come on, brother.
But yeah, so if you if you had put him
for something where it was like Ups but with FedEx colors,
it would have been like, okay, you know, it's like
it's like the old movies where you see soda on
the canty, like it couldn't just get the permission to
use coke?
Speaker 3 (36:50):
I mean exactly, slurm.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Well, and they were wise to do that because really,
you have a matter of minutes to ablish this character,
to give us a reason why we need to care
about him. And we find out we're like, oh, he's
a workaholic. He's way up in the chain. He's the
guy who gets on the ground and gets places spun up,
(37:14):
like this is a very demanding job. And then boom,
he's in a relationship and you're like, oh my gosh,
this is like what is this going to be like?
And yeah, you have a fleeting amount of time in
the non island world to establish the likability of this
guy and give him his you know, give him his conscious,
(37:37):
give give him his reason for continuing. And it's you know,
it's Helen Hunt and the package are the two things
that keep him going. And if you don't have any
of that, then you're like, why why should I care
about this thought experiment of ap of a guy crashing.
Speaker 5 (37:57):
On an island.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Yeah, I am setting all of that stuff aside. I
wonder if there's also a challenge here for some audiences
and Tristan, I'll throw this to you with the entire
conceit that of what a workaholic he is, or you know,
(38:18):
like that does that seems to have fallen a bit
out of vogue? Do you think that that aspect of
his character is still relatable to modern audiences or do
you think that people have regarded that as more of
a negative now than they did.
Speaker 5 (38:31):
Then I'll be honest with you, I didn't really see
a workaholic. I didn't really get that sentence. No, No,
I got a guy who travels a lot for his job.
I felt like it's kind of like a like when
my dad was a salesman. You know, he traveled constantly,
but when he was home, he was home. And it's
(38:54):
even like, you know, like when Hanks was talked with
Helen Hunt, he says, he's like, Okay, well, like I'm
if I come back on the six, but then I
got to go right back on the road like on
the thirteenth. You know, like that's still some time in between.
And it's not like I didn't feel like they were
trying to give us a sense that like all this
guy cares about his work. It just sounds like he's
the man on the ground, like he's the one who
(39:15):
gets other FedEx areas up to speed. And I know
some of those people. I work with some of those people,
and yeah, I just felt like he had I just
thought that they showed it like two people with demanding jobs,
like she's doing her dissertation and she has to defend
it and he's, you know, traveling around the world trying
to talking about going to South America coming back from Russia.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (39:39):
No, I didn't get that at all. I think it
was just gave it gave you a reason why he
flies a lot.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
See, I understand what you're saying, but I think the
workaholic thing, from my perspective, comes across when he's giving
that motivational speech to the people that you know, where
he's standing it up. It's very very very energetic, very
passionate in the sense where I think it could be
interpreted as he's he's excessively passionate about what he does.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
You know, I think the.
Speaker 4 (40:11):
Word, the word alcoholic. I think that's what's tripping us up.
And maybe I feel like he's a person that the
job is always number one. Other things have to flex
around the job, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
It's just the nature of his job. And like I
said before, I think the the the one scene that
(40:32):
really sums up his relationship is when they both crack
open their day planners and try to find a time.
That's such a beautiful scene where you're you feel you're like, oh,
they're trying to make it working up.
Speaker 5 (40:48):
In the air, like when they never I never saw
I never saw that, so, oh my god, what reference ruined?
No it's a good movie, but no, it's it's there.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Well, there's a very.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
Verily similar scene between George Kloony and Vera Farmiga where
they do that and they crack open their plans are like, oh, yeah,
I could fly in from Orad. It'd be totally fine.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Darren, I think you're right. I think the word workaholic
is the wrong word to use. I think that I
think I just said it was the.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
Wrong word to use. What do you want me to do?
Fly out there and apologize?
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Geez, anyway you will fly John, that'sarily we know that.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
No, if I fly out there, it's to burn his car.
We all know this. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
I think that what comes across I guess I should say,
is that he's a guy where I think that engagement
ring that he gives her. I think that this is
a guy who his job has been the thing that's
been the most important thing to him, and he's hitting
a point where he's now questioning whether he needs to
reprioritize things. That is sort of the sense that goes
(41:52):
along there, because I think that there is a lot
of subtle work that Hanks does with Hunt where it
really comes across the challenge that is there, but also
the quiet moment of everybody goes through this point where
(42:14):
you are driven, you're establishing yourself, you're climbing the ladder,
you're doing the work, and then you hit a point
where like, let me take a pause, maybe reprioritize. And
I think that actually, I think it's actually a good
thing for the film because it adds to the tragedy
of his plane going down, is like he's right at
that moment where he might be thinking about what's really
(42:35):
important in his life and what those priorities are.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
At least that's the sense that I.
Speaker 5 (42:40):
Got With that in mind, I think if it was
made today, like if Castaway was made today in twenty
twenty five, there would be much more emphasis on digital
connection and screens and the Internet and everything like that. Yeah,
than opposed to making your job number one. Saying that
as a criticism, I'm saying that, like it's just like
(43:03):
with how connected the world is today and how we
have we all have smartphones, we all have you know,
five different forms of social media. I mean, Darren, I've
messaged you on text, Slack, PlayStation, email, and I know
I'm forgetting one other thing, but like this was all
on like the span of a week, and there's always
(43:26):
ways to get a hold of somebody, and there's always
like you know, like Darren, you're in California, John, you're
in Florida. I'm in Illinois. You know, we're literally across
the country. And it's it's interesting to like, if you
plucked one of us out and put us on an island,
how would we survive. How would we maintain ourselves? Like,
(43:49):
without YouTube, how do we know how to start a fire?
Speaker 4 (43:52):
I'm just going to make the joke. First thing I'll
do is I'll look up how to start oh.
Speaker 5 (43:56):
Oh oh, oh god.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
But you're absolutely right, tristed.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
And I think if this was made nowadays, that would
be more of the takeaway and not as much reprioritization
over work. It would be slowing down, taking a pace
of life. Maybe they're, you know, brand manager for a
hot singer and everything's go, go go, the album's about
(44:21):
to drop and we got the new show coming, and
all of a sudden, it's like, no phone, no, nothing,
like you have to disconnect and survive the element. So
I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm not advocating a Castaway
to you know, remake, because I don't think we need it.
But we could see that type of movie working nowadays.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
Heck, I can't almost I don't even know what the
timing is, but I could see some TV sect seeing
this movie and going but we'd call it Survivor or
something like that.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
You know, get Kevin Hart on the phone, right.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
No, So, speaking of the other supporting cab that's in here,
a referenced Helen Hunt. She had a great moment of
intense popularity in film for a time, and Cassaway was
part of that. Darren, do you feel that she brings
a relatability to the role that that works, Like, is
(45:20):
she successful in what that character needs to portray? You know,
given that this is a Hank's performance, do you also
walk away feeling that this is a hell in Hunt film?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
I do. I think she has a very strong performance this.
I mean, there's a lot of characters, but there's really
like three people in this entire movie. It's it's Hank's
you know, her and the best friend. And I think, yeah,
this right around this time, you have you know, Twister,
(45:53):
you have all sorts of you know, met about You
and television as good as it gets, as good as
it gets. So so she's showing her acting chops. Yeah,
and this one it's can you imagine the pitch? You're like,
we're going to use you in Seeing one through five
and Seen you know, eighty five through eighty six of
(46:14):
this movie, and you have to convey four years of emotion.
But I think she does. I was on the edge
of my seat for not remembering exactly how the ending
happened when he goes to her house and I'm like, Okay,
I thought it was just going to be it for
him seeing her out the window at the at the
(46:35):
FedEx's location, and he's like, oh, she did come, but
the husband steered her away. Oh I get it, but no,
it goes. It's cathartic, that moment of seeing the search
pattern her memory wall, of when it was all about
trying to find him, way better than let's cut back
(46:56):
and forth with her and her and her struggle.
Speaker 5 (47:00):
I absolutely love when she faints. I think she did
such a great job. I know it's just fainting, but
I love that moment.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
No, don't say it's just fainting, because that's an incredibly
difficult thing to make look real in film. It really
truly is. She's no slouch in that scene. I go
back and forth on that scene in particular. It's it's
because I go back and forth in my brain whether
it hurts more to be with him when he's expecting
(47:29):
to see her and we still haven't seen her. And
Chris Knoth, the husband comes in so like, we haven't
seen her yet because he hasn't seen her yet, and
then he turns and the door opens and it's says dude,
and he's like what, and like, as an audience, we
would have said where is she? And then our new
shot of her is through the window, Like I think
(47:51):
it would have made that scene hurt more.
Speaker 5 (47:53):
That's really solid. That's really solid.
Speaker 3 (47:57):
I don't know. I don't ping my too.
Speaker 5 (48:00):
Yeah, it makes more sense the way that you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
I don't ping the movie too hard for it because
I think, like so many other films, this is something
where the whole can be greater than the sum of
its part. Sometimes like I don't want to fixate on like, oh,
well this shot should have that's that's all that comes
out in the wash. Basically no film has well, not
no film, but very few films have the luxury of
(48:25):
being so perfect that you wouldn't change a thing. But
in terms of the overall of the film, we talked
about the sound design. The score is used sparingly, but Darren,
is it effective.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (48:42):
It is still like if if they played the main theme,
I would be like, oh, this is castaway, Like it's
it's recognizable enough, partially probably because of you know, how
it's composed, but it's also I mean, I was reading
on the soundtrack and they were like, you know, they're pulling,
(49:02):
like Okay, what can we put on this? It's like,
I think the number one thing was the end credit
piece because it's there's just not a lot to go
off of. But yeah, but no, it's I don't think
the score is overlooked at all. It's just it's a
minor aspect of this particular film with.
Speaker 3 (49:21):
Intent, Tristan.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
In terms of the editing, I just pinged that little
tiny scene where I'm like, ah, you know, I could
have tweaked that. But in the micro and the macro,
where do you land with the editing? Is this superb editing?
Is this adequate editing? Or do you see chances for
improvement here?
Speaker 5 (49:39):
I think besides what you just talked about, because you
just bursted that bubble, sorry about that, I think that
this was the you had limited amount of editing, especially
when you were on the island, which I think was
a very good thing. This was editing that didn't draw
attention to itself, which is another good thing because I
didn't really think about the editing while watching it, which
(50:01):
is a great thing, because like you had such you
had longer takes, and you know, like at the beginning,
you know, the camera work was you know, way more
frenetic and kind of shaky, and then once we get
to the islands, it's a little bit more calm down, longer,
takes a little bit more of the I wouldn't say
not lethargic, but like classic classic framing and classic classic
(50:25):
you know motion. And so I think that the editing,
it was an easier thing to edit because of the
longer takes and the classic style of filmmaking. But yeah,
I I really don't have too many criticisms when it
comes to that. I think sometimes I think there are
certain times when the pace is a little slow, but
(50:46):
it's hard to criticize it because it's intentional, like you know,
like you need It's not like there's going to be
like it's not like it's New York City on the island,
you know, like it's it's it's not Manhattan. It's it's
it's slow on purpose. There's have nothing to do there
except try to survive.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
I like how the rush moment is I have two
months to make rope before the optimum time to like
that's really the start to montage of getting ready but
it's a two month amount of time that's hitting the gas,
which is hilarious because it's a huge amount of time.
(51:25):
As far as editing, I mean I also reflect it
into the story. This is such a solid story. And
the thing that comes to my mind with I'm thinking
of editing not just in the shot to shot, but
in the where parts of the story are placed. And
I think the reveal of the fact that he thought
(51:48):
of killing himself is placed later in the proper place.
I think if that had done, if that had been
done chronologically and we'd seen it when it happened, it
would not have been as impactful of you know, oh,
I know where we can get thirty feet more rope
and I'm like what And then you're like, oh, and
you know exactly what happened. But you didn't need to
see it. You didn't need to see him wrestling with
(52:11):
the moment to know that it would have been a
horrific moment for him to go through. And it was
all played out in and after the fact type of method.
So I think that that worked great. So overall, yeah,
all of the bits the you know, wishing for a
dentist to I love just the where he learns about
(52:37):
the point of light in the cave and how I
mean this is true. This is what points will do
through the course of a year. It's kind of a
stretched figure eight. I think if you look at any
classroom globe, you'll see that same symbol on somewhere in
the Pacific Ocean. Funny enough to be showing how that's
how seasons are represented depending on your latitude.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
So what you know, we've come through. We've talked about
a lot of technical stuff. We talked about the film
as a whole. I think we're at the point now
where we're ready to give our final ratings and any
final thoughts that we have, And so Tristan, I'll throw
it to you first, because Darren needs to remember that
I'm the kind one of the two of us. But
(53:22):
where do you land with two thousands cast away? Our
last visit with Robert zamechis in what we're calling the
nineteen nineties.
Speaker 5 (53:32):
I think this is a solid four star film. This
is not a perfect film by any means, but this
is four stars that really hits hard and gives the
gives you a sentimentality that I think is appropriate for
the film. The shooting, the editing, the sound design, acting
is all top notch. But I think if we were
(53:56):
to compare it to others in Mecca's film, like if
you look at you know, Back to the Future or
Forrest Gump, Like when you watch Forrest Gump, you're like,
holy crap, five stars one of the best.
Speaker 3 (54:09):
That is great.
Speaker 5 (54:10):
So it's hard having that in your filmography. It's because
when you watch a movie that's not that mind blowing
as Forrest Gump was, you can't give it a five
stars as well, and so that may not be fair.
But I give this four stars because of that reason,
because he's done other movies that are better than Castaway, Darren,
(54:34):
Where Do You Land?
Speaker 4 (54:36):
Yeah, totally going against what Tristan just said, I am
actually choosing to give it five stars. It is a
different kind of five stars than Forrest Gump, and it's
I think it's very difficult to compare the two in
some ways. I mean, one is a cast of three basically,
and one is a cast of like dozens, and one
(54:59):
is covering major American history and one is a solo performance.
But for the different ways that they do it, I'm
captivated by the story. I'm captivated by the performance. I
actually it's funny even though I watched this in one
sitting towards the very end, you know, because you have
(55:20):
the throughput of the wings throughout the entire movie, and
when he chooses at the very end, I did not
pick up the significance from the very first shot, and
so I rewatched the first like six minutes of the
movie where we see the FedEx truck drive down the
ranch and the ranch sign has like two names, whereas
in four years later it's only has one name. And
(55:42):
I was like, Oh, I didn't realize how important this
one character we see for a moment is going to be.
And I like how it's implied that that's the road
he chooses and kind of strikes up a person he's
kind of, I won't say is in a relationship, but
he's has I've already impacted his life more than she knows.
(56:03):
And I think that's beautiful. So I'm giving it five
winged stars, Darren.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
I love everything you said, Tristan. I understand what you said,
and I'll throw this minor soop to you that my
first viewing of this was so therapeutic in a lot
of ways because of the time that came out, and
then my friend who told me to watch it and
why he told me to watch it that I know
that there is undoubtedly some emotional connection there that's resonating
(56:35):
with me on a certain level. But since that first viewing,
I stick with that rating, which is five stars, because
at the end of this film, every time I've watched it, emotionally,
I'm there. I'm like, Zamechis has successfully taken me on
this entire journey and in a less minus manipulative way
(57:01):
then latter day Spielberg. He has given me a happy
ending that feels earned. It's not a cheat to have
the happy ending here. I want the happy ending. I
want him to tell me, as an audience member, no
matter what you're going through, it's gonna be okay. And
(57:22):
it's like, I think that Zamechis delivers that message in
an obvious, without being schmaltzy sort of way, and Hanks's performance.
Speaker 3 (57:33):
Is perfect for it.
Speaker 2 (57:35):
It's it's one of those things where I just consider
the way it wraps up is so deftly done that
emotionally it hit me in a different way, but equally
heavy way as Forrest Gumps did. So this is a
five for me, hands down, Zamechis blows my mind with
(57:56):
how easily he can get to that spot even as
we've gone through the nineties and it's like death Becomes
Her didn't really ring true. There were issues with contact,
but it's all of a thread, and you'll see that
thread go through with later works of his. We won't
be covering it, but when you get to for instance,
(58:16):
Flight with Denzel Washington, like it's got that similar sort
of thing where it's like wow, and so yeah, five
stars from me. And that wraps up our time with
Robert Zamchis at least for now. So here we are
and we're getting ready next week to bring to you
our two hundred and fiftieth episode. Darren, do you want
(58:40):
to give the audience a hint of how they can
prepare for that episode?
Speaker 4 (58:45):
Oh well, set aside quite a bit of time, as
we're going to look back at nineteen fifty six Cecil
B de Mills epic The Ten Commandments Here on House
Lights
Speaker 1 (58:59):
Join the Revolution, join the ned Party,
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome back to House Lights, in particular the House of Zamechas.
Our last stop this week as we go along looking
at the works of Robert Zemechis of the nineteen nineties,
capping off with Castaway, which was released in two thousand.
But hey, we wanted to talk about Castaway. I am
one of your humble hosts, John FedEx Mills, and I
(00:42):
am joined by Darren ups Moser and Tristan who the
hell uses the postal service anymore of Riddell for a
discussion of a film that is large in scope and
very ambitious, especially considering Zamechas released not one, but two
movies that year at least What Lies Beneath in July
of two thousand and then Castaway came out in December
(01:05):
of two thousand. Quite a feat considering the scope of
Castaway and its challenges for filming. So we've talked often
about how Zamechas is up for challenges and likes to
give himself something to do. And I guess we can
come in here and we can say, well, he made
up for it being three years since contact by doing
(01:27):
two films, so and that makes up for the extra
Skipp year in the nineties as well. Either way, Darren
and Tristan, I know I did not see this in
the movie theater when it came out. I had reasons.
Maybe we'll talk about him later, maybe we won't.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Who knows.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
But the two of you, did either of you see
it in the movie theater? And follow up question, Tristan,
was this a Redell family favorite or is this only
your second time ever seen?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
I'm shocked.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
That is a follow up question, John, that is first question.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It's not the first question. It's a follow up question.
Speaker 5 (02:04):
This was not a Ridell family favorite, which I don't
know why, because this this has the makings of a
Redell family favorite. We all love Tom Hanks and like
it's a there's no this is you could call this
a family movie, like it has some dire moments, but
there's nothing crazy in it. You know. No, this just wasn't.
(02:27):
This just wasn't one that that tickled everybody's fancy, or
at least one that we all watch together that we
associate with with each other. I do have one memory
of it watching I didn't see it in the theater,
but I remember the marketing campaign for this was done
really really well, because I think like one teaser showed
the plane crash, like Tom Hanks going through the plane crash,
(02:49):
and that it ends with him just like walking on
the beach for the first time, saying hello or something
like that, and that it ends and you're like, oh wow, interesting,
like Tom Hanks alone in an island. Okay, yeah, I
would pay my.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Tailors, didn't you know spoil the entire movie in.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Thirty seconds, right, the first six seconds for the YouTube algorithm? Yeah,
it was Yeah. I remember the campaign was done really well,
the marketing campaign. And I also remember I think it
was the Oscars or some award show and it was
in between filming of Castaway when they were they haven't
(03:28):
started the second phase of filming yet, and then Tom
Hanks was at an award show. He was super skinny,
he had the beard, and the camera cut to him
as he was clapping for an award, and my whole
family was like, what the hell happened to Tom? Like,
I really hope that's for a role. And one of
(03:48):
the memory I have is I saw this at like
there was a there was a girl in high school
I think it was high school who I was involved
with and we were watching it together with her family,
and her mom started crying when Wilson floated away, and
she started screaming because she was so angry at herself.
She's like, I'm not crying over a god dang volleyball.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well that's a complicated Catharsis going on right there. So that's,
you know, I can say that that's not entirely surprising though,
because Wilson became a bit of a cultural phenom. But Darren,
did you see this in the movie theater or did
you hold onto this for home video?
Speaker 4 (04:30):
No? I did. I think the trailer got us. We
were like, Okay, this looks really I mean, it's Tom
Hanks and he was just king in the late nineties,
so it was a very easy sell to see this.
And yeah, when you talk about, you know, the familysness
(04:50):
of Tristan, I'd say the only thing about this movie
is it's kind of a queasy movie as a part.
There's like there's blood and there's like uncomfortable situations like
I don't want to have to think about being my
own dentist. But that's not a bad thing. That's not
gonna scar me. But you're watching this character go through
(05:11):
these moments and you're like, ugh, I don't want to
do that. So but I think for me, yeah, I
remember it all the touchstones, the I mean, the Wilson
was all over either comedy gags or late night or whatever.
(05:33):
The thing I remember the most so, which was just
totally tapping into the culturalness of it, was the following
year's Super Bowl commercial, which I think was a FedEx
commercial or it was spoofing something, but it was you know,
him at the end delivering the package. But in this
version there's someone there as he's delivering it and they're like, oh,
(05:57):
do you want to see what's in it? And he's like,
oh sure, And it's like GPS, phone packing, seeds, you know,
firestarter and you know basically everything would would have gotten
rescued in like five minutes and he's like, oh okay,
just like cuts. And it was such a clever idea sketch.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
It was one of the goodness.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
It was a great send up back when Super Bowl
commercials were truly truly great and inspired. I'll go ahead
and share timing is so important and this movie actually
wound up playing an important role for me later when
I saw it on disc borrowed from guy I've known
(06:42):
since I was fourteen years old, Mike, and he was like,
I really think you should see this because what had
happened was my mom had died just a few months
before Castway came out, so I wasn't much of a
moviegoer for a few months afterward, obviously, And this was
right around Christmas time in that first year, and the
family's all, you know, it's a little hour. But when
I did see this on disc it it was it
(07:05):
had an impact. Like I think that the reason that
those jokes resonated with people, the reason that Wilson became
a thing, was this was like a Forrest Gump type
moment where it didn't even really matter whether you liked
the movie. It was just part of the cultural conversation.
(07:27):
And Zamechas has a real gift for that. And I
think we've encountered that as we've gone through his filmography,
where it's like I'd say that death becomes her in
contact again are victims, and I mean what lies beneath
is an absolute victim of this, where every so often
he just comes out of the left field and just
hits you with something that dominates everything else. And you
(07:47):
forget everything else that like he's done, and sometimes the
other movies that were released in that year. It becomes
a very uh, you know, very weird sort of filmography
to go through from my perspective. But part of that
is he's reuniting with Hanks, and I wanted to throw
out there, Darren, to you first, did you get a
(08:07):
sense at all that reuniting with Hanks.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
And specific was in any sense a cynical move?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Is there anything about this where you look at it
and you go he went with Hanks because he worked
with him on Forrest Gump. He should have gone with
a different actor because like a Daniel day Lewis, who
would have actually strainded himself on an island for five years,
so they would have had to, you know, suspend Fethod acting.
It would have been a Richard link Later production where
it would have taken him fourteen years to film the thing.
(08:34):
But I mean like that that sort of thing. Is
Hank's successful enough here that he's the guy you're like,
definitely should have been Hank's or did at any point
of creep into you where you're like, a different actor
could have probably done something more dynamic with it.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Yeah, I get the question. Is Hank's the safe bet
the guy I've worked with and I'm trusting because we're
going to be shooting and also involve like gaining and
losing weight, and you know, I think overall it was
like a fifteen sixteen month shoot, which is a long time.
(09:11):
Not that he was shooting every single day of that,
but just the whole process. No, I think Hanks was
the right call. Again, I look back to Forrest Gump,
and you have this this aspect of Hank's working in
the role that he has to come across as likable.
(09:34):
He has to come across as you know, genuine and
in this movie, you need to connect to him. Otherwise
this is a carring movie. You need to care about
the character or it's just like you're watching an episode
of Survivor and oh, he got voted off this week.
I don't care. You know, you need and he takes
(09:58):
us through that entire range of Okay, this guy's a workaholic.
He's you know, I think the dynamic of the scene
where him and Helen Hunt open up there like day
planners and are trying to find a time to get together,
you feel that you're like, oh, it's he's this is
this kind of a relationship, so all of that through
(10:18):
his isolation and the cathartic ending. Yeah, I think maybe
there's a ten percent of it is I've worked with
this guy and I trust it. But I think Hanks
was the right call, Tristan.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
I think Tom Hanks brings this kind of everyman energy
that was very much needed in Castaway. And by every man,
I mean I know that Tom Hanks is revered and
I do believe that he's a special type of actor,
but Tom Hanks brings this genuine kind of quality to
(10:54):
the film into his acting, where you know, like we
never want to see him as a bad guy. He's
He's America's dad, and you want to see what America's
dad would look like on an island. Like if you
dropped off, you know, an action hero on you know,
on an island, you would feel like if you drop
Sylvester Stallone, you'd be like, Okay, he's just going to
(11:14):
go all Rambo and like mcgiver's way out of the situation.
But with with Tom hanksherlet you really do ask yourself,
how is he going to get along? How is he
going to do this? It kind of makes me think
of Ebert did a review on The Girl with the
Dragon Tattoo the Fencer version and talked about how there
(11:35):
was an inherent problem with having Daniel Craig be the
me Kil character because like by that time he was
already James Bond, and he's like, in the back of
your mind, you know that James Bond is going to
get out of the torture chamber. You know that James
Bond is going to survive, But when you watch the
Swedish version, you have no idea if Mikail's going to
(11:58):
survive because it's not James Bond. So I feel like
with Tom Hanks and Castaway, it was perfect casting me
because it really makes you wonder, like, if Tom Hanks
could survive, maybe I could survive, and so you're a
little bit more emotionally invested.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
I accept that. I accept that.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
I think that Hanks is the right choice because the
concept of the film is difficult for audiences to plug
into and it is a shortcut to getting butts in
the seats for the reasons you're talking about Tristan, where
people see him as America's dad, like you were saying,
and you're going to root for him without believing he
(12:38):
can make it. Necessarily, he's still got to prove he's
got to go through it, and you believe he can lose.
And Darren, I think that you're right that Hanks has
built up enough esteem by this point that he's in
the conversation automatically as worthy of doing the difficult role.
This isn't taking a gamble on a comedic actor with Philadelphia.
(13:00):
This is Hanks has the pedigree by this point to
say he can do this. I believe he can do this,
and if it makes the investors a little easier and
more forgiving of the way you're going to shoot this film,
so much the better.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
So much the better.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
But speaking of the way they shoot the film, I'd
be interested to know, Darren, it's I think it's very
judicious in its use of.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Visual effects.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
I think that they use them when they need them,
but otherwise they frame them with items that are you know,
if they could film it for real, they did film
it for real and other things.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
They did what they had to do.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
You feel that those effects hold up or did they
twenty five years later take you out of the film
in any way?
Speaker 3 (13:47):
Well?
Speaker 4 (13:47):
I think you know, I didn't even think about visual
effects in this rewatch, but upon thinking about it for
two seconds, these are the best kind of background effects
where it's the storm, it's you know, the little prop
thing has to roll up at the exact right moment.
But it's all as much as possible practical for practical
(14:11):
and the only thing that it didn't pull me out,
it more made me question, like, oh, how, I'm wondering
how they shot This was the very early shot where
the camera is following in kind of a riding along
with the package POV and I'm thinking, well, this is
two thousand, so there's no iPhone we strapped to this,
(14:33):
So is there just a guy with a full on
camera rig like huffing it behind little Tommy who's carrying
this pat I was actually genuinely curious how they pulled
off those shots, and it's probably simpler than I'm thinking
about it. But and that's not a negative to be
pulled out in that way. It was more curiosity, but no. Overall,
(14:56):
these these are like the Truman Show or set extensions
where we change the sky or we had to add
a storm, those kinds of effects, whereas everything else is
extremely practical. You feel like you're on this island. They
never placed the camera, you know. Oh, and here's a
(15:18):
bird eye view of his island, like a drone would shoot.
Why would we ever have that perspective? Why would we
ever We only really get a good look at the
island when he's rowing away from it, and that's the
first time he's seen his island that far away.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
So I think it works great. I appreciate what you're saying.
I think there are a couple of shots, Tristan. I
think there are like one or two shots where I
look at them and I go, ah, that's as good
as they could do in two thousand. Did you find
any shots like that at all?
Speaker 5 (15:50):
A there was Actually when I watched this, there was
something I noticed for the first time was the first
time we look through the cockpit of the plane. The
ocean is right up to the window. It looks like
they're skimming across the bottom of the ocean as they're flying,
(16:10):
and you're just like, oh my God, like, no wonder
they're having a problem right, like you're too low, you're
too low. But then the very next shot is just blackness,
like they're above the clouds. And then when they're starting
to descend. You see them go through the crowd clouds
and then you see the ocean. So they clearly screwed
up in that one shot where I don't know how
they could have missed it, but it was. It was
(16:33):
a huge screw up to have the ocean in the
outside window, uh, when you're supposed to be an airliner
above the weather. Regardless though, I think that was probably
the biggest thing was that, But this was. I loved
how much of a departure this was for Semechas you
know when you when you come from Contact and Forrest
(16:54):
Gump and you look at it his filmography with so
many other technical advances and motion capture and things like that,
like this was. This was as most bare bones as
you can get with Robert Simchis. Maybe Oh, I was
about to say What Lies Beneath, which is a movie
that we're totally skipping over because I forgot that What
Lies Beneath came out in July. I totally yes, the
(17:17):
way it came out in December.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
Everybody, everybody, like I was saying, like he did two
in one year, just to make up for the extra
year off.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Everybody forgets about What Lies Beneath like I even more
than Death Becomes Her.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
Yeah, my dad and I really liked What Lies Beneath
like it is. It's that's a bare bones movie, like
it's it's a psychological thriller. You know, it's not fantastic,
but it's it's an interesting watch. It's it's yeah, it's
worth seeing.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
The strange thing is that's the one I saw in
the theater that year. I probably would have seen Castaway
if my life had continued on, uh with with without
you know, the tragedy and everything. But like, it's weird
to me because as as we're prepping for this, I
looked up and I saw the whole thing about July
and I was like, oh, yeah, I did go see
that in the movie theater. I forgot that movie even existed.
(18:06):
And what you're saying, yeah, we won't rabbit hole, it's
it's okay, Yeah, it's fine.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
Yeah, it's fine, it's fine.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
It doesn't not every That's one of those movies where
I tell people, not every movie has to change your life.
Speaker 4 (18:18):
Yeah exactly, what isn't that what he basically quickly shot
while they were waiting for Tom Hanks to like lift weight,
So like he filmed it as a pocket movie in
the middle of his other movie. Like that's still like
the most badass way of shooting something.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
That was okay.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Honestly, I think probably it's like somebody who has something
to distract themselves where they're trying to work out a
different problem, and like he can go on set and
he can do that thing, and like in the back
of his brain he's like, oh, wait a minute, no, no, no,
I could take the camera when we go back to
the island and we could do this with him instead.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
That sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
But in terms of the way this is shot, the framing,
the aspect ratio is a departure from previous work with Zamechis.
It's it's lensed differently, even though he keeps the same
you know, crew, largely editor and everything going along with him. Darren,
did that take you by surprise at all? Do you
(19:17):
think that that was a practical consideration. Do you think
it helps the movie to have a narrower field of vision?
Speaker 4 (19:25):
I mean, to be honest, I didn't give a ton
of thought about it, but I will say the the
feeling I got from the framing was a bit of closeness,
you know, you feel like you are right there with him,
almost not too close, as in he put a camera
(19:46):
down and he's blogging from the island. You know, it's
still a little bit of ways from that, but there
aren't sweeping vistas, and you know it's not that kind
of a shot of movie. So no, I think moving
the action as it were a little closer to your character,
(20:07):
especially when he's going to be in ninety five percent
of the frames, like this is a Hanks movie, So
I think it worked.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Tristan, same question.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
I love that he filmed this in one point eighty
five aspect ratio. I remember when I pulled it up
on the TV and clicked it, I was surprised that
it wasn't anamorphic, that it wasn't two point thretey nine.
And I was also kind of taken it back at
how much grain there was at the beginning. Did you
(20:40):
guys notice that too, Like there was a lot more
grain than what you would expect for a two thousand film,
And I thought that was interesting because it definitely gave
it a texture that you hadn't noticed in previous films,
Like if you watch Contact, you don't really notice the
grain or that kind of texture. Even Gump, you know,
you didn't even really notice it that much, maybe more
so than contact, but yeah, it was. It's interesting because
(21:04):
like the type of the type of film that he used,
like the actual stock, the actual film stock he used,
had a little bit more dynamic range and allowed for
a little bit richer color reproduction. Like did you guys
notice that at all with this, Like the colors were
a little bit richer than in previous films because the
palette is a little constrained. I think it's on an island.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
The palette is restrained for the obvious reasons and everything.
But the sky really, and I hate to use the word,
the sky pops at certain moments. I do, I trust me.
I want to cut off my own nose for saying it.
I apologize to everybody. But the richer colors I think
really help some of those shots because it makes what
(21:51):
could be a very flat and boring looking film be
more dynamic. So I mean, but obviously Don Burgass, who's
been who was working with him since Gump at least
I think, really, you know this is this is a duo,
like he's found his director of photography that got exactly
(22:12):
what he was going for, because the balance here is
he's balancing those visual effects. And I think that actually
framing it the way that he did is helpful on
the island. But I think it's clutch in the plane crash.
It is absolutely clutch in the plane crash because it
is so claustrophobic and you're so up in there that
(22:34):
you know. Honestly, I watch it, and everybody knows I
hate flying. I watch a film like this and I'm like, well, yeah,
that's everybody. That's a fifty to fifty chance every time
you go in the air like this is exactly what's
going to happen. At one point you know, well what
you know it's coming.
Speaker 5 (22:48):
I wish the audience could know how little you're joking.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
It's not a bit. I swear to god, it's not
a bit. My palm starts sweating during that scene. I'm like, yeah, yeah,
this is exactly I'm gonna fly. I'm gonna fly back home,
see my family. This is what's going to happen.
Speaker 5 (23:01):
Yeah, Jack, John and I text each other every day.
I get way more texts than I usually do when
he's flying or about to fly.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
That is true that is true.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
I absolutely light up light up the world because like,
so I will actually sit down next to people in
a plane, I'll be like, I'm a bad flyer. I'm
letting you know that, do not take any cues off
of me. That is how we may have to hold hands.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
So with okay, so with this movie specifically, like since
you're talking about Burgess, I loved how minimalistic the camera
work was in this movie, how long the takes were,
how they focused on natural lighting, like like when you
saw the fire, whenever he had a fire, that's that's
mostly what was used to light the scene. And it
(23:50):
really showed no like did they bring in lights, of
course they did. You know, this wasn't like The Remnant
where it was all just natural light, but you could
tell that was the main motivated light was natural light sources.
And I felt like it really and also the absence
of the score, like you didn't get Celestry's score on
the Island. I thought that was such a great aesthetic
(24:11):
choice that really showcases the isolations along with the lake.
The longer takes and some wide shots and close ups.
You know, it just it just I felt like it
really really worked, like this is the mechas and Burgess
working together and firing on all cylinders.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Well, I'm glad you mentioned that about the the the
naturalistic lighting, but obviously they brought in lights, Darren. Do
you think that we should be grateful that this film
was conceived and shot before the huge digital camera revolution,
because Tristan references the Yeah, I like the whole time
(24:49):
I'm watching it this time, I'm like, oh my lord,
I know exactly what this film would look like if
somebody came up with it today.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
I already know what it would.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
Look like if the mechais did this today, he would
he'd be using like the most advanced digital cameras and
shoot in the dark as much as they could.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yes, yeah, Well.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
And the fact that he doesn't even get fire for
like a while, so it's just better shoot during the
day or hope there's a moon out at night. And
part of it is he's in a cave, you know,
which is actually a major set piece on the island.
But circling back around to the sound editing, as it were, Yeah,
(25:28):
not only did we not have score until the very end,
but I most noticed it when he's back at the
FedEx business and you're hearing cars honking in the background,
and you're hearing which it kind of caught me off
guard because it's obviously a choice because normally, when you're
(25:50):
in a scene like that, like in an office building
or whatever, you don't want to hear the outside world.
You don't want it to pull you out. But in
this case, the inverse is true. You want it to be. Like.
The whole vibe of that portion is everyone's kind of
scurrying around in their minutia of life, which isn't a
(26:11):
bad thing, but it's so jarring for Chuck coming back
to Okay, see you tomorrow for another day of work.
Like when before it was I hope I live through tomorrow.
I hope I find food or water. So yeah, the
use of or the lack of extra sound, even the
(26:34):
fact that there's besides the crab and fish, there's no
animals on the island. There's no birds or or wild
cats or anything like that, and it's shockingly isolating because
of it.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
I'm glad you mentioned the sound because I think the
sound design in this is tremendous for the reasons you're
talking about. When he's on the island, its sounds isolating.
It's like that, and and what I love coming back
to it this time is it's never called out, but
(27:09):
the I think the subtext is still there. We all
love to go to island paradises or think about going
to island paradises, and we're like, oh, I would love
to be there and live there. No, you would love
to live there and be there in a resort in
an island paradise. You have no desire to.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Be You want to live in Hawaii. That's what you
want to do.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
You want to live somewhere where they built things and
you have electricity.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Infrastructure my friends said infrastructure exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Maybe some pavement and two day shipping. Who knows, but
and we'll come back to the shipping, trust me. But
this was nominated for Best Sound. But that Academy award
went to a different film, and that went to Gladiator,
which we.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
All love, we all know.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
I thought it went to the Matrix.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
No Matrix came out ninety nine. This came out in
two thousand. So for those awards, Gladiator won, Castaway was nominated,
The Patriot was nominated, The Perfect Storm was nominated More
Water Effects for You There and You five seven one,
which is a movie nobody three people saw who knows.
(28:20):
I Well, there you go, you and the other two
people in the theater, who knows. But I mean I
hear it, and I'm like, oh, now I want to
go back and watch Gladiator because I know the sound
design was great on that, but it really tough.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
I know it is, I know it is.
Speaker 5 (28:36):
It's really really good, like I know, like, okay, so
Gladiator was one of the CAUs I ever owned.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Scene like just and.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Oh that's but it's I would put in Gladiator to
showcase my dad's surround sound system, Like that's what we
would do it, Like we would pop in Gladiator and
like when he throws the sword, when when he's about
to when they're about to execute him towards the beginning,
and he gets away and he's off screen, and then
(29:07):
all of a sudden, you see you hear a sword
just like like go past the camera. It's freaking amazing,
like just that just that one bit because you can
totally feel it, so it feels like it just whiz
past your ear and you have the worst seeings and
the animals. There's no question of so much.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
Gladiator has more going on, and it's very on point.
It's very well done. This is a much more subtle
type of score. And I'm not saying that to like
throw shade it Gladiator. I'm saying this, you know, to
Darren what what you were talking about a minute ago,
Like this is one where the sound is a character
in a way that you don't even really notice it.
(29:47):
You know, you mentioned, Tristan the lack of score on
the Island, and it made me think of Dog Day Afternoon,
where you don't realize that the music is missing until
the end and you're like, oh, yeah, right, and you
realize exactly how on point that whole team had to
be to keep you invested without the emotional cheat code that.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
A film score is no country also.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Yeah, oh yeah, right, I forgot about that. Oh my gosh. Yes.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
But that said, it's still great design. But playing into
everything else, as we've talked about Hanks is a very
I'll just go ahead and I'll ask you first, Triston,
do you think other directors would have had the courage
that Zamechis does here not to cut to the people
back in the world while Hanks is isolated.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
Yes, I do believe that other directors would have done that.
I was actually thinking about that as I was watching this,
where it would have been so easy, It would have
been so easy to show the search, to show Helen
Hunt struggle with a new relationship, you know, it would
have been really, really easy. But I think the idea
of it, they went in with the best intentions. It
(30:59):
was we're showing this movie from the perspective of Tom Hanks,
like this is his movie. This like we're like, there's
no reason to cut back, there's no there's no reason
to to to show a flashback that okay, see that
would have been even easier to did to do was like, oh,
he's thinking about his life back home, you know, and
(31:20):
we see what he's thinking. I'm trying to think of
another director that wouldn't have cut back, and a director
who would. I feel like Spielberg definitely would have cut
back to know that that's a hardcore absolutely would have
shown what was going on or done flashbacks. I feel like, maybe, oh, Couran,
(31:46):
he would not cut back. Alfonso Kuran would have cut back.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
That's fair.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
That's that's my that's my two examples of those who
obviously there's tons of who would and tons of who wouldn't.
But those are the top two that that kind of
pop into my brain. Fair.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Yeah, with the cutting back, there's two things about it.
One is I think it would absolutely have destroyed the isolation.
You would not have felt the isolation nearly as much
if you're and then you know the super Bowl happened
and he's just like killing a crab. He would be like,
what am I watching? The only thing as far as cutback,
(32:21):
that I think might be interest I'm not saying I'm
advocating for it, but I feel like another director could
have gone this route, which would have been start the
movie with him washing up on the island and all
of the nightmare flashback when he's dreaming is like the
crash and maybe a bit of the last day of FedEx.
Speaker 3 (32:42):
An interesting take.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
I don't think there's anything wrong with how we watched
it in a linear progression, but the directors love tossing
us in the middle of the action and then flashbacking
you know how we got here. So I'm not saying
i'm advocating it. I'm just saying it would have been
interesting take.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
You're right, I think I could easily see somebody doing that.
I really could, Like I could even see like a
fan edit of that.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Somebody doing that now, Darren, you mentioned that he worked
for FedEx, which eventually, by you know, by the third
act I kind of called on right, he worked for
fed X, Right, I think it gets there. Eventually, it
seeps through. They can only be nuanced for so long.
Tristan coming back to it with twenty twenty five eyes
(33:27):
or even projecting yourself backward to the first time you
saw it, is the obvious backing of FedEx in this film,
to its detriment or to its benefit or is it a.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Neutral They didn't actually get any funding from FedEx for this,
you're kidding me. No, No, they did presume that they did,
because I was like, it's an easy question.
Speaker 2 (33:50):
Yeah, I absolutely presumed that they did. So they simply
got FedEx's permission to use their logo, or.
Speaker 5 (33:58):
They got their permission and cooperation. But they didn't get
any funding.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
That's crazy, that's crazy. They were able to use their trucks. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
The original idea was from Hanks, wasn't it where he
thought he was thinking of or he had read somewhere
about FedEx sends three planes over the Pacific every single
day and was like, what if one of those crashed,
and then he brought a third, and Zamechas brought a
third and it all kind of pieced together. But yeah,
it does though. I see what you're saying, though, John,
(34:29):
the first ten minutes of this movie, you're like, this
is am I to FedEx ad because it is everywhere.
Speaker 5 (34:39):
I think it works. I think you have to use
a brand like that, Like I think you had to
do it back then. I think you absolutely have to
do it today because there's certain times when you have
a fake brand, you're like, Okay, is this more inspired
by UPS or is this more inspired by FedEx? It's
just like it looks like the UPS logo, but they're
using FedEx colors. You know, Like you I feel like
(35:01):
you get inside your own head more when you see
a fake brand than if you just went ahead and
used a normal one or an everyday one. But it's
kind of like when you see football in movies and
they're not allowed to do an FNAL team, it all
feels like Canadian football.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Well, and that's I'm glad you bring that up because
football and specific because I consider the whole FedEx thing
in neutral like it's one of those things where it's like, well, yeah, okay,
he works for a real company that I understand. That's fine,
and then I can compartmentalize because obviously I presume FedEx
must have kicked in some funding. But either way, even
if they had, I'm like I was able to be like, okay,
(35:40):
well he works for FedEx, so that I believe that
this is occurring in my planet, you know, my existence.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Fine.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
But the football thing, it always reminds me of an
absolutely terrible movie starring Ben Affleck. It was him trying
to be Jack Ryan. I don't forget the name of
it right now. It was one where they blew up Baltimore.
It was a Tom Clancy some of all fears, that's
the one Morgan Freedan is the President one.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
But I did not. I hated that movie.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
And one of the reasons I hated the movie is
they went to a football game in Baltimore and not
only was the stadium indoors, which Baltimore Stadium is not,
but neither team exists. And it to your point, Tristan,
I was like, I can't even pretend that this is
the real world right now, Why did you even have this?
If you admite it a soccer match. I'm with you, okay, fine,
(36:31):
because I know nothing about soccer, but the NFL come on, brother.
But yeah, so if you if you had put him
for something where it was like Ups but with FedEx colors,
it would have been like, okay, you know, it's like
it's like the old movies where you see soda on
the canty, like it couldn't just get the permission to
use coke?
Speaker 3 (36:50):
I mean exactly, slurm.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
Well, and they were wise to do that because really,
you have a matter of minutes to ablish this character,
to give us a reason why we need to care
about him. And we find out we're like, oh, he's
a workaholic. He's way up in the chain. He's the
guy who gets on the ground and gets places spun up,
(37:14):
like this is a very demanding job. And then boom,
he's in a relationship and you're like, oh my gosh,
this is like what is this going to be like?
And yeah, you have a fleeting amount of time in
the non island world to establish the likability of this
guy and give him his you know, give him his conscious,
(37:37):
give give him his reason for continuing. And it's you know,
it's Helen Hunt and the package are the two things
that keep him going. And if you don't have any
of that, then you're like, why why should I care
about this thought experiment of ap of a guy crashing.
Speaker 5 (37:57):
On an island.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Yeah, I am setting all of that stuff aside. I
wonder if there's also a challenge here for some audiences
and Tristan, I'll throw this to you with the entire
conceit that of what a workaholic he is, or you know,
(38:18):
like that does that seems to have fallen a bit
out of vogue? Do you think that that aspect of
his character is still relatable to modern audiences or do
you think that people have regarded that as more of
a negative now than they did.
Speaker 5 (38:31):
Then I'll be honest with you, I didn't really see
a workaholic. I didn't really get that sentence. No, No,
I got a guy who travels a lot for his job.
I felt like it's kind of like a like when
my dad was a salesman. You know, he traveled constantly,
but when he was home, he was home. And it's
(38:54):
even like, you know, like when Hanks was talked with
Helen Hunt, he says, he's like, Okay, well, like I'm
if I come back on the six, but then I
got to go right back on the road like on
the thirteenth. You know, like that's still some time in between.
And it's not like I didn't feel like they were
trying to give us a sense that like all this
guy cares about his work. It just sounds like he's
the man on the ground, like he's the one who
(39:15):
gets other FedEx areas up to speed. And I know
some of those people. I work with some of those people,
and yeah, I just felt like he had I just
thought that they showed it like two people with demanding jobs,
like she's doing her dissertation and she has to defend
it and he's, you know, traveling around the world trying
to talking about going to South America coming back from Russia.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (39:39):
No, I didn't get that at all. I think it
was just gave it gave you a reason why he
flies a lot.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
See, I understand what you're saying, but I think the
workaholic thing, from my perspective, comes across when he's giving
that motivational speech to the people that you know, where
he's standing it up. It's very very very energetic, very
passionate in the sense where I think it could be
interpreted as he's he's excessively passionate about what he does.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
You know, I think the.
Speaker 4 (40:11):
Word, the word alcoholic. I think that's what's tripping us up.
And maybe I feel like he's a person that the
job is always number one. Other things have to flex
around the job, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
It's just the nature of his job. And like I
said before, I think the the the one scene that
(40:32):
really sums up his relationship is when they both crack
open their day planners and try to find a time.
That's such a beautiful scene where you're you feel you're like, oh,
they're trying to make it working up.
Speaker 5 (40:48):
In the air, like when they never I never saw
I never saw that, so, oh my god, what reference ruined?
No it's a good movie, but no, it's it's there.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Well, there's a very.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
Verily similar scene between George Kloony and Vera Farmiga where
they do that and they crack open their plans are like, oh, yeah,
I could fly in from Orad. It'd be totally fine.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Darren, I think you're right. I think the word workaholic
is the wrong word to use. I think that I
think I just said it was the.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
Wrong word to use. What do you want me to do?
Fly out there and apologize?
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Geez, anyway you will fly John, that'sarily we know that.
Speaker 3 (41:25):
No, if I fly out there, it's to burn his car.
We all know this. Anyway.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
I think that what comes across I guess I should say,
is that he's a guy where I think that engagement
ring that he gives her. I think that this is
a guy who his job has been the thing that's
been the most important thing to him, and he's hitting
a point where he's now questioning whether he needs to
reprioritize things. That is sort of the sense that goes
(41:52):
along there, because I think that there is a lot
of subtle work that Hanks does with Hunt where it
really comes across the challenge that is there, but also
the quiet moment of everybody goes through this point where
(42:14):
you are driven, you're establishing yourself, you're climbing the ladder,
you're doing the work, and then you hit a point
where like, let me take a pause, maybe reprioritize. And
I think that actually, I think it's actually a good
thing for the film because it adds to the tragedy
of his plane going down, is like he's right at
that moment where he might be thinking about what's really
(42:35):
important in his life and what those priorities are.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
At least that's the sense that I.
Speaker 5 (42:40):
Got With that in mind, I think if it was
made today, like if Castaway was made today in twenty
twenty five, there would be much more emphasis on digital
connection and screens and the Internet and everything like that. Yeah,
than opposed to making your job number one. Saying that
as a criticism, I'm saying that, like it's just like
(43:03):
with how connected the world is today and how we
have we all have smartphones, we all have you know,
five different forms of social media. I mean, Darren, I've
messaged you on text, Slack, PlayStation, email, and I know
I'm forgetting one other thing, but like this was all
on like the span of a week, and there's always
(43:26):
ways to get a hold of somebody, and there's always
like you know, like Darren, you're in California, John, you're
in Florida. I'm in Illinois. You know, we're literally across
the country. And it's it's interesting to like, if you
plucked one of us out and put us on an island,
how would we survive. How would we maintain ourselves? Like,
(43:49):
without YouTube, how do we know how to start a fire?
Speaker 4 (43:52):
I'm just going to make the joke. First thing I'll
do is I'll look up how to start oh.
Speaker 5 (43:56):
Oh oh, oh god.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
But you're absolutely right, tristed.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
And I think if this was made nowadays, that would
be more of the takeaway and not as much reprioritization
over work. It would be slowing down, taking a pace
of life. Maybe they're, you know, brand manager for a
hot singer and everything's go, go go, the album's about
(44:21):
to drop and we got the new show coming, and
all of a sudden, it's like, no phone, no, nothing,
like you have to disconnect and survive the element. So
I mean, yeah, I mean, I'm not advocating a Castaway
to you know, remake, because I don't think we need it.
But we could see that type of movie working nowadays.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
Heck, I can't almost I don't even know what the
timing is, but I could see some TV sect seeing
this movie and going but we'd call it Survivor or
something like that.
Speaker 3 (44:51):
You know, get Kevin Hart on the phone, right.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
No, So, speaking of the other supporting cab that's in here,
a referenced Helen Hunt. She had a great moment of
intense popularity in film for a time, and Cassaway was
part of that. Darren, do you feel that she brings
a relatability to the role that that works, Like, is
(45:20):
she successful in what that character needs to portray? You know,
given that this is a Hank's performance, do you also
walk away feeling that this is a hell in Hunt film?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
I do. I think she has a very strong performance this.
I mean, there's a lot of characters, but there's really
like three people in this entire movie. It's it's Hank's
you know, her and the best friend. And I think, yeah,
this right around this time, you have you know, Twister,
(45:53):
you have all sorts of you know, met about You
and television as good as it gets, as good as
it gets. So so she's showing her acting chops. Yeah,
and this one it's can you imagine the pitch? You're like,
we're going to use you in Seeing one through five
and Seen you know, eighty five through eighty six of
(46:14):
this movie, and you have to convey four years of emotion.
But I think she does. I was on the edge
of my seat for not remembering exactly how the ending
happened when he goes to her house and I'm like, Okay,
I thought it was just going to be it for
him seeing her out the window at the at the
(46:35):
FedEx's location, and he's like, oh, she did come, but
the husband steered her away. Oh I get it, but no,
it goes. It's cathartic, that moment of seeing the search
pattern her memory wall, of when it was all about
trying to find him, way better than let's cut back
(46:56):
and forth with her and her and her struggle.
Speaker 5 (47:00):
I absolutely love when she faints. I think she did
such a great job. I know it's just fainting, but
I love that moment.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
No, don't say it's just fainting, because that's an incredibly
difficult thing to make look real in film. It really
truly is. She's no slouch in that scene. I go
back and forth on that scene in particular. It's it's
because I go back and forth in my brain whether
it hurts more to be with him when he's expecting
(47:29):
to see her and we still haven't seen her. And
Chris Knoth, the husband comes in so like, we haven't
seen her yet because he hasn't seen her yet, and
then he turns and the door opens and it's says dude,
and he's like what, and like, as an audience, we
would have said where is she? And then our new
shot of her is through the window, Like I think
(47:51):
it would have made that scene hurt more.
Speaker 5 (47:53):
That's really solid. That's really solid.
Speaker 3 (47:57):
I don't know. I don't ping my too.
Speaker 5 (48:00):
Yeah, it makes more sense the way that you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (48:03):
I don't ping the movie too hard for it because
I think, like so many other films, this is something
where the whole can be greater than the sum of
its part. Sometimes like I don't want to fixate on like, oh,
well this shot should have that's that's all that comes
out in the wash. Basically no film has well, not
no film, but very few films have the luxury of
(48:25):
being so perfect that you wouldn't change a thing. But
in terms of the overall of the film, we talked
about the sound design. The score is used sparingly, but Darren,
is it effective.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (48:42):
It is still like if if they played the main theme,
I would be like, oh, this is castaway, Like it's
it's recognizable enough, partially probably because of you know, how
it's composed, but it's also I mean, I was reading
on the soundtrack and they were like, you know, they're pulling,
(49:02):
like Okay, what can we put on this? It's like,
I think the number one thing was the end credit
piece because it's there's just not a lot to go
off of. But yeah, but no, it's I don't think
the score is overlooked at all. It's just it's a
minor aspect of this particular film with.
Speaker 3 (49:21):
Intent, Tristan.
Speaker 2 (49:22):
In terms of the editing, I just pinged that little
tiny scene where I'm like, ah, you know, I could
have tweaked that. But in the micro and the macro,
where do you land with the editing? Is this superb editing?
Is this adequate editing? Or do you see chances for
improvement here?
Speaker 5 (49:39):
I think besides what you just talked about, because you
just bursted that bubble, sorry about that, I think that
this was the you had limited amount of editing, especially
when you were on the island, which I think was
a very good thing. This was editing that didn't draw
attention to itself, which is another good thing because I
didn't really think about the editing while watching it, which
(50:01):
is a great thing, because like you had such you
had longer takes, and you know, like at the beginning,
you know, the camera work was you know, way more
frenetic and kind of shaky, and then once we get
to the islands, it's a little bit more calm down, longer,
takes a little bit more of the I wouldn't say
not lethargic, but like classic classic framing and classic classic
(50:25):
you know motion. And so I think that the editing,
it was an easier thing to edit because of the
longer takes and the classic style of filmmaking. But yeah,
I I really don't have too many criticisms when it
comes to that. I think sometimes I think there are
certain times when the pace is a little slow, but
(50:46):
it's hard to criticize it because it's intentional, like you know,
like you need It's not like there's going to be
like it's not like it's New York City on the island,
you know, like it's it's it's not Manhattan. It's it's
it's slow on purpose. There's have nothing to do there
except try to survive.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
I like how the rush moment is I have two
months to make rope before the optimum time to like
that's really the start to montage of getting ready but
it's a two month amount of time that's hitting the gas,
which is hilarious because it's a huge amount of time.
(51:25):
As far as editing, I mean I also reflect it
into the story. This is such a solid story. And
the thing that comes to my mind with I'm thinking
of editing not just in the shot to shot, but
in the where parts of the story are placed. And
I think the reveal of the fact that he thought
(51:48):
of killing himself is placed later in the proper place.
I think if that had done, if that had been
done chronologically and we'd seen it when it happened, it
would not have been as impactful of you know, oh,
I know where we can get thirty feet more rope
and I'm like what And then you're like, oh, and
you know exactly what happened. But you didn't need to
see it. You didn't need to see him wrestling with
(52:11):
the moment to know that it would have been a
horrific moment for him to go through. And it was
all played out in and after the fact type of method.
So I think that that worked great. So overall, yeah,
all of the bits the you know, wishing for a
dentist to I love just the where he learns about
(52:37):
the point of light in the cave and how I
mean this is true. This is what points will do
through the course of a year. It's kind of a
stretched figure eight. I think if you look at any
classroom globe, you'll see that same symbol on somewhere in
the Pacific Ocean. Funny enough to be showing how that's
how seasons are represented depending on your latitude.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
So what you know, we've come through. We've talked about
a lot of technical stuff. We talked about the film
as a whole. I think we're at the point now
where we're ready to give our final ratings and any
final thoughts that we have, And so Tristan, I'll throw
it to you first, because Darren needs to remember that
I'm the kind one of the two of us. But
(53:22):
where do you land with two thousands cast away? Our
last visit with Robert zamechis in what we're calling the
nineteen nineties.
Speaker 5 (53:32):
I think this is a solid four star film. This
is not a perfect film by any means, but this
is four stars that really hits hard and gives the
gives you a sentimentality that I think is appropriate for
the film. The shooting, the editing, the sound design, acting
is all top notch. But I think if we were
(53:56):
to compare it to others in Mecca's film, like if
you look at you know, Back to the Future or
Forrest Gump, Like when you watch Forrest Gump, you're like,
holy crap, five stars one of the best.
Speaker 3 (54:09):
That is great.
Speaker 5 (54:10):
So it's hard having that in your filmography. It's because
when you watch a movie that's not that mind blowing
as Forrest Gump was, you can't give it a five
stars as well, and so that may not be fair.
But I give this four stars because of that reason,
because he's done other movies that are better than Castaway, Darren,
(54:34):
Where Do You Land?
Speaker 4 (54:36):
Yeah, totally going against what Tristan just said, I am
actually choosing to give it five stars. It is a
different kind of five stars than Forrest Gump, and it's
I think it's very difficult to compare the two in
some ways. I mean, one is a cast of three basically,
and one is a cast of like dozens, and one
(54:59):
is covering major American history and one is a solo performance.
But for the different ways that they do it, I'm
captivated by the story. I'm captivated by the performance. I
actually it's funny even though I watched this in one
sitting towards the very end, you know, because you have
(55:20):
the throughput of the wings throughout the entire movie, and
when he chooses at the very end, I did not
pick up the significance from the very first shot, and
so I rewatched the first like six minutes of the
movie where we see the FedEx truck drive down the
ranch and the ranch sign has like two names, whereas
in four years later it's only has one name. And
(55:42):
I was like, Oh, I didn't realize how important this
one character we see for a moment is going to be.
And I like how it's implied that that's the road
he chooses and kind of strikes up a person he's
kind of, I won't say is in a relationship, but
he's has I've already impacted his life more than she knows.
(56:03):
And I think that's beautiful. So I'm giving it five
winged stars, Darren.
Speaker 2 (56:11):
I love everything you said, Tristan. I understand what you said,
and I'll throw this minor soop to you that my
first viewing of this was so therapeutic in a lot
of ways because of the time that came out, and
then my friend who told me to watch it and
why he told me to watch it that I know
that there is undoubtedly some emotional connection there that's resonating
(56:35):
with me on a certain level. But since that first viewing,
I stick with that rating, which is five stars, because
at the end of this film, every time I've watched it, emotionally,
I'm there. I'm like, Zamechis has successfully taken me on
this entire journey and in a less minus manipulative way
(57:01):
then latter day Spielberg. He has given me a happy
ending that feels earned. It's not a cheat to have
the happy ending here. I want the happy ending. I
want him to tell me, as an audience member, no
matter what you're going through, it's gonna be okay. And
(57:22):
it's like, I think that Zamechis delivers that message in
an obvious, without being schmaltzy sort of way, and Hanks's performance.
Speaker 3 (57:33):
Is perfect for it.
Speaker 2 (57:35):
It's it's one of those things where I just consider
the way it wraps up is so deftly done that
emotionally it hit me in a different way, but equally
heavy way as Forrest Gumps did. So this is a
five for me, hands down, Zamechis blows my mind with
(57:56):
how easily he can get to that spot even as
we've gone through the nineties and it's like death Becomes
Her didn't really ring true. There were issues with contact,
but it's all of a thread, and you'll see that
thread go through with later works of his. We won't
be covering it, but when you get to for instance,
(58:16):
Flight with Denzel Washington, like it's got that similar sort
of thing where it's like wow, and so yeah, five
stars from me. And that wraps up our time with
Robert Zamchis at least for now. So here we are
and we're getting ready next week to bring to you
our two hundred and fiftieth episode. Darren, do you want
(58:40):
to give the audience a hint of how they can
prepare for that episode?
Speaker 4 (58:45):
Oh well, set aside quite a bit of time, as
we're going to look back at nineteen fifty six Cecil
B de Mills epic The Ten Commandments Here on House
Lights
Speaker 1 (58:59):
Join the Revolution, join the ned Party,
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.