BUGONIA | The REAL Monsters VS Aliens?

0:00Hippie Kane, motherfucker Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn Alright, Mr. Demail, I'm ready for my close-up Watch this Today's movie is Bugonia and I just want to say that I called it I called it from the jump, right? First time I saw that trailer, I immediately knew what the twist was gonna be You knew that she was gonna commit mass genocide? Well, I didn't know that particular detail But I had a feeling right in the trailer we have these two men that are seemingly unwell and they've kidnapped a woman and she is a helpless victim and we get the sense that they believe that she's an alien. This is an art house movie. This is a Yorgos Lentha most movie. He's a weird guy. He's an eccentric guy. Well in art house, the eccentric filmmaker type want to do with this story. Well of course the CEO of the major corporations is going to be an alien. And sure enough, she was a spoiler alert, folks. If you haven't watched Bagonia,

1:01if you haven't watched it, why are you watching this? It's one of the most recent movies we've actually done. We were just talking about poor start of the podcast. We're always doing older movies, which we love, but it's exciting to be, you know, in the know. It's exciting to be like fresh, where we're talking about fresh things that's on the mind of people. Yeah, we are joining into the current conversation and we are not adding on to a conversation that ended 50 years ago as with a lot of other older movies. Yeah, keeping the ball rolling. I think for me, just one of the biggest takeaways was the title of the movie because I, this is one of those movies I saw in theaters like the trailers I saw a bunch over the past like fall. And to be honest with you guys, if it wasn't for Jeffrey, I would not have watched this movie. I had no interest in this movie. I remember seeing the trailer and it felt like there's a new type of movie that's been coming out. I would say in the past 10 years, maybe even more more recent than that. The new, and it's not new like they've been doing this movie for a while for goodness sake. This was a remake

2:03of a movie done in the early 2000s, but a new kind of like dark psychological thriller mixed with dark satire humor, which mixed with like saying something about society as a whole. And these trailers are usually edited similarly. Oh, I kind of think it started back a little bit with like what was was the eyes white? No, it wasn't eyes wide shut. That's a way older movie. Gosh dang it. What's the movie? Was it with Harry Styles where he was like part of a sex cult? Don't don't worry darling. And I don't know if it was Harry Styles. That might be horribly wrong. Anyways, the point is like around that time, they started editing these trailers where everything seemed okay. It was almost like it was going to be a comedy. It was going to be a romance. And then within the first like 36 of the trailer, something sinister happens and then sinister music happens and they create this juxtaposition of like happy life with creepy vibes to make this kind of satire on like social commentary. And I just remember seeing this trailer and it just felt like another one of those like

3:05almost how art house movies became the mainstream in some ways almost became felt like a cookie cutter movie. So when I saw the trailer, I was not interested. Besides the title of the movie, Bagonia, I saw it and I didn't know how to pronounce it. I was like, okay, I don't want to watch this movie, but I want to know what this title means. Jeffrey, in your research, I'm curious. Did the meaning of the title come up to you? You know, I'll be so honest with you. I did research for this and I asked myself that same question. I didn't ask the internet that question. Oh, yeah. Bagonia meaning. I know it. Just ask your co-host. You let me rely on you. Let me lean on your shoulder for a moment. What does Bagonia mean? Jeffrey's the co-host. He doesn't want me to have knowledge he has. No, no. Bagonia means because in the movie, you don't mean it. Like they never say the word once. Bagonia is a folklore method. So it's more than like folklore because they found it in a bunch of like believable texts, like texts we believe to be accurate and showed up a bunch,

4:11but it was this idea that Bs randomly spawned because cows died. And so when I first read that, I was like, oh, that makes sense. Cow has probably had natural causes or they died because of a wolf and then their body decomposed and I don't know, decomposing bodies means more flowers and more Bs. So I was like, oh, that's like a sweet thing. But no, maybe that's where it started. But once they figured it out, they'd create a whole method where they would build little huts. They would bring in cows and then they would beat them to death, but they specifically had a rule where they cannot bleed. So they would just like bludgeon these cows to death by like blunt instruments. And then they would shut all the doors and windows they made, leave it in there for like 10 days, let it rot, and then they'd open up the windows for another 10 days. And then when they showed up, there's a bunch of bees and it worked like every time. That's so interesting. You know, I had heard someone of that tradition. I hadn't heard of them hurting the cattle's into the warehouse and them being beaten to death. But I did know that originally that's where people thought flies came

5:15from is from decaying things and from poop and from gross objects. They just emerged from it. So and that's very interesting. Thank you for sharing that tidbit. Yeah, which also sorry not to get too distracted from the very get go. But it's also interesting because that leads into like the the symbolism. And I think the guttural feeling in humans, like you know, when you have your horror movie, when when you have like a rod rod in carcass and you see the bugs and the maggots, there's just something so unpleasant about that. So I think it's cool back in like ancient days, how they immediately related these insects, not just to death, but they were almost created by death. And that idea has stuck with us as humans thousands of years into the future where in movies when we see these dead bodies and we know that maggots and flies don't come from dead bodies, but there's still something so inherently upsetting and gross about it. And so it's just cool how history and traditions can bleed through and then we see them in movies. I think that's fun. Yeah, it's also interesting to think about how we take things in

6:17uncritically, like for the longest time, for millennia, because of something that Aristotle had said, people believed that women had less teeth than met him. I mean, he just confidently stated that and then people took it up. And some guy later on, I think in early modernity, decided, oh, I'm going to check that out. I'm going to see if that's true. He counted the teeth, it's like, well, same amount. We just accepted it. I mean, speaking of anyone saying something confidently, getting away with it, I feel like Emma Stone's character fuller. She just was in that basement and she just stated things confidently and just got away with it, but not to jump ahead too much. No, expert bullshitter that she was a professional. Even if we're an alien, that's kind of her job at the beginning. She's doing the diversity training video and she messes up and then she gets frustrated. She's like, this is stupid, right? We're saying diversity too many times. It's clear she doesn't honestly care about what she's saying. She's just saying it because it

7:18needs to be said. Lier from the beginning and liar till the end. But, you know, we're getting ahead of ourselves. I should probably give some deets about this movie. Bagonia, as we've already implied, directed by the famed director, Yorgos Lanthimos, who also directed poor things. And I'm not sure what else he directed, but I have seen that movie. I have seen poor things. I enjoyed this movie a lot more than that other movie, but you see his fingerprints on both. And as he said, it is very eccentric. It is very art house. It is very pessimistic. That's the vision of humanity that he is putting out there into the world. As for the synopsis, Bagonia is about Biangu, a conspiracy theorist obsessed with aliens. He believes that extraterrestrials from Andromeda are preparing to invade Earth. With the help of Sunni, his childlike circus performer girlfriend, he kidnaps Kang Mansheik, a pharmaceutical executive, where he believes to be an alien

8:19commander who can contact Andromeda during a lunar eclipse that is due to a curse soon. You know, you scared me for a second, Jeffrey. I thought you were actually accidentally reading the wrong summary. And then I realized, you're just lying to the audience. I'm just, I'm exercising my, my lying muscle as Emma Stone did this whole movie. I'm trying to bring that energy into this podcast episode because I feel it's appropriate. But no, actually, I made a mistake, guys. What I read was the synopsis of Save the Green Planet, which was a South Korean film with a very similar primal student, Bagonia, that came out in 2003. It's very similar because this is the movie that Bagonia was adapted from, which it's very interesting. Because, like this movie is directed by a Junghoon Juan, on Rotten Tomatoes, the website consensus calls the original film, a funny and wildly inventive hybrid of various genres, which I don't know about you, but this doesn't really feel, Bagonia didn't feel very funny to me. And so it makes me wonder, like what is our responsibility as filmmakers when we adapt someone else's work? Is it to be faithful

9:22to the source material? Is it to completely transform it? Are there any lines? I'll answer that, but I want to go back to the bit where you just said for a moment that you didn't find it funny. I was also surprised because I went in very, knowing very little, but I do remember reading that it was like sci-fi, dark thriller, dark comedy satire. And there were moments. There were a few moments where I laughed out loud by the dark commentary and almost the absurdist, like when she convinced his lady to go kill his own mom with anti-freeze. I laughed at that. It was a little upsetting and creepy, but I ultimately was like, that's funny. So there were moments where I laughed, but I didn't find it nearly as funny as I thought I was going to. I thought it was going to be a lot more dark satire. So I'm on the same page with you where there were definitely heads of comedy in there, but not as much as I thought there was going to be. So that surprised me. But I'm going back to your original question. I wasn't expecting humor at all. And I think

10:26that put me in a frame of mind not to laugh at any of the more absurd bits. It's just thinking, oh, she's a piece of work, isn't she? She wants to leave. And so she's going to have him kill his own mother, which is interesting about perception, like just the idea of someone tells you this should be funny. You tend to find funny things. And if someone tells you this isn't supposed to be funny, you don't. And obviously there are outliers where maybe something wasn't meant to be funny. You find it hilarious or vice versa. But it's just interesting to know that I knew was a comedy going in. And so I was extrapolating funny moments. Or I was, I was generally looking for them. I was like, OK, when is this going to get uncomfortably funny? And you went in thinking dark, psychological horror thriller, no humor. And that's what you're looking for. Yeah, makes me think of this one movie I watched several years ago. It's called Mr. Turner. And what made me watch it was I saw the trailer. And it's about a real man, John William Turner, who was a famous romantic era painter. I saw the trailer for Mr. Turner. I got the impression

11:26that this was about a mute painter who was overcoming incredible odds to make beautiful art, right, against the criticisms of others. That was the impression I got from this trailer. It was very much a story of overcoming. And he's an endearing figure. And so I started the movie. And that's what I was expecting. He rapes a woman in the first 30 minutes. And the rest of the movie is like watching paint dry. Your perception going into it absolutely determines, in part, your experience of the film. If I had known what I was getting into, maybe I would have enjoyed it more. But as it stands, I hate that movie with a burning passion. Out of all the movies we talked about on the podcast, I feel like it's Mr. Turner and Gerald's games are the two you have the most disdain for. 100%. Yeah, I don't think I'd ever watch a Gerald's game based on your description. Just seems too upsetting. But I would maybe pick, no, pick Mr. Turner to force you to rewatch it. I cannot wait for you to experience the level of boredom that I experienced upon watching that movie. I don't think he could ever be matched.

12:27I think it's remarkable in that sense. So yes, let's have it on the podcast. Let's invite other people into my misery. Oh, very good. We'll do it one day for a season. If you like the movie, email us at the holy moment podcast at GML.com telling us to watch it. But to answer your question, do we as artists have a responsibility when it comes to adapting things? And obviously, this doesn't just stand for movies. You have music. You have covers of music. You have literal art, paintings and other mediums of more physical art that people have probably taken inspiration or adapted specifically. But we're going to talk in the means of film because that's what we are. We're a film podcast. I think they do have an obligation. I think when you adapt something, you're meant to transform it. Now transformation, I don't think by definition, has to be better. Obviously, you would. I don't know. I don't know because often when you adapt

13:27something, usually I think things that get adapted have already done well. So I doubt most directors, producers are going, how can we transform this into something better? I think they ask themselves, how can we transform this into something different? And I think that's the important thing. I think if you get hung up on trying to make something better, you've already lost in a sense because if you're making it better, I think you're comparing and yourself too much to the original source where I think making it different, you're able to take liberties. You're able to take that movie and change it drastically to fit a different audience. And so that's where I would say the responsibility lies, to make it different, to make it feel different. And what's interesting about this, because I also didn't know this was based on other movie tellers doing my own research. And I was a little frustrated when I was reading up on this. I was like, this movie, granted, I've not seen the original work was based off of, but I watched the trailer and I was reading up about it. And it's very similar. There are differences, but it is your main core beats and

14:34plots are the same. And so I was getting a little frustrated being like, why did they redo this? Like what was the point? We already have this art, this, this movie. Why remake it almost beat for beat? For who? But then I found it interesting. The reason it was done was because of the South Korea government to some degree. As South Korea media with like K-pop and then squid games and parasite, as their different art has been exploding and becoming more world wide in the past 10 to 15 years, they've been pushing to get more media adapted for a Western audience to continue to bring in people to be like, oh, hey, you know, but Gonia, the thing that's probably going to go win four Oscars this year. Yeah, did you know it's based off South Korea? We're awesome. And so I thought it was really interesting how, if anything, I was offended. I was like, why? How dare the Americans come along and and do this one for one adaptation only to find out it was actually the

15:34original director in his country that one of this adaptation. All that to be said, they did make the movie different. Even if it was a similar retelling, they did it culturally through the lens of a Western civilization and made probably more specific commentary on a Western culture. And so I think by doing that, they're able to transform it into something different. Better or worse, I don't know. I haven't seen the original, but I was able to come to a better grasp and not be annoyed of like, come on, this already exists. Why did we redo this? Yeah, and even tiny changes to certain characters can change the emotional timber of a film. As I understand it, save the green planet was a little more absurd. And it delved into the absurdity of it sooner than this movie does, which might be strange to say because this movie goes into some pretty weird spaces. But the decision to change the main kidnappers girlfriend into his mentally handicapped cousin whom he was

16:34taken care of emotionally, that changes how I connect with these characters and how I perceive the story being told. And I think that's something that you find often, maybe in Korea, but also maybe just Asian cinema compared to Western cinema. Again, this is maybe speaking for a wider variety is not every single movie out there. Obviously, but I do think Asian movies often will lean more towards absurdist than grounding. And so I'm not so I'm trying to say is I'm not surprised that when they adapted it that they decided to make it more grounding. And I think I agree with you. I think it makes us understand and get into the mind of our character Teddy and whether you want to use the word sympathize if you want, but I think it then they just helps us understand our main character and why he's doing what he's doing, changing the girlfriend to a cousin and being, but more specifically being less absurd. And again, dark satire comedy. So you do have some absurd in there, but like the movie was weirdly grounded for how weird it got, I would say.

17:35And that's the thing, tiny decisions can completely transform a work, even if the general thrust of the story is the same. Tonally, this movie is not save the green planet. So I think a worthwhile remake definitely something I'd be interested in revisiting, whether it's for the podcast or on my own time, watching save the green planet what it was based off of. Yeah, I'm also interested in talking about this idea of adaptation because another movie came out recently, Weathering Heights, which has been very controversial to say the least because of how it strays from the source material. And I haven't seen that movie, but surely you've heard the hub of about it. I've heard a little, I, it was, it was in the same movie where I saw Weathering Heights trailer, where I also saw Bagonia's trailer. And I got to say, I got to say, I remember really liking the trailer for Weathering Heights. I also remember thinking I have no interest in watching this movie also, but I remember being like, I like this trailer. So if that tells you anything, I've heard that the movie is visually striking and that the director does some very interesting things with it. But I've also heard people call the substance of it

18:42lacking. I want to watch it at some point and then I want to watch out the things by that director. Is it based on a book or a movie? You said it has been adapted to something. It seems like it would be a graphic novel, which it's interesting. Frankenstein and Dracula are also Victorian era Gothic novels that have been adapted a bajillion times. And those adaptations aren't known for being particularly true to the source material. It's just interesting. These things coming out when they are and the questions they pose. I'm not someone for the most part that gets my panties and a wad about things being different from the original. For example, let's take a step back from an adaptation for just half a second sequels. I know a lot of people will be really disappointed when they, a movie they love has a sequel or a prequel or it's maybe just in the same world, but it's not as good. I'm very good at divorcing things from connecting worlds. Now granted, maybe if it's like directly like like a

19:42will be a good example of this, like a movie that was made for a sequel, like it's not a little standalone thing, like you really need the next movie to build it up. I guess like like the adventure movies, like that has a very clear full circle story. But here's an example favorite movie full time, the Matrix. Arguably every Matrix after movie after it just gets worse and worse and worse and then it concludes with the fourth movie, which was horrible. I'm able to personally enjoy each movie for its own merits, even though again, the Matrix is a continual story. Like the first story, the first movie kind of has like a close ending, but it's very clearly like Neo literally ends the movie with saying like wherever you are out there, I'm coming for you. But I still love it for what it is, even though it gets worse and worse and by the end of the third one where you have quote unquote the end of the story, it's not nearly as good. So I know it's just something that's never really bothered me where I can kind of be like, oh, I love that movie for what it is, even though something that connects to it is garbage. And I feel like I'm the same with adaptations. If you

20:42do take one of my favorite books, one of my favorite musicals, one of my favorite comic books and make it into a movie and it sucked. I mean, I'd be disappointed, but I wouldn't, it wouldn't reflect personally on anything about the original adaptation, which I think some people can like get frustrated about. I think that the main thing for adapting a story is whether it's a complete story transformation or it's staying very true to the source material, you have to make changes to make it right for the medium. With novels, we're getting into the brains of these characters in a way that we don't have access to in film, but with film, we're seeing faces and we're experiencing the events visually and auditorily in a way that we don't have access to in novels. And so you just have to know how to paint with the right brushes. I mean, it reminds me going all the way back to Akira, the movie, one of the first movies we ever reviewed on the podcast and talking about the medium of animation versus live action and how animation just has a different tool set, different brush

21:46set of what you can achieve and storytelling that live action can. And that's true with every medium, you know, music can tell different stories than paintings, then poems, then books, then movies. Absolutely. Anyway, I brought up adaptation because this movie is nominated for best adaptation in the Oscars, which is interesting. I've never heard of them calling a remake an adaptation because I typically reserve that for, oh, you're turning an existing story from some other medium into film, but I just thought that was interesting. Anyhow, speaking of Oscars, Emma Stone was nominated for Best Actress for this movie, but I've also seen widespread praise for Jesse Plemmons as well. They're both incredible actors. Emma Stone, this is her second time, I think, working with Yorgos Lathamost, she seems to really enjoy working with him as a director and he tends to get some of her best performances out of her. I think she won Best Actress for poor things, or if not

22:46that, then she was at least nominated. But that makes me wonder, what did their performances bring to these characters? And how do you feel that these characters hold up apart from the actors? I think this movie ultimately hinges on, ultimately one thing, and I do think it's the acting. Now, I mean, every movie at the end of the day hinges on the acting for the most part, but this movie really hinges on it, something that I was thinking about until, again, spoilers, like if you haven't seen this movie, maybe don't be here. Or do hang out with us, we'll spoil it. I don't mind spoilers, maybe you don't mind spoilers. But the only like bigger production crazy stuff is maybe like when she is an alien, it gets on the alien spaceship. But besides that, we're like in a dude's basement. And then we're at like some CEO building, which just kind of looks like an average office, like a fancy office, but like an office nonetheless. So the point is, I was impressed that this story was pretty honed down location-wise, scope-wise. I was going to

23:50say visually, but I think the cinematography was beautiful, but the scope of what they did was pretty honed into a few locations. And so within the day, I think the acting had to shine. So for that reason, but it also had to shine because this was a game of not quite cat and mouse, but I feel like early on when Jeffrey and I were at film school. I think it might have been one of the first classes you take, storytelling 101. We talked about the idea of how there has to be change in a scene. We talked a lot about this in the episode of Die Hard, I think two or three seasons ago. One of the most basic ideas to get this concept that we're taught in film school is interrogation. If you have a cop and a suspect, and it's a scene for eight minutes, or it's a scene we return to multiple times, interrogation, they go somewhere else, interrogation, they go somewhere else, interrogation. And the cop uses the same tactics, and the person being interviewed uses the same tactics to avoid. It becomes very boring. There's no change, there's no give or take, there's no new strategy. The cop has to come in, and at first be angry and yelling, and then maybe the cop comes in and tries to be nice, and then maybe the cop comes in and tries to persuade them and be like, we have

24:51a loved one capture, we're going to torture them. There has to be change. And so for this movie, again, the scope is smaller, fewer locations. And then for to really be a movie of just people going back and forth, they're just talking. Teddy's like, you are an alien. Fuller is like, I am not an alien. That is ultimately the premise and a 90% of the scenes in this movie. And if the acting wasn't 10 out of 10 firing on old cylinders, if the chemistry wasn't there, I think this movie would have fallen completely flat. And so I think for the actors, Emma Stone, and Plyments, Jesse Plyments, right? Jesse Plyments. Jesse Plyments. I think if they didn't have that chemistry and that depth of acting, which is what I'm excited to talk about one of my favorite scenes later, I think this movie would have been completely horrible. I would have been boring. And so I think they are deserving for the praise they are getting. I can't remember if that answers both your questions. It does. It mean, well, in part, it answers them. I wonder without these actors, let's say they'd

25:52been replaced by not terrible actors, just mediocre actors, would these characters have been as engaging? Like, are you interested in Teddy? Are you interested in Fuller in the abstract? Yeah, what's interesting about these two characters, which would have not have been there with mediocre characters or actors, is the subtext. The tension of what is, why is Teddy doing this? Okay, he is a nut job who believes there are aliens to the point where he thinks he's going to save humanity. Is that really all that's going on? You know, we're getting flashbacks to his drug mother. There's something going on with a cop that maybe molested him as a child. There's something going on with him as a character that's not as straightforward as I believe in aliens. So you're desperately getting piece by piece and we really don't get the full story. Like with the whole cop, the storyline where there's a cop that shows up who used to babysit Teddy and he's apologizing. We don't know why he's apologizing. Was it a sexual abuse? Was it a physical abuse?

26:56Like, we don't know everything. So we the audience are desperately trying to piece together the psychology of Teddy. And it matters because he's the antagonist. He can not this woman. We want to know why on the flip side fuller. Okay, the whole idea is that she's an alien. And like Jeff said, the very beginning of the movie, I think I personally think it was relatively obvious that she was going to be an alien because if she wasn't an alien, this just became a dark psychological. This became prisoners, which we watched like three episodes ago. It became someone wrongfully imprisoned and tortured for being something they weren't. And it just changes the whole tone of the movie. Whereas if she's an alien, you get that absurdist idea. You get I think you can you hone in on absurd dark satire humor talking about social commentary. But she wasn't an alien. It's more of just like an upsetting movie, maybe talking about like maybe talking about society, but it's no longer satire, no longer a comedy. I think that we're meant to think it's kind of a prisoner's ask film for most of it until we get more and more evidence that perhaps there's truth to what

28:00Jesse Clemens is saying. I didn't get the absurdist vibes from the get go. I would be interested to ask other people because I just for me personally, I was like, if she is not an alien, I do not know what they're going to do to make a satisfying. I would not have been satisfied with the prisoners just finding out Teddy is a deeply upsetting man, capture this woman on the wrong and tortured her. I would have been very, very disappointed. And I thought even though she's not my favorite director, I respect him enough that I think he's a good director that I thought you had to go the the the the alien angle. And so my point being we have Fuller who is desperately telling us I am not an alien, but her subtext of like, okay, she's just like a bitchy CEO boss girl. That's like power hungry and like, I'm better than everyone else. I'm a go get her or is the subtext that she actually is an alien that she's trying not to break. And so the point is yes, at the end of the day, you have Teddy saying you're an alien Fuller saying I'm not an alien,

29:02but what's going on beneath what's not being said, but the storytelling that's going on both of their psychologies of why they're saying it or not saying it is what spoke volumes about this movie and what made it interesting. It's what created the tension. And so I think if you had mediocre actors, that would have that wouldn't have read in a million years. And personally, I do think Emma Stone deserves, you know, I think both of them did great. I wouldn't have an issue of both of them one awards, but I do think Emma Stone had the stronger performance than Teddy. I really, really enjoyed Teddy, but what Emma Stone had to do to play a person who deep down knew she was an alien, but had to pass it off as not an alien. And she did it. How she did it with her facial reactions and her anger and how calm she was, but also angry at the same time. I just thought was a really impressive. It reminds me again, a prisoners where at first, we're praising Hugh Jackman. And again, Hugh Jackman did an amazing job in his performance

30:03of Keller Dover. But at the end of the day, it was a little more stereotypical. It was kind of this over the top emotional father, where Jake Gyllenhaal, who is playing Detective Loki, had such a more restrained character, but in his restraint, the subtext said so much. And so I guess if you put gun to my head, I do think Emma Stone had a stronger performance. At the end of the day, I don't think you even asked me that question. So there was no gun to my head. I just told you. You just volunteered that information. And you know, I love it. That's what this podcast is about. It's give and take and give and take. And I don't always have to ask things to grab them, but I grab them and I take them in on the list. Well, let me ask you, who was your, as an actor, who was your favorite performance out of the two? It's one of those, there will be blood situations where so much of it is about their shared chemistry. They both give very powerful performances. I really like Jesse Plemons as an actor, just in general. He's one of those unconventional looking people that get put in certain roles, very rarely the lead role.

31:12But he has a lot of power behind his performances. And he puts a lot of thought into them. But Emma Stone, this is your second go around with Yorgos Lenthamos. And he does get something out of her that is fantastic. And I'm so interested to hear about her process, how she gets into character. And how has the director is able to pull that out? It's so interesting thinking about the relationships that directors have with specific actors. And how one director can handle an actor very well, but that same actor under the guidance of another director puts out a mediocre performance. Yeah, it's so funny when you watch a movie and you just shrug it off as being bad. Sure, some of the times it is bad. It's made to like make money and it's just the most stereotypical thing ever. But like movies are freaking hard to make guys. They cost so much money, so much stress, so much time. Very rarely are they made and no one gives a crap. You know, maybe

32:15the director doesn't give a crap, but it's like a producer's dream or the actor's dream or vice versa. Someone usually gives a crap. And so it's just so interesting. Like, where is the chink in the metal? No, where's the chink in the armor that makes a movie fall apart? And they're so and that's the thing about movies. Everyone has to be firing on all cylinders. Obviously, there are more important people like if the director is screwing up, but the PA is doing amazing, you're probably going to have a bad movie. But really there are so many creative rules that are not firing on all cylinders. Your movie is going to fall apart. And so it is sometimes it's so easy to point to the actor because then the day as the audience, we see the actor. So it's so easy to look at the actor and be like, wow, they destroyed this movie. But it could have been the director's fault. It could have been the writer's fault. It could have been the producer's fault. So there's a lot of people to blame or to praise outside of just actors. And I find it very interesting when I watch a movie and been like, what if this was in the hands of a better director or a worse director? I think this is a great example of a movie because again, besides her becoming an alien at the end of the movie, it's pretty restrained. They're

33:19in a basement. They're talking. And so in the hands of a lesser director, it would have been worse. It makes me wonder how many very talented actors careers have been tanked by a bad first feature? Yeah. Perhaps they did not have any role in like making it bad. It also makes me think of like all the actors that started with like short films or just kind of bad indie films. And then the granted arguably the actor is getting better with every story. So so arguably they're maybe they're not the best at the very beginning, but they're probably pretty decent. But it's interesting the same idea of like what director came along, what story came along that plucked them out from the diamond and the rough that, hey man, I've already been part of 30 short films and five feature films and none of them have gone anywhere. And I've been pretty solid in all of them. So it is also interesting of like when do you have that like click and then everyone praises that actor's performance. And it's like they've been good that whole time. It wasn't until they've had this pairing with these creative roles that that really let them shine.

34:23And that's why when directors find their people when actors find their people, they tend to stick with those people because they know that it works. And it takes a village to make a movie. That's why every person in every role is put in the credits. They're all filmmakers. This is their film. There's the autore theory that the director is the sole author of the film. And I just think that's silly. They play an outsized role in where that movie goes. And I'm not saying at all that they can't be the reason a movie fails or succeeds. But without all of those competent people around him, he's just a guy and not necessarily a guy with a camera. Just a guy with kind of a vision. Yeah, it takes a village, as you said. And also it actually is Emma Stone's fourth movie that she's done with this director, which really surprised me because I knew she was in poor things, which I believe came the year up before this. But then when I was reading up on it, I saw four and I was like,

35:24whoa, I did not know Emma Stone's been working with them for that long. Granted, I think they've all been because it was poor things. And then it was the kinds of kindness. And then I believe it was Bagonia. And then there was there was an earlier one, I think a while ago. But so I don't think it's been like a huge long time, a huge long time. What a great sentence. I don't think it's like spread this vast like 10 year decade. I think they've been, they found each other and they've done movie after movie after movie together, which again, I think shows in Bagonia because when you work with a director for so long, but specifically in such a condensed time frame, you probably get so used to working with them. Like you got to imagine the past five years, because you know, it takes like roughly, well granted, you're only shooting for about three to five year or three to four months at a time. But still, for the past like four to five years, she's pretty consistently just worked with them month after month after month. Yeah. And Yorgos, when the most must be writing scripts that she really resonates with, stories that she wants to tell. She has been playing weirder roles lately. Older movies in her filmography

36:31have her as the lead in rom coms, right? Or other romantic movies we have her and Ryan Gosling's many collaborations like Walla Land. And then we have her and crazy stupid love. But this, she's finding roles that she can sink her teeth into. And those roles are supremely weird. Yeah. Yeah. I love to see it because like, you know, our parents probably have those actors that they saw grow up and do these more archetypal characters than they go off. And what you know, they have that clout, they kind of get inside what they want to do. They go off and do their own thing. And you can see what they really wanted to all along what they've grown into. I love that like our generation is starting to see those actors. I think of Matthew McConaughey, you know, he broke out from all of his like, what was it? 80s, 90s or early 2000s more like it, romance. And I know I remember reading his book. He had a really hard time breaking out of that. But he finally did. And now he's getting to sink his teeth into the movies that he likes doing

37:32with interstellar, the lost bus. And then you have actors like a Leonardo Caprio. You know, he's been making huge movies for the longest time. But I do think he was kind of more of a love interest swav boy back in the day. And now he's like becoming a weird dude. Like obviously he's a weird dude in real life. But he's like, you know, playing these more crazy paranoid type people, most recently in one battle after another. I feel like he's coming into it into his own as an actor, finding roles he likes more and more. So it's just fun as an audience. I'm not a big like, oh, follow the actors. Read all about them. But I do like watching actors, filmography, and watching what they evolve into. And then arguably Emma Stone and these other actors in another 10, 20 years, you know, they're not super old. They're going to probably be in different types of movies. And so that's cool to watch their creative process change. I'm excited to see what other films and stories that those two people make together, your ghosts and Emma. But on the topic of characters, Teddy. Teddy is a conspiracy nut who is deeply unwell. He also

38:38happens to be right. Right? And that's an interesting dichotomy. He's capable of tremendous cruelty that he also demonstrated genuine care for his cousins and his co-workers. He has a strong notion of right and wrong, a selfless spirit of self-sacrifice, as misguided as it is. How was he as an antagonist? Did that make him compelling for you? Yeah, I thought he was super interesting as a protagonist because just like you said, something's off about him. Obviously, like there's something not right in his brain as a conspiracy person. But he also portrays himself as very caring, very loving, very patient, generally once the best for people. Like I love when he first, like Emma Stone, Fuller's character, first gets kidnapped. She's knocked out. She's in their basement. She slowly comes too. And she sees Don and Teddy there dressed in like pulp fiction-esque crappy suits. And they're standing there and he's like reading off this little piece of paper written. He's like, hey, I don't want to hurt you. But we're the we're the human resistance. And we just want you to like record a message

39:39and give it to your emperor. And that's all we want. So he really does portray himself with a certain amount of innocence. And so I loved like throughout the movie, you get cracks on that. He does torture her to some degree. We see him slapper. And then the most evident scene is when he hooks her up to an electric electric chair and he electrocutes her for a few minutes. And now granted. So we know he has some screws loose. But still he's holding up that veneer of, oh, I'm so sorry. I really didn't want to do this. I didn't want to hurt you. We just had to prove you're an alien. And then once he does, and he's like, which I'm now just realizing the movie, he's like, based on these wavelengths, you're like royal blood. And then at the end of the movie, we find out she is in fact the emperor. I didn't even put two and two together until this moment. But so the point is, even as we see cracks in his facade, there is something delicate about him. There's something caring about him. So it hits so much harder when we go into that final act where she tricks Teddy and he runs off to go freed antifreeze to his mother and she breaks through

40:41and she's about to leave. And then she discovers his secret back room in the basement of where he has dead body parts and jars, scalped human beings, dead people in like Mason jars, all these photos, and it's super upsetting. And again, at the end of the day, he did it in the goal of proving that that drop it on aliens are real and that they're trying to wipe out humanity. But at the end of the day, he still did some messed up things. At the end of the day, he still killed that cop. And again, you could argue about the subtext of the story of did that cop molest him and did that fuel that murder, but it's still then the day it hit so hard when we saw how cruel and how disturbing Teddy's character really was. And again, it was all with that acting because Teddy does act pretty, I don't want to say a loof, but innocent. He has a kindness to him, a tenderness, a softness to him that you just, you want to believe that he is right and you want to believe he won't go past anything. He shouldn't, but he very clearly does. The thing is, Teddy is not insane.

41:46He's unwell, but if he were to go to court and he pleaded insanity, that would not fly in court because everything that he does is based on a rationale that he is consistent with. He's not insane. He's just convinced the very insane things. And that motivates his actions. He does all of this begrudgingly. He doesn't want to shock Emma Stone, but he does because he feels it's necessary to save the planet. He doesn't want to go out there and kill people, kidnap people and test them, but he feels that he is doing this for some greater good. He is the hero of his own story and we see this reflected in the movie's score. When he's riding his bike, we see the heroic, brassy instrumentation that swells as though he is on a heroic quest and he is doing the selfless thing, which that brings me to the score.

42:49This is also nominated for Best Original Score. Did you notice that when you were watching the movie? Yeah, it's funny. I had two thoughts about the score and one was, I don't like this and one was, wow, I really like this. And the moment I didn't like it was, I thought the opening was a bit abrasive when we had that voiceover of Teddy kind of talking about his beliefs and aliens and it opens up with kind of this this droning horror sound that becomes more synonymous with the movie. But just at the beginning, it felt like I was getting hit over the head. To give a better example, I wrote a script back in like June or a year and I gave it to one of my professors and he read it and one of the feedback pieces was it was to give context. It was an animated TV show pilot episode and he was like, hey, you have this scene where these two siblings are crying over the grave of their mother, you know, pretty early on, maybe like 15 minutes into the pilot episode and he's like, I don't feel like it's been earned. You know,

43:49I don't know these characters very well. I don't know what's going on. And sometimes when you force the saddest possible outcome or even pull it back not just the saddest, but the highest emotional state, you know, sorrow, grief, anger, lust, like right away. Sometimes it feels like it's not earned. And I felt like that in that moment where it's just the very beginning of the movie. Nothing sinister is happening and I get they're trying to set the tone, but it felt belaboring. It felt like I get it. I know what we're doing here. You don't have to shove into my face with the score at this moment. Fast forward. I'm trying to remember when it was because I don't think it was when he just killed the police officer. He was out in his backyard teddy and he was with his bees and he was walking inside. But there is something about, I think it was it was roughly the same score, like that droning kind of sci-fi effect. But there's something so menacing that he was just outside with his bees and then he was going inside in that music hit that I really loved. And from that point on, I really loved the score. I just wish it had kind of like grown into itself and sort of

44:53like thrown itself at us at the very beginning. Did you notice the more brassy stereotypically heroic music that was almost a motif for him? I did and I feel like they did a good job of like transforming that motif into not horror, but into insanity by the end. Like when he's writing his bicycle to his mom to give her the antifreeze and he's in a blood-drenched bee suit. And then when he's writing it back, he's crying. He's pissed off because he just killed his own mother and you do kind of have that brassy heroic music. But I think it's juxtaposed with that kind of alien sci-fi drone that makes kind of for an interesting competing ideal. So like he is not the hero of the story. But then in the day, he's going to be proven right that he was vaguely kind of in a weird way the hero of the story. Yeah, I mean, and that's the feeling it's evoking with that music is that stereotypical almost cheesy sound. John Williams adjacent, of course, like John Williams is

45:58iconic, but you know, his heroic themes. It's that, but for a conspiracy nut that is brutally mutilating and torturing people to see the aliens. Something I love about scores is like it's the invisible storytelling. I don't think most people will be like, oh yeah, music doesn't matter movies, but I think people forget how important music matters. Music has been around so much long. What movies? 120, 150 years they've been around. Music's been around since like the dawn of humanity, since you can pick up a stone and bang it against another stone. There's something so deeply ingrained in the human DNA psyche of whatever you want to call it that music moves us. And when you have a scene that has the wrong type of music, it is an absolute killer. Another little anecdote. I've been so excited, Jeffrey. I've been using the word anecdote in my life ever since you taught me how to properly say it two seasons ago.

46:58And it don't. But when I was working with a composer who didn't ultimately amazing job with my with my short film, Yeager loved it 10 out of 10. And it's a process. That's an evolution. Like, you know, the composer's not going to get it right in the first try. But I do remember he sent to handful of graphs at specific moments with our main character, Yeager, with the classic horns, the brass that you synonymize with Captain America and the good guys. And we had to keep telling the composer like, Hey, we don't want any horns. We don't want any of this brass. Our main character, Yeager is an anti hero. We don't want to look at him with admiration. He is a violent, addictive person that kills people, regardless of their bad or not. So we don't want him coming in, cutting up people, being like, Look at this badass and how cool he is dealing out justice. No, he's a psychopathic murderer that is dealing with this addiction. So it was just interesting working with the composer to get the right tone across. And how important we had to kept those

47:58horns. It would have felt very different because subconsciously, we as a Western audience know that has to do with like superheroes, good and justice. And that's completely the opposite of the story we were telling. So so all that to be said, I do think the score did a great job telling the story of Bagonia. I think they did a really good job with it. Do you think it's best original score worthy? No, no, no, ah, that's hard. Hard for a few reasons. One, I haven't seen a ton of the movies that are up for a nomination and the 2026 Oscars. But let's put that aside. Do I think it has the gumption, the greatness to make best score, original score? And I don't think so because while I do think what it did effectively, I don't think it had enough breath. I think the score they created was great and utilized well, but it was pretty maintained throughout the whole.

49:03It did feel like kind of one note in my opinion. Again, I'm not saying you need something maybe as drastic and bombastic and as big scope as Lord of the Rings with so much different going on with the score. But I do feel like maybe a movie that has a little more going on with its score as far as like different motifs and a little bit different variety. I guess is the word I'm looking for. Do I think the score is really good? Yes. Do I feel like it could have had more variety? Yes. Yeah, I think that if you can sort of hum a score to yourself after the fact, that shows that that's an effective score that you've taken it in because if it's a song with lyrics, it's a little easier. There meant to be internalized, but film scores are a different piece entirely. But maybe what I've said isn't true. We have some scores that are more atmospheric, like punch-drunk love. I can't hum any of that score to you, but it did succeed wildly in

50:07creating that sense of anxiety and tension. But I don't know if I could, at some later point, hum to myself any of the motifs, any of the musical phrases of this movie. Well, and so I guess let me ask you and let me say this on record. When it comes to music, it's one of my greatest weaknesses as a director because I think, again, the director isn't the composer, but I do think it's important for the director to have some type of vision for the music. And it's something I'm really bad at. I do not understand music, not a skill I have. So everything I just said about maybe being worthy of the Oscars or not, maybe I'm totally wrong, and I'm willing to admit that. But Jeffrey, you dabble in music. You enjoy music. You're a good singer. I know you like the piano. I know you're putting little pieces of melodies together. Are you saying you do also agree that this wasn't Oscar worthy? I think it served its purpose very well. I don't think it's Oscar worthy personally. And again, I haven't seen all of the other nominees. And so

51:08perhaps the others are just dog shit. But as it stands, the movie was, I mean, the music in this movie was fine. I think I think I think the music score was was a solid B plus to even A minus for the vehicle that was in. But I think there was something even constrictive of the story. It was it was in that it just wasn't enough. And so that's my opinion, even though I did enjoy it. When I first asked you this question about whether or not this score was effective, you mentioned that the first scene, the horror that it was trying to evoke out of the audience didn't feel earned like through its music. Because we had just met these characters not enough time had elapsed for us to get to know them or feel the stakes. And that brings me to this next question. Don, Teddy's mentally handicapped cousin ends up shooting himself in the movie. And we dealt with suicide plot points before on the podcast. And we've come to the conclusion that it takes a lot of tack to make it feel earned. Did that moment feel earned to you?

52:11Yeah, I would say so. I thought Don was a nice side character. And while maybe it wasn't the most obvious, like I wasn't sitting there thinking, oh, that's what's going to happen until like I like, oh, maybe maybe 10 seconds, maybe 10 seconds before he killed himself. I was like, oh, okay, he's about to kill himself. So there was some type of like moment that clicked. But I don't I think for me, it's not about like when you know they're going to kill themselves or not kill themselves. Because if anything, arguably, I mean, it depends on the movie. Sometimes you want to know from the beginning. It's important for the story. And sometimes you don't want to know until it happens. And so I don't think it's like, it matters when you know it's if when it happens, it feels believable. And we have dealt with suicide part in a few movies, but I know specifically we're talking about dear lemon Lyma where the little little boy goes and kills himself. And I think arguably there are moments that point to that kid killing himself where he has to let his pet rapico and then his father kills it.

53:13So there are these things that allude to his death. So it wasn't that I couldn't predict that he would kill himself. It was that the tone and the setup of him killing himself wasn't really there. And so for this movie, while I don't think there's like when I say incredible setup, I don't mean they did a bad job. I mean, there wasn't a substantial amount of the setup, which I don't think was bad. They just didn't do a lot of time spending setting up to this kid. Kid was going to kill himself. Obviously, I think they've seen that demonstrate the most was the fact that Teddy was like the aliens can control us with lust. So we have to chemically castrate ourselves. So he castrates himself. They castrates his cousin and then halfway through the movie, the cousin really sad honestly. You know, he has special needs. And he's like, hey, ever since you inject him with that stuff, I get sad sometimes. Do you get sad? And then Teddy is just kind of brushing on the table of like, oh, it'll pass. It'll pass. And if this was like just a pure drama, you bet your bottom

54:14dollar signals would have got off my mind, always going to kill himself. But since at this point, it's such an absurd movie. They have a woman taped duct taped in their basement that they calling an alien. I wasn't thinking, what's the character out of Don? You know, what's going to happen with him? But so then when he does kill himself, again, there was enough believability in it. And again, Don is this character that keeps saying, I have nothing. I have no one. Everyone I know and loved has abused me or abandoned me. All I have is my cousin. And so we would think he would never leave his cousin. But we probably more than anything more than having his cousin, he just hates being here. And he's deeply depressing upset. And the chemical, the chemical castration has also effed up his mind mentally. And so I think would he kill himself? I was totally all there for it. I'll say, yep, that makes sense. Yeah. We're always getting hints from him that one, he doesn't know what he's fighting for. And that's in part because he's more sympathetic to Fuller than Teddy is. But two, Teddy has something to fight for. He wants to save the Earth

55:19so that he can return to Earth and then all our problems will be solved. Don doesn't really see a future for him. He doesn't really see that hope. He just wants to get away from it all. He's tired of this place. He's tired of these people. The only thing tying him down is Teddy. And so we hear him throughout the movie saying, like, why can't we stay in space? Why can't we just abandon everything? And so I do think it was earned and built up. And in the case of Dear Lemon Lime, yeah, you can predict something. But being able to predict it still, that doesn't make it believable. And this is where this movie excels in that regard. All of the signs are coming from the character, from his own mouth, from his own, we're watching him. Whereas a lot of Dear Lemon Lime, a boy's grief was kind of off screen or not a focus. And something that's so beautiful and well done about that scene. Again, it's the subtext of what a character is saying and another

56:22character not picking up on. Fuller's character, she's just desperate to escape. She's like, okay, I saw that Don is sympathetic. I think I could convince him to let me go if I can give him what he wants. If I can manipulate him into believing he doesn't need Teddy. Teddy is abusive. I can take advantage of the situation. That makes sense. Us with the audience were right there with her. And then as soon as she, so we know where she's coming from. But then when Don starts talking, and it's like, oh, yeah, we're going to be taken away. It's going to be great. And we realize that he really does believe in the idea of aliens and wants to leave. But then when he starts talking about like, well, I don't want to leave Teddy behind. And she's like, no, no, you can do it. You can do it without Teddy. I feel like there's something that clicks in his mind where he's like this whole time, he just wanted to let to be to, to, to leave. He wanted to be free of his burdens of his sorrow, of his pain. And Teddy, who he did love and care for obviously was pushing him on a mission. We got to keep going. We got to stay. We got to keep fighting this war. And so I think

57:23as soon as Fuller convinced him, no, you can let go in her mind. She thinking that's going to lead to my escape. He is interpreting it as you're right. I don't have to be the rock for my cousin. I can let things go. And he kills himself. And so just the, the, the mismatched wires of subtext in that conversation makes for such, it's so interesting. You're eating up every piece of dialogue and trying to figure out what is this person really saying? And that's what makes it so fascinating. And again, back to, that's why you need a top list actor. So did a great job. Yeah, she has a scape on her mind. He also has a scape on her mind. And she is the one that really encourages that feeling of longing for something else, something more or nothing at all. And I'd love to think just as she was absolutely flabbergasted. She was not trying to get him to kill herself. She, she wanted him to help her escape. I like to think the audience was meant to be just as flabbergasted. And again, not in a way of like suicide, I never would have believed it. But the conversation we think is going a different direction. And then when it goes this direction,

58:28it is jolting to us, even though everything was there. And it makes sense. And so I, yeah, just great. Speaking of moments of reveal and subverted expectations, at the end of the movie, we discover that Fuller is, in fact, an alien. How do you think that reveal was handled? And how do you feel about, oh, I guess we've already discussed how you feel about her being an alien? How it sort of gives meaning to the movie that it wouldn't have otherwise. But do you think that the reveal was handled well? Yeah, I think, I mean, this is the highlight of the movie for me. I, in fact, I was talking to my wife about it. And I was like, hey, were you just like watched the last 20 minutes of this? That's really all you need to know. Up until this point, you just need to know she was kidnapped. They think she's an alien. She said she's not an alien, whatever. But the moment, the scene right after Don kills himself, Teddy comes running in and it's like, what the hell did you do? And she plays her last card because Teddy's like, Teddy's freaking out. She thinks she's about to die. And she's like, wait, I can cure your mom who is like in a coma. You're just going to take the

59:31antifreeze because it's actually an anecdote and go give it to her. And then he leaves. And now you think, okay, it's this last moment. She's going to, she's going to escape and she's going to call the cops and it's all going to be fine. But then she finds the back room of all the torture, disembodied people. And I'm in my mind screaming to myself, what are you doing? You are a selfish person who is desperately trying to survive and screwed the selfish person whether I like you or not like you. You're trying to survive. I get that. I want you to survive. Just run away. But we see her looking at these photos filled with rage and disgust. And it's, and it's, and it's, and it's, it's a, it's a, it's a paradox because up into this point, she has shown herself to be selfish. Like granted, selfish people also probably don't like seeing mutilated humans. I assume it's upsetting for them for the average human. That's not a sociopath. But there's something in her eyes that alluded more to than just angry at him for killing people. So something shifted there. And from that moment on for the rest of the story, I was on the edge of my seat because Tady

1:00:35gets back, find out he accidentally killed his mom and he's pissed off and he goes down those stairs and there is Fuller. She is who she really is. But we don't know that for sure yet. She is unabashedly an alien and she is taking control of the situation. She's pissed off because he killed some of those people there in that room were on dromedon aliens. And so now you have this amazing subtext, this amazing mind chase game where it's like, okay, is she really an alien or is she just fully playing into it to get Tady to believe she's an alien. So he'll let her go. And so you have this amazing back and forth. And again, at that point, I'm pretty sure she's an alien. But they keep doing little things where it's like, is she an alien? Like when Tady brings her to her office because she's like, Hey, look, I'm an alien. I'll take you to my emperor. The only way to do it is go to my office. When they pull up and the security guards greeting her, her secretary is getting her. She looks so awkward and she looks so flying by the seat of her pants like, I have no idea

1:01:37what I'm doing. I'm desperately trying to survive. And so just like the little bit of acting she is doing keeps me being like, well, maybe she's really not an alien. And then when it's finally fully revealed that she isn't alien, Tady explodes and then she gets taken into an ambulance and then she wakes up in the ambulance and just jumps out, which is hilarious, runs back, gets in her closet, gets beamed up to the spaceship. I really loved it. I thought it was, it was, it was a great reveal and it was the reveal that was needed. No, I agree. Everything up to that point. Another cool thing that they do is they get into her office. They close the blinds and she tells them that in order to beam up, he has to get into her closet and she has to press 58 numbers on a calculator. And that sounds stupid, doesn't it? That sounds ridiculous. It sounds like she's bullshitting him. And because of the way that Emma Stone plays it, I could see the audience thinking that as well. Like, is she still playing him for a fool right now? Is she stalling for time and then come to

1:02:39find out? No, that's actually how you beam up to the ship. And something that I like that's left open, at least in my opinion, it's left open ended. Maybe some people like, no, this is obviously immense to say this. I think the reason she was playing it so aloof is because I think at her mind, she wanted him to get into the closet. Well, okay. There is that moment where he's going to the closet and he's showing hesitation. Like, okay, maybe this really isn't what I think it is. And she's like, oh, I'll go in. And then he's like, no, no, no, I'll go in. Phenomenal. Because in that moment we're thinking, oh, she's doing reverse psychology. Oh, I'll go first forcing him to go in. But then when it's revealed she really is an alien and she really want to get into that closet, it's revealed it wasn't reverse psychology. She was desperate to get into that closet and she generally would have gone before him if she could have. And so I think it's just small things like that where again, you don't know the motivation of the character. You think they're acting under one thing, one action, one course of motivation, but actually they were acting under a completely

1:03:43different motivation. And when it's revealed, it creates a new subtext. It creates a new context and it makes the acting all the better. How the reveal reframes her past actions and events, chef's kiss. I think this would be a fun movie to rewatch. Interestingly enough, for a second, I felt that the scene on the ship overstayed its welcome. Especially when the council of Andromadins were convening and they decide to cast judgment on humanity. We have been with them, we have done our experiments and we have deemed them unworthy of the life that they have because they are at core selfish. And so she pops that bubble above the map and turn up all the humans type. And then we get that beautiful montage, beautiful montage of all the humans that are dead and slumped over their various activities. And there's the song, where of all the flowers gone,

1:04:44such an effective montage. And from what I was thinking, I don't know. I would have liked this better if it had capped off a different story. And I'll explain why. Throughout the movie, she demonstrates that she is just as selfish, if not more selfish, than all the people around her. She is disingenuous. She speaks things without conviction to get what she wants. And her words directly lead to the death of an innocent woman. But he would not have put an antifreeze into his mom's IV if it weren't her suggestion. And her excuse that, oh, I didn't think you'd actually do that, was a dumb excuse. Of course, she would have foreseen that that could have happened. And so her being on this high horse and saying, OK, humanity, they're wicked at their core, they deserve death. It just felt like it was undercutting the themes of the story. And then I thought about it some.

1:05:46And I realized, well, you have these CEOs of major corporations, the elite, high ranking members in our government that are no different from the people on the ground. And yet, because they're in this position of power over others, they feel themselves more equipped to cast judgment or act in ways that affect large swathes of people. And so perhaps it is appropriate that we have this flawed and selfish person deciding sort of on a whim that these other people, because they are selfish in a way that she is selfish, they don't deserve their lives anymore. But what do you feel about that? Do you feel that that reveal undercut or helped the theme of the movie? I mean, I think this is what we're really getting into the social commentary of the movie, which I have some gripes about. But I think this reveal and her killing the humans and was she really sorrowful for it or was she corrupted by the human greed herself and the anger and the

1:06:51spiel she gave like the longer I'm around you, the more horror will I become. And I think ultimately it's fine. It works. I sometimes have hard times with movies that are pushing pretty hard. Like maybe their whole point is a social commentary. I think this movie did it pretty well. I didn't feel completely thrown in my face, but the ending was a pretty strong conversation piece with them committing genocide and that song is showing the mass of dead bodies. And I think for me, I do appreciate they blended a lot of social commentary. I think there was a lot being said here. It wasn't like one thing. But I do think overall it was a nihilistic viewpoint on humans that we cannot have grace, mercy, love and forgiveness for others and grow. Ultimately, we are driven by greed, by anger, by pride, and by jealousy. I don't think it'd look any further than the conversation that Teddy and Fuller have about the bees. And how Teddy's like these bees are beautiful, complicated, amazing animals that have an amazing ecosystem. And she is like, yeah, they're

1:07:57good worker bees. I like how hard they work. And he's like, you just see them as worker bees. And so I think this is a movie commentating on the nihilistic viewpoint of humans and how we are self-serving in a lot of ways. But then I also think it was obviously I think it was talking a lot about big corporations and how they do just stand at the top. And they don't see the problems like how she was saying she's like, my people were trying to save her mother. We're trying to genetically re encode her DNA to get her out of her OPM addiction. She is a weak person at her own fault. But the people, the corporations, the politicians, the people at the top don't see the position that the mother was in. I am not going to say that the mother made all the right choices and say, well, it's just the big corporations that were at fault. But it's very clear that they were in their skyscrapers not seeing the real issues of these people. They're not weak people. They're people. They have weaknesses and they have strengths like everyone else. And so I think

1:09:00this movie took a stance against like big corporations and big power and big money and how it like overlooks the people and just sees them as as as be workers busy body people. And then I also think it has a more nihilistic that even the busy body people are more ingrained with the negative, the jealousy, the anger, the greed, the pride. And it all leads to a downfall of a civilization that doesn't deserve to exist. I'm sure there's some other complicated themes in there that I'm not fully expressing. But I think for me, those type of movies are a little too nihilistic for me. I'm not saying that some of it doesn't have some truth or some some version of truth in the lens that I perceive humans and existence and society. But I think it doesn't do the full picture. And obviously you can't do a full picture of society in a movie super well. But I do think it's a little like man. I'm not always into art that is looking at the worst. It kind of just

1:10:01bumps me out. Well, it does get conversations rolling though. And that's another beauty of art as we get to experience other perspectives and discuss them and from them evolve our own. And that's why again, I think I could have hated this movie a lot more if I felt like they were really drilling in this ideology or this this viewpoint. And if it was like one note, I do think it was layered and complicated enough that it feels like an immersive story. So I did enjoy it. But again, I just at least a little too in the nihilistic camp, which again, like I said, at the very beginning of the podcast, kind of this new wave of movies or resurgence of this dark, satire, social commentary, it also is usually nihilistic looking, which I'm not a big fan of. It's interesting comparing this to the last movie we watched, which is Train to Busan, which is a South Korean film. So it's interesting that like this work was adapting a South Korean film. But Train to Busan, that director also enjoys exploring darker themes,

1:11:02more nihilistic themes. But at the end of that movie, we see a light at the end of the tunnel. And selflessness does win in the end. Whereas here, humanity has shown itself to be broken beyond repair. And so the only solution in the minds of the Andromedance is to cut it short and that is exactly what happened. And I think the visuals were so striking and they did a good job of getting a listening reaction. But there's something about just showing humanity with the juxtaposition of this happy song. It almost just makes this feel so ignorant, so so pathetic. Like look at all these dead humans and nothing they could have done could have prevented this. I will say there's something about dead bodies. Like they're dead, they're not moving. And so they can be posed however the director wants it. These shots feel very painterly for that reason. I could see these shots being framed and shown in the museum.

1:12:08And I can look at them and dissect them and analyze them for hours. Like the the wedding party. They're summed over their chairs. And this is supposed to be a very happy event. Yet here they are. No more future for them. There's no hope. There's no mystery and misses. Whatever her name is. Just that potential that's now gone. Lastly, this movie was nominated for Best Picture. We haven't seen all the other nominees, but on its own, compared to other best pictures we might have seen, does this feel like best picture material to you? I'm going to say a similar answer to the score. I'm not saying it's like outright can't be best picture. But when I think of best picture, you are giving the accolade to the movie that has done the best job with all the main components. The directing, the acting, the cinematography, the editing, the score. And I feel like all of those were working perfectly

1:13:14together. And I hate this because I am not a director and someone who views art that needs to be on a grand scale. I am not a, well, if it's not Laura the Rings, if it's not the Avengers, then how could it win Best Picture? That's not me at all. But there was something that maybe was lending to the smaller scope of it that I wouldn't necessarily put in Best Picture. Because I do think when it comes to Best Picture, there is something to be said about scope. Does that make it the best? I don't think Best Picture necessarily relates to Best Movie. I want to say that first and foremost. Just because you won Best Picture, I don't think you're the best movie out there. But I do think when it comes to Best Picture, it's about utilizing the main vehicles and making a movie to the best of their ability. But then it's also like what are all those vehicles pulling off? The cinematography is really impressive and really beautiful. I love that it was shot in 35 millimeter. I'd like the aspect ratio. I love this simple shot composition.

1:14:16It's hold the story, the vehicle they used to tell the story for the cinematography was great. And the music was great. But it was still simple and refined because of the type of story they were telling. And it didn't have a certain scope that I feel like I would attribute to Best Picture for really pushing the limits of the category, as I said, the five I said earlier. And so for that reason, I think a really, really well done movie, a really tight movie that I'm not upset is up for Best Picture, but it's not what I normally put in the category of Best Picture. It wasn't life changing. It wasn't particularly innovative. It was just well done. And yeah, I'm in the same boat. I don't think it will win Best Picture. I don't know what it's running against. It's hamnet. I think maybe I know sinners is prop. Well, it's sinners in there. I remember there's one category that was surprised sinners wasn't in, but surely sinners is on Best Picture. I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Obviously the warehouse where they're all dancing, that was pushing boundaries. Yeah, one battle after another. That was definitely in there for Best Picture. I would,

1:15:21would I argue that this deserves to be in there more than one battle after another? I don't know. I don't think it does. Really? You don't think so? I don't think so. I think it was more cohesive. I think all of the pieces were firing on more cylinders to make a more cohesive story and vibe than one battle after another. But I do think one battle after another was definitely doing more. And doing more well, not just doing more. Yeah, I would agree. Sean Penn in that movie is fantastic. Easily my favorite part of that movie. Did we discuss this for the podcast? No, we just watched the movie and talked about it for the love of the game. We did. Yeah, I see you guys. We don't, we talk about movies outside the podcast too. We like movies. Something I want to ask you, because I know you're about to wrap up out of the performances of Data Day Lewis, Paul Dana, and there will be blood and Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman in Prisoners, and then Emma Stone and

1:16:21Jesse Pinkman. No, Plymans. Pinkman, that's from, that's from Bob. Breaking Bad. Thank you so much. Anyways, out of those six actors, man, I'm so proud of myself. I'm so bad with actors. I was about to name six actors. Besides the point, what was your favorite role to watch performance? Favorite role to watch. Daily Lewis is electric and is always electric. There will be blood and begonia have better acting pairs than prisoners. I think that they're all excellent what they do, but as far as actor chemistry goes, the other two movies have prisoners beat. That's in part because in prisoners, they're not interacting with each other a ton, whereas the relationship between the characters and there will be blood and begonia are more important and get more screen time. I'm going to say there will be

1:17:22blood and specifically Daniel Day Lewis, but Emma Stone approaches. I completely agree with you. I like all six of those actors. I think all six of them create these performances, but to this day, I think Daniel Day Lewis and there will be blood is my favorite performance on the podcast. And if that is not true, and at the bare minimum, has my favorite acted scene of the podcast, which I will drink her milkshake. I have watched that scene over and over again, and I amazing acting of Daniel Day Lewis. Anyways, sorry, I'll get all I was just curious if we were to grow on that. I'll take your milkshake and I'll drink it up. I have to read this podcast, I'm going to go watch it. Also, people out there, do yourself a favor. After we watch that episode, I thought to myself, surely, surely there exists a remix of that line. I drink your milkshake, and I looked it up and there it is. There's an amazing fan edit for like two minutes of them, just remixing that the lyrics of that like or the dialogue of that scene, and it's amazing.

1:18:27So if you get nothing out of the podcast, go look up, I drink your milkshake up, remix, and it's beautiful. Wow. With that being said, holy moment. What's your holy moment, Nathaniel? I talked about it earlier. There's something amazing and I'm so incredibly impressive when it comes to writing, acting, but specifically directing, to be able to play with a reveal of information that completely re-contextualized things, and also for two characters to have different motivations that you don't fully understand, and so you're trying to desperately keep up. Is she actually an alien? Is she actually angry that he killed people because there were aliens? Or is she just trying to escape? And so it's honestly everything for the last 20 minutes. The minute that Jesse, nope, that's his real name, the minute Teddy burst into that basement and she's standing there pissed off and she starts to rant about how she's actually an alien all the way up to the reveal that she actually is an alien. Because one of my favorite moments in all of movies, podcasts,

1:19:30music, TV shows, movies, just everything is I won't spoil it because it's my favorite TV show all the time. Attack on Titan. There is a similar type of conversation contextual reveal that blew my mind and re-contextualized everything and the subtext was so powerful in that scene. And I've never seen anything approach it or even give me the same vibes until that moment I talked about earlier where she's trying to get him to go into the closet because we think if she if we get him in the closet, she can run away. But then we to reveal in my opinion, she was actually trying to get in that closet. And so that context reveals different subtext, which is so impressive. So for me, that hole back and forth, because the whole movie, is she an alien? Is she not? That's the whole movie. But it really doesn't become believable until those last 20 minutes. And so for that all of the acting in those last 20 minutes, my whole in-moment. And it makes the movie worth watching. For me, my holy moment would have to be the character of Teddy. Teddy Gatsby or Gats?

1:20:39I think it's G A N T Z because we have a character who has so many screws loose who is deeply unwell. And yet he is so clearly the hero of his own story. And we get peaks into that with the music, with the the brassy horns. And he plays the character with a tenderness, a paranoia, a selflessness, a cruelty that makes for such an interesting dichotomy. I put that all together. And we get a person that is fascinating to follow. Like there are moments when I was sort of rooting almost for Teddy and Don to to get the jump on her. Like when she was talking to Don, trying to convince him to help her escape. I was thinking, well, you are a lying snake. And

1:21:41as soon as Wow. Wow. Okay. They're going to continue being a menace to society. You're going to continue being selfish. I see how it is. Like I don't I don't why did I? But at the same time, you're trying to convince Don that he's going to be a okay after this. And you full, you know, full well that he's not going to be okay after this. You're going to make sure that he is not okay after this. Even if you're not an alien, you're going to make sure that he goes to prison and never sees the light of day ever again. Jeffrey really picked the two white male kidnappers and said there are my heroes screw the woman tripped up in a basement. No, I'm I 100% know what you mean. And that's an interesting part of the story. Put aside the alien aspect. She made herself hateable. She was she was arguably a victim who was kidnapped. One of the most horrifying things that could happen to a human and a basement of two people male humans. Very scared to be in and anyone's shoes let alone a woman. But somehow you kind of vaguely want to you. I don't know if

1:22:47you do, but you kind of want to root for Teddy and Don and you kind of don't like her when arguably you know, if it's revealed she's a nail that's going to commit genocide sure, but we don't know that. So the fact that you're kind of rooting against her and rooting for the bad guys is like a cool thing that the director was able to pull off. And again, I think says something about like society. And I think that perhaps my view was colored by the fact that I was fully convinced she was an alien by that point and really throughout the whole film. But imagine how you would feel if like she wasn't an alien because arguably you don't like again, Don was taking a vantage and had special needs. But imagine you're her you're not an alien. You're just a CEO woman who is kidnapped. Is it unfair view to lie to the person and then hope they go to jail for kidnapping torture you? I don't think so. So like just just imagine if she's not an alien and then you'd be you would be a real misogynist in that in that viewpoint. Now I'm getting used to be a bad person. Not about misogynist. Going into this movie, I was thinking the moral would be

1:23:47that the heads of these massive corporations and members of the elite might as well be aliens intent on destroying us. Given how callously they deal with those that are under them. And that was slightly different from what the actual push of the film was which was that we are inherently selfish and broken and perhaps we're not worth saving. But anyhow, with that being said, we have come to the end of our episode. But before we officially close, Nathaniel, you've got a wheel to spin. I do. Well, I'm curious. Since this is a newer movie, since this is a movie that seems like you and I have some contention with in some praise for, I want to know what we what we write it. Oh, that's right. Plus, I'm gonna give it a 3.4. 3.4. Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with like a solid three, which is lower than I've done in a while.

1:24:50Again, had a lot going for it. It's not a movie I would rewatch. But again, the acting was great. Also, something we did not talk about enough. I just want to say really quick, really beautiful cinematography. I was really expecting a crisp, clean, modern cinematography, especially with like the trailer and her being more boss lady and like CEO. But we get kind of like the 4 by 3 to we get like the 4 by 3 aspect ratio. It's filmed on real film, 35 millimeter. It's grainy. It's pretty simple wide shots, very effective kind of like old Scott, very effective kind of old school shooting. And I just wanted to quickly just say really love the cinematography. So, but I'm giving it a 3. I think ultimately isn't my type of movie. Don't love that. That's more nihilistic. And it's not a move out rewatch, especially when you know the twist. It wasn't powerful enough that I want to like go through it again. But anyways, going on to the wheel guys, we got 3 left. We got a manual, which is Vegas pick. It's a documentary. We got Hammett, which is the category Jeffrey just did for Oscar nomination. And we have Sky High, which is my Disney movie.

1:25:57You know what? I'm going to go. I'm going to actually, I'm going to vote that we do a manual, this coming week. Let's do a doc. We haven't done a doc ever on the podcast. One of Vegas early picks was a mixture of documentary and narrative storytelling. You remember the one I don't call your your your roast was almost kind of vaguely like that. But the one I'm talking about was it was the director telling the story of the making of a short film. Oh, of her beauty and a situation ship. Yeah, something about her beauty. Yes, I do remember that one. Well, we're not watching that next week. We're doing back-to-back categories guys. Another Oscar nomination. So we'll have to follow up on like our social media to see if the things we watched won any awards. But next week watching Hammett. So I'm excited for this one. I am stoked. I have no idea what it's going to really be like, but I'm just chasing that high of watching

1:26:59little women. And so I'm hoping it's vaguely kind of like that. So joyous next week's per watching Hammett. I'm excited for that. And Jeffrey, take us on out of here. Yeah, follow us at the Holy Moment podcast on Spotify, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok. We post reels. We post full episodes, of course. And if you have any questions or comments or suggestions, email us at the Holy Moment podcast at gmail.com. Until next time, folks, we love you. We'll miss you. Stay holy.