HAMNET | Grief Inspires Art

0:00You'd be kind, motherfucker. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. All right, Mr. Demail, I'm ready for my close-up. Oh, I'm gonna catch this. I'm gonna catch this. Jeffrey, you want to know what my two biggest takeaways from watching HamNet was? What were your two biggest takeaways? That I am very thankful that we don't live in the cesspool that is the 1500s, where if you get a fever, you die. And secondly, that immersive therapy works. You know, why talk to others about your trauma? When you just relive your trauma, and then you could become a better whole person. I actually have a story to tell about that. So I was going to this to Jim. And the guy at the counter, I told him we were making small talk, and I told him that I enjoyed acting. And he, as it turns out, is an actor himself. That he actually was in several movies, made by the same studio that made Sharknado. So B-movies asked, but he had gone to LA.

1:02He had done the whole spiel of trying to make it work there. And he was still active and still pursuing opportunities. But he worked at the train at the workshop that James Franco established for aspiring actors. And he told me this story about how he met the guy that plays Mr. Miyagi. He used to take me some of these classes. And he asked him, why are you taking these classes? You're Mr. Miyagi. Surely, you already know how to act. And Mr. Miyagi told him, well, how I was acting before is whenever I was in a scene that called for an emotional response, I would put myself in an emotional place. I'd put myself in a memory that recalled those same emotions. And then I would feel it for the camera. But after doing this so many times,

2:03I got to the point where I processed my trauma and it wasn't as effective anymore. And so I had to learn different acting techniques to present a good performance. I don't know what Mr. Miyagi is talking about. He just sounds like he found the most cheapest way to deal with a trauma, no need for therapy. Welcome everyone to the Holy Moon podcast. Where we watch movies with you, we discuss the moments that work, the moments that don't, and of course, the moments are like truth and unexpected ways known as the Holy Moment. And sometimes we talk about Mr. Miyagi. But today, we're talking about the wonderful Chloe Zhao's newest feature film, Hamnet. I have to say, Jeffrey, the reason I picked this movie is because I'm chasing the high from last season where we watched Little Women. I absolutely loved Little Women. Who is the director of Little Women? Greta Gerwig. Greta Gerwig, I feel like Greta Gerwig and Chloe Zhao are the two like behemoths of the 21st century female badass, great directors. They're emotional, but also they're awesome. They're relatable, they're so great.

3:04So I really like both of those directors. And while I can't say this movie was necessarily a lot like Little Women, I loved it just as much, if not more, my goodness. We'll get into all the fun details in just a minute. But Jeffrey, did you cry during this movie? I had to drink so much water after this film to make up for all that I lost in tears, Nathaniel. Oh, good. I don't know why I would've scared how you lost the water, but that's the correct answer. I cry. I think this is the movie I've cried at the most since the podcast, I think this is the most I've ever cried in a movie in a long time. Same. No, tears were actively streaming down my cheeks. Every now and then, a movie will cause me to shed a single manly tear, right? Just, just let the women know that Jeffrey is emotionally vulnerable. He shed one tear every once in a while. You see this searcher, Ronan? I'm emotionally available. But no, I agree with you. When I cry at movies, it usually is just like, my eyes are just like start overwhelming with tears.

4:06Like I don't, I don't have a physical, like obviously crying is a physical reaction. But like you know when you're actually crying in real life about something sad, it's almost like you're laughing, you're chest, you're gut, you're stomach, you throw, everything is moving and undulating and tears are coming out. When I watch a sad scene, like two or three weeks ago and watch the train to Busan, with the end where the dad dies, like tears came out of my eyes, but it's almost like they just leaked out. Nothing else happened. When I was watching this movie, there are multiple scenes where I was having a physical reaction. My nose was stuffy, my temple was tight and like almost throbbing and my stomach was tense and I was crying a lot more than just a few streams. Great. Yeah, my tears were Olympic runners, competing to jump off of my jaw first. It's funny. When you say that, for those who watch this episode, like five years in the future, we're currently are going through the 2026 Winter Olympics. And the only thing my news feeds is like full of. It's not like who won the gold, how many does America have?

5:06It's just that the Olympians fuck and they fuck a lot. I heard that too. I heard that too. All of my wheels are just like the Olympics in crisis. They've used 20,000 condoms in the first week of the Olympics and they're out. It's just like, why is this the news I'm getting? Not that I care that much about the Olympics, but I guess it makes sense. You've got a lot of young, talented, athletic, attractive people in one space and they're competitive, right? So Jeff really just said, put me in a room of hot people and I'll have an orgy. Okay, but anyways, orgy's aside. Yeah, this week we're discussing Chloe Zhao's hamnet. I picked this. This is from my category of Oscar nomination, which is funny because last week we had Jeffries nominee for Oscar nomination category. And I think we can both say, can we both say that hamnet is the better Oscar nominee than Bagonia?

6:07Oh, for sure. Listen, after watching, after watching this movie, one of my first thoughts was, Bagonia was just a film. There was just a movie. It was fine. This right here, this right here is best picture material. This right here is honestly best original score material. These have some Oscar worthy performances and not to denigrate anything that was accomplished in Bagonia. Emma Stone was fantastic in that movie. But watching this, it was something else. I was put into someone else's experience and I was allowed to stretch myself as a person, as a human being. I think it's the skill that Greta Kerwick and Chloe Zhao both have. And I'm what I'm about to say, it's not like the end ol' be old. This is what film should be. I've said it many times on the podcast. Something I love about film is there's no one correct tone, no one correct genre, style of acting.

7:07There's no one correct anything. Film can express so many different stories and so many different types. But I will say, Chloe Zhao and Greta Kerwick get at something humanistic, something so raw to what it is to be and be a part of the human condition. A lot like what our podcast has even talked about, we'll get more to this later in the podcast, but Andre Bazon, a film critic who coined the term the Holy Moment. Those two directors, they peel back like the veil that is the lens and just show real humans going through real human stuff and it's phenomenal. But usually I get into a bunch of different background stuff with the movies and I might end a little bit, but you brought up the Oscars, which is usually the last thing I say before going into the synopsis of the actual movie. But I want to talk about it because it's for the category Oscar nominee. Now Jeffrey, you don't know specifically what Oscars it was nominated for, correct? I don't, I don't. Okay, let's play a little game. It was nominated for eight Oscars. Let's see how many you can guess correctly.

8:08Best picture, correct. Best actress, correct. Best original score, correct. And I've heard that Hamlet might be adapted from a book and so I'm going to say best adapted screenplay. Also correct. And I said best original score, best directing. Correct. Five out of eight, at least two of these, I think should be obvious. The last one I don't think you'll get. Okay, you sent me some questions beforehand. I might be cheating. You mentioned, oh, like did this actress deserve this nominee, but you didn't mention Palmer Scalp. And so I don't know if he was nominated. But I'm going to throw that in any way, best actor. I think that's a very good, I would guess that as well, but it is not. He is not nominated, unfortunately. Okay, best cinematography. No, also surprisingly no. Well, this film did so much right. I mean, think about what's this genre? This genre is, oh, of course, best production design

9:10or costuming. Yep, both of them. Best production design, best costume design. The last one, this category was just added this year. So I believe this is the first time they've had this category at the Oscars. Do you know what it is? Man, it can't be. I know that they're going to add an Oscar for best stunt choreography or stunt performances, but this is not that kind of movie. It goes hand in hand with best actress. Best child actor? No, I wish that the child actor and what's phenomenal. It's best casting. Best casting. Oh, I am so happy that they're introducing that category because it takes such skill. It's so impressive. These people, their name should be known just as much as the directors and the cinematographers and the actors. They're the ones that gather them together and they're the ones that find the chemistry that works and let the magic present itself on screen because they see things that other people don't. I couldn't agree more. I think it's all best casting directors

10:11or something that's overlooked often. But I do think often when you have a great synergy and great acting, you cannot overlook the casting director. With that being said, I had a second question in mind. If you could only give three of these Oscars to HamNet, what would it be? Nathaniel, you're asking me an impossible question. And I'm not comparing it necessarily to the things that it's up against because I know we haven't watched all the films it's up against. Just like, what do you think out of these eight is its strongest? Nathaniel, this is a tasty film. This is the color. Okay. I would say best actress, best director. Oh, the movies I've seen? Sure, yeah, best picture. Best picture. Yeah, I would, I would, I would, it's hard because those are my first three. But I really want to give it best adapted screenplay and I really want to give it best original score. You know, last week when we talked about Pagonia, if we really think that deserved best score and we kind of went like, eh, it's good.

11:13But I don't think so. We'll talk about the score more in the podcast, but this is a score that deserves to be in the best score. No, that was another thought I had. As we were entering the ending credits and just listening to the music swelling, I was thinking, yeah, Pagonia ain't got nothing on this, right? And I hate to say that one of my instant reactions upon finishing a film was, oh, this is so much better than that other film that I watched. I hate that. Because again, they're both good films, but this is just, it did a lot more for me. Next year, when we do our season, kind of at the beginning of the year, we should do just all Oscar nominee runs because I've never really paid that much attention to the Oscars on another kind of a sham, but it would be really interesting to be able to watch all the movies, like all 17 or whatever that are nominated for the Oscars and all the categories and really be able to discuss them. Because I think you're right, I did get done with this movie and was like, this is in a different class of Pagonia. Like did Pagonia do some cool things that maybe this movie didn't do, sure, they're completely different films,

12:13but like this movie, I think, outclassed everything Pagonia did. Even we were praising Emma Stone who did an amazing job with her performance as Fuller. I just feel like Jesse Buckley just did a better job. So even the thing that Pagonia did the best in, I feel like ham and outclassed it. Maybe that's just my personal opinion, but I would be a lot of fun to watch all the movies and really be able to be like, okay, these feel like they're just shoehorned in and like, okay, these are golden, these are good. These should be here. Yeah, and it is hard to judge too because again, these movies are trying to do very different things and working with very different genres. And so part of me is like, well, maybe it's unfair for me to compare them, but another part of me is you can have a thriller. You can have an action movie. You can even have a comedy that can be affecting, that brings out emotions that helps me understand

13:14myself better as a person. You can do all those things artistically in a way that is excellent. And for me, Pagonia was just fine. I agree, which maybe just reveals how many movies that we are just okay that we get throughout the year. And it's like there's only good to be a handful for the most part, stellar, absolutely A plus movies. And of course, those are gonna make it to the Oscars whether you're probably gonna have a bunch of like, you know, these movies were different and they were good, but like, do they even compare it to these other movies? That being said, let's actually get into talk about this movie. Again, Hamnet, Chloe Show, an amazing director. If you don't know who Chloe Show is, she's not like new to the movie scene. She's been around for a while, but I think her movie's only been gaining traction more recently. But she has a very, like we said, organic human style of directing. She did no Mad Land, which is kind of what put her on the map back in like 2019. And then she did Eternals, which was the Marvel movie that a lot of people hated. Even if you hated it, I feel like it was really cool that you could see her directing.

14:16I feel like Marvel movies you don't usually get to see the director come through. They're usually glazed with, this is a Marvel movie. So they all feel the same to some degree. Some of them stand out like James Gunn's Guardian of the Galaxy. But Eternals really feels like a Chloe Show movie. I haven't seen Eternals. So can you answer this question for me? Why did people not resonate with that film? Did it feel like a studio interference thing that she wasn't able to accomplish all that she wanted to accomplish? Or do you think it just didn't land with people? I think it's both. I do think it's unfortunate that like, just wrong director for the wrong project, I think personally, I think it's cool that you see Chloe Show in the Eternals. But the Eternals is still trying to be an epic superhero film. So it almost feels like you have competing direction. A director who's trying to humanize thing, trying to tell a more core story, which I think can be done in the superhero world. I absolutely can't. I think Chloe Show could do a really good superhero film. Actually, she is directing the new

15:16respin above the vampire. So I'm not a superhero film, but kind of a big action show. So I think she could do it well. But I do think just again, Marvel wanting certain things. I think it just, they compete with each other. So I think it could have been a better movie, honestly, if they just had a different director, all in all. But it was really cool to see the moments of like that is Chloe Show's acting right there with that actor, that actress. But again, I just don't think she was the right director for that type of movie. The budget was pretty small. 35 million, and it's already made 88 million. I'm sure it will make more, as it just like came to video on demand, and it hasn't even hit streaming yet. So already doubled its money and doing well. The cast, we gotta talk about the cast. I feel like we have been on a roll for movies when it comes to acting. I feel like we've been watching Banger after Banger after Banger. And this one just kind of seems to blow all of them away to some degree. Jesse Buckley, who plays Agnes Shakespeare, Paul Muskell, who plays William Shakespeare. And then we have part of my pronunciation, but Yacobie Jupe, who played Hamnet Shakespeare, Emily Watson, who played Mary Shakespeare,

16:18and Joe Allwin, who played Bartholomew Hathaway, just a stellar cast, especially Yacobie Jupe, who was the child actor who played Hamnet Shakespeare. He did a phenomenal job. Or he talks about nomination. So last but not least, let's get into this synopsis, where callous hands and hearts are the masses, Agnes Hathaway searches for more and finds it in the poetic charm and depth of William Shakespeare. The two are wed and pursue meaningful lives of parenthood, creativeness, and love. When tragedy strikes, they're home with the death of their only son Hamnet, the two more in different ways. As Agnes feels a duty to stay with their family during the grief, while William sets out to London to search for the meaning of his son's death and the only way he can express it, writing. The movie Hamnet plunges into the depths of grieving parents at the loss of a child and what it means to create art as a human. So as we've already glazed this movie for being absolutely phenomenal, it is a retelling of a book, which is a fictional telling of the real life story of William Shakespeare and how his real life son Hamlet died

17:21and then how it actually inspired Hamlet. So it's kind of an adaptation of an adaptation, of an adaptation kind of thing, like sparsely based on real life. I guess for me, Jeffrey, I don't have a lot of experience with Shakespeare. I don't have any experience with Hamlet. So my first question kind of done in us off. Does this work as a Shakespearean movie? There's been hundreds of different movies, books, plays, novels, just so many adaptations of William Shakespeare, probably the most adapted person in all of history. Do you feel like this movie worked in his genre when it comes to William Shakespeare? This didn't feel Shakespearean in the sense the characters aren't speaking in Iambic pentameter. They're not rhyming every other line. What William Shakespeare was trying to accomplish with his work is slightly different and the formalistic methods that he employed

18:22in making his art are different from the kinds of formalistic methods that Chloe Zhao uses to make this film. But both the art of William Shakespeare and the art of Chloe Zhao in showcasing the life of William Shakespeare and his creative process, they're all speaking to something true. Something true of human experience, how we experience grief and how we express it. And so in that sense, I think it honors Shakespeare a great deal. That makes sense. This wasn't a question I actually had prepared up beforehand. So sorry, it's the right idea to know where Jeffrey, but I just, I've had almost zero experience with William Shakespeare. So I just wanted to know from someone who read more of them and consume more of his work if this felt like Shakespeare or if it felt like a play on what Shakespeare was. And so I'm kind of happy to hear that it was Chloe Zhao doing her own directing style. Which I think it gives us a new lens

19:23of, again, William Shakespeare who's been talked about a billion times I think gives us a new lens to view him through. Again, a fictional lens, like, we don't know if William Shakespeare was like this in real life, but a new lens nonetheless of someone who has been redone and redone and redone and redone. I think that one of the most special things that art can do for us is it can change the way that we see things going forward in a way that is definitive, right? So after watching this movie, I'm never going to read or watch Hamlet in the same way again. I'm going to experience it having taken in this story about the making of that story and now those works of art are in conversation with one another. Yeah, yeah, art isn't a stagnant thing. It is something that is constantly evolving and growing and every piece of art I feel like indirectly changes how we interact with the next one. Which maybe sounds like the most douchey thing I've ever said, but you know, that's okay. One of the main things I wanna talk about with this movie

20:25is in contrast to the title of our podcast, the Holy Moment. But before I get into that, I feel like I take us on a rabbit trail of talking about what the Holy Moment means to us outside this movie. But before I do that, I, you know, people came to listen to us talk about Hamlet. If that's why you clicked on this video, you wanna talk about the movie that you're curious about. So before it takes about a bunch of rabbit trails away from the movie, let's put a pin in that. But I wanted to be said, one of the things I took away was Chloe Zhao's ability to get at this humanistic performance in the eye. And I feel like Andre Besson would really appreciate it this and would have deemed it somewhat the Holy Moment. So I wanna come back and talk to that. But at first, let's dive into the actual movie rather than skirting around the movie a bit. And you can't talk about this movie without talking about their performances. Now, Jeffrey, I said earlier in the podcast, we've been talking a lot about acting, with prisoners, with, there will be blood till last week, but going, a lot of great actors. But this one, I mean, obviously two of the three movies, I just said, I would not in the running for Oscar,

21:26because obviously they're older movies. But like we just talked about earlier, Abastone, she is in the running for a best actress. This movie, do you think Jesse Buckley deserves an Oscar nomination? And if so, what makes her stand out above the rest, if she does deserve it? And take me on the perspective as an actor. Again, audience at home, we are filmmakers in our own right, we're pursuing film careers. Jeffrey's an actor, he's a talented actor. I want to hear kind of through your, like, obviously you can do it from within the frames of the movie, but also as an actor. What makes Jesse Buckley's performance so riveting? And not just riveting, but I don't think it's an outlandish thing to say, but I think her acting is probably the best part of the movie. And so many people pride connected with it and were moved by it. And how, why? I think that the reason her performance is deserving of disaster, is because it is true. Now, is she literally giving birth on screen?

22:29No. Is she literally the Agnes Shakespeare? No. Is she really grieving the loss of her child? No. But she has an understanding of this character that she's flying and she's able to enter into this character's world and feel it truly when I watch this movie, even though she isn't experiencing childbirth, I see a woman experiencing childbirth. Even if she isn't experiencing the loss of a child, I see her experiencing the loss of a child. And you see this in how she rives and squirms and the way her eyes move and the way her face gets read with grief and anger and frustration and the way her eyes well up with tears, it's the beautiful thing about acting is when done well, it can be a profound exercise in empathy.

23:33Not only am I as an audience member, learning something about how people grieve. I'm sure that she is learning something about how people grieve. In taking on this role and in taking it seriously. Something I thought about when it comes to the acting that I've never really thought about before is watching a movie can almost have the same effect as a dream and let me explain a little bit. Have you ever had a dream that forced you to experience an emotion or an event you've never experienced before? Whether it's an overwhelming sense of a good emotion, let's say in this dream you won the lottery or the opposite. It's an overwhelming sense of loss. Maybe you're 22 and you've never dated anyone but in this dream you had a child and the child died or your wife died. I've had those dreams before where I've experienced things that I've not experienced yet in my real life. And I feel like in the dream I mourned or celebrated

24:37how I will mourn or celebrate if those things ever happened. Somehow my subconscious was able to amount and feel the things that will happen in those circumstances. I feel like Jesse Buckley's performance was able to get at something subconscious. I am not a woman. I will never get birth. I will never know what it's like to be a mother to lose a son but there is something so real about her performance that I was able to experience it through her and have some relative amount of the real emotions that one would have in that moment. Again, I'm not saying, while I watch a movie about a woman going through losing her son, so I know what it's like. Like that's a preposterous thing to say. But her performance was so realistic. It rubbed off on me in a little bit and I think that's what makes for such a stellar relatable performance and something that I loved about Chloe Shows directing that I feel like I see and her work and Greta Gerwig's work. It's these characters embodying an emotion

25:40that you, the audience, regardless of your gender, age, race, sex, whatever. You're able to put yourself there for just that moment, just that briefest of moments, you're able to experience those feelings that you might never get to experience before. And that's a true, true amazing thing that film can do. And her ability to believe in the performance she's giving to so thoroughly reconstruct the imaginary circumstances of this character for herself, that it gives us something believable and natural. There's a particular moment I'm thinking about that demonstrates this so well. So when she's giving birth to the twins, now we've established that she has sometimes had dreams or, I guess, premonitions. These ideas about the future that come true and she's always believed, almost supernaturally, that she would have two children.

26:41Why? She very strongly believed that she would have two children under deathbed. And so she gives birth to this second child and she's relieved, she's happy, she's joyous. And then she gets word, she gets that gut feeling that she's having another. She has twins, the feeling of abject horror that we see on her face, where she's connecting the dots. Well, if I have three children and I've always believed that I would have two in my deathbed, something very tragic is going to happen. And that shift in emotion is palpable, right? We see the fear in her eyes. It goes from joy to fear in a moment. It's a wonderfully acted scene and it's only highlighted by the fact that like, she's in the thralls of giving birth literally in that moment. She only realizes she's having twins after she already gave birth to one. She's already in this hypersensitive state of emotions giving birth and already frantic for the fact she couldn't go get birth in the woods,

27:41how she wanted to, how her mother did, her grandmother did. And so it's almost like the shift of emotions of like, I can't have another child they're going to die. It's like weirdly subtextualized and textured by the fact that she's already in this heightened sense of reality for her giving birth. And I feel like that just adds to layers as a director. It's not her simply being like, oh, I don't want another child now. It's her also having these other textures. So it's not as straightforward. It's like, well, maybe she really will be okay with it after she calms down and after she calms down. I understand why she's not calm in this moment. But after she is not pushing a baby out of herself and she is able to rest. But no, after you continue to see for the rest of until her son Hamlet dies, she is worried. There is no peace that is given to her. She's worried that one of her child, mostly Judith, is going to die because she only is going to have two kids. But just just adding that layer of, oh, you could chalk it up to hysteria, added more tension and texture in that moment. But we see it, it doesn't go away afterwards. She holds on to it. Another similar moment on Palma Scalsand

28:44is when he arrives home after having received word that Judith was sick. And he enters the room. First thing he sees is Judith and she is alive and well. And he is so happy to see her. But he's been on the road this whole time. He has no idea that Hamlet's sick and that Hamlet has died already. And so we just see that joy as he picks her up and twirls her around and then he sees the body that's covered and the realization hits him. It's that dramatic switch from genuine joy to sorrow, to dread. Yeah, both wonderfully acted scenes. It must have been so exhausting, though, for Jessie to have filmed that childbirth scene. The second one, particularly with the twins. Given the complexity of the emotions that she had to express while also acting out the external signs of childbirth. And she had to do that over and over and over again.

29:45To make sure that they got the right take and she had to do it for the different shot angles. Again, to get that subtext. That subtext of, yes, I'm in physical anguish and pain of giving birth within the subtext of, I want to be in the woods, but I can't be. Okay, now I'm overjoyed that I have a baby. Oh my goodness, now I am definitely scared I'm having a twin and that beautiful moment between, because her husband isn't here for this, he's gone. So this beautiful moment between her and her mother-in-law, Mary Shakespeare. And Mary is like, you can't do this, you have to do this. This is the exact same room your husband was born in. This is the same chair, it's all gonna be okay. She gives birth and immediately the wet nurse is like the child's dead. So just like going from this, such this reassurance moment, like zone in as the kids say, you can do this, you can get birth, everything's gonna be okay. And she believes her, she gives birth and then immediately we think the child is dead. Only for them the child to, to, to, I guess come back to life or be reassessitated or, you know,

30:47they just were like, the baby's not crying, it's dead, throw it in a ditch, don't wait, don't wait 12 seconds. No, get rid of it, but, but yeah, I agree with you just a lot to act, the physicality and the subtext emotional side. I wanna draw a point to what you said at the very beginning of this conversation. Jesse Buckley is not Agnes Shakespeare. Jesse Buckley is not pregnant. Jesse Buckley did not go through watching her son die. Jesse Buckley is not married to William Shakespeare. If she were those things, it would be a very accurate depiction of reality. It would not be a warped narrative. It would be the truth. And that brings us to the core of what I was talking about earlier. One of my core concepts and questions about this episode, the Holy Moment, the name of our podcast. Jeffrey, can you give the description of where the Holy Moment came from and what it means? And if you do, if you don't, you don't have to, but if you have any evolution to what the term means to you,

31:49because we've already agreed that the Holy Moment doesn't accurately represent what we talk about in the podcast. So it's already a distortion, but if there's been further evolution from recording 50, 60 plus episodes, let us know. And then after that, we'll connect it to what I'm talking about with how Jesse Buckley isn't literally Shakespeare's wife. So the idea of the Holy Moment is inspired from Andre Besan, who believed that film as a medium is uniquely capable of capturing profundity and mundanity. It's uniquely capable of taking moments that we would so often miss in our day-to-day lives because they seem so insignificant. And we're shedding a new light onto them. And we're showcasing the beauty inherent in that moment. That's why we named this podcast, The Holy Moment podcast is because we found that idea. So moving, and we wanted to explore it more

32:49with our own little twists and adjustments. Now, as far as evolution goes, my idea of the Holy Moment has broadened to include the moments that let me into another person's humanity, thereby expanding my own. The moments that help me understand a little more what it's like to be human in ways that I've never been human. Because we're all connected. No man is an island to quote another great English poet. I love that idea that like the Holy Moment helps you understand what it means more to be human in ways that you never could because maybe you never go through that experience already talking about how we think Chloe Shows directing allows you to almost step into someone else's shoes for a little while. And it also relates to kind of my evolution of the Holy Moment. I think so, Andre Bison was very, very specific with his definition of it.

33:50And he also was Catholic. So he brought religion into it. And his whole idea was like everything that our eyes perceive is holy. God created the world. Moments are holy. And therefore the camera can capture quite literally God. But then his whole thing was like it cannot be distorted. The moment you add narrative, let alone a slew of other things like editing and lenses and the distortion, you distort reality. And so he was like no, to capture the most holy of moment is to capture the most realistic moment. And so I think, so he even had an issue with just narratives in general. But this is where I would disagree because if his notion is the idea of the camera captures God, God made everything. God is all around us. I think humans don't always say what they mean to say. I don't think creation, the world, always is on its nose saying what it means to say. It's the whole idea of subtext.

34:51Subtext isn't just created for movies and narratives and films and television and books. Subtext is how we all communicate. Very rarely, if ever, to someone ever come up and say exactly what they mean and exactly how they're feeling about it. You layer things. That is how the human condition talks in almost every single culture. Maybe a little less than other cultures than some, but for the most part, that's how we all talk. And so for me, if when I'm talking to the audience here or to Jeffrey or to my wife or to my friends and even the people I'm closest to, I'm layer in a subtext, I feel like that moment is already not truly holy in the sense of like it is not just the moment of what is being said or acted or shown. So therefore the camera could never capture the moment perfectly. And that's why I think narrative and movies are so great are capturing holy moments because I think it is subtext. It is what's really being said. And I think that's why this movie is a great example

35:51of the holy moment. Going back to, yeah, Jesse Buckley is not quite literally Angus Shakespeare. But through this reenactment, through this fictional telling of what these real life people went through, you get a new subtext that allows us to feel what these humans actually, some humans out there actually felt, which in my idea is more holy than capturing exactly, rather than going back to the 1500s and putting the camera there in the room. That would be holy in itself, but this is allowing us to capture something completely different. And then if we were just to stick to really formelessly hit play on a camera and capture it with no distortion whatsoever. Yeah, we experience life narratively. We have goals and ambitions that we're striving towards. We have obstacles that we have to overcome. There are villains in our life. There are allies and we have comedy and we have tragedy.

36:52Narrativity is baked into who we are as people. And so, of course, we can access truth. We can access that holy moment through fictional narratives because we experience life as a narrative. We are not only characters in a narrative, but we are storytellers. We're telling ourselves a story and we're telling others stories. That's why I feel like the holy moment, my version of the holy moment, is not the same as Andre Passage. And that's why I feel Chloe Zhao is like the quintessential director at getting at, I think Andre Passage's holy moment, even if you wouldn't agree with it. In my opinion, kind of my evolution of what I think the holy moment is. And so, one of my questions is, I don't know if I, you can answer it if you have one, but I feel like we talked about it pretty much enough. I just felt like Chloe Zhao is one of those directors who seems to understand the holy moment, even if she doesn't really know the origin, but something just about her directing gets to the point of it. Did you see this in the movie?

37:53And now we have our classic segment of the podcast, where we talk about our holy moment, pretty much our favorite moment of the movie. I'm not necessarily asking about what your holy moment is, but do you feel like Chloe Zhao approaches the idea of Andre Passage's holy moment? Oh, for sure. I believe that with my whole heart, we are allowed to sit in these moments with these characters as they are experiencing grief in a way that is believable and true. And they're expressing conflicts that so many of us have experienced in our internal lives and many conflicts that we haven't experienced. But again, it's all getting at truth. And I think that's what Andre Passage wanted above all else is truth. And he wanted to show us that truth, that reality is beautiful in ways that we often miss. I completely agree. And now for all of you folks at home, listening to the Holy Moam podcast, who are like, oh my gosh, these two take their heads out of their asses,

38:55we shall now do that. Moving away from the holy moment. Let's talk about something spooky. Now, Jeffrey, this movie has an undertone of super naturalism and an eerie tone throughout the whole movie. That's accomplished heavily by the music and the cinematography. Did you find this tone to be necessary for the film or distracting because it's a pretty accurate-ish period piece? Or did you enjoy it and you felt like it elevated the movie? How did you feel about this juxtaposition of this eerie super naturalism that was happening in a not-horse super natural movie? It's a interesting thing. This movie was so well done and I loved it so much that I can't imagine if this movie had done anything different. It would not have been this movie. I feel like there are a lot of movies that I can watch and I can enjoy, but I might have a few gripes with them. And I'll go to myself. Well, if they had done this one thing,

39:56if they had changed that detail, maybe I could have gotten more out of it. I would have been more satisfied with how the movie concluded. But with this movie, it was so impactful that I don't want to think about how it could have been different. Maybe they could have made a version of the story that eschewed all of the supernatural elements that hit me just as hard. I'm sure that's possible. But the movie they made had the supernatural tone and incorporated those supernatural elements. And so it's hard for me to say. Well, for those of you at home who have not watched him yet and you're like, what the heck do you mean supernatural, whether like monsters? Let me just give a little bit of description. It was specifically revolving around kind of like one character moment or a part of their character development, the wife, Agnes Shakespeare. She's kind of believed to be a witch born in the woods.

40:58But later, she's basically just a herbalist. She's like my mom and my great grandma, my great, great grandma. You know, they're from the woods. They were herbalists. They knew the bewitchments to say to like bring healthy newborn children into the world. And they knew how to use like unplants and leaves to heal things. So ultimately, she just was like a herbalist. That's all she was. But anytime we see her in the woods, you get this really creepy eerie score. And every time she goes into the woods, she goes to this very specific place in the woods. And it's near this huge tree. And in this tree, there's like a hole that goes underneath the tree. We never go down into the hole. We never go down there and see a monster. But we get these very foreboding shots of the hole. Like something's down and there's some energy is overwhelming and coming out something to not demonic and evil. And the way this eerie, suspenseful tension placed throughout the movie is she believes she needs to have her kids in the woods, where her mother had her and her grandmother had her mother. And so on and so forth for, you know, all the time.

41:58But when she can't have the twins out there because there's like a flood and she can't get there and there's a mudslide, she has to have them inside. And the foreboding music is there and we get this idea of it's a curse. She was supposed to have those kids in the woods and now one of them is cursed to die. And again, at the climax of Judith and Hamlet, they're the twins that were born. We see Judith's false sick. And again, we have this eerie superstition music and we see Hamlet come downstairs and it climaxes with him looking into the corner of the room. You get this almost like Blair witch shot where it's like from the corner of the room looking down at him as almost as if a demon is staring at him. But we never know shots of demons, no shots of anything creepy, no goats, no satans, just this foreboding shot of him looking into the corner with the music. And it climaxes with him saying he's here. The reaper of death is here. And we get this idea that her family, she's like the women in my family can see things and now we can see her son can see things. And then after he delays with his sister and says,

43:02I'm gonna take this curse upon me. You're gonna live and I'm gonna die. Almost like he's telling death take me instead. And after Hamlet dies, the creepy music's pretty much done with that's the story. It's the story of the nature and the witch and her children having this curse. And what I love about this is guess what? In the 1500s, we did not have everything answered. There was so much superstition, there was so much spiritualism, there was so much mystery around everything because we didn't have the science or the hard facts to prove anything. And I actually think, you know, it's great that we have science. It's good to know not to lay in bed with your very, very, very sick sister. That's like a good thing that science told us. But I think as humans, we're ever so slightly less mystical and exciting about life because everything has an answer. Go to Google, go to AI. I'll tell you exactly what means what. But in the 1500s, you have this curiosity. And sometimes this curiosity breeds creepiness

44:03because oh my goodness, a girl goes out into the woods for hours on days. She must be a witch. And so I think at first I was ignored by the tone because I was like, this is just like a period piece romance drama. What's for the horror aspect? But it was a reflection of what the people felt in the 1500s. It was a reflection of these characters arc of death. You know, nowadays we're like, well the sister got the bubonic plague and then her brother laid right in bed with her breathed on her and he got the bubonic plague. Okay, nothing's new supernatural about that. But to these characters, to these real people, it would have been just as scary and just as supernatural in that time. So I know I'm talking a lot, but I think that is what that tone of eeriness, it's a character of that time period. Yeah, and when we're in that moment, when we're watching Hamlet lie next to his sister and breathe with her, right? And he's wanting to give her his breath.

45:04Of course, we're watching that scene. We're going, oh that's, don't do that. You're going to get sick, that's stupid, right? But that voice is so tiny, that voice is so infinitesimal. And the overriding feeling is that this boy is being brave, that this boy is being selfless, that this boy is willing to sacrifice himself to this unknown entity that is trying to take his sister from him. And we find that moving. And maybe all that he's really doing is giving himself the sickness. But it's that willingness to be the sacrificial lamb, it's that willingness to face the demons head on and say, I'm not afraid of you. And if that means that my life is forfeit, I will forfeit for the people and the things that I love. Yeah, I think again, it's a great directing. Because Chloe Zhao could have just simply

46:05shown that her brother contracted the same sickness. But by creating this motif, this eeriness, that it's its own character, it makes that symbolic gesture of the brother giving his life for his sister so much more powerful. Rather than, oh no, we thought this sister was going to die. Oh, but then the brother got sick and he died. How tragic. It makes it so much more powerfully scary and poetic and just like you love hamming it so much more for it. Just like how he always wants to be a stage play actor fighter, we feel like he's a brave knight in this moment. And in his mind, he is a brave knight. And in reality, he is a brave knight. And so it just creates a much better scene. And I feel like in the hands of a luster actor would have just fallen flat or been mediocre at best. And what a powerful performance from the part of that child. I wish that there was a category for child actors. But I mean, maybe the, I feel like the downside for having that category is that you're going to have a lot of years where there are no good child actors.

47:07Yeah, just a bunch of mediocre child actors. Imagine like being like, yeah, I want an Oscar as a kid. I'm not even an actor anymore. And like you're like a very mediocre movie. There was just like no other child actor movies. So maybe having a child actor category would cheapen the award because Tatum O'Neill in Paper Moon, she won Best Supporting Actress, not Best Supporting Child Actress. She just won Best Supporting Actress. Oh, that's true. Yeah, yeah. All I know is if there is a best child actor, the baby from a racer head, hands down what if wanted. Oh, for sure. I wonder what ever happened to him. Like, what did he, did he work in film after that movie? I don't, does he die at the end of that movie? Well, yeah, he's acting though. Oh, oh, you're so right. What an idiot I am. I think they actually killed that baby. Anyways, that scary scary baby. But before we move on to one of the main things

48:09about this movie, the grief and the, and what it means to be a human and making art. I want to take a little brief aside for again, to kind of the last section of the podcast and ask you, did you, what's your thoughts about how the movie opens with it just being super horny? And again, I, I know that's maybe to a comedic effect. I'm not saying it was a super horny movie, but like, I don't know, like, for the first like 15 minutes, it's just kind of like William Shakespeare and Angus just being like, I don't know you. Do you want to have sex? I don't know. I found myself almost kind of ignored with the first 15 minutes. Like, I didn't, I'm not, again, I'm not very familiar with Shakespearean works on like, oh, is this like true to that? Why is the relation happening so fast? And no back in the day, relationships happened faster. Like, like romance is very different in the 1500s than the 21st century. But all in all, I was just like, dang, he just showed up and they're making out. And then he's like, let's have sex in this barn. I don't know, did he part of that? Like, throw you off, or are you like, nope, this makes sense.

49:10I think it was a bit quick for me. It did feel like the trope of- I bet for her to decide. I bet for her to decide. Okay. Sorry. I don't know, serious podcasters. Oh, yeah. I think it was that trope of love at first sight. Maybe that's how it was. But they did a good job of making the relationship feel real later on. And so them falling in love wasn't the story. I understand not putting as much focus on it. Yeah. I felt the same way. If they weren't able to give gravity to their relationship, the love they had for each other, but also the falling out they had after the death of their son, they would have made the first half even, the very beginning I wouldn't have liked it. But the fact that it was like love at first sight and then they grow this healthy communicative relationship and maybe be okay with it. But I did just open up with like, what's happening? Why are they like, why does he see you outside of a window and then go and I was like, oh, it's because they're like secret admirers, but he's like, who are you?

50:11Well, who are you? You wanna make out? Yeah, sure. And I was like, wait, what? What's happening? Let's say about the first 15 minutes. Specifically, it's one of the first shots. If not the first shot is of Anius curled up and aballed in the woods. She's in a fetal position and surrounding her is a root that holds her almost like a womb. And the next to her is that cave underneath the tree that leads into complete nutter blackness. And I found that to be a very striking image that set the tone and foreshadowed what the story would bring, you know, the fetus symbol of life of potential. And the next to it, the cave representing death, life at its beginning and life at its ending. And we see that motif of darkness, of caves, return again and again in the story.

51:14When Hamlet is being performed on stage, the actor exits through this door that looks very much like a cave. He's leaving the stage into utter blackness. That is a great story thread that I did not pick up on at all. But yeah, yeah, it's so true, this idea of birth and death and how they are almost yin and yang. You cannot have one without the other. And while one is great joy, the other is great sadness and they almost balance each other out. As we watch the second half of the movie, the two parents coming to some type of closure and healing with the loss of their son. She's in that fetal position at the outset and death is always looming close by. It is inevitable. That's a great storyline to pick up on. Yeah. And now that you're saying it, just talking about the cinematography and kind of the symbolism in it, let me just say this. Let me just say all the things that people are going to hate on me in the middle of the episode right here. I personally, I'm happy.

52:14I'm happy it didn't get nominated for best cinematography. Did I think it was beautiful? Did I think it was good looking above average? Absolutely. Do I feel like people are talking about the cinematography more than I thought it deserved? Kind of. I don't think Chloe Zhao's strongest direct-doral point is cinematography. Is it good? Is it stronger than average? Is it distinct? Yes. It's not my favorite though. So I just really quick, did you love the cinematography or your thoughts on it? I did. I really enjoyed the shot compositions and I think that the shots did feel intentional, meaningful. That one shot where the camera is facing towards a corner in the building that separates the screen in two. And on one side, Shakespeare is moving off in one direction to go off to London. And Hamlet is moving in the other direction

53:15so that he can go back inside. And that's the last meeting that they will have where Hamlet is alive. And I felt the weight of that moment because I knew what was coming. I'm going to take something back what I just said. I take it back. I think Chloe Zhao is very good with her cinematography. What I think is she doesn't have the type of style that I enjoy because you're right. Her composition was impressive. It was intentional. And it drove the story in a creative way. I think her cinematography is a lot like her directing though. It is humanistic. And while it is, while it is manufactured, it is manufactured in the most realistic, organic way possible, which I think is great for her type of storytelling. But I've always been a much more stylized type of cinematography. I really like playing with harsh shadows and angles and different textures to make very striking images. Now, again, there's so many types of cinematography that I really do like. But I just think the type of cinematography Chloe Zhao

54:16in Pride, Critical, will do well impressive. We'll never be my favorite Bertha's results. And so I'm not hating on it and saying it's bad. I just think at the end of the day, probably wasn't my cup of tea for cinematography that I'm going to like ooze over. Well, I still think it was good. And it was what the story needed. I do not want my favorite type of cinematography in that movie would absolutely derail from it. That's so fair. I think that this kind of stuff is my cup of tea. Part of it is the environment, like the sats, the mise enceme. I'd love a good period piece. And I love medieval times, early modernity. But this kind of cinematography did speak to me, especially in how the shot composition told a story. Such as with Hamlet, Shakespeare, Harding, and her curled up in that fetal position in that first shot of the movie. I think it takes almost more intention because you're not making this really striking stylistic. It's much more of an impression. You have to be very careful that your symbolism

55:19is gotten across. Because I think when it's more striking, it's more evident, it's more obvious. Yin and Yang, life and death, this character leaving, this character going, the cinematography is almost a character to itself really telling you something, and it's obvious. This is more impressionalistic, in my opinion. It's like water painting. It's soft. It doesn't draw your attention. You have to pay attention to get it subtlety, which I think is impressive in its own right. I think a lot of movies that have this kind of cinematography reward re-watching. And I love re-watching movies, so I'm okay with that. The more we talked about, the more I've been won over by the cinematography. So I'm happy to say that. It was something I hated. It was not like I thought it was bad cinematography, but I'm enjoying that I like it more from the discussion. Well, one of the last things I wanted to talk about conveniently was the third act. Ham and it dies, and Angus and William have a falling out. She is frustrated that William wasn't there. He was gone in London when their son died. He wasn't there for his death to wish him farewell.

56:21But then she's also frustrated of how he reacts. After Ham and it dies, William is like the sucks. I'm going back to London. She feels like they have become replaced by whatever is in London. He doesn't even care that his son has died and that his family is left at home to grieve. But then we find out he is in London desperately trying to cope and find reason behind it through his art, through making the play hamlet. And the movie ends with this really long scene, which is arguably like the third act, where Angus goes to London and just watches Hamlet. And she at first is pissed off thinking, what a mockery you've done to our son legacy. But then something beautiful happened. Shakespeare's art transformed into something more than just a story. Just how Chloe Zhao's directing an art impacts us emotionally. Shakespeare's art impacted his wife emotionally and she was able to grieve. And as I joke to the beginning of the episode,

57:22it emerged in therapy, but she was able to like immerse herself in her son, but it's just an actor. And so my question is, it's kind of like a inception type moment, as an actor and creative and person who desires to make art, what was it like watching this? And what do you feel like Chloe Zhao was trying to say about art? Art is a point of contact for people that allows them a glimpse into that other person's inner world, a glimpse that they would otherwise never have access to. We were talking before the podcast about how different certain directors are and how they present themselves in interviews versus the kinds of stories that they tell, right? And how appearances can be deceitful. You might know a man and have a good laugh at them. And you might view this person as a very lighthearted,

58:24non-serious person. But there are topics, there are themes, there are questions that are important to him that we won't ever see. Unless they make art that reveals that side of them to others. But in the director example, in interviews, they might be very jovial and happy and positive. But when we see the art that they make, the films that they direct, that shows us, OK, this person has been dwelling a lot on the theme of death and loss. This person has been dwelling a lot on themes of power. And it's abuse. This person right here really cares about family and the disintegration and building up of family. And in this movie, we see Shakespeare's wife be deceived by appearances because Shakespeare

59:27isn't going to be expressing himself and communicating how he feels to others. That's established very early on. He's much better at doing that through story than through direct conversation. And so when Hamlet dies, all she sees is the man that goes off to work in London doesn't seem to care much about the family he's leaving behind. No, he's bought this massive house and a good bit of land from south there. He's building a new life without us. And he doesn't even care. And he's not expressing that care to me. And so he must not care. But then she sees the art that he makes. And it clicks for her. I never knew that he was living in this way. I never knew that he was dealing with these thoughts. I never knew that this is how he felt about our son Hamlet and his passing. And in that moment of contact, she gives him grace. She sees what she couldn't before. She sees the ways in which she was ignorant.

1:00:27And she experiences the loss of her own child in a way that she has never experienced it before. And she experienced it in a very real way, but not in the way that Shakespeare experienced it. Just as he could not experience it in the way that she did. And what I love about that as well, which I didn't even realize that you're talking about it, we the audience, we don't get to see William Shakespeare grieving at all as cold and calloused as he comes across to as wife he comes across to the audience. We don't get a snippet of him coldly saying, I must leave now, I must go back to London, they cut to him crying in his room. The closest we get to see is him directing a scene from Hamlet with his actors. And you can tell he is grieving. You can tell he is in shame and guilt and anger of the death of his son and he's using this scene to express it once again, subtext. But it is not until the very end of the movie where William Shakespeare plays the ghost. And we see him on stage with the actor who's playing his son.

1:01:31And then he leaves, he finishes his scene and he goes to the back of the room when the play is still going on. And the mom, Angus is having a moment with the actors playing Hamlet. But Shakespeare, William, he's gone in the back room and he is breaking down crying in this moment. So he almost just had his own weird immersion therapy playing that scene and now we see him break down after going through all the art and going through the writing and expression of all his emotions and acting it out. And then he, that's where he then breaks down. And that's like the only time we see him break down over the death of his son right after he fully express himself through his play that he wrote for his son. And I agree, I think this movie says something beautiful about art. That humans make art not just to make money, not just to create, not just to put something out there, but there's something integral to the human condition that desires to make things. Sure, maybe you're not a filmmaker,

1:02:32maybe you're not a novelist. Everyone makes something to some degree. And if you don't, I think you're worse off for it. You make something in some capacity. I think the human soul wants to create because that is how we express ourselves. We want to create and we want to be seen and we want to see others. We are social creatures. Yeah, it's a way of connection. You can connect in a million ways. I connect with Jeffrey by talking to him. You connect maybe with your wife by being physically intimate with them. You connect by just spending time in a room with someone without saying things, but you connect with people by creating and showing them. In a way, and there's no one right way to communicate. You don't communicate with the same person in the same way. There's so many ways to communicate and you should communicate in all these different facets to be whole and healthy. And a big part of that is art. And I think that's why this movie just knocked it out of the park. I think this movie transcended a lot of this movie experience. There's a lot of movies that they feel like entertainment. This movie didn't feel just like entertainment.

1:03:34It was saying so much more. And not saying it was the movie itself was experiencing it. And I got to experience it. It's experience. The holy moment. The holy moment. The holy moment. Speaking of, let's talk about what your actual holy moment of the movie is. There are so many, Nathaniel. There are so many. I'll just name one. That moment we're all clicked for her at the performance of Hamlet. And she's engaging with the art and seeing things with new eyes. The moment that the character of Hamlet is dying on stage and she reaches out to him. And in her interacting with the art, she moves others. She moves the artist. She moves the actor in ways that that actor did not expect to be moved. And then we see the whole crowd. They're reaching out to touch Hamlet's hand. And he takes it. And he's crying tears that I guarantee you.

1:04:36He was not expecting to cry. And art facilitated that connection. I love the inception of it. It is William Shakespeare's grief that puts forth and makes this play. It is the actor who is just trying to embody this character within a day is just a character to him. But he doesn't know how strongly it's impacting Angus Shakespeare. And then it's that strong impaction that makes her reach out her arm, that then impacts the actor back in a way he wouldn't that causes the tear, that then causes the whole audience to resonate now with just an actor who is acting. They don't know the subtext. And so they react back by all raising their hands. And then if you zoom out all the way, they're just actors and we are the audience watching them. But that's why it's a movie that doesn't just feel like actors acting and the me experience it. There's so many levels of experience back and forth happening. And that's just beautiful. Great holy moment. I'm the same way as you. Like there's so many holy moments I could have chosen. I already talked about this one quite a bit.

1:05:36So I'll just go over it really quick. But honestly, the whole middle of the movie, Hamlet's death was my holy moment. But specifically Judith is struck and she is sick. She's downstairs with her mother laying on the floor and Hamlet wakes up in the middle of the night and a cold sweat and goes down. And I've always just been a sucker because I just feel like they're not done very often. I love sibling stories. I love the fact that these are children. I love the fact that they're twins. But also, like I said earlier, at first I was put off by the eerie horror town. So like this isn't a horror movie. What are we doing here? It kind of seems stupid. But again, it all culminates with Hamlet looking into the corner of the room and saying death, more or less, death is here. He will not take you. I will take, I will die in your place. I wept during that scene and moved me to see a child. Be so afraid. He's not like ignorant. Oh, I'll protect you, all is good. You could see in his eyes. He's scared to do this. He doesn't want to do this, but he knows he must and he does it with a loving heart.

1:06:37And I just, that scene moved me so deeply at the innocence of a child, but the bravery of a child and the culmination of the eerie horror music and shots, just culminating a great bit of storytelling. So that's my holy moment. If the fear weren't real, it wouldn't have been brave. If you don't got trauma afterwards, did you even live? With that being said, I got to know Jeffrey. What are you giving this? I assume like a 2.6? No, I just didn't jive with me. I'm gonna give it like a 1-3. No, no, no. Oh, man, this is a fantastic movie. I am feeling all right, all right. You forced my hand. I'll give it a five. Wow, you know, Jeffrey, in return, you might have forced my hand and I think I might have to give it a five. Which I think it's the only, it's the second movie in the history of the podcast that we both given fives to. I think the only other movie was Grave of the Fireflies, which also transcends just being a story.

1:07:41Just like this movie, there is so much give and take with the audience and the story that's unfolding. That is more than just a story. So it makes sense that both of those are fives. Holy cow, wow. I look forward to the next five we review. It only took us, you know, 60 episodes to get to. So see you at 120. See you at 120. I am really excited, though, to spin the wheel for us. I hope that it lands in my wild card because I really want to watch the 1948 Hamlet now. And I'm really excited to show Nathaniel this movie as well. What a great double feature that would be. Yeah. All right, spins, many boy. Let the wheel gods be with us. All right, I really wanted to do wild card. Oh, what do we get? What we got folks, it's still a good one. It's still a good one. It's Phantom Threats. We're going to be seeing Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel DeLewis again.

1:08:41Heck yeah. I was also hoping for Hamlet, but my true true goal is I want finding Nemo to be the last thing we review. So that's my true goal. I'm happy that didn't get spun. So there's still help. Well, awesome folks. Well, guys, thanks so much for joining us for this episode of The Holy Moin Podcast, where we really dove into a lot of things with the holy moment and everything. But if you enjoyed this, you can watch our content on YouTube TikTok, that Instagram, all the fun places. It leans a lot if you leave a five-star review on Spotify or like Amazon Podcasts. It goes a lot for people finding us. But until next time, in a serious way, if you haven't created something in a while, you know, maybe you used to knit or crochet, maybe you used to write or journal, maybe you weld. I just take this moment to encourage you, find some quiet time and go create something. Maybe not to share with anyone but yourself. But go do that and return to us next week watching Phantom Thread and we can talk about art together and how it moves us as human beings.

1:09:41So get some rest and do some creation. Until next time, bye.