What makes a film worthy of the Criterion Collection? Krloz sits down with Ron from Why This Film? to talk about Criterion, physical media collecting, and the idea behind his podcast: exploring the collection one spine at a time.
Ron shares how his curiosity about Criterion led him to start Why This Film?, where conversations with critics, historians, writers, professors, and filmmakers go beyond simply asking whether a movie is good or bad. We talk about how those conversations have changed the way he watches films, the importance of Criterion's supplements and essays, and the experience of discovering films outside the mainstream.
We also get into Criterion collecting, blind buys, Letterboxd, underrated releases, and what makes a film worth revisiting. Plus, Ron takes on a quick Criterion rapid-fire round.
In this episode:
- Why Ron created Why This Film?
- Criterion Collection and physical media collecting
- Film deep dives, criticism, and the value of supplements
- How conversations can change the way you watch movies
- Discovering lesser-known and international filmmakers
- Criterion blind buys, underrated releases, and collecting regrets
- Films Ron would love to see join the Criterion Collection
Find Why This Film? Website: whythisfilm.com Instagram: @whythIsfilmpod
If you enjoy the episode, follow, subscribe, and share The Physical Cut wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow us on Instagram for more physical media, collecting, and movie culture.
Visit KRPodLab.com and support us by buying us a coffee.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:03 Wait, which one? Solo. Oh, no, thank you. I said
00:00:03 --> 00:00:06 make you think and not make you feel like a piece
00:00:06 --> 00:00:32 of shit for watching what you just watched. welcome
00:00:32 --> 00:00:34 back to the physical cut where films live beyond
00:00:34 --> 00:00:37 the stream my name is carlos and today i am joined
00:00:37 --> 00:00:42 by ron from why this film welcome to the podcast
00:00:42 --> 00:00:44 ron thanks for having me appreciate the invite
00:00:44 --> 00:00:48 so ron i know the criterion so just ended and
00:00:48 --> 00:00:51 i spent most of the month of july talking about
00:00:51 --> 00:00:54 criterion But I did discover your podcast during
00:00:54 --> 00:00:58 the Criterion sale, and I'm glad I did. I found
00:00:58 --> 00:01:01 some hidden gems within your podcast. And anybody
00:01:01 --> 00:01:04 who's a Criterion lover, I highly suggest you
00:01:04 --> 00:01:06 hear the podcast. I'm going to link it here below.
00:01:06 --> 00:01:09 But Ron, before we go into deep conversations
00:01:09 --> 00:01:14 on Criterion, I want to know why this film? What
00:01:14 --> 00:01:18 was the inspiration behind the podcast? I was
00:01:18 --> 00:01:21 listening to other film podcasts. And I kept
00:01:21 --> 00:01:24 hearing Criterion. Okay, great. What is that?
00:01:25 --> 00:01:28 So let's start watching some movies on the channel
00:01:28 --> 00:01:30 or start digging into like, what is the Criterion
00:01:30 --> 00:01:33 Collection? How do they pick movies for that?
00:01:33 --> 00:01:35 I had a lot of different questions. So I started
00:01:35 --> 00:01:39 watching some of them. And some of them, I was
00:01:39 --> 00:01:43 thinking, why is this so special? I think these
00:01:43 --> 00:01:45 movies in the Criterion Collection are apparently
00:01:45 --> 00:01:48 supposed to be this incredibly artistic or...
00:01:49 --> 00:01:52 cultural experience or worth preserving kind
00:01:52 --> 00:01:55 of film. And I was like, I don't, I don't get
00:01:55 --> 00:01:57 it. Some of these films, I'm not a film critic.
00:01:57 --> 00:02:00 I didn't go to film school, just a guy that likes
00:02:00 --> 00:02:03 to watch movies, but I had a lot of questions.
00:02:04 --> 00:02:07 So I thought, man, I wish I knew people that
00:02:07 --> 00:02:10 could tell me and help me understand what makes
00:02:10 --> 00:02:13 some of these films so special. And I thought
00:02:13 --> 00:02:16 it's kind of weird if you just email people and
00:02:16 --> 00:02:19 ask them. And ask them these questions. But when
00:02:19 --> 00:02:20 you tell people, hey, I have these questions
00:02:20 --> 00:02:22 for you. And also we're going to record it and
00:02:22 --> 00:02:25 put it out for the world. People seem to be more
00:02:25 --> 00:02:27 amenable to that. So that's kind of how it started
00:02:27 --> 00:02:30 is I had questions about why this film would
00:02:30 --> 00:02:35 have been so special or why it would be included
00:02:35 --> 00:02:36 in the criteria collection. I fully understand
00:02:36 --> 00:02:39 that a lot of this comes down to what criteria
00:02:39 --> 00:02:41 you can get the rights to. But there is also
00:02:41 --> 00:02:45 the idea of they're not just grabbing movie rights
00:02:45 --> 00:02:49 from. every corner of the movie world they are
00:02:49 --> 00:02:53 selecting and curating this this collection that's
00:02:53 --> 00:02:55 how it started i just started reaching out to
00:02:55 --> 00:02:57 people like hey can you come on as a guest i
00:02:57 --> 00:02:59 need to practice i have no podcast experience
00:02:59 --> 00:03:01 i have no film experience can we get this going
00:03:01 --> 00:03:03 and i ended up i've i've had some some pretty
00:03:03 --> 00:03:06 hard -hitting guests so far so it's it's been
00:03:06 --> 00:03:09 really good yeah it's funny because i did ask
00:03:09 --> 00:03:13 um Again, I've been obsessed with asking people
00:03:13 --> 00:03:15 stupid questions on Reddit, but I do get the
00:03:15 --> 00:03:19 stupidest answers ever. You're asking a stupid
00:03:19 --> 00:03:22 question, I guess. Well, it's not a stupid question.
00:03:22 --> 00:03:25 It's just that you could ask the smartest question,
00:03:25 --> 00:03:28 but if you're followed by stupid people, you
00:03:28 --> 00:03:30 will receive stupid answers. I asked a question
00:03:30 --> 00:03:35 about what basically makes Criterion choose a
00:03:35 --> 00:03:38 film. And everybody was like, well, just go to
00:03:38 --> 00:03:40 the website. I'm like, you do not have your personal
00:03:40 --> 00:03:43 opinion. I'm asking your personal opinion, not
00:03:43 --> 00:03:45 Criterion's personal opinion. I don't want to
00:03:45 --> 00:03:48 go to their homepage, which we visit often, by
00:03:48 --> 00:03:51 the way. But I wanted to know your personal opinion
00:03:51 --> 00:03:54 on why Criterion chooses this films. And again,
00:03:54 --> 00:03:57 they couldn't answer. I am glad you gave me a
00:03:57 --> 00:03:58 great answer because I'm like, that's the answer
00:03:58 --> 00:04:01 I've been looking for. It's from your perspective,
00:04:01 --> 00:04:04 from your point of view. There's a few podcasts
00:04:04 --> 00:04:07 out there that do speak about Criterion. I have
00:04:07 --> 00:04:10 to say that the episodes I've listened from your
00:04:10 --> 00:04:13 podcast so far have been pretty entertaining
00:04:13 --> 00:04:16 because I feel like the people you have really,
00:04:16 --> 00:04:20 they're not just knowledgeable on this film,
00:04:20 --> 00:04:25 but they're also, they're very, they love the
00:04:25 --> 00:04:28 film. So they love the film enough to, not just
00:04:28 --> 00:04:30 to get to know it, but also the history behind
00:04:30 --> 00:04:35 it. I think the ceremony, which we just spoke
00:04:35 --> 00:04:37 about, that I told you that I loved the film.
00:04:37 --> 00:04:39 And I was kind of surprised when I saw it on
00:04:39 --> 00:04:41 your list. I'm like, I got to listen to this
00:04:41 --> 00:04:45 one first. And I forgot your guest's name. I
00:04:45 --> 00:04:50 did love how he looked beyond the film and into
00:04:50 --> 00:04:52 the social structure of France and all that kind
00:04:52 --> 00:04:54 of stuff. And I'm like, yeah, this is how you
00:04:54 --> 00:04:58 do. a movie podcast when you're diving into a
00:04:58 --> 00:05:01 film. It's not just a superficial part, which
00:05:01 --> 00:05:03 I do because I'm not one to spend too much time
00:05:03 --> 00:05:07 on a film unless I really love it. But the fact
00:05:07 --> 00:05:09 that you get these people and the questions that
00:05:09 --> 00:05:12 are hard hitting questions. So again, kudos for
00:05:12 --> 00:05:14 that. Like I tell you, I can't be on your podcast
00:05:14 --> 00:05:17 because I'm going to feel stupid as hell. That's
00:05:17 --> 00:05:19 why I'm the host, because I'm asking questions
00:05:19 --> 00:05:22 just out of genuine curiosity, knowing that the
00:05:22 --> 00:05:27 people that I have. As the guests, there's nothing
00:05:27 --> 00:05:29 I could lob at them that they won't be able to
00:05:29 --> 00:05:32 answer. And I feel confident in that because
00:05:32 --> 00:05:34 a lot of the people I reach out to, I just let
00:05:34 --> 00:05:36 them pick the movie. The person who was my guest
00:05:36 --> 00:05:39 for the La Ceremonie episode, his name is Girish
00:05:39 --> 00:05:42 Shambhu. He's written multiple essays for Criterion.
00:05:42 --> 00:05:44 If anyone out there is familiar, I imagine that
00:05:44 --> 00:05:47 your audience is. All the Criterion releases
00:05:47 --> 00:05:50 come with some essay. Some come with multiple
00:05:50 --> 00:05:53 essays and a little booklet. And I think I've
00:05:53 --> 00:05:58 had... Not I think. Of all of my guests, five
00:05:58 --> 00:06:00 of them have written the essay for Criterion,
00:06:00 --> 00:06:02 but two of them have chosen a movie that they
00:06:02 --> 00:06:04 didn't write about. So it truly is a passion
00:06:04 --> 00:06:07 of theirs. So Girish has written, I believe,
00:06:07 --> 00:06:10 two essays for Criterion, but he didn't write
00:06:10 --> 00:06:12 the essay for Le Ceremony. He came back to me
00:06:12 --> 00:06:14 and he says, I love Claude Chabrol. I love this
00:06:14 --> 00:06:16 film. This is what I want to talk about. It's
00:06:16 --> 00:06:18 like, great. I'm not going to say no to that.
00:06:19 --> 00:06:21 Now I can ask absolutely anything and he's going
00:06:21 --> 00:06:24 to have something or some kind of take or a viewpoint
00:06:24 --> 00:06:27 on that is going to be worthwhile for anyone
00:06:27 --> 00:06:29 listening because you can feel the passion come
00:06:29 --> 00:06:32 through with a lot of these people. But what
00:06:32 --> 00:06:35 made you dedicate a whole podcast to just Criterion?
00:06:36 --> 00:06:39 Because you can add other labels, but just specifically
00:06:39 --> 00:06:43 Criterion. I look at them as the gold standard
00:06:43 --> 00:06:47 of boutique labels. I think that's... You could
00:06:47 --> 00:06:49 have some arguments about that. I'm sure people
00:06:49 --> 00:06:52 are very passionate and people are very passionate
00:06:52 --> 00:06:54 about what they're passionate about. That's kind
00:06:54 --> 00:06:57 of ridiculous to say. But people have staunch
00:06:57 --> 00:06:59 opinions on what they feel is the quote unquote
00:06:59 --> 00:07:06 best. But what what inspired me is my own genuine
00:07:06 --> 00:07:09 curiosity. Then starting to listen to these people
00:07:09 --> 00:07:11 that I recognize that we see on our screens all
00:07:11 --> 00:07:14 the time go into this closet full of films. and
00:07:14 --> 00:07:17 speak so passionately about things that inspired
00:07:17 --> 00:07:20 them in their career or if someone has a story
00:07:20 --> 00:07:22 about my father showed me this film when i was
00:07:22 --> 00:07:25 a kid and it was a way like those kind of things
00:07:25 --> 00:07:29 the idea of bringing people together over film
00:07:29 --> 00:07:32 i just stuck with criterion now could i spin
00:07:32 --> 00:07:34 it off and start talking to people from arrow
00:07:34 --> 00:07:37 yeah maybe maybe i could but but with criterion
00:07:37 --> 00:07:41 too there's no shortage of choices no 1300 plus
00:07:41 --> 00:07:43 films in the collection right now and i'm going
00:07:44 --> 00:07:48 And going, right, right. So decided to stick
00:07:48 --> 00:07:49 with that just because that's how it started.
00:07:49 --> 00:07:52 It was a curiosity about that particular label.
00:07:53 --> 00:07:56 And the results have been great. When I say results,
00:07:56 --> 00:07:59 I'm talking about the results of the conversations
00:07:59 --> 00:08:02 themselves are very high quality, whether there's
00:08:02 --> 00:08:04 thousands or tens or hundreds of people listening
00:08:04 --> 00:08:08 to each episode. Because of the passion that
00:08:08 --> 00:08:10 the people have for the films in the collection,
00:08:10 --> 00:08:15 the result has been. genuine deep dive conversations.
00:08:15 --> 00:08:18 It's almost become kind of an academic podcast
00:08:18 --> 00:08:20 in a sense with the guests that I've been getting.
00:08:21 --> 00:08:23 Yeah, but we need more of those because I feel
00:08:23 --> 00:08:27 like most of the, there's a few movie podcasts
00:08:27 --> 00:08:30 out there, but like I said, they usually just
00:08:30 --> 00:08:33 focus more on the budget. They focus on either
00:08:33 --> 00:08:38 the makeup of box office results and success
00:08:38 --> 00:08:44 and failures. Some that also get into films,
00:08:44 --> 00:08:47 they go scene by scene, which some of them I
00:08:47 --> 00:08:50 love. Some of them I don't love too much because
00:08:50 --> 00:08:53 sometimes the movie is already an hour and 20
00:08:53 --> 00:08:55 minutes, but the podcast episode is three hours.
00:08:55 --> 00:08:58 And I'm like, I could just go watch the film
00:08:58 --> 00:09:00 and come up with my own opinion at that point.
00:09:00 --> 00:09:03 What I do like is that you... study the film
00:09:03 --> 00:09:06 you don't study necessarily the box office and
00:09:06 --> 00:09:09 if you do mention it is as part of the history
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11 of the film and the best example is the last
00:09:11 --> 00:09:14 one you put out which was the 39 steps you're
00:09:14 --> 00:09:17 talking about uh Hitchcock's way of directing
00:09:17 --> 00:09:20 before what might have inspired North by Northwest
00:09:20 --> 00:09:24 you kind of don't necessarily go scene by scene
00:09:24 --> 00:09:27 even though you are talking about specific scenes
00:09:27 --> 00:09:29 and you're talking about how something could
00:09:29 --> 00:09:32 have been risque and how this reflected society,
00:09:32 --> 00:09:36 the political climate then, it's not a scene
00:09:36 --> 00:09:39 by scene, which is what I respect. And to put
00:09:39 --> 00:09:41 it into criterion perspective, it does feel like
00:09:41 --> 00:09:46 a supplemental to the criterion this, and this
00:09:46 --> 00:09:50 is a praise, so take it. But it does feel like
00:09:50 --> 00:09:53 part of a supplemental. of the criteria. So if
00:09:53 --> 00:09:55 you are watching, you know, say, and I'm just
00:09:55 --> 00:09:57 looking at the stack in front of me, a blow up
00:09:57 --> 00:10:00 and you listen to you, so you watch the movie,
00:10:00 --> 00:10:02 you watch the supplementals, and then you say
00:10:02 --> 00:10:05 you do blow up later on in your podcast, then
00:10:05 --> 00:10:08 you could have that as a supplemental as well.
00:10:08 --> 00:10:11 And you add into the education because again,
00:10:11 --> 00:10:12 the people that you bring into your podcast,
00:10:13 --> 00:10:15 they're very well versed in these films. But
00:10:15 --> 00:10:19 what I do love also your subtitle of one spine
00:10:19 --> 00:10:23 at a time. And obviously like you could either
00:10:23 --> 00:10:27 accumulate all these films like I did in the
00:10:27 --> 00:10:29 10 recommendations, but that's not what you do.
00:10:29 --> 00:10:32 But like you said, you have about 1300 spines
00:10:32 --> 00:10:36 to go. So what made you go at least one spine
00:10:36 --> 00:10:38 at a time instead of just doing one large podcast
00:10:38 --> 00:10:41 on that? I was watching a lot of films and sometimes
00:10:41 --> 00:10:43 after I watch something, I like to listen to
00:10:43 --> 00:10:46 people talk about it. It's one of the most...
00:10:47 --> 00:10:49 It's one of the best times you can have with
00:10:49 --> 00:10:51 friends is when you go to the films and then
00:10:51 --> 00:10:53 you walk out and you get to talk about what you
00:10:53 --> 00:10:56 just watched together. So sometimes when you're
00:10:56 --> 00:10:58 sitting at home watching things, you might be
00:10:58 --> 00:10:59 watching it by yourself. You might be watching
00:10:59 --> 00:11:02 it with a significant other, but you don't always
00:11:02 --> 00:11:05 take that. I would say it's probably not a conversation
00:11:05 --> 00:11:07 we're having very often in this house. We watch
00:11:07 --> 00:11:10 a film as a dude, this deep dive academic analysis.
00:11:11 --> 00:11:13 So I was longing for that. I was longing for
00:11:13 --> 00:11:15 the deeper analysis. And when I was looking for
00:11:15 --> 00:11:20 some of the films, I wasn't finding them. So
00:11:20 --> 00:11:22 that went into this idea of, well, I'll just
00:11:22 --> 00:11:24 do it myself. I was searching wherever you get
00:11:24 --> 00:11:27 your podcast for the deep dives, and there's
00:11:27 --> 00:11:30 just not a lot out there. If you look for something,
00:11:30 --> 00:11:32 a deep dive on the 39 steps, which I haven't
00:11:32 --> 00:11:36 done, I don't know how many are out there in
00:11:36 --> 00:11:39 the way that we have it set up. So reading about
00:11:39 --> 00:11:41 them is one thing. Finding an expert to do a
00:11:41 --> 00:11:44 deep dive. That's something that's unique. And
00:11:44 --> 00:11:47 I thought it was a worthwhile endeavor. And like
00:11:47 --> 00:11:50 I said, there's not a lot of deep dive, especially
00:11:50 --> 00:11:53 when it comes to Criterion. Thank you for having
00:11:53 --> 00:11:55 it out there. Because again, I do love having
00:11:55 --> 00:11:59 something that is easy to digest and also something
00:11:59 --> 00:12:02 that is familiar to what one of my passions,
00:12:02 --> 00:12:05 which is collecting Criterion as hard as I am
00:12:05 --> 00:12:09 sometimes on them. My war against Criterion right
00:12:09 --> 00:12:11 now is what they did to Eyes Wide Shut. But again,
00:12:11 --> 00:12:15 that's... That's a soapbox, you know. I have
00:12:15 --> 00:12:18 it back there somewhere. Yeah, I have it here
00:12:18 --> 00:12:20 in front of me. So yeah, don't go too far. It
00:12:20 --> 00:12:23 still taunts me. It's there. That plastic box
00:12:23 --> 00:12:25 gives me nightmares. And then to make it worse,
00:12:25 --> 00:12:30 it's like the thick studio canal type of box.
00:12:30 --> 00:12:33 So that's what I don't like because it doesn't
00:12:33 --> 00:12:36 go even with the rest of the criterions. So it
00:12:36 --> 00:12:39 really, I have OCD. This drives me insane. But
00:12:39 --> 00:12:43 what has hosted, and like you said, the hosting
00:12:43 --> 00:12:46 the podcast, why this film and having these guests,
00:12:46 --> 00:12:49 it has taught you something you might not have
00:12:49 --> 00:12:52 known of the film, or it has given you at least
00:12:52 --> 00:12:56 something to argue with people about and go into
00:12:56 --> 00:12:59 a deep discussion about it. But has it changed
00:12:59 --> 00:13:03 at least your, the way you watch movies, especially
00:13:03 --> 00:13:05 not just necessarily criterions, but just in
00:13:05 --> 00:13:08 general. Oh, a hundred percent. You learn a lot
00:13:08 --> 00:13:12 from the guests and what I've, during the episodes
00:13:12 --> 00:13:15 themselves, but also what I learn is how they
00:13:15 --> 00:13:18 watch movies. So when you talk to a critic or
00:13:18 --> 00:13:21 a historian or a writer or a filmmaker, you start
00:13:21 --> 00:13:24 to learn by listening to how they're evaluating
00:13:24 --> 00:13:26 a film. And it tells you a lot about how they
00:13:26 --> 00:13:29 watch it. So I'm still along for the ride when
00:13:29 --> 00:13:32 I'm watching a film, but my brain is now wandering
00:13:32 --> 00:13:36 more into a critical thinking. instead of just
00:13:36 --> 00:13:39 always visually taking in what's on the screen.
00:13:39 --> 00:13:44 Yeah, I feel like it's a blessing and a curse,
00:13:44 --> 00:13:47 at least when you're doing it because you want
00:13:47 --> 00:13:50 to have that conversation with someone. You're
00:13:50 --> 00:13:53 seeing the film differently. Recently, somebody
00:13:53 --> 00:14:00 posted on Instagram about how they stopped doing
00:14:00 --> 00:14:03 Letterboxd. Because it does kind of affect the
00:14:03 --> 00:14:07 way you watch movies. And I feel like having
00:14:07 --> 00:14:11 the conversations that you have, I don't necessarily
00:14:11 --> 00:14:14 like to rate a movie. Movies either are good
00:14:14 --> 00:14:17 or bad or questionable. Sure, that's for basic
00:14:17 --> 00:14:21 thinking. Questionable. No, there is a lot of
00:14:21 --> 00:14:23 movies that are questionable. But there's other
00:14:23 --> 00:14:26 conversations that you want to have. And I felt
00:14:26 --> 00:14:30 like when I started with Letterboxd, my brain
00:14:30 --> 00:14:32 kind of... clicked a different way in how I watch
00:14:32 --> 00:14:36 films and. To put it visually, I felt like when
00:14:36 --> 00:14:38 a cartoon, when you have like those little bubbles
00:14:38 --> 00:14:41 above your head and instead of bubbles, it was
00:14:41 --> 00:14:44 just like stars. So it went from one to five.
00:14:44 --> 00:14:47 And as I'm watching the movie, you see the rating
00:14:47 --> 00:14:49 go up. And then if somebody made a mistake, the
00:14:49 --> 00:14:51 rating went down. If the script was bad, the
00:14:51 --> 00:14:54 rating went down. If one scene was good. So,
00:14:54 --> 00:14:56 and I couldn't really concentrate on watching
00:14:56 --> 00:14:59 the movie. That's why I don't even log on Letterboxd
00:14:59 --> 00:15:01 anymore. I think I put the Odyssey just to keep
00:15:01 --> 00:15:05 my account active, but. And the thing is, like,
00:15:05 --> 00:15:08 you can't really have those deep conversations
00:15:08 --> 00:15:11 because when I decided to take Letterboxd a little
00:15:11 --> 00:15:15 bit more serious, I was basically writing away
00:15:15 --> 00:15:19 a whole essay on the film, whether it was a good
00:15:19 --> 00:15:21 one or a bad one. But I felt like it wasn't being
00:15:21 --> 00:15:23 read. But then if I would put something stupid,
00:15:23 --> 00:15:26 like, I'll live. That's the comment, three stars.
00:15:27 --> 00:15:29 Everybody liked it. So I'm like, you're not really
00:15:29 --> 00:15:32 reading my whole essay on this film, why this
00:15:32 --> 00:15:36 film is good. But then if I put, she had a comment
00:15:36 --> 00:15:37 or something like that, all of a sudden it's
00:15:37 --> 00:15:39 like five stars, like everybody just liking it.
00:15:39 --> 00:15:42 Cause yeah, it's easier to digest a stupid comment
00:15:42 --> 00:15:46 than a whole argument on the film. And I'm like,
00:15:46 --> 00:15:48 you know what? This is not for me. I do like
00:15:48 --> 00:15:52 having podcasts, having these conversations because
00:15:52 --> 00:15:57 one, as I would say as movie lovers. Like you
00:15:57 --> 00:15:59 said, it's something we don't get to have all
00:15:59 --> 00:16:02 the time. At least you having that with other
00:16:02 --> 00:16:05 people, it does kind of make the movie not just
00:16:05 --> 00:16:08 more memorable, but more significant, I would
00:16:08 --> 00:16:12 say. I mentioned to you earlier how I didn't
00:16:12 --> 00:16:14 like The Worst Person in the World when I first
00:16:14 --> 00:16:17 saw it, and I still have questions about sentimental
00:16:17 --> 00:16:21 value. If I don't buy it, like I posted on Letterboxd,
00:16:21 --> 00:16:25 I'll live. But has there been a Criterion release?
00:16:27 --> 00:16:30 that completely changed your perspective after
00:16:30 --> 00:16:33 you covered it? Yeah, all of them. I know that's
00:16:33 --> 00:16:37 a cop -out answer, but because of the research
00:16:37 --> 00:16:38 that you have to, I mean, sometimes you watch
00:16:38 --> 00:16:40 a movie and you're like, I don't get this. Like,
00:16:40 --> 00:16:42 why do people like this? I still have one like
00:16:42 --> 00:16:46 on my list that's like, don't get it. But I guarantee,
00:16:46 --> 00:16:48 Ghost World, by the way, is what that is. Like,
00:16:48 --> 00:16:50 don't even, I don't understand that movie at
00:16:50 --> 00:16:52 all. I don't know why that's part of anything.
00:16:53 --> 00:16:55 But that's kind of what goes in your head. And
00:16:55 --> 00:16:57 then you say someone reaches out or I reach out
00:16:57 --> 00:16:58 to someone, say, what do you want to cover? And
00:16:58 --> 00:17:00 then they inevitably pick something that I didn't
00:17:00 --> 00:17:03 understand. And then you start to do your own
00:17:03 --> 00:17:05 research. You're like, oh, OK, I can kind of
00:17:05 --> 00:17:07 get their perspective. And then they show up
00:17:07 --> 00:17:09 and start explaining it to you. And you're like,
00:17:09 --> 00:17:12 Dan, this is actually pretty special. The two
00:17:12 --> 00:17:14 that so I copped out and said every single one
00:17:14 --> 00:17:18 of them. But especially the first two. Le Jeté
00:17:18 --> 00:17:22 was the first 28 minute French short film. And
00:17:22 --> 00:17:25 I spoke to a professor of philosophy and he's
00:17:25 --> 00:17:27 going into all these different ideas of time
00:17:27 --> 00:17:30 travel and what the movie is saying about time
00:17:30 --> 00:17:34 travel and what the movie's philosophy is on
00:17:34 --> 00:17:36 the idea of that you can't change your past.
00:17:36 --> 00:17:38 And I'm like, wow, this is like a total, not
00:17:38 --> 00:17:41 what I was expecting. When you talk about film
00:17:41 --> 00:17:43 analysis, you don't usually think of a philosophy
00:17:43 --> 00:17:45 professor that's going to break down a 28 minute
00:17:45 --> 00:17:49 short film. So that was kind of cool. Yeah, the
00:17:49 --> 00:17:51 episode was longer than the film, by the way.
00:17:51 --> 00:17:53 Well, it's hard to, yeah. No, it was interesting.
00:17:54 --> 00:17:57 It was 44 minutes, I think. So not quite as long.
00:17:57 --> 00:18:01 And the other one was Touché Pas Grisby, which
00:18:01 --> 00:18:04 is a Jean Caban film. And I spoke with Jeanette
00:18:04 --> 00:18:07 Vinchendeau, who is a legend. She gets on the
00:18:07 --> 00:18:09 podcast and starts talking to me about how at
00:18:09 --> 00:18:12 her retirement party, which was held at the British
00:18:12 --> 00:18:14 Film Institute, she gave an introduction to this
00:18:14 --> 00:18:16 film. So you're going to talk about somebody
00:18:16 --> 00:18:21 that is, Highly renowned. Her picking the film
00:18:21 --> 00:18:25 that she would like to discuss. It's like, yeah,
00:18:25 --> 00:18:26 you're probably going to leave with a different
00:18:26 --> 00:18:29 perspective than what you came in with. Especially
00:18:29 --> 00:18:31 in the research. I watch it. I'm like, well,
00:18:31 --> 00:18:33 this isn't very exciting. And then you start
00:18:33 --> 00:18:35 learning about why it was significant at the
00:18:35 --> 00:18:37 time. And then you get her perspective. And it's
00:18:37 --> 00:18:39 like, oh, I totally get it. I love this movie
00:18:39 --> 00:18:42 now. And that's the power of speaking to people
00:18:42 --> 00:18:46 in this format and choosing something from this.
00:18:47 --> 00:18:49 already curated list yeah that's how i felt because
00:18:49 --> 00:18:53 the one that i re -watched and now is one of
00:18:53 --> 00:18:55 my favorites in the criterion i recommended it
00:18:55 --> 00:18:59 in the episode for the 10 must -haves was the
00:18:59 --> 00:19:01 worst person in the world is because the first
00:19:01 --> 00:19:05 time i saw it i won 2am not a good time and then
00:19:05 --> 00:19:07 i read somebody's description on the film and
00:19:07 --> 00:19:10 it was like a whole deep dive on the film and
00:19:10 --> 00:19:13 i was like you know what let me just watch it
00:19:13 --> 00:19:15 again i think i watched it about six months after
00:19:15 --> 00:19:18 and I don't know if it was the headspace that
00:19:18 --> 00:19:22 I was in or just because I had a different idea
00:19:22 --> 00:19:25 of what the film was, but I saw it from a completely
00:19:25 --> 00:19:27 different point of view. It does really explore
00:19:27 --> 00:19:31 sometimes the loneliness we kind of create ourselves.
00:19:31 --> 00:19:33 Maybe I'm just looking too much into the film.
00:19:33 --> 00:19:35 Maybe I just saw it in a very depressing time
00:19:35 --> 00:19:38 of my life, which is every Wednesday. But I just
00:19:38 --> 00:19:41 saw the film so... I used to have depression
00:19:41 --> 00:19:43 Wednesdays. It was an excuse to buy a bottle
00:19:43 --> 00:19:46 of wine. But... It's just made me watch the film
00:19:46 --> 00:19:48 from a different perspective. And now I tell
00:19:48 --> 00:19:52 people, when you watch the film, just go watch
00:19:52 --> 00:19:54 it when you really need to watch something to
00:19:54 --> 00:19:57 make yourself understand yourself a little bit
00:19:57 --> 00:19:59 better, if that makes sense. If you're depressed,
00:19:59 --> 00:20:01 go see this film. It's really going to give you
00:20:01 --> 00:20:04 a perspective on, yeah, you probably created
00:20:04 --> 00:20:06 your own depression. You probably created your
00:20:06 --> 00:20:09 own shitty situation. And you know you can come
00:20:09 --> 00:20:12 out of it, right? So let's dig into that film.
00:20:13 --> 00:20:14 If you really need to get somebody who's really
00:20:14 --> 00:20:16 passionate about it, cover it because I'm going
00:20:16 --> 00:20:18 to be downloading that and promoting that like
00:20:18 --> 00:20:19 crazy. So you're going to have free promotion
00:20:19 --> 00:20:21 here. Well, the woman who wrote the essay for
00:20:21 --> 00:20:23 The Worst Person in the World also wrote the
00:20:23 --> 00:20:26 essay for After Hours. And I had her as a guest.
00:20:26 --> 00:20:28 I love that film. So maybe I do too. She was
00:20:28 --> 00:20:31 great. Her name is Sheila O'Malley. She's great.
00:20:31 --> 00:20:34 She has a writer for RogerEbert .com. So maybe
00:20:34 --> 00:20:36 she'll come back and want to do another episode
00:20:36 --> 00:20:38 and we can cover The Worst Person in the World.
00:20:38 --> 00:20:40 She did After Hours? She wrote the essay for
00:20:40 --> 00:20:44 After Hours as well. Yeah. Oh, no, but what movie
00:20:44 --> 00:20:47 did she cover on your pod? After Hours. Oh, okay,
00:20:47 --> 00:20:50 okay. Oh, yeah, I think I was scrolling and I
00:20:50 --> 00:20:53 did see it, but because I already know the film,
00:20:53 --> 00:20:55 I don't think I heard it. And I didn't hear the
00:20:55 --> 00:20:57 episode, but I don't think I stopped because
00:20:57 --> 00:20:59 I already know the film, so I probably just saved
00:20:59 --> 00:21:01 it for later. But I kind of went through the
00:21:01 --> 00:21:04 ones that I don't know too much about, like Le
00:21:04 --> 00:21:06 Jeté, which I've heard. And I don't know much
00:21:06 --> 00:21:09 about the film. And then the 39 Steps, which
00:21:09 --> 00:21:11 I told you that I know the play. I don't know
00:21:11 --> 00:21:15 much of the movie. So those films I did listen
00:21:15 --> 00:21:17 to because I don't have a lot of knowledge on
00:21:17 --> 00:21:20 them. The Ceremony, which I love, I listened
00:21:20 --> 00:21:22 just because I wanted to know somebody's perspective
00:21:22 --> 00:21:25 on the film. Because I'm like, are other people
00:21:25 --> 00:21:29 as fucked up as I am? And it was true. All the
00:21:29 --> 00:21:32 guests have been great. They all have their own
00:21:32 --> 00:21:37 strengths. edits the Hitchcock Annual, which
00:21:37 --> 00:21:40 is a magazine. He's written three books on Hitchcock.
00:21:41 --> 00:21:43 It's just finding the people that have the answers
00:21:43 --> 00:21:44 to all the questions you could possibly have
00:21:44 --> 00:21:48 and then some. Oh, nice. Yeah, I did like the
00:21:48 --> 00:21:51 last guest you had. He was pretty amazing. Is
00:21:51 --> 00:21:53 he also a professor? Yeah, at Sacred Heart. He's
00:21:53 --> 00:21:57 been there since 1976 teaching. Wow. Yeah. So
00:21:57 --> 00:22:00 he has knowledge. He has some experience. I guess
00:22:00 --> 00:22:03 he knows what he's talking about. He said he
00:22:03 --> 00:22:05 remembered watching Hitchcock films when Hitchcock
00:22:05 --> 00:22:08 was still making films. No, I think I, yeah.
00:22:08 --> 00:22:11 So yeah. He has a different perspective than
00:22:11 --> 00:22:14 you or I made. Yeah. He was there when history
00:22:14 --> 00:22:19 was being made. He was there. But I know we already
00:22:19 --> 00:22:21 spoke about your podcast, which again, I really
00:22:21 --> 00:22:25 recommend everyone to go listen. But I, since
00:22:25 --> 00:22:27 the, Criterion Cell just ended and I know I wasn't
00:22:27 --> 00:22:29 able to talk to you during the Criterion Cell.
00:22:30 --> 00:22:31 Did you pick up anything from your wishlist?
00:22:31 --> 00:22:34 Did you have any luck? Did you run out of time
00:22:34 --> 00:22:37 before they cut us short for a week? It's not
00:22:37 --> 00:22:40 often that the people that work the cash registers
00:22:40 --> 00:22:46 at Barnes & Noble know you on site. I went there
00:22:46 --> 00:22:49 probably once, sometimes twice a week just to
00:22:49 --> 00:22:52 check in as if I don't know every damn film on
00:22:52 --> 00:22:54 site of what's in the collection at this point.
00:22:55 --> 00:22:59 You always go in with a list and you always leave
00:22:59 --> 00:23:02 with things that aren't on that list. I picked
00:23:02 --> 00:23:05 up what I needed. So like I needed the 39 steps.
00:23:05 --> 00:23:09 I needed covering deep cover in a few weeks.
00:23:10 --> 00:23:12 Mate one, I had to pick that up. So like you
00:23:12 --> 00:23:15 have your podcast related needs and then you
00:23:15 --> 00:23:17 start looking around for your blind buys. Like
00:23:17 --> 00:23:19 I had actually never seen Notorious by Hitchcock.
00:23:19 --> 00:23:20 So I had a Hitchcock episode coming up. So I'm
00:23:20 --> 00:23:22 like, oh, I haven't seen Notorious. Let me just
00:23:22 --> 00:23:25 pick that up. Sentimental Value. Which, by the
00:23:25 --> 00:23:27 way, I really liked. So we can have a conversation
00:23:27 --> 00:23:30 off air maybe. But I really enjoyed that. The
00:23:30 --> 00:23:32 Complete Lady Snowblood, like those two films.
00:23:33 --> 00:23:36 You mean Kill Bill? No. Yes. Very, very good.
00:23:36 --> 00:23:38 I was like, no, wait, what? And Elephant Man.
00:23:38 --> 00:23:41 Elephant Man in 4K came out during the sale.
00:23:41 --> 00:23:45 Oh, you didn't buy it from eBay for overpriced
00:23:45 --> 00:23:47 resale because everybody thought it was just
00:23:47 --> 00:23:48 going to go out of print for the rest of their
00:23:48 --> 00:23:50 lives. I'm like, you do know it's going to come
00:23:50 --> 00:23:53 out in 4K. missed my opportunity i guess no no
00:23:53 --> 00:23:55 got it in the got it in the 4k and you know and
00:23:55 --> 00:23:57 there's sometimes i just walk by and i'm like
00:23:57 --> 00:24:00 you know what do i really need wally the criterion
00:24:00 --> 00:24:03 release of wally no i don't but i'm gonna pick
00:24:03 --> 00:24:06 it up anyway body heat i grabbed body heat that
00:24:06 --> 00:24:09 movie kicks ass it was just an accident the john
00:24:09 --> 00:24:12 singleton the hood trilogy just came out worst
00:24:12 --> 00:24:14 person in the world you know You just kind of
00:24:14 --> 00:24:16 go in there and it's like you're saying, almost
00:24:16 --> 00:24:18 like sometimes depends on the mood you're in.
00:24:18 --> 00:24:20 Like, what am I in the mood to see? And sometimes
00:24:20 --> 00:24:21 you'd leave with things that you didn't have
00:24:21 --> 00:24:24 planned. Yeah, I did. I went in, like I mentioned
00:24:24 --> 00:24:27 to you earlier that I didn't, I went in to go
00:24:27 --> 00:24:30 sentimental value, pick up sentimental value,
00:24:30 --> 00:24:34 multiple maniacs and both trivial. And I ended
00:24:34 --> 00:24:36 up coming out with something completely different.
00:24:36 --> 00:24:38 I came out with a drama. It's only an accident
00:24:38 --> 00:24:43 and Alice doesn't live here anymore. And the
00:24:43 --> 00:24:45 Christopher's. Well, just because they didn't
00:24:45 --> 00:24:47 have the other three, in my defense. I didn't
00:24:47 --> 00:24:49 need to buy anything. They just happened to be
00:24:49 --> 00:24:52 there. But yeah, the other three were completely
00:24:52 --> 00:24:55 sold out. Any surprises that you picked up? I
00:24:55 --> 00:24:57 know you picked up some stuff that was not on
00:24:57 --> 00:25:00 your list, but any of the titles that you picked
00:25:00 --> 00:25:05 up surprised you? I would say Matewan. Matewan
00:25:05 --> 00:25:08 was, I mean, I know I just recorded an episode
00:25:08 --> 00:25:11 on it, so that's why I picked it up. But it's
00:25:11 --> 00:25:13 something I'd never heard of. I didn't know the
00:25:13 --> 00:25:15 actual history of what actually happened in West
00:25:15 --> 00:25:20 Virginia in 1920. I had no idea. And I only had
00:25:20 --> 00:25:23 seen Lone Star. That's the only other John Sayles
00:25:23 --> 00:25:26 movie I had seen up until that point. And now
00:25:26 --> 00:25:28 I'm just like, can Sayles please make another
00:25:28 --> 00:25:30 movie person right now? Like I'm longing for
00:25:30 --> 00:25:33 more. Actually, I take that back. I'd seen Eight
00:25:33 --> 00:25:35 Men Out. But I saw Eight Men Out back whenever
00:25:35 --> 00:25:39 I wasn't to the point like you were just talking
00:25:39 --> 00:25:42 about our friend Ernst. of, oh, he made this
00:25:42 --> 00:25:43 movie. Oh, he made this one too. I want to go
00:25:43 --> 00:25:47 consume that too. I saw Eight Men Out at a time
00:25:47 --> 00:25:48 where I was just like, oh yeah, that movie was
00:25:48 --> 00:25:51 cool. Then move on to the next thing. I saw Lone
00:25:51 --> 00:25:53 Star and I was like, oh, that was really good.
00:25:53 --> 00:25:55 I loved it. And then I found somebody that wrote
00:25:55 --> 00:25:57 a book on sales. I said, what do you want to
00:25:57 --> 00:25:59 talk about? Let's talk about Mate One. All right,
00:25:59 --> 00:26:03 go pick that up. It's excellent. It's not something
00:26:03 --> 00:26:05 you can really, when someone says, what's it
00:26:05 --> 00:26:10 about? Oh, it's about a 1920 coal mining union.
00:26:11 --> 00:26:13 you know, like a coal mining company and people
00:26:13 --> 00:26:16 trying to unionize. It's like, that doesn't sound
00:26:16 --> 00:26:18 very exciting. And it really doesn't, but it's
00:26:18 --> 00:26:21 so well done. It's so good. So that one I think
00:26:21 --> 00:26:22 stands out as something that surprised me. It
00:26:22 --> 00:26:25 was just an accident. Didn't surprise me. It
00:26:25 --> 00:26:29 more had me in awe of how that shit even got
00:26:29 --> 00:26:33 made. Just incredible. That director is amazing.
00:26:33 --> 00:26:36 Jafar Panayi, he's so good. So those two, it
00:26:36 --> 00:26:41 couldn't get further apart maybe in. style and
00:26:41 --> 00:26:44 subject matter but that's kind of the beauty
00:26:44 --> 00:26:46 of the collection there's something for everybody
00:26:46 --> 00:26:49 for me my biggest surprise was uh because again
00:26:49 --> 00:26:53 our homie earns i i when i picked up trouble
00:26:53 --> 00:26:54 in paradise i was so scared because i'm like
00:26:54 --> 00:26:57 the description sounds like something i would
00:26:57 --> 00:26:59 like but when you're watching movies from that
00:26:59 --> 00:27:04 era you're kind of like you're in a mindset that
00:27:04 --> 00:27:07 it's like, it has to be good. It has to be super
00:27:07 --> 00:27:09 funny. It has to be my girl Friday kind of type
00:27:09 --> 00:27:11 of movie. I was going to say like my knowledge
00:27:11 --> 00:27:15 on Mate One, which I thought it was called Mate
00:27:15 --> 00:27:18 One. And secondly, I thought it was Asian movie
00:27:18 --> 00:27:22 to begin with. So it blew my mind when you said
00:27:22 --> 00:27:24 it was Mate One and it's about coal miners in
00:27:24 --> 00:27:27 Virginia. I thought this was about somebody in
00:27:27 --> 00:27:31 Asia called Mate One. And that was my knowledge
00:27:31 --> 00:27:33 on that film. really surprised me. That's probably
00:27:33 --> 00:27:35 going to be a pickup that I do, which is going
00:27:35 --> 00:27:38 to be a big surprise. Maybe somebody, you know,
00:27:38 --> 00:27:42 Matawan, they think it's the next Star Wars sequel.
00:27:42 --> 00:27:44 It does sound. Yeah. Matewan. It's a town in
00:27:44 --> 00:27:47 West Virginia. Yeah. That would have been a surprise
00:27:47 --> 00:27:48 for me. I pop out the movie and all of a sudden
00:27:48 --> 00:27:50 they're speaking in English. I'm like, wait,
00:27:50 --> 00:27:52 where's Akira Kurosawa? I'm like, what the hell
00:27:52 --> 00:27:56 is going on here? Nope. What do you remember
00:27:56 --> 00:27:59 your first criterion that you collected? The
00:27:59 --> 00:28:03 first, yeah, I remember Flash Sale and the very
00:28:03 --> 00:28:05 first film that went into my cart was No Country
00:28:05 --> 00:28:09 for Old Men. It's just one of the best movies
00:28:09 --> 00:28:12 of my lifetime. Maybe one of the best movies
00:28:12 --> 00:28:15 ever. So that was the first thing in the cart.
00:28:15 --> 00:28:18 Easy choice. Yeah, that was a good year for the
00:28:18 --> 00:28:20 Oscars. I'm not going to lie. That was a very
00:28:20 --> 00:28:23 good year for the Oscars. Really good. Were there
00:28:23 --> 00:28:26 any releases that made you realize that criterion?
00:28:27 --> 00:28:30 Obviously, you deep dive into a lot of their
00:28:30 --> 00:28:33 supplementals, which is something that is also
00:28:33 --> 00:28:35 helpful when you have a podcast like yours. It
00:28:35 --> 00:28:38 does help you expand your knowledge on things.
00:28:38 --> 00:28:40 But was there something that you realized that
00:28:40 --> 00:28:44 Criterion might be different? I think they all
00:28:44 --> 00:28:47 do. I think the quality of the transfers are
00:28:47 --> 00:28:51 the top of the physical media game right now.
00:28:51 --> 00:28:54 The supplements are incredible. I'm going to
00:28:54 --> 00:28:57 sound like a... pretentious prick but the reading
00:28:57 --> 00:29:00 the essays I think lends itself like when you
00:29:00 --> 00:29:01 were talking about I'm not sure I feel about
00:29:01 --> 00:29:03 sentimental value I was going to recommend read
00:29:03 --> 00:29:06 the essay that comes with that because it really
00:29:06 --> 00:29:10 sheds a light on a different a differing perspective
00:29:10 --> 00:29:12 whether you agree with the perspective or not
00:29:12 --> 00:29:16 it's still good to get that other side of things
00:29:16 --> 00:29:18 or if you're like I don't get this that's kind
00:29:18 --> 00:29:21 of how I started with it and the inclusion of
00:29:21 --> 00:29:24 those even the packaging I think is great I love
00:29:24 --> 00:29:26 the art work on them i know they're not beautiful
00:29:26 --> 00:29:29 yeah but i know i know that other boutique labels
00:29:29 --> 00:29:33 have have great covers and great packaging and
00:29:33 --> 00:29:36 all of those things but i just feel like with
00:29:36 --> 00:29:40 the audio commentary the supplements the essays
00:29:40 --> 00:29:44 i feel like i went i've been in film school now
00:29:44 --> 00:29:46 since i started this podcast like i'm going to
00:29:46 --> 00:29:49 film school late in life because of the quality
00:29:49 --> 00:29:50 of what they're putting out the criterion if
00:29:50 --> 00:29:52 you're out there if you'd like to sponsor why
00:29:52 --> 00:29:55 this film Please reach out. They should. They
00:29:55 --> 00:29:57 should. I mean, there's people out there that
00:29:57 --> 00:30:01 do have to work, and they do it for maybe a 20
00:30:01 --> 00:30:04 -minute episode, 30 -minute episode. They get
00:30:04 --> 00:30:06 a different exposure, which is the big YouTube.
00:30:06 --> 00:30:09 And yes, Criterion, I know you're not listening,
00:30:09 --> 00:30:12 but if you are, you should sponsor. If you're
00:30:12 --> 00:30:16 out there. You got to do unboxing videos for
00:30:16 --> 00:30:18 Criterion, and that's how you get them. That's
00:30:18 --> 00:30:19 how they get ours. Yeah, that's how you get them.
00:30:19 --> 00:30:24 You get the attention by doing unboxing. Not
00:30:24 --> 00:30:29 my stuff. I do agree with the packaging for Supplemental
00:30:29 --> 00:30:32 Value. Jesus Christ. Supplemental Value. That
00:30:32 --> 00:30:34 is the new title of the movie, Supplemental Value.
00:30:34 --> 00:30:37 Yes. There are good supplements with it. Supplemental
00:30:37 --> 00:30:40 Value. I do agree that Supplemental Value has
00:30:40 --> 00:30:44 a great packaging, which again is... And I don't
00:30:44 --> 00:30:45 want to keep bringing it up every time I talk
00:30:45 --> 00:30:47 about Criterion. It's like, that's what I wanted
00:30:47 --> 00:30:49 for Eyes Wide Shut. That's what I'm hoping for
00:30:49 --> 00:30:52 Demon Hunters, too. Like, I feel like those films
00:30:52 --> 00:30:56 that we've been waiting for a while, that are
00:30:56 --> 00:30:59 big films, especially when you're now doing a
00:30:59 --> 00:31:02 whole box set for Kubrick, it's such a, like,
00:31:02 --> 00:31:04 yeah, that sentimental value has a beautiful,
00:31:04 --> 00:31:06 beautiful packaging. It's just as beautiful as
00:31:06 --> 00:31:10 Salo, you know? Oh, no. No, we're not talking
00:31:10 --> 00:31:13 about Salo today. When are you going to cover
00:31:13 --> 00:31:17 that on your podcast? May not. If someone picks
00:31:17 --> 00:31:19 it, I may politely ask if we could cover something
00:31:19 --> 00:31:22 else. Although, you know what? Let me take that
00:31:22 --> 00:31:26 back. Because sometimes people suggest they give
00:31:26 --> 00:31:30 me films to choose from. I'd like to cover any
00:31:30 --> 00:31:34 of these three. And I inevitably pick the one
00:31:34 --> 00:31:37 that is the least popular. Because I feel like
00:31:37 --> 00:31:40 it's easier, it would be a lot easier for me
00:31:40 --> 00:31:42 to find someone that's incredibly passionate
00:31:42 --> 00:31:45 about Eyes Wide Shut than it would be for me
00:31:45 --> 00:31:46 to find someone that's incredibly passionate
00:31:46 --> 00:31:51 about Mate One, something that's off the beaten
00:31:51 --> 00:31:53 path. So when someone says, I'd like to cover
00:31:53 --> 00:31:55 Mate One, or I'd like to cover the 39 Steps,
00:31:55 --> 00:31:57 a Hitchcock that nobody really talks about that
00:31:57 --> 00:32:01 often, I'm going to do that because it may be
00:32:01 --> 00:32:04 the only place that people can get that type
00:32:04 --> 00:32:09 of analysis without. critique it's it's a i'm
00:32:09 --> 00:32:11 supposed to be the dummy of the two people in
00:32:11 --> 00:32:13 the conversation i'm supposed to just ask the
00:32:13 --> 00:32:15 questions and then we all learn from the guest
00:32:15 --> 00:32:21 and so when you when you are curious about a
00:32:21 --> 00:32:25 certain film it may be the and it's off the beaten
00:32:25 --> 00:32:27 path nobody really talks about that often that
00:32:27 --> 00:32:29 podcast might be the only place that people can
00:32:29 --> 00:32:31 get the information about the 39 steps or mate
00:32:31 --> 00:32:34 one The film, obviously. Mate One, what actually
00:32:34 --> 00:32:37 happened. You can Google that yourself. But the
00:32:37 --> 00:32:39 deep dive of the film, it may not be anywhere.
00:32:40 --> 00:32:43 I hope there's not a bunch of deep dives into
00:32:43 --> 00:32:47 Solo. I think I heard one. That's how I brought
00:32:47 --> 00:32:49 it up, because I think I heard one. Well, they
00:32:49 --> 00:32:55 didn't cover Solo entirely. They covered... Because
00:32:55 --> 00:32:56 they were covering another movie and they kind
00:32:56 --> 00:33:00 of compared it to Solo. And I was like, that
00:33:00 --> 00:33:02 would be a great deep dive. But obviously, I
00:33:02 --> 00:33:08 saw the film and I do love Joan Waters and, you
00:33:08 --> 00:33:10 know, why he says it's such a great film. And
00:33:10 --> 00:33:13 I have to agree with him, with his point of view,
00:33:13 --> 00:33:16 not because I'm in a cult, but it's because I
00:33:16 --> 00:33:19 saw it from his perspective of why it's a great
00:33:19 --> 00:33:22 film. Do I love it? No. Do I find it disgusting?
00:33:23 --> 00:33:26 Entirely. It is still a film that I'm like, yeah,
00:33:27 --> 00:33:29 Criterion should have this in their collection.
00:33:29 --> 00:33:32 Like, it is a film that you're like, yeah, this
00:33:32 --> 00:33:34 belongs in the Criterion collection. Putting
00:33:34 --> 00:33:38 a spotlighting, you know, dictatorship and all
00:33:38 --> 00:33:42 that kind of stuff in a film just by doing this.
00:33:42 --> 00:33:47 disgusting stuff on film. It is very, very, how
00:33:47 --> 00:33:51 do you call that? Creative. It's very creative.
00:33:51 --> 00:33:53 And it's a pretty interesting film. That's all
00:33:53 --> 00:33:56 I got to say with Salo. I haven't seen Serbian
00:33:56 --> 00:33:58 film. Somebody says to watch Serbian film if
00:33:58 --> 00:34:00 I like Salo. I was like, I didn't say I liked
00:34:00 --> 00:34:02 it. I just said that it's an interesting film.
00:34:02 --> 00:34:06 Is there any other filmmaker that international
00:34:06 --> 00:34:10 or unknown filmmaker that the Criterion Collection
00:34:10 --> 00:34:16 has introduced you to? I think most of any of
00:34:16 --> 00:34:19 the French filmmakers, name them, any French
00:34:19 --> 00:34:21 New Wave. I mean, come on. I'm growing up watching
00:34:21 --> 00:34:24 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. And we were talking
00:34:24 --> 00:34:26 earlier about some of these era releases. Spawn.
00:34:27 --> 00:34:29 Like I'm watching things like that. I'm watching
00:34:29 --> 00:34:31 old superhero movies as a kid. I'm not watching
00:34:31 --> 00:34:33 French New Wave. And I'm definitely not watching
00:34:33 --> 00:34:35 that in college. I'm watching Anchorman and The
00:34:35 --> 00:34:37 Big Lebowski and 40 -Year -Old Virgin. That's
00:34:37 --> 00:34:40 the stuff that we're watching. in the door i'm
00:34:40 --> 00:34:43 just not i was never exposed to any of these
00:34:43 --> 00:34:45 french filmmakers whether it be gadar whether
00:34:45 --> 00:34:50 it be melville whether it be um jacques becker
00:34:50 --> 00:34:53 which was the he was the director of of grisby
00:34:53 --> 00:34:56 like any of the french filmmakers being exposed
00:34:56 --> 00:34:58 to them and then getting different differing
00:34:58 --> 00:35:02 perspectives and learning from the guests about
00:35:02 --> 00:35:04 these french filmmakers that's a big one and
00:35:04 --> 00:35:07 obviously the lesser -known kurosawa films i
00:35:07 --> 00:35:10 mean sudden samurai i'd heard of watched okay
00:35:10 --> 00:35:12 high and low okay i'm not watching them at the
00:35:12 --> 00:35:16 right time in my life now watching them you're
00:35:16 --> 00:35:17 a little older you've seen a little more and
00:35:17 --> 00:35:20 you're looking at things from a different perspective
00:35:20 --> 00:35:25 hopefully a more mature perspective they hit
00:35:25 --> 00:35:28 you differently at this time in life if you try
00:35:28 --> 00:35:30 to introduce me to jean lucadar whenever i was
00:35:30 --> 00:35:32 14, I'd be like, what the hell is this shit?
00:35:33 --> 00:35:35 Why are you making me watch this? I probably
00:35:35 --> 00:35:37 wouldn't have even finished some of the things
00:35:37 --> 00:35:39 because I'm not smart enough to understand like,
00:35:40 --> 00:35:43 oh, this is interesting. You just don't have
00:35:43 --> 00:35:45 the life experience, I don't think. I think if
00:35:45 --> 00:35:47 any 14 -year -old out there is watching a dart
00:35:47 --> 00:35:50 and is loving it, good for them. It just wasn't
00:35:50 --> 00:35:52 what I was enjoying whenever I was growing up.
00:35:53 --> 00:35:56 Yeah, I still have a bit of difficulty enjoying
00:35:56 --> 00:36:01 Jean -Luc. I don't... hate the films. They're
00:36:01 --> 00:36:06 not necessarily for me. I do enjoy Roemer much
00:36:06 --> 00:36:12 more than I do Goddard, but I feel like my relationship
00:36:12 --> 00:36:16 with Goddard is kind of similar. I wouldn't even
00:36:16 --> 00:36:18 say similar. I feel like with Chantal Ackerman,
00:36:18 --> 00:36:22 which is, there's something in her films that
00:36:22 --> 00:36:25 I love. It's like watching a car accident. You
00:36:25 --> 00:36:29 can't look away. But yet, you know, it's bad
00:36:29 --> 00:36:33 that it happened. If that makes sense. She has
00:36:33 --> 00:36:36 these films, the one with the hotel that she's
00:36:36 --> 00:36:41 just recording throughout the hotel. And there's
00:36:41 --> 00:36:43 something about that film. Like I sat down and
00:36:43 --> 00:36:45 I watched it and nothing really happens. It's
00:36:45 --> 00:36:48 just, you see the elevator, you see the room,
00:36:48 --> 00:36:50 you see the people outside in the lobby, you
00:36:50 --> 00:36:53 see the dirty carpets. But there's something
00:36:53 --> 00:36:55 about it that you just can't look away. There's
00:36:55 --> 00:36:58 no conversations, by the way. I think you just
00:36:58 --> 00:37:02 hear background talk. And then Letters from Home
00:37:02 --> 00:37:04 or Letters from My Mother. I might be confusing
00:37:04 --> 00:37:06 because I have the book as well. But I believe
00:37:06 --> 00:37:09 the movie is called Letters from Home when her
00:37:09 --> 00:37:11 mom is sending her letters and she's just reading
00:37:11 --> 00:37:13 them and she's just going through New York and
00:37:13 --> 00:37:16 all this kind of stuff. And then it just ends
00:37:16 --> 00:37:20 in the ferry leaving Manhattan. There's not much
00:37:20 --> 00:37:24 of the film. To really say, oh my God, like I
00:37:24 --> 00:37:28 love the screenplay, but I do love watching,
00:37:28 --> 00:37:33 there's a scene in the subway that you have this
00:37:33 --> 00:37:37 Black people dressed up in like that 70s attire.
00:37:37 --> 00:37:40 And it just, it's just a moment in history, at
00:37:40 --> 00:37:42 least for New York, where I'm in the New York
00:37:42 --> 00:37:46 City area. You kind of like, you've seen pictures
00:37:46 --> 00:37:49 of the city in that time. You know what 42nd
00:37:49 --> 00:37:52 Street was back in the day. But then seeing that
00:37:52 --> 00:37:54 in movement, seeing that in a film, and she's
00:37:54 --> 00:37:56 not recording actors. She's literally just recording
00:37:56 --> 00:38:00 people that are in the subway. A lot of her films,
00:38:00 --> 00:38:03 it's just people that are generally just passing
00:38:03 --> 00:38:06 by, having real life reactions. Like, why is
00:38:06 --> 00:38:09 this bitch up in my face with this camera? And
00:38:09 --> 00:38:10 you can see it when the Black people are like
00:38:10 --> 00:38:13 looking at her recording them. I'm like, girl,
00:38:13 --> 00:38:16 run. But they're all dressed up in this Sunday
00:38:16 --> 00:38:19 clothes and all that kind of stuff. And some
00:38:19 --> 00:38:21 people that are just dressed up in that 70s outfit
00:38:21 --> 00:38:25 type. I'm like, this is raw footage of a moment
00:38:25 --> 00:38:27 in history. And that's the only thing I liked
00:38:27 --> 00:38:31 about some of her films that are not on Jean
00:38:31 --> 00:38:35 Doman or Rendezvous Anna. Like those films have
00:38:35 --> 00:38:39 a plot. Those films, they have a dialogue between
00:38:39 --> 00:38:43 actors and it's not just raw people, raw reactions
00:38:43 --> 00:38:47 and going through dampy hotels. Because I would
00:38:47 --> 00:38:48 say the one from the hotel, and I'm going to
00:38:48 --> 00:38:50 send you the title. I don't know if you have
00:38:50 --> 00:38:54 her collection. I could smell that hotel. That's
00:38:54 --> 00:39:00 how good the film is capturing. I wish it would
00:39:00 --> 00:39:02 have had a little bit more sound. I feel like
00:39:02 --> 00:39:05 that's what I wrote. As a critique for the film,
00:39:05 --> 00:39:08 which I wish the film had a little bit more sound
00:39:08 --> 00:39:10 design. Obviously, this is not something she's
00:39:10 --> 00:39:13 probably thinking. It is very atmospheric. I
00:39:13 --> 00:39:16 could literally just put that film and just let
00:39:16 --> 00:39:19 it play as a background. Because, I don't know,
00:39:19 --> 00:39:23 her directing is so weird. And I feel like that
00:39:23 --> 00:39:27 is my love -hate relationship with her. Because
00:39:27 --> 00:39:31 I'm like, why are you making this? But you did
00:39:31 --> 00:39:34 it and I'm watching it and I hate myself for
00:39:34 --> 00:39:38 it. But now I like it. I'd like to say that a
00:39:38 --> 00:39:40 lot of these films, it's like going to a museum.
00:39:41 --> 00:39:42 You can appreciate the art, but you don't have
00:39:42 --> 00:39:44 to love everything. Like not everything has to
00:39:44 --> 00:39:46 click with you. Just because a guest was on the
00:39:46 --> 00:39:48 show doesn't mean that it's now, these are my
00:39:48 --> 00:39:53 top 15 favorite films. No, it's like, I love
00:39:53 --> 00:39:56 some, I like some, I don't like some, but I respect
00:39:56 --> 00:39:59 all of them. I respect how they all were made.
00:39:59 --> 00:40:00 Just like if you were going to a museum, I can't
00:40:00 --> 00:40:03 do that shit. But I think some of it's ugly.
00:40:04 --> 00:40:07 That's a personal opinion. But I respect the
00:40:07 --> 00:40:09 talent that goes into making it. That's kind
00:40:09 --> 00:40:10 of where I've settled on the things that I don't
00:40:10 --> 00:40:13 like. Instead of being a dick and going on Letterboxd
00:40:13 --> 00:40:15 and being like, half a star, what is this garbage?
00:40:16 --> 00:40:18 It's like, that's not an analysis. That's not
00:40:18 --> 00:40:20 an appreciation of the art form. That's just
00:40:20 --> 00:40:23 you being an asshole is really all that that
00:40:23 --> 00:40:26 is, in my opinion. Like have a real opinion with
00:40:26 --> 00:40:30 some analysis behind it. Yeah. Like, did I enjoy
00:40:30 --> 00:40:34 this? No, I didn't. And here's why. But I get
00:40:34 --> 00:40:37 it. That's somebody's baby. You have no idea
00:40:37 --> 00:40:39 what goes into making a film. And there's a lot
00:40:39 --> 00:40:41 that goes into it. There's a lot that had to
00:40:41 --> 00:40:44 go right. Yeah. Not everything has to be for
00:40:44 --> 00:40:47 you. The people who criticize the Mona Lisa and
00:40:47 --> 00:40:50 I'm like, but can you make it? Like, I'm not
00:40:50 --> 00:40:52 saying it's the best painting out there, but
00:40:52 --> 00:40:56 can you make it? But has Criterion also changed
00:40:56 --> 00:41:00 the way that you would probably classify a film
00:41:00 --> 00:41:05 as a great film? Yeah, I mean, I used to just
00:41:05 --> 00:41:07 look at the box office numbers and assume that
00:41:07 --> 00:41:09 the film must be good if people are going to
00:41:09 --> 00:41:13 see it, which take any superhero film from the
00:41:13 --> 00:41:17 last five years, maybe. You can poke holes in
00:41:17 --> 00:41:20 that theory. It's helped me to learn to appreciate
00:41:20 --> 00:41:25 the art of film and storytelling as opposed to,
00:41:25 --> 00:41:27 well, did anyone go see it? Like relying on other
00:41:27 --> 00:41:30 people's opinions to form my opinion before I
00:41:30 --> 00:41:32 go. Similar to what you're saying about Letterboxd.
00:41:32 --> 00:41:33 If you go to Letterboxd and you see a rating,
00:41:33 --> 00:41:36 oh, this is supposed to be good. Well, just why
00:41:36 --> 00:41:37 don't you just watch it without you looking at
00:41:37 --> 00:41:39 your phone first and then form an opinion and
00:41:39 --> 00:41:41 then go see if people agree or disagree with
00:41:41 --> 00:41:43 you. And then have arguments with people you
00:41:43 --> 00:41:46 don't know online. on Letterboxd if you so choose
00:41:46 --> 00:41:51 to. But yeah, I think it's made me more patient,
00:41:51 --> 00:41:55 not jumping to a conclusion as soon as the film
00:41:55 --> 00:41:57 is over, sitting and thinking about something
00:41:57 --> 00:42:01 longer and forming an opinion. Sometimes it changes,
00:42:01 --> 00:42:03 sometimes it doesn't. The good thing about the
00:42:03 --> 00:42:06 Criterion Collection is that you might not know
00:42:06 --> 00:42:09 why a film was made, but then you go watch the
00:42:09 --> 00:42:13 supplementals and interviews, and you're like,
00:42:13 --> 00:42:16 oh. Okay, now I get it. Now I know why it was
00:42:16 --> 00:42:21 made. Now I know why maybe when this film was
00:42:21 --> 00:42:24 made, this was, I don't know, a political statement.
00:42:25 --> 00:42:32 This was a social movement. I feel like you need
00:42:32 --> 00:42:34 that in some films, not all films, because some
00:42:34 --> 00:42:37 films are just black and white. I know they did
00:42:37 --> 00:42:38 this because they needed to make money for the
00:42:38 --> 00:42:42 studio. But some of these films... Some of these
00:42:42 --> 00:42:46 films we find and we love decades, centuries
00:42:46 --> 00:42:50 after. And they were either a flop or just not
00:42:50 --> 00:42:53 known. Crash, not the shitty award winner. I'm
00:42:53 --> 00:42:56 talking about Crash from Cronenberg. I watched
00:42:56 --> 00:42:58 that film and I couldn't look away. And that's
00:42:58 --> 00:43:00 literally a car accident that I could not look
00:43:00 --> 00:43:03 away. And what do you mean they're fucking cars?
00:43:03 --> 00:43:05 When somebody asked me, what is Crash about?
00:43:05 --> 00:43:09 I was like, well, they fuck cars. What do you
00:43:09 --> 00:43:10 mean? I was like, well, they get turned on by
00:43:10 --> 00:43:13 cars and they're like, or by accidents and stuff
00:43:13 --> 00:43:16 like that. And they're like, oh, that's an interesting
00:43:16 --> 00:43:18 concept. I'm like, well, no, it's just Cronenberg.
00:43:18 --> 00:43:23 You know, it's very simple. Some people get turned
00:43:23 --> 00:43:25 on by violence. Other people get turned on by
00:43:25 --> 00:43:27 accidents. You know, shit happens. You don't
00:43:27 --> 00:43:30 know people's psychology. But, you know, that
00:43:30 --> 00:43:35 is a movie that is, I think it was. bombarded
00:43:35 --> 00:43:39 with horrible reviews when it came out. And now,
00:43:40 --> 00:43:43 I wouldn't say it's my favorite Cronenberg, but
00:43:43 --> 00:43:45 it's, I would say The Brood is probably my least
00:43:45 --> 00:43:48 favorite Cronenberg. But I feel like Crash is
00:43:48 --> 00:43:53 one that I see from a different perspective.
00:43:54 --> 00:43:57 when I watch it, because I'm like, this doesn't
00:43:57 --> 00:43:59 identify me. I'm not turned on by this kind of
00:43:59 --> 00:44:02 stuff. But it's the same way when I saw Hysteria
00:44:02 --> 00:44:03 of Violence the first time, and I mentioned that
00:44:03 --> 00:44:06 before. I hated the film when I first watched
00:44:06 --> 00:44:09 it. I bought it again, and the first time I watched
00:44:09 --> 00:44:11 it, I thought it was a two -hour song. It's only
00:44:11 --> 00:44:13 an hour and 28 minutes. That's how bored I was
00:44:13 --> 00:44:15 the first time. And when I watched it this time,
00:44:16 --> 00:44:17 I was like, oh man, I hope this film doesn't
00:44:17 --> 00:44:21 end, because it's so good. The film is so good
00:44:21 --> 00:44:26 and it's so provocative. awkward ways. And I
00:44:26 --> 00:44:29 feel like that's what Cronenberg does. He brings
00:44:29 --> 00:44:31 out a sentiment in you that you're like, why
00:44:31 --> 00:44:33 am I having these feelings? Why am I turned on
00:44:33 --> 00:44:37 by a video? It's just a weird concept. It's a
00:44:37 --> 00:44:39 tale as old as time where a movie doesn't do
00:44:39 --> 00:44:41 well in the box office and then it's relitigated
00:44:41 --> 00:44:43 much later. I know I've talked about the latest
00:44:43 --> 00:44:45 episode that I just recorded, Mate One. It did
00:44:45 --> 00:44:48 not make as much money as it took to make the
00:44:48 --> 00:44:51 film and it was a low budget film. And now it's
00:44:51 --> 00:44:53 in the Library of Congress. And it's recognized
00:44:53 --> 00:44:57 as a great film. So you can't just base it off
00:44:57 --> 00:45:00 of what other people are saying about it in the
00:45:00 --> 00:45:02 moment. Sometimes things get better with time.
00:45:03 --> 00:45:09 I totally agree. Like my patients. I have none.
00:45:09 --> 00:45:12 Do you think your taste in film has evolved?
00:45:12 --> 00:45:15 Because I know you mentioned you watching Ninja
00:45:15 --> 00:45:19 Turtles and watching Spawn. I just watched TMNT
00:45:19 --> 00:45:22 2 last night. So yeah, that part of me, it hasn't
00:45:22 --> 00:45:25 died yet. So you asked if my taste has evolved.
00:45:25 --> 00:45:29 I think it has. I think age helps. I'll be 40
00:45:29 --> 00:45:34 very soon. And the love for that, or the feeling
00:45:34 --> 00:45:36 of, holy shit, that was incredible when a movie
00:45:36 --> 00:45:38 ends, happens less and less the more you watch,
00:45:38 --> 00:45:42 I think. There's a formula to some movies where
00:45:42 --> 00:45:43 you're like, okay, I know where this is going.
00:45:44 --> 00:45:46 Not all the time when you watch Criterion do
00:45:46 --> 00:45:51 films follow a similar... I wouldn't say my taste
00:45:51 --> 00:45:55 is better. I'd say it's expanded. It's allowed
00:45:55 --> 00:45:58 me to give lesser -known filmmakers and foreign
00:45:58 --> 00:46:03 films more of my time instead of always watching
00:46:03 --> 00:46:05 the same films over and over again like I did
00:46:05 --> 00:46:07 in college. Basically, I had three or four films
00:46:07 --> 00:46:09 that would just be in a rotation. Yeah, that
00:46:09 --> 00:46:11 reminds me of my rumor that I used to watch Buffy
00:46:11 --> 00:46:13 the Vampire Slayer over and over like it would
00:46:13 --> 00:46:17 literally end the series, play Angel, and then
00:46:17 --> 00:46:20 restart back with Buffy. And I'm like, dude,
00:46:20 --> 00:46:22 do you not get tired of that? But then again,
00:46:22 --> 00:46:24 I watched Eyes Wide Shut and Sex and the City
00:46:24 --> 00:46:27 every Saturday. But I'm talking about Sex and
00:46:27 --> 00:46:30 the City the movie. Somebody pointed out, are
00:46:30 --> 00:46:33 you posting the same picture every Saturday of
00:46:33 --> 00:46:36 the pumpkin pie and Sex and the City the movie?
00:46:36 --> 00:46:38 I was like, no. Why? He's like, because every
00:46:38 --> 00:46:41 Saturday you post a picture of Sex and the City
00:46:41 --> 00:46:44 the movie and a pumpkin pie every Saturday. And
00:46:44 --> 00:46:47 I'm like, oh, yeah. I'm like, yeah, that's what
00:46:47 --> 00:46:49 I do on Saturdays. I buy a pumpkin pie, you know,
00:46:49 --> 00:46:52 and I watch Sex and the Citizen movie. He's like,
00:46:52 --> 00:46:54 every Saturday, I'm like, well, I guess there's
00:46:54 --> 00:46:57 52 Saturdays in a year. So only for 52 days.
00:46:58 --> 00:47:01 Live your life, man. I mean, I don't have much
00:47:01 --> 00:47:02 going for me. And now you're pointing the one
00:47:02 --> 00:47:05 thing that makes me happy. Jesus Christ. If he's
00:47:05 --> 00:47:07 thinking that, I can only imagine everybody else
00:47:07 --> 00:47:11 on Instagram, what they're saying. Do you think
00:47:11 --> 00:47:13 that every release that Criterion has done, is
00:47:13 --> 00:47:16 there a movie in the Criterion collection that
00:47:16 --> 00:47:18 you think doesn't deserve to be there? According
00:47:18 --> 00:47:20 to them, it's deserving. Just like any other
00:47:20 --> 00:47:24 curation of films, some you love, some you don't.
00:47:24 --> 00:47:27 I think, like I said earlier, when you go to
00:47:27 --> 00:47:29 an art museum, do you love every piece of art
00:47:29 --> 00:47:31 you see? No, but there's an appreciation for
00:47:31 --> 00:47:35 the art form itself. I think you'd have to ask
00:47:35 --> 00:47:38 Ashley Clark. Ashley Clark is the curator for
00:47:38 --> 00:47:39 the Criterion Collection, who I'd love to have
00:47:39 --> 00:47:41 on the show at some point. That would be great.
00:47:41 --> 00:47:43 He actually, I did reach out to him. He did respond
00:47:43 --> 00:47:45 and say he's marketing a book. He can't join
00:47:45 --> 00:47:47 now. So I'm going to bug him again at another
00:47:47 --> 00:47:51 time. But I think they're choosing things for
00:47:51 --> 00:47:55 a reason. And part of the show or the basis of
00:47:55 --> 00:47:58 the show is to explore what those reasons might
00:47:58 --> 00:48:02 be. So who are we to say whether something is
00:48:02 --> 00:48:04 deserving or not? And that's kind of another
00:48:04 --> 00:48:06 part of it, too. It's kind of a positive show,
00:48:07 --> 00:48:09 I think. Not one of us are sitting there saying,
00:48:09 --> 00:48:11 well, I disagree. I think this movie is shit
00:48:11 --> 00:48:14 and it shouldn't be in. Well, I'm just a random
00:48:14 --> 00:48:17 dude. So who cares what I have to say? It's more
00:48:17 --> 00:48:21 of an exploration of why it is not why it is
00:48:21 --> 00:48:23 not litigating, whether it should be or not.
00:48:24 --> 00:48:27 And again, take this as a compliment. You have
00:48:27 --> 00:48:33 the child curiosity of why and. You keep asking
00:48:33 --> 00:48:36 the why and not necessarily like literally asking
00:48:36 --> 00:48:38 the why. You phrase the questions and stuff like
00:48:38 --> 00:48:41 that until you get down to the bottom of why
00:48:41 --> 00:48:44 this film deserves to be there. But you do have
00:48:44 --> 00:48:47 the childlike curiosity when you go into the
00:48:47 --> 00:48:49 movie, when you have your guests, you're not
00:48:49 --> 00:48:54 there putting or submitting them to your point
00:48:54 --> 00:48:57 of view, which is something a lot of people do.
00:48:57 --> 00:49:01 And you're there to get to know why. this film
00:49:01 --> 00:49:05 means so much to them, why they think this film
00:49:05 --> 00:49:08 should be there. And I don't even think it's
00:49:08 --> 00:49:10 them defending why this film should be in the
00:49:10 --> 00:49:13 criterion collection. I think it's just more
00:49:13 --> 00:49:15 of an explanation why it's in the criterion collection
00:49:15 --> 00:49:17 and it deserves to be there, which again, it
00:49:17 --> 00:49:21 could be a very. thin line of you submitting
00:49:21 --> 00:49:25 them to your thought. You're in my podcast. You're
00:49:25 --> 00:49:27 going to tell me I'm right, you're wrong. No,
00:49:27 --> 00:49:30 that is not the fact. You don't try to derail
00:49:30 --> 00:49:33 the conversation that way. As a matter of fact,
00:49:33 --> 00:49:36 it does have an easy flow. I think the 49 step
00:49:36 --> 00:49:39 one, the 49 step, the 39 steps, I just added
00:49:39 --> 00:49:42 10 more. Poor guy's going to keep walking. By
00:49:42 --> 00:49:45 the way, the film is not about him walking. It's
00:49:45 --> 00:49:47 not about steps. Is that, is that about steps?
00:49:47 --> 00:49:50 But the thing is that you adapt yourself into
00:49:50 --> 00:49:54 what the person is saying and some of the questions
00:49:54 --> 00:49:58 and in the 39 steps was one of the examples where
00:49:58 --> 00:50:01 you said you had written down some stuff and
00:50:01 --> 00:50:05 he answered that before you even got to that
00:50:05 --> 00:50:09 point. And that is a good way that the conversation
00:50:09 --> 00:50:11 kind of already goes into something that you
00:50:11 --> 00:50:14 yourself did research on. Because you might go
00:50:14 --> 00:50:17 in without not knowing much of this film. And
00:50:17 --> 00:50:21 then you kind of get that, oh, okay, so what
00:50:21 --> 00:50:23 I researched, what I thought of the film, this
00:50:23 --> 00:50:27 person is kind of confirming the, say, quote
00:50:27 --> 00:50:30 unquote, knowledge of the film. Because again,
00:50:30 --> 00:50:32 you say you're the dumb one. You say you're the
00:50:32 --> 00:50:37 dumb one. You go in with a curiosity. they explain
00:50:37 --> 00:50:39 to you why this film deserves to be there so
00:50:39 --> 00:50:42 i i i gotta give you again kudos and praise on
00:50:42 --> 00:50:47 that because it is a very easy flowing conversation
00:50:47 --> 00:50:50 yeah it's not an interrogation it's not why it's
00:50:50 --> 00:50:53 not show up and defend i don't necessarily know
00:50:53 --> 00:50:56 what to post as short form content because it's
00:50:56 --> 00:50:59 hard to be mid -conversation in the middle of
00:50:59 --> 00:51:01 a film and then you pull out a 30 to 40 second
00:51:01 --> 00:51:04 clip out of context on instagram or tick tock
00:51:04 --> 00:51:06 or whatever People don't know what the hell you're
00:51:06 --> 00:51:08 talking about. So what I've done is I've clipped
00:51:08 --> 00:51:10 the last question. Why this film? Why is it a
00:51:10 --> 00:51:11 service place in the Criterion Collection? And
00:51:11 --> 00:51:14 then they answer. And because it's short form
00:51:14 --> 00:51:16 and you didn't just hear the previous hour -long
00:51:16 --> 00:51:18 conversation, the comments I've received were,
00:51:18 --> 00:51:21 how is this even a question? Offended that I'm
00:51:21 --> 00:51:24 even questioning it. But in reality, what I'm
00:51:24 --> 00:51:26 really doing is I'm shining a light on a film
00:51:26 --> 00:51:30 that has very little light shown onto it in a
00:51:30 --> 00:51:32 lot of respects. So people come after me sometimes
00:51:32 --> 00:51:34 with like, I can't believe you're even asking
00:51:34 --> 00:51:37 this. The idea of the podcast is to explore the
00:51:37 --> 00:51:39 positive parts of this and talk to somebody that
00:51:39 --> 00:51:42 has a passion about it. I'm not questioning it.
00:51:42 --> 00:51:45 Even though it is a question at the end, I'm
00:51:45 --> 00:51:49 not questioning its place is a better way to
00:51:49 --> 00:51:52 put it maybe. You really can't question much
00:51:52 --> 00:51:56 for the hardcore, like what I always say, Criterion
00:51:56 --> 00:51:58 Bros. You can't really question anything when
00:51:58 --> 00:52:02 it comes to Criterion. I'm like, no, I do. And
00:52:02 --> 00:52:06 I will keep saying they do work a lot with other
00:52:06 --> 00:52:09 companies. And if I see it on Criterion coming
00:52:09 --> 00:52:11 out, I'm like, I'll wait for the course on. So
00:52:11 --> 00:52:14 you can have your criticism on Criterion. You
00:52:14 --> 00:52:16 can have your criticisms on a Criterion film.
00:52:17 --> 00:52:20 And you don't do it in a disrespectful way either.
00:52:21 --> 00:52:24 Gotcha. Like this shouldn't be here. This film
00:52:24 --> 00:52:27 sucks. You know, you, you are very respectful
00:52:27 --> 00:52:30 and you're feeding that, that curiosity you have.
00:52:30 --> 00:52:33 And some people cannot respect that. There's
00:52:33 --> 00:52:35 enough negativity out there about, I mean, look
00:52:35 --> 00:52:38 at the Odyssey right now. There are people who
00:52:38 --> 00:52:40 are just like, it's almost like a contrarian
00:52:40 --> 00:52:42 opinion just to have a contrarian opinion. It's
00:52:42 --> 00:52:44 like, well, I'm not trying to necessarily get
00:52:44 --> 00:52:46 kind of, it's a podcast and I would like people
00:52:46 --> 00:52:49 to listen to it, but I'm not going to have provocative
00:52:49 --> 00:52:51 opinions just so people. click on my profile.
00:52:51 --> 00:52:53 That's not the way I'm going to do things. So
00:52:53 --> 00:52:55 I'm just going to be curious and just keep asking
00:52:55 --> 00:52:57 questions and talk to people about what they're
00:52:57 --> 00:52:59 passionate about. Yeah. I tell people if you
00:52:59 --> 00:53:01 want to, I mean, not necessarily that way, but
00:53:01 --> 00:53:02 if you want to talk straight, come over here.
00:53:02 --> 00:53:07 I'm not sponsored by anybody. I would say Criterion
00:53:07 --> 00:53:11 would at least be one that it can really push
00:53:11 --> 00:53:16 in the sense of it's educational. It does have
00:53:16 --> 00:53:19 great supplementals and they really... care whether
00:53:19 --> 00:53:21 they're collabing with any other company to bring
00:53:21 --> 00:53:24 this out because they're basically the distributors
00:53:24 --> 00:53:27 here in the U .S. Coruscant is not. But I have
00:53:27 --> 00:53:31 one more question, which is what film would you
00:53:31 --> 00:53:34 love to see join the Criterion Collection? This
00:53:34 --> 00:53:37 is a basic answer, but you know what? I don't
00:53:37 --> 00:53:40 care. I don't care. I don't care. Oh, Spawn.
00:53:40 --> 00:53:44 Spawn is terrible and I love it so much. The
00:53:44 --> 00:53:47 basic answer. It's the big Lebowski. Like that
00:53:47 --> 00:53:49 shit would sell out so quickly for them. They
00:53:49 --> 00:53:50 already have a bunch of Coen Brothers films in
00:53:50 --> 00:53:53 there. Just throw that one in there too. Or Fargo.
00:53:53 --> 00:53:55 Just give me the Coen Brothers everything. Give
00:53:55 --> 00:53:58 me the box set. Give me all the singular releases.
00:53:58 --> 00:54:01 Just give me any Coen Brothers I can get my hands
00:54:01 --> 00:54:03 on. They're so popular and they're films that
00:54:03 --> 00:54:07 are accessible for people that maybe don't want
00:54:07 --> 00:54:10 to watch French New Wave. Maybe people that are
00:54:10 --> 00:54:12 just getting into it are not going to show up
00:54:12 --> 00:54:15 to. a sale or have a flash sale on their website
00:54:15 --> 00:54:16 and pick up all the french do wave if they've
00:54:16 --> 00:54:19 never seen anything like that before so it's
00:54:19 --> 00:54:20 like a if you want a gateway for people to get
00:54:20 --> 00:54:24 into some things something mainstream like that
00:54:24 --> 00:54:27 i mean that would be a great box set i i hate
00:54:27 --> 00:54:31 the anderson box set is stupid but i do i i feel
00:54:31 --> 00:54:33 like with the coen brothers they could do an
00:54:33 --> 00:54:35 amazing box that's why i was trembling when i
00:54:35 --> 00:54:37 saw the kubrick one because i was like oh they
00:54:37 --> 00:54:40 would have up this so easily but they did a great
00:54:40 --> 00:54:43 job and i saw the um Yeah, there's a video on
00:54:43 --> 00:54:45 YouTube. I don't know if you've seen it, where
00:54:45 --> 00:54:49 the creator for the box set is talking about
00:54:49 --> 00:54:51 it. I just saw it today, yeah. Oh my God, that
00:54:51 --> 00:54:53 is such a beautiful, like, and then the, again,
00:54:53 --> 00:54:54 that is the good thing about Criterion. It's
00:54:54 --> 00:54:57 like, oh, we went through his files and stuff
00:54:57 --> 00:55:00 and all this, and this is how we came up with
00:55:00 --> 00:55:03 this box. You are getting that more and more
00:55:03 --> 00:55:06 now from other boutiques that are popping out.
00:55:08 --> 00:55:10 I'm going to ask you some quick round fire shots
00:55:10 --> 00:55:12 over here. This is going to be the criterion
00:55:12 --> 00:55:15 test for you. Let's see how much you've learned
00:55:15 --> 00:55:17 from your guest. I know this has nothing to do
00:55:17 --> 00:55:19 with the podcast. It's just more about you and
00:55:19 --> 00:55:22 your criterion passion. What has been your biggest
00:55:22 --> 00:55:27 blind buy success? I'm going to cheat. I have
00:55:27 --> 00:55:33 two. Tampopo. Tampopo kicks ass. I love it. It's
00:55:33 --> 00:55:36 one of my favorite movies right now. And Sorcerer.
00:55:37 --> 00:55:39 I had never seen Sorcerer. I had not seen Wages
00:55:39 --> 00:55:42 of Fear either, so don't at me. I haven't seen
00:55:42 --> 00:55:44 Wages of Fear, but I did buy Sorcerer, and now
00:55:44 --> 00:55:47 it's just like jaw on the floor. That movie is
00:55:47 --> 00:55:49 awesome. And it looks beautiful too. It does
00:55:49 --> 00:55:50 look beautiful. Yeah, it does look beautiful.
00:55:51 --> 00:55:54 Tanpopo, my partner, loves ramen. Oh, dude, I
00:55:54 --> 00:55:57 love Tanpopo. I have to buy that damn film now.
00:55:57 --> 00:56:00 I love it. Have you seen it? No, but I keep hearing
00:56:00 --> 00:56:03 about it. It's awesome. Yeah, a lot of people
00:56:03 --> 00:56:06 recommend Tanpopo. I love it. It's so strange
00:56:06 --> 00:56:11 and awesome. Biggest criterion regret. Oh boy.
00:56:11 --> 00:56:15 The Beastie Boys video anthology. I thought it
00:56:15 --> 00:56:16 was a movie. I know. I don't want to buy it because
00:56:16 --> 00:56:18 I don't like the Beastie Boys too much. I love,
00:56:18 --> 00:56:20 well, okay. I should qualify this by saying I
00:56:20 --> 00:56:22 do love, I actually love the Beastie Boys. I
00:56:22 --> 00:56:26 think they're great, but do I need a criterion
00:56:26 --> 00:56:28 release of all their music videos? No, not, I
00:56:28 --> 00:56:33 don't, but I have it, you know, whatever. And
00:56:33 --> 00:56:36 what's the most underrated Criterion in your
00:56:36 --> 00:56:40 opinion? No one seems to talk about, I mentioned
00:56:40 --> 00:56:42 John Sayles a few times. No one seems to talk
00:56:42 --> 00:56:46 about Sayles. I highly recommend Lone Star. If
00:56:46 --> 00:56:48 you've not seen Lone Star, no one talks about
00:56:48 --> 00:56:51 it. It's like, oh, the cover's cool. So people
00:56:51 --> 00:56:54 pick it up. I mostly see the big names from Criterion
00:56:54 --> 00:56:57 and his name, Sayles' name is sometimes left
00:56:57 --> 00:57:01 out of great directors for some reason. And he
00:57:01 --> 00:57:03 could have only made Lone Star and Mate One and
00:57:03 --> 00:57:06 he would be a legend in my mind. So I highly
00:57:06 --> 00:57:09 recommend if you haven't seen Lone Star to check
00:57:09 --> 00:57:11 out Lone Star. And which one do you think is
00:57:11 --> 00:57:13 the most overrated and why is it Barry Lyndon?
00:57:14 --> 00:57:16 Oh, see, I've heard you talk about this before.
00:57:17 --> 00:57:19 This is tough for me because like we've established
00:57:19 --> 00:57:26 that every film has its own merit. And when you
00:57:26 --> 00:57:29 have a divisive opinion, it pisses people off.
00:57:29 --> 00:57:31 So I'm going to say something. that people might
00:57:31 --> 00:57:33 not be happy about. It's fine. It's my podcast.
00:57:33 --> 00:57:35 They're never happy. But that's okay. There are
00:57:35 --> 00:57:39 some films, like, does every single Cronenberg
00:57:39 --> 00:57:41 need to be in the criteria collection? I agree.
00:57:41 --> 00:57:44 I love the guy. Could we pick and choose? I did
00:57:44 --> 00:57:46 just make the case for all the Coen brothers.
00:57:46 --> 00:57:49 But, like, maybe does The Brood need its own
00:57:49 --> 00:57:52 release? It's cool. I liked it. But, like, Cronenberg
00:57:52 --> 00:57:56 box set would be actually pretty neat. But every
00:57:56 --> 00:57:59 individual release, maybe it's just not for me,
00:58:00 --> 00:58:02 I would say. So when people talk about how much
00:58:02 --> 00:58:04 they love certain Cronenberg, I'm like, OK, that's
00:58:04 --> 00:58:07 I just when you say overrated, I think I hear
00:58:07 --> 00:58:10 a lot about it and I'm not buying into it as
00:58:10 --> 00:58:12 much as maybe everybody else. It's the right
00:58:12 --> 00:58:15 thing for me to say that I love every Cronenberg,
00:58:15 --> 00:58:19 but I would be telling little white lies. I like
00:58:19 --> 00:58:22 them all. I do like all the Cronenberg films.
00:58:23 --> 00:58:25 I don't love them all to the point where I'm
00:58:25 --> 00:58:27 like the next sale, I'm getting the other three
00:58:27 --> 00:58:30 Cronenbergs I'm missing from my collection. I'm
00:58:30 --> 00:58:34 not that hardcore about it. No, I totally agree.
00:58:34 --> 00:58:36 I feel like the brood could have easily been.
00:58:36 --> 00:58:40 a movie within a disc, like an additional film,
00:58:40 --> 00:58:43 like they do with some French films. I feel like
00:58:43 --> 00:58:45 that could have been The Brood. I laughed. I
00:58:45 --> 00:58:47 thought it was a comedy in the opening scene
00:58:47 --> 00:58:48 of The Brood. I was like, oh, this is going to
00:58:48 --> 00:58:49 be funny. I thought it was. I mean, technically,
00:58:49 --> 00:58:52 for me, it is because those little creeps, they're
00:58:52 --> 00:58:54 just funny. It's a stupid -ass movie. But I didn't
00:58:54 --> 00:58:58 nod. I enjoyed it for what it is. To talk about
00:58:58 --> 00:59:01 it as like every film is a masterpiece, I'm not.
00:59:01 --> 00:59:04 Although, I love Videodrome. Like, I have Videodrome
00:59:04 --> 00:59:07 here. That movie's awesome. I love that. And
00:59:07 --> 00:59:09 they have a beautiful release for that one too.
00:59:09 --> 00:59:12 Yeah. Yeah. I actually did a little reel of my
00:59:12 --> 00:59:14 five favorite covers or packages that I own.
00:59:14 --> 00:59:18 And that was in my top five that I own. Nice.
00:59:18 --> 00:59:21 If you were on a desert island, I was going to
00:59:21 --> 00:59:22 give you two options, but you know what? Just
00:59:22 --> 00:59:24 to torture you, what's the one film you'd probably
00:59:24 --> 00:59:28 take with you? From the Criterion Collection.
00:59:28 --> 00:59:30 No, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, not allowed.
00:59:30 --> 00:59:33 Man. I think. Can I take the whole Kubrick box
00:59:33 --> 00:59:35 set with me? Does that count? Is that cheating?
00:59:35 --> 00:59:38 If I take the whole box set, it's not one movie.
00:59:39 --> 00:59:42 You know what? I'm taking No Country. I think
00:59:42 --> 00:59:45 it's one of the best movies of all time. Well,
00:59:45 --> 00:59:47 you always remember your first. Yeah, well, that's
00:59:47 --> 00:59:50 what they say. But it's just, it's so good. I
00:59:50 --> 00:59:53 mean, if, you know, or you could take like Mulholland
00:59:53 --> 00:59:55 Drive and just spend your whole time on that
00:59:55 --> 00:59:58 deserted island. Trying to figure out what the
00:59:58 --> 01:00:00 hell that movie is about. That might be fun.
01:00:00 --> 01:00:02 It might make you go nuts, but No Country, I
01:00:02 --> 01:00:04 think, is one of the best movies ever. I would
01:00:04 --> 01:00:07 drown myself or sleep under a coconut tree. Okay,
01:00:07 --> 01:00:08 so maybe you won't be bringing any type of movie.
01:00:08 --> 01:00:10 No, I mean, I do love Mulholland Drive. It's
01:00:10 --> 01:00:13 my only good David Lynch movie. I'm not a big
01:00:13 --> 01:00:17 fan of David. Watch Straight Story. Which is
01:00:17 --> 01:00:19 not that straight. No, actually, no, that is
01:00:19 --> 01:00:21 the only straight movie that he has. Have you
01:00:21 --> 01:00:23 seen that one? No, I just found out it was about
01:00:23 --> 01:00:25 a guy named Straight. I thought it was just a
01:00:25 --> 01:00:27 straight story because it was just like one single
01:00:27 --> 01:00:29 storyline, not that multiple shit that he does.
01:00:29 --> 01:00:34 I think it's a double meaning. I highly recommend
01:00:34 --> 01:00:37 that. But I think that's an accessible Lynch
01:00:37 --> 01:00:39 film. Anyone can watch that. It is a straight
01:00:39 --> 01:00:41 story, literally. So yeah, I recommend that one.
01:00:42 --> 01:00:43 Yeah, I've heard good things about that film.
01:00:44 --> 01:00:47 But again, I'm not a big fan of his. I just bought
01:00:47 --> 01:00:49 The Elephant Man because... Why not? It was there.
01:00:49 --> 01:00:52 I was there. It was meant to be. But actually,
01:00:52 --> 01:00:54 no, I ordered it online. So I'm kind of lying
01:00:54 --> 01:00:58 about that. I gave last time a few that were,
01:00:58 --> 01:01:01 I would say, less talked about films that everyone
01:01:01 --> 01:01:03 or at least people who are starting to get into
01:01:03 --> 01:01:06 criteria and collecting should own or at least
01:01:06 --> 01:01:10 take a second look at. What are some of the titles
01:01:10 --> 01:01:14 or one or 10, whatever you think that people
01:01:14 --> 01:01:20 should own and why? I think when you talk about
01:01:20 --> 01:01:23 a question like this or an answer to a question
01:01:23 --> 01:01:27 like this, you get cliched answers and they're
01:01:27 --> 01:01:30 cliche for a reason. Seven Samurai as an answer
01:01:30 --> 01:01:33 to this question is cliche for a reason. It's
01:01:33 --> 01:01:35 because it's fucking awesome. Yeah. And you should
01:01:35 --> 01:01:38 have that movie. And Jojimbo, by the way, Jojimbo.
01:01:38 --> 01:01:40 You should have the Jojimbo and Sandro box set.
01:01:40 --> 01:01:42 You should have Ikiru. Like you should have all
01:01:42 --> 01:01:44 these Kurosawa films because they're awesome.
01:01:44 --> 01:01:48 Yeah. I think, I think. Things that make you
01:01:48 --> 01:01:53 think, like a David Lynch film, perhaps, like
01:01:53 --> 01:01:56 a Blue Velvet. Things that don't always give
01:01:56 --> 01:01:59 you clear -cut answers and make you think. I
01:01:59 --> 01:02:02 think you should have something like, we talked
01:02:02 --> 01:02:05 about After Hours by Scorsese, which is a lesser
01:02:05 --> 01:02:08 -talked -about film by Scorsese, but one that
01:02:08 --> 01:02:14 is him at, I think, his best. In some ways. That
01:02:14 --> 01:02:18 film is perfect. They made it quickly. He just
01:02:18 --> 01:02:20 lost The Last Temptation of Christ. He lost the
01:02:20 --> 01:02:23 funding for it. He was trying to work on a budget.
01:02:23 --> 01:02:25 He was trying to come in under budget. He was
01:02:25 --> 01:02:29 trying to come in quicker than the original schedule.
01:02:29 --> 01:02:32 And it's just, it's great when you have all the
01:02:32 --> 01:02:36 background knowledge like that. I think if people
01:02:36 --> 01:02:39 are looking to actually buy something, say like
01:02:39 --> 01:02:42 an entry point. criterion, my recommendation
01:02:42 --> 01:02:45 would be to pick a director you've heard of and
01:02:45 --> 01:02:48 then grab a movie that you've never seen. Or
01:02:48 --> 01:02:51 pick a genre that you really, really love and
01:02:51 --> 01:02:52 then just pick something that you haven't seen.
01:02:53 --> 01:02:56 And don't watch any movie trailers. Don't read
01:02:56 --> 01:02:59 any Letterboxd. Sometimes I don't even read the
01:02:59 --> 01:03:01 back of the damn box. I'm just like, oh, I've
01:03:01 --> 01:03:02 heard people talk about this movie. I'm going
01:03:02 --> 01:03:05 to watch it. Then it makes for a better experience
01:03:05 --> 01:03:07 because you're taking it in as if you went to
01:03:07 --> 01:03:09 a film festival. And you're watching films that
01:03:09 --> 01:03:12 don't have movie trailers. And you're not reading
01:03:12 --> 01:03:14 the synopsis. And the reviews are now. And it
01:03:14 --> 01:03:17 makes for a better experience. Yeah, don't start
01:03:17 --> 01:03:19 with a Bergman box set. Don't start with that.
01:03:20 --> 01:03:23 Don't start with that. It's a great box set to
01:03:23 --> 01:03:27 have. I feel like we talked about feeling like
01:03:27 --> 01:03:30 you were in film school. That is film school
01:03:30 --> 01:03:34 101. That introduction to Bergman is film school
01:03:34 --> 01:03:36 101. One of my favorite musicals, A Little Night
01:03:36 --> 01:03:39 of Music, is based... on one of his films that's
01:03:39 --> 01:03:41 based on a novel, which is Smiles Over Summer
01:03:41 --> 01:03:45 Night. I just love that film. It's probably one
01:03:45 --> 01:03:48 of my favorite from his, but that's because it,
01:03:48 --> 01:03:50 you know, one of my favorite musicals is adapted
01:03:50 --> 01:03:54 from that. There's others that make you think
01:03:54 --> 01:03:57 into the next day. So, like, there's a reason
01:03:57 --> 01:04:00 why Harakiri is, you know, in letterbox number
01:04:00 --> 01:04:03 one of their list of top 500 films or whatever
01:04:03 --> 01:04:06 it is. I think it's 500 narrative features or
01:04:06 --> 01:04:08 something. And you watch that and you're like,
01:04:08 --> 01:04:10 oh my God, like what did I just see? Why did
01:04:10 --> 01:04:12 it invoke these types of feelings that I'm having?
01:04:12 --> 01:04:14 And then the next morning you wake up and the
01:04:14 --> 01:04:15 first thing you think of is that damn movie.
01:04:16 --> 01:04:19 You want things like that. They make you think,
01:04:19 --> 01:04:20 they make you feel something because that's the
01:04:20 --> 01:04:23 point. No, I felt like that was solid, but you
01:04:23 --> 01:04:26 said you didn't want to cover that one. I felt
01:04:26 --> 01:04:28 like that for a week after. I'm like, why did
01:04:28 --> 01:04:31 I watch that film? I was shaking. Wait, which
01:04:31 --> 01:04:35 one? Solo. Oh, no, thank you. I said make you
01:04:35 --> 01:04:38 think and not make you feel like a piece of shit
01:04:38 --> 01:04:42 for watching what you just watched. To make you
01:04:42 --> 01:04:45 feel something, I should specify. Invoke a feeling
01:04:45 --> 01:04:46 that doesn't make you feel bad about yourself.
01:04:46 --> 01:04:48 Yeah, I thought the FBI was going to knock my
01:04:48 --> 01:04:51 door down or Washington Salo. And I was like,
01:04:51 --> 01:04:53 I owe you taxes and this is why you're trying
01:04:53 --> 01:04:57 to arrest me? Like, it doesn't make sense. But
01:04:57 --> 01:04:59 thank you so much, Ron, for being here with me
01:04:59 --> 01:05:01 today. Before we go, I want you to let my listeners
01:05:01 --> 01:05:04 know. where they can find you. I'm going to be
01:05:04 --> 01:05:06 tagging all your information here below, your
01:05:06 --> 01:05:09 podcast, your Instagram, all the ways that people
01:05:09 --> 01:05:12 can find you and listen to you. But please let
01:05:12 --> 01:05:14 them know where can they find you. Yeah, thanks
01:05:14 --> 01:05:16 for having me. I enjoyed it. Anytime I get an
01:05:16 --> 01:05:18 opportunity to talk about little criteria in
01:05:18 --> 01:05:21 our films, I'm happy to take up the offer. You
01:05:21 --> 01:05:24 can find Why This Film on anywhere pretty much.
01:05:24 --> 01:05:27 You get your podcasts, Instagram, I'm at whythisfilmpod.
01:05:27 --> 01:05:31 And also check out whythisfilm .com. little website
01:05:31 --> 01:05:33 that we put together that has all kinds of different
01:05:33 --> 01:05:35 resources that you can read before you watch
01:05:35 --> 01:05:37 a film. You can read after you watch a film.
01:05:38 --> 01:05:40 I have links to all the things, like all my guests
01:05:40 --> 01:05:44 work as well. All the information about all the
01:05:44 --> 01:05:45 films that we're covering that I wouldn't put
01:05:45 --> 01:05:47 in an episode description that nobody really
01:05:47 --> 01:05:49 reads a lot of anyway. So have a little website,
01:05:49 --> 01:05:51 whythisfilm .com. I highly recommend you check
01:05:51 --> 01:05:54 it out. I see you just blew up my mind. So I
01:05:54 --> 01:05:56 just spent so much time on my show notes and
01:05:56 --> 01:05:59 nobody reads them. Damn, I bet that has to be
01:05:59 --> 01:06:02 something to do with SEO. I'm assuming, yeah,
01:06:03 --> 01:06:06 I think that helps, but I don't know. But thank
01:06:06 --> 01:06:09 you so much, Ron. I hope you join me here again.
01:06:09 --> 01:06:11 If not, I am going to be your number one guest
01:06:11 --> 01:06:14 once the pest comes out on Criterion. If not,
01:06:14 --> 01:06:17 to Wonfu. To one foo. That's my second option.
01:06:17 --> 01:06:20 It's either the pesto to one foo in that order.
01:06:20 --> 01:06:23 I'll put you on the list. But I think I really
01:06:23 --> 01:06:25 appreciate you being here with me today. And
01:06:25 --> 01:06:28 again, if you have not listened to his podcast
01:06:28 --> 01:06:30 and you love the Criterion Collection, I highly
01:06:30 --> 01:06:33 suggest you go and you give it a listen. Even
01:06:33 --> 01:06:35 if you want to listen to it before you buy the
01:06:35 --> 01:06:37 film, you will learn something. Like I said,
01:06:37 --> 01:06:40 I just learned that Matawan was in Virginia and
01:06:40 --> 01:06:43 not in Japan. So thank you so much for being
01:06:43 --> 01:06:45 with me here today. day and don't forget you
01:06:45 --> 01:06:47 can follow the physical cut on instagram at the
01:06:47 --> 01:06:50 physical cut pod also you can find us at k -r
01:06:50 --> 01:06:54 -p -o -d -l -a -b .com that's k -r -potlab .com
01:06:54 --> 01:06:57 this has been the physical cut where films live
01:06:57 --> 01:06:59 beyond the stream i will see you guys next time
01:07:17 --> 01:07:17 Thank you.