Transcribe your podcast

Hello, everybody, welcome back. Another episode of the Golden Talkies exactly a week after the last one. What a miracle I am if I am finding on whether you fucking shit on time. Uh, I'm actually a very punctual. I mean, I'm Jamie. This is my co-host, Duncan. We are the best of friends. And every week we watch a film that came out 50 years ago that week, exactly 50 of anniversary films. And then we talk about them.


And that's the premise of the podcast, which you are listening to. How are you, Duncan?


I'm good. I'm a little bit concerned about my audio quality and I don't know why I had to because Jamie was late today and so I actually was testing my mike and I seem to be having some issues, but I'm hoping it's OK. It's probably OK and good. What film are you watching today? This week we are watching what film have we watched and are discussing today? We can pretend we watched it. Today we are discussing the Beguiled. It's based on a novel called The Painted Devil, I believe, which came out 1766.


This is a film called Abigale, which is starring Clint Eastwood, directed by Don Siegel, who later this very same year will make much more successful and popular film, Dirty Harry. Yeah, yeah. And when I get that's interesting.


So the film's called the painting, not the film. The Boot sort of painted devil. But I read somewhere that the book was called The Gold. I wonder why he released it as a big old for a bit or maybe thinking, well, maybe it was like a, you know, different areas, different areas. So this film wasn't very successful. It was a flop. Give people.


Yeah, this film was also remade and I believe you watch remake. I did watch the remake. Remake might be wrong. I think it's made by Sofia Coppola Coppola, who says Shailene, what's the single one once and never really thought about it again. So maybe re-adapt Haitian would be OK, although I would argue that there's definitely elements of the original in it because I think I might give it a watch and based on your review of it.


But we'll get to that later. Yes. So this film came out in Italy, twenty January March in the US, in August in the U.K. So once again, we are going by a loose definition of release date.


Yeah, Italians matter. They do Italian last night. This is true.


And so unless you're Super Mario with that disgusting beggar. Exactly. So we'll start with the historical context. And do you know, Jamie, what National Day, the 21st of January is Shrove Tuesday.


That's close. Oh, Martin Luther King Day. No, it's National Pie Day. Not to be confused with Pie Day, uh, spelt Pie, which is the 14th of March. This is pie spelt Pyi. Yeah. Is in the eating kind, like the one on the fourteenth of March of course is to do.


No, no because it's three point one four. That's very clever. Exactly. So if you're American it would be correct. And do you know what else happened. Not this week but actually last week. But we're going to pretend that we meant to be we're going to pretend to have in this week because we didn't talk about it last week. I don't know, Super Bowl five, Jamie y seventeen.


Who playing on Super Bowl five, the Cowboys and the Colts. And they still win the game while we're still good. Well, I still play. Are they still good cowboys? Are the teams are technically still playing, but the Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis and is now another team in Baltimore. So they're not still good, particularly. I mean, they're both pretty run of the mill teams at the moment, but they were in 05 and the Colts won it.


So there you go.


It's weird to me that you can just move a team from town to town. I really got the point.


Well, yeah, it's interesting. The, uh, I mean, the Baltimore one's interesting because the Colts moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis and then the Browns moved from Cleveland to Baltimore, but they renamed to the Ravens. And then a year later, the Cleveland got the team again. That was technically a new team. So the team that was in Baltimore was the Cleveland team, but they gave the name back to the nucleus and team. So there's a few interesting things, and I didn't really explain it very well.


But did you know that Ribena was made by the leukocyte company? No. Fascinating players.


Actually, that is actually quite an interesting fact. I assumed Lucas aid was a bottom line thing. Like I assumed that Lucas aid was like like tango or something where it was its brand and it was owned by Coca-Cola or something. I didn't realize, yes, it was overcharging the. If I want to send a letter to the good people who made my Ribena, I'm drinking right now, I'd have to go to Lucozade Ribena Limited, right in Stokley Park, Uxbridge.


Anyone wants to take a trip. So, you know. If anyone wants to go back to the orange teams, that's that's not good. And yeah, it's interesting, the teams me, I guess it's not really something you see in European sports, but it's an alternative to the team collapsing, which obviously happens. And so I guess it's not actually that different when you think about it. Anyway, that's not about American football. Let's talk about the Civil War.


Oh, I'm not going to talk about historical context.


I was just that was sort of context and nothing more.


I don't I didn't look it up. So, no, we're good unless you want me to look it up right now. Very annoying if you want to go for it. I don't know. Sure. Why not? National pride in Super Bowl, which didn't even happen this week for the main things they came up with. Yeah, my eyebrows were so itchy this week. It's horrible. This is this is top tier content. Right now I'm suffering.


And it's about time that people understood. OK, right. Starting on today, in 1971, Bursztyn got permission to sell arms to South Africa, which, you know, mildly interesting, but I'm sure it will end well. But John Lennon's Plastic Ono Band record Power to the People the day before. So he's moving on.


Nothing of interest happens on the first day of world record for the thousand meters by a speed skater named Larry Shenk. On the first day was John WebSocket one, 1886, in one minute, 1888. That's the first. Yeah, I guess it's quite fast, isn't it? Yeah, but I mean, I never realize it was that fast. That's pretty crazy.


It says one account can't one hour. So I guess it's got to be one minute. Yeah. Yeah.


It's um. John Lennon meets Yoko and his parents for the first time. Right. And they are really scraping the barrel here.


How is that scraping liberalists? Incredibly important. It's got a massive some interesting loog some bloke met his girlfriend's parents, some bloke. How dare you. Well, are you talking about some bloke named Marvin Gaye created what's going on on the same day about police brutality, which of course is an issue that has been completely resolved in our enlightened times. NHL All-Star Game with Bobby Hall. Oh, baby. Helter-Skelter is played at the Charles Manson trial on the 19th.


Well, OK. You know the story of Charles Manson, Nantel Skelter.


No, I can't say. I do know that was my phone. So it's it's personal. OK, so the Beatles, right, released a song called Helter Skelter, right. It's like a very heavy sound. It sometimes criticized as being the first heavy metal song, but it's about it because it's written by Paul McCartney. It's about someone going on a slide. Yeah, about Charles Manson.


Heard it and interpreted it as a call for a race war for reasons I haven't understood. And hence he did his stuff, the Manson murders. I am, of course, talking about specifically. So, yeah, that's not being played out in the trial, right? Yeah. And I think the last one, Northern Ireland prime minister met the British home secretary. Other than that, nothing massively of interest. So they're still a fairly quiet week. Great.


Other than a lot of Beatles related stuff happening, which is very important.


And you should appreciate the importance of I don't, but thank you anyway.


Who write the film Be Beguiled, as we say, starring Clint Eastwood. So who else is it?


Sorry, Jamie.


I don't remember Geraldine Page, Elizabeth Cohen and Joanne Harris, and I didn't recognize any of the earlier work, but I just feel like it's appropriate to name names, drop them, given no mention you.


OK, so Charlotte's right. As Duncan alluded to earlier, this takes place during the time of the Civil War, an all girls school.


This is not going to be a great many students. I by the rest, I think my parents have all taken them away given the war. Yet the action centers on Corporal John Berney or as everyone else likes to call him, McBee. Yeah, something excised from their make up mosaic.


That's a shame. They don't Colombe in that one. Possibly because it's silly. Uh. So the the opening this is a good film opening. I think it's got a very nice drum. It starts like a drum thing and then escalates and then there's sepia photog photos in the background showing men going off to war and the battle, you know, actual battles that finishing up with corpses lying everywhere in the very succinct show. The horrors, I think works very well.


And setting the tone, of course, then the video goes Sepehr. Yes, for a little Bedu, I think it's the color when the girl comes across the body and gets some blood on her hand, if I remember correctly, which I think was very nice. This is very nicely done. Yeah. This girl is called Amy. She is 39 years old, which, as McBee lovingly tells us, is old enough for kisses as he forces himself upon her to distract her from screaming for you, for Southern soldiers and a fun and very comfortable scene.


I thought she was 12 to 12, soon to be 14, right? That's right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's right. That's it. This is going to be fascinating this year. Yeah. Uh, so this is as good an introduction to Bernie as any. I suppose he's taken into the school and they initially plan to hand him over to the southern soldiers, but they start to feel guilty because he's in a bad way, because they I mean, we should do they mention where the school is exactly the right thing to do?


Because I think the debate in school.


So, yeah, the Yankees are pushing into the line of the school that they are old Southerners, just to give context to why they would want to hand him over.


Yes, exactly. And so McBirney proceeds on a campaign of lying to everyone around him in order to manipulate them into alternative, into either allowing him to stay or helping him escape depending on their position. So, for example, he pretends to be a Quaker and is a nice guy. He says that like he was shot because he was a pacifist, as it were, he was able to fight back. But there's a nice thing where whilst he's telling that story, we see footage of him very clearly fighting normally, uh, tends to be a fan of nature, I think, to Amy.


And then we see footage as he's telling that story from burning down the countryside. So we know he's a bit of a liar. Roter bit of a predator to move on to our next issue, which is that he starts to romance or guy, I suppose seduce would probably be a better word. The teacher at the school, one of the teachers who is inexperienced with then.


Yeah. To put to use the tasting. She doesn't trust them. So he starts to think of her where he tries to win over. And he there's a 17 year old girl there, I think her name's Sophie or carlos'n the change the names in the remake. So I've gotten the mix now.


I remember the seventeen year old girl there who's trying to seduce him as well.


And she, she is experienced with she she had had experience and she lovingly says and she's also trying again to get pics of Mrs. Holloway who in the school. Yeah.


So I guess to give a rundown of everyone at the school there is Mrs. Holloway who owns it. She's, you know, Matre matronly, I suppose, very dedicated to the rules, has but underneath was in an incestuous relationship with her brother in a I don't know if all that plot point I thought it was weird and didn't contribute very much.


Um, I mean, I think it worked well as a way to offset her image as the.


So I think the the point of it is to show her as a hypocrite. Yeah. To a degree. But I don't think it actually relates to her crimes in any way. But we should we should get her to we should talk about the film's overall message on someone, because the thing is the issue at hand. There's the teacher, what's her name, Emori.


Edwina. Edwina.


That's it. Who we talked about before. She's sympathetic to him, easily tricked. Then there's Amy, who's a nice girl who likes animals and has a talked to she's got pet turtles. Turtles. Sorry for us. She likes me a lot. Then there's the. 17 year old is trying to seduce them. Then there's the reason why I call it the 17 year old that is the most important aspect of our character from her talking about it. Then there's Doris, who is also named Carol.


That's it. The Doris who constantly suggests that they should turn McBirney over and that they're all traitors for harboring him there because her dad's in the.


Yes, right. Right next to Robert Lee. So, yeah, I guess.


And then there's Haley, who is a slave working in the school. Yeah. Maybe tries to a quite interesting and I think maybe suggests that they should be friends because they're ostensibly on the same side. But she rebukes him saying that he's no freer than she is given that he's fighting his way of life. He's actually less free because he can leave if she needs to leave and go on the run. What's quite interesting, um, so that's the sort of set up.


And as we say, as I say, sorry, the body of the film is maybe trying to manipulate the women around him partially for his own self-preservation, but also trying to carry on three separate romantic relationships at the same time. Yeah.


Do you. So, yeah. Do you think that any part of it is genuine? What do you mean genuine? Well, for instance, I got the feeling that he would want a really genuine relationship with Edwina, but because of his nature, they're able to and was was easily seduced by the others. But I don't know.


I didn't get that at all. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't believe it. OK, my my interpretation of McBirney is that he's just selfish. Entitled would probably be the best for it. Yeah.


I mean, I would I would agree. I would say certainly he takes advantage of all of them, but I kind of got the impression that he there is some aspect of genuineness there because there wasn't really a lot there wasn't really much to gain necessarily that one, I don't know. Well, I think he just wanted to fuck her. That was it. So that went into his thought process, I think, to talk about the film properly, because I think it's important to talk about the ending before we can talk about it as a whole.


So maybe he gets himself into a position where he's got Edwina, you know, eating out of his hand and the mistress of the lodge. But he's not having sex with Carla. Sophie, 17 year old. And Edwina's incredibly shocked because he they've just gone through an entire thing where he's promised to remain true to her no matter what, and then start pushing him and he falls down the stairs, which with his current injuries, exacerbated and breaks his leg, which is going to go gangrenous.


So they're faced with no, allegedly. I think you think, well, we should talk about this as well. But they say, I suppose, although I would very much be inclined to believe that's going to go gangrenous and they amputate the leg. And at this point, that may sort of the mask drops when he wakes up and he reveals himself for the monster he is. And he gets incredibly angry with them and he feels that they've only cut off his leg as revenge for the fact that he won't sleep with them, that they're just petty, jealous bitches.


He kills all of them bitches several times and he starts to genuinely frighten all the girls around the house with his violent outbursts. He threatens he begins threatening them all.


Once he gets the wine, he says that he's going to rape all of them, especially Holly, who he also reveals himself to be a massive racist.


Not so doesn't reveal himself, but he actually realizes her in a racial. While threatening to rape her, which, you know, is a horrible so everyone's very frightened of storms and drunk on one like that, they all might as well have castrated him.


Amy trying to distract him by saying that they should look after the charcoal but violently froze across the room, killing it.


And Amy says that she hates him now and they all violently rebuked many sort of salts away to the girls, hatched a plan, which is that they're going to poison him. Edwina has been he's able to win and win her back or Edwina sort of offers herself anyway to them. And they say that they're going to go get married and walk away, but it's too late. They poisoned his tea and McBirney dies. And that's my speedy summary of the plot.


Interesting. And they bury him. Yeah, it's very interesting. Yes. So I was going to talk about because I think this is the main angle of discussion for the film. I read a lot of essays about it, and some of them seem to suggest that in this film you're supposed to side of things, Barney, and be scared of these women.


Yeah, I think I do not I am not sympathetic to that take at all or not not sympathetic. I don't understand it. And now I think I mean that you have seen 10 inches film. That's the director said himself that was. Well, that's the thing.


The director himself said that. So I'm very curious.


Look, I ran from the film, I, I don't think I necessarily side with him, but I do think he I think there's a lot of sexual repression, obviously, in the school. Mm hmm. And and his presence kind of exacerbates that, I think, which leads this. I feel like his nature and kind of leads him to do what he does. But I don't think he necessarily intends to do a do to do what he does, if that makes sense.


Well, I feel that Bernie is very consistently throughout the film portrayed as a hypocrite at the very, very least.


Yeah, but I don't think it's I don't think I think that's through the situation.


He's found himself in May. But like I mean, the thing is, I really realized that maybe you're just supposed to automatically side with it because it's the 70s and you're presumed male viewer. Yeah, but he is an asshole and doesn't really do anything good.


He is. I definitely don't say I haven't they wouldn't side with him or say he's right at all. But I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation that he deliberately and consistently manipulates everyone.


Oh, definitely. I don't think anything else is possible. Well, I can say his first interaction with Holly, like he mentions that if he gets some free, he'll be able to find Ben. And although it's not revealed as a lie, we all surely know that that is clearly not he's not going to have the ability and he keeps promising unreasonable things to everyone. He pretends to be in love with Edwina in spite of the fact they've only been there for about a day, which again, I interpret as a lie.




Well, what does he have to gain from that sex man? He's horny. He says that after he's got his leg off, that he, as someone who is sacrifice, is entitled to have sex with everyone there. That's like that's just tax. That's not subtext.


It's that not, though, because he's high on stuff and he's had his lako and he's going, well, even if even if he is high and going crazy, that's still presented as true feelings.


Yeah. Mm hmm.


And as we say, he really has no intention of being loyal to Edwina at all.


I think he does. I think he does. But he is unable to control himself.


I don't think it's presented at all. I mean, even like even before that scene is doing a very calculated seduction of Mrs. Holloway, which I don't think you can say, which I think that is there is there's a clear motive behind it, I think, which I do think is.


Yeah, I kind of get what you mean, but I don't think he's I don't think every single instance is I think he would like to be loyal to Edwina, but I don't get those unable to be. Well, I think Edwina is constantly presented as being an idiot. Yeah.


In the film.


I really do think he's just taking advantage of her even because even afterwards, as soon as he wakes up, he calls her the virgin bitch. It's not like he particularly feels well about her. But that's because I think that's because he yeah, I don't know, I yeah, I do think he has had his, like, off. Well, yeah, but that's not.


But he's not.


They did it out of mercy for him as though they did know, though, there is no need to cut his leg off. They mentioned they have a very long argument to say very clearly that it's going to become gangrenous and then cut off.


The morpho says that decides that. Yeah, but they all agree. I'm willing because.


Because I know it. Because but Holly says afterwards and maybe he's complaining like she says, no, no. You're really going to be, you know, injured. It's not.


I don't think maybe he has any real moments of moral high ground in this, you don't think because you don't think he has a leg to stand on wacko.


So I don't want you to, uh.


Yeah, I think he's consistently portrayed as the very, very least a coward and a manipulator, I would say, as a genuine monster, particularly towards the end.


But do you know what the remorse he feels for killing the turtle?


I think he genuinely does feel bad about what doesn't feel bad about killing. He doesn't like that. Amy doesn't like him anymore.


Yeah, he likes Amy, right? Yeah. I think he genuinely does like Amy and wants her to like him. OK.


We, we agree on that. So I guess the point is whether that extends to his like him liking Adreno where you think it does and I think it does.


I don't think in any scene where he doesn't want something from Edwina, I don't think he's ever portrayed as liking us.


I mean, maybe he doesn't like her, but I think you can see yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe genuinely towards the act. But I think he realizes he can see a future there. I think towards the end when he said that he loves her and, you know, feels a genuine connection to her, but he there's something there I think that he can see.


And I don't want I think towards the end he realizes that marrying her is really the only way out.


Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.


I don't think before the like, cutting off anything he's trying to do with her is genuine. I think he is just trying to play her. But yeah, I think so are his actions, some of them in the first half of playing with him directly, trying to manipulate his way out, particularly his interactions with Holly in the first half. But I think a lot of them are just that he's got a very toxic view of women not to use their language or.


Yes, about, I think a lot of the defining trait of maybe I would say is his entitlement or talking about know and wants to crack down, I think, or his belief that he should that these women should be submissive to him, even if he weren't articulate it like that. He doesn't like when they act out of his plans. He is a very there's a deeper anger in play, but. Yeah, I suppose yeah. I suppose you could say that maybe he's been wronged by his country and unhealthily is taking that out on people who he sees as a subclass.


Yeah, OK. That's that's my interpretation of the film.


I mean, as we see with the scenes of Hollywood, maybe he doesn't actually believe in any of the union's ideals. There's not really a moral crusader, you know. So, yeah, in the context of this, the reason why the incest kind of bothers me is I think it's supposed to portray Mrs. Holloway as a hypocrite, as we said earlier. Yeah, but I just don't see I don't think having a having an immoral in a wider sense, but ultimately consenting relationship really ties back to Holloway's crimes.


I suppose if you see if you do see it as not being able to resist temptation, then maybe that's different.


Yeah, but I suppose I don't see Holloway's stuff as resisting temptation because the engineers, the situations themselves, mostly unlike if there's a scene, which I hadn't mentioned, where the 17 year old, after seeing Holloway and Dwina together, tries to get him caught by the sovereign as he hangs up the rag and like he knows it was her and he still takes advantage of her anyway, does he? Yeah, he mentions. All right. So I just think you shouldn't make me jealous then.


Yeah. Yeah, I remember that.


Yeah. So, yeah, I I don't think it's I don't think he genuinely likes her at all. No, he doesn't. But I think she I think she seduces him and he, for whatever reason, is unable to control himself.


I think that I was complaining, but no, I think that certainly I think because he makes that I'm not I'm not blaming her for that.


Clearly, she is like a very troubled character. But I'm also not blaming him. I think he carries I am blaming him.


I am blaming him. I'm saying I'm saying it's not necessarily a conscious decision. It's a it's a character flaw that he has. In the context of the film, yes, I would say in the context of the film world of the 1970s, I think character for that BS speech after getting his leg cut off where he says he should be able to have sex with any women he wants.


And in the this is not as outrageous speech where he says that he should be able that you could rape the one where he lays out his new rules. Now, he's going to be running the place, I think shows that he thinks that he deserves, as it were, to have sex with any of them.


I don't think well, I think he sees himself as higher than them. And yeah, I think the fact that he's had his lack of he's kind of done and he's like, OK, this is I don't know if he's going to do anything alone, I guess.


Yeah. I suppose to play devil's advocate, you could say that if you're supposed to side with McBee against the women, then this is the point where, like, he's just telling them what's what and what they should do. Just, you know, if don't want to sleep with them, they all should. Why do they have to be so why do they have to be so bitchy about it?


Yeah, I think this is I think I genuinely think he is losing his mind yet because of the just like the whole situation. I mean, I think as a modern viewer, it's hard to watch the film and side with maybe. I don't think the film is dangerous to them. Yeah, I would I would agree.


But I think it's I think it's it's not so easy to say to him personally. But I certainly saw that you were supposed to side with him and I picked up right out of it.


And so, yeah, I do appreciate that. I mean, it's really annoying because the offer it's hard to find so much about the offer, the original book. I think certainly the director wants you to side with him at least from interviews and stuff. But I think the text, not the director's necessarily version of the text. I think the text that is impossible is on the women's side. That's my opinion anyway. I find it because it's just it's so consistent in showing that B is both hypocritical and manipulative and that they were all better off before he came, as it were.


Well, I think that is true definitely, you know, sort of disrupts the peace. Yeah, but but I guess as a counterargument, they kind of need it that maybe, you know, I mean, I realize it's just partly how film structure works, but.




So, yeah. Before we talk about more story stuff, I want to start our own thoughts in my head. Uh, what do you think of it visually? Because I thought it was really good.


But you can I felt was good. I thought occasionally overdid it, if you know, I mean, there's a couple pricklier there's a lot of southern Zoom's, but I feel both old fashioned and kind of on the top. I didn't really notice. But I mean, she's a 70s thing, to be honest. Yeah, I know it is.


But that's what the cinematographer that did this did a lot of Westerns and like a lot of Eastwood's Westerns. Hmm. So there's there's an influence here. The amputation scene, I thought was way it was.


I appreciate it. It's really no way. OK, OK.


I was going to say a big word and you say it's really nice. Is really nice shot.


And I thought it was really good at first. And then it goes back to those scenes and I felt like it was silly.


Now I didn't I didn't even notice. I think that's what really I really loved.


The the design and cinematography of the amputation scene was was really clear to me. It was the strongest in the film was a lot stronger in the second half, just generally, I think. Yeah. And I do think the cinematography was part of that.


Or maybe you just I noticed after that scene more to advance my theory, which might well be wrong. I think the first half suffers from this difference of vision between the director's intention and the text, and that is the film feels a little more yeah, I'd say unfocused and it's not sure what it's going for. Yeah, but once we get to the back half of the conflict erupts, I think it works better. It becomes Shakespearean Shakespeareans a bit much.


And also Shakespeare would not write about women, but, you know, we would not write about women.


What do you mean not positively. Right? I thought we just said this film wasn't positive. Or do you think you said.


I think it still even if that that I don't think that even if a director didn't intend it. You think this is you think this is an unintentional feminist masterpiece, is what you're saying? Let's not say masterpiece. I would say unintentional. Flawed feminist. OK, unintentional feminist. That's why I think it is interesting.


I think it has elements of that, but I don't think I did not pick up in that.


The film particularly well, it's interesting to me, the idea, the the film is sort of about this sort of isolated female space, as it were, which is invaded by one by a malevolent male intruder and thus despoiled for his actions.


And the title I saw, I. OK. Yeah, I agree with that. But I'm also not sure was spoiled necessarily because I mean there was it spoiled by. Well, I mean the woman had sex with her brother, you know.


Well I just don't exactly like her.


It's not like it was a perfect haven for a news. I mean, yeah.


So this is getting us very, very neatly on to the remake, which I will talk about in a bit. But do you have anything particularly of particular audience you want to talk about the original film? Uh, probably.


Maybe. OK, so we've talked about the themes and stuff and tried to pin him down.


Did you feel? Because I certainly felt that at many points of his way too overt trying to show what they were trying to say.


Uh, well, maybe. But what we're disagreeing right now.


So who's to say, um. Yeah. But is in so like the one thing I wrote was complaining about the dream sequence, for example, and how that is stupid, you know, and I think there's a lot of points like that where and it's pretty clear on a subtext level what is going on and maybe, maybe films is wrong, the wrong word, but what is going on? What's going to happen? And it's very clear in the subtext level.


And then something comes up in a textual level very overtly.


And I think there are moments where I like that. I think a lot of McBirney is dialogue in the second half is by doing that. But I think in a way that's been important to Mozart. I do think that like the treatment of female sexuality in the film is quite amateurish, not immature.


It's just yeah, it strikes the wrong tone and I think comes from a place of like I suppose I've also forgotten to mention, although we were obviously talking about it, but the film doesn't pay. It's quite misogynistic as well in its portrayal of women being catty to each other, which is sort of the point of the film.


I suppose if we go with a director's interpretation and possibly the real interpretation of the film, it's about how scary that is. If you're just a poor, innocent man who just wants to just just wants to fulfill his innocent biological urges. Yeah, I mean, there is also an element, I think, where, um, you do have to I think I guess my thing is I'm coming round to what you're saying about his character. But I also think there is an element, regardless of whether he's manipulative or anything, where he's kind of been forced into this situation.


And you do have to feel a bit of sympathy for what's true. I guess. I don't know. It's kind of it's hard to say, you know, sympathetic to him with everything you're saying about this stuff. But he is a pretty crazy situation, regardless of I mean, even if he hadn't actually cheated on Edwina, he would still have free women like going after him. They're sexually repressed. And and, you know, he's just I don't know.


But it makes it much worse for himself. He likes them all along. Well, he does. He does. He does. Which is which is not great. But I do think it's if you just look at the basic setting of the film, I think you can see the kind of message that is trying to be put across all of this.


The other thing I was going to say when I'm talking about the overt imagery is obviously there's this idea of like castration, right? Yes. Like it's like a big film purity thing. The woman knows when to castrate men or whatever. And that's obviously a big theme of this film. Yeah. And I think it's it's done quite well with the amputations and stuff. But then when he wakes up, he says, you know, you might sell it to me.


So he he, I guess, has the kind of thing that I'm talking about where. Yeah. Whether or not you agree with the theory of and castration in film or whether or not you think the women are in the right or he's in the right, there is actually a subtextual element of that sort of imagery of the leg being cut off, representing take away his manhood and his ability to do this and all those kind of feminist stuff. But then he just blurts out and it kind of takes away from that.


I guess well, I felt my take on that scene was that I think this comes from the fact that I'm willing to believe them about the like, amputation being innocent. Yeah, it's more it's not so much that they're taking away his manhood, but much, much more important is that he perceives that as them taking away his manhood and that sort of like showing his sort of fragility, I suppose, and brittleness. Yeah.


Yeah, that's that is I think that is the ideal situation.


Yeah. But yeah, exactly. It's something that I've not studied for a while or Lutin deeper while I'm kind of trying to think about it and remember what exactly the Furies are. But I do think it is whether I think no matter how you read it, that unless, like you, you believe it was going to go gangrenous, which obviously it wasn't.


But and, you know, I think overall it clearly was. It looks very fucked up. I mean. Hmm, she looks in a medical textbook, they have freedom of discussion with three separate women who all agree. I don't.


Yeah, although I don't want to castrate Jamie. Maybe that's possible. I don't agree. Anyway, I'll talk about the remake now.


I think. Yeah, I think is a good option. Well, I can we can always I can always look back.


I think just the remakes changes are interesting. So this film was rocking Hollywood remake. As I said earlier, it's more relaxation. But the book was adapted again in 2013 by Sofia Coppola, who is a female director, which is interesting in the context of this film. And so the remake is, I would say a better film is a bit shorter, which I think helps that go along a snappier pace. The cinematography is a more modern style, which, just as you know, something like that, doesn't appeal to them.


Right. So it's got much less Wasswa, much more washed out color palette, which I don't particularly like that sort of talk about visually. It a color palette, live action, cinematography. I sound stupid. What? The colors are vibrant, but yeah, changes. Interesting changes. One, you are much more clearly supposed to side with the women in Sofia Coppola. And I think the issue with the Dongseo version is that McBirney is still the protagonist ostensibly, and the story works a lot better when he isn't sort of seen as something kind of strange.


If you just if you just look at the posters, I mean, you can see that, I think. Yeah, but Colin Farrell is McBirney and a remake really a different kind of handsome.


Although off here I was I got Colin Powell confused with Colin Firth, which I thought Colin Powell was the Irish one.


Yeah. Yeah. No, I see. I just looked him up and yeah. I thought you meant Colin Firth. And I was like, well, that's an interesting casting decision.


But I think the film I think something fell off to me, as I said about Don Siegel's version that changed into I think the thing it was for me is that the camera take the film takes Eastwood's Pravy in the first half and then shifts to, I think, the audience. The second I would say I think the the story is really better told with more sympathy for that think. I think that's the disconnect that I felt, was that he as a result, um, Sofia's is much less ushakov, less so Coachella's is much less connected to the civil war to its detriment, I think.


And there's not really a lot of emphasis on it. The slave, Holly, isn't there? There's no real mention of slaves other than not throwaway line at the beginning. So we don't get as much of a sense of place. And I don't think we really get as much of an interrogation of these ideology, which I genuinely think the film is worse for having for not having. Sorry. I think in interviews she said she didn't want it to be surface level.


She's going to introduce such a heavy theme, which I am sympathetic to. I do think the film is worse off for not including it. I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I thought the commentary in the original was fine. What was interesting and could have been improved upon in interesting ways without taking up too much of the focus, um, was to say, uh.


So Sophia is much in the Coppola version. It's much less obvious that she is lying the entire time. They don't actually reveal these things. It's really more up to the viewer to understand what's going on, which I think works quite well, actually.


But the the same scenes happen.


There's not as much the weird Katniss is gone, which I think works very well that Katniss and it's not the Leon says subplot is also dropped again, much to the film's benefit. But she doesn't show the amputation, which I thought was a shame. But I think is part of you not being meant to sympathize with me as much, sort of a change there. But yeah, what was the rage happens again? Farrell's eight frot is a lot wimpier, which I fault.


I didn't think Farrell. Files outrage, I think, is very good and it doesn't it doesn't come across quite as quite as obviously cruel as maybe a again, I think kolkhoz films about Sutler, even though is still very identifiable where it's coming from, you might as well castrated me. That line is still in there. That's a shame.


But, you know, he does still fresh frighten them all the best pistol and you still poison them. The adventure of romance is handled, I think a lot better as well. I think a good offshoot of Foul's maybe being less obviously terrible is that the Edwina's continued attraction to him? It makes more sense. It feels really weird in the film, in the original film. But she's still willing to marry him after the stuff he said to her. Do you think so?


I don't think so. I mean, I think it's more a case of her being so inexperienced and so so convinced that she's found someone finally because she just doesn't know what she's doing at all.


Well, yeah, but she mentions that she's terrified of the idea that men will cheat on her and then she literally sees her worst nightmare come true.


Yeah, but then I think she's I think she's I think she's weak and not in terms of I I guess weeks probably the wrong word, but she's yeah. She is weak. I guess she's unable to.


All right.


Don Siegel, is that bad? Is that the wrong word to use? Well, we try to say indecisive or insecure, insecure, insecure. That is exactly what I'm looking for. I think she's insecure and she's willing to let it go because she genuinely believes that, like it was a mistake. Yeah, maybe. I think that's worth buying goes a lot more believable in the person, I think. OK, it's not doesn't seem quite strange to me, but yeah, I think the Kopell version is much because it's a lot more willing to regard far those kind of alien, and I think it works a lot better.


I think that that is the secret ingredient the film needed.


But I think that it's because it lacks the same sense of place.


And I think because it's a little thing, it's a little less obvious how monstrous might be is really so it's so strange. I feel like the Coppola films definitely Bashar, I think is more perfect, but I feel like the CEO of film aims higher. Paradoxically, even if the director wasn't really on board, there's more potential in the Siegle film. I think it opens itself up to more.


So some other more interesting interpretations, whereas I think the Coppola version sort of closed itself off from some of the more interesting avenues to be a more focused story, a more focused story that's told much better. Yeah, so that's that's my interpretation.


Yeah, the question is, huh? Do you think, first of all, do you believe that Sofia Coppola only saw a single person once?


No, and I'm sorry, I mean this very nicely. Yeah, maybe, but I just I can't because there's so many scenes that look really similar. Yeah. So my next question is going to be, do you think she would have benefited from.


Re re making it me, making it Profar or more makes sense, although, I mean, you're saying that she did see more than one, so.


Well, I don't I mean, maybe it's just subconscious or maybe I mean, there could be other people, as I was.


I mean, she's a director. Sure. But, you know, it easily could be that everyone else who worked in it had seen the original one. So it's going to resemble it. Well, but yeah, I guess, yeah. So my question was going to be, do you think she would have benefited from actually really trying to improve on the first one?


Well, I think she really I think she sounds like the most important thing, which is that she changes the story sympathy's and as a result, it suddenly just works much better as a story. But like I said, I think she loses a lot of use, a lot of excess fat, which in some ways is good. And I think in some ways works to the film's detriment.


I think sort of sort of like middle section of the film where at least talking about my own viewing experience as I was sort of like very I felt very convinced that maybe Britney was sort of was manipulating everyone. And then you sort of watched him go about his business and sort of gain an appreciation of quite how horrible he was. I felt the film was really more, I would say, twist, but it's more of a sort of reveal when you see that McBirney has gone to sleep with the 17 year old and then, you know, after the like cutting it becomes much more obvious what he is.


But I suppose that's missing, which I mean, again, that's part of the sympathies changing. But I felt that was one of the more interesting parts of the film. I think what really hurts is that it does lack the same sense of place that the CEO version has. Yeah. And it's much, much less concerned with the Civil War. So it's very isolated, I suppose, which I think does work to the film's that.


But yeah, but like I say, definitely the better version of the two, if you're only going to watch one, you might as well. Oh, OK. So here's here's a fault I just remembered. So both the civil war in the background, just two points really in the.


The 1971 version where it really comes to the fore. So the first one is when the. Captain and the two men come to the police to allegedly guard to obviously to rape the people, and do you think that Nick would would protect them and would side with them in that case? Because I guess I guess that was one of the things for me that maybe moved me more to being sympathetic to him, because it does seem that whilst he is taking advantage of them, he is still better than these people who just want to blindly rape them.


Well, that's true, but I don't think I mean, not like be maybe in that situation runs and hides. But he's told you.


I mean, he told us that he wants to have the pistol and he wants to be ready to. Yeah, well, that's the thing.


He takes the pistol, which is their means of protecting themselves for himself, leaving them completely vulnerable.


I think the purpose of the scene is to show just how isolated and vulnerable they are and so much of the time. But, yeah, like their only source of power against these people is the pistol. And he takes it for himself against orders.


I don't think the pistol is really well, I don't know. I don't think it'd be much protection.


They probably wouldn't in reality, but that's what they have. The symbol wasn't even I think it's not loaded with quite as much symbolic meaning as it could have had, I suppose, but particularly given that it does change hands quite a few times and probably would be better. So, um, but yeah, I think that scene doesn't reflect well at all.


OK, interesting. Exploded. And then the other one is that he says at the end when the union troops are approaching, he says that he will make sure that they don't do anything to the school. Do you believe that? I do, partly because he wants he feels guilty. I'm not sorry. Do you think do you think he changes at the end? Do you? I think he does. I think he knows I'm thinking about it. I think the reason I was to him is I do think he genuinely changes towards the end.


I think towards the end he's genuinely remorseful. I think one of the other thing I would say is that the Coppola version is much more explicit about the fact that maybe once he is desperate to have them or like him still, even after being a monster like that, he very explicitly wants their approval. So that's what he's seeking specifically is sort of the same thing. I think he does genuinely feel bad and he does genuinely want them protected, but not necessarily because he is a good person, but because he knows that he's wrong them.


Yeah, I think I do think it is because I think when he kills the turtle, he kind of realizes I I guess I guess the differences in our interpretation is I think that he comes in to the Situation Room and maybe he's a bit sleazy, a little bit, but then he gradually gets worse because of the situation he's in. And I think it then completely blows up. And when he kills the turtle, he realizes what he's become. And at that point, I think he at that point, I do think his character flips and he he realizes that he's got worse.


I'm not saying that he's good to start with. And I think I think the way you're meant to interpret is that he is good to start with. And then he gets the very first thing and the very first thing he does is kiss a 12 year old.


But that's two. That's two. So they don't get caught, though.


And then I think that first conversation he pretends to be a Quaker, also very explicitly told that it wasn't.


But I think that's because I'm saying I that's what I'm saying. I think he goes in he goes in manipulative. Right. So he's he's a character with a few flaws. Right. And then I think the flaws get just worse and worse and worse because of the exact things that happened to him and the things that he does then make that situation even worse. And it's only when he kills the turtle and he sees Amy who he genuinely likes. And yeah, obviously it's weird because he's her.


But I do think I think that establishes his character is a little bit sleazy. But I think the main thing is that he is genuinely is the best way to distract from the guards that are coming towards him. And then I think it's when he sees Amy and he sees that he's upset her, that he then switches his character.


But obviously then it's too late because he gets poisoned and he dies and it's like, yeah, okay.


It's I really I yeah, I've I've put it together in my head how I interpreted the film. Okay. And why I why I feel sympathetic to him is it's. Yeah. I think he, I do think he's a bad person but I think he, he's a bad person because of the situation he's in, because of what other people do to him and then because of what he does and then what other people do as a result, etc. It just all builds up I think.


I think he's a bad person who gets a lot worse and then he gets somewhat redeemed towards the end. It's too late and he dies. And that's a pretty epic tragedy storyline.


Mm hmm. I suppose I don't think I wouldn't say he has redeemed simply I don't think he really appreciates that the way he felt about things was wrong. He just realizes he did bad things. You know what I mean? Yeah.


Yeah, I would I'm not sure if I if I interpreted it that way, but I do I think there's an element of that where he doesn't see change as a person, but he maybe realizes who he is as a person. Maybe that's a way to put it. I think we'll agree to disagree. I think we've had time to our opinions.


Well, I'm glad. I'm glad. I'm glad I figured it out there because I was trying to work. I was like, why did I like this film and why did I side with him based on everything you were saying? And then it just hit me that it's because of the character arc that I personally see. OK, well, shall we move on to final ratings? Mm hmm. Right. So I would say I'd give it a I'd give it a watch if it's on for now.


But that's bearing in mind that the remake exists, which I think is the better version of the film to seek out, which I would say was an act of watch. Right. Yeah, I am. I think I think you should actively try to experience one version of the story. And it's quite interesting. Sorry I was interrupting.


My rating is by, uh, very interesting. I think it's a very good story. And regardless of I do think you should be aware of the historical context. No, not as in what song is number one person when it was made and and what they're trying to get across. As long as you're aware of that. I think actually the story is very good, especially the second half. The the cinematography and the twists and turns and stuff in the second half are very good.


I I'm not it's not a high bar because I do think it has a lot of issues, like there's a lot of stuff that could be subtextual, that becomes textual and there's definitely elements of misogyny and stuff.


But I celebrate it by I feel personally that both the CEO and the Coppola versions are imperfect. But like I think genuinely the story itself is interesting enough that you should try to experience it in some form.


I also, I think is a really I think it's really it's an interesting to see how different people have interpreted it. Yeah, well, I think you and I could say it completely differently. If you read if you read the just the Wikipedia page, like Clint Eastwood has one idea and the director is another. There's critics that say one thing. Critics say another thing. Obviously, Coppola had another idea of it. And this author of the book, what was he thinking?


And I think how you respond to certain things that happen is interesting.


So, yeah. Oh, then shall we wrap it up? I think so.


I'm not really I don't think I've got anything to say about what I've been doing or not. I really don't know. But yeah. So we'll see. Uh, next time, Chikezie, we're going to watch I think it's called the statue. So look forward to that. Well, all right. Bye, everyone.