All right, here we go, quiet. Well, zoom in, then I miss you. Welcome back to the Big Picture podcast, where we take a look at the latest movie news, the films of today and yesterday, and put them all into some sort of context. See it across the microphone from me, is our master of ceremonies, and the great editor-in-chief of Film Buff Online himself, Rich Dries.
And see it across the microphone from me, is Mamma's own Natasha Bukutsky, Film Buff Online contributing editor. And cinema enthusiast. Hello. Hi.
We're getting better about this opening. Yeah, getting a, we're finding the right level goofiness for it. Yeah. Okay.
How do you like my friends? I was, I was, well, I don't see it as you. Japau from Saeopitipu, H.A. Matt.
That means I speak French very little and very badly. Yes, I noticed. Okay. Thank you.
Anyways, how was your weekend? How was Thanksgiving weekend? Or is we around here referred to it as Doctor Who Anniversary Weekend? Yes.
How was it? Yes. Oh, it was. I mean, okay, granted we are.
You were there. Why don't you talk about it? Well, we were both there, but I'm trying to bring this into a conversation. Oh, okay.
I forget that other people in the room, yeah. Yeah. So it was great. It was a lot of food.
There was a lot of laughter. It was 30 jokes. Oh, you know how it is. Oh my God.
It was great. If I hear another quip about me having common sense, I'm gonna lose my shit. Okay. Moving on.
Thanksgiving was wonderful. Yes. You brought me into a family tradition you guys had that I didn't know about really, I don't think, of watching home alone. Yes.
On Thanksgiving evening. Yes. And I'd seen it before, obviously. And I've enjoyed it.
I've been able to sit there with everybody and watch it while, you know, all the digestion was going on. I don't think it's a film that, I mean, you can watch it by yourself and still enjoy it, but you are watching it in a group who all of them enjoy it. There is a, it's kind of like watching in the cinema. Yeah.
Everyone's laughing together. You're having a shared experience. It's lovely. And that's the best part about watching a comedy is when you're watching it with a group of people and that laughter kind of like creates a very positive feedback loop and you're all enjoying it and you're all laughing and it's wonderful.
And yeah, we're sitting there going, well, that would have killed him. And that would have killed him again. And that's a broken back and a concussion and that is not in airport. I wasn't going to bring that up.
But yeah. Yeah. Just think though, they drove pretty much probably across route 80 all the way to Chicago, which is how you would do it. So from our area back to get Catherine O'Hara home.
And that would have been what if it was a straight shot with maybe three bathroom breaks and maybe someone changing out at the wheel. Twelve to 13 hours. That's not bad. No.
I've looked at it as possibly wanting to do that someday as a, I want to go to Chicago for a couple of days, but do I want to burn two days out of that time just in travel? Whereas, you know, oh, maybe I could take a plane and you know, it'd be a half a day each day or probably with all the nonsense of going through the airport and everything getting there. Barely a half a day. Getting your rental car and everything.
It might stretch out too. I'm not saving too much time here. Well, it depends on the, I think it depends on your, your layovers and all that. Okay.
You could take a train out of either Philly or New York. Yeah. I've looked into that just, just casually. And I think that would be a fun way to see the country too.
The one day, the one time that I actually took a plane, which was a couple of years ago from Charlotte, North Carolina, home to our local Evoca, Wilkes-Grace Grant and International Airport, which is not the one at home alone, even though it's supposed to be. No. I was actually through TSA in about 20 minutes. I spent the next hour just kind of jawning around like the duty free and then I grabbed a quick bite to eat.
The flight home was about an hour and a half to two hours. I mean, you were right off, but you didn't have any luggage though really to do. I just had my, your carry on bag. My carry on bag.
Yeah. So, yeah. Honest, that's the best way to fly if you can do it. If I'm going somewhere though to like Chicago for several days, I'm going to be taking more than just what's going to fit my carry on bag.
My carry on bag is probably going to be my camera backpack with all the camera equipment. So that doesn't get lost. And then like an actual check piece of luggage with clothes. Well, I'll teach you, I'll teach you all the tricks for packing in a carry on.
You still get your personal item. So if you want to still carry like your camera bag and put it in like a say a backpack, that's a personal item. That's not a carry on. They don't count that.
Interesting. Okay. Yeah. So welcome to the big travel podcast.
Yeah. Let's bring this back around though. So if you're going to be on a train, what train movie would you watch? I would watch Silver Streak.
If I was to be on a train. Yep. Not murder on the Oregon Express. No, but that would be the most lavish looking one.
True. Definitely not North by Northwest. No. That one would probably be second for you.
Yes. Train. Polar Express. Okay.
Taking of Pelham one, two, three. If you count subway cars as trains. We don't do. We don't do unstoppable or unbreakable.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Not a big fan of the girl on train. Bullet train? Bullet train. Yes.
I would fucking do bullet train. Okay. We brought it back to movies. These are our favorite train movies.
We've been talking about train movies for the last couple of minutes. It's a very small part, but Harry Potter. Because why not? I would allow that.
How Gourts Express is an iconic locomotive. Oh, very much so. I'm trying to think of some other iconic trains in film. And I'm sure listeners are probably thinking of their own favorite that we've not mentioned.
The latest mission. And they're yelling at us. Yeah. The latest mission impossible.
The first mission impossible. Anastasia. Don't talk really quickly about how mission impossible. The latest mission impossible movie.
What was it? Dead Reckoning part one. Lifted pretty much an entire sequence out of the animated Anastasia. Oh, that's.
That's an interesting accusation. I'm not sure I don't disagree with you. When the bridge blew up half the train went over the side. I'm watching a mixture between Anastasia when the dining car went kabooie down there.
I literally looked at everyone. And there goes the dining car. And I've waited 20 years to say that reference. And you also got a little bit of lost world dressing park in there.
Yes. Yeah. Much so. Yeah.
That's I remember thinking that during the screening going, this seems familiar. Great train movies. I would say the general Buster Keaton. Very iconic.
Yes. It's iconic. I know it's not your favorite. But it's I'm not a big fan of Buster Keaton.
That being said, I am going to be the first to admit I've not seen enough of his work to really give him full appreciation for the value that he has brought to cinema as a whole. But the sum of that work in the general is incredible. Oh, it's insane. It's so insane.
And to see people watch that today and just like lose their shit when they realize, oh, this was actually practically done because there's no way else they could have done it. Well, I, as you know, I am a huge chaplain fan. Yeah, his stunt work is whatever, but his emotional moments. You know, my favorite chaplain is the kid.
I show that to a friend of ours a couple of years ago, who was, I think, just turning like maybe 19 or 20. And I sat him down. I go, this movie just turned 101. I'm curious what your thoughts are going to be on it.
And he watched it and looked at me and goes, there's no way that film is 101 years old. I go, it came out in 1921. He was mind blown. He could have, he could not find where it could feel dated.
He's like, this thing still holds up from a practical effects side from the emotional moments. Yeah, you have your tropes of the 20s of the speed ramping. Obviously you can tell just by a look that it's definitely done in that period, but it holds up as a solid film. Chaplain definitely tapped into some very base core foundational organic emotional truths.
Yeah. And I think that's why. And I feel Keaton is amazing, but from the work that I've seen, he's definitely more stunt related. Yeah.
He's more about, I think they called him thrill comedies because it's a lot of slapstick. And it's a lot of stuff work like danger. There were the action movies of their time. And then you had Harold Lloyd, who is your kind of, I would call him like faith based films, boy next door.
Good boy next door. Yeah. Yeah. Faith based films, but without actually faith, you know, without, you know, stopping in the middle and going, oh, thank goodness.
I believe, you know, when I say faith based, I mean, they're very heartwarming. They don't really push the envelope in one direction versus another. They are supposed to just be reassuring, reassuring of people reassuring of the goodness of humanity. Yes.
It doesn't really touch upon anything that feels melancholy or it doesn't touch upon despair or hardship, whether it be economical or class or anything. And it doesn't have enough of the action to compete with Buster Keaton. So. Okay, that's fair.
They're all considered geniuses of the silent era. Yes, I agree. They all bring something different to the table. And I think there's enough difference there that you can find something that you personally prefer in your films within those three people's work.
Now that being said, we all know who the greatest genius of the silent era was. Douglas Fairbank senior. That just hurt my head. Sorry.
No, he's fantastic. Don't get me right. He is fantastic. Who are you going for?
Well, he's foundational. Exactly. My point. Yes.
We don't get anywhere without. We don't get my python without George. I know it's so weird when you think about where his influence resonated all the way through to heck Star Wars. And then, you know, that became its own wave of influence.
And, you know, it's just mind bogglingly. I can't even put into words really, you know, how, how important his stuff is. Oh, it hurts that so much of it was destroyed. There's still enough out there that you can find.
I think a couple years ago, there was like a collection on criteria channel and a collection on HBO Max at the same time where you could watch. I was knocking out how many George Mulay's in a day. Usually about 10 or 12 minutes. Some are only a minute to three minutes long.
But yeah, I could spend four or five hours and watch 10 to 15 of his films. And they're all just so damn good. I think he really kind of pioneered a lot of not just fantasy elements, but a lot of early special effects and film cutting and, you know, film editing. Yeah, he was one of the leaders in figuring out how films should be edited, establishing that basic vocabulary alongside, like, people like Surji Isonstein.
And there's probably others who were also pioneering that stuff. But like you said, so much of, you know, EA's stuff has been lost as well as a lot of silent material has been lost over the years. And fires melted down into shoe heels. Yeah, that's a thing, by the way, if you don't know.
Film strip for the silver nitrate content studios going, why are we saving these silent films when we've switched to sound so they would just put them all into a truck and dump them off a pier in a Santa Monica Bay? Some of them have turned a crumbled to dust. Yeah, but what's it smell like vinegar vinegar? Yeah.
Yeah, that hurts. But I actually didn't know about George Millet until I saw Hugo. Okay. Yeah, that was my first introduction.
I had seen, like, his influences in cinema growing up with Monty Python, but it wasn't until I watched Hugo by Martin Scorsese. If you haven't seen it, ladies and gentlemen, watch it. It came out like 2011. It's fantastic.
Really gives you an in-depth look at, you know, how children see the world and particularly how they're influenced by cinema. And it takes place. That's another one. Drink film.
Wow. Nice, nice, unintentional. Thank you. I'm very proud of that one.
But Ben Kingsley plays the great George Millet and we get to see some of the behind the scenes work recreating some of his greatest films like A Trip to the Moon. And if you get a chance, a lot of the George Millet films are still available through HBO Max and Criterion Channel. Like I said, you could spend two, three hours knock out 15 films. It's not about knocking them out, though.
It's about diving in and just taking a look and seeing all the amazing stuff. And it's so worth the couple of hours that you spend doing that. Yeah, you're going to walk away. If you watch some stuff, think about what you're seeing and then kind of go and try to relate that forward.
You're going to be just like, oh, it's going to be eye opening. Yeah, and try to actually sit down and figure out how they did this without the use of a computer to go ahead and edit and do special effects without the use of optical printing and matte technology. Like we had in the 60s and 70s. Yes, they didn't have that either.
They had millions. It was all in-camera done. You know, there's, there's some things like you probably see them sometimes they get turned into gifts and shop around on social media during like Halloween of like the skeletons building the other skeleton and then it comes to life and everything. Or obviously the face of the moon that gets the spaceship that lands in its eye.
Like that's the most iconic I think George Millet moment of all time. There's, there's so much wonderful stuff. And I think there's also an energy to what we're seeing because they're like new art form. Let's see what we can do.
There's an excitement about discovering what we can do with this. And sometimes I think that's kind of missing from films today. Even though I enjoy a lot of other cinema, there's a there's a there's a vibe I think a lot of early silent stuff that we just don't feel. Yeah, there's no discovery because at this point we feel like oh the rules are set in place and we have to adhere to these rules in order to make a good film.
And whilst doing that you're creating a formula and you're creating and rules are meant to be broken or otherwise there are no discoveries to be had. Okay, I would not necessarily agree with that one hundred percent. No, but I would also say there are some that you would need to know the rules before you go on to do what you want to do if it's going to be outside of the rules. And I didn't know the rules.
They created the rules. They're inventing the rules at that time. Yeah. So.
God sometimes I wish this was a video podcast because it looks on your face that you're making when you're thinking about these things and you're like, okay, how do I debate this or how do I agree. And I never thought about that before. That's why we do this show so we can sit here and have these discussions that are hopefully entertaining for other people as well as, you know, as we kind of just do our own journey as film fans and film writers and filmmakers as we just kind of go through and we discover things and I dare say. 124 episodes ago we were different people and how we thought about these things and here it is several years later and 125 episodes and we're doing what we're doing.
I find it. Yes, I'm very proud of that actually, but I did have something I wanted to add. Oh, is that going to be more self congratulatory nonsense because I'm almost me myself kind of sick when I was talking about me. I don't brag on myself too much.
No, you don't. But France is such a powerhouse for film itself, like a lot of the early stuff. And then you had the new wave in the 60s that brought around great artists such as Janu Gada, Francois Tufot, Jacques Demi, like you have so many icons of cinema who also reinvented the rules and created new rules. Can we talk about cinema as reflecting to a French icon?
American cinema. Oh, I think I know where this is going. Is this leading into our review for this week? Does it work?
Yeah, it works. So we are of course talking about Napoleon from director Ridley Scott. That's going to be the subject of our review. So this is a movie that runs two and a half hours that does a mad gallop on horseback through a majority of his life kidding upon the most important moments.
We saw it separately from each other. Yes, I actually took my mother to see it. Yes. So, so let me ask you first, what were your first initial impressions?
If you, I was about to ask you if you could say in three words or less how you would describe this film, just what you thought of it. How would you describe it in three words or less? Wow. I know what the second and third word would be.
I'm not sure if I can find the word I want to use to sum up what I think overall a survey, but not comprehensive. I'm throwing an A on there to make it sounds grammatically correct. It's a survey of Napoleon's life from a certain point to the end, but I don't think it gets too comprehensive into any one of the details. It hits and it hits a lot of details.
It hits a lot of moments. Can I add my word in that actually is a good okay. Okay. Dry.
Now, some people were calling this a comedy and I could see where you could find like his semi social awkwardness to be funny at times. And I'm wondering if that is a walking Phoenix acting choice or not. And I'm not sure that's a good acting choice. I didn't see it as a comedy at all.
Okay. Cause I mean, there was a couple of moments where I did chuckle and I laughed. Oh, but it wasn't like the relationship between him and Josephine is a twisted. It's not like I was laughing the way I did when I saw we're the yank of exterior.
So now that'd be an interesting way to approach this movie. But anyways, I found Phoenix's performance to not convince me that Napoleon was the great stirring leader that always roused his men to battle, leading the charge. And I just goes like, why were these people following this clown in the battle? I was a little disappointed with that.
There's only one moment and that's when he comes back from his first exile in Elba. And he addresses the crowd and he addresses that crowd. And that's the only moment in the film. And I'm like, yeah, but how was he doing it for the last 20 years or so of his life that we saw depicted in this movie?
I think his leadership, what they're trying to show you through this is his leadership skill was more from being relatable to the average Joe that it was supposed to be some stirring king on the mighty high just looking down. And saying, you will obey me because I am your ruler. He came from nothing. He realizes what they call him a Corsican.
Yes. A Corsican thug. Yeah. He's not what you would consider royalty.
He's very low born. He was raised by his wit, by his strategy, by his intellect than anything else. But his relatability comes from public opinion. But I don't feel we ever really saw a whole lot of that until that one scene marginally towards the end.
I think with that, it was his public opinion through his battles. I mean, for God's sake, he fires into the crowd at one point. Yeah, that was messy. That was very fucking messy.
And honestly, that's not the messiest thing I've seen this fall. I can't talk about where else I saw something that was nasty. Honest the cannonball in the horse that freaked me out. Yeah, that was like, oh, but I feel bad for anybody who likes horses and sees this movie because that's pretty hard.
Yeah. Yeah. Even I was looking at that go, oh, man, that matters about that later. But overall, yeah, I, we're, we're trying to see him behind closed doors.
We know what public opinion has based the great monolith that is Napoleon throughout history as, but really is trying to approach this as who was he when the public wasn't looking in and get that. God, this movie was so fucking dry. But, but even if that's the intention here, wouldn't it be better to contrast it with his public appearance, you know, at times? And I don't think he really manages to do that.
I do agree with you when it comes to how public opinion from the lower brow is not shown. But I still think we get a little bit of the opposition to his fantastical story. And that comes from the leaders of Europe. How one person's like, are you kidding me?
And then the other ones like you would like to marry my sister. But even these characters show up, you know, very briefly. But they serve to be in opposition. Yes.
They serve to be in opposition. But you can see, and this is coming from, I mean, these actors are probably 15 to 20 years, Joaquin's junior. And they're sitting there and they're still able to bring across the fact that they do not approve of him. True.
True. There is a certain clashes, class, class ish, oof, that was tough. Class ish snobbery about everything. And you can tell.
Oh, yeah. He is done to your country. And now he's trying to make peace with you. The idea, oh, God, that you would marry into my family.
You're not good enough. But despite all the classist snobbery, there you go. I got it right. Yeah.
That is shown here. I think this film is very much dependent on Joaquin and Vanessa. Despite the great job that this cast does, the whole extended cast, including, you know, the actors who were playing the classic snobs of Austria and Russia. The wonderful actors.
I cannot remember her name, but I've seen her in a many things, including the stars, BBC, short-lived Camelot as Napoleon's mom. Rupert Everett. I love Rupert Everett as the Duke of Wellington. This movie is really sitting on the shoulders of Joaquin and Vanessa.
Oh, God. They have to carry this movie. And they shouldn't fucking have to. I'm sorry.
They shouldn't have to. This movie is so much about a life. A fantastical grandiose rags to riches story for both of them. And it's filled with so many historical markers that, I mean, there should be enough people coming in and out that are giving incredible performances.
You shouldn't have to rely on just those two. There are points where I'm looking at the people around them in their court. And this is how much really doesn't explain who these people are or give them enough to do. He actually has to put their fucking names up on the goddamn screen.
Actually, I kind of like that on it to a certain degree, simply because it eliminates the need for expository lines like, Oh, hello, Duke of Edinburgh or whatever. No, it works. But at the exact same time, they're not doing enough with them for me to fucking care what their name is. That's fair.
That's absolutely fair. I saw somebody complaining, breaking down a lot of the historical figures saying, Oh, this person only gets like two lines. And this is like a very important personage in this moment that they're trying to give us and show us. And that's cool.
I just realized that same person also said, and they had the best quote about this movie, actually. And I'm going to steal it. And I might have been inadvertently paraphrasing it before. But they said, this is like a fast bus tour through Napoleon's life with no stops whatsoever for us to get out and examine anything.
I would agree. That is the perfect explanation for this movie. I've always been fascinated by Napoleon's, Napoleon's marched through Egypt and everything and what they did there. And you get 20 seconds of that.
It was like, OK, I can see, OK, we show up, we fire one cannon shot into the pyramid and blast some of the covering off of it. And the leader of the Egyptian army just falls to his knees like fuck this. I could see that as a condensation of a much larger military campaign. Yeah.
And I can see that, you know, from a dramatic standpoint to express all of that like that. However, I don't think this movie ever kind of lives up to its promise. It constantly wets our appetite with little appetizers of these events and doesn't make a meal, doesn't make a full course out of any of it. Agreed.
I don't even think it makes a full course out of his relationship with Josephine. And that should be, that's what they're trying to set up is your fucking main course. Just being those two kids who both disappear. Until the daughter shows up at the end.
Yeah. No idea what happened to the son. Nobody even throws out a line of like, oh, he died at tuberculosis. You actually watch it really closely.
You see that daughter through many different sections of the film, but they don't really fucking explain to you who that is until the final scene they're in. Yeah. Oh, that's the daughter. That's the daughter.
I just thought she was a servant or a lady in waiting. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah.
It's, it's really Scott. He's already talked about, yeah, there's going to be a longer director's cut coming out. This doesn't need a director's cut. This needs a fucking mini series.
Yes. It's too much to try to squeeze in even in a two or four hours. And if you say you're going to have a director's cut coming later, it should be a director's cut that expands on your theatrical cut in ways that don't harm the theatrical cut. If you know what I'm saying?
If, if you need to say, oh, we're putting an hour of stuff back into this movie, then it's going to make some sense to you. That's the wrong way to be doing it. Your theatrical cut should still make some fucking sense. Yeah.
And Napoleon is like just not, it's not even reading the cliff notes to Napoleon's life. It's like thumbing through them really fast. It's not trying to create a picture. Yeah.
It's like a long Wikipedia article of a, of a life. And I don't, I just don't think this works. There's some great stuff in it. My God.
Some of the battles are amazing. Waterloo is exceptionally well staged. No. No.
For me, it was a major discipline. Okay. I'm talking cinematically now. I'm not talking historical.
We've already decided this movie is like... No, even from a cinematical standpoint. Okay. Well, fire away.
Waterloo is one of the biggest battles in history. It was three countries, at least three countries, all at once fighting against each other. It was almost a million people. It did not feel like that watching it.
It felt like maybe 10,000 at most. Okay. This was, there has been nothing to actually equal it that I can think of. Even when you have World War I and World War II involved.
Yeah, you had trench warfare going on during World War I and it was horrible, but you never really had a Waterloo of a battle. And then when you got to World War II, it was spread across half the world and then the other part was taking place on the other half of the world. It was very more guerrilla-ish tactics. We had gone past trench warfare at that time.
We were now including airplanes and ships. It wasn't open field combat. This was the nastiest battle in history and it still kind of holds that mantle. I mean, for God's sake, but does the song in the 70s?
You're my Waterloo. What they're saying is you're my fucking downfall. Oh, yeah. I don't feel like you get back here.
It just felt like another battle that we were seeing in this film. It doesn't feel like it carries the weight of the entire world on its back and that's what it should feel like. Again, that's why I would say that's because once again, it's a cliff note of battle. It's a cliff note of battle.
Yeah. I was so excited when I was watching it and he goes, we have 120,000 of our men versus 120,000 of this one and 320,000 of this one and 120,000 of this one. Yeah, I know I may have overstated when I said a million, but still he goes and we have to stop them from convergence here. And my brain goes, you were just in Elba 10 minutes ago.
What happened to the whole Napoleonic Wars that took place almost over 10 years that included Portugal and your brother. There was just so much shit that went on. I don't know a whole lot about European history in the 18th and 19th century during this time, but I've seen all the shops and movies. I know more about the Napoleonic War from watching that than I ever did from this movie.
The way this movie presents Waterloo, it's like everybody's pissed off because he's back from Elba. Not that there's this long space of time. That's how I interpreted it, just watching this movie. But yes, there's a larger space of time.
There was more words of conquest and stuff like that. Oh, it was nasty. It was really fucking nasty. They completely skipped over Arthur Wellesley's promotion into Lord Wellington as well.
There was so much that happened in the sea as well. Like you've seen Horatio Hornblower for those of you dads out there who love master and commander. This is our battlefield. This is all took place during that time period.
And there's just such a chunk of time there that we skip over in like almost two minutes. And it's like, okay, we have to stop them in the convergence of Waterloo. Okay, all my dreams of risk are coming to life in front of me. And then we get there and pew.
It just didn't work. It fizzled like a water balloon. Like a balloon. It just hurts so much.
I mean, Ridley Scott has been on record saying he doesn't care about the historical accuracy inaccuracies. I don't mind the historical inaccuracies as long as it's as long as it gives me a good story. Like my mom mentioned something about how Napoleon was buried and how he was removed and moved somewhere else. And I said, yeah, but that does nothing for the main storyline.
It doesn't fucking matter. What about this? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that we never saw Josephine buried because it's just love.
It's just another shot. And it's a set up that takes another day's worth of filming and maybe 40 crew and two actors to do. And what does it buy us? Five seconds of film that we just don't need.
That's true. My problem is, I don't mind if there's historical inaccuracies, if it's not 100% precise to the history of the moment, but if it tells a larger truth about that moment and there's a longer stretch of narrative that tells this person's story. And, yeah, you may have to align some details. You may have to take one or two characters and combine them into it, you know, one or two historical personages.
Yeah, that's fine. I don't think Ridley Scott does that here. There's some great footage, some great moments, some good acting here and there. But this movie, unfortunately, does not add up to what I was hoping for in terms of a story about Napoleon.
It's a good watch, but it needs a fair way down treatment. Wow. Okay. You didn't think I was going to go there.
I was not expecting that. Well, you've seen what they're doing with Baz Luhrman's Australia by taking a lot of the footage that was shot and cut from the film and creating a TV show for Hulu. This needs to be a mini series where it needs to be a television show. I would be more interested in sitting down and watching 10 hours of a new Napoleon project that kind of worked on more of a historical basis and got into a lot more of these things.
Sitting down and spending two and a half hours watching this again. It was not great. And I don't even get me started on the score. Okay, actually get me started on the score.
So what about that score? Holy fuck. What the hell was he thinking? Half of the film, the first half of the film, I actually sat there going, is there a score here that Ridley Scott didn't live from the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie?
Yeah, when we talked after the first time after you had seen it, I know you love Pride and Prejudice, and you, I think that was the first thing out of your mouth was, why did he rip off that music? Using Vivaldi a little later on, which was famously also used in this Sofia Coppola, Marie Antoinette from 2006, makes sense because this music may have actually existed during that time period. If you're not going to use your own original score, then yes, you use classical music of the time period, or you find something relatively classical to put towards it when you're looking at a costume drama. But ripping off a very famous film score to create what is supposed to be your most important piece of music, the love theme between Napoleon and Josephine.
One of the things I love about Coppola, when Coppola did Marie Antoinette was she had created a hyper realistic, anachronistic world while still making it feel like you were sitting into a costume drama, but it was so modern. And the way that she did that was the crazy candy colors of your set and your costumes, and then starting to use modern songs. And a lot of the way the energy and the cutting of the editing was done was to make it seem faster, more modern, like you weren't watching a costume drama, you were watching just your friends in costumes, but a modern movie. Here, this is a costume drama.
It definitely feels historical. It feels like you're sitting through that heaviness. And the most important piece of music was lifted from a very famous movie. And I'm not the only one who noticed it.
I was sitting in the theater. I actually know someone else who was in that theater at that time, they were sitting in the pit. And I heard them start laughing when it happened. I heard someone in the back girl go, oh, come on.
It wasn't like me where they were like, oh, come on. It was more of a case of just like, and I sat there. And at first I thought I was hearing things. And then I realized I wasn't and I got very pissed off.
Very fucking pissed off because it's distracting. That's fair. That's fair. Now, it's happened before in movies where you're sitting there listening to a piece of score and going, wow, this sounds familiar.
It reminds me of this other thing. And yes, it can be distracting. One another world's biggest lift from another piece of film scoring. John Williams, main theme from Star Wars, sounds really similar to Eric.
Excuse me, Eric Gordon Gold's theme for the 1942 movie Kings Row with Ronald Reagan, I think. And a lot of people have been like, over the years have been like, I love Williams. I love Star Wars, but that's a little too close for comfort. Similar?
Very similar. And there is your answer between the two. That was similar, meaning he was inspired. It could have been an homage.
Well, hold on. Let me pause. I will play you some music. I will drop it into the recording of this.
And then we will continue this. Okay. Okay. Well, first of all, your reaction to the William stuff is it's very similar.
And there's also plenty of other instances of John Williams sounding a lot like stuff like a whole, the planets, things like that. Similar, though. You're putting your own flair on it. To a point where he does start off like the first measure, measure and a half is, you know, and he's changing the rhythm of it a little bit.
But it's changing some of the notes as well. A little bit. But it's still some of the same progressions going forward in terms of chord progressions. This sounds very similar.
What you played for me. Now, without getting a clean listen at the soundtrack that Ridley Scott was using for that scene versus the soundtrack version from Pride Prejudice that you played me. It's hard to, you know, say definitively, but I will defer to you because you are the Pride Prejudice fan here. You've probably fallen asleep to that score.
So many times. Yes. You know it literally in your sleep. I've gone on walks and have just played it because it's very soothing and comforting.
It is not some obscure piece of music. I'm not saying that the King's Row is, but I will. It's from 1942. You know, a lot of people today know it.
No. And I think possibly it's not even that the music is not known. I've never even heard of that movie. And I am really good with my 30s and 40s and 50s stuff as you well know.
I do recommend it though. I saw it on Turner Classic. But according to also the video that we just got done watching where we got our samples, the gentleman said there was a 30 year gap. There isn't even a 20 year gap.
True. Between these two pieces. And this 2000, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice is considered a very definitive film when it comes to some of the film adaptations of classic literature. There is a lot of people who argue.
Oh, then the 95 Pride and Prejudice versus the TV, you know, the call of birth method, whatever. But the 2005 film for it's aesthetic and not it doesn't have to be a exact Pride and Prejudice lifted from the book as a story. It is considered one of the best classical literature adaptations of all time. I know.
So to go ahead and rip something from a very famous movie, very fucking famous and have that as your leg to stand on to bolster. This love story between your two leads. It's not good and it doesn't make them look good. No.
And considering this whole film is riding on their shoulders, you're not helping their case. No. And I am going to take a slight tangent here to chuckle at the irony of you saying, doesn't give them a leg to stand on. When in Kings Row, one of the major plot points is Ronald Reagan's character is in an accident and they have to amputate his legs.
I didn't know that. That's probably the best Reagan's ever looked. Oh, oh my God. He's not.
Let's face it. Ronald Reagan is not a great actor. But the scene where, you know, he kind of wakes up and finds out that they've amputated him, his legs and everything, I think is probably one of the few good moments he has on screen as an actor. I'll give him that new Rocking All American and probably another good one.
Most of his other stuff. He's kind of just a semi charming long kid. Honest, I've never seen a single one of his movies. Wow.
Oh, wait. The TV version of the killer. He plays a mob boss. It's his last thing he did before he got out of acting in into politics and ran, you know, began running for mayor mayor of California governor of California.
And he's kind of effective there too. But yet, I mean, his film career is kind of unremarkable except for I'm very familiar that he was an actor, but none of his films really seem like something I need to watch. My film knowledge. I would recommend King's Row and New Rock Me All American.
Okay. Maybe bedtime for Bonzo. It's a screwball comedy. It's not an A-list screwball comedy.
I hate screwball comedy. But, you know, I would recommend seeing it if you wanted to know why people were making fun of him during his presidential campaign. Okay, I'm in. Okay, it's a fine little film of a man and his monkey.
Oh, I did hear about that one. But, you know, it'll give you the basis to understand those jokes. Yeah, I just, I just find it. It's detrimental to the film to go ahead and lift someone else's score.
True. When you really don't have much that your film is standing on. And this movie as a whole has so much good to it, but they're not working in unison. The gears are not working correctly with each other.
There are a couple that are completely shut off and they're just, you know, sitting there looking pretty and shiny. I was hoping that if, if you're, you're supporting cast and you're set and all that wasn't working with your main actors. Maybe at least the score could tell this story and bring them along and lead them to provide some cohesion. Yes.
And I, yeah, I can see her. It's just Joaquin and Vanessa. Vanessa gives one of the best performances I've seen in it quite a while from her. I loved her in pieces of a woman.
I think she's fabulous on the crown. I've seen some of her work through National Theatre Live. We don't talk about Hobbes and Shaw. Here she is definitely Joaquin's equal and I can see how she, why she was cast when Jodie Comer had to leave the project.
Honest Jodie, you made a good choice. And I'm saying this as someone who is very much a Ridley Scott fan. I love his work. I think in the last couple of years, he's gotten a little too big for his britches.
It needs to be spanked because he's not, he's not turning out such good quality as he thinks he is. The last duel was fantastic. House of Gucci was not. No.
This has potential if it was in a different medium other than movie. True. And on that note though, seeing as how I agree with you, we're going to wrap it up for this episode. Napoleon is in theaters right now.
If we haven't dissuaded you from going to see it, if you're looking for a night out, there are worse options. There are also better options as well. Remember that you can find us online at bigpicturepower.com and we are now available on iTunes, Stitcher and Google Play. So either use the link in the show notes post or head directly there.
Search and hit subscribe. And if you like what you're hearing, please leave a positive review because that always helps us connect with new listeners. So I hear we got a special one coming up next week. All of our episodes are special.
Is Christmas all around? Yes, it is. Next week we will be back with our anniversary look at a Christmas classic from 2003. A modern Christmas classic.
That's right. Richard Curtis's love actually. And that'll be all right here on the Big Picture podcast.