Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Into the Wild - Bram Stoker's Dracula Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to Into the Wild - Bram Stoker's Dracula Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:08
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Bram Stoker's Dracula listener polls and preview into the Wild. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this film is lit the past podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We don't have a learning things segment this week, but the main reason for that is because we have quite a bit of feedback. I was scrolling, I didn't realize. Facebook.
• 0:36
  Speaker B: We had a ton of comments on Facebook.
• 0:39
  Speaker A: Yes. So we got a lot of feedback to get to. But before we do that, we have to get to our patron shoutouts.
• 0:45
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:50
  Speaker A: No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winning patrons and they are Nicole Goble, Eric Harpo Rat, Nathan Vic Apocalypse, Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve. Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch Justgratch, the Oracle of Shellfi, that darn Skag and V. Frank. So you may have noticed there, I didn't end that with our traditional patron. That ends up that list. Our longest running Academy Award winning patron ended their patriot patronage last week. I think it was last week. And we just wanted to thank her. I think it's a her based on the name. I don't know for sure. One more time. For all of the support over the years, it's crazy that somebody would stick around and give us 15 bucks a month for that long. I. Every week I'd be like, man, still here. That's crazy. Especially for Alina because they didn't like, they weren't a super active. Yeah, like, you know, they weren't like requesting things regularly or anything like that. Whereas a lot of our other patrons, I'm like, well, they're, they're like here and doing.
• 1:57
  Speaker B: Yeah. Getting their money squared.
• 1:59
  Speaker A: But Alina did drop off last week, I think just down to a free patron. So it's still around at least it appears. But we did want to thank you again for all of the years of support at like over 5, I believe, at the Academy Award winning level. Just ridiculous. And so thank you.
• 2:15
  Speaker B: I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think Alina was our very first patron and that's what makes person to sign up.
• 2:21
  Speaker A: Oh, patron, period. I think so. Could be. I actually don't know that. I know was the first Academy Award winning patron because that's why she was at the bottom of the list. They were at the bottom of the list. But V. Frank, you just moved into the first place. The longest Running position. Congratulations. But anyways, like I said, thank you again. Never any hard feelings when anybody has to leave or anything like that. So we just wanted to recognize one of our longest patrons. All right, Katie, let's see what the people had to say about Bram Stoker's Dracula.
• 2:54
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. On Patreon, we had six votes for the book, zero for the movie. Movie did not get a single vote on Patreon. And the one listener who couldn't decide, the Oracle of Shelfi, said.
• 3:14
  Speaker A: I believe you coined that.
• 3:15
  Speaker B: I did, yes. Shelby said, it took me a long time to read Dracula, but when I finally did, I was pleasantly surprised by the character of Mina. She definitely suffers from the cultural norms of the time, but Bram Stoker still managed to give us a resourceful and hyper competent female lead. Not only that, the book is aware of the sexism from the other good guys. She's one of my favorite leading ladies from classic lit.
• 3:42
  Speaker A: That seems like it matches with your experience.
• 3:44
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
• 3:45
  Speaker A: I don't know if you'd say she's one of your favorites, but you liked a lot about her.
• 3:48
  Speaker B: Yeah, I liked a lot about her. Van Helsing and Mina Harker are the dual MVPs of this book. And the best part is when they're working together. But pop culture remembers Van Helsing as the badass vampire hunter, while Mina is downgraded to Dracula's love interest because she's the girl one, I guess. Thanks. I hate it. It's cynical, it's sexist, it's heteronormative, and it's allonormative. If Dracula absolutely must have a love interest, I will die on this hill. It should be Jonathan. He's the one who's stuck hanging out with Dracula at his house in the beginning. Maybe Jonathan figures something out about himself there. Plus, once he escapes, he doesn't have much to do compared to Mina or Van Helsing or Jack. He just hangs out with Quincy and Arthur.
• 4:34
  Speaker A: I think that makes sense. I think that there's. I'm sure it's been done.
• 4:38
  Speaker B: There's like a Beauty and the Beast story there.
• 4:40
  Speaker A: I'm sure it's been done. It seems too, like, obvious. I don't want to say obvious, but it seems like. Because even, like watching Bram Stoker's Dracula, there's this. And like in a lot of the stories, there is a. I don't want to say a sexual energy between them, but there's. It's become a thing In a lot of subsequent vampire media that vampires are very often sort of chaotically pansexual like that. For better or worse, that tends to be a. A, Like a character trait we have ascribed to vampires. I think it's like a hedonism thing. I think it's kind of like the. Why a lot of stories go that direction, but which is. I'm not saying that being bang sexual means you're hedonist. And I think that's why, like, mistakenly people, I think kind of culturally, anyways. You get what I'm saying. I think. But I do think that would be an interesting avenue to explore because I do think that even in the text there feels like there's at least a little bit of a hint of, like, I don't know, I could see it. So I think it tracks.
• 5:39
  Speaker B: I mean, I think too that vampires have been such a sexualized figure within modern pop culture. Like, once we depart from the, like, folkloric, literal corpse vampire, it gets very sexual very quickly.
• 6:00
  Speaker A: Right.
• 6:01
  Speaker B: And I think as. As we have progressed as a society that has, like, kind of bled out and fanned out to include more sexualities.
• 6:12
  Speaker A: Yes, yes, I agree. But I think. I think part of it is that idea. It's the same thing. You get like. Like, it's very. It's. It's. It even in back in the day when media wasn't as progressive with portraying different flavors of sexuality and gender expression and stuff like that, what media has always been pretty okay with. And this isn't like a. I'm just saying this because to kind of back up my point that I wouldn't be surprised if this version of the story has been done. We've kind of always been okay with, like, the evil badass can be bisexual. Like, they're allowed. That's like a classic trope. Is like, I think like Faith and Buffy, maybe. I can't remember if she is but like that archetype of character. And also usually women, or at least in like, modern pop culture and queer.
• 7:02
  Speaker B: Coded villains are very, very like, like a hays code holdover as well.
• 7:08
  Speaker A: So there's a bunch of different things that go into it, but yeah, it's. Yeah.
• 7:13
  Speaker B: Shelby summed up her thoughts with. This concludes the Sparknotes summary of my rant about Mina Harker in pop culture. I have another for Irene Adler, but we'll save it for another day.
• 7:24
  Speaker A: But you're a huge fan of Sherlock based on that. That she's right. That's Irene Adams.
• 7:31
  Speaker B: I don't remember anything about what we watched of that show. Except for the alcoholics can't plug in their phone.
• 7:40
  Speaker A: Yes. In the first episode.
• 7:42
  Speaker B: That's all I remember about that show.
• 7:44
  Speaker A: It is, it is. Yeah. She's. She's a very sexualized depiction of Irene Adler in Sherlock. She's like a dominatrix, I think, or something.
• 7:52
  Speaker B: All right.
• 7:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. It's a whole thing. I don't remember any of the details about it, but I remember that a.
• 8:00
  Speaker B: Couple of Shelby's other thoughts. I will grant you that a story where Detective Mina explores a relationship with Dracula could be interesting. As far as I know, Dracula came out just before blood typing was discovered. I'm sure Stoker was thrilled about that, immediately dating his novel. Brian was the coffin thing from Egypt. You were thinking of a sarcophagus. Yes, we have several comments about that.
• 8:25
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yes, that is the word that was escaping me. Sarcophagus.
• 8:30
  Speaker B: And Shelby's last note was honestly shocked that Katie hadn't read or watched this until now. Really feels like her vibes. It is. It is my vibes. I guess. I'm also shocked. I did like Dracula had been on my to read list. And then I had to read Frankenstein for a class in college. And I know I should give Frankenstein another shot because the reason I didn't enjoy it was because I didn't enjoy the class. It was a bad class. But then reading that left such a bad taste in my mouth that I kind of like did not go back to the genre as a whole for a really long time. Our next comment was from Almeizi cr, who said, one of my all time favorite books. I at least attempt to reread it every October.
• 9:24
  Speaker A: Okay, I read that comment before and I misinterpreted that sentence as I attempt to reread it at least every October. And I was like, are you rereading Dracula like multiple times a year? Makes more sense. As I at least attempt to reread it every October.
• 9:46
  Speaker B: I roll my eyes a bit at how almost every adaptation adds the romance angle to him and or the tortured backstory, but I get why those endure. I do also smile at how much of the book is our main group of heroes professing the power of their friendship. I have to go with the book because no adaptation ever gives that kind of heartwarming goofiness.
• 10:09
  Speaker A: It's called Buffy. It exists.
• 10:14
  Speaker B: Next comment was from Kelly Napier, who said, I laughed when Katie talked about how it was so unexpected to her how much she enjoyed the book because I had the exact same experience. I was about a quarter of the way through and thought to myself, this is an incredible book. So of course, that's what I voted for.
• 10:32
  Speaker A: It is always funny when that happens. This is. You're. You're describing the experience I had watching the Godfather of, like, you know, you always hear like, yeah, yeah, the Godfather. And I finally watched him, like, okay, yeah, no, it's really, really good.
• 10:44
  Speaker B: Yeah. All right, all right. The people were right about this one.
• 10:48
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:50
  Speaker B: I enjoyed the book so much. I don't think any movie property would have matched it in comparison. For as long as it was, it really never felt like the action relented. And I really enjoyed Mina often being the smartest one in the room. The only thing that frustrated me was how long it took them to realize that their common enemy was a vampire. Even Van Helsing, who I assume knew from the jump what had happened to Lucy, took forever to actually say it out loud. Maybe it was considered more suspenseful when it first came out and the basic plot wasn't part of the zeitgeist. I don't know.
• 11:26
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:26
  Speaker B: I don't know if that's meant to be more of a suspense thing or if it's meant to be more of a dramatic irony thing.
• 11:32
  Speaker A: Yeah, it could be either.
• 11:33
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 11:34
  Speaker A: I don't know.
• 11:34
  Speaker B: I did have that thought as I was reading this book of, like, I wonder what it was like to read this.
• 11:40
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:40
  Speaker B: Before Dracula was just so ingrained in pop culture.
• 11:44
  Speaker A: Right.
• 11:46
  Speaker B: The added love story between Mina and Dracula in the movie did nothing for me when the book told the story so successfully. Without that aspect, I just don't see why it needed to be added.
• 11:57
  Speaker A: Didn't need to be added, but it is. That's what Coppola wanted to talk about. To be fair, it's also. It's actually not what Coppola wanted to talk about. It's what the screenwriter wanted to talk about. And it's. That is true, because it was a different person, a different guy. And that was what apparently attracted Winona Ryder to the script, was that aspect of it. She's headed. Or at least that's what the interviews that I found said.
• 12:22
  Speaker B: Our last comment on Patreon was from Nathan, who said, definitely the book. I kind of hated this movie. Oh, the Dracula Mina romance is a terrible idea and even more poorly executed. Basically, Dracula just pulls pickup level artist moves, and that is supposed to be enough to win Mina's heart to the point that she's willing to sacrifice her life for him. The movie seems convinced they have a romantic connection that is not developed on screen.
• 12:49
  Speaker A: That is true. I don't disagree with that.
• 12:52
  Speaker B: Yeah, it is under baked.
• 12:53
  Speaker A: It is under baked.
• 12:54
  Speaker B: I agree with that.
• 12:54
  Speaker A: But I think the movie doesn't. I think the movie is, is relying on. I think it still kind of works because it's not so much about them having a believable romance or like connection as it is about her struggling with this. Similar to Nosferatu. It's about her kind of struggling with the allure of this strange, weird, dangerous man versus the path that she has been sort of already set on, already set on by society. And so it's not really so much, I think that you're supposed to look at their relationship and be like, oh, I really buy that. Like they have a romance that makes sense and like it's like a, like a what a wonderfully portrayed romance. It's more so about what the conflict means for Mina, I think would be my argument. I think. But like you're not wrong that yeah, it's under bait.
• 14:08
  Speaker B: I do also think that arguably the movie is relying on a century's worth of Dracula pop culture and the audience expecting to see some kind of romance element.
• 14:21
  Speaker A: Right. And that too. But yeah, like I said, I think a big part of it is just that it's not really the fact of how and why she's in love with him. You're supposed to kind of just like, it's the vibe. Yes, hand wave away. But the fact that she does, regardless of the fact that it doesn't really make any sense, love him is kind of the point. And what makes it compelling, at least it can be compelling. I also understand being like, I don't know, it doesn't really because. And that's where I kind of landed ultimately was like, it doesn't really say anything all that interesting in my opinion. Like their relationship doesn't really do anything all that interesting for me right now. But I think it does make for a fun movie. I don't know the way I think it works in the movie, but it's not.
• 15:08
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think it would have done a lot more for me as a teenager. Right.
• 15:14
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 15:16
  Speaker B: Anyway, Nathan went on to say, as a first time book reader, I found it surprising how little Dracula there actually is in the book. After the bits in the castle with Jonathan, he's basically done showing up, except at a distance until his, in my opinion, opinion, very abrupt death scene. This works well in creating a sense of dread, of an unknown and unfightable danger. I'm conditioned by the Dracula of pop culture. To think of him as mostly sexy and definitely a formidable foe, but not really scary. The book does a great job of slowly making us realize just how much danger Jonathan is in and how trapped he is in the castle. That being said, I think the book does not do a great job of paying off the dread it creates. Jonathan just escapes the castle off page because we need him in the story again. And the book wraps up because it turns out Dracula is actually more scared of us than we are of him. There is an interesting idea that the book plays with that even Dracula doesn't know exactly how his powers work and that's why he makes mistakes. But it's just kind of stated as fact by Van Helsing rather than actually developed on page. I think this is a general flaw of the book and Van Helsing is the main perpetrator. He knows so much about Dracula and delivers so much of it via exposition. It actually kind of reminds me of the way later vampire media will deal with clarifying which bits of vampiric lore is canon in their universe. But this book is making the lore, so there's no need to clarify everything so explicitly. I could agree with some of that. I also think that some of that might be like a hallmark of the time period.
• 17:03
  Speaker A: Yeah, just kind of the style of the period.
• 17:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, the style of the period that kind of like exposition heavy and some of the action happening off pace.
• 17:13
  Speaker A: I mean, I noted during the episode that I thought the character descriptions were a little detail heavy in a way that felt kind of dated and specific. Of a specific timeline.
• 17:24
  Speaker B: Definitely. Yes.
• 17:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 17:26
  Speaker B: As a skeptic, I found Van Helsing's repeated railings about the limits of science to be frustrating.
• 17:31
  Speaker A: Hey Nathan, have you listened to our bonus episode on Nosferatu yet? Because I explore this at length.
• 17:40
  Speaker B: He's always berating Jack about how limited his evidence based perspective is and that he needs to be willing to accept spiritual or mystical explanations like vampires. The reason skeptics reject supernatural explanations is because they are often untestable and when they are tested, they don't stand up to scrutiny. It's not because we are incapable of considering supernatural solutions for a problem. In fiction. This often gets mixed up because authors change the reality of their universe and act like that would not also change a skeptic's vision of reality. In a world where Dracula was real, there would be evidence that Dracula was real and skeptics would change their worldview to match this. There are bad skeptics who might not, but it's not a Condemnation of skepticism generally. Too many books and people seem to think this is a valid criticism. And Van Helsing was annoyingly strident in this statement.
• 18:34
  Speaker A: I co. Sign everything you said there. I agree completely. It is a thing that I deal with in media generally a lot, is that feeling of missed. It's that frustrating feeling of, okay, yeah, because of. In all of these stories in this world, this supernatural thing exists because the author made it exist, but they still want a skeptical person to be there, to be like, this can't exist. But it's like. But it's obvious it exists. Like it's not the same thing. Like it's. And it's. It's frustrating. I don't know if there's anything to be done about it. Yeah, it is what it is. I just. It's one of those things. I've just gotten to a point where I'm just like, ugh, most of the time. Like I said, sometimes again, listen, Nathan, listen to her. I go into this a bit in our bonus episode. Yeah, well, not this specific. Like a different. Slightly different angle on it, but a similar. Okay, yeah, similar idea, but yeah, because I just take it from a slight. Yeah, a different angle.
• 19:32
  Speaker B: Nathan went on to say, I was interested by Lucy's receiving four different transfusions using completely unsanitized equipment and without checking of the blood type. And it made me imagine a world where that was actually the only thing wrong with her. Maybe her fiance misread her exhaustion from receiving three marriage proposals in the same day and called in an 1890s doctor who provided the quality of care to be expected from 1890s medicine and misdiagnosed her from there. It was just tragic incompetence and ignorance that weakened and killed her. I'm sure with the amount of Dracula stories out there, this version exists already, and I want to find it.
• 20:10
  Speaker A: I'm sure it does.
• 20:11
  Speaker B: I had that thought, too, as I was reading, like, the whole Lucy saga and where she keeps getting blood transfusions. I was like, I bet there's a story out there somewhere where that's actually what kills her.
• 20:22
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, there is. I know that it can come off as trite sometimes, and people don't love the versions of stories where it's like all of these. Like, traditionally, this version of the story that has always been viewed as supernatural or magical or whatever. There's like, this version of the story. Does it like, oh, but what if it was just normal stuff? I like those stories. I know some people find. Like I said, find them Kind of like, I don't know, maybe trite's not the right word, but, like, I think.
• 20:50
  Speaker B: That type of angle can be really interesting. I sometimes find it to be a little condescending.
• 20:56
  Speaker A: Maybe that's. Yeah.
• 20:58
  Speaker B: But neither here.
• 21:00
  Speaker A: There's nothing if. If skeptics have ever been accused of anything, it's being condescending, so.
• 21:07
  Speaker B: And Nathan's last thoughts here were, it turns out the recent Renfield flick was a return to a complex Renfield character and not a who cloth creation. I like Renfield of the book, but there was so much else going on. He did seem a bit extra. Because I'm petty. I must end by saying Camilla and then like 10 greater than signs. Dracula or Carmilla, rather.
• 21:34
  Speaker A: I don't know what that is.
• 21:35
  Speaker B: Carmilla is an older vampire story than Dracula.
• 21:39
  Speaker A: 1972 Gothic novella.
• 21:44
  Speaker B: Lesbian vampire.
• 21:45
  Speaker A: Oh, look at that. Tells the story of a young woman named Laura and her susceptibility to a female vampire, also named Carmilla. It's narrated by Laura, who is haunted by childhood dreams of a beautiful visitor. Years later, Laura encounters Carmilla on the road after a carriage accident, and the two recognize each other from their shared dream. Wow. There you go. I had no idea.
• 22:09
  Speaker B: Just two gals being pals. All right. Over on Facebook, we had nine votes for the book and one for the movie. And Andy said, I chose the book, which I think is a masterpiece. Firstly, I want to acknowledge Stoker's reactionary views and chauvinism, as Katie did in the pod. We shouldn't let him off due to the era either. His mother was a prominent feminist writer and activist, and he lived during the suffragette and labor movements. For a clearer look at that, in a work where he does not show any restraint, you can read the opening chapters of the Lair of the White Worm, with long digressions about the innate virtue of Anglo Saxon heritage and, well, further discussion of the implied opposite. Gold star revoked. Fair enough.
• 22:59
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 23:01
  Speaker B: Okay, Dracula. Most people know the novel as epistolary. I think the choice and execution of that structure, of the form and of the tone, perfectly matches the story. The changes of voice and perspective are clearly defined and convincing, but never break the progression of the narrative or the immersion. It's a horror that is actually scary and from beginning to end is packed with unsettling and unforgettable images and set pieces. The Voyage of the Demeter. Renfield's experiments with eating creatures in his cell. Undead Lucy carrying a child to her tomb. Foreshadowing alert. The staging and inventiveness of the set pieces never undermines the effectiveness of the story as a horror. They are in perfect balance. I saw Bram Stoker's Dracula in the cinema when it came out and had a grand old time. But on reflection, there are two main sticking points. I love them. They are icons of Gen X, but Keanu and Winona are miscast and flat. They're not bad. They are caught in limbo between embracing the camp like Oldman, or anchoring with an internal process like Hopkins.
• 24:10
  Speaker A: Secondly, I will say I can see that. I don't think any of either of them were. And like you said, they're not bad. I don't think either of them were bad or in a distracting way, but they're. We did mention, and I thought Winona Ryder was pretty good, but definitely in comparison to Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins and even some of the other people in the movie. Keanu is not doing a level of work on par with them by any stretch. And Winona, it fluctuates. I think for the most part she's pretty good. But there were some scenes here and there that I did remember being like, eh, it's not great.
• 24:50
  Speaker B: Secondly, it is such a self conscious spectacle that I felt it didn't work as a horror. I didn't feel scared.
• 24:56
  Speaker A: Oh yeah, no, not at all. I don't even think it would. Maybe it did bill itself as a whore, but if it did, it shouldn't have because it's not.
• 25:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, maybe if I had seen it when I was a kid. Yeah, I would remember it as being scary.
• 25:07
  Speaker A: Seeing it as like an eight year old, maybe, but like anything, if I was a teenager. No, no.
• 25:14
  Speaker B: Also, I understood and admired Coppola's take, the focus on the romantic element and time, but it's just not coherent across the whole film afterthought. I'm just echoing Brian at the end here, but rewatching it for the pod, the second time I've done so in recent years, I have an evolved relationship with it. In this age of blockbuster content, slop and cgi, no matter what, I find myself possessed with pure joy at every practical effect, at every clever transition, at the sets, compositions, costumes and the bold brushstrokes. All right, our next comment was from Ian, who said, greetings from Japan up front. I'm still working my way through the episode. The ship is unexpectedly busier than anticipated.
• 26:02
  Speaker A: I hope you don't have an interesting shipment from Romania on your boat.
• 26:07
  Speaker B: If people start disappearing, start going through the boxes of dirt.
• 26:11
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 26:12
  Speaker B: For the last five years I've been eyeing. This film is lit around Halloween, wondering if you were going to cover Dracula for it. Let's go back to 2020. The world is not in a good state. Worldwide plague lockdowns and a very unknown ending to all this. The Northern Ballet Company on Halloween night televises their performance of Dracula, recorded it and watched it a couple days later. First off, good performance. I'm always game for a ballet show that's different than to the usual Swan Lake, romeo and Juliet, etc. Etc. But we get to the ending. Our heroic vampire hunters are celebrating their win at the castle gates. No one notices Mina going over to a dagger, picking it up slowly, then quick as flash, slits her throat. Blackout lights. Lights come on and it's company bows. I sat stunned in the chair with my jaw on the ground, trying to process what I just witnessed. I actually had to rewind it back a couple times, wondering if I saw what I saw. Clearly the director wanted to shock the audience at the last moment there. But as I was coming to terms about this, I realized I didn't know the actual story of Dracula as Stoker had written it. All the films, from Bela Lugosi to the Hammer films and the others, all tell slightly varied versions of the same story. So as soon as the first lockdown was lifted, I headed in and bought the book. I found myself getting more invested in the book than I usually would do. I think during an early encounter with the Brides, there was a loud knocking sound on the front door and I jumped right out of my skin.
• 27:46
  Speaker A: You know, it's good.
• 27:48
  Speaker B: I was surprised how Big D picked Lucy and me.
• 27:50
  Speaker A: Don't like that.
• 27:55
  Speaker B: They just happened to walk by him one day and that's that. It's more of how a serial killer picks their victims. I felt a little let down by that. Coppola's version is perhaps closest to the book than any other film or miniseries, but with the added reincarnation of Big D's missus and Mina.
• 28:15
  Speaker A: Nope.
• 28:17
  Speaker B: I do enjoy the film. It's a good casting. And while Keanu's English accent is a struggle, it's still better than Dick Van Dyke's East End accent. Everything's better than Dick Van Dyke's East End accent. The scoring by Kalar, I don't know how to pronounce it is perfectly creepy and atmospheric. Listen to the Ring of the Fire track in the dead of the night with headphones on to send shivers down your spine. As much and as often as I've seen This film, I will have to vote for the book. Well written, with a good pace, Stoker really knows how to pull in the reader.
• 28:54
  Speaker A: Well, there you go.
• 28:55
  Speaker B: Also, get your hands on Richard E. Grant's audio reading of the book for a Dracula. For the Dracula lines, it feels like Richard is trying to seduce you. It's quite a feeling. Love the podcast. Keep up the good work.
• 29:08
  Speaker A: Wasn't it Richard E. Grant that was in Bram Stoker's Dracula? Didn't he play the doctor? I think.
• 29:15
  Speaker B: Or I don't know.
• 29:16
  Speaker A: I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure that's Richard. Richard E. Grant. Yeah. He plays Dr. Seward and this one. So I thought. Anyways, cool.
• 29:25
  Speaker B: All right, our next comment was from Greg who said, I'm going with the book. I think it's a brilliant work of horror fiction and one of the things that makes it work is how laden with subtext it is not. All of which I'm certain was deliberate on Stoker's part. Being a repressed Victorian may have actually helped him in this area.
• 29:45
  Speaker A: That can be the case where sometimes being a repressed part of a certain time period, you write some compelling literature.
• 29:52
  Speaker B: That you don't even realize you don't even know you're writing. Keanu Reeves accent and a few other flubs aside, the movie is a well made adaptation, but it makes a lot of the themes more literal, which diminishes the story's power for me. I also think losing the epistolary format weakens some of the dramatic irony, and I'm not sure the scenes about Dracula's backstory and tragic lost love add much for me. I like Coppola's version fine, but I actually preferred Robert Eggers Nosferatu because I think it captures the spirit of the novel better, even though it's a less faithful adaptation in some of the narrative details.
• 30:30
  Speaker A: Well, as I mentioned earlier, if you want to hear us talk about that patreon.com this film is lit. We just put it out yesterday, so it is out now on patreon at the $5 level and we talked about like some of the ways in which it does capture some elements of the book better in a lot of ways.
• 30:48
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Adam who said, I really enjoy the movie as an adaptation, but I have to go with the book. Maybe that it's that it's a classic or it's because of reading it at a relatively young age and being captured by it, but I just can't convince myself not to pick it. Side note, as Someone who's into film. If you haven't already. You should check out the Vordalak.
• 31:13
  Speaker A: Sure.
• 31:13
  Speaker B: V O U R D A L A K Vordillak. I guess. If you want. If you want a different kind of vampire movie. I think it's on. Shudder if you have it or. I'm always happy to hand out plex invites.
• 31:29
  Speaker A: It's on amc plus it says. But yeah, I'll have to look. Lost in a hostile forest. The Marquis Der Fay. It's French. I don't know. A noble emissary of the King of France finds refuge in the home of a strange family. French drama. Horror film. Yeah, it looks like a vampirey kind of movie. The COVID is a guy in, like, foppish French, you know, court outfit being bitten by a vampire while looking very coy.
• 32:02
  Speaker B: Oh, so he does look very coy.
• 32:06
  Speaker A: There you go. Interesting. I'll look into it. We'll look into it.
• 32:11
  Speaker B: Adam also said it's kind of refreshing to see something shot on actual film with a broad color palette in 2025.
• 32:18
  Speaker A: I assume he's talking about.
• 32:19
  Speaker B: I assume so. Our next comment was from Miladin, who said, this time I've chosen the book over the movie. Before I proceed, I want to clarify that my experience is based on my memories of reading the book four years ago. I didn't reread it for this review. I only re watched the movie. No one could blame you for that. It's 500 pages long. I remember watching the movie as a kid when I was around 9 or 10 years old and loving it at that time.
• 32:47
  Speaker A: So Muladin didn't find it too scary?
• 32:49
  Speaker B: No, not too scary. I probably would have, though.
• 32:52
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 32:52
  Speaker B: However, after reading the book a couple of years ago, I prefer the book over the movie. While the book is not without its flaws, it presents more of a detective mystery with a chilling horror atmosphere. Dracula is portrayed as a terrifying creature of pure evil, rather than a sympathetic villain searching for his lost love. Unlike the movie, Mina is portrayed as a more capable female lead in the book. She actively investigates and aids in the pursuit of Dracula, even after being infected by a vampire bite near the end. Jonathan Harker, played by Keanu Reeves in the film, is fine, but we get to spend much more intimate time with him. In the book, the reader experiences the same confusion as Jonathan, with each diary entry, building intrigue and suspense. In the movie, we already know who Dracula is from the opening scene, which diminishes the suspense for viewers. The only question left is when and how they will stop him. As Brian mentioned, the movie has great visuals and a captivating vibe that keeps you glued to the screen. Overall, I preferred the book, even though it dragged a bit towards the end. Brian, the movie you were thinking of is Rashomon, which I've mentioned on this.
• 34:04
  Speaker A: Show like a half dozen times, and.
• 34:06
  Speaker B: I just never remember the name of it.
• 34:09
  Speaker A: No, I often do remember the name of it. I know I've said the name of it several times on the show, but I, for whatever reason, could not remember it at all that time.
• 34:17
  Speaker B: And the word you were looking for is sarcophagus.
• 34:21
  Speaker A: Thank you. Curious how film. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 34:24
  Speaker B: Our last comment on Facebook was from Anthony, who said, while I love the film and have actually gone back to it more than the novel, I choose the novel. Film is far more easily digested, to be fair, much easier to revisit. Dracula is a creature of unmitigated evil and is not a sympathetic villain. Gary Oldman does capture this, but then Coppola has the tacked on tragic backstory. It's a fanta. It is. It's a fantastic film, but a strange adaptation.
• 34:57
  Speaker A: I mean, it's definitely a change. Like, I. I think it's an interesting adaptation to be like, what if it's not a unique adaptation at this point? But it's. No, I think at least an interesting adaptation to be like, okay, let's explore Dracula as a sympathetic character instead of just as a pure force of evil. But it's also, I think, very compelling because the 2024 Nosferatu is like, nah, he's just a pure force of evil. He's literally like death incarnate, basically, which is also compelling the way that movie handles it. So I think you can do. I think both are interesting. It just depends on how you handle it.
• 35:29
  Speaker B: And Anthony also said also good, bad or bad bad might have altered how I see Gary Oldman after introducing me to Tiptoes.
• 35:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. What a film. For those who don't know, Gary Oldman plays a little person in the film Tiptoes.
• 35:45
  Speaker B: Not a little person, but plays one.
• 35:49
  Speaker A: Yes, I think most people are aware that Gary Oldman is not a little person.
• 35:52
  Speaker B: I'm just clarifying for anyone who might.
• 35:55
  Speaker A: Not know, in a film that also stars Peter Dinklage, which is just a wild choice. Peter Dinklage is like his friend in the movie. And you're like, why did we do this?
• 36:08
  Speaker B: Why indeed? All right. On Instagram, we had four votes for the book, four for the movie, and two listeners who couldn't Decide Tim Wahoo left an actual comment and said One of the 90s most rewatchable movies. One thumb up.
• 36:27
  Speaker A: Sure.
• 36:27
  Speaker B: So sure. Great.
• 36:28
  Speaker A: Fair enough. Trolling response we've ever gotten from Tim Wahoo.
• 36:33
  Speaker B: Yes, on Threads we had one vote for the book and one for the movie. In Blue sky we had zero votes for the book and one for the movie. And Ian from Wine country said this film, terrible Keanu accent and all, is the Dracula I grew up with. I'm sticking to it.
• 36:52
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 36:54
  Speaker B: And finally on Goodreads we had one vote for the book, zero for the movie, and Miko said the movie is a mixed bag. Sometimes I disliked the style, like how plasticky Dracula's armor looked, and sometimes I was extremely impressed with the movie, like with the effect of the footsteps and the mist.
• 37:16
  Speaker A: I like his armor but it is a little plasticky looking. But I don't care. I think it looks cool.
• 37:21
  Speaker B: When Mina commented how Jonathan's letters sounded unnatural and unlike him, I couldn't help but chuckle because unnatural would be my description of Keanu Reeves performance. I think he was clearly trying way too hard so it felt like he belonged in a different film. I really enjoyed the book. However at times the journal entries and letters were clearly written for a narrative and were full of exposition. No real person would write in the situation. But this bothers me in almost all epistolary novels so I can look past it. I will say though that back in the day people wrote letters differently than we would now. Like much different.
• 38:01
  Speaker A: It kind of harkens to the exact thing we mentioned earlier. Somebody else talking about the kind of expository nature of something.
• 38:07
  Speaker B: And I mean it is definitely, you know, when you're writing an epistolary novel, obviously there's going to be gimmes for a narrative structure. But also like people wrote letters differently. Yeah, yeah. Mika went on to say the choice was easy.
• 38:26
  Speaker A: I mean, because if you think about it, it's literally their only way to.
• 38:29
  Speaker B: Communicate with people so they have to.
• 38:31
  Speaker A: Do a bunch of expos position in their letters. A lot of times, absolutely.
• 38:35
  Speaker B: Mika went on to say the choice was easy and my vote goes for the book. My main touchstone to the lore of this story was the board game Fury of Dracula, where one player, Dracula, tries to hide and others collectively hunt him all over Europe. I always just accepted the rulebook's justification for why Dracula can't use trains. A noble ancient doesn't ride a new fangled thing like a steam train. So while it makes sense, I found the fact that Dracula is just trying to avoid being lost in the mail. Unintentionally funny. That is pretty funny, I will say.
• 39:12
  Speaker A: Yeah, I've never heard of this game. It's an interesting Fury of Dracula board game, huh?
• 39:17
  Speaker B: So our winner this time to probably no one's surprised after all of those comments was the book. With 21 votes to the movie, seven plus three listeners who couldn't decide.
• 39:29
  Speaker A: What a shellacking. But yes, we did expect that. But I think most people enjoyed. A lot of the people still enjoyed the movie. It's one of those where it's like, look, this book is great. It's one of the most famous novels of all time for a reason. Movie's good, but it's just not.
• 39:44
  Speaker B: It's not going to measure up.
• 39:47
  Speaker A: All right, thank you all for all of that incredible feedback. Like I said, we had so much feedback. We do not have a learning things segment this week, but we are going to preview the book we're covering this week. Into the Wild. I want to buy you a new car.
• 40:06
  Speaker B: Why would I want a new car? Datsun Run's great. I don't want anything.
• 40:11
  Speaker A: Everything has to be difficult. There are people in this world who go looking for adventure. Christopher McCandless was searching for himself.
• 40:32
  Speaker B: So you're a leather now. Leather? Yeah, leather tramp. That's what they call the ones that hoof it. Don't you think you ought to be getting a job and making something of this life? I only got one plan. I'm going to Alaska. Alaska.
• 40:45
  Speaker A: Alaska or city Alaska?
• 40:47
  Speaker B: I'm gonna be all the way out there.
• 40:48
  Speaker A: Yeah. In the wild.
• 40:50
  Speaker B: What are you doing when we're there? Now you're in the wild, what we doing?
• 40:53
  Speaker A: You're just.
• 40:53
  Speaker B: Just living, man. Into the Wild is a 1996 non fiction book written by American author and mountaineer John Krakauer. It is an expansion of an article that he wrote titled Death of an Innocent, which appeared in the January 93 issue of Outside, which is an outdoors focused magazine.
• 41:17
  Speaker A: That that was one of the first notes I wrote down because that's how the book starts. Is his author forward? He explains how this is an expansion of an article that he wrote for Outside magazine.
• 41:28
  Speaker B: So the book relates the story of Chris McCandless, who in May of 1990 ceased communicating with his family, gave away all of his money and began traveling across the western United States. And then in 1992, his body was found in an abandoned bus on the Stampede trail in Alaska. A year following that, Krakauer retraced McCandless steps during the two years between his college graduation and his death. In the book, he explores similarities between McCandless's experiences and motivations and his own as a young man, as well as relating the stories of some other young men who vanished into the wilderness. The novel addresses themes of how to be accepted into society and how finding oneself sometimes conflicts with being an active member of society. Into the Wild is an international bestseller, been printed in 30 languages, 173 editions and formats. According to Wikipedia, it has been widely used in high school curriculums, but not at my high school did yours.
• 42:41
  Speaker A: I didn't read it in high school. It may have been taught but I was also in. I think I've mentioned this, but I took mostly the like AP classes and we did different books than I was.
• 42:51
  Speaker B: Also in Honors English traditional classes. Yeah, we did different books too.
• 42:55
  Speaker A: So they may have but I don't.
• 42:57
  Speaker B: I don't remember anyone ever talking about this book. Like I had plenty of friends who were not in the Honors English and I don't ever remember anybody talking about this one.
• 43:06
  Speaker A: I don't, I don't remember. I don't. Yeah, I, I'd heard of it. I like this is something I've heard of for years and years and years. So I like was aware it existed, but I don't, I don't remember if we read it or if my high school it was part of the curriculum.
• 43:17
  Speaker B: In 2019, Slate listed the book as one of the 50 best non fiction works of the past quarter century. However, despite its critical acclaim, the book's accuracy has been disputed.
• 43:31
  Speaker A: I will say from my understanding that's true of like every book Jon Krakauer has ever written.
• 43:36
  Speaker B: Good, good, good.
• 43:37
  Speaker A: Not that he's like a liar, but like he plays kind of a little fast and loose with some of the details for the sake of narrative is kind of the understanding I get. But I don't know that I don't, I don't know the details. I just have heard that about other ones of his books that there's like people are like. It's not exactly what happened.
• 43:55
  Speaker B: In 2015, Alaskan reporter Craig Medred wrote an article covering a large number of items in the book that he deemed questionable, most of which stemmed from the limited detail in McCandless's journal. And he ended up concluding that Krakauer had to infer or invent much of McCandless's experiences. And he criticized him for presenting his speculation as fact. And you can access that article through Wikipedia. So we'll have to take A look at that, I think.
• 44:26
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 44:27
  Speaker B: Additionally, weather records also refute some of the dramatic weather events.
• 44:32
  Speaker A: And that's fine.
• 44:33
  Speaker B: Presented in the story.
• 44:34
  Speaker A: I will say I do know one of the things I was reading that I want to make a note of when we discuss in the main episode is that. So Krakauer talked to a lot of the people. And one of the things specifically that I read that I want to talk about in the main episode is that there are some of the details that he, according to him, kept out of the book or that informed things in the book, but that he couldn't explicitly put in the book because of requests from family members.
• 45:01
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 45:03
  Speaker A: Long story short, apparently Chris and Chris's father was like abusive and they. Krakauer interviewed the sister, McCandless's sister, who basically confirmed this and explained all this to him, but said don't print any of this.
• 45:20
  Speaker B: I don't want.
• 45:20
  Speaker A: Because her parents were still like her mom was alive. Like she just didn't want it out in a book. But so there's elements of that. So I don't know if maybe some of the details.
• 45:30
  Speaker B: I didn't read the article that this guy wrote. I went and like clicked on it to see where it led to. To like see if it was a real article. And it is.
• 45:38
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 45:38
  Speaker B: But I definitely think something that we could look at.
• 45:41
  Speaker A: I have heard that before about this, that into the Wild the book has. People have criticized the accuracy of some of the events in it and stuff. I don't know. Yeah, we'll have to see what we can parse out. It's probably going to be too complicated and too, you know, too intensive for us to like really nitpick all over.
• 45:59
  Speaker B: Through it, but we'll at least. Yeah, I'm not touch on it a little bit. We do like an. An in depth investigation or anything. But yeah, could be something that comes up.
• 46:10
  Speaker A: And like I said, I don't know if that article mentions or talks about because it says like the extremely limited detail in his journal. But again, from what I can understand it from some other stuff I saw that it wasn't just his journal that he was using. It was other. He interviewed people, he. All kinds of stuff. Stuff. So I don't know. All right, that is it for all of the book facts. It's time now to learn a bit about into the Wild, the film.
• 46:35
  Speaker B: I read somewhere how important it is in life not necessarily to be strong, but to feel strong, to measure yourself at least once. Where are your mom and dad living their lives?
• 46:47
  Speaker A: Somewhere do you folks know where you are?
• 46:57
  Speaker B: I wasn't dreaming, Walt. I didn't imagine it. I heard him. I heard him. I heard. Chris. Son, how long you been out here?
• 47:07
  Speaker A: A couple weeks.
• 47:08
  Speaker B: And before that? I went to South Dakota. I worked for this guy named Wayne.
• 47:12
  Speaker A: What do you think about all this?
• 47:13
  Speaker B: I like all this attention. Took the Colorado river all the way down through the Grand Canyon and did rapids. What's the end stand for? North. Your great Alaskan adventure.
• 47:32
  Speaker A: Into the Wild is a 2007 film written and directed by Sean Penn, known for Flag Day Superpower. There's another movie that I'm blanking on that I forgot to write down. But then apart from that, he's mostly known as an actor, Sean Penn, but also directed quite a few music videos for Bruce Springsteen, Peter Gabriel, one for Shania Twain, and one for Jewel, which.
• 47:53
  Speaker B: I thought was interesting. Did not know that.
• 47:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. The film stars Emile Hirsch, Marcia Gay Hardin, William Hurt, Jenna Malone, Kathryn Keener, Hal Holbrook, Kristen Stewart, Brian H. Dierker, Vince Vaughn, and Zach galifianakis. Has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 73% on Metacritic, and an 8.1 out of 10 on IMDb. It made 56.8 million against a budget of 20 million. Was nominated for two Oscars, one for Best Supporting Actor for Hal Holbrook, and one for Best Editing for editor Jay Cassidy. I did want to make a note here that early in 2015, or early. Make a note early on that in 2015, Emile Hirsch was convicted of assault after attacking and strangling a female Paramount Pictures executive at a nightclub in Utah. He pled guilty, got, like, a slap on the wrist, like, parole and stuff, and went into rehab. I think he's kind of been Persona non grata since then. I don't know. I haven't looked into anything about fallout or anything.
• 48:53
  Speaker B: Generally know nothing about this man.
• 48:55
  Speaker A: I didn't either. But I remember hearing about that in relation to him, that he. And he. I don't think he's really been in anything. The only, like, major film he's been in since then was one of Tarantino's movies. But anyways, I don't know. I don't know anything about it. I just wanted to mention it because I know people are like, he sucks. And I'm like, maybe he seems like he does, but he did claim at the time that he was both on stimulants and, like, wasted out of his mind, so. Which was probably true, but doesn't mean you could. You're allowed to assault People, so. Which again, he pled guilty. So he didn't pretend he didn't do it. So getting into some very limited production notes before we get to the IMDb trivia, because there wasn't actually a ton here that I could. That I found The Alaskan scenes that they film that are supposedly, like, at the bus were filmed in an area about 50 miles south of the actual location of the bus because the actual location was just too remote for practical filming purposes. And then Brian Dierker, who I almost left out of the actor credits cause I was like, I don't know who this guy is. Has no previous acting experience and joined the film initially just as a guide for the rafting scenes. He appears to be like a whitewater rafting. I think he's like, primarily like, he was like a Grand Canyon, like, rafting guy.
• 50:11
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 50:11
  Speaker A: And he's done a bunch of movies as like, a rafting expert or whatever. He also now has an interesting podcast where he interviews other, like, outdoor adventurers called, like, Big Adventure with Brian Dierker. And it's still going, like, normally those kind of things. I'm like, oh, they made like six episodes four years ago. But no, it's still active. And he just interviews random people who, like, run super marathons or climb mountain, whatever. I don't know. So getting into some IMDb trivia that I thought was really interesting. Jim Galleon, who is the Alaskan who gives Chris the rubber boots in the opening scene of the movie, plays himself. This is literally like the only part of the book I've read so far is this introduction where he's being taken out to the Stampede Trail in a truck by this Jim Galleon guy. And the guy's just like, you don't got a lot of gear with you. Seems like, you sure you do want to do this? Like, tries to talk him out of it for like, the whole drive or whatever. Yeah. But then he gives him his boots because he's like, you do not have adequate footwear for this. But yeah, plays himself, which I thought was really interesting. The watch that Emile Hirsch wears in the movie is apparently Chris McCandless's actual watch that was given to him as a present, I assume by a family member in relation to this. I don't know if I have a note about it, but this was a huge passion project for Sean Penn. Like, he spent and years, like, working on this and researching it and making sure he had all the, like that the family was, like, on board with everything. It sound like he really wanted to like, tell the story the right way. It sounds like at least. At least the right way in his opinion. And make sure again, that the family was on board. So I imagine that's related to Emile Hirsch getting the watch. So this I thought was really interesting. On the June 18th of 2020, the quote unquote, magic bus that McCandless lived in for 114 days in the Alaskan forest was airlifted out. Due to public safety concerns, a number of people over the years tried to hike out to the bus, which is out in the middle of nowhere, and at least 15 of them had to be rescued, and at least two. But I read up to like, five or six other people died attempting to get to the bus. Like, because there's a big river you have to cross is like one of the main things, and several people, like, drown in the river or whatever. So the bus was airlifted out. There's actually a really cool photo on Wikipedia of it being air. Like, they have photos of it. It's like a giant, giant Chinook helicopter, like, lifting the bus out of the woods. It was then exhibited at the Museum of the north at the University of Alaska Fairbanks for a couple years before they put it into storage until it could be restored and preserved. I don't know. There was no update on the status of it.
• 52:49
  Speaker B: What kind of bus is it?
• 52:50
  Speaker A: It's like a relatively short, small, like.
• 52:53
  Speaker B: Like a school bus or like a. It's like a city bus?
• 52:55
  Speaker A: No, it's like a school bus, but it's like a short school bus. It looks like. But it's like a retro one. It looks like. Like a camp bus, kind of like a. Like a. Like a summer camp bus. You know what I mean? But like a short one.
• 53:06
  Speaker B: Okay, I was just wondering.
• 53:07
  Speaker A: It's like green and white, I think.
• 53:10
  Speaker B: Because regardless, I'm assuming, to be fair, it's not supposed to be in the middle of nowhere.
• 53:14
  Speaker A: So I actually know the backstory of that. So to be fair, it is a city. But it was a city bus. It was a Fairbanks city bus. Fairbanks, Alaska. It was part of their city bus system. But it looks like a school, but like, it's an old. From the 50s or something like that. It got put in the woods in the 60s. We're pre doing the episode right now. It got put in the woods in the 60s. They were trying to build a road or something, and so they put up three buses in the woods to act as for the people working on the road to sleep in. They basically turned them into cabins and they Got rid of two of them, but one of them was still there, and that was this one.
• 53:53
  Speaker B: Okay, I can ask about the bus again in the main episode.
• 53:57
  Speaker A: In the main episode. And I can explain it. They might explain it in the movie. To be fair. I don't know. So according to the DVD commentary, the moose that Christopher kills in the film was a roadkill that they found on the highway. So they just repurposed that. Apparently Zach Galifianakis improvised all of his lines because he didn't have any in the original script. Which I guess if you're sure, Zach Galifianakis makes sense as the guy to get to do that. According to IMDb trivia, Kristen Stewart co wrote one of the songs that her character Tracy sings in the film. It's called Tracy's Song.
• 54:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, okay.
• 54:34
  Speaker A: At some point, Chris and Tracy end up at Salvation Mountain in California. I don't know if you've ever seen Salvation Mountain.
• 54:39
  Speaker B: I don't think so.
• 54:41
  Speaker A: Art installation built by. So anyways, they go to the Salvation Mountain and this guy shows him around. And the guy is Leonard Knight. And he is. It's another one of those where it's the real guy who made this real thing. He's this very eccentric guy who built this giant mountain that appears in the film. And it's a. It's. He's like a big. It's like a big like Jesus thing. But it's very. He's like a very eccentric, like artist guy. So it's this giant mount. It's a mountain. It's like a hill that is like all painted and covered in like crazy art and stuff. And it. But it all says like, Jesus loves you, God is love. Stuff like that. Like very generic kind of Christian Y stuff stuff. But it's like. But it's like. So it's this big hill, but then there's like this interior part that's very kind of canyon. And he. I don't know. You have to look at videos that like, there's video tours of it. The guy's really interesting. Vice did a video interview with them years and years ago. He would talk to anybody that would come out and just again, he's very interesting guy. But yeah, go check out. Look at like just type into YouTube Salvation Mountain and you'll find some interesting interviews. But that apparently shows up in the movie. I assume that Chris visited there maybe, or they think he did. I don't know. Apparently Shia LaBeouf was considered for the lead role, which I could see based on looking at Emile Hirsch. And photos of Chris McAndless. Some other actresses that were auditioned for the role of Tracy, which is what Kristen Stewart got Davay Chase. I don't know who that is. But then Amber Heard and Evan Rachel Wood also auditioned. Apparently. This was supposedly the film that inspired Katherine Hardwicke to cast Kristen Stewart in Twilight.
• 56:25
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 56:26
  Speaker A: Supposedly. According to IMDb trivia. So take it for anything. And then getting into some reviews. Writing for Blender, David Fear said, quote, anyone who's read Jon Krakauer's best selling nonfiction account knows the details, but actually seeing McCandless's travels is still thrilling. Yet are we supposed to salute his foray into the wild or shake our heads at the sheer itchy idiocy? End quote. Another positive review came from Sight and Sound magazine by Tim Robbie, who said, quote, even Pen's more indulgent flourishes seem to enhance the film's keen feeling. End quote. However, on the more negative side, writing for IE Weekly, Amy Nicholson, who's a critic that I actually listened to a podcast of, I didn't. This is the first time I've ever just randomly stumbled across like a podcast. I listened to. Like I knew she was a film critic because she does a film podcast called Unspooled. It's her and Paul Shear, who's a comedian and they like talk about movies. But, and I, I really like listening to her talk about movies. I don't always agree with her, but I do like her. I think she gives very interesting opinions on films. She was not impressed by the film. She gave it a C and said, quote, pen's main idea about going native is making eye contact with a deer. End quote. That was the, the pull quote that was on Rotten Tomatoes. So I don't know. And then another negative review. Josh Rosenblatt for the Austin Chronicle said, quote, I walked away from into the Wild feeling that Penn was too in love with the idea of Christopher McCandless, the free spirited hero, to excavate the soul of Christopher McCandless, the lost man. And finally, Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun Times gave the film four out of four stars, describing it as spellbinding. He wrote of Emile Hirsch that he gave a hypnotic performance, saying, quote, it is great acting and more than acting. And he also added, the movie is so good partly because it means so much, I think, to its writer, director Sean Penn, end quote. So he was very impressed with the passion project of it all. So, all right, there you go. As always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Instagram threads. Goodread Bluesky, any of those places interact so we can hear what you have to say about all the stuff we talk about. And you can also support us by heading over to patreon.com thisfilmislit it support us there for a few different. You know, there are different levels. We talked about this all before. It's fine. The $15 level. You get patron priority recommendations. And this one was in fact a patron request from.
• 58:51
  Speaker B: This was a patron request for Breens, Beans and peen.
• 58:55
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 58:56
  Speaker B: Former patron. Former patron.
• 58:58
  Speaker A: But was stuck around long enough.
• 58:59
  Speaker B: Stuck around long enough to get a shout out here. Yep.
• 59:05
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right. So yeah, we'll be talking about that. Katie, where can people watch into the Wild?
• 59:11
  Speaker B: As always, you can check with your local library or a local video rental store if you've still got one. Otherwise you can stream this with a subscription to Fubo, Paramount plus or Hoopla. Or you can rent it for around four bucks through Apple TV, Amazon, YouTube or Fandango at home.
• 59:33
  Speaker A: Yep. Yeah, I'm interested to see what this is because I, I've heard a lot about it. It's a very well reviewed movie. I've never seen a Sean Penn film before, so that'll be, that'll be unique. I know the story. Like, I know I've read the Wikipedia article about Chris McCandless and I've watched like some YouTube videos about like the real life events or whatever, like years ago. So I know like roughly like what transpires, but I don't know anything about like his backstory or anything like that. Like everything I've ever seen is just about like the events of, you know, when he goes out into the wilderness and then dies. Like, what happened there. But this book actually seems to be a lot more about like the parts. I've started reading it and I've a handful of chapters in and right now the narrative bounces back and forth between him being going into the wilderness and kind of his backstory basically kind of through investigative journalism, y type of thing. The backstory I'm interested to see. And it. Yeah, especially knowing some other stuff. Yeah, I'm interested to watch it and finish reading the book to see. I also, I, I don't think I've ever read another Jon Krakauer book, but I've seen a movie or a documentary based on one of his books and I really liked it. But it was about like Everest or mountain climbing or something. Might have been into the Void. I think that's one he wrote. Anyways, that's gonna do it. For this episode. Come back in one week's time, we'll be talking about into the Wild. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals and everybody else, keep reading books, watching movies and keep being awesome. Sat.