Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to A Little Princess - Gerald's Game Fan Reaction, A Little Princess Preview

Transcript

Prequel to A Little Princess - Gerald's Game Fan Reaction, A Little Princess Preview · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Gerald's Game listener polls and preview A little princess.
• 0:22
  Speaker B: Hello.
• 0:22
  Speaker A: Welcome back to this Film Is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. It's a prequel episode. We got some lengthy feedback to get to. Thank you, though. We really appreciate it. But let's get right into our patron shout outs.
• 0:35
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your.
• 0:36
  Speaker A: Father and mother were our finest patrons.
• 0:38
  Speaker B: That's why.
• 0:39
  Speaker A: No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winners and they are Nicole Goebel, Eric Harpo Rat, Nathan Vicapocalypse, Charlene, Mathilde, Steve from Arizona Int Draft, Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier. Gratch. Just Gratch. Shelby hopes you remembered to watch Storks for Thanksgiving instead of Free Birds. That darn Skag V Frank and Alina Starkov, thank you all for your continued support. We really appreciate it. And we did not watch Storks or Freeburns this Thanksgiving.
• 1:13
  Speaker B: I'll watch either of those things.
• 1:15
  Speaker A: I've never heard of either. I think we've discussed this before because it's ringing a bell in my brain, but I don't remember. I don't think I've heard of any of those movies other than them being mentioned maybe by Shelby last Thanksgiving or something. I don't know. I looked at both of them after that or like when I read this, the username and I was like, yep, don't neither of these movies seem real. They have tons of like, at least I think both of them have like tons of celebrities and they were like Big Pixar or Illumination.
• 1:45
  Speaker B: I don't know what I think they were Illumination. If they were Disney, I would have heard about it.
• 1:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, but like I said, I was like, I've never. I don't recall these movies at all. So anyways, thank you all again for your support. Katie, it's time to see what people had to say about Gerald's game. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like.
• 2:06
  Speaker B: Your opinion man on Patreon. We had two votes for the book, one for the movie. Kelly Napier said the sanitary pads are good advice. Clean, absorbent and self adhesive. Also, good advice using tampons to staunch a nosebleed. Girl Scout survival training for the win.
• 2:26
  Speaker A: I mean, I guess that makes sense. The tampons for nosebleeds seems reasonable.
• 2:31
  Speaker B: Yeah. I liked the change the movie made to make her internal dialogue be her and Gerald instead of her alternate personalities using two characters we already knew was much better than these Vague concepts that aren't ever fully fleshed out. I hated the ending of Both properties. Was King on a deadline and had to hurry up. Is that why we were subjected to this exposition dump? Also, the moonlight man didn't need to be real. It worked so well as her boogeyman. I liked Katie's idea of ending the book with the crash and not knowing her fate. I liked the dog's story in the book, and it led me to wanting her to adopt the dog at the end. Another survivor who just did what they needed to to get out. I picked the book over the movie because it felt more like I was experiencing her mental decline as opposed to being an objective witness in the movie. But that's a hard thing for a movie to do, obviously. All that being said, I have read a number of King properties, and while I did like most of this one, this is my least favorite I've read so far.
• 3:36
  Speaker A: Wow. Interesting. Where would you rank it on your King books? We've done. We talked about how we've done a lot.
• 3:43
  Speaker B: Yeah, we've done quite a few. Some of them I don't really remember very well.
• 3:47
  Speaker A: Do you remember just even, like, vaguely how you felt about them? Like. Cause. So, like, doctor Sleep, the Shining.
• 3:53
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 3:54
  Speaker A: Trying to name a couple. Those are two of the bigger ones. I'm trying to think of what I know we did at least one or two more.
• 4:00
  Speaker B: I liked Carrie better than I liked Gerald's Game.
• 4:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 4:05
  Speaker B: But I liked Gerald's Game better than the Shining or doctor Sleep, I think.
• 4:12
  Speaker A: Okay. And there's at least one more that I'm not remembering.
• 4:14
  Speaker B: We did Children of the Corn, which I recall not liking very much at all. I think you did. No. Or maybe I'm just remembering how pointless the movie was.
• 4:24
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's possible you did.
• 4:26
  Speaker B: And I could not tell you a single thing about the body with a gun to my head.
• 4:34
  Speaker A: Which one's the body?
• 4:35
  Speaker B: Stand by Me.
• 4:36
  Speaker A: Oh, the movie's good. I don't remember the book. Oh, and then also Dolan's Cadillac.
• 4:41
  Speaker B: Dolan's Cadillac. Funny. Not one of my favorites.
• 4:46
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 4:48
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Shelby, who said, I think the ending of Gerald's Game is one of the elements left over from when Kang wanted it to be one half of. In the Path of the Eclipse with Dolores Claiborne. As you mentioned in the prequel, I've read Dolores Claiborne, but I never saw the film. The book's told in first person about a woman who recounts to us and the police how and why she murdered her abusive husband. A criminal case and a criminal case both narrated to someone in first person. I feel like it's a way Kang wanted to tie these two storylines together.
• 5:25
  Speaker A: I would have to know more about the Dolores Claiborne to know how they would fit together or how the ending of this would make sense with that. Or vice ver. You know what I mean? I obviously have no idea what happens in Dolores Claiborne.
• 5:41
  Speaker B: Yeah. The other connection King left in these novels was the psychic moment the lead characters have during the eclipse. Dolores is Jesse's woman with the well mentioned in the book and briefly in the movie, just as Jesse is Dolores girl on the swing.
• 5:58
  Speaker A: Interesting.
• 5:58
  Speaker B: Okay. I don't remember that was what that was about.
• 6:01
  Speaker A: I remember heard the well, yeah. Conversation but.
• 6:05
  Speaker B: And there was. She talks about it more in the book, like a little bit more. And I just kind of wrote it off because it didn't go anywhere. And I was like, I don't know what this was supposed to tell me. So I guess it's like it's a connection to this other book.
• 6:19
  Speaker A: And then in the Dolores Claiborne book, Dolores tells some story about a girl on a swing.
• 6:26
  Speaker B: Yeah. Or has like a vision of a girl on a swing.
• 6:28
  Speaker A: And that would be, I assume the swing being the like bench that. Or maybe not.
• 6:36
  Speaker B: Maybe just a swing, I guess.
• 6:37
  Speaker A: Well, okay. I was thinking of like the actual scene where her dad.
• 6:40
  Speaker B: Right.
• 6:41
  Speaker A: Because they're like on like a. I thought it was like a glider like thing. It might just be a bench. Yeah. Nevermind. In my head I was thinking it might be one of those like rocking swing kind of. But like without. It's not hanging from. You know what I'm talking about.
• 6:53
  Speaker B: Yeah, I know. I know what you're talking about.
• 6:55
  Speaker A: I don't have a word for that, but my parents had one on her porch. I don't know I can think of what that's called.
• 7:00
  Speaker B: Anyways, thematically these tie together great. Tonally, not so much. Dolores Claiborne is a cozier read than Gerald's Game, which might be one of the reasons they were split into two novels. However, Dolores Claiborne also contains the single scariest, most nerve wracking scene I've ever read from Stephen King. And I've read a lot. The fact that no one seems to know what I'm talking about leads me to believe the movie's version is not the same. And that's why the film is only remembered as that King adaptation Kathy Bates did. That wasn't Misery.
• 7:34
  Speaker A: I mean, I'LL be honest, I. I never even.
• 7:36
  Speaker B: I don't think I've ever heard of this. No.
• 7:39
  Speaker A: And I had no idea Kathy Bates was even in it.
• 7:41
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 7:42
  Speaker A: Cuz I didn't even know it existed.
• 7:45
  Speaker B: Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I like the moonlight man being real. I think you might be right about that being an unpopular opinion. Yeah.
• 7:53
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 7:54
  Speaker B: That said, I agree that he's too much of a cartoon. I read somewhere that he's based on Ed Gein. Gein, I think, which is fine, but you added too many layers onto that, King.
• 8:05
  Speaker A: Yeah. I mean there are serial killers who famously like cannibals and necrophiles and like all this stuff. So it's not like it's out of the realm of possibility, but it's like just a few too many hats on a hat.
• 8:16
  Speaker B: Well. And it really is thrown into sharp relief by it being just like an exposition dump out of nowhere.
• 8:23
  Speaker A: That's the thing is like when you just hear it all listed out like back to back to back, it sounds really.
• 8:28
  Speaker B: Oh my God, okay, what are we doing here?
• 8:30
  Speaker A: Whereas if it had been more piecemeal, kind of revealed, it maybe wouldn't have felt as ridiculous. And again, it's not that there aren't criminals who guilty of a lot of those things, but man, it feels like too many things.
• 8:42
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. It just ends up feeling, you know, cartoonish.
• 8:46
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 8:47
  Speaker B: Shelby went on to say, I'm so thankful we have Mike Flanagan. It's nice that studios now have someone to call when they want to adapt a difficult King novel. Tommyknocker's next Pretty please. I'll be the first to admit that book is deeply flawed, but parts of it are so fucking good. If I had all the time in the world, I tried to adapt it into a screenplay as a personal project just to see if I could tease out the book at its best. I'm putting that out into the world. But realistically, I'm never going to have that kind of time and I don't work in film, so it might be up to you. Flanagan.
• 9:20
  Speaker A: I don't have to work in film to write a good screenplay.
• 9:22
  Speaker B: That is true.
• 9:23
  Speaker A: But yeah, odds of it ever anything ever happening with it were low.
• 9:26
  Speaker B: But the movie explained why.
• 9:29
  Speaker A: Jeff, you know anything about Tommyknockers?
• 9:31
  Speaker B: I do not.
• 9:31
  Speaker A: Okay. Because I literally have no idea what that is. I've heard of this.
• 9:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, I recognize the title, but I don't know.
• 9:36
  Speaker A: I don't even know like what the premise is though.
• 9:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. The movie explained why Jesse couldn't break the bed post. But I still think she could have used the inside of the handcuff to sand down the part that blocked her from lifting it off the top of the post. I had that thought too like a day or two after we watched the movie. It would have been uncomfortable. It could have taken hours. But still it wasn't that much wider than the rest of the bed.
• 10:02
  Speaker A: I agree. And you know, it's one of those things where it's like you kind of take it like for the sake of the movie. That wasn't an option. But when the movie it goes to pretty great lengths to make this feel very plausible and like realistic in a lot of ways. It does kind of then feel like. Well, but she probably. If she would have banged that handcuff against that wood and scraped it and scraped like you would have worn it down and you would have got. Yeah.
• 10:27
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 10:28
  Speaker A: It might have taken a day and a half and your hands would have been bloody and raw but you wouldn't had to slice your hand open and cut your bleed all like almost bleed to death. Yeah.
• 10:36
  Speaker B: Yeah. Well, it's kind of the same thing where like in the movie the fact that she didn't even try. Hey, Siri really bothered me.
• 10:45
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:46
  Speaker B: Like you could have at least had her try it.
• 10:48
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:51
  Speaker B: I like when Bruce Greenwood shows up in things. I was initially worried he'd be wasted as the dead guy on the floor. That said, he's awfully pretty next to book Gerald. That is true. Book Gerald is not sound like an attractive man. This one's close for me but I'm giving it to the movie because I like how it trims down the book while capturing it perfectly. And the performances were fantastic all around.
• 11:16
  Speaker A: I will say I think that was a thing we didn't really mention in the review like in our episode that much is just how good the performances were like. Like we kind of like casually maybe did, but never. And I was like, I don't know why I didn't. Because I legitimately think both. But specifically Carla Cogino was like incredible like Oscar performance worthy level of or at least nomination worthy level. I thought she was that good. And Bruce Greenwood was also really good. So yeah.
• 11:44
  Speaker B: Playing off of herself a lot of the times.
• 11:47
  Speaker A: Playing two different versions of herself. Yeah. And having to play against nothing or against a stand in probably or what somebody reading her other lines or whatever. Yeah.
• 11:56
  Speaker B: Our last comment on Patreon was from Nathan who said I give this one pretty easily to the book. The movie did a fairly good job of adapting things. But by simplifying the voices down to a good and bad voice eliminates a lot of the noisiness in Jesse's head. That noisiness and the fact that it wasn't always clear which voice in her head was speaking made it ring a lot more realistic to me. I don't have explicit voices in my head, but there are a ton of different perspectives weighing in on any decision.
• 12:29
  Speaker A: I don't. I don't have. Yeah, it's interesting. I don't want to get off on a whole sidetrack about inner voices and how brains work. Yeah.
• 12:39
  Speaker B: About what and how brains work.
• 12:41
  Speaker A: Yeah. But. Yeah, I guess I don't have a bunch of different inner. Different inner voices. I don't know. That's interesting. But I definitely do have a very strong inner voice.
• 12:52
  Speaker B: I have a strong inner monologue that's running basically at all times.
• 12:56
  Speaker A: Yes. I don't think I have different voices necessarily.
• 13:00
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 13:00
  Speaker A: I don't know. I can do other voices if I'm imagining what you would say or something. I can hear you, but I don't have those conversations with myself.
• 13:13
  Speaker B: I mean, I can definitely, like, have an argument with myself.
• 13:19
  Speaker A: Yes. But to me, it's my same voice the whole time, I guess. Like, it's just me arguing with myself. It's not like two versions of me, if that makes sense. Which I think is what Nathan's kind of saying.
• 13:31
  Speaker B: Yeah. And I suppose maybe it's just not as dramatic as fiction makes it sound.
• 13:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. That's interesting. Well, and because what I definitely don't have is the. So, like, Gerald in this instance is, like, jumping in as a different character voicing, like, different parts of her psyche, kind of.
• 13:52
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 13:52
  Speaker A: And for me, all of my thoughts, the thoughts that feel. I don't know if instantaneous is the right word, but the thoughts that feel sort of more like they're just spontaneous and occurring all kind of happen nebulously as my voice. And I have to, like, act. I think I feel like I have to, like, actively. If I'm gonna, like, imagine what you were gonna say. If I'm like, oh, what if I ask Katie what she wants for dinner? What's she gonna say? I have to, like, think about what I would think you would say. And then I can hear it in your. But I'm not, like, I don't. Like. It doesn't just pop into my head like you saying what. You know what I mean?
• 14:29
  Speaker B: If that makes sense. I don't think that's ever happened to me.
• 14:32
  Speaker A: I don't know if that's what happens. To be fair, I don't think that really happens for anybody. I don't know. But who knows? I don't know. Because it's always fascinating. I super find the A4A. I don't know what the word is for the lack of a voice, but the A Fantas. Fantasmia or whatever, where you can't see people don't picture things in their head is fascinating to me because I vividly picture things in my. I don't know how I can.
• 14:58
  Speaker B: Mine are in 4K high desk. Yeah.
• 15:00
  Speaker A: I don't know how I could. I literally couldn't do my job if I didn't have like a super. I would be super interested to find somebody who does, like, something like art or like film or photography. I don't know, something like that or like somebody who, like, as a director, when I'm like, coming up with, like, what shots for a video or something, I am vividly seeing in my head what I want that to look like.
• 15:25
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 15:26
  Speaker A: And I wonder. I would be interested to know if somebody who doesn't have that, who has aphantasia or whatever, if they do jobs like mine and how I would be. So I would just be fascinated to know. Cause I'm sure it's not impossible. I just don't. I'd just be really interested to know how that happens. I don't know.
• 15:46
  Speaker B: Anyways, what would I say I wanted for dinner?
• 15:49
  Speaker A: Mexican.
• 15:50
  Speaker B: You're really here.
• 15:52
  Speaker A: It's always Mexican.
• 15:54
  Speaker B: Fair. All right. Nathan went on to say, I didn't care for how much of the Midnight man they initially showed in the movie. In the book, it seemed like he stayed in the shadows until she was free, which allowed her to be believable that he was some manifestation of Jesse's dad. But he's so clearly a new person in the movie. I didn't feel like he could ever be anything but real interesting.
• 16:19
  Speaker A: I didn't. Because we see so many things that look real in the movie and aren't that. I was like, you know, I think the movie. The language of the movie keeps it vague enough because again, we see whole scenes play out. Like when she escapes the bed. Like that plays out.
• 16:35
  Speaker B: Or like when Gerald first stands up and starts playing out.
• 16:37
  Speaker A: Like when that first starts playing out. There's no. There's nothing about the presentation makes you go, oh, well, this isn't real until it's revealed that it isn't real.
• 16:44
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 16:45
  Speaker A: And I feel similarly about him where it's like, there's nothing. The fact that you see him doesn't insinuate, oh, this is definitely real. Or see him more clearly. Doesn't to me, insinuate that he's definitely real until later when it's confirmed that he is.
• 16:59
  Speaker B: But I agree with Shelby that sanding down the bed post would be the best way to escape in the movie and maybe even in the book. It would take a while, but you have nothing but time. Even if you had to resort to bodily harm, I feel like breaking your thumb would be an easier way to get out of handcuffs than cutting your skin off.
• 17:18
  Speaker A: I had the same thought. I was like. Because I think that's how people. You can do it. You can basically spray yourself.
• 17:23
  Speaker B: I've always heard that.
• 17:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 17:25
  Speaker B: I don't know how true it is, but I always. That's what I've always heard.
• 17:29
  Speaker A: I would try that before I tried slicing open my entire hand and wrist.
• 17:34
  Speaker B: But I think the bunched up skin would mitigate any benefit of the blood lubrication.
• 17:41
  Speaker A: I mean, it does until it slips through. Like, as if. I'm gonna assume you also couldn't watch the video or watch that scene because what happens is it does kind of get in the way until she pushes it far enough and then it's not in the way anymore, kind of.
• 17:59
  Speaker B: That being said, it is the most Stephen King way to escape. That is fair. The water glass seems kind of magical in the movie. She drinks from it multiple times, but there is somehow still a considerable amount of water in it when she breaks it at the end.
• 18:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, I. I noticed that. And it's. I took it as one of those. I don't think it's meant to imply anything necessarily. I think it's more so just like a kind of a continuity issue. Kind of.
• 18:27
  Speaker B: Of like a little bit of a gimme.
• 18:28
  Speaker A: Yeah, just like we need. We need. We want water still in it for numerous shots and scenes. And so because, yeah, she drinks like half of it in the very first time she gets it, and then she drinks a little more at another time. And then at the end, there's still water. And it's like there wasn't even that much water in there to begin with.
• 18:44
  Speaker B: But yeah, Nathan's last comment here was, I learned about using pads slash tampons from Amanda Bynes, and she's the man and would definitely know to use if I am ever bleeding badly.
• 18:58
  Speaker A: Like, does she. In that movie, does she use them to, like, shoot?
• 19:01
  Speaker B: She uses. She. Well, she uses. From my memory. It's been a while since I've seen. She's the man. She uses tampons for a. Well, she. It's like a joke in the movie that she. She has tampons, and she says they're for nosebleeds and then, like, sticks them in her nose.
• 19:19
  Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. I've seen that gag before, the nosebleed one. But yeah.
• 19:26
  Speaker B: All right. Over on Facebook, we had two votes for the book and one for the movie. We had one comment, and it is a long one from Jenna, who's my sister.
• 19:37
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 19:38
  Speaker B: And Jenna said, I'll say right now, this is one of my favorite Stephen King books and my favorite movie adaptation of one of his works.
• 19:47
  Speaker A: It's a good movie.
• 19:48
  Speaker B: I'm honestly not sure if I can definitively choose a favorite between the book and the movie. I love both, and both are different experiences. And with this being one of the most faithful adaptations of a Stephen King novel, I think that makes it even more difficult. I watched the movie when it first came out and then read the book after. I'll try not to write out an entire novel again. But maybe if you stop talking about my favorite pieces of media without having me on the pod, then I can learn to write a comment of appropriate length.
• 20:20
  Speaker A: All right, well, next time, we just gotta send her the calendar. Next time we have something she really wants to talk about, we'll just have her come down and be on the episode.
• 20:29
  Speaker B: Something I'm very curious about is if other people felt safe, as I did when the dog was in the room. Yes. Even when he was being a little stinker and eating the misogynist.
• 20:38
  Speaker A: I don't think that's him being a stinker. I think we're supposed to be like, yeah, eat him.
• 20:42
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah, I think so.
• 20:44
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 20:44
  Speaker B: That was how I felt.
• 20:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't think. Yeah. I think we're supposed to be weary of the dog because we're not sure. We know he's motivated by hunger. Right.
• 20:55
  Speaker B: By hunger. And he could harm Jesse.
• 20:57
  Speaker A: But when he's eating.
• 20:59
  Speaker B: When he's eating, Gerald, we're supposed to be, like, nice.
• 21:01
  Speaker A: I think that's how it feels to me. We're supposed to be like, yeah, whatever, eat him.
• 21:07
  Speaker B: Maybe I'm biased, because in the movie it was a German shepherd. I can't remember if that's the same in the book. I think in the book it was like a collie mix, but I instantly felt less tense when the dog was present, even though it was portrayed as a secondary enemy and probably was not supposed to be a comforting presence, AKA I Choose the dog.
• 21:27
  Speaker A: Like I said, I think you're supposed to feel both ways about it, because that's how I felt. I felt that it was kind of a comforting presence, but also.
• 21:35
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 21:36
  Speaker A: Which I think is kind of the point.
• 21:38
  Speaker B: Like, you're supposed to feel. And the book also. The movie does this to an extent, but not as much as the book, because we learn the dog's entire backstory in the book and, like, how he came to be wandering abandoned in the woods and starving. So the book goes to great lengths to drum up our sympathy for the dog as well. So I do think, at some level, yeah, he's supposed to be, you know, at least something that we feel sorry for.
• 22:08
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. And I think, like, Gerald keeps telling us, like, the dog's gonna eat her and stuff. And, like, I think it's possible that he would. And we're supposed to be, like, kind of unsure and, like, again, worried that that may be the case. But, like, I think the. I think the jury's out on the dog, and we're supposed to kind of feel both ways about him.
• 22:29
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 22:30
  Speaker A: Like, I think, because, again, I had a very similar experience where, like, I. I felt kind of the presence of the dog kind of comforting, like, that she wasn't alone and this dog was there. Because, again, we see the dog earlier and, like, she's feeding it, and it seems friendly. Ish and stuff. But also, it's a starving dog. And, you know, like, it's this interesting dichotomy that I think is an intentional balance that the movie is playing with.
• 22:53
  Speaker B: And most of the time in the movie, it just chills on the floor like any other dog. Really?
• 23:00
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 23:02
  Speaker B: All right. So Jenna went on to say, okay, so speaking of the dog, I'll go ahead and throw in some additional theories, slash perspectives on that ending. While I think this is a possible interpretation, I 100% recognize that it might be too much of a stretch to be considered legitimate, especially when coming from an author who is notorious for royally screwing up a great story with a shit ending. Sorry, Stephen. I love you. I remember watching the movie and reading the book with some friends in college, which, in retrospect, I feel like that being my social activities instead of, like, frat parties says something. And I remember us discussing the ending. I remember someone saying that maybe the dog wasn't real, at least post Gerald death, and was actually her way of coping with the Moonlight Man. Again, this sounds like an impossible stretch, but an interesting take. We already know she is experienced in blocking things out and using similar coping mechanisms to block out trauma or change how scenarios played out. What if she replaced everything the moonlight man was doing so it appeared the dog was doing it? Instead of having to watch the serial killer cannibal eat her husband, she hallucinates a dog in its place because she can wrap her mind around why a dog would do that. She and the audience can understand why a hungry dog might act on primal instincts, but can't come to terms with how or why a man, be it the moonlight man or her father, could. In a way, I think that could actually make more sense, seeing as how the moonlight man only ate men. I think this theory better ties his character into the story instead of being some random real life boogeyman thrown into what's basically a character study.
• 24:48
  Speaker A: Okay, so I actually saw a similar hypothesis. Like after we recorded the episode, after I edited and posted the episode, I went and consumed. I often will, after we're done with everything, go like, watch some other reviews, especially something I'm interested in hearing, like other people talk about. And on Reddit this was one of the popular theories was that the dog was the moonlight man, actually the moonlight man, and that she was hallucinating the dog, at least for much of the movie, in place of the Moonlight Man. I don't like that. I don't think it does anything interesting. Personally.
• 25:24
  Speaker B: I think it's an interesting theory. It doesn't really do a whole lot for me.
• 25:28
  Speaker A: I think it's fun to play around with as an idea.
• 25:31
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 25:31
  Speaker A: I don't think it helps my take on the story if I believe it to be true. That's fair, personally, because to me, what I end up coming. So like, if it is the moonlight man that is in the room and he's eating Gerald occasionally and just hanging out in the room with her and she has blocked this out and interpret and is viewing it as the. The moonlight man as a way to cope with it. I think that's not impossible, but I don't. I don't know how to say this. It doesn't like. I guess it does because, like what Jenna talks about here is how it adds. It's a. Because it kind of facilitates to us like it better ties together his character into the story by having him have been there the whole time. I guess my issue would be that the movie is okay. I think my issue is. And maybe, I don't know, I'm happy to have more conversations about this, but I think my issue would be that the movie works so brilliantly on a First viewing until the end. And I think that going back and retroactively being like, oh, it works. That ending kind of works. If you posit that this dog that we established was a dog and was there earlier in the movie later just randomly becomes. And again, there's evidence for this. The part with him licking her foot and then it becoming the dog. There are things that can help that interpretation. But assuming you. I think retroactively going back and having to reevaluate the film through that lens makes the first viewing of it less effective. I don't know how to say. I don't know how to say this. I have to think on it more and I'll.
• 27:41
  Speaker B: Can I chime in with my thoughts? Go, go, go. Okay. So like you said, I do think it's kind of a fun interpretation idea. It doesn't do a lot for me personally. And while I agree that there are some things in the text that could potentially support it as a theory, I don't think that there's anything conclusive that would lead me to end up on. Yes, this is definitely the case.
• 28:13
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 28:13
  Speaker B: That she was just. She was hallucinating the dog as a way to protect her mind from it being a cannibal serial killer instead. The other thing is that I think, as a theory, that works a whole lot better in the movie than it does in the book, because we pop into, like, the dog's perspective so frequently in the book that I just. It just really wouldn't hold water for me in the book specifically.
• 28:44
  Speaker A: Yeah. And to be fair, I think Jenna is specifically talking about the movie here and not the book. Book. But. Yeah, I agree. I just. It still doesn't really help. Like, for me, I guess the thing that I come back to is it still doesn't really help fix the ending. Because the ending. The issue we had is that we get this, even if it's not a. Even if your argument is. Well, it's not as much of a left turn because we've had this. He's actually been there the whole time, and he is the dog. And, like, you know, her blocking it out kind of fits with all of this. But, like, it still doesn't really fix to me. And maybe she'll get into this more later. I don't know. But it doesn't fix to me the problem we had, which is that the end. The Boogeyman being a representation of, you know, at the end when she confronts the moonlight man and it being a representation of her father and Gerald, they don't. Other than it being a man who did bad things.
• 29:43
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 29:44
  Speaker A: They don't feel thematically connected to me. Yeah, like that. I think that's where the issue comes in for me. And it's like, sure. Like, okay, it's a man who's. She's, like, struggling to rationalize the evil things that he does, but the evil things he does don't feel at all connected thematically to the evil things Gerald and her dad did, other than they are a man doing them, which I guess you could argue is enough. But, like, to me, it feels very different. I don't know. I don't know. I don't like it. To me, it just doesn't help my feelings on the ending, really. If I go back and imagine. I don't know. I'd have to watch it again through that lens, but I really don't think it helps my problems with the ending, which, again, I don't hate everything about the ending. I just. I don't know. Anyways, let's move forward, because I.
• 30:44
  Speaker B: All right.
• 30:45
  Speaker A: I'm having. Struggling. I'm struggling putting into the words exactly why it doesn't help, why it doesn't fix things for me, but.
• 30:52
  Speaker B: All right. Jenna went on to say, I have some other thoughts, but I don't think anything's super eye opening. I will mention a few random, potentially interesting factoids. You guys were right. The take your medicine is from the Shining. The book, it's in the movie, too.
• 31:08
  Speaker A: I thought it was. I could be.
• 31:09
  Speaker B: Remember, it's what Jack would say to Danny and what Jack's own abusive father would say to him. It's also, I believe, what he says when he's chasing them with the mallet, which got replaced with the here's Johnny line. It's also a phrase that's said by Danny in doctor Sleep. So maybe I'm reaching, but I could see this phrase being something of a representation of how trauma can be passed down. It just feels like something is there. Having multiple abusive fathers repeat that phrase to their kids.
• 31:37
  Speaker A: Oh, yeah, absolutely. For sure. Yeah. I mean, because, yeah, the abusive father thing being a recurring theme in all those stories makes perfect sense that using that line to kind of tie that thematically together makes sense.
• 31:50
  Speaker B: I really liked how the movie converted a story that was almost exclusively inner monologue into outer monologue. I think it's a great way to streamline everything for storytelling purposes, but this is actually a way of processing trauma, specifically childhood trauma. My therapist talks about doing this pretty literally, identifying different parts of yourself and giving them their own character that you can talk to is a really effective way to explore and cope with trauma and figure out what your needs are. It's also a good way of identifying tools that you have now that you may not have had during the initial trauma, which we can see through the self actualized Jesse Hallucination.
• 32:29
  Speaker A: Yeah, that makes sense.
• 32:30
  Speaker B: I don't know. It's just cool that that's a good representation of working through trauma while also being a really effective storytelling device.
• 32:38
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I wonder how much of that was intentional. I would imagine probably not. Maybe. I don't know. Maybe Mike Flana strikes me as a guy that might have been to therapy a couple times, but I don't.
• 32:46
  Speaker B: But yeah, I will cease. But one more thing. I recommend reading some of the interviews that Mike Flanagan gave regarding the ending of the movie.
• 32:56
  Speaker A: I looked that up.
• 32:57
  Speaker B: It's interesting to hear it directly from him. It kind of boils down to they knew it would be polarizing because the end of the book is polarizing. As much as I might disagree with the last 10 or so minutes of the movie, I can really appreciate this quote from Mike F. In particular, I expected it to be polarizing. I took it as a badge of honor that we must have adapted the book faithfully enough that we're sharing the same complaints. Gotta give him some respect plus for that one. Honestly, that's why I said.
• 33:27
  Speaker A: I think I said kind of that in the episode. Like, you know, they're so faithful that they're going down with the ship. They're like, yep, this is what we're doing. We're just doing this weird ass ending.
• 33:37
  Speaker B: And to close out, I have to give you both some respect plus for having an appropriate reaction to that scene. Because her escape from the handcuffs both changed my brain on a chemical level and also forced me to learn what de Gloving is.
• 33:52
  Speaker A: I had unfortunately already knew what Deku glove was, but yeah, still didn't like it. It was still maybe the worst depiction of it I've seen in anything. I. It's worse than actual degloving videos I have seen on the Internet. So I'll just say that because usually they're not nearly as bloody. Like usually it's just the.
• 34:12
  Speaker B: Yeah, all right. On Instagram we didn't have any comments, but we had two votes for the book, one for the movie and three listeners who couldn't decide on threads. We had one vote for the book, zero for the movie, and one listener who couldn't decide and probably Lucy said this was the first King book I ever read at the far too young age of 11.
• 34:37
  Speaker A: Oh, Christ.
• 34:38
  Speaker B: Good Lord, Lucy. Most of the major themes went right over my head. And it was only on a reread a decade later that I understood. Despite being a CSA survivor myself, the movie is excellent and a great adaptation. But have to go with the book.
• 34:55
  Speaker A: Fair enough. God. Yeah. That's 11.
• 34:58
  Speaker B: 11 is far too young.
• 34:59
  Speaker A: I don't think I would even finish a book like that at 11.
• 35:02
  Speaker B: I'd be like, I think I would have made it.
• 35:04
  Speaker A: I would have got bored. Like, I just would have.
• 35:06
  Speaker B: Well, because the book starts with them having sex. I think I would have gotten, like, upset and, like, afraid I would get in trouble for reading it and stopped.
• 35:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, same like. Yeah, I just never would have read something like that at 11. I was reading, like, the Hobbit and Harry Potter and shit. Like, I was not reading Stephen King.
• 35:25
  Speaker B: When I was alive. No. I could have said, like, a couple years later. I could have seen myself. Maybe, maybe. But I had a lot going on. All right. Over on Goodreads, we had one vote for the book and zero for the movie. And Miko said, funnily enough, I had the opposite expectation about the story than Brian. I was expecting it to deal more with the physical survival than the emotional. I wasn't aware about the sexual assault angle at all.
• 35:57
  Speaker A: I think if I hadn't watched the trailer and if I had known nothing about it, maybe I would have thought that. But I knew. I didn't know the details of what. But I knew it was about her character dealing with past stuff. So I was expecting it to kind of entirely be about that. And again, based on the trailer and when the trailer goes into some of the, like, survival stuff, but it just had more of that, like, nitty gritty, like, survival situation stuff than I was expecting.
• 36:26
  Speaker B: I'm a bit disappointed about the bed in the movie. I got the impression of a much sturdier one when reading. Based on how easily Jesse moves it. In the end, I think she could have nudged it closer to the phone, no problem, by thrashing around potentially.
• 36:41
  Speaker A: Sorry, go ahead, continue.
• 36:42
  Speaker B: In the book, the bed has to be really pushed and keeps moving, only thanks to momentum and a recently waxed floor. The bed in the book also has multiple vertical boards in the headboard above the handcuffs that prevent book Jesse from getting behind it. Something that seems perfectly feasible, if not even easy, with the bed in the movie.
• 37:03
  Speaker A: Interesting. Yeah. In retrospect, that would have been the thing to do. I didn't even think about that. She Would. Because. Because she could have stood up, probably. Because.
• 37:12
  Speaker B: Or like, gotten herself up. Yeah.
• 37:14
  Speaker A: Enough to get her hand, her legs, like, like flip over and push the wall.
• 37:19
  Speaker B: Push away from the wall and then.
• 37:20
  Speaker A: Stand behind the bed. And then she could move it.
• 37:22
  Speaker B: And then she could push the bed around like a shopping cart.
• 37:25
  Speaker A: Yeah. And basically get over to the phone or whatever. Yeah, that's. And that's fair. That's fair. That's, again, one of those things where it's like, this is the. And I guess, you know, and again, in a movie, though, that it does pay attention to a lot of those little details. It is fair to be like, maybe the bed should have appeared little heavier at the end than it does. But. Yeah.
• 37:45
  Speaker B: I generally think of myself as a pretty placid guy, and I find it extremely hard to empathize with fictional characters. But the flashbacks of young Jesse and the partial degloving of the hand, those did turn my stomach, both in the book and in the movie.
• 38:00
  Speaker A: I'm pretty similar. I am not. Well, I empathize with fictional characters very easily and I'm very emotionally affected by them. But it's not easy for me to like, especially the de. Gloving thing, like, physical stuff, like porn stuff, does not usually get to me that much. Really, it has to be really well done, which this was.
• 38:18
  Speaker B: So, yeah, like, I. Yeah, I can pretty easily, like, empathize with a fictional character, but to have a visceral reaction the way that I like a visceral physical reaction the way that I did is, like, not something that I experience a lot. Yes, I haven't read a lot of Stephen King, but I've heard he struggles with endings and oh, boy, does he hear. I think that simply cutting stuff out would have made the story better. You could have ended the movie when Jesse says the police never found the Wedding Rings. Sure, it'd be ambiguous and a not so happy ending, but at least it wouldn't be ridiculous. Mainly because we get to be in Jesse's head through the good and bad. I'm going to give this one to.
• 39:00
  Speaker A: The book fair that's very similar to a lot of other people, that being there, like, in her head was really a selling point or was one of the things that kind of put the book slightly above the movie.
• 39:12
  Speaker B: P.S. i realized only now that you've been including the link to the Steve Index.
• 39:17
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 39:18
  Speaker B: And the book versus movie data in the description of every preview episode. So I finally took the time to update it properly. Just in time for Stephen King. No new trends in the data, but I added a little activity section for those who bother to scroll to the bottom.
• 39:33
  Speaker A: Oh, I'm going to have to go check that out.
• 39:34
  Speaker B: I have viewed the activity section and the activities are good. Are they? Yes.
• 39:39
  Speaker A: Oh, my goodness. I have to go check this out now. Yeah. So if you're listening, go in the description for this episode on whatever you're watching on or listening on. We have the link to the Steve Index. And just a quick reminder, if you're joining late and you weren't here for the Steve Index episode, Mikko put together this amazing website that correlates the number of Steve's or Stevens or Stefan's. I don't know. There's a Stephanie's, even I can't remember. But Steve's and Stevens who worked on a film and versus their the films like IMDb ratings or Metacritic.
• 40:14
  Speaker B: Metacritic, maybe.
• 40:15
  Speaker A: Yeah. And because there was like a kind of a running gag with one of our other listeners, Steve, who commented, like, about, like we were joking about, like, whether or not a movie was good based on how many Steve's worked on it or something like that. And so Mikko did the work of actually doing the.
• 40:33
  Speaker B: Actually investigating the data, seeing if there.
• 40:35
  Speaker A: Is a correlation between the number of Steves who worked on a film and how good the movie is. So that's what that is.
• 40:40
  Speaker B: So if you like a good scatter plot.
• 40:42
  Speaker A: Yes. If you like a scatter plot and quirky data analysis, this is for you. There you go. All right.
• 40:49
  Speaker B: All right. So our winner this time was the book, with seven votes to the movies, three, plus four listeners who couldn't decide.
• 40:59
  Speaker A: Fantastic. We do not have a Learning Things A segment this week because again, we're already 40 minutes in just after the feedback. So we're going to jump right in and preview A Little Princess, the book.
• 41:12
  Speaker C: I believe that you are and always will be my little princess. You'll be going to the same school your mother went to when she was your age. Girls, say hello to our new arrival, Miss Sarah Crew.
• 41:35
  Speaker A: Hello, Sarah. Goodbye, Princess. The New York Times calls a joyous, irresistible, bright and beautiful.
• 41:52
  Speaker B: Waiting outside for her was the handsome stable boy, Pierre.
• 41:55
  Speaker A: Arrows sped through the air, a group of mermaids appeared.
• 42:01
  Speaker C: From now on, there will be no more make believe at this school.
• 42:05
  Speaker B: A Little Princess is a children's novel by British American novelist and playwright Frances Hodgson Burnett. You might also recognize her name from another of her enduringly popular children's books, the Secret Garden.
• 42:20
  Speaker A: I didn't, but I did know that it was based on my movie Research, I realized that it was the same author. And I have a couple notes that mention the Secret Garden, so.
• 42:30
  Speaker B: So this novel started out as a short story which was titled Sarah Crewe, or what happened at Ms. Minchin's, which was serialized in St. Nicholas magazine starting in December of 1887. And the short story was then published in book form in 1888. But Burnett would go on to return to that same material in 1902 and write a three act stage play called A Little Unfairy Princess which ran in London over the autumn of that year. And then it went to New York City at the start of 1903, where the title was shortened to Just A Little Princess. A good call, in my opinion.
• 43:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, probably a good call. But I understand what we're doing with A Little Unfairy Princess.
• 43:24
  Speaker B: Yes, I get it.
• 43:25
  Speaker A: She's not a fairy princess. She's a.
• 43:27
  Speaker B: She's an unfairy princess. Following the production of the play on Broadway, Burnett's publisher then asked her to expand the story into a full length novel and quote, put into it all the things and people that had been left out before.
• 43:44
  Speaker A: That sounds like a nightmare to me. As a writer, as somebody who's written stuff, as somebody comes back, it was like, hey, can you take this thing you already finished? And then just like add a bunch.
• 43:54
  Speaker B: More shit to it, put everything in it. I'd be like, oh, I want to know about everything. I guess I feel like depending on what kind of like writer or creative you are, that's either a nightmare or the dream.
• 44:06
  Speaker A: Yes, it is one of the two. It is either incredible, you're like, yes, thank you. Or you're like, oh my God, no, I'm one of those. I think, oh my God, no people.
• 44:16
  Speaker B: So then the book that we will be covering was published in 1905 under the full title A Little Princess Colon being the whole story of Sarah Crew now being told for the first time. And I just want to say for the record how much I love this era of literature.
• 44:37
  Speaker A: That Birdman ass title, that is incredible. That's fun.
• 44:43
  Speaker B: Yeah. So the novel may have been inspired in part by Charlotte Bronte's unfinished novel Emma. This is just a theory, but the first two chapters of that were published.
• 44:57
  Speaker A: In Emma was Unfinished.
• 44:59
  Speaker B: You're thinking of Jane Austen's Emma. This is Charlotte Bronte's.
• 45:03
  Speaker A: I didn't realize there were two Emmas.
• 45:04
  Speaker B: Yes, Emma's a very popular name.
• 45:07
  Speaker A: I mean, fair. I just. Yeah.
• 45:09
  Speaker B: So the first two chapters of that unfinished novel were published in 1860, and they feature a rich Heiress with a mysterious past who is apparently abandoned at a boarding school. So kind of similar to Little Princess.
• 45:23
  Speaker A: Did Charlotte Bronte not finish it because she found out Jane Austen got to a first and was like. Or was Jane Austen after Charlotte Bronte? I don't know the timeline.
• 45:31
  Speaker B: I think she might have just died, but.
• 45:33
  Speaker A: Oh, okay, fair enough. She died because he found out Jane Austen finished Emma first.
• 45:38
  Speaker B: She was like, God damn it, Jane. Due in part to the novel's public domain status. We love the public domain. Yes we do. It has been adapted and reimagined many, many times over the years as everything from movies to theatrical plays and even a loosely inspired by video game in 2016. There are also multiple properties that function as like expansions or sequels to the original story. Obviously, you know, getting reviews for something this old is not really a thing. But I do have a couple little tidbits here. Based on a 2007 online poll, the U.S. national Education association listed the book as one of its teachers top 100 books for children. And in 2012, it ranked number 56 on a list of the top 100 children's novels as published by School Library Journal. So enduring popularity for this one.
• 46:44
  Speaker A: Absolutely. All right, time now to learn a little bit about A Little Princess. The movie A Little Princess is the story of courage tested.
• 46:53
  Speaker B: I hope when you read this, it kindles your heart and pray a smile on your face.
• 46:58
  Speaker A: Jean Siskel says adults will enjoy the story as much as their children.
• 47:03
  Speaker C: I'm afraid I have some bad news, Sarah.
• 47:05
  Speaker A: In the face of adversity, you are.
• 47:07
  Speaker C: Alone in the world. You will move to the attic. From now on, you must earn your room and board. Here you're not a princess any longer.
• 47:15
  Speaker A: A child must find the strength to persevere.
• 47:18
  Speaker C: Sarah will be working here as a servant from now on. They will be no communication exchanged. Is that clear?
• 47:26
  Speaker A: Yes, Ms.
• 47:27
  Speaker B: Mansion.
• 47:29
  Speaker A: Now she will discover compassion through uncommon friendship.
• 47:34
  Speaker B: Let's make a promise right now to always look out for each other. It's a promise.
• 47:39
  Speaker A: A Little Princess is a 1995 film directed by Alfonso Coral. That was the fun fact that I found out on the last at the end of the last episode that I mentioned teased I had no idea Alfonso Corduroy directed this. Nor did I known for Children of Men, which we've done Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which we've done Roma, Gravity, Etu, Mama Tambien, Great Expectations and others. It was written by Richard Lagravanese who wrote the Fisher King, Bridges of Madison county, the Horse Whisperer, Water for Elephants and Beautiful Creatures, among other things. Things. And Elizabeth Chandler, who wrote Someone like you, what a Girl Wants. And both of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants films.
• 48:22
  Speaker B: Lots of fodder for future episodes. The Sister of the Traveling Pants on those lists. Yes.
• 48:28
  Speaker A: Bridges of Madison county episodes.
• 48:29
  Speaker B: Bridges of Madison County, Water for Elephants. I think Beautiful Creatures is also a book. The Fisher King is too as well.
• 48:35
  Speaker A: I believe the film stars Laselle Matthews. That is her stage name. Her actual last name is Pritzker Simmons. We'll get into that in a second.
• 48:44
  Speaker B: Or.
• 48:45
  Speaker A: I think Pritzker is her last name. It's. I think it's hyphenated. I think Simmons might be her married name. Eleanor Braun, Leon. Liam Cunningham, Vanessa Lee, Chester Taylor Fry, Heather DeLoach, Rusty Schwimmer, Arthur Mallet, Errol Citadel, Camilla, Camila Bell. That's. That. That's like her first movie. Rachel Bella, Jonas Quadral, Vincent Schiavelli and Peggy Miley, among others. Brutal names in there that I absolutely butchered. Jonas Quarant is Alfonso Cuaron, son.
• 49:19
  Speaker B: I assumed.
• 49:20
  Speaker A: I'm like 99% sure he's a filmmaker. He had co wrote Gravity. Actually. I can't imagine working on movies with my dad. That sounds insane, but the film has a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and 83% on Metacritic and a 7 point out of 10 on IMDb. It made 10 million against a budget of 17 million, so was a pretty big flop. And I'll have more on that in just a second, which is very fascinating. But it was nominated for two Oscars for best art direction slash set decoration for Beau Welch and Cheryl Karasik and best cinematography for Emmanuel Lubezki, who is the cinematographer that Alfonso Cuaron works with a lot. But he's like a very, very well known cinematographer. He did Children of Men, Gravity, the Revenant, Birdman, Burn After Reading the Series of Unfortunate Events movie and the Cat in the Hat movie, which is the funniest thing. And he is maybe one of the.
• 50:17
  Speaker B: What a resume.
• 50:18
  Speaker A: He's one of the greatest living cinematographers and he shot the Cat in the Hat, which is just.
• 50:24
  Speaker B: Well, you know, they can't all be. They can't all be winners.
• 50:27
  Speaker A: And to be fair, it's not like the cinematography is bad in that movie.
• 50:29
  Speaker B: Right. There was a lot of other problems.
• 50:32
  Speaker A: But it's very funny to me that he. He was on that one. Yeah. So Wikipedia literally does not have a production section for this movie, which is where I start with my notes generally. And this is like literally the first time that has ever happened. Often it will be very, very little. Like occasionally we get one where it's like a couple sentences and I'll have to go look for some other stuff. But there was not even a production section for this one. I did find a two minute interview with Laselle Matthews that provided very little information other than that she didn't plan to be an actress. This is like an interview at the time when she was like 11 or whatever. And she said she didn't want to be an act, she didn't think she wanted to be an actress. And spoiler, she did not become an actress. As I mentioned earlier, she is a Pritzker. And that name, Ray, ring a bell to some of our American listeners. J.B. pritzker is the governor of Illinois. Yes, she's his cousin. The Pritzkers are one of the wealthiest families in them in America and have been for like hundreds, a hundred years or something like that. They own the Hyatt Hotels Corporation and a bunch of other stuff including like Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and stuff. They're just. Yeah, they're one of the wealthiest families in America. And she. So she's an heiress. Like actually like her. Her literal career on Wikipedia says heiress. It's like actress and heiress or whatever. Lacelle actually decided she didn't want to be an actress as she went to Columbia University after going to private school. And now she is a quote, leader in impact investing who founded the Blue Haven initiative. Which sounds like an evil company.
• 52:02
  Speaker B: Yes, it does.
• 52:03
  Speaker A: I'm not saying it isn't, but here's what Blue Haven is. Blue Haven is a venture capital fund that enables early stage innovative businesses that improve standards of living, create economic opportunity and deliver products and services cleanly and efficiently to underserved communities in sub Saharan Africa. She seems to me to be like one of those like uber capitalists who think she can save the world through uber capitalism by being a billionaire who does good. I'm not sure that's possible, but she's trying. She seems like as good as better.
• 52:35
  Speaker B: Than a billionaire who does bad.
• 52:37
  Speaker A: I guess she seems about as good as you could be as a person who was born into one of the richest countries in the world. I say that from a cursory Google and Wikipedia search. But anyway, I just thought it was interesting because she's did like three movies and then never acted again, so. And they were all like when she was very young, I think so from a variety. Again, because there was no other information, I went and I was doing some Googling. I found a Variety article from like, like 10 years ago that was talking about this movie. And I discovered that Cuaron had only directed one feature film prior to getting the little princess job. And that film was like a sex. A raunchy sex comedy that was released in Mexico. Sidney Pollock saw the film and he tapped Cuaron to direct an episode of a Showtime series that he was producing called Fallen Angels, which that episode that Cuaron shot starred Laura Dern, Alan Rickman and Diane Lane. Hell of a cast. He would actually go on to win a Cable Ace award for that episode, which was some sort of cable tv, like, award thing, beating both Steven Soderbergh and David lynch out for the award. And this is what really kind of launched his career off at this point. His American career off at this point. A week after this award was announced, he was announced as his director, or a week after he won the award, he was announced as the director of A Little Princess. And obviously A Little Prince is very different than his previous work. But when the studio asked him if he wanted to direct something darker and more serious, he said, quote, no, I want to do a movie for my 10 year old son.
• 54:05
  Speaker B: Nice. We love a dad guy.
• 54:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, he seems very much to be a very big dad Guy. In 2007, he was honored at the British Academy of Film and Television, the BAFTA goes to Mexico Celebration. And he called A Little Princess his most personal work, likening the young protagonist's journey to the young protagonist journey in the film to his own spiritual awakening that he had around the same time. A year after the film was released, Richard lagravanes, the writer of the film, was asked by Movieline if he had trouble getting into the head of a good little girl writing the film. He would say, quote, what's so hard about imagining loneliness or the loss of a parent or being afraid? End quote. So kind of that classic thing of like, it's not hard to write if you view children as people experiencing the same feelings just differently than we do as adults. I mentioned earlier that this movie made 10 million against a budget of 17 million. So it was fairly kind of a bomb. And this is a. I'm going to Read here this IMDb trivia fact, I believe. I think that's where I got this part from. Following the film's weak American box office in May 1995, that contrasted with rave critical reviews and very positive word of mouth. Like, people were like, oh, that movie's good. Warner Brothers decided to re release the film in theaters in August of the same year with a completely revamped advertising campaign. They were like, okay, this movie's good. Critics say it's good. People like it. It just didn't make money because we advertised it wrong. However, the re release also flopped. Producer Mark Johnson called it, quote, the worst professional experience I've ever had, end quote. And a WB spokesperson reflected saying, quote, we learned that just because you have a movie that is wonderfully made and well received and has a great story, it doesn't mean the public is going to go to it, end quote.
• 55:54
  Speaker B: It's because the public sucks.
• 55:55
  Speaker A: Yep. And then getting to some reviews that I was able to find here, Janet Maslin called the film, quote, a bright, beautiful and enchantingly childlike vision, one that draws its audience into the witty, heightened reality of a fairy tale and takes enough liberties to reinvent rather than embalm Ms. Burnett's assiduously beloved story. She concluded that review by saying, from the huge head of an Indian deity used as a place where stories are told and children play to the agile way a tear drips Sarah's eye to a letter read by her father in the rain, A Little Princess has been conceived, staged and edited with special grace. Less an actor's film than a series of elaborate tableaux, it has a visual eloquence that extends well beyond the limits of its story. To see Sarah whirling ecstatically in her attic room on a snowy night, exulting in the feelings summoned by an evocative sight in a nearby window, is to know just how stirringly lovely a children's film can be be. Writing for the Washington Post, Rita Kempley called it Cuaron's dazzling North American debut that exquisitely recreates the ephemeral world of childhood, an enchanted kingdom where everything, even make believe, seems possible. Unlike most distif mythology, the film does not concern the heroine's sexual awakening. It's more like the typical hero's journey described by scholar Joseph Campbell. Sarah, the adored, spoiled and pampered child of a wealthy British widower, must pass a series of tests, thereby discovering her inner strength. And finally, Roger Ebert had to go to his website. The Ebert website to find this gave the film three and a half out of four stars, saying, quote, cuaron's version of magic realism consists of seeing incredibly fanciful sets and situations in precise detail, and producer Mark Johnson has provided him with the freedom and logistical support to create such places as the street where Ms. Minchin's school looms so impressively, skipping imagination is a precious gift, and too many films hammer it down into submissiveness. Children sit transfixed before films and TV shows that substitute action for fancy. Cartoon characters fly through space and blast one another endlessly, providing kids with the impression of a story without the substance. Movies like A Little Princess and the Secret Garden, now on video, which is what I said in the review, contain a sense of wonder and a message. The world is a vast and challenging place through which a child can find its way with pluck and intelligence. It is about a girl who finds it more useful to speak French than to fire a ray gun. I know there are more kids this season who want to see Judge Dredd, Die Hard With a Vengeance and the new Batman movie than kids who want to see A Little Princess. And I feel sorry for them. End of the review actually.
• 58:41
  Speaker B: Incredible.
• 58:42
  Speaker A: Roger Ebert everybody. As always, you can do us a giant favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, not Twitter, get out of there. Facebook, Instagram, threads, Goodreads, any of those places interact? We'd love to hear what you have to say about. No. Well about the movies generally, but we don't. This is the prequel episode. So anyways, go over those places and follow us. And then for the main episodes you can and you get it. I've said this a thousand times. If you also want to help us, you can over to Apple, podcast, Spotify, anywhere you listen to us, drop us a five star rating, write us a nice little review. All of that helps a lot getting us out to more people. And if you super want to support us, you can head over to patreon.com this film is lit. Support us there for 2, 5, 15 bucks a month. I just put out the episode on Heather's a couple days ago, so that's the bonus episode for November. If you want to hear us talk about Heathers you can go check that out. I think we actually had a really interesting discussion about that which was a lot of fun. And in December this month we will be doing A Nightmare Before Christmas. No. Yes, A Nightmare Before Christmas will be our bonus episode. So yes, five bucks a month you get access to that content. Two bucks a month you get access to early access and you get to see what we're going to be doing on the podcast well ahead of time. So if you want to read and watch along, that's really good for that. And then at the $15 a month level you get access to priority recommendation where there's something you really want for us to read, watch and talk about. You can do that. And Katie This, A Little Princess was a patron request.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker B: Yes, this was a request from Mathilde.
• 1:00:07
  Speaker A: There you go. Thank you, Mathilde, for your request. And Katie, where can people watch A Little Princess?
• 1:00:13
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker A: I have this one.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker B: I have good chance. Or a local video rental store if you've still got one. Other than that, it's not available for streaming anywhere like it is. But it's not like with subscription.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker A: Not like a subscription.
• 1:00:31
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's not like on Netflix.
• 1:00:32
  Speaker A: Not like one of the ones that everybody has.
• 1:00:34
  Speaker B: Yes. But you can rent it for around 4 bucks from Apple TV, Amazon, YouTube, or Fandango at home.
• 1:00:42
  Speaker A: There you go. Yeah, I'm really excited to watch it. So I think I've seen this. I know I used to watch Secret Garden quite a bit when I was younger. Like when I was a little kid, I watched that quite a few times. And I know I've seen this movie, but I don't think I watched this one as much as I watched Secret Garden.
• 1:00:55
  Speaker B: I have absolutely seen this movie. Not since I was a kid, but I have a very distinct memory of watching it in the living room at the house that I lived in for, like, the bulk of my childhood and, like, crying my little eyes out.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker A: Yeah, I'm very excited to watch it, mainly especially knowing who Cuaron directed it and Lubezki shot it. Like I am. And the trailer is gorgeous already. Like, just watching, like, scrubbing through the trailer, I'm like, oh, yeah, this. They got the sauce. Like, this is. This is a kids movie with the sauce. And I'm very, very excited to watch it. So come back in one week's time. We're talking about A Little Princess. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals, and everybody else keep reading books, keep watching movies and keep being awesome.