Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Alice in Wonderland - Authors Who Maybe (?) Disappointed Us: Lewis Carroll Edition

Transcript

Prequel to Alice in Wonderland - Authors Who Maybe (?) Disappointed Us: Lewis Carroll Edition · This Film is Lit

• 0:07
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our secretary listener polls, learn about Louis Carroll and his alleged dubious behavior, and preview Alice in Wonderland. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this film is list of aggress, where we talk about movies that are based on books. We have quite a bit to get to every one of our segments, lots of notes, so we're going to jump right into it with our patron shoutouts. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why. No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winners, and they are Eric Harpo Rat, Nathan B. Vic Hammer, Matilde Steve from Arizona, Paul, Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine country, Winchester's forever, Kelly Napier Gray Hightower Gratch. Just gratch. Shelby is no more that darn Skag v. Frank and Alina Starkoff. Thank you all very much, as always, for continuing to support us. You're all the very best, Katie. Let's see what the people had to say about. Well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
• 1:22
  Speaker B: Okay, so on Patreon, we had three votes for the movie, one for the book, and one listener who couldn't decide. Nathan B. Said, definitely the short story. I was anxious to see how the movie made a romantic comedy out of a harrowing tale of sexual assault, and in the end I just found its attempts to be icky. I can't get past the idea that Mr. Gray is a predator, and yet the movie wants me to buy into a romance stemming from that behavior. In the book, the journalist who calls Debbie indicates that Mr. Gray has a bad reputation, which I think indicates that Debbie is not the first secretary he is done with this with, nor the last. I think the past is referenced in the movie, but it seems to want to make them failed relationships. I'm missing some shades of Grey. See what I did there? And perhaps I'm just failing to separate the movie and book versions of Mr. Grey, but both versions commit the same central, horrible actions. I don't care if the lawyer is sad while sexually harassing his employee. I might have given the movie more of a pass as an attempt to portray a more nuanced view of a thorny issue. If it wasn't for the ridiculous ending, it felt like the movie just decided after finishing the book material that the characters were in love and meant to be together. I didn't consider that the visitors and media fracas were in Debbie's head because I totally believed that Mr. Gray would abandon her there for three days he had just fired her for being a victim of sexual harassment. He seemed cowardly enough to have seen this as a solution without considering the consequences and then was too scared to go back once his mistakes started to compound on him. I only don't believe that he ever would have gone back. The whole thing just struck me as an absurd way to engineer a happy, romantic ending, completely undeveloped from in the rest of the movie. And then some random thoughts I had. I believe the movie said that Mr. Gray ended their BDSM play after Debbie. Debbie was the character in the book. Lee, in the movie, showed up at his house at night. I was super distracted in the scene where Debbie's approaching the office because she had her typing scores exposed to the rain. This is a really important document for this and other interviews. And she was just letting it get ruined by the rain.
• 3:43
  Speaker A: Fair enough. I did not notice that.
• 3:45
  Speaker B: But, yeah, there was a scene where Mr. Gray said, your behavior has been very bad. And I appreciated a good title drop for the collection of short stories.
• 3:56
  Speaker A: Okay. So it's a perspective that I expected to see from some people. Yes. And it's one I'm very sympathetic to like viewing the movie that way, for sure. Because we talked about in the episode that obviously many of Mr. Gray's actions throughout the film are objectively horrendous and.
• 4:16
  Speaker B: Would not, were they occurring outside of fiction, would definitely not fall into the realm of anything. Okay.
• 4:24
  Speaker A: Yes. And even within fiction, obviously worthy of critique, as we did with 50 shades, it is worth saying that where you draw that line of what you kind of think works or doesn't is different for everybody, from very specific, from person to person. And again, I want to reiterate that we had, I think, probably all the same objections that you had, Nathan. We voiced at least some level of commentary on those bad actions and how they were bad and that sort of thing. But ultimately, we landed in a place where we still enjoyed the movie and the relationship and the way the movie portrayed the characters. But I can understand not feeling that way. So I wanted to say all that first. We had some additional notes that we kind of. Katie and I discussed the movie a little bit more after we finished recording. And after seeing some comments that your comment, Nathan, specifically, and some other general kind know feelings on the movie that we had seen, wanted to discuss it a little bit more. So don't take our comments here as, like, a direct rebuttal to you.
• 5:29
  Speaker B: No.
• 5:30
  Speaker A: Or anything. And again, I want to stress that it is not only perfectly understandable, I think perfectly justifiable to feel that way about this movie and come out of it going, this. Don't like it. This is gross. I think that's totally fine. But something that I wrote kind of after thinking more on the movie, was that I think it's important to say that this story in secretary, the film is about the way that one very specific woman ended up finding kind of meaning, self confidence, freedom and autonomy, and that it shouldn't be viewed as like a blueprint for every single person, regardless of gender. I say one woman in this instance, because the character is. But regardless of gender, this shouldn't be seen as a blueprint for every single person. I also think, like I said, it's perfectly reasonable and understandable for people to completely just not vibe with this story at all. That being said, I do still think that this is a very good and important piece of art of media as a movie for the nuanced way that it explores this particular person's journey. Being Lee in this instance. Because to me, it feels very real, it feels very sympathetic, and ultimately, to me at least, it feels very empowering.
• 6:42
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 6:42
  Speaker A: So, yes, obviously, this is where it gets a little.
• 6:46
  Speaker B: Yeah, it gets a little thorny.
• 6:50
  Speaker A: A little bit thorny here. We're going to trust our viewers that this is a safe space where we're having an open discussion. Where when I say safe space, I mean in that we're exploring ideas into having an open discussion here. This isn't like moral proclaimment or moral proclamations on how people should view this media or whatever. This is more so just us discussing it and how we felt about it and stuff like that. And so obviously, society has been far too forgiving of sexual misconduct and abuse, primarily by men since forever. But just in general, I think. But again, primarily by men for forever. It's a huge problem that there was recently somewhat of a reckoning about, and we're in a better place than we were.
• 7:30
  Speaker B: A little bit.
• 7:30
  Speaker A: A little bit. But I will say, in my opinion, I don't think that that means that it's bad or wrong for victims, of which, in this particular instance, I would argue that Lee is for victims of sexual assault, sexual violence, sexual harassment, whatever, to reframe their experiences in a way that they find empowering or meaningful and maybe even into a way where they don't actually feel like victims anymore. Yeah, I think that can be something good for some people. I want to be as broad and as caveatting as I can here, which for me is saying something because I'm always like that and I will also go on to say that I'm far more likely to give this specific movie the benefit of the doubt on this, because this movie was written by a woman. And so writing this woman's perspective in this scenario, not that a man couldn't share this perspective, but in this story, it's about a woman. And the fact that it was written by a woman makes me at least go, okay, let's hear this out. And the fact that the journey that the character goes on ends in a place where she feels, again, empowered, free, autonomous, for maybe the first time in her life, not only in spite of the situation with Mr. Gray, but because of it, I think, is worth examining, I guess. I don't know. Katie, go as a man. I'm going to stop talking now.
• 9:06
  Speaker B: No, I agree with everything that you said. And I. First off, I want to stress again that this is not a response specifically to Nathan. Nathan, I don't want you to feel like I'm taking a jab at you or anything.
• 9:21
  Speaker A: It was just a jumping off point.
• 9:22
  Speaker B: Absolutely not. Yes. It was just a jumping off this conversation. I'm not saying this as some kind of, like, setting myself up as an authority or anything, but I am a sexual assault survivor. And again, I don't mind talking about it. In fact, I think it's important to talk about it. And I've kind of always held that perspective. And again, I'm not trying to set myself up as, like, some kind of authority here, but I do think it's relevant to the conversation.
• 9:59
  Speaker A: And perspectives change. We don't know, Nathan. Maybe as well. We have no idea.
• 10:01
  Speaker B: We don't know.
• 10:02
  Speaker A: This is not to say, again, everybody's perspective on this can be different, I think.
• 10:06
  Speaker B: And even my perspective on different pieces of media can be different. Obviously, I felt very differently about this than I did about 50 shades.
• 10:15
  Speaker A: Right?
• 10:15
  Speaker B: 50 shades left a very bad taste in my mouth. And not to go off on a tangent, but I think it just comes down to this being a better crafted piece of art.
• 10:25
  Speaker A: Yes. Really, that is another big part of it. Yes.
• 10:27
  Speaker B: But something that did kind of bother me about the short story, and again, I don't know anything about the author.
• 10:36
  Speaker A: Right.
• 10:36
  Speaker B: I don't know what perspective she's writing from, but something that did kind of bug me about it was that very often when I read these kind of grim, dark, realistic, quote unquote, portrayals of sexual violence, I come away feeling like that was for people who've never experienced that, if that makes sense. It feels like I often end up feeling like it comes off as a treatise on this is the way we should be viewing this, as a moral.
• 11:20
  Speaker A: That the only way for somebody who is a victim in that situation is this sort of grim, horrifying outcome. Not. Maybe not horrifying outcome, but that morally, if your response is anything other than.
• 11:37
  Speaker B: Your ultimate response, morally, if your ultimate response is anything other than upset, and this is horrible and this is awful, and we need to be really upset about this all the time, you should.
• 11:50
  Speaker A: Feel terrible about it, and you should.
• 11:52
  Speaker B: Feel terrible about it. And all of these things, I often come away feeling like that is for people who don't really know anything about it. Again, this is a very personal, it's a very thorny issue because, again, I often feel the complete opposite about other pieces of media. But I also think that something like secretary, the movie, where we're kind of addressing it from this perspective of like, what if instead of something bad happening, something good happened, can be really cathartic.
• 12:36
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I think you're not alone in that experience of the film. I have a feeling that that is part of this movie is somewhat of a cult classic. I mean, it got good reviews at the time, but it would also not surprise me to know that, or it doesn't surprise me to know that there's a significant number of people probably, who would watch this movie and go, this is awful, this is horrible. And there are times throughout the movie that I felt that way. But ultimately, at the end of it, it did not feel that way.
• 13:04
  Speaker B: To me.
• 13:05
  Speaker A: It did feel cathartic. It did feel empowering. It did feel. Yeah. And again, like you said, part of that, I think does go back to the fact that it's just a very well made film. But anyway, sorry, I didn't.
• 13:18
  Speaker B: No, it's fine. And I hope I'm doing at least a halfway decent job of trying to express what I'm feeling here. I hope it is.
• 13:30
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 13:30
  Speaker B: Because it's tough to talk about and everybody's perspective is going to be a little bit different, and even the same person can have a different perspective on different pieces of media. I really enjoyed the movie because it felt cathartic and positive and not like I needed to have this exceptionally grim and upsetting outlook on that topic forever and ever.
• 14:05
  Speaker A: Yeah, you could talk about this for a long time because there's a lot of layers to it, but, yeah, I think that's a good place to leave it for now. I'm sure we'll talk about more as we get into some other comments at least elements of it. I think most of our other comments are fairly. It's, it's, it's a tough topic. It is interesting because, again, I think it's very valid for people in this particular instance to feel very differently because I will say I don't think in general that at least what Nathan wrote was like a misinterpretation of the film.
• 14:36
  Speaker B: You know what I mean? I don't either. And the thing is, the other thing that makes it tough for me to talk about is I don't even disagree with Nathan. I think he's right. I just also think I'm right.
• 14:47
  Speaker A: Yes. And that's the thing that's different because there's a similar, and I really don't want to go on too big of a tangent here. There's been a similar kind of discussion around poor things right now. Very similar. From what I've seen, we have not watched the movie yet, which we may do it on the podcast one day because apparently it's based on a book, which I had no idea. But there's been a similar kind of discourse about that film in that is it some people who view it as incredibly problematic and blah, blah, blah and this sort of thing, whereas generally people, most audiences seem to view it a different way and find it, I think, more in line with this movie. But the discourse I've seen about it has echoed some of what we've discussed here. But in that instance, a lot of the discourse I've seen about it feels like the people criticizing the film completely missed the point of the film, whereas here, I don't think Nathan missed the point or misinterpreted the film necessarily. I just think that for a mixture of reasons, just came to a different conclusion about how they feel about it, which I think is probably true for some people with poor things as well. But I don't know. It is interesting.
• 15:57
  Speaker B: Everybody brings something different to the table and just depending on a lot of different factors about who you are and what your experiences are, you're going to feel differently about different things. And that's.
• 16:08
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. And like I said in particular in this instance, because it doesn't feel like you just completely missed the point or misinterpreted the. Like this isn't a thing where after I read your comment, I thought to myself, well, maybe they should watch it again because they didn't get it. That's not how I felt. Reading Nathan's comment, I went, yeah, no, I get that. I get why you feel that way. You know what I mean, I'm like, no, I understand why you feel that way. I didn't feel that way, but I could understand why you would. And it's very tough, I think, especially just kind of off the cuff as we do this. We don't, like, write out. I wrote out a little bit of a response.
• 16:42
  Speaker B: Generally, we don't write.
• 16:43
  Speaker A: Generally, we don't write out responses. We're just talking off the cuff here. And I think this particular issue and distinguishing the difference between why we liked it, even acknowledging all of the things that Nathan said versus Nathan not enjoying it, I think it's hard to kind of tease apart that distinction without really digging into it and writing up, like, a thesis on it, basically. Anyways, thank you for that comment, Nathan.
• 17:11
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Kelly Napier, who said, I think this may be the first time I couldn't come to a decision about which I wanted to vote for. I liked things about both. I didn't like things about both. Despite the difficult material, I liked the short story. The fact that it was so brief helped sell the idea that her interactions with the lawyer were just something that happened to her and not the defining moment of her life. I like that these things happened to her, but she still maintained her personal agency to say, fuck this, I'm out. I actually found myself wishing that the characters in the short story didn't have names. I think the story would have been really interesting if the people had just been the secretary, the lawyer, the mom, the sister, et cetera. The anonymity would have been a creative way to make the story feel like it could be anyone at any time, at any place. The movie was quirky in a way that only a movie made at this time could be. That is very true.
• 18:09
  Speaker A: Yes, very true.
• 18:10
  Speaker B: And while I enjoyed aspects of it, I just couldn't totally buy into it, and I'm not really sure I can truly articulate why. I do think the movie did a good job of setting up why Lee was struggling in her life before she got into her situation with the lawyer. But like you, it bothered me that she was just fixed when he told her to stop her self harming behavior. If only it was so easy in real life as someone just telling you to knock it off. Side note, y'all keep doing me wrong with these movies you're doing. I usually watch the movies while I'm at work, but we won't tell on you, Kelly. And this one had me continually looking over my shoulder to make sure no one could see me.
• 18:50
  Speaker A: Okay. This one in particular, you knew what you were getting into when you watched this at work. This isn't like a surprise. There was one a while ago where it was like, I don't remember what it was, but it was one of those where it's like, oh, gosh, you're at work. And then a thing happened and I was like, yeah, I understand that, but this one, you knew what you were getting into.
• 19:12
  Speaker B: Kelly ended by saying, thank goodness we've got something tamer coming up next. Yes. A little more family friendly.
• 19:19
  Speaker A: Absolutely. And kind of touching on things. I agree. And I think you voiced kind of what we were just saying, that I just couldn't totally buy into it. I'm not sure I can truly articulate why. I think they're kind of back to we're saying it is tough to really tease apart why it works for some people and why it doesn't for others without really going in deep on it. But the other thing I wanted to touch on, mainly just to say that we're going to touch on it more here in a second, is that is the whole fixed scene where he tells her to stop and then that fixes her. Matilda has a comment about that coming up here shortly that will expand on that a little bit more because she had a slightly different interpretation of that. So. But I agree, it still didn't totally work for me.
• 20:00
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 20:00
  Speaker A: But anyways, we'll get into it more here in a second.
• 20:04
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Steve from Arizona, who said, needless to say, I have never read the short story.
• 20:11
  Speaker A: Why is that? Needless to say?
• 20:12
  Speaker B: I feel like you actually did need to say that, Steve, why would we.
• 20:17
  Speaker A: Assume you never read the short story?
• 20:20
  Speaker B: Needless to say, I have never read the short story, but I will say I found the movie to be quite watchable. Not because I happen to own an original double sided movie poster for the film, but because James Spader to me is a guy that starred in a lot of sexual thrillers I found fascinating during my early days as a blockbuster and Hollywood video card holder.
• 20:42
  Speaker A: Both of them. I also had a card for both of them.
• 20:47
  Speaker B: You had a family video card, too, though?
• 20:49
  Speaker A: Well, in college, because we didn't have a family video when I was growing up.
• 20:53
  Speaker B: I was going to say, you should put them in an infinity gauntlet.
• 20:56
  Speaker A: I don't have them anymore.
• 20:58
  Speaker B: That makes me very disappointed.
• 21:00
  Speaker A: I had my blockbuster one until not like a wallet or two ago. I think I still had it, but it was completely worn and gone.
• 21:12
  Speaker B: Steve went on to say, it seems like a perfect circle for him. James Spader being the younger or inexperienced one in white palace and dream lover and ultimately becoming a more powerful sexual lead in Crash and secretary.
• 21:26
  Speaker A: I've heard Crash is ridiculous. I have not seen it, but never seen that. I think it's Cronenberg. I was losing my mind. I could not remember the name Dave in Cronenberg. Anyways, it is Cronenberg. It's a movie about people who get off on car crashes.
• 21:42
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 21:42
  Speaker A: Yes. All right. That's like the 10,000, like the elevator pitch. I know nothing else about the movie. That's the only thing I know about it. But I knew it had James Spader in it, and it's about people who are aroused by car crashes.
• 21:56
  Speaker B: Something for everyone, I guess. Steve went on to say, I know it's weird, but watching stuff like this while growing up in a conservative household helped me turn into a more discerning film watcher, realizing the art of moving pictures rather than the noise and CGI.
• 22:13
  Speaker A: You're veering close to snobbery, Steve, in a way that I don't abide.
• 22:19
  Speaker B: So I guess I thank Spader for that awakening question mark. I mean, he did star in one of my favorite underrated SCi-Fi movies in Stargate, which ultimately led me down the Spader Rabbit hole and to other places like the crying Game, which, boy, is a trip I was ill prepared for. Although throughout your original 50 Shades podcast, I had the suspicion that Erica had lifted quite a bit of material from this movie. So I'm glad you kind of follow through on that line as well. I'm also happy that a fellow Steve directed this film where we have quite a strong traditions of Steve's making films.
• 22:57
  Speaker A: I can think of at least a couple, to be fair.
• 23:00
  Speaker B: And yes, I love pointing out this weird fact these days. Steve, please never stop telling us when there are Steves in movies.
• 23:08
  Speaker A: Anytime a Steve is involved in a film, I need you to find all. You got to go lower on the call sheet, though. Or not the call sheet, I guess.
• 23:16
  Speaker B: But the lower in the credits.
• 23:19
  Speaker A: In the credits. I need all the Steves that are best boys. Gaffer, maybe the crafty, the craft services, Steve's. You just got to know whenever there's a Steve. But, yeah. Thank you. Appreciate your comments, Steve. Yeah. And I could definitely see how this movie may be formative if you watched it at a young age, that's for sure. Yeah, definitely not a movie that I would encourage anybody maybe under the age of, like, 18 to watch.
• 23:47
  Speaker B: Yeah, I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it.
• 23:50
  Speaker A: No, that much.
• 23:51
  Speaker B: I don't think I would have understood it.
• 23:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. Obviously, just beyond anything, I think. I don't think I would have enjoyed this movie until, I don't know, maybe we started around the time we started doing this podcast. I don't think I would have been into this movie. Just generally. Yeah, I don't think I would have enjoyed it and I don't think I would have appreciated what it was doing and, yeah, specifically, I don't know. It's fascinating to know that you enjoyed watching it again, I guess beyond being a child and titillated by it, I guess, or by being kind of like knowing you're watching something taboo or whatever. I could understand enjoying it in that sense as a kid, but.
• 24:35
  Speaker B: I don't think Steve says how young he was when he saw this. He might have been.
• 24:41
  Speaker A: That's fair. He said growing up in a conservative household, so I assumed. And he did say stuff like this, not this movie specifically, to be fair. I interpreted that as, and I also.
• 24:52
  Speaker B: Watched not this movie specifically, but definitely like things that I should not have been watching.
• 24:59
  Speaker A: Right.
• 24:59
  Speaker B: As a younger person, probably.
• 25:02
  Speaker A: I actually didn't that much. Generally speaking, my parents didn't let me watch stuff that was like way outside of my age.
• 25:08
  Speaker B: Oh, my parents were not letting me watch.
• 25:10
  Speaker A: No, I know. I understand that. My parents didn't let me where some people did, but I also just didn't really seek it out much.
• 25:18
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 25:18
  Speaker A: But my dad did let me watch some stuff, like certain genre movies and stuff that he really liked that were probably a little bit, but not like nothing like this.
• 25:28
  Speaker B: All right. And then our last comment on Patreon is a nice long one, and it is from Matilde. A quick reminder that Matilde is our Academy award winning patron who requested this episode. So here are Matilde's thoughts. I don't think the short story and the movie could or should be compared considering their objectives are basically opposed and the movie barely takes the premise and then runs wild with it. So maybe it was a cheat on my end to request this movie, but I'm not sorry.
• 26:02
  Speaker A: Fine. We've had, yeah, we've had quite a few where it's like, well, this is not really anything like loosely inspired by. Honestly, this is more similar than there's been a couple, I think. I can't think of a specific example, but I know there's been at least one or two where I would say that this is closer than the fact that it shares, like a handful of scenes and the rough basic premise. There's been other ones we've done where it's like this is not really anything like this.
• 26:27
  Speaker B: Matilda went on to say the short story is good, but feels unfinished, as if Gateskill didn't go to the end of her idea. The follow up reimagining was far more complete and satisfying. It carried the message well and the style was more to my not. I did not remember to go back and try to seek that out. I think it was in the New Yorker or something, so I probably wouldn't be able to access it anyway.
• 26:53
  Speaker A: We do not have a New Yorker subscription.
• 26:55
  Speaker B: Love that. Love not being able to access things. It carried the message well and the style was more to my liking. The movie is flawed, but it's been a permanent staple in my favorite movies of all time for 20 years now. I've watched it countless times and in many weird ways it actually changed my life. It's what piqued my interest for independent movies. I met my best friend through our mutual love for the movie and it made me a much more open minded person in general. I can totally see why it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, and it certainly has objectionable plot points, but I just love it. It has a unique mix of comedy, drama and provocation, and I too have no idea how it got made. I remember reading that the director had to stand his ground to get the ending. As it is, the production company wanted Edward and Lee to end up together but quote unquote cured with the relationship, free of the BDSM aspect. It would have been such a ridiculous cop out. Yeah, I would not have liked it. That's the worst possible, worst possible ending.
• 28:00
  Speaker A: The only endings that work are they end up together and keep doing it or she leaves.
• 28:06
  Speaker B: Goes on to have a good life.
• 28:08
  Speaker A: Yeah, there's several endings that I think could work, but I think that's like the worst possible ending.
• 28:13
  Speaker B: Yeah. Since I like secretary so much, I almost take it personal that it was an inspiration for 50 Shades of gray. It's so much smarter and I like that it's not even trying to be sexy or a model of a relationship.
• 28:26
  Speaker A: I would agree with that entirely. And I will say it's often a movie you will see recommended as a sexy movie to watch on a date night. I think it's not at all. Almost none of it is sexy or arousing. There was not a moment watching this movie where I was turned on. Really, the end is nice. Like the final scene where bathing her.
• 28:58
  Speaker B: And then where she's come fully into herself and she's confident, I think, is like the closest. Closest that it gets to being sexy.
• 29:07
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:08
  Speaker B: But overall, this movie was funnier than it was.
• 29:12
  Speaker A: Yes, absolutely.
• 29:15
  Speaker B: And I agree that I don't think this movie sets itself up as a relationship model at.
• 29:22
  Speaker A: No, no.
• 29:24
  Speaker B: Matilda went on to say it's romantic, while problematic, but the fantasy aspect is very obvious. And apart from the music, that is kind of sultry. Same guy who did Twin Peaks, strangely enough, it's not trying to titillate. I love that it's genuine in its message, that it's clumsy at times in its execution, but also tender and even sweet. I thought the representation it gives to people with self harm issues was great. It kind of simplifies the problem and its solution. But it's also earnest and hopeful in its portrayal. It's incredibly important to know that a happy ending is a possibility for those people. Not exactly that one, but even just as a symbol, a happy ending matters a whole lot to people who might identify with Lee.
• 30:08
  Speaker A: Yeah, I agree with all that. Like I said, we discussed it a lot in the episode. But I think it feels to me like a movie that is a very relatively accurate depiction of somebody dealing with self harm issue. And then on top of that, a very sympathetic one. That doesn't trivialize it. I guess it kind of trivializes in the sense that it maybe gets solved a little too easy, but not ultimately. It doesn't trivialize the issue. It doesn't make it a joke. It doesn't make it something that is like. But it also doesn't make.
• 30:39
  Speaker B: It's a very kind of nuanced and realistic portrayal of it. And sympathetic without being, like, patronizing.
• 30:49
  Speaker A: It doesn't ever feel like the movie's judging her for it, necessarily. Mr. Gray in the movie, feel bad that she deals with this or that she does this. And it's obviously, like, kind of the arc she goes on is to overcome. But it never feels judgmental.
• 31:07
  Speaker B: Yeah. It never feels like we're supposed to be, like, all poor thing at her.
• 31:12
  Speaker A: No, I agree completely.
• 31:17
  Speaker B: Yeah. I think nuanced and sympathetic. Nuanced in its sympathy in a way that I would be surprised to find in a movie today, much less 20 years ago. Absolutely sure that Gray found a compatible partner is pure luck and is not an example to follow, to say the least. But it's really nice to know that even if you went through self harm or if you have unusual kinks, you're still worthy of love and you can find your person.
• 31:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's another one that I think that kind of boils down is like, the way we got there was not great, but we got to a place that felt good again. It's tough.
• 31:54
  Speaker B: Yeah. It's also refreshing to see the shame and guilt never be put on Lee. But to see Edward fight with those feelings, that's true as well.
• 32:05
  Speaker A: That is interesting, especially. Yeah. In a movie that is so much about kind of sexuality and stuff, it's never Lee that is like, she's the one embracing it and growing into it, and he's the one dealing with the shame and kind of guilt over it and that sort of thing.
• 32:22
  Speaker B: And the narrative never attempts to shame Lee for us.
• 32:27
  Speaker A: No, not at all.
• 32:28
  Speaker B: Yeah. Whereas if you compare it to 50 shades of gray. Yes. A few random observations about specific moments. The masturbation scene, to me, is the culmination of what the lack of communication does to their relationship. They're clearly good for each other, but with so much unsaid between them and no discussion of their wants and limits, this moment was inevitable. She doesn't know how to ask for what she wants. Sends a worm without any context or explanation. So, of course, he misinterprets her message and goes way too far. I found it interesting that their most intimate moment in the sexual sense is what pushes them apart. It brings her out into this realm of the relationship, and at the same time, it brings out his shame and guilt. And he clamps up when she goes back into his office all smiling and ready to play. He's reverted to the Mr. Gray of the first scene. To me, it shows how he's stuck in this loop and she tries to pull him out of it. It's funny that you both stuck on the ICE cream line because my whole group of girlfriends actually still quote the part right before four p's is now a code among us for when someone gets really weak in the knees. Only James Spader can make those words sound sexy.
• 33:42
  Speaker A: Yeah, and that is definitely the part of the line that is because she repeats it several times and we mentioned it, but that is the part of the line that is the most. I don't know if erotic is the right word, but it's the part that taps into the control, like the domination submission aspect the most. But again, we were keying in on the way that as much ICE cream as you want line reveals an understanding of what that reveals about Jane Spader's character and the dynamic of their relationship. That, again, it isn't about controlling her body necessarily. It's not about controlling her body to his own desires. Or whatever. It's about controlling her body how she wants. And again, it's comparing that to 50 shades. And that's why we keyed in on the ICE cream part. But, yeah, if you're using it as code for things that are getting you kind of hot and heavy, the four piece part is definitely more of that.
• 34:43
  Speaker B: The cast is really what makes the movie work. Spader has always been an intense presence on screen, and Maggie Gyllenhaal is so good at micro expressions. They sell the relationship like no one else would have. It's astonishing that Maggie was so willing to take on that role so young. But she nailed it and totally deserved the nominations and awards she got for it.
• 35:08
  Speaker A: No, she did. I think it was Sundance. It was one of the festivals. I think she got a specifically. And the movie also got some awards, like Sundance or Ken or something like that. It got some awards.
• 35:21
  Speaker B: The scene where he tells her to stop harming herself never really felt like he was commanding her, despite the dialogue. He's so calm and soft in this scene. It feels less like a command and more like a wish. And she doesn't really take it as a command either. Considering she doesn't throw the kid away, then it felt more like a moment to feel each other out and attempted a connection and communication. Just the vibe I got.
• 35:45
  Speaker A: So, yeah, this is what we were talking about from earlier, and I don't disagree with that interpretation of the scene or viewing the scene that way. And I think I might have mentioned in the episode, I can't remember if I did or not, that she doesn't get rid of the thing right away. She hold on to the little kit she has, and so it isn't, like, necessarily instantly solved, but we do not see her self harming.
• 36:07
  Speaker B: True.
• 36:09
  Speaker A: Does she go to start doing it and then stop?
• 36:12
  Speaker B: I don't remember.
• 36:12
  Speaker A: I can't remember.
• 36:13
  Speaker B: And I do feel like you could definitely interpret that as part of the kind of heightened fantasy of the film in general. It's just a moment that didn't work for me.
• 36:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, I think that's definitely what they're going for. It is one of those moments where we're playing into the kind of. Because as some other people, I think Kelly and some other people have said, the movie is very aware that it's a fantasy. Maybe it wasn't Kelly. Maybe whoever somebody said the movie is very aware that it's a fantasy and that it's fantastical. And I agree that I think that moment is leaning into that of, like, yeah, in this world. This works.
• 36:51
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 36:52
  Speaker A: And again, more complicated than that, but it doesn't totally work for me. But I'm a little closer to it working for me than I think maybe you are. Because my original note, I think, when we watched the movie was that I thought that scene mostly worked. And the more I thought about it, the less, I don't know, I kind of vacillate back and forth on how effective or how much I think that scene actually worked.
• 37:15
  Speaker B: Overall, my interpretation of the scenes with Lee staying at her desk is that she's arguing her case in her head. She's covering the arguments for or against her relationship with Edward and coming to her own choice within herself.
• 37:28
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's what we both thought.
• 37:31
  Speaker B: I too believe it all takes place within one evening. The part with the journalist could be Edward's perspective, since his struggle with being open and accepting of his own desires for dominance. When he walks past everyone in Lee's life to get back to his office and to Lee, it's kind of like the opposite of a walk of shame. He has to be visible, face the world and accept himself.
• 37:53
  Speaker A: That's interesting. And I can see that. I can buy that working. I will say that it's interesting if that's what the movie is doing, which I think is probably the most likely. It's rare, I think, in a film, especially in a film where we have not seen any other sort of this level of fantastical sort of like things that aren't really happening, seeming to happen. Usually when that does happen in a film like this, it's usually relegated to one character, like the main character, mainly so that as a viewer, you can kind of still parse what is real and what isn't. So basically, usually when you see something like this happen in a film where it's almost like an unreliable narrator ish kind of thing, where Lee is having this argument in her head and imagining all these people and what we're seeing in the film is not actually what's happening. Very often in a movie, when you're doing that, you will keep that within one character's perspective so that us as a viewer, when the camera shifts outside of their perspective, we can at least be somewhat assured that what we're then watching is actually occurring. And so that's what made it kind of tough for me to interpret, I think. And what is maybe interesting about it is that when we shift to James Spader's perspective and he sees the newspaper article and then walks into the office and all these people are out here, it's rare for a film to have this sort of hallucination kind of thing happen to two different.
• 39:25
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. Yeah. That kind of flaunts the rules of film language a little bit.
• 39:32
  Speaker A: Yeah. But I do think that's probably most likely what's happening, because I think your interpretation of here of him having to go to her and walk past everybody and be judged, make himself vulnerable. Make himself vulnerable when he is so sort of self pitying and self conscious.
• 39:51
  Speaker B: About and feels a lot of shame.
• 39:53
  Speaker A: Feels a lot of shame. Him literally having to do this reversal of shame, I think, is a very valid and probably the interpretation that makes the most sense. Like I said, I just think it's interesting to have that happen to both of our leads is interesting. And without it being super heightened is the other thing. A lot of times, if you're going to do that, where it's like, if we're going to do this big dynamic, like all of this ending is fantasy, kind of. To some extent, often, if you're going to do that, it'll go even further. Like, the fantasy will be even similar to the scene where she has that dream or whatever earlier in the film where they're like, people are like, float. You know what I mean? Like that kind of thing. Although I think he does float, now that I think about it, when he walks through all those people, is it, like, moving? Like he's floating? Am I crazy? Maybe I'm imagining it.
• 40:41
  Speaker B: Anyway, I have to go back and watch it.
• 40:43
  Speaker A: Sorry.
• 40:43
  Speaker B: We own it now.
• 40:45
  Speaker A: That's true. We do. I could double check it, but yes, I agree with that entire.
• 40:48
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I like that interpretation. Matilda's final thought here was, as for the why not moment, I found that line punchy and super romantic, not really funny. It embodies the whole movie for me, his disbelief that he could find a partner and that it could work. So, yeah, overall, I love the movie and pick it easily over the short story. Evidently, I could talk about it for hours. I probably forgot a bunch of points I wanted to discuss, but I'll stop here. Thank you for covering it.
• 41:19
  Speaker A: Fantastic. Thank you for suggesting it. It was a lot of fun to watch and to discuss. We appreciate it.
• 41:26
  Speaker B: All right. Over on Facebook, we have seven votes for the movie and zero for the book. Greg said, I'll vote for the movie. I first saw it shortly after it came out and liked it. And while I found it a bit cringey in spots, rewatching it as an older, more experienced adult in the postmetoo era, the Gateskill story has the same issue, and I think the movie's greater character depth and more affirming portrayal of alternative sexual inclinations make it superior. I can't speak to this from personal experience, but a female friend of mine who had been a cutter when she was younger and identified as masochistic said the movie's portrayal of how that tendency can be turned into a positive, psychologically healthy outlet for people in the right situation really resonated with her personally.
• 42:17
  Speaker A: That does not surprise me. Yeah, again, not having dealt with that myself, that totally just the vibe I got from watching the movie felt very that that would be the case.
• 42:27
  Speaker B: Makes sense to me, was what Greg said. Maggie Gyllenhaal is also really good in this movie, as is James Spader, who, along with the script, gives the lawyer character more depth than he has in the short story. Like a lot of good movies based on short stories, it keeps the best stuff of the source material and adds to it.
• 42:46
  Speaker A: There you go. Appreciate that, Greg.
• 42:50
  Speaker B: Over on Twitter, we did not have any comments, but we did have three votes for the movie, none for the book, but we did have one listener who couldn't decide. And on Instagram we had four votes for the movie, one for the book, and one listener who couldn't decide. And M. Layton Kulick said, my vote goes for the movie and didn't know it was based on a book. Quite an irony since the first time I watched it was because every reviewer recommended it over 50 shades of Gray's movie adaptation. Unlike Mr. Gray's famous line, I don't date, I fuck hard.
• 43:29
  Speaker A: The greatest ellipses. I will put this argument forward. The greatest ellipses in cinematic history, please. Yeah, maybe in literature I'll go a step further. I don't know. That's why I said cinematic history, because.
• 43:43
  Speaker B: I couldn't remember if it was in the book or not.
• 43:46
  Speaker A: I thought it maybe I have to.
• 43:48
  Speaker B: Go look at our notes. I'm sure we talked about it.
• 43:50
  Speaker A: I'm sure we did.
• 43:52
  Speaker B: In secretary, James Spader's character doesn't need to tell you. He shows it near the end with the tree scene, if I remember correctly.
• 44:01
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 44:02
  Speaker B: To sum up, love the movie. Never read the book.
• 44:05
  Speaker A: There you go on threads.
• 44:09
  Speaker B: We had one vote for the movie and zero for the book. And Ian from wine country said, our $15 patron, excellent episode. Loved it.
• 44:19
  Speaker A: Short and sweet. Thanks, Ian. Appreciate it.
• 44:23
  Speaker B: And over on Goodreads, we had one vote for the movie and zero for the book. And Miko said, as Katie said, the short story and the movie are so different that comparing them feels sort of pointless. Maybe a little bit, but we got to do what we got to do. Neither the short story nor the movie is something I'd consume on my own, but I'm always happy to be forced to experience something different. Thanks to your podcast, I think the movie had a bit more nuanced point, despite the occasional silliness, and both Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader gave a good performance. At least it was way better than 50 shades of Gray. Not that that's a high bar based on enjoyment value and not so much on the quality. I give my vote to the movie. All right, and our winner this week was probably unsurprisingly, the movie, with 19 votes to the books, too, plus our two listeners who couldn't decide.
• 45:25
  Speaker A: There you go. Fantastic. Thank you, everybody, for your feedback. A lot of fun discussing that one and hearing what y'all had to say and spawning more conversations. So hope you all enjoyed that. Katie, now it's time to preview. We're actually going to. Sorry, I remembered I saw the notes and we're switching up the order here a little bit. Normally, we would go into our learning thing segment. We do have a learning thing segment, but for the sake of what Katie thinks makes more sense, which I agree, we're going to do the book facts first here and then go into the learning thing segment. So here's a little bit about Alice's adventures in Alice through the Looking Glass. From the creators of Gulliver's travels and Merlin comes the biggest entertainment event of the year, Alice in Wonderland.
• 46:14
  Speaker B: Oh, yeah. So I decided to swap the usual order of our segments this week so we would have a little bit of context before we dive into our learning things segment. I do that occasionally, as you may have inferred from Brian reading the title of this segment. I am going to read both Alice in Wonderland and through the Looking Glass, and we'll find out why in a few minutes here. But Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, more commonly known now as Alice in Wonderland, is an 1865 english children's novel written by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.
• 46:56
  Speaker A: I did not know that was his real christian name.
• 46:59
  Speaker B: Yeah, under the pen name Lewis Carroll. I would also go by Lewis Carroll. Way better name. And he was actually a mathematics don at Oxford.
• 47:14
  Speaker A: I have no idea.
• 47:15
  Speaker B: I looked it up and it seems kind of like a professor, but not. But it's like a specifically and like an Oxford.
• 47:22
  Speaker A: Sure, they have all kinds of things.
• 47:25
  Speaker B: British people doing your british things. So Alice's adventures in Wonderland and then its follow up novel through the looking Glass was published in 1871. But both novels are seen as examples of the literary nonsense genre. The idea for the story started in July of 1862, while Carol and his friend Reverend Robinson Duckworth.
• 47:55
  Speaker A: What a name.
• 47:56
  Speaker B: Great names all over the place here. They took a riverboating trip with the three daughters of another of Carol's friends, Henley, Lidel or Lidel, I'm not actually sure. The lidel girls were Lorena, Alice, and Edith. And Alice Lidel is kind of generally considered to be the inspiration for the character Alice, although scholars kind of disagree on how much she was actually the inspiration or if Louis Carroll just liked her name. But Carol began writing the manuscript the day following that trip, although that early version has since been lost. We don't know what happened to it. Maybe he burned it, I don't know. He probably threw in the fireplace. But he began working on another manuscript in November of the same year, which he subsequently illustrated and gifted to Alice Lidel as a Christmas present. And the title of that version was Alice's adventures underground. But the published version of Alice's adventures in Wonderland is about twice the length of Alice's adventures underground, and it includes a lot of stuff that were not in that original manuscript. For example, the Matt Hatter's tea party was not in that original version of the story.
• 49:16
  Speaker A: Pretty famous scene.
• 49:17
  Speaker B: Yeah. So my book notes are a little light this week because we had a lot of comments, and I have, like a slightly meteor learning thing segment. So I'm skipping on ahead to the novel receiving positive reviews upon release, and it is now one of the best known works of victorian literature. It had widespread influence on popular culture, literature, and especially the fantasy genre. It is also credited as helping end the era of didactism in children's literature, which, if you remember back to any of our fairy tale episodes, didactic tale is a moral tale, right?
• 50:01
  Speaker A: Teaching a lesson?
• 50:02
  Speaker B: Yes, the purpose of it is to teach a lesson about how you're supposed to behave. But Alice's adventures in Wonderland helped to usher in an era in which writing for children aimed to delight and entertain them rather than terrify them. Yes, the book has never been out of print. It has been translated into 174 languages, according to Wikipedia. If I tried to list every single adaptation, it would be here all night. But it has been adapted for screen, radio, art, ballet, opera, musicals, theme parks, board games, video games, everything. Pretty much everything you can think of, as well as, like, told and retold. And obviously it's in the public domain so people can kind of pick it up, pick and do whatever they want with it. But that brings me to my last point here, and the reason that I am reading both novels is that the majority of adaptations blend elements from both books. For example, the characters Tweedledee and Tweedledum famously appear in many adaptations that are titled Alice in Wonderland, but they actually only appear in the novel through the looking glass.
• 51:17
  Speaker A: I saw that when I was looking at stuff about the movie that we're doing, and it mentioned that specifically and that the movie we're doing specifically does feature quite a few things from very.
• 51:29
  Speaker B: Common to just combine a lot of different kind of cherry pick, the most well known at this point things.
• 51:37
  Speaker A: And according to IMDb trivia facts, I don't know how accurate this particularly is because who knows what that. But according to that, when I was looking at this movie, or there had either been twelve film adaptations before this or this was the twelveth film, just film, but anyway, so supposedly the twelveth or 13th film adaptation, quite a few legacy just films at this point. All right, now that we have a little bit of background on Alice's adventures in Wonderland and we learned about, what was this fucker's name? Charles Ludwig Dotson, or more famously went by a pin named Lewis Carroll, we're going to learn something. And what we're going to learn is maybe Lewis Carroll did some stuff that disappointing. We'll see. Let's find out. No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
• 52:30
  Speaker B: All right. Yeah. So we have the triumphant question mark return of our recurring segment, a semi recurring authors who disappointed us. This one is authors who maybe disappointed us, the Lewis Carroll edition. Now, as with many white male authors, particularly ones who lived 200 years ago, there is much we could say in a segment like this. However, today we are going to be focusing on one particular thing, content warning for discussion of pedophilia. Unfortunately, not a thing.
• 53:09
  Speaker A: I was aware of a topic that I was aware of surrounding Lewis Carroll.
• 53:13
  Speaker B: So we're going to get into it. Okay, so this is a topic that has a lot of different facets to it. So what I'm going to do is attempt to give as best of an overview as I can and cover all of the different kind of pieces of this argument.
• 53:32
  Speaker A: And when you say argument, you're talking about in relation to accusations, but the.
• 53:40
  Speaker B: Speculation that he may have been a pedophile. Yes. Okay, so starting in the 1940s, scholars began speculating that Carol's interest in children may have had a sexual element to it. Okay, now I say interest in what I'm referring to here is mainly his friendship with the aforementioned lidel girls, Lorena, Alice, and Edith. So this claim. Right, this argument boils down to a few major points or pieces of quote unquote evidence.
• 54:20
  Speaker A: Right.
• 54:21
  Speaker B: So, first up, Carol was an amateur photographer and illustrator, and many of his works feature children, particularly the lidel girls, and sometimes in the nude.
• 54:34
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 54:35
  Speaker B: Additionally, a full frontal nude photo of Lorena lidel surfaced in the 1970s with Louis Carroll written in pencil on the back of it. Now, she would have been in her teens at the time. Photograph isn't dated, so we don't know what her exact age would have been, but she appears to probably be in her early teens. Okay, another point here. Carol kept extensive diaries throughout his life, but some of them are missing. Others have had pages cut out of them. And it's not known for sure who did that or where the missing material went. But it is heavily speculated that that may have been done by family to protect his reputation. The family name. More on that in a minute. Some of that missing material also coincides with a breakdown of the friendship between Carol and the Lidel family. Now, the exact reason for this rift is unknown, although there was alleged gossip at the time that Carol was involved with a woman referred to as Ina Lidel, and that is speculated to be the eldest daughter, Lorena. Again, more on this in a minute. So those are our main pieces of evidence for the claim Lewis Carroll was pedophile.
• 55:58
  Speaker A: Right. Seems reasonable. I say reasonable. It seems, you know. Yeah, like there's something going, maybe. Hard to know.
• 56:06
  Speaker B: Now, there are, of course, counterarguments to these.
• 56:10
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 56:11
  Speaker B: Okay. So, first, many scholars have pointed out that Carol was far from the only photographer or artist at the time to depict nude children. Basically boiling it down to a misunderstanding of victorian values, which, to be fair, are often an absolute trip. And it is true that during that time, depicting children nude was seen as a symbol of innocence and that these kinds of images were very common. They even appeared on Christmas cards. They weren't considered scandalous or titillating. It was more of like an art form, like a symbolic. So if you've ever wondered why victorian angels and fairies are often depicted as naked children, that's why.
• 56:56
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 56:58
  Speaker B: Now, in regard to the photograph of Lorena Lidel, the evidence there is circumstantial, I guess somewhat circumstantial. So the writing on the back of the photo attributes it to Carol, but there's no way to definitively prove who wrote that or when they wrote it. Or even to definitively.
• 57:19
  Speaker A: You said it was found in the 70s.
• 57:20
  Speaker B: Yeah. Even to definitively prove that Carol took the photo in the first place. Basically, the main argument against this is that he was very meticulous about labeling and cataloging his photography. And this particular photo doesn't have any of the usual markings. And like I said, the photo was also part of a private collection until it resurfaced in the 1970s. So there's really just no way to trace the validity of the claim surrounding it either way.
• 57:49
  Speaker A: Right? I'm inclined to believe that it probably could have been. Who knows?
• 57:57
  Speaker B: Now, in regard to the diaries, author Carolyn Leach has argued that the removal of material from his diaries may actually be part of the reason that the idea that he had a preference for young girls even exists in the first place. She argues that it is likely that the removed material actually details Carol's relationships with adult women. Because if you look at other primary sources, like letters, it's clear that Carol actually did have quite a few romantic relationships with appropriately aged women. And some of those relationships would have been considered scandalous at the time, which is why she theorizes that the diary material was removed in order to protect the reputation, while inadvertently damaging his reputation.
• 58:42
  Speaker A: In a far worse reputation from scandalous. Like, oh, maybe it's like an affair.
• 58:48
  Speaker B: Exactly.
• 58:48
  Speaker A: Or just like they're not married, whatever. There could be a handful of reasons why they would find they wouldn't want this information getting out.
• 58:55
  Speaker B: But in removing that material, they potentially inadvertently created an image of a man who just liked little girls.
• 59:03
  Speaker A: Right. Well, and yes, I think that coincides with other things. I think that, on its own, wouldn't necessarily like just having missing pages from your journal. People would not assume that, I don't think. But combined with the other elements, yes.
• 59:17
  Speaker B: It'S all kind of the perfect storm here. Speaking of scandalous relationships, though, that brings me back to the rift with the Lidel family. Now, as I said, there was allegedly some gossip at the time that Carol was romantically involved with a member of the family referred to as Ina. And this is often assumed to be the eldest daughter, Lorena. But it's also worth noting that Lorena was named after her mother. So it could just as easily have been the lidel matriarch who had his attention, obviously married and a friend. So, scandalous still scandalous. There was also a rumor at the time that Carol was romantically linked to the Lidel girl's governess, which opens up the way for a theory that the reason he was hanging out with kids so much was actually because he was into the governess.
• 1:00:11
  Speaker A: Right?
• 1:00:12
  Speaker B: Who knows? To be honest, I don't really know what to do with any of this.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker A: Kind of.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker B: Where I land, it all feels a little Internet sleuthy to me. Like, both arguments feel very rooted in circumstantial evidence, and that's just kind of the way things go. When you're talking about something that may or may not have happened 200 years ago, when some of the evidence has been lost time and some of the evidence is based on rumors, and then you add in the fact that Victorians were pretty weird in general. But I do think it's important to be informed on this type of thing, especially as you're moving forward with a critical analysis of a creative work. So now we're informed.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker A: Yeah, that was where I was going to land throughout the whole thing. I was like, so why are we talking about this? Why are we doing. Why is this the learning thing segment? And I think you're right, that I do think it is worth. Because it's something that people are going to ask about, because I'm sure it's a thing people discussed and it's a thing that's out there. So I would think we would want to address anyways. But I also think, like you said, it's important because it is. I think regardless of where you end up landing, what you believe about it, I think it is worth knowing that this exists again, like you said, when you're analyzing Alice in Wonderland, that sort of thing, there's maybe layers you can kind of pull out of it from this. I think it's important as it informs your analysis of his work, potentially. I don't know how much it matters compared to something like J. K. Rowling being a horrifying transphobe, buying or engaging with Harry Potter media currently is still a thing that enriches a gigantic transphobe. Whereas this. I don't. Can I guess my point is that I don't know if you have to feel particularly guilty about engaging with this media. If it were turned out that he was a pedophile, maybe, I don't know. Again, to me, it should just color your perception of the work, at least in some way. All right, that's our learning thing segment for this week. But now, as we said earlier, the 1991 Alice 90 1999 Alice in Wonderland won the March madness bracket. So now we're going to learn a little bit more about that movie. Vivid storybook characters come to life with spectacular special effects.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker B: Would somebody please help me? We've been eating for hours and we're not finished yet.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker A: If you want to experience something altogether different, you come to the right place. This is not your ordinary tea party.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker B: What sorts of people live around here? Everyone here is bad.
• 1:03:00
  Speaker A: Before we get into it, I want to say kudos to everybody for voting for this one. Very excited to talk about this.
• 1:03:05
  Speaker B: I am too.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker A: I don't think I've ever seen it. I don't remember it, but no hard feelings against the classic Disney one. But I'm enjoying the fact that something unexpected won the poll. That will be something that I definitely haven't seen, at least I think, unless it unlocks some crazy memories. But I watched a trailer now and I don't think I've seen this. And yeah, I think it'll be interesting to discuss because it'll be less expected. I think there'll be more interesting kind of dynamics than maybe the Disney one would have presented for us on a main episode. So Alice in Wonderland is a 1999 made for TV movie made for NBC, directed by Nick Willing, also Hallmark. It's a Hallmark production, but I read on the Wikipedia article, it says it was aired on NBC, directed by Nick Willing, who directed photographing Fairies, a miniseries called Tin man from 2007 that ran on Sci-Fi and starred Zoe Deschanel. It's like a reimagining of wizard of Oz. And then another Alice miniseries in 2009 on Sci-Fi a different adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. So interesting. And then it was written by Peter Barnes, who wrote the 1998 Merlin miniseries, which stars Sam Neal, which is a fairly popular, like cult classicy kind of little miniseries enchanted April, and he wrote the Patrick Stewart Christmas carol from 1999.
• 1:04:40
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker A: Which is one of my favorite Christmas carols. That's the one I watched as a kid because my dad was a Star Trek guy. The film stars Tina Majorino, Miranda Richardson, Martin Short, Whoopi Goldberg, Gene Wilder, Francis Wright, George Wynt, Pete Postelwaite, Ben Kingsley, Peter Ustinoff, and Christopher Lloyd.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker B: Just a absolutely wild cast.
• 1:05:06
  Speaker A: Just incredible cast across the board. It's pretty crazy, and I'm sure I left somebody out. Those are just like the biggest names.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:05:14
  Speaker A: The film has a 33% on Rotten Tomatoes based on just six reviews, no metacritic score, and a 6.3 out of ten on IMDb. The film actually won four primetime Emmys, all kind of technical awards for best miniseries, costumes, best miniseries or TV movie makeup, best music, and best visual effects, and was nominated for a few other ones. But basically all the art, directiony costume, makeup, music, visual effects won all of those. The film had a budget of $21 million and obviously we don't have a box office return because it was made for TV movie. But when it aired, it was watched by 25.34 million viewers, which made it the 6th highest rated program that week and was the most watched in terms of total viewers. So instead of actually writing a bunch of stuff here, because there's not a lot on the Wikipedia article, which is where I source most of the stuff from, but also some other places, there wasn't a ton of stuff like written out there about this. But I did find a twelve minute behind the scenes documentary that is entirely available on YouTube that somebody salvaged from a DVD or something. So I would recommend watching that. I watched it today when I was doing the research for this and it's interesting. It's just a little short. Again, it's twelve minutes long. They got little interviews with the cast and stuff, and it's fun. You see some behind the scenes stuff, so go check that out. If you want to see some of the making of kind of whatnot, we'll share that on our socials and stuff. So I do have a few fun facts, though. The puppets for the film were created by Jim Henson's creature shop, so you can expect some pretty good puppets. Sigourney Weaver was apparently originally cast in the film, but ended up having to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. I was looking at the cast, trying to figure out who I thought she would be playing. My guess would be Miranda Richardson's character.
• 1:07:06
  Speaker B: Does she play the Red Queen?
• 1:07:08
  Speaker A: Yes, Miranda Richardson's the Red Queen.
• 1:07:10
  Speaker B: I could see that Red Queen.
• 1:07:13
  Speaker A: Other than that, I'm not sure.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker B: She's also not like a ton of female characters.
• 1:07:17
  Speaker A: No, I mean, the only other woman on the cast list there was Whoopi Goldberg.
• 1:07:21
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:07:21
  Speaker A: And I have to imagine they were doing like that was a choice. I don't know. It seems like. I doubt they would have recast. Maybe they would, but because Whoopi Goldberg plays the Cheshire cat inspired cat, it's incredible. And I don't think to me that doesn't. Cheshire cat doesn't scream Sigourney Weaver.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker B: I could see her as the queen.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker A: Of hearth a little bit more. None of them really. I don't know. I'm being honest, I don't really see her in any of those roles. But whatever she ended up being in the movie. Kirsten Dunst was considered for Alice at one point, but apparently eventually the producers thought she ended she would looked too much like Fiona Fullerton. Who was the actress who played Alice in one Alice in the 1972 version, and they're like, she looks too much like that actress. It'll be confusing, I guess. I don't know. That's just what IMDb trivia said, so who knows? And then finally, a couple of reviews. Dave Zurowick gave the film a positive review for the Baltimore sun, said it was, quote, grand and a magical production. And he also praised the cast particular, particularly Tina Majorino. And also, I didn't mention it, one of Gene Wilder's final like, he made like one or two after this, maybe a couple TV episodes or something, but he was in like three episodes of Will and Grace and then like one other movie and then this and that was like the very final things he did. And then on the more negative side, though, giving it two out of five stars. David Parkinson, writing for Radio Times, enjoyed the Jim Henson puppets and the performances of Richardson and Wilder, Miranda Richardson, who played the queen, but he did not like that the film quote falls short of the cherished images taken from those first readings of Lewis Carroll's classic tales, end quote.
• 1:09:08
  Speaker B: So he thinks the book's better.
• 1:09:09
  Speaker A: He does think the book's better.
• 1:09:11
  Speaker B: We'll see.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker A: Opinion we will see before we wrap up, we want to remind you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Goodreads, any of those social media threads, any of those social media platforms. Follow us there so you can interact and we can get your feedback on these prequel episodes. You can also head over to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, anywhere else. Drop us a nice little five star rating, write us a review. We'd appreciate that. Or if you want to support us even more, head over to patreon.com. Thisfilm is lit. Port us there. Get access to bonus content. We just watched our at the $5 and up level, you get bonus episodes, one a month. We just watched our bonus episode for March, which was singing in the rain. Because it's spring, it's raining. So we're going to be recording that episode here, probably tomorrow, and that episode will be out shortly. We'll see what we had to say about singing in the rain. That's this month's and then, as we said before, priority recommendation, $15 a month. If you have something you'd really love for us to talk about, we'll do it. If you support us for $15 a month and request it. So there you go. Katie, where can people watch Alice in Wonderland 1999?
• 1:10:11
  Speaker B: I actually don't know, but I assume this got like a DVD release at some point?
• 1:10:14
  Speaker A: I have no idea.
• 1:10:16
  Speaker B: So you could check with your local library. Yeah, maybe.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker A: Seems unlikely.
• 1:10:20
  Speaker B: It seems unlikely. You never know. And certainly a librarian would be the person to help you. They could find that if that exists. Otherwise you can stream this with ads on Roku, Tubi, Crackle, plex, and freebie. Yes, lots of places.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker A: If you go to IMDb, it gives you several, like the IMDb page for this movie gives you several different options to click on and watch it.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker B: You can also rent it through YouTube. It said it was around $2, but I think if you subscribe to YouTube Premium, it's free.
• 1:10:52
  Speaker A: There you go.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker B: Because I went and searched for it just to make sure, and I have YouTube premium and it just came up free.
• 1:10:58
  Speaker A: I will say make sure what I saw on YouTube today, there is a weird AI remaster that somebody uploaded that. It's not.
• 1:11:06
  Speaker B: No, it was like official through YouTube.
• 1:11:10
  Speaker A: There is a version of this uploaded to YouTube that is like upscaled with AI. It didn't look terrible. I watched like 30 seconds. I was like, I wonder if this looks like dog shit. Because usually AI upscaled stuff is very noticeable to me. It didn't look awful. But then I went and watched the version on Tubi and it looks fine. Like, it looks great. So the upscale didn't really look that much, quote unquote better anyways. So technically, if for whatever reason, you couldn't watch on one of those other services, there is a version on YouTube, I assume an illegal version. I do not know that is AI upscaled, but don't watch that one just generally, unless you have to. But anyways, there's lots of places to watch it. It's out there. You can find it. I'm excited to check this one out.
• 1:11:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, I am very excited. I have extremely vague, I don't remember a lot about it, but very fond memories of watching this at my friend Sarah's house. Like when it was airing on NBC. Yeah, I remember almost nothing about it except that we watched it. So I'm really excited to revisit it and hopefully get a memory blast.
• 1:12:21
  Speaker A: Yeah, it seemed like something I might have seen. But then, like I said, when I watched the behind the scenes thing and the trailer, I didn't ring any bells where I was like, oh, yeah, I remember this. So I don't think I've seen it, but it looks like a lot of fun. And like I said, the behind the scenes stuff, they built these big cool sets and it looks interesting. It looks like it's one of some Emmys for effects and stuff, so I think it could be a lot of fun. I'm excited to check it out. And again, what a cast. Yeah, can't argue with that cast. So that's going to do it for this prequel episode. Until next time, guys, gals and I'm by Rand pals and everybody else, keep.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker B: Reading books, keep watching movies, and keep being awesome.