Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Red, White, and Royal Blue - The Evolution of the Romance Genre, We Have Always Lived in the Castle Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to Red, White, and Royal Blue - The Evolution of the Romance Genre, We Have Always Lived in the Castle Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:07
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our we have always lived in the castle listener polls, learn about the romance genre and preview red, white and royal blue. Hello and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. It's another prequel week with every single one of our segments. Lots to talk about. Let's get into it with our patron.
• 0:37
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:41
  Speaker A: No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winners, and they are breens, beans and peen. Eric Harpo Rat, 1962, a year for castles. Vic Vega, Mathilde Steve from Arizona, Ent draft, Theresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Winchester's Forever, Kelly Napier Grey, Hightower Gratch, just scratch Shelby's in her capybara era, that darn skag v. Frank and Alina Starkov, thank you all very much for your continued support. So obviously, we have always lived in the castle. Came out in 1962, trying to figure out what other castle.
• 1:25
  Speaker B: I think that's a reference to man.
• 1:28
  Speaker A: In the high castle. Yeah, I did say that. Came out like the same year, didn't?
• 1:30
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think I might have. One of us might have said it was a year for castles. Oh, in the prequel, I don't remember saying that.
• 1:39
  Speaker A: I feel like it probably was you, because I don't. Or maybe I didn't. I just don't remember. But now that. Yes, that's right. Okay, good. I enjoy. Good name change, whoever you are. I don't remember. Have to go figure out Vic. No, not Vic Vega. I don't know who that is. But anyways, good name change. All right, let's see what the people had to say about we have always lived in the castle.
• 2:04
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. On Patreon, we had five votes for the book and zero for the movie. This will be a recurring theme. Yeah, Eric said I voted for the book. I found it so atmospheric and unsettling. And nothing in the movie could compare to me being convinced for about ten pages that Marykat was a poltergeist after that line from Uncle Julian about her dying. I think that would be a really interesting take on this.
• 2:37
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 2:38
  Speaker B: Like, it would be very different from. It would be a different story.
• 2:42
  Speaker A: Right.
• 2:42
  Speaker B: But I think it would be an interesting story.
• 2:44
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 2:46
  Speaker B: I also love that she seems.
• 2:47
  Speaker A: I mean, that's spoilers, but that's. Oh, my God.
• 2:52
  Speaker B: What's the say? The 6th sense?
• 2:54
  Speaker A: Yes, that's the 6th sense. Sorry, blanket.
• 2:57
  Speaker B: She would be a poltergeist and not a regular ghost.
• 3:00
  Speaker A: Fair enough. Fair enough.
• 3:01
  Speaker B: At least a little different.
• 3:02
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 3:03
  Speaker B: Eric went on to say, I also love that she seems to have gotten mentally stuck at twelve, the age she was when the murders happened. She doesn't at all act 18. And I kept forgetting how old she was when reading. That was something that I meant to bring up and I forgot about it. Cause I do think it's very unsettling the way she acts. Yes. But also Constance is always referring to her as a child.
• 3:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, we did mention and talked about how they were living in kind of a state of arrested development. Yeah, I don't think we categorized it specifically to the murder, but that makes sense.
• 3:38
  Speaker B: I may be misremembering, but I thought Julian was very open about believing that Constance did it. And I loved that possibly imagined dynamic of him happily being cared for by her while also thinking she poisoned everyone and freely chatting about it. I don't recall any specific moment where I felt like he concretely said that he definitely believed Constance did it, which I could also be misremembering. But I think that's also the interesting thing about the unreliability of these characters is that you can get such different reads on them.
• 4:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, I will say in the movie that is kind of. I don't think I really mention it, but that is kind of the vibe I got. Like, when I was discussing, like, how I was confused about what the dynamic was. The vibe I got was that he did think she did it, at least to some extent, but that he didn't really have a better option for, you know, like, going somewhere else or not, you know, like. So he just kind of begrudgingly. Yeah, was cared for by them while also thinking that Constance murdered his brother. But yeah, it's an interesting dynamic, for sure.
• 4:48
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Shelby's in her capybara era, and Shelby said the sticking point for me was the movie's need to cut through the ambiguity of the book. The movie gives us specific reasons for the town's locating the Blackwoods and makes it clear that the father was abusive in the book. Mary Cat could have just been sensitive to criticism for all we know. You sent me to bed without supper, so I'm going to poison you. People have killed for even less. And then there's Charles. There's something neat and clean about him getting violent in the end of the movie that I really don't like. It feels cheap for the movie to go see now we all agree he's the bad guy when people like this are often much more careful about never doing something. So obviously I also didnt like how the townspeople in the movie reacted to him. Maybe its because the books from Mary Cats perspective, but in that version it looks like hes getting on with the other good ol boys in town. Of course he is. Hes the tall handsome man with social skills dealing with those crazy women, so the townsfolk dont have to. The movie should have kept the ambiguity of the book the way it did with Mary Cat's spells. If it had, these two would have come up even for me. I haven't watched sharp object, but I've read the book. I can definitely see the comparison now that Brian mentioned it.
• 6:07
  Speaker A: Sweet. And I'll say this here because I do think it makes sense here, and I've read through some of the comments that people left, but I haven't. Not like in depth, but I saw a kind of recurring theme about the ambiguity not being there in the movie and that being something people preferred about the book. I will say I think maybe the. Clearly the movie is not as ambiguous as the as or. Sorry, clearly the film is not as ambiguous as the book is based on every experience of reading it and watching it. I will say I think the movie is still maybe more ambiguous than some of these comments give it credit for. I think some of the way, obviously the part where he attacks her at the end makes it less ambiguous in that way. But some of the dynamics, because, you know, we discussed in the episode how I was unsure of what some of the dynamics were and how exactly everything had played out. I think there was a. Some level ambiguity to it. But more than that, I think the thing that the movie is doing that I think works overall is that. And I think one of the reviewers that I read in the prequel episode pretty much nailed it when they said this is a movie about male violence and female rage or something like that. Basically what the movie is doing is the person who wrote it, the people who directed wrote it, the filmmakers read the book, interpreted the backstory from it, and then decided to tell that story because that's what they identified with in the story, this male abusive character coming in. Because I know somebody else had mentioned, like in the book, it's actually not even super clear if necessarily Charles even is like trying to take advantage of, I think maybe Kelly or somebody.
• 7:44
  Speaker B: Yeah, somebody said that, said something along.
• 7:46
  Speaker A: Those lines, and we'll get to that, obviously, about how it's maybe not even super clear in the book, whether or not Charles is even, like, trying to take advantage of them or actually is trying to help them or, you know, like, is trying to, like, kind of take care of the estate and that sort of thing. But obviously, one of the interpretations of the book is, and because you talked about how this time you got that interpretation is about Charles, about, one, the father being abusive and taking advantage of them, and then Charles coming in and filling that role, taking advantage of them, being abusive. And I think the filmmakers just thought that was an angle that, one, they identified with in the story a lot, but two was also a very important message at the time this movie was being made, that window of, you know, it was right.
• 8:32
  Speaker B: Right around, right after.
• 8:33
  Speaker A: Right after the me too movement and kind of that reckoning. And I think they saw this story as a good opportunity because it is a valid reading of the story.
• 8:42
  Speaker B: I agree. Yeah.
• 8:43
  Speaker A: So I think they saw this valid reading of the story and said, let's make it more explicit and tell a, you know, kind of this interesting moral tale. And I think they left some of the ambiguity in there. But again, clearly not as much as the book, but I think that's a perfect, like, again, this. This isn't to say that I think it makes sense to, you know, always people say, people saying they prefer the book more. I think. I think I might. I might even prefer the book more. But I appreciate the film for. I like an adaptation that latches on to an interpretation of the text and then pushes it and does something with it.
• 9:19
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 9:20
  Speaker A: You know what I mean? As opposed to just kind of like rotely presenting what the book does. And I'm not saying people wanted it to just be like a direct, you know, page to page adaptation of the book, but I do enjoy the filmmaker putting their point of view and telling that message in the film. I think it. Even though it is less ambiguous, I do think it. It's. It's. I think this story was an effective vessel for the message, the filmmakers, you know, the muddled message as it was, because we talked about it, it wasn't, like, completely effective, but an effective vessel for the filmmakers to kind of tell that story and that message.
• 9:58
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree that, you know, what the film did is a valid interpretation of the story. I think there are many valid interpretations of this story, which goes back to.
• 10:08
  Speaker A: What people are saying. The fact that there are so many interesting interpretations of the book is what makes it more interesting than the film.
• 10:14
  Speaker B: And I also think, you know, it's potentially nigh on impossible to do an adaptation without latching on to some kind.
• 10:23
  Speaker A: Of adaptation of a text.
• 10:24
  Speaker B: You kind of have to.
• 10:25
  Speaker A: You don't have to. But if you want to make a movie that anybody cares about or see, like, because it's the other thing, you know, you're making movies, a book you can just write and if it doesn't, nothing happens with it, whatever. It's very hard to. You know what I mean? Like, if most people don't really, like, if it's nebulous and vague and ambiguous and it never really. It's not that hard. You just have a book, like, obviously, to get it published, it would be a whole different thing. But a film, you can't. It's very hard to even make a film unless you can prove that you're gonna be able to sell it somehow. Unless you're doing a very, you know, low budget, like, kind of personal project type thing which is already still very expensive, very difficult, whereas writing a book, difficult, but not very expensive. And so the prospect of making a film that is as nebulous and as ambiguous as the book was, I think it's just such a hard sell, especially if you want to sell it, you know, like, literally, because, you know, it is a business. I think you kind of have to have something that audiences can latch onto. Unless you're David Lynch, I guess, but, like, which, even then, I'm being facetious, but, like, you know, I think there's a point with that where you kind of have to have a point of view. You kind of have to make it. I don't know, you have to latch onto something more if you want audiences to at all, like.
• 11:40
  Speaker B: Yeah. And I agree with you also that I think there is still quite a bit of ambiguity to the film. But I think that what I latched onto and what it seems like a lot of others have latched onto is that the book just does that ambiguity so skillfully that the movie's not gonna measure up.
• 12:00
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. And that's fair.
• 12:02
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from 1962, a year for Castles, who said Shelby nailed it and capybaras are the fucking best. I think maybe this book just shouldn't be a movie at all, but it definitely shouldn't be this movie. The best part of the story is the ambiguity of viewing everything through Marykat's damaged but engaging perspective. You have to figure out what is really happening. Like, in the book, there is, at least initially, some question as to how bad Charles is. He seems like he's there to steal their money, but he isn't wrong in saying that Mary Cat and Uncle Julian need medical help because Mary Cat tries to avoid him as much as possible. We find out what Charles is saying mostly secondhand from Constance and we can't see how or if he is manipulating her as grossly as in the movie. There is some legitimate question as to whether Mary Cat might just hate him because he represents change. And that, to me, was what made the book compelling. I mean, I think that absolutely is true. Yeah. In both the book and the movie that she hates him because he's bringing his changes and she's very opposed to that.
• 13:11
  Speaker A: I think even in the film that is because she hates him. Moment one, before anything, like before he has done anything. You can tell she already hates him just because he represents this outside force coming in and interrupting their lives, you know? Yeah. This new thing. Very much so. Yeah. I think even in the film that's the case. It's just the film then goes on to make him more explicitly a villain.
• 13:32
  Speaker B: Yeah. And there is definitely some question as to what his intentions actually are. Like how selfishly motivated is he really, you know, in the book?
• 13:46
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, yeah.
• 13:48
  Speaker B: And I for sure got a read of like, selfishly motivated. And part of that was helped along by at the end of the book, we didn't talk about this, really. At the end of the movie, they kill him. Right. And it's very like cut and dry at the end of the book when he comes back and tries to like, get them to let him back into the house and back into their lives. He has like a photographer with him who wants to take a picture of the house and hopefully the sisters so that he can sell it. And Charles is like, if you get that picture, I get half. Right. And we hear him say that. And that was like one of a couple little things that helped me more to the conclusion of, like, Charles is at least somewhat selfishly motivated here. But I think there, you know, there are. There is a lot of ambiguity to it.
• 14:40
  Speaker A: Right.
• 14:41
  Speaker B: Continuing with our comment here, finally, I hate the movie's implication that Mary Cat is some sort of sociopath. I think this runs antithetical to the Mary Cat of the book. She was a twelve year old who lashed out in anger because she was unable to truly understand what the consequences of her actions would be. She then never got the help she needed and tried to control an uncontrollable world through her magic. I can see that she might lash out again if her delicate world was endangered, like with Charles breaking into the house. But I don't believe she would calmly deliver the second blow like the movie shows. She would also never open the door to scare the kids outside because her happiness depends entirely on never moving outside of her bubble. That I agree with very much. Okay. I don't think she. I thought that was very out of character for her at the end of the movie.
• 15:29
  Speaker A: Okay. I thought I had read somewhere, and I could be completely wrong about this, so take this with a grain of salt, but I thought I had read somewhere since watching the films like an IMDb, a review or something, of somebody saying that the idea of Mario Kat potentially being a sociopath they felt was also present in the book. I could be wrong about that. And this was also obviously just one random person's opinion. But anyways. But it sounds like, I mean, if you, you know, sounds like you agree pretty strongly with the listener here, I.
• 16:03
  Speaker B: Mean, I don't think that's out of the question in the book. I'm also not really qualified to make that assessment.
• 16:12
  Speaker A: That's true too.
• 16:13
  Speaker B: That's the other thing of a fictional character.
• 16:16
  Speaker A: Yeah. As soon as we start using like that, it becomes complicated and I. Yeah.
• 16:20
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Kelly Napier who said, oh, the book hands down over the movie. It's interesting to me that such a faithful adaptation could seemingly miss the mark so much. As others have commented, the movie seemed to have this need to hit people over the head with the exposition to make sure they got it. The book was spooky and unsettling and nailed the idea of giving you just barely enough concrete info to go on.
• 16:49
  Speaker A: This is so fascinating because this was not my experience watching the film. Having not read the book, thats what.
• 16:55
  Speaker B: This shows all about.
• 16:56
  Speaker A: Oh yeah. It is interesting though.
• 16:59
  Speaker B: I also liked the books ending more. It didnt seem necessary for Marycat to kill Charles and I much preferred him just being rejected and left to wander off, potentially to find his next unwitting target who might make him rich. Also, do we ever know for sure hes actually their cousin? Since that branch of the family was estranged from the rest, I found it totally possible that this was just a random person trying to take advantage. Yeah, yeah that's possible. I mean, they do say very frequently that he looks just like their father, but that doesn't necessarily mean, yeah, he's definitely their Sebastian.
• 17:37
  Speaker A: Stan also looks just like Mark Young Mark Hamill. So like, you know, they're not related as far as I know. Yeah, but yeah, like, as I mentioned kind of halfway through there, it is fascinating to me because the movie did not feel to me, for this style of movie, shall we say? And upon a first viewing, maybe I would change on a second viewing. It did not feel like the film was hitting us, me over the head with exposition to the point where, like I said, I was just. It was enough where I was scra. I felt like I was scrabbling together. I think because of the nature of a film, as we discussed in the episode of watching a film is not nearly as. You can't digest it as completely, especially on a first viewing, as you can reading a book where you can reread sections pretty easily and stuff like that.
• 18:24
  Speaker B: And go at your own pace.
• 18:25
  Speaker A: Go at your own pace. And, yeah, you can read a chapter and think about it for a bit, whereas in a film you're just. You're moving on and you're already thinking and watching the next thing happening. And, you know, you can do that with a film, but it becomes a very weird experience that's not the same as it is with reading a book. And so, yeah, for me, it didn't. I did not feel like it was hitting the audience over the head with exposition beyond what was necessary for the viewer. But I could imagine having read the book, it may feel that way, but I truly don't think for a general audience, for people that had not read the book, I don't think it was as maybe obvious and exposition heavy as some of our listeners felt like it was. Again, as just a film for people who hadn't read the book.
• 19:11
  Speaker B: Right.
• 19:11
  Speaker A: For people who read the book, I can totally see how that could be the case. But.
• 19:17
  Speaker B: All right, over on Twitter, we had three votes for the book and zero for the movie. And one comment from Brian Soilo.
• 19:27
  Speaker A: This is a new commenter.
• 19:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't think that we've ever had this commenter before. And they said, my answer is the book. The major change at the end of the movie with Charles being killed is far less creepy than the Blackwood sisters shunning him forever. It was a change that was totally unnecessary and ended up being contradictory to Shirley Jackson's gothic style.
• 19:49
  Speaker A: So that's a running theme here. Lots of people talking about almost every comment mentioned killing Charles doesn't feel like it honors the book and what the book is doing and that the book's version of the ending with Charles is either more effective or more creepy or whatever. But again, I think just to reframe this slightly, I'm not arguing with this, just presenting my kind of like, just the moviegoers experience. And again, what I mentioned earlier with what the film is doing, the interpretation the film took is it looked at it through the lens of. This is a story about women suffering at the hands of men.
• 20:24
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 20:25
  Speaker A: And what they do about that. And so I think the film said, fucking kill your oppressors. Cast off your chains. Kill your oppressors, essentially, to some extent. And I think they thought that was a much more impactful, meaningful message at the time this film was being made with the interpretation they were doing as opposed to he just gets to wander off and kind of not really have any repercussions for what he did. You know what I mean? Like, I think that's. I think that's what the film is doing. That being said, I can understand in the context compared to the book, why, like, the ending in the book sounds like it works. I'm not saying it doesn't.
• 21:03
  Speaker B: Well, and I think it works with the ambiguity that surrounds his character as well, because the movie made the choice to make him a more obvious villain. We have to tie that thread off.
• 21:14
  Speaker A: Right? Yeah, yeah. And I think that makes sense. And like I said, for me, it was fairly effective in the film. I'm saying this. We talked about it at length in the episode. I wasn't, like, a gigantic fan of the film. I thought it was just okay, but I could. Seeing it, what it was going for. I think that change kind of works within the context of the film. I didn't have strong feelings negatively about it. And again, when I look. Kind of pull back and look at the larger picture of what I think the film was doing, I think that change works fine. Because, again, I think it's the film saying fucking murder your oppressors to some. Again, maybe not quite, but, like, obviously, that's literally what's happening in the movie. Yes, but I think the movie just wanted to make it very clear that sometimes, yes, violent repercussions for abusers is a solution or something like, you know, interpret that as you may. I guess that's just. I think that the film didn't want to feel like it was pulling punches for. For Charles getting his just desserts.
• 22:16
  Speaker B: Right. We didn't have any comments on Instagram, but we did get five votes for the book, none for the movie. And then over on Goodreads, we had one vote for the book, zero for the movie. And we had a comment from Miko, who said both the book and the movie were okay, but not my style. While I agree that Charles was written as the villain, being after the money, I'd push back how reliable this interpretation is in the movie it's clear as we see him trying to force the safe open and manhandling both women. But one could easily make the case that in the book all the ill intent is Mary cats paranoia, and Charles only answers in kind to Mary Cat's standoffish behavior, for example, while Charles does yell to the firefighters to get the safe. At that point both women are safely out of the house and Charles knows the safe container, their entire fortune in cash, something he earlier pointed out is unwise. Even reasonable things are viewed as wrong by Mary Cat. She thinks Charles should have been nicer to Julian when he only stated that the murder shouldn't be brought up all the time, especially in front of Constance. Charles also suggested he could work on the garden and run errands and is the one who runs the who runs to fetch the fire department. One could argue that thanks to his upper class upbringing, he finds it irking that Mary cat buries money and nails a golden watch chain to a tree. And it's not an indication of greed on his part. He isn't even the one who brings up the fortune in the first place. It's Constance who offers him money to go to the shop. You could easily make this into a horror story from Charles's point of view, being in Mary Cats Head is what makes the story work. And while I thought the movie was well made, it was missing a good angle like the book. I'd also have wished they had included at least one of the moments from the book where Constance seems lucid for a moment and recognized the situation they are in isn't good. That Julian should be in a hospital and they should live without being confined in the house. My vote goes to the book.
• 24:18
  Speaker A: So this did remind me of another thought I just had, kind of in reference to the Charles of it all. And the remark here about like because this is one of the ones I remembered reading a bit of about how in the book it's more ambiguous, like you kind of interpret his actions multiple ways. I actually had that same experience in the film for a while. I will say that as not having read the book and maybe again, different for other people, for me having read just watching the film, I actually, for quite a while Charles does come across, I think, more ambiguous maybe than again, some of the listeners are giving it credit for potentially in that, especially as it relates to the money. As Miko mentioned here about like the burying the money and all that stuff I actually did in the film, kind of interpret his his reaction to that more charitably initially than we do ultimately. And I think that just, again, relates back to what the film is doing, where the film is presenting this scenario of a man that initially seems trustworthy and then it's slowly revealed. His anger, his rage, his abusiveness is kind of slowly revealed over the course of the film, culminating in a place where they have to kill their oppressor. And I think. And so again, I guess my point was just that I think the film actually does at least somewhat effectively, kind of present that ambiguity initially because I did feel that, like, the first scenes where he, like, finds some of the money buried or he finds the box of money under the stairs or whatever it is in that scene, I remember feeling like his reaction was less one of greed and more one of, like, confusion and, like, what. What are you. What is wrong with you guys? You know what I mean? Like, of just, like, what is going on here? These people, like, they're burying money. Like, not. Not again, initially it read more like, yeah, confusion and, like, concern almost. But that's pretty quickly progressed to. It was clear that, you know, he was there for the money and he had more nefarious intentions. But, yeah, I. Just. To give the film a little bit of credit that I think some of the listeners either just didn't, you know, just didn't work for them in that way. But I think, again, probably comparing it to the book. But I thought some of the elements here of the criticisms of the film, I think actually kind of are there because my viewing of them not having read the book interpreted in that way.
• 26:48
  Speaker B: I think it's really fun that you stood up for the movie because since we didn't have any comments.
• 26:54
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Well, and like I said, I. Because I thought it was a well made movie. And again, I said it a million times, but, like, it wasn't an amazing movie, but I thought it was pretty well made. And I think it was doing something fairly. That worked fairly well, just not as well as I think it could have in all the way like, it. Again, my main issue with it was that I just felt like parts of it. I was a little, like, unsure of what was, whose motivation was what, which. Again, it goes to the ambiguity, I guess, to some extent, but then also just the. I had a hard time super identifying or latching onto or caring about a lot of the. Some of the characters because I just didn't feel like we got quite enough of an emotional, like, through line for some of the characters or so, I don't know, something. It was kind of hard to describe, but there are elements of that. And then some of the scenes, I just think, like, we talked about, like, the scene where he gets out of the tub and, like, it doesn't really make any sense.
• 27:45
  Speaker B: It felt like it was supposed to have some kind of follow up scene or something.
• 27:49
  Speaker A: Honestly, it just feels like a trailer, like moment or something. Or something like that kind of thing.
• 27:53
  Speaker B: Of, like, it's just like, we've got Sebastian Stan. Let's get him shirtless.
• 27:57
  Speaker A: Let's get him shirtless and then have him, like, be kind of weird and creepy for, like, an off putting, like, almost like a clip you would play on, like, a talk show of, like, yeah, this weird thing. Because it, like, gets the people going, Sebastian Stan, shirtless. But also, like, there's a weird, menacing vibe. Like, people will be like, what's going on? You know what I mean? But in context of the film. So there's stuff like that that I think didn't work. But, yeah, again, I thought it was a pretty well made film overall, which, again, some of the commenters didn't say.
• 28:24
  Speaker B: It was a terrible film. I didn't think it was a terrible film either, but obviously, in comparison to the book, it just didn't work for people.
• 28:31
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 28:33
  Speaker B: All right. Well, to nobody's surprise, then, the winner of our listener poll is the book in an absolute landslide.
• 28:40
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 28:41
  Speaker B: With 14 votes to the movie. Zero.
• 28:44
  Speaker A: I'm voting for the movie. So it got one. All right, it's time to learn. What we're learning about today is the evolution of the romance genre.
• 28:55
  Speaker C: No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
• 29:02
  Speaker B: All right, got a little classic learning things segment for us here. A romance novel or a romantic novel. What is it? It's a genre fiction novel, primarily focused on the relationship and romantic love between two people, typically ending with an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending. The happy ending, as it were.
• 29:33
  Speaker A: The happily ever after.
• 29:34
  Speaker B: Yes, romance novels encompass a lot of different subgenres. You can have fantasy, gothic, contemporary, historical, paranormal, sci-Fi just about anything. Anything you can think of can be a romance novel. Women have traditionally been the primary readers of romance novels, but according to romance writers of America, 16% of men also read romance novels.
• 30:02
  Speaker A: 16% of men read romance novels, or 16% of readers of romance novels are men.
• 30:08
  Speaker B: This is what it said to me.
• 30:10
  Speaker A: 16% of romance novel readers being men makes more sense.
• 30:15
  Speaker B: I agree.
• 30:15
  Speaker A: Cause I can't imagine one in five men in America assuming this is America because it says romance writers of America. I can't imagine one in five men. I don't even know. I don't even know if I would agree that one in five people read books regularly. You know what? I'm not even trying to be glib. I'm just saying, like.
• 30:34
  Speaker B: I mean, that's fair.
• 30:35
  Speaker A: It just seems like a disproportionately high number. But I would believe that, like, 16% of romance.
• 30:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, that probably makes more sense.
• 30:43
  Speaker A: Cause then still it's predominantly women, but there's not a tiny minority.
• 30:50
  Speaker B: Now, obviously, prose fiction stories dealing with romantic love has been around since forever, since humans have been around. But when did romance become what we know it as today? Well, one precursor of the modern romance novel is the sentimental novel called Pamela, or virtue rewarded by Samuel Richardson, published in 1740.
• 31:21
  Speaker A: We started right in with that. Virtue rewarded with the title of the first.
• 31:25
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 31:28
  Speaker A: Right from the word jump. We were like patriarchy.
• 31:33
  Speaker B: Pamela was the first popular novel to be based on courtship as told from the perspective of the heroine, which is typically the case with romance novels. Not always, but kind of typically the case. And unlike many novels of the time, it had a happy ending. Happy is in big, massive air quotes here, because based on the synopsis that I looked at on Wikipedia, I'm not sure it would be considered quite so happy to modern audiences.
• 32:02
  Speaker A: But in the time.
• 32:03
  Speaker B: For the time period, it was a happy ending. Like, they didn't die or anything, you know, nobody died of cholera. The genre continued to develop through the 17 and 18 hundreds, with well known authors like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters helping to guide the common elements and themes that we would recognize as romance today. In 1919, Em Hall's novel the Chic was published in the UK. The hero of that book kidnaps the heroine and wins her admiration through his forceful actions, and was one of the first modern works to introduce rape fantasy, a pretty common thing in romance. Yeah.
• 32:50
  Speaker A: I mean, we just did a whole series of it in 50 shades.
• 32:54
  Speaker B: Yes. And this is something that we can kind of lay at the feet of purity, culture, and patriarchy. Again, publishers believed that readers would only accept premarital sex in the context of rape, which I believe we all discussed during our 50 shades, I'm sure. Because.
• 33:13
  Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, contextually, the whole thing is just.
• 33:14
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
• 33:15
  Speaker A: It's the idea that. Yeah, the woman can't.
• 33:17
  Speaker B: The woman cannot be desirous of sex.
• 33:20
  Speaker A: Can't be.
• 33:21
  Speaker B: She has to be pure and have virtue.
• 33:24
  Speaker A: And so if you want sex scenes, you know, that are prior to marriage or whatever it has to, which are.
• 33:29
  Speaker B: The more exciting, like, gotta at least be dub con.
• 33:33
  Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Which means dubious content consent for people who don't know.
• 33:38
  Speaker B: So in this novel, and then in many that followed, rape was depicted as more of a fantasy. The heroine rarely, if ever, shows experiencing terror, stress, or trauma as a result of that. It's kind of all fine.
• 33:55
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 33:57
  Speaker B: Historical romance was also popular during this time period, though, and a lot of mass market romance novels were set in the regency period, taking inspiration from, again, Jane Austen. But then in the 1930s through the fifties, romance really picked up steam, and it began to become big business. And we start to see publishers like Harlequin emerging, taking the lead in mass publication and sales. And the intimacy featured in the novels of this era was.
• 34:31
  Speaker A: I'd be interested to see star real quick. I'm interested to see if that. I don't. Cause I don't actually know what. The timeframe of the ascension of women's literacy. It would've been earlier than that, surely. Yes, surely.
• 34:45
  Speaker B: But, I mean, we could go back to the beginning because I think the ascension of women's literacy, we're gonna put that more around the time period of, like, your Jane Austen's, your brontes.
• 34:56
  Speaker A: Right.
• 34:57
  Speaker B: I guess I was thinking, like, widespread literacy.
• 35:00
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cause I was thinking around that time period, it would have been more like, which I guess is true, regardless of gender, that, like, just well to do people would be literate.
• 35:08
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 35:08
  Speaker A: Yeah. So that's regardless of gender. Okay, fair enough. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah.
• 35:11
  Speaker B: The intimacy featured in novels of this era was pretty tame by most standards, but that was about to change back, my friends. In the US, modern romance genre fiction was born in 1972 with Avon's publication of Kathleen Woodwiss's the Flame and the Flower, fantastic romance novel title, which was the first of the modern bodice Ripper romance novels.
• 35:44
  Speaker A: Well, I guess a subgenre.
• 35:47
  Speaker B: That novel went on to sell 2.35 million copies, and Avon followed that up with the 1974 publication of Wood was second novel, the Wolf and the Dove.
• 35:58
  Speaker A: I'm glad the titles of these books have not changed.
• 36:00
  Speaker B: I love them.
• 36:01
  Speaker A: No, I'm not being. Cause it reminds me of the. What you probably mention at some point, the freaking. The ones now that everybody's reading the court of thrones.
• 36:12
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 36:12
  Speaker A: Yes, I'm sure you mentioned that.
• 36:14
  Speaker B: Yes, I do. Okay.
• 36:15
  Speaker A: But they remind me of those titles, the flame and the flag. It just. Yeah.
• 36:18
  Speaker B: So we followed that up with the Wolf and the Dove, as well as two more sexually graphic novels by Rosemary Rogers of Sweet Savage Love.
• 36:27
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 36:28
  Speaker B: That title, little on the nose and dark fires. The latter sold 2 million copies in its first three months of release. We're remembering this is well before the Internet.
• 36:41
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 36:41
  Speaker B: You're not getting the same kind of word of mouth that you do today.
• 36:45
  Speaker A: Yeah, but it is the only option because there's no Internet. You don't get fanfic and slash fic and all that stuff.
• 36:51
  Speaker B: That is fair. The success of these novels prompted a new style of writing, romance, concentrating primarily on historical fiction, following the monogamous relationship between a helpless heroine and the hero who rescued her, even if he had usually been the one to place her in danger in the first place. And the covers tended to feature scantily clad women being grabbed by the hero, hence the nickname bodice Rippers. And you'll never get me to say a word against bodice Ripper. Romance novel covers. I love them. I think they're so campy and so fun.
• 37:27
  Speaker A: Of course.
• 37:29
  Speaker B: So these early examples of contemporary romance novels were obviously very formulaic, especially in regard to plot character types and traditional gender roles. However, the genre did continue to evolve over the next several decades and at least somewhat modernized. With the times we started to branch out from this kind of very set, narrow historical formula. In the classic bodice Ripper cover, our art, sadly, also fell by the wayside.
• 38:00
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 38:01
  Speaker B: And by the two thousands, it was much more common for romance novel covers to feature landscapes.
• 38:06
  Speaker A: It wouldn't surprise me if that relates to the idea that once we've gone through, I don't know the reason for that change, but it wouldn't surprise me to know that that older style of COVID the classic bodice ripper style cover, was something that was seen as a certain thing.
• 38:24
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 38:25
  Speaker A: And so younger audiences, maybe, or, you know, like, audiences growing into the age where they're reading that kind of, like, romance and stuff like that. Look at that. Would see that book cover and be like, that's the thing. My aunt reads like, I don't want to. You know what I mean?
• 38:38
  Speaker B: I'm sure that's at least part of it.
• 38:40
  Speaker A: So you mix up the formula of what they look like to make them not immediately trigger the. That's the thing my grandma has in her bathroom.
• 38:48
  Speaker B: I think another part of it, too, is that, like, not everybody is gonna want to be seen reading the novel with the scantily clad people on it.
• 38:58
  Speaker A: Fair to. Yeah. Yeah. You can. The more modern ones you can take on the train with you.
• 39:02
  Speaker B: Yes. Nobody knows unless they know what the book is.
• 39:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. Which at that point, you just kind of wake up each other.
• 39:10
  Speaker B: So today, quote, unquote, spicy fiction, as we're calling it, is more popular than ever. But instead of historical alpha males seducing swooning damsels, the most popular genres are romantic, a portmanteau of romance and fantasy and paranormal romance that blends fantasy and Sci-Fi elements. Think series like Sarah J. Maas's a Court of Thorns and Roses or Rebecca Yarrow's fourth wing series. Young adult romance and LGBTQIA romance are two other subgenres that have been growing quickly over the past decade or so. The popular cover art style has also shifted to brightly colored, cartoonish depictions of the main characters, and red, white, and royal blue is actually a really good example of that trend. So whether it's barely spicy or basically erotica, romance fiction has proven itself to be perennially popular. And let us know in our social media comments if you like reading romance, what's your favorite and what are your favorite favorite book or author or genre or whatever, whatever you want to talk about, I want to hear about it because I like romance.
• 40:28
  Speaker A: Maybe what we can do, too is maybe we can make that a new recurring thing if we get some suggestions from people that are film adaptations, which probably less common, but we could do them during, like, Valentine's Day, do like a romance novel adaptation. Again, there's probably not as many of those, I would imagine, assuming 50 shades was kind of unique in that regard of being like, a mainstream release of, like, there were more of those style of, you know, those very, like, seductive, sexy films in like, the nineties and stuff like the, like, thrillers and things like that. I don't think most of those were adaptations, but they might have been. I don't know. And I don't know how many of those were technically romance. But anyways, if you do know any good romance adaptations that we can do. Yeah, let us know.
• 41:17
  Speaker B: I like bodice rippers.
• 41:19
  Speaker A: There you go.
• 41:20
  Speaker B: That's what I came up on. The content is questionable, but it's fun.
• 41:25
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right, now it's time to learn a little bit about the book we're covering this week. Red, white and royal blue.
• 41:35
  Speaker C: I sent you to the royal wedding with simple instructions. Don't cause an international incident. How's it going? You've done some pretty stupid things in your day, but this. Thanks for cake. Henry shoved me an urge I currently share. What I need is some good old fashioned damage control.
• 42:02
  Speaker B: The white house and the palace are gonna release a joint statement.
• 42:05
  Speaker A: We can knock it, we can buy it.
• 42:07
  Speaker C: You've gotta be choking.
• 42:08
  Speaker B: You can hate Prince Henry. All you want, man.
• 42:10
  Speaker C: Da's bigger than yours. I want you to know that no wearing lifts. Know that too, sweetheart.
• 42:14
  Speaker B: You better act like the sun shines out of his ass and you have a vitamin D deficiency.
• 42:17
  Speaker C: Have you thought of what you might say to convince the world that we're actually friends? I love hanging out with this guy.
• 42:23
  Speaker A: These days are way too low.
• 42:25
  Speaker B: Red, white and Royal Blue is a 2019 lgbt romance novel by american author Casey McQuiston, who, just for reference in our discussion here, is non binary and uses they them pronouns. McQuiston first came up with the idea for what would become red, white, and royal blue during the 2016 us presidential election. Yep, yep. While watching a season of the HBO comedy series veep and reading a Hillary Clinton biography, a woman in charge, as well as the royal we, another book about the royal family, McQuiston became intrigued by the extravagant, high profile lifestyle of the royals and wanted to take on a story featuring a royal family.
• 43:15
  Speaker A: What a fascinating Nexus point.
• 43:18
  Speaker B: Yes, yes. The novel received generally positive reviews, especially for its representation of a gay relationship. Kirkus Reviews said McQuistons strength is in dialogue and theyre rich, well drawn characters, and the Daily Nerd said the novel was an absolute gem and praised McQuistons exquisite care in creating their characters. The novel was included in the New York Times bestseller list in June of 2019. It won a 2020 Alex Award, which I looked at, and that's like a young adult award. So I'm not really sure because I was not under the impression that this was a young adult book, but it won a 2020 Alex Award, as well as the 2019 Goodreads Choice Awards for best romance and best debut. In 2022, a collector's edition was released with an alternate cover and a new chapter written from Henry's perspective. We love a perspective romance novel. We do. Also changed in that edition, multiple references to the Harry Potter series were removed, as well as a line about conflict in Israel was changed. And I'm pretty sure what I have is not the new 2022 edition. So we'll see what this all is. In 2023, the novel was added to the Library of Congress LGBTQ collection for preservation in the library. And in a 2023 interview with Forbes, McQuiston reflected on the possibility of a sequel, saying, quote, I would love to see more, too. I think that's all I can say about that. Okay, fair enough.
• 45:13
  Speaker A: Well, I will say this before we get to the film. There is a film sequel supposedly in the works, so.
• 45:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, I saw that somewhere, too.
• 45:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know if it's related to a book sequel or not, but yeah, yeah. All right. Well, speaking of the film, let's learn a little bit now about red, white, and royal blue, the movie.
• 45:29
  Speaker C: You're expected at my new year's party. Did I do something wrong? Do you ever wonder who you'd be if you were an anonymous person in the world? I have no idea what you're talking about. As thick as it gets. I want someone in love over yourself. Your majesty, it's your royal Highness. Dear Alex, I miss you.
• 45:55
  Speaker A: That's what I really want. Good morning.
• 45:58
  Speaker B: We are in a hotel crawling with reporters. If anyone sees you leave this hotel, I will brexit your head from your body.
• 46:03
  Speaker C: Your royal Highness, you need to figure out if you feel forever about him. Do you love him? What difference would it make if I did?
• 46:11
  Speaker A: I want someone to love.
• 46:13
  Speaker C: Prince Henry Bella belongs to Britain. I mean, we can figure out a way to love each other on our own terms. It's like there's a rope attached to my chest, and it keeps pulling me towards you.
• 46:24
  Speaker A: I want someone alone. Red, White, and Royal Blue is a 2023 film directed by Matthew Lopez. Literally only had one directing credit, according to IMDb, but did have a credit as a writer on the newsroom, the tv show the Newsroom, which is a sorkin joint, which.
• 46:42
  Speaker B: Boy, that sounds like a sore conjoint. The newsroom.
• 46:47
  Speaker A: I have a fear about this film that we will see. I don't know. I'm gonna go in as open minded as possible, but I have a fear about this film. But we'll see. The film was also written by Matthew Lopez and Ted Malaware, and I'll get into how that worked later. But Ted Malaware wrote on law and American Rust and Halston and a show called Rise, mostly in tv. And his law and order credits are actually, after the film, I believe, like modern law and, like, within the last couple years, law and order episodes. So Matthew Lopez, as I mentioned, only had one. This is his first feature film. He's a theater guy. He wrote a play called the inheritance, which won a ton of awards, including the Tony for best play. His Broadway productions have been nominated for 24 Tonys and have won eight. He's been either a writer, a director, whatever, I think writer primarily on the film, stars Taylor Zakar Perez, Nicholas Galitsyn, Clifton Collins Junior, Sarah Shahi, Rachel Hilson, Stephen Fry, and Uma Thurman. It has a 76% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 62% on Metacritic, and a seven out of ten on IMDb. It was an Amazon Prime Video so there's no box office, but it was nominated for the GLAAD award for best streaming movie. It actually lost to a film called Rustin, which I had never heard of. Looked this up. I thought it was interesting. Directed by the person who directed Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, which was nominated for some oscars a couple years ago. It's a film about Bayard Rustin, who I'd never heard of, which boy, telling on myself, I guess, who was a black civil rights leader. Honestly, I think this is the whole reason the movie exists, partially about a black civil rights leader who was one of the main organizers on the march on Washington. He was a gay black civil rights leader in 1960. Socialist, all kinds of stuff. Worked very closely with Martin Luther King Junior, but a lot of his contributions and stuff seems like it was kind of more behind the scenes.
• 48:48
  Speaker B: I have heard of him, but I do not know a lot about him.
• 48:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, seems like a fascinating individual, but they've made like a biopic. Biopic, however you want to pronounce that about him, that I had not even heard of until this reading, but I want to watch it now because it looks really fascinating. So Amazon Studios won the rights to the book in 2019. It came out and announced that Berlanti Productions would be producing the film. If that name sounds familiar, it's because Greg Berlanti is the guy behind the Arrowverse on the CW as well as you on Netflix. He's also a producer on Riverdale, the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, a bunch of other stuff. But his main thing that people know Berlanti from is the Arrowverse. He did the Arrow series of the Flash and I think Supergirl as like the showrunner and then was involved in the other ones as like, producer. In 2021, Lopez was announced as the director and writer of the film, and that was when it was. He actually rewrote a script that had been done by Ted Malawar. So Ted Malawar did a first draft of the film, and then Lopez came on, rewrote that draft, and directed from there. So that's why they're both credited as writers on the film. Filming took place from June to August of 2022 in the UK, primarily a couple IMDb trivia facts before we get to reviews. This one's a wild one. This is verbatim from IMDb. According to director Matthew Lopez, several weeks into production, star Taylor Zakar Perez inquired about whether or not he should shave his lower body for an upcoming nude scene by meeting with Lopez in his trailer with makeup designer Karen Hartley acting as a mediator. He lowered his pants, asking Lopez to look at his ass. Lopez responded, you're fine, you're fine. You look great. Before following it up with Taylor. Yeah, just bring your hairy butt to set. End quote. So one of the stars was wondering if he should shave his butt for the film, and Lopez was like, nah, looks great. Let's shoot it. According to this IMDb, this is the number one IMDb trivia. I think it might not have been number one.
• 51:01
  Speaker B: Right. Well, I guess we're gonna have to look out for see how hairy we think his butt is.
• 51:08
  Speaker A: I don't know. This is apparently the second film where Nicholas Galitsyn sings a queen song while playing a prince.
• 51:18
  Speaker B: That's a two nickels scenario.
• 51:21
  Speaker A: Yeah, right. He was in the 2021 Cinderella. That one. The cursed one. Oh, no, I think that's that one. I'm pretty sure.
• 51:27
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's that one.
• 51:29
  Speaker A: Where he sings somebody to love while portraying Prince Robert. And in this film as Prince Henry, he sings don't stop me now.
• 51:36
  Speaker B: Good for you.
• 51:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. And then finally getting into some reviews. I'm just gonna read all the reviews from Wikipedia here because I thought they were very fascinating writing. For CNN Entertainment, Brian Lowry said, quote, at its core, it's a fairy tale romance, only where the challenge isn't the customary wicked stepmother or malevolent witch, but rather what happens when true love finds two princes, not one?
• 52:02
  Speaker B: That's very nice. That's like a nice sentence.
• 52:06
  Speaker A: Amy Nicholson for the New York Times said, quote, it sounds like fan fiction and looks like it too, particularly when Gallitzin dips his chin bashfully, a tick that Princess Diana passed on to her boys. Yet, as in any screwball romance worth its transatlantic sea salt, the first time director Matthew I. This is. You sure? Wrote this. This is written with a capital w. Yet as any screwball romance worth its transatlantic sea salt, the first time, director Matthew Lopez gets us rooting for the cheeky couples transition from rivals to romantic bedfellows, boosted by the cinematographer Steven Goldblatt, who photographs the leads so adoringly that you half expect them to turn to the camera and hawk a bottle of cologne. Thanks to their playful chemistry. We're sold. She did, however, criticize several quote over Florida theatrical flourishes, which, to be fair, Matthew Lopez is a theater guy.
• 53:05
  Speaker B: What did you want?
• 53:07
  Speaker A: Writing for the Observer, Wendy Ide gave the film three out of five stars, saying, quote, it is so slick and polished, it feels obsessively micromanaged rather than directed, end quote. But she did praise the charisma of Zakar, Perez and Galitsynth. Oh, I guess that's his last name. It's like maybe hyphen. Yeah, that's the Taylor guy, right?
• 53:27
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 53:28
  Speaker A: The two leads crediting it for the film's appeal, saying, quote, it turns out that watching two impossibly beautiful boys making cow eyes at each other might be just the escapist pulp we need right now. End quote.
• 53:42
  Speaker B: Oh, gosh.
• 53:43
  Speaker A: That's what I said. I read through these, I was like, I gotta include all these. They're great. New York Post's Lauren Sarner thought the film, quote had big flaws, but it's fun and a cute rom.com. at heart or with heart. She criticized Uma Thurman's performance, dubbing it her career worse. Oh, no. Saying her texan, texan accent and the writing of her character were bad, but she did praise Perez and Galitsyn's performances. Also noted the resemblance between Prince Harry and Prince Henry and Prince Harry, as both princes are spares and their romance. I guess that's a technical term for like the second.
• 54:19
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's the second born.
• 54:20
  Speaker A: Yeah. And their romances with their american lovers lead to strained relationships with their older brothers. Jesse Thompson for the Independent gave it three out of five stars, saying, quote, it's wry and witty at first, but then becomes unstuck as it enters into soap opera mode. Also drew comparisons to the show the crown and Prince Harry's, Harry's media tour and taking note of, quote, an air of liberal fantasy to it all, which.
• 54:45
  Speaker B: Is, is that what you're worried about?
• 54:46
  Speaker A: What I was worried about initially, as soon as I saw that the writer wrote on the newsroom and was the sorkin it's. Look, I'm not even gonna get into it right now, but I just have a feeling it might be a little insufferably.
• 55:07
  Speaker B: It could liberal.
• 55:09
  Speaker A: And I say that as a guy who is basically a liberal mostly. Well, that's complicated. But anyways, we don't need to get into it right now. She characterized the casting of Zakar, Perez and Galitsyn as, quote, absurdly good, like cartoon Disney princes made into humans, and said that Uma Thurman's performance, contrary to our previous post, maybe not contrary, but described Thurman's performance as delightfully camp. So I guess kind of in line with the career worst part.
• 55:42
  Speaker B: But the first person obviously didn't appreciate the camp of it all.
• 55:47
  Speaker A: Writing for the Guardian, Benjamin Lee awarded it two out of five stars. So pretty negative, dubbing it well intentioned yet listless saying, quote, red, white and royal blue just isn't the fun brain disengaged romp. It could have been any praise going toward intention rather than execution. End quote. For the BBC. Louise. Lois, I think that's Louis. Louis. Oh, yeah, that's true. Could be Louis. I think it could also be Lois, though, right?
• 56:17
  Speaker B: Or no, that's not a U.
• 56:20
  Speaker A: Okay, fair enough. All right. BBC's Louis Staples thought that the creaky, formulaic script often sounds like it was written by chat GPT and criticized the film's overt, leaning into, quote, fictionalized specifics of anglo american relations and into stereotypes of the British. Of British and Americans. He negatively compared the film to the princess diaries, shut your mouth. Which is the only one of these I've heard of. Well, that's not true. That's not true. Single all the way the night before Christmas, fire Island and bros. I've heard of Fire island and Bros. I've not seen it, but I've heard of them. But those are bros. Is like a gay, like, comedy.
• 57:02
  Speaker B: Like a. I don't think I know that one.
• 57:04
  Speaker A: I've heard of it. I think it's like a gay, like, screwball, like romance comedy, but like a. Like a super goofy one. I think it was the impression I got from, like, the trailer or poster. I think I saw.
• 57:13
  Speaker B: I think I've heard of single all the way, but I could be thinking of something else. I'm intrigued by the night before Christmas.
• 57:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, right. That's spelled Knigh T, by the way, for our listeners. Listeners. He concluded his review by saying, if you're looking for a film about beautiful men with perfect hair and sculpted abs, which doesn't demand too much from you, then it might be for you.
• 57:35
  Speaker B: I don't think that sounds that bad.
• 57:36
  Speaker A: But if you're expecting it to be in the grade of rom coms that are laugh out loud hilarious and actually say something interesting about relationships or anything beyond lazy cliches, then you'll be royally disappointed.
• 57:49
  Speaker B: The writers really came out on.
• 57:54
  Speaker A: That's true. This one had more than normal, but reviewers love to do that shit. I get it. It's fun.
• 58:00
  Speaker B: It is fun.
• 58:01
  Speaker A: We love a turn of phrase. But before we wrap up, want to remind you, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, goodreads, any of our social media platforms. Check us out. You can leave comments. We'll read them on the episode, and we'll talk about them. You can also help us out by dropping us a little nice little five star rating, writing us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or, you know, YouTube, wherever you're listening to our show, and can write us a review. Or you could support us on patreon@patreon.com. thisfilmislit Katie, where can people watch red, white and royal blue?
• 58:30
  Speaker B: Amazon prime.
• 58:32
  Speaker A: It is an Amazon prime film, at least in the US. Maybe there are other, yeah, maybe. I don't know how that changes in other countries, but, yeah, in the US, it is an Amazon prime film. I assume Amazon prime is everywhere, basically. Maybe not everywhere, but in most countries, most of our listening audience, I would think Amazon, I think it's pretty global. So, yeah, that is that. I'm interested to watch this one now in particular, but I'm gonna try to go in with an open mind as much as possible and let it, let.
• 59:01
  Speaker B: It just do, let it wash over.
• 59:03
  Speaker A: Let it do what it's gonna do. Yeah, we'll see. But, yeah, come back in one week's time. We're talking about red, white and royal blue. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary.
• 59:10
  Speaker B: Pals, and everybody else, keep reading books.
• 59:12
  Speaker A: Watching movies, and keep being awesome.