Latest / This Film is Lit / Perfect Blue

Transcript

Perfect Blue · This Film is Lit

• 0:04
  Speaker A: This film is lit, the podcast where we finally settle the score on one simple question. Is the book really better than the movie? I'm Brian, and I have a film degree, so I watch the movie but don't read the book.
• 0:15
  Speaker B: And I'm Katie. I have an english degree, so I do things the right way and read the book before we watch the movie.
• 0:22
  Speaker A: So prepare to be wowed by our expertise and charm as we dissect all of your favorite film adaptations and decide if the silver screen or the written word did it better. So turn it up, settle in, and get ready for spoilers, because this film is lit. Excuse me, who are you? It's perfect blue. And this film is. Is lit. Hello, and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We have a nice full episode. All of our. No, not all of our segments. No guess who? But all of our segments, normal segments, plus a new segment. We'll talk about that more a little later. Before we get started, though, I had a couple notes before we got into it. One is a content warning. This episode is going to contain discussions of sexual assault, sexual violence, and stalking, among other related and potentially disturbing topics. This is a very intense movie, and I assume book as well, about those things. And we won't get super explicit or graphic in our discussion, but we also aren't going to avoid discussing them. So just a heads up if you want to skip this one for that reason. Also, second note, we ended up watching the dubbed version of this film. We started watching the subtitled version, which is what was available to rent. We rented it on Amazon prime, started playing it, realized it was the. It was in Japanese. So I turned the subtitles on. As the subtitles started playing, I was like, this doesn't seem like a very good translator.
• 2:18
  Speaker B: The subtitles were a little difficult to parse.
• 2:22
  Speaker A: It was very clearly like not in adapted subtitles. I think it was maybe more of a like actual direct subtitle, if that. You know what I mean? I don't think the subtitles were. Cause I had to turn them on, on Amazon Prime. I don't think they were like specifically written for this movie. I think it may have been more.
• 2:42
  Speaker B: Of the, like they got run through like a translator.
• 2:46
  Speaker A: So the translation was not maybe as precise as, or correct as it could have been, because the wording was like that thing where you can tell this is just a computer translating or something, or a direct translation or what have you. So I was able to go find a dubbed version to stream that seemed to be the correct full dubbed version. So yeah, we are watching the dubbed version instead of the subtitled version. Also, we talked about in the last episode, but it's just for our purposes. A dubbed version works better because we're taking notes and looking up and down between the tv, so not having to read every line is helpful. But those are the two notes, so let's get right into it. If you have not read or watched perfect blue, we're going to give you a brief summary in. Let me sum up. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. This summary is sourced from Wikipedia. Mima Kirigo, member of a j pop idol group named Cham, decides to leave the group to become a full time actress. Many of her fans get frustrated and disappointed by her change from a clean cut image, particularly an obsessive fan known as Mamoru Uchida or Mamania, who starts to stalk her. Following directions from a fan letter, Mima discovers a website called Mima's room containing a public diary containing public diary entries written from her perspective, which has her daily life and thoughts recorded in great detail during her former idol and acting career. She is joined by manager and former pop idol Rumi Hidaka and her agent to Tadakoro. Mima confides in Rumi about Mima's room, but is advised to ignore it. Mima's first job is a minor role in a television detective drama called Double Bind. However, Tadakoro lobbies the producers of double bind and succeeds in securing Mima a larger part that involves a rape scene. Despite Rumi's objections, Mima accepts the role, although this leaves her mentally distressed. On her way home, she sees her reflection dressed in her formal idol outfit. The reflection claims that she is the real Mima. Between the ongoing stresses of filming Double bind, her lingering regret over leaving Cham, her paranoia of being stalked, and her increasing obsession with Mima's room, Mima begins to suffer from psychosis, in particular, struggling to distinguish between real life and her acting life, and having repeated, apparently unreal sightings of her former self, the real Mima. Several people who have been involved in her acting are murdered. Mima finds evidence in her closet which suggests to her that the prime that suggests her to be the prime suspect and her mental instability makes her doubt her own memories and innocence. As she recalls brutally murdering perverted photographer Murano, Mima manages to finish shooting Double Bind, the final scene of which reveals that her character killed and assumed the identity of her sister due to trauma induced dissociative identity disorder. After the rest of the filming staff have left the studio, Mamania, acting on an emailed instructions from the real Mima to eliminate the imposter, attempts to rape and kill her. But Mima knocks him out with a blow to the from a hammer. Later, Mamania is murdered by the real Mima for failing to kill Mima. Mima is found backstage by Rumi and taken back to Rumis home where she wakes up in a room modeled on Mimas own room. Only to discover that Rumi was the culprit behind Mimas room. The serial murders and the folly ado that manipulated and scapegoated Mamania. Rumi previously developed an alternate personality who believed herself to be the real Mima. Using information from Mima's confiding in her as the basis for Mima's room, she also reveals her motives. She is displeased by Mima retiring from the idol industry and hence seeks to destroy and replace her in order to redeem her image at her wits end. Rumi's Mima personality chases the real Mima through the city to murder her. Mima accidentally incapacitates Rumi with a mere shard during a struggle. After freeing herself, Rumi hallucinates the lights of an oncoming truck as stage lights and steps out into the road to pose in front of the approaching vehicle. But Mima manages to save her from being run over at the last moment. With that, Mima's hallucinations seem to be over sometime later. Mima is now a well known actress and visits Rumi in a mental institution. Rumi's doctors say that she still believes she's a pop idol most of the time. Mima says she's learned a lot from her experiences thanks to Rumi. And as Mima leaves the hospital, she overhears two nurses mention her. They think she is a look alike as the real Mima Kirigoe. Kirigo would supposedly have no reason to visit a menstal institution. As Mima enters her car, she smiles at herself in the rearview mirror before declaring, no, I'm the real Mima Kirigo. That is a summary. Kind of brief. Kind. Mostly accurate. Slight issues. Kind of as Wikipedia tends to have, but good enough for our purposes. I have a lot of questions. Let's get into them. And was that in the book?
• 7:38
  Speaker B: Gaston, may I have my book, please?
• 7:40
  Speaker A: How can you read this? There's no pictures.
• 7:43
  Speaker B: Well, some people use their imagination.
• 7:45
  Speaker A: So we open up. Mima is performing with Cham. It's going to be her final performance with Cham, as she's going to announce. Announce that she's gonna leave the group so she can become an actress. But during this performance, we're kind of seeing the crowd watch and react to her, and they come out on stage and do their thing, and there's, like, singing and dancing. And this is where we're introduced to Mister Mamania, who is the stalker in the film. I guess one of the stalkers, kind of, depending on how you look at.
• 8:11
  Speaker B: It, he's the one we know about for the whole film.
• 8:13
  Speaker A: Yeah, the primary stalker in the film. And there's this great shot that is also in the trailer that I took note of, but where he's watching her, and as she's dancing, he's kind of, like, leaned down in the crowd, and he holds his hand up in front of his face, and we see it from a first person's perspective, and he's holding his hand up, and it makes it look like Mima is dancing in the palm of his hand. She's a little action figure dancing in the palm of his hand. And I wanted to know if that is a reference to anything from the book, because I thought it was a cool shot. And very quickly establishes kind of thematically what we're going to be doing here with the discussion of idols and celebrity and entitlement. Entitlement to said celebrities and their bodies and their images and that sort of thing, and viewing them as kind of like your own personal property to consume and that sort of thing. And I wanted to know, again, if that shot was inspired by anything from the book.
• 9:18
  Speaker B: I don't recall anything like that happening at any point in the book. She does have a stalker in the book, but I don't think he ever watches her perform live.
• 9:28
  Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. So after she announces her retirement or during. I think during the performance, we're kind of getting flashbacks, I think is what's going on here. From my memory to the discussions that led up to the decision for her to abandon and become an actress. And during these discussions in the film, there's kind of an implication during the conversations that it seems like her agent, Tadakoro, or Takador, I can't remember now. Her agent, the guy is kind of the one forcing her into acting and that she actually doesn't necessarily want to quit. Cham.
• 10:06
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 10:07
  Speaker A: At least that's what it feels like. Or at least Rumi is there as well. And she's like, did we even care? Like, did you even ask what she wants to do? And what about all the singing lessons she's done and Rumi or Mina Mima doesn't seem, like, super thrilled about this.
• 10:21
  Speaker B: She kind of doesn't seem thrilled either way.
• 10:23
  Speaker A: Yes, she doesn't seem thrilled either way, but it doesn't seem like she particularly wants to get into acting necessarily, and that this is more of a thing that her agent is pushing her to do because he will say, either in this scene or a later one, that being an idol is not especially the tier that she is, is not the road to fame. If she wants to be rich and famous and successful, acting is the way to go.
• 10:45
  Speaker B: Yeah. It's not profitable.
• 10:47
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:48
  Speaker B: So this aspect of the story is a little different in the book. She isn't transitioning from singing to acting. So she's still gonna be an idol or pop star.
• 10:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:59
  Speaker B: But they're transitioning her to, like, a more adult image.
• 11:03
  Speaker A: So she's going into her Christina era with the ex or whatever.
• 11:07
  Speaker B: Yeah, she's going into her dirty era, her dirty erade, because she's kind of aging out of the clean cut of.
• 11:17
  Speaker A: The genie in a bottle era, the.
• 11:18
  Speaker B: Innocent little kid era of her pop career. And the book definitely explores the kind of confusing space of how much Mima actually wants to make this transition versus how much she's bowing to the various social pressures of making that transition.
• 11:39
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:39
  Speaker B: And personally, I'm not sure that the text ultimately lands one way or the other. I think it leaves it kind of nebulous, which.
• 11:48
  Speaker A: That's true. The book or to the film. Because the film is true in that sense. Because I agree with you, as you said earlier, that in the movie, it doesn't really seem.
• 11:56
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's kind of hard to parse because it doesn't really seem like she wants to continue being a pop star either. At least not initially.
• 12:03
  Speaker A: Not initially. Necessarily. She doesn't vocally be like, no, I want to be a singer still. And he's like, no, you're going to act. You know what I mean? There's not anything like that. She definitely seems more hesitant about making the transition into acting, but she doesn't seem super, which I think is the point, is that she's unsure of who she is and what she should be doing, just in general. And she's kind of always been part of this as pop stars or idols and K pop stars and all the sort of that culture of pop star in Japan and in Korea, which are probably the two biggest, like, versions of this would be my. I don't know for sure, but, like, the most like, similar versions of this. Those people that are, like, those kind of idols, pop stars, whatever, are. They're same in America, too. But I think even to a greater extent, it seems like over there, like, manufactured and sculpted and from a very young age, basically, like, this is the thing you're gonna do.
• 12:59
  Speaker B: Yeah, it seems to me.
• 13:01
  Speaker A: And again, I don't want to say that it very much happens over here to a huge extent. Like, you know, Christine Aguilera, Brittany, all those people from very young ages were manufactured all the way up to some extent.
• 13:14
  Speaker B: But I agree with you that it does feel like much more of a. Like an industry of creating and, like, a total control over their entire life.
• 13:28
  Speaker A: And at least that's what I heard online. Again, I don't want to. I'm speaking a little bit out of pocket here in the sense that I don't know a lot about, like, K pop and japanese idols and stuff like that. But the little bit I've seen on the Internet, the general consensus seems to be that they are micromanaged in a way that while it happens with american pop stars, it is not maybe as ubiquitous and all encompassing in the same way as it is with these kind of idols. So, again, if anybody who knows. I know we have fans who are big K pop fans and stuff like that, who may know better if maybe that's a misconception, I don't know. But that is the conception I have. And so, yeah, it definitely falls in line with that. And again, this movie came out in 1997, so it's clearly a thing that's been the case for decades at this point. So I want to talk briefly about the stalker and his appearance. I mentioned him earlier. His name is Mister Mamania. Something along those lines.
• 14:24
  Speaker B: Something like that.
• 14:25
  Speaker A: Yeah, I want to talk. The question I have here is about his appearance. But before we get into that, I wanted to talk about his appearance briefly. I was doing some research to try to figure out how to talk about it because I wanted to do it appropriately. And so I found a study in the Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research that actually covers the topic of, and this is, I'm kind of paraphrasing here, the topic of facial disfigurement difference. And I want to read a little bit from that study I found. So this study is actually from and about a disability rights group who are working to counter what they call, quote unquote facism, which is essentially judging people based on their facial appearance. And they're doing this globally, around the world. So this is a direct quote. Now, at Face Equality International, we have made a conscious decision, through consultation with our international members, to use disfigurement as a collective term that describes the visual effect that a mark, scar or condition has. Society's perception of disfigurement far too often imposes disadvantage on individuals and their families. And so this is a publicly understood term that expresses this. Given that the term is also enshrined in legislation in some countries to protect people from discrimination, face equality international will use disfigurement whenever it is arguing for the end to disadvantage and injustice. However, face equality International also respects the fact that some people dislike the term disfigurement as a collective word, in which case, facial difference tends to be more widely accepted. In some instances, visible difference may be used when relating to a disfigurement that affects a person's face and body. So I just want to throw that out there because I was curious. I didn't actually know what, when I was thinking, like, thinking about how to talk about the stalker character, because he does have a facial difference. I wasn't sure how to talk about it appropriately. And so I was trying to find some actual, and I found a bunch of different people, and it seemed like facial difference was the prominent term that people use. But I found this article, which I thought was very fascinating or very interesting, that there are advocacy groups that actually do propose using disfigurement for, you know, the reasons they stated there. So with that in mind, does her stalker have a facial difference that is intended to be off putting to audiences? Because that is very clear in the film that his appearance is supposed to be. It's supposed to creep you out. Yeah, because to me, that felt like an unfortunate product of the time. And I say of the time, it would still not like that wouldn't happen, right?
• 16:48
  Speaker B: Not like that wouldn't happen.
• 16:49
  Speaker A: No, but. But I think it's something they wouldn't have even thought about at all in 1997, probably very much. I say that some people would, but generally speaking. And so I wanted to know if that came from the book, because to me, his appearance in the film kind of taints the message a little, some of the message a little bit.
• 17:09
  Speaker B: So I did a little bit of poking around when I saw this question, and I didn't see anybody else talking about this aspect of the film, at least nothing from my surface level kind of look. I was googling different combinations of keywords, trying to figure out if anybody else had discussed this. And I didn't find anything. But I do think his appearance is meant to be off putting. Yes, I know. I had kind of an immediate negative reaction, which I then had to sit with. I also initially wasn't sure if it was meant to be a facial difference or because when we first see him, he's kind of, like, hunched over. Initially, it's hard to see part of his face. And I was like, okay, is that supposed to be, like, some kind of stylistic hallmark of the genre?
• 18:00
  Speaker A: That maybe. I'm a little harder to tell an anime too, because a lot of the character designs are slightly stylized. You're not exactly sure how much of it's supposed to be representative of a real.
• 18:11
  Speaker B: Yeah, and probably the answer is that it's both.
• 18:14
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think a little bit of both.
• 18:15
  Speaker B: But the stalker character does not appear this way in the book, at least not that we're told. He's described multiple times and always in the same way. He's described as being vaguely kind of dirty and sweaty with long, greasy hair and a dirty t shirt is frequently mentioned. To be fair, he is also described as the characters not being able to see his face. So I guess he could have some kind of facial difference, but we're not. But I do think that the idea is similar. I think his appearance is meant to be off putting.
• 18:58
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And I think that's, again, I think that's maybe a little unfortunate in this instance because it does trade on the idea that as we talked, or as I kind of alluded to in that article, that science article I read or I read from that, it plays on the fact that we kind of inherently assume people with facial differences or facial disfigurements, depending on the language you want to use, are nefarious, are somehow creepy or weird or whatever. And were the movie to do something with that and subvert that, I think it could be interesting, but it kind of just leans into that and just uses that as a. Which, again, a lot of horror movies do. It is not an uncommon thing. And I don't know. I don't know if we need to get into a very deep discussion about the morality of that necessarily, because I do think that's a very complicated conversation that involves a lot of different kind of avenues. But I do think it's a little. I found it a little disappointing that the incel stalker, they felt the need to make him appear again initially visually off putting with this facial difference in a way where it's like, you know, his actions and what he's doing are creepy. It doesn't tying that to his appearance to me, is a tried and true hallmark of media. I think it's just something and of literature and what have you. I just think it's something worth examining and thinking about.
• 20:23
  Speaker B: No, absolutely.
• 20:25
  Speaker A: So does we move on a little bit? She's now gotten her job as an actress, and one of her first days on Sethe for this tv show that she's working on, double bind, the tv show, gets some fan letters, and one of them is for her. And her, I think her agent has it, is holding it, and during, while they're filming, it explodes next to him and injures him. And he's bleeding, not mortally or anything, but just injures him enough that he's bleeding from it. And I wanted to know if the fan letter blowing up, because this is one of our first little, like, whoa, something crazy is going on. And I wanted to know if that came from the book.
• 21:08
  Speaker B: That does not come from the book. She does receive some creepy letters from her stalker in the book, but none of them blow up or injure anyone.
• 21:18
  Speaker A: Okay. So I think right after that, we then get to a point where we discover, or Mima discovers a website. Mima's room, which is like a blog, essentially pretending to be her, basically writing from the, like, this is Mima writing her own journal or something like that. And Mima is creeped out by this because she's like, well, I'm not writing this. Who is this person pertaining to me? Like, what's going on here? And I wanted to know if there was a website in the book, if that element came from the book of a website of somebody pretending to be the main character.
• 22:01
  Speaker B: It is not. But I thought that this was a really interesting addition to the story. Timely for 1997.
• 22:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, this is actually, yeah, this is where we mentioned in the prequel that Netscape Navigator made an appearance in this movie. And when Rumi installs, buys her a Macintosh and sets up the Internet for her.
• 22:22
  Speaker B: Sets up her browser.
• 22:23
  Speaker A: Yeah. And she launches it. And it's Netscape navigator. But no, I liked it. I thought it was a very creepy.
• 22:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's super creepy. And I thought it was interesting the way that they, like, when she first starts looking at it, she's reading it and she kind of giggles and she's like, oh, somebody really knows me. And I was horrified. I was like, why are you having this kind of reaction? And then you see it immediately start to set in that like, oh, somebody knows me too well, who is writing this? And I thought it was a really interesting kind of tone shift.
• 23:01
  Speaker A: I also love the way they kind of red herring it. At least this is what I got out of it. And maybe I'd be interested to see if your interpretation was the same. Because I could go one of two ways with it. We often see, once we move a little bit further into the movie, oftentimes we'll see her reading the website. And then we will cut to Mister Mamania, like, in his room or whatever, at his computer. And you'll see him, like, you'll hear her voice reading it and you'll see his mouth moving. And the implication is that he's the one writing it.
• 23:39
  Speaker B: Yes, but then we find out.
• 23:41
  Speaker A: But then we find out that. And at least I assume it's the case that we find out that it was actually Rumi that was writing it. And the scenes we were seeing of Mister Mamania wasn't him writing it, it was actually him just also reading it, I assume is what was going on.
• 23:55
  Speaker B: I think so. No, that did fool me initially.
• 23:58
  Speaker A: Yeah. Well, because I think there's also. I couldn't decide if it was that. If it was Rumi writing it and him reading it, or because later on Mister Romania gets emails from the fake. From Rumi pretending to be Mima.
• 24:12
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 24:12
  Speaker A: And that's how she convinces him to try to kill Mima. And I was wondering if maybe that had been going on the whole time. And he was writing it, but writing it from instruction, from Rumi, you know what I mean? Like, she was sending him emails and he was basically publishing it. I don't think that's the case.
• 24:32
  Speaker B: I think that's the case. Yeah. I think that's maybe a little more convoluted than is necessary.
• 24:37
  Speaker A: I would agree. But I thought there were some of those scenes where he's reading it, where we also, like, hear him typing. But maybe. Maybe he's typing something. I don't know. I could be wrong about that. But I was wondering if maybe it was like an. And I agree that's a little convoluted in that. The most likely explanation is the first one that I mentioned. But I was just. I wanted to bring that up. Cause I wasn't sure. Cause when we find out later that he was getting emails from her that I was like.
• 24:57
  Speaker B: Because I felt like probably what was happening was that Rumi used the website as her initial in with him to further cement that relationship.
• 25:12
  Speaker A: Right. I agree. I think that is what's going on either way. And I think it is the first one. And as that first one where I think it's a fantastic red herring of us. Every time we watch it, it seems like he's the one writing it when in reality he's just reading it along with the real Mima. So as things start to kind of go a little strange and the stuff with the website and all this mima starts to get a little concerned and starts to get a little unsure of herself and her future and what that's what she's doing. And she kind of starts hallucinating herself. Her old self, her popstar self. She starts seeing the pop star version of herself places in reflections and stuff like that. And this pop star, the old mima starts making fun of her and mocking her for becoming an actress and debasing herself and all of these things and all the things she's been doing as an actress, basically. And I wanted to know if that of her hallucinating her old self came from the book.
• 26:18
  Speaker B: It does not.
• 26:19
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 26:19
  Speaker B: And I have.
• 26:21
  Speaker A: We'll talk more about this later. We have a lot more to get into in some later segments. But we're. Yeah, so there's this great scene where during the, one of the scenes where we're watching Mister Mamania read the website and this is the scene where I believe where the fake. He gets an email from Rumi pretending to be Mima. And I think this is where she convinces him to kill Mima. I can't remember, but it's the scene where he's sitting in his room and he's reading this letter from her and the camera pulls back to a wide and he has all of these photos of Mima plastered all over his wall. Like one of those classic stalker.
• 27:10
  Speaker B: Shrines things.
• 27:12
  Speaker A: Yeah, but they're all moving and they're all talking to him as he's reading this letter. They're all talking in her voice. It's super creepy and I wanted to know if there was any allusion to that. And then we see this spectral version of Mima in her idol costume come up behind him and hug him and talk into his ear. And it's super creating that. It's such a visually dynamic way of showcasing the obsession he's fallen into and the world he has created and the delusion he is under and this parasocial relationship that he has. And I wanted to know if any of that with the pictures talking came from the book.
• 27:59
  Speaker B: So I don't recall anything like this happening in the book. The stalker does kind of have a shrine. He has a lot of. He has Mima posters and merchandise and mostly what we hear about in the book is his collection of tapes, different tapes of her performances and things. Again, I don't recall anything close to this happening. But I did think that this was a really good creepy scene. And it's definitely something that could have come from the book.
• 28:31
  Speaker A: Okay. And then maybe one of my favorite lines, if not my favorite line in the whole movie. And I don't know how. Again, we watched the Dubai. So I don't know. It's hard to know how accurate this is to the original line or whatever. But there's this great moment where she's talking to Rumi. She's had a rough time. And she's kind of been losing it a little bit. And Rumi's there and they're hanging out talking. And Rumi asks her, are you enjoying acting? And Mima's response is, it's hard, but I guess it's what I decided to do. And that line is fantastic. It's hard, but I guess it's what I decided to do. I needed to know if that came from the book.
• 29:17
  Speaker B: This is not from the book, but it is a big oof. Yeah.
• 29:23
  Speaker A: Yeah. Very relatable line.
• 29:26
  Speaker B: Relatable line.
• 29:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. And just. Yeah, I assume it's translated well. It's too good of a line, I feel like, to have happened by accident or, you know, have happened in like a misconception translation. And the movie seems pretty well translated. Because that was one of the other things. When we went from the subtitled version on Amazon to this dubbed version. We rewatched the first, like, two minutes of the movie. Because that was when we switched it. And it was very clear even from there that this dubbed version, the English was like, much closer to what it should be. More conversational and actually how you would imagine people talking. Whereas the subtitled version. And felt off. So I imagine this is probably what the original Japanese says, essentially. So we get to then a. I think at this point we've gotten to it. We've had already had a lot of things have happened. But one of the things is that Mima did this photo shoot with this photographer who's notorious for having women strip and convincing them to take nudes and stuff like that. And she ended up doing it and then kind of freaking out about it. But then we get this scene in the movie. And at this point, lots of people or several people have died that have been involved in the production. I mentioned that in the summary at the beginning. But like, the writer, the screenwriter for the show has been murdered. And somebody else.
• 30:53
  Speaker B: I thought it was just the screenwriter.
• 30:55
  Speaker A: No, I thought one more person got murdered, but I don't recall. No, Tadakoro does.
• 31:03
  Speaker B: At some point, at the very end, we see his body.
• 31:07
  Speaker A: Who's the person? Oh, the elevator. The person in the elevator is the writer, right?
• 31:10
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 31:11
  Speaker A: Okay. I thought there was one more right after. Pretty soon after that, that I'm just blanking on.
• 31:15
  Speaker B: I think it's the screenwriter and then the photographer.
• 31:18
  Speaker A: Maybe that is the.
• 31:19
  Speaker B: And that's it.
• 31:20
  Speaker A: I really thought there was one more, but that's fine. Anyways, people have been getting murdered and we actually see this murder take place, though. And it's this incredible scene where Mima bursts into his apartment or whatever, disguised as a pizza delivery person and starts stabbing him to death with an ice pick, I think. Or a screwdriver or some sort of stabby implement. That's not a knife, but it's something else.
• 31:47
  Speaker B: A stabby implement.
• 31:49
  Speaker A: And it's really visceral and wild. And I'm not a gore person or whatever at all. Normally that stuff does nothing for me. The moment where when she first comes in and stabs him in the eye and it holds for a second and then an entire fountain of blood shoots out of his head, I thought was awesome in a weird way. I don't know how to. I just thought it was super crazy and cool. But she goes in and she's stabbing him. But he has a projector running and the photos of her are projected or like, cycling through on the wall behind her as she, like, stabs him over and over again. And it kind of. I think she even, like, transforms between, like, Mima and somebody else, maybe. I can't remember. Obviously, this ultimately ends up being Rumi. But as we're watching it, we don't know.
• 32:40
  Speaker B: So we think.
• 32:41
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, so we. Yeah, we assume. But that's true. This 1 may not be. Honestly, this one.
• 32:47
  Speaker B: Honestly, this 1 may not.
• 32:49
  Speaker A: I think this 1 may not be. Based on. We find. Yeah, it's hard to tell. We don't know for sure. Although. Wait, hold on. This is a note for later when she finds the bloody clothes in her closet.
• 33:00
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 33:00
  Speaker A: Is that her room? Or is that roomie's fake room later? That's her room, isn't it? Yes, I think her actual room.
• 33:06
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 33:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think it is roomie still could have planted it there. Cause Remy comes over, like, all the time.
• 33:12
  Speaker B: Right.
• 33:13
  Speaker A: But I think it's. I think we're supposed to not know for sure who this is, I think.
• 33:16
  Speaker B: Absolutely. We're not supposed to know for sure who this one was.
• 33:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think everybody else who was murdered was roomy, but this one we don't know for sure. But the flashes of the photo shoot and her just stabbing him in a blind rage. I thought this whole scene, the way it's the quote unquote cinematography, the art of it is, I think, just fantastic. And I wanted to know if it came like the scene came from the book or if any of the visual stuff we see kind of came from the book.
• 33:42
  Speaker B: So this is not from the book. There is a photographer in the book, and they do do a sexy photo shoot. But the photographer in the book is actually, like, a pretty good guy. Oh. And he does not get murdered by anyone.
• 33:58
  Speaker A: He doesn't, like, goad her into a sexy photo shoot against her will.
• 34:03
  Speaker B: The book goes to great lengths to describe him as being very professional and.
• 34:08
  Speaker A: Respectful and that she's fully into it.
• 34:12
  Speaker B: She has reservations, but she's not being. No, she's not like being coerced. At least that's not the read that I got on it.
• 34:21
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 34:22
  Speaker B: There is a fight at the books climax, and the photographer is involved in that. And he briefly uses his camera flashes to distract the stalker villain. So maybe the movie pulled some inspiration from that. Maybe. Yeah. It's the only thing that's kind of maybe similar.
• 34:43
  Speaker A: So he actually helps out in the end.
• 34:44
  Speaker B: He does? Yeah.
• 34:46
  Speaker A: Huh.
• 34:47
  Speaker B: She has, like, way better friends in the book than she does in the movie.
• 34:53
  Speaker A: So there are a lot of differences. And we're going to get into that actually, in the new segment for this episode. We'll get to that in just a second. I only have two more questions left here because most, a lot of our conversation is actually going to happen in lost in adaptation and in the new segment here in just a few seconds. So I'll wrap up these two last couple questions here. And the first one is the big reveal in the movie. We get to the end of the movie and Rumi is after. She's been. This is after she gets attacked by Mister Mamania, who tries to assault her and then is going to kill her. He's like holding a knife, and she ends up knocking him unconscious and is able to escape. And then she gets found by Rumi. And Rumi takes her home. And it's like, here, come with me. I'll take you home.
• 35:36
  Speaker B: She says, we're going back to Mima's room.
• 35:38
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 35:38
  Speaker B: And I was like, oh, no.
• 35:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, she does. You're right. She does say that we're going back to Mima's room. And she gets back there and it is slowly revealed. Mima slowly discovers that this room looks like hers. But it's not quite hers. Which is very creepy and cool. I say cool. You know what I mean? Very creepy. And she realizes not her room. And it is revealed as Rumi walks in that Rumi has in fact been pretending to be Mima. Rumi is the one who was writing Mima's room. She's the one who convinced Mister Mamania to kill. To try to kill Mima. And she is the one either her or her convincing mister Mamania. I'm not actually sure on that. Is the person who killed the other people?
• 36:26
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 36:26
  Speaker A: I don't know if we're supposed to know the screenwriter and the not the photographer. That one I think could be also could actually be Mima. But the photographer or the screenwriter. And the Mister Mamania later was definitely killed by roomie. And the agent was definitely killed by roomie because they were both killed at the same time. We see the agent, Tada Koro or whatever his name is, and Mister Mameenia are both like dead in the same place, like backstage. And it's implied that Rumi killed both of them. I think it's possible that maybe the screenwriter was killed by Mister Mamania.
• 37:01
  Speaker B: I think that is possible. Yes. Under the directions.
• 37:05
  Speaker A: Or it could have just been Rumi herself. We don't know for sure and the movie doesn't really matter. So the movie doesn't really care to tell us. But this whole big twist reveal that Rumi is secretly the villain and has been pretending. And again, for a reminder, Rumi is her manager.
• 37:20
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 37:21
  Speaker A: Who has been like. Who was a former pop idol and has been her friend throughout the movie. And supporting her revealed that she is jealous of Mima and mad at her for abandoning being a pop idol because she lost. She's gotten older and she grew out of being a pop idol and that sort of thing.
• 37:39
  Speaker B: She's taken living vicariously through someone to a whole new level.
• 37:43
  Speaker A: Exactly. And I wanted to know if any of that came from the book.
• 37:49
  Speaker B: None of it comes from the book. All right. Mima does have a personal assistant named Rumi in the book. But Rumi does not end up being a villain. There is one minor red herring moment near the start of the book where Rumi says something that kind of sounds similar to something that was in the stalker letters. And I was like, oh, no. But it was just a red herring. She does not end up being a villain in the book. I have some thoughts on this? Theyre kind of tied together with my thoughts on the major changes to the stories and the themes overall. So Im holding off on that for a minute.
• 38:35
  Speaker A: Yes. But suffice to say for now, none of thats in the book.
• 38:38
  Speaker B: None of that is in the book.
• 38:39
  Speaker A: All right. And then my final question before we get into some more discussion here is, does the film. As I said in the summary, the film ends with Mima goes to visit Rumi in the mental institution. And as she leaves, she hears some nurses talking about how I don't know if that's the real Mima as they see her walking out because, like, why would she be at this mental hospital? Blah, blah, blah. She gets out into her car, she sits down, she looks at herself in the mirror, and she goes, no, I'm the real Mima. And the film ends. Thought it's a great ending and I want to know if it came from the book.
• 39:09
  Speaker B: It does not. I did also think that it was a great ending, particularly for the film.
• 39:15
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 39:15
  Speaker B: And like that, with the changes that were made, I thought it was really like. Like very like kind of who creepy.
• 39:20
  Speaker A: It's a great. It's a great punchy ending. Fantastic. All right, those are all my questions for. Was that in the book? Partially because I knew that there was a lot of changes. We kind of. I kind of went in knowing there was quite a few. So I didn't ask maybe as many of these as I normally would. But we have a lot to discuss and we're gonna get into that first in lost in adaptation.
• 39:41
  Speaker B: Just show me the way to get out of here and I'll be on my way.
• 39:44
  Speaker A: Wow, was the last. Yes. Yes. And I want to get unlost as soon as possible. So again, this one normally lost an adaptation is like a. If I'm confused about something in the book, this is less about confused about something in the book and more discussion on some thematic stuff, which is sometimes what we kind of roll into lost and adaptation. I don't know. It's a. It's a. It's a whatever we want it to eat.
• 40:09
  Speaker B: It's a nebulous kind of a segment.
• 40:11
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's whatever we want this segment to be based, basically. And the first thing I want to talk about here, I didn't ask if this was in the book, but there's. In the film. There is. And again, content warning. This is where we're really going to get in discussion of sexual assault and that kind of stuff during this segment. The next one, to some extent there's a rape scene in the movie where she is filming a rape scene in the tv show that she is in, where she's like a performer in a strip club or something like that. And there's a bunch of guys around the stage, and then at some point, they start assaulting her, and it turns into a rape scene, for lack of a better term. And I thought it was really fascinating that the way the movie portrays that and the tv show within the movie, which things are going to get very complicated, because a lot of what we're going to discuss here is about the fact that the whole thematic element, the whole metanarrative of the film, and thematically, what the film is about is the blurring of the lines between reality and fiction. And this scene in particular, I thought was really interesting because the scene where, as we're watching it in the film, as she's filming this, it is an acted scene, like she is acting. But the movie makes it very clear that filming a scene like this, if done poorly, or at least particularly if done poorly, can kind of push the boundary between reality and acting for the actors. And so this is also, like, this kind of thing is the entire reason scenes like this are not done the way they are done in this. Like the tv show, in this movie. In the movie, as she's filming this, she straight up dissociates, and she's kind of just dissociates entirely. And this is kind of one of the major things that kind of triggers her mental break. And the whole movie ends up being about the way that fiction and reality blur. But in particular, this scene, I thought was really fascinating in the way it shows that this kind of thing that, like filming something like this very clearly, it's like you get to a point where filming something so intense, regardless of the fact that it's a fiction, essentially makes it real. Like you're still doing something similar to the actual act in a way that can be very traumatic for the actors involved.
• 42:29
  Speaker B: This scene was truly hard to watch.
• 42:32
  Speaker A: Oh, it's very much.
• 42:33
  Speaker B: Yeah. And a nightmare to shoot.
• 42:38
  Speaker A: Yes. What do you mean, a nightmare to shoot?
• 42:40
  Speaker B: It would be a nightmare to be involved in. Because, I mean, and you're right, even though it is acting. Like, let's pretend it's not real and even if the people involved are very good or very professional. I mean, and we see at one point, the guy that's on top of her, he's like, I'm really sorry, but, like, you know, you're still getting pulled down. You're still getting pinned down, you're still getting groped, and you still have to scream and cry, scream and cry and.
• 43:12
  Speaker A: Do all these things. And now. So what I was getting at is, like, part of the. Like I said when I said that, like, you know, it's particularly difficult and can particularly push that boundary if done poorly. What I meant by that is, like, in modern films, things like intimacy coordinators and stuff, like, obviously, this intimacy coordinator would maybe be the wrong term for this scene, but that would still probably be the same person who would be a part of that. So in. Let me just outline it like this. In the movie, in the show, they're filming, the way they film this scene is there's, like, a camera across the room, and the guy just yells into a megaphone. Action. And then they just let it go for, like, minutes and minutes and minutes and minutes. And then just, like, keep going, you know, like, just let it play out.
• 43:55
  Speaker B: And they make everybody free, and they.
• 43:57
  Speaker A: Make every freeze, and they, like, move. And then they just like, all right, action. And they're like, do it again.
• 44:00
  Speaker B: Take it from the top.
• 44:01
  Speaker A: Whereas were this done in a modern movie, and I don't know. I've never been on a set for anything like this, but my guess is that in a modern film, the way this would be done, there would be extensive discussions beforehand while filming it. There would be lots of breaks. They would stop. They would shoot a very brief part of it, and then they would stop and probably, like, debrief and take a break and allow the actors to, like, decompress. Decompress and kind of, you know, and it would. It would. And it would be done over the course of a long period of time. It would not be like. And it would be lots of short shots to kind of minimize the amount of time spent in that headspace, you know what I mean? Or whatever, to really kind of make sure it feels artificial to the people doing it and doesn't feel real to the actors. You know what I mean? I imagine, at least on a responsibly run set and responsibly run film, that is how we would do it. That's not remotely the way they do it in this tv show is very much the way it was done and.
• 44:59
  Speaker B: A straight up nightmare.
• 45:00
  Speaker A: Yes, and it is the way it was done for a long time and probably still is on certain movies and sets that aren't as responsible about doing this sort of thing. Point being, there's been a lot of movement on making sure things like this are done in a way that do not traumatize or traumatize as little as.
• 45:20
  Speaker B: Possible or minimize trauma as much as we can.
• 45:24
  Speaker A: And, you know, afterwards, they. After good filming, something like that, the actors would go and they would talk to, you know, the intimacy coordinator or counselors or whatever about it and make sure they could process all the feelings and, you know what I mean? There would be lots of stuff. Again, ideally, there would be lots of stuff. And I think that's the goal. You know, how often that all perfectly happens is a different discussion. But point being, it's a brutal, like, it's truly the worst thing to watch in the whole movie. In a movie where, you know, lots of people get murdered and stuff like that, it is easily the most disturbing and hard to watch scene in the whole film. But then also the scene after that. She seems fine initially, but then she gets home and her fish are dead, but they're not really.
• 46:07
  Speaker B: I think she hallucinates them being dead.
• 46:09
  Speaker A: Because then they seem fine after that. I think she's dissociating still, but she breaks down and just starts breaking everything in her room. And it's just, ugh, it's brutal.
• 46:21
  Speaker B: Yeah, got that loss of innocence.
• 46:24
  Speaker A: Yeah. With the fish being. Yeah, yeah. But talking kind of getting more into the discussion of the blurring of the lines between reality and fiction is that the film, on top of which we'll get even more into in that particular scene, that scene is a microcosm of the blurring of lines between fiction and reality, where the actors are like, kind of. Of. She's, you know, even though this is quote unquote fake, it's affecting her as if it were real. Or at least similarly, the film also has starts. This is where the point where we start to get into having an unreliable narrator, the film kind of starts skipping around through reality in a way that makes it very difficult to follow and know what is real and what is a hallucination or a dream.
• 47:07
  Speaker B: Like, we're under and what is happening on set versus what is happening.
• 47:11
  Speaker A: Yeah, that was my next note, but, yeah, it was, you know, like, it just builds more and more where we're kinda of skipping around between, like, is this something that she's dreaming? Because she'll wake up and she'll be acting in a scene, and then something crazy will happen, and then she'll wake up in bed, and then it'll all happen again, and then she'll wake up again and you're like, wait, but is she dreaming? Or are we skipping through time and these things are happening and she's just going to be. And we're not there for the whole thing. You know what I mean? You don't truly start to not know what is actually happening versus what is a dream versus, as you said in my next. What is, like, part of the tv show, I thought it was the way the movie did this, I thought was so brilliantly done and so captivating. It's just the way it builds and builds and makes you more and more unsure of what is real. I was enthralled.
• 48:07
  Speaker B: I don't know if I've. Not that I'm the, like, most well viewed person in the world and certainly nothing the most well viewed, like, thriller and horror movies in the world, but I don't know if I've ever felt more off kilter as a viewer and, like, not, like, legitimately not knowing what's real and what was real and what.
• 48:31
  Speaker A: Was a hallucination, especially comparing it. Even comparing it to something that's a very similar movie. Is this what you're gonna get?
• 48:37
  Speaker B: Sorry, were you gonna say Black Swan? I was gonna say Black Swan.
• 48:40
  Speaker A: Cause, like, comparing it to Black Swan, which we'll talk more about a little bit later. We have some notes specifically about that comparison because we talked about in the prequel that many people noted the similarities between Black Swan and this movie, which there are, and we'll get into that a little bit more. But, like, directly comparing it to Black Swan, I did not like Black Swan does that a little bit. And it's effective in its own way, but not nearly to the extent right now.
• 49:04
  Speaker B: There were a couple points in Black Swan, particularly when she was interacting with Mila Kunis, where I was like, okay, I'm not sure if this is really happening or not, but for the most part, watching that movie, I felt pretty sure what? I felt pretty confident about what was real and what was a hallucination. And in this movie, I did not feel confident at all.
• 49:26
  Speaker A: Not at all. Even after finishing it, I'm still, like, we talked about with the murdering of the photographer. I'm like, that could have actually been Mima. I don't know for sure. It could have been Ruby, but it also could have been Mima. And. And it's. Yeah, I just thought that was so brilliantly done in a way that it. One of the most effective, unreliable narrators that I've seen in film.
• 49:47
  Speaker B: And I would even go so far as to just call it unreliable narration period.
• 49:53
  Speaker A: True. Yes. It goes beyond the narrative.
• 49:55
  Speaker B: Yeah, it goes beyond Mima to just, like, everything that's happening yeah, yeah.
• 50:01
  Speaker A: Again, I just thought it was brilliant and completely enthralling. And then, as you alluded to, my last note was like, I also really love that the way that, the way certain scenes in the movie play out. You actually don't know if something is something she's happening to her in her real life, Mima's real life, or if it's something happening in the tv show she's filming. Because the narrative of the tv show she's filming essentially is the narrative of the film we're watching.
• 50:33
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 50:33
  Speaker A: And they. They, like, slowly become more and more similar as the movie goes on in a way that is just fascinating. And you really can't tell what we're watching until, like, either, like, somebody pauses the video and it's like, oh, we're watching the tv show. Or like, a director yells cut or something and you're like, oh, this is the tv show. And I just. And again, the further we go into the movie, the closer and closer her real life gets to the tv show she's filming and the walls between that reality and the flick blur even more and more. And I just. It's so good.
• 51:07
  Speaker B: No, I thought it was. It's super clever. Yes, it's clever in a way that I could never hope to be. No, it's very meta.
• 51:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, it is. It's one of those movies that are just like, you get done watching, you're like, oh, yeah. No, no, I. Yeah, it's a masterpiece. Like, this is brilliant in a way that is kind of singular. I say singular again, there are other movies I'm sure that are, you know, do similar kinds of things, but, man, it is unlike anything I've watched in a way that I just thought was captivating.
• 51:38
  Speaker B: Did you actually ask if the book had unreliable narration?
• 51:41
  Speaker A: I didn't because that was actually a part of. Yes. So I didn't. But is the unreliable. Well, maybe I did earlier.
• 51:46
  Speaker B: I can't remember.
• 51:47
  Speaker A: No, I don't think I did. Is there unreliable narrator and element of. Of the book at all or does that purely come from the.
• 51:52
  Speaker B: Personally, I wouldn't say that the book plays with unreliable narration at all. It was not something that I got from reading the book. It does jump perspectives, but it sticks to a fairly standard third person, limited viewpoint and the narrative is pretty straightforward. And obviously that is a huge difference because unreliable narrator is the main thing that the movie's doing.
• 52:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, that is the thing that movie does. Yeah. Like, structurally at least. Yeah. All right. That was all I had for lost in adaptation, but it's time for a brand new segment. For the first time, we're going to be doing a new segment that we're calling the big picture. I keep telling you, storytellers are omniscient. I know everything.
• 52:40
  Speaker B: I call it that. The name's negotiable.
• 52:42
  Speaker A: The name is negotiable.
• 52:44
  Speaker B: We can change it if we want.
• 52:45
  Speaker A: To, but yes, right now it's called the big picture. We may change that. I don't know. It also may just roll into lost, an adaptation because it's kind of a similar. Whatever. We're just going to break it off for.
• 52:55
  Speaker B: This is like, all of my thoughts that I felt unsure were to place.
• 52:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, so just to talk through it, because I think as people will find this interesting, as you're working on the notes, you got to a point where you're like, you know, normally we do the better, and we're still going to do better in the book. Better in the movie. Movie. Nailed it. But I've had a similar issue to you before as you did with this one before, which is that you kind of got to a point where you're like, well, I don't really know how to, like, there's so many kind of big differences or so, like, there's such a main, like, the main structure of both of these things is kind of so fundamentally different in a way that it's kind of hard to, like, just say, oh, that's better in the book or better in the movie.
• 53:33
  Speaker B: Yeah. Well, and I, you know, like you said, as I was trying to, like.
• 53:37
  Speaker A: Yes, go ahead.
• 53:37
  Speaker B: I was trying to organize my thoughts, and I was really. I was feeling more and more unsure.
• 53:43
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 53:43
  Speaker B: About our typical format, and if it was the correct way to handle the differences between perfect blue, the book and perfect blue, the movie. Yeah, the book and the movie are very different.
• 53:54
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 53:55
  Speaker B: They're doing different things, but those things are both part of, like, a larger overall puzzle, if you will. So what I wanted to do was kind of give more of a bird's eye view.
• 54:10
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 54:11
  Speaker B: That discusses both of these in tandem.
• 54:14
  Speaker A: As opposed to separating.
• 54:15
  Speaker B: As opposed to trying to separate it into book movie, at least for as far as these kind of big, overarching ideas go. And part of the reason that I'm struggling with it is that I don't really think one is better than the other. So make of that what you will. So both the book and the movie are about Mima, a japanese idol, aka a pop star. She's trying to make a big transition in her career. Which involves a total rebrand from a squeaky clean quote, unquote good girl, to a more adult, sexualized image. And in both, Mima deals with a dangerous, obsessive stalker who does not want her to change. And that is largely where the similarities end. So the book is a pretty straightforward thriller. Its intrigue comes mostly from, I would.
• 55:14
  Speaker A: Say, dramatic irony of what, you know, as the reader.
• 55:17
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like the reader being privy to knowledge that the characters do not have. In contrast, I think the movie's intrigue comes almost entirely from the concept of unreliable narration. Like we were talking about blurring the lines between reality and hallucination for both the characters and the viewers.
• 55:36
  Speaker A: Yes. We are equally unsure of what's going on as, if not more so than Mima is as an audience.
• 55:43
  Speaker B: So both pieces of media are, I think, at least at some level about misogyny and toxic purity culture.
• 55:53
  Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely.
• 55:54
  Speaker B: Among other things.
• 55:54
  Speaker A: Among other things.
• 55:55
  Speaker B: But those are kind of two of the.
• 55:57
  Speaker A: The other main thing I think I would add to that would be just identity. Like, about. And, like, your own identity. And, like, at least the film, maybe not the book.
• 56:05
  Speaker B: Sorry. The film.
• 56:06
  Speaker A: Sorry.
• 56:06
  Speaker B: Something that I would. I would personally put more to the film than to the book.
• 56:11
  Speaker A: I said that and then I realized I don't know what the book. If that's a thing in the book. So my apologies. Yeah, that's the other. I think that's the other main theme in the movie would be like about identity. Yeah.
• 56:22
  Speaker B: So. But misogyny and toxic purity culture.
• 56:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 56:25
  Speaker B: The movie takes more of an intrinsic approach to this and raises questions about how Mimas surroundings and the way that she fits herself into those surroundings affect her sense of self, her identity, her mental state. In regards to that, the book is far more concerned with the way that she's affected extrinsically and focuses more on her stalkers actions, how she responds to them and the fallout from that.
• 56:57
  Speaker A: Yeah, that does sound like a much more traditional kind of straightforward thriller.
• 57:02
  Speaker B: Yes, absolutely.
• 57:02
  Speaker A: I have to deal with this external force that's messing with me or whatever.
• 57:07
  Speaker B: Man versus man.
• 57:08
  Speaker A: Yes. Man versus pop star in this instance. Yeah.
• 57:13
  Speaker B: The movie's other major change was Rumi I mentioned in the book. She's Bima's personal assistant. She's her friend. She's a pretty straightforward character in the movie. She becomes a late third act twist villain. Revealing her obsession with Mima has led her to believe that she is the real Mima.
• 57:33
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 57:34
  Speaker B: I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of that element.
• 57:38
  Speaker A: Specifically I don't entirely disagree with that, by the way.
• 57:44
  Speaker B: I don't think it necessarily undermines the themes. The entire reason that Rumi acts the way she does is due to how misogynistic purity culture has affected her.
• 57:57
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 57:58
  Speaker B: However, I do think it arguably distracts from the theme somewhat.
• 58:05
  Speaker A: It externalizes it a little bit more.
• 58:08
  Speaker B: I feel like it puts the focus more on Rumi as the big bad. When in actuality the big bad was society all along.
• 58:16
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 58:16
  Speaker B: I also don't really love that. It kind of. I feel like it almost puts the onus on the jealousy.
• 58:26
  Speaker A: Yes, I would agree with that.
• 58:27
  Speaker B: I feel like it kind of. I think the movie is still commenting on misogyny and on toxic purity culture. And on those kind of societal ills. But I don't love that at the 11th hour. The movie kind of makes it about pitting women against women and jealousy of a younger, more beautiful woman.
• 58:52
  Speaker A: No, I agree entirely. Because like the thing is, is that the message is still there in the movie. The reason roomie is doing this is because of those things. Like the reason she has become this quote unquote monster. Who is taking Mima's identity and wants to kill her and take her place or whatever. And who thinks she's the real Mima is because of what society did to Rumi. And what society has told her and what, you know, it's still all there. But it's easier. Easier, I think for an audience to miss that. That's the point with what the movie does. And to make it go, oh, well.
• 59:31
  Speaker B: She was just crazy.
• 59:32
  Speaker A: A crazy jealous bitch. Like, so. It's like it's her. You know, she's the issue.
• 59:36
  Speaker B: It's her problem. And we don't need to distract to discuss the underlying societal ills at all.
• 59:42
  Speaker A: Yes. And again, I want to stress that I don't think that that is not at all the movie's point of view. I don't. It doesn't feel like it to me. I think there are some little issues with the way the movie portrays Rumi at the end that maybe muddies that a little bit. I think you had a note about it later. Cause I agreed entirely with that. About the way visually they portray Rumi at the end. That is steeped in its own type of misogyny and that sort of thing. We don't need to dance around it. Might as well talk about it here. It makes as much sense as anything. Like the movie. Rumi is large. It's heavier than Mema.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker B: She's older. She no longer has the body of a 25 year old pop star. And my note specifically was, oh, come on, did we have to make her all squidgy in the thigh high?
• 1:00:32
  Speaker A: Yeah, there's numerous shots the movie does not. Is not.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker B: The movie makes it a point to linger on the way that she absolutely does not fit into the pop star costume.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker A: Yes. And that she's. Yes. And not overly so, but enough that it's very visually clear that this is, like, there's a message being sent here about the fact that her physical appearance doesn't match that of the typical pop star and that this is part of what fuels her jealousy. And not like this, but it's steeped in a sort of weird misogyny that feels kind of gross and I think somewhat kind of pulls away from the overall messaging of the film. Slightly?
• 1:01:12
  Speaker B: Well, and, you know, obviously, we live in a very misogynistic society, so it's hard to do one thing without art without still being steeped in it. But I do think that. I think it does cheapen your discussion of the societal ill that is misogyny, when your discussion of that is also steeped in a different kind of misogyny.
• 1:01:41
  Speaker A: Yeah. And fat phobia and that sort of thing. Yeah, absolutely. Like I said, I still think that it's very clear that overall, the movie's message is absolutely about the misogyny and the purity culture. Purity culture. And the type of possession that men specifically feel like they have over women and women's bodies and women's personalities in their lives, just in general. And I don't think the ending of the movie erases that or, like, undercuts it. It just slightly weakens it. And I think more than anything, as I mentioned earlier, I think it makes it easier for the audience to miss the point.
• 1:02:21
  Speaker B: Yes, I absolutely agree with that.
• 1:02:25
  Speaker A: Which I think is unfortunate, because all that being said, I do still think the movie's brilliant. And I don't think that really, for me, because I am still able to parse that, that is what the movie is doing. Like, I still think it works perfectly fine for me. I'm a little, like, you didn't need to do that. But, like, overall, like, I still. It completely works for me. But.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker B: Well, I think the thing to me is that the book was very hard to read, but I also felt, like, weirdly kind of seen by the book because it did not pull any punches in acknowledging the harm that men were doing within this narrative. And it was very at face value with that, of saying the problem is men.
• 1:03:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:03:25
  Speaker B: So when we got to the end of the movie and the problem was actually a woman, I felt a little.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker A: Yeah, and that's fair.
• 1:03:32
  Speaker B: It felt a little like I got the rug pulled out from under me.
• 1:03:36
  Speaker A: And that's totally fair. And like, I totally understand that experience. And like I said, I completely agree that it could make it. It could undercut the message for some people or had the result of that. Or making that change to Rumi being like the big villain could make some people miss the larger point about society as the villain of this film. And society's misogyny is the villain of this film. But I also think the movie does not pull its punches about the men being awful and being like. Like, it is not. It is not the case that Mister Mamania is like a good guy who like, completely evilly influenced or corrupted by Rumi or whatever. Like he. She does, you know, talk to him and like, influence him. But he already is going down the path going down to be possession and stalkering.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker B: But counterpoint, I pretty sure. I don't think I'm confusing this with something from the book. I'm pretty sure in that final confrontation that he has with Mima before she hits him on the head with the hammer. He's talking about how women are manipulative and sluts. And she made him want to do this.
• 1:04:59
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:05:01
  Speaker B: And I kind of think that then revealing that it was in fact a woman manipulating him to do that undercuts that point.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker A: I would have to watch it again.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker B: I like a lot.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. I would have to watch it again to see specifically how all those little pieces fit together. But like I said, I agree largely with what you're saying. Cause I had a similar feeling. I think taken as a whole, the film still does accomplishes what it's going for. Which is, I think, a similar thing. A critiquing a misogynist society and the way we commodify women.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker B: I agree.
• 1:05:35
  Speaker A: But it is slightly. That ending does. You know, it's a great twist. I think it's a very fun twist. Just in a vacuum. The twist reveal of Rumi being secretly behind all this. And again, I think the reason she is all these ways is because of the. It's all still there. Just.
• 1:05:56
  Speaker B: It's just. I think though you are right that in order to be able to see that, you're gonna have to know to look for it.
• 1:06:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's fair. And it does. At least I think it's also fair to then question, you know, a little bit the authorial intent, whether you know, how. How much you care about that is up to you. But, like, you know, how much of the authorial intent was still to make it a critique of society? Because it still comes across that way to me. But of society's misogyny and the commodification of women in their purity and all that sort of stuff. But was that the intent of the filmmakers, or did this kind of twist reveal at the end? Does that belie an actual kind of weird misogyny in the movie that we're able to be like, nah, that's not actually what it's doing, but maybe it is. I don't know. It's tough to say. I'd be very fascinated to hear other people's perspectives on that, especially if you both read the book and watched the movie or just, you know, whatever. I'd love to. Love to hear other people's perspectives on that and see what you got out of it in comparison. So cool. That is it for the first time of doing our new segment, the big picture. But now it's time to find out what Katie thought was better in the book you like to read.
• 1:07:19
  Speaker B: Oh, yes, I love to read.
• 1:07:21
  Speaker A: What do you like to read?
• 1:07:25
  Speaker B: Everything. I thought the villain was way scarier in the book. He doesn't have a name. I don't remember him having it. Well, he calls himself the red Rose or the charming rose or something like that. I'm just gonna call him the stalker.
• 1:07:44
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:07:45
  Speaker B: I thought he was way scarier. In the book, he skins people alive.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker A: Oh, so that plotline from the tv show in the movie.
• 1:07:54
  Speaker B: Yeah. Was the button of the book. The opening chapter is him kidnapping a little girl.
• 1:08:02
  Speaker A: Oh, Jesus.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker B: And then there's another chapter where he kidnaps this other pop star. And the descriptions are gonna haunt me. This book made me feel physically ill in a way that I have not experienced in a while. I would not recommend trying to read this in one go, which is what I did. That was a mistake. Don't be like me.
• 1:08:34
  Speaker A: Yeah. Okay.
• 1:08:36
  Speaker B: I mentioned that there's another pop star. Irie is her name. It's actually the same name as the other actress in the movie. They just gave that name to her.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker A: The other actress? The other one on the tv show?
• 1:08:50
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker A: Okay. And not one of the other pop stars from Cham or. Okay.
• 1:08:55
  Speaker B: But in the book, she's this other pop star who has decided that her and Mima are rivals. And there's this entire plot point where she's trying to ruin Mima's reputation by revealing that she went out on a couple of dates with an actor two years ago, and this is a serious threat to Mima. This is something that is taken seriously.
• 1:09:20
  Speaker A: That's the thing I've always heard about, like, k pop.
• 1:09:22
  Speaker B: Yeah. That's just absolutely wild, out of pocket purity culture. And I'm saying this as an american, and I realize I have no room to talk.
• 1:09:31
  Speaker A: America has very much its own issues with purity culture.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker B: Very much its own issues with purity culture. Yeah.
• 1:09:37
  Speaker A: But, yeah, that is something. All right, so we mentioned. I'm just going to mention this here again, this segment and the next couple with movie is better. Movie nailed. All are fairly short because we discussed a lot of the stuff in previous segments. So these are going to be pretty short and to the point. But let's jump right in to what Katie thought was better in the movie. My life has taught me one lesson, Hugo, and not the one I thought it would. Happy endings only happen in the movies.
• 1:10:05
  Speaker B: Okay. The other pop star that we just mentioned, she kind of drove me crazy in the book because I couldn't figure out. I felt like there was something I was missing. I could not figure out why she seemingly just randomly decided that Mima was her rival and she needed to take her down. I felt like there was backstory that I was missing, maybe. And I feel like that's probably the point, was that she just randomly decided it. But also, I was reading it and I was like, the whole time I was like, what is your problem? What's your deal? I don't understand you. There is at the end of the book a showdown with the stalker where he tries to murder Mima. And I thought that the movies was a little more effective because the books was kind of really drawn out. There's a lot of chasing and hiding. And also the book kind of became a little bit unbelievable at the end because the stalker partially skins himself and then is still, like, up and chasing them around. And I was like, I don't know if. I don't know if I buy that.
• 1:11:34
  Speaker A: It maybe goes a little more like.
• 1:11:36
  Speaker B: Maybe it went a little more like.
• 1:11:41
  Speaker A: He'S like a supernatural villain or something.
• 1:11:43
  Speaker B: The book at the 11th hour asked me to really set my disbelief aside quite a bit more than I was prepared to do after reading the first 90% of it.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker A: It just felt kind of maybe tonally inconsistent.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker B: Yeah, it was a tonal shift, for sure.
• 1:12:04
  Speaker A: Okay, interesting. All right. We got a handful of things to talk about that the movie nailed, as I expected, practically perfect in every way.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker B: This segment could be more accurately titled things that the movie definitely pulled from the book. I wouldn't say it nailed them necessarily.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker A: But they're elements for it.
• 1:12:27
  Speaker B: But they're elements from the book. We mentioned that the culprit in the tv drama also peels the skin off of his victims in order to become them. That is what the stalker in the book is doing. He wants to take Mima's skin so he can wear it and thus save her from being impure.
• 1:12:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, the movie actually trades on some fun old transphobia. Briefly there about the killer being a man who wears the skin of his women victims, wants to be a woman or whatever. Like classic, like, silence of the lambs type stuff.
• 1:13:02
  Speaker B: Is this post?
• 1:13:04
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:13:05
  Speaker B: I don't know when that movie came out. I thought it was a book first.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker A: Yeah, it was a book for. We'll do that eventually, I'm sure. But the movie was, like, 1990 or something.
• 1:13:16
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 1:13:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, 1991 for the movie. I'm not exactly sure when the book came out. I mean, before that, 1988. So for the book.
• 1:13:25
  Speaker B: In both the book and the movie, they don't tell the police about any of this crazy stuff that's going on. Nobody tells the police anything. At one point, I was like, I agree with you. As I was reading the book, I was like, girl, I agree with you that the police are not a magical solution. But it couldn't hurt at this point.
• 1:13:49
  Speaker A: At this point?
• 1:13:49
  Speaker B: At this point, couldn't hurt to be like, hey, some guys threatening to kill me.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. This isn't calling the cops on your loud neighbors. This is a little bit different.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker B: A little different?
• 1:14:00
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:14:03
  Speaker B: The really awful rape scene in the movie that we talked about. In that scene, she's wearing an apron. Stripper costume. Yeah, it kind of looks like a maid costume. And I felt like that had to be a reference to the book because they talk about one photo that she does in her photo shoot where she's wearing, like, nothing but an apron.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, probably.
• 1:14:30
  Speaker B: And then she does do. She does do a sexy photo shoot in both. I was initially confused in the movie about whether or not the photo shoot was actually happening. I think I landed on that. It did happen. Yeah, it did, for sure. Then I was questioning the reason for including it in the movie because I was like, why does she need a sexy photo shoot if she's just gonna be an actress?
• 1:14:54
  Speaker A: What do you mean?
• 1:14:55
  Speaker B: Because the whole thing in the book is that she does the photo shoot as part of her image change so that they can release all of this merchandise with her new sexy photos. But I didn't understand why she would need that in the movie. It doesn't transition to acting.
• 1:15:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's just a classic. I mean, actors do photo shoots all the time. What do you mean? Really? Yeah, I'm just saying, it's like she's an actress doing a photo shoot, and then the photographer, like, goads her into, like, doing, like, a nude photo shoot and.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker B: Okay, fair enough.
• 1:15:29
  Speaker A: I mean, it's just. It's just like a. Yeah, I mean, actors do photo shoots all the time. I didn't. I didn't find it confused. What do you mean? You guess? They absolutely do. What are they talking about?
• 1:15:40
  Speaker B: It just. It felt to me watching it, like it was only in the movie because it was in the book.
• 1:15:49
  Speaker A: No, it's part of her just. It's part of the whole narrative. Like, okay, wait. What? It's. It's in the movie? It's in the movie because it's the motivation for the whole. It's part of the thing that makes her feel that is, like, part of the descent into this weird world where she's, like, losing who she is because she gets, like, convinced to do this, like, nude photo shoot, which is not really something she wanted to do, and it's part of her. What kind of, like, pushes her dissociation and ultimately leads to the photographer getting murdered?
• 1:16:25
  Speaker B: Well, okay, so there was, in the book, there was, like, a kind of belabored explanation of why she would be doing this photo shoot. So I guess I was expecting the same kind of thing in the movie, and then I felt like it kind of came out of nowhere.
• 1:16:39
  Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, I just had no. I don't know. As somebody who hadn't read the book, I didn't need an explanation. Like, yeah, she's a photo. She's an actress doing a photo shoot. I don't know. It's a normal thing that actresses do. Before we get to the final verdict, we have a handful of odds and ends.
• 1:17:05
  Speaker B: There's one point early in the movie where her mom calls her on the phone, and this was really funny to me that when she's talking to her mom, whoever they got to do the dub voiceover, sounds like she's from the American south.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker B: She has an accent.
• 1:17:26
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker B: Another exchange that I really loved. There were parts of this that were kind of funny to watch in 2024 when they're talking about the Internet and when she gets a fax on her fax machine. Oh, God. But she gets a fax of a hyperlink and doesn't know what it is, and asks Rumi. And Rumi is like, it's a website. Somebody took it from a computer. And Mima's like, oh, that's been really popular lately.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker A: The Internet. Internet.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker B: The Internet.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker A: That Internet thing.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker B: Which is like, funny to think back on because obviously I remember when that was what the Internet was like. It's not what it's like now.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker A: I love to. There's a little aside similar to this is at one point when she's. I think she's going to that URL and she. You hear her typing and she says, HTTP or h. Yeah, HTML or HTTP, whatever. Yeah, very funny. You mentioned the scene earlier where she, she films the. The rape scene in the tv show. You talked about the outfit she was wearing during that scene. But the. The stage that she's on is like a lit up stage. It's like, it has light. Like the whole floor is like light. It's like a clear floor with like white lights underneath it or whatever. And I think that is definitely inspired another thing that Darren Aronofsky ripped off because I'm fairly certain, and it's been forever since I've seen Requiem for a dream, but I'm fairly certain that the infamous dildo scene in that movie, that's. It's the scene. It's the. The scene.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker B: I don't know what that is.
• 1:19:10
  Speaker A: Okay, good for you. I don't know.
• 1:19:13
  Speaker B: The more I learned about this movie, the more I don't want to see it.
• 1:19:15
  Speaker A: It's a deeply upsetting, sad move. It's this movie. I mean, it's this, but like different and worse and weird. It's. It's. It's about drugs and like, like the descent into, like, using drugs and the people using drugs. It's. It's been a long time since I've seen it. I don't remember. And I watched it at a time where I was very bad at watching movies. So I. I don't remember what I got out of it. I just remember being like, jesus, this is awful. But the infamous scene that everybody talks about from that movie. Two women use a sexual toy together on a stage and in front of a crowd of people all yelling at them, and the stage is all lit up. Literally looks very similar to the stage from that scene in this movie. From my memory. It's been a long time since I've seen that movie. But anyways, so I think that's just another thing that Darren Aronofsky ripped off from this movie. But the main one that everybody talks about, and it is literally shot for shot. Identical. Yeah, like, the man had to have pulled up the screen grabs and held.
• 1:20:23
  Speaker B: Them up side by side.
• 1:20:25
  Speaker A: Literally held them up next to the monitor while they were framing the shots. It's.
• 1:20:29
  Speaker B: He wheeled out the tv and the VCR.
• 1:20:31
  Speaker A: 100%. They're identical. Is the bathtub scene where after the photo shoot in this movie, Mima goes home and she takes a bath. And she's laying in the bathtub and we get a top down shot, like, looking down the shower curtain at her back as she lays in the tub and there's a streak of light reflecting on her back in the water. And then it cuts to an underwater shot of her face, and then she just starts screaming and, like, bubbles come out. And that is identical to a shot from Requiem for a dream.
• 1:21:02
  Speaker B: No, I literally, I clocked that one because I was aware of the bathtub shot.
• 1:21:07
  Speaker A: That's fine.
• 1:21:07
  Speaker B: In Requiem for a dream. And then you sent me, like, the side by side from YouTube and I was like, oh, yeah.
• 1:21:13
  Speaker A: And to be fair, Darren Arun said, oh, yeah, that was directly a wreck. Like that was.
• 1:21:17
  Speaker B: How could you deny it?
• 1:21:18
  Speaker A: I can't deny that one. It is very clearly. Yeah, there's this moment in this movie that. And it happens actually a few times, but where the hallucination version of Mima in the middle of the film shows up. And at one point, Mima is chasing her through an office building. And Mima is, like, the hallucination, the idol, Mima, is skipping ahead of her. And the way she skips and moves around is so identical to the way I move sometimes in my dreams. Have you ever have that?
• 1:21:55
  Speaker B: I don't think I've ever moved like that in my dreams.
• 1:21:58
  Speaker A: That, like, weightless skipping, almost like you're running on the moon. Like, you know, like the astronauts, where they, like, jump and they, like, are able to, like, skip really far. Like, there's, like, less gravity or whatever. I don't know. I have occasionally, not all the time, but sometimes when I'm in my dreams, I, like, will move like that. Like, I'll be able to, like, navigate around the world like that by kind of, like, skipping. Like, it's almost like low gravity. And it was so wildly creepy to see that depicted. And then I typed that, and then, like, I was typing that, and then in the movie, like, 30 seconds later, she woke up and it was implied that she was dreaming all of that.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker A: And I was like, ah, so it is a. Oh, my God, it was so. It was so fascinating. And I found it so creepy because I was like, that's exactly. The specific way that was animated really affected me because I was like, that is exactly how I move in my dreams sometimes. That is weird.
• 1:22:56
  Speaker B: We talked about, one of the things this movie is doing is the show that she's acting in and her real life are having continually more and more similarities. And I had a thought partway through, I think around the time that the photographer gets murdered. I was like, she's just a method actor, you guys. It's fine. She's method acting.
• 1:23:25
  Speaker A: Just Jared Leto in the suicide Squad.
• 1:23:28
  Speaker B: She's just sending dead rats. It's fine.
• 1:23:33
  Speaker A: Oh, just because. Oh, sure. When a woman does it, it's a big issue. When she murders the screenwriter to get in character. Everybody's all up in armst arms. Yeah. And my last note here was about the black swan comparisons we talked about in the prequel. Many people have pointed out that this film has a lot of similarities to black Swan. And we were kind of trying to see how close it was. And narratively, plot wise, it's not that similar. I wouldn't say the plot is super similar, but thematically. And there are a. There's a lot of similarities being about identity, being about, like, blurring between fiction and reality and, like, losing yourself.
• 1:24:17
  Speaker B: Like, the pressure of performance.
• 1:24:19
  Speaker A: The pressure of performance and losing yourself in a role to the point where you're not sure what's real versus what's the role kind of thing. Like, that's a lot of what black swan's about and, like, what you're willing to, like. Like, how much you're willing to, like, harm yourself or give up of yourself in order to commit to a role or do a role. You know, that kind of stuff. Some similar ideas going on there. But there's also lot of little different or a lot of little similarities. A handful that I mentioned that I noticed was, like, there's a shot in perfect blue where she's looking at herself in a. Her reflection on the subway and then it turns into her idol self.
• 1:24:58
  Speaker B: Yeah. And, like, moves independently of her.
• 1:25:01
  Speaker A: And I thought that happened in Black Swan, literally on the subway. And I couldn't find that exact shot. Got. She is looking at herself in a reflection on the subway at one point in Black Swan. But the moment where she sees herself move independently is, like, in the dance studio in a mirror or whatever. I could have swore it happened on the subway, but I feel like I.
• 1:25:18
  Speaker B: Had that same memory, but I guess not felt crazy.
• 1:25:21
  Speaker A: Maybe it isn't like I just couldn't find it on YouTube or whatever. Another one that I noticed is her room is very childlike, which is a thing that it's a little bit different because in Black Swan, it's her mom is keeping her in this kind of perpetual, stunted arrested development. Arrested development or whatever. Where in this one kind of roomie fills that role a little bit at the end with creating the room, but it's very different. But just her room being kind of childlike.
• 1:25:48
  Speaker B: Well, and I think in the movie it's implied to be more of her role as an idol.
• 1:25:53
  Speaker A: Yes. That stunts her. Keeps her in that arrested development for sure. At the end, the face off between Rumi and Mima. And Rumi is her. Rumi as her is, like, choking her and then ends up getting stabbed by.
• 1:26:09
  Speaker B: A mirror, which is kind of how black swan ends.
• 1:26:13
  Speaker A: Basically, how black swan ends, where it's both the white and black swan version. Version of Natalie Portman is being choked by herself and then ends up stabbing herself with a meer shard or whatever. So kind of similar. And then I. Another one was that I. Oh, God, it was the. Oh, the names. Nina and Mima. Yeah, kind of similar.
• 1:26:38
  Speaker B: Fair enough.
• 1:26:39
  Speaker A: There are a handful of other ones. The costume and some of the shots, like when she's on stage as an idol, like particularly the shot at the end where Rumi runs out in the street and thinks it's like the stage lights and she stands there with her arms out, is very similar to the shot of. Of her going on stage as the black swan and the stage lights hitting her and standing there. There's a lot of very similar visual stuff going on. But you actually had a thing that you didn't include in your notes here that I wish you had. Can you go read that line about the difference between Black Swan? Because I thought it was brilliant and kind of summed it up perfectly. So I just wanted you to read that the difference between perfect blue and black Swan, despite all the similarities, to.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker B: Scroll back through our messages, perfect blue is like, you're going crazy. But also, there actually is a crazy stalker pretending to be you.
• 1:27:30
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:27:31
  Speaker B: Black Swan is like, the crazy stalker was you the whole time.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker A: Yeah. And that's, like, kind of the big, like, core difference. Kind of thematic. I say thematically, that's like. That's a plot thing. But that is, like, one of the big core differences in, like, the big reveal at the end.
• 1:27:45
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:27:46
  Speaker A: In Black Swan, it was her the whole time. And in. And surprise, in perfect blue, it's her agent or whatever. But, yeah, before we wrap up, we wanted to remind you, you can do us a giant favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram threads, goodreads, any of those places interact. We'd love to hear what you have to say about perfect Blue, the book or the movie. Really interested to get some feedback on this one if you were able to watch it. If you're able to get through it. I know it was a challenging watch this week, but would really love to hear from some of you about this one. You can also help us out by heading over to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you can listen or download our show. Drop us a five star rating, write us a nice little review. Really appreciate it. It helps the show get out to more people. And finally, you can head over to Patreon.com thisfilmislit and support us there for two five or $15 a month. At dollar two, you don't really get much, but you get early access. The episodes usually come out the night before they go up to everybody.
• 1:28:41
  Speaker B: You also at the $2 level, you never remember to mention this, but we do announce the next month's episodes, like a week or two out.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, you get advanced warning, I guess.
• 1:28:54
  Speaker B: Or whatever, of what we're going to be covering.
• 1:28:57
  Speaker A: What we're going to be covering. To give yourself a little bit more.
• 1:28:59
  Speaker B: Time to particularly nice. If you are someone who likes to read along, watch along, you can kind of prepare for that in advance.
• 1:29:06
  Speaker A: And that's at the two hour level. At the five dollar level, you get all that, plus you get bonus content, which once a month we release a bonus episode where we discuss kind of whatever we want. Last month we did a bonus episode on the Hobbit 1977 animated version. Before that, we did ten things I hate about you. This month we're doing the last duel, the last duel, the Ridley Scott movie that I've been wanting to watch for a while. So every month we do a bonus episode that comes out for that $5 a month level. And at the $15 level you get access to priority recommendations where if you have something that you would really love for us to talk about, you can recommend it. If you support us at that $15 a month level. And we will add it into our schedule as soon as we can. And this one was a patron request from.
• 1:29:49
  Speaker B: This was a request from Harpo Rat.
• 1:29:52
  Speaker A: There you go. So thank you, Harpo Rat. I don't think I ever would have watched this movie because I had never heard of it. And I'm actually very glad I did. As, you know, as upsetting and disturbing as a film as it was. It was also one of my favorite movies I've watched in a while. So, like, in terms of just, like, how brilliant and, like, artfully crafted it was, I just found it fascinating and very, like, it gets my creative mind going in lots of ways. So I really, really appreciate that. Katie, it's time for the final verdict.
• 1:30:23
  Speaker B: No sentence, fast verdict after. That's stupid. I'm not going to waste time reiterating all of my thoughts from the big picture section. The book and the movie are very different, and yet they're also very similar. Both are discussing the same themes with different approaches, and I think that both approaches are valid, important, and worthy of discussion. Personally, I found the book to be unsettlingly prescient. In 2024, the villains dialogue could have been ripped directly from an incel four Chan board. That should definitely be on an FBI.
• 1:31:07
  Speaker A: Watch list point, I think probably is.
• 1:31:09
  Speaker B: Probably.
• 1:31:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think they're watching all those.
• 1:31:11
  Speaker B: And the discussion of the toxic fan culture of entitlement, especially entitlement of women's bodies, was remarkably relevant in today's era of influencers and parasocial relationships. However, and I want to preface this by acknowledging that I was reading a translation and that may have affected my perception of the writing. While the books themes were very interesting, the technical aspects of the writing left something to be desired for me. The plot was straightforward in a way that offered only subtle intrigue, and the dialogue and writing style itself were giving just a touch fanfic, not in a good way.
• 1:31:57
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 1:31:58
  Speaker B: The book may have had more of an impact on me personally, but I will seed that. I think the movie is the better crafted piece of art, and for that reason, I'm giving this one to the movie.
• 1:32:14
  Speaker A: All right, Katie, what's next?
• 1:32:19
  Speaker B: Up next, you're reading a book.
• 1:32:21
  Speaker A: I am. We're doing a switch episode.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker B: Yeah. And we're going to be covering casino Royale.
• 1:32:26
  Speaker A: Mm hmm.
• 1:32:27
  Speaker B: And we're going to be talking about the 2006 movie.
• 1:32:30
  Speaker A: Yes. Novel by Ian Fleming and 2006 film starring Daniel Craig. My favorite, I think, at least as of right now, my favorite James Bond movie. So, yeah, this will be our second James Bond episode. We did Thunderball.
• 1:32:45
  Speaker B: Mm hmm.
• 1:32:45
  Speaker A: Not that long ago. Six months ago. Last year.
• 1:32:47
  Speaker B: That was like a year ago. I think time is.
• 1:32:49
  Speaker A: What is time? That felt like literally gunned my head. I would have said that was like.
• 1:32:53
  Speaker B: March, maybe it was. I don't know. I don't know what time is either.
• 1:32:57
  Speaker A: I don't remember. But, yeah, within the last year, I would say we did thunderball. But yeah, this will be. I'm excited because I'm interested to see what you think. I'm really, really interested to see what you think. Because you've now seen an old James Bond.
• 1:33:09
  Speaker B: Yes, this will be my second James Bond movie.
• 1:33:12
  Speaker A: Very interested to see what you think of this one because I think this one's very good. But we'll see. That's gonna do it. For this episode, make sure you come back in one week's time. Two weeks time we're doing because casino Royale. But in one week's time, we'll be talking about everything you guys had to say about perfect blue and previewing casino Royale. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary palace and everybody else, keep reading books, keep watching movies, keep being awesome.