Latest / This Film is Lit / Rope

Transcript

Rope · This Film is Lit

• 0:04
  Speaker A: This film is lit, the podcast where we finally settle the score on one simple 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. It's only a piece of rope, Philip, an ordinary household article. Why hide it? It's rope. And this film is litanous. Hello and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. Today we're talking about 1940 eight's rope by Mister Alfred. Alfred Hitchcock. Sir Alfred Hitchcock. I think he was knighted. Seems like the kind of guy who would have been knighted. I think he was knighted. Talking about rope, Katie, I think we have every one of our segments, don't we?
• 1:24
  Speaker B: I think we do, yeah.
• 1:25
  Speaker A: All right, well, let's then get right into it. Start first with. Let me sum up. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. So you have a note here that some of the characters names are different.
• 1:39
  Speaker B: Yeah, I just wanted to give a note right off the top that some of the character names were changed between the play and the movie. For simplicity's sake, I'm just going to use the movie character names because everybody has, like, a direct correlation. If it's relevant, I'll bring up the difference in names, but other than that, I don't really think it makes that much of a difference.
• 1:59
  Speaker A: Fair enough. Here we go. Here's a summary sourced from Wikipedia for the film. Specifically, two brilliant young aesthetes, Brandon Shaw and Philip Morgan, strangle to death their former classmate from prep school, David Kentley, in their Manhattan penthouse apartment. They commit the crime as an intellectual exercise. They want to prove their superiority by committing the perfect murder. After hiding the body in a large, antique wooden chest, Brandon and Philip host a dinner party at the apartment, which has a panoramic view of Manhattan's skyline. The guests, who are unaware of what has happened, include the victims father, Mister Kentley, and aunt, uh, misses Atwater. His mother is unable to attend because of a cold. Also present are David's fiance, Janet Walker, and her former lover, Kenneth Lawrence, who was once David's close friend Brandon uses the chest containing the body as a buffet table for the food. Just before their housekeeper misses, Wilson arrives to help with the party. Brandon and Phillip's idea for the murder was inspired years earlier by conversations with their prep school housemaster publisher, Rupert Caddell. While they were at school, Rupert had discussed with them in an apparently approving way the intellectual concepts of Nietzsche's supermen, of Nietzsche's superman as a means of showing one's superiority over others. He too is among the guests at the party, since Brandon in particular thinks that he would approve of their work of art. Brandon's subtle hints about David's absence indirectly lead to a discussion on the art of murder. Brandon appears calm and in control, although when he first speaks to Rupert, he is nervously excited and stammering. Philip, on the other hand, is visibly upset and morose. He does not conceal it well and starts to drink too much. When David's aunt misses, Atwater, who fancies herself a fortune teller, tells Philip that his hands will bring him great frame. She refers to his skill at piano, but he appears to think that she is referring to the notoriety of being a strangler. However, much of the conversation focuses on David, whose strange absence worries the guests. A suspicious Rupert quizzes a fidgety Philip about this and some of the inconsistencies raised in the conversation. For example, Philip vehemently denies ever strangling a chicken at the Shawls farm, although Rupert has seen Phillip strangle several. Phillip later complains to Brandon about having had a rotten evening, not because of Phillip's murder, but because of Rupert's questioning. As the evening goes on, David's father and fiance begin to worry because he has neither arrived nor phoned. Brandon increases the tension by playing matchmaker between Janet and Kevin misses. Kentley calls over rot because she has not heard from David, and Mister Kentley decides to leave. He takes with him some books Brandon has given him, tied together with the rope Brandon and Philip used to strangle his son. When Rupert leaves misses Wilson accidentally hands him David's monogrammed hat, further arousing his suspicion. Rupert returns to the apartment a short while after everyone else has departed, pretending that he had left his cigarette case behind. He asks for a drink and then stays to theorize about David's disappearance. He is encouraged by Brandon, who hopes Rupert will understand and even applaud them. A drunk Philip, unable to bear it anymore, throws a glass and accuses Rupert of playing cat and mouse games with them. Rupert seizes Brandon's gun from Phillip and insists on examining the chest over Brandon's objections, he lifts the lid of the chest and finds the body inside. He is horrified and ashamed, realizing that Brandon and Philip used his own rhetoric to rationalize their murder, Rupert disavows all of his previous talk of superiority and inferiority and fires several shots out the window to attract attention. As the police arrive, Rupert sits on a chair next to the chest. Philip begins to play the piano, and Brandon continues to drink. End. All right, Katie, we do have a guess who this week, so let's play who are you? No one of consequence. I must get used to disappointment. Okay.
• 5:29
  Speaker B: All right, so I think you'll get all of these. I think they'll be pretty easy. It's not a huge cast of characters.
• 5:37
  Speaker A: I don't know how you say that, but there's a bunch of guys that are all vaguely similar, but we'll see.
• 5:43
  Speaker B: But I wanted to include them because this is a play and it is a modern play, which means that it has a lot of stage direction and character direction in it, because that was how, if you read Shakespeare, there's not a whole lot of character description or stage direction. But with modern theater, it was very en vogue to put a lot of stuff into your play. So we have some pretty detailed character descriptions, and I think they're kind of funny.
• 6:19
  Speaker A: All right.
• 6:20
  Speaker B: Character is tall, finely athletically built, and blonde. He is quietly and expensively dressed with a double breasted waistcoat, which shows his sturdiness off to the best advantage. And perfectly creased trousers, not turned up at the end, and about 19 inches in width. His hands are large, and his build is that of a boxer, not the football player or the runner. He has clever blue eyes, a fine mouth and nose, and a rich, competent, and really easy voice.
• 6:55
  Speaker A: Okay, so the person that this most applies to, I think, would be Brandon. Except my issue is that Brandon is not blonde in the film. He has dark hair. Everything else about this, though, would strike me as Brandon. Brandon's bigger than Philip in the film. He looks more athletic. Phillip's kind of smaller and. And mousier, I guess, for lack of a better term. He does have, like, a very competent, easy voice. He's very kind of smooshy and stuff. And the rest of that, I don't. Nothing really stands apart. They're all wearing suits. So, like, I don't know. Again, the biggest issue is that the blonde thing doesn't really fit him. It would fit Kenneth, who's like, the other guy that's there, or the victim, David. They're both blonde. Nobody else is, um. I'm gonna say this is Brandon.
• 7:42
  Speaker B: It is Brandon.
• 7:43
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 7:44
  Speaker B: Character is slim, not so tall as other character. Expensively and ornately dressed in a dark blue suit with a four pocket waistcoat. He wears a diamond ring. He is dark, a spaniard. He is enormously courteous. Something between dancing master and stage villain. He speaks English perfectly to those who know him fairly well and are not subject to anglo saxon prejudices. He seems a thoroughly good sort.
• 8:14
  Speaker A: See, I imagine this is Philip because it says is slim and not as tall as. And I assume they're referring to Brandon because of the two, like, leads of this play. But nothing else about the rest of this remotely feels like Philip to me at all. Like, he's not really dark. I don't think he's a spaniard in the film. He doesn't have a diamond ring. He's not particularly darkly complexioned. He has dark hair, I guess. But I wouldn't say his skin is particularly like, you know, dark compared to any of the other. Like, he's not swarthy or whatever term, you know, if that's the right term. Enormously courteous, maybe, but the. But something between dancing master and stage villain feels not remotely accurate to Philip at all. He speaks English again. He's not. He seems to be just an american in the film. Seems a thoroughly good sort, maybe. I'm going to say it's Philip based purely on slim and not as tall as. I assume that's Brandon. So I'm gonna say Philip.
• 9:11
  Speaker B: It is Philip.
• 9:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. But it's nothing.
• 9:14
  Speaker B: I don't think it's really anything like the Philip and the Batman. I was kind of cracking up at, like, the kind of pseudo early century stereotyping coming off of this.
• 9:29
  Speaker A: It's not racist necessarily, but it's kind of like, okay, yeah, it's a little. It's like a weird. Just weird. Yeah.
• 9:37
  Speaker B: All right. Moving on. Character is very young, fair, simple, good looking, shy, foolish and good. He has no ideas whatsoever. He still thinks that nightclubs are dens of delight, but that there is probably one girl in the world for him whom he will one day find.
• 9:57
  Speaker A: That's David, would be my guess. The victim.
• 10:02
  Speaker B: It's not David.
• 10:03
  Speaker A: Oh.
• 10:04
  Speaker B: It's the other guy.
• 10:05
  Speaker A: Oh, Kenneth or whatever. The former boyfriend of the girl. That's okay. I could see that because they're very similar to me. That's just like the victim description. That just reads like I am describing the victim of a murder, so that's why. Okay. But, yeah, I can see that.
• 10:24
  Speaker B: I really lost it when I got to. He has no ideas whatsoever.
• 10:28
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 10:30
  Speaker B: Okay. Mm. She, like other character, is young, good looking and has no ideas. She also has the same tendency to conceal that deficiency with a show of sophistication. In this way, she never actually commits herself to any emotion or feeling and might even be thought deep. She is not.
• 10:52
  Speaker A: Man, this feels like it was written by an incel.
• 10:54
  Speaker B: Jesus.
• 10:56
  Speaker A: Like that.
• 10:58
  Speaker B: I have thoughts on that later.
• 11:00
  Speaker A: Well, I gotta imagine that this is Janet does not really, I mean, young, good looking. Really the only physical description here that I guess applies because the Janet in the film is young and good looking. But the rest of that is not remotely. I would not say her character in the film has no ideas and is like, kind of faking her, you know, faking her being deep by being sophisticated or what. You know what I mean? I don't think that applies to her. She seems to be an intelligent person.
• 11:31
  Speaker B: Like, an interesting hallmark of modern theater is that they are less physical descriptions and more notes to the actors. Like, here's how you should be playing this character. Here's what her background is.
• 11:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. Which makes perfect sense for. Yeah. A play like this is the kind of things you tell an actor how to kind of get around their character. For sure.
• 11:55
  Speaker B: Character is a decidedly pleasant old man, slightly bent, old for his years, with clear gray eyes, slow moving, utterly harmless, gentle and a little listless. His listlessness and gentleness, however, derive not alone from a natural kindliness, but also from the fact that he has been in a position of total authority throughout the greater part of his life and has had no need to assert himself.
• 12:21
  Speaker A: Old for his years, clear gray eyes, slow moving and utterly harmless. Gentle and a little listless. I gotta imagine that doesn't really feel like Rupert to me. The utterly harmless, slow moving, gentle and a little listless does not. Unless he's a completely different character. Although the only thing that does is. But also from the fact that he has a position of total authority throughout the greater part of his life. Because we know that Rupert was like a headmaster or something. Some sort of like, he was a teacher of some sort, but like a boarding school to where he was like, had more authority. Had more authority over the students than a normal teacher would. It was the implication I got from the film, at least. But the rest of that I don't think really describes him. So I'm gonna say that this would be Mister Kentley or the father of the victim.
• 13:06
  Speaker B: Yes. She is tallish, plainly dressed, has been widowed long, is very plain about. We gotta really make hammer. Plain, so that we know she's plain. She hardly ever opens her mouth. Her sole means of expression being a sudden, broad, affable smirk.
• 13:26
  Speaker A: I'm gonna guess that this would be. Be aunt.
• 13:28
  Speaker B: It is, yeah.
• 13:30
  Speaker A: Yeah. I guess it could be the lady, the servant, whatever. The maid or whatever.
• 13:37
  Speaker B: Yeah, like the housekeeper.
• 13:39
  Speaker A: Housekeeper, yeah. Didn't really strike me as her.
• 13:45
  Speaker B: All right, last one. He is of medium height and about 29. He's a little foppish in dress and appearance, and this impression is increased by the very exquisite walking stick, which he carries indoors as well as out. He is lame in his right leg.
• 14:03
  Speaker A: I mean, very little to go on here. And 29 is very much younger than I would have imagined Rupert to be based on his character in the film and, like, what his background is, being, like, their teacher and stuff. But the lame in his right leg and the walking stick does not appear in the film. But to me, that just screams professor who was in the war, and that feels accurate to Rupert. So I'm gonna say this is Rupert.
• 14:29
  Speaker B: It is Rupert.
• 14:30
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that one. Yeah. So most of those were fairly easy. Like I said, I think that one could have gone either way, because it did. But would that make sense? Because it literally, in the movie. The point is that they're very similar, like characters. All right, I think I have five out of 6123.
• 14:50
  Speaker B: Yeah, you only missed one.
• 14:52
  Speaker A: Six out of seven. Look at that. Nice. I have quite a few questions. Let's get into them. In. Was that in the book?
• 14:59
  Speaker B: Gaston, may I have my book, please?
• 15:01
  Speaker A: How can you read this? There's no pictures.
• 15:04
  Speaker B: Well, some people use their imagination.
• 15:06
  Speaker A: So the film opens up. Well, we open up on the street for the credits. The opening credits were outside the apartment. Then we cut. We hear a scream, and we, like, a garbled scream. And we cut inside, directly to the scene of Brandon and Phillip strangling David, the victim, immediately. It's like the first thing after the credits, and again, nothing is happening. We're just watching a street on the credits, and I wanted to know if the play opened on the murder. Cause I thought that was interesting. I say interesting. I have thoughts about it, but we'll get into it. But I wanted to know if that's how the play started.
• 15:44
  Speaker B: That is not how the play starts. The play opens moments, we assume moments after the murder with the victim already in the chest.
• 15:55
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 15:56
  Speaker B: And I actually prefer the plays version of this. I thought that cutting directly to them, like, very clearly fake. Strangling a guy was a little cheesy, and I also liked the creepy tension of not knowing what's going on at.
• 16:10
  Speaker A: First, I would agree with that entirely. I think it's the weakest part of the whole movie because it looks so.
• 16:17
  Speaker B: It looks so fake.
• 16:18
  Speaker A: Like, it's so goofy.
• 16:20
  Speaker B: He just kind of, like, slumps his.
• 16:22
  Speaker A: Head over and he's, like, holding. And the way they're doing it, it feels so, like, not how you would strangle. I don't know. There's, like. No, it's just, like, this weird. It looks like a play acting version of strangling a person in a way that I think takes away from the viscerality of what the play is doing overall, because it's a really upsetting and weird. Like, the whole situation is really kind of creepy and weird and strange, but, like, starting on such an overt. Again, it borders on comical.
• 16:53
  Speaker B: It really does.
• 16:54
  Speaker A: It kind of undercuts what you're going for. And I think they would have been better off if we had, like, heard the scream from outside and then cut into them closing the chest.
• 17:03
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 17:03
  Speaker A: We would have gotten. And then the rest of everything played out the same way.
• 17:07
  Speaker B: Right. And then that puts us, the audience, kind of in the same boat as the rest of the partygoers. I mean, we have a little bit more knowledge than they do. And, you know, the tension that I talked about of, like, not knowing exactly what happened at first, it is short.
• 17:21
  Speaker A: Lived, and I think that's good. Cause I actually, like. I think what the movie's really effective is, I think knowing that they killed a guy and he's in that chest and nobody else knows that, and, you know, that as the audience is what makes a lot of the film really compelling. So I wouldn't want it to be, like, a mystery or anything like, what's going on, but, yeah, I just think the particular way it's depicted in the film isn't as effective as a lot of the other stuff in the movie is.
• 17:47
  Speaker B: So I would agree from a practical, technical standpoint, too, with a play, if you actually put a guy in the chest, he's just stuck there for the rest of act one.
• 17:58
  Speaker A: That's true.
• 17:59
  Speaker B: He just has to hang out in the chest until they break for act two.
• 18:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. And, I mean, in a stage play, it makes perfect sense. I don't know how they would stage it, but, like, you. You know, lights down, you hear, like, a scramble, like, a scream or a struggle or something, and then you. You hear. And, like, the lights come up right as the. Yeah, the chest is being, like, slammed shut or whatever. You know what I mean? Like, I could imagine that being how you would stage that, something like that. I mean, there's a million ways you could do it, but I could imagine that, you know, all in, lights out everywhere, and then lights come up on them, shutting the chest after having heard a little bit of what was going on or something like that.
• 18:38
  Speaker B: There's nothing in the stage direction about doing that, but it would be easy enough to just stage it that way.
• 18:44
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Again, however, there's a million ways you could do it, but that's kind of how I would imagine it, so. Yeah, I agree. So we talked about in the prequel that this play, and thus this film, is based on a real life crime, which was the murder of Bobby Franks in Chicago. And we talked about in the prequel that Bobby Franks was 14 and the kids that murdered him were like, 1819 and 19.
• 19:08
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 19:09
  Speaker A: And I wanted to know if the play also aged up the victim, because we see the victim in this, and then we find out later, like, we see him, and he looked older than 14 to me, which, again, it's a movie, so who knows? But then they mention later that he's an undergrad at Harvard, and so we know he's, you know, at least at the minimum, like 17, probably, unless he's, like a wunderkind or whatever, but, like, he's at least like 17 or 18, most likely. And so I wanted to know if the play also aged him up from the actual crime that this is based on.
• 19:40
  Speaker B: Yes, he is aged up from his real life counterpart. Although I believe in the play, he is still supposed to be, like, a year or two younger than the murderer.
• 19:49
  Speaker A: And I would say that's also true in the film, because in the film, I would guess that they're both either later in college or out of college. Yeah, it's also the impression college or something like that. So, yeah, so they, as we mentioned, they put his body in this big wooden chest that is in the middle of their, like, living room, and they're having a dinner party, they're having a bunch of guests over, and they were gonna have dinner at their dining room table. But Brandon has this brilliant idea that will make for an all, you know, because this is all a big show, it's all a big performance for him, and, like, creating this perfect crime, this perfect murder. And he really likes the idea of serving the food on the thing that the body is in. So he's like, let's set the table here on the chest, basically. And I wanted to know if they did that. In the play, because initially I was confused when they were talking about it. He gets the candles and puts them on the table, and he's like, we'll have dinner here. And I'm like, but how are you going to eat? It's not a table. It's like a chest. You can't slide up to it and put a chair next to it because.
• 20:54
  Speaker B: Everybody'S just, like, hunkered down, like your.
• 20:57
  Speaker A: Knees would be banging into the thing together. So it doesn't make any sense because it's not a table. But then they. And the Wikipedia article or summary describes it. They use it like a serving station, basically. And I wanted to know if that came from the. From the play.
• 21:12
  Speaker B: Yes, it does. They do eat their dinner off of the chest. And similar to the movie, they use it more as, like, a serving station.
• 21:18
  Speaker A: Is it something that, like, Brandon comes up with kind of last minute or.
• 21:22
  Speaker B: Well, the big difference there is that in the play, Brandon has already decided on this plan, like, before the play starts, so the books are already on the table, and then when they're a housekeeper, servant. I don't know the right word for.
• 21:37
  Speaker A: This, I think housekeeper.
• 21:39
  Speaker B: And it's also, like, a dude in the play and not a lady, so. Yeah, like a butler, maybe. I don't know. When he shows up, Brandon is like, oh, there are books all over the table, so we're gonna eat off of the chest. And the man servant is like, are you sure? I can go get the extra table from upstairs? And Brandon's like, no, no, we're gonna eat off the chest. And he's like, whatever. Weirdos.
• 22:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. So speaking of Brandon, he's very much, as I mentioned, he's the one whose idea is to eat on the table and stuff. He very much appears to be the mastermind of this whole thing. He appears to be the one whose kind of idea this all was and who's very much. Who's more obsessed with this whole thing than Philip is. Even though we did see that in the opening scene, Philip was the one who strength, like, actually strangled David, whereas you talked about in the prequel that in real life, the crime, supposedly, the idea was that they were both going to strangle him, so they were both equally culpable. But I think that even having Philip be the one doing it totally tracks with Brandon being the one. He's the one orchestrating all this, and he's the manipulative one. He's the one. He's able to talk Philip into doing this. And so it makes sense that Philip's the one who ends up doing it because he has been manipulated into it by, at least to some extent, by Brandon. And Brandon in the film is just such a slimy creep like his character is. I think he's portrayed perfectly in the film.
• 23:08
  Speaker B: The actor does a bang up job, incredible job.
• 23:11
  Speaker A: You so full of himself.
• 23:13
  Speaker B: Understand exactly what kind of asshole you're dealing with.
• 23:17
  Speaker A: And they've never gone out of style. You know what I mean? Like, this is 1948, but that type of asshole is still around. He's just so proud of what an asshole he is. He knows he's an asshole and that people find him obnoxious, but he revels in it. Like he enjoys that. And he's the worst. And I wanted to know if his character felt accurate to the play.
• 23:40
  Speaker B: Definitely accurate to the play. I hated Brandon before he even uttered a word. Reading this, just based on his character description, I read a very truncated version in guess who. But his character description goes on and on and on, just detailing what a smarmy, horrid asshole he is.
• 24:03
  Speaker A: Yeah. And that absolutely translates to the film completely. So the guests all arrive for dinner. I think everybody's there at this point. And we talked about earlier, it is the. The father of the victim, the aunt of the victim, the victim's girl, fiance in the film, or girlfriend?
• 24:22
  Speaker B: Girlfriend. I think she says they're like practically engaged.
• 24:25
  Speaker A: And I think the thing is that in the trailer, I think they talk. So the trailer that I used in the prequel is actually not in the movie at all. They shot a separate scene. And it's actually a fun idea. It's a fun. It's a good idea for a trailer for a film like this. It's David and Janet on a park bench, like hanging out before he goes.
• 24:46
  Speaker B: To meet up with random.
• 24:48
  Speaker A: And so they're like having a conversation about, like their plans or whatever for, like, later or whatever. And I think they mentioned, like, getting engaged or something like that. And then she leaves and walks away, or he leaves and walks away and the narrator comes in. I think it's Alfred or might be Jimmy Stewart. I think it's Jimmy Stewart comes in and goes. But that was the last time she ever saw him alive or something like that. Yeah, but like I said, I thought that was a clever idea for a trailer. It doesn't give anything away in the film at all. It's just like this really interesting hook. But I wanted to know. So everybody arrives at the thing. Like I said, it's the girlfriend, the girlfriend's ex boyfriend who was friends with Brandon and Philip. They're all like a friend group.
• 25:26
  Speaker B: It was like a love triangle situation, basically.
• 25:29
  Speaker A: And then Rupert, who is their former teacher, and so all those people arrived, and they're kind of like having a dinner party, having conversations, and they're discussing. One point they start discussing movies or something, and I think it's. The aunt says, what's the new film with Bergman? What's that new film with Bergman? The something of the something. And then, like, Jimmy Stewart or whatever is like, oh, I don't know. Maybe it's that. And she goes, no, not that. That was the other one. This one was just plain something like. And she's trying to. And I thought it was a funny. It's like a funny exchange where they're trying to remember the names of these movies, but they just keep saying something, something over and over again. I want to know if that came from the movie or the play.
• 26:08
  Speaker B: Not directly, but there is a similar exchange where they're discussing recent movies. Let me see. Rupert. I once went to the pictures and saw Mary Pickford Kenneth. Oh, how did you like her, Rupert? Oh, I don't know. Like all these, you know, Janet. What was she in, anyway? Rupert, I can't quite recall. The something. Something, I think, or something like that. Something very like it. Anyway, Janet, I don't believe you ever went, yeah, that's pretty close.
• 26:43
  Speaker A: It's definitely a reference to that, for sure. So, as I talked about, this is a dinner party. So they're eating dinner, again off the chest with David's body in it, and there's this great exchange that I absolutely love. That, again, just immediately helps bring even into sharper relief, exactly the kind of asshole Brandon is, and that everybody there knows what kind of asshole he is. At one point, I think the aunt or somebody says, like, oh, I don't eat chicken or something. Like, they're looking at the food like, oh, I don't eat chicken. Or somebody doesn't eat chicken. And Janet says aloud, kind of, to the room, I've never heard of somebody who doesn't eat chicken. Have you, Brandon? And before he can even respond, she goes, oh, you probably have. As soon as she says it, she knows, like, oh, he's gonna be, like, fucking obnoxious and be like, smartest guy in the room. Yeah, exactly. He's gonna be like, well, actually, yes, I know three people that donate chicken because of blah. Like, when I met the blah, blah, blah. You know, like, he's just gonna be super obnoxious. And he always has a. He yeah, he has to be know everything and be the smartest person in the room. And I thought that was a great line, great exchange. I say exchange. I think that's completely one sided. But I wanted to know if it came from the play.
• 27:50
  Speaker B: So that exchange about chicken is not from the play, or at least I don't recall there being anything similar to that in the play.
• 27:57
  Speaker A: So then we get into, like, the main. I don't know, it's maybe like, the main scene in the film prior to, like, the climax, I would say it was like the big. This is where they discuss, like, the morality, like, what's going on in the film, and they start discussing the art of murder. I think Brandon brings it up, and they're talking about killing and, like, morality and all sort of stuff. And Rupert starts discussing the art of murder and how he. He thinks that superior humans should be allowed to kill inferior humans. And Brandon very excitedly joins in, because this is what he wanted to talk about, because, again, this is the whole thing, which is why they plan the perfect murders based on this kind of philosophy and this nietzschean, super human kind of thing. And I wanted to know if this conversation came from the play, because it's kind of like the explicit, I don't want to say thesis statement, but it's the setup for the rejection of the thesis statement later. It's the villain's proposal of the thesis, and then the film undercuts that later.
• 28:59
  Speaker B: Yeah. So there is, like, a similar ish scene where Rupert talks about approving of murder, but it's less about Nietzsche and superiority and the Superman thing and more about the fact that Rupert was in the great War and witnessed murder on such a monstrous scale that he's now kind of blase about it.
• 29:21
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:22
  Speaker B: There are so many people that I would so willingly murder, particularly the members of my own family, that it would be positively disingenuous to say that I don't approve of murder. Furthermore, I have already committed murder myself. It is all simply a question of scale. You, my friends, have, paradoxically, a horror of murder on a small scale, a veneration for it on a large scale. There is a difference between what we call murder and war. One gentleman murders another in a back alleyway in London, for, let us say, since you have suggested it, the gold fillings in his teeth and all society shrieks out for revenge upon the miscreant. They call that murder. But when the entire youth and manhood of a whole nation rises up to slaughter the entire youth and manhood of another, not even for the gold fillings in each other's teeth. Then society condones and applauds the outrage and calls it war. So it's more.
• 30:18
  Speaker A: That vibe that is a much more, I don't want to say believable. That's like a much more, like realistic philosophical discussion that I can imagine like a professor.
• 30:30
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 30:30
  Speaker A: Having. Whereas what we get in the movie, he's like, no, murder's fine if you're a superior being. I still don't mind the movie's version. I think it works because it leads more into why, to what it more, like, directly leads into what Brandon and Philip did and, like, their justification for it, of thinking they're superior beings, leads to an interesting outcome, ultimately. But one of the things about this scene I think is really interesting, we'll get more into it, is that Mister Kentley, who's there, starts kind of pushing back against it, and he basically is pushing back and, like, you don't really believe this because Jimmy Stewart's like, oh, yeah, the superior man is. It's moral for a superior person to kill an inferior person because morals don't apply in the same way to superior beings as they. Whatever, essentially is kind of the gist of what he's saying. And Mister Kentley, like, can't figure out if he's being serious or not, like, if he actually believes this or if he's just kind of, like, proposing it as a fun, like, thought experiment or whatever. But, and I think it works still in that regard. I think it makes her an interesting. Because academics do engage in that sort of thing.
• 31:44
  Speaker B: That sort of, like, academics do be engaging.
• 31:47
  Speaker A: Yeah, they engage in sort of, you know, thought experiments that aren't necessarily things they, like, actually believe or hold as, like, values, but, you know, kind of propose in a way that, like, you can't tell if they believe it or not as sort of like an academic experiment or whatever, you know, or a thought experiment or a. To kind of further engage in conversation. That's a thing obnoxious people do. Like, it's a. It's a thing that happens, so it's not like it's completely unrealistic, but the version of what you read in the book, to me, is something that would be much more in line that I would expect somebody to actually say at a dinner party, trying to be edgy or trying to, like, kind of push the limits of civil conversation without. Because the version in the film kind of just goes a little bit beyond that, where you would, like, I've never been around some.
• 32:39
  Speaker B: You've made it weird.
• 32:40
  Speaker A: Yeah. You've gone even a step further than, like, no. Like, it's one thing. Like, if I'm at a dinner party, I'm like, actually, I think cannibalism, totally defensible. Like, because you can make that argument and you can play that in a fun way. That's that. Like, you can get into, like, a fun debate and be like, well, what if, like, the person died of natural causes and before they died at the end of their long, happy life, they were like, yeah, actually. What? I totally eat me. That's fine. Like, at that point, is there anything wrong with cannibalism in that regard? Like, I don't know. Like, whatever. But, you know, this. The move, the movie takes it to an extra layer where he's like, it's just that extra level of insane and unhinged. We're actually, as superior beings, we're allowed to murder. I don't know. All of that aside, I thought it still worked fine in the movie, but the plays version, I think, feels a little more grounded and realistic and right.
• 33:31
  Speaker B: In line for 1929 as well. Yeah, well, post war. And to be fair, this is right in line for post Second World War, because they do bring up Hitler now. Brandon does later try to use Rupert's words in the play, similarly, to try and get him to accept what they've done, but he doesn't excitedly jump in in this moment in the play and give himself away.
• 34:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. Although one of the things I do really like about pushing it, that extra layer in the movie, is that it does kind of make what happens. And Rupert's grappling with the. With the effects of his fun little thought experiment that he doesn't actually believe about. Like, superior people should be able to kill inferior people. And it's like the same morals don't apply to everybody in the same way or whatever. Does make for a win win. The. Because it's an utterly insane thing to think, especially after World War two. We're fresh off World War two here, as Mister Kentley points out. You know who else who thought that? Fucking Hitler, you weirdos. It does make. I think it makes for a better, like, rug pull for Rupert. Yeah, because, like, it makes for a better rug pull in the sense of, like, what did you think saying insane shit like that was going to lead? Like, you're in the book? It's like, okay, what saying? Is it, like, a true thing? It's like an actual true, difficult, philosophical thing to kind of grapple with that, like, on a large scale society is actually kind of fine with murder if done in the right way in certain capacities and all this sort of thing. And, like, approaching that from a philosophical level, that's, like, an actually defensible thing to kind of discuss and talk about. But just being, like, actually superior people should be allowed to kill inferior people is, like, even as a thought experiment, is just, like, an insane thought. Like, what are we doing here? And so the fact that he's able to force or forced to then grapple with that at the end of this, I think, is, like, a better message, honestly, maybe a better message for modern audiences of, like, what are we doing here? Like, why are, like, when you're actually forced to, like, grapple with the results of the weird, insane rhetoric you think is just kind of fun to, like, devil's advocate with, is, like, you know, I think there's something compelling about that. I don't know.
• 35:59
  Speaker B: Yeah, sorry. No, I agree. It is definitely, like, the movie's version ties in better to how things shake out in that final scene in the climax. Yeah, for sure.
• 36:12
  Speaker A: Yeah. I also wanted to say real quick that I mentioned in the prequel that Jimmy Stewart said he didn't think he was right for this role. Like, he didn't like his performance. But this was the scene where I thought in particular that he was. He's, like, great in this. I thought he did. I think he said in an interview that he thought somebody like Anthony Perkins would have been better. And I won't say that Anthony Perkins wouldn't have been great in this role. I think he would have done a very good job of. He just thought, like, Anthony Perkins was more, like, professorial than he is or whatever, and just would fit this role better. But I think the way he. In this particular scene, the way he does his. I'm proposing an insane thing as a fun thought experiment, and nobody can tell whether I actually agree with it or not because I'm a professor. And that's the kind of crazy shit I do. I thought was spot on. I thought he did that so well.
• 37:02
  Speaker B: Okay, here's my question to you, because there's an element here that I was kind of having trouble separating between the play and the movie. In this scene, did you feel like Rupert was trying to kind of bait Brandon and Philip? Mostly Brandon, probably, because he was already suspicious.
• 37:27
  Speaker A: Was this. I can't. I would have to know when this took place.
• 37:32
  Speaker B: It's before the piano thing.
• 37:36
  Speaker A: I would say no, I don't think he would be. Have been remotely suspicious enough at this point in the evening. To, like, have gotten to the point where he thought, like, they might have killed David or something. I don't think we're far enough along in his suspicion arc of the evening to be where he would be, like, doing this as, like, a ploy or a trap or something like that.
• 37:58
  Speaker B: I was interested to ask you that because I initially kind of interpreted it that way. Because in the play. In the movie. In the movie, I initially kind of, like, was like, well, maybe that's what he's trying to do. Because in the play, Rupert comes in already suspicious, and we'll get to why later on in my notes.
• 38:22
  Speaker A: Okay, well, then, in that case, in the film, I would say no. I think he's just doing a purely, like, he's the kind of guy who goes to dinner parties and likes to stir things up by talking about ridiculous. Like, he also similar to Brandon. He's. He's much. He's. He's older, and he's better about it, and he's able to dial it in in a way that Brandon isn't. But he also has smartest man in the room syndrome.
• 38:43
  Speaker B: And.
• 38:44
  Speaker A: And very. Because that's why Brandon looks up to him. And you could tell he's the kind of guy that goes to a dinner party, and everybody knows the guy from fucking professor or whatever. He's gonna come and he's gonna be like, but his murder actually wrong. And he's gonna, like, argue with us, and we're all gonna, like, roll our eyes at him, and then he's gonna, you know, drink too much and go home early or whatever. And so I think he's doing that. He's just being that kind of person who just likes to mix things up at a dinner party for his own intellectual amusement. Not because he's, like, suspicious of them. Because, again, in the film, I did not get the. The inclination that at this point in the evening, he was really suspicious. There was things that maybe he's. And again, I can't remember if this is before, because the main big, first thing, which I think actually is right before this, is the thing where Philip is like, oh, I never strangled chickens or whatever. Yeah, I think was right before this scene, potentially, which is like the first big moment because. And I had a note about it later. We cut. But it's one of the first. I think if it's not the first, it's one of the first times in the movie where we get a hard cut. We talked about in the prequel. A lot of this movie is long, continuous takes. And even from take to take. A lot of those are disguised to look like a continuous take. Even when there are cuts, they hide them by panning the camera past a person or something like that. But there are several just hard cuts in the film where we just cut from one shot to a different shot and then continue from there. And there is one very distinct moment where it happens that I really loved. And I think it might be right before the scene where they're talking about strangling chickens, and Philip is like. Brandon says, oh, Philip used to strangle chickens on the farm. And Philip freaks out. He's like, no, I didn't. He screams and gets really upset, and we get the hard cut right there, and the camera cuts right to Jimmy Stewart looking at him, and he just. And it holds on him for, like, 30 seconds. And he's just kind of, like, appraising him and, like, has, like, a half smirk on his face. Like, what's the deal? Like, what's going on here? That being said, I still don't think there's enough of anything else for him to have thought, like, they murdered David. Because I don't think even at this point, people are really worried about where David is. They're just like, oh, he's not here yet. That's kind of strange. I'm sure he'll be here at some. You know what I mean? Like, there really isn't that much suspicion or worry about anything yet to where I would think that he's employing, like, a crafty trap to try to put them on edge. Definitely later in the evening. I just don't know if this one is. This one just feels more like him again, being an obnoxious party guest.
• 41:15
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I did like the scene overall. I thought it was really well acted. Couldn't quite shake the feeling that Hitchcock was trying to really spell it out for moviegoers, but it is what it is.
• 41:26
  Speaker A: There's a little bit of dialogue here and there, and throughout the film that's a little on the nose and a little arch, but overall, I think it works. So we talked about Mister Kentley sitting there for this whole conversation, and he starts pushing back. He's like, do you even believe this? What are you talking about? This is the same shit the Nazis were saying, you psychopaths. And I really enjoyed that scene. I wanted to know if that played out in the film, because he also just owns Brandon's ass in the marketplace of ideas. At one point, I can't remember the exact exchange. It might be the nazi line where he's oh, no. It's where he's like. I wanted to find the quote. I was gonna use it as the intro quote, but it was way too long. The few are those. This is Brandon. The few are those men of such intellect and cultural superiority that they're above the traditional moral concepts. Good and evil, right and wrong were invented for the ordinary average man, the inferior man, because he needs them. Mister Kentley then obviously you agree with Nietzsche and his theory of the supermande. Brandon yes, I do. Mister Kentley. So did Hitler. Brandon. Hitler was a paranoic savage. His supermen, all fascist supermen, were brainless murderers. I'd hang any who were left. But then you'd see, I'd hang them first for being stupid. I'd hang all incompetents and fools anyway. There are far too many in the world, Mister Kentley. Then perhaps you should hang me. Brandon. Which I thought was great. I thought he nailed him to the wall there. But, um, I I love that exchange, and I wanted to know if it came from the book like that back and forth with Mister Kentley and Brannon.
• 43:03
  Speaker B: It does not, although it is kind of similarly unclear in the book, especially as Rupert continues on and keeps talking just how sincere he's being and how much he really believes these ideas. Janet kind of fills in for Mister Kentley, refusing to believe that Rupert actually means what he's saying, but her objections are played far less seriously because she's a girl.
• 43:32
  Speaker A: Yeah, of course. I also really love in that exchange in the film. Cause again, Brandon, you just know exactly the kind of asshole Brandon Brandon is. He would be. He's the modern. He's like an archetypal modern alt right character. Like Randy and like alt right I insane person. But the specific thing in there about where he's like, oh, no. Where he dismisses the Hitler comparison and goes, I would have all of those evil, like those idiot fascists. I would have hung them all first for being stupid. It feels so right out of modern day alt right. There's a level of modern day alt right sort of personality, I guess personality is the right word, where they clearly approve of the things the Nazis did, but they criticize them for being bad at it or not. You know what I mean? Being stupid. They criticize Hitler. It's almost like a dog whistle, a hidden layer where they can openly criticize the Nazis and Hitler, but secretly, really the reason is because they didn't do good. They weren't. They weren't as competent of fascists as these guys think they would be if that makes sense. And I thought it was really compelling that this film had that kind of character in it. Again, these kind of assholes has never gone out of style. They've existed forever. It's just. I thought it was. It's always fascinating watching a movie from 70 years ago or whatever, and being like, oh, yeah, God, shit never changes, huh?
• 45:10
  Speaker B: Sure doesn't.
• 45:11
  Speaker A: Yeah. I want to know. There's this great scene in the movie as we move on. Philip plays piano. We find that out fairly early, and I think at least once or twice throughout the film, we see him play piano. But in one particular scene, there's this great exchange where he's playing piano, and Rupert comes over, and at this point, Rupert has gotten more and more suspicious, and he's getting quite suspicious now of what's going on, and he starts grilling Philip about where David is. It's like asking him these questions. And David or Philip is playing piano, and it's getting more and more his piano playing, which also another thing I love in the movie. All the music is diegetic. I believe, other than the credits, the opening credits, everything else in the film is diegetic, which means anything you hear in the film takes place in the world of the film. And he's playing piano, and it's getting more and more hectic and messy as he's going. And Rupert is questioning him, so he's getting more nervous. But then Rupert also has this metronome that he picks up, and he starts. It's, like, increasing the tempo on it, so it's clicking faster and faster as he's grilling them. He'll ask him a question, and it's, like, clicking, and he's like. And Philip answers, and then he picks it up, and he plays with it, and it's going fast. And I thought it was a brilliant scene. And he's slowly increasing the speed of this metronome as Philip is getting more and more nervous. And I thought it played out wonderfully, especially for something that is all one take. It's not edit. You know what I mean? You don't get the benefit of the edit in this, because this scene could be done very compelling by increasing the speed of the cuts and adding. You know what I mean? Like, if this were a traditionally shot film or tv show or whatever, a lot of this would be done traditionally in the edit, whereas this. It all just has to play out in real time. And I thought it was fantastic, and I wanted to know if that exchange with the piano and all of that came from the play.
• 46:58
  Speaker B: So Philip does play the piano once in the play, but this specific scene is not in the play. I also thought it was really great. Very off putting, very compelling to watch.
• 47:10
  Speaker A: And just. It's one of. This was one of the moments, and there's a lot of this throughout the movie. And again, I completely just. We talked about in the prequel that Stewart. Jimmy Stewart specifically, was like, it was a fun film to try, but it didn't work. I completely just. I think the film works brilliantly as these, like, one. And he was specifically referencing the long takes. And, like, the things is like, I don't know if it worked. It was like, a. Sure, it was fun for Hitchcock to try it, but I don't think it was any good or whatever. And I completely disagree. I think it works super compellingly for this film because of what it. It's like a bottle episode. We're only in one location. It's this gradually increasing tension over the course of the night.
• 47:45
  Speaker B: Very claustrophobic.
• 47:46
  Speaker A: Very claustrophobic. And getting to watch it play out in something approaching real time feels really right and compelling.
• 47:54
  Speaker B: It makes you feel very, like, stuck, too, when you're not getting those, like, cuts and, like, switches to different things, and you're just kind of stuck in this single perspective, like, feeling that itch alongside the other characters of, like, I want to get out of this room because this shit is weird.
• 48:08
  Speaker A: The scene never ends. Like, there's no, you know, like, for the most part, like, again, there are a couple cuts here and there, but, yeah, the scene never ends. You keep wanting for the scene to end, but it just doesn't. Because we're just. Yeah, just keeps going. But. But part of that that was so compelling is, I think this, stylistically, it works really well. And also because it's a play, I think it's like, watch.
• 48:25
  Speaker B: It's right.
• 48:26
  Speaker A: It's very reminiscent of watching a play, but. But the performances have to be so spot on when you can't hide anything in the edit. You can't. Like, every exchange, the timing, the. Everything has to be perfect for it to work. And I will say, I don't think every single exchange perfectly works. Like, there are moments. I think part of some of the arch feeling dialogue and stuff is because we don't. We can't hide things in the edit and the timing and all that sort of stuff. But when it works, it works really well, and it works almost entirely. There's a handful of moments that don't. But anyways, just. I thought it was brilliant. Moving on. Does misses Wilson accidentally give the victim's hat to Rupert as Rupert's. Everybody's starting to leave for the evening. I think everybody's gone except for Rupert at this point. And Rupert comes over to get his hat to leave and misses Wilson, who is the housekeeper, gives him a hat, but it's the wrong hat. It has DK initials in it, which is David Kentley, which is another hint for Rupert that something's awry. And I wanted to know if that. Cause that's, like, the big moment that really lets him know something is up here.
• 49:35
  Speaker B: This does not happen in the play, although I did enjoy that moment. It's almost like a comedy beat where she puts the hat on him and it's too small.
• 49:44
  Speaker A: It doesn't fit.
• 49:45
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. And then he takes it off his head, and you look down and you see the initials inside the hat, and you're like, oh, no. But that does not happen in the play. There is a different smoking gun in the play. So it's established that earlier that day, David had gone to the coliseum. Not the colosseum in Rome, not that coliseum. They say that the colosseum is a music hall. I am unclear on whether it's, like, a specific music hall. This is set in London in the play, or if that's just another name for a. I don't know.
• 50:19
  Speaker A: It's probably a specific one, but.
• 50:21
  Speaker B: So they establish earlier that he had gone to the coliseum earlier that day. And then, shortly after hiding the body, Brandon and Philip find his ticket from the coliseum on the floor of their apartment, which Philip then hides in his pocket. Once everyone else is there and they're having their dinner party, the subject comes up, and it's established again that David had been planning to go to the coliseum that day. But in that conversation, Philip denies ever having been to the coliseum. He's like, oh, I've never been there. However, Rupert then notices the ticket poking out of Philip's pocket. So that clues him into the fact that further clues him in further to the fact that something is amiss.
• 51:08
  Speaker A: There you go. The London Coliseum is the largest theater in London's West End.
• 51:12
  Speaker B: There we go.
• 51:13
  Speaker A: Which is their Broadway. The West End is where all the. It's their version of Broadway, and it's the.
• 51:19
  Speaker B: You know what the West End is?
• 51:20
  Speaker A: I'm just making. We have an audience. Katie, sometimes I'm not just talking to you, but, yeah, it's. It's a really cool looking theater. It's like a really ornate old. You know, it's like the fox or whatever, but, like, huge. Rupert then leaves after getting the hat or after he, you know, sees the hat, and they're like, oh, this is my hat. He leaves. A little bit happens between Philip and Brandon. They kind of chit chat for a little bit, talk about, like, getting rid of the body and stuff. And then they get a phone call, and it is Rupert, and he's like, hey, I forgot my cigarette case. Can I come back up? And I wanted to know so he can come back up and snoop around. And I wanted to know if that same thing happens where they all leave. And Brandon and Philip kind of think, like, we did it. We got away with it. And then, surprise. Rupert's back.
• 52:03
  Speaker B: Yes. The movie nails this one down to his excuse that he forgot his cigarette case.
• 52:08
  Speaker A: There you go. When he gets back into the apartment, we get this great thing, and they're kind of talking again. Rupert is obviously very suspicious point. And basically assumes that they've done something to David. And I think Brandon basically is like, well, if something had happened, how would you do it? Or what would you have done? Or something like that. And we get this big, long scene where Rupert kind of describes, if he were committing this crime, what we would have done. And the camera slowly moves around the whole room as he talks through each stage of, like, arriving, and we come through the front door, and then, like, blah, blah, blah. And I thought it was a really cool, compelling thing where we're not watching anything happen. It's just the camera moving through this empty spaces where all of these events took place earlier, as he describes, almost identically, we would imagine what did happen. And I wanted to know if that sequence, obviously, the camera moving around would be in the thing, but Rupert describing how he would have done it and kind of echoing what actually did happen earlier in the evening.
• 53:12
  Speaker B: No, that does not happen in the play.
• 53:14
  Speaker A: Okay. It's a good moment.
• 53:16
  Speaker B: I thought so, too.
• 53:18
  Speaker A: And then finally, Brannon confesses to Rupert. He's basically like, yeah, we did it mainly because he thinks that Rupert will, like, get it, as we talked about earlier, that he almost can. He almost looped Rupert into this plan earlier because of Rupert's whole philosophical musings and stuff, that he thought Rupert would be into this idea. And so he confesses at this point and basically is like, yeah, yeah, but aren't you. Isn't that sick? Aren't we awesome? Don't you approve, dad? Dad. Don't you like us, dad? Aren't you proud of me, dad? Yeah. And I wanted to know, but then Rupert freaks out and is like, what the fuck is wrong with you guys? But he really has to confront the fact that his kind of playful intellectual game has wrought an actual murder, and he has to kind of deal with that and confront it. And I wanted to know if that all played out similarly in the play.
• 54:16
  Speaker B: So, yes, but no, I feel like this is something that the movie kind of expands on from the play, because, as we talked about earlier, the movie kind of brings that more into Rupert's earlier monologue about murder. Whereas in the play, in this climax here, Brandon does bring up Nietzsche. Nietzsche? Nietzsche, I think, and outlines what his thoughts are behind having committed this murder. And he expects Rupert to agree with him. Due to what Rupert had said earlier, Rupert does not agree with him. Spoilers. But I do think that the play kind of expands on that and makes that connective tissue a little bit stronger.
• 55:09
  Speaker A: The film.
• 55:10
  Speaker B: The film, yeah.
• 55:12
  Speaker A: And you see a play, I think, accidentally, yes.
• 55:14
  Speaker B: The film expands on that, makes the connective tissue to the earlier monologue a little bit stronger.
• 55:22
  Speaker A: So I guess my question is, Rupert doesn't have the same kind of crisis of conscious in the play, or at least not as much as he does in the film, do you think?
• 55:29
  Speaker B: Not as much. Okay, let me see if I can find the exact line. Brandon, don't tell me you're a slave of your period in the days of Borgia. You'd have thought nothing of this. For God's sake, tell me. You're an emancipated man, Rupert. You can't give us up. You know you can't. You can't. You can't, can you, Rupert? Yes, I know there's every truth in what you've said. This is a very queer, dark, and incomprehensible universe, and I understand it little. I myself have always tried to apply pure logic to it, and the application of logic can lead us into strange passes. It has done so in this case. You have brought up my own words in my face, and a man should stand by his own words. I shall never trust in logic again. You have said that I hold life cheap. You're right. I do. Your own included.
• 56:20
  Speaker A: It's a little bit different.
• 56:22
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 56:22
  Speaker A: But it's definitely a similar.
• 56:24
  Speaker B: Is a similar vibe, but it's not quite the moment of horrible reckoning that the movie gives us.
• 56:32
  Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. Okay. And then the final moment of the film, Rupert, as he's. He monologues for a while about kind of similar to what you just did, about what they've done and how they're. They're gonna die for it, or they're gonna go to jail, blah, blah, blah. And then he goes over to the window, and he has taken the gun at this point, he's stolen the gun from Philip, who had it briefly threatening to shoot Brandon, and then Rupert took it from him. Rupert has the gun at this point, and he fires it a few times out the window to get the attention of people outside. After he fires the gun off, we just kind of sit there in silence for a minute, and the camera pulls back to the wide, like, the main wide of the room with the chest in the foreground, the piano over on the left, and Philip is sitting at the piano at this point. And then there's, like, a little, like, bar table kind of on the right side by the window, where Brandon is standing, like, with a drink. And Rupert shoots the gun out the window. And then it's all silence, and we hear, like, kind of, like, noise out the window of people, like, talking about the gunshots. And then, like, somebody, like, you hear, like, oh, let's call the gun or whatever. And then, like, after, you know, another 20 seconds or something, you hear some police sirens. And Rupert stands up and slowly walks over and sits down in a chair next to the chest, which, again, is in the foreground, kind of in the middle. And Philip makes a drink, or Brandon makes a drink so he can keep drinking. And Philip starts playing piano, and we kind of just fade out on that tableau, and, holy shit, what if. I thought it was just an incredible final shot. I don't love everything about the end, about Jimmy Stewart's final monologue. I think bits of it are a little overwrought, maybe, and, like, that you're gonna die. Like, they'll kill you or whatever. I don't know. Some of that stuff.
• 58:25
  Speaker B: Oh, do I have some thoughts on that.
• 58:27
  Speaker A: Some of that stuff was a little overwrought. But the final moment after he shoots the gun off, and they just sit there in silence, and then he walks over just in shock and sits down next to David's body in the chest. And then Philip starts playing piano. Everything about that shot and that final 30, 45 seconds, I thought was just exquisite, and I wanted to know if it's described like that in the book or the play.
• 58:55
  Speaker B: It is not. It's not quite what happens. So, in the play, Rupert establishes during this final scene that before he came back to their apartment, he met with a police officer who gave him a whistle to summon the police after, he went upstairs to confront the two potential murderers. And then after Rupert gives his final monologue. He blows the whistle three times out the window, and then the curtain drops. I do like the movie's version better.
• 59:29
  Speaker A: Way better.
• 59:30
  Speaker B: The gun is obviously more dramatic, and.
• 59:33
  Speaker A: I like the whole thing with the whistle. And the police would have been.
• 59:36
  Speaker B: It's a little contrived.
• 59:37
  Speaker A: Contrived and convoluted. And we had to, like.
• 59:39
  Speaker B: Also, I feel like police officer just would have been like, okay, I'll come up. I'll just come up and wait out.
• 59:44
  Speaker A: Like, if you need. Like, if we were gonna do the thing where, like, we get them to confess or something, like, he would wait, like, outside on the landing or whatever.
• 59:55
  Speaker B: Yeah, but, yeah, so the gun is obviously more dramatic, although you should never just shoot a gun out into the air. That's very dangerous, especially in a densely populated area like New York City. Yeah, but it's way more dramatic. I really like the composition of that final shot as you did.
• 1:00:12
  Speaker A: Fantastic.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker B: I do think that the presence of the gun could have been set up a little better, although I may have just missed something while I was taking a note.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker A: Thank you.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker B: I felt like they just suddenly had a gun.
• 1:00:23
  Speaker A: Brandon goes and gets it at one point.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker B: I don't remember that.
• 1:00:26
  Speaker A: Okay. Yeah, you missed it. Brandon goes and gets it in. You must have been taking a note because.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker A: We see Brandon. He says, I'm gonna get. I think he says, I'm gonna get. I can't remember exactly what he says, but he goes, he gets the gun. We see him bring it out, and he loads it, and Philip's like, what are you doing? And it's for something spec. I think it's because they're gonna go. It might even be after Rupert says he's coming back or something. I can't remember exactly, but there's some context for why he gets the gun. We see him get it and everything. Yeah. It is set up. It doesn't really come out of nowhere.
• 1:00:54
  Speaker B: At least I stand corrected, then.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker A: All right, that was it for all of my questions, but we do have a little something to talk about in lost, an adaptation.
• 1:01:04
  Speaker B: Just show me the way to get out of here, and I'll be on my way. Wow. Was a lost.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker A: Yes. Yes. And I want to get unlost as soon as possible.
• 1:01:13
  Speaker B: All right. So continuing with our kind of tradition of sticking things that, like thematic things that we're not really sure where else to put into lost in adaptation. We talked some in the prequel about both the movie and the play having a queer subtext, and I was looking for it as I was reading, and I'm gonna be honest, I didn't think it was super prominent in the play.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker A: Specifically you're talking about right now.
• 1:01:46
  Speaker B: Yeah. I kind of similarly believe.
• 1:01:51
  Speaker A: I would agree. I just wanted to clarify what you're talking about, because I agree that in the movie, there isn't really.
• 1:01:56
  Speaker B: I mean, obviously, Brandon and Philip read like they are in a very toxic relationship.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker B: But apart from that, I kind of had a hard time applying a queer lens.
• 1:02:06
  Speaker A: I would completely agree.
• 1:02:07
  Speaker B: So if anybody wants to talk about that in their feedback, I would love to hear what other people think, because I didn't go looking for other readings of this. So I was kind of just approaching it, trying to apply that lens myself. And other than the kind of toxic relationship between these two, I was like.
• 1:02:28
  Speaker A: That was my exact experience watching the film. Was that okay? I get the vibe for sure that these two are in a very toxic relations, like, romantic relationship, obviously never alluded to directly in the film.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker B: Correct.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker A: But subtextually. And the way they interact feels like a couple. And so I definitely think that the movie is doing that. And so when we read in the prequel some of the actors and writers and stuff talking about, like, yeah, that was. We were. That was very much what we were doing.
• 1:03:02
  Speaker B: And I think the play is doing the same thing.
• 1:03:05
  Speaker A: I think where it comes to me, though, is that I don't think, while I think that is what the play is implying, I don't think it's saying anything about it other than that they are in a romantic relationship. I don't think that informs anything about.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker B: Right. And that's kind of like, what I was wondering as well.
• 1:03:25
  Speaker A: That's. That's where it falls for me, is like, yeah, that's definitely the case. Like, they are. I get the idea that, yep, those are two guys who are in a relationship that it's very under the, you know, under the table or whatever, in the closet. But. But, like, I don't think the film is, like, saying anything about that or like that. That their queerness informs anything, really, about their actions.
• 1:03:49
  Speaker B: You know what I mean? That's what I'm saying.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker A: I don't think the. Again, just as a straight guy watching the movie, I got the implication of it, but I don't think the movie was like, and because they're gay, this.
• 1:04:02
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker A: Like, you know, anything. Like, anything about what they do, which is fine. Like, that's kind of good in a way that, you know, it doesn't imply that, like, their evil actions are a result of their homosexuality. Or. You know what I mean?
• 1:04:14
  Speaker B: Or at least that's not a vibe that I got.
• 1:04:16
  Speaker A: No, not at all. So, like, I think that that's kind of good in a sense that they're just villains who happen to be gay, but it doesn't feel like the movie is saying anything about it.
• 1:04:30
  Speaker B: Yeah, I felt very similar.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker A: It's sort of ancillary characteristics of these two guys.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker B: There were two moments reading the play where I kind of had, like. Like, mark a little question mark in the margins of the play, because I was kind of. Okay, so the first one was when they first introduced their butler, manservant guy. Part of his character description reads his employers being in the habit of making occasional advances towards him. And I was like, does that mean what I think it means, or am I applying, like, a modern, modern meaning?
• 1:05:21
  Speaker A: I don't think so to that.
• 1:05:22
  Speaker B: I don't think so either. But I wasn't.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker A: Because his employers would be Brandon and Philip. Right.
• 1:05:26
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker A: Unless advances means they paid him in advance. I don't know, but I don't think that's what that means.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker B: I don't think that's what that means either. But then, because there wasn't really anything else said about it, I was kind of, like, scratching my head. Like, I don't know. And then the other thing that had me scratching my head was a line said by Brandon to Kenneth, and they're like, chit chatting, and I'm going to say a slur. I'll just prepare you for it. And Brandon says. He says something about, oh, you're a grown up now, or something like that. And he says nothing. Like the little boy who used to fag for me at school. And I was like, good lord, Brits. What? Cause I know the British used that.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker A: Word in multiple ways, and the way they normally use it is for a cigarette.
• 1:06:30
  Speaker B: Yes. So I was like, good lord. What on earth does that mean in this context? Because I don't know. I don't like. I don't know if the time period changes. I don't know if the britishness changes that. I was like, is the homosexuality really that much in the text? Text?
• 1:06:48
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:06:48
  Speaker B: Because, I mean, if it's, like, just that one moment.
• 1:06:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I don't know.
• 1:06:53
  Speaker B: I don't know. Somebody explain this to you?
• 1:06:54
  Speaker A: Yeah. If you know the context of the time period and the britishness of it all, then let us know if those sentences maybe are the.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker B: Not at all like, am I. Am I interpreting these correctly or incorrectly? And I truly do not know.
• 1:07:10
  Speaker A: Are they overt references to their homosexuality? Or are they kind of. Do they have another meaning that.
• 1:07:16
  Speaker B: Or are they. Or are they just from 1929? Or maybe they're just british. I don't really know.
• 1:07:24
  Speaker A: I mean, the context of the second one doesn't seem like the cigarette meaning would make any sense. Yeah, like nothing. Like the little boy who used to. For me, it's like, I don't understand what that would mean, how that would be if you were using cigarette there.
• 1:07:39
  Speaker B: Maybe he made him roll his cigarettes.
• 1:07:42
  Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. I don't know.
• 1:07:43
  Speaker B: Maybe.
• 1:07:43
  Speaker A: I don't know. I don't know. All right, if you know, please let us know.
• 1:07:49
  Speaker B: Cause we are lost. I am the one lost in adaptation at this time.
• 1:07:54
  Speaker A: Fantastic. All right, it's time to find out what Katie thought was better in the. The book. You like to read.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker B: Oh, yes, I love to read.
• 1:08:06
  Speaker A: What do you like to read?
• 1:08:09
  Speaker B: Everything. There is a storm going on in the background of this play throughout the whole thing, which is like, yeah, maybe a little, like, maudlin, but, you know, it's fun. It's a little spooky. The crew gets to use the thunder sheet. That's fun.
• 1:08:26
  Speaker A: That's fun. I will say I'm glad they didn't do that in the movie, because we talked about in the prequel the. What was that called? The skybox thing. Yeah, the background, because they have this big, huge, wide window. It almost looks like, you know, the smoking part of a Wendy's from the nineties.
• 1:08:44
  Speaker B: Yes, the atrium.
• 1:08:47
  Speaker A: The atrium, yes, exactly. The place in a Wendy's, you could smoke in the nineties.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker B: We're just dating ourselves here.
• 1:08:53
  Speaker A: The atrium, they have, like, a little atrium window that's, like, really wide. So you can see, like, all of Manhattan out the skyline. And I talked about in the prequel that they had. This is, like, the biggest skybox ever. And it's got a specific name that I can't remember. I said in the prequel, cyclorama. Cyclorama.
• 1:09:07
  Speaker B: Something like that. Yeah.
• 1:09:09
  Speaker A: But, like, it's like, one of the biggest and most complicated ones they ever made. Where you get, like, there's lights and there's smoke.
• 1:09:14
  Speaker B: Like, the clouds move.
• 1:09:15
  Speaker A: The clouds are made out of spun glass, and they move them around. And the light, the sun sets over the course of thing. And if it had just been a storm the whole time, I think that would have been kind of boring. Whereas the time you get to see the passage of time out the window over the course of evening. And it's really interesting.
• 1:09:31
  Speaker B: I will say, though, it could have been kind of cool. If at the very end, during the climax, there had been storm clouds starting to build and we had gotten some little flashes of lightning, I think that.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker A: Would have maybe been even more modeling than it just being the whole time. That's maybe a little too. But I get what you're saying. I think it could have worked.
• 1:09:54
  Speaker B: I think it could have worked.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker A: Yeah, for sure.
• 1:09:56
  Speaker B: But I'm happy that the crew of the show gets to use the thunder sheet.
• 1:09:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, and for a play, I don't think you could do the same thing. Like, this thing they did in the movie with that background would be way harder to do in a play like, that was a very involved situation with, like, lots of lights and effects and all this sort of thing, whereas just doing a storm the whole time, like.
• 1:10:15
  Speaker B: You could do something similar in, like, an expensive production.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker A: Yes. But I don't know if it would have been as. Yeah.
• 1:10:23
  Speaker B: Probably would not have looked as cool.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:10:27
  Speaker B: I talked earlier about the whole thing with the Colosseum ticket. I do think that was a little clunky. I thought what the movie does with the hat was just, like, a little smoother. But I really liked the tension that built from the prolonged presence of the ticket on stage, as well as the way that that tension kind of ratchets up once Rupert takes it, because at one point, Rupert sees it sticking out of Philips pocket, and he pickpockets him and takes the ticket. And Philip has no idea that Rupert now has this piece of evidence.
• 1:11:03
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:11:07
  Speaker B: There'S a specific line in one of Rupert's final monologues that kind of made me chuckle. He's talking about the hour of the evening, and he says, the hour when jaded London theater audiences are settling down in the darkness to the last acts of plays. And I was like, ooh, how meta, because it occurs in the last act of this play. And my final thing, my biggest disappointment on a thing that did not make it from the play to the movie is Rupert's secret sword. He has a sword.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker A: Oh, a sword staff.
• 1:11:47
  Speaker B: Yeah, he has a sword in his staff. You talked about pain thing. He has a Lucius Malfoy sword.
• 1:11:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. That's a real thing that we're things.
• 1:11:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. I don't. I'll just read.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker A: And they were. They were actually fairly prominent in the, like, turn of the century and early 20th century or much. I say fairly there. That's when they were at the. Their peak, I think, in the late 19th century.
• 1:12:12
  Speaker B: So this occurs at the very end of the play, when Rupert has kind of started to confront Brandon and Philip about what they've done. And let's see. Rupert no, Brandon, I'm not going. You see, I'm rather awkwardly situated. Brandon, more menacingly. Still a change in his tone. You are something more than that, my friend. Rupert, holding his ground a trifle breathlessly. Oh, how's that, Brandon? You are very dangerously situated. He suddenly moves forward. Rupert retreats, putting up his stick to protect himself. Brandon sees it without the slightest difficulty and brings it down to a horizontal level. They each hold firmly to the stick and gaze at each other. Very dangerously situated indeed, Rupert. After a pause, Brandon. I am lame and I have no protection. Brandon you have not, Rupert. Save that of my foresight. Brandon your foresight. Rupert pulls on the handle of the stick and withdraws a blade from it, revealing it as a sword stick. There is a flash of steel. Brandon is left with the empty wooden sheath in his hand.
• 1:13:35
  Speaker A: Fantastic.
• 1:13:37
  Speaker B: What an incredible moment.
• 1:13:38
  Speaker A: Great moment.
• 1:13:39
  Speaker B: I loved it.
• 1:13:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, we love it. We love a dramatic secret sword. Reveal. How could we not?
• 1:13:44
  Speaker B: I also really enjoyed. Save that of my foresight.
• 1:13:47
  Speaker A: Save that of my foresight. Schwing. Yeah, that's great. All right, time to find out 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.
• 1:14:04
  Speaker B: Early on, I really liked the little detail of Brandon's hand shaking when he's sipping his champagne, like when they pour that first bottle of champagne to celebrate their murder. And I thought it was really interesting that it could be perverse excitement.
• 1:14:21
  Speaker A: Yeah, like adrenaline still. Yeah.
• 1:14:22
  Speaker B: Or it could be that he's not really as cool, calm, collected as he wants to appear in this moment. I thought that having the rope hanging out of the chest, like having it make appearances on stage, quote unquote, was an interesting addition because we don't really see it in the play. I liked that the movie set up much more interesting connections between the characters, with Janet being the victim's fiance girlfriend, and then her having previously been with Kenneth and he was friends with David. They set up this whole torrid love triangle between these three. The play does not do that at all. And I thought that was a way more interesting addition for the movie. Yeah, I liked having the ant walk in and immediately mistake Philip for David or Kenneth for David. I don't really remember which it was. Kenneth. Kenneth. But I thought that was a fun, like, ah, momentous. She was also far more interesting in the movie. She basically does not talk characters that.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker A: She doesn't say anything.
• 1:15:35
  Speaker B: Yes. Overall, I thought the movie made way better use of its secondary characters. While I was reading the play, I kept asking myself, what is the point of this character or that character? Why are they here? This was especially true of the Andal character. She had literally two lines of in this play. I did not have that issue with the movie. It was very clear that everyone was invited with, like, a twisted purpose in mind. Yes. Kind of reminded me of, like an Agatha Christie sort of story.
• 1:16:05
  Speaker A: And the trailer plays out that way. Part of the trailer. They introduced the cast of characters at one point.
• 1:16:10
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:16:11
  Speaker A: And you, like, see them all and it's like the. It's like Mister Kinsley, the father of the victim. Like the voiceover. Yeah, it's good.
• 1:16:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. So the aunt, way more fun in the movie. I liked her astrology thing that she kept bringing up, like, oh, the Capricorn, the goat. And I thought that Janet was a far more interesting character. Her name is Layla in the play, and I really did not enjoy her characterization at all in the play. It felt very misogynistic. She just seemed like that was what.
• 1:16:47
  Speaker A: I said from reading the character description.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker B: Like, really silly and kind of vapid, and there was nothing much else going on there. And I felt like we found out so much more about Janet, even though she's not, like, a particularly important or pivotal character.
• 1:17:04
  Speaker A: No, but she's compelling in her.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker B: Yeah, she's compelling. Like, we find out, like, what she does and, like, what she wants to be doing.
• 1:17:12
  Speaker A: And she, I think most importantly, in a way that's really kind of interesting and fun, is that she knows exactly who Brandon is and is able to.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker B: Like, go, she's got his number.
• 1:17:24
  Speaker A: Like, yeah, she knows who is. And she's able to verbally duel with him in a way that is satisfying because you know what a piece of shit Brandon is. And so the fact that she's able to see that and also able to, like, you know, verbally spar with him is enjoyable.
• 1:17:43
  Speaker B: Part of the other thing that had me questioning the inclusion of all of the secondary characters, like, the fact that there were so many secondary characters in the play, was the fact that most of them are offstage for most of the second act and pretty much all of the third act. So it's kind of like, I just, I cannot get over the inclusion of the ant character in the play. I was like, why is she here? She's just hanging out. She doesn't say anything. She doesn't do anything. She's offstage for most of the play.
• 1:18:19
  Speaker A: Is the play doing something. Is it some sort of, like, reference? Like. Like, is she some sort of archetypal character? She's supposed to represent, like, the specter of death or. I don't. You know what I mean?
• 1:18:30
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 1:18:30
  Speaker A: Like, maybe he's doing some, like, literary illusion.
• 1:18:33
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:18:33
  Speaker A: Oh, this party of. We need a party of seven people, and she's the silent specter of. I don't know.
• 1:18:40
  Speaker B: It could be. It could be, like, a genre of reference that I'm not familiar with or something.
• 1:18:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. The genre. Or I was thinking more just, like, a very specific. Specific, like, I don't know, literary reference to some. Like, the last. This is not what it would be, but, like, the last Supper. Like, I don't know. Like, this character is Judas. This character's whatever. And she's like, well, I don't know. It's something like that. I wonder if it's something.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker B: She would be one of the apostles whose name nobody remembers.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker A: Right. Or something like that. I'm just wondering if maybe that could be what's going on there, if there's some thing. I don't know. No. Cause otherwise, then, yeah. It sounds like a superfluous character.
• 1:19:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. She felt very superfluous to me, reading the play. And to be fair, she's comparatively to the other characters. I guess she's a little superfluous in the movie, too, but she was a far more interesting character in the movie.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker B: There was a little line exchange between Janet and Rupert that I really enjoyed. They're talking about David, and Rupert's like, oh, he's told me so much about you. And Janet says, oh, did he do me justice? Where it's like, do you deserve justice?
• 1:19:48
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker B: Like, okay, man.
• 1:19:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, it's a great exchange because it's immediately, like, similar to Brandon. You know, he's Brandon who can dial it back, like, 10% into a place where it comes off as kind of charming and playful, as opposed to just, like, smarmy and annoying.
• 1:20:07
  Speaker B: So it wasn't clear to me when I was reading the play whether or not they had actually packaged the books with the same rope that was the murder weapon, because they do tie up the books with rope, but I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be the rope or not. So I like that the movie went ahead and just gave us that visual, and I kind of assume that it is meant to be staged that way in the play, but, again, wasn't, like, 100% clear.
• 1:20:37
  Speaker A: So there's no conversation because, I mean, in the movie, they have. Philip and Brandon have multiple conversations about the fact that he's like. Like, carrying this rope around and doing stuff with, like, what is wrong with you? That's the murder weapon. And so that's never okay.
• 1:20:51
  Speaker B: I really liked the moment in the movie where misses Wilson almost opens the chest to put the books back in.
• 1:20:57
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:20:57
  Speaker B: She, like, starts to open it, and Brandon has to be like, no, that part's great.
• 1:21:01
  Speaker A: But my favorite part of that scene isn't when she opens it to put the books in. It's everything that leads up to that moment.
• 1:21:08
  Speaker B: Yeah, the tension is delicious.
• 1:21:10
  Speaker A: It's so good. Cause again, we get. The camera pulls back. It had been, like, we had been watching them have a conversation, like, in the main part of the room. And then at some point, the camera pulls back and it shoots down. There's like a. Off to the left of the set, there's this hallway that runs down to, like, the kitchen, basically, that goes through the dining room, through the entry hallway, through the dining room, and then into the kitchen. It's like three doorways in a row. And the camera spins around and drops down low with the chest in the foreground on the left side of the frame, right up against the camera. And then the hallway directly, kind of like dead center frame all the way, shooting down into the kitchen with the chest in focus right in front of the camera. And we hear them having a conversation. We hear, like, Rupert and them and all. They're, like, having a conversation just off camera. We can see, like, Rupert's leg or something in the camera shot, but they're having a conversation just off camera. And the camera just holds there while we're listening to them have that conversation. And we watch misses Wilson walk back and forth from the kitchen, like, three times, taking more and more stuff off the top of the table. And you know what she's doing. And it's so good. Oh, that again, the moment where she pulls it up and they're like, nah, it's like, that's like the payoff. But, like, that's nothing. That's the easy part that everybody puts in the movie is like, oh, gotta look in here. And like. But that's the least interesting part of the whole thing, at least to me, that, like. Cause again, everybody puts the moment where somebody almost opens it, and then Brandon's like, no, don't. Like, don't look in there. We don't need to worry about that or whatever, but that building of the tension for, like, 45 seconds. And just the way that they linger and let us with them out of. We're listening to the conversation, but they're not on camera and we're just watching misses. It feels so pointless. But you know. Exactly. It's the most important thing happening in the entire room. And it's so good. I thought it was brilliant.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker B: All right, my last note here is a thing that does not happen in the movie. And it is a thing that I did not understand in the play. So I mentioned earlier that Rupert comes into this party already suspicious. And the reason that he's already suspicious is that he tried to telephone their apartment earlier and nobody answered. But he says that he heard, like, hysterical noises. Like he heard like screaming and like a scuffle and etcetera, etcetera.
• 1:23:57
  Speaker A: Oh, is this the thing that.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker B: This is the thing that made him suspicious? Made him suspicious before he got there? It was like hearing these noises when he tried to call the apartment. But how could he have if no one answered the phone?
• 1:24:10
  Speaker A: It's an old phone thing. It's got to be.
• 1:24:12
  Speaker B: It's got to be an old phone thing. I was like, is this something obsolete about phones that I'm not understanding? Because I don't know anything about old phones.
• 1:24:21
  Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. Or there's some implication, maybe in the book or the play just didn't do a good job implying it, that. That during the struggle, they knocked the phone off the hook. So when he called, it was already off the hook. So it just immediately answered. Yeah, because I think that's a thing that could happen with phones back then, is that if it's not on the hook, like if it's not hung up, like in modern, more modern phones, if it was off the hook and you called, you would get a busy tone, right?
• 1:24:48
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 1:24:49
  Speaker A: I think it's possible that back then, if you called and it wasn't on the hook, it would just connect. If nobody else was connected to it, if that makes sense.
• 1:24:58
  Speaker B: That does make sense.
• 1:24:59
  Speaker A: So maybe that's what happened. I don't know. I'm just speculating because. But I'm sure it's just an old phone thing.
• 1:25:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, it was. It was a 1929 question that I had.
• 1:25:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, old phones work real worked real weird. So I'm sure it was just a weird old phone thing would be my guess. But. Alright, let's go ahead and talk about a handful of things that the movie nailed. As I expected.
• 1:25:25
  Speaker B: Practically perfect in every way. Philip is obviously way more shaken up by everything that happens here than Brandon is. He doesn't want to turn on the lights. Just clearly more shaken by this whole thing. When I talk about the main kind of gimme, at least for me, that both the play and the movie do, which is the eating on the chest. Because to me, it makes way more sense to lay the books on top of the chest than to lay them out on the dining table. Because that's the excuse for eating on the chest, is that the books are on the dining table.
• 1:26:07
  Speaker A: That's what he says.
• 1:26:07
  Speaker B: Yeah, but why wouldn't the books be on top of the chest? Why not? But it bothers me that nobody ever points this out.
• 1:26:17
  Speaker A: They do. In the movie, they do. Cause Philip comes like they're having a con. I think it's Jimmy Stewart, and maybe misses Wilson or somebody are having a conversation, or Janet having a conversation about how it's weird that they're eating in the living room, like, off of the chest in the living room. And Philip's like, ah, well, the books. And, you know, actually, this is more convenient. Cause, so, like, the movie kind of does address that. They think it's weird.
• 1:26:42
  Speaker B: No, then they think it's weird in the play, too. But I'm saying specifically, like, why isn't anybody ever like, why didn't you put the books on top of the chest? Oh, because that would be my first question. Like, if I was like, why are we eating on top of the chest? And Brandon was like, well. Cause the books are on the table, I would then be like, why didn't you move the books to the chest?
• 1:27:09
  Speaker A: I think I would be like, if I were at a dinner party with a person that I was like, not like, best friends with, but just like, acquaintances with, which is kind of what most of these people like, they're friends. And somebody was like, oh, we're gonna put the food out here in the living room on this thing. I'd be like, and I'm like, and we're not gonna use the dining table and be like, oh, I got books on the table. I'd be like, okay. I would be like, that's fair. You know what I mean? I would be like, whatever. I don't. Sure. You know what I mean? I wouldn't.
• 1:27:33
  Speaker B: But I would still be wondering.
• 1:27:35
  Speaker A: I would be wondering. I think Jimmy Stewart does like, I think that they do. Like, I think they do wonder about it.
• 1:27:41
  Speaker B: But, yeah, at any rate, the movie nails this. Yeah, there is a mention in both the play and the movie that when Brandon would tell, like, spooky ghost stories when he was younger, that they always contained chests with corpses in them.
• 1:27:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:28:00
  Speaker B: Janet at one point says, like, oh, she's joking. She's like, I think they've committed murder, and it's simply chock full of rotting bones. Like they're talking about what's in the chest, which I thought was kind of a funny moment. That also happens on page 30 of a 90 page play. And I was like, I don't really know what to make of that. It seems a little early, but sure. And then the final line, I disliked the inclusion of the very last line in both play and the movie. So in the movie, Jimmy Stewart says, it's not what I'm going to do, Brandon. It's what society is going to do. I don't know what it will be, but I can guess and I can help. Should have stopped there.
• 1:28:47
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:28:48
  Speaker B: Before going on to say, you're going to die, Brandon. Both of you. You're going to die. And then, very similarly, at the end of the play, he's. His very last line spoken in the play. It is not what I am doing, Brandon. It is what society is going to do. And what will happen to you at the hands of society. I am not in a position to tell you that's its own business, but I can give you a pretty shrewd guess, I think should have stopped there. But then he goes on to say, you're going to hang, you swine. Hang both of you.
• 1:29:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, I just. I agree. That's just over.
• 1:29:30
  Speaker B: It's one of those situations. Less is more, better left hanging in the air unsaid.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker B: It would have been far more profound to let the audience fill in the blank.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker A: Fill in the blank. Yeah, we're. We can. We know what you.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker B: We understand. We get it.
• 1:29:45
  Speaker A: Not what I'm going to do, Brandon. It's what society is going to do. I don't know what that will be, but I can guess and I can help. Bang, bang, bang.
• 1:29:52
  Speaker B: And, yeah.
• 1:29:52
  Speaker A: Like, why are you going to die? It's like, okay. Yeah, yeah. It does sound. It does feel almost more. Yeah, yeah. It just doesn't. Yeah, I completely agree.
• 1:30:02
  Speaker B: Yeah. It's like he becomes like a. Like he starts twirling a mustache.
• 1:30:09
  Speaker A: Both of you.
• 1:30:10
  Speaker B: Ha ha.
• 1:30:10
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right, let's get to a few odds and ends before the final verse.
• 1:30:26
  Speaker B: My first thought when the movie started up was that the opening music did not at all fit the subject matter.
• 1:30:33
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:30:33
  Speaker B: I felt like I was about to watch a romantic musical starring Judy Garland.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. I imagine that's intentional. Is it that juxtaposition, cutting into the murder. But it does.
• 1:30:43
  Speaker B: You're like. It does. But then it also, like, cuts right to, like, the corny. The corny murder scene. So the movie did not get off to a strong start for me. But it. But it finished.
• 1:30:56
  Speaker A: No. Yeah, the first, like, you know, minute and a half or whatever up until after the bodies in the chest. Great. From then on out, the first, like, minute or two minutes is like.
• 1:31:08
  Speaker B: Also they cast the right guy as Brandon. Yes, because that man was creepy as fuck.
• 1:31:15
  Speaker A: I was really impressed with one of the early shots in the film. Obviously, like I said, we get a lot of long shots. But one of the things that really impressed me is that we get this really cool shot where the camera follows them all over the sound stage that they're on. But one of the moments is Brandon walks from the living room through, I mentioned earlier, there's this hallway that leads down to the kitchen through three doorways. And he walks in there, I think, to put the rope in the drawer, maybe. And as he's walking in there, the camera follows him. And it. It follows along through this whole hallway and through all these doorways and then into the kitchen. And I was like, how did they pull that off? And you can see the camera bouncing a little bit like it's on something. And I was trying to figure out, I think I would love to see behind the scenes of this. I don't know if they have them, because I don't know if they did behind the scenes back then in the same way. I mean, there might be photos and stuff, but. Because I just like with the big. Can that big. That big of a camera move? And how. I was just wondering how they did it. I imagine what they did is, because we talked about in the prequel that they had walls that they could move and stuff. I imagine what they did is that the camera's on a big crane. So, like, the camera is like sticking out into the room on a big crane arm, like a big 15 foot crane arm or something that they can move around. That's how they're, like, getting really close to people and moving in and out of stuff. And then I imagine that crane arm is then on dolly tracks, which is like a little train tracks, basically. And when he. It follows him down the hallway, it's basically following him. And they're pulling the left side walls out. So the walls on the left side of the doors, I imagine they're just removing those as the camera is moving down. Gosh, I think that's got to be what's going on. Cause I don't know how else they would do it. Because the dolly tracks aren't on the floor in the hallway. So the camera can't just be right behind him on dolly tracks going down the hallway. It has to be on a crane. But then the crane arm would hit the walls if the walls were there. So it has to be a thing where the dolly is moving, like, off the set here. The camera's like, I'm motioning this to Katie. Like, if the hallway is going that way, and these are the doorways here, and the camera's following him here, the dolly and the arm is connected to the camera here. And it's going like this. And then they're pulling the walls out as the camera goes. It's got to be what's happening, I think. But super cool, super impressive stuff.
• 1:33:37
  Speaker B: Can I put you on the spot?
• 1:33:38
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:33:39
  Speaker B: Can you explain to the audience at home why it's like, we need the crane and the dolly? And it's not just like a guy holding a camera and walking?
• 1:33:51
  Speaker A: Because we didn't have steadicams back then, so you could do that in modern films. Famously, the shining we talked about was one of the first uses of a steadicam, which is where a guy is holding a camera. It also could be from above. I guess that's possible. I will say this because it's a soundstage. The camera could be suspended on something from the ceiling, potentially. That seems unlikely to me. The reason I say that the bouncing, to me made me think it's on a crane arm. The way the camera is bouncing up and down. If it's on the end of a big, long arm, that bounce would happen because it's on this big lever, basically, yeah. So that made me think it was on a crane. The reason it couldn't be a person just carrying it is it's way too smooth. And we didn't have steadicams at the time. And a steadicam is basically a big spring mounted system that reduces the shape. Like, you put a camera, basically, you put, like, a backpack on that has an arm on it that has a bunch of springs in it that the camera sits on. And the springs, like, dampen the movement, essentially. And now we have modern ones that have, like, motors and shit, like, super advanced robotics.
• 1:35:00
  Speaker B: So it, like, accounts for your movement.
• 1:35:02
  Speaker A: So when you're walking with a steadicam, a traditional older one, like, from the seventies, eighties, or even, like, the nineties, like, I've used these several times. We had one at one of my old jobs that I worked at a news station. We had one that I used occasionally. And you would put a camera on it and then. Yeah, the springs kind of balance out the motion of you, like, moving and walking and stuff, and make it smooth. But they didn't have those back in the 1940s. So again, my guess is it's on a crane arm would be the way they would do it because, yeah, you don't see any dolly tracks on the set or anything, so. And if anybody has quite. I could draw a diagram of how I think they did this, but I just thought it was fascinating and really cool. And I love, especially with old movies like that, trying to figure out how they did those kind of shots. It's always cool seeing really interesting, like, creative shots like that. There's a famous shot from a movie where a camera moves, like, through a crowded, like, nightclub, and it pulls, I think it either pushes forward. Yeah, it pushes forward through a nightclub and the way. But it's like, going, like, through tables and stuff. And people were like, how in the world did they did that? And they literally, just as the camera got to the tables, they pulled everything out of the way as it got. It was super interesting. They used to do crazy stuff because they didn't have the kind of motorized cranes and steadicams and all that kind of stuff that we have these days. They actually recreated that shot in the last Jedi. So there's a shot in last Jedi where they. A camera, like, pushes across on the casino world, like, across all the casino tables. And that's a direct reference to that one specific scene from that nightclub, which was like a very famous. Anyways, nevermind. Okay, so the shot I was talking about right there is actually from the 1927 film wing. It's a very famous dolly shot where they push in over a bunch of tables. I thought I had saw somewhere that that shot was achieved by basically doing a traditional dolly shot on, like, the ground, and that they were pulling the tables and stuff out of the way as they went. I just did some more research as I was editing this, and it looks like instead it was actually a hanging camera, like an inverted dolly shot, basically, where the camera is hanging from a rig on the ceiling. I'm not sure what the truth is. I think it's the. It was an inverted Dolly shot hanging from the ceiling. But I don't. I feel like I'm going crazy because I could have swore that I saw, like, a very in depth article at some point about how that shot was achieved via, like, moving everything out of the way as they went. So if you know what I'm talking, maybe it's a different shot that I was thinking of in reference to that. I don't know if you know what I'm talking about. Maybe it says something else. Please let me know. Cause I feel like I'm losing my mind. The actress who plays Janet in this I thought was great. We talked about her character earlier and how I thought she was a good character, but I thought the actress herself did a really good job. And she was only ever in, like, three movies. She was in quite a bit of tv shows, but she was, like, in three movies. And I was like, she's really good.
• 1:38:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, I thought she was really good, too.
• 1:38:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:38:05
  Speaker B: A moment that kind of made me laugh in this was at one point, Philip squeezes his champagne glass too hard. Cause he's nervous and it breaks, and he has, like, a big cut. He's, like, bleeding, like, profusely from his hand. And then in the next scene, the ant character is like, let me read your palms. And you, like, look at his hands. And you can't really see a cut anywhere.
• 1:38:32
  Speaker A: He does have one kind of on the side of his thumb, but it looked like a much larger cut in the scene right before that. He had blood everywhere, and it looked like a big cut, and then it was like, nothing. Again. I think there might be a little cut, but it's really hard to see it. It does look like a continuity error, whether or not it is. I talked about the cut to Jimmy Stewart right after Phillips outburst, where he's like, that's a lie. It's so good. I love that moment. Again, drawing our attention to a cut in that very specific moment where Rupert has this suspicion and that it pulls you instantly out of the movie, but it makes you refocus so quickly and realize that Rupert is suspicious. Just. Yeah, I think it's brilliant.
• 1:39:14
  Speaker B: Another thing that was kind of making me chuckle throughout as we were watching this is that I feel like you could do a recut of this movie where Brandon did all of this to get Kenneth and Janet back together.
• 1:39:31
  Speaker A: Absolutely.
• 1:39:31
  Speaker B: Because he really believes in those crazy kids.
• 1:39:33
  Speaker A: He really does. He wants them to. He believes they can get back together. He's like, well, you know what?
• 1:39:38
  Speaker B: I'm just gonna. I'm just gonna take this guy out.
• 1:39:41
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:39:42
  Speaker B: Cause I want you two to make it the world.
• 1:39:44
  Speaker A: Zanye rom.com. and I felt like. I thought it was really interesting that I feel like they very intentionally, apart from being very good, the actor who plays Brandon, I think, actually looks quite a bit like Jimmy Stewart in a way that I thought was probably intentional, because he's, again, very clearly, very clear that Brandon idolizes Rupert, and he's his hero. He looks up to him. He wants him to approve of this. He's the one who inspired him intellectually and philosophically, and he aspires to be like him. And so I think having them, that final scene where they're talking towards the end of the movie, there's a scene where they're standing next to each other talking. And I thought it was really striking how similar some of their features are, which I thought was a good choice.
• 1:40:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's a nice way to visually communicate that idea.
• 1:40:38
  Speaker A: Before we wrap up, we wanted to remind you, you can do us a giant favor by hanging over Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Goodreads threads, any of those places. Give us your feedback. We'd love to know what you had to say about rope. Also, head over to Apple podcasts, Spotify any of those places. Drop us a five star rating, brightest and isolated review. That's all super helpful. If you really want to support us, head over to patreon.com thisfilm. Support us there. For a couple extra bucks a month, you get access to bonus content starting at the $5 a month level. We just put out an episode on the last duel, which I thought was really interesting. We discussed everything that goes on in the last duel. We will have a double two part. Well, it's going to be one episode, but we're covering two movies for our October episode. We're doing both of the Addams family movies from the nineties, I guess. So we'll be talking about both of those in October here in just a week or two. So look out for that. And yes, you get that at the $5 and up level. And if you support us at the $15 a month level, you can get access to priority patron requests, which is if you have something that you'd really love for us to talk about, support us for that amount, and then request it, and we will add it to our list. And this was a patron request from.
• 1:41:42
  Speaker B: This was a request from Eric.
• 1:41:45
  Speaker A: There you go. Thank you, Eric, for your support, and thank you for recommending rope. Katie, it's time for the final verdict.
• 1:41:53
  Speaker B: No sentence, fast verdict after. That's stupid. I mentioned at the end of the last prequel episode that I was a little concerned about the play being at a disadvantage because I was reading it, which is not the way that it's intended to be consumed. I do think that I was correct on that count. I mostly found the play kind of boring up until the last few pages, and I suspect that I would not have had that experience had I been watching it performed live by a set of stellar stage actors. However, for the specific application of comparing the play to the movie, im not sure that seeing the play performed live would have made that much of a difference on my final verdict. For me, the movie made enough good choices in its changing of the source material for me to heavily suspect that I would still prefer it even if I did get to see the play performed on stage as God and Patrick Hamilton intended. I think that the movie made better use of its secondary characters. I think it made a good decision to tie Ruperts murder philosophizing directly to Brandon's ideas about superiority. And I liked several changes that increased the tension, such as the piano interrogation scene and the moment where misses Wilson almost opens the chest. The movie made decisions that I legitimately hope are taken into account in modern runs of this play, and to me that seems like a pretty good reason to give this one to the movie.
• 1:43:36
  Speaker A: All right, Katie, what's next?
• 1:43:39
  Speaker B: Up next, we are continuing with spooky season. Maybe I don't know if this is actually spooky, but we are going to be talking about Vampire Academy. Yes, which is a novel by Rochelle Mead, which I believe came out in the twilight heyday. I've never read it, but it was adapted into a movie in 2014, so that is what we're going to be talking about.
• 1:44:05
  Speaker A: All right, there you go. Come back in two weeks time. We're talking about Vampire Academy. And in one week's time, we'll preview Vampire Academy and hear everything you all had to say about rope in. Until that time, guys, galos, nonbinary pals.
• 1:44:17
  Speaker B: And everybody else, keep reading books, keep.
• 1:44:19
  Speaker A: Watching movies, and keep being awesome.