Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman - Predestination Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman - Predestination Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our predestination listener polls and preview. Snow White and the Huntsman. Hello, and welcome back to another prequel episode of. This film is like the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. It's a prequel episode. Plenty to get to. No need to mess around. We'll start as always, like we do with our patron shout outs. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why. One new free patron this week. N. I think I pronounced that right. It's spelled A N N E. Like an. But it has an umlaut over the a. And I looked it up and it says that's pronounced like an e. Sound kind of in English.
• 0:56
  Speaker B: Yeah, like an eh.
• 0:57
  Speaker A: Like an eh. So N, I believe, would be the way you would pronounce that as opposed to an as we would in America. So an or Sorry.
• 1:04
  Speaker B: N. N. Immediately messed up.
• 1:07
  Speaker A: Immediately messed it up. Thank you for joining. Over at the free tier again, you just get access to the polls and all that kind of stuff if you sign up for free. But yeah, you can do that. And that's another good way to follow us if you don't utilize traditional social media. As always, we would like to thank our Academy Award winning patrons. And they are. Amanda Nicole Goble, Harpo Rat, Nathan Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve Ben Wilcox, Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch Justgratch Shelby will return in Avengers, Doomsday, and that Darn Skag. Thank you all very much for your continued support. We could not appreciate it more. Katie, it's time to see what the people had to say about predestination. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
• 1:57
  Speaker B: All right, well, we had quite a few comments on Patreon.
• 2:01
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 2:02
  Speaker B: I'm gonna do the best I can because my throat's still a little. I'm still coughing a bit more than you are.
• 2:09
  Speaker A: That's true. Yeah. I can read them if you want.
• 2:12
  Speaker B: We might need to take turns or something.
• 2:14
  Speaker A: I can absolutely read them. I'm in a little bit. I'm in better shape than you are.
• 2:20
  Speaker B: So on Patreon, we had four votes for the book and. No, wait, I have that the other way around. We had four votes for the movie and two for the book.
• 2:29
  Speaker A: Really? No, no, I think that's good.
• 2:31
  Speaker B: I have that the other way around again, we had four votes for the book and two for the movie.
• 2:35
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah.
• 2:37
  Speaker B: I don't know why I looked at that and Doubted what I wrote, but I did. Our first comment was from Nathan, who said, I really didn't have any fondness for either version, so I will defaul to the written word and thus the short story. It is, as y' all said, just a writing exercise and not a particularly interesting one at that. I'm honestly confused that if they weren't really going to deal with transgender themes, why they bothered adapting it at all. Also, I would expect a movie called Predestination to have an example where someone tried to thwart destiny and failed. But in this movie, it's mostly people deciding to not even try. Ethan Hawke travels once to stop the Fizzler and then accepts defeat. Also, time can be changed in this world, as shown by the Fizzlers saving lives or by the very existence of Robertson's organization, but not in this case. I think the idea that John Jane, Ethan Hawke Fizzler is too important to erase, but the fact that it's possible to do so means we don't have predestination. And in a movie called Predestination, I
• 3:45
  Speaker A: think in their instance, what the movie might be implying is that it is because there's this whole kind of thing they talk about, Robinson talks about, or Robertson or whatever his name is, mentions about how they are one of the very few. Like, I can't remember the words he uses to describe it, but that they are kind of because of the weird nature of John Jane's existence. The. They're like a closed loop, like a fixed point, essentially, because they have no connections to any other. Their existence is completely self contained. The point is that I think their fate is predetermined. Like, is predestined or. I think that's what the movie's implying is that the weird cyclical, like again, self contained nature of John Jane's existence makes them. Makes their fate predetermined because there are no outside forces essentially acting on it. Kind of, I think, is the idea, basically. And it's also why they are a Time Bureau agent. Is that because they are so Robinson and it's been so long since we watched the movie that I cannot recall. He has some line about how they're one of the few people who can actually do this Time Bureau work because of the fact that they have no entanglement with any other people or something like that.
• 5:14
  Speaker B: Yeah, I feel like I vaguely remember
• 5:15
  Speaker A: what you're talking about. I think it's an exchange while they're at the hospital. Like when he shows up and like right before Ethan Hawke Steals the baby. Him and Robinson like have a conversation, I think at the hospital. And I think during that conversation Robinson or Robertson or whatever has some line about the fact that Ethan Hawke's character John Jane is like a closed loop. Makes them valuable because they can then do this time travel thing and interact with other people without it being messy, because they are a closed loop. I don't know if it makes any sense, but I swear the movie talks about that. And again, it's been so long that I don't recall the specifics of it, but I think that's the idea is that they can affect events, other events outside of their timeline, but within their timeline they have there's this perfectly stable self fulfilling paradox that makes it impossible for them to affect their own timeline. But they can affect stuff outside of their timeline. And as to why we would adapt it, if you're not gonna really address the transgender themes at all, I think it's because it is a fun magic trick. And I can, like I said, I can imagine a younger version of myself finding this movie very fascinating and being the kind of movie I would want to make back when I was like in college because I was much more interested in the clever spectacle of film as opposed to kind of themes and stuff like that. That wasn't as important to me when I was watching movies then. My thesis project is Riff On. It was very clearly like a ripoff in a way, like a bad ripoff of oh my God. The Christopher Nolan movie Memento kind of mine is a similarly out of order. It's not a time traveler movie, but it is like the narrative's out of order in a way that similar to how Memento does it. And that sort of physical structure of the film I thought was really interesting. And like puzzling out how you put that together was I think is still interesting. It's just not the most interesting thing to me about movie, but it used to be like the most interesting thing to me about movies. And so I think that's why you make a movie like this even if you don't care about exploring like some of the specific central themes.
• 7:45
  Speaker B: No, I agree. I could see a younger version of my. I probably wouldn't have watched this movie as a younger version of myself, but I could see a younger version of myself where I watched it and was, oh my God, that's so cool.
• 7:56
  Speaker A: That's so clever.
• 7:57
  Speaker B: That's such a cool idea.
• 7:58
  Speaker A: Brilliant idea.
• 8:00
  Speaker B: And similar to the first time you really encounter non linear storytelling or something like that where you just are blown away by the concept of it, which
• 8:11
  Speaker A: I had a similar experience, although I still identified a lot with the themes of it. But I had a similar experience reading Cloud Atlas earlier this year of that very unique structure of it, which apparently is just how Frankenstein is written, but at least it's similar. But, like, that structure was like. And the magic trick of it was very cool. And now I also liked other things in it, like, thematically and narratively and stuff. But I was really drawn to kind of the magic trick of the structure and the practical nature of how it was written, as opposed to just what it's saying. I am gonna take over because Katie's struggling. Next up, we have a comment from Shelby. A nice little short comment here that says the short story was fun, but like you said, I'd much rather see a trans person's take on the idea. Just listening to your discussion. The movie sounds overcomplicated. And the bomber element, with the bomber element, I love that. I already knew the song I Am My Own Grandpa from social media, so I could appreciate the reference, the way it was intended. I don't think the movie's over complicated. I think the movie's pretty. Like, it's definitely a. You're, like, confused for most of it.
• 9:21
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 9:22
  Speaker A: Until the reveal. And then you're like, oh.
• 9:24
  Speaker B: I mean, I didn't really care for the Fizzle Bomber element. Not because I thought it was over complicated, but I just didn't. I didn't feel like it all fit together quite as well as the movie wanted it to.
• 9:37
  Speaker A: I thought it worked pretty well. I think, like, structurally, like, narratively, the film actually works pretty well, and it's pretty, like, tight in terms of how it all fits together. And I even, like, thought the Fizzle Bomber plot was fine. I like the way it works in the reconstructive circle and all that sort of stuff. It's just, like. I think that all works well. It's just my issue is that it's. That's all that works in the movie.
• 10:01
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 10:01
  Speaker A: Like, that's the main thing that works in the movie. It's just lacking, like, the heart, like, the more interesting thematic character stuff, or at least it made. It doesn't have enough of a focus on the thematic character stuff for me to, like, genuinely like it as a movie. But I didn't think it was over complicated. I just, like. Again, it's confusing as you're watching it, but it does become less confusing as things are revealed and you get that kind of magic trick reveal at the end. Next up, we have a comment from Kelly Napier. I enjoyed the movie and I enjoyed the short story, but I ended up picking the story over the movie because the Fizzle Bomber plotline felt like a device to help string a 10 page story into a 90 minute movie. I preferred how the story just focused on John Jane's past paradox instead of also trying to insert a John Jane future paradox. As well as I also like the fact that the story didn't flesh out John Jane's backstory a whole lot. My whole family watched the movie with me and I found it really interesting to see them discover the twist that I knew was coming the whole time we were talking about it afterwards and I had a completely different experience with the movie than they did since I knew. But I guess that's the whole point of what you all are doing with the podcast. Yeah, that is literally the point of what we're doing. Yeah. And yeah, it's definitely a movie that I think I was talking to my coworker who had seen the movie and he said he enjoys watching this movie with or maybe it was a com. I might have been reading a I might be confusing that conversation with a comment I read somewhere on the Internet, but people talking about how they enjoy watching this movie with people for the first time just for the weird magic trick review.
• 11:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. I mean that would be a fun one to watch with somebody who didn't
• 11:37
  Speaker A: know what to do, who has no idea. Yeah. Cause it is a. It is I think. Like I said, I think the magic trick is effective. Next up we have a comment from Eric who says I'd never heard of this movie or story and I was delighted to find a 50s trans intersex SCI fi story. I'm trans and mostly read pre Stonewall queer literature, so this was right up my alley. The movie, not so much. The born in the wrong body phrasing is very of its time and still something some people resonate with, but I've never vibed with it. Also had no time for the gender essentialist. Trans men are naturally more aggressive, stronger, slash, not like other girls, and really wish they had cast a trans man or a CIS man instead of a CIS woman for the part. I definitely have more of a soft spot for writing for a writer, hearing about trans women like Christine Jorgensen and and excitedly writing a time travel paradox story involving a trans person in a 2000 and tens movie that really didn't go much further than the trans aspect. Despite the decades and having so much more time in a movie runtime the short story gets my vote.
• 12:35
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's totally fair.
• 12:37
  Speaker A: Think that all makes sense. And yeah, I'm aware I mentioned. I think I alluded to that in the episode. I'm aware that the born in the wrong body phrasing is some trans people identify with that and some people don't. And it's a very mixed bag in terms of how that kind of idea, how accurate of a representation of trans experience that is. And it varies very greatly. And I think that that's true across the spectrum with everything. It's just everybody's trans experience is very unique. There's a lot of shared similarities, but it is very different from person to person. And again, this one is particularly unique because of the nature of the forcedness of it and among other things.
• 13:15
  Speaker B: And the time travel paradox.
• 13:17
  Speaker A: And the time travel stuff. Yeah, that adds an extra layer. Next up, we have a comment from Cottonwood. Steve, my infinite hate for Amazon really got me into trouble with this story. I tried using Thrift Books in hope of finding a physical copy of this story in one of Heinlein's collections. That's what you did, right? Yeah. Is that you found a copy of it in a collection, but after two attempts, I gave up. I give the movie the thumbs up by default. Predestined. It's funny, I think you could almost find this, like, it's so short, I feel like you could just find it on the Internet.
• 13:45
  Speaker B: I didn't look. I imagine you maybe like a PDF or.
• 13:48
  Speaker A: You know what I mean?
• 13:49
  Speaker B: I didn't even look for it.
• 13:50
  Speaker A: Wouldn't be that hard to find.
• 13:51
  Speaker B: Steve, if you want my copy, I'll mail it to you. DM us.
• 13:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. Predestination is not a bad film, but being a connoisseur of the time travel genre, it's pretty much in the middle for me. Yes. Just imagine me sipping latte with my pinky finger up while saying that. Not as interesting as Primer. Time Crimes, Time crimes, Time Crimes, or even Tenet. I did like the weird retro futurism that was brought to the screen. The Spirig brothers always bring something a little different to the genre they take on, whether it was the deadpan humor of Undead or the idea of Daybreakers being an indictment of the American health care system through the lens of the entire world having vampirism. And rather than curing the disease, they are trying to placate with a fake blood substitute. I know nothing about Daybreakers other than Ethan Hawke is in it now. I am not a person to speak on Trans representation. But upon verse view, upon first view, it was not something I really felt strongly about. Upon rewatch, I do realize there were some things that they could have done better. But in all the criticism seems to have been spelled out. But all the criticism seems to have been spelled out pretty succinctly. Since it was a little problematic. The film will be somewhat forgotten unless someone like the pop culture detective, provided he actually still produces content, takes a whack at the subject. I actually don't think its problematic nature is why it will be forgotten. I think it's forgetting. It's.
• 15:09
  Speaker B: It's kind of mid.
• 15:11
  Speaker A: Kind of midness is why it would be forgotten. I think it were at a better film, like a more interesting, complex, like thematically resonant film, I think it would be remembered more. I think it's a perfectly adequate time travel sci fi that does a really good magic trick. But it's just, it's not. There's not a lot more to it than that.
• 15:31
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 15:32
  Speaker A: And I don't think it's. It's not masterful in the way of something like Tenet where you're, you know, it doesn't have. It has some cool stuff in it, but Tenant has the whole thing with all the like backwards movement and stuff and like there's a lot of really weird stuff in Tenet and like also by comparison, like Primer is like a very unique style of filmmaking with just like the way the dialogue is written and the very like kind of grimy, realistic nature of how it is. This is kind of like predestination, kind of feels like a generic, polished studio film that has a little bit more interesting going on plot wise. Again with the, with the time travel and the way it all works. It's very well put together polished studio film, but it doesn't really have anything about it that like other than the magic trick.
• 16:18
  Speaker B: Right. And so again we're back to our. Yeah, the magic trick is really the
• 16:22
  Speaker A: magic trick is the thing. And I think because of that it just doesn't have, you know, it doesn't have a super strong directorial voice in like visually or anything like that. And I think that's that more than like anything problematic about it is why I'll be forgetting because I've also not seen, you know, if it were really problematic, I think it would be not forgotten in the other way of people being like what the fuck was this movie? They would be getting called out or there would be criticism videos about it about how or stuff like that. And I don't think it even gets to that point. And so, yeah, I think the reason it'll be forgotten mostly is just because it's kind of just a pretty okay movie
• 17:04
  Speaker B: overall.
• 17:05
  Speaker A: No strong feelings for. Against the film. Exactly. See, that's why it will be forgotten. That's the reason it's different and interesting in several parts. And its aesthetic is something I appreciate. Unfortunately, it's not something you can really re. Watch. Yeah. And the aesthetic is fine. I think it looks good. It's just not super interesting.
• 17:25
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's not really unique in any particular way.
• 17:28
  Speaker A: Some of the retro futurism stuff is kind of cool, but it's also not stylistic enough. It doesn't push it far enough to really be its own kind of, whoa, that's crazy thing. Or. And even the tech stuff doesn't quite push far enough to be super cool. Some of the weird tech stuff in something like Minority Report, like, that stuff, I think resonates with people. Even though that movie is kind of a Polish. It's a Spielberg film. It's kind of a polish. It doesn't have a super distinct visual style. It does more than this movie. But. But like some of the tech and stuff in that, like the. The. The board he uses with his hands, where he controls it with, you know, like, where he's reading a thing and the little balls rolling down the. All of that stuff feels really, like, tactile and interesting and unique and makes that movie kind of more memorable. And the little spinny gun and all that stuff. The jetpacks, I think make something. A movie like that kind of more memorable than a movie like this. Whereas this movie, again, I like, like the violin thing and I like the time travel effect, like what they do, but that's kind of it. Other than that, it's like just people like walking around doing stuff. You know what I mean? Like, and it's not shot particularly interestingly. Again, adequately shot. Well, just not like super memorably or anything like that. So. All right, I think this is our final.
• 18:44
  Speaker B: Yeah, this is our last one on Patreon.
• 18:46
  Speaker A: Final Patreon comment from Mathilde, the very patron who requested this film. I don't remember why I requested this movie in particular. It might have been because I wanted a bit of variety in my list of recommendations. It's one of the very few movies that rely on a plot twist. And that said plot twist didn't disappoint me and actually kind of surprised me. I mean, yeah, it's definitely a plot twist that can work. It's well done. That part is definitely well done. Is the book a writing exercise? I think it is, but it accidentally ends up exploring societal and personal themes, albeit briefly, and it's a successful exercise. I think the ending works, and while the logic is contrived, it is also sound. Now, that being said, the short is definitely the product of its time and of an author that doesn't really care about the gender issues he's using. I agree with your opinion on the trans and intersex aspects being plot devices. And the comments you found from the trans redditor were excellent. I agree with those as well. This is one point where I feel the movie does a much better job. It has to keep those trans and intersex elements to follow the story and explain the paradox. But I feel like the directors are more intentional in the way they make the movie, not about that specific experience. It's like they knew it wouldn't be authentic. They didn't want to bite off more than they could chew on the subject, or didn't want to be accidentally offensive or insensitive, so they sidestepped it all together as gracefully as possible. That's kind of exactly my feeling on it is that. Yeah, that kind of sums up what I was trying to say in the episode about, like, when we were talking about that about, like, I felt like they were trying to be. You know, they didn't want to be offensive or insensitive, so they kind of just do as little as they can to get past it. But it. Cause it's. It is an integral part of the plot, so you can't just ignore it. Yeah, maybe it would have been a richer movie if told by trans people. But I do agree that there are much better stories suited for the trans perspective than this one. Maybe it's for the best that they didn't force it. They at least offered a sympathetic portrayal of trans and intersex people. And that's a start. Yeah, that's kind of what my feelings were. I give Sarah Snook a lot of credit. I think her acting was very deft and helped make the John and Jane and their transition as real as it could be in this context. And by a cisgender actor, you feel. Or sorry. In this context and by a cisgender actor. Again, I think they're addressing the idea that, like, ideally, you know, probably we wouldn't have a character that is ultimately a trans man played by a CIS woman, but in the context of the film, it's a little complicated by the nature of the film. So yeah, you feel the confusion and resentment her character feels and the way she carries herself as Jane. And then John is very specific to each and telling. This was the first time I saw Snook in anything and I'm not surprised she blew up in recent years. She's a quiet powerhouse of an actor. Yeah, I've not watched Secession. She won a bunch of awards for that, obviously, and was very highly regarded for her performance in that. But I haven't. I don't think I've ever seen her in anything other than this. Now that I think about it.
• 21:28
  Speaker B: I've seen her in clips of another movie that I've seen on social media, but that's it. The Dressmaker. Oh, has Kate Winslet in it, I want to say. Also based on a book, so maybe we'll cover. No, I think it's a few years old.
• 21:49
  Speaker A: One point that I enjoyed more than you seem to is that it didn't go very deep into any of the themes and ideas I actually loved. Loved that it planted seeds and then gave you just enough to spark a discussion or a train of thought. I didn't need to have it all defined and explained. I still had endless discussions and thoughts because of this movie. Made me question the concept of personal identity that can be considered narcissism or what can be considered narcissism, how you can relate to yourself and to your past actions, how we might use the past and other versions of ourselves to excuse our actions, etc. I even appreciate the addition of the Fizzle Bomber being John. I think it brings even more questions about guilt. I think it brings even more questions about guilt, personal reform, how we don't really want to change even when presented with the opportunity, how we become more cynical with time, or maybe we just return to the radical ideas of our youth, etc. There's a treasure trove of subjects here. And while most conversations I've had about predestination have started around that big twist, they've never stopped there for me. Okay, that's fair. I can see that those questions are all there and I don't want the movie to spell it out or give me concrete opinions on those things. I just felt like there was more meat there to even get at that. I just wish the movie would have done. I don't know, it just felt like a little too. It just brushed up too gently against the themes when I would have preferred a sturdier body check or something. What's funny is that I usually hate it when a story isn't Mostly about the characters, their emotions and what emerges from the two. But in this case, I think it's fine that concepts and ideas are basic. The short story is a writing exercise. The movie is mostly a structure and genre exercise. Yeah, I completely agree with that. So they're not masterpieces or even well rounded works, but I take both as food for thought on general psychoanalysis and that makes them worthwhile in my eyes. Funny enough, you described it as a magic trick that you just watch once. But when I first watched it, I had to take a 10 minute pause to just mull the reveal over in my head and then I immediately put it on again so I could try and pull it apart. I just couldn't get over that all the characters being one person could actually work and mostly stand on its own. And I still watch the movie once in a while just to tease my brain about the concept of self or just to chuckle at the many hints they drop throughout the movie. That's the. I don't. I could see rewatching it for. To catch all of the. Yeah, because that is definitely like. And we talked about that in the episode, if you can remember some of the lines and stuff from earlier in the film between like Ethan Hawke's character and John at the bar, there's a ton of like. Yeah, and just constantly throughout the movie there are a ton of like self referential kind of meta jokes and stuff about the fact that these are all the same character, which you would not probably catch the first time. So there is rewatchability in that regard. I just think the real punch of the movie, the real thrust of what makes it good, is that twist. And then after you have that, it loses a lot of its kind of impact, but apparently not for everybody because you still enjoy kind of going back through it. So we're all different. Oh, and I picked the movie over the book partly because I'm incredibly biased towards anything with Ethan Hawke. Even if he doesn't particularly shine in this. I thought he was good. Yeah, he. Yeah, I wasn't like. He doesn't.
• 25:00
  Speaker B: I wasn't like blown away by his performance.
• 25:02
  Speaker A: He's not doing anything super crazy in it. Like, there's not anything he's not asked a ton of. Especially in comparison to like, Sarah Snook is asked to do a lot more in this movie than Ethan Hawke is, but. And also because it's more sensitive and evocative than the short story. I do love the final few lines of the book though, that they hit the spot pretty well. Thank you for doing another one of my requests. I very much appreciate it. Sorry you had to cover it while being sick. You are both troopers for pushing through. Well, thank you Mathilde. We enjoyed watching it and talking about it. Despite being sick, we had no votes on Facebook, one vote on Instagram for the book and one for the movie. And then finally on Goodreads we had one vote for the book and zero from the movie. And Mikko had to say this or had this to say. I understand the changes made for the movie. You need a face actor swap if you want to keep the bartender twist hidden for a second. And I can see how from there you'd want to expand the story, creating the Fizzle Bomber, adding a hint of action and bringing in a self contained ending for the character, mirroring the beginning or mirroring their beginning. I like the character stuff they added, but disliked the Fizzle Bomber stuff. I've read the short story and seen the movie before and I remember that the film's ending fell pretty flat even on the first watch. Even though they are interesting, both the bartender is Jane reveal and the Fizzle Bomber confrontation just lack the oomph. I liked the Fizzle Bomber confrontation. The bartender is Jane reveal again for me, I just had already figured that out so clearly like a long time ago that it was not even a reveal to me at that point. But I actually like the Fizzle Bomber confrontation and I like the kind of questions it asked about like what Ethan Hawke's character at that point is gonna do and then the way he ends up just. I I thought that whole confrontation was kind of fun. I like it. I do think it ends a little abruptly after that. I feel like there need to be a little bit more of a denouement of some sort. I'm not sure what, but I but I did like that particular scene. And again, I actually liked the Fizzle Bomber plot, but I didn't read the Mook. So I think the movie is aware how horrible the involuntary transition is. I also think it's not that interested in telling that story while performing its magic trick. But stuff like the doctor casually smoking on the bedside indicates clearly that modern sensibilities do not apply here. It probably also explains the inclusion of the alternate history. They could have moved Jane's timeline up so that the release of the short story aligns with the release of the movie. Jane would have been delivered to an orphanage in 2000, giving birth in 2019 and telling the tale at a bar in 2025. Well, yeah, with the agency base being in 2048. But due to changed values, that would have been a different movie and you could not have waved away the involuntary transition. I think it's not that the filmmakers were uninterested in the trans themes, but that they were more interested in the sci fi magic trick, as Brian said. Yeah, I agree entirely that the. And I thought about that while watching the movie that, like the whole part where the Doctor. It's like, well, we opened you up and saw, then just did whatever.
• 28:04
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 28:05
  Speaker A: Is a lot more believable in 1970. And I think we might have mentioned
• 28:08
  Speaker B: that in the episode.
• 28:09
  Speaker A: I can't remember. I think we may have alluded to that in the episode, but definitely way more believable and like way more of a. You can kind of get away with just using that and not have. And not have it feel like a. Like, pull you out of the movie because you're like what no modern doctor would just do, you know, Like. So it is very much a case of, yeah, it works better in the time period than it would today, for sure. There's an interesting wrinkle that the time loop adds cladistically. The main character is not human. None of their genetic material is inherited from. Well, anyone? I'm wondering how that would affect a more queer, focused version of the story or a queer reading of this. I don't know if that's actually true because it doesn't make sense. But their genetic material is inherited from themselves. Yeah, which again, doesn't make sense because it. But that's the whole point of the time. Like it's a self fulfilling. Like it's a self. An Ouroboros time loop. Like, yeah, they do have genetic material inherited from themselves, which again, it doesn't make any sense. It is impossible. But they do have it. It. And so if you grant the time travel premise, they are human because they have genetic material from another human themselves. Yeah. You know what I mean? I don't know. I'm not entirely. I'm deigned to disagree with Mikko on subjects of science fiction, but just because I think he's much smarter than I am. But I don't know if that. I buy that because again, within the time travel conceit of the story, they do have inherited genetic material from a person. Again, it's just a person that they couldn't have inherited time travel or genetic material from, because that's not how it works. But it does work that way in this movie, because time travel, a small detail I liked in the movie, the gush of wind that Happens when people time jump is consistently directional either towards the vacuum jumpers leave behind or outwards when they arrive and displace air. I agree. I liked the special effect of the time travel a lot. In particular I love the one I like the most was the scene where he's in the car and then all the windows, he disappears and his hat like falls in the seat and all the windows suck in and get from the vacuum. I thought that was. Yeah, I thought this time travel effect very simple but very well done. People don't go around intentionally writing classics, but all youl Zombies has become the de facto example of a stable time loop in fiction. It has its problems, but in 10 pages it does what it's going for. The movie includes basically everything from the story. So the question about which is better comes to the added stuff. I like the added characterization of Jane for Jane, I think the movie does more than the bare minimum with it, but not that much more. Had the Fizzle Bomber not been part of this movie, I'd easily give it my vote. But now my vote goes to the book. Thank you Meeko. And finally, summing it all up, the short story wins with six votes to the movie's three. Thank you all for your feedback. Really appreciate it. Love talking about what you all have to say about the movies we watch. It's so much fun. But now it's time to preview Snow White.
• 31:18
  Speaker C: Do you hear that? It's the sound of battles fought and lives lost. At once Pained me to know that I am the cause of such despair. But now their cries give me strength. Beauty is my power.
• 31:50
  Speaker B: Since we're talking about a fairy tale, and if you've been listening to our show for any length of time, you know how I feel about fairy tales. But since we're talking about one, I wanted to start by going back over a few things that we've discussed on the show before. When we talk about fairy tales like Snow White, what we're really talking about is folklore. That is stories that come to us via the oral tradition, meaning that they were primarily told aloud and not written down. So folktale isn't a single definitive story, but rather a trail of stories that stretches across history and cultures that we can now view, like in hindsight, and see how those stories developed and what different iterations do and don't have in common. And then I'll get up on my soapbox again. There is no such thing as an original version of a folktale. We can have most well known or oldest known or first recorded. But not original. So anyone who tells you that there's an original version of a folktale is either misinformed or selling you something.
• 33:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. And the reason. Just to super clarify the reason you say that is because it's an oral. They started as an oral tradition, and so we just genuine. There is an original version.
• 33:17
  Speaker B: Like if we could jump in a time machine.
• 33:19
  Speaker A: Get in a time machine and go back.
• 33:21
  Speaker B: Yes. Everything starts somewhere.
• 33:23
  Speaker A: We could go back and find if we could somehow pinpoint the first person who told this story.
• 33:28
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 33:28
  Speaker A: Yeah, you could. Do you know it. That was a first thing. But that is lost to time. We will never know. We're never going to saying it's the original version. It's. It's. The other thing is they're probably either misinformed or selling you something or using shorthand to say first recorded.
• 33:47
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 33:48
  Speaker A: Which is, you know. Yeah.
• 33:50
  Speaker B: Which I would consider misinformed.
• 33:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. But, yes, I think that's fair.
• 33:55
  Speaker B: But I like to point that out whenever we talk about a fairy tale, just because there is a lot of misinformation out on the Internet, and particularly because older versions of fairy tales tend to be somewhat far removed from, like, the Disney versions that a lot of us grow up with. You can get a lot of this, like, kind of sensationalist, like in the early in the original version of this happened. Isn't that crazy?
• 34:26
  Speaker A: Yes, because it is. Because the fairy tales through Disney have become such a prominent part of culture and the versions everybody knows are the Disney versions. It's that there's a very popular niche market for fun facts and interesting trivia and stuff about these stories that is rife with simplifications and misunderstandings and all of those sort of things, which is true for everything that gets popular. As soon as you see something gets really popular, you will see kind of the thing pop up is like, actually, did you know that? And usually those did you know are also incorrect in some way because they're an oversimplification.
• 35:05
  Speaker B: As a reaction to oversimplification, I think is probably getting at the heart of it. You know, if you. If we look at something like Snow White, like, you could say, like, oh, well, did you know that in the original version of Snow White, the wicked stepmother is forced to dance in hot iron shoes until she dies.
• 35:24
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 35:25
  Speaker B: Which is true of the Grimm's version.
• 35:30
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 35:30
  Speaker B: But there are also other iterations of the story that don't include that.
• 35:35
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 35:38
  Speaker B: So that brings us back around to Snow White. So Snow White is classified as a type 709 also called snow White in the Arne Thompson Uther Index. Bringing that back, the ARND Thompson Uther Index is a catalog of folktale types that's used in folklore studies. And basically what this system does is identify similarities in various stories across cultures and then uses those similarities as a method for categorization. Other variants Categorized as type 709 include stories from Italy, Greece, Armenia, Scotland, France, Switzerland, among others. Nothing super duper well known. But the Snow White that we know comes to us via Germany and the Brothers Grimm, who first recorded it in 1810. And their version of the story would undergo several revisions until 1854, when they arrived at their own kind of quote unquote definitive version, which can be found in the 1857 edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales. And that story was first published in English under the title Snowdrop.
• 37:03
  Speaker A: Snowdrop. That's fun.
• 37:06
  Speaker B: Now, there is some debate over the possible roots of the German tale, specifically that I think is kind of fun. So I wanted to get into that a little bit. It. So some folklorists believe that Snow White is an amalgamation of other older stories, noting that it contains a combination of motifs present in other tales, such as a child in the woods, a heroine cursed in a deep sleep, and a treacherous mother figure. Other scholars think that Snow White could have ancient mythical roots, noting its similarities to the Roman legend of Keoni. Keoni. I'm not really sure how exactly. I think it's. I was looking at the little pronunciation thing on Wikipedia and it said like, it was a hard K. Okay. So I'm. But maybe I'm saying it wrong. I don't know.
• 38:00
  Speaker A: Well, wouldn't. A hard K. Kioni and Keoni is a hard K in both, right?
• 38:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, I guess so. So it's Kai or it's key.
• 38:08
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know. I was just thinking maybe Kai, because if it's Roman, it's Latin. And the letter chi.
• 38:14
  Speaker B: Right. I think it's Greek, though.
• 38:15
  Speaker A: Oh, Greek, whatever. Yeah, I don't know. It could be either. I actually don't know.
• 38:19
  Speaker B: But that was recorded in Ovid's Metamorphoses. And Kione, or Kione means snow in Greek, the title character is described as the most beautiful woman in the world. Sounds familiar. She's also put into a magical slumber by the God Mercury. And since it's Greco Roman mythology, you can guess what happens next.
• 38:44
  Speaker A: Oh, Zeus.
• 38:46
  Speaker B: Not Zeus.
• 38:47
  Speaker A: Sorry, not Zeus.
• 38:47
  Speaker B: Not this time.
• 38:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, the other one.
• 38:51
  Speaker B: Some other ones, yeah. There are also claims of Snow White being based on an actual historical person so this is fun. German historian. I'm about to butcher so many German names in this. Just bear with me. German historian Eckard Sander posits that the character of Snow White was based on the life of Margaretha von Waldeck, a German noblewoman who lived in the early 1500s. However, there are virtually no serious scholars who agree with his theory. Okay, and here's an even weirder one. Carl Heinz Bartle Bartles, a pharmacist from Laura, Maine. I don't know Laura on Maine in northwestern Bavaria. This is what what Wikipedia said was part of a quote unquote study group made up of friends who met regularly at a local pub. And apparently they were inspired by a previous hoax that claimed to trace the real life inspirations of Hansel and Gretel. And they then created this tongue in cheek theory that Snow White was actually Maria Sophia Marguerite Katharina, a baroness who was born in their town in 1725. And despite the obviously a joke origins of that, it became popular as a marketing tactic for the town. Be like the town that Snow White is from.
• 40:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that's classic.
• 40:29
  Speaker B: But whatever the origins, Snow White has been part of the western cultural consciousness for a long time time. Today, people are most likely to recognize Snow white from the 1937 animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs from Disney, which was so influential that its popularity has surpassed the Grimm's Tale. But like any fairy tale, it can't truly be pinned down to one definitive version. And that's why we're not even talking about Disney's version.
• 40:59
  Speaker A: Well, we are on the bonus episode.
• 41:01
  Speaker B: We are. Yeah.
• 41:03
  Speaker A: Because Spoilers for if you haven't seen the announcement, the winner of the March Madness poll that we will be previewing right now is Snow White and the Huntsman.
• 41:13
  Speaker C: Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who is fairest of them all?
• 41:23
  Speaker A: You are the fairest. But there is another destined to surpass you. Consume her heart and you shall live forever.
• 41:35
  Speaker C: Find me someone who doesn't fear the dark forest to hunt her down.
• 41:43
  Speaker B: Why is she of such value?
• 41:45
  Speaker C: That is none of your concern.
• 41:47
  Speaker A: If I refuse
• 41:52
  Speaker B: the one by one point.
• 41:53
  Speaker A: One point. Disney's was the runner up and will be our bonus episode for March. So look out for that movie Facts about Snow White and the Huntsman. It is a 2012 film directed by Rupert Sanders in his directorial debut also directed the 2017 Ghost in the Shell. The one with Scarlett Johansson playing the like Japanese robot lady or. I don't know enough about Ghost in the Shell. Now I know it was Controversial to see who was cast in that role. And the crow remake from 2024, which everybody said was bad. I don't know anything if the Ghost in the Shell movie was any good or not the remake or the live action version. All I ever heard about it was the controversy. I have no idea. I don't think it was well regarded. So, yeah, the film was written by Evan Dougherty, who wrote the 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. He wrote Divergent.
• 42:45
  Speaker B: Oh, boy.
• 42:46
  Speaker A: The first one. Yeah. Was the adapted. The first one. Tomb Raider 2018 and the Huntsman, Winter's War, the sequel to this film. It was also written. Co written by John Lee Hancock, who wrote the Blind side. And a film called the Little Things. And finally Hossein Amini, who wrote Drive, which we've done. 47 Ronin, the terrible film, the Snowman. I've not seen it, but it's like a notoriously bad movie. It is an adaptation of a book, the Alienist and wrote several episodes of the Obi Wan Kenobi TV show. And this is really funny. Wrote Killshot. I had no idea. Killshot was filmed in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which is where we live. Yeah, it was one of the first big movies, like when Gone Girl was being filmed here. I remember talking to some people and they were people who had worked on Kill Shot, which filmed here. Which I believe the biggest name actor in that, Mickey Rourke, was in that. In Killshot. It's not like a huge movie, but. And maybe Diane Keaton might be in it. I can't remember. But there's. It's a. Yeah, it was filmed here. And so I just thought that was interesting that he wrote that. Although the primary screenwriter was Evan Dougherty, the other people came on and we'll talk more about it, but the other people kind of came on just as like added little bits and parts to it or whatever. And I don't always mention this, but I had to here after I saw who it was. Cinematography by Greig Fraser, or Greig Fraser, I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce it. He's Australian. Who is the cinematographer for Rogue One, Dune part one and two, the Batman. The creator and Project Hail Mary, literally our next movie, back to back. But an incredible cinematographer like holy shit, the Batman and the Dune movies. I mean, all of those movies I haven't seen Project Hail Mary yet, obviously are incredibly shot. The creator is one of those. That's really interesting. Cause a lot of that was shot on the Sony FX3, which is a camera that I film on occasionally. Like it's, it's a very like mid level consumer camera or like prosumer level camera. And like I think the entire movie was shot on that now with a lot of very expensive other stuff. But the actual cameras they used were pretty, pretty cheap. But yeah, incredible cinematographer. So that maybe that was one of the things that made me like, ooh, okay, I'm interested. This movie was probably gonna look good. The film stars Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Claflin. I always want to say Clayfen, Sam Claflin, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost and Toby Jones. So a lot of names.
• 45:16
  Speaker B: Kind of a who's who of the era.
• 45:18
  Speaker A: Yeah, a lot of names.
• 45:19
  Speaker B: Fella, Swan, Thor and Finnick from the Hunger Games.
• 45:23
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. The film has a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 57 on Metacritic, and a 6.1 out of 10 on IMDb. Was nominated for two Oscars for Best Costume Design and Best Visual Effects. And it made 396.6 million against a budget of 170 million. Which is why they made a sequel. Did pretty well. So I mentioned earlier that Evan Dougherty was the primary screenwriter and because he wrote the first draft of this screenplay in 2003 while he was studying at NYU. NYU is one of the most well regarded film schools in the country. It's probably like them and USC or like the main two. There's other ones, but those are two of the probably biggest filmmaking schools in the country, maybe in the world, probably in that regard. I actually don't know like where they would rank. But yeah, gritty reboots of fairy tales weren't really a thing in 2003 when he was writing this. And so according to him, quote, no one really knew what to do with it. Then in 2005, Terry Gilliam made that Brothers Grimm movie that flopped catastrophically. And that caused more hesitancy for anybody to take this script and do anything with it. It until in 2010, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was a smashing success. And after that happened, they were like more of this, what do you got that's similar. And that's when Doherty's script was greenlit, getting into some very fun casting. Oh, also this script was, I meant I, I, I forgot to write this down. But the script was on the Hollywood blacklist or whatever forever, which is a list of like the best unproduced screenplays. Apparently from that it bounced around for a long time, never finding a home. But everybody Was like, this is a great screenplay. Somebo should make it. That's always a fun. And a lot of those screenplays you can find and go read like on the Internet. If you ever want to go down a rabbit hole, go look up the Hollywood Black. I think it's called the Blacklist. Because that's also obviously like the idea of being blacklisted being like.
• 47:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, I was going to say that doesn't sound like a good thing.
• 47:20
  Speaker A: Yes. But I think it's a play on that and like these movies aren't being made, but they should be like, that's the idea. But yeah, it was one of those scripts. So producers initially considered a lesser known actress for Snow White instead of Kristen Stewart, but ultimately went with Kristen Stewart. But some of the other actresses that were considered for the role included Riley Keough, Felicity Jones, Bella Heathcote, Alicia Vikander, Lily Collins, who would go on to play Snow White. And Mirror Mirror, one of our other competitors.
• 47:50
  Speaker B: Came out the same year.
• 47:51
  Speaker A: Came out the same year, yeah. And Rachel Maxwell. Eventually there were also rumors around Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart. And then finally In March of 2011, Kristen Stewart was confirmed in the role. Another person who was considered for the role of the Evil Queen before it went to Charlize Theron was Winona Ryder, which I think would have been fun. Although I don't think you can beat Charlize Theron for a role like this, to be fair.
• 48:15
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 48:16
  Speaker A: Like I'm. Yeah.
• 48:17
  Speaker B: For a role of an extremely beautiful and evil woman. Yeah, perfect.
• 48:21
  Speaker A: You nailed it in one. Some other people that were considered for the role of the Huntsman that Thor eventually landed, Chris Hemworth eventually got. Other people were considered. This is hilarious. It's just literally like names so many times with these. I'm like, how serious? A lot of these they say they were offered. I think, in fact, this. All of these were, according to Wikipedia, were offered the role and turned it down. Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender, Johnny Depp, I assume because the Alice in Wonderland thing, he seems way too old.
• 48:54
  Speaker B: Yeah. And not like beefy enough.
• 48:57
  Speaker A: No. Viggo Mortensen.
• 48:59
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 49:00
  Speaker A: And Hugh Jackman.
• 49:01
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 49:02
  Speaker A: All of them seem too old for the cause. Chris Hemsworth was like 25 in this. Or not. Maybe not 25, but he's like relatively young.
• 49:09
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 49:10
  Speaker A: And all the rest of like Johnny Depp is like 25 years older than Crimps Hemsworth. Right. He's gotta be. Johnny Depp's like 60.
• 49:17
  Speaker B: I mean, Johnny Depp is pretty old
• 49:19
  Speaker A: or like 50 something. And Chris Hemsworth is like 30, 45 or something like that age.
• 49:25
  Speaker B: Well, right now he's 42.
• 49:27
  Speaker A: Chris Hemsworth?
• 49:28
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 49:28
  Speaker A: Wow. He's older than I thought. Maybe he just looks younger than he was. How old is Johnny Depp?
• 49:34
  Speaker B: Give me Louis.
• 49:36
  Speaker A: 62. So, yeah, 20 years. That's what I'm saying. It's like, those are vastly different types of actors to play that I don't know. Like, I can understand Tom Hardy a little bit, like, and Michael Fassbender and Hugh Jack. Like, I can at least understand all of those being a similar type of actor kind of to Chris Henry.
• 49:54
  Speaker B: Maybe they might have discussed at one point. And I have seen this movie, I don't remember it very well, but maybe there was a discussion at one point of the Huntsman being more of, like, a father like, figure age to Kristen Stuart. And I don't think there's any, like, romantic.
• 50:13
  Speaker A: Oh, is there not? I assume there was.
• 50:15
  Speaker B: I don't think so.
• 50:16
  Speaker A: Okay. I know nothing about this.
• 50:18
  Speaker B: I might be misremembering that. I don't think they.
• 50:21
  Speaker A: I just assumed. If you cast the two sexiest people on the planet at the time, there's the implication. I literally just assumed they had a romance, like, of some sort, because it's Chris Hemsworth and Kristen Stewart. I was like, oh, clearly they put them in this movie to, like, kiss or whatever. But I. Again, that was an assumption.
• 50:37
  Speaker B: I know nothing I could be misremembering.
• 50:39
  Speaker A: I haven't even seen the trailer.
• 50:41
  Speaker B: But, like, there is a Prince character.
• 50:43
  Speaker A: Okay, all right, fair enough. So some other random facts that I thought were kind of fun. The film used academic consultants from the University of Chichester. I'm sure I'm pronounced Chichester. Chichester.
• 50:55
  Speaker B: Chichester.
• 50:56
  Speaker A: No, definitely like Chichester or something. And the University of Oxford for the research to back up their research on fairy tales and medieval battles. So they actually had some consultants to tap in on this. So Rupert Sanders, the director, insisted on realism in scale, and this meant that there was minimal miniature work for the film or miniature model work for the film. The huge castle in the Enchanted Forest, for example, took six months to construct. And there's apparently a gigantic trebuchet at one point consisting of a metal. Metal skeleton interior and wooden exterior that weighed 6.5 tons. So they apparently built some very large props and sets for this film, which is funny because this is literally his director's first movie. And apparently had the pool to be like, it's also 170 million for your first. That's a crazy budget for a guy who had Only done shorts before this. Wild. It's like the beginning of that Disney era where. Or like the Marvel era, because they started doing that with, like, Marvel movies where they would find some. But usually they had made a film, like, at least a feature film, just like a small independent feature film. And then they, like, give them a Marvel movie. With this one, he literally. This is his feature film debut and it's 170 million. It's just wild. Me. This was. Oh. Charlize Theron tore a stomach muscle while shooting a scene that required her to scream very loudly. According to IMDb trivia, which I thought was fun. This is Bob Hoskins final film before he announced his retirement and then passed away a few years later, supposedly during filming. I say that for all of these IMDb trivia facts because I never know how true any of these are. Kristen Stewart accidentally punched Chris Hemsworth in the face and gave him a black eye. And that take is used in the film. According to IMDb trivia. The drops of blood that you see at the beginning of the film are actual drops of real blood from director Rupert Sanders. He felt that the fake blood did not look realistic enough, and so he pricked his finger to get the shot that he wanted.
• 52:51
  Speaker B: Literally bled for this art.
• 52:52
  Speaker A: Bled for this movie, which based on most movie sets I've been on, that's true of every move. Or I've not been on movie sets, but film sets or short film sets and stuff. I've been on Somebody bleeds every time. So Charlize Theron said that the hardest thing for her, which I had to include this because I was like, how is this possibly true? This felt like a thing from an interview. She said, I don't know. Charlize Theron said that the hardest thing for her was walking in the dress she wore when she married King Magnus. The corset was incredibly uncomfortable. She was almost hunched over by the time she made it to the altar. And I just don't understand how a corset makes you hunch over. Like, I'm trying to figure out the. What that. You know what I mean?
• 53:38
  Speaker B: I don't know. I'll have. I would have to see.
• 53:40
  Speaker A: That's what I'm saying. I included that specifically so we could look at that scene and try to figure out what about that.
• 53:46
  Speaker B: Like, if there was something, like, if
• 53:47
  Speaker A: it was weighted somehow or, like, the top of it. Like, it would, like, went really high and was, like, forcing her back. I'm just trying to figure out what that would mean because, like, yeah, we're
• 53:56
  Speaker B: gonna have to watch for that.
• 53:58
  Speaker A: Yeah. And it does kind of lean into that kind of like, like second wave feminine. I don't even know what doing of like the.
• 54:05
  Speaker B: The anti corsetry bias historical idea that
• 54:08
  Speaker A: like corsets were like horribly constricting and uncomfortable and like miserable to wear. Which again, not entirely untrue in all obviously, but is also this.
• 54:18
  Speaker B: They could be very restrictive.
• 54:20
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 54:20
  Speaker B: And especially if used improperly. But of corset is just an undergarment. It's just a historical bra.
• 54:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. And they're not like you. You've worn corsets before. They are not like wildly uncomfor. In fact, you sometimes enjoy.
• 54:34
  Speaker B: I actually love a corset as. As a well endowed person.
• 54:39
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 54:40
  Speaker B: It takes a lot of pressure off of my shoulders.
• 54:42
  Speaker A: Yeah. I thought this was interesting. It's actually a movie I have not seen, but I wanted to include this anyways. Evan Dougherty cited Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke as the main reference and inspiration for the film. The white stag that Snow White encounters in Sanctuary is a direct nod to Miyazaki. I have not seen Princess.
• 54:59
  Speaker B: I have not either.
• 55:00
  Speaker A: I can't compare. But I wanted to include.
• 55:02
  Speaker B: But that's. That is a cool reference point.
• 55:05
  Speaker A: And then my final fact that I had to include here because it just makes me like Charlize Theron even more. Charlize Theron dropped out of J. Edgar to do this movie. J. Edgar is a Leo Leonardo DiCaprio led film historical drama about J. Edgar Hoover, the. The head of the FBI or whatever. Direct, written and directed by Clint Eastwood. So like it's like a very like Oscar Beatty like, yeah. Period drama thing that, you know, kind of like with a very famous esteemed writer director, Clint Eastwood, but also Clint Eastwood. And so like not saying he doesn't make pretty. Has made. He's made some good movies or whatever. But like I love that she was like, now that I'm going to play an evil queen in a Snow White adaptation, like fantasy adventure. You know what I mean? I just like that's. I'm glad that there are people making those decisions because normally you would imagine this going the other way, right?
• 56:00
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 56:01
  Speaker A: Somebody gets cast in like a pop popcorn blockbuster, like adventure movie. Actually I got cast in this Oscar bait film. I'm gonna go do that instead. But no, it was. And maybe it was just for the check. Like could it just been like maybe she had a very small part in Jay Edgar and this was the leading role she was going to get paid a bunch of money to do. Could have been as simple as that. But I also just like to think that she was like, maybe I don't want to go be around Clint Eastwood for a few weeks and instead want to go make this movie where I get to chew the scenery as an evil queen.
• 56:31
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 56:31
  Speaker A: Getting to some reviews. First up, David Edelston of New York Magazine praised the film's revisionist tone and said that the film was, quote, strongly influenced by a lot of smart feminist thinking, end quote. A.O. scott of the New York Times praised Theron's performance and also wrote, quote. Though it is an ambitious, at times mesmerizing application of the latest cinematic technology, the movie tries to recapture some of the menace of the stories that used to be told to scare children rather than console them, end quote. Owen Gliberman of Entertainment Weekly said, quote, ravenna. Ravenna.
• 57:08
  Speaker B: That's the evil queen.
• 57:09
  Speaker A: Yeah. Raven, I just don't know how to pronounce. I've been just. Ravenna, we'll see in the movie, hates living in a world where men can feed on women's beauty and then toss them away. She's a fascist of feminism. That's an interesting choice there, Owen Glieberman. She's a fascist of feminism. And Theon's acting has the blood of operatic anger coursing through it, end quote. I'm not saying that it's inherently problematic to say that. I'm just saying that, like, I don't know if I would choose that wording for it, but it is, it's.
• 57:36
  Speaker B: Oh, I mean, he absolutely went with the alliteration.
• 57:39
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 57:40
  Speaker B: That's why he wrote. He was like, haha. Yeah, yes, alliteration.
• 57:43
  Speaker A: I just think there's also something kind of inherently, I don't know, like, I'm not saying feminism cannot be fascistic. I don't know if. I don't know if that's impossible. But they are kind of diametrically opposed. Fascism tends to be patriarchal. And I think. Yeah, there is a. I mean, there's a.
• 57:59
  Speaker B: There are absolutely, as we, as we well know in 2026, women who carry water for fascism and for patriarchy.
• 58:08
  Speaker A: But the concept of feminism.
• 58:10
  Speaker B: Yes. And there, And I think there, There are even do it while purporting to be like, progressive in a sense.
• 58:18
  Speaker A: Right.
• 58:19
  Speaker B: But I don't know that I would call that feminism.
• 58:22
  Speaker A: It's just an interesting. I don't know, it's just. I think it's more done. It's. It's very. It's bombastic. It's, yeah, attention getting. I get why it's alliterative, obviously. So I get it. It's just. I don't know if I would write it that way. That's all I'm saying. Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times said that the film is, quote, an absolute wonder to watch and creates a warrior princess for the of age ages. But what this revisionist fairy tale does not give us is a passionate love. Its kisses are as chaste as the snow is white. End quote. Well, there we go. But it says there are kisses, there are kids.
• 58:56
  Speaker B: Apparently Betsy did not think there was enough heat.
• 58:58
  Speaker A: It wasn't passion, though.
• 58:59
  Speaker B: It was not passion.
• 59:00
  Speaker A: Somebody's kissing somebody. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers called it, quote, a visual marvel, which makes sense based on the cinematographer, while noting that Stewart, quote, morphs convincingly from a skittish girl into a determined warrior princess. Princess, end quote. Msn News said that Stewart, quote, grows into her character, it seems, and eventually got this reviewer completely on her side. Colin Culvert from the Minneapolis Star Tribune gave it four out of four stars. Richard Ropert, writing for the Chicago Sun Times, gave the movie a B plus, calling it, quote, vastly superior to Mirror Mirror, There We Go also praised Theron and Stewart's performances. Peter Bradshaw for the Guardian said that the film was, quote, less jokey than the recent Mirror Mirror. This twilightified fairy tale has the same basic problem and that, quote, the result is tangled and overblown. So he wasn't a huge fan. Peter Bradshaw is generally pretty negative in his reviews from my memory. Mick LaSalle of the San this is a who's who of critics. Like, I've heard of every single one of these critics. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle called it, quote, a slow, boring film that has no charm and is highlighted only by a handful of special effects in Charlize Theron's truly evil queen. Washington Post's Michael o' Sullivan also gave it a negative review saying, quote, overlong, overcrowded, overstimulating, and with an over the top performance by Charlize Theron as the evil queen Ravenna. The movie is Ravenna. The movie is a virtual orchard of toxic excess, starting with the unnecessarily sprawling cast of characters, end quote. Writing for the Denver Post, Lisa Kennedy gave it two out of four stars, saying, quote, only Bob Hoskins as the blind seer moir comes close to making us care. We can almost glean Snow White's heroic possibilities through his clouded eyes. As much as we'd like to, we Certainly can't from Stewart's efforts. End quote. And film comments. Scott found us stated, quote, stuart, Snow White pouts her lips, bats her bedroom eyes, and scarcely seems to have more on her mind than who might take her to the senior prom, let alone the destiny of an entire kingdom. And quote, quote, I bet that's some sexist. Oh, yeah, that absolutely reads as deeply sexist.
• 1:01:06
  Speaker B: And I don't know if you. You probably don't recall any of the like, but I remember when Kristen Stewart got announced as Snow White.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker A: I don't remember the reaction, but I remember the Internet's general feeling about Kristen
• 1:01:20
  Speaker B: Stewart at the time, and it was brutal.
• 1:01:23
  Speaker A: Yeah, I can imagine.
• 1:01:24
  Speaker B: There were a lot of jokes about how she could not possibly play the fairest person in the land, like Kristen Stewart's Ugly I or a bad.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker A: I will fight. Kristen Stewart is a perfectly good, sometimes very good actress. I do not understand people who are even in Twilight. She's not bad.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker B: This is, like, squarely in the Twilight years. And everybody hated Kristen Stewart. And I also. I think this came, like, right on the heels of. She had an affair with somebody, but was dating Robert Pattinson at the time.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker A: Yeah, I was reading. She was dating Robert.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker B: Yeah, at the time, but she, like. She had had an affair with Taylor Lautner somebody. No, it was like an older guy. It was a director.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker A: Maybe Chris Hemsworth. No, Rupert Sanders.
• 1:02:18
  Speaker B: Oh, here we go. Who did Kristen Stewart cheat on Robert Pattinson with?
• 1:02:24
  Speaker A: Quentin.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker B: Oh, no, wait, it was Rupert Sanders.
• 1:02:28
  Speaker A: It was.
• 1:02:28
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker A: Holy shit. Well, that's. Okay. That's a little different because he's directed this movie. That's a whole different scandal, though.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, she. Yeah, so she got with him, I guess, while they were filming this movie, and then, like, that came out, and then a lot of people who had, like, previously been on her side were no longer on her side.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, okay.
• 1:02:52
  Speaker B: No, I remember that whole debacle quite well.
• 1:02:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. And then finally, our king, Roger Ebert, gave the film three and a half out of four stars and said, quote, snow White and the Huntsman reinvents the legendary story in a film of astonishing beauty and imagination. It's the last thing you would expect from a picture with this title. It falters in its storytelling because Snow White must be entirely good, the Queen must be entirely bad, and there's no room for nuance. The end is therefore predetermined. But, oh, what a ride. He concluded, there is a great film here somewhere, perhaps one that allowed greater complexity for the characters. But considering that I walked in expecting no complexity at all, let alone the visual wonderments. Snow White and the Huntsman is a considerable experience, end quote. So Roger Ebert thought a little bit left, a little bit to be desired in terms of some of the characters and what's going on there. But overall thought it was a very good movie that had a lot of potential.
• 1:03:45
  Speaker B: So, I mean, 3.5 out of 4 is not bad.
• 1:03:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's really good. I mean, he must have really liked it visually and all the other elements for. I mean, because that one part in the middle, middle is a pretty like. It falters in its storytelling. Snow White must be entirely good. Blah, blah. There's no room for nuance, therefore, the end is predetermined. Like, that's a pretty big indictment of kind of the core of.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker A: The story. So the fact that he still gave it three and a half out of four means he liked everything else so much that it made up for. You know that. So, as always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Instagram, threads, Blue Sky, Goodreads, any of those places. We'd love to hear from you, hear what you have to say on our next prequel episode about Snow White and the Huntsman. You can also do us a favor by heading over to Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to our show, write us a nice little review, drop us a rating. We would really appreciate that. And you can Support us@patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit if you want to hear us talk about Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, that is where you will hear. That's where you will hear that at $5 a month, we release our bonus episodes. And that's what this month's episode is. So look out for that. Katie, where can people watch Snow White and the Huntsman? Huntsman?
• 1:04:50
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library or if you still have a local video rental store, you can check with them. Otherwise, I did not find this streaming with a subscription anywhere. Yeah, but you can rent it for around four bucks through Prime Apple TV, YouTube, Fandango at home, or Flix Fling, whatever.
• 1:05:15
  Speaker A: That is amazing. Yeah, no, I'm very excited for this now. I wasn't initially, and then, like, I didn't really care what won the bracket because I didn't have strong feelings about any of them. I've seen Disney's Snow White, like, when I was a little kid and not since then, so I don't remember anything about it, but I've never seen any of the other ones. And this one after having read about it, like I said, especially the cinematographer and. And just the script being, like, so kind of well regarded. And it. It got like, some critics really liked it. Like, it had the mixed reviews. And obviously overall, like, the Rotten Tomatoes score was, like, bad. It was like 48%. But, you know, some pretty big critics were pretty enamored with it, which made me very excited to see, because I'm wondering if this is going to be one of those that maybe is like, kind of an. Obviously tons of people saw it, but I don't feel like it has a huge cultural impact. It's not a movie you hear about a lot. And I wonder if maybe this is a little bit of an unique, underappreciated gem. Maybe, maybe not. But we'll see. Because I also do wonder how much, like I said that final review from that one guy that's just dripping with sexism and hatred for Kristen Stewart.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker A: I wonder how much of that would color. Oh, so much of the critical reviews at the time, like, 2012. People's inability to look past the fact that Kristen Stewart is in this movie. Which we've gotten past that point now where people can watch movies with Kristen Stewart and be normal about it. Which is. Which is nice. But I do wonder how much of, like, the fact that it has a 48% on rotten tomatoes is just a bunch of people being, like, fucking Christian. Look at how dumb. Like, just.
• 1:06:44
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:06:45
  Speaker A: In, like, internalized misogyny that they don't even realize they're doing, like. Yeah, because it is. That was rampant, especially for her at this time period. It was her turn to be the woman we all hated. Not we all, but, you know, as a society. Yes. Yeah.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker B: As a collective Internet.
• 1:07:01
  Speaker A: Yeah. Royal. We. Yeah. Well, come back in one week's time and you'll hear us talk. Well, yeah, one week's time. Well, little less than one week's time. We're catching back up. We're getting back on schedule. This one will be on. We'll be good. Come back in about half a week's time and hear our discussion on Snow White and the Huntsman. Until that time, guys, G pals and everybody else, keep reading books, watching movies,
• 1:07:22
  Speaker B: and keep being awesome. It.